Connect with us

Congress

Republicans tried to snag Jack Smith on technicalities. But they didn’t engage with the facts.

Published

on

Republicans finally had their moment to take on the man who tried to put President Donald Trump in jail. But they didn’t land any significant blows.

During Thursday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing with Jack Smith, GOP members spent almost no time challenging the facts of the criminal case that the former special counsel brought against Trump: that he conspired to corrupt the results of the 2020 election and seize a second term he didn’t win.

Instead, Republican committee members spent much of the hearing challenging the technical aspects of Smith’s probe into Trump’s election interference, including whether the veteran federal prosecutor properly signed his oath of office as special counsel and if he was sufficiently cognizant of the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause that protects Congress from executive branch overreach.

They questioned whether Smith was too friendly with a Justice Department official who recommended him for the special counsel position and challenged his approval of a $20,000 payment to a confidential human source for the FBI who was reviewing video and photos for the bureau.

House Judiciary Committee chair Jim Jordan pressed Smith on his view of the House’s now-defunct select committee to investigate the events of Jan. 6, 2021, which also probed Trump’s 2020 election gambit. He also questioned that panel’s reliance on former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson to implicate Trump in plans to overturn the results favoring Joe Biden.

“Democrats have been going after President Trump for 10 years. For a decade. And the country should never, ever forget what they did,” Jordan said.

This nibbling around the edges by Republicans underscores the GOP’s lingering discomfort with Trump’s bid to subvert the election — an effort that preceded a violent attack on the Capitol by a mob of the president’s supporters. Several Republicans on the Judiciary Committee were among those who fled the rioters that day and condemned the violence at the time, and none at the hearing suggested Trump actually prevailed against Biden.

The posture of committee Republicans Thursday also gave Democrats ammunition to claim that Republicans had no legitimate argument with the substance of Smith’s findings — both in the election interference case and in the case alleging mishandling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

“Our Republican colleagues want to try to dirty up his investigation, but they want to try to avoid as much as possible the underlying facts, because it’s all about what is incontrovertibly true: Donald Trump’s determined plan to overthrow the 2020 presidential election,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, in an interview during a break in the hours-long hearing convened to receive Smith’s first-ever public testimony.

Raskin and other Democrats feel so emboldened by Smith’s testimony Thursday that they are now asking Jordan to hold a continuation of the hearing as soon as a report is unsealed that would allow Smith to go into more detail about the classified documents charges he sought to bring up against Trump.

The most forceful attack on Smith came from Trump himself who appeared to have watched or been briefed on aspects of the hearing during his trip to Europe.

“Jack Smith is a deranged animal, who shouldn’t be allowed to practice Law,” Trump said on Truth Social. “Hopefully the Attorney General is looking at what he’s done, including some of the crooked and corrupt witnesses that he was attempting to use in his case against me.”

Smith, who later said he expected the Trump administration would pursue federal criminal charges against him “because they have been ordered to by the president,” forcefully defended his office’s work throughout the hearing Thursday. He denied that politics played any role in his team’s findings and calmly parried the attacks Republicans lobbed at him over his investigative tactics and decision to bring charges at all.

And he repeatedly suggested the failure to hold Trump accountable for his 2020 election maneuvering could invite future attacks.

“I have seen how the rule of law can erode. My feeling is that we have seen the rule of law function in our country so long that many of us have come to take it for granted,” Smith said. “The rule of law is not self-executing.”

Smith’s hearing, which came weeks after the public release of his closed-door deposition testimony to the panel late last year, also provided a venue for relitigating the events of Jan. 6 — specifically who was responsible for the violent event. Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) called the hearing “theater” for Republican lawmakers seeking to rewrite the history of the attack, noting the presence in the audience of police officers who defended the Capitol that day.

Also in attendance at the hearing was Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy for his role in the Jan. 6 riot and sentenced to 18 years in prison before Trump commuted his sentence last year.

“I want to see true transparency in our government,” Rhodes said in an interview, adding that it was “really kind of surreal” to be back in the Capitol complex after being banned prior to his commutation.

At some points emotions ran high, such as when former Metropolitan Police Force officer Michael Fanone coughed “Fuck yourself” when Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) opined that police bore responsibility for the Jan 6. security breach at the Capitol. There was also a tense confrontation between Fanone and Ivan Raiklin, an activist and advocate for Jan. 6 defendants, that almost culminated in a physical altercation.

