Jack Smith Briefing & January 6 Evidence

This is where today’s story begins — with what the public was not allowed to see.

Today, Democratic Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California—a member of both the House Judiciary Committee and the January 6 Select Committee—sat through hours of closed-door testimony from Special Counsel Jack Smith.

And according to her, there was no legitimate reason for the secrecy.

Lofgren says that historically, when special prosecutors complete their work, they present their findings publicly before Congress. The committee hears it. The American people hear it. Transparency is the point.

That didn’t happen here.

Instead, lawmakers were instructed not to disclose testimony, even though—by Lofgren’s account—the full transcript is expected to be released eventually.

Her message was blunt:
If you want to know what Jack Smith was prepared to prove, read the January 6 Committee report. Even the executive summary tells the story.

According to Lofgren, that report reflects what Smith believed he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt, supported by extensive evidence.

Why Volume Two Matters

Lofgren also addressed the elephant in the room:
Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to block the release of Volume Two of Smith’s report—the section dealing with the classified documents case.

Because of that injunction, Smith was legally prohibited from discussing those findings. Judge Cannon has set a January deadline for further action, but until then, that portion remains sealed.

What was discussed, however, was devastating enough.

Jamie Raskin’s Warning

Congressman Jamie Raskin, another Judiciary Committee member, offered a striking explanation for why Republicans blocked public testimony.

Raskin said allowing Jack Smith to testify openly would have been “absolutely devastating” to Donald Trump and those involved in the January 6 effort to overturn the election.

He described Smith as composed, meticulous, ethical, and deeply committed to the rule of law—adding that committee members were effectively “schooled” on prosecutorial responsibility and evidence standards.

When asked whether she agreed with Raskin’s assessment, Lofgren didn’t hesitate.

She said yes—completely.

The Criminal Conspiracy Allegation

According to Lofgren, Smith walked the committee through evidence supporting a criminal conspiracy, with Trump at the center, aimed at overturning the U.S. government.

She said Smith detailed how prosecutors believed they could prove those crimes to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

That, she argued, explains why Republicans on the committee didn’t want the testimony public in the first place.

In her words, the questioning from Republican members was “unfocused,” “ineffective,” and failed to rebut any actual facts. Assertions collapsed under the weight of evidence.

The Phone Calls on January 6

To refresh the public’s memory, excerpts from Jack Smith’s indictment were cited—specifically detailing frantic phone calls made during the attack on the Capitol.

According to the indictment:

Trump aides attempted to contact U.S. senators during the riot.

Co-conspirators urged lawmakers to delay certification, object to states en masse, and push the process into the next day.

False claims of election fraud were knowingly repeated.

Senators were asked to treat objections like a procedural filibuster.

The goal was simple: stall the count long enough to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.

Lofgren says none of this was meaningfully disputed in the closed-door session.

Why This Still Matters

She reminded viewers that January 6 wasn’t just a single day—it was the endpoint of a broader scheme involving:

Fake electors

Coordinated pressure campaigns

Legal strategies that collapsed one by one

When those failed, only violence and intimidation remained.

And while nearly five years have passed, Lofgren warned against forgetting how close the country came to losing its democratic process.

Her final message was a warning, not a reflection.

Given Trump’s continued defiance of legal norms, she said, the danger hasn’t passed.

We are not out of the woods yet.