Listen to the article
In a tense congressional hearing Thursday, former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith defended his investigations of President Donald Trump, insisting that his prosecutorial decisions were guided by law rather than politics.
“No one should be above the law in our country, and the law required that he be held to account. So that is what I did,” Smith told the House Judiciary Committee, addressing his decision to bring criminal charges against Trump.
Smith, who was appointed in 2022 to oversee investigations into Trump, testified publicly after a closed-door session last month. The hearing quickly divided along party lines, with Republicans portraying Smith as politically motivated and Democrats defending his work as crucial to upholding democratic principles.
The former special counsel stood by his decisions to charge Trump in two separate cases: one alleging conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and another involving the hoarding of classified documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Both cases were eventually abandoned after Trump won the 2024 presidential election, in line with longstanding Justice Department policy that sitting presidents cannot be indicted.
“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity,” Smith testified. “If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Republican or a Democrat.”
Republican lawmakers sharply criticized Smith’s investigation methods, particularly his subpoena of phone records belonging to several Republican lawmakers in connection with the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot. Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas claimed Smith had “walked all over the Constitution,” while committee chairman Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio characterized the investigation as politically motivated.
“It was always about politics,” Jordan said, expressing a sentiment that Trump himself echoed on his Truth Social platform as he returned from the World Economic Forum in Davos. Trump claimed without evidence that Smith had committed perjury and should be prosecuted.
Smith defended his investigative tactics as standard procedure, explaining that the collection of phone records was essential to document communications between Trump or his surrogates and lawmakers as part of the alleged conspiracy to overturn the election.
“My office didn’t spy on anyone,” Smith insisted, describing the practice as a common and necessary prosecutorial tool.
Under Democratic questioning, Smith elaborated on what he characterized as a wide-ranging conspiracy to overturn the election results, noting that Trump ignored advisers who told him the election had not been stolen. Smith emphasized that some of his strongest potential witnesses were Republicans who had supported Trump.
“Some of the most powerful witnesses were witnesses who, in fact, were fellow Republicans who had voted for Donald Trump, who had campaigned for him and who wanted him to win the election,” Smith said.
The hearing unfolded against a backdrop of concerns about potential retribution against investigators who scrutinized Trump. When asked if he feared prosecution by the Trump administration, Smith responded: “I believe they will do everything in their power to do that because they’ve been ordered to by the president.”
Smith also addressed broader implications of his investigation, stating: “I believe that if we don’t call people to account when they commit crimes in this context, it can endanger our election process, it can endanger election workers and, ultimately, our democracy.”
Throughout the hearing, Republicans continued their criticism, with Rep. Kevin Kiley of California accusing Smith of seeking “maximum litigation advantage at every turn” and “circumventing constitutional limitations.” Rep. Ben Cline of Virginia questioned a requested court order to restrict Trump from making inflammatory comments about prosecutors and witnesses, suggesting it was meant to silence Trump during the campaign.
Smith rejected these characterizations and emphasized Trump’s central role in the alleged crimes. “The evidence here made clear that President Trump was by a large measure the most culpable and most responsible person in this conspiracy,” Smith testified. “These crimes were committed for his benefit. The attack that happened at the Capitol, part of this case, does not happen without him.”
The daylong hearing reflected the deep political divisions surrounding Trump’s legal challenges and highlighted ongoing tensions over accountability for actions related to the 2020 election aftermath and handling of classified information.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
The decision to bring charges against a sitting president is never an easy one, but it seems Smith felt the evidence warranted action. I’m glad to see him stand by his work, even if the cases were ultimately abandoned.
While I understand the arguments on both sides, I tend to agree that no one should be above the law, including the president. Smith’s commitment to upholding democratic principles is commendable, even if the cases didn’t ultimately succeed.
It’s good to see the former special counsel defending his work and standing up for the rule of law. Even if the cases didn’t succeed, the principle of no one being above the law is an important one to uphold.
I’m not surprised this hearing divided along party lines. It’s a highly charged political issue. I hope both sides can engage in a substantive, good-faith discussion about the legal principles and precedents involved.
This is a politically charged issue, but I think it’s important to try to look at it objectively. I’m curious to hear more details about the evidence and legal arguments on both sides.
This is a complex issue without easy answers. I’m curious to hear more about the specific evidence and legal rationale behind Smith’s decisions. Transparency and accountability are important, regardless of political affiliation.
The fact that the cases were abandoned after Trump won the 2024 election raises some interesting questions. Was this purely a matter of policy, or were there other factors at play? I’d like to understand the reasoning a bit more.
Interesting to see the former special counsel defend his investigations of Trump. Upholding the rule of law is crucial, even for former presidents. Curious to hear the different partisan perspectives on this.