By Jane Lewis | Friday, December 19, 2025 | 5 min read
When former Special Counsel Jack Smith sat for eight hours of closed-door testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, it was meant to be a moment of Republican oversight. Instead, it revived a warning Fedlan News issued weeks earlier: attempts to turn Smith from prosecutor into target risk consequences far beyond partisan skirmishing.
In its October 15 analysis, “Jack Smith Breaks Silence,” Fedlan News argued that any effort by the Department of Justice—or a future administration—to prosecute Smith would amount to more than a political gesture. It would be a legal detonation. The reason is straightforward. Charging Smith would immediately entitle him to discovery, potentially opening wide the January 6 investigative file. Classified documents, internal Justice Department communications, witness statements, and even grand jury material could be forced into the open.
Rather than silencing Smith, such a move would give him an expansive public platform, backed by sworn testimony and judicial oversight. What Trump’s Republican allies have worked to bury would be placed under a microscope. A prosecution intended as retaliation could easily become a de facto retrial of January 6 itself.
Smith’s testimony this week appears to underscore why that warning matters.
According to portions of Smith’s opening statement obtained by Fedlan News, he told lawmakers that his team found proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Smith also described what he called powerful evidence showing Trump willfully retained highly classified documents after leaving office, storing them at Mar-a-Lago in unsecured locations, including a bathroom and a ballroom where events were held.
Smith made clear that while he personally approved the charging decisions in both the election subversion case and the classified documents case, responsibility for those charges rests with Trump and his actions, as alleged in indictments returned by grand juries in two different jurisdictions.
Despite the seriousness of that testimony, House Republicans insisted it take place behind closed doors. Smith had requested to testify publicly. That request was denied.
The decision has only sharpened questions about Republican claims that Smith’s prosecutions were politically motivated. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan subpoenaed Smith as part of a broader effort to scrutinize the special counsel’s office, while Trump himself has repeatedly called for Smith to be prosecuted. Yet critics note an apparent contradiction: if Smith’s case is weak or partisan, why not let the public hear him explain it?
What emerged from the closed-door session suggests that a public hearing may be precisely what Republicans want to avoid.
Those familiar with Smith’s testimony say he appeared neither defensive nor evasive. Instead, he reportedly welcomed the chance to explain how his team built its cases and why specific charges were brought. Smith drew sharp distinctions between his work and other Trump-related prosecutions that have faced criticism or procedural missteps. Unlike cases brought at the state or local level, Smith’s charges are grounded in federal statutes, supported by extensive documentary evidence and witness testimony, and vetted through the grand jury process.
That foundation matters. Legal analysts have long noted that Smith’s cases—particularly the classified documents prosecution—pose a different level of risk for Trump. Smith referenced testimony from individuals who worked at Mar-a-Lago and were prepared to describe how sensitive materials were handled after Trump left office. Photographs of boxes containing classified documents stored in unsecured areas are already part of the public record. Under federal law governing national security information, such evidence is difficult to dismiss.
Smith’s broader reputation may also explain Republican caution. Prior to his role as special counsel, he was widely regarded as a methodical, low-profile prosecutor with support across party lines. He has generally avoided public commentary, relying instead on court filings and evidence to speak for itself. In an open hearing, Smith would likely have been able to walk through the facts calmly and methodically, undercutting claims that the cases against Trump were driven by politics rather than law.
The closed-door format also fits a larger pattern. Republicans frequently present themselves as champions of transparency, yet have repeatedly limited public access to testimony that could clarify the substance of Smith’s work. Smith, by contrast, has reportedly offered multiple times to testify openly. Each time, House Republicans have declined.
There is some speculation that the Senate could eventually provide Smith with a public forum, though no such hearing has been scheduled. If that happens, it could reshape public understanding of the cases and further weaken arguments that Smith acted improperly or outside legal norms.
For now, the significance of this week’s testimony lies as much in what was withheld as in what was said. As Fedlan News warned in October, efforts to intimidate or retaliate against a prosecutor operating under grand jury authority risk backfiring in dramatic fashion. The law has its own momentum, and attempts to weaponize it often expose more than they conceal.
If Republicans genuinely believed Smith’s work would collapse under scrutiny, they would welcome a public hearing. Instead, they chose secrecy. That decision may speak louder than any opening statement—and may help explain why Jack Smith remains such a threatening figure to those determined to rewrite the history of January 6.
Ya