Former special counsel Jack Smith spent a significant amount of time on Thursday defending his investigation into President Donald Trump during a hearing with the House Judiciary Committee. Some committee members, particularly Republicans, accused Smith of essentially “spying” on them.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) specifically called Smith out for attempting to obtain “paid records,” part of the ongoing investigation into Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Unlike wiretaps, these call logs simply show the phone numbers involved along with the times and durations of the calls. Recently, Republicans have criticized Smith’s methods as aggressive and politically motivated, allegations he firmly denies.
Issa challenged Smith’s actions to obtain the criminal records of House and Senate Republicans, suggesting it amounted to espionage against political adversaries. Smith defended his pursuit of toll collection records, claiming that such practices are standard in investigations.
“Maybe they’re not political opponents, but they’re certainly political adversaries,” Issa remarked, referring to how these figures were opponents of President Biden and, by extension, Smith himself. Smith responded bluntly, “No.”
As Issa accused Smith of surveilling lawmakers without notifying anyone and imposing a gag order to keep them in the dark, Smith attempted to respond but was often interrupted. Issa pressed further, questioning whether Smith had disclosed his surveillance intentions to the judiciary.
Smith reasserted, “My office didn’t spy on anyone,” but was quickly cut off again by Issa, who insisted on a direct answer. Then, Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the committee, interjected, urging Issa to allow Smith a chance to answer fully.
Smith had previously stated that the Public Integrity Division was responsible for issuing the subpoena, a detail backed by publicly available records. These documents indicated that the Office of Public Integrity was aware of potential concerns regarding the Constitution’s speech and debate clause, which safeguards congressional members. The subpoena was accompanied by a gag order preventing lawmakers from knowing about it for at least a year.
Smith noted in a past closed-door session that the federal court in Washington, D.C., which issued the gag order, might not have understood that it applied to members of Congress. He added, “I don’t think it was department policy at the time, so I don’t think we identified it.” When asked in a previous deposition about who might bear responsibility for lawmakers feeling their rights were violated through the seizure of cellphone data, Smith indicated that Trump should be held accountable.
“These records belong to people,” he explained, emphasizing Trump’s directive to his co-conspirators, which aimed to further delay the investigation. Smith questioned the rationale behind targeting specific records, leaving the onus of responsibility on Trump’s decisions.
