Congress
Jack Smith plans to double down on the need for his Trump investigations
For years, Jack Smith — the prosecutor with the best chance of putting President Donald Trump in prison — was an elusive figure. His work was cloaked in secrecy and his voice was seldom heard aloud, save for a few choice utterances at carefully scripted news conferences. Public sightings were rare, and he was best known by a single scowling image from a 2020 appearance at The Hague.
Thursday morning, however, Smith’s low profile will disappear when he becomes one of the most-watched people in Washington.
Smith is set to testify at a public hearing of the House Judiciary Committee that’s likely to be aired live across the country. The veteran prosecutor is prepared to tell the public what he’s already told lawmakers behind closed doors: A jury would have found Trump guilty of a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, had Smith been able to move forward with the evidence he amassed during his time as special counsel with the Biden Department of Justice.
Smith is expected to stand behind his decision to prosecute Trump, and say doing otherwise would have been “shirk[ing] my duties as a prosecutor and a public servant,” according to prepared remarks obtained by Blue Light News.
“I made my decisions without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election,” Smith plans to say. “President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the very laws that he took an oath to uphold.”
Because Trump won reelection in 2024 and there’s a Justice Department prohibition against charging or trying a sitting president, Smith dropped the charges he brought in the election subversion case. Smith was also pushing charges against Trump for hoarding classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
“Highly sensitive information was held in non-secure locations, including a bathroom and a ballroom where events and gatherings took place,” Smith is expected to tell members of the Judiciary Committee. “Tens of thousands of people came to the social club during the time period when those classified documents were stored there.”
For Democrats, the hearing will be an opportunity for Smith to describe in painstaking detail evidence of Trump’s criminality and threat to the transfer of presidential power in 2020 — when he spent months pressuring elected officials to overturn the election results based on false claims of fraud. Smith has argued that Trump’s efforts fueled the Jan. 6 mob that attacked the Capitol, which the prosecutor says Trump attempted to exploit to continue his effort to stop Joe Biden from taking office.
“I’m thrilled the Republican chairman is having Jack Smith testify publicly, because Jack Smith is going to tell the American people all the evidence that he has collected against Donald Trump and why Donald Trump was lawfully indicted, and why Donald Trump violated federal law,” Rep. Ted Lieu of California, the vice-chair of the House Democratic Caucus, told reporters Wednesday morning. “And American people are going to hear that. And I encourage everyone to watch.”
Republicans, meanwhile, have fumed over revelations last year that Smith secretly obtained the phone records for several sitting GOP senators during his election subversion investigation.
“He’s got a lot to answer for,” Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Wednesday regarding Smith. “These are answers that have been, I think, long overdue.”
House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan’s decision to allow Smith to answer lawmakers’ questions in a public forum came after he initially would only agree to let Smith sit for a closed-door interview, the contents of which Jordan later released in the form of a transcript and an hours-long video recording. That session revealed a prosecutor with firm command of the details of his case and ready answers to Republicans’ toughest queries.
Smith is expected to reiterate, during his Thursday testimony, that the choices he made as special counsel complied with Justice Department policy — eschewing accusations from Republicans that he went rogue in an effort to take Trump down. He will assert that he would prosecute a former president of either party under the same conditions, according to his prepared remarks.
He will also describe the evidence his team built to demonstrate Trump’s criminal behavior and why that proof extended beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jordan, asked Wednesday whether he was concerned about Smith sharing damaging information about the president to a live audience, replied, “We’re just focused on letting our members ask questions, letting the American people see.”
But in what is likely to be a highly confrontational and hours-long hearing, Republicans are expected to pummel the former special counsel for what they see as a political vendetta against the GOP — this time knowing their audience includes the public and, just as likely, Trump himself.
Trump made clear Wednesday his mind is still on the 2020 election, insisting repeatedly — and falsely — to a gathering of European leaders that he prevailed in the contest but was robbed by fraud. He also said that people would soon be prosecuted for “rigging” that election. Smith told lawmakers last month that he expected to face Trump’s wrath and retribution for his work as special counsel, potentially in the form of criminal charges.