Throughout the day Smith remained straight-faced and measured, offering little visible reaction as the occasionally irate Republicans repeatedly condemned his work and attacked his character in deeply personal terms.

He also appeared unmoved amid the effusive praise from Democrats, who repeatedly thanked him for his service to the country and urged him not to bow to intimidation from Trump and his allies.

Democrats eagerly teed up the evidence Smith amassed in his Trump investigations that underscored their view that Trump knew he lost the election but attempted to stay in power anyway.

Smith has said Trump’s campaign of lies about election fraud fueled the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol that resulted in hundreds of assaults on law enforcement officers. He has also said Trump exploited the violence to try and pressure Congress to block Joe Biden’s victory.

“I’m so pleased you’re here on national TV telling the American people that Trump was indicted, he was indicted lawfully and multiple grand juries secured those indictments,” said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) said during the hearing.

But Republicans spent little time questioning that narrative: Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) asked whether Smith’s subpoenas for GOP lawmakers’ phone data — revelations that reignited the party’s determination to compel Smith’s Capitol Hill testimony — violated the Constitutional speech and debate clause that protects correspondence about the legislative process.

Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wis.) suggested that Smith was appointed special counsel because of a friendship with another Justice Department staffer in the Biden administration.

Even when a handful of Republicans did question Smith’s case against Trump, they focused largely on whether Trump could be excused for his conduct if he genuinely believed he won the election — even though he was defeated and the results were certified in Biden’s favor.

“I’ve talked to Donald Trump over a period of time. Donald Trump is 100 percent certain he won that election,” said Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.). “There is zero percent chance that he believes he lost.”

Rep. Laurel Lee (R-Fla.) noted that Trump relied heavily on a team of legal advisers as he worked to reverse the election results and said Smith needed to prove Trump “knowingly” sought to subvert the outcome.

Smith, both in the indictment against Trump and his testimony Thursday, repeatedly argued that Trump knew he lost.

“He was looking for ways to stay in power,” Smith said. ”When people told him things that conflicted with staying in power, he rejected them.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Congress

Republicans start raising concerns about Minneapolis shooting

Published

on

A small but growing number of Republicans are raising public concerns about the killing Saturday of a 37-year-old Minnesota man by federal agents.

Hours after the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti on a Minneapolis street, one House GOP chair called for the top ICE leader and other Trump administration officials to publicly answer lawmakers’ questions. GOP Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Thom Tillis of North Carolina called for independent probes into the shooting, with Cassidy arguing the integrity of ICE and the Department of Homeland Security are “at stake.”

Another House GOP chair appeared to suggest President Donald Trump should withdraw from Minneapolis and send the agents there to another city.

“If I were President Trump, I would almost think about, OK, if the mayor and governor are going put our ICE officials in harm’s way and there’s a chance of losing more innocent lives, or whatever, then maybe go to another city and let the people of Minneapolis decide: Do we want to continue to have all of these illegals?” Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said Sunday on Fox News, adding that he expected Minnesotans to “rebel against their leadership.”

However gentle and equivocal the pushback might be, it is growing increasingly conspicuous as congressional Republicans privately discuss how to respond to Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement campaign ahead of the midterm elections. Some Republicans have been privately warning administration officials and GOP leaders for months that the operation is not going over well in some pockets of the country.

“Many of us wonder if the administration has any clue as to how much this will hurt us legislatively and electorally this year,” said one House Republican granted anonymity to candidly discuss private reactions.

While some of those speaking out, like Tillis, are retiring or known to be at odds with Trump, not all fit that bill. Rep. Dusty Johnson, who called Sunday for “a thorough investigation” of the officer-involved shooting and for all parties to “deescalate,” is running in a June GOP primary to be South Dakota’s governor.

After House Homeland Security Committee Chair Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.) called Saturday for ICE, Border Patrol and other DHS officials to testify before his panel, Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-Wash.) praised the move, saying it was important “the American people and Congress be given a better understanding of how immigration enforcement is being handled.”

