The Dictatorship
The GOP’s narrative around Jack Smith has become incomprehensible
ByAndrew Warren
Former special counsel Jack Smith’s public testimony Thursday should have been a sober accounting of the criminal investigations into President Donald Trump and the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Instead, the hearing predictably devolved into a scripted parody of reality TV.
The session began with a grandstanding opening statement from House Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, followed by prepared speeches and hostile questions that not only ignored Smith’s prior testimony, but often ignored his presence altogether. For example, Jordan declared that Smith’s investigation was “always about politics” without offering a shred of evidence.
Over the course of five hours, Republicans meticulously avoided discussing the substance of what Smith described as Trump’s “criminal scheme” to overturn the 2020 election. Rather than engaging with the evidence, they retreated into well-worn political grievances and attempts to impugn Smith’s character.
Smith’s multi-year investigations resulted in two federal indictments against Trump, convictions of nearly 1,300 Jan. 6 rioters and incalculable controversy. Thursday’s hearing provided a rare opportunity for transparency. It was a chance for lawmakers to scrutinize the evidence underlying the prosecutions, challenge Smith’s decision-making and confirm the absence of political influence behind the special counsel’s work.
Smith had long volunteered to testify publicly, but Republican leadership initially resisted. The committee chose instead to have him testify behind closed doors, focusing on the alleged “weaponization” of the Justice Department under President Joe Biden.
During last month’s eight-hour deposition, Smith provided candid and detailed answers about the evidence against Trump for obstructing the certification of electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021, and for his mishandling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Because the Republican-led committee already released the full transcript and video of Smith’s Dec. 17 deposition, the motivation for Thursday’s public encore was obviously political.
Over the course of five hours, Republicans meticulously avoided discussing the substance of what Smith described as Trump’s “criminal scheme” to overturn the 2020 election.
Both parties saw value in having Smith repeat his earlier testimony in a televised setting: Democrats aimed to showcase a methodical, evidence-based investigation, while Republicans sought to discredit Smith’s methods and rewrite the history of that day. (The Republican agenda was revealed by another congressional subcommittee — ostensibly formed to investigate “remaining questions surrounding” Jan. 6 — whose first public hearing last week was filled with false and misleading claims.)
On Thursday, Republicans continued the misdirection-driven circus. Republican committee members questioned Smith about subpoenaing phone records of certain Congressman, characterizing the tactic as illegal “spying.” However, Smith testified that the records were evidence of Trump’s attempt to reach lawmakers to delay certification. Furthermore, the subpoenas were approved by a judge and complied with then-existing Justice Department policy.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. — who is not a lawyer — argued that there was no criminal conduct if Trump believed he actually won the election, then didn’t allow Smith to respond and disregarded his detailed deposition testimony as to why this argument was not a legal defense to the charges.
Steering clear of any substantive evidence, Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas — who is also not a lawyer — advanced a fallacious argument that Smith’s appointment was invalid due to technicalities with his swearing-in.
All of this distracts from the fundamental principle at the heart of this: if a president commits a crime while in office, should they be prosecuted?
If the answer is yes, then the party in power should not matter. Inevitably, the president’s die-hard supporters will decry any prosecution as a “witch hunt,” just as many of their opponents may presume guilt before a single piece of evidence is offered. But that is precisely why objective metrics — the independence of the prosecution, the normalcy of the process and the weight of the evidence — matter. They are the tools we have to distinguish between a righteous prosecution and partisan retribution.
Smith’s use of those tools was not problematic or unprecedented. He was appointed as an independent special counsel — a customary practice since Watergate, even though U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon later issued a controversial and legally dubious ruling that the appointment was unconstitutional. And President Biden never directed Smith or anyone at the Department of Justice to prosecute Trump. In fact, Smith testified he never communicated with or received any guidance from President Biden related to the Trump investigations.
This all looks even more benign when contrasted with Trump’s own political prosecutions.
Any objective observer knows which administration has weaponized the DOJ for political gain.
