Jack Smith's testimony: devastating for Trump

Jack Smith was Special Counsel for President Biden's Department of Justice, overseeing criminal investigations of Donald Trump regarding Trump's role in the January 6 Capitol attack and his mishandling of classified government documents, both of which were dropped when Trump was reelected president. Trump's DOJ opened an investigation of Smith, alleging his actions had been politically motivated.

The House Judiciary Committee recently deposed Smith. Smith asked that his deposition be conducted in public, but the committee instead held the proceedings behind closed doors. Transcript and video of the deposition has just been released. 

I asked ChatGPT: The House Judiciary committee has released special counsel Jack Smith's 255-page deposition. The contents seem highly unfavorable for Trump. Why would the committee, chaired by Republican Jim Jordan, do such a thing?

Here's the reply: 

At first glance it does seem counterintuitive for a Republican-led House Judiciary Committee to release material that reflects badly on Donald Trump. But there are several plausible—and not mutually exclusive—reasons why Jim Jordan’s committee would do it anyway.

1. They believe the process matters more than the optics

Jordan’s committee has consistently framed its investigation as being about alleged politicization of the Justice Department, not about protecting Trump personally. From that perspective:

• Releasing the full deposition supports their claim of transparency.

• It lets them argue: “We’re not selectively leaking—read it yourself.”

• Even unfavorable testimony can be presented as evidence of an overzealous or ideologically driven prosecutor, depending on how Republicans interpret Smith’s answers.

In short, they may believe voters care more about how Trump was investigated than what Smith says about Trump.

2. They assume supporters won’t read 255 pages

This is a very practical political calculation:

• Most voters—including most Trump supporters—will not read the deposition.

• What matters is the spin, not the underlying document.

• Republicans can cherry-pick portions they think help their case (e.g., limits on Smith’s knowledge, reliance on DOJ precedents, internal constraints).

Meanwhile, releasing the full document helps deflect accusations that they are hiding something.

3. Preempting leaks or court-ordered disclosure

Another common motive in congressional investigations:

• If the deposition was likely to become public anyway—through leaks, FOIA litigation, or court filings—releasing it themselves lets Republicans control the timing and framing.

• It’s often better politically to say “we released this voluntarily” than to be forced into disclosure later.

4. Institutional interests of Congress

House Judiciary Republicans have been trying to reassert Congress’s authority over DOJ and special counsels generally:

• Publishing Smith’s testimony creates a public record that can be cited in future legislation or oversight fights.

• Even damaging testimony can be useful if it shows how much discretion a special counsel has, how decisions were made internally, or how insulated Smith was from political accountability.

From this view, Trump is almost secondary to a longer-term institutional battle.

5. Different Republican factions, different incentives

Not all House Republicans are equally invested in shielding Trump:

• Some members are more focused on anti-DOJ messaging.

• Others are positioning themselves as champions of government transparency, regardless of whom it hurts.

• Jordan himself often prioritizes the fight with federal law enforcement over Trump’s personal legal exposure.

That can lead to decisions that frustrate Trump allies but still make sense within GOP internal politics.

6. Confidence that Trump’s base is immovable

There is also a blunt political reality:

• Republicans may believe that no testimony—however damaging—will meaningfully erode Trump’s core support.

• If that’s true, the downside risk of releasing the deposition is low, while the upside (credibility, transparency claims, oversight precedent) is real.

---

Bottom line

The committee likely calculated that releasing Jack Smith’s deposition:

• Strengthens their transparency and oversight narrative

• Helps them in a broader fight with DOJ and special counsels

• Carries little political risk with Trump’s base

• Allows Republicans—not Democrats—to control how the document enters the public domain

So even if the substance is unfavorable to Trump, the institutional and political incentives for Jim Jordan’s committee can still point toward disclosure.