WASHINGTON — In an unexpected move late on Dec. 31, House Republicans released the full video and transcript of a private, nearly nine-hour deposition with former Special Counsel Jack Smith — a disclosure intended to embarrass the prosecutor but which instead underscored the strength of the criminal cases he previously brought against former President Donald J. Trump.

Mr. Smith, who had pushed for a public hearing and insisted he had “nothing to hide,” used the deposition to lay out, in detail, the evidence his team collected in the investigations into the former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his retention of highly classified government documents after leaving office. Far from vindicating Mr. Trump, the material showed the special counsel repeatedly asserting that the evidence against the former president was “overwhelming,” “corroborated,” and “more than sufficient” to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Republicans, who conducted the questioning behind closed doors, appeared surprised by the clarity of Mr. Smith’s statements and at times struggled to rebut his factual descriptions. Within hours of the deposition’s release, legal analysts, former prosecutors, and lawmakers began circulating excerpts that painted a stark portrait: Mr. Trump’s own allies, advisers, and senior Republican officials had provided the most damaging testimony against him.

Evidence From Trump’s Inner Circle

Mr. Smith explained that the January 6 investigation relied heavily on statements from individuals “in [Mr. Trump’s] own party” who privately told the president he had lost the 2020 election. These witnesses — among them senior Republican state officials, Trump campaign insiders, and high-ranking conservative lawyers — debunked conspiracy theories and affirmed the legitimacy of the electoral results.

According to Mr. Smith, these witnesses would have formed the backbone of the government’s case at trial. He described their testimony as “very powerful” and “deeply corroborative,” noting that they often spoke at personal or professional risk.

“The most powerful evidence,” he said, “came from people in his own party who put country before party.”

In the deposition, Mr. Smith also recounted interviews with Rudolph W. Giuliani, who had served as Mr. Trump’s attorney during the post-election legal challenges. When confronted under oath with his public fraud allegations, Mr. Giuliani “disavowed a number of the claims,” calling them “mistakes” or “hyperbole.” Even his baseless attacks on Georgia election worker Ruby Freeman — which helped trigger a torrent of threats — were withdrawn in sworn interviews.

Fraud, Not Free Speech

Much of the deposition focused on the legal distinction between protected political speech and unlawful fraud. Mr. Smith repeatedly emphasized that Mr. Trump was not prosecuted for expressing opinions about the election, however unfounded. Instead, he was investigated for using knowingly false claims to obstruct a lawful government function.

“There is a very clear carve-out for fraud,” Mr. Smith said. “People commit crimes all the time using words.”

He likened Mr. Trump’s conduct to an “affinity fraud,” in which trust is cultivated and then exploited. Mr. Trump, he argued, leveraged the loyalty of supporters — including potential false electors — to advance his bid to remain in power despite the election results.

Mr. Smith added that Mr. Trump continued to promote the wildest election theories even after privately dismissing their proponents. He cited the example of lawyer Sidney Powell, whom Mr. Trump reportedly called “crazy” on a muted conference line even as he later pushed her theories and considered appointing her as a special counsel.

Judge Cannon’s Injunction and the Documents Case

At several points in the deposition, Mr. Smith said he could not answer questions regarding the classified documents investigation because of an injunction issued by Judge Aileen M. Cannon, a Trump appointee in Florida. The order, he stated, prevented him from discussing grand jury matters, witness identities, and evidence relating to the retention of classified materials at Mar-a-Lago.

Republicans pressed Mr. Smith on whether Kash Patel, a former Trump administration official, had testified before the grand jury. Mr. Smith declined to answer, citing the court order. When asked whether Mr. Patel could legally disclose his own testimony, Mr. Smith responded that witnesses are generally free to do so — an implicit suggestion that Mr. Patel has chosen not to.

Pardons, Recidivism, and Trump’s Treatment of Law Enforcement

Mr. Smith also warned that the pardons issued to some January 6 defendants contributed to ongoing public safety risks, noting that multiple individuals pardoned for the riot had gone on to commit additional crimes. Pardoning violent offenders, he argued, “doesn’t make our country safer.”

The former special counsel became visibly emotional when recounting the dismissals of career prosecutors and FBI agents involved in the investigations. One agent, he said, had served in multiple war zones and lost his wife shortly before being terminated.

“No reason a person like that should have to go through that,” he said.

He called the firings “contrary to the rule of law” and warned that politicized reprisals against law enforcement threaten the stability of the Justice Department.

Mischaracterizations of Surveillance

Republican lawmakers also pressed Mr. Smith on claims that he had sought to wiretap members of Congress. Mr. Smith forcefully rejected those assertions, explaining that his office had obtained limited telephone toll records — basic logs of calls made to or from specific phones — after Mr. Trump and his associates contacted certain members as part of the electors plan.

He emphasized that toll records do not enable wiretapping, surveillance, or access to call content.

The Broader Implications

The deposition provides a rare and detailed look at the internal mechanics of the investigations into Mr. Trump’s efforts to remain in power. Far from exposing misconduct, it paints a picture of a methodical inquiry grounded in witness testimony, documentary evidence, and long-established legal principles.

It also raises new questions about why House Republicans sought a private deposition rather than the public hearing Mr. Smith requested — and why they released the material quietly on the last day of the year.

For now, the transcript stands as one of the clearest public accounts yet of how close the nation came to a constitutional crisis, how many insiders warned the president of the truth, and how the former president persisted in advancing claims his own allies had already rejected.