Jack Smith claims Trump was guilty, apparently violating guidelines for prosecutors
Jack Smith, the leftist prosecutor appointed by Democrats under the Joe Biden administration to run some of their lawfare cases against President Donald Trump, claimed Trump was guilty, despite professional guidelines that bar such statements.
The development is from the transcript released by Congress of members’ interrogation of Smith, whose cases against Trump ended because Smith was improperly appointed, and because Trump took the office of president for his second term.
The discussion came early in the congressional interrogation, when Smith made statements including his claim that Trump “exploited” the violence of the Jan. 6, 2021, protest-turned-riot at the Capitol, as “President Trump and his associates tried to call members of Congress in furtherance of their criminal scheme.”
That particular issue has roiled Republicans in Congress, as it was their private telephone records that were subpoenaed and reviewed by Smith, with the help of an anti-Trump Washington judge.
Smith started off by complaining about the “false and misleading” narratives about his work, and explained he was there to “correct” what was wrong.
He was asked, “You just made some pretty definitive statements about your belief that President Trump was guilty of these charges. Is that correct?”
Smith: “Yes, I believe we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt in both cases.”
His cases involved claims Trump tried to “overturn” the 2020 election by comments such as telling state officials to “find” a few thousand additional votes. Subsequent evidence now shows that more than 300,000 votes in that state, Georgia, were counted even though they were not properly certified.
Smith’s other case alleged Trump improperly had government documents at his home, which was targeted in a SWAT-style raid by Smith.
Trump’s lawyers had been discussing those very documents at the time of the raid, evidence shows. And Joe Biden was found, at virtually the same time, to have retained boxes of government documents to which he was not entitled as a vice president, and stored them in his garage. Federal prosecutors gave him a pass while charging Trump.
A followup to Smith was, “And doesn’t the Justice Manual prohibit prosecutors from asserting that a defendant is guilty of something before a jury makes a determination?”
Smith admitted that it does, “when a case is pending.”
“So you think you’re free from that, from the Justice Manual rules, once a case is dismissed?”
Smith said, “No, I think that it’s important to state clearly the amount of evidence we had and the basis for why we proceeded. Why we proceeded as we did is because we had a strong case, as I set forth in the final report.”
Question: “But your final report makes what seems to be conclusive determinations of President Trump’s guilt, as opposed to laying out simply the facts and the evidence that you have. I mean, you draw those conclusions that in your view he’s guilty. Is that not the case?”
Smith: “Well, to be clear, the cases were never tried. We were never put to our burden before a jury. So we didn’t conclusively prove it. The reason the report was written the way it was written and the reason I said what I just said is because it was our belief that if we went to trial we would prevail.”
Question: “But your report differs, you know, if you look at Special Counsel Hur’s report and Special Counsel Mueller’s report. The language that you use and the way you describe the things that you believe President Trump committed, you know, is different. You know, Hur was careful to use words like jurors could find or might, at most, would likely conclude, whereas the language you use is pretty definitive.”
The grilling about his ability to follow the rules followed Smith’s claims, including:
“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power. Our investigation also developed powerful evidence that showed that President Trump willfully retained highly classified documents after he left office in January of 2021, storing them at his social club, including in a ballroom and a bathroom. He then repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents.”
None of those claims ever obtained a response from a jury, which might have disagreed with Smith’s contentions.
Under questioning, Smith conceded it is “the role of a jury, not the special counsel,” to “weigh the facts and determine guilt.”
He also claimed he did not have a “preconceived outcome” when he started prosecuting Trump.
And he claimed that Trump’s statements of doubt about those election results, his suspicion of fraud, were not protected by the First Amendment.
Smith claimed they are unprotected “if they are made to target a lawful government function and they are made with knowing falsity.”
The facts now show that the 2020 election was, in fact, affected by at least two outside and undue influences, the $400 million plus that Mark Zuckerberg spent in ways that impacted the election, as well as the FBI’s decision to interfere by claiming, when agents knew the claim to be false, that the scandalous material found in a laptop abandoned by Hunter Biden was Russian disinformation.
Smith also said his case witnesses were going to include Trump “allies,” that is, people who said they voted for Trump but now disliked him.
Smith admitted he had not brought charges against any of those he called “co-conspirators.”
He also repeated the debunked claim that Trump was “responsible” for the Capitol riot.
Actually, ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, is on video admitting that she held a great deal of responsibility for the failure that day to prepare for protests.
“The attack that happened at the Capitol, part of this case, does not happen without him,” Smith claimed.
The 255 pages of Smith’s comments, redacted, have been posted online.
House committee releases video and transcript of deposition where former special counsel Jack Smith defended his investigations into Trump https://t.co/u0RZrgmw9O
— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) December 31, 2025
NEW: Jack Smith’s transcript released.
on his misrepresentations, falsehoods, and straight up lies told by the special counsel to House Judiciary Committee on Dec 17.
Smith had no evidence that any of the so-called “classified documents” he claimed to have found were in boxes… pic.twitter.com/CjDWJyRNRq
— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) December 31, 2025
Notable takeaways so far:
Jack Smith conceded Trump never ordered the Capitol breach — but blamed him anyway.
Smith admitted he has no evidence Trump told anyone to storm the Capitol. Instead, he argued Trump “caused,” “exploited,” and “foreseeably incited” the violence and… pic.twitter.com/RC3gMztDfj
— Kaelan Deese (@KaelanDC) December 31, 2025
BREAKING: Jack Smith misrepresented evidence “against Trump” during testimony to House Committee. For the gazillionth time, Trump did not ask local officials to find 11,000 votes. Trump’s legal team had evidence of substantially MORE than 11,000 illegal votes. 1/ pic.twitter.com/CsiLNnUjWg
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) December 31, 2025
Exclusive: GOP Leaders Grill Judge Boasberg For Allowing Jack Smith To Spy On The Senatehttps://t.co/wdrJzNecXj
— The Federalist (@FDRLST) November 20, 2025