Jack Smith's testimony before the House - Jan 22, 2026

Politics & Elections
1

Continuing the discussion from NEW Stupid Republican Idea of the Day (Part 4):

I think this does need its own thread.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith on Thursday defended his investigations of Donald Trump at a congressional hearing in which he insisted that he had acted without regard to politics and had no second thoughts about the criminal charges he brought.

Smith testified behind closed doors last month but returned to the House Judiciary Committee for a public hearing, his first since leaving the job last year. The hearing split along partisan lines as Republican lawmakers sought to undermine the former Justice Department official as Democrats hoped to elicit new and damaging testimony about Trump’s conduct.

“It was always about politics,” said Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

“Maybe for them,” retorted Rep. Jamie Raskin, the panel’s top Democrat, during his on opening statement. “But for us, it’s all about the rule of law.”
…

From the New York Times

Jack Smith Testifies

Glenn Thrush|40x40](Glenn Thrush - The New York Times)

Jan. 22, 2026, 11:43 a.m. ET43 minutes ago

Glenn Thrush

One of the most difficult challenges Jack Smith faces in his pubic testimony before the House Judiciary Committee is keeping his distance from Democrats who are offering him rhetorical hugs and hailing him as a hero. The core of Smith’s argument — reflected in the first words of his opening statement — is that he conducted his investigation apolitically.

Glenn Thrush|40x40](Glenn Thrush - The New York Times)

Jan. 22, 2026, 10:40 a.m. ET2 hours ago

Glenn Thrush

Smith, when asked if he had any regrets about his investigation, said he is sorry that he didn’t express enough appreciation for the F.B.I. agents and prosecutors who worked for him.

Alan Feuer|40x40](Alan Feuer - The New York Times)

Jan. 22, 2026, 10:39 a.m. ET2 hours ago

Alan Feuer

Many of the agents and prosecutors who worked under Smith have been fired by the Justice Department. They have also faced efforts by members of Congress to impugn them and their work.

2

Do they really want to try a paper Jack Smith as unlawful in an open hearing? Do they realize that he is twice (if not more) smarter than them?

3

Personally, I’d question the wisdom of public testimony. I’d assume that he’s thinking that any reasonable person who watches will sense his sincerity and the insincerity on the side of the political types.

He’s forgetting that the way that nearly all of the channels will broadcast the hearing - if at all - is to mute out the opposition (be that Smith and/or one side of the politicians) while having a talking head bloviate to cover the silence, so you never actually get exposed to the whole discussion.

His earlier transcript from the first hearing probably had a larger positive effect than this will.

4

Jon Stewart memorably said Fox News and the like “mined for nuggets of gold”. They just need one tiny thing to prove their point. Inevitably, no matter how smart someone is, you’ll say something that can be twisted apart or used out of context.

These types of hearings are best seen in that light. Each side mining for a nugget of gold.

5

Former Capitol Police officer and total badass Michael Fanone in the front row of the gallery today wearing a Dropkick Murphy’s tee.

This particular tshirt says “Fighting Nazis since 1996” on the back.

6

Something I’m reminded of as I watch parts of the Smith testimony:

The legal troubles of Donald J. Trump convincingly prove one thing: His supporters understand the law only about as well as they understood Public Health, Virology, Infectious Disease, Vaccinology, and Epidemiology.

They have NO idea whatsoever of what does and what doesn’t constitute inculpatory evidence of a crime or violation of civil law.

7

And if you remain silent they get to make something up whole cloth. It’s like you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

8

Michael Fanone sends a subtle message to election denialist Rep. Troy Nehls, who was in the process of blaming the then-head of the Capitol Police, Yogananda Pittman, for January 6.

9

That’s right. There is no winning because there are two different games and only one person is under oath.

Jack is great to watch though because he truly is apolitical. Like, Democrats are playing the same game as Republicans and mining for gold too. Jack don’t care, he’s not going to relax and be on easy street with a D questioner just because they are trying to be nice. If it’s not true, then Jack will let them know even if it’s trying to be a softball question. It’s really refreshing actually.

