Former Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith told members of Congress in a closed-door interview that his prosecutorial team developed what he described as “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” to support criminal charges against President Donald Trump, even though the cases were later dropped following Trump’s return to the White House.
According to excerpts of Smith’s remarks obtained by the Associated Press, the former special counsel defended his handling of two high-profile federal investigations involving Trump: one related to efforts to challenge the 2020 presidential election results and another concerning the retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
Closed-Door Testimony Before House Judiciary Committee
Smith appeared Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee in a private session, where he was questioned by lawmakers about the scope and conduct of his investigations.
In his opening statement, Smith said prosecutors concluded they had sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges, asserting that investigators uncovered “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that Trump conspired to overturn the 2020 election. He also said the team gathered what he called “powerful evidence” that Trump unlawfully retained classified materials and obstructed government efforts to retrieve them.
Despite those conclusions, both cases were ultimately abandoned after Trump was elected president, citing long-standing Justice Department opinions that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
Smith Defends Independence and Decision-Making
Smith told lawmakers that political considerations played no role in his decisions, emphasizing that his actions were driven solely by the facts and applicable law.
“I made my decisions in the investigation without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy,” Smith said, according to the excerpts. He added that if presented with the same evidence today, he would again bring charges against a former president “regardless of whether the president was a Republican or Democrat.”
Smith was appointed in 2022 by Attorney General Merrick Garland to oversee both investigations, which quickly became flashpoints in the national debate over prosecutorial power and political neutrality.
Republicans Question Motives and Scope of Investigation
The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), subpoenaed Smith as part of a broader Republican-led inquiry into what GOP lawmakers describe as the politicization of federal law enforcement under the Biden administration.
Republicans have argued that the investigations into Trump represented selective prosecution and set a dangerous precedent for future administrations.
Smith’s attorneys have said he previously offered to testify publicly more than a month before the subpoena was issued, an offer they claim was declined by Republicans. Trump himself had publicly stated that he supported an open hearing.
Subpoenas and January 6 Focus
During the interview, Smith also addressed investigative steps taken by his team, including the subpoenaing of phone records related to the period surrounding January 6, 2021.
Smith told lawmakers the subpoenas were “relevant to complete a comprehensive investigation,” including records tied to calls Trump made urging lawmakers to delay certification of the 2020 election results.
Critics of the investigation argue that such actions raised constitutional and separation-of-powers concerns, while supporters maintain they were necessary to establish a complete factual record.
Cases Dropped, Debate Continues
Although Smith’s team filed charges in both cases, they were dismissed after Trump returned to office, in accordance with Justice Department guidance barring the prosecution of a sitting president.
The testimony has renewed debate over whether the investigations were a legitimate application of the law or an unprecedented use of prosecutorial power against a political rival.
A Defining Moment in the Accountability Debate
Smith’s closed-door remarks underscore the unresolved tension between legal accountability and political reality when it comes to investigating a sitting or former president.
While the cases will not proceed in court, the testimony ensures that questions surrounding the investigations—and their implications for future administrations—will continue to shape national debate over the role of federal prosecutors and the limits of executive power.