The best witness for the never-completed prosecution of President Trump, it turned out, was the prosecutor himself: Jack Smith. Last week, the House Judiciary Committee released the transcript and video of Smith’s deposition, which is a stark reminder of the cost of letting Trump go unpunished and the danger of the President’s revenge-seeking against those who sought to hold him to account. “Smith’s deposition was, in all likelihood, as close as he will get to making a closing argument,” Ruth Marcus writes. “It marks, most likely, the unsatisfying conclusion of an unsatisfying episode, one that underscored the limitations of the criminal-justice system in dealing with a lawless President.” Now, with Trump calling Smith a “criminal” who should be “investigated and put in prison,” one question is the jeopardy that Smith himself may face. “I am eyes wide open that this President will seek retribution against me if he can,” Smith said at one point in the deposition. Still, he said, of his testimony before the committee, “I came here. I was asked to come here.” Read more :

Jack Smith’s Closing Argument

In a moment charged with legal gravity and national consequence, Jack Smith delivered what many observers describe as a defining closing argument—one that distilled months of investigation into a clear, uncompromising case centered on evidence, intent, and the rule of law.

Rather than lean on rhetoric, Smith’s approach focused on methodical clarity. Point by point, he laid out a narrative prosecutors believe demonstrates deliberate actions, conscious decisions, and a pattern that could not be explained away as confusion, politics, or mistake.

A Case Built on Evidence, Not Emotion
At the heart of Smith’s closing argument was a simple assertion: accountability depends on facts. He emphasized timelines, documented communications, witness testimony, and corroborating records to show intent and awareness.

Legal analysts noted that Smith avoided inflammatory language, choosing instead to rely on the cumulative weight of the evidence. The message was unmistakable—this was not about ideology or personalities, but about conduct measured against the law.

“This case is not complicated,” Smith said in substance. “It is detailed—but the facts are clear.”

Intent as the Central Question
A key theme in Smith’s argument was intent. Prosecutors argue that actions taken were not accidental or misunderstood, but purposeful and sustained. Smith carefully walked through moments where choices were made despite warnings, advice, or legal obligations—framing those decisions as pivotal.

In legal terms, establishing intent is often the hardest burden. Observers say Smith treated it as the spine of the case, returning to it repeatedly to show consistency rather than coincidence.

The Rule of Law Above All
Perhaps the most striking element of Smith’s closing was his insistence that status offers no immunity. Without naming political consequences, he reinforced a foundational principle: the law applies equally, regardless of power, position, or public profile.

This framing resonated beyond the courtroom. Constitutional scholars say it echoed a long-standing democratic ideal—that institutions endure only if rules are enforced without fear or favor.

Reaction and National Impact
Reaction to the closing argument was swift. Supporters called it disciplined and persuasive; critics argued it was overly rigid. But even skeptics acknowledged the seriousness of its construction.

Across Washington, the argument reignited debate about accountability at the highest levels and the long-term implications for democratic norms.

What Comes Next
With closing arguments complete, attention now turns to legal outcomes and broader consequences. Whatever the result, Smith’s closing argument has already secured a place in the ongoing national conversation about justice, power, and responsibility.

In the end, the argument was less about a single case and more about a larger message: that the strength of a democracy is tested not when the law is easy to apply—but when it is hardest to enforce.

And in that test, Jack Smith made clear where he believes the line must be drawn.