Special Counsel Jack Smith is set to testify publicly to Congress on January 22, giving the prosecutor a platform that, if past is prelude, he will use to further denounce President Trump.

The chairman of the House Judiciary committee, Congressman Jim Jordan, told Fox News earlier this week that Mr. Smith “will be a tough witness, but we’re going to present the facts, and I think, frankly, we’re going to show that Jack Smith was part of this bigger effort” to bring down the 47th president.

One of Mr. Smith’s lawyers, Lanny Breuer, declares in a statement that “Jack has been clear for months he is ready and willing to answer questions in a public hearing about his investigations into President Trump’s alleged unlawful efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his mishandling of classified documents.” Mr. Trump maintains his innocence in both of those cases, which were hobbled by favorable court rulings for the president and ultimately ended in dismissals when he retook the White House.

Mr. Smith, who was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland in 2022 two days after Mr. Trump announced his renewed candidacy for president, left government service shortly before Mr. Trump’s second inauguration and has started a small law firm with his former deputies, who had resigned from the Justice Department or were fired. Mr. Smith has already testified to Mr. Jordan’s committee last month, albeit behind closed doors. 

The Ohio lawmaker, released the eight hour video and 245 page transcript of that session on New Year’s Eve. Mr. Smith, who had sought immunity for his testimony but did not receive it, did not invoke the protection of the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. Smith said in his opening remarks that “If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether the president was a Republican or Democrat.” He also accused Mr. Trump of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” and asserted that “The decision to bring charges against President Trump was mine, but the basis for those charges rests entirely with President Trump and his actions, as alleged in the indictments returned by grand juries in two different districts.”

Mr. Smith also said that the chaos at the Capitol on January 6, 2021  “does not happen” without Mr. Trump, and that “There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case” and that the 47th president is the “most culpable and most responsible person” for January 6. The special counsel’s final report on the election interference prosecution contends that “but for” Mr. Trump’s victory over Vice President Harris, the government could have secured a conviction.   

The prosecutor previewed that if his election interference case ever went to trial he was likely to rely on Mr. Trump’s erstwhile allies as cooperating witnesses because the  “evidence that I felt was most powerful was the evidence that came from people” who put “country before party and were willing to tell the truth to him, even though it could mean trouble for them.” Mr. Smith also suggested that more charges were being contemplated against Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the lawyer John Eastman, and others.

One topic about which Mr. Smith has not been voluble — so far — is his prosecution of Mr. Trump for possession of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Some legal observers had reckoned that the case was the strongest of the four criminal ones arrayed against Mr. Trump, though that contention has recently been undermined by reports that the FBI objected to the search on Mar-a-Lago, which was authorized by Mr. Garland.

When asked about the classified documents case under oath, though, Mr. Smith ventured that  “I don’t think I should even talk about that. I don’t want to have any — any implication that I gave some sort of insight about how that report is constructed.”

Mr. Smith’s reticence about talking about his documents case stems from Judge Aileen Cannon’s sealing of the dossier — at least for now. Mr. Trump has until late February to argue, “in his personal capacity,” that the report should never see the light of day. Mr. Trump, along with his coworkers — and employees — Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira — argue that releasing the report would violate their due process rights, even though the cases against all three were dismissed “without prejudice.”

The Mar-a-Lago case has been back in the spotlight after the DOJ and FBi declassified documents that disclosed internal debate over whether the government had marshaled “probable cause” to search the Palm Beach mansion — including the bedrooms of First Lady Melania Trump and Mr. Trump’s son, Barron. One FBI official asked “Absent a witness coming forward with recent information about classified on site, at what point is it fair to table this?” 

Another FBI agent wrote that a raid would be “counterproductive,” and advocated for “alternative, less intrusive and likelier quicker options for resolution” to get back the documents.The search, which was pushed for by a high-level prosecutor named Jay Bratt and approved by Mr. Garland, occurred before Mr. Smith’s hiring. Mr. Bratt invoked the Fifth Amendment to the judiciary committee.

Mr. Smith’s session on Thursday is also likely to touch on “Operation Arctic Frost,” his probe into the 2020 election. As part of that investigation Mr. Smith surveilled telephone metadata from eight Republican senators and one Congressman. Only Mr. Trump ended up being charged. After the disclosure of that operation in October, Mr. Trump declared on Truth Social that “Deranged Jack Smith got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. A real sleazebag!!!”