As Jack
Smith Testifies, a Senator’s Accusation of Perjury Falls Apart
A
Republican eager to prove the former special counsel was dishonest appeared to
instead demonstrate his own confusion over basic facts.
Devlin
Barrett Charlie
Savage
By Devlin
Barrett and Charlie Savage
Reporting
from Washington
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/29/us/politics/jack-smith-congress-testimony.html
Sept. 29,
2026
It was
meant to be a dramatic confrontation, a public accusation of perjury against
Jack Smith, the special counsel who investigated Donald J. Trump. Instead,
Senator Eric Schmitt’s amateur sleuthing into basketball led him to the wrong
game, league and state.
During a
four-hour Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Mr. Schmitt, a Republican from
Missouri, struck a conspiratorial tone and asked Mr. Smith if he had attended
an Atlanta Hawks home game in February 2024.
Mr.
Schmitt focused on the basketball game in the hopes that he could show Mr.
Smith had perjured himself and was involved in a conspiracy with local Atlanta
prosecutors to ensnare Mr. Trump. In a hearing where Republicans repeatedly
accused Mr. Smith of lying, what Mr. Schmitt first presented as smoking-gun
evidence against Mr. Smith turned out to be a misfire.
During
his testimony, Mr. Smith appeared deeply confused by Mr. Schmitt’s question. “I
definitely did not go to a Hawks game,” he said. “I’m sure of that.”
Mr.
Schmitt seemed confident he had just caught Mr. Smith in a lie. It was part of
a broader effort by Mr. Trump’s Republican allies to characterize Mr. Smith as
politically partisan, a man with an ax to grind not just against a former
president, but also the Republican establishment. Mr. Smith has already
defended his work before Congress, and Republicans have claimed that his past
testimony included perjury.
On
Tuesday, Mr. Schmitt argued that Mr. Smith had lied again, this time about a
basketball game. If the prosecutor was in Atlanta, Mr. Schmitt suggested, he
might have met with the local district attorney, Fani Willis, who also pursued
a criminal case against Mr. Trump.
Mr.
Schmitt’s Republican colleague from Louisiana, John Kennedy, stood next to him
helping hold up a poster board showing text messages among members of Mr.
Smith’s special counsel team from Feb. 3, 2024, discussing seats at a
basketball game.
“I don’t
think you know we have this stuff, so I’ll give you a second to process it so
you don’t perjure yourself,” Mr. Schmitt said, even as the poster board was
swiftly taken down, too quickly for most in the room to read it.
When the
former special counsel insisted he had not gone to see the Atlanta Hawks play
in that time period, Mr. Schmitt declared, “I think you’ve already perjured
yourself,” and called Mr. Smith a “dirtbag.”
The
accusation appeared to unravel almost immediately.
Invited
to respond by Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, Mr. Smith said he
had, in fact, attended a basketball game on that day, but it was to see the
Iowa Hawkeyes at the University of Maryland. That night, Caitlin Clark, the
star point guard who now plays in the W.N.B.A., scored 38 points and had 12
assists.
Ms.
Klobuchar suggested that Mr. Schmitt’s accusation was rooted in the senator’s
confusion between the “Hawks” of Atlanta and the “Hawkeyes” of Iowa.
Mr.
Schmitt declared that he still stood by calling Mr. Smith a “dirtbag,” then
left the hearing.
The
exchange took up just four minutes of the hearing. But it showed how eager the
Republicans were to paint Mr. Smith as an out-of-control partisan — and to find
a basis to accuse him of a crime at a time when the Justice Department has
proved receptive to pursuing the people who investigated Mr. Trump.
A central
issue was Mr. Smith’s subpoenas for lawmakers’ phone records as he and his team
sought to trace Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign on Congress to block Joseph R.
Biden Jr.’s Electoral College certification.
As part
of that effort, investigators also examined whether Mr. Trump had defrauded his
supporters when he raised vast sums after the election promising to expose
fraud that did not happen. They also subpoenaed financial records of
Republican-aligned groups as they traced what actually happened to the money.
That
effort did not result in charges.
Senator
Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, and others argued that when Mr. Smith subpoenaed
phone records of Republican lawmakers, and sought court orders keeping those
subpoenas secret, he showed that his prosecutorial ambitions extended far
beyond Mr. Trump.
Sign up
for the On Politics newsletter. It's a
pivotal moment for American politics. Join us for 2026 and beyond. Get it sent
to your inbox.
“Is it a
crime to be a Republican?” Mr. Cruz asked angrily. “Absolutely not,” replied
Mr. Smith.
