January 1, Jack Smith Faces Grilling Over Trump Probe

Wyatt’s Take

• Jack Smith will testify openly before lawmakers soon.
• Jordan’s committee wants answers about DOJ targeting of Trump.
• Key questions remain on fake electors and evidence claims.

Jack Smith is set to give public testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee this Thursday. This comes after Smith recently faced closed-door questions about how the Biden administration has used the Justice Department.

That last interview showed troubling gaps and questionable claims about Trump. Still, much remains hidden from the public eye.

The upcoming hearing likely won’t solve the entire DOJ weaponization issue. But it gives Congress a chance to get Smith on the record and dig into specific misrepresentations.

First, lawmakers should push Smith on his past testimony. During a closed-door meeting, Smith told Democrats his team had proof that Trump asked officials to ‘find 11,000 votes’ after the 2020 election.

Official call transcripts don’t support Smith’s version. Instead, Trump and his lawyers spoke to Georgia officials about evidence of illegal votes and asked them to investigate.

As the call transcript reveals, Trump’s team listed many categories of votes they found questionable and told Georgia’s Secretary of State they had filed a petition in court. They claimed the court had taken no action on the case.

Trump’s lawyers wanted the secretary of state to look into these claims. According to the transcript:

“[T]he transcript of the conversation confirmed Trump’s legal team told Raffensperger that it had solid evidence of illegal votes easily exceeding the official margin of Biden’s victory of 11,779. Under Georgia election law, if the ‘evidence establishe[s] that there are more illegal or irregular votes than the margin of victory, the remedy is a new election,’ which is why Trump focused on his need to find 11,800 votes throughout his conversation with Raffensperger.”

Trump repeatedly said: “I have to find 12,000 votes and I have them times a lot. And therefore, I won the state.” But he never told Georgia officials directly to ‘find’ votes for him. His statements were about reviewing questionable votes.

The committee needs to press Smith:

Did he actually review the call transcript?

Is Smith aware Trump never told Georgia to ‘find’ votes for him?

Does Smith know state law calls for new elections if illegal votes outnumber the margin of victory?

Is it improper for a candidate to ask that questionable votes be reviewed?

Next, Smith has called the naming of alternative electors a ‘fake electors scheme.’ In reality, there have been times in history when both parties named electors for contested results, such as in Hawaii in 1960.

Lawmakers should ask Smith if he understands that alternative electors are not unique or automatically criminal. In 1960, Democrats in Hawaii sent their electors as well, including respected federal judges among them, after the initial certification went to Nixon.

If politicians in the past named alternatives during disputes, the committee should clarify where Smith draws the line between legal process and so-called ‘schemes.’

Congress needs to get straight answers and make sure the rules aren’t twisted just for politics.

Let’s keep the pressure on—working Americans deserve the truth from Washington, not more cover-ups.

Wyatt Matters

Middle America values fairness and accountability, especially from those in power. When government investigators step outside the lines, it’s up to the people’s representatives to demand answers and protect the integrity of our democracy.

Source