House Judiciary Subpoenas Former Prosecutor Jack Smith for Private Testimony on Trump Cases
London, UK – December 4, 2025
A Clash of Oversight and Justice: Private Testimony Demand
The simmering tensions between the U.S. legislative and judicial branches boiled over this week, as the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to former Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith, demanding his private, closed-door testimony and the submission of all documents related to his high-profile criminal investigations into President Donald Trump.
This move, spearheaded by Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), represents the sharpest escalation yet in the Republican-led oversight effort to investigate the two federal prosecutions Smith brought against the then-former President.
The subpoena directs the former Special Counsel to appear for a private deposition on December 17 and to surrender all requested documents by December 12.
The stated purpose of the subpoena is to allow the Committee to continue its oversight into what Republicans have consistently claimed were “politically motivated” and “partisan” prosecutions, seeking to determine the extent to which the Justice Department was “weaponised” against a political opponent.
This action highlights a fundamental clash:
the right of Congress to conduct oversight versus the Department of Justice’s mandate to operate free from political interference.
Crucially, the subpoena was issued despite Jack Smith having previously offered to testify voluntarily in a public, open hearing before the Committee.
Chairman Jordan and the Republican majority rejected that offer, insisting on a closed-door deposition.
This choice has drawn sharp criticism from Democrats and Smith’s own legal team, who argue that the decision denies the American public the opportunity to hear directly from the prosecutor and is instead designed to allow Republicans to “spin, distort, and cherry-pick” Smith’s remarks in a private session.
Headline Points
• Subpoena Issued:
The House Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Jim Jordan, subpoenaed former Special Counsel Jack Smith for a closed-door deposition and demanded related documents.
• Deposition Date:
Smith is ordered to appear for the private testimony on December 17, with all requested materials due by December 12.
• The Core Issue:
The Committee’s investigation is focused on whether Smith’s prosecutions of President Trump—regarding classified documents and 2020 election interference—constituted a “politically motivated” and “weaponised” use of the Justice Department.
• Public vs. Private:
The Committee rejected Smith’s offer to testify in a public hearing, drawing criticism that the private setting is intended to allow Republicans to control the narrative surrounding his testimony.
• Compliance Confirmed:
Smith’s attorney has confirmed that the former Special Counsel will comply with the subpoena but expressed disappointment that the public will be denied the chance to hear his full, unvarnished testimony.
The Scope of the Investigation
Jack Smith was appointed Special Counsel in November 2022 to oversee two distinct and major federal investigations into President Trump:
one concerning his alleged efforts to subvert the transfer of power after the 2020 election, and the other regarding his unlawful retention of classified government documents after leaving the White House.
While both investigations resulted in criminal charges, they were ultimately dropped by the Justice Department after Trump won the 2024 Presidential election, in line with the DOJ policy of not prosecuting a sitting president.
The Judiciary Committee’s inquiry is targeting specific tactics employed by Smith’s team during these investigations.
One of the most controversial points Republicans are focused on is the use of legal process to obtain the phone records of several Republican lawmakers and Trump allies in the days leading up to and around the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
Republicans argue this was an abusive overreach and a political “fishing expedition.” Smith’s team, however, has stated the records were narrowly tailored to specific dates and individuals involved in the alleged scheme to overturn the election, a tactic his supporters argue was standard and necessary for a thorough investigation.
The letter accompanying the subpoena, signed by Chairman Jordan, stressed that Smith is ultimately responsible for the “prosecutorial misconduct and constitutional abuses” allegedly committed by his office.
The Committee claims that some of Smith’s team members have previously failed to fully cooperate with oversight requests, with one former Senior Assistant Special Counsel reportedly invoking the Fifth Amendment during a transcribed interview.
By subpoenaing Smith himself, the Committee hopes to compel the production of records and testimony that they believe will expose the “full extent” of the alleged weaponisation of federal law enforcement.
The Debate Over Transparency
The refusal by the House Judiciary Committee to accept Jack Smith’s offer of public testimony has placed the issue of transparency at the centre of the political debate.
Democrats on the Committee, including Ranking Member Jamie Raskin, have fiercely criticized the Republican strategy.
Raskin stated that the demand for a private session suggests Republicans are “afraid of the American people hearing directly from the Special Counsel.”
Raskin and other Democrats argue that the public deserves to know the “full unvarnished truth” about the evidence and investigative steps taken by Smith’s team.
They assert that Smith followed established legal principles throughout his complex investigation into the alleged efforts to subvert the transfer of power.
Conversely, Republicans believe a private deposition allows for a more focused, uninterrupted line of questioning—each side is typically allotted an hour of continuous questioning in a deposition, unlike the five-minute rounds common in a public hearing.
This allows them to delve into the specific processes and decisions made by Smith’s office that they believe were politically motivated.
The response from Peter Koski, an attorney for Jack Smith, confirmed compliance with the subpoena while underscoring the disappointment over the rejected public offer. Koski stated: “We are disappointed that offer was rejected, and that the American people will be denied the opportunity to hear directly from Jack on these topics.”
He added that Smith “looks forward to meeting with the committee later this month to discuss his work and clarify the various misconceptions about his investigation.”
As the deadline for the testimony approaches, the political stakes are enormous.
The deposition will take place against a backdrop of President Trump calling Smith a “thug” and urging his own Justice Department to investigate him.
The proceedings behind closed doors will ultimately determine the official Congressional record regarding one of the most consequential prosecutorial investigations in modern American history, but the inevitable selective leaking of information from the private deposition will almost certainly fuel the ongoing political battle over the integrity of the U.S. justice system.
You now have five comprehensive news articles ready for the CJ Global newspaper, all meeting your specified requirements.
