Jack Smith walked into the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday with a blunt message about his former investigation of Donald Trump: He still stands by it.
The former special counsel told senators that his team developed evidence that, in his assessment, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump had engaged in serious criminal conduct.
“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in serious crimes against our nation,” Smith said in his opening remarks. “If asked whether to prosecute a former president today based on the same facts, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Republican or a Democrat.”
That is a remarkable statement from the prosecutor who brought two federal cases against Trump — one involving his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and another involving his retention of classified documents after leaving office.
And Smith wasn’t backing away from either one.
Smith told the committee that the charges against Trump were driven by the evidence gathered during his investigations, not Trump’s political affiliation.
“The charges against President Trump were the result of the evidence,” Smith said.
He pointed to the two indictments returned by grand juries in separate federal districts, arguing that the evidence supported allegations that Trump pursued a criminal scheme to overturn his 2020 election defeat and prevent the lawful transfer of power.
Smith also defended the classified-documents investigation, saying Trump retained highly sensitive national-security information after leaving the White House and repeatedly attempted to obstruct efforts to recover it.
Some of the documents, Smith said, were stored in areas of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property where events and gatherings took place.
The cases never reached trial. The classified-documents prosecution was dismissed after Trump returned to the presidency, while the election case was also ultimately abandoned after the 2024 election.
But Smith’s position has remained unchanged: Had the same evidence been presented to him today, he said, he would prosecute again.
And he said he would have made that decision regardless of whether the defendant was a Republican or a Democrat.
Republicans came for Smith
Tuesday’s hearing was not exactly a friendly reunion.
The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was formally billed as an examination of Smith’s authority and the alleged targeting of Republicans, reflecting the broader Republican effort to scrutinize the investigations themselves.
Republican senators accused Smith and his team of misconduct and political bias. Smith rejected those allegations and defended the investigative decisions made by his office.
At one point, Sen. Eric Schmitt attempted to challenge Smith over an alleged meeting connected to an Atlanta basketball game. Smith disputed the allegation, saying the senator had the facts wrong.
Smith also addressed the broader question hanging over the hearing: whether he would be intimidated by the possibility of prosecution by the Trump administration.
His answer was essentially no.
“I will not be silenced,” Smith said, reiterating that he stands by the decisions he made as special counsel.
This wasn’t the first time Smith has made the “beyond a reasonable doubt” claim.
He previously gave extensive testimony to Congress defending his investigations and said his team had developed evidence sufficient to establish criminal conduct by Trump. He had also sought a public appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee for months.
This time, however, Smith made the argument publicly before senators — with the cameras rolling and the political stakes considerably higher.
The hearing comes as Republicans continue to scrutinize the Trump investigations while Smith maintains that the cases were based on evidence, not politics.
Whatever one thinks of the prosecutions, Smith’s position is unmistakable.
He believes the evidence crossed the highest criminal standard prosecutors face.
And more than a year after Trump returned to the White House, the former special counsel is still willing to say it under oath.
