Welcome back to the deep dive. This is where
we take the source materials you give us and
well, we try to give you the fastest path to
really understanding what's going on. And today
we are going straight to the source. No cable
news clips, no opinion pieces. Nope. Today we
are digging into the deposition transcript of
former special counsel Jack Smith. That's right.
We're looking at his testimony from December
17th, 2025 before the House Judiciary Committee.
This was a This was part of their whole oversight
investigation into the so -called weaponization
of the Justice Department. And it is a huge document.
I mean, it covers everything from really technical
legal arguments and procedural rules to the,
frankly, shocking details of the cases themselves.
So our mission today is to kind of distill all
of that down. Exactly. We want to synthesize
the legal defense, the facts, the procedural
fights, all of it and give you a clear, impartial
narrative. We really have to cut through the
political noise on this one. It's about understanding
the precise legal arguments Smith was making,
the principles he used to justify the charges,
and, you know, looking at some of the more controversial
steps his team took. Okay, let's jump right in
then. Let's start with how he framed his job,
his mandate, and how he defended the integrity
of his office. So he confirmed his appointment
was back in November 2022, and he was there to
investigate two main things. two big areas. First
was the whole effort to interfere with the transfer
of power after the 2020 election. Right. And
the second was the retention, the possession
of all those highly classified documents. And
when he was pressed on the motivation for even
bringing these charges, his defense of his office's
integrity was absolute. It was. He maintained
the decision was his and his alone. He said,
and this is a quote, that the need for charges
rested entirely with President Trump and his
actions. He went even further than that, didn't
he? He claimed he would have brought the exact
same charges against any former president. Any
former president? Yeah. He specified Republican
or Democrat. It wouldn't have mattered if the
evidence was the same. I mean, in this political
climate, that's a pretty bold thing to say. And
to back it up, he didn't just rely on his own
word. He very deliberately aligned himself with
what's known as the Robert Jackson standard.
From 1940. It's a famous set of principles for
prosecutors. It is. And Smith agreed completely
that a prosecutor must, quote, seek truth and
not victims who serves the law and not factional
purposes. But what does that mean in practice,
citing a standard from the 40s? Well, it's a
strategic move. He was emphasizing two things.
First, Jackson said you only take on cases where
the offense is the most flagrant, the public
harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain.
So by saying that, he's telling the committee
he believes both the election case and the documents
case clear that really high bar. That's exactly
what he's saying. He's arguing these weren't
marginal calls. He also addressed the idea that
he, you know, came in with a preconceived outcome.
Right, the allegation that it was a setup from
the start. And he testified he would have been
perfectly comfortable just walking away if the
facts and the law didn't support a case. To really
drive that point home, he gave a very specific
example, didn't he, about non -partisanship?
He did. He talked about removing an FBI agent
from the investigation. Why? After reviewing
the agent's private emails, it turned out the
agent was in a, you know, a partisan argument
with some family members about January 6th. Wait,
hold on. Private emails. The common critique
is that his office was too political, but isn't
removing an agent for a private family dispute,
I mean, isn't that a little paranoid about the
optics? He must have known the criticism was
coming. He made a point to stress that the agent
had done nothing partisan on the job. Absolutely
nothing. So what was the justification? He said
it was about the absolute necessity of maintaining
the integrity and the public perception of integrity
of the investigation. The perceived bias was
too big a risk. It was a preemptive move to show
his team and the public that politics just wasn't
going to be part of it. That definitely sets
the stage. So if he defended the process that
hard, we have to look at the substance. Let's
dig into the legal theories, starting with the
election interference case. Yeah, the one that's
always getting tangled up with the First Amendment.
Right. So what was his argument there? Smith
was very clear on this. The case was not about
limiting free speech. He said Trump was free
to say he thought he won. He was even free to
say he falsely won. So what was the crime then?
The charge, according to Smith, was about violating
federal law by using knowingly false statements
about election fraud to target a lawful government
function. And you used that phrase, affinity
fraud. That feels very intentional. Oh, it is.
Affinity fraud is usually a financial crime.
It's where a scammer targets a specific group
they belong to, like a religious community or
a club, because there's built -in trust. So he's
drawing a parallel. Exactly. He's using that
metaphor to argue the scheme was based on preying
on the trust of his political base by feeding
them claims he knew were false. That's how he
argues. It crosses the line from political speech
into criminal deception. And the interesting
thing is the case wasn't just built on his team's
interpretation. It was built on the testimony
of Republicans. That's the core of it. Smith
stressed that the investigation relied on testimony
from prominent Republicans, many of whom were
loyal allies. He named names, right? He did.
The speaker of the House in Michigan, the speaker
in Arizona, a former Republican congressman from
Pennsylvania, all of them testified that they
rejected the plan because they believed it was
illegal or based on things they knew for a fact
were not true. So they were the key witnesses
for the knowingly false part of the charge. Precise.
Now, the committee pushed him on the investigations
approach. You know, why not start from the bottom
up and charge co -conspirators first? Right.
The typical way you'd build a conspiracy case.
So what was his defense? He said the evidence
made it clear that Trump was, and this is his
quote, by a large measure the most culpable and
most responsible person in this conspiracy. He
felt they had to focus on the central figure.
Okay, let's pivot to the other case, the classified
documents. This one had just a mountain of physical
evidence. And some pretty unforgettable details.
Smith went through the alleged willful retention
of these highly classified documents after the
presidency ended. And the storage conditions.
I mean, everyone remembers the photos from the
indictment. It's hard to forget. We're talking
about top secret documents being kept at a social
club, specifically on a ballroom stage and, yes,
in a bathroom and shower. The detail about the
boxes being separated from the shower by just
a curtain, it's just mind boggling. But beyond
the visuals, the real legal danger was the obstruction
charge. Absolutely. Smith laid out a very clear
timeline of alleged abstraction that started
right after the grand jury subpoena in May 2022.