Trump publicly demanded the prosecution of his perceived political enemies, effectively ordering Attorney General Pam Bondi to target former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. He removed the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, a career prosecutor who Trump had appointed, for failing to bring charges against Comey and James. In his place, Trump installed Lindsey Halligan — one of his former personal attorneys who had no prosecutorial experience — to make sure charges were filed. In November, a federal judge dismissed the Comey and James cases after finding Halligan’s appointment was illegal. (Earlier this week, a different federal judge issued a scathing opinion reprimanding Halligan for “masquerading” as the U.S. Attorney in violation of the November ruling. She finally resigned later that day.)
The Comey and James cases are only pieces of a broader campaign against the President’s critics. Trump’s Justice Department has reportedly launched criminal investigations of several political adversaries, including Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. The DOJ has even targeted Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and Governor Lisa Cook, apparently because Trump disagrees with their monetary policy.
Against the backdrop of these perversions of our justice system, Trump’s vitriol towards Smith — he has called him “deranged,” “a criminal” and “a disgrace to humanity” — is the ultimate projection: a man accused of breaking the law attacking the man responsible for upholding it.
Any objective observer knows which administration has weaponized the DOJ for political gain. Yet Republicans spent much of Thursday accusing Smith of disregarding prosecutorial norms, while ignoring the Trump administration’s flagrant violations of constitutional guardrails.
The hypocrisy is suffocating. It is unclear whether congressional Republicans are intentionally misleading the public to rile their base and appease Trump, or whether they somehow actually believe their own narrative, which has become nearly incomprehensible. It is a world in which Jack Smith and other career federal prosecutors are the bad guys, the Jan. 6 defendants who stormed the Capitol and attacked law enforcement are innocent victims of a government conspiracy (which somehow occurred during Trump’s first administration), and Trump is a bastion of normalcy working to restore the DOJ ‘s independence.
This hallucinatory spectacle raises a jarring question: are we still living in a reality rooted in objective facts, hard truths, and legitimate concerns about our republic? Or have we already succumbed to existing in a world where facts are elective, nuance is dead and 250 years of constitutional values are subordinated to Trump’s demands for political revenge?
This nation cannot survive without a shared foundation for truth. While disagreement about the meaning of facts can be healthy, propping up these blatantly false narratives is malignant cancer. Shifting how we view facts based only on what the president wants to be true makes progress impossible and provides an instrument for autocracy and repression.
If we continue to sacrifice the truth on the altar of a partisan charade, the decline of our democracy will not just be a storyline on our televisions: it will be our reality.
Andrew Warren
Andrew Warren is Deputy Legal Director at Democracy Defenders Action. He previously was a prosecutor with the U.S. Justice Department and the elected district attorney in Tampa, Florida.
The Senate Judiciary Committee postponed a vote on acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s nomination, a spokesperson said late Wednesday, as two retiring Republicans on the panel dug in over President Donald Trump’s personal “anti-weaponization” deal with the government he runs.
Sen. Chuck Grassley’s decision to delay the committee vote that had been set for Thursday marks a setback for one of Trump’s highest-profile Cabinet nominees, at the hands of Texas Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a pair of Republicans set to leave the chamber next year.
“Chairman Grassley works to set President Trump’s nominees up for success in committee, not failure. Senators Cornyn and Tillis want written assurances from the Department of Justice regarding the Trump-IRS settlement,” the committee spokesperson said.
Blanche’s nomination to permanently head the Department of Justice needs the support of either Cornyn or Tillis to make it out of the committee to a vote by the full Senate, assuming all Democrats remain opposed.
“Why don’t you call over the Department of Justice and tell them they have one hour and 50 minutes to get me what I asked for,” Cornyn told reporters Wednesday afternoon amid the hardening standoff over his demand that Blanche and the DOJ put in writing a commitment never to pursue the president’s prized “anti-weaponization” fund, and to clarify the terms of Trump’s personal deal with the Internal Revenue Service.
