Bulwark Takes - Jack Smith Testifies, Republicans Insult Our Intelligence

Episode Date: January 23, 2026

Will Saletan carefully dissects Jack Smith’s congressional testimony and shows how House Republicans used the hearing to distort the investigation and shield Donald Trump.

Hey, it's Will Salatin from the Bullwork. So on Thursday, Jack Smith, the special counsel who investigated Donald Trump and his election interference, testified before Congress. And you might think that in a congressional hearing, the job is that they're going to find out the truth. They're going to tell you the truth about what happened. But there's a small problem, which is that this investigation focused a lot on Republicans and members of Congress.

And guess who was running the hearing? That's right. House Republicans. So the problem is these guys then used the hearing to, instead of find out the truth, to try to smear Jack Smith and protect Trump and especially themselves. Let me show you some of the BS that they were slinging at this hearing. Okay. The first line of BS that we got from them was, how dare you, Jack Smith, investigate us, Congress. Here's a quote from Congressman Darrell Issa who spoke at the hearing.

You didn't see any selective nature or any separation of powers under the Constitution to spying on the activities and the conversations of the Speaker of the House. To what end would conversations between the Speaker of the U.S. House, third or second in line to be the President, and the President, in what basis would it be any of your business other than you believe that there was a conspiracy without conspiracy? as a basic premise. Okay, so first of all, when ISIS says that Smith was spying on Congress, like spying on the phone calls, let me explain what happened. Smith and the prosecutors, the investigators, they subpoenaed toll records. They're not tapping somebody's phone. They tell you, they're not tapping somebody's phone. They tell you who called whom when. So it wasn't spying the way that, the way that ICE is trying to portray it. And there are good investigative reasons.

you want to know this. Secondly, when ISIS says, what basis would it be any of your business? You know, he's basically saying we're above the law. We in Congress, how dare you get our phone records? You would get somebody else's phone records. We're members of Congress. ISIS says, you subpoenaed, you got records from the Speaker of the House. He's third in line to be president. Who cares? The whole point of the law is you're supposed to investigate anyone who's suspected of violating the law, no matter what office they hold, even if they are the president in the case of Trump. Third, why would Jack Smith specifically subpoena records? Why would the prosecutor subpoena records from Kevin McCarthy, the then speaker of the House?

Well, maybe it's because it's been well reported that McCarthy himself described a conversation with Donald Trump during the attack on the Capitol in which McCarthy told Trump, hey, we're under attack here. Please call off your dogs. And Trump basically said, well, maybe, Kevin, they care more about this election being stolen from me than you do. In other words, McCarthy is a direct witness to Trump's depraved indifference to this violence against Congress. So it was highly significant. And Smith has previously explained why they needed McCarthy's phone records to show when Trump spoke to McCarthy.

Okay. So later, we get the same complaint about how dare you subpoenae. our phone records from another Republican Congressman Chip Roy. Watch this. I learned for the first time a few weeks ago that my phone records were indeed targeted. We called AT&T and we've learned that they were given to the Department of Justice, as this email indicates, because I've been in communication with Scott Perry. One of my colleagues here in Congress, who literally had his phone taken from him in front of his family.

As egregious as a violation of separation of powers this is, is an egregious. an abuse of power it is. It's far more concerning you are clearly targeting American citizens for merely being conservative or supporting the president. Okay, so Roy says, you are targeting, you Jack Smith are targeting American citizens just for being conservative or supporting the president. Look, the whole Jack Smith legal case was based on distinguishing between people who supported Trump and were conservative, but who obeyed the law and people who tried to break the law and over. overturn the election to get Trump back in office. Okay.

Smith's witnesses were people like Brad Raffensberger, the Republican Secretary of State in Georgia, who was a Trump voter, who is conservative, but he rejected the conspiracy and tried to tell Trump the election was not overturned. So this is just BS that Smith targeted people for being conservative. Secondly, when Chipproy complains, well, they went after me because I was in communication with Scott Perry and, oh, poor Scott, poor Scott Perry had his phone taken from him in front of his family. Let me tell you about Scott Perry. Scott Perry is a Republican congressman who was up to his eyeballs in the whole January 6th conspiracy. And you just have to read Smith's documentation,

read his indictments, read his report to see how heavily Scott Perry in particular was involved in this scheme. So there was good reason to be going after Scott Perry's and anybody who was talking to him. Okay. So the third line of BS that we got from Republicans at the hearing was that Jack Smith engaged in election interference by trying to stop Donald Trump's campaign for president. Here's Congressman Barry Moore. You brought charges during an active election cycle.

