Jim Jordan

Oct. 24 (UPI) — Former special counsel Jack Smith wants to testify in open hearings before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees about his investigations of President Donald Trump.

On Thursday, Smith’s lawyers sent letters to Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, who lead the chambers’ panels. Trump was indicted in two cases: attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and possession of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida.

On Oct. 14, Jordan demanded that he testify behind closed doors with a transcript available, writing “your testimony is necessary to understand the full extent to which the Biden-Harris Justice Department weaponized federal law enforcement.” Jordan accused him of prosecutorial overreach and evidence manipulation.

But Smith, who resigned from his position before Trump returned to office in January, wants the hearings in public.

“Given the many mischaracterizations of Mr. Smith’s investigation into President Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents and role in attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Mr. Smith respectfully requests the opportunity to testify in open hearings before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees,” his attorneys, Lanny Breuer and Peter Koski, wrote.

Smith will need approval from the Justice Department, where he was employed when Joe Biden was president.

Smith’s attorneys said he will need guidance so he won’t violate rules to guard jury testimony.

“He is prepared to answer questions about the Special Counsel’s investigation and prosecution, but requires assurance from the Department of Justice that he will not be punished for doing so,” the letter said.

Smith’s lawyers also asked for “access to the Special Counsel files, which he no longer has the ability to access.”

“Jack Smith certainly has a lot of answering to do, but first, Congress needs to have all the facts at its disposal,” Grassley told CNN in a statement. “Hearings should follow once the investigative foundation has been firmly set, which is why I’m actively working with the DOJ and FBI to collect all relevant records that Mr. Smith had years to become familiar with.”

Smith issued reports on both cases but the one on Trump’s handling of sensitive documents found at Mar-a-Lago hasn’t been released. Attorney General Merrick Garland, before leaving office, said he wouldn’t release the report because of a criminal case involving two of Trump’s co-defendants was ongoing. But when Trump was elected president again, both cases were dropped.

The president and Republicans in Congress have accused Smith of pursuing politically motivated cases against Trump in an effort to undermine his candidacy for a second term.

But Smith “steadfastly adhered to established legal standards and Department of Justice guidelines, consistent with his approach throughout his career as a dedicated public servant,” while leading the investigations, the letter said.

Rep. Jamie Raskkin, a Democrat serving a district in Maryland, told The Hill that Smith’s offer should be accepted.

“Mr. Smith has made clear that he is prepared to address those allegations publicly, and I can think of no reason to deny the American people the opportunity to hear his testimony, under oath and with questioning from Members of both parties, and to let all Americans judge for themselves the integrity of Mr. Smith’s investigations,” Raskin wrote Thursday.

“There is no reason his appearance should be in the shadows of a backroom and subject to the usual tiresome partisan tactics of leak-and-distort.”

This week, it was reported Trump is pressing for his Justice Department to pay roughly $230 million as a settlement for two investigations. One involved the documents case and the other was ties of his 2016 campaign to the Russian government, which was investigated by another special counsel, Robert Mueller. No charges in the latter were made because of the ability to indict a sitting president.

Smith hadn’t spoken much publicly about his office’s investigations or through case failings.

On Oct. 8, he was interviewed by Andrew Weissman at University College London. Weissman was part of Mueller’s investigations and is now an MSNBC analyst.

“The idea that politics played a role in who worked on that case, or who got chosen, is ludicrous,” Smith told Weissmann.

“The people on my team were similar to what I saw throughout the [Department of Justice] throughout my career,” he said. “Apolitical people who wanted to do the right thing and do public service.”

1 of 3 | Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, speaks with members of the press outside the House chamber ahead of the last votes before August recess at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., in July. Jordan on Tuesday demanded that former Special Counsel Jack Smith testify about his criminal probes of President Donald Trump. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo

Oct. 14 (UPI) — House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan on Tuesday demanded that former Special Counsel Jack Smith testify about his criminal probes of President Donald Trump that were ultimately dropped after the 2024 election.

Jordan, a Trump loyalist, made the demands in a letter to Smith, who had been appointed by the Biden-era Justice Department to oversee sprawling investigations into allegations Trump mishandled classified documents and tried to overturn the 2020 election.

The letter follows recent revelations that Smith’s team had obtained the cell phone data of nine Republican members of Congress, showing who they called in the days leading up to and immediately after the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Trump and his allies have accused Smith of leading politicized investigations into the president meant to damage him politically as he was campaigning to return to the White House in 2024.

“As the Committee continues its oversight, your testimony is necessary to understand the full extent to which the Biden-Harris Justice Department weaponized federal law enforcement,” Jordan wrote in his letter, accusing Smith of prosecutorial overreach and manipulating evidence.

Before resigning from his position in January just as Trump was about to be sworn into his second term, Smith issued a report to Congress stating that Trump would have been convicted of trying to overturn the 2020 election had he not been elected president in 2024. The Justice Department has a long-standing policy of not indicting sitting presidents.

Smith alleged that Trump had mounted a pressure campaign on state officials to throw out legitimate vote results in a scheme to have Trump certified as the winner of the 2020 election. As part of the effort, Trump directed a mob of his supporters to storm the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as Congress was certifying the election results, Smith alleged.