Tillis told MS NOW that the conversations were complicated by the need for the Justice Department to get “several parties” to agree on the language of the statement Cornyn and Tillis are seeking.
“What I’ve advised the chair, and I would assume Senator Cornyn said something similar, is that we’re not prepared to vote yes yet,” he added.
“The Department has been in regular communication with Committee members for weeks, and we look forward to continuing to work productively with Senators to address any concerns,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in response to the decision to postpone the committee vote.
Cornyn was set to meet with Blanche on Wednesday morning, but the meeting was called off after Blanche failed to meet the senator’s demand for written proposals to modify the controversial settlement agreement he brokered between Trump and the IRS. The Republican senator is set to leave Congress when his term ends in January after a bruising May primary loss to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Trump’s chosen candidate.
“Maybe John Cornyn’s upset with me because I didn’t endorse him,” Trump told reporters Wednesday afternoon in the Oval Office. “I don’t know what it is, but I haven’t heard that there’s a problem. I heard (Blanche) is going through quite nicely.”
Cornyn made clear to Blanche during his confirmation hearing that he will not get his support until he agrees to reopen and modify the settlement. Due to the committee’s narrow Republican majority, one GOP “no” vote is enough to sink Blanche’s nomination.
The senator has asked Blanche to provide proof that the proposed nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund established as part of the deal between Trump and the IRS is formally dead, and he has also demanded Blanche narrow the tax audit immunity provisions the settlement afforded to Trump and his family.
Blanche has publicly stated that his department has dropped the fund, but he and the DOJ have dodged requests from Cornyn and a federal judge to put that in writing.
After announcing his meeting with Blanche would not take place Wednesday morning, Cornyn told reporters that changes from Blanche “in a modified release form” would be acceptable, but that “for some reason … they simply refuse to do it,” referring to the DOJ.
Shortly after the meeting was called off, a Justice Department official told MS NOW that the department “provided a written proposal to Senator Cornyn’s staff yesterday following ongoing discussion with both the Committee and the Senator’s office.”
Cornyn said that proposal was “not responsive” to his demands because it did not address the tax audit immunity provisions in the settlement, one of his key demands.
In May, Blanche signed an addendum as part of the deal that granted Trump, his family and his businesses immunity from pending IRS tax audits. That agreement, which has been decried by former IRS officials and legal experts as unlawful self-dealing, is being contested in federal court.
Cornyn noted that Blanche testified under oath that he could meet the request during his confirmation hearing.
“Maybe they think I’m just going to give up or you know, go along, but they’re mistaken,” Cornyn said when asked why he thinks the DOJ could be slow-walking his request.
Kevin Frey contributed to this report.
Sydney Carruth is a breaking news reporter covering national politics and policy for MS NOW. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at SydneyCarruth.46 or follow her work on X and Bluesky.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.
Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived this week for his tour of Washington, he may have had a mission in mind.
Netanyahu needed to overcome his newly diminished stature and waning influence over his once close friend President Donald Trump as both leaders grapple with the unpopularity of a war they started together and is escaping their control.
His meeting at the White House with Trump on Tuesday, which was closed to the press, was the first face-to-face encounter between the two allies since the U.S. and Israel launched a joint attack against Iran on Feb. 28.
Trump gave him a muted welcome and afterwards simply described the meeting as “very good.” “Obviously, many important subjects were discussed,” the president wrote on Truth Social.
Rather than an intimate one-on-one setting, the Oval Office was full of top U.S. officials — Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, and special envoy Steve Witkoff.
But Netanyahu continued the full court press on the Trump administration.
Over the course of two days, in addition to seeing Trump and attending Sen. Lindsey Graham’s funeral at the Capitol, Netanyahu also met separately with Vance, Hegseth, and Rubio, White House and Israeli officials confirmed to MS NOW.
