In his first public testimony addressing the criminal investigations into Donald Trump, former special counsel Jack Smith delivered some of his strongest statements yet, directly linking the former president to the violence that unfolded at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021. Speaking before a congressional committee, Smith said he believed Trump bore primary responsibility for the events that day and described the evidence gathered by his team as overwhelming.
Smith told lawmakers that his investigations produced proof beyond a reasonable doubt in two major cases one examining efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and another focused on the alleged unlawful retention of classified documents after Trump left office. He stated that, had circumstances remained unchanged, his team was confident it could have secured convictions in both matters. Trump, however, pleaded not guilty, and the cases were later dropped after his return to the presidency.
During the hearing, Smith made clear that he does not regret authorizing charges against a former president. He argued that the law must apply equally, regardless of political affiliation, and stressed that no individual should be shielded from accountability due to status or power. According to Smith, the actions surrounding 6 January were carried out largely for Trump’s benefit, and the attack on the Capitol would not have occurred without his influence.
The session highlighted sharp political divisions. Republican lawmakers framed the prosecutions as partisan attacks, while Democrats focused on Trump’s alleged misconduct and praised Smith’s handling of the investigations. Despite hours of questioning, little new evidence was introduced, but the hearing amplified existing tensions around the cases.
Smith also warned that he expects continued personal attacks and potential retaliation. He suggested that efforts to target him legally are intended to intimidate not only him, but others who might challenge presidential authority. Despite this, he stated firmly that he would not be deterred.
From an analytical standpoint, the testimony underscores how unresolved legal questions surrounding 6 January continue to shape political discourse. While the cases may be closed for now, the debate over accountability, power, and the rule of law remains far from settled.
