Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) questioned former special counsel Jack Smith in his second public appearance before Congress on Trump classified documents and Jan 6. Smith defended his investigations as supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In a fiery Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) questioned former special counsel Jack Smith about his investigations into Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents and his role in the January 6 attack.
The hearing marks Smith’s second public appearance before Congress regarding the investigations — and his third time testifying under oath. It was also one of the most explosive showdowns of 2026, with Smith telling senators: “I will not be silenced.”
What Was This Hearing About?
The hearing was officially titled “Oversight of Jack Smith’s Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans.”
Jack Smith led two unprecedented federal criminal cases against Donald Trump:
1. The Mar-a-Lago classified documents case — focused on Trump’s handling of classified documents after leaving the White House.
2. The January 6 election interference case — focused on Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his role in the Capitol attack.
Both cases led to historic indictments. Both were later scuttled after Trump’s reelection, as Department of Justice policy prevents prosecution of a sitting president.
Republicans and President Trump have accused Smith of political bias, calling his operation a partisan weapon that broke the rules. Smith has repeatedly denied it, saying he had “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” of what his investigations laid out.
Thom Tillis Questions Jack Smith: The Heated Exchange
Sen. Thom Tillis, who is retiring, took his turn questioning Smith and focused on three areas:
1. Political Bias and Public Perception: Tillis questioned Smith about accusations of political motivation and whether the prosecutions were perceived as targeting Republicans.
2. Mar-a-Lago Documents — “Why Can’t We Know?”: Tillis pressed Smith for inside details about the classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago. Smith’s response stunned him: “I can’t disclose that.”
The reason: Unlike Smith’s election-interference report, the second volume concerning classified documents has not been made public, leaving much of the government’s evidence unseen. Smith said he was legally barred from discussing details. Tillis pushed back, asking “Why can’t we know?” and demanding written answers and greater transparency.
3. Dismissal After Reelection: Tillis questioned Smith about the dismissal of the Trump cases following the President’s reelection and the role of DOJ policy.
Tillis also pushed back against both parties, warning against supporting political investigations simply because they target an opposing party. He even brought up the prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey over a social media post featuring seashells arranged to read “8647.”
Jack Smith’s Bombshell: “I Will Not Be Silenced”
Jack Smith did not back down.
Appearing voluntarily, Smith told the Senate Judiciary Committee, as reported by Reuters:
“I will not be silenced by the continued threats of prosecution from the president or others.”
He condemned the Trump administration’s firings of investigators in his office, calling it the “vilification of the career prosecutors, FBI agents, and support staff who served on my team.”
Smith also defended his most controversial decision — obtaining the phone toll records of a dozen Republican senators.
Smith explained his team secured call logs from several Republican senators because evidence suggested Trump and his allies tried to reach lawmakers during the January 6 Capitol riot to delay election certification. He said his team feared Trump and his associates might destroy evidence if the subpoenas became public.
The senators were furious. Ted Cruz, whose own phone records were sought, pressed Smith on why senators were never notified. Cruz asked, “Is it a crime to be a Republican?” Smith replied, “Absolutely not.” Senator John Kennedy told Smith he made him want to throw up in his mouth. Senator Mike Lee said Smith’s probe “makes what Richard Nixon did in Watergate look like a Sunday picnic.”
The Question That Stunned Tillis: What Would You Do Differently?
Then came the viral moment.
Tillis asked Jack Smith: What would you do differently during your investigations of Donald Trump?
Smith revealed his one regret — not speaking more outside the courtroom.
Smith said he learned that limiting virtually all of his public comments to the courtroom left space for false claims about his prosecutors and their work to spread unchecked.
In other words, his regret was being too quiet while Republicans attacked his team. That was not the answer Tillis expected.
The Hawks vs Hawkeyes Mix-Up
The hearing also featured a moment that backfired on Republicans.
Senator Eric Schmitt accused Smith of perjury, claiming Smith attended an Atlanta Hawks game on February 3, 2024, which would have placed him in the same city as Fulton County prosecutor Fani Willis.
Smith denied it, saying he attended a women’s college basketball game between the Iowa Hawkeyes and Maryland】 in College Park that day.
It was Hawks vs. Hawkeyes — confusion over a team name. Senator Amy Klobuchar said Schmitt owed Smith an apology.
What Happens Next?
Representative Jim Jordan referred Jack Smith to the Justice Department in July, claiming Smith made false statements in earlier testimony about the phone records. Attorney General Todd Blanche said in July that the DOJ was investigating the referral, but no charges have been filed against Jack Smith. Any charging decision would come from the same department that Trump has repeatedly urged to prosecute him.
Democrats stood by Smith. Ranking member Dick Durbin said, “The aspersions cast on Mr. Smith nonstop are petty, personal and political.”
Bottom Line: Jack Smith’s second public appearance was supposed to be a watershed moment for Republicans ahead of the midterms. Instead, it became memorable for Smith’s defiant defense of his investigations as based on evidence and law, not politics.
What do you think? Did Thom Tillis expose bias, or did Jack Smith prove his case was based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
Let us know in the comments.
Sources: PBS News – Tillis questions Smith second public appearance, Reuters – “I will not be silenced” testimony, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing transcript Sep 30, 2026.