▶ 0:15:59Committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to clear recess at any time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on oversight of the office of special counsel Jack Smith. Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida to lead us in the pledge of
▶ 0:16:35We'll begin today's hearing with opening Chair is now recognized for an opening statement. It was always about politics. And to get President Trump, they were willing to do just about anything. January 7th, 2023, Kevin McCarthy becomes Speaker of the House. 16 days later, Jack Smith issues a subpoena for his phone records. Phone records from a 2 years prior for a 2-month time frame, election day 2020 to January 7th, 2021.
▶ 0:17:06Jack Smith and the Biden Justice Department get the phone records of the top Republican in government, the guy second in line to the president. They know who he called, who called him, when the call took place, and how long it lasted. You can pattern an individual's life. They know who the speaker talked to before big votes, who he talked to after big votes, when he calls his colleagues, when he calls his family.
▶ 0:17:31And to add insult to injury, they go to the judge with the subpoena for a gag order on the carrier. AT&T, don't tell your customer, the Speaker of the House, that you just gave his phone calls to Jack Smith and Joe Biden. And here's the kicker. They say to the court, "We need this gag order because he's a flight risk." Someone might tamper with witnesses or with evidence. Are you kidding me?
▶ 0:18:01The Speaker of the House is going to run? They got my phone records for 2 and 1/2 years. Even the Democrats said this was But of course, we shouldn't be Democrats have been going after President Trump for 10 years, for a decade, and the country should never, ever forget what they did. Over the next few hours, we're going to hear a lot a lot of yelling and screaming, I assume, from the other side.
▶ 0:18:29But we should never forget what took place, what they did to the guy we, the people, elected president twice. It all started in 2016 when they spied on his campaign. The Clinton campaign hired the law firm Perkins Coie, who hired the public relations firm Fusion GPS, who hired a foreigner, Christopher Steele, to put together the fake dossier. Bunch of garbage in that document, but that was used by Jim Comey's FBI.
▶ 0:19:01And we all know Jim Comey. He was the guy who just last year was strolling along the beach when the good Lord had the waves wash up on shore seashells in the formation of 8647. That guy took that dossier to the FISA court, lied to the court, and then spied on the other party's campaign. This, of course, led to the Mueller investigation.
▶ 0:19:282 and 1/2 years, 19 lawyers, 40 agents, $30 million to to find nothing. No conspiracy, no coordination whatsoever. Then it was impeachment one, anonymous whistleblower. We couldn't even know who was bringing the charge against the guy they were trying to take it the guy we elected who they trying to kick out of office. We couldn't know. Secret hearings in the bunker, in the basement of the Capitol. Again, nothing.
▶ 0:19:58Then it was impeachment two. No secret hearings here because they didn't have any hearings. It was a snap impeachment and the Senate trial actually took place after President Trump wasn't in office. Then of course it was Alvin Bragg who said before he got elected district attorney that there was no case here. Then he gets elected and changes his mind when the left starts pressuring him to go after President Trump.
▶ 0:20:25He hires Michael Colangelo, former Democrat National Committee consultant, and the number three guy at the Department of Justice. And then of course it's Fani and Nathan. Fani Willis and Nathan Wade in Fulton County, Georgia. We actually deposed Mr. Wade. One of the most interesting depositions I've sat through. We said to him, you know, you billed taxpayers in Georgia thousands of dollars for meetings in DC with the January 6th Committee and with the Biden administration.
▶ 0:20:57And we asked him some questions. Who'd you talk to, Mr. Wade? He couldn't remember. We said, "Where'd you meet? Did you meet the Capitol? Did you meet the White House? Where'd you meet?" Couldn't remember that either. We said, "Were these meetings in person, on the phone, or did you have a Zoom meeting?" Couldn't remember. Couldn't remember. Couldn't remember. We finally just asked "Did you really come to DC and meet people?" He said, "Oh yeah, I came. And I billed the taxpayers. I know I came.
▶ 0:21:28Just no idea who we talked to or what he And then there was the raid on President Trump's home. You know, where they searched Barron's room and the First Lady's closet. In our deposition with Steven D'Antuono, head of the FBI Washington Field Office, he told us none of the normal process, none of none of the normal protocol was followed in the investigation. He said, "First of all, the case was run out of DC.
▶ 0:21:56Normally you run it out of the Miami Field Office. No, no, no, we're going to run it out of DC." He said he recommended and the people in the FBI at the time in the Washington Field Office recommended to give the president notice before they do the search, or at least when they got there, before they start the search, call the president's ask them to come there and meet them and conduct the search together. Again, the answer from Main Justice was Which brings us back to Mr. Smith.
▶ 0:22:25On November 18th, 2022, three days after President Trump announces he's running for president, Attorney General Garland names Jack Smith special counsel. One of the first things Mr. Smith does is put on his team the very people responsible for the raid on President Trump's home. The very people. And then Jack Smith also puts on his team the people responsible for getting the phone records of dozens of members of Congress.
▶ 0:22:56People like Thomas Windom who when we deposed him took the fifth 71 times. We've actually referred him to the Justice Department for obstructing our investigation. Jack Smith then gets a gag order in his investigation on President Trump from Judge Chutkan without filing a single affidavit with the court from a witness or a potential witness that they felt threatened by statements from the Stop and think about it.
▶ 0:23:24Jack Smith restricts the speech of the former president while he's a candidate for Thank goodness Mr. Smith was slapped down on appeal and the order was changed. In fact, just two weeks ago, the Washington Post editorial page, "Jack Smith would have blown a hole in the First Amendment." I just want to two sentences from this. "Mr.
▶ 0:23:51Smith seemed unconcerned about interfering in the democratic process by seeking to muzzle a candidate for high office. Three appellate judges, all nominated by Democrat presidents, ruled that Mr. Smith's gag proposed gag order infringed on President Trump's First Amendment rights." And of course they did. And this wasn't the only time Mr. Smith lost in court. In the classified documents case in Judge Cannon held that Mr. Smith was not permitted to be special counsel.
▶ 0:24:20Jack Smith was never properly appointed. In fact, he couldn't be properly appointed because he was never confirmed by the Senate for any position in the executive branch as the law requires. Here's what Judge Cannon stated.
▶ 0:24:34Quote, "The special counsel's position effectively usurps that important legislative authority, transferring transferring it to a head of department, and in the process threatening the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers." And of course, on July 1st, 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled that President Trump had immunity for actions taken in his official capacity as the president.
▶ 0:25:01One month later, after after this decision by the Supreme Court, Jack Smith files a superseding indictment on August 27th, 2024. But Mr. Smith doesn't stop there. He does something unprecedented. On October 2nd, he files a motion with the court before President Trump's defense counsel has even responded to the indictment.
▶ 0:25:25Everyone knows the normal process the is the government indicts, the defense responds with some motions, and then the government responds to the But Mr. Smith skips the second step. And the brief that he files is 165 pages, almost four times the court Even liberal Judge Chutkan, who's given Jack Smith everything he's asked for in the course of this investigation, even she called it atypical and Now, why would Jack Smith do that?
▶ 0:25:56Why would he abandon proper procedure? Why would he ignore court rules? Why would he do that? Because he's running out of time. There's an election around the corner. It's coming in 33 days and he's got to get President Trump. He's got to stop President Trump from running, tie him up in court.
▶ 0:26:16He's got to get to trial or at a minimum insert an 165-page political document into the presidential It was always about politics. The good news is the American people saw through it. They saw through it. For so long, the left has controlled so much in this country.
▶ 0:26:40Left controlled big media, the left controlled big tech, the left controlled academia, Hollywood, certainly the Democrat Party, and I think all too much the federal bureaucracy. But the left doesn't control we the And in spite of the left and the weaponization efforts of Jim Comey, Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis, and Jack we the people saw through it all. And we elected President Trump twice.
