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.