In Closed-Door Testimony, Jack Smith Details Evidence Against Trump, Sparking Partisan Firestorm
WASHINGTON — In a marathon eight-hour session behind closed doors on Wednesday, former special counsel Jack Smith delivered a methodical defense of his investigations into President Donald J. Trump, asserting that his team had amassed “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” of criminal conduct in efforts to overturn the 2020 election and mishandle classified documents. The testimony, before the House Judiciary Committee led by Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, unfolded in an atmosphere thick with tension, as lawmakers grilled Mr. Smith on allegations of political bias while he steadfastly maintained the integrity of his work.
According to multiple sources familiar with the proceedings, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the hearing was not public, Mr. Smith opened with a precise statement that echoed his earlier public filings. He described the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol as “an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy,” fueled by lies propagated by Mr. Trump to obstruct the certification of electoral results. He detailed evidence of Mr. Trump’s frantic communications with members of Congress during the riot, urging delays in the certification process even as violence erupted. Phone records, not speculation or wiretaps, formed the backbone of this proof, Mr. Smith emphasized, painting a picture of a coordinated scheme rather than isolated chaos.
Emotions ran high in the room, insiders said. Mr. Smith, known for his unflappable demeanor, remained composed, choosing words with the precision of a seasoned prosecutor. “He didn’t raise his voice once,” one attendee recounted. “It was like watching a surgeon at work — clinical, but devastating.” In contrast, Republican lawmakers appeared frustrated, their questions veering into accusations of partisanship. Mr. Jordan pressed on whether politics influenced charging decisions. Mr. Smith rebuffed these claims, insisting he would have pursued the same course against any individual, regardless of party affiliation. “Politics plays no role in my decisions,” he reportedly stated, underscoring that his team followed “facts and the law” alone.
The hearing also revisited the classified documents case, where Mr. Smith highlighted Mr. Trump’s willful retention of sensitive materials at his Mar-a-Lago estate, stored insecurely in areas like a bathroom and ballroom accessible during events. This revelation reportedly left the room in stunned silence, as Mr. Smith contrasted it with Mr. Trump’s public criticisms of similar mishandlings by others, including President Biden. The evidence, he said, met the high bar of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” far exceeding the probable cause needed for indictment.
Outside the Capitol, President Trump’s reaction was swift and furious. From his perch on Truth Social and in statements to aides, he unleashed a barrage of denunciations, branding the session a “witch hunt” orchestrated by “radical left Democrats” and demanding accountability for Mr. Smith. Sources close to the president described him as seething, pacing in the Oval Office while railing against what he called a “deep state” conspiracy. “This is election interference all over again,” Mr. Trump posted, echoing themes from his 2024 campaign. His allies in Congress amplified the outrage, with some privately admitting the testimony undercut their narrative of prosecutorial overreach.
The closed-door format, insisted upon by Republicans to avoid “sound bites,” backfired as leaks emerged, fueling public debate. On Thursday, Mr. Smith’s legal team formally requested an open hearing from Mr. Jordan, arguing for transparency in light of the committee’s scrutiny. Democrats seized on this, accusing Republicans of hypocrisy. “If they’re so confident in their case, why hide it?” said Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland.
Social media erupted with reactions, from supporters hailing Mr. Smith as a “hero prosecutor” to critics decrying a partisan vendetta. Memes depicting Mr. Trump “melting down” proliferated, while calls for releasing the full transcript gained traction. Insiders revealed that during breaks, Mr. Smith consulted notes meticulously, his face betraying quiet determination amid the barrage.
This episode underscores the lingering shadows of Mr. Trump’s legal battles, even as he begins his second term. With cases dismissed post-election under Justice Department policy, the testimony serves as a historical record, potentially influencing public perception and future accountability efforts. As one former prosecutor noted, “Facts have a way of outlasting spin.” Yet in a polarized Washington, the divide only deepens, with Mr. Trump’s fury signaling no end to the acrimony.
