There’s an old saying that a lawyer shouldn’t ask a question they don’t know the answer to. That wisdom usually arises on cross-examination, when a witness takes a lawyer into unknown territory. But it’s at least as true for questions that a lawyer prepares to ask ahead of time.

So it was strange, during Jack Smith’s congressional testimony on Thursday, when Rep. Ben Cline, R-Va., asked Smith a seemingly prepared question about the gag order Smith got against Donald Trump in the federal election interference case. Cline, whose House bio says he previously worked as an attorney, asked the former special counsel: “In fact, there was no real-world harm that you could articulate [that] justified giving the federal government the power to silence him as a presidential candidate, was there?”

This was an odd question, because U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan had granted Smith’s motion to restrict statements targeting people involved in the proceedings. The judge wrote: “Undisputed testimony cited by the government demonstrates that when Defendant [Trump] has publicly attacked individuals, including on matters related to this case, those individuals are consequently threatened and harassed.” She added that the defense argument “that no limits may be placed on Defendant’s speech because he is engaged in a political campaign is untenable.”

When Smith pointed out to Cline that the prosecutor didn’t have to wait until someone was harmed to make such a motion, the Republican initially responded, “Actually,” before stumbling around for a bit and then ultimately settling on: “The gag order was restricted, correct?”

He was apparently referring to the fact that the appeals court upheld Chutkan’s order while also narrowing it. Yet Smith’s response shows that the narrowing doesn’t seem to help Cline’s attempted point. Smith stressed that the appeals court “absolutely agreed that there was a basis and that the threats to witnesses that came from the targeting by Donald Trump were real and that we had a duty to protect them.” He said Cline was “correct in that the court of appeals narrowed the order so the order covered witnesses, court staff, the judge and my staff. The difference was that it didn’t cover me anymore —which I was fine with.”

At this point, one might think that Cline would move on, because it’s unclear how it makes Smith look bad. Indeed, it mainly served as a platform to air the fact that multiple courts acknowledged Trump’s menacing behavior, while giving Smith the chance to make himself look selfless in the process.

But Cline continued down the peculiar path. He proceeded to ask Smith if he had proof that Trump’s statements had intimidated witnesses or prevented them from coming forward. Smith replied that he had evidence that Trump said, “If you come after me, I’m coming after you”; that Trump “suggested a witness should be put to death”; and that the courts “found that those sort of statements not only deter witnesses who’ve come forward, they deter witnesses who’ve yet to come forward.”

At this point, Cline must have surely moved on to another line of questioning or yielded back his time completely, right?

On the contrary. He tripled down, harping on whether Smith could identify anyone who didn’t come forward because of Trump’s threats.

Putting aside that it’s impossible to prove a negative, Cline’s question led Smith to reply: “It is not incumbent on a prosecutor to wait until someone gets killed before they move for an order to protect the proceedings.”

So there we have it. The natural progression of the politician’s chosen line of questioning led the witness to reiterate to the nation that there was reason for concern that words from the leader of the Republican Party could get people killed.

Thursday’s hearing reflected that the GOP didn’t have much to work with when it came to landing shots on Smith, but he probably didn’t mind that this was the sort of stuff they came up with on purpose.

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.