“Jack Smith is a continuation of this weaponization of government against the president,” Jordan said in an interview. “It’s been a decade long ordeal.”
Republicans also could stand to benefit from the limitations on what Smith will and won’t be able to divulge at the Thursday hearing. As with his closed-door testimony last month, Smith’s remarks will be hamstrung by a court order sealing the second volume of his report around the classified documents case. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who oversaw that investigation and initially dismissed the charges against Trump and labeled Smith’s appointment as special counsel illegal, has since barred the Justice Department from disclosing his final report in the case.
Trump urged Cannon Wednesday, on the eve of Smith’s testimony, to make her order permanent, saying anything less would legitimize what he described as Smith’s effort “to imprison and destroy the reputations of President Trump and his former co-defendants.”
Smith is expected to stand firm.
“No one should be above the law in our country and the law required that he be held to account,” he is expected to say. “So that is what I did.”
Mia McCarthy and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.
Rep. Max Miller is threatening legal action to block a television ad created by his Democratic challenger Brian Poindexter that includes allegations of domestic abuse.
A lawyer for Miller is demanding Cleveland-area television station WKYC stop publishing “false, malicious, and defamatory statements” in a cease-and-desist letter sent Thursday and shared with Blue Light News by the Poindexter campaign. Miller has previously denied the abuse accusations.
The ad and ensuing legal threat mark a major escalation in the race between Miller and Poindexter. For much of his campaign, Poindexter avoided directly attacking Miller’s legal troubles, highlighting instead his working-class background and affordability.
With the ad, the two candidates are litigating the accusations in the public eye and placing Miller’s family drama at the heart of the race.
Miller’s lawyer Alejandro Brito — who has repeatedly represented President Donald Trump — said WKYC’s failure to comply with the cease and desist “will leave Congressman Miller with no choice but to pursue any and all legal rights and remedies available to recover damages for the overwhelming financial and reputational harm that Defendant will cause him to suffer.”
Miller is facing allegations of abuse from his ex-wife, Emily Moreno, the daughter of Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno. They include accusations he poured hot water on Emily Moreno, held a gun to her head and broke his two-year-old daughter’s collarbone.
The 30-second Poindexter ad depicts a local sheriff listing some of those allegations, and saying, “34 years in law enforcement tells me: Max Miller does not belong in power.”
A spokesperson for Miller declined to comment. WKYC also did not return a request for comment.
In a video response shared with Blue Light News — which the campaign will use to fundraise — Poindexter rips up the letter.
“He’s threatening to sue because he doesn’t want people to hear the facts. Here are the facts,” Poindexter said. “Max Miller has been accused of abuse by three women… Max Miller used his money and fancy lawyers to get himself out of his trouble his whole life. Not this time.”
Miller is not on the House Republican campaign arm’s “Patriots” list which features the most vulnerable members who typically get the bulk of its spending. However, recent polling suggests a tight race between Miller and Poindexter, and national campaign brass has taken notice.
The Congressional Leadership Fund, a top Republican super PAC, placed a staggering $4.85 million ad buy for Miller to air Sept. 30 to Nov. 3. The NRCC also dropped $450,000 on a three week ad-buy supporting Miller that started Sept. 7.
Jensen Huang’s clout as the leader of the world’s largest company is about to be tested on Capitol Hill as debates around artificial intelligence safety intensify.
The Nvidia boss and his army of lobbyists want Congress to lay off restricting exports, particularly to China, of high-end computer chips — the building blocks necessary to power AI development. Lawmakers could include these guardrails as part of the annual defense policy bill set for negotiations this fall.
But despite Huang’s team having had some success over the past year in convincing lawmakers to peel back regulations that would hamper exports, the swift shift in the AI political landscape has led the company to start sounding out of touch — at least to some lawmakers’ ears.
One Senate Democratic aide, granted anonymity to describe private meetings, said Huang’s recent visits to congressional offices have “repeatedly been seen as tone deaf, as he’s openly dismissed or downplayed the risks of AI, including denying any likely workforce disruptions from the technology.”
