WASHINGTON — Former U.S. special counsel Jack Smith defended his investigations of President Donald Trump during a high-profile Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, saying his decisions were based on evidence rather than politics.
The hearing brought renewed attention to the federal cases Smith led after his appointment by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland in 2022. Those investigations examined efforts to overturn the 2020 election result and the handling of classified documents after Trump left office.
Smith says he stands by the cases
Smith told senators that he continues to stand behind the charging decisions made by his office. He argued that prosecutors followed the facts and would have taken the same approach regardless of the political party of the person under investigation.
He also rejected calls for his own prosecution and said threats from Trump administration allies would not silence him. The former special counsel said the broader dispute raises questions about the independence of federal law enforcement and the rule of law.
Republicans focus on phone-record subpoenas
Republican senators challenged Smith’s methods, particularly subpoenas connected to phone records of Republican lawmakers who communicated with Trump or his associates around January 6, 2021.
Smith has said investigators sought toll records showing details such as the time and duration of calls, not the content of conversations. Republicans argue that the investigation swept too broadly and reflected political bias. Smith and his lawyers dispute that characterization.
Democrats defend the investigation
Democratic senators said the hearing should not obscure the events surrounding the effort to stop certification of the 2020 election. They argued that prosecutors had a responsibility to investigate possible crimes connected to the transfer of presidential power.
The partisan divide was clear: Republicans portrayed Smith’s work as government overreach, while Democrats described the criticism as an attempt to rewrite the history of the Capitol attack and the events that preceded it.
Why the hearing matters
Smith ended both federal cases after Trump won the 2024 election, citing the Justice Department’s longstanding view that a sitting president cannot be federally prosecuted. The cases may be closed, but the political and institutional questions surrounding them remain active.
The testimony is likely to shape continuing debate over prosecutorial independence, congressional oversight and whether former government officials should face consequences for decisions made in politically sensitive investigations.
Source: Reporting by the Associated Press. Read the original AP report.
WASHINGTON — Former U.S. special counsel Jack Smith defended his investigations of President Donald Trump during a high-profile Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, saying his decisions were based on evidence rather than politics.
The hearing renewed attention on the federal cases Smith led after his appointment in 2022. Those investigations examined efforts to overturn the 2020 election result and the handling of classified documents after Trump left office.
Smith stands by the cases
Smith told senators that he continues to stand behind the charging decisions made by his office. He argued that prosecutors followed the facts and would have taken the same approach regardless of the political party of the person under investigation.
He also rejected calls for his own prosecution and said threats from Trump administration allies would not silence him. Smith said the dispute raises broader questions about the independence of federal law enforcement and the rule of law.
Republicans question subpoenas
Republican senators challenged Smith’s methods, particularly subpoenas connected to phone records of lawmakers who communicated with Trump or his associates around January 6, 2021.
Smith has said investigators sought toll records showing details such as the time and duration of calls, not the content of conversations. Republicans argue that the investigation swept too broadly and reflected political bias. Smith and his lawyers dispute that characterization.
Democrats defend the investigation
Democratic senators said prosecutors had a responsibility to investigate possible crimes connected to the transfer of presidential power. The partisan divide was clear: Republicans portrayed Smith’s work as government overreach, while Democrats said the criticism obscured the events surrounding the Capitol attack.
Why it matters
Smith ended both federal cases after Trump won the 2024 election, citing the Justice Department’s longstanding view that a sitting president cannot be federally prosecuted. The legal cases may be closed, but the institutional questions remain active.
The testimony is likely to shape continuing debate over prosecutorial independence, congressional oversight and accountability in politically sensitive investigations.
Source: Associated Press. Read the original AP report.