‘I don’t regret it’: Jan. 6 prosecutor defends Trump investigations

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith defended his prosecutions against then-former President Donald Trump at an explosive Jan. 22 congressional hearing, saying he would have been able to prove at trial that Trump knew his 2020 election fraud claims were false.

“When people told him things that conflicted with him staying in power, he rejected them, or he chose not even to contact people like that,” Smith testified.

The longtime federal prosecutor, who is now working as a private attorney, also said he was actively considering seeking criminal charges against people beyond Trump at the time the prosecutions ended, soon after Trump won the 2024 presidential election.

The Jan. 22 proceedings, which were called by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R–Ohio, pitted Republican accusations of prosecutorial overreach against Democratic charges that Trump’s allies were misrepresenting the circumstances of the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“It was always about politics,” Jordan said in his opening statement to begin the proceedings. “And to get President Trump they were willing to do just about anything.”

Jordan complained that Smith subpoenaed phone records of congressional Republicans as part of his Jan. 6 investigation. Smith said his team sought Republican records because Trump reached out to them for help in trying to remain in power after the 2020 election. He added that many Republicans withstood that pressure.

“Republicans are trying to rewrite history,” Rep. Joe Neguse, D–Colorado, said later at the hearing. “That’s what this is. Many of them were with us in the House chamber on January 6th.”

Smith brought two federal criminal cases against Trump, one accusing the real estate mogul of unlawfully trying to stay in power after losing the 2020 presidential election and a second alleging Trump mishandled classified documents after leaving office. Smith dropped both cases after Trump won the 2024 election, citing a Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president.

Here are several key moments from the hearing:

Smith says he was considering charging others besides Trump when case closed

Several Republicans questioned Smith about why he only charged Trump when a conspiracy, by the nature of the federal statute, is a corrupt or criminal agreement between at least two people.

“You had civilian witnesses, you had political leaders, you had campaign officials that worked with the President, folks who were in the room. And after all of this, sir, you charged a conspiracy, and … there was only one defendant, correct? Donald Trump?” asked Rep. Brad Knott, R-North Carolina.

“That is correct,” Smith replied.

Knott noted that six co-conspirators were identified in the indictment of Trump.

“Is that correct, despite there being an unprecedented criminal scheme, you did not find it necessary to charge anybody else who was admittedly, by your own evidence, involved in a criminal conspiracy that amounted to an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy?” Knott asked.

“Yes, at the time of the conclusion of our work, my lawyers had determined, had believed that we did have proof to charge other people,” Smith said. “I was in the process of making that determination when our work was concluded.”

“But you are correct,” Smith said, “that the only person charged in this case was Donald Trump, who, in my estimation, was the person most culpable for the crimes charged.”

‘Fantastical’: Smith says Trump knew he lost 2020 election

In response to questions from Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D–California, Smith laid out reasons he believes his prosecution team would have convinced a jury that Trump knew his election fraud claims were false. That determination would have been important to proving Trump was guilty of conspiring to defraud the U.S. government by attempting to overturn the 2020 results, one of the charges he faced in his Jan. 6-related case.

Smith said he had expected to call witnesses who told Trump “things that he did not want to hear,” including Republican Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

In a recorded phone call following the 2020 election, Raffensperger told Trump his election fraud claims were mistaken.

“Mr. President, the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong,” Raffensperger said.

However, Trump insisted Raffensperger needed to “find” the votes necessary to erase then-President-Elect Joe Biden‘s victory in Georgia.

“All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes,” Trump said.

“Jurors tend to believe witnesses like that because they pay a cost for telling the truth,” Smith said.

Smith said Trump’s reaction to Raffensperger was part of a pattern of rejecting information that conflicted with him staying in power, and even avoiding contacting people with that information.

“On the other hand, when individuals would say things that would allow him to stay in power – no matter how fantastical – he would latch on to those,” Smith said.

“That pattern over time we felt was powerful evidence that he, in fact, knew that the fraud claims he was making were false,” he added.

Smith said possible witness tampering justified hiding subpoenas for lawmaker phone records

Republican lawmakers focused during the hearing on Smith subpoenaing the phone records for then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-California, and others without telling them. But Smith said he was worried about witness tampering if word of the subpoenas got out.

The phone records provide numbers for who called or who was called by a lawmaker, the time of the call and how long it lasted. Lawmakers argued the subpoenas violated the Constitution by allowing an executive branch official to interfere with the legislative branch.

“You walked all over the Constitution,” said Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas. “It’s absolutely disgraceful.”

But Smith told Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tennessee, the subpoenas were approved by the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section and by judges.

“I had grave concerns about obstruction of justice in this investigation, specifically with regard to Donald Trump,” Smith said. “There were election workers who had their lives turned upside down and received vile death threats because they were targeted by Donald Trump and his co-conspirators.”

Smith said he had a duty to protect witnesses. The risk was confirmed when Trump “suggested that one witness should be put to death and also issued a statement to the effect of ‘if you come after me I’m coming after you,’” Smith said.

