Release of Jack Smith interview shows 'why Jim Jordan didn’t want public testimony': experts

The video of a closed-door interview with former special counsel Jack Smith was released at the end of the day, New Year's Eve, but it hasn't stopped legal analysts from walking through some of the most important details.

Elections lawyer Marc Elias couldn't help but laugh that he still "live[s] rent free in the heads of these MAGA idiots." The Smith interview took place before the House Judiciary Committee, where Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) did a large part of the questioning.

Legal analyst Allison Gill, who co-hosted a podcast named "Jack" about the special counsel, noted that she understands now why Jordan wanted to bury the interview.

"Half way through the Jack Smith transcript and it’s become abundantly clear why Jim Jordan didn’t want public testimony. Jordan spends a lot of time whining about the toll subpoenas, and Jack Smith shuts him down every time," Gill wrote on BlueSky.

In the morning podcast, Gill and co-host Dana Goldberg cited an exchange between Jordan and Smith where the former probed him on specific actions he took.

"The whole time Jim Jordan had the microphone, which was a long time," Gill began, "he winged about the toll record thing where the members of Congress against the 'Speech or Debate Clause' got their phone records subpoenaed by Jack Smith, and it should be against the law. And every time Jack Smith was like, yeah, that's cool, bro, but it's not against the law, and the courts agreed. So, we did it. And if you have a problem, guess what? You make laws."

"You fix the f—— law!" Goldberg added with a chuckle.

Gill also pointed out a key point in the Smith probe about Rudy Giuliani, who Smith's team asked whether he believed his 2020 election lies. Giuliani confessed he didn't "and that neither did Donald Trump."

"The President of the United States is a criminal. Thank you for your service, Jack Smith," echoed Trump foe George Conway on BlueSky.

NBC News' justice reporter Ryan Reilly highlighted Jack Smith saying that he wouldn't be surprised if Trump told the DOJ to indict him.

MeidasTouch legal commentator Katie Phang detailed the questions about Smith's proof that Trump was the instigator of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

"The first is the evidence here made clear that President Trump was by a large measure the most culpable and most responsible person in this conspiracy," Phang explained. "These crimes were committed for his benefit. The attack happened at the Capitol, part of this case does not happen without him. The other co-conspirators were doing this for his benefit. So, in terms of why we would pressure a case against him, I entirely disagree with any characterization that our work was in any way meant to hamper him in the Presidential election."

Smith went on to confirm that the evidence they gathered showed Trump prompted the Jan. 6 attack.

"As I said, our evidence is that he in the weeks leading up to January 6th created a level of distrust," Smith said. "He used that level of distrust to get people to believe fraud claims that weren't true. He made false statements to state legislatures, to his supporters in all sorts of contexts and was aware in the days leading up to January 6th that his supporters were angry when he invited them and then he directed them to the Capitol. Now, once they were at the Capitol and once the attacks on the Capitol happened, he refused to stop it. He instead issued a tweet that without question in my mind endangered the life of his own vice president. And when the violence was going on, he had to be pushed repeatedly by his staff members to do anything to quell it. And then, even afterwards, he directed co-conspirators to make calls to Members of Congress, people who had — were his political allies, to further delay the proceedings."