Long before and after his return to the White House, President Donald Trump perennially linked Joe Biden with John L. “Jack” Smith, the Justice Department special counsel who brought criminal charges against him. But when Smith testified publicly for the first time Thursday, it was Democrats who repeatedly raised the issue to emphasize a lack of proof that Smith’s cases were driven by pressure from Biden. The president in social media posts called Smith a “Biden Prosecutor” and “Joe Biden’s Prosecutorial Thug.” Smith was a henchman and Biden his boss, Trump said. And he declared, falsely, that Smith was appointed by the Democratic president. “He works for Kamala and he works for Joe,” Trump said in a NewsNation interview about a month before the 2024 presidential election. Smith, testifying under oath Thursday, rebuffed claims that Biden was calling the shots from behind the scenes. “Did President Biden or anyone in the Biden White House ever direct you to seek retribution against anyone perceived to be Biden’s political opponent?” Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., asked. “No,” Smith responded. Lieu contrasted that approach to the Justice Department under the second Trump administration, referencing a Trump-directed criminal case against New York Attorney General Letitia James, which was subsequently dismissed by a district court. Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., asked about the approach from Merrick B. Garland, the former attorney general who appointed Smith. “Did Attorney General Merrick Garland direct you to prosecute Trump because Donald Trump was running against Joe Biden in the presidential election?” Johnson asked. “No,” Smith said. Rep. Steve Cohen also asked if there was pressure from Biden or former Vice President Kamala Harris to bring an indictment. “I was given the independence to conduct my investigation, and I came to the decision to bring charges in this case without undue influence from anybody in the department,” Smith replied. For their part, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee largely steered clear of the president’s claims. Instead, they focused on legal issues that were peripheral to the special counsel’s conclusions, such as whether it was appropriate to seek phone records from Republican lawmakers. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., most sharply questioned Smith about political motivations for his actions — but more directed at the phone records issue. “They sure as hell were Joe Biden’s political enemies, weren’t they? They were Harris’ political enemies. They were the enemies of the president, and you were their arm, weren’t you?” Issa said. “No,” Smith responded. Smith’s testimony was also in line with comments he made last month during a lengthy closed-door interview in which he defended the criminal cases and rejected long-standing Republican criticisms that his investigation was driven by partisan politics. Smith said he never spoke with Biden about the investigations and the Democratic president never gave him any instructions about what to do in those cases. “I would never take orders from a political leader to hamper another person in an election. That’s not who I am. And I think people who know me and my experience over 30 years would find that laughable,” Smith said, according to a transcript of the interview. Smith’s special counsel office brought two criminal cases against Trump: one in Washington tied to Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election and another in Florida that accused Trump of illegally retaining classified documents after his first term. Smith moved to dismiss both cases after the election and before the inauguration, citing internal Justice Department opinions that the Constitution prohibits a federal indictment and prosecution of a sitting president. Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., a member of the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview there’s been no evidence that the special counsel prosecutions were driven or directed by Biden or his White House. “Smith’s reputation is and always has been that he’s a total straight-arrow career prosecutor,” she said.