The Israeli prime minister’s slate of meetings with key U.S. national security officials comes at a pivotal moment in the Iran conflict as tensions escalate in the region and Americans increasingly sour on the war. A recent Quinnipiac poll shows 60% of American voters opposing U.S. military action against Iran and 74% against sending U.S. ground troops into Iran.
Not only does Trump face pressure as Republicans face an uphill battle to retain congressional control in this fall’s midterms, Netanyahu’s fate as prime minister is at stake in Israel’s upcoming September elections – and he can’t afford to lose Trump’s favor.
The talks largely focused on what to do next as Iran continues to menace shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and retaliate against American bases in the region and launch attacks on Gulf allies.
According to a senior Israeli official who was granted anonymity to describe the closed-door meeting, President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu did not come to a final decision after discussing three paths forward: get a “good deal” focused on Iran’s nuclear program and enriched material, have no deal and instead continue the blockade and economic pressure, or take escalated military action.
But Netanyahu did not tell Trump what he should do – nor did he express a preference.
The senior Israeli official noted Netanyahu has not ruled out diplomacy – as long as it is coupled with “very strong pressures,” calling the push to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program “a contest of will and a contest of force.”
“There are ways of squeezing them and squeezing them and squeezing them and negotiating at the same time,” the official said.
Netanyahu did not present President Trump with new intelligence regarding the underground Iranian nuclear facility Pickaxe Mountain, per the senior Israeli official, noting the U.S. and Israel already are constantly sharing intelligence – and know where Iran’s highly enriched material is. “We don’t think it’s moved, and I think we have a pretty good grasp on that,” the official said.
During their meeting on Tuesday, Trump and Netanyahu discussed ways Israel and the U.S. can work together to stop Iran’s nuclear program and get the Strait of Hormuz open to maritime trade, the senior Israeli official said.
The two leaders also discussed a third goal: to continue to undermine the Iranian regime and “possibly create future conditions for a change in that area.” U.S. officials have backed away from pursuing paths that would overthrow the current leadership, but Netanyahu still believes that could happen.
“The chasm that has been created between the people and the regime is not about to be closed,” the senior Israeli official said of Netanyahu’s thinking.
Netanyahu advised Trump in February that Israeli intelligence indicated launching strikes against Iran would lead to the toppling of the Islamic Republic’s regime – and five months later, the slain ayatollah’s son retains power with a close circle of hardliners, calling into question the accuracy of Israel’s intelligence apparatus.
But the senior Israeli official said at the time, Netanyahu did not promise the Iranian people would take fate into their own hands following a coordinated attack. Rather, he chose his words carefully and said that an attack could create conditions to “advance the probability or the possibility that that would happen.”
The conditions needed for the Iranian regime to fall, “did not materialize,” the official told MS NOW, adding, “not for lack of insight, but for either operational failure or decisions that were made.”
Despite Netanyahu insisting Israel and the U.S. are on the same page, differences still remain: the sale of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey and the Saudi nuclear arrangement did not come up during Wednesday’s White House meeting, according to a second Israeli official granted anonymity to describe sensitive discussions.
Meanwhile, the conflict continues to spread, with an Iranian drone attacking a U.S. gas storage tanker off the coast of Egypt on Wednesday.
Trump indicated he would not let Iran’s latest action slide, telling reporters on Wednesday that the U.S. would retaliate against Iran even as he leaves room for diplomatic talks to resume.
“It’s our turn, and we’ll see if we get there with an agreement at some point,” Trump said. “But we’re going to hit them very hard.”
As for what it would take for Israel to join the U.S. strikes, the senior Israeli official said that if Israel is attacked by Iran, “We will respond very, very forcefully and very quickly. And I think Iran would make a great mistake.”
Julia Jester covers politics for MS NOW and is based in Washington, D.C.
International rage over FIFA’s close ties to President Donald Trump has reached a fever pitch after soccer’s governing body announced a plan to sell a significant stake to an investor group led by Joshua Kushner, the brother of Trump’s son-in-law.