You relied on legal theories that had never before been tested in context. And you did so while disregarding longstanding Department of Justice policies designed to prevent prosecutors from influencing elections. You also issued an indictment against then-President Biden's most formidable political opponent. These actions were nothing short of election interference. So first of all, when Moore describes the policy, the Justice Department policy, as he says that Smith disregarded longstanding Department of Justice policies to prevent prosecutors from influencing elections, let me explain what the policies. The policy is you're not supposed to do anything within 60 days of the election. Smith was engaging in most of his prosecution before that point.

Okay. Very little happened after that for complicated reasons. But the point is he followed the policy. What Moore and these other Republicans are trying to do is expand the range of time in which, oh, you shouldn't do anything because it's political. Notice what he says, Moore says, you brought charges during an active election cycle. Holy cow, the act of the election cycle, You know what Donald Trump announced for president? It was in November of 2022, two years before the election. So Trump gets to just announce for president. And from that point on, nobody can investigate him.

That's totally absurd. But they wanted to find the Republicans wanted to find anything during this period as election interference. Okay. The fourth line of BS that we got from Republicans was that Jack Smith is just a terrible left-wing Democratic partisan. I want to show you first, Congressman Tom Tiffany, a Republican, talking about politicians that Smith has previously prosecuted. I want you to notice how Tiffany describes those politicians.

You also prosecuted John Edwards and Bob Menendez, and those both ended in mistrials, is that right? Prosecuted two prominent political figures, and they ended up as mistrials. That's a gold standard here in America. So the two names that Tiffany just mentioned, John Edwards and Bob Menendez, he calls them, notice that Tiffany calls them prominent political figures. Why doesn't Tiffany tell you what party they are? The answer is they're both Democrats. Jack Smith prosecuted Democrats, not just Republicans, Democrats, right? But Tiffany doesn't want to make a big deal about that because that undermines the whole spin from the Republicans that Smith is somehow a partisan. I want you to notice what happens half an hour later in the same hearing. This is about half an hour later.

Watch what another Republican Jeff Van Drew from New Jersey says about Smith. Not one Democrat. It's all Republicans, all Republicans. Everything you've done, everything you've ever done is always against Republicans. Do you think that puts more trust in the system when you're so partisan in that way? Yes or no? Not one Democrat. It's all Republicans.

All Republicans. Everything you've ever done, Jack Smith, is always against Republicans. This is half an hour later after another Republican, Tom Tiffany, just named two Democrats prosecuted by Jack Smith, just to underscore how absolutely dishonest these guys are when they're trying to smear Smith. By the way, Bob Menendez. that senator that was mentioned, he's from New Jersey, the same state as Jeff Van Drew. So the idea that Jeff Van Drew doesn't know what Jack Smith did and that Bob Menendez was a Democrat

is absurd. It's absolutely cynical and dishonest. So when Van Drew says, oh, don't you think that puts trust in the system in jeopardy when you're so partisan, it's not Jack Smith who's being partisan. It's Jeff Van Drew and all his buddies who are being partisan. they're trying to pretend that Smith only prosecuted Republicans when they all know better. The fourth line of BS from the Republicans in this hearing was, why did you only charge of all the people involved in this so-called scheme to overturn the election? Why did you only charge Donald Trump? Wasn't that a political decision to just get this one guy because you don't like him? So here is Congressman Brad not a Republican making this argument.

You did not find it necessary to charge anybody else who was admittedly, by your own evidence, involved in a criminal conspiracy. Yes, at the time of the conclusion of our work, my lawyers had determined, had believed that we did have proof to charge other people. I was in the process of making that determination when our work was concluded. But you didn't find it necessary to charge them criminally? I had not yet charged anyone besides the president. Okay, so the point not as trying to make is you only targeted Trump, not anybody else, because you just wanted to stop him from being president. First of all, notice the way that Jack Smith describes what happened to his investigation.

He says, our work was concluded. Trump was the only one I had indicted by the time our work was concluded. You know what happened? You know why his investigation concluded? It was because Trump got elected president. And therefore, under Justice Department policy, they had to drop the case against him, not on the merits, just because he won an election. So let's be clear about that.

Secondly, when Smith tells Brad Knott, he says, we did have proof to charge other people. You just heard him. He said, we did have the proof to charge other people. And I was in the process of making that determination when our work was so rudely interrupted, right, when we had to stop. And not, the Republican House member just totally ignores Smith's answer. He just repeats his talking point. Oh, he says, you didn't find it necessary to charge them? I mean, Smith just told him, we did,

and we would have got there if you would have let us do it. So this just underscores more of the dishonesty. Okay, fifth line of BS from the Republicans, they would just cut Jack Smith off again and again and again and insert their own answers. I want to show you an especially, especially egregious example of this from Congressman Glenn Grohman. Do you really believe that President Trump thinks he lost that election? Yes. Our investigation following the facts and the law determined that... No way. Thank you. That's enough.

That is just such a joke, that exchange. I mean, you saw that Groffman wouldn't let him answer the question, and then he just puts words in his mouth. And it's a shame because Smith has a really interesting answer to that question if they would let him finish it. And he tried to explain it to when some of the Democrats asked him questions. When you're trying to explain that Donald Trump knew that he lost the election, what Smith's point is Trump was repeatedly told by people he trusted, you lost. There is not fraud sufficient to overturn any of these states. Right.

And Trump systematically ignored anyone who told him that. And then he listened to anyone who told him that he had one no matter how far-fetched it was. And so the argument, the legal argument is Trump is responsible when he's told again and again facts and evidence and he refuses to accept it. Even if subjectively he goes la, la, la, la, la, and in his own head still thinks he won. That is a level, he's responsible for the dishonesty. In addition, Smith produced evidence that Trump told people like at the Department of Justice to say things they didn't believe. They would say things, you know, we don't think that there's sufficient to overturn the election. And Trump would literally say to them, just say it anyway.

And that is obviously dishonest. So Smith could have given that answer, but Groffman just cuts him off and says, no, no way, no way he believed it. That's enough. Okay, sixth line of BS. Republicans on that committee said that the 2024 election vindicated Donald Trump, that it exonerated him from all the charges. Here is Congressman Troy Neal's. But here's the good part, America. Here's the good part. The American people saw right through it. They rejected, sir, your witch hunt, loud and clear in November, handing President Trump a commanding victory. The voters spoke loud and clear. They wanted an end to the weaponization of our justice system. In your opening statement, you spoke about proof of beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Smith, I will give you proof beyond a

reasonable doubt, Donald Trump winning the popular vote by over two million votes, the electoral college by 85 votes, along with every single swing state. Now, sir, that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the crap you were shoveling did not pass the smell test with the American people. This particular line of BS drives me up the wall more than any other. All right, first of all, this claim from Nealz that Republicans, that people voted for Donald Trump because they wanted to end the weaponization of the justice system. Really? Really. So they voted for a guy who proceeded to order prosecutions of his political enemies. Don't take it from me. Take it from Donald Trump's own truth social post where he explicitly told his attorney general the names of three political opponents he wanted her to. to indict. And then, then he fired prosecutors who refused to indict those people. And then he installed, Donald Trump installed, installed his own personal lawyer. He put his own lawyer in to get the indictments.

So voters were not, they got more weaponization of the justice system, not less. Let's not pretend this was about the Democrats. Secondly, Neil says that the election is proof. It's proof that your case did not pass the smell test with the American people. Look, the difference between an election and a jury trial or a grand jury proceeding is in the jury or in the grand jury, everybody gets evidence, right? People, you know, ordinary voters, they got a lot of things to do. They're busy with their lives. A lot of facts go by them, right? The jury is presented with all the evidence. Also, in the jury room, propaganda doesn't count. You're not allowed to bring in propaganda. Right. But in an election, you can spew lots of propaganda like, oh, this is all a witch hunt. It's all a hoax.

So that is why we settle criminal cases in juries, in grand juries and then in juries, not in elections. So it's disgusting that these same Republicans who spewed all this propaganda and lies about the investigations of Donald Trump, then take the election and claim that it exonerated Trump against all of the criminal proceedings and including his own conviction. in Manhattan. And one more point. Republicans have set up a catch-22, okay, about this election interference and then the exoneration, and I want to show you how it all fits together. Here's their position. First of all, while Donald Trump is president, he has immunity against any prosecution for his official acts. He got that case in the Supreme Court. All right. Secondly, once he's out of office, Congress can't impeach and convict him because he's just a poor private citizen, right? Remember, Trump was impeached. He was tried in the Senate and the Republican senators said, no, no, no,

he's just a private citizen. It would be wrong to convict him. Thirdly, then once Trump is running for president again, which he announced in 2022, now you can't investigate or prosecute him because it's political interference, right? You're interfering in an active election cycle. And then fourth, if he wins that election, you have to drop the case just because he's president under the Justice Department policy. And then when it's all over, we say, we Republicans say that because Trump won the election, you lost the case. You, Jack Smith, lost your case.

That never happened. None of Jack Smith's cases got to trial because the political process stopped him. Not a jury, not a grand jury. Donald Trump, to this day, has one conviction. That's the case of Manhattan. And three cases that, for political reasons, not on the merits, never got to trial. And so this hearing doesn't prove that Donald Trump was exonerated. What it proves is that Donald Trump's buddies in Congress are still in power and they're still helping him cover it all up.

See you next time.