Jack Smith says he’d charge Trump again, expects prosecution


Summary

Standing by his work

In his first public testimony Thursday, former Special Counsel Jack Smith told Congress his investigations into President Donald Trump were not politically motivated and he stands by his findings.

Investigating the president

Smith led the DOJ's special counsel office from 2022 to 2025, overseeing investigations into Trump’s handling of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. He withdrew both cases after Trump returned to office, citing longstanding department policy.

Trump fires back

As Smith testified, Trump posted on Truth Social calling him a “deranged animal,” accusing him of destroying lives, and urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate him.


Full story

Jack Smith defended his Trump prosecutions before Congress on Thursday and rejected claims that his investigations were politically driven. The former special counsel used his first public testimony to restate his case that President Donald Trump broke the law and would have been convicted if not for Justice Department rules barring prosecution of a sitting president.

Smith appeared before the House Judiciary Committee in a hearing that unfolded as a direct confrontation between Republicans seeking to discredit his work and Democrats backing his decisions to bring two federal indictments against Trump. Both cases were dropped after Trump won the 2024 election.

QR code for SAN app download

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

“I made my decisions without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs or candidacy in the 2024 election,” Smith said in his opening statement. “President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law. The very laws he took an oath to uphold.”

Smith led the Justice Department’s special counsel office from 2022 to 2025, overseeing investigations into Trump’s handling of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. He withdrew both cases after Trump returned to office, citing longstanding department policy.

Smith restates core findings

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., pressed Smith to confirm what his investigation concluded about Trump’s conduct after the 2020 election.

Jayapal asked whether Trump attempted to manufacture fraudulent slates of electors in seven states he lost. Smith said yes. She asked whether Trump pressured state officials to ignore certified vote counts. Smith said yes. She asked whether Trump pushed Justice Department officials to block certification of the election. Smith replied: “He did.”

“He even privately admitted that he lost the election, correct?,” Jayapal asked Smith.

“Yes,” he replied. “He said, quote, ‘It doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election, you have to fight like hell.’ And he said, ‘Can you believe I lost to this F’ing guy?’”

Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images

Smith said his team assembled “overwhelming evidence” and that he stood by the charging decisions.

“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,” he said. “No one should be above the law in our country, and the law required that he be held to account.”

Republicans target subpoenas and tactics

Republicans focused their questioning on investigative steps they argue crossed constitutional lines, including subpoenas for phone metadata tied to nine Republican lawmakers.

“They got my phone records for two and a half years. Even the Democrats said this was wrong,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Unbiased. Straight Facts.TM

In 2023, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office indicted then-former President Donald Trump on 40 counts related to mishandling classified documents.

Smith said the records were essential to tracking phone calls made from the White House to members of Congress during Trump’s effort to delay certification on Jan. 6. He emphasized that the records did not reveal the content of any calls.

“My office didn’t spy on anyone,” Smith said.

Rep. Kevin Kiley cited court reversals involving some of Smith’s legal moves. “Do you believe that you made any mistakes? Do you have any regrets as to how you conducted this investigation,” he asked Smith.

“If I have any regret, it would be not expressing enough appreciation for my staff who work so hard in these investigations,” Smith said. “These people sacrificed endlessly and endured way too much for just doing their job.”

“So no mistakes. There’s that humility,” Kiley replied.

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., responded sharply. “My Republican colleagues are a joke. History will harshly judge them. You did everything right, sir,” he told Smith.

Trump posts social media attack during testimony

As Smith testified, Trump posted on Truth Social calling him a “deranged animal,” accusing him of destroying lives, and urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate him.

“The whole thing was a Democrat scam,” Trump wrote. “A big price should be paid.”

Smith did not respond directly to Trump’s post but warned about the consequences of failing to hold powerful figures accountable.

“If we do not hold the most powerful people in our society to the same standards of the rule of law, then it can be catastrophic,” he said. “Because if they don’t have to follow the law, it’s very easy to understand why people would think they don’t have to follow the law as well.”

Smith also criticized Trump’s mass pardons for hundreds of violent Capitol rioters. “I do not understand why you would mass-pardon people who assaulted police officers,” he said.

Limits on what Smith could address

Smith said court orders restricted what he could say about the classified documents case, which remains under seal by order of U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon. Trump’s lawyers asked this week that the report on that case be permanently blocked from release.

Smith acknowledged that secrecy rules also prevented him from discussing grand jury material or confidential sources.

Republicans suggested they could refer Smith for prosecution if they believed he violated those restrictions or obstructed congressional oversight.

The committee has already referred one of Smith’s deputies, Thomas Windom, to the Justice Department over similar claims. Windom has denied wrongdoing.

Asked whether he feared prosecution, Smith replied: “I believe they will do everything in their power to do that, because they’ve been ordered to by the president.”

Hearing ends without new evidence

Smith’s testimony mirrored much of what he previously told lawmakers in a closed-door deposition last month. Republicans offered no new evidence of misconduct and relied largely on rehashing long-standing political grievances tied to the Trump investigations.

Four former police officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6 attended the hearing: Aquilino Gonell, Harry Dunn, Daniel Hodges, and Michael Fanone. A brief shouting exchange broke out in the audience during a recess.

Alex WROBLEWSKI / AFP via Getty Images

Outside the hearing room, CNN reported spotting Stewart Rhodes, the former Oath Keepers leader freed from prison last year after Trump commuted his sentence. There is no public record that Rhodes obtained court permission to return to the Capitol, a condition previously imposed by a judge.

Smith remained reserved throughout the day, answering in measured terms even as Republicans accused him of participating in a Democratic conspiracy.

Asked directly whether he acted as a political operative, Smith replied: “No.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

SAN provides
Unbiased. Straight Facts.

Don’t just take our word for it.


Certified balanced reporting

According to media bias experts at AllSides

AllSides Certified Balanced May 2025

Transparent and credible

Awarded a perfect reliability rating from NewsGuard

100/100

Welcome back to trustworthy journalism.

Find out more

Why this story matters

Jack Smith's congressional testimony addresses the conduct and rationale behind federal prosecutions of President Donald Trump, highlighting the challenges of maintaining impartiality and rule of law in investigations involving a sitting president.

Rule of law

Smith emphasized that no one should be above the law and that decisions to indict President Trump were based on evidence, underscoring the foundational importance of legal accountability for public officials.

Political impartiality

Smith and Republican committee members debated whether the investigations were politically motivated, reflecting wider concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement in politically sensitive cases.

Congressional oversight

The hearing showcased congressional scrutiny of high-profile investigations and the limits of what prosecutors can disclose, highlighting checks and balances between federal prosecutors and legislative bodies.

Get the big picture

Synthesized coverage insights across 60 media outlets

Context corner

The Justice Department has a long-standing policy against prosecuting a sitting president, which led to the dismissal of the cases once Trump was reelected. The public hearing is a common tradition for former special counsels to explain their work.

History lesson

Historically, no former president in the US has faced criminal indictment in federal court prior to these cases. The Justice Department's position on not charging sitting presidents has precedent from the Nixon and Clinton administrations.

Policy impact

Smith warned that failing to prosecute alleged crimes by powerful officials could undermine the rule of law and endanger election processes and democracy, while critics argued the investigations disrupted a presidential campaign.

SAN provides
Unbiased. Straight Facts.

Don’t just take our word for it.


Certified balanced reporting

According to media bias experts at AllSides

AllSides Certified Balanced May 2025

Transparent and credible

Awarded a perfect reliability rating from NewsGuard

100/100

Welcome back to trustworthy journalism.

Find out more

Bias comparison

  • Media outlets on the left frame Jack Smith's testimony as a "high-stakes" defense of the "rule of law," emphasizing his "warning" not to take it "for granted" and portraying Trump's actions as "criminal misconduct" through terms like "Scorched Earth.
  • Media outlets in the center maintain a neutral tone, directly quoting Smith's assertion that Trump "willfully" broke laws and noting his condemnation of "false and misleading narratives," while also mentioning the "unsuccessful" prosecutions.
  • Media outlets on the right de-emphasizes the substance of Smith's defense and specific accusations, focusing instead on the mere fact of the testimony and Rep. Jim Jordan's role.

Media landscape

Click on bars to see headlines

60 total sources

Key points from the Left

  • Jack Smith, former special counsel, testified that Donald Trump broke the law, stating he had proof beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal activity surrounding the 2020 election.
  • Smith emphasized that no one should be above the law and that he would still prosecute Trump based on the same evidence.
  • The testimony revealed that Trump engaged in criminal activity related to the 2020 election results, leading to criminal charges against him.
  • The hearing featured partisan divides, with Republicans attempting to undermine Smith's credibility while Democrats aimed for impactful testimony about Trump.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Center

  • On Jan 22, Jack Smith, former U.S. Special counsel, testified before the House Judiciary Committee in Washington, saying his probe found proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Donald Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 election.
  • The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan, is probing Smith's indictments after he dropped the two criminal cases citing Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president.
  • Smith noted the human toll of Jan. 6, 2021, citing 140 law enforcement officers injured and investigators reviewing phone records from more than a half-dozen Republican lawmakers.
  • The hearing split along partisan lines with Republican lawmakers attacking Smith while Democratic lawmakers defended him, as the Trump administration fired dozens of Justice Department lawyers and staffers in a retribution campaign.
  • A report on the classified-documents probe remains sealed by order of Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, and Jack Smith's extended public testimony may shape the American public's understanding of Jan. 6 and accountability.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Right

  • Former Special Counsel Jack Smith testified before the House Judiciary Committee, presenting evidence against President Donald Trump in his criminal investigations.
  • Smith stated he has "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
  • Rep. Jim Jordan accused Smith of politically motivated actions against Trump, while Rep. Jamie Raskin commended Smith's commitment to the law.
  • Smith emphasized his commitment to "upholding the rule of law," stating his actions were based on evidence and legal requirements, not political loyalties.

Report an issue with this summary

Powered by Ground News™

Daily Newsletter

Start your day with fact-based news

Start your day with fact-based news

Learn more about our emails. Unsubscribe anytime.

By entering your email, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.