|
 |
Good afternoon, Press Pass readers. Welcome to the desert of the real fifth week of the government shutdown. You shouldn’t go it alone out here. Consider upgrading to a Bulwark+ membership, which will give you access to all of our newsletters (you can choose which ones you want) plus exclusive podcasts, subscriber chats, and much more.
Today’s edition takes up the next phase of the GOP’s campaign of retribution against former special counsel Jack Smith. The Republican-controlled Judiciary committees in both chambers are eager to bring Smith in for questioning and some good, old-fashioned political flogging. But because of the importance of controlling the narrative, they have indicated that any Smith hearing will be conducted out of public view. Smith has other plans, though. He’s demanded the hearings be public and the people who want to question him are not pleased about it. I surveyed a handful of lawmakers in both parties to get a sense of how this might go down.
In addition, the largest federal employees union renewed their call to end the government shutdown. While the conventional wisdom holds that ambivalent Democrats in a high-stakes situation tend to fold when they come under pressure from such an important union, the reactions to the news suggested we may have moved beyond conventional-wisdom territory. Lastly, one of Trump’s State Department nominees might be pleased to learn about the glorious return of Hooters. All that and more, below.
Jack Smith Wants a Spectacle. Will Republicans Play Ball?
The former special counsel says he wants any testimony he gives to be public. In an interview with The Bulwark, Rep. Jamie Raskin outlines why it matters.
|
| |||||||||||||||
 |
Like many of the individuals who investigated or criticized President Donald Trump during his four-year exile from the White House, Jack Smith is now being subjected to intense political and legal scrutiny.
House and Senate Judiciary Chairmen Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) are preparing to bring in the former Justice Department special counsel, who investigated Trump and others for mishandling classified information and attempting to subvert the results of the 2020 election, to testify before their respective committees. Their goals don’t require a special counsel to figure out: They want to berate Smith and lambast the Justice Department for daring to probe Trump’s alleged misuse of classified information while reinforcing their larger narrative about the DOJ being deeply politicized against Trump.
Smith was ready: After receiving his first summons, he started maneuvering to gain a more advantageous position.
“We have received Chairman Jordan’s October 14, 2025, letter and are aware of Chairman Grassley’s interest in testimony from our client, Jack Smith,” attorneys for Smith wrote in a letter to Jordan and Grassley last Thursday. “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.”
Requesting that a hearing be done out in the open is a classic bit of gamesmanship, designed to portray your critics as the ones having something to hide. And, naturally, some Republicans on the committees were irate.
“I don’t think he’s in any position to bargain,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a longtime member of the Judiciary Committee, told me on Monday. “I think there needs to be—typically what happens is there’s some behind-the-scenes vetting by staff before, then public testimony is provided. That’s probably appropriate here.”
But at least one, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), seemed okay with the idea. “It’d be great. I think he should testify,” Graham told me. He deferred to Grassley on the question of which setting and format would be more appropriate.
On the Democratic side, opinion was more uniform, with lawmakers keen on ensuring any Smith hearing is available for public viewing. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told me, “It certainly is possible [that Smith will testify in an open hearing], if Republicans will allow it.”
“They control the agenda and all of the committees where he would testify,” Blumenthal added after pausing when I asked if that was likely. “And I think it should be in public. The American people deserve to hear from him.”
The same day that the Smith letter went out, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, sent his own letter to Jordan calling on him to grant a public hearing.
When I got him on the phone, Raskin elaborated on this for me. “The normal expectation would be that a special counsel investigating a president comes to our committee and testifies publicly,” he said.
“I can’t think of a case where we had a special counsel or independent counsel investigating a president who did not appear in public before a committee to discuss his findings and to answer questions. So that’s the norm,” he added. “It’s just weird to do it in any other way.”
Raskin also noted that “the Republicans don’t want any public questioning or discussion” and that “they would like to serve Trump’s will by getting [Smith] behind closed doors and then, you know, torturing out a few words here or there, which could then be distorted into some kind of media campaign. But that’s, you know—that’s an irresponsible way to go, obviously.”