Jack Smith says there is “no historical analogy” for Trump’s actions surrounding the 2020 election, denies political influence

Former special counsel Jack Smith defended his decision to bring charges against President Donald Trump twice, telling lawmakers in a closed-door statement earlier this month that his team “had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in both cases” that Trump was guilty as charged in the 2020 election interference and classified documents cases.

And Smith fervently denied that there was any political influence behind his decision – contrary to what Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, who requested the testimony, alleged – such as pressure from then-President Joe Biden or Attorney General Merrick Garland.

“No,” Smith replied continually.

Just over an hour before closed-door testimony on Dec. 17, the Justice Department sent an email to Smith’s lawyers preventing him from discussing the classified documents case, according to the 255-page transcript of the deposition, released Wednesday by the Judiciary Committee along with a video of the hearing.

This meant Smith was unable to answer most questions about that case and the deposition, intended to ask questions about the Justice Department’s alleged weaponization against Trump and his allies, focused primarily on the 2020 election case.

Smith’s attorney said the Justice Department also declined to send a lawyer to advise Smith on whether his statements were consistent with its determination of what he could or could not say about the cases, according to the statement. Smith said, however, that Trump “obstructed” the investigation into classified documents “to conceal his continued withholding of those documents.”

Trump repeatedly denied the allegations in both cases of serious crimes, which were unprecedented against a US president, and denounced them as part of a “witch hunt.” Smith, one of Trump’s frequent targets on social media, eventually dropped the cases after Trump’s re-election because he said he was constitutionally prohibited from prosecuting a sitting president.

Smith stated in his final report that “except for Mr. Trump’s election and his imminent return to the presidency, the Bureau assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”

During the deposition, Smith argued, as he had in the past, that Trump “President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and prevent the lawful transfer of power.”

Asked if Trump was responsible for the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, Smith said, “Our view on the evidence was that he caused it and exploited it and that it was foreseeable to him.”

Smith argued that Trump’s claims that he won the 2020 election did not protect free speech because they were intended to target a government function.

“There is no historical analogy for what President Trump did in this case. As we said in the impeachment, he was free to say that he thought he had won the election. He was even free to falsely say that he had won the election,” Smith said. “But what he wasn’t free to do was violate federal law and use deliberately false claims about election fraud to attack a lawful government function. That’s what he wasn’t allowed to do. And that sets this case apart from any past story.”

And Smith said Trump wrote a tweet that “without a doubt put his own vice president’s life in danger” during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Smith said several witnesses who said they voted or campaigned for Trump, including the speaker of the House of Representatives in Arizona and the speaker of the House of Representatives in Michigan, were the basis of the case.

“We had an elector in Pennsylvania who is a former congressman who was going to be an elector for President Trump and he said that what they were trying to do was an attempt to overthrow the government and that it was illegal. Our case was based, frankly, on Republicans putting their loyalty to the country before the party,” Smith said.

When asked why Smith did not charge any of the alleged accomplices, Smith said, “As we indicated in the final report, we looked at the evidence against different accomplices. We…my staff determined that we had evidence to charge people at a certain time. I had not made final determinations on that at the time President Trump won re-election, which means our office was going to be closed.”

Smith said he had evidence that Trump directed alleged co-conspirators to make phone calls to senators on the night of Jan. 6 to try to delay the certification vote.

The committee pressed Smith on why he did not speak to Trump allies Steve Bannon, Roger Stone or Peter Navarro as part of its investigation.

“We followed the research routes that we thought were the most fruitful,” Smith argued. “I didn’t think it would be fruitful to try to interrogate them.”

And they pressured him to confiscate phones from members of Congress. Smith said only Scott Perry had his phone confiscated and no senators.

“I don’t remember that,” Smith said when asked if he wanted a search warrant for the contents of any text messages from members of Congress.

Smith said he only wanted toll records and confirmed he approved the subpoenas.

“If Donald Trump had chosen to call several Democratic senators, we would have obtained toll records for Democratic senators. So the responsibility for why these records, why we collected them, falls on Donald Trump,” Smith said.

Smith recalled that Jim Jordan, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was in direct contact with the White House on January 6, according to an interview his team conducted with Mark Meadows.

Meadows claimed Jordan was scared. “I’ve never seen Jim Jordan scared about anything,” Meadows said, according to Smith.

Smith said he has his “eyes wide open” because he believes Trump will seek retaliation against him.

“I came here. They asked me to come here,” he added.