Former special counsel Jack Smith, who led the federal criminal cases against President Donald Trump during the Biden administration, has kicked off what is expected to be an hourslong closed-door deposition with members of the House Judiciary Committee.

In his opening statement to lawmakers, portions of which were obtained by Blue Light News, Smith defended his findings of allegations that that Trump mishandled classified documents and sought to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

“The decision to bring charges against President Trump was mine, but the basis for those charges rests entirely with President Trump and his actions, as alleged in the indictments returned by grand juries in two different districts,” said Smith, according to a copy of portions of that statement.

He maintained that this team found evidence to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.”

Smith also said his team found “powerful evidence” in the classified documents case and alleged that the president “repeatedly tried to obstruct justice.”

“I made my decisions in the investigation without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election,” Smith said in his statement. “We took actions based on what the facts and the law required — the very lesson I learned early in my career as a prosecutor.”

He added that he would have made the same decision if Trump had been a Democrat or a Republican — a nod to the GOP members of the committee who believe Smith was pursuing a partisan witch hunt against the president. Their fury has only intensified in the wake of recent revelations Smith secretly obtained phone records of at least eight Republican senators in his election interference probe.

Smith also defended that decision to request lawmakers’ phone data, for which Smith’s team did not receive the content of the calls.

“Exploiting that violence, President Trump and his associates tried to call Members of Congress in furtherance of their criminal scheme, urging them to further delay certification of the 2020 election,” Smith said. “I didn’t choose those Members; President Trump did.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In the wake of repeated calls for his prosecution from Republicans and Trump himself, Smith faces unique political and legal risks. His testimony is hamstrung by grand jury secrecy rules and Justice Department policy — as well as an order from a federal judge in Florida that the second volume of his report surrounding the classified documents case remain under seal.

Smith, however, is hoping to defend his record as a career prosecutor from Republican allegations that he shepherded a weaponization of the Justice Department against conservatives — to the extent he could.

Walking into the deposition room, Smith did not answer shouted questions from reporters.

“The hunters become the hunted, huh?” someone shouted from the rowdy crowd swarming the former prosecutor.

Smith is represented by the big law giant Covington & Burling, which was sanctioned by the Trump administration earlier this year after revelations that it was providing free legal services to Smith. The move suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firm.

“In today testifying before this committee, Jack is showing tremendous courage in light of the remarkable and unprecedented retribution campaign against him by this administration and this White House,” one of Smith’s attorneys, Lanny Breuer, told reporters. “Let’s be clear: Jack Smith, a career prosecutor, conducted this investigation based on the facts and based on the law and nothing more.”

Breuer said his client “looks forward” to answering questions surrounding both of the cases he oversaw: the classified documents case and the case surrounding Trump’s efforts to subvert the results of the 2020 election. Smith was forced to drop both cases after Trump’s electoral victory in 2024, citing Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president.

A number of lawmakers filed into the deposition room Wednesday to watch the questioning — among them Reps. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wis.), Ben Cline (R-Va.), Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) and Hank Johnson (D-Ga.). House Judiciary Committee chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) are also attending.

Moskowitz, leaving the room early in the deposition, said the interview had been “boring.”

Smith had been requesting a public forum for his testimony to set the record straight about the scope of his work and the cases he would have pursued against Trump.

Jordan, however, declined that request, instead opting for a deposition behind closed doors.

Jack Smith wants to make his case against Donald Trump to Congress — but he’s walking into a political and legal minefield.

The Biden-era special counsel who brought the first and only federal criminal charges ever leveled against a former president is set to testify Wednesday morning to members of House Judiciary.

The stakes are high.

Republicans are looking to portray Smith as a tool of a weaponized Justice Department — an allegation Republicans have brandished amid recent revelations Smith obtained phone records of at least eight GOP senators as part of his probe into Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election results.

“What they did all along, everything was wrong … a lot of things that were just not normal course of investigation or prosecution,” Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told Blue Light News. “If he comes in and doesn’t answer questions, that’s going to be a problem.”

Judiciary Republican Troy Nehls of Texas, when asked about his ideal outcome for Smith’s deposition, didn’t hold back.

“Jack Smith should be in jail — if not prison,” he said. “He’s a crook … and he needs to be held accountable for all his games that he played.”

Democrats, meanwhile, are eager for more information about the investigations Smith had to abandon after Trump won reelection in 2024, bowing to the fact that sitting presidents cannot face federal charges while in office. Smith was investigating Trump for election subversion attempts and mishandling classified documents.

“We want to hear exactly what he found, and what he did,” said Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top House Judiciary Democrat.

Peter Koski, a former top DOJ official and a member of Smith’s legal team, said in a statement his client is “looking forward to answering the committee’s questions, sharing the legal basis for his investigative steps, and discussing the evidence of President Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his unlawful possession of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.”

But Smith is bound by complex secrecy rules that limit what he is able to share with lawmakers.

Raskin maintains Smith’s task Wednesday is simple: “He just needs to come and tell the truth.”

What else we’re watching:   

— Decision day for health care: The House will vote Wednesday on the GOP health care package without an Affordable Care Act subsidy extension — and without any of the amendments moderates were seeking. Members are set to vote on the rule Wednesday morning, with the final vote on the bill expected Wednesday afternoon (assuming the rule is adopted).

The Problem Solvers will also huddle with rank-and-file senators Wednesday to discuss a framework that includes an ACA extension and other health policy items for January.

