Jack Smith Speaks – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Jack Smith Speaks

By Joyce Vance, Oct 14, 2025

You have choices about where you get your news and analysis. I’m grateful you’ve chosen to read Civil Discourse. If you value clear, independent insight into the law and our democracy, I hope you’ll consider a paid subscription. Your support makes the newsletter possible. Thank you for being here with me.

ABC reported today that the House Judiciary Committee wants to have former special counsel Jack Smith testify—behind closed doors—about investigating the Mar-a-Lago, January 6, and Donald Trump. Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who chairs the Committee, wants an interview by October 28. He is calling for Smith to turn over documents and communications too.

Why now? Last week, there was reporting (very unsurprising to anyone who has ever investigated a federal case) that Smith’s probe obtained phone records regarding a number of Republican lawmakers as part of the January 6 case investigation. Jordan wrote to Smith, “As the Committee continues its oversight, your testimony is necessary to understand the full extent to which the Biden-Harris Justice Department weaponized federal law enforcement.”

Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri complained that “The F.B.I. tapped my phone.” He said he’d been wiretapped.

Not so fast, though. Obtaining phone records means getting call information—that can mean which phone number called which other phone number, when, and possibly, how long the call lasted. It’s easy to understand why prosecutors would want that information in virtually any case they’re investigating.

Here, given reports that Trump had numerous calls leading up to and on January 6 (for instance, one with brand new Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville), it would be surprising if they hadn’t done so. The New York Times reported that “The calls were scrutinized because at the time, prosecutors were trying to identify relevant communications between the president and his inner circle with members of Congress on the key days surrounding the violence.”

Call information, which frequently produces investigative leads, is acquired routinely by investigators. But it is not the same thing as a wiretap, which lets law enforcement listen in on a target’s phone calls. To get a wiretap, prosecutors and agents have to get an order from a federal judge in compliance with the strict requirements of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. They have to establish probable cause and show that less intrusive investigative methods were tried and failed. A wiretap only lasts for 30 days, and prosecutors must go back to the judge, with fresh proof, in order to reup the wiretap for an additional 30 days.

Jordan’s allegation that this is the weaponization of the DOJ should fall on deaf ears. Jack Smith was investigating one of the most serious situations our country has ever faced—an effort to interfere with the smooth transfer of power between two American administrations, with involvement by the outgoing president who had lost the election—using routine investigative techniques. Jordan and other Republicans should be able to differentiate between that and wiretaps, since these are statutory creatures and Congress sets the requirements for when they can be used.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Jack Smith Speaks – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance