Former Special Counsel Jack Smith has offered public testimony for the first time as he returned to Congress to answer questions about his investigations into United States President Donald Trump.

On Thursday, Smith sat before the judiciary committee of the US House of Representatives, where he alternately fielded praise from Democrats and barbs from Republicans.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

All the while, Smith insisted his investigations were nonpartisan — and that there were, indeed, grounds to bring two federal indictments against Trump during the period between his two terms in office.

“I made my decisions without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs or candidacy in the 2024 election,” Smith told the congressional panel.

“President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law — the very laws he took an oath to uphold.”

Formerly a war-crimes prosecutor at the international tribunal in The Hague, Smith was selected to serve as special counsel in 2022, under former Democratic President Joe Biden.

Special counsels are tapped to operate independently, without the usual day-to-day oversight from politically appointed Justice Department leadership.

But Smith’s mandate was particularly sensitive. He was charged with investigating Trump, Biden’s 2020 election rival whom the Democrat would face again in the 2024 race.

Inside the investigations

The 2020 election was a central part of Smith’s investigation. So were Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, when thousands of his supporters stormed the US Capitol in an apparent attempt to disrupt the certification of the election results.

Advertisement

Smith ultimately determined that Trump had intentionally attempted to subvert the vote, and in August 2023, a grand jury indicted Trump on four charges: conspiracy to defraud the country, obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against the free exercise of rights under the US Constitution.

A separate grand jury, this time in the state of Florida, issued a second federal indictment related to probe that Smith led in June 2023.

That investigation focused on Trump’s decision to withhold classified documents after leaving office and defying a subpoena for their return. Trump was ultimately charged with 40 counts, including conspiracy to obstruct justice, making false statements, and failing to adhere to standards concerning sensitive documents under the Espionage Act.

Both federal cases were dropped after Trump was re-elected in 2024. It is Justice Department policy not to investigate or prosecute sitting presidents. Smith himself resigned shortly before Trump’s inauguration in January 2025.

Nevertheless, at Thursday’s hearing, Smith defended the indictments and suggested his cases would have been successful had the circumstances been different.

“I want to be clear: I stand by my decisions as special counsel, including the decision to bring charges against President Trump,” Smith told the committee.

“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity. 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 Democrat or a Republican.”

He added that the evidence compelled him to move forward with the indictments, regardless of the high-profile defendant.

“The law required that he be held to account,” Smith said. “So that is what I did. To have done otherwise on the facts of these cases would’ve been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor.”

Later on in his testimony, he emphasised his stance: “ We were ready, willing and able to go to trial in the case.”

Republican criticisms

But Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee sought to portray Smith as a partisan shill whose mission was to take down the Democrats’ political rivals.

Some of the most aggressive questioning came from Republican Representative Darrell Issa of California, who cast doubt on Smith’s independence as special prosecutor.

Advertisement

“You, like the president’s men for Richard Nixon, went after your political enemies. Maybe they’re not your political enemies, but they sure as hell were Joe Biden’s political enemies, weren’t they?” Issa asked.

“They were the enemies of the president. And you were their arm, weren’t you?”

Smith replied to the accusation with a single word: “No.”

Issa went on to assert that, in spreading false statements denying his 2020 election defeat, Trump was simply expressing his First Amendment right to free speech.

“ You understand the Constitution? Do you understand the Bill of Rights that someone has the absolute right to believe something, whether it’s true or not, and to advocate for something whether it’s true or not?” Issa said at one point.

“So if you know that people have a right to opine, lobby for, assert, do everything they can legally to ask for people to make different decisions, then why is it you saw criminal conduct on behalf of a president who believed he didn’t win?”

Smith was not able to respond to that question, but his indictment asserts that Trump went beyond simply voicing his disagreement with the results.

Rather, it argues that Trump and his allies attempted to recruit “false electors” to submit fraudulent Electoral College votes for certification, and it highlights evidence that Trump sought to pressure elected officials to reject unfavourable vote outcomes.

Another key point of criticism was Smith’s decision to seek “limited toll records” from the telephones of nine Republican lawmakers who communicated with Trump during his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was among the Congress members targeted.

