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