— Carr in the hot seat: FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s appearance before Senate Commerce Wednesday will be a telling moment for Republicans as GOP committee members balance concerns over free speech with their reluctance to criticize the administration.

Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told reporters Tuesday he plans to use the FCC oversight hearing to explore free speech concerns, though it’s unclear how far most Republicans on the committee will go in relitigating Carr’s threats against TV show host Jimmy Kimmel earlier this year.

Kyle Cheney, Meredith Lee Hill, Mia McCarthy and John Hendel contributed to this report.

Jack Smith wants to make his case against Donald Trump to Congress — but he’s walking into a political and legal minefield.

The Biden-era special counsel who brought the first and only federal criminal charges ever leveled against a former president is set to testify behind closed doors Wednesday to the House Judiciary Committee.

To do so, he must navigate Byzantine secrecy laws and rules that limit what he can disclose to lawmakers. All the while, Republicans are looking to trip him up and incriminate him, to portray him as a tool of a weaponized Justice Department — an allegation they’ve brandished amid recent revelations that Smith obtained phone records of at least eight GOP senators as part of his probe into Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election results.

“What they did all along, everything was wrong … a lot of things that were just not normal course of investigation or prosecution,” House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan said in an interview. “If he comes in and doesn’t answer questions, that’s going to be a problem.”

At the same time, Democrats are eager for further details about the investigations Smith had to abandon after Trump won reelection in 2024, bowing to the reality that sitting presidents cannot face federal charges while in office. Smith was investigating Trump for election subversion attempts and mishandling classified documents.

“We want to hear exactly what he found, and what he did,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an interview. “He just needs to come and tell the truth.”

It’s all forcing Smith into a delicate, high-stakes dance with members of both parties. Democrats want to exploit any opportunity to discredit Trump, but Republicans are hoping to back Smith into a corner and portray him as a politically motivated activist.

“Jack Smith should be in jail — if not prison,” said Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas), a member of the Judiciary Committee, when asked about his ideal outcome for Smith’s deposition. “He’s a crook. Jack Smith is a crook, and he needs to be held accountable for all his games that he played.”

Peter Koski, the former deputy chief of the DOJ Public Integrity Section and a member of Smith’s legal team at Covington & Burling, said in a statement Tuesday his client is “looking forward to answering the committee’s questions, sharing the legal basis for his investigative steps, and discussing the evidence of President Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his unlawful possession of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.”

Ultimately, though, there are restrictions for what Smith can and cannot tell members. He remains bound by grand jury rules that bar prosecutors from disclosing evidence that was never made public, at least without the permission of a court.

And in his capacity as a former Justice Department employee, he’s also limited in what he can share about his prosecutorial work. DOJ has provided an authorization letter to facilitate Smith’s testimony, according to a person granted anonymity to share details of private correspondence; however, the scope of the waiver is not clear.

A federal judge in Florida has also maintained an 11-month prohibition on the release of any details of Smith’s final report in the classified documents probe — a restriction Trump has urged her to maintain indefinitely — further narrowing what Smith is legally permitted to share about that investigation.

Complicating matters further is that Trump has called repeatedly for Smith’s prosecution, fueling the GOP appetite for incriminating Smith. That’s forcing Smith to weigh potential risks of criminal accusations against his desire to share information about his work with lawmakers.

Jordan has already sent out a criminal referral for Thomas Windom, a top Smith deputy, after the former senior assistant special counsel repeatedly declined to answer questions during his September deposition before investigators with the Judiciary Committee.

“They are trying to get him on the fast road to one of their ridiculous prosecutions,” Raskin said, of Smith.

House Judiciary Democrats are simultaneously pressing for the public release of Smith’s report detailing the results of his investigation into Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents.

Earlier this month, committee Democrats filed an amicus brief to a federal court in Florida urging Judge Aileen Cannon to allow its release, citing the ongoing panel’s investigations and the need to balance out what is currently a “one-sided public record.”

“Neither the Committee nor the public can meaningfully evaluate Mr. Smith’s conduct, or assess the Committee’s accusations, without access to the report that memorializes what the Special Counsel actually did and why,” stated the amicus brief, submitted by the Democrats’ lawyers.

Cannon, a Trump appointee who once ruled Smith was put into the special counsel role unconstitutionally, has so far maintained that the report will not be released. This decision could further complicate Smith’s testimony before Congressional investigators, adding limitations to what he can share.

“Every other special counsel committee report has been released, and I believe every other special counsel or independent counsel has appeared before Congress publicly,” Raskin said, “so our Republican colleagues seem to fear the strength of Jack Smith’s advocacy and presentation.”

Jordan said he intends to ask Smith about the classified documents case, including the FBI’s search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in 2022. He also wants Smith to answer for DOJ’s efforts to obtain phone data from former Speaker Kevin McCarthy as part of his probe.

Smith preferred that all this take place in a public setting, with his legal team pressing Congressional Republicans hard to let the testimony proceed in an open hearing. Jordan declined that request. The GOP-led Senate Judiciary Committee, in contrast, has expressed an openness to facilitating such a hearing as it pursues its own Smith investigation, and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said he believed the House deposition will lay the groundwork for the Senate’s questioning.

“Before you interview somebody, before you hold a hearing — you need information, otherwise they run circles around you. You get nothing fruitful out of them,” said Johnson, who is co-leading the Senate’s probe into Smith’s investigations in his role as chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Johnson said he expected Jordan would eventually produce a transcript of Smith’s House deposition. “Those would be the documents we’ll use when we interview him,” he said.