What were the key events? He detailed how 64
boxes were apparently moved out of a storage
room before an attorney came to review them.
And then? And then only 30 of those boxes were
returned for the search. That alone seems like
pretty strong evidence of trying to hide something.
It is, but it gets even more specific. Smith
described an attempt to delete security camera
footage later that summer. Right, the server.
Yeah. The testimony covered evidence that an
employee, a Mr. D. Olivera, was told that the
boss wanted the server deleted. And he refused.
He refused. Said he didn't have the authority.
But that conversation became, you know, a cornerstone
of the obstruction charge. Which all led up to
the court authorized search in August 2022. Correct.
And during that search, Smith confirmed they
recovered another 102 documents with classification
markings. We're talking top secret, secret, the
works. So that combination, the sheer volume
of documents and the evidence of obstruction,
that was the foundation of that indictment. That
was the whole case right there. OK. This brings
us to a major point of contention for the committee.
Section three, the investigative methods. Specifically,
getting toll records for members of Congress.
Yes. Smith confirmed his office got what are
called non -content toll records for several
members of Congress and their staff. People like
staff for Congressman Gohmert and some senators.
Okay, let's stop there because this is really
important. We need to be crystal clear for you
on what this means. What are non -content toll
records? It's a crucial distinction. It's basically
the metadata of a phone call. Think of it like
a phone bill. So it shows which number, called
which number. And when and for how long. But,
and this is the key, it contains zero content.
No recording, no transcript of what was said.
Smith directly pushed back on the idea that they
were wiretapping. He did. He called the assertion
that they tapped the phone of Senator Hawley
inaccurate. So the goal was just to confirm timelines
and contacts related to the conspiracy, not to
listen in on what Congress was doing. Exactly.
The target was Trump and his co -conspirators.
The congressional records were just to corroborate
things, like who Speaker McCarthy was talking
to at the White House on January 6th. But the
real controversy was about the non -disclosure
orders, the NDOs. This meant the members of Congress
had no idea it was happening. Why is that such
a flash point? Because it stopped them from going
to court to try and quash the subpoena. They
could have argued it was protected by the speech
or debate clause. Which is a constitutional shield
for legislative work. It is. So an NDO in this
case meant Congress couldn't even make that argument.
So what was Smith's defense for using them? He
explained that NDOs are pretty standard in federal
cases to prevent, you know, obstruction or evidence
being destroyed. But he did admit a really critical
detail about the policy at the time. What was
that? He testified that when those subpoenas
were issued, DOJ policy did not require prosecutors
to tell the judge that the phone number belonged
to a sitting member of Congress. Wow. That seems
like a pretty significant loophole when you're
talking about separation of powers. It does.
And Smith acknowledged the policy has since been
changed by the DOJ. So the committee's concerns
were seen as valid, basically. It suggests they
were, yes. Even if the special counsel's actions
were, you know, technically by the book as it
was written at that moment. This all leads us
to the final section of his testimony, which
was pretty stark. It dealt with the intense political
pressure and the fallout his team faced. The
hostility was very real. He confirmed that he
actually asked to testify publicly. But the committee
declined. This was all behind closed doors. Yes.
And he said he wanted a public hearing to defend
the career prosecutors and FBI agents who he
said have been vilified wrongly. And he described
direct professional retribution, didn't he? He
did. Smith confirmed he and his staff had received
threats. He also confirmed that actions were
taken against his team. Security clearances revoked.
Former colleagues fired from their jobs. He was
also asked about the public attacks from the
former president. Yes, he confirmed President
Trump called him a deranged lunatic and a criminal.
And Smith testified that he fully believes Trump
intends to seek personal retribution against
him and his staff. That intense pressure brings
us to a sort of a bigger institutional concern
he raised, the future of the public integrity
section or PINN. This is a really important point.
He described PINN as the keeper of these issues
inside the Justice Department. It's the section
that handles complex public corruption cases
and acts as the gatekeeper for sensitive investigations
involving Congress. So, if pinion gets dismantled,
what happens? Smith warned that losing that centralized
expertise would just cripple the DOJ's ability
to prosecute public corruption. He was worried
the standards would collapse and the whole process
would become inconsistent and, well, easier to
manipulate politically. Finally, they asked him
to connect all of this to public safety, specifically
around the January 6th defendants. Yeah, in the
context of former President Trump pardoning individuals
who assaulted police officers that day. And he
didn't hold back. Not at all. He stated very
clearly that pardoning people who committed violence
against police does not make the country safer.
He said people who would be in jail are now free
and he has no doubt we will see more serious
crimes from them. So if we just step back and
look at the whole deposition, it's really a detailed
point by point defense of the entire process.
It is. He grounds everything in that Jackson
standard, arguing the evidence was strong enough
to get convictions from the Republican witnesses
in one case to the obstruction evidence in the
other. It was a full throated defense of prosecutorial
independence. So for you listening to all this,
the central conflict, as Smith frames it, is
this. When does political speech cross the line
into a criminal scheme? And for him, the line
is the use of knowingly false claims to subvert
a lawful government function. That's the whole
distinction, in his view. And he left the committee
with a stark warning. He said if election interference
and obstruction aren't held accountable, it becomes
the new norm. And he said the toll on democracy
would be catastrophic. So we'll leave you with
a final thought to mull over. When you consider
all the details we've just unpacked, the classified
documents stored in a bathroom, the secret subpoenas
for congressional phone records, the professional
retribution against prosecutors, consider this.
What is the price society pays when the accountability
process itself becomes the main focus of our
political warfare, instead of the alleged crimes
it was set up to investigate?