Jack Smith told Congress that the January 6 attack “wouldn’t happen” without Trump

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former special counsel Jack Smith told lawmakers earlier this month that the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol “doesn’t happen” without Donald Trump, calling the Republican president “the most responsible and accountable person” in the criminal plot to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday released a transcript and video of a closed-door interview Smith gave about two investigations into Trump. The document shows how, during his day-long testimony, Smith repeatedly defended the basis for pursuing indictments against Trump, and strongly rejected Republican suggestions that his investigations were politically motivated.

more: Read Jack Smith’s full brief on the impeachment decision against Trump

“The evidence here makes clear that President Trump was by far the culpable and most responsible person in this conspiracy,” Smith said, bristling at a question about whether his investigations were aimed at preventing Trump from regaining the presidency in 2024. “These crimes were committed for his benefit. The attack at the Capitol, which is part of this case, would not have happened without him. The other conspirators were doing it for his benefit.”

“So, as to why we should file suit against him, I completely disagree with any characterization that our action was in any way intended to impede him in the presidential election,” he added.

The December 17 deposition was conducted privately despite Smith’s request to testify publicly. The release of the interview transcript and video, Smith’s only appearance on Capitol Hill to date since leaving his post as special counsel last January, adds to public understanding of the decision-making process behind two of the most consequential Justice Department investigations in recent history.

Trump was charged with conspiring to overturn the 2020 elections, which he lost to Democrat Joe Biden, and intentionally keeping secret documents at his home in Mar-a-Lago, Florida. Both cases were abandoned after Trump won the 2024 election, with Smith citing Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president.

Smith has repeatedly made clear his belief that the evidence collected against Trump was strong enough to support a conviction. Part of the strength of the Jan. 6 case was the extent to which it relied on the testimony of Trump allies and supporters who cooperated with the investigation, Smith said.

“We had an elector in Pennsylvania, a former congressman, who was going to be an elector for President Trump, who said what they were trying to do was an attempt to overthrow the government and was illegal,” Smith said. “Our cause was frankly built on Republicans who put loyalty to country before party.”

Accounts of Republicans wanting to stand against the falsehood that the election was stolen “even though it might mean trouble for them” created what Smith described as the “strongest” evidence against Trump.

When it comes to the Capitol riot itself, the evidence showed that Trump “caused it, took advantage of it, and it was foreseeable to him,” Smith said.

He watches: Jack Smith’s full testimony before the House of Representatives judiciary regarding the investigation and filing of charges against Trump

Asked if there was evidence that Trump instructed his supporters to riot at the Capitol, Smith said that Trump in the weeks leading up to the insurrection made “people believe fraud claims that were not true.”

“He made false statements to state legislatures, to his supporters in all kinds of contexts, and he was aware in the days leading up to January 6 that his supporters were angry when he called them and then directed them to the Capitol,” Smith said.

He added: “Now, once they arrived at the Capitol and the attack on the Capitol occurred, he refused to stop it. Instead, he issued a tweet that undoubtedly put the Vice President’s life in danger.” “And when the violence was ongoing, he had to be repeatedly pushed by his employees to do anything to suppress it.”

Some of the testimony focused on Republican anger over revelations that Smith’s team obtained and analyzed phone records of GOP lawmakers who had been in contact with Trump on January 6. Smith defended the maneuver as legal and by the book, and suggested that the anger over the tactic was directed at Trump, not his team of prosecutors.

Read more: Jack Smith told lawmakers that his team has developed “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” against Trump

“Well, I think who should be held accountable for this is Donald Trump,” Smith said. “These records are people who, in the case of the senators, Donald Trump directed his co-conspirators to subpoena these people to further delay the proceedings. He chose to do that.” “If Donald Trump had chosen to call more Democratic senators, we would have had record numbers of Democratic senators.”

Smith said communications between Trump and his Republican supporters in Congress were an important element in the case. He cited an interview his office conducted with Mark Meadows in which Trump’s former chief of staff indicated that Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican and current chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, had been in contact with the White House on the afternoon of the riot.

“And what I remember is Meadows saying, ‘I’ve never seen Jim Jordan afraid of anything,’ and the fact that we were in this different situation now where people were really afraid made it clear that what was happening at the Capitol could not be mistaken for anything other than what it was,” Smith said.

Smith was also asked whether his team evaluated former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s claim that Trump grabbed the steering wheel of the presidential SUV when the Secret Service refused to let him into the Capitol after a rally on the Ellipse on January 6, 2021.

Smith told lawmakers that investigators questioned the officer in the car, “who said President Trump was very angry and wanted to go to the Capitol,” but the officer’s version of events “was not similar to what Cassidy Hutchinson said she heard from a second-hand person.”