▶ 0:27:09Before uh before turning to the ranking member for his opening statement, I would just ask unanimous unanimous consent to enter into the record the Washington Post editorial, "Jack Smith would have blown a hole in the First Amendment." With that, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland. Well, thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:27:26I want to start by recognizing the presence of uh four American heroes here today, four of the hundreds of officers who defended us on January 6th, 2021, Michael Fanone, Aquilino Gonell, Daniel Hodges, and Harry Dunn. And I thank them for uh being here today. Mr. Smith, thank you for appearing before the American people.
▶ 0:27:47I'm glad that the committee has finally granted you the same chance to report your findings to the American people that every other special counsel investigating an American president has Uh the good chairman started by saying, "It's all about the politics." Well, maybe for them, but for us, it's all about the rule of law. And who's going to stand by the rule of law, and who's going to oppose it? Now, Mr. Smith, you're one of America's great prosecutors.
▶ 0:28:15For nearly three decades, you worked for justice under both Republicans and Democrats. The Manhattan DA's office, where you prosecuted sex crimes and domestic violence cases. The Eastern District of New York, where you prosecuted murderers, rapists, gangbangers, and other violent criminals. Leading the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice, you brought prosecutions against corrupt public officials across the political spectrum.
▶ 0:28:44When you went to The Hague as chief prosecutor in the Kosovo uh trial, you prosecuted war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated against thousands of innocent victims. While others may have devoted their lives to corrupt self-enrichment, you have devoted your life to the rule of law and to public service. You've never been prosecuted for anything. You've never been convicted of anything.
▶ 0:29:12As far as I can tell, you've never even been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding over the course of your multi-decade career. But Donald Trump says you're a criminal and you belong in prison. He says you belong in prison, not because you did anything wrong, mind but because you did everything right. You pursued the facts. You followed the law. You stuck with extreme caution to every rule of professional responsibility.
▶ 0:29:43You had the audacity to to your job. Everybody here knows what you did wrong in Donald Trump's eyes and why he says you belong in prison.
▶ 0:29:56You found, and I quote from your sworn testimony before the committee, you found proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power. When asked whether you believe the evidence was enough to obtain a criminal conviction against Donald Trump at you had a one-word answer, yes.
▶ 0:30:25When asked if Donald Trump was responsible for the violence that took place at the Capitol on January 6th, you said, "Our view of the evidence was that he caused it and that he exploited it and that it was foreseeable to him." You found that Trump knew he had lost the election. How? Well, his own Attorney General, William Barr, repeatedly told him so and described all of Trump's theories as BS. Trump's top campaign advisers told him he lost the election.
▶ 0:30:56Vice President Pence told him he lost the election. More than 60 federal, state, and court decisions, including eight rendered by judges he appointed to the bench, rejected every outlandish election fraud and corruption claim that he made.
▶ 0:31:12Trump himself even privately acknowledged it, gesturing to Joe Biden on TV and saying, quote, "Can you believe I lost to that effing guy?" He knew he lost, but he threw everything into his big lie, which some people, even in this room to this day, will stand by and swear by.
▶ 0:31:33Well, when the big lie wasn't enough to convince officials like Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, to commit election fraud and just find Trump 11,780 votes, when it wasn't enough to convince Trump's DOJ to, quote, "Just call the election corrupt and leave the rest to me and the House Republicans," when it wasn't enough to force Vice President Mike Pence to announce and then exercise lawless powers to reject Electoral College votes and use counterfeit
▶ 0:32:04slates to anoint Trump the winner, that's when Trump incited mass violence on January 6th. While more than 140 officers were being brutally assaulted by Trump's mob, while rioters beat them with flagpoles and sprayed them with chemical agents and crushed them in doorways, and while they chanted, "Hang Mike Pence," and chased the Vice President out of the Capitol, Trump and his team worked the phones.
▶ 0:32:33Calling not the National Guard, which was under the direct unilateral control of Donald Trump, but calling members of Congress, urging them to delay certification and to nullify the election results. Special Counsel Smith, you pursued the facts. You followed every applicable law, ethics rule, and DOJ regulation. Your decisions were reviewed by the Public Integrity Section.
▶ 0:33:00You acted based solely on the facts, the opposite of Donald Trump, who now has purported to take over the Department of Justice. He's in charge of the whole thing under his unitary executive theory, and he acts openly, purely based on political and motives of personal revenge, and he doesn't deny it.
▶ 0:33:23Our colleagues have complained about the special counsel's review of toll records, which are phone records like a phone bill, showing only the timing and duration of calls and containing no content, no substance whatsoever from the calls, but those records were lawfully subpoenaed because Donald Trump made those members of Congress relevant to the investigation. It was Trump who chose to call them to advance his criminal scheme. As you testified, Mr.
▶ 0:33:51Smith, if Donald Trump had chosen to call a number of Democratic senators, we would have gotten toll records for them, I trust our colleagues get the point because America certainly gets the There is much Mr. Smith still can't talk about that we know he badly wants to.
▶ 0:34:09His investigation developed what he calls powerful evidence that Trump stole documents containing our country's most sensitive secrets, hoarded them in the ballrooms and the bathrooms of his well-trafficked Mar-a-Lago social club. He showed them off to visitors, and then he obstructed a federal investigation by instructing his attorney to pluck out anything really bad before turning materials over to the FBI and having his staff delete incriminating security tape footage.
▶ 0:34:39But today, we're not going to hear a lot about that because you are gagged by an absurd judicial order rendered faithfully by Trump's most servile and sycophantic appointee to the federal bench, Judge Aileen Cannon. This order not only blocks release of volume two of your report, which is unprecedented, about the classified document scam, it also gags you from discussing the report or its contents with us, with America.
▶ 0:35:06And so, we don't know what's in it, but it must be pretty devastating because Donald Trump is desperate to keep Mr. Smith or any other DOJ official for all time from ever releasing it to Congress and to the American people. Mr. Smith, if any of our colleagues foolishly choose to attack you and vilify you today, and I know that's not going to happen from some serious prosecutors over there like Mr. Nadler and Mr.
▶ 0:35:35Schiff, who understand what federal prosecutors do and what the rule of law means. But if anybody decides to attack you personally, they will only be revealing their own ignorance of what prosecutors do and their own indifference to what the rule of law requires in America.
▶ 0:35:51They will only be stroking the wounded ego of a lawless, twice-impeached, convicted felon president who not only unleashed a mob against Congress and his own Vice President, but has now pardoned and released into our communities hundreds of extremists, insurrectionists, and cop-beating felons who have proceeded to commit dozens more crimes against the American people since they were pardoned. Mr.
▶ 0:36:19Smith, I understand you are a long-distance marathon runner. I read that you're a triathlete who's done more than 100 triathlons and nine Ironman competitions. You are in the fight for justice and the rule of law for the long distance, for the long haul, and I thank you for that. And we should all try to follow your example. America looks forward to your testimony today. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman yields back without objection, and all of their opening statements will be included in the record. We will now introduce today's witness. Mr.
▶ 0:36:48Jack Smith was appointed as special counsel in November on November 18th, 2022. He served until January 7th, 2025. We welcome our witness today. We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God? I do. Let the record reflect that the witness has answered in the affirmative. Thank you, you can be seated.
▶ 0:37:18Please note that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony. Mr. Smith, you may Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, members of the thank you for the opportunity to discuss my work as special counsel. I love my country and believe deeply in the core principles upon which it was founded.
▶ 0:37:44For nearly three decades, I've served as a career prosecutor in both Republican and Democratic administrations. I've handled cases ranging from domestic assault and gang violence to public corruption, election crimes across the United States, and I've prosecuted war crimes overseas. I am not a politician, and I have no partisan loyalties.
