The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated

Episode: Inspector Javert testifies on Capitol Hill
Date: January 23, 2026
Host: Hugh Hewitt (Salem Podcast Network)

Overview

This episode features a condensed selection of key segments and interviews from The Hugh Hewitt Show. The main theme: the contentious House Oversight Committee hearing with Special Counsel Jack Smith (famously dubbed "America's Javert" by critics), focusing on his investigations into the Trump administration, January 6th, and his pursuit of phone records from congressional figures. The episode also covers reactions to recent Oscar nominations, the US-Greenland sovereignty deal, and speculation about possible US military action against Iran, featuring regular contributors Noah Rothman, Eliana Johnson, Jim Talent, Josh Kraushauer, and Jim Garrity.

Congressional Hearing: Jack Smith Grilled on Capitol Hill (00:00–10:05)

Cassidy Hutchinson Testimony – Reliability & Use as Witness

• Jim Jordan (Chair, House Oversight) directly questions Jack Smith about his reliance on star January 6th witness Cassidy Hutchinson.
  • Jordan accuses Hutchinson of providing "secondhand" and "thirdhand" hearsay, specifically her story alleging President Trump lunged for the steering wheel.
  • Jack Smith clarifies: “My recollection of her testimony... is that it was secondhand. She said she'd heard that from somebody.” (01:22)
  • Jordan presses Smith about corroboration from other Secret Service members (Tony Ornato, Bobby Engel), both of whom denied the incident.
  • Smith confirms: “We interviewed another firsthand witness who was in the car, who did not confirm that that happened.” (02:57)
  • Jordan: “You also said Ms. Hutchinson, regarding this particular claim, was a second or even third hand witness. We asked you if you were a defense attorney, how would you handle cross examining her if she was on the witness stand? And you said, ...the first thing I would do was seek to preclude her testimony because it was hearsay. You remember saying all that?”
  • Smith: “Yes, that's correct, sir.” (03:45)
  • On whether he’d call Hutchinson as a trial witness: Smith says no final determinations had been made, but prosecutors on his team did not want to use hearsay evidence.

Notable Moment:

• Rep. Jordan challenges Smith with an excerpt from Washington Post reporters Lennig & Davis’ book, asserting Smith’s own doubts about using Hutchinson.

Subpoenaing Congressional Toll Records & Alleged Abuse of Power

• Unidentified Congressman (Brandon Gill, TX implied) scrutinizes Smith’s subpoena of Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s phone records days after McCarthy became Speaker, suggesting violation of the Speech or Debate Clause.
  • Smith denies wrongdoing. “I do not [agree it violates the clause].” (05:28)
  • The Congressman accuses Smith of “collecting months worth of phone data on the Republican Speaker... right after he got sworn in as Speaker, all around the time of a major vote. That sounds like a flagrant violation...”. (05:45)
  • The issue of non-disclosure orders is raised: Smith acknowledges nondisclosure was standard to protect investigatory integrity, not because McCarthy was a “flight risk.”
• The subpoenas also extended to nine Senators and another Congress member, with additional secrecy.
  • Smith insists this was “consistent with Department policy and law.” (08:01)
  • The Congressman: “Your own analysis says... you knew there was a risk you were violating the speech or debate clause. I have it right here...”

Memorable Quote:

• Congressman: “We walked all over the Constitution throughout this entire process. Chairman, the gentleman’s time, members of Congress, and you know it. It’s absolutely disgraceful.” (09:19)

Hugh Hewitt’s Summary

• Hewitt delivers a caustic assessment:
  “Jack Smith was a rogue prosecutor who did great damage to the Constitution and the political process... He is the Javert from Les Mis. He ought never to prosecute anyone again.” (10:05)

Oscar Nominations & The Sad State of Moviegoing (11:08–18:33, 19:51–26:58, 27:01–35:10, 35:37–41:54, 43:09–50:01)

The Ongoing Bit

• Hewitt runs a humorous “have you seen or heard of these 10 Oscar-nominated films?” quiz with each guest.
• Consistent result: almost nobody—media professionals included—has seen, or even heard of, most nominees (“Frankenstein, Hamnet, The Secret Agent, Sentimental Value, Sinners, F1, Train Dreams, Marty Supreme, One Battle After Another, Begonia”).

Notable Participant Quotes:

• Noah Rothman: “You might be detecting a trend.” (11:19)
• Eliana Johnson: "I'll spare you time. I haven't seen anything." (19:51)
• Jim Talent: “No and no. And I’m afraid a lot of my answers are going to be along those lines.” (27:19)
• Josh Kraushauer: “No and no.” (36:12)
• Jim Garrity: “You could be making up that one and I would not be able to tell you whether it's true.” (43:38, on “Sentimental Value”)

Reflections on Hollywood

• Panelists express genuine bewilderment and concern over their unfamiliarity with Oscar contenders.
  • Hewitt: “How bad is Hollywood marketing when you haven't even heard of six of the 10 best pictures of the year?” (20:59)
  • There's lament and some mockery of the disconnect between the industry and actual moviegoers.
    • Jim Garrity: “What is indisputable is what they used to call the middle class of movies... This basically has disappeared." (48:16)

Foreign Policy Deep Dive: Iran, Greenland, and American Grand Strategy (13:00–18:57, 22:14–26:16, 30:11–35:10, 38:01–41:54)

Will President Trump Order a Strike on Iran?

