Jack Smith Defends His Case — Republicans Deflect

On Capitol Hill today, former Special Counsel Jack Smith appeared behind closed doors before the House Judiciary Committee—and he did not soften his position.

According to portions of his opening statement obtained by CNN, Smith told lawmakers that his team “developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that Donald Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 election and block the lawful transfer of power.

The deposition was not public.

And that decision is now at the center of a political fight.

Why Not Public Testimony?

Republican Congressman Ben Cline of Virginia, a Judiciary Committee member, defended the closed-door format when asked why Smith was not allowed to testify openly.

Cline argued that Democrats on the committee focus on “emotion” and media attention rather than facts, claiming a private deposition was necessary to investigate what Republicans call the “weaponization” of the Department of Justice against Trump and other conservatives.

He said a public hearing might come later—but only after detailed questioning by attorneys in private.

The Phone Records Dispute

The discussion quickly turned to one of the most sensitive issues in Smith’s investigation: phone records involving members of Congress around January 6, 2021.

Cline acknowledged that the records did not contain call content—only metadata showing which numbers contacted each other and for how long. Still, he claimed the collection of those records violated the Speech and Debate Clause and the separation of powers.

In short, he accused Smith’s team of improperly surveilling lawmakers.

When pressed on whether the former president’s taped call to Georgia officials—asking them to “find” votes—provided sufficient cause to investigate coordination with members of Congress, Cline did not directly answer.

Instead, he attacked Smith personally.

Attacking the Prosecutor, Not the Evidence

Cline labeled Jack Smith a “political hack,” accusing him of targeting Republicans and citing Smith’s past prosecution of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell—a conviction later overturned by the Supreme Court.

He argued this history showed politicization and failure, not credibility.

Notably, Cline did not dispute the substance of Smith’s claims about January 6, the fake elector scheme, or efforts to delay certification.

The focus remained on Smith’s motives, not the evidence.

Retribution and Oversight

The conversation then shifted to comments from White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, who reportedly said Trump doesn’t wake up thinking about retribution—but will pursue it when the opportunity arises.

Asked whether Republicans risk appearing to facilitate political payback, Cline rejected the premise. He said the Judiciary Committee is fulfilling its constitutional oversight duty, pointing to more than $50 million spent on Smith’s investigation as justification for scrutiny.

Accountability, he argued, is the goal—not revenge.

Healthcare and a Party Split

The interview briefly turned to domestic policy, where Cline criticized Republican colleagues who joined Democrats to force a vote on extending Affordable Care Act subsidies.

He opposed the move, arguing that expanding subsidies only increases government spending and insurance company profits. His alternative: deregulation, increased competition, and consumer choice.

Pressed on whether constituents would face immediate cost spikes if subsidies expire, Cline insisted Republicans are preparing legislation to offset those impacts—though no specific measures were detailed.

Foreign Policy and War Powers

Finally, the discussion moved to U.S. military actions involving Venezuela, following reports that Trump wants to escalate pressure on the Maduro regime.

Cline said Congress had already received classified briefings from defense and state officials and that the actions were constitutional and justified.

When asked whether regime change or military escalation requires congressional authorization, Cline avoided a direct answer, saying oversight would continue.

What This Interview Revealed

What stood out wasn’t what Republicans disputed—but what they didn’t.

There was no factual rebuttal of:

The fake elector scheme

Efforts to delay certification

Calls urging lawmakers to object en masse

Claims of proof beyond a reasonable doubt

Instead, the defense rested on process complaints, personal attacks on the prosecutor, and accusations of politicization.

Jack Smith says he has the evidence.
Democrats say it would have been devastating in public.
Republicans say the real story is DOJ overreach.

And for now, the testimony—and the truth of what was said behind closed doors—remains sealed.

Not forever.