Former particular counsel Jack Smith, who introduced two now-defunct prison instances towards President Donald Trump, defended the integrity of his investigations throughout a combative House Judiciary Committee listening to on Thursday.
Making his first public look earlier than lawmakers, Smith pushed again towards claims that he acted as a partisan prosecutor, because the listening to devolved into a pointy political conflict over Trump’s conduct after the 2020 election and the Justice Department’s pursuit of him.
Former Justice Department particular counsel Jack Smith, middle, and his lawyer Lanny A. Breuer, proper, arriving earlier than Smith’s testimony earlier than the House Judiciary Committee about his investigations into President Donald Trump, Thursday, Jan. 22, 2026, on the Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
“I am not a politician, and I have no partisan loyalties,” Smith instructed the committee. “My career has been dedicated to serving our country by upholding the rule of law. I stand by my decisions as special counsel, including my decision to bring charges against President Trump.”
While Smith was testifying, Trump escalated his assaults, calling Smith a “deranged animal” in a social media publish and saying he hoped Attorney General Pam Bondi was “looking at” Smith’s conduct as a result of “a big price should be paid.”
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith opening assertion: “I stand by my decisions as Special Counsel, including the decision to bring charges against President Trump. Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt President Trump engaged in criminal activity.” pic.twitter.com/TGimYokf1q
— CSPAN (@cspan) January 22, 2026
From 2022 to 2025, Smith led the DOJ’s particular counsel investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his dealing with of labeled authorities paperwork after leaving workplace. Smith in the end filed federal costs in each instances however withdrew them following Trump’s 2024 election victory, citing long-standing DOJ coverage barring the prosecution of a sitting president. A decide had already thrown out the case involving the labeled paperwork by the point Trump received the election.
Here are the important thing takeaways from Smith’s five-hour testimony earlier than Congress.
Republicans blast Smith over secret cellphone information subpoenas
Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA), who sat in a aggressive district that was redrawn through the California redistricting course of, zeroed in on Smith’s use of nondisclosure orders to acquire cellphone toll information belonging to sitting members of Congress through the Jan. 6 investigation.
“You didn’t even tell those judges that it was members of Congress whose records you were going after,” Kiley stated. “Now, if you sought to do that today, would you be able to get away with asking the judges for a nondisclosure order without telling them these are members of Congress?”
Rep. Kevin Kiley exposes Jack Smith’s abuse of the regulation:
“That assertion was additionally echoed by SCOTUS in a unanimous opinion…the place the court docket overturned convictions that you just had pursued towards a former governor, criticizing your boundless interpretation of the federal prison… pic.twitter.com/9CIYwDJIG8
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 22, 2026
Smith responded that the subpoenas have been issued beneath the DOJ guidelines in impact on the time. “When we secured these toll records via subpoena, it was done consistent with department policy,” he stated. “You’re correct in that that policy has since changed.”
Kiley instantly pushed again. “They changed the policy based upon the actions that you took,” he stated.
Smith defended the observe as routine on the time when he was nonetheless particular counsel, telling lawmakers that toll information are “common practice in complex investigations” and noting they mirrored name information, not content material. The undeniable fact that the targets of the subpoenas have been sitting lawmakers raises distinctive separation-of-powers questions; nevertheless, provided that lawmakers benefit from the protections of the Speech or Debate Clause.
The former particular counsel additionally stated he pursued the information as a result of he was involved about obstruction of justice, claiming Trump was “targeting witnesses” [and] had an obligation to guard witnesses” who the DOJ had an obligation to defend.
Smith questioned over First Amendment and potential ‘Speech or Debate’ violations
Gill stated Smith obtained a nondisclosure order that saved McCarthy from being notified and instructed the particular counsel group leaned on a declare that McCarthy posed a “flight risk” to justify that secrecy. Smith pushed again that “with respect to a nondisclosure order, the risks aren’t necessarily associated with the subscriber to the phone.” Gill responded that Smith was “using this clearly in reference to Speaker McCarthy, and you were using clearly false information.”
Rep. Brandon Gill destroys Crooked Jack Smith on his sham investigation that wasted thousands and thousands of your hard-earned cash.
GILL: “You walked all over the constitution throughout this entire process, spying on members of Congress, and you know it. It’s absolutely disgraceful.”
pic.twitter.com/GUNOSwbjcU
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 22, 2026
Gill broadened the assault to the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, warning that Smith’s workplace subpoenaed at the very least eight sitting senators for related information and likewise secured nondisclosure orders through the Arctic Frost section of the investigation. The clause usually shields lawmakers from authorized publicity arising from official legislative acts, and Republicans argued that the subpoenas risked sweeping up protected legislative exercise.