Still, most Hill Republicans have not weighed in publicly or are backing the Trump administration, which was quick to argue Pretti was a “domestic terrorist” intent on massacring federal agents. Eyewitness video shows no evidence he drew his weapon or otherwise threatened agents with deadly force before he was shot.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said in an interview with CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday that people are not allowed to carry a gun while committing another crime. “And interfering with law enforcement is a felony,” he added.

“Peaceful protesters don’t have 9mm weapons with two extra magazines,” Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) said on Fox News, referring to the concealed handgun Pretti had a permit to carry.

The shooting and backlash from Democrats has upended a crucial government funding package that the Senate was expected to pass this week. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Saturday that Democrats won’t vote to advance the legislation so long as DHS funding is included, raising the likelihood of a partial shutdown at midnight Friday.

Amid the uncertainty, some Republicans have privately fretted about the lack of guidance coming from the Trump administration about the shooting. Four GOP lawmakers and several GOP aides noted they had received many more updates from the administration about the weekend’s major winter storm than the situation in Minneapolis or immigration enforcement operations generally.

Compounding the confusion, a DHS official sent an email alert with incorrect and contradictory information to congressional Republicans about three hours after the shooting Saturday, according to three people with direct knowledge of the message, which Blue Light News obtained.

The email described “the incident this morning between US Border Patrol officers and an illegal alien with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, who was wanted for violent assault.” But it linked to a DHS social media post that said federal agents were pursuing “an illegal alien wanted for violent assault” and then an “individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun,” referring to Pretti, who was a U.S. citizen.

As Republicans wrangle with the shooting, Democrats are discussing internally how to mount a response — with senators strategizing over the funding bill and House leaders considering options including targeting Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem with sanctions.

There’s a growing demand in the caucus to impeach Noem, with one purple-district Democrat who voted for DHS funding last week, Rep. Laura Gillen of New York, publicly backing the move shortly after a Sunday morning caucus call.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and state Attorney General Keith Ellison, both former House Democrats, briefed the lawmakers on the private call.

Walz “sounded the alarm” over the “illegal” DHS activity in Minnesota, “and he urged everyone to unite and defend the integrity of the victims who are being smeared by the Trump administration,” said one House Democrat on the call who was granted anonymity because participants were encouraged not to leak its contents.

“This is dark, unthinkable stuff, but I’ve never seen Democrats more militantly united,” the lawmaker added.

Nicholas Wu contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Congress

Eleanor Holmes Norton won’t seek reelection as DC delegate

Published

on

Eleanor Holmes Norton, Washington’s nonvoting delegate to the House for more than three decades, will not seek a 19th term in office.

Norton’s campaign on Sunday filed a termination notice with the Federal Election Commission, essentially signaling an end to her campaign. She can still file for reelection in the future.

Norton’s spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

Norton, 88, has faced mounting questions about her ability to serve in office as she retreated from most public appearances and showed unmistakable signs of frailty when she did speak.

Her fitness came under particular scrutiny last summer when she remained largely out of sight as President Donald Trump announced a move to surge National Guard and federal law enforcement into Washington and take over its police department against the will of city leaders.

While Norton insisted for months afterward she would in fact run again, reelection appeared increasingly untenable. Prominent Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, her former top aide, publicly called on her to retire, and Norton raised scant funds for her campaign.

What is already a crowded field of challengers to the longtime delegate could balloon even further. The election is likely to be decided in the Democratic primary election in a city that hasn’t given a Republican presidential nominee more than 10 percent of the vote since 1988.

Among the Democrats already vying to succeed her are D.C. Council members Brooke Pinto and Robert White, political strategist Kinney Zalesne and former Norton aide Trent Holbrook.

One of only two people who have represented D.C. in Congress since the delegate position was established in 1970, Norton made her reputation as a civil rights activist and pioneering attorney for women’s rights. Elected to succeed Walter Fauntroy in 1990, she became known on Capitol Hill as a fierce defender of the city’s self-rule, helping to orchestrate a financial rescue for the city in the 1990s while fending off efforts by congressional Republicans to assert more control over the city.

In the later decades of her career, she worked to build support for more autonomy for the city government and to secure congressional voting rights for D.C. residents. A bipartisan bid to secure D.C. a full House vote evaporated in 2009, and Norton turned to pushing statehood efforts.