▶ 0:38:09My career has been dedicated to serving our country by upholding the rule of Throughout my public service, my approach has always been the same. Follow the facts and the law without fear or favor. Experienced prosecutors know that specific case outcomes are beyond our control. Our responsibility is to do the right the right way for the right reasons.
▶ 0:38:37These principles have guided me through my career, including as special counsel. I'm proud of the work my team did, and I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to correct false and misleading narratives about our work. During my tenure as special counsel, we followed Justice Department policies, we observed legal requirements, and took based on the facts and the law.
▶ 0:39:06I made my decisions without regard to President Trump's political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 election. President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law, the very laws he took an oath to uphold.
▶ 0:39:29Grand juries in two separate districts reached this conclusion based on his as alleged in the indictments they Rather than accept his defeat in the 2020 election, President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results and prevent the lawful transfer of power.
▶ 0:39:49After leaving office in January of '21, President Trump illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago social club and repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents. Highly sensitive national security information was held in a ballroom and a As I testify before the committee today, I want to be clear.
▶ 0:40:18I stand by my decisions as special counsel, including the decision to bring charges against President Trump. Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity.
▶ 0:40:33If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or a No one No one should be above the law in this country and the law required that he be held to account, so that is what I did.
▶ 0:40:55To have done otherwise on the facts of these cases would have been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor and as a public servant, of which I had no intention of doing. I remain grateful for the counsel, judgment, and advice of my team. President Trump has sought to seek revenge against career prosecutors, FBI agents, and support staff simply for having worked on these cases.
▶ 0:41:25To vilify and seek retribution against these people is wrong. Those dedicated public servants are the best of us and it has been a privilege to serve with them. After nearly 30 years of public service, including in international settings, I have seen how the rule of law can My fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in our country for so long that many of us have come to take it for
▶ 0:41:57The rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to apply it. It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs. Our willingness to pay those costs is what tests and defines our commitment to the rule of law and to this wonderful country. Thank you.
▶ 0:42:25Uh gentleman, uh we will now proceed under the 5-minute rule. I We have votes coming in any minute now, but I think uh I think we got we'll have time for three or four members to get their 5-minute question in before the committee will will take a recess to go vote. They are not going to close the vote until we get there. I know I know that I know that much. Uh so we will start with the gentleman from California, recognized for 5 minutes. Good morning, Mr. Smith.
▶ 0:42:49Uh when Attorney General Garland appointed you, he cited the particularly sensitive matters at issue and extraordinary circumstances as the reason for appointing a special counsel. What did you take that to mean? Uh what I understood that to mean is I was to conduct an independent investigation and come to my own conclusions about whether the facts and the law supported a prosecution.
▶ 0:43:15But clearly he was alluding to the fact that we had uh an investigation into a leading candidate for president. That was part of the extraordinary circumstances. Would you agree? I I will rely on his public statements about that. Uh I understood my role uh as special counsel was governed by the regulations, which required me to make an independent decision on my own.
▶ 0:43:40Certainly you would agree it was important to approach the investigation with humility and restraint. Is that Yes. Uh and that's what I sought to do. I sought to conduct
▶ 0:43:51you possessed those qualities. In fact, you testified at your deposition, quote, I thought I was the right person uh for the job. Of course, some disagreed. Uh constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, for example, has said, quote, Jack Smith has a reputation for stretching criminal statutes beyond the breaking point. I I assume you disagree with that statement by Professor Turley. I I do disagree with that statement. I I think my career speaks for itself. I have been
▶ 0:44:17statement was also, and I'm sorry to have to interrupt. I just have a short amount of time. Uh that statement was also echoed by the United States Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion in McDonald v. United States, uh where the court overturned convictions that you had pursued against a former governor, uh criticizing your boundless interpretation of the federal criminal statute at issue. That opinion was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
▶ 0:44:41So do you also disagree with that statement by those I have conducted my uh career in a non-partisan fashion. That particular case, the legal position that uh the department took, that wasn't my personal position. That was the position of the department.
▶ 0:44:58I I see. So Mr. Smith, I've had the opportunity uh during my time on this committee to review the work of two special counsels, uh John Durham during appointed during the Trump administration, uh and Robert Hur during the Biden administration. And in both cases they seem to exhibit that humility and restraint that we talked about.
▶ 0:45:15But in reviewing in detail the way you conducted this investigation, I see a very different mode of operation, one that sought maximum litigation advantage at every turn, one that repeatedly circumvented constitutional limitations to the point that you had to be reined in again and again throughout the process.
▶ 0:45:31For example, shortly after you became special counsel, you issued a subpoena for the phone records of the speaker of the House of Representatives over a 2-month period along with for other senators and representatives, even though the public integrity section at DOJ cited litigation risk to doing this. What was that litigation risk? Uh with respect to the toll records subpoenas that we issued, they were approved by the public integrity section.
▶ 0:46:01Uh the public integrity section in approving uh those subpoenas noted the fact that uh the subpoenas were for records for people who were not targets of our investigation. But they said there was a litigation risk and you moved forward with it anyway. And not only that, but you also sought orders from judges making it so those who were being having their records uh seized would not know about it.
▶ 0:46:24And you even didn't tell those judges that it was members of Congress whose records you were going after in apparent contravention of a federal statute saying that a telephone provider for a Senate office shall not be barred from providing notice that the records have been requested.
▶ 0:46:39Now, if you sought to do that today, would you be able to get away with that with asking the judges for a non-disclosure order without telling them these are members of Uh when we uh uh secured these toll records subpoenas, it was done consistent with department You're correct in that the that policy has since changed.
▶ 0:47:01the policy based upon the actions that you took. Similarly, you issued a gag order against President Trump that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals vacated as overbroad. Is that correct? Well, the DC Court of Appeals uh uh in passing on that uh order uh found it that it was justified. They narrowed the order, but they confirmed that the
▶ 0:47:25the order because it was overbroad. In addition to that, you sought an early trial date that the district court rejected. And when you presented your prosecution memo to Attorney General Garland, it's been reported that he was visibly unimpressed and expressed First Amendment concerns. So Mr. Smith, looking at the record, I see that you were reversed and rebuked by the Department of Justice itself, by the Attorney General, by the Solicitor General, by multiple district court justices, judges, by the Court of Appeals, and by the US Supreme Court itself.
▶ 0:47:52So my final question is, do you believe that you made any mistakes? have any regrets as to how you conducted this Uh if I have any regret, uh it would be not expressing enough appreciation for my staff who worked so hard in these investigations. We followed the facts and the law. These people who worked for me sacrificed endlessly and have endured way too much for just doing their job. So if anything, I wish that I had thanked
▶ 0:48:20the gentleman No mistakes. There's that humility. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
▶ 0:48:24Yeah, the time of the gentleman is right. Uh the chair now recognizes the ranking member for 5 minutes.
▶ 0:48:26Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And um uh the good gentleman from uh from California certainly knows, because he was a student of mine, that lawyers go to court and sometimes they win motions and sometimes they lose motions and there's no crime in any of that. And I'm I'm just sorry that you had to be uh lectured about humility and restraint by uh a politician, because we might not be best poised to lecture uh you on those particular virtues. But let's go to the toll record, since that's been raised, Mr. Smith.
▶ 0:48:57First of all, um Congress has allowed toll records to be subpoenaed. Uh we This committee has actually tried to limit it over the years and the senators who are whining the most over uh on the Republican side in the Senate, um they never went along with our uh determination to try to limit uh the government's ability to subpoena toll records. It was perfectly lawful what you did. Explain, why did you want those toll records?