“In my mind, I cannot think of a more direct threat to witnesses and individuals involved in that proceeding,” Smith said. “Given that sort of threats, it was in my view completely appropriate to protect the integrity of the investigation, to protect against destruction of evidence and to protect the witnesses in our case.”

Expletive rings out after Republican blames police for Jan. 6 attack

Rep. Troy Nehls, a Texas Republican, said he wanted to address former police officers who defended the Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack and were sitting in attendance behind Smith at the hearing.

“I can tell you, gentlemen, that the fault does not lie with Donald Trump,” Nehls said. Instead, Nehls blamed the “U.S. Capitol leadership team.”

That prompted a dramatic response from one of the men, former Metropolitan Police Department Officer Michael Fanone, who covered his mouth, made a coughing noise, and loudly used an expletive: “F— yourself.”

Chairman Jordan intervened, saying, “We don’t need that,” and to let the Texas congressman continue.

Smith says Trump ’caused’ Jan. 6 attack and ‘tried to exploit it in furtherance of the conspiracy’

Rep. Eric Swalwell, of California, one of several Democrats on the panel who are former prosecutors, asked Smith a series of rapid-fire questions about what evidence the special counsel’s team had gathered that led to Trump’s indictment.

First, Swallwell castigated the Republicans on the panel for trying to attack Smith.

“You have nothing to be ashamed of. You did everything right, sir,” Swalwell told Smith.

As for the Republicans, Swalwell said, “This is all a show. And Mr. Smith, you’re just the latest act that they brought in. But they can’t erase what happened on January 6, because we saw it with our own eyes.”

“Mr. Smith, after the mainstream media called the race for Biden about a week after the election, did Donald Trump concede the election?” Swalwell asked.

“He did not,” Smith said.

“The next month, the Electoral College met in every state and voted Biden as the winner. Did Donald Trump concede then?” Swalwell asked.

“He did not,” Smith said.

“Shortly after that, the last court case that Donald Trump brought was thrown out. Did he concede then?” Swalwell asked.

“No,” Smith replied.

“Is it your judgment, then, that only Donald Trump could have convened the mob in the size that it was assembled on January 6?” Swalwell asked.

“Our assessment of the evidence is that he is the person most responsible for what happened on January 6,” Smith said. “He caused what happened. It was foreseeable to him, and then when it happened, he tried to exploit it in furtherance of the conspiracy.”

Republicans attack bombshell anecdote about Trump

Republicans attacked a bombshell anecdote about Trump from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson about the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021.

Hutchinson told a Democrat-led House committee in June 2022 that another White House staffer allegedly told her on Jan. 6 that Trump wanted to drive to the Capitol and that he became irate and lunged at the driver of his SUV when his security team refused to take him. She said Tony Ornato, the deputy chief of staff, told her the story while the head of Trump’s Secret Service detail, Bobby Engel, was present and didn’t deny it.

“Mr. Smith, Is Cassidy Hutchinson a liar?” asked Jordan, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Ornato and Engel, who had been in the SUV, each denied the incident happened. Jordan called Hutchinson the “star witness” at a “staged and choreographed hearing.”

Smith said her testimony was second-hand hearsay. He had told lawmakers in a closed-door deposition that if he were a defense attorney in a criminal trial, he would try to have her testimony blocked.

“We interviewed another first-hand witness who was in the car who did not confirm that that happened,” Smith said.

Trump was indicted on charges he conspired to overturn the 2020 election. After the 2024 election Trump won, Smith dropped the charges under longstanding department policy against prosecuting a sitting president.

Jordan asked if Smith considered her as a witness despite what he alleged that “everybody knows she wasn’t telling the truth.”

“I had not made any final determinations,” said Smith, who said prosecutors had numerous other potential witnesses for the trial.

‘I don’t regret it’: Smith on investigating Trump

Lawmakers noted throughout the hearing that Trump had vilified Smith as “a deranged animal” and “crooked and corrupt” for years and as recently as Jan. 22.

But Swalwell quoted former colleagues of Smith calling him “the gold standard” of investigating sophisticated federal matters and “completely apolitical.”

Swalwell asked Smith if he had any regrets about leading the investigation of Trump after being “dragged over political barbed wire” and having his family receive death threats.

“I don’t regret it,” Smith said.

Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-California, who cited what he called reversals and rebukes from the Justice Department and judges, asked Smith whether he believed he made any mistakes in the Trump investigation.

“If I have any regret, it would be not expressing enough appreciation for my staff, who worked so hard on these investigations,” said Smith, who added they had “sacrificed endlessly and endured way too much just doing their jobs.”

Committee may call Smith back for questions about classified documents

The Judiciary Committee hearing ended five hours after it began, but Democrats are eager to call Smith back for another round.

Smith secured two indictments against Trump, one charging he conspired to overturn the 2020 election and the other alleging he unlawfully retained classified documents after leaving office.

But Smith was unable to testify much about the documents case because of a judicial gag order. Rep. Jamie Raskin, of Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee, said U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s order could be lifted in February and he would like to bring Smith back to testify about the documents.

Jordan, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, was incredulous.

“You’re going to call him back again?” Jordan asked. “We’ll take it all under advisement.”

(This story was updated to add a video.)