WASHINGTON — In a closed-door session that is already reverberating across Capitol Hill, former Special Counsel Jack Smith delivered testimony to a GOP-led House committee that sharply undercut Donald Trump’s long-standing claim that the federal cases against him were a “political witch hunt.”

According to multiple sources familiar with the proceedings, Smith did not invoke the Fifth Amendment and did not equivocate. Instead, he stood by the conclusions of his investigation and the findings detailed in his final report, emphasizing that the cases against Donald Trump were built on evidence, not politics. “The basis for those charges rests entirely with President Trump and his actions,” Smith said in an opening statement reviewed by lawmakers.

Smith told the committee that his team had assembled proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” in two landmark prosecutions: the January 6 election-interference case and the classified documents case. He stressed that both matters were trial-ready, with witnesses, documents, and testimony prepared for presentation to a jury. The investigations, Smith said, did not falter due to weak evidence or legal missteps; they were halted by a long-standing Department of Justice policy that bars the prosecution of a sitting president.

That distinction has become central to the political and legal debate surrounding Trump’s return to office. Smith reportedly told lawmakers that, had Trump not won reelection, the cases would likely have proceeded to trial and resulted in convictions. Legal experts cited in the report agree that the charges—obstruction of justice, conspiracy against voting rights, and mishandling of classified information—typically carry significant prison sentences upon conviction.

“The takeaway is stark,” said one former federal prosecutor who reviewed Smith’s conclusions. “This wasn’t a defendant clearing his name in court. This was a defendant who never reached a jury because the rules changed once he returned to power.”

The testimony has already intensified partisan tensions. Republicans on the committee pressed Smith on prosecutorial discretion and timing, arguing that the investigations unfairly targeted a political opponent. Democrats, meanwhile, pointed to Smith’s remarks as confirmation that the justice system was interrupted, not vindicated. Several lawmakers said privately that Smith’s account reframes the narrative from one of legal failure to one of constitutional constraint.

Outside Washington, reaction was swift. Trump allies dismissed the testimony as sour grapes from a former prosecutor and reiterated that voters—not courts—had rendered the final verdict. Trump himself has repeatedly argued that his reelection proved the cases were baseless. Smith’s testimony directly challenged that claim, asserting that electoral success does not negate evidence of criminal conduct.

Constitutional scholars say the episode exposes a structural tension in American governance. DOJ policy aims to protect the presidency from incapacitation, yet it can also delay accountability. “What Smith is describing is a pause, not an exoneration,” said one professor. “The evidence doesn’t disappear because a defendant wins an election.”

As lawmakers digest the closed-door testimony, its implications loom large. Smith’s message was blunt: Trump did not defeat the cases on their merits. The investigations were ready for trial, conviction was likely, and only the mechanics of presidential power diverted the path from courtroom to jury box. Whether that reality reshapes public understanding—or future policy—now rests with Congress and the electorate.