Senator
Darline Graham, the sister of Senator Lindsey Graham, who died in July, also
confronted Mr. Smith over a subpoena of her brother’s phone records. Like Mr.
Cruz, she focused on how an application for nondisclosure order to the phone
companies raised the risk that if the subpoena became public, a target could
destroy evidence or intimidate witnesses.
“Do you
really believe that Lindsey was going to destroy evidence that was not even in
his possession?” she asked.
“No, I
believe your brother was a patriotic public servant. He was not a target of our
investigation, and in fact he likely would have been a witness in our case”
against Mr. Trump, Mr. Smith replied.
He told
both Mr. Cruz and Ms. Graham that his team sought the records to investigate
the conduct of Mr. Trump, not the lawmakers. The concern was not whether the
lawmakers would destroy evidence or intimidate witnesses, but whether Mr. Trump
or his associates would seek to do so.
Democrats
countered Republican accusations by pointing to the evidence Mr. Smith gathered
against Mr. Trump, leading to indictments for his efforts to undo the results
of the 2020 election, and for his handling of classified documents at his
Mar-a-Lago home in Florida.
Senator
Adam Schiff, Democrat of California, said the G.O.P. anger directed at Mr.
Smith and the F.B.I. was a smoke screen for facts they would rather not face —
that the former president had engaged in wrongdoing, and that the witnesses
against him in both cases were largely Republicans.
Senator
Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat, called the hearing “a farce.” The
Republicans attacking Mr. Smith, he added, “choose Trump over truth, corruption
and crimes over the Constitution, and I’ve had enough of it.”
For his
part, Mr. Smith maintained a measured, even meek, tone as lawmakers on the
panel alternated between describing him as a pinnacle of his profession and a
poster boy for improper conduct.
“If asked
whether to prosecute a former president today, based on the same facts, I would
do so regardless of whether that president was a Republican or a Democrat,” he
said, adding: “I will not be silenced by continued threats of prosecution from
the president or others.”
In early
2022, the Justice Department opened two investigations involving Mr. Trump. One
was into his campaign’s plan to create false slates of electors as a pretext to
block Mr. Biden’s certification, and the other was into Mr. Trump’s hoarding of
classified documents while out of office, and his obstruction of efforts to
retrieve them.
In
November 2022, after Mr. Trump announced he would run for president again, Mr.
Smith, a former prosecutor of federal corruption and international war crimes,
was tapped to take over the inquiries as a special counsel. The next year, Mr.
Smith brought two indictments against Mr. Trump.
Mr. Smith
insisted that he brought charges because Mr. Trump “engaged in criminal
activity,” and not because of any political agenda to stop Mr. Trump’s
resurgence, as the president’s Republican allies have asserted. Mr. Trump
triumphed over the two federal cases by winning re-election in 2024, leading to
Mr. Smith’s resignation.
Since
leaving government, Mr. Smith has said that the Justice Department has been
“corrupted” by Trump loyalists who have wrecked its credibility and sought to
undermine the rule of law.
Attorney
General Todd Blanche, in testimony to Congress in July, suggested the
department would investigate Mr. Smith to determine if he had lied to Congress.
Much of
Tuesday’s hearing covered familiar ground — including whether investigators’
effort to collect lawmakers’ call records violated the Constitution’s “speech
or debate” clause, as Republican lawmakers insisted.
That
issue is contested. Everyone agrees members of Congress cannot be prosecuted or
forced to testify about their legislative acts. But appeals courts have
disagreed about whether it also creates a confidentiality shield, and no court
has interpreted it as barring subpoenas to phone companies for call logs.
The
Justice Department’s public integrity section signed off on the subpoenas, Mr.
Smith said. But while he defended the investigation’s work as carefully
following the law, Justice Department rules, and best practices for
prosecutors, he did offer one regret for how he had done the job.
Mr. Smith
noted that he had come from a generation of prosecutors who spoke almost
exclusively in courtrooms, and not in public, even to defend the integrity of
the work or the prosecution team.
Following
that tradition proved costly in the cases against Mr. Trump, he said.
“I do
agree that prosecutors in the future need to learn to be able to communicate to
the outside world,” Mr. Smith said.
Glenn
Thrush contributed reporting.
Corrected
on Sept. 29, 2026: Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this
article misstated the election that Donald Trump sought to overturn. It was the
election in 2020, not 2024.
We
acknowledge mistakes in our reporting with corrections. If you spot an error,
please let us know at corrections@nytimes.com.Learn more.
Devlin
Barrett covers the Justice Department and the F.B.I. for The Times.
Charlie
Savage writes about national security and legal policy for The Times.


Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário