In a high-stakes testimony released at the close of 2025, former Special Counsel Jack Smith delivered a blunt final assessment of his investigations: The January 6 Capitol riot “does not happen” without the direct actions and influence of Donald Trump.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!Appearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Smith provided a detailed defense of his prosecutions, which were ultimately shuttered following Trump’s 2024 election victory and the subsequent shift in Department of Justice policy.
The “Culpability” Argument
Smith’s testimony centered on the idea that Donald Trump was the “central player” in a multi-layered conspiracy. His main points included:
- The Catalyst: Smith testified that Trump didn’t just witness the riot; he “caused it and exploited it,” arguing the violence was a foreseeable outcome of the rhetoric used.
- The Evidence: Smith asserted that his team possessed enough evidence to convict “beyond a reasonable doubt,” largely relying on testimony from Trump’s own inner circle and Republican officials.
- Prosecutorial Intent: Responding to “weaponization” claims, Smith insisted he would have charged a Democrat under the same facts, stating his only goal was to protect the integrity of the electoral process.
Why “Insurrection” Wasn’t Charged
One of the most revealing moments of the deposition was Smith’s explanation for omitting an official “insurrection” charge. He cited “litigation risks,” explaining that while he believed Trump’s speech met the standard for incitement, the lack of a formal “written agreement” to storm the Capitol made a conspiracy-to-obstruct charge a more legally sound path to conviction.
The Partisan Divide
The hearing highlighted the deep rift in Washington:
- Republicans (led by Rep. Jim Jordan) characterized Smith’s work as a “failed political hit job” that interfered with the 2024 election.
- Jack Smith countered that the “catastrophic” threat to democracy posed by the 2020 election subversion efforts made the prosecution a legal and moral necessity.
