Congress
Jack Smith wants to tell Congress about his Trump investigations. That comes with risks.
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.
Rep. Max Miller issued a subpoena to his former father-in-law and fellow Ohio Republican, Sen. Bernie Moreno, in the latest escalation of a long-running family legal drama.
Pamela MacAdams, an attorney for Miller, reported to the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court Monday that three subpoenas were served in Miller’s divorce case, according to court records. A person with knowledge of the subpoenas granted anonymity to comment on them said that two were sent to Moreno and his wife, Bridget.
Their daughter, Emily Moreno, was married to Miller, and the two remain embroiled in a nasty legal battle.
Spokespeople for Miller, Emily Moreno and Bernie Moreno did not immediately return requests for comment. TMZ first reported on the subpoenas.
Miller is seeking reelection in a competitive district, and his campaign has been marred by accusations of domestic abuse against Emily Moreno and their daughter. Miller has repeatedly denied the allegations and chose to remain in the race despite other Republican lawmakers pressuring him to withdraw his campaign.
The House Ethics Committee, which began an inquiry into Miller after Miller asked to be investigated, is currently in a preelection blackout period. During that period, which will continue through the midterms, the Ethics Committee doesn’t take any action against sitting members who could return next Congress.
Congress
Trump declares $1B canceled in ‘pocket rescission’ in another affront to Congress’ funding power
President Donald Trump informed congressional leaders Friday that he has unilaterally canceled almost $1 billion without Congress’ consent — employing a budget maneuver many lawmakers consider illegal.
In a move that will almost certainly set up an ugly government funding battle after the midterms, Trump has again claimed the power to execute a so-called “pocket rescission” to nix money Congress has already enacted. The money his administration will claw back is for for immigration services, support to foreign countries, education programs, health research efforts and assistance for businesses owned by minorities.
By law, the president is allowed to send Congress a request to rescind federal funding, then withhold that money for 45 days while lawmakers consider whether to approve, reject or ignore it. Trump administration officials also argue they have the power to cancel funding without any congressional action by sending Congress a rescission request with less than 45 days left in the fiscal year. The argument is that the money automatically gets canceled on Sept. 30, when funding lapses at the end of the fiscal year.
Last year, Trump canceled $4.9 billion in foreign aid.
The Senate’s top Republican appropriator, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, immediately blasted the move as illegal, saying in a statement Friday night that “any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law.”
“This move shows that OMB intentionally withheld these funds for months to execute this unlawful cancellation of appropriations that were approved on a bipartisan basis and signed into law,” Collins added, pledging to work with other lawmakers “to address these illegal actions.”
Collins and other appropriators have already been on high alert in recent days, pressing multiple agencies about funding officials have yet to spend ahead of the expiration date.
Democrats are finally catching on to how to talk to young male voters in the lead-up to the midterms, but the party can still up its game, one battleground senator and potential 2028er said Friday.
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) has been one of his party’s most outspoken critics on its handling of outreach to young men, who swung right and helped deliver the White House and both chambers of Congress to Republicans in 2024.
The party is now “definitely moving in the right direction,” Gallego said Friday.
“Like back in the day, I was like the only one,” putting out positions on men, Gallego said at a Washington event on young American men. “Now, like, it seems like everyone every week is coming out with a new position, new idea, which is great.”
Gallego has criticized Democrat’s failure to highlight mens’ struggles and their tendency to over-police mens’ ideas. But there are signs the political winds have shifted in his party’s favor.
A new Cygnal poll released with the event of men ages 18-30 who say they’re the most determined to vote revealed Democrats’ generic ballot lead over Republicans at 57%-40%, Blue Light News reported. The poll also said nearly 40 percent of respondents said they feel their lives are off track.
“We need to take the opportunity to invest in that portion of this country, to say that we care about them and actually try to change the trajectory of what’s happening with men in this country,” Gallego said at the symposium.
Still, the path for specific legislation targeting the needs of this demographic faces an incredibly tight calendar this Congress and is uncertain in the political landscape of next year.
A proposal from Gallego and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) to establish a men’s health office within the Department of Health and Human Services, for example, has not advanced. Nor has bipartisan legislation from Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who also spoke at the event, targeting education outcomes, college investment transparency and dyslexic student support.
-
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
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
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