▶ 0:49:29We wanted to conduct a thorough uh of the uh matters uh that was assigned to me, including uh attempts to uh interfere with a lawful transfer of power. The conspiracy that we were investigating was relevant to get toll records to understand the scope of that conspiracy, who they were seeking to coerce, who they were seeking to influence, who was seeking to help them. And that's normal investigative practice, right?
▶ 0:49:57It uh In conducting a criminal investigation, securing non-content toll records as you practice in almost any complex
▶ 0:50:11Okay, let's go to something else that I've been hearing over the last week by our colleagues as they've eagerly anticipated your arrival here. They've been saying there's some kind of First Amendment defense that Donald Trump would have had to the crimes you indicted him for. Is there a valid First Amendment defense to defrauding the public? Is there a valid First Amendment defense to disrupting a federal proceeding?
▶ 0:50:40Is there a valid First Amendment defense to violating the voting rights of the people and cheating the public out of a fair election? The First Amendment is something we took seriously in our investigation, but the First Amendment does not protect that facilitates a crime. Speech that is used to facilitate a crime, a fraud crime in particular, is not protected under the First Amendment.
▶ 0:51:09The Supreme Court precedent on that is clear. This is an issue that we litigated before the District Court, and the District Court ruled as I just stated that it is not in fact protected.
▶ 0:51:22And the case law is perfectly clear on this, right? All frauds are perpetrated by speech. Right? Yes.
▶ 0:51:27All conspiracies are perpetrated by speech. So, just because your criminal conduct is brigaded with speech doesn't somehow mean you've got a First Amendment defense defense against trying to overthrow the government. I mean, the people who attacked the police officers on January 6th were chanting "Hang Mike Pence." I suppose that was political speech, or they were saying "Stop the steal." Does that mean they've got a First Amendment defense to violent assault against the officers? It does not.
▶ 0:51:59William Barr, by the way, was somebody who was perfectly clear about that. Attorney Donald Trump's own Attorney General said, "There's no freedom of speech that you have to engage in a conspiracy to overthrow an election, to commit crime." He was perfectly clear about that back in those days. In fact, lots of people on that side of the aisle, including my good friend the chairman, denounced the violence that took place on January 6th. The cat's got their tongue these days.
▶ 0:52:29My friend Chairman Jordan said, "What happened last week was terrible. It's tragic. It's as wrong as wrong can be," he said. Republicans, we know all political violence is wrong. I asked my friend Chairman Jordan at a Rules hearing, "Are you also not interested in what happened to us on January 6th?" He said, "Of course, everyone's interested in holding people accountable who did wrong. The FBI is doing that.
▶ 0:52:54The Justice Department is doing that, appropriately so." What do you think about the attack on the Department of Justice and the special counsel for doing your jobs? I think the attack is unjustified.
▶ 0:53:09I think the people who worked with me as career public servants are people They're part of the reason I've been a prosecutor for so long is to work with people like that, not just the prosecutors in my office, but also also the agents FBI agents who who are heroes, who have served their country not only uh as agents, but also overseas.
▶ 0:53:32I think those attacks are unwarranted based on the facts, and I think that they have no basis in who we are as as Americans, as a country. I don't see attacking people like that as anything appropriate. Thank you, and Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back to you. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Smith, is Cassidy Hutchinson a liar? She was their star witness.
▶ 0:53:59January 6th Committee, their star witness in one of those staged and choreographed hearings they paid the former president of ABC News to put together. She was in fact the only witness at this special primetime hearing Tuesday, June 28th, 2022, 8:00 in the evening. And she told some stories. I mean, these These were some stories.
▶ 0:54:23She talked about President lunged across the backseat, grabbed the steering wheel, tried to drive the car to the Capitol. And I just want to know you think she was lying? Chairman Jordan, my assessment of of that particular issue is that with respect to the testimony about someone lunging the president lunging towards the driver, my recollection
▶ 0:54:53of her testimony about that is that it was secondhand. She said she'd heard that from somebody.
▶ 0:54:57You You familiar with the name Tony I'm sorry. You familiar with the name Tony Ornato? Yes. White House Deputy Chief of Operations, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, You remember You know Remember what he said about it? As I sit here right now, I do not.
▶ 0:55:14Yeah, he said it didn't happen. How about Bobby Engel? You familiar with that name? Yes, I am. Secret Service agent who was actually in the car that day. You know what he said? He said it didn't happen. And they both said the first time they ever heard this story was when Ms. Hutchinson testified in the primetime hearing as their star witness of the January 6th Committee.
▶ 0:55:40By the way, do you ever confirm her testimony about this particular Uh we conducted our as I said before our own independent investigation of all aspects of the case that we thought was relevant. We attorneys from my office
▶ 0:55:58ever confirm it? That's a simple question. Well uh we interviewed her I should say attorneys in my office Did you ever confirm the president leaping across the seat, grabbing the steering wheel, this whole concoction she brought up in the January 6th hearing? Did you ever confirm that? We interviewed a another firsthand witness uh who was in the car who did not confirm that that had happened, but also In your deposition to the committee last month, Mr.
▶ 0:56:27Smith, uh you said this, "My recollection with Ms. Hutchinson was a number of the things that she gave evidence on were secondhand hearsay." You remember making that statement to us last month in the deposition? I did, and I was referring particularly to what we're talking about now. Yeah, and 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, "If I were a defense attorney and Ms.
▶ 0:56:53Hutchinson were a witness, the first thing I would do was seek to preclude her testimony because it was hearsay." You remember saying all that? Yes, that's correct, sir.
▶ 0:57:02That's correct, right? Were you going to put her on the witness stand if you ever got to trial? Uh we had not made final determinations as to who we were going to call as a witness. We had a large
▶ 0:57:14considering her? We had a large choice of witnesses in
▶ 0:57:18Are you familiar with what Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Aaron Davis said in their book? They did this book, 300-some pages book on chronicling the whole investigation of the Justice Department. And here's what they said on page 310. They said Jack Smith had wondered whether some of Hutchinson's claims might be relied upon at trial. Uh still, at one point Smith told the elections team he wasn't ready to give up on Hutchinson's account. Ultimately, however, Trump administration officials uniformly fiercely disputed her accounts under oath.
▶ 0:57:48Prosecutors on your team told Smith they wouldn't want to use Hutchinson as a witness in court, and Smith agreed. Are Carol Leonnig and Aaron Davis who wrote this, are they My recollection is that I had certainly had not made any final determinations who we were going to call
▶ 0:58:09the point. That is the point. The fact that they used her in a primetime hearing, and you won't rule out using her didn't rule out using her, putting on the witness stand when everybody knows she wasn't telling the truth, that says it all. That's the degree the left and Democrats were willing to go to get President Trump. Putting on the witness stand someone everybody knows is making it up. Everybody knows that. And you were willing to By the way, you know how many times Cassidy Hutchinson was mentioned in their report, the January 6th report?
▶ 0:58:39Any idea, Mr. Smith? I do not. 185 times. Someone that the whole country knows wasn't telling the truth, and you were still considering putting her on the witness stand because you had to get President Trump, and everybody can see Uh we better take a recess for for votes. We will resume as soon as votes are over. Back here 10 minutes after. Mr. Smith, you guys can can go back to the room that you were in.
▶ 1:46:49Committee will come to order. Gentleman from ranking members recognized for unanimous consent request. Thank you very kindly, Mr. Chairman. And this just goes to the the question of the hypothetical witness at the trial that didn't happen. Uh New York Times May 1, 2024, Trump acknowledges he wanted to go to the Capitol on January 6th.