Later, Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX) delivered a scorched-earth rebuke, accusing Smith of making an attempt to “criminalize political speech” and “spy on Republican members of Congress in violation of the Speech and Debate Clause, including the sitting Speaker of the House.”
Nehls cited even the “far left Washington Post” as having criticized Smith’s method and argued the prosecution was “politics from Day One,” slightly than justice. He capped his criticism by pointing to Trump’s 2024 win as “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that voters rejected the “witch hunt, loud and clear.”
Jim Jordan presses Smith on Cassidy Hutchinson
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) pressed Smith on why his workplace had beforehand thought-about utilizing Cassidy Hutchinson as a witness, regardless of a GOP Jan. 6 report concluding her most dramatic testimony was not corroborated. Smith acknowledged as a lot throughout a closed-door deposition final 12 months.
Hutchinson testified to the Democrat-led Jan. 6 committee that she heard Trump lunged for the steering wheel of the presidential SUV on the day of the riot and clashed with a Secret Service agent — a declare disputed by different witnesses who have been really current.
A collage of former Justice Department particular counsel Jack Smith, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), and former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.
“Did you ever confirm that story?” Jordan requested.
Smith declined to reply immediately, saying he wouldn’t focus on inner prosecutorial assessments. Jordan continued urgent, asking whether or not Smith believed Hutchinson’s account.
Smith once more refused to say.
“Someone the whole country knows wasn’t telling the truth, and you were still considering putting her on the witness stand,” Jordan stated. “Because you had to get President Trump.”
Smith rejects error, solely regrets not thanking workers extra
Despite repeated references to court docket setbacks, orders that have been narrowed by judges, and inner DOJ considerations, Smith declined to acknowledge that he made any substantive errors.
“If I have any regret,” Smith stated, “it would be not expressing enough appreciation for my people who worked for me, exactly, just doing their job.”
The response underscored the sharp divide that outlined the listening to: Republicans arguing Smith’s ways pressured the DOJ to make coverage modifications and raised lasting constitutional considerations, and Smith insisting his investigation was lawful, justified, and improperly second-guessed after the very fact.
Democrats praised Smith for his integrity and work as a public servant
Democrats praised Smith throughout their allotted five-minute questioning durations all through the listening to.
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), who’s working to be California‘s next governor, praised Smith, telling him to “lean in” because he has “nothing to be ashamed of.” Swalwell went on to read praises of Smith from former colleagues, including one who said he had “no idea what Mr. Smith’s political views are, as a result of he’s utterly apolitical.”
The California Democrat requested whether or not Smith regrets being a particular prosecutor, to which Smith promptly responded that he doesn’t.
“I think you’re a great American, and you came out of this as being somebody who people can respect and look up to in a fashion that we should be instilling people’s desire to go into justice, to go into law, and to go into government,” Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) stated within the listening to. “You’re an example of the type of person they should follow.”
House passes modification to repeal Senate ‘Arctic Frost’ provision
The House unanimously handed an modification Thursday to a authorities funding invoice stripping senators swept up within the “Arctic Frost” investigation of the flexibility to sue the federal authorities for $500,000 in damages.
The FBI’s Arctic Frost operation was initiated in 2022 and served because the predicate not just for Trump’s prosecutions but additionally for a number of secret subpoenas Smith sought towards GOP lawmakers as he carried out his investigation into the then-former president. The modification coincided with Smith’s testimony earlier than the committee, making for an uphill battle when the invoice reached the Senate.
The higher chamber included the profitable provision in a authorities funding invoice final 12 months that ended the longest authorities shutdown in historical past. It permits senators to sue the federal authorities for upwards of $500,000 if their cellphone information have been collected as a part of Smith’s investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
House Democrats search second listening to on labeled paperwork case
Shortly after the listening to concluded, House Democrats issued a proper discover to Jordan that they’d search a second public listening to centered on the labeled paperwork case dismissed by a Trump-appointed decide in June 2024.
“In light of the order by Judge Aileen Cannon restricting his ability to testify concerning Volume Il of his report, his testimony during the January 22, 2026, hearing was necessarily incomplete,” Democratic Reps. Jamie Raskin (MD), Jerry Nadler (NY), Zoe Lofgren (CA), and Steve Cohen (TN) wrote in a quick letter.
HOUSE TUCKS REPEAL OF $500,000 SENATE ‘ARCTIC FROST’ BENEFIT IN GOVERNMENT FUNDING BILL
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon is at present mulling a request by Trump to maintain Smith’s remaining report concerning the case beneath seal. The indictment from Smith charged Trump and two co-defendants with over 40 felony counts associated to his alleged mishandling of labeled paperwork after his first presidency.
Cannon in the end discovered that Smith was unlawfully appointed by former Attorney General Merrick Garland, resulting in the dismissal of the case in the summertime of the earlier common election 12 months.