Jordan wrote that his committee has already deposed several people who worked on Smith’s team and obtained FBI documents showing the surveillance of U.S. Rep. Scott Perry, who later had his cell phone seized. However, Jordan wrote that former Senior Assistant Special Counsel Thomas Windom refused to answer key questions from the committee. Jordan also demanded that Smith turn over documents.

Smith currently does not face any charges.

After leaving his position, the Office of Special Counsel, which is designed to operate with some independence from the Justice Department, began investigating Smith in August.

WASHINGTON, July 15 (UPIU) — Republican lawmakers alleged Tuesday that Democratic leaders have funneled hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars to nonprofit organizations run by political allies, advancing what they called a “radical agenda” without public accountability.

Democrats fired back, calling the hearing a partisan distraction aimed at vilifying groups that serve vulnerable communities.

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight’s hearing, titled “How Leftist Nonprofit Networks Exploit Federal Tax Dollars to Advance a Radical Agenda,” drew sharp partisan lines.

The subcommittee chair, Chair Rep. Jefferson Van Drew, R-N.J., said nonprofits that receive federal funds through agencies like USAID and the Justice Department are enacting policies Americans haven’t voted for, accusing Democratic leaders of “abuse of power.”

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, passionately disagreed, arguing the hearing was designed to advance President Donald Trump‘s political agenda, while ignoring pressing civil rights and public safety issues.

“This committee is spending its time holding a hearing with a title that sounds like it was ripped from a conspiracy law,” Crockett said.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, echoed the committee chair’s concerns, calling several taxpayer-funded initiatives under the Biden administration “stupid,” including spending on public broadcasting, diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and federal education grants.

Democrats, however, argued that the hearing lacked substance and accountability. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., criticized the proceeding as a “waste of time,” as it focused on grievances rather than governance, and that the committee did not call a single official from any of the groups allegedly advancing a radical agenda.

“If our motto is going to be finger-pointing for losers, then this hearing is for losers,” Raskin said.

Hen added that Republicans have been failing to address systemic challenges like gun violence and climate change, and that none of the groups mentioned has been involved in illegal actions, but instead the Republicans simply do not like what certain groups are doing.

For example, Raskin cited the mass firings of Justice Department attorneys who prosecuted Americans for their involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“Due process is what separates our freedoms from arbitrary state power,” he said.

As the hearing continued, Raskin was the first to bring the Jeffrey Epstein files into the conversation, questioning the Trump administration’s sudden lack of commitment to transparency by not releasing the information.

“Remember that they said this would be the most transparent administration in the United States,” he said.

Witnesses invited by Republican lawmakers argued that taxpayer dollars are being funneled into politically motivated organizations that push divisive agendas.

Tyler O’Neil, senior editor at The Daily Signal, singled out a $2 million grant to the nonprofit Vera Institute of Justice for immigration-related services, calling it part of a broader “immigration industrial complex.”

O’Neill also criticized federal support for the ACLU and the AFL-CIO, arguing that union dues from federal employees were indirectly subsidizing left-leaning political causes.

Insha Rahman, vice president of advocacy and partnerships at the Vera Institute, told UPI, “Today’s congressional hearing was a distraction from the honest debate the American public deserves about the solutions that work to prevent crime, respond to crisis, and stop violence.

“The Department of Justice’s abrupt and illegal terminations of $820 million in grant funding to hundreds of organizations, including Vera, jeopardizes programs and services across the country — including in suburban and rural jurisdictions — that save lives and make communities safer.”

Scott Walter, president of the Capital Research Center, attempted to redirect the conversation. He said that while he personally supports conservative organizations, like the Heritage Foundation, he would oppose federal funding for any ideologically driven group — including those with whom he agrees.

He argued that taxpayer dollars should only go to feeding the hungry and clothing the poor — actions he associated as biblically related good doings — but not socially controversial issues.

Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and contributor to the conservative blueprint Project 2025, testified in a personal capacity and criticized USAID’s funding decisions under Ambassador Samantha Power, suggesting it began the pathway for the agency to prioritize progressive global initiatives over national interest.

Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., and Gonzalez got into an escalated exchange when Gonzalez confronted Democrats about so-called “dark money” — where the source is not disclosed to the public — for groups tied to liberal causes.

Johnson fired back, pointing to the Heritage Foundation’s own opaque funding sources and ties to conservative megadonors like billionaire Charles Koch.

A last minute addition to the witness list was Luis CdeBaca, a former U.S. ambassador and anti-trafficking expert. CdeBaca defended the work of civil society organizations, arguing that they provide critical services to vulnerable populations — often filling gaps left by under-resourced government programs.

He warned against politicizing federal grantmaking, which he said should be based on impact, not ideology.

Rahman reacted similarly to Vera’s work, defending that “The DOJ grants Vera received supported our evidence-based work with correctional staff across the country to improve prison operations, training, and culture for both officers and people incarcerated; expand access to counseling and treatment for people in mental health crisis; and support police and law enforcement to better serve deaf survivors of domestic violence.”