Former Special Counsel Jack Smith testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday to field questions about his lawfare against President Donald Trump and egregious investigative tactics. And boy was it a doozy.
Throughout the more-than-5-hour hearing, Republicans pressed Smith on numerous topics, ranging from his questionable appointment to his subpoenaing the phone records of GOP members of Congress as part of his Arctic Frost probe into Trump. For their part, Democrats did everything imaginable to run interference for Smith and obfuscate his abusive investigations.
In case you missed it, here are the key moments from the hearing.
Smith’s Appointment
Was Smith legitimately sworn in as special counsel before he brought indictments against Trump?
That’s the key question Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, attempted to get an answer to during his questioning of Smith.
The congressman noted how Smith was seemingly “sworn in” twice — once in November 2022 and again in September 2023. He specifically asked Smith about his first “swearing in” in 2023, and interestingly, the witness couldn’t recall key details of the alleged event.
“Uh, I don’t recall the specifics of it. I know I was sworn in [but] I don’t recall the specifics of how that was done,” Smith said, later adding that he doesn’t recall who swore him in or anyone explaining to him why he was sworn in again nearly a year later.
“You signed it on … November 2022, but there was no witness. Which, I mean, you have to agree, it’s a little odd, if there’s no witness saying that you took the oath of office, [and] it would maybe make someone like me question whether or not you were legitimately doing the job until you finally took the oath of office,” Gooden said. “It sounds like [Attorney General Merrick Garland] had the same question and thought, ‘Oh sh-t, we gotta have him sign this on the 14th day of September of the following year.’”
As independent reporter Julie Kelly observed, “Smith had already brought 3 criminal indictments against [Trump] BEFORE Sept 2023 (a superseding indictment in [his classified documents] case) and signed his name as Special Counsel.”
Confidential Human Sources
Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, directed his questioning toward Smith and Co.’s use of $35 million in taxpayer dollars to target Trump in their lawfare against the then-former president. He specifically homed in on the special counsel’s payment of $20,000 to a confidential human source (CHS), and asked Smith, “How much of that $35 million of taxpayer money did you give to confidential human sources?”
Following a prolonged moment of silence from Smith, Jordan referenced the $20,000 payment and once again asked, “How much more money did you pay confidential people — people we don’t know about — with American tax money, going after the guy we elected president?”
Smith confirmed that he “approved” the $20,000 payment from the FBI to the CHS but said he didn’t know the identity of the individual. He further claimed uncertainty about whether additional payments were made to that same CHS or other sources.
The congressman later probed Smith on why his office didn’t simply contract with the source — who was supposedly used to review video evidence — as opposed to making hidden payments to a CHS.
Alternate Electors
One of the bigger false narratives central to Smith’s anti-Trump lawfare (and spread by Democrats) is that the naming of alternate electors in states like Georgia in the 2020 election constituted a “fake electors scheme.”
But as The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland has pointed out, that characterization is simply not accurate. In fact, the naming of Trump electors in contested states during 2020 mirrors what happened in Hawaii during the 1960 election that pitted John F. Kennedy against Richard Nixon.
Rep. Tom Tiffany, R-Wis., raised this point during Thursday’s hearing. The congressman asked Smith if the alternate elector situation of 2020 had happened before. Smith acknowledged it did in the 1960 contest, though he claimed it was “not anything similar to” the 2020 case.
“Actually, there’s twice that it happened. … It happened in 1876 and 1960 that these alternate electors happened,” Tiffany said, before asking that the 1960 Hawaii case be introduced into the congressional record.
Swalwell Simps for Smith
The comedic relief portion of Thursday’s hearing was hands down the speaking time given to Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif. As if getting used and abused by a Chinese spy wasn’t debasing enough, the California congressman took it a step further by giving a proverbial tongue bath to Smith, telling Smith he “did everything right.”
“Mr. Smith, I don’t know if I’ll ever have the honor to talk to you again. If I don’t, please know that I and my colleagues on the Democratic side — and even my Republican colleagues when they speak privately — have nothing but respect and appreciation for what you tried to do and how you did it,” Swalwell fawned. “You, unlike many here, are a man of honor.”
‘Finding’ 11,000 Votes in Georgia
One of the biggest lies parroted about Trump’s contesting of the 2020 election has to do with an infamous phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger, in which the president expressed his desire to “find” more than 11,000 votes to overcome Joe Biden’s margin of victory in the state.
As The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland previously explained, “Not once during their conversation did Trump ask Raffensperger ‘“to find 11,780 votes” in the former President’s favor.’ Rather, Trump spoke of his own desire ‘to find 11,780 votes,’ and did so in the context of highlighting the tens of thousands of illegal votes for which his legal team had ample evidence and they asked merely that the secretary of state review their evidence of illegal voting.”
These facts appeared to matter little to Rep. Lucy McBath, D-Ga., who attempted to frame the call as an attempt by Trump to “prey[] on” Republican officials like Raffensperger and use them as potential allies in what she characterized as a “criminal scheme” designed to “overturn the 2020 election.”
Gill’s Grilling
Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, conducted an extensive grilling of Smith related to his subpoenaing the phone records of GOP members of Congress. The Texas Republican further underscored how Smith and Co. sought to keep knowledge of these subpoenas from these members and how such conduct violated their constitutional rights.
Roy Reveals He Was Targeted by Smith
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, may not have been the first Republican to probe Smith about his special counsel’s office subpoenaing the phone records of GOP congressional members during Thursday’s hearing. But the news he revealed when doing so was nothing short of explosive.
The Texas congressman revealed that he found out a few weeks prior that Smith’s team had subpoenaed his phone records as part of the Arctic Frost inquiry.
“We called AT&T, and we’ve learned that they were given to the Department of Justice, as this email indicates, because I had been in communication with Scott Perry, one of my colleagues here in Congress, who literally had his phone taken from him in front of his family,” Roy said.
Roy later went on to blast Smith for targeting conservative groups and individuals like the Conservative Partnership Institute and its affiliates (such as Cleta Mitchell) in his Arctic Frost probe.
Democrat Telegraphs Future Lawfare Against Trump
Democrats have made little secret about their desire to see President Trump behind bars. So, it wasn’t a total surprise when Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga. — who once expressed concerns that the island of Guam would “capsize” if too many people were on it — telegraphed that Democrats plan to “resurrect” their lawfare against the president once he leaves office.
“Those indictments [against Trump] have been dismissed. Can they be re-brought or resurrected … after … Trump leaves office?” Johnson asked Smith.
“They were dismissed without prejudice,” Smith replied, to which Johnson again asked, “So, they can be refiled and he can be prosecuted after he leaves office, is that correct?
Smith declined to “speak to that” and instead said that he can “only speak to what we did, which was dismiss the case without prejudice.”
Jordan Eviscerates Key J6 Witness
Jordan also took the time to lay out the discredited testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson, one of Democrats’ star witnesses on their Jan. 6 Committee, who spread falsehoods about Trump’s actions on Jan. 6. He further grilled Smith on Hutchinson’s lack of credibility and his use of her as some sort of credible witness.
“You didn’t rule out using her … putting her on the witness stand, when everybody knows she wasn’t telling the truth. That says it all,” Jordan said. “That’s the degree the left and Democrats were willing to go to get President Trump.”
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He is a co-recipient of the 2025 Dao Prize for Excellence in Investigative Journalism. His work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics and RealClearHealth. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
