I watched the full Jack Smith subpoena hearing and the Republicans had no defense to offer... [View all]

Each Party chose to have an attorney ask most of the questions.

The Republican strategy seemed to be to try and corner Jack Smith in some sort of contradiction and to collect names from him. They were obviously working for Trump's retribution campaign. They asked very few meaningful questions. They did not wish to get into the details about January 6 or the theft of documents found at Mar-a-Lago. Instead, they wanted to know who Smith talked to about this and that?

Democrats gave Smith the opportunity to spell out once again the crimes that Trump would have been charged with "beyond any reasonable doubt', and that they believed he would have been convicted.

Jamie Raskin asked one of the most interesting questions, in my opinion. He referenced Jack Smith's experience at the Hague and asked what was the difference in normal crimes and crimes that were tried at the Hague. Smith quoted a Judge from one of the courts as saying that Trump was a threat to the foundation of our democracy. He seemed to be saying that Trump might be a candidate for the Court at the Hague. That was my impression.

Smith ended up answering a few questions about the threats made against him just this morning and he said he had no doubt but that Trump wants retribution against him and that he would not be surprised if Trump pressures his DOJ to indict him. January 6 anniversary is coming up in just a few days.