10

Fanone and right-wing troll Ivan Raiklin got into it in the committee room today during a break.

Michael Fanone, a former D.C. Metropolitan Police officer who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and Ivan Raiklin, a conservative activist and conspiracy theorist who frequently appears on Capitol Hill to protest the outcome of the 2020 election, got into an altercation Thursday at a hearing featuring former special counsel Jack Smith.

Video of the confrontation shows Fanone and Raiklin facing off during a short break in Smith’s testimony as other former police officers in attendance try to pull Fanone back.

“See how many people are restraining you, and look at me, totally in control over my mind and body,” Raiklin says to Fanone.

In video of the event, Raiklin just has the most punchable smile on his face as he tries to goad Fanone. I presume he was trying to get Fanone to get physical, to show that the violence inflicted upon Fanone by J6ers was “justified self-defense” against an out of control cop. Absolute garbage human being.

11

FYI for anyone who’s interested: On MSNOW (formerly MSNBC) tonight (Thursday) in about an hour, 7 PM CST, Rachel Maddow will host a show going over the Jack Smith testimony today.

12

This is an interesting program. I didn’t watch any of the live testimony today. They’re doing a good job of recapping.

Lawrence O’Donnell made a point about feeling nostalgic re how congressional hearings used to be. When both sides were trying to find out the truth about something. And if it was determined that you lied about anything during a congressional hearing, then you and your career were basically toast. It just wasn’t done. But Republicans were lying all over the place during today’s hearing. I remember listening to John Dean testifying day after day during the Watergate hearings. It’s like every day he was driving another nail into Nixon’s presidential coffin.

The other thing that one of the commentators, Nicole something, said is that the Justice department used to be full of Jack Smiths. That he was typical of the kind of person who chose that field as their career. And now those people have been fired or they have quit and the Justice department doesn’t have the integrity that it once did. Today he stood alone. And that made her really sad.

13

I’m watching it too. It is really interesting. It reminds me of a sports broadcast—think Sportscentre and similar—featuring highlights and commentary. I did watch part of the hearing earlier today, but feel that now I’m getting highlights with expert commentary. So if I missed them earlier, no biggie; I’m getting the really good stuff now.

Thanks for the heads-up, by the way. I probably would not have known about this program, had you not posted about it.

14

Nicole Wallace. She used to be a Republican. In fact, she was hand-picked by Steve Schmidt of the McCain campaign to shepherd Sarah Palin through her selection as McCain’s veep. But no one remembers. Almost no one.

15

@Aspenglow Whoa, I didn’t remember that. Although there is a clue that she used to be Republican, since she’s wearing the quintessential Republican female hairstyle, Utah hair.

You are so welcome and thank you very much for saying that.

It’s so incredibly refreshing to hear grown ups on this program talking about this fraught subject in a grown up way. It’s very uplifting and it does give me a little bit of hope.

Really liking Jamie Raskin. Very straightforward. He’s the opposite of vague and mealy-mouthed

16

That last part of your post makes me sad too.

But the DOJ wasn’t always like that. So what that means is people like Jack Smith willed it into being that way until it was normal. It can be done again.

Late: or have the next President nominate Jack as the AG and have Jack do it.

17

I agree. This period is a small slice of time in the DOJ’s history.

I believe that after we get through the nightmare that is donald trump AND Democrats are back in charge, many people of integrity will come forward to reinhabit civil service positions. I think there will be a backlash against everything trump has wrought. I won’t live to see it come to fruition, but I hope to see the beginning of it.

Repairing our international relationships–that’s a whole nother kettle of fish. The USA will never get back to where we were. Trump has broken that, stomped on the shards, then crapped on what was left.

18

Article about US international relations posted in another thread; article title says it all.

19

I sadly agree with you. I believe things will turn around, but not in my lifetime. Nations have come back from worse; at least we’ve not been nuked (yet). Some time in the future, students will read about this time, about us, and try to imagine what it must have been like to live through this horrendous time. It will seem far removed and nothing that will ever happen to them. I remember when I used to feel that way.

20

Fanone accused Raiklin of threatening his family. Does anyone have any details on this?