Jack Smith is back on Capitol Hill, and this time the hearing is not built around his old courtroom accusations against President Trump.
It is built around Smith’s own conduct.
The former special counsel entered Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing insisting that he will not be silenced and repeating his claim that his abandoned prosecution had established criminal conduct beyond a reasonable doubt. Republican senators arrived with a different question: who authorized Smith’s team to reach into the communications records of lawmakers and Republican organizations while pursuing the Biden Justice Department’s most consequential political target?
TODAY at 9 a.m. ET
Jack Smith testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
TUNE IN: https://t.co/60k4fifqaH
— Senate Judiciary Republicans (@SenJudiciaryGOP) September 29, 2026
The Senate Judiciary Committee set the stakes before the first gavel fell: its official notice identifies Smith as the sole witness, names the proceeding “Oversight of Jack Smith’s Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters,” and schedules the public session for 9 a.m. Eastern in the Hart Senate Office Building. The title makes clear that this is an examination of investigative power—Smith’s subpoenas, the collection of lawmakers’ call-detail records, the handling of constitutionally protected legislative activity and the wider Arctic Frost operation that Republicans say swept in hundreds of conservative people and groups—not a general replay of the January 6 allegations, and Smith is appearing alone because the central issue is what his office did while pursuing Trump.
Smith’s prepared defense was combative.
He said politics played no role in his charging decisions and declared that he would bring the same cases again on the same facts, regardless of party. He also accused the current administration and its allies of trying to intimidate him with the prospect of prosecution.
That posture guarantees a spectacle. It does not answer the subpoenas.
Chairman Chuck Grassley has spent months releasing records from Arctic Frost, the FBI investigation that preceded Smith’s appointment.
Republican committee investigators say those records show prosecutors obtained toll data revealing the time, duration and parties to calls involving Republican lawmakers, while other disclosures showed investigators reviewing messages connected to dozens of members of Congress.
The Associated Press obtained Smith’s prepared remarks and reported that he planned to stand behind both federal cases, while also detailing why Republicans are pressing him about records: his prosecutors sought call-detail information for GOP lawmakers who communicated with Trump around January 6, 2021, a practice Smith called ordinary and necessary to map the alleged conspiracy. Grassley’s inquiry asks whether investigators crossed a constitutional line when that map ran through members of Congress and their legislative communications; toll records expose relationships, timing and patterns of contact even without call audio, so Smith’s insistence that his office “didn’t spy on anyone” leaves unresolved whether the collection was lawful, properly limited and candidly described to Congress.
Republicans say the record goes further than Smith has admitted.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan referred Smith to the Justice Department this summer over allegations that his testimony about the records was false or misleading.
Smith’s lawyers dispute that accusation; no court has found Smith criminally liable, and a congressional referral is not a conviction.
Congress does not need a conviction to conduct oversight.
The Speech or Debate Clause protects lawmakers from executive-branch intrusion into legitimate legislative activity. If prosecutors collected records that touched protected work, investigators had a duty to use strict safeguards, tell Congress the truth and preserve every document showing who approved what.
The answer cannot simply be that the target was Donald Trump and the investigation was important.
That theory would give politically appointed prosecutors the broadest latitude precisely when the risk of abuse is highest.
Roll Call reported that committee Republicans intend to question Smith about congressional records and separation-of-powers concerns, citing House and Senate disclosures that say the investigation obtained messages associated with 44 lawmakers and records involving hundreds of other individuals and organizations; Senator Josh Hawley, whose own communications were scrutinized, described the subject as alleged spying on Congress and violations of Justice Department procedure. Democrats argue that the hearing is designed to defend Trump and relitigate cases Smith dismissed after the 2024 election, but that clash makes documentary answers essential: Smith’s motives cannot be established by his assurances, Republican allegations cannot be established by outrage, and the subpoenas, approvals, minimization rules, internal warnings and sworn testimony must line up.
Targeted President Trump and Republicans.
Broke DOJ protocol and violated the Constitution.
Mishandled documents then misled Congress.
That’s Jack Smith. https://t.co/ef9NQCAqFn
— House Judiciary GOP
(@JudiciaryGOP) September 29, 2026
Smith’s team produced two historic indictments and zero trials.
The classified-documents case was dismissed by a federal judge who ruled that Smith’s appointment violated the Constitution. The election case ended after Trump returned to the White House and the Justice Department’s longstanding position against prosecuting a sitting president controlled the outcome.
That history does not prove every investigative decision was corrupt. It does destroy the argument that Smith’s choices should be shielded from scrutiny because his cases were destined for vindication in court.
They never reached a jury.
Now Smith is asking Americans to accept his conclusion that Trump was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt while objecting to the political pressure directed at him. Republicans are entitled to point out the extraordinary asymmetry: President Trump endured raids, subpoenas, gag-order litigation, indictments and an election-season prosecution, yet oversight of the prosecutor is portrayed as an attack on the rule of law.
The rule of law does not belong to Jack Smith.
It requires accountability for defendants, prosecutors, agents and political appointees alike.
If Smith’s office stayed within the law, the records should show disciplined requests, narrow collection and truthful testimony; if it did not, patriotic slogans about independence cannot erase the abuse.
Tuesday’s hearing gives Smith the forum he said he wanted.
Now he must answer the question his prepared speech tries to outrun: when the Biden Justice Department put Trump and his allies under the microscope, who was watching the prosecutors?
The post Jack Smith Returns With a Fresh Trump Accusation — Republicans Put His Record on Trial appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.
Continue reading...
[H/T 100PercentFedUp]
