Jack Smith’s Problem ‘Is That His Own Record Is the Case Against Him’: Turley [WATCH]

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on January 22, 2026, in a public hearing to address his now-concluded investigations into President Donald Trump.

The session covered two federal cases: one involving Trump’s handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and the other related to efforts to challenge the 2020 election results, including events surrounding January 6, 2021.

The hearing, held in the Rayburn House Office Building, featured sharp exchanges between committee members.

Warning: Account balances and purchasing power no longer tell the same story. Know in 2 minutes if your retirement is working for you.

Republicans, including Chairman Jim Jordan, questioned Smith about what they described as overreach in the prosecutions and potential political motivations behind the timing and scope of the cases.

Democrats defended Smith’s work, emphasizing the evidence gathered and offering support for his approach to the investigations.

Smith defended his handling of both matters, stating that the cases were driven by evidence rather than partisan considerations.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

He told the committee that his team had developed “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” in both prosecutions and that he stood by the decisions to bring charges.

In his prepared remarks and responses, Smith stressed that no individual, including a former president, should be above the law.

He said the January 6-related case involved a “criminal scheme” to overturn the 2020 election outcome, with actions taken for Trump’s benefit that contributed to the Capitol attack.

The investigations ended without trials on the merits.

The classified documents case was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who ruled that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unlawful.

Smith dropped the election interference case following Trump’s reelection in November 2024, citing longstanding Department of Justice policy against prosecuting a sitting president.

Much of the committee’s focus turned to criticisms of Smith’s prosecutorial decisions, particularly actions taken in the months leading up to the 2024 election.

Republicans highlighted a filing Smith submitted in October 2024, after the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling on presidential immunity.

That brief, filed in the election case before Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., drew accusations that it violated informal DOJ guidelines against actions that could influence an election within 60 days of voting.

Legal commentator Elie Honig, appearing on CNN, noted that Smith’s move in October 2024 appeared to depart from the cardinal rule in federal prosecutions of avoiding steps that could affect an election.

Honig described it as a significant departure from department norms, suggesting a willingness to prioritize results over established protocols.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, speaking on Fox News, echoed similar points about Smith’s track record.

Turley said, “The problem with Smith is that his own record is the case against him.”

He referenced instances where Smith’s legal arguments had faced setbacks, including a unanimous appellate decision against one of his prominent cases.

Turley added, “The undoing of Jack Smith has always been his appetite. He has a serious problem with limitations and they undermine his case.”

During the hearing, Smith responded to questions about stretching legal interpretations by affirming his respect for the law, though critics on the committee pointed to prior reversals and procedural rulings as evidence of aggressive tactics.

The session lasted several hours and included discussion of witness testimony from the investigations, such as accounts related to January 6 events.

Republicans pressed Smith on specific elements, including prior congressional testimony from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson regarding Trump’s actions that day, which some witnesses later disputed.

Smith maintained that his work followed the facts and evidence developed through grand juries and investigative steps.

He emphasized that the cases proceeded independently of political calendars, though the timing of certain filings remained a point of contention.

The hearing provided the first public congressional testimony from Smith on these matters, following a closed-door deposition in December 2025.

President Trump commented on the proceedings via social media, calling for Smith to face prosecution, though no such action has been initiated.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.