Live updates: Jack Smith testifies before House panel on Trump investigations

Trump posted on Truth Social that “deranged Jack Smith should be prosecuted” after the hearing ended Thursday afternoon.

“He destroyed the lives of many innocent people, which has been his history as a prosecutor,” the president wrote. “At a minimum, he committed large scale perjury!”

The Washington Examiner’s coverage of this live event has ended.

Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX) attacked Smith by arguing the 2024 election delivered a clear verdict on the prosecutions of President Trump.

Nehls accused Smith of trying to criminalize political speech and violating the speech or debate clause by subpoenaing Republican members of Congress, including the sitting Speaker of the House.

He said even the Washington Post criticized Smith’s legal theories and framed the cases as political from the start, such as a Jan. 9 editorial titled “Jack Smith would have blown a hole in the First Amendment.”

Nehls pointed to Trump’s popular vote and Electoral College wins in November 2024 as “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that voters rejected what he called a DOJ “witch hunt.”

Smith said in his testimony that the Trump Department of Justice will do “everything” to indict him when asked by Rep. Becca Balint (D-VT).

When asked by Balint if he believes Trump’s DOJ will find a way to indict him, he responded, “I believe they will do everything in their power to do that because they have been ordered to do that by the president.”

“That’s very concerning for all of us, at least on this side of the aisle,” Balint responded. “This is Trump’s playbook at work: complain loudly, gin up hatred and resentment, then express hope that someone will do something, but never explicitly order anyone to act and then watch as his followers and loyalists go after their targets.”

Smith denounced Trump’s move to issue mass pardons to Jan. 6 defendants, after Rep. Chuy García (D-IL) raised the issue during his questioning period in the House Judiciary Committee hearing.

“Mr. Smith, let me ask you something: Does pardoning violent rioters who brutalized law enforcement officers, spray peppering them, tasering them, beating them up, kicking them, smashing them in door frames, make our country safer?” García asked Smith.

“Absolutely not,” Smith replied. “The people who assaulted police officers and were convicted after trial, in my view, and I think in the view of the judges who sentenced them to prison, are dangerous to their community.”

“I do not understand why you would mass pardon people who assaulted police officers. I don’t get it. I never will,” Smith continued.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) blasted Smith for how he handled investigations into Trump, echoing a flurry of Republican criticisms that the former special counsel abused his office to pursue criminal charges against the president.

In a heated line of questioning, Roy specifically referenced Smith’s move to investigate what he said amounted to over 400 conservative groups and subpoena at least eight sitting U.S. senators and around a dozen House members as part of his Arctic Frost investigation, which was tied to the Jan. 6 inquiry centered on Trump.

“Was there any limits to your investigation or the investigation that preceded you, Mr. Smith? Because as egregious a violation of the separation of powers this is,” Roy said, “it’s far more concerning that you are clearly targeting American citizens for merely being conservative or supporting the president.”

“Are there any limits to the power of a special prosecutor or special counsel?”

Smith told Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA) that he believed he had proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” that would have convicted Trump in the 2020 election interference case, if it had gone to trial.

Smith said that he believed Trump knew the election was not rigged, but continued to press forward with the claims. The former special counsel cited Trump’s conversations with Georgia’s secretary of state and attorney general, in which he said they told the president they believed he lost the election.

“President Trump repeatedly raised fraud claims, and the secretary of state repeatedly explained not only that they weren’t true,” Smith told McBath. “My recollection is that [the call] ended with President Trump, in essence, threatening the secretary of state that he might be a target for criminal prosecution if he didn’t do what President Trump wanted him to.”

Just before Smith‘s hearing resumed, retired Metropolitan Police Department Officer Michael Fanone and independent reporter Ivan Raiklin entered a heated verbal spat in the area where spectators were sitting behind the hearing’s star witness.

Footage captured by the Washington Examiner shows Fanone and Raiklin surrounded by reporters and bystanders as the former officer can be heard shouting at the independent reporter, who is known for tracking lawmakers in the halls of Congress and uploading clips to X. (Video contains explicit language.)

NOW: @IvanRaiklin and former J6 cop Michael Fanone get into verbal spat in Jack Smith hearing. Confrontation ends with Fanone walking out of hearing. pic.twitter.com/dCXtsxgONI

— Kaelan Deese (@KaelanDeese_) January 22, 2026

Before the verbal fight, Raiklin posted on X, saying, “These fantastic-four Pelosi fedsurrectionist perjurors must be dealt with along with Jack Smith: Mikey Fanone, Aquinilo Gonnell, Danny Hodges, Harry Dunn.”

A video from Raiklin’s point of view shows him introducing himself to Fanone before the former officer says, “Go f*** yourself,” adding, “Don’t pretend like we’re not mortal enemies.”

Fanone was present at the Jan. 6 riot in 2021, after he self-deployed to the crowd heading toward the Capitol. Fanone was left severely injured following the protest, including suffering a traumatic brain injury, a concussion, and a heart attack. He has strongly condemned Trump’s conduct from the day and supported Smith’s prosecutions.

Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA) expressed sweeping skepticism over Smith’s efforts to put a gag order on Trump, which restricted the president from speaking about the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case.

Cline said Smith sought the gag order without the basis that someone would be harmed if it wasn’t put in place against Trump. Smith replied that he was trying to prevent witnesses from being intimidated into not coming forward, stating he had evidence that Trump made significant threats against witnesses.

Cline replied that no witness ever came forward saying they felt intimidated by Trump.

“Don’t you think it’s a pretty low bar to clear if you’re trying to silence a candidate for president, I mean, if you can’t identify a single witness who’s intimidated, that maybe you should reconsider the gag order,” he told Smith. “America was founded on the principle that the government doesn’t silence political speech … In fact, there was no real-world harm that you could articulate that justified giving the federal government the power to silence him as a presidential candidate.”

Democrats are not showing any signs of having reconsidered Smith‘s prosecutions in light of their concerns, during Trump‘s first year in office, about the politicization of criminal investigations.

None so far has questioned Smith’s aggressive tactics and use of novel charges during a presidential campaign. Notably, Democratic lawmakers have used their time to focus almost exclusively on Smith’s 2020 election case, rather than the classified documents case, which a judge dismissed before Trump won the election and which at one point was widely regarded as the stronger of the two Smith cases.

There were signs of a possible vibe shift on Smith’s prosecutions as Trump has ramped up threats against his political opponents. The left-leaning Washington Post editorial board, for example, opined earlier this month that in his 2020 election case, Smith criminalized speech by Trump that should have been constitutionally protected.

“Political speech — including speech about elections, no matter how odious — is strongly protected by the First Amendment. It’s not unusual for politicians to take factual liberties,” the editorial board wrote. “Smith might think his First Amendment exception applies only to brazen and destructive falsehoods like the ones Trump told after losing the 2020 election. But once an exception is created to the First Amendment, it will inevitably be exploited by prosecutors with different priorities. Imagine what kind of oppositional speech the Trump Justice Department would claim belongs in Smith’s unprotected category.”

But House Democrats have not acknowledged any unsavory precedents Smith might have set, and instead are using the hearing to refocus attention on the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump attacked Smith as a “deranged animal” as the former special counsel delivered testimony before Congress, accusing him of destroying many lives during his investigations “under the guise of legitimacy.”

“Deranged Jack Smith is being DECIMATED before Congress. It was over when they discussed his past failures and unfair prosecutions,” Trump said in a post to Truth Social, suggesting that the Smith-led investigations probing himself and other Republicans in the Jan. 6 and 2020 election interference inquiries were a “Democrat SCAM.”

“A big price should be paid by them for what they have put our Country through!” the president added.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) suggested that Republicans are scrutinizing Smith‘s record on the Jan. 6 investigation and others to distract the public from the Epstein case. The California Democrat called for an “immediate” hearing investigating why all government files on the deceased sex offender have not been released.

“Republicans would rather talk about the criminality of Donald Trump in stealing, trying to steal an election, and trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power and the criminality of Donald Trump and stealing classified documents of drugs and justice and about Donald Trump’s associations with Jeffrey Epstein and his pedophilia ring,” Lieu said.

“I demand that this committee, this chairman, and Republicans call an immediate hearing asking why the Department of Justice is refusing to release 99% of the obscene files, and why the DOJ is violating the law right now,” he added.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) slammed Republicans when questioning Smith, calling them “tiny and small,” saying they are “lucky” they aren’t under oath to share their real thoughts on Trump.

Swalwell, who is running to be California‘s next governor, praised Smith, telling him to “lean in” because he has “nothing to be ashamed of.” Swalwell went on to read praises of Smith from former colleagues, with one saying he had “no idea what Mr. Smith’s political beliefs are, because he’s completely apolitical.”

The California Democrat asked whether Smith regrets being a special prosecutor, to which Smith promptly responded that he does not.

Swalwell concluded by saying his Republican colleague across the aisle has nothing but “respect and appreciation” for what Smith did when talking behind closed doors.

Smith forcefully denied accusations that he acted as a partisan enforcer for Democrats during an exchange with Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA).

Johnson held up the Trump administration’s timeline of Jan. 6 events that implies Smith was a “Biden prosecutor” who “weaponized” charges against Trump.

When asked directly whether he was a “fighting prosecutor” who weaponized the DOJ, Smith replied “absolutely not” and said former Attorney General Merrick Garland never directed him to prosecute Trump because of the 2020 election.

Smith also rejected claims that his team fabricated indictments or staged “rigged show trials,” saying the cases were driven by “the facts and the law.”

When pressed on whether the dismissed cases against Trump could be brought again, Smith declined to speculate even though both dismissals were entered by judges “without prejudice,” which technically allows future charges.

House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) sought to pin Smith down on how much his office spent investigating Trump, but did not receive a clear answer.

“I do not recall as I sit here now, but I know that pursuant to, I believe it’s the special counsel regulations,” Smith said, prompting Jordan to say that he believed the former special counsel spent $35 million on the Jan. 6 inquiry and other investigations, including sending $20,000 to a “confidential human source.”

“It was me approving a payment by the FBI to a confidential human source who was reviewing video and photographic sources,” Smith said. “I do not know the identity of the source.”

“How many other payments went to this source or other sources?” Jordan replied, leading Smith to say he does not know.

In Smith‘s testimony, he said the case against Trump was dismissed “pursuant to department policy.”

When asked by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Smith agreed that if someone is president, charges cannot be brought against them and they cannot be held liable.

“There had not been a case of this nature ever, where someone was elected president with charges pending, so that was slightly different,” Smith said. “So we consulted with the Office of Legal Counsel, and they determined, pursuant to policy, that the cases needed to be dismissed.”

Smith went on to say that his job was to follow policy, not to set it.

Both of Smith’s cases have been dismissed. The election interference case in Washington ended after Trump won the 2024 presidential election, and the classified documents case in Florida was dismissed by a Trump-appointed judge who ruled that Smith lacked proper congressional authorization.