Here’s What Republicans Need To Ask Jack Smith On Thursday

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith is set to testify publicly before the House Judiciary Committee this Thursday. The former special counsel’s appearance before the House Judiciary Committee follows the closed-door interview Smith sat for last month as part of Chair Jim Jordan’s investigation into the Biden Administration’s weaponization of the Justice Department. A transcript of that deposition exposed several disturbing details concerning the targeting of Donald Trump, but also revealed how much remains hidden from the public.

While it is unlikely the House Judiciary Committee’s January 22, 2026 hearing will fully — or even mostly — address the totality of the weaponization of the justice department, or Smith’s complicity in that abuse of power, posing the following questions will provide a start.

First, Push Smith On His Previous Misrepresentations

Before delving into new matters, the House Judiciary Committee should begin by confronting Smith with the inaccuracies in his prior closed-door testimony. The most galling misrepresentation came when Smith told Democrats the special counsel’s office “had evidence” “where President Trump was asking local officials to find 11,000 votes.”

Contrary to Smith’s claim, Trump did not ask election officials “to find” him 11,000 votes. That claim, which relates to a telephone conversation Trump and his election lawyers had with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, has been debunked for years based on a transcript of the January 2, 2021 call.

As I explained following Smith’s December 17, 2025 testimony, the transcript of Trump and his legal team’s call with Secretary Raffensperger “reveal[ed] that during that call Trump and his lawyers catalogued numerous categories of illegal votes of which they had concrete evidence, falling in some 25 categories.” Trump’s lawyer then “explained to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, they had filed a petition in court challenging the election outcome, but ‘the court is not acting on our petition. They haven’t even assigned a judge.’” Because the state court refused to act on Trump’s petition, his election lawyers asked the secretary of state’s office to investigate the problems.

The Federalist previously explained the significance of those errors:

[T]he transcript of the conversation confirmed Trump’s legal team told Raffensperger that it had solid evidence of illegal votes easily exceeding the official margin of Biden’s victory of 11,779. Under Georgia election law, if the ‘evidence establishe[s] that there are more illegal or irregular votes than the margin of victory, the remedy is a new election,’ which is why Trump focused on his need to find 11,800 votes throughout his conversation with Raffensperger.

Several times during the call with Secretary Raffensperger, Trump repeated that refrain: “I have to find 12,000 votes and I have them times a lot. And therefore, I won the state.” Conversely, Trump never suggested, much less asked Georgia officials “‘to find 11,780 votes.’” Further, when Trump spoke of his need “to find 11,780 votes,” he did so only in the context of highlighting the tens of thousands of illegal votes for which his legal team had ample evidence, and while merely asking the secretary of state to review that evidence.

Yet Smith repeated the falsehood that Trump asked local officials to find 11,000. The House Judiciary Committee should drill the former special counsel on this point: 

When you testified your office “had evidence” “where President Trump was asking local officials to find 11,000 votes,” were you referring to President Trump’s conversation with the Georgia secretary of state’s office?

Did you review the transcript of that call? 

Are you aware that nowhere in that transcript did President Trump ask Georgia officials to “find” 11,000 votes? 

Are you aware that under Georgia election law that if “the ‘evidence establishe[s] that there are more illegal or irregular votes than the margin of victory,’ the remedy is a new election?”

Are you aware that Fulton County violated Georgia election rules by counting over 300,000 votes, even though polling workers failed to sign the tabulation tapes as required by state regulation?

Are you aware that evidence indicates that in 2020, 10,000 individuals illegally voted in a Georgia county in which they did not reside?

Voting in violation of state law may not be fraud, but still may provide a basis to challenge an election, correct?

Is it improper to ask a secretary of state to review evidence of the casting of votes in violation of election law? If so, why?

No, Naming Alternative Electors Was Not A Fake Electors Conspiracy.

The second aspect of Smith’s closed-door testimony worth revisiting concerns the former Special Counsel’s constant framing of the naming of alternative electors as a “fake electors scheme.” Smith claimed that the so-called “fake electors scheme” constituted “part of what I was investigating, and it ultimately became part of the charges in the case.”

But there were no “fake electors” — rather, the entire narrative of fake electors is fake news!

The House Judiciary Committee must force Smith to acknowledge this reality:

Are you familiar with the naming of alternative electors by Democrats in Hawaii during the 1960 presidential election?

Are you aware that in 1960, the acting governor of Hawaii certified the election for Richard Nixon, but that in addition to the Republican electors, on December 19, 1960, Democrat electors met and “cast their votes for President” for Kennedy?

Are you aware that after the election was certified for Nixon in Hawaii, three Hawaiian Democrats certified they were the “duly and legally qualified and appointed” electors for president and vice president for the state of Hawaii and that they had been “certified (as such) by the Executive.”

Are you aware that two of the three alternative Democrat electors were retired federal judges?

Are you aware that a state court judge in the election dispute between Nixon and Kennedy stressed the importance of the Democrats’ decision to name the alternative electors, as that allowed Congress to count Hawaii’s electoral votes in favor of Kennedy?

