In a compelling testimony before a congressional committee, former special counsel Jack Smith presented evidence that he claims proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that President Donald Trump engaged in a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election. This statement was revealed through portions of his opening remarks obtained by NBC News.
During the closed-door hearing with the House Judiciary Committee, Smith also accused Trump of “repeatedly trying to obstruct justice” concerning the retention of classified documents discovered during an FBI search at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Smith emphasized that his investigation uncovered “powerful evidence” indicating that Trump willfully retained highly classified documents after leaving office in January 2021. These documents were reportedly stored at his social club, including in a bathroom and a ballroom frequently used for events.
House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio initiated the subpoena for Smith to testify, part of broader Republican efforts to investigate the conduct of the special counsel's office. Smith’s investigations resulted in two significant indictments against Trump: one related to the classified documents case and another concerning 2020 election interference. Notably, in July 2024, Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case, and another judge followed suit in November 2024, after Trump won re-election, by dismissing the 2020 election case.
Amidst a fresh wave of Republican criticism regarding his investigations, Smith aimed to clarify what his team described as mischaracterizations of the special counsel's work. Although Smith had expressed a desire to testify publicly, House Republicans declined to facilitate this request. Lanny Breuer, Smith’s attorney, defended his client’s actions, stating that Smith is demonstrating “tremendous courage” amid an “unprecedented retribution campaign” against him by the current administration.
Addressing concerns over his team’s decision to obtain and analyze phone records from nine congressional Republicans, Smith asserted that these records were “lawfully subpoenaed” and vital for completing a comprehensive investigation. He reiterated the importance of the events surrounding January 6, describing it as an attack on democracy that saw over 100 law enforcement officers assaulted. Smith noted that over 160 individuals later pled guilty to assaulting police officers during the Capitol riot.
Smith’s report highlighted that Trump “inspired his supporters to commit acts of physical violence” on January 6 and knowingly disseminated “demonstrably and, in many cases, obviously false” claims regarding the election to further his agenda. He clarified that the decision to contact specific members of Congress was made by Trump, stating, “I didn’t choose those Members; President Trump did.”
It is important to note that Smith is not expected to discuss Volume II of his report, which centers on Trump’s handling of classified documents. Following Trump's legal team’s attempts to block its release, Judge Cannon prohibited the dissemination of this report and any related information outside the Justice Department. In a recent legal filing, Trump’s lawyer argued against making Volume II of Smith’s Final Report public.
The Trump administration has been accused of retaliating against Smith’s team by firing career prosecutors associated with the investigation, as well as FBI special agents and support staff. Trump has labeled Smith as “a criminal” who should face investigation and imprisonment.
During his testimony, Smith reiterated his responsibility for the decisions to charge Trump in both the election subversion and classified documents cases. He emphasized that the basis for these charges “rests entirely with President Trump and his actions, as alleged in the indictments returned by grand juries in two different districts.” Reflecting on his career, Smith recalled being taught to pursue the facts and the law “without fear or favor,” vowing to do “the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons.” He concluded by stating that if faced with the same facts today, he would not hesitate to prosecute a former President, regardless of political affiliation.