In Hearing Transcript, Jack Smith Defends Decision to Indict Trump

The former special counsel accused President Trump of “exploiting” violence on Jan. 6, 2021, according to an interview released by House Republicans.

Jack Smith, the former special counsel, defended his decision to twice indict President Trump, accusing him of “exploiting” violence on Jan. 6, 2021, to overthrow the 2020 presidential election, according to a transcribed interview released by House Republicans Wednesday.

Mr. Smith, a former prosecutor vilified by Mr. Trump as a partisan, spent much of the eight-hour, closed-door session on Dec. 17 before the House Judiciary Committee rebutting a range of Republican claims, including the accusation that he had improperly obtained metadata on phone calls involving Trump-allied lawmakers.

“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power,” Mr. Smith said, according to the transcript.

In the interview, Mr. Smith sought to undermine the narrative that the president was an innocent figure persecuted by partisans who weaponized federal law enforcement, a core belief among many Trump supporters.

And Mr. Smith appeared intent on making another point: that he was unfazed by Mr. Trump’s vow to prosecute him.

“I am eyes wide open that this president will seek retribution against me if he can,” he said.

Speaking in clipped, cautious tones — at times so quietly he was asked to talk louder — Mr. Smith defended Justice Department and F.B.I. officials who have faced firings, transfers and caustic public criticism from Mr. Trump and his allies. The former special counsel called such attacks “false and misleading.”

Mr. Smith was appointed in late 2022 to oversee the investigations, already begun by the Justice Department, into Mr. Trump’s retention of classified materials in Florida and his push to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Mr. Smith dropped both cases after Mr. Trump was elected to a second term, citing court rulings that prevented prosecution of a sitting president.

Most of the interview centered on the election interference case. A Trump-appointed federal judge in Florida has blocked release of Mr. Smith’s report on the Florida case. As a result, Mr. Smith declined to answer most questions about the documents probe, citing the ruling.

The House Judiciary Committee has already made a criminal referral of one of Mr. Smith’s top deputies, Thomas Windom, to the Justice Department for not fully answering similar questions. Mr. Windom, now Mr. Smith’s law partner, has denied wrongdoing.

The transcript showed that Republicans, acting on Mr. Trump’s demand to pursue those who pursued him, peppered Mr. Smith with detailed questions, apparently in hopes of catching him in a misstep that would justify a prosecution by the Justice Department.

The interview did not yield obvious avenues for a case against Mr. Smith, according to House aides. The special counsel and Democrats have called for public hearings, which appeared likely to take place early in 2026, the aides said.

Republicans spent much of their time in the interview grilling Mr. Smith over the Justice Department’s successful effort to obtain subpoenas to track so-called toll records on phone calls made from the White House and Trump allies to at least nine U.S. senators.

An unidentified staff member working for Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio and the committee’s chairman, asked why Mr. Smith and his team needed the data, and why investigators requested the subpoena be kept secret from the targets. Mr. Jordan followed up by suggesting many of the calls had already been made public in news accounts and previous investigations.

Mr. Smith responded by saying they were needed to establish an indisputable timeline in court and added that none of the lawmakers targeted were the subject of a criminal probe.

As he did repeatedly during the interview, Mr. Smith laid responsibility for the investigation on Mr. Trump and specifically the president’s decision to pressure members of his party to delay or reverse the results of the 2020 election.

“I did not choose those members, President Trump did,” Mr. Smith said.

He accused Trump and allies of “exploiting” the confusion and violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6 to further their “criminal scheme.”

According to the transcript, Mr. Smith pushed back hardest when Republicans suggested Mr. Trump’s public statements after the 2020 election were protected under the First Amendment.

“Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment,” he said in the interview.

Mr. Smith bristled when a Republican staff member, whose name was redacted in the transcript, pressed that point, citing a long list of disputed elections “where candidates believed they were wronged” and made allegations of voter fraud.

“There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case,” Mr. Smith responded.

“He was free to say that he thought he won the election — he was even free to say falsely that he won the election,” Mr. Smith said. “But what he was not free to do was violate federal law and use knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function.”

Related Content