The president and his family have all but turned the White House into their personal piggy bank. And FIFA — which has its own sordid history of corruption — seems to have made itself a party to Trump’s self-enrichment under Gianni Infantino’s leadership, such as by paying for space inside Trump Tower in New York. (The organization has defended the office rental as a World Cup outpost.)
Soccer is seen by many as a unifying game. But Trump’s incorporation of FIFA into his political dynasty is threatening that idea.
FIFA has announced plans to sell a large minority stake in a new company that will run its main events, including the World Cup and Club World Cup, as part of a plan to triple the amount of development money it dishes out to its 211 member associations.
Under the proposals — which are subject to approval by a majority of those national associations and FIFA’s 37-member council — a new entity called FIFA Forward Enterprises (FFE) will take over all commercial operations, while FIFA remains the game’s global governing body and retains a majority stake in FFE.
A press release from FIFA confirmed the plans and said Thrive Eternal, which was launched by Joshua Kushner, is expected to lead the investment group that would control FIFA Forward Enterprise. FIFA did not clarify why Thrive Eternal was selected, and Kushner was already dabbling in sports.
But Trump basically has already given son-in-law Jared Kushner carte blanche to dictate U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East while simultaneously hatching business plans in the region. (Jared Kushner has denied any conflicts of interest.)
Joshua Kushner reportedly has been a major donor to Democrats. But, predictably, the idea of another Kushner becoming financially entwined with the World Cup — the world’s most popular sporting event — and basically being dropped into a position of global significance isn’t going over well. Several other soccer governing bodies have expressed concerns, including Europe’s UEFA.
“This crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross,” UEFA said in a statement about The Athletic’s report, adding: “The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade — especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially. None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.”
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee also rebuked the plan, writing on X: “Apparently the fake Peace Prize and giant lease with Trump Tower weren’t enough — now Infantino performs a kickback hat trick by pursuing a multibillion-dollar deal with Jared Kushner’s brother to sell ownership stakes in the World Cup to private investors.”
FIFA, Donald Trump’s favorite corrupt racketeering enterprise in world sports, is now going directly into business with the Trump family!
Apparently the fake Peace Prize and giant lease with Trump Tower weren’t enough—now Infantino performs a kickback hat trick by pursuing a… https://t.co/knSZibuMea
— House Judiciary Dems (@HouseJudiciary) July 28, 2026
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., has already launched an investigation into the FIFA leader’s relationship with the Trump administration, while dozens of European lawmakers — citing concerns about “potential breaches of political neutrality” — have called for the FIFA Ethics Committee to investigate Infantino. This new proposal seems unlikely to assuage those concerns.
But what it does seem likely to do is fuel global anger toward the U.S. — the kind that has been growing since Trump retook office.
And when you consider that, it’s truly remarkable how the same MAGA movement whose members whined for years about politics mixing with sports is now in lockstep with a president who seems dead-set on casting his shadow over every sports event he can.
This post on X basically sums up the foul stench around FIFA’s latest proposal.
Sepp Blatter was Infantino’s predecessor as FIFA president and oversaw the organization amid some of its many scandals. When heof all people, is warning about how Trump and Infantino’s relationship is “deeply damaging” soccer, it’s a sign of how far FIFA has descended into the gutter.
Ja’han Jones is an MS NOW opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog.
- Chuck Edwards defends himself ahead of censure vote: ‘Context matters’
- Will Kevin Warsh Squander a Huge Opportunity?
- The Social Security benefit cliff is here. Washington is struggling to wake up.
- The primaries testing Democratic 2028ers
- House GOP leaders under pressure to act on data centers before the midterms
- Lawmakers press Treasury to target Chinese banks over Iran
- House GOP leaders eye quick vote on Senate-passed stopgap
- Senate Democrats urge Netanyahu to stop surge of violence in West Bank
- Pentagon claims to have found ‘hidden’ files on final days of the Afghanistan war
- Iowa’s last Democrat on how he can win in Trump country
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Dictatorship12 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words