A House Judiciary Committee hearing descended into a heated clash Thursday after a Republican lawmaker accused former special counsel Jack Smith of admitting under oath that his office failed to disclose critical information to a federal judge while seeking surveillance-related records involving senior Republican officials.
The exchange unfolded during Smith’s first public testimony before Congress, where he appeared before the GOP-led committee to answer questions about his now-closed investigations into President Donald Trump. Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of California zeroed in on Smith’s handling of nondisclosure orders tied to subpoenas for phone records connected to January 6.
Issa pressed Smith on whether his office informed a judge that the records sought belonged to high-ranking members of Congress, including then–House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and current Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan.
After several procedural interruptions and a tense back-and-forth with committee leadership over time, Issa posed the question directly.
“Did you withhold the name of Kevin McCarthy, Speaker of the House, when you were seeking records on Kevin McCarthy,” Issa asked, “or Jim Jordan, the chairman of this committee?”
Smith acknowledged that the names were not disclosed to the judge at the time the nondisclosure order was requested.
“We did not provide that information to the judge when we requested a nondisclosure order,” Smith testified, adding that the decision was “consistent with the law.”
Issa immediately seized on the response, calling it a significant admission that validated long-standing Republican accusations against Smith and the Justice Department.
“The amazing thing here today is that we have an admission,” Issa said. He argued that Smith’s testimony confirmed that key contextual information had been withheld from the judiciary during an investigation that touched directly on members of the legislative branch.
Issa went further, framing the issue as a constitutional concern rather than a procedural dispute.
“We have the evidence that an Article I representative on behalf of the president withheld information from Article III,” Issa said, accusing Smith of enabling an imbalance of power by allowing the executive branch to obscure facts from the courts while pursuing elected officials. He concluded his remarks by yielding back his time “in disgust of this witness.”
Hearing Focuses on Surveillance and Secrecy
The confrontation took place during a hearing titled Oversight of the Office of Special Counsel Jack Smith, held Thursday morning at the Rayburn House Office Building. The session marked the first time Smith publicly defended his actions since his investigations into Trump were dropped following Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election.
Republicans on the panel focused heavily on Smith’s use of subpoenas to obtain phone metadata related to January 6, including records connected to Republican lawmakers and aides. GOP members argued that the subpoenas amounted to surveillance of political opponents and raised serious civil liberties concerns.
Smith pushed back against those accusations, characterizing the subpoenas as routine investigative tools commonly used in complex federal probes. He maintained that his office followed established legal standards and procedures throughout the investigations.
Chairman Jim Jordan echoed Issa’s criticism, accusing the Justice Department of operating a “weaponized” system that lacked transparency and accountability. Jordan and other Republicans argued that the secrecy surrounding the subpoenas prevented affected lawmakers from knowing they were under scrutiny and deprived courts of critical information.
Democrats Defend Smith’s Conduct
Democrats on the committee offered a sharply different assessment. Led by Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, they defended Smith’s career and argued that his actions were lawful and justified by the evidence at hand.
Raskin and other Democrats accused Republicans of attempting to relitigate closed cases for political gain, noting that Smith’s investigations had already been reviewed by courts and career prosecutors.
Smith himself rejected claims of political bias, insisting that his decisions were driven solely by the facts and the law.
“President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the very laws that he took an oath to uphold,” Smith said during the hearing. “If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so, regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or a Republican.”
Core Dispute Remains Unresolved
At the heart of the dispute is whether judges reviewing nondisclosure orders should have been explicitly informed that the records sought belonged to sitting members of Congress. Republicans argue that omitting that information deprived the court of essential context and undermined constitutional safeguards designed to protect the separation of powers.
Smith countered that existing law does not require such disclosures and that revealing the names could have compromised ongoing investigations.
The criminal cases against Trump are no longer active, but Thursday’s hearing underscored how sharply divided Congress remains over the legacy of those investigations—and over the broader role of federal law enforcement in politically sensitive cases.
For Republicans, Issa’s exchange with Smith was seen as a breakthrough moment. For Democrats, it was another example of partisan grandstanding over matters already settled.
The debate is unlikely to end with Smith’s testimony, as GOP lawmakers have signaled they intend to continue examining what they describe as systemic abuses within the Justice Department.
Emily Johnson is a critically acclaimed essayist and novelist known for her thought-provoking works centered on feminism, women’s rights, and modern relationships. Born and raised in Portland, Oregon, Emily grew up with a deep love of books, often spending her afternoons at her local library. She went on to study literature and gender studies at UCLA, where she became deeply involved in activism and began publishing essays in campus journals. Her debut essay collection, Voices Unbound, struck a chord with readers nationwide for its fearless exploration of gender dynamics, identity, and the challenges faced by women in contemporary society. Emily later transitioned into fiction, writing novels that balance compelling storytelling with social commentary. Her protagonists are often strong, multidimensional women navigating love, ambition, and the struggles of everyday life, making her a favorite among readers who crave authentic, relatable narratives. Critics praise her ability to merge personal intimacy with universal themes. Off the page, Emily is an advocate for women in publishing, leading workshops that encourage young female writers to embrace their voices. She lives in Seattle with her partner and two rescue cats, where she continues to write, teach, and inspire a new generation of storytellers.
