WASHINGTON — Former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith told lawmakers in closed-door testimony Wednesday that his investigative team “developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that President Donald Trump criminally conspired to overturn the 2020 election results, according to portions of his opening statement obtained by the Associated Press.
Smith also said investigators accumulated “powerful evidence” that Trump violated the law by hoarding classified documents from his first presidential term at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, and by obstructing government efforts to retrieve the records.
“I made my decisions in the investigation without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 election,” Smith said in his statement. “We took actions based on what the facts and the law required — the very lesson I learned early in my career as a prosecutor.”
He stated that if asked whether he would “prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether the president was a Republican or Democrat.”
The deposition before the House Judiciary Committee provided lawmakers from both parties their first opportunity, though in private, to question Smith about investigations into Trump that produced criminal charges subsequently abandoned between the Republican president’s first and second terms. The Republican-led committee subpoenaed Smith this month to provide testimony and documents as part of a GOP investigation into the Trump inquiries conducted during Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration.
Smith cooperated with the congressional demand, the Associated Press reported, though his attorneys noted he had volunteered more than a month before the subpoena to answer questions publicly before the committee—an overture they said Republicans rebuffed. Trump had told reporters he supported an open hearing.
“Testifying before this committee, Jack is showing tremendous courage in light of the remarkable and unprecedented retribution campaign against him by this administration and this White House,” Smith’s lawyer Lanny Breuer told reporters. “Let’s be clear: Jack Smith, a career prosecutor, conducted this investigation based on the facts and based on the law and nothing more.”
Smith received appointment in 2022 to oversee Justice Department investigations into Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden and Trump’s retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Smith’s team filed charges in both cases but abandoned them after Trump won election to the White House last year, citing Justice Department legal opinions stating a sitting president cannot be indicted.
Multiple prior Justice Department special counsels, including Robert Mueller, have testified publicly, but Smith was summoned for only a private interview. Several Democrats emerging from Smith’s testimony said they understood why Republicans avoided an open hearing based on what they characterized as damaging testimony about Trump.
Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the committee’s top Democrat, said the Republican majority “made an excellent decision” in blocking public testimony “because had he done so, it would have been absolutely devastating to the president and all the president’s men involved in the insurrectionary activities” of the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot.
“Jack Smith has just spent several hours schooling the Judiciary Committee on the professional responsibilities of a prosecutor and the ethical duties of a prosecutor,” Raskin said, Reuters reported.
Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington said Smith told lawmakers that Trump’s conduct seeking to overturn the 2020 election, culminating in the Capitol attack, could have been “catastrophic” for American democracy.
Democrats are demanding Smith’s testimony be released publicly along with his complete investigation report. “The American people should hear for themselves,” said Representative Dan Goldman, D-N.Y.
Committee chairman Republican Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio told reporters, “I think we’ve learned some interesting things.” He declined to discuss testimony details but reiterated his position about the investigations. “It’s political,” he said.
Smith’s testimony unfolded against the backdrop of a broader Trump administration retribution campaign against former officials involved in investigating Trump and his associates. The Office of Special Counsel, an independent political watchdog, announced in August it was investigating Smith, and the White House issued a presidential memorandum this year aimed at suspending security clearances of attorneys at the law firm that provided legal services to Smith.
The deposition also occurs as congressional Republicans, aided by current FBI leadership, work to discredit Trump investigations through releasing emails and other documents from the probes.
In recent weeks Republicans have seized on revelations that Smith’s team analyzed phone records of select GOP lawmakers from on and around the Capitol siege, when pro-Trump rioters stormed the building attempting to halt certification of Trump’s election loss to Biden.
The phone records reviewed by prosecutors included details only about incoming and outgoing numbers and call length, not conversation contents. Smith’s attorneys said Republicans have mischaracterized the phone record analysis and implied something sinister about a routine investigative tactic.
Republican lawmakers expressed outrage at Justice Department disclosures that investigators sought information from conservative organizations as part of the probe into Trump’s election overturn efforts and obtained limited cellphone data from eight Republican senators during the period around the January 6 attack.
Trump allies pointed to those disclosures as evidence Smith’s probe was overzealous and targeted political opposition.
Smith told lawmakers his prosecutors followed Justice Department policy and were not influenced by politics. He said in his opening statement that the records were “relevant to complete a comprehensive investigation.”
“President Trump and his associates tried to call Members of Congress in furtherance of their criminal scheme, urging them to further delay certification of the 2020 election,” Smith said. “I didn’t choose those Members; President Trump did.”
On Tuesday, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released internal FBI emails preceding the August 2022 Mar-a-Lago search. One email written weeks before the search showed an agent stating the FBI’s Washington field office did not believe probable cause existed to search the property.
Republicans who promoted the emails as proof the Biden Justice Department targeted Trump omitted that agents who later searched the property reported finding boxes of classified, even top-secret, documents. Additionally, the then-head of the Washington field office testified to lawmakers that by the search date, the FBI believed probable cause existed.
Smith’s assertion of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”—the highest standard of evidence required for criminal conviction—carries significant weight coming from a veteran prosecutor. This standard requires evidence so convincing that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely upon it in making important decisions, far exceeding the “probable cause” needed merely to file charges.
The closed-door nature of the testimony creates a stark contrast with historical precedent. Robert Mueller’s 2019 public testimony about Russian interference in the 2016 election allowed Americans to hear directly from the special counsel, however halting his performance may have been. Restricting Smith to private testimony prevents public assessment of his credibility and the strength of evidence he describes.
The Republican decision to keep Smith’s testimony private, despite Trump’s stated support for an open hearing, suggests GOP lawmakers feared the political fallout from his public statements. Democratic characterizations of his testimony as “absolutely devastating” and capable of “schooling” the committee on prosecutorial ethics indicate Smith mounted a vigorous defense of his investigative decisions.
The revelation that Smith’s team analyzed congressional phone records during periods when Trump and associates were allegedly attempting to pressure lawmakers to delay election certification highlights investigative thoroughness but also provides ammunition for critics portraying the probe as politically motivated persecution of Republicans.
Smith’s statement that “I didn’t choose those Members; President Trump did” by attempting to contact them represents a direct rebuttal to claims of political targeting. This argument asserts that investigators followed evidence wherever Trump’s conduct led them, rather than selecting Republican targets arbitrarily.
The Trump administration’s retribution campaign against Smith personally—including security clearance suspensions for his former legal team and investigations by government watchdogs—illustrates the extraordinary nature of a former prosecutor facing governmental retaliation for performing official duties during a previous administration.
The abandoned prosecutions, dropped due to Justice Department policy against indicting sitting presidents rather than evidentiary weaknesses, leave a permanent cloud over Trump’s conduct. Smith’s testimony that evidence exceeded the “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” standard suggests he believes juries would have convicted Trump had cases proceeded to trial.
For Trump, Smith’s congressional testimony represents another chapter in efforts by political adversaries to undermine his presidency through allegations about past conduct. For Smith’s defenders, his willingness to testify despite facing retribution demonstrates integrity and commitment to accountability.
The dispute over making testimony public reflects broader partisan divisions about transparency. Democrats argue Americans deserve to hear evidence about alleged presidential criminality, while Republicans contend the investigations represented partisan witch hunts unworthy of additional platforms.
As the testimony remains sealed pending potential release decisions, Smith’s characterization of the evidence—”proof beyond a reasonable doubt” of criminal conspiracy and “powerful evidence” of classified document violations—stands as the most definitive public statement yet from the prosecutor who investigated Trump most thoroughly during the Biden administration.
AP/Reuters