“Jensen makes an argument — I’m not sure I fully buy it — that as long as the world is relying on Nvidia chips, that’s a good thing,” the Senate Intelligence panel’s top Democrat, Mark Warner, said in an interview. He’s among those who fear giving a top U.S. competitor more tools to advance AI technology, which other industry executives have recently warned could have catastrophic consequences for humanity if left unchecked.
Huang last week echoed President Donald Trump’s sentiment that no new AI laws or regulations are necessary. But even Trump this weekend seemed to concede there are some dangers to the emerging technology. In a Truth Social post, he announced an “AI Force” and an AI czar to lead it — though he offered few details about what powers it would have or whether its creation would need congressional approval.
Meanwhile, a trio of GOP senators is trying to convince their leaders to do something — anything — on AI safety, an issue they believe could tilt the midterms and 2028 elections.
Sens. John Curtis, Josh Hawley and John Kennedy aren’t coordinating their efforts, but each is making a push from the back benches to jolt more senior senators to take action, with Curtis and Hawley teaming up with Democrats on various efforts.
Curtis said in an interview lawmakers need to “show that we’re adults in the room, that we can talk about this, that we can find solutions.”
Hawley is also convening a hearing this week in the Judiciary subcommittee he chairs on AI-powered Flock cameras, and using another subcommittee gavel to investigate OpenAI over the runaway model that led to rogue AI agents escaping testing.
But any hopes of passing legislation are facing skepticism among Senate Republicans that they will ever be able to overcome Trump’s opposition to AI regulations and House GOP leaders who side with the administration, according to three people granted anonymity to describe private conversations.
Kennedy said in an interview he hadn’t heard “anything” about movement in the Senate to address AI and that lawmakers who ignore the growing voter uproar around the issue were courting peril.
“We really need to send a memo around explaining we’ve got midterm elections coming,” he said. “I may send that out.”
Meanwhile, a deep dive in POLITICO’s magazine digs into the Trump administration’s complicated relationship with Anthropic and how officials’ perspective has shifted on AI this year as they discover the fearsome computing power being assembled by private companies on their watch.
What else we’re watching:
— DEMS EYE ONE MORE IRAN VOTE — Senate Democrats are hoping to rebuke Trump and the Iran war in one last war powers vote this week before the midterms. Sen. Thom Tillis is expected to flip his vote after saying he would support efforts to curtail the war if the administration hadn’t sought an authorization from Congress to continue it by mid-September. Senate Dems have attempted 14 similar votes in the past seven months with only two advancing due to GOP absences, but are now hoping increased dissatisfaction with the war will drive more defectors.
— CASSIDY SETS TEST FOR FDA PICK — Trump’s pick to lead the FDA must acknowledge the president’s claim that the measles vaccine is lethal is “absurd,” Sen. Bill Cassidy said Sunday. Senate HELP, which Cassidy chairs, is set to consider Dr. Heidi Overton’s nomination to lead the FDA on Thursday. “I need to hear that she understands that calling the measles vaccine lethal is absurd, and we need radical honesty,” Cassidy said on CBS when asked what he needs to be persuaded during the hearing.
Kelsey Brugger, Ari Hawkins, Jordain Carney, Sophia Cai, Cheyenne Haslett, Leo Shane III, Connor O’Brien and Jalen Beckford contributed to this report.
House Republicans have left Washington till November. President Donald Trump is decrying concerns about the issue as a “HOAX.” But a few Senate Republicans are trying to nudge their party into doing something — anything — about artificial intelligence.
There isn’t much binding them together aside from the “R” next to their names, but Sens. John Curtis, Josh Hawley and John Kennedy have each been closely attuned as voters suddenly grow alarmed — not only about the data centers powering the AI industry, but the recent insider warnings about potentially catastrophic consequences for humanity.
Curtis is a Utah moderate who has been among the few in his party to take seriously scientists’ warnings about climate change. Hawley is a populist Missouri conservative who has long been skeptical of Silicon Valley business titans. And Kennedy’s simple-Louisiana-country-lawyer persona belies a relatively sophisticated understanding of frontier AI developments.
