A legal expert Thursday revealed how former Special Counsel Jack Smith's testimony on his investigations into President Donald Trump could open him up to perjury charges.
CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez described why Smith was pausing before answering each question during his first public testimony with the House Judiciary Committee.
"There's a perjury trap over this entire hearing," Perez said. "They are watching every single word, and he is, I think he is weighing every single word. He cannot diverge from his previous testimony, he did a deposition in December, and I think he's trying to be careful and that's what you're seeing, the tentativeness at the beginning. It's pretty clear he's comfortable with what he did and he still believes that he would do it again."
Smith was speaking on his decision to prosecute Trump on a series of federal crimes in 2023. He wasted no time declaring that Trump "broke the law" at a congressional hearing Thursday.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), chair of the committee, delivered a scathing opening statement, accusing Smith of acting under "politics" and complaining about “stolen phone records."
“We’re going to hear a lot of yelling and screaming from the other side," Jordan claimed before the testimony.
Smith, a career federal prosecutor, was appointed as a special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022 to investigate Trump's handling of classified documents and his role in the events surrounding the Insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.
Smith led high-profile criminal investigations and prosecutions against Trump on multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and violations of the Espionage Act related to classified materials at Mar-a-Lago, though the cases faced significant legal challenges and delays, with Trump ultimately avoiding trial on these charges following his 2024 election victory.
A CNN legal expert revealed something surprising during former special counsel Jack Smith's testimony on Thursday.
Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig described how Smith omitted something in his first public testimony over his investigations of President Donald Trump before the House Judiciary Committee hearing. CNN anchor Briana Keilar asked Honig to respond to the questions involving the timing around Smith's pursuit of going to trial against Trump.
"To your question, Brianna, thelast congressman we saw broughtup the fact that Jack Smithdemanded a trial date fourmonths out, five months out in acase involving 13 million pagesof documents," Honig said. "There is nodefense lawyer in the countrywho can constitutionally preparefor trial and defend his clienton that short of time frame. Theimplication was you were rushingto get this in before the 2024election. Jack Smith did notdefend himself, by the way. Hedidn't say a word about that,which I found, I found strange... And he didn'tdefend."
Smith, who has maintained that he is a nonpartisan prosecutor amid the fiery hearing with Republican and Democratic lawmakers, responded to questions over whether Smith was trying to push the trial for Trump forward ahead of the 2024 elections. At the time, Trump had called for retaliation against people with whom he disagreed politically, which Smith discussed with lawmakers during the hearing.
"And Jack Smith has always maintained this veneer that he never thought about the election. Of course he did," Honig said. "Why would you demand such a quick trial date? But there's a contrast that some of the Democrats made, which is, here you have Donald Trump explicitly calling for prosecutions of people. So some of Jack Smith's conduct gives rise, I think, to a fair conclusion that he was trying to rush it before the election. And Donald Trump is explicitly saying, 'go after this person, DOJ, go after that person who I don't like politically.'"
Smith, a career federal prosecutor, was appointed as a special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022 to investigate Trump's handling of classified documents and his role in the events surrounding the Insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.
Smith led high-profile criminal investigations and prosecutions against Trump on multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and violations of the Espionage Act related to classified materials at Mar-a-Lago, though the cases faced significant legal challenges and delays, with Trump ultimately avoiding trial on these charges following his 2024 election victory.
Shouting broke out between lawmakers during former Special Counsel Jack Smith's first public testimony on Thursday.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) got into a yelling match during the House Judiciary Committee hearing over Smith's investigations into President Donald Trump. Issa was questioning Smith, who was attempting to answer the lawmaker's questions over seeking phone records following the Jan. 6, 2021 Insurrection probe, when the lawmakers started to interrupt each other — and Smith.
"My office didn't spy on anyone," Smith said.
"Wait a second. I, the question I asked you, Mr. Smith, was pretty straightforward," Issa said.
"We complied with the department," Smith responded, when Issa elevated his voice and interrupted him.
Raskin then interjected, calling Issa out for not letting Smith respond. Issa attempted to question Smith again.
"Mr. Smith, I asked you a question and you were not responsive to it and I want you to be responsive to it. Did you, whether you think it was legal or not, whether you think it was right or not, did you withhold the name of Kevin McCarthy, speaker of the House, when you were seeking records on Kevin McCarthy, the speaker of the House or Jim Jordan, the chairman of the committee."
Then Issa's time expired. He tried to argue that he wanted his time back.