Given the use of alternative electors in 1960, would you agree a competent election lawyer would recommend the naming of alternative electors in states where election challenges remained ongoing?

Smith’s Team Was Highly Politicized

Another set of questions the House should pose to Smith concerns the former special counsel’s claims that his team consisted of apolitical, dedicated public servants and that their conclusions were unbiased. Here, there are three distinct paths Jordan and the House Republicans should travel.

First, Smith should be confronted with evidence that one of his top deputies on the special counsel team, Ray Hulser, thwarted an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Just days before Smith sat for his closed-door testimony, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, released emails that suggest that Hulser spiked the investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

As I previously detailed, Hulser, when the head of the Public Integrity Section, or PIN Section, refused to support an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. 

And then when Special Counsel John Durham asked Hulser about his reasoning, Hulser told Durham that the reporting behind the launch of an investigation into the Clinton Foundation, namely reporting from a confidential human source and Suspicious Activity Reports, involved only de minimis amounts. However, contrary to Hulser’s representation to Durham, the amounts in question in the reporting ran into hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Further evidence shows that following Trump’s 2016 win, when the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Arkansas moved to reopen the investigation into the Clinton Foundation, “Hulser provided the new U.S. Attorney a highly edited ‘2-page FBI Timeline on the history of the investigation.’” Sen. Grassley’s document dump indicates that Hulser gave the newly appointed U.S. attorney a highly edited version of the timeline — and one that “omitted ALL references to interference from DOJ and FBI leadership” into the Clinton Foundation investigation.

Given “Hulser’s handling of the Clinton Foundation investigation, coupled with evidence that the PIN Section chief hid or misrepresented evidence to the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney — and potentially even Special Counsel John Durham,” Hulser seems far from the apolitical public servant of which Smith boasted. At Thursday’s hearing, the House Committee should confront Smith with this evidence:

You stated your team consisted of apolitical public servants, but isn’t it true Ray Hulser was one of your top deputies?

Did you know that Hulser told Special Counsel John Durham that he (Hulser) did not support the Clinton Foundation investigation because it was premised on reporting from a confidential human source and Suspicious Activity Reports that involved only de minimis amounts, but that Special Counsel Durham instead found that the amounts in question ran into hundreds of thousands of dollars?”

Does that change your view on Hulser’s supposed apolitical bona fides?

Did you know that Hulser provided the U.S. attorney’s office investigating the Clinton Foundation a highly edited timeline concerning the investigative steps which omitted details concerning the way the DOJ and FBI leadership interfered in the Clinton Foundation investigation?

Does Hulser’s withholding of that information change your view on his integrity?

A second thread for the House Committee to pull during its questioning of the former special counsel concerns Smith’s reliance on prosecutors and the investigative steps they took prior to Smith’s appointment. Specifically, Smith testified that prior to his appointment other prosecutors had subpoenaed Jordan’s phone records from January 2020 through November of 2020, as well as the records of Former Republican Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy from November 2020 through January 8, 2021. While behind closed doors, Smith refused to speculate on the basis for those subpoenas, the House Judiciary Committee should push Smith to explain himself:

Did the individuals who obtained subpoenas for Jordan and McCarthy join your special counsel team? 

Given your investigations related to the aftermath of the 2020 election, subpoenaing Republican leaders’ phone records from before the election appears presumptively political, but you didn’t inquire on the basis of those subpoenas, did you?

Yet you had those same prosecutors join your special counsel team, didn’t you?

Did you approve any investigative activities involving Jordan? McCarthy? 

Did you review the material collected from Jordan or McCarthy? If not, who did?

Why were Speaker McCarthy’s personal cell records subpoenaed?

Relatedly, Smith should be pushed to explain the basis for the subpoenas issued to nearly 200 different individuals or businesses, seeking records about some 430 Republican individuals and entities, including election lawyers, groups such as Turning Point USA, and entities, such as American First Legal, which didn’t even exist on January 6, 2021.

Mr. Smith were you involved in the decision to seek those subpoenas?

What basis did you have for subpoenaing Turning Point USA?

What about entities that didn’t even exist on January 6, 2021?

By subpoenaing bank records for those entities, you would obtain their donor information, wouldn’t you?

Do you know if any donor information was obtained?

How did you protect donor information once it was in your possession?

That donor information remains in the possession of the government today, doesn’t it?

Wouldn’t it be possible for a future Democrat Administration to access that donor information?

The House Judiciary Committee should also push Smith on the political origins of the elector investigation that his special counsel’s office then finished. Here, releases by Sen. Grassley previously revealed the political origins of the probe, with evidence showing that in contravention of DOJ policy, the anti-Trump Tim Thibault crafted the electronic communication to open the Arctic Frost investigation into Trump.

Were you aware, Mr. Smith, that Arctic Frost was opened based on the efforts of Tim Thibault?

Are you aware that Thibault held a strong anti-Trump bias?

