In a combustible, closed-door deposition before the House Judiciary Committee, which was released Wednesday, former Special Counsel Jack Smith offered a final, blistering defense of his prosecutions of Donald Trump, asserting he possessed “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” of the President’s guilt even as the new administration moves to dismantle the legacy of his office.
The deposition, held December 17, 2025, marked a dramatic coda to the legal battles that defined the 2024 election cycle. Sitting before Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) and a polarized panel of lawmakers, Smith rejected GOP accusations that his office was weaponized to damage Trump’s candidacy, insisting he would have pursued the same charges against any political figure—including Joe Biden or Barack Obama—presented with the same facts.
“I do not have a preconceived outcome in mind when I took this job,” Smith testified, according to a transcript of the proceeding. “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 Republican or a Democrat.”
RELATED: Florida Sen. Rick Scott Urges AG Pam Bondi To Unseal Records In ‘Arctic Frost’ Probe
A Clash Over “Retribution”
The hearing unfolded against a backdrop of aggressive moves by the returned Trump administration against those involved in the probes. The transcript reveals that an Executive Order was issued on February 25, 2025, specifically targeting Smith’s legal counsel, seeking to suspend security clearances for attorneys at Covington & Burling who assisted the investigation.
WATCH:
Smith confirmed during questioning by the minority that more than a dozen career prosecutors and FBI agents associated with his office had been fired by the new administration without stated justification. When asked if he believed he had a target on his back, Smith was blunt.
“I believe that President Trump wants to seek retribution against me because of my role as special counsel,” Smith said, adding later that he would not be surprised if the Department of Justice were directed to indict him.
The “165-Page Brief” Controversy
Chairman Jordan and Republican counsel pressed Smith repeatedly on the timing of a massive legal filing submitted just weeks before the 2024 election. The 165-page brief, which laid out the government’s evidence following the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, was characterized by the GOP as a calculated “October Surprise” designed to sway voters.
READ: Florida, Wisconsin Lawmakers Demand Impeachment Of Federal Judge Over ‘Arctic Frost’ Probe
Jordan challenged Smith on why he chose to file such an extensive document 32 days before the election, calling it “atypical” and four times the length of a standard brief.
Smith maintained the filing was a necessary legal step to define which evidence remained admissible after the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, denying any electoral intent.
“I did not see it as our role to provide evidence for people to make their voting decisions on,” Smith testified. He noted that his office had consulted with the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section to ensure compliance with election-year sensitivity policies.
Congressional Subpoenas and “Dragnets”
Tensions flared over the Special Counsel’s investigative tactics, specifically the acquisition of toll records (phone logs) belonging to Members of Congress and staffers. Republicans accused Smith’s team of side-stepping Speech or Debate Clause protections and failing to notify the proper authorities that they were scrutinizing legislative branch communications.
Smith defended the subpoenas as standard investigative steps used to map the timeline of the January 6 Capitol breach and the pressure campaign on Vice President Mike Pence. He argued the records were necessary to corroborate witness testimony and prove the scope of the alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election.
READ: Florida Sen. Scott Reveals He Was Targeted In ‘Arctic Frost’ Probe, Blasts ‘Witch Hunt’
Silence on “Volume Two”
Throughout the hours-long session, Smith frequently hit a wall regarding the classified documents case in Florida. Citing an injunction by Judge Aileen Cannon regarding “Volume Two” of his final report, Smith refused to answer specific questions about the handling of materials at Mar-a-Lago or the specific contents of that volume, stating he had not even reviewed the volume himself to avoid violating the court order.
However, Smith reiterated that the evidence gathered at Mar-a-Lago—including photos of boxes stored in a ballroom, bathroom, and spilled on a storage room floor—justified the unprecedented search of the former President’s residence.
“The Best of Us”
Despite the hostile questioning and the dismantling of his former office, Smith used his opening and closing remarks to defend the career agents who served under him, describing them as “the best of us” who had been “wrongly vilified.”
When pressed by Democrats on whether the pardons issued by President Trump for January 6 defendants and unindicted co-conspirators made the country safer, Smith offered his assessment.
“I think pardoning people who assaulted [police] is wrong,” Smith said. “My view is that we will continue, unfortunately, to see people who were pardoned for committing violence on January 6th continuing to commit additional crimes.”
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
