Listen to the article
Former special counsel Jack Smith is set to face congressional scrutiny Thursday during a televised hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, where he will defend his prosecutions of President Donald Trump against accusations of political motivation.
The 10 a.m. hearing marks Smith’s first public testimony on Capitol Hill, following an eight-hour closed-door deposition with the committee in December. Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and fellow Republicans are expected to challenge Smith on what they characterize as politically-driven criminal charges designed to interfere with the 2024 presidential election.
Smith, who has reportedly been eager to speak publicly about his work, will face questioning about two major prosecutions he initiated against Trump – one related to alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election results and another concerning the retention of classified documents. Both cases were dropped after Trump won the 2024 election, in accordance with Department of Justice policy against prosecuting sitting presidents.
According to his prepared opening statement obtained by Fox News Digital, Smith plans to strongly defend his decisions. “Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity,” Smith intends to say. “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 committee members are likely to focus on several controversial aspects of Smith’s investigation, including his team’s approval of $20,000 in payments to an FBI confidential human source to gather intelligence on Trump, according to a source familiar with the hearing preparations.
Another contentious issue expected to arise involves Smith’s extensive subpoenas for phone records belonging to Trump allies, including numerous Republican members of Congress. This investigative tactic has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers who believe their constitutional protections were violated.
The targeted Republicans, including Senators Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Josh Hawley of Missouri, and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, have argued that these subpoenas infringed upon the special immunity afforded to lawmakers by the Constitution.
Smith has previously defended this approach, insisting during his December deposition that his actions were not partisan in nature. “If Donald Trump had chosen to call a number of Democratic senators, we would have gotten toll records for Democratic Senators,” Smith stated. “So responsibility for why these records, why we collected them, that lies with Donald Trump.”
Committee Republicans are also expected to question Smith about seeking gag orders against Trump during his presidential campaign and attempting to accelerate court proceedings in ways they viewed as prejudicial to Trump’s candidacy.
The hearing occurs against the backdrop of escalating tensions between the Justice Department and congressional Republicans, who have intensified their scrutiny of federal law enforcement since regaining control of the House in 2022. Trump himself has been highly critical of Smith, previously calling him a “thug” who “belongs in jail.”
Smith’s team has indicated he will decline to answer questions that could reveal legally protected grand jury information or details contained in the second volume of his final special counsel report on the classified documents case. That portion of his report remains under seal by Judge Aileen Cannon until February.
The public confrontation between Smith and his Republican critics represents another chapter in the ongoing political debate over the Justice Department’s handling of investigations involving Trump, and highlights the continuing divisions over law enforcement’s role in politically sensitive cases involving high-profile political figures.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
14 Comments
This hearing represents a critical opportunity for Smith to defend his actions and provide transparency around the investigations. The public deserves a clear and impartial account of the decision-making process.
The outcome of this hearing could have significant implications for public trust in the justice system. Smith will need to be meticulous in his testimony to restore confidence, if that’s even possible given the polarized climate.
You raise a valid concern. Restoring public trust in institutions is an uphill battle these days, especially when it comes to high-profile political cases.
As a neutral observer, I’m curious to hear Smith’s explanation of the decision-making process and rationale behind the investigations. Hopefully this can provide some much-needed clarity, regardless of one’s political leanings.
The timing of this hearing, coming after Trump’s 2024 win, suggests the GOP is eager to paint the investigations as politically motivated. Smith will have his work cut out for him trying to rebut those claims convincingly.
You make a fair point. The political dynamics here are tricky, and Smith will have to demonstrate professionalism and impartiality to overcome the partisan rhetoric.
Regardless of one’s political leanings, the integrity of the justice system is paramount. Smith’s testimony will be closely scrutinized, and he’ll need to be meticulous in his responses to uphold public confidence.
Absolutely. Maintaining the independence and credibility of the justice system should be the top priority here, not political point-scoring.
It will be interesting to see how Smith navigates the questioning and whether he can convincingly demonstrate the non-partisan nature of his work. The public deserves a clear understanding of the rationale behind these high-profile prosecutions.
Interesting to see the Special Counsel testify on the Trump investigations. It’ll be important to hear his perspective and rationale, though I’m sure the partisan lines will be drawn sharply. Curious to see if he can effectively counter the accusations of political bias.
Agreed, it’s a high-stakes hearing that will likely be quite contentious. Smith will need to tread carefully to maintain credibility while defending his actions.
This hearing is a pivotal moment for Smith to defend his actions and counter the accusations of political bias. The stakes are high, and his credibility will be thoroughly tested.
While the political tensions are palpable, I hope this hearing can move beyond partisan posturing and provide a substantive examination of the investigative process and decision-making. Transparent and impartial oversight is critical.
Well said. Maintaining objectivity and focusing on the facts will be key for Smith to navigate this challenging situation effectively.