▶ 1:47:08Objection. Carol Lennig, who you quoted, Carol Lennig outlines Tony Ornato's history of lies. That's June 30, 2022. Um Objection. In July 1, 2022, the men disputing Hutchinson's testimony are two of Trump's biggest acolytes. And finally, June 29, 2022, CNN, Cassidy Hutchinson stands by her testimony amid Thank you very much. Gentleman from New York is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
▶ 1:47:38Smith, over the past few years, Republicans have waged constant attacks on you. Donald Trump has said you are totally compromised, a political hitman, a left-wing radical, a criminal, a fully weaponized monster, and that you should be considered mentally deranged and thrown out of the country. Just this week, he called you a sick bastard. Unfortunately, the rules of decorum prevent me from saying what I think of Donald Trump. But he is not the only one to launch attacks against you.
▶ 1:48:05Chairman Jordan has accused you of abusive surveillance and accused you and your team of partisan and politically motivated prosecutions. Despite the mountain of evidence that you laid out in the special counsel's report and in your court filings, President Trump's supporters are convinced that the only reason your team tried to hold him accountable is because you have a vendetta against him. I want to address these allegations today. You have had a long and distinguished career with the Justice Department, including serving as the chief of DOJ's Public Integrity Section for 5 years.
▶ 1:48:35While leading the Public Integrity Section, you led investigations and prosecution of public figures and political leaders from both parties, Republicans and Democrats. Can you give us a couple of examples? Sorry about that.
▶ 1:48:54Uh during my time as the chief of Public Integrity, I investigated cases involving uh both Republicans and Uh the standard in all of those cases was the same. Follow the facts and the law. Didn't matter what party you win, it mattered the facts of the case. Uh in doing that, uh there were cases I brought against Democrats and cases I brought against Republicans.
▶ 1:49:20There were also cases uh that I investigated and didn't did not bring against Democrats and Republicans. Party affiliation played no role in my investigations. Uh I can think of uh multiple cases of prominent members of Congress that we investigated uh who were Republicans who uh upon reviewing uh the law and the facts, I decided not to go forward in those cases. Uh and the same can be said uh with people on the Democratic side.
▶ 1:49:49I've always tried to follow the facts and the law in my career. When it comes to deciding whether to pursue a criminal prosecution of an individual, what factors do you the primary factors are the facts and the law. Uh in as a federal prosecutor, uh in making a prosecutorial decision, uh you're guided by the federal principles of prosecution, uh which guide one not only to look at the facts and the law, but the federal interests.
▶ 1:50:18Uh and that is exactly what we did in this case as set forth in my final Does partisan politics play a role in your decision whether or not to prosecute someone? To be clear, did partisan politics play a role in your decision to charge Donald It did not. What does it do to the justice system if political leaders place pressure on prosecutors to file charges against their political enemies?
▶ 1:50:45What are the implications if prosecution decisions are based on politics, not the law? I think it weakens the rule of law in our country because it weakens the mechanism for us to uh prosecute uh among other things, uh corruption. Uh when there is uh uh political prosecutions targeting people because they're enemies of the president, uh the department loses credibility and it can't do its job in all sorts of sorts of cases.
▶ 1:51:16According to your deposition before this committee, it sounds like your problem was not determining if you had enough evidence to charge Donald Trump, but rather that you might have had too much evidence and struggled to determine how to present the clear narrative to a jury. How would you characterize the evidence against Mr. Trump about uh in inciting an insurrection against the laws of this country?
▶ 1:51:38Did you have too with respect to presenting the case that we charged, uh one of the central challenges was trying to present that in a concise way because we did have so many witnesses. Uh some of the most powerful witnesses were witnesses who uh in fact were fellow Republicans who had voted for Donald Trump, who had campaigned for him, and uh who um wanted him to win the election.
▶ 1:52:07These included state officials, people who worked on his campaign, and advisers. Uh I will say, however, uh with respect respect to the charge of insurrection, we did not charge that. As I set forth in my report, uh while I believe that there is uh courts have found that that was an insurrection and that there's a reasonable interpretation a reasonable prosecutor could interpret uh the evidence to support that charge, I chose not to do that looking at the facts and the law.
▶ 1:52:36Uh I thought the charges we brought were appropriate uh given the evidence that we had. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for your decades-long public service and for working tirelessly to uphold the rule of law. Those who attack and smear you and your team in order to protect Donald Trump should be ashamed ashamed of themselves. I yield back. Chairman yields back. Chairman from California is recognized. Mr. Smith, do you see uh criminals to my left? You don't see any.
▶ 1:53:08Do you see people who are committing crimes because they continue to believe things that just aren't true? That's paraphrasing Ronald Reagan that liberals aren't stupid, they just know things that don't happen to be true.
▶ 1:53:24If the president believed that he was cheated in the election, that there was fraud or in some other way uh a number of items led to his defeat when in fact he should have won according to the Constitution, does that make him a criminal? Sir, uh No, no, that's a yes or no, please, Mr. Smith.
▶ 1:53:47It it the these people here are continuing to grap grapple constantly with things that aren't true like socialism works or that uh somehow everything the Republicans do is evil and everything they do is is right. They've never reached a conclusion in uh a typical partisan case in which we're not evil because we think something different and we're not wrong. You understand the Constitution.
▶ 1:54:13Do you understand the Bill of Rights that someone has the absolute right to believe something whether it's true or not and to advocate for something whether it's true or not? Do you understand that in addition to your oath to the Constitution, that that's one of the things the First Amendment allows for, isn't it? Yes, sir.
▶ 1:54:33Okay, so if you know that people have a right to opine, lobby for, assert, do everything they can legally to to ask for people to to make different decisions, then why is it you saw criminal conduct on behalf of a president who believed he didn't win? Chairman Jordan and myself have something in common along with a number of others here.
▶ 1:54:58We saw wrongdoing and on January 6th, we voted not to confirm two because they had violated the US Constitution in how they selected who got ballots. And yet, you're going to come here and say, "Oh, I just followed the law." When you went after these people and you said, "Well, technically I can do that." You didn't see any selective nature or any separation of powers
▶ 1:55:28under the Constitution to spying on the activities and the conversations of the speaker of the house? To what end would conversations between the speaker of the US House, third or second in line to be the president, and the president?
▶ 1:55:45In what basis would it be any of your business other than you believe that there was a conspiracy without conspiracy as a basic You, like the president's men for Richard Nixon, went after your political enemies. Maybe they're not your political enemies, but they sure as hell were Joe Biden's political enemies, weren't they? They were Harris's political enemies.
▶ 1:56:12They were the enemies of the president and you were their arm, weren't you? No. No? Oh, great. So, you spied on the the speaker of the house and these other senators and so on and informed no one and in fact put in a gag order so they couldn't discover it.
▶ 1:56:31If they were not subjects of a conspiracy investigation, why did Congress, a separate branch that you under the Constitution have to respect, why is it that no one should be informed, including the judges? As you went in to spy on these people, did you mention that you were spying on, seeking records so you could find out about when conversations occurred between the US speaker of the house and the president?
▶ 1:57:02Did you inform the judge or did you hold that back? My office didn't spy on anyone. Wait a second. I the question I asked you, Mr. Smith, was pretty straightforward. Did you withhold that information from an Article 3 judge in the process of of taking the records of the speaker of the house? We complied with the Department Did you hold that information
▶ 1:57:27would would you please instruct the gentleman to allow the witness to answer the question?
▶ 1:57:31It's not your time. I'd I'd like my time back again.
▶ 1:57:33you've repeatedly done that in the past. The witness has the right to answer the question. And there'll be due time to answer the question. Would you please uh put my time back and let me finish this. Mr. Smith, I asked you a question and you were not responsive to it and I want you to be responsive to it.
