Jack Smith, in Closed-Door Testimony, Defends Trump Probes and Affirms Evidence of Election Scheme

WASHINGTON — In a tense, closed-door deposition before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, former special counsel Jack Smith delivered a resolute defense of his investigations into President Donald J. Trump, asserting that his team had amassed “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” of a criminal conspiracy to subvert the 2020 election. The session, shrouded in secrecy at the insistence of Republican leaders, underscored the lingering partisan divides over Mr. Trump’s actions and the integrity of federal probes.

Mr. Smith, a veteran prosecutor known for his steely demeanor and marathon-running discipline, appeared voluntarily but under subpoena, marking his first public reckoning with lawmakers since wrapping up his high-profile cases. According to a statement released by his office and corroborated by committee members who attended, he emphasized that the decision to charge Mr. Trump was his alone, rooted not in politics but in the evidence. “Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power,” Mr. Smith stated in his opening remarks, echoing the indictments he had pursued before they were dismissed amid legal challenges and Mr. Trump’s return to the White House.

The testimony came amid heightened scrutiny of the Justice Department’s handling of politically sensitive cases, particularly as Mr. Trump has vowed to overhaul the agency and has already begun appointing allies to key positions. Sources familiar with the session, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss private proceedings, described a charged atmosphere in the mahogany-paneled hearing room on Capitol Hill. Republican questioners, led by Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio, grilled Mr. Smith on potential biases in his team and the timing of the probes, which they have long portrayed as a “witch hunt” orchestrated by the Biden administration. Mr. Smith, undeterred, reportedly countered by highlighting the apolitical nature of his work, drawing on his experience prosecuting cases under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Democrats on the committee, including Ranking Member Jamie Raskin of Maryland, emerged from the hours-long session praising Mr. Smith’s performance as a master class in prosecutorial ethics. “Jack Smith has just spent several hours schooling the Judiciary Committee on the professional responsibilities of a prosecutor,” Mr. Raskin told reporters afterward, his tie slightly loosened in a nod to the marathon grilling. He lambasted the Republicans’ decision to keep the hearing private, suggesting it was a tactical move to shield the public from damning details. “Chairman Jordan made an excellent decision in not allowing Jack Smith to testify publicly because had he done so, it would have been absolutely devastating to the president and all of the president’s men involved in the insurrectionary activities of January the 6th,” Mr. Raskin said, invoking the 2021 Capitol attack that formed the crux of one indictment.

Mr. Smith’s remarks also touched on the classified documents case, where he alleged Mr. Trump willfully retained sensitive materials at his Mar-a-Lago estate, storing them in unsecured locations like a bathroom and ballroom. Insiders noted that Mr. Smith addressed Republican claims of selective prosecution by affirming he would pursue similar charges against any former president, “regardless of whether the president was a Republican or a Democrat.” This stance, while principled, has fueled conservative outrage, with some MAGA-aligned lawmakers accusing him of overreach. Outside the hearing, protesters gathered, waving signs that read “Stop the Deep State” and “Justice for Trump,” reflecting the polarized public sentiment that has only intensified since Mr. Trump’s 2024 reelection.

The deposition’s secrecy has sparked calls for transparency, with Democrats pushing for the release of the full transcript and a second, sealed volume of Mr. Smith’s report on the documents case, currently mired in litigation before Judge Aileen M. Cannon in Florida. Advocacy groups like the American Civil Liberties Union have joined the chorus, arguing that withholding such information erodes public trust in democratic institutions. “The American people deserve to hear directly from Mr. Smith,” said Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU’s executive director, in a statement. “Closed doors only breed suspicion in an already fractured political landscape.”

Beyond the immediate drama, Mr. Smith’s appearance highlights broader tensions in Washington’s power dynamics. As Mr. Trump consolidates control, appointing figures like Pam Bondi as attorney general—critics note her past reluctance to release sensitive files, including those related to Jeffrey Epstein—the fate of independent investigations hangs in the balance. Legal experts suggest that while Mr. Smith’s probes are defunct, his testimony could embolden future whistleblowers or inform ongoing state-level cases against Mr. Trump, such as those in Georgia.

Yet, in a city where scandals often fade into the ether, the session served as a reminder of unresolved questions from January 6. Mr. Smith, who has largely shunned the spotlight since his appointment in 2022, evoked the heroism of law enforcement that day in past public statements, calling them “the very best of us.” Though silenced in public this time, his words leaked through committee channels, reigniting debates that refuse to die. As one Democratic aide put it, off the record: “This isn’t over—it’s just the intermission.”

In the end, Mr. Smith’s bluff-calling moment—refusing to back down amid partisan pressure—may not alter the political trajectory, but it cements his legacy as a bulwark against executive overreach. With the nation watching, the committee’s next moves could determine whether accountability prevails or partisanship prevails once more.