Such toll records do not include the content of the calls in question. Rather, they identify where the call originated from, who it was received by, and how long the connection lasted.

Republicans argued that subpoenaing the telephone records amounted not only to a violation of privacy but also to an infringement of the US Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause, which protects Congress members from legal action stemming from their legislative duties.

They also questioned the secrecy of the subpoenas, something Smith argued was necessary.

“The subpoenas that we secured, we secured with non-disclosure orders from a judge because I had grave concerns about obstruction of justice in this investigation,” Smith said.

“Specifically with regards to Donald Trump, not only did we have the obstruction of justice that we were investigating in the classified documents case, but I was aware during the course of our investigation of the targeting of witnesses.”

Smith defends team’s work

While Republicans blasted Smith for what they perceived to be prosecutorial missteps, Democrats praised him as a paragon of integrity.

“I want you to lean in today. You have nothing to be ashamed of. You did everything right, sir,” Democratic Representative Eric Swalwell told Smith.

Advertisement

He then proceeded to accuse his Republican colleagues of hypocrisy, particularly after the 2021 attack on the Capitol.

“These guys are so lucky they’re not under oath because they would have to tell you what they really think of Trump,” Swalwell said, gesturing to the Republicans on the panel. “ They call him crooked. They call him cruel. They call him a scumbag. I’ve heard you all say it.”

Swalwell invited Smith to reflect on where he was when the Capitol attack unfolded and how he felt watching Trump supporters break into the building while legislators fled. Smith, at the time, was in Europe on behalf of the State Department, working on the war-crimes tribunal.

“ I was shocked by it. Being in Europe and not following things as closely, I was not frankly up to speed on the events leading up to it,” Smith replied. “ I just had never seen anything like that happen in our country.”

Smith also denied that he faced any pressure from the Biden administration to come to any foregone conclusion.

“ I was given the independence to conduct my investigation,” he said.

Since being named special prosecutor, Smith has become a frequent target for criticism on the political right. Trump himself this week called Smith a “sick son of a b****” who led a group of “ handpicked radical-left Marxist prosecutors”.

Over the past year, the Trump administration has largely removed the nonpartisan career federal employees who were involved in the two federal investigations Smith led, ending their employment.

Smith himself used the committee hearing to lash out at those decisions, accusing Trump of seeking retribution against government workers who served presidents of both parties.

“ I’m proud of the work my team did, and I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to correct false and misleading narratives about our work,” Smith told the panel.

“President Trump has sought to seek revenge against career prosecutors, FBI agents and support staff simply for having worked on these cases,” he added. “To vilify and seek retribution against these people is wrong. Those dedicated public servants are the best of us.”

President responds to Smith’s testimony

Trump, however, appeared to be watching Smith’s testimony live. In the midst of the back-and-forth between the former prosecutor and Congress members, the president posted on Truth Social a message applauding Republicans for their takedowns of Smith’s work.

“Deranged Jack Smith is being DECIMATED before Congress. It was over when they discussed his past failures and unfair prosecutions,” Trump wrote. “He destroyed many lives under the guise of legitimacy. Jack Smith is a deranged animal, who shouldn’t be allowed to practice Law.”

Trump also suggested Smith should face professional penalties or even prosecution, akin to how he has used his social media platform to pressure the Justice Department to take action against his rivals in the past.

“If he were a Republican, his license would be taken away from him, and far worse! Hopefully the Attorney General is looking at what he’s done,” Trump continued.

“The whole thing was a Democrat SCAM — A big price should be paid by them for what they have put our Country through!”

Smith was subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee in early December and later testified in a closed-door hearing, despite his protestations that the proceedings should be public.

He is currently under a gag order barring him from divulging evidence about the classified documents case, though US District Judge Aileen Cannon has said she would lift the block on his report starting on February 24. The Trump administration has appealed that decision.

Advertisement

As part of his prepared remarks, Smith implored his audience to defend the rule of law, regardless of which party might seek to undermine it.

“After nearly 30 years of public service, including in international settings, I have seen how the rule of law can erode,” Smith said. “My fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in our country for so long that many of us have come to take it for granted. The rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to apply it.”