Jack Smith, a lawyer tapped by Democrats to lead part of the party’s lawfare against President Donald Trump, repeatedly has been described as going beyond what the law allows in his political agenda.
There was that SWAT raid on Mar-a-Lago, which apparently had no basis, he’s demanded the telephone records of members of Congress, in secret, and much more.
One of his methods was to file documents in court with wild claims that were stated as if they were true.
A lot of that was made public, and likely skewed Americans’ perceptions of what actually was going on in the cases.
But one part of his anti-Trump rant isn’t going that direction.
It’s because a federal judge has blocked, permanently, the release of “Volume Two” of Smith’s report about Trump’s handling of classified materials.
A Fox News report called it a “significant victory for the president and his co-defendants.”
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who earlier threw out another case against Trump because Smith was not properly appointed, agreed to the president’s request to block, permanently, the release of Smith’s claims, because to do so would be a “manifest injustice” to Trump and others named by Smith.
BREAKING: Judge Cannon has permanently blocked the release of Jack Smith's classified documents report, saying it would be unfair to Trump and his former co-defendants to release it. https://t.co/5OAQvN0tmo pic.twitter.com/hmOt1hyfvQ
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 23, 2026
Judge blocks release of special counsel Jack Smith's report on Trump classified documents casehttps://t.co/gC2MYPGwQT
— WSAZ NewsChannel 3 (@WSAZnews) February 23, 2026
“Special Counsel Smith, acting without lawful authority, obtained an indictment in this action and initiated proceedings that resulted in a final order of dismissal of all charges,” Cannon said Monday.
The decision means the Department of Justice cannot release, distribute, convey or share “with anyone outside the Department of Justice any information or conclusions in Volume II or in drafts thereof.”
Smith was told by Democrat Attorney General Merrick Garland under Joe Biden’s regime to investigate Democrat claims that Trump and others tried to overturn the 2020 election, and Trump’s possession of presidential documents after he left office.
Smith filed charges in both cases, and both cases eventually failed.
WorldNetDaily recently reported that Smith had claimed Trump was guilty, despite professional guidelines that bar such statements.
That’s from a transcript released by Congress of members’ interrogation of Smith, whose cases against Trump ended because Smith was improperly appointed, and because Trump took the office of president for his second term.
The discussion came early in the congressional interrogation, when Smith made statements including his claim that Trump “exploited” the violence of the Jan. 6, 2021, protest-turned-riot at the Capitol, as “President Trump and his associates tried to call members of Congress in furtherance of their criminal scheme.”
That particular issue has roiled Republicans in Congress, as it was their private telephone records that were subpoenaed and reviewed by Smith, with the help of an anti-Trump Washington judge.
Smith started off by complaining about the “false and misleading” narratives about his work, and explained he was there to “correct” what was wrong.
He was asked, “You just made some pretty definitive statements about your belief that President Trump was guilty of these charges. Is that correct?”
Smith: “Yes, I believe we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt in both cases.”
A followup to Smith was, “And doesn’t the Justice Manual prohibit prosecutors from asserting that a defendant is guilty of something before a jury makes a determination?”
Smith admitted that it does, “when a case is pending.”
“So you think you’re free from that, from the Justice Manual rules, once a case is dismissed?”
Smith said, “No, I think that it’s important to state clearly the amount of evidence we had and the basis for why we proceeded. Why we proceeded as we did is because we had a strong case, as I set forth in the final report.”
Question: “But your final report makes what seems to be conclusive determinations of President Trump’s guilt, as opposed to laying out simply the facts and the evidence that you have. I mean, you draw those conclusions that in your view he’s guilty. Is that not the case?”
Smith: “Well, to be clear, the cases were never tried. We were never put to our burden before a jury. So we didn’t conclusively prove it. The reason the report was written the way it was written and the reason I said what I just said is because it was our belief that if we went to trial we would prevail.”
