On the Record: Jack Smith

How Jack Smith’s public testimony could expose the conspiracy to violate voting rights he charged Donald Trump with in 2020 — and whether it is still continuing ahead of the midterms.

Before Jack Smith testifies publicly on Thursday (January 22, 2026 at 10am) it’s critical the public understands what meaningful questioning actually looks like.

What follows is an example of how newly uncovered 2024 election data could be presented to Smith under oath — not as an accusation, but as a continuity test grounded in his own testimony and the evidence he relied on to charge a conspiracy to violate voting rights after the 2020 election.

This is the level of clarity and urgency I want to see from Democrats (or brave Republicans who don’t want to follow Jim Jordan blindly) while they have this opportunity — and it’s why this needs to be read and shared now.

An Example Line of Questioning for House Judiciary Members to Pose to Jack Smith:

Judiciary Member: You charged Donald Trump with conspiracy against the right to vote and have one's vote counted— or in other words a conspiracy to violate the voting rights of the people— based on your investigation into the 2020 election, is that correct?

Jack Smith:

Judiciary Member: And in that testimony, you said, and I will quote here “The evidence here 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.” End quote. Is that your belief as a career prosecutor who sat with the evidence that you and your team had compiled in preparation to present it in an open court to prove the charges?

Jack Smith:

Judiciary Member: In your closed door testimony, you specifically said you remember a co-conspirator saying “We want to get rid of these votes. We want to subtract them.”Is it a correct assumption from that statement that you had understood — based on the evidence you had available to you —that co-conspirators were working to get rid of or delete legitimate votes of the people to benefit Donald Trump?

Jack Smith:

Judiciary Member: And in your closed door testimony you specifically said and I quote “The evidence here 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.” Is that correct – that the evidence you and your team compiled had made it clear to you and your team that President Trump was the most responsible and that the crimes were committed for his benefit?

Jack Smith:

Judiciary Member: Are you familiar with the book Rage written by Bob Woodward and released in September 2020?

Jack Smith:

Judiciary Member: In this book on pages 116-118, Woodward describes a meeting from late July 2018 where the top intelligence agencies sat in the White House Situation room and briefed President Trump that highly classified materials showed that Russian malware was successfully placed in two counties in Florida. They explained that the malware could be activated in the future and that it would delete 1 in 10 voter records. And that this meant that the vote count would be impacted— I am going to quote directly from the passage here “almost certainly reducing the total vote count for Democrats.”

In this passage, Trump then instructed the intelligence agencies to tell the public everything except for the classified information about the malware.

Based on the evidence that you used to charge Donald Trump with —a conspiracy to violate the voting rights of the people— does this sound accurate? And did you find evidence that Trump knew of efforts to delete votes as far back as 2018 but kept it classified?

Jack Smith:

Judiciary Member: And I am going to refer to evidence in the public domain that you may not have been aware of. An independent researcher, Alison Greene, of the organization Its Up to Us, has been presenting publicly on substack her research on the 2024 elections. Included in her research she independently requested public records from the Supervisor of Elections in one of the two counties in Florida that was referred to in that White House Briefing that Bob Woodward wrote about. The county was St. Lucie County Florida, and she requested and received the county data after the 2024 election

If I told you that based on her analysis of the data she received from St. Lucie County— the election results in the 2024 election show that 1 in 10 voter records went missing after the 2024 election exactly like intelligence agencies warned Trump could happen back in 2018 — would you say that resembles or mirrors the same conspiracy you tried to charge Donald Trump with in 2020?

Jack Smith:

Judiciary Member: In your opinion as a career prosecutor, should that data that points to 1 in every 10 votes missing from the records have been investigated as possible evidence of Donald Trump and his co-conspirators ongoing crimes to violate the voting rights of the people in 2024?

Jack Smith:

Judiciary Member: And based on your current knowledge are you aware of any open federal investigations into election interference of this sort - diluting and erasing records- ahead of the 2026 midterms?

Jack Smith:

Judiciary Member: And in your opinion, based on the evidence that you have seen, unless he is ultimately charged with the crimes you brought, do you expect that the conspiracy —if it is ongoing— could be used for Donald Trump to manipulate the 2026 midterms and maintain control of the House and Senate to continue to avoid accountability for his crimes?

Jack Smith:

Judiciary Member: And in your opinion based on the evidence that you have seen, is it possible that if the secrets about criminal attempts at election interference that Donald Trump is keeping classified were to be made public and there was a public outcry, would he potentially try to find an excuse to cancel the elections?

Jack Smith:

Judiciary Member: And if Donald Trump were to attempt to cancel the 2026 midterms as he has publicly stated he might do —what would you as a career prosecutor say could be done to stop him from cancelling the midterm elections?

