Former special counsel Jack Smith has been employing his closed deposition of House Republicans from last month to thoroughly vindicate himself in his probes of Donald Trump’s potential efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election as well as his retention of certain documents with classified materials post-presidency.
Throughout the long testimony, Smith vehemently rebuked any Republican assertions that the investigations were politically driven, choosing instead to demonstrate the basis in law and evidence, in his opinion, sufficient enough to support the charging of the indictments against Trump.
“I made my decisions in the investigation without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election,”
Smith told members of the House Judiciary Committee during the Dec. 17 interview. He added that his office acted solely based on “what the facts and the law required,” a principle he said guided his career as a federal prosecutor.
The deposition marked Smith’s first appearance before Congress since he stepped down as special counsel in 2024. Though much of the information was already publicly known, the hearings themselves contained tense exchanges between the Democratic lawmakers and the Republicans, who questioned the strength of the cases against them and the methods used by Smith to investigate them, specifically the attempts to get phone toll records of some GOP lawmakers.
The Republicans decided to release the transcript, albeit with redactions to the 255-page deposition testimony on New Year’s Eve, when its political value might not have been as great because it fell during a holiday period when not as many people are paying attention.
Why was Jack Smith questioned by House Republicans behind closed doors?
The House Judiciary Committee’s deposition centered on Smith’s conduct as special counsel, with Republicans seeking to portray his investigations as politically driven. Smith has consistently dismissed such an assertion, particularly in emphasizing that the prosecution was not affected either by the former President’s political identity or his presidential campaign in the year 2024.
The Republicans were pressuring Smith about subpoenas issued to the telecommunications companies for records of calls involving members of Congress, claiming these acts were in violation of the speech or debate clause of the Constitution, which grants immunities to members of Congress. In response, Smith said these subpoenas were approved in Justice Department policy at the time.
When did the investigations into Trump begin and what triggered them?
Smith was appointed as special counsel in November 2022 by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland. His brief was two-fold: to probe the involvement of former President Trump in attempts to overturn the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election, as well as the former president’s management of classified documents after the end of his term in January 2021.
The election dispute case involved Trump’s conduct after his defeat in the election to Joe Biden. This included his pressure tactics on state officials, his spread of false claims about the fraud in the election, and his efforts to halt the approval of electoral votes on January 6, 2021. The case involving the classified documents arose out of the retrieval of these documents stored at Trump’s residence of Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida.
Smith ultimately brought criminal charges against Trump in both cases, alleging conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding, and willful retention of national defense information.
Why were the charges dropped after Trump’s reelection?
After the victory of Trump in the 2024 presidential election, the DoJ sought to drop the charges. This came against the backdrop of the long-held DOJs’ policy to avoid the conviction of the incumbent president through criminal charges.
Shortly after that event, Smith resigned as the special counsel. In his defence, Smith claims that the cases were not dismissed because the evidence was weak but because the department followed certain norms.
How did Smith describe the evidence against Trump?
While giving his deposition, Smith claimed that his side had collected enough evidence to convict Trump. Smith portrayed Trump as knowingly spreading dishonest information to state lawmakers, supporters, and other groups prior to January 6.
“He knew in the days preceding Jan. 6 that his followers were agitated by his invitation to them,”
Smith said, noting Trump gave them directions to the Capitol. According to Smith, once violence erupted, Trump refused to intervene and instead issued a tweet that Smith said
“without question in my mind, endangered the life of his own vice president.”
Smith also alleged that Trump had to be repeatedly urged by aides to take any steps to quell the violence as the attack unfolded.
Are Trump’s election claims protected by the First Amendment?
Smith strongly disputed the argument that Trump’s post-election rhetoric was shielded by free speech protections. When a Republican lawyer suggested that disputing election outcomes lies at the core of First Amendment rights, Smith responded emphatically.
“Absolutely not,”
Smith said, arguing that Trump’s conduct went far beyond speech and entered the realm of criminal action aimed at obstructing the lawful transfer of power.
What did Smith say about uncharged co-conspirators?
Smith mentioned that several individuals who supported Donald Trump in his election campaign, such as Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and John Eastman, were investigated as potential co-conspirators but were not charged. The fact that his team evaluated evidence for sufficiency in charging them, he said, was necessary.
But, as reported by The Hill, no charging decisions were reached before the election in which Trump was reelected, allowing the office of the special counsel to be shut down. Yet again, the former attorney general emphasized in the matter that Donald Trump “is the most culpable, most responsible person in the crime to reverse the election.”
What evidence did Smith cite in the classified documents case?
Smith told the legislators that Trump’s lawyers and he had come up with what he called “powerful evidence” that Trump knowingly possessed highly classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
As Smith reports, there was evidence to support charges that Trump was aware of the national security documents he had been obliged to return repeatedly and had been attempting to conceal them from investigators.
Why did Smith criticize Trump’s actions after returning to office?
In his opening remarks, Smith expressed anger and sadness over what he described as retaliatory actions taken by Trump against Justice Department and FBI personnel involved in the Jan. 6 investigations.
Smith said Trump had followed through on campaign promises to target perceived political enemies by revoking security clearances, pressuring agencies to remove career officials, and taking punitive steps against FBI agents linked to the Capitol riot probe.
Thousands of FBI employees were later required to complete detailed questionnaires about their involvement in Jan. 6–related investigations, an effort described by some officials as retaliatory in nature.
Why did Smith say lawmakers’ phone records were subpoenaed?
Smith was questioned extensively about subpoenas issued to phone companies for toll records belonging to House and Senate lawmakers. He said the subpoenas were approved by the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, which also warned prosecutors to consider constitutional concerns.
The subpoenas were accompanied by gag orders preventing lawmakers from learning about them for at least a year. Smith said the D.C. federal court that authorized the orders was not informed that the records belonged to members of Congress, noting that such disclosure was not required under DOJ policy at the time.
When asked who should be held responsible for lawmakers’ objections, Smith pointed directly to Trump.
“These records are people Donald Trump directed his co-conspirators to call to further delay the proceedings,” Smith said.
“If Donald Trump had chosen to call Democratic Senators, we would have gotten toll records for Democratic Senators.”