Question: “But your report differs, you know, if you look at Special Counsel Hur’s report and Special Counsel Mueller’s report. The language that you use and the way you describe the things that you believe President Trump committed, you know, is different. You know, Hur was careful to use words like jurors could find or might, at most, would likely conclude, whereas the language you use is pretty definitive.”
The grilling about his ability to follow the rules followed Smith’s claims, including:
“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power. Our investigation also developed powerful evidence that showed that President Trump willfully retained highly classified documents after he left office in January of 2021, storing them at his social club, including in a ballroom and a bathroom. He then repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents.”
None of those claims ever obtained a response from a jury, which might have disagreed with Smith’s contentions.
Under questioning, Smith conceded it is “the role of a jury, not the special counsel,” to “weigh the facts and determine guilt.”
He also claimed Trump’s opinions and comments were not protected by the First Amendment.
The facts now show that the 2020 election was, in fact, affected by at least two outside and undue influences, the $400 million plus that Mark Zuckerberg spent in ways that impacted the election, as well as the FBI’s decision to interfere by claiming, when agents knew the claim to be false, that the scandalous material found in a laptop abandoned by Hunter Biden was Russian disinformation.
He also repeated the debunked claim that Trump was “responsible” for the Capitol riot.
Actually, ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, is on video admitting that she held a great deal of responsibility for the failure that day to prepare for protests.
“The attack that happened at the Capitol, part of this case, does not happen without him,” Smith claimed.
The 255 pages of Smith’s comments, redacted, have been posted online.
House committee releases video and transcript of deposition where former special counsel Jack Smith defended his investigations into Trump https://t.co/u0RZrgmw9O
— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) December 31, 2025
NEW: Jack Smith's transcript released.
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) December 31, 2025
🧵on his misrepresentations, falsehoods, and straight up lies told by the special counsel to House Judiciary Committee on Dec 17.
Smith had no evidence that any of the so-called "classified documents" he claimed to have found were in boxes… pic.twitter.com/CjDWJyRNRq
Notable takeaways so far:
— Kaelan Deese (@KaelanDC) December 31, 2025
Jack Smith conceded Trump never ordered the Capitol breach — but blamed him anyway.
Smith admitted he has no evidence Trump told anyone to storm the Capitol. Instead, he argued Trump “caused,” “exploited,” and “foreseeably incited” the violence and… pic.twitter.com/RC3gMztDfj
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Jack Smith misrepresented evidence "against Trump" during testimony to House Committee. For the gazillionth time, Trump did not ask local officials to find 11,000 votes. Trump's legal team had evidence of substantially MORE than 11,000 illegal votes. 1/ pic.twitter.com/CsiLNnUjWg
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) December 31, 2025
Exclusive: GOP Leaders Grill Judge Boasberg For Allowing Jack Smith To Spy On The Senatehttps://t.co/wdrJzNecXj
— The Federalist (@FDRLST) November 20, 2025
Also confirmed by now is that details released by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, revealed that the Joe Biden administration knowingly violated the Constitution by diving into the telephone records of Republicans in Congress as part of its lawfare against President Donald Trump.
The report in the Federalist confirmed, “The Biden Administration okayed Special Counsel Jack Smith’s subpoenaing congressional phone records knowing the subpoenas were unconstitutional, emails released last week revealed. That same trove of documents also established the illegality of the nondisclosure orders issued by the courts to prevent the telecommunication providers from alert[ing] the members of Congress of the unconstitutional seizure of their toll records.”
It continued, “In other words, the Biden Administration ignored Smith’s blatant violation of congressional Republicans’ constitutional rights under the Speech or Debate Clause because the special counsel’s office was unlikely to criminally charge any of the congressional Republicans — and therefore, there was little ‘litigation risk’ that a court would exclude the unconstitutionally seized evidence.”
Jack Smith claims Trump was guilty, apparently violating guidelines for prosecutors
