OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Jack Smith Testifies Before Senate on Trump Cases

24 sources · updated 2026-09-30
Left 83% Center 0% Right 17%
5 left · 0 center · 1 right

What happened

Former special counsel Jack Smith testified Tuesday before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee about two federal criminal cases he brought against Donald Trump that were later dismissed: one over Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including events leading to the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack, and another over classified documents recovered at Mar-a-Lago after Trump left office in January 2021. The Republican-led hearing, chaired by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and titled “Oversight of Jack Smith’s Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters,” was Smith’s second congressional appearance on the probes. In his opening statement, Smith said he stood by the charges, that the investigation “developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in serious crimes against our nation,” and that he would not be “silenced by continued threats of prosecution.” Questioning turned combative: Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana told Smith, “You make me want to throw up in my mouth,” and Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri called him a “dirtbag” after suggesting Smith had attended an Atlanta Hawks game that Smith said was an Iowa Hawkeyes game. Smith declined to discuss the classified-documents case, citing an order by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon barring release of that portion of his report.
Sourcing check · Partly on the record · 6 articles

2 of 5 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report. Jack Smith denied part of it on the record.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 2 of 5
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Eric Schmitt, Amy Klobuchar and Chuck Grassley
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 5
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
Credits another outlet 0 of 5
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 5
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
On-record denial 1
A named person or institution says the claim, or part of it, is not true. It is on the record — someone signed their name to it — but it is not confirmation, so it never counts toward On the record. Criticizing or dissenting from a decision is not a denial. The count is how many people or institutions deny it; each is listed with the first article that carried the denial. Here: Jack Smith (The Guardian, Sep 29, 19:11 UTC)
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 29, 19:11 UTC by The Guardian, naming its source.
Not counted 1
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage of Jack Smith's Senate testimony never reported Grassley's disclosure that investigators had taken nearly 5,000 personal checks from Trump donors. Right-leaning coverage treated those checks, and journalist messages pulled from White House phones, as the hearing's substance, including home addresses and bank routing numbers. NBC News instead followed Republican insults and a basketball-team mix-up, so the day read as a personal attack session rather than a fight over how far the inquiry reached into private finances. Left-leaning coverage led with insults from the dais and with Smith's vow not to be silenced. Right-leaning coverage led with the sweep of lawmaker phone records and gave little space to the Justice Department's live interest in the people who ran the Trump probes. Did any donor check or journalist message ever appear in the charges against Trump?
Bottom line

Skip NBC News and you miss the dais insults; skip the Daily Caller and you miss Grassley's 4,782 seized donor checks. The two versions of the same hearing do not add up to one story.

The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Smith's team acquired at least 4,782 checks from mainly small-dollar Trump donors, including bank account and routing numbers, home addresses, and signatures numberin Daily Caller, The Federalist · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • In February 2021, prosecutors Molly Gaston and J.P. Cooney, later leaders on Smith's team, texted that they ignored written filter guidance for potentially privileged material contextin The Federalist · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • NARA's inspector general classified its February 2022 message to DOJ as a referral for assessment, not a criminal referral for prosecution official statementin Daily Caller · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The Justice Department is pushing to target law enforcement officials involved in Smith's Trump investigations, including a so-called grand conspiracy inquiry contextin NBC News · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Judge Aileen Cannon ordered that the classified-documents portion of Smith's report cannot be released, and Smith was not expected to discuss that investigation legal rulingin NBC News · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets presented Smith as a career, nonpartisan prosecutor refusing to be intimidated, stressing his claim that political affiliation “must play no role” and that assertions of Biden-administration direction were “laughable.” NBC News, The Guardian, The New York Times, and The Washington Post focused on the hearing “devolving into insults,” highlighting Kennedy’s remark and Schmitt’s “dirtbag” line after the Hawks/Hawkeyes mix-up, which Sen. Amy Klobuchar said “deserves an apology” and which the Times said caused a perjury claim to “fall apart.” They reported Smith’s view that a jury would have convicted Trump, Democrats’ description of the hearing as “a farce,” and concerns that the Trump administration is now targeting former investigators.
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets cast Smith as “disgraced” and the probes as a “witch hunt,” centering Grassley’s disclosures that investigators obtained communications involving 44 members of Congress, journalists at more than a dozen outlets including The Federalist, and at least 4,782 personal checks from small-dollar Trump donors that included bank details and home addresses. The Federalist, Daily Caller, and Breitbart cited internal texts in which prosecutors said they “ignored the written description of filtering” for privileged material, alleged Speech or Debate Clause violations, and reported that Smith’s office bent its own purchasing rules to rush forensic software before the election-interference indictment. Grassley said Smith “indicted one person — President Trump — but successfully mapped out the Republican apparatus.”
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that two grand juries returned indictments Smith still describes as supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the hearing’s most visible Republican attack collapsed on a mix-up between the Atlanta Hawks and Iowa Hawkeyes rather than a documented legal falsehood. The right’s strongest argument is the contemporaneous paper trail Grassley released—thousands of donor checks spanning 2019–2023, congressional and journalist communications taken from White House phones, and prosecutor texts about ignoring filter guidance—none of which Smith addressed in his public report. The central unresolved tension is whether that collection was a necessary means of investigating alleged crimes involving a president’s contacts with lawmakers and supporters, or an overbroad mapping of political opponents that exceeded privilege protections and chilled speech.

24 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.