The Special Counsel’s Subpoenas of Congress

During his closed-door testimony, much of the questioning of Smith focused on the special counsel office’s decision to subpoena the toll records of Republican congressmen and prosecutors decision to obtain a nondisclosure order from Judge Boasberg. That nondisclosure order prohibited the telecommunication providers from alerting the senators and representatives to the existence of the subpoenas, which in turn prevented them from seeking to quash the subpoenas based on the Speech or Debate clause. 

Smith claimed he and his team acted properly in subpoenaing congressional leaders and in obtaining the nondisclosure order. Yet the former special counsel could not explain what information his team conveyed to Judge Boasberg to justify the nondisclosure order. Hopefully, Chair Jordan and his staff have obtained the special counsel’s filing so they can push Smith to explain the basis for skirting the Speech or Debate clause.

Either way, the House Judiciary Committee should confront Smith with evidence revealing the Department of Justice’s double standards when it comes to the Speech or Debate clause, and for that matter, executive privilege. 

Here, Sen. Grassley’s recent releases again prove enlightening, with the Iowa senator making public internal documents which revealed the Obama-Biden Administration refused to allow Clinton Foundation investigators to review eight thumb drives of data provided by an FBI source. That data consisted of “material hacked from the Executive Office of the President, the State Department, the U.S. House of Representatives, various federal agencies, as well as some non-profit organizations, such as George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and the Atlantic Council.” In secreting that data from Clinton-Foundation investigators, the Obama-Biden Administration claimed the information “was subject to various Executive and Congressional Privileges.”

In contrast, Smith affirmatively sought the toll records from top congressional Republicans, disregarding the Speech or Debate clause. Prosecutors also obtained scores of cell phones used by members of the Trump 1.0 Executive Branch.

Don’t you think Mr. Smith, that a reasonable American would view this disparate treatment as political favoritism?

To the extent Smith again seeks cover in the fact that the PIN Section concurred in the decision to subpoena congressional Republicans, Jordan and his colleagues should remind the former Special Counsel that Hulser once led the PIN Section. Smith should also be forced to explain why he didn’t merely ask Republican lawmakers for permission to obtain their toll records:

You maintain PIN Section provides apolitical guidance, but Hulser once led the PIN Section didn’t he?

Did Hulser approved seeking the NDOs for Members of Congress? 

Who suggested obtaining the NDOs?

And why not ask members of Congress for their permission to obtain their toll records?

And What About That Paid Informant?

The House Judiciary Committee should also question Smith concerning the $20,000 the Special Counsel’s office paid an informant as part of the investigation into Trump. Documents show that Hulser approved that payment in June of 2023, and that Hulser discussed the use of an informant with Assistant Special Counsel Julia Gegenheimer, as well as Smith. Given the DOJ’s improper use of informants as part of the Crossfire Hurricane get-Trump effort, the former special counsel should face questions such as these: 

What was the nature of the agreement with the informant? Was there a contract? Was the informant considered a contractor? An employee of DOJ or the FBI? 

Who did the informant “report” to? Who did the informant communicate with (Smith, Hulser, others on Smith’s team, FBI, PIN)?

Did AG Garland know of the existence of the informant?

What was the $20,000 payment for? Did the informant receive additional money?

How long did the informant work for the DOJ/FBI on Arctic Frost? On other investigations? What did the informant do for Arctic Frost? Why was this specific individual selected to be the informant for Arctic Frost? Were there other informants?

Did you or your team receive tips or information from other sources? Were any of those Democratic lawyers or strategists?

Did Smith And His Team Use Private Emails Or Text To Communicate?

Another area of inquiry for Smith comes from a question Sen. Grassley previously posed to the special counsel — one that appears unanswered to date:

Did you or your “staff use any non-government devices, such as laptops, tablets, or phones, to conduct official business?”

If so, how did you preserve the government records from those private devices?

Were You Independent? 

A final set of questions should focus on Smith’s independence and whether Attorney General Garland exercised any supervision over his investigations:

Did you operate independently as special counsel?

Who did you report to?

Did anyone supervise your work? Your day-to-day activities? Did you have to seek approval from anyone in the Executive Branch to do your work?

Did the folks on your team have to get approval from anyone above or besides you to do their work as part of the special counsel’s office?

Besides PIN, what other sections of the federal government did your special counsel’s team work with or seek guidance from?

Answers to these and the other questions noted above is only a start. And while the public may think this is old news, the weaponization of the DOJ against Republicans won’t stop until the depths of the problems are known — and the persons responsible are held accountable either in court or the court of public opinion.

---

Margot Cleveland is an investigative journalist and legal analyst and serves as The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. Margot’s work has been published at The Wall Street Journal, The American Spectator, the New Criterion, National Review Online, Townhall.com, the Daily Signal, USA Today, and the Detroit Free Press. She is also a regular guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and on Fox News, Fox Business, and Newsmax. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. Cleveland is also of counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland where you can read more about her greatest accomplishments—her dear husband and dear son. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Read More From Original Article Here: Here's What Republicans Need To Ask Jack Smith On Thursday