Jack Smith Wants the Facts Heard and He Wants Them on the Record
By Brian Allen
Special Counsel Jack Smith is no longer content with his testimony being filtered, excerpted, or selectively characterized behind closed doors.
In a new letter to House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, Smith formally requested that video of his closed-door deposition be released and that Congress schedule an open, public hearing so the American people can “hear the facts” directly from him. The request is deliberate, legally informed, and unusually direct.
This is not about media attention. It is about record-making.
Smith is signaling that the institutional fight has shifted from investigations to historical accountability and that he is prepared to put his conclusions, evidence, and legal reasoning fully in public view, even as political allies of Donald Trump attempt to frame his work as partisan or illegitimate.
What Jack Smith Is Asking For — Precisely
According to the letter obtained and reported by NBC News, Smith’s request is narrow but consequential:
• Release the full video of his closed-door deposition before the House Judiciary Committee
• Schedule an open, public hearing where he can testify directly
• Allow Americans to hear the facts “rather than through second-hand accounts.”
Smith’s attorneys made clear the purpose was to prevent selective leaks, partial transcripts, or politically curated narratives from shaping public understanding of his work.
This is a defensive move, but also an offensive one.
Why This Is Unusual for a Special Counsel
Special counsels do not normally seek the spotlight.
Historically, they:
• Submit written reports
• Testify only when compelled
• Avoid public commentary during or after prosecutions
Smith is breaking from that norm deliberately, and for a reason: the institutional legitimacy of his investigations is under direct attack by sitting members of Congress.
House Republicans have repeatedly characterized Smith’s cases as:
• “Weaponized”
• “Politically motivated.”
• “Predetermined”
Smith’s request reframes the dispute. Instead of arguing through press statements or intermediaries, he is saying, in effect:
Put the evidence on the table. Let the public judge.
The Two Cases at Issue — Clearly Separated
Smith’s letter explicitly references two criminal cases against Donald Trump:
1. The 2020 Election Interference Case
Smith has testified that his team gathered “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 election.
Key findings previously disclosed include:
• Coordinated pressure on state officials
• Efforts to disrupt certification of electoral votes
• Exploitation of the violence of January 6 to delay the lawful transfer of power
During his deposition, Smith described January 6 as:
“An attack on the structure of our democracy.”
He also stated that over 100 law enforcement officers were assaulted, and that Trump and his associates exploited that violence for political ends.
2. The Classified Documents Case
Smith has also sought to testify publicly about:
• Alleged unlawful retention of classified documents
• Obstruction of justice
• Efforts to conceal materials from federal investigators
Importantly, Smith’s attorneys emphasized that public testimony would help correct mischaracterizations of the Special Counsel’s Office, not escalate them.
The Congressional Standoff
While Trump himself has publicly said he wants Smith to testify openly, House Republicans have been reluctant to grant that forum.
Chair Jim Jordan:
• Has not committed to a public hearing
• Has allowed selective narratives about Smith’s deposition to circulate
• Has framed Smith’s work as politically tainted
Jordan’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding Smith’s letter.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, sharply criticized the decision to keep Smith’s testimony sealed, calling it:
“An excellent decision — if the goal is to protect the president from devastating facts.”
That remark underscores the stakes: transparency favors evidence; secrecy favors narrative control.
Why Smith Wants Video — Not Just Transcripts
This is a critical detail.
Smith is not merely asking for a transcript. He wants video.
Why that matters:
• Video preserves tone, emphasis, and clarity
• It prevents selective quotation
• It limits partisan editing
In an era where short clips and out-of-context excerpts dominate political discourse, Smith’s insistence on full video is a safeguard against distortion.
It is also a recognition of reality: the public no longer trusts summaries.
This Is About the Record, Not the Moment
Smith’s move should be understood as institutional positioning, not political theater.
Regardless of:
• Election outcomes
• Pardons
• Delays
• Appeals
The historical record will remain.
Smith is making sure that the record is:
• Public
• Comprehensive
• Unfiltered
That matters not just legally, but civically.
The Larger Implication: Transparency as Strategy
Smith’s letter reflects a broader shift in how legal institutions are responding to politicized accountability.
Instead of retreating into silence, Smith is choosing exposure.
Instead of relying on courts alone, he is invoking public judgment.
That is not activism. It is confidence in evidence, in process, and in the long memory of democratic institutions.
Bottom Line
Jack Smith is not asking for permission to defend his reputation.
He is asking for the facts to be heard, in full, on the record, and in public.
If House Republicans believe his cases are weak, the hearing room is the place to prove it.
If they do not, the resistance to transparency becomes its own answer.
Either way, Smith has made his position clear:
History should not be written behind closed doors.