With Noah Rothman (14:34–18:57)

• Hewitt: “Do you believe President Trump is going to order a strike on Iran? And should he?”

  • Rothman: “I think he should. I think the odds are better than even that he will... The President has a self-set red line. He has said many, many times that one of Barack Obama’s biggest mistakes was not following through... So he is obligated... to enforce it or sacrifice his prestige and America’s...” (15:50)
  • Rothman discusses possible goals: setting a standard against mass atrocities and undermining the regime.

• Hewitt clarifies that he supports only a "punitive" limited strike in response to Iran’s violent repression, not regime change by air campaign.

  • “If you murder 15,000 of your own people with machine guns in the street, you’re going to get hit by us because we’re the West.” (15:18)

• They discuss oil market implications and the strategic risks of provoking China.

With Eliana Johnson (22:14–26:16)

• Eliana Johnson agrees with action, but argues for regime change:
  • “I think he should strike in an effort for regime change in Iran, not simply as a punitive measure, but because it's in the American interests.” (22:35)
  • "I think the president is going to pick his moment, and I hope he does." (23:42)
• Discussion of whether Trump has the “will” for a sustained destabilization campaign; Eliana points to evidence that he’s legacy-building across several foreign policy fronts.

With Jim Talent (30:11–35:10)

• Talent also expresses support for a targeted strike, balancing risks to broader regional progress:
  • “I think he should and I think he will... There are two reasons to do it: one, because we said we would, and two, if it's done properly, it could further weaken the regime.” (30:33)
  • Warns that a strike could unsettle delicate regional negotiations.

With Josh Kraushauer (38:01–41:00)

• Takes a more cautious read, based on public rhetoric;
  • “If you asked me that a couple days ago, I would have been more bullish... but at Davos, Steve Woodkoff seemed to suggest a diplomatic option.” (38:01)
  • “It doesn't seem... the administration is ready to strike.”

Assessing the Greenland Sovereignty Deal

• The panel is divided over whether the much-acclaimed US-Greenland deal is a "big deal" or mere political theater.
  • Noah Rothman: “...We’re left with mineral rights and new basing and deployment of anti-missile technology, all of which is very important and very valuable, but I struggle to see how we couldn’t have gotten that through a process that was much less hostile, much more deliberative...” (13:00)
  • Hugh Hewitt: “I don’t mind injuring allies in Europe because I don’t think we did. I think their press people did.” (13:50)
  • Eliana Johnson: “I don’t know if we know yet, Hugh... I’m for the sovereignty over the bases.” (25:45)
  • Jim Talent: “...We got an agreement... we’ll have more freedom to operate militarily. We’ll have better access to the rare earths... it’s got to be better than what we had before.” (33:58)
  • Josh Kraushauer: "There didn’t need to be a rupture in the US-European relationship to get to the point where we are today.” (39:59)

Additional Notable Quotes and Segments

• Hewitt on Jack Smith: “He is the Javert from Les Mis. He ought never to prosecute anyone again.” (10:05)
• Panel consensus on Hollywood: All guests express both dismay at Hollywood’s lack of reach and growing disconnect from audiences.
• Jim Garrity on the decline of cinema: “Movies are either small, independent, made with the almost money, or they are giant blockbusters... The middle class of movies has disappeared.” (48:16)
• Comic relief is provided throughout by confusion over Oscar nominees and playful self-laceration for cultural ignorance.

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Jack Smith congressional testimony: 00:00–10:05
• Oscar nominations quiz with panelists:
  • Noah Rothman: 11:08
  • Eliana Johnson: 19:51
  • Jim Talent: 27:01
  • Josh Kraushauer: 35:37
  • Jim Garrity: 43:09
• Discussion: Will Trump strike Iran?
  • Rothman: 14:34–18:57
  • Eliana Johnson: 22:14–26:16
  • Jim Talent: 30:11–35:10
  • Josh Kraushauer: 38:01–41:00
• Greenland “deal” assessment: 13:00, 25:45, 33:58, 39:59

Conclusion

This episode weaves together intense political controversy (the grilling of Jack Smith and the boundaries of investigative power), foreign policy speculation (on Iran and Greenland), and wry cultural observation (the state of Hollywood) with the program’s characteristic mix of seriousness and wit. The show is notable for its direct, combative exchanges and sharp one-liners; regulars spar over the significance of current events, with arguments both strategic and sardonic.

Listeners get both a primer on current political drama and a window into the shifting tone of American political and cultural commentary in 2026.