The House voted to support D.C. statehood in 2020 and 2021, but the effort has not otherwise advanced.

Decades of improving conditions in the city had led to an increasingly hands-off approach from federal overseers. But that changed in recent years after a post-pandemic surge in crime and Trump’s reelection in 2024 — posing the greatest threat to the city’s autonomy since it was granted partial home rule in 1973.

Norton was largely absent from the public eye during Trump’s takeover, issuing statements and news releases but not granting interviews or appearing alongside municipal leaders who railed against the Trump administration. When she has made speeches on Capitol Hill, she has read from prepared remarks with halting delivery and with aides close beside her.

In an episode that raised further questions about her fitness for reelection, Norton was scammed out of thousands of dollars by fraudsters last year. She was described as having “early stages of dementia” in an internal police report that also described a longtime aide as her caretaker with power of attorney.

Continue Reading

Congress

Trump’s return supercharges lobbying revenues

Published

on

President Donald Trump’s second term is already delivering a massive payday for Washington’s top lobbying shops — especially those with close ties to the administration.

According to disclosures filed this week, Trump’s wide-ranging policy upheavals across trade, tax, health care, tech, defense and energy boosted the bottom lines of almost every one of K Street’s biggest lobbying firms.

Thirteen of the largest 20 firms by revenue reported growth of 10 percent or more compared to 2024. In total, they brought in nearly $824 million, up from $595 million during the final year of the Biden administration.

Several reported their highest-ever annual revenues, including Ballard Partners, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, BGR Group, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and Holland & Knight.

“The real driver was that it’s the most activity that we’ve seen from a first year of a new administration in a long time,” said Holland & Knight partner Paul Stimers, whose firm brought in $54.6 million in lobbying revenues last year.

While federal lobbying spending has been climbing steadily for the past decade — and the typical Year 1 of an administration also juices revenue — Trump’s aggressive use of executive power and influence is supercharging the trend.

“Every quarter it seems that there are more challenges and opportunities from the administration and Congress,” said Brownstein policy director Nadeam Elshami.

Some of the firms that saw the most dramatic windfalls were those with close ties to Trump and top administration officials.

Ballard Partners, which counts Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles among its alumni, signed more than 200 new clients after Trump’s election. It led K Street last year with more than $88.3 million in lobbying fees — a 350 percent increase from 2024.

In the fourth quarter alone, Ballard brought in more revenue than it did in all of 2024. (Blue Light News’s parent company, Axel Springer, was a Ballard Partners client for less than two months last year.)

Ballard contends that it’s focused on long-term success, beyond its sharp rise last year and close ties to the current administration.

“We remain doggedly committed to growing a fiercely bipartisan firm that is built to thrive in Washington’s dynamic political environment for decades to come,” said the firm’s founder and president Brian Ballard, who credited his employees for the firm’s growth.

Brownstein, K Street’s previous top earner and No. 2 for 2025, brought in $73.9 million in lobbying revenues last year, up from $67.9 million in 2024.

Coming in third last year was BGR Group, which employed former Wisconsin Republican Rep. Sean Duffy before he became Trump’s Secretary of Transportation. It also counts former Trump campaign adviser David Urban as a managing director. BGR reported $71.5 million in lobbying revenues last year, a 58 percent increase from 2024.

Among the upstart lobbying firms that cashed in on Trump’s second term were Continental Strategy, which was launched in 2021 by former Trump diplomat and adviser Carlos Trujillo. Continental, which also employs a top former aide to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and one of Wiles’ daughters, saw its lobbying revenues skyrocket from $1.8 million in 2024 to more than $27 million in 2025.

Checkmate Government Relations, which is led by Ches McDowell, a friend of Donald Trump Jr., reported receiving $70,000 from a single client at the end of 2024 but signed 80 clients and brought in more than $21 million in 2025.

Looking ahead, lobbyists expect trade to continue driving client interest in 2026, especially as businesses await the Supreme Court’s decision on the legality of Trump’s so-called reciprocal tariffs.

Even as they forecast a slowdown in legislation ahead of the midterm elections, lobbyists say they’ll also remain busy with congressional oversight, the government funding process as well as the administration’s latest foreign policy moves.

“Frankly, the lesson learned going forward is, Don’t be surprised,” Elshami said.

Continue Reading

Trending