Smith’s $50 MILLION Case COLLAPSES Spectacularly

A house of cards collapsing with some cards in motion — Instability: in the market, business, finances, etc, this can be symbolic of them all.

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s own congressional testimony has inadvertently exposed the glaring weaknesses in his January 6 case against President Trump, revealing how the entire prosecution was built on partisan assumptions rather than solid evidence.

Story Overview

Smith admitted under oath that he found no direct evidence Trump incited the Capitol riot
The special counsel acknowledged relying on hearsay testimony and disputed claims from witnesses like Cassidy Hutchinson
Smith’s $50 million investigation ultimately collapsed due to legal hurdles he should have recognized from the start
The prosecutor’s own final report undermines core allegations while attempting to justify the failed case

Smith’s Damaging Congressional Testimony

During his December 17, 2024 deposition before the House Judiciary Committee, Jack Smith made stunning admissions that torpedoed his own case. The transcript, released on December 31, 2024, shows Smith conceding he could not prove Trump directly incited violence on January 6. This acknowledgment destroys the foundation of his entire prosecution strategy, which relied on the premise that Trump’s words constituted criminal incitement.

Smith’s testimony revealed his investigation was hampered by fundamental legal constraints he apparently failed to consider adequately. The Brandenburg v. Ohio standard requires proof of intent to incite imminent lawless action, a burden Smith admitted he could not meet. His reliance on the largely unused Insurrection Act further exposed the speculative nature of his case.

Questionable Evidence and Witness Credibility Issues

The special counsel was forced to address serious problems with key witness testimony, particularly claims made by former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson. Smith acknowledged that Hutchinson’s dramatic allegations about Trump’s behavior in the presidential limousine were only “partially corroborated,” essentially admitting that crucial testimony was unreliable. This undermines the credibility of evidence that Democrats and the media treated as gospel truth.

Smith’s investigation relied heavily on Trump allies who had turned against the former president, creating obvious credibility questions about their motivations. The prosecutor’s admission that he built his case largely on the testimony of disgruntled former associates reveals the political nature of his evidence gathering. This approach raises serious concerns about prosecutorial objectivity and the weaponization of the justice system.

Failed Legal Strategy and Wasted Resources

The special counsel’s January 7, 2025 final report inadvertently highlights the prosecution’s strategic failures. Despite spending over $50 million in taxpayer funds, Smith could not overcome basic constitutional protections for political speech. His decision to pursue novel legal theories under rarely-used statutes demonstrates prosecutorial overreach that any competent attorney should have avoided from the beginning.

Smith’s own words in his final report contradict the narrative of a strong case, instead revealing an investigation that was politically motivated from its inception. The prosecutor’s emphasis on Trump’s “central role” while simultaneously admitting he lacked evidence of direct incitement exposes the circular reasoning that plagued the entire effort. This represents a textbook example of starting with a conclusion and working backward to find supporting evidence.