Jack Smith Defends His Trump Investigations in Closed-Door Congressional Testimony

WASHINGTON — Jack Smith, the former special counsel who led the federal prosecutions of President Trump that were ultimately abandoned after his 2024 reelection, appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday for a lengthy closed-door deposition. In his opening statement, portions of which were obtained by multiple news organizations, Mr. Smith vigorously defended his work, asserting that his team had developed “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that Mr. Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results.

“The decision to bring charges against President Trump was mine,” Mr. Smith told lawmakers, according to excerpts of his remarks. “But the basis for those charges rests entirely with President Trump and his actions, as alleged in the indictments returned by grand juries in two different districts.”

Mr. Smith’s testimony, which lasted more than eight hours with breaks, came amid an intensifying Republican-led inquiry into what G.O.P. lawmakers have characterized as politically motivated investigations conducted during the Biden administration. The former special counsel, a veteran prosecutor with experience in public corruption and international war crimes cases, emphasized that his decisions were guided solely by facts and law, without regard to Mr. Trump’s “political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election.”

The deposition was subpoenaed by Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as part of a broader congressional effort to examine the Justice Department’s handling of the Trump probes. Republicans have seized on recent disclosures that Mr. Smith’s team obtained phone metadata records from several Republican lawmakers in connection with the investigation into efforts to subvert the 2020 election certification. Those records, which included only call logs and not content, have fueled accusations of overreach.

Mr. Smith addressed such criticisms indirectly in his prepared remarks, noting that investigative steps, including subpoenas, were necessary to build a comprehensive case. He reiterated that he would make the same prosecutorial choices today “based on the same facts,” regardless of whether the subject was a Republican or Democrat.

Democrats on the committee emerged from the session praising Mr. Smith’s demeanor and responses. Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the panel’s ranking Democrat, described the testimony as a thorough exposition on prosecutorial ethics. “Jack Smith has just spent several hours schooling the Judiciary Committee on the professional responsibilities of a prosecutor,” Mr. Raskin told reporters outside the hearing room.

Several Democrats argued that the session should have been public, suggesting that Mr. Smith’s account would have provided valuable context to the American people about the abandoned cases. One lawmaker, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Republicans appeared wary of allowing Mr. Smith an open platform, where he might detail evidence that could prove politically damaging to the president.

The White House dismissed Mr. Smith’s appearance as part of a “retribution campaign” narrative pushed by his defenders. A spokesperson called him a “lying hack” who had sought to weaponize the Justice Department against Mr. Trump.

Mr. Smith was appointed special counsel in November 2022 by Attorney General Merrick Garland to insulate the investigations from political influence after Mr. Trump announced his candidacy for president. The probes resulted in indictments on charges related to the retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and efforts to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power following the 2020 election, including the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Both cases were dropped after Mr. Trump’s victory in 2024, in accordance with longstanding Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president. The classified documents case in Florida had previously been dismissed by a federal judge on grounds related to the special counsel’s appointment, a ruling that was under appeal when the election intervened.

Mr. Smith’s lawyers had requested a public hearing, arguing that it would allow him to correct what they described as mischaracterizations of his work. That request was denied, though his legal team later renewed calls for the full transcript and video of the deposition to be released.

The testimony underscores the lingering tensions over the Trump investigations as the new administration pursues its own priorities, including scrutiny of former officials involved in those cases. Republicans have referred at least one member of Mr. Smith’s team for potential prosecution on obstruction charges, while Democrats have pushed for greater transparency into the evidence that underpinned the indictments.

As Congress continues its oversight, Mr. Smith’s appearance serves as a rare direct defense from the prosecutor who came closest to bringing a former president to trial on federal criminal charges. While the cases themselves are closed, the debate over their legitimacy shows no signs of abating, reflecting deeper divisions over accountability, presidential power and the role of the Justice Department in politically sensitive matters.