"We did not provide that information to the judge when we requested a non-disclosure order, consistent with the law and consistent with the department policy," Smith said.
More shouting erupted among the committee.
"We have the evidence... with that I yield back in disgust of this witness," Issa said.
Smith was speaking on his decision to prosecute Trump on a series of federal crimes in 2023. He wasted no time declaring that Trump "broke the law" at a congressional hearing Thursday.
Smith, a career federal prosecutor, was appointed as a special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022 to investigate Trump's handling of classified documents and his role in the events surrounding the Insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.
Smith led high-profile criminal investigations and prosecutions against Trump on multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and violations of the Espionage Act related to classified materials at Mar-a-Lago, though the cases faced significant legal challenges and delays, with Trump ultimately avoiding trial on these charges following his 2024 election victory.
The Republican Party could be setting themselves up for an embarrassing fall with a big assumption over Jack Smith's testimony.
The former special counsel member is set to publicly testify before the House Judiciary Committee Thursday. Smith is expected to speak on his decision to prosecute Donald Trump on a series of federal crimes in 2023.
While the GOP may be hoping Smith does not say anything new in his testimony, they could be in for a surprise, according to political commentator Hayes Brown.
Writing on MSNOW, Hayes believes the Republican Party will find themselves shifting rapidly should Smith not fall in line with how Robert Mueller presented his testimony.
Hayes wrote, "But if the GOP is banking on Smith following Mueller’s lead and simply pointing back to his report, they’re setting themselves up for embarrassment. If anything, the MAGA loyalists have given Smith a chance to highlight the yawning gulf between the story they tell about the 2020 election and the truth."
The GOP may have bitten off more than they can chew with Smith's testimony, as Hayes suggested the successful indictments the prosecutor had managed against Trump is a difference maker.
Hayes wrote, "Mueller had ultimately decided that he had no jurisdiction to indict a sitting president and had told reporters that if asked to testify before Congress, 'any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made.'
"Without the ability to carry forward a prosecution, as he told frustrated House Democrats, he couldn’t in good conscience present a case against Trump. Nor would Mueller 'totally exonerate' Trump as the president claimed the report had done.
"Smith, by contrast, successfully obtained multiple indictments against Trump. As he said in his closed-door deposition before the Judiciary Committee last month, his office 'believed that we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt for all the charges and that we would have gotten convictions at trial.'
"And based on the transcript and video from that deposition, the committee’s Democrats will be more than happy to help Smith lay out the case that Trump successfully managed to delay long enough to get re-elected."
Former special counsel Jack Smith was expected to provide testimony in a live hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, reporting suggests.
The live hearing could take place as early as February, according to CBS News. Smith's prosecution of Donald Trump was shuttered after the president was re-elected in 2024.
"Even with many hours of private testimony, Republicans could not lay a glove on Jack Smith, his evidence, or his case," ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-MA) stated. "That will not change now that they have finally heeded our call to have him come testify publicly. This upcoming hearing is a win for truth-seeking Americans."
Smith requested an open hearing in a letter to the House Judiciary Committee last month.
"During the investigation of President Trump, Mr. Smith steadfastly followed Justice Department policies, observed all legal requirements, and took actions based on the facts and the law," Smith's attorneys wrote. "He stands by his decisions."
The former special counsel has also testified in a deposition for the House Oversight Committee. At the time, committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) declined to convene a public hearing.
A Republican lawmaker Thursday had an unexpected reaction after he asked former special counsel Jack Smith about President Donald Trump's threats.
Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA) was questioning Smith during the House Judiciary Committee hearing — the first time Smith has testified publicly on the probes against Trump — when he asked about the gag order the prosecutor sought against the president.
"Mr. Smith, America was founded on theprinciple that the governmentdoesn't silence politicalspeech, in particular speech,before it happens," Cline said. "You sought aprior restraint against President Trump without asingle violation of pretrialrelease. In fact, there was noreal world harm that you couldarticulate, justified givingthe federal government thepower to silence him as apresidential candidate wasthere."
Smith fact-checked Cline.
"The court granted thosemotions and found that theprosecutor did not have to waituntil someone was harmed tomake such a motion," Smith said.
Cline responded, pausing for a moment and stumbling on his words.
"Actually, the request wasrejected when the case wasactually when when you actuallywere not able to, it wasrestricted. Correct? The gagorder was restricted, correct?" Cline said.
Smith clarified what actually happened.