End of proposed questioning

Why This Matters

Podcast 5 walks through why Jack Smith’s closed-door testimony — and the limits placed on it — should concern every voter.

As we approach his live testimony on Thursday at 10am, the most important thing the public can do is pay attention, listen carefully, and share context — not noise.

Please listen to Podcast 5 and share it widely before Thursday. This is a rare moment where public attention can help ensure that Jack Smith is heard — and that what he says cannot be quietly dismissed or buried. The risk is that the public stays distracted until the midterms.

I’ve consolidated Podcast 5 and the supporting 2024 research into a single QR code so the evidence is easy to access and review.

Sharing this — particularly with Judiciary Committee members and their staff — helps ensure the 2024 data on the public record is not overlooked as Jack Smith prepares to testify.

Thursday at 10am is almost here. If you want to help right now, please share this QR code across your social media platforms and tag the judiciary members. Here is a sample post for Social media:

It’s Up to Us — The 2024 Election Series

This QR code provides access to independent research and analysis of 2024 election data already on the public record. Jack Smith can’t talk about all of the evidence he had when he charged Trump but he can weigh in on this evidence.

And here is a sample email you can send to the members of the House Judiciary Committee or your local congressional representative who may be able to get it to the Judiciary members.

Sample Email to House Judiciary Committee Members

Subject: Public Record Evidence Relevant to Jack Smith’s Testimony (Jan 22)

Dear [Representative / Congresswoman / Congressman] [Last Name],

I’m writing ahead of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s public testimony on January 22 to share several publicly documented election anomalies that may be relevant to questions you are preparing.

These examples are not claims of guilt, but documented facts, sworn statements, or data irregularities in the public record and may help illuminate how vote dilution or election interference can occur — particularly when key evidence is inaccessible to the public.

Examples you may wish to reference or ask Special Counsel Smith about include:

• St. Lucie County, Florida (2024):
Public voter and vote data obtained from Public Records requests shows that approximately 57% of precincts reported more votes for President than registered voters, and that roughly 1 in 10 voter records are unaccounted for — a figure that mirrors prior public warnings from U.S. intelligence officials regarding potential voter record deletion.

•St. Lucie County address anomalies:
At least five ballots were cast by voters registered to a UPS Store address — which does not appear in official county records as a valid residential address or precinct.

The voter records associated with these counted ballots list no residential information beyond the UPS Store address, leaving no way to independently verify voter eligibility or residency. As a result, the inclusion of these votes raises unresolved questions about validation and oversight.

• Rockland County, New York (SMART Elections case, Dec. 2024):
In a lawsuit filed by SMART Legislation (the legal action arm of SMART Elections), more voters submitted sworn affidavits stating they voted for U.S. Senate candidate Diane Sare than the number of votes officially recorded for her.
While the case was dismissed on procedural grounds, the sworn statements and discrepancies remain part of the public record.

• Bob Woodward’s Rage (2020) pages 116-118:
Woodward reports that senior U.S. intelligence officials warned then-President Trump that malware vulnerabilities could allow up to one in ten voter records to be deleted — closely matching unexplained voter record losses observede in some 2024 data.

These findings have been compiled by It’s Up To Us, (published exclusively on Substack) along with their independent research derived from public records received in St. Lucie County. It also includes court cases and research that are relevant to election crimes — including from SMART Elections and the Election Truth Alliance.

While Special Counsel Smith may be legally restricted from discussing sealed evidence, these examples are entirely public. You may wish to ask whether any of these public facts resemble the methods, scale, or patterns described in the evidence reviewed by the Special Counsel—and how Congress should protect elections when critical evidence cannot be disclosed.

Thank you for your time and for your attention to this matter.

Respectfully,
[Your Name]
[City, State – optional]

PASTE QR CODE HERE

Recommended Phone Script

Hi, I’m calling about publicly documented election anomalies compiled in The 2024 Election Series by It’s Up to Us.

I’m asking whether the Committee plans to ask Jack Smith if this public evidence resembles what he investigated but hasn’t been able to discuss publicly.

Much of this research is available on Substack at ItsUptoUs.substack.com. I’d appreciate it if this information could be shared with the staff preparing questions so they’re aware of evidence already in the public domain before Thursday’s testimony.

And for anyone who’s unsure about calling — don’t worry. You don’t need to explain or argue the evidence. You’re simply pointing staff to where it already exists so they can review it themselves and decide whether it’s relevant to their questions.

Thank you everyone - It’s Up to ALL of us!

—Alison

This is a reader-supported project.

No ads. No sponsors. No political parties. No corporate or foreign interests.

Paid members make this independent research possible. Not ready to become a paid member? You can still support this work by joining as a free member to help grow the community and keep this research visible.