▶ 1:57:50Did you, whether you think it was legal or not, whether you think it was right or not, did you the name of Kevin McCarthy, speaker of the house, when you were seeking records on Kevin McCarthy, the speaker of the house, or Jim Jordan, the chairman of this committee? The time of the gentleman is
▶ 1:58:08No, it's Please give me back the time that was taken away. Time has expired, but we're going to let the witness answer your question cuz it's important question. The witness can respond. We did not provide that information to the judge when we uh requested a non-disclosure order consistent with the law and consistent with Department
▶ 1:58:24Mr. Chairman, the amazing thing here today is that we have an admission that an Article
▶ 1:58:30the the gentleman's time has expired by now 34 seconds.
▶ 1:58:33Is it Wait, it gets more than 5 minutes How many times do you get to talk in a rock meet? The time the time belongs to the gentleman from California, but it has expired.
▶ 1:58:41be brief in my address to the chairman. We have the evidence that an Article 1 representative on behalf of the president withheld Article 3 With that, I yield back in disgust of this witness. Uh sticking with California, the gentlewoman from California is now recognized. Mr. Smith, thank you for being here today. Um, you know, earlier the chair had spent a lot of time talking about Cassidy Hutchinson, who we know was just one of many witnesses.
▶ 1:59:13it's important to note that uh there was testimony that uh she was told something by Mr. Ornato, not that she had personal knowledge. And of course, Mr. Ornato was of very questionable uh veracity. Um, we had a testimony from a Metropolitan Police Department uh official about uh an argument, a big argument uh that the president was having about going uh to the capital.
▶ 1:59:40And in fact, that the vehicle was delayed uh going back to the capital while that argument occurred. But, having said that, I I want to focus on something my colleagues across the aisle seem to want to ignore. The fact that your investigation into President Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election was built on testimony from members of the Republican Party. In fact, last week The New York Times published grand jury transcripts from Georgia that showed the same pattern in Trump's Georgia criminal case.
▶ 2:00:09Georgia's Republican Attorney General Chris Carr testified that he told, quote, and this is a quote, "We're just not seeing the things that you are seeing." And the late Georgia House Speaker David Ralston, also a Republican, testified that Trump's fake elector scheme was, quote, "The craziest thing I've heard." And then there's Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the president's closest allies. In his secret grand jury testimony, Senator Graham told the jurors, quote, "I have told him more times than we can count that he fell short." Unquote.
▶ 2:00:39And then he said this, quote, "If you told him Martians came and stole votes, he'd be inclined to believe it." Martians, that's from Senator Graham speaking under oath. So, here's my question. Mr. Smith, in your deposition with the this committee, you testified, and here's a quote, "Our case was built on, frankly, Republicans who put their allegiance to the country before the party." Uh also, that uh the president's closest allies are telling him that his claims of election
▶ 2:01:09fraud are wrong. And so, I'm just wondering, can you explain what you meant in your deposition that it was Republicans who were putting their allegiance to their country ahead of their party? Uh yes.
▶ 2:01:25Uh there were witnesses who I felt would be very strong witnesses, uh including, for example, the Secretary of State in Georgia, who uh told Donald Trump the truth, told him uh that he did not want to hear, and put him on notice that what he was saying was false. Uh these were people uh who knew uh how the elections were conducted in these states.
▶ 2:01:51And I believe that witnesses of that nature, witnesses who are willing to tell the truth, even if it's going to impose a cost on them in their lives. My experience as a prosecutor over 30 years is that witnesses like that are very credible, and that jurors tend to believe witnesses like that uh because they pay a cost uh for telling the In terms of the grand jury testimony that's now been released, uh the fact that uh Donald Trump,
▶ 2:02:21according to Senator Graham, would believe that Martians stole the election, what does that tell you about Trump's state of that that statement is consistent with what we found in our investigation in that our investigation revealed that Donald Trump was not looking for honest answers about whether uh there was fraud in the election. He was looking for ways to stay in power.
▶ 2:02:51And when people told him uh things that conflicted with him staying in power, he rejected them. Or he chose not even to contact people like that who would know uh if the election was done properly in a state. Uh on the other hand, when individuals uh would say things that would allow him to stay in power, no matter how fantastical, uh he would latch onto those.
▶ 2:03:15That uh over time, we felt was powerful evidence that he in fact uh knew that the fraud claims he was making uh were You know, who are some of the Republican witnesses who told you that President told President Trump that his claims of election fraud were false? Can you Can you share that with us? There were a a range of witnesses.
▶ 2:03:44Uh they ranged from uh people on his campaign uh team who had uh wanted him to win, were employed to help him win the election. Uh they included state officials, state Republican officials, who um wanted him to win, voted for him, campaigned for him, asked him to provide asked him and his co-conspirators to provide evidence to support their claims, and invariably they never did.
▶ 2:04:12Uh it included uh officials, advisers, uh people he worked with in the White House who he relied upon uh for important decisions and who he trusted in other contexts. Uh we felt we had strong evidence from a variety of
▶ 2:04:27I'm at the gentlelady has expired. Uh Mr. Chairman, with the my fellow Californian, you were allowing the witness
▶ 2:04:33That's a good question. Isn't that grounds to let him answer? I've given him 30 seconds extra, the gentlelady 30 seconds extra. If the gentleman can be concise and finish up here quickly, we'll allow him to finish. Yes, sir. Uh and and just conclude saying we felt that that uh constituted powerful evidence of his the knowing falsity of his statements in furtherance of the fraud. Mr. Chairman, I I would like to yield back noting the presence of officers who were severely
▶ 2:05:01to yield back. Your minute is over. The gentleman from Texas
▶ 2:05:04lives on January 6th. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, is recognized for 5 Mr. Smith, in January of 2023, did you subpoena then Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy's toll records? Uh yes, sir, we did. Yes, you did. And the subpoena covered the time period between November 2020 and January 2021. Is that right? I'm sorry, sir. Could you say that again? We're We're not We're not going to delay like this. The subpoena covered the time period between November of 2020 and January 2021.
▶ 2:05:34How many days after Kevin McCarthy was sworn in as Speaker did you subpoena his records? Uh I don't recall, but those two things had nothing to do with
▶ 2:05:4416 days after becoming the highest-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, you subpoenaed his toll records. Do you agree that that might reasonably be considered a violation of the speech or debate Uh I do not, and I want to be clear that the toll
▶ 2:06:01were collecting months' worth of phone data on the Republican Speaker of the House, the leader of the opposition, right after he got sworn in as Speaker, all around the time of a major vote. That sounds like a flagrant violation of the speech or debate clause to me, and I think most people agree with me. And And Speaker McCarthy had no recourse, did he, because you issued a a non-disclosure order ensuring that neither he nor any of the American people knew about these subpoenas. Is that right?
▶ 2:06:31The toll record the non-content toll record subpoenas, we did secure non-disclosure orders for those
▶ 2:06:38You You did. And let me ask you, Mr. Smith, at the time you you secured those non-disclosure orders, was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk? uh non-disclosure order was based on concerns about
▶ 2:06:50But was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk?
▶ 2:06:52He was not. He was not. Then why did your non-disclosure order refer to him as a flight risk? It says right here, the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in flight from Sir, when securing a non-disclosure uh the risks uh don't have to be
▶ 2:07:16that the the Speaker of the House is a flight risk?
▶ 2:07:18question, No, this is not your time. This is my time. You think You think the Speaker of the House is a flight risk? You think he's going to hop on a plane and leave the country? No. No. What I was trying to explain is, with respect to a non-disclosure order, the risks aren't necessarily associated with the subscriber to the phone. They're They're the risks to the
▶ 2:07:41I I think that you were using This is clearly in reference to to Speaker McCarthy, and you were using clearly false information to secure a non-disclosure order to hide from Speaker McCarthy and from the American people the fact that you were spying on his toll records. But, I've got more more, so let's move on. In May of 2023, you also issued subpoenas for toll records of nine US senators and an additional representative. Is that Uh in May of '23, we did uh issue
▶ 2:08:12You did. And there were non-disclosure orders in conjunction with those subpoenas as well, right? That's correct, consistent with Department policy and the law.
▶ 2:08:19So again, nobody would know what you were doing. The senators wouldn't, the representatives wouldn't, the American people wouldn't know what you were doing. Is that right? The toll records that we secured uh and the non-disclosure orders were consistent with policy and And And you knew whenever you were doing that that there was a risk you were violating the speech or debate clause. Is that right? The toll record subpoenas that we secured were with the concurrence of the Public Integrity
▶ 2:08:44Your own analysis says that you knew there was a risk you were violating the speech or debate clause. I have it right here. This is a an email from John Keller at Public Integrity Section to your team. As you are aware, quote, "As you are aware, there is some litigation risk regarding whether compelled disclosure of toll records of a member's legislative calls violates the speech or debate clause in the DC circuit. That's from your own analysis right there. So, you did know, didn't you?
▶ 2:09:10Sir, with respect to the item you just put up on the screen, the last sentence states uh Oh, we're going to get to the last sentence.
▶ 2:09:19We're going to get to the last sentence. you cite case law in here, quote, the bar on compelled disclosure is absolute. Is right Is that right, or do you think that you didn't have to abide by that To be clear, this is not This statement is not from my office. This is the statement of the
▶ 2:09:35This is your justification for those subpoenas and NDOs that you ordered. This was part of your analysis. It's a cursory analysis. I think it's worth noting. Well, let's get to that last sentence, then. Quote, given my understanding of the low likelihood that any of the members listed below would be charged, the litigation risk should be minimal here. In other words, you're using a novel legal theory, which you knew was novel, has never been tested by any court. You're not charging any of these members. Nobody's going to know about it because you you issued NDOs.
▶ 2:10:06Nobody's going to sue about it, so sue this, so who cares? We're going to do it anyways. I mean, you walked all over the Constitution throughout this entire
▶ 2:10:15The gentleman's time has expired.
▶ 2:10:16harming our members of Congress, and you know it. It's absolutely disgraceful. The time
▶ 2:10:21back. Gentleman yields back. Not going to be charged. They're not going to see it. They're not going to know cuz we're not going to tell them. So, let's go ahead and do it. Is exactly what happened. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes.
▶ 2:10:33Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, it's great that you've been allowed to come here and testify to the American public. Is there anything you'd like briefly to discuss that Mr. Gill brought up on the reasons why you want needed those phone records and the limitations that you thought might have been uh on you and the prosecution of risk cuz of the risk to risk the investigation. Sure. And And I would begin by pointing out that the email that was referenced wasn't a justification for my office.
▶ 2:11:00It was an email from the Public Integrity Section to my office the subpoenas. Uh the subpoenas that we secured uh we secured with non-disclosure orders from a judge uh because I had grave concerns about obstruction of justice in this investigation specifically with regards to Donald Trump.
▶ 2:11:23Not only did we have uh the obstruction of justice that we were investigating in the classified documents case uh but I was aware during the course of our investigation of uh targeting of witnesses uh in during the course of the conspiracy itself. There were election workers who had their lives turned upside down uh and received vile death threats because they were targeted by Donald Trump and his co-conspirators.
▶ 2:11:51I had a duty to protect witnesses in this That risk, that threat to witnesses was only confirmed when we went forward in this case and uh Donald Trump uh suggested that one witness should be put to death and then also issued a statement to the effect of, if you come after me, I'm coming after you. In my mind, I can't think of a more direct threat to witnesses and individuals involved in that proceeding.
▶ 2:12:21Uh given that sort of threats uh it was in my view completely appropriate to protect the integrity of the investigation, to protect against destruction of evidence, and to protect uh the witnesses in our case. And just make clear, you did not see any of the discussion. There was not any There was just the content that they they made a call to the president and vice versa, but nothing about any content whatsoever. That's correct.
▶ 2:12:47A toll record subpoena gives you who a call is from, who it is to, and the length of that call. It does not tell you the content of what people are speaking about. You felt that you had a case that was one that you would win beyond a reasonable doubt, no moral Is there anything in your facts that you had that you would have used at trial that you believe has not been presented to the public in the past or has been misrepresented to the public?
▶ 2:13:18Is there anything Essential facts that you had that you felt would have resulted in a in a conviction of the president on the charges that he was indicted upon? I think uh my report uh the report of our case, the final report, uh summarizes the evidence I think in a way that is uh gives a fair reading of the strength of the case. And you have no no question but have been successful before jury.
▶ 2:13:47my uh review of the case uh I came to the conclusion we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Uh we were ready, willing, and able to go to trial in the case. Of course, as I said in my opening statement, prosecutors can't control outcomes, but I felt confident in pursuing the case to trial. Did Merrick Garland ever pressure you to bring it to bring an indictment or to do anything in your investigation? No. Did anybody else in the administration, President Biden, Vice President Harris, etc.?
▶ 2:14:18I was given the independence to conduct my investigation, and I came to the decision to bring charges in this case without undue influence from anybody in the department. And you dropped the case. Why did you drop the case? the cases against Donald Trump were dismissed pursuant to uh department Department policy, the Office of Legal Counsel said if he's somebody's president, you can't bring a charge against him or they can't be held liable. Is that correct?
▶ 2:14:48That's correct. There had not been a a case of this nature ever where uh someone was elected president with pen charges pending, and so that was slightly different. So, we consulted with public I'm sorry, with the Office of Legal Counsel, and they determined pursuant to policy uh that the cases needed to be dismissed. And you weren't pleased with that, but you had to follow the law, and that's what you did. We followed policy throughout my investigation.
▶ 2:15:17My job was not to set policy. My job was to follow it, and that's what we did. I'm going to thank you for your service. I think you're a great American, and you came out of this as being somebody who people can respect and look up to in a fashion that we should be stilling people's desire to go into justice, to go into law, and to go into government. You're an example of the type of person they should follow. I yield back to the balance of my time. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized. Mr. Smith, there's something that's really bothering me since your deposition.
▶ 2:15:48It's how and why you got the position of special counsel and your personal relationship with Marshall Miller. Um Let's go back to 1999 when you were working for the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New Uh Is that when you first met Marshall So, after EDNY, did the two of you did the two of you ever work together again prior to becoming special counsel?
▶ 2:16:17According to the public bios um for you and Mr. Miller, you overlapped at DOJ from 2014-15 when you were chief of DOJ's Public Integrity Section and Mr. Miller was chief of staff for DOJ's Criminal Division. Is that accurate? Uh I believe that is accurate, yes. Okay. So, um were the two of you social outside of I would say intermittently. Yes. Okay.
▶ 2:16:45But after 20 years of knowing each other, it's safe to say you were friends, correct? Yes. Okay. So, let's fast forward to 2022. Mr. Miller is appointed Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General at DOJ, the number three at DOJ. You call your friend to congra- congratulate him, and according to the deposition transcript you say you'd be interested in a position at DOJ. Is that Yes. What I recall is that I I expressed an interest if the right position came up, I would be interested in continuing.
▶ 2:17:14But at that point, there's no discussion about special counsel. Is that correct? This is some time ago, and so I don't have a specific recollection of all these conversations. So, you were first approached about special counsel and that role before the '22 midterm And um according to the deposition transcript, in October of 2022, you fly to DC, meet with the AG and the Deputy Attorney General.
▶ 2:17:41Is that Yes, I flew to DC. I I believe it was in October, and I met the Deputy Attorney General, and also I met the Attorney
▶ 2:17:50So, in multiple conversations with your friend Marshall Miller he never once tipped you off that the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General had you in on the short list for special counsel? That never came up? Again, this was some time ago, but my recollection is I came to Washington, and I met with those individuals as well as the Human Rights Section. Uh Marshall Miller is the person who who set that up. So, he was at the meetings. Was he at the meetings?
