Leave it to MAGA Republicans to ring out the old year with one last blast of craven stupidity.

Mike Johnson’s House crew apparently assumed releasing Jack Smith’s recent secret testimony in the midst of holiday festivities would somehow ensure nobody would notice the ex-special counsel eviscerated his hapless inquisitors, leaving no doubt he had abundant ammo to paint Trump as a criminal in a federal court of law.

Trump and his House toadies tried everything to stack the deck against Smith. He wanted a public hearing, but was refused. Meanwhile, in the run up to his Dec. 17 closed-door appearance, Trump called him “deranged,” a “thug,” a “criminal,” and a “disgrace to humanity.” But Smith, a career adherent to evidentiary facts and the rule of law, was not deterred. Here he was, in the opening minutes of the hearing:

“Jan. 6 was an attack on the structure of our democracy…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.”

A House Republican staffer (whose name was redacted), pointing out Trump repeatedly claimed in the weeks prior to Jan. 6 the 2020 election was stolen, asked if you could prosecute someone for speaking his mind and if those statements are protected by the First Amendment.

“Absolutely not,” Smith said. “If (the statements) are made to target a lawful government function” – the peaceful transfer of power – “and they are made with knowing falsity, then no, they are not” protected by the First Amendment.

“When someone…commits an ‘affinity fraud’ – where you try to gain someone’s trust…  and then you rip them off – you defraud them,” Smith added. “And in a lot of ways this case was an affinity fraud. The president had people who had built up trust in him, including people in his own party, and he preyed on that,” by stoking followers to violently storm the Capitol, armed with lies about a stolen election.

The staffer tried several other tacks, including claiming Trump merely heeded what his close advisors told him. Smith flatly denied that was the case and had lined up numerous witnesses – all Republicans – who tried to tell Trump the 2020 results were legit. Trump reached out to many of them, including the top Republicans in swing state Arizona, only to be told what he didn’t want to hear.

“There was a pattern in our case where any time any information came in that would mean he could no longer be president, he would reject it,” Smith said. “And any theory, no matter how far-fetched, no matter how not based in law, that would indicate that he could, he latched on to that.”

Later in the day Smith piled it on: “The pattern and the depth of the pattern and the length of the pattern was pretty damning evidence that he knew (his stolen election claims) were false. He only brought ‘fraud’ claims in states in states that he lost. When he was told that a ‘fraud’ claim wasn’t true, he didn’t stop making it…claims that were so outlandish and so just fantastical, continuing to push those claims after they’d been disabused, was strong evidence (for) our case…False claims about dead voters. It would be false claims about underage voters. It would be false claims about illegal alien voters.”

At this point, the House Republican inquisitor was flailing. How come Smith was so “laser focused only on President Trump”? Wasn’t Smith part of a political conspiracy to hurt Trump’s 2024 candidacy, “keeping him off the campaign trail”?

“All of that is false,” Smith replied, saying he only cared about the evidence he’d amassed, not the campaign calendar. And particularly with respect to Jan. 6, “the evidence made clear that President Trump was by a large measure the most culpable and most responsible person in this conspiracy. These crimes were committed for his benefit. The attack that happened at the Capitol, part of this case, does not happen without him. The other co-conspirators were doing this for his benefit…Our view of the evidence was that he caused it and that he exploited it.”

If you’ve read this far, you’re likely wondering whether the effort was even worth it. Jack Smith’s case feels like ancient history, the rule of law has no more value than a clump of soiled tissue, and Generalissimo Bone Spurs is off the leash and plotting imperial conquest in the southern hemisphere.

But if you have read this far, you may well believe that it’s vitally important to do whatever we can, however modest those efforts might be, to document Trump’s criminality for the historical record, in the fervent hope that future Americans will be free to listen and learn.

Because, as Smith warned during his testimony, if there’s no accountability, even in the rear-view mirror, for what Trump did to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power, “it becomes the new norm.” That would be, in his word, “catastrophic.”

And that’s why I wrote this.

–

Copyright 2026 Dick Polman, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Dick Polman, a veteran national political columnist based in Philadelphia and a Writer in Residence at the University of Pennsylvania, writes the Subject to Change newsletter. Email him at [email protected]