This is a breakdown of the fourth hour of the House Judiciary Committee testimony of Special Counsel Jack Smith from January 22, 2026, subsequent hours will be published shortly.
I’ve removed long statements that don’t play much of a role into the investigation of Donald J. Trump or Special Counsel Jack Smith. I’ve also skipped over questions that had little value.
In some cases I’ve included questioning by Republicans just to show how desperate they’ve become to protect their glorious leader at all costs. The section here that is the most illuminating is between Rep. McBath, Rep. Ross and Rep. Balint.
Opened with fight between former Capitol Police officer Michael Fanone and Ivan Raiklin, a right wing influencer. Most of the footage included the Raiklin making potentially defamatory statements about Fanone so I haven’t included that in this edit.
Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO)
Neguse started by admonishing Republicans for trying to rewrite the history of January 6th. He also went over the details involving Trump’s second impeachment. He brought up the fact that Trump was posting about the hearings on social media while they were happening. He did not ask Smith any questions.
Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI)
Tiffany questioned Smith about his relationship with Lois Lerner at the IRS and investigations her agency began into nonprofit organizations. He also brought up the prosecution of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell which was overturned by the Supreme Court. Tiffany also brought up the alternate slate of electors implying that it wasn’t illegal.
Rep. Jim Jordan brought up a payment made to a confidential human source.
Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA)
McBath opened with a statement about Trump’s attempts to overthrow the election in Georgia and the state’s long history of voter suppression.
McBath: Your investigation revealed how far he is willing to go. In your final report, you wrote that and I’m quoting ‘the through line of all Mr. Trump’s criminal efforts was deceit, knowingly false claims of fraud.’ Mr. Smith, what did your investigation reveal about President Trump’s interactions with Georgia’s officials regarding his fraud claims?
Smith: As I sit here now, I can recall, two specific officials. The first was the secretary of state, who was a fellow Republican. My understanding, he voted for and supported Donald Trump in the election. But, told Donald Trump a, conversation that was recorded in no uncertain terms, the results of the election and debunked, many of the fraud claims that Donald Trump had to him in real time. In addition to that, I recall that, Donald Trump also spoke firsthand with the attorney general of your state. Also Republican, who informed Donald Trump that he had supported him and voted for him twice in the past. He also told Donald Trump he did not see, outcome determinative fraud in that state.
McBath: I have an audio from a phone call between Trump and the Georgia Secretary of State regarding the 2020 election. Could you please play the audio.
Trump: For Angry the People of the country? I agree, and there’s nothing wrong with saying that, you know, that you’ve recalculated.
Brad Raffensperger: Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong.
Trump: So, look, all I want to do is this. I just want to find, 11,780 votes, which is one more that we have because we won the state.
McBath: Mr. Smith, you explained in your deposition that Georgia Secretary of State was one of the witnesses who disabused President Trump’s false claims. How did Georgia’s Secretary of state push back against Trump’s efforts?
Smith: I think my recollection is in this same call, President Trump repeatedly, raised fraud claims. And, the secretary of state repeatedly explained not only that they weren’t true, but I believe my recollection is in several instances explained why they weren’t true. And I believe that call ended. My recollection is that it ended, with President Trump, in essence, threatening, the secretary of state that he might, be a target for criminal prosecution if he didn’t do what President Trump wanted him to do.
McBath: So so that raises a very critical point. President Trump didn’t just spread lies about the election, in your words. And I’m quoting, he preyed on in, quote, Republican officials in Georgia and other states who believed would help him. Mr.. Donald Trump thought these officials would break the law out of party loyalty. And when those officials, his own political allies, told him the truth, he dismissed them and continued to spread the lies anyway. Is that correct?
Smith: That is correct.
McBath: Mr. Smith, if your case had gone to trial, would the evidence from Georgia have helped prove that President Trump knowingly engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 election?
Smith: Yes. After an investigation, following the facts in the law, we believed we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt to prove those charges.
McBath: And in your deposition, you mentioned a fake elector witness in Georgia, who you thought would have been a very powerful, witness at trial. Can you tell us a little bit more about that? And a very limited amount of time.
Smith: It was a witness who had been, made to understand that his electoral, vote, his alternative electoral vote would only be used if they won in court. If they won in litigation. That didn’t happen. And, President Trump and his coconspirators tried to use those alternative, fake elector certificates, to get Mike Pence.
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ)
Biggs opened with an attack on Smith for not criminally charging other co-conspirators with the same charges against Trump. He had concerns about some specifics in the indictment surrounding the exact charges against Trump. Biggs then claimed Smith was filibustering during his questioning which is laugable about since Smith barely spoke.
Biggs: So so you’ve managed to filibuster this right out of this thing, but, your beef was you said that President Trump, engendered a level of distrust. You said he made false statements to state legislators, to his supporters of all sorts. And somehow you discerned that the his supporters were angry and that that was somehow related to criminal offense. I find that absolutely weak. I think it’s misdirected.