"Well, wewe filed for anorder in the district court.The district court granted anorder," Smith said. "Mr. President Trumpappealed that order. The courtof appeals absolutely agreedthat there was a basis and thatthe threats to witnesses thatcame from the targeting by Donald Trump were real, andthat we had a duty to protectthem. You are correct in thatthe court of appeals narrowedthe order. So the order coveredwitnesses, court staff, thejudge and my staff. Thedifference was that it didn'tcover me anymore, which I wasfine with."
Cline asked Smith if he had any evidence that Trump had threatened him or intimidated witnesses to prevent them from coming forward.
"I had evidence that he said, 'if you come after me, I'm coming after you,'" Smith said. "He asked — he suggested a witness should be put to death. The courts found that those sort of statements not only deter witnesses who've come forward, they deter witnesses who have yet to come forward."
Cline asked Smith if he was able to identify a witness who might have been intimidated by Trump — that's when Smith set the record straight.
"We had extremely thorough evidence that his statements were having an effect on the proceedings," Smith said. "That is not permitted in any court of law in the United States."
Cline tried to push back and argue that he should have reconsidered the gag order. Smith had a sharp response to the suggestion.
"Both courts upheld the orders, and it is not incumbent on a prosecutor to wait until someone gets killed before they move for an order to protect the proceedings," Smith said.
Cline tried to argue that the gag order could have infringed on Trump's First Amendment rights.
"My recollection is that we, of course, discussed First Amendment issues regarding this application because I and my staff respect the First Amendment, but the First Amendment does not allow one to make statements that interfere with the administration, administration of justice, and a judicial proceeding," Smith said.
"My interpretation was supported and agreed upon by the district court and the court of appeals in terms of the phenomena of the statements being made, targeting individuals, causing threats to happen to them, I would I would also add, sir, that in the days after Donald Trump made some of these statements, the district court in this case received vile threats, threats to the district court's life in that environment," Smith added. "I felt a duty as a prosecutor to make that motion, and I make no apologies."
Smith, a career federal prosecutor, was appointed as a special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022 to investigate Trump's handling of classified documents and his role in the events surrounding the Insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.
Smith led high-profile criminal investigations and prosecutions against Trump on multiple counts, including obstruction of justice and violations of the Espionage Act related to classified materials at Mar-a-Lago, though the cases faced significant legal challenges and delays, with Trump ultimately avoiding trial on these charges following his 2024 election victory.
Former special counsel Jack Smith told lawmakers Wednesday in a closed door hearing that investigators had "developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that President Donald Trump had conspired to overturn the 2020 election results.
Portions of Smith's opening statement during the private meeting were obtained by the Associated Press.
Smith told lawmakers that his team of investigators had "powerful evidence" that the Trump was hoarding classified documents from his first presidential term inside his Mar-a-Lago home in Palm Beach, Florida. He explained that Trump was attempting to obstruct investigators as they worked to find the records.
“I made my decisions in the investigation without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 election,” Smith said. “We took actions based on what the facts and the law required — the very lesson I learned early in my career as a prosecutor.”
Smith was asked if he would also prosecute a Democrat and he said he would “prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether the president was a Republican or Democrat."
Smith no longer works for the U.S. government and had previously asked to testify in public.
He is not expected to answer questions publicly due to strict secrecy rules, according to The Washington Post.
The move was "aiming to dispel Republican efforts to frame his federal prosecutions of President Donald Trump as unjust and political," The Post reported.
A top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee revealed a startling aspect of the hearing on Thursday with former special counsel Jack Smith during an interview on CNN.
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) joined CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead" to discuss Smith's hearing, which included several bombshell moments. Before the hearing began, a right-wing operative and a former Capitol police officer nearly got into a fistfight. Republicans on the committee also staged several confrontations with Smith during the hearing, accusing him of acting on political motives and other misdeeds.
But there was one part of the hearing that was truly startling. Republicans didn't deny any of the findings in Jack Smith's report, Lieu told Tapper.
"None of them actually disputed Jack Smith's findings," Lieu said. "He issued an entire report, volume one of his report. They didn't even talk about that report. They didn't dispute that Donald Trump engaged in a conspiracy to try to get fake electors and fake documents to overturn this election."
Instead, Republicans used their time to try to discredit some of the steps Smith took in his investigation. One aspect they harped on was his decision to subpoena phone records of lawmakers who had allegedly helped Trump with his scheme.
Lieu, a former prosecutor, was having none of it.
"It's idiotic what these Republicans are saying," he said.