▶ 2:18:21Uh Just just to tie all this together. Uh You've known Mr. Miller since you were both AUSA in New York. You stayed in touch over 20-year career in federal government. He gets a job with the Biden administration, and just a few short months later, you're offered the role of special counsel. I I'm having a hard time believing that this is some big coincidence, and that there wasn't a back and forth on the special counsel.
▶ 2:18:47maybe you never received directives explicitly from the AG or the Deputy Attorney General, but was Marshall Miller did he become a two-way conduit throughout the investigation with DOJ? No, and I would not take direction from a political person, a political figure about how I should conduct an
▶ 2:19:09never spoke to him throughout the entire time you were conducting the Uh no, I didn't say that. What I said
▶ 2:19:17Okay. that uh he was I think you asked if he was a conduit of information. He was present, to my recollection, uh at meetings, uh briefings that I had with the uh Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General during my time as Special Counsel.
▶ 2:19:32I mean, I don't want to assume anything, but Mr. Miller wanted you in that position, not because you're necessarily the best lawyer you ever met, but because of the long-term friendship that you have with him. What I can tell you is I have been a prosecutor for 30 years. I have been an apolitical public servant for 30 years. I've prosecuted cases against Democrats and Republicans all the same.
▶ 2:19:58I've have, in my view, uh the experience and necessary for this position, and that's why I accepted it. So, he knew that you would pursue ex- I mean, he had to have an idea that you would pursue exactly what the Biden administration wanted, which was criminal charges against President I think that anybody who knows me well knows the the idea that I would take direction from a political
▶ 2:20:28figure about how an investigation should come out. I don't think anybody who knows me thinks that's true. Well, uh Chairman Jordan, I think the next deposition should be with Marshall Miller at this point. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The uh gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
▶ 2:20:45And while we are uh deposing Marshall Miller, maybe we can depose Donald Trump about why he chose his personal lawyer to be uh the head of the uh on January 6th, 2026, the fifth anniversary of the insurrection, the White House launched a taxpayer-funded website that attempts to rewrite history about what happened on that day of infamy.
▶ 2:21:14On January 6th, 2021, there was an insurrection at the United States Capitol that resulted in a police officer dying the next day, another four officers dying by suicide in the months thereafter, with at least 140 police officers being injured by the insurrectionists, with 15 of them requiring And I'm proud that we have uh four former officers, as well as on-duty
▶ 2:21:45Capitol Hill police officers, here Mr. Smith, I want to ask you about this website, because the Trump administration is using taxpayer dollars to lie to the American people about the events leading up to and the events taking place on January 6th, 2021. For example, this Trump propaganda site claims that the 2020 election was, quote, stolen. Mr.
▶ 2:22:12Smith, did your investigation uncover evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump knew that his claim that the election was stolen was false? Yes, it did.
▶ 2:22:26And did your investigation uncover evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump publicly claimed that the 2020 election was stolen from him, while he privately acknowledged that he had lost the election? Yes, we cited uh instances of that during our uh in our case.
▶ 2:22:50But yet, here we see that on the fifth anniversary of the insurrection, the Trump White House propaganda machine is still promoting the stolen election theory on this government webpage, with a text box titled, quote, "Fraudulent election, stolen election certified." and quote.
▶ 2:23:13The site also has a subsection reading in part, quote, "FBI entrapment operation exposed." Mr. Smith, did your investigation develop any evidence to support the allegation that the FBI entrapped insurrectionists into committing crimes on January 6th?
▶ 2:23:36Our investigation revealed that Donald is the person who caused January 6th, that it was foreseeable to him, and that he sought to exploit the violence. This website also accuses you of being a, quote, "Biden prosecutor who brought, quote, weaponized charges against Mr. Mr. Smith, were you a Biden prosecutor who weaponized the Department of Justice against Donald Trump?
▶ 2:24:06Absolutely not. Did Attorney General Merrick Garland direct you to prosecute Trump because Donald Trump was running against Joe Biden in the presidential election? There are also allegations that President Trump was the victim of, quote, "lawfare." and accusations that the Department of Justice lawyers who prosecuted Donald Trump used, quote, "fabricated indictments and rigged show trials."
▶ 2:24:36Did you, uh Mr. Smith, or the men and women working on your team, work to fabricate indictments or put on rigged show No, we secured indictments from grand juries, and we were prepared to prove our case in court beyond a reasonable Did you use your appointment as Special Counsel to conduct a politically motivated witch hunt, scam investigation and prosecution of Donald Trump? I did not.
▶ 2:25:05We followed the facts, and we followed the law. Where that led us was to an indictment of an unprecedented criminal scheme to block the peaceful transfer of power. And those in uh indictments have been dismissed. Can they be rebrought or res- resurrected after this uh uh after Trump leaves office? They were dismissed without prejudice. So, they can be refiled. Uh And and he can be prosecuted after he leaves office.
▶ 2:25:35Is that correct?
▶ 2:25:36I'm I'm not going to speak to that. I can only speak to what uh we did, which was dismiss the case without prejudice. All right. The website put out by the Trump White House on the anniversary of January January 6th is nothing more than a pack of lies. It proves that Donald Trump is hell-bent on misusing taxpayer dollars in a feeble attempt to rewrite his criminal history and the history of what happened on January 6th, 2021. And with that, I yield back, but I would like to, Mr.
▶ 2:26:05Chairman, offer for the record uh Unanimous consent?
▶ 2:26:08Unanimous consent uh a statement from Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency released on November 12th, 2020, that states the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history.
▶ 2:26:23And also testimony from uh I would like to uh request unanimous consent uh to enter into the record um the September 24th, 2020 testimony of Trump's former FBI Director Chris Wray, who told Senate Homeland Security, excuse me, the Homeland Security Committee of the Senate, that the FBI had, quote, "not seen or historically had any kind of coordinated national
▶ 2:26:53voter fraud
▶ 2:26:54Objection. effort in a major election." Objection. And uh last but not least, um Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to into in- enter into the record this article titled, "Disputing Trump, Bar says no widespread election fraud." Objection. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, on November 18th, 2022, AG Garland appointed you a Special Counsel.
▶ 2:27:22Can you tell me about your swearing-in or the oath of office that you took after that? I I don't recall the the specifics of it. I know I was sworn in. I don't recall uh the specifics of how that was done. You don't remember who swore you I don't. Would you agree that taking the oath of office is a legal requirement uh for the job that you had? I've taken oaths of office uh regularly.
▶ 2:27:51I haven't researched uh whether it's required or not, but I've done that I think in every government case I uh Well, it is required. Uh terms I heard earlier today were atypical, irregular, no proper procedure. Yet, in your opening statement, you said that we followed Justice Department policies, and I would assume you meant the law, as It strikes me as odd that you don't remember who swore you in, how you were sworn in. It's pretty significant. We all get sworn in here, and I remember every day. You don't remember who swore you in.
▶ 2:28:20I don't remember the details of it, as I sit here today. I I know I
▶ 2:28:23did take the oath of office before you got rolling. I think my recollection is it was when I was appointed. It was when It strikes me as odd that Attorney General Garland had you retake the oath of office on the 14th of September of the following year. Why did he make you do that? as I sit here right now, I do not recall. I know that there is the oath of office that I signed.
▶ 2:28:51I believe it was on the 18th, the day that I uh was appointed, and I know the department had me do a second one. Uh I don't know the particulars of why they asked me to do it again, but I know
▶ 2:29:02signed it on the 20th of November 22nd November 2022, but there was no witness, which I mean, you have to agree it's a little odd if there's no witness saying that you took the oath of office. It would maybe make someone like me question whether or not you were legitimately doing the job until you finally took the oath of office.
▶ 2:29:20It sounds like the Attorney General had the same question