The trio is not coordinating efforts, but their individual actions were part of a clear push from the GOP’s back benches over the past week to get party leaders to wake up and address an issue they believe could tilt the upcoming midterms and certainly the presidential and congressional races in 2028.
“We might want to be on the side of voters — just a thought,” Hawley said, noting that while he has his own “views” on how Washington should respond, party leaders have offered members no guidance on how to approach the topic.
Hawley is taking matters in his own hands this week by convening a hearing in the Judiciary subcommittee he chairs on AI-powered Flock cameras. He’s also using another subcommittee gavel to investigate OpenAI over the runaway model that saw hundreds of rogue agents escape testing and hack another tech company.
Both Curtis and Hawley have teamed up with Democrats, who have generally been more aggressive in calling for AI safety measures — particularly since a former OpenAI and Anthropic employee went public saying advanced models could “could kill us all by the end of the decade.”
Hawley and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) — who both sit on the Judiciary and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee — pushed congressional leaders last week to hold a vote on their “risk evaluation” legislation, arguing that “frontier AI demands frontier legislation.”
Curtis, meanwhile, joined with a fellow Commerce Committee member, Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), to call for “immediate public hearings” to “work through solutions that maintain America’s competitive edge in development while ensuring that these technologies serve human interests and remain fully under human control.”
Curtis said in an interview lawmakers need to “show that we’re adults in the room, that we can talk about this, that we can find solutions.”
“I don’t want to say we’re making it too hard, but I think we’re making it too hard,” Curtis said. “And what I mean by that is, there’s a lot of false narratives out there — we need to just jump on this immediately and clamp it down, or we need to not touch it, and all of that only I think causes anxiety back home.”
Both efforts could be seen as attempts to jolt more senior senators who are in positions to advance AI-related legislation. So far they are treading carefully amid skepticism among Senate Republicans that they will ever be able to overcome Trump’s opposition on AI regulations and recalcitrance among House GOP leaders, according to three people granted anonymity to describe private conversations.
They include Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who indicated in an interview that he had no plans to hold hearings or take other action related to AI.
“I think that I’d be getting into the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee,” Grassley said, directing further questions to Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas).
Cruz has been more deeply engaged than Grassley in AI matters, but his plans for action remain uncertain. He said last week he is still hoping to hold a committee vote on AI safety legislation this month before the Senate leaves for the final stretch of pre-midterm campaigning.
Cruz is engaged in negotiating a revised version of an AI safety bill that Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) first introduced in 2023. But multiple Commerce Committee Republicans said they have so far heard zilch behind the scenes about what the committee could do, and some doubt they will be able to get an agreement in time to act before the Senate leaves — possibly as soon as the end of this week.
While Thune himself has been the most engaged on AI issues among top GOP leaders, he still advocated for a “light touch” on industry regulation last week while acknowledging the “considerable amount of interest” among lawmakers in taking action.
Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the No. 2 Senate Republican, said — as Hawley suggested — that he isn’t giving members guidance on how to talk about AI.
“People have opinions and they’re going to make their opinions known and talk to their voters,” he said.
And then there’s Kennedy, who recently said the industry is run by “high-IQ stupid people” and was the rare Republican who attended a briefing put together by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) last week to meet with AI experts to talk about potential safeguards for the technology.
He took his AI concerns straight to the Senate floor Wednesday, seeking to pass legislation this week that would require companies to install so-called “kill switches” for their AI models. In a speech before seeking unanimous consent to pass the bill, he delivered a homespun but technically detailed summation of the OpenAI swarm attack and the risks posed by “recursive self-improvement.”
His bill was blocked by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who instead proposed creating a panel to make recommendations about potential guardrails.
Kennedy said appointing a committee would be “the weenie way out” after warning his colleagues from the Senate floor that Americans were growing “very skeptical” of AI and the tech titans behind it.
“They’ve seen this vampire movie before,” he said.
In a separate interview, Kennedy said he hadn’t heard “anything” about action in the Senate to address AI and that lawmakers who ignore the growing voter uproar around the issue were courting peril.
“We really need to send a memo around explaining we’ve got midterm elections coming,” he said. “I may send that out.”
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words