Jack Smith's Testimony: An Unfinished Trial and a Stress Test for Democracy -

On January 22, 2026, at the Capitol Hill in Washington, a hearing lasting nearly five hours was underway. Former Special Counsel Jack Smith sat before the House Judiciary Committee, marking his first public testimony regarding two criminal investigations targeting former President Donald Trump. The atmosphere in the hearing room was tense—Republican lawmakers attempted to portray Smith as a tool of political persecution, while Democrats viewed him as a defender of the rule of law. In the audience, police officers from the January 6 attack sat alongside far-right activists, with occasional outbursts of conflict reminding everyone that the day of division was far from becoming history.

Smith's voice was calm and firm: Our investigation shows that Donald Trump was the one who caused the January 6 incident, which was foreseeable by him, and he attempted to exploit this violence. This statement encapsulates the core of his years-long investigation and reveals a criminal prosecution that could have altered the trajectory of American politics but was halted due to institutional obstacles.

Survey Outline: From Election Interference to the Document Scandal

By the end of 2022, then-Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as a special counsel to oversee two criminal investigations into Trump. The first involved Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, while the second concerned his retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House. Smith, a veteran prosecutor whose career spanned both Republican and Democratic administrations and who had worked at the Hague war crimes tribunal, was appointed with the intention of ensuring the independence of the investigations.

The investigation progressed swiftly and powerfully. In 2023, the grand jury brought four charges against Trump in the election interference case: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. In the documents case, Trump also faces multiple charges. During the hearing, Smith repeatedly emphasized that these two investigations had accumulated overwhelming evidence, sufficient to meet the standard of conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the 2024 election changed all of this. Trump defeated Kamala Harris and returned to the White House. According to the long-standing policy of the Department of Justice—that a sitting president cannot be indicted—Smith proactively dismissed all charges before Trump's inauguration and resigned on January 7, 2025, after submitting his final report to Garland. In Smith's own words: There has never been a case like this before, where someone was elected president while facing pending charges.

The Confrontation at the Hearing: The Struggle Between Rule of Law and Politics

The hearing on January 22 became a stage for the intense collision of two narratives. Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, set the tone from the start: Democrats have been pursuing President Trump for ten years, and this country should never forget what they have done. He described the investigation as always being about politics, with the goal of bringing down President Trump.

Smith's response was unequivocal: I am not a politician, and I have no partisan loyalty. Throughout my career in public service, my approach has been consistent—to follow the facts and the law without fear or favor. He repeatedly emphasized that the decision to prosecute Trump was based entirely on evidence and was never directed by President Biden or Attorney General Garland.

The attacks from Republicans have focused on several key points. They have questioned the legitimacy of the investigation, particularly focusing on Smith's actions in obtaining congressional call records. Records show that investigators obtained call metadata from eight Republican senators, including Lindsey Graham and Josh Hawley, covering the period from January 4 to 7, 2021. Republicans have portrayed this as surveillance and an abuse of power.

Smith explained that obtaining call records is a common practice in investigating conspiracy cases, aimed at understanding the scope of the conspiracy. He applied for a nondisclosure order because he was seriously concerned about potential obstruction of justice in this case, particularly involving Donald Trump. He cited Trump's remarks at the time—including the warning that if you come after me, I will come after you—as evidence of threats faced by witnesses.

The core of this confrontation lies in a fundamental question: when the subject of investigation is the President or former President of the United States, do normal investigative methods become political weapons?

Responsibility Attribution for Dates: The Contestation of Historical Narratives

The most intense part of the hearing revolved around the attribution of responsibility for the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack. Smith did not shy away from pointing the finger at Trump: He is the most responsible person in this conspiracy. These crimes were committed for his benefit. Without him, the assault on the Capitol would not have occurred.

He described Trump's behavioral pattern after losing the election: Trump was not seeking honest answers about whether there was election fraud. He was looking for ways to stay in power. When people told him things that contradicted staying in power, he refused to accept them or chose not to contact such individuals. Smith specifically mentioned Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, the Republican official who told Trump the truth and paid the price for it.

Republicans attempt to shift responsibility. Texas Republican Troy Nehls directly addressed the Capitol Police in the audience: The fault lies not with Donald Trump, but with the leadership team at the U.S. Capitol. This statement stirred commotion in the audience, with a former police officer muttering a curse caught by the microphone.

Even more shocking was Trump's mass pardon after the attack. Smith expressed disbelief: I don't understand why you would mass pardon those who attacked the police. I don't understand, and I never will. He predicted that those pardoned would likely commit crimes again in the future.

Witnesses and Threats: The Personal Cost Behind the Investigation

Smith's investigation relies on a large number of witnesses, many of whom are Republicans. He specifically pointed out: some of the most compelling witnesses are those Republican compatriots who actually voted for Donald Trump, campaigned for him, and hoped he would win the election. This includes state officials, his campaign staff, and advisors.

However, testifying is not without risks. Smith revealed that he is gravely concerned that Trump might obstruct the investigation and threaten witnesses, including election workers whose lives have been upended by Trump and his allies. He cited Trump's statements as evidence of direct threats, including hints that a witness should be executed.

This threat also extended to Smith himself. During the hearing, Trump posted in real-time on Truth Social, calling Smith a "crazy animal" and suggesting that Attorney General Pam Bondi should investigate him. Smith responded: I believe they will do everything in their power to do so, because it's the President's order. I will not be intimidated. I think these remarks also serve as a warning to others about what will happen if they step forward.

This threat is not unfounded. After Trump returned to the White House, the Justice Department has dismissed most of the prosecutors and FBI agents involved in the investigation and filed criminal charges against the president's perceived foes. Smith himself is also under investigation, although the specifics remain unclear.

Unsolved Mysteries: Sealed Reports and Systemic Dilemmas

The hearing revealed a key institutional dilemma: the findings of the special counsel's investigation may never be fully disclosed. In the documents case, Florida District Judge Aileen Cannon, appointed by Trump, issued an injunction blocking the release of Volume 2 of the Smith report. Trump's lawyers recently renewed their request to permanently seal this report, claiming it contains grand jury and privileged materials, and that its release would harm Trump's constitutional and privacy rights.

This means that although Smith's report on the election interference case has been made public, the full details regarding the classified documents investigation may remain hidden forever. This information asymmetry makes it difficult for the public to fully assess the legitimacy of the investigation and also leaves room for manipulation in political narratives.

More broadly, Smith's case highlights the vulnerability of the American judicial system when confronted with presidential power. The Department of Justice policy protects the incumbent president from prosecution, but this policy is not law; it is an internal guideline. When a person facing serious criminal charges is elected president, this guideline effectively creates a period of accountability vacuum.

Smith warned at the hearing: If we do not hold the most powerful people in our society to the same standards and the same rule of law, it could be catastrophic. It may endanger our electoral process, threaten election workers, and ultimately jeopardize our democracy.

Aftermath and Outlook: Unfinished Accountability

The hearing has concluded, but the controversy is far from over. Smith is expected to attend the hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee to continue defending his investigation. Meanwhile, Trump continues to repeat the claim that the 2020 election was rigged in public, telling a global audience in Davos that people will soon be prosecuted for what they did.

This hearing is essentially a preview of the future of American democracy. It raises several unresolved questions: When the rule of law conflicts with political power, which one does the system tend to protect? Is it possible to conduct a criminal investigation of a former president without it being accused of political persecution? How will the events of January 6 be remembered in history—as an attempted coup or an exaggerated protest?

Smith's testimony left a clear conclusion: based on the evidence he saw, Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election and prevent the peaceful transfer of power constituted a criminal offense. However, due to institutional design, political realities, and election outcomes, this conclusion was never tested in court.

Ultimately, the confrontation between Jack Smith and Donald Trump is more than just a personal feud; it is a test of the American democratic system under extreme pressure. The outcome of this test remains unknown, but the pressure has already exposed cracks in the system. Regardless of how history judges Smith's investigation, one thing is clear: the events of January 6, 2021, and their aftermath will continue to define the political landscape of the United States until the nation finds a way to hold those in power accountable without allowing accountability itself to become a tool of political warfare.

As Smith stated at the conclusion of the hearing: The rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to enforce it. It requires the service dedicated to others, especially when such service is difficult and comes at a cost. Our willingness to bear these costs is precisely what tests and defines our commitment to the rule of law and this great nation.

On that cold winter day in Washington, these words served both as a defense and a warning.