Former special counsel Jack Smith is refusing to back away from his decision to prosecute president Donald Trump, delivering an unusually direct defense of the cases that once placed a former president at the center of federal criminal proceedings.
Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Smith said his investigations into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his retention of classified documents were based on evidence and federal law, not partisan politics. He also rejected the suggestion that political considerations influenced his decision to bring the cases.
Smith’s most striking claim was that he would make the same decision again.
“If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or a Republican,” Smith said.
That puts the former prosecutor directly at odds with Republicans who have repeatedly accused his investigations of being politically motivated. During the hearing, GOP lawmakers also questioned Smith over investigative steps that included obtaining communications records from Republican lawmakers as part of the 2020 election investigation. Smith defended those actions as part of his effort to establish what happened around the attempt to delay certification of the 2020 election.
Smith's two federal cases against Trump ultimately never reached trial. The classified-documents prosecution was dismissed after a federal judge ruled Smith's appointment invalid, while the election case was dropped after Trump won the 2024 presidential election, consistent with Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president.
But Smith is still defending the decision to bring the charges.
He has said his investigation developed evidence that, in his assessment, could establish criminal activity beyond a reasonable doubt. His conclusion was that Trump’s conduct after the 2020 election warranted prosecution and that the classified-documents investigation also produced evidence of unlawful retention and obstruction.
The political battle surrounding those prosecutions has not disappeared with the cases themselves. Smith now finds himself defending not only the investigations but the principle behind them: whether a former president should receive different treatment from any other person when prosecutors believe the evidence supports criminal charges.
For Smith, his answer remains unchanged. The party of the president, he says, would not have changed his decision.
