On January 22, 2026 former Special Counsel Jack Smith sat before the House Judiciary Committee and tried to defend the two politically charged investigations he led into President Trump. What was supposed to be a routine accountability session quickly devolved into a circus of partisan theater, with Democrats cheering and Republicans demanding straight answers about the Justice Department’s conduct.
Republican Rep. Darrell Issa pressed Smith sharply over the so-called Arctic Frost subpoenas that sought toll and phone-record data from members of Congress, asking whether Smith had informed a judge about who the subpoenas targeted. Smith insisted “my office didn’t spy on anyone,” but admitted the office did not provide the identities of targets to the judge when requesting nondisclosure orders — a revelation that should alarm any defender of separation of powers.
Instead of letting Issa finish his questioning, Ranking Member Jamie Raskin repeatedly jumped in to scold Republicans and “rescue” Smith, demanding the chairman instruct Issa to allow answers. The interruptions weren’t subtle; they were a blunt display of the same partisan protection racket that has kept swampy operatives insulated from scrutiny while they weaponize the machinery of justice.
Democrats will portray Raskin’s intervention as noble defense of a “respected” prosecutor, citing Smith’s claims that he was protecting witnesses and following DOJ policy. But political operatives don’t get to use “policy” as a cover for secretive subpoenas aimed at political opponents, and Raskin’s reflexive shielding shows whose side his party is on: the powerful and politically aligned, not the American people demanding transparency.
The transcript of the exchange makes clear this was not merely a tetchy disagreement about semantics — it was an admission that an Article III judge was not given full information when nondisclosure orders were obtained. That raises serious constitutional and Rule-of-Law questions: who in the Justice Department gets to decide when to keep Congress and judges in the dark, and on what authority? Americans deserve straight answers, not partisan cover-ups.
Darrell Issa ended his time by saying he “yielded back in disgust” at the witness, and that reaction summed up how millions of hardworking patriots feel watching a politicized Justice Department dodge accountability. Republicans on the committee were right to demand clarity; Democrats like Raskin were wrong to turn a hearing into a rescue mission for a man who has already faced justified questions about politicization.
If this episode proves anything, it’s that Americans must insist on full transparency and real oversight — not theatrical grandstanding or partisan safekeeping for prosecutors who acted like political warriors. Congress should follow up by demanding records, pressing for answers under oath, and ensuring that no one in the DOJ operates above the Constitution; that is how we protect the republic and restore faith in our institutions.
