Legal experts expose the glaring hole in GOP attacks on Jack Smith

Jack Smith, former special counsel at the Justice Department, testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., US, September 29, 2026. REUTERS/Evan Vucci

Republicans brought former special counsel Jack Smith into a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday to discuss his investigations into President Donald Trump.

Earlier this year, the New York Times reported that Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) urged the Justice Department to indict Smith, alleging he perjured himself before the House Judiciary Committee when he talked about toll records vs. a wiretap. Smith appeared before that committee in January and nine months later, Attorney General Todd Blanche has failed to indict him.

Former federal prosecutor Brendan Ballou told MS NOW that Republicans are getting into specifics and minutiae about the case, in large part because "they want to talk about Jack Smith's investigation without talking about what the investigation was about."

Sen. Eric Schmitt (Mo.) became a subject of ridicule online during the hearing after a contentious round of questioning in which he angrily demanded answers about a slew of strange things.

New Mexico civil rights lawyer Owen Barcala noted Schmitt's question about Smith's work putting war criminals behind bars.

"Very funny to try to attack Smith by making him out to be, like, a superhero that travels the world convicting corrupt presidents," he said on BlueSky.

Election and law policy expert Andy Craig said in a thread on the hearing, "Aside from toeing the party line, these senators really hate Jack Smith because they're viscerally opposed to the idea of prosecuting politicians. They are committed to their own elite impunity above and beyond whatever they think of Trump. Thus their obsession with the phone records is a non-issue."

"Smith never tried to prosecute a member of Congress, even though some probably should have been ... But that his investigation even glancingly touched their bubble infuriates them. Not even J6-ers themselves care about that, but they do. Thus their how dare you huffing and puffing," he added.

"They'll do performative outrage for Trump. They're actually outraged at the idea that they aren't so special as to be above the law. They have a genuine class solidarity with Trump insofar as the class they care about is people in high elected office not being subject to the criminal justice system," Craig said.

Former FBI lawyer Andrew Weissmann said that one of the key things he's watching in the hearing is that the Republicans aren't talking about the specific facts of the case.

"The problem is that none of the questions deal with the actual facts about the two indictments that were brought by grand juries in Florida and Washington D.C.," said Weissmann. "In other words, there's been no questions to say this is a defense. This is why Donald Trump is innocent of one or both of those charges. In order to claim a political witch hunt you would think you'd need to say, 'Look, there was no there-there. But you were still going after him.' So, that's sort of this big picture that's worth noting when you hear all of this discussion: how many people are actually talking about the facts? What actually was charged against Donald Trump in D.C. and Florida."

He went on to call it nothing more than a "game" and said there were "subpoenas that were issued by the grand jury at the request of special counsel Jack Smith." Since grand jury investigations are secret, it is not unusual for subpoenas to be secret as well.

From Your Site Articles