In hearing marked by partisanship, Jack Smith defends Jan. 6 charges against Trump
In his first public statement about his investigation into Donald Trump’s actions after the 2020 election, former special counsel Jack Smith said the evidence he gathered was enough to prove the president broke the law to try to stay in power despite losing to Joe Biden.
Mr. Smith withdrew the case more than a year ago, due to Mr. Trump’s 2024 election victory.
But at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, Mr. Smith said he stood by his decision to file suit, noting that two grand juries had concluded that “rather than accept his defeat in the 2020 election, President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results and prevent the lawful transfer of power.” [Related Monitor story on the case, from 2024: Big development in Jan. 6 case against Trump. Why now?]
Why we wrote this
Former special counsel Jack Smith’s efforts to sue Donald Trump for trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election ended more than a year ago. But political partisanship around the issue remains strong — and was on display when Mr. Smith made his first public comments on the matter during a House hearing.
“No one, no one, should be above the law in this country, and the law requires that they be held accountable,” Mr. Smith said.
The hearing reflects the highly polarized political climate of Mr. Trump’s second term. There was at least one disturbance caused by a pro-Trump audience member who was then kicked out of the room. Republicans denounced Mr. Smith’s investigation, calling it a “weaponization of the judicial process.” Democrats have alleged witness intimidation and rewriting of history by Mr. Trump.
The president appeared to follow the hearings closely, commenting on social media. “I hope the Attorney General examines what he did, including some of the crooked and corrupt witnesses he attempted to use in his case against me,” Mr. Trump wrote. Last year, he ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate several political opponents, and charges were subsequently filed against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
As a result of Mr. Smith’s investigation, a grand jury found probable cause to indict Mr. Trump on four counts related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 results, which culminated in an attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters on the day Congress was scheduled to certify those results. The charges were: “conspiracy to obstruct the governmental function of selecting and certifying the President of the United States; obstruction and attempted obstruction of the official proceeding of January 6, 2021; conspiracy to obstruct the official proceeding; and conspiracy to violate the federal rights of citizens to vote and have their votes counted.”
After the November 2024 election, Mr. Smith dropped the charges on the advice of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, citing the ban on prosecuting a sitting president.
Republican members of the committee used Thursday’s hearing to portray Mr. Smith as a pro-Biden supporter and to question the longtime prosecutor’s integrity and judgment.
“It was always about politics,” committee Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio said in his opening remarks. “The good news is that the American people saw through it… We elected President Trump twice.”
The committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, welcomed Mr. Smith in his opening remarks, saying: “Special Counsel Smith, you have studied the facts. You have followed all applicable laws, ethics rules and DOJ regulations, your decisions have been reviewed by the Public Integrity Section. You have acted based solely on the facts, unlike Donald Trump.”
Other Republican committee members largely followed their chairman’s lead, asking Mr. Smith whether he violated Justice Department protocols by subpoenaing the phone records of Mr. Trump and a number of congressional Republicans as part of the investigation, imposing a silence on President Trump about the ongoing investigation ahead of the 2024 presidential election, and other actions that Republicans say reveal Mr. Smith’s bias and abuse of its prosecutorial powers.
Republican Rep. Thomas Tiffany of Wisconsin listed a number of Mr. Smith’s previous cases that had been overturned or resulted in a mistrial, as well as actions during the Trump investigation that were later overturned by the courts or led to a change in Justice Department policy. “I would just say this, Mr. President, if Mr. Smith works for the Justice Department again, I would recommend a remedial course on the First Amendment to the Constitution.”
Mr Smith has refuted claims his investigations were politically motivated. “If I were asked today whether I should prosecute a former president based on the same facts, I would do so whether that president was a Democrat or a Republican.”
Democrats defended Mr. Smith’s professionalism and respect for procedure and called the Republican hearings “theater.”
“Republicans are trying to rewrite history, that’s what this is about,” said Rep. Joe Neguse of Colorado. Referring to the four Capitol Police officers in the gallery who risked their lives to defend members of Congress on January 6, 2021, Mr. Neguse added: “It is a scandal that [Republican lawmakers] now sit here and have the audacity to try to rewrite history in front of these same officers who sacrificed everything to protect them.
On Capitol Hill, members of Congress who are not on the committee expressed their own opinions about the hearings and Mr. Smith.
Republican Rep. Russell Fry of South Carolina told the Monitor, “I think the main goal is to show the American people right now how he has manipulated the process, bastardized the standards of the Department of Justice, gone beyond the scope of the law and even violated the Constitution.” »
Representative Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat, called Mr. Smith “a man of integrity” and said: “I hope he sets the record straight for the Republicans on this committee who are doing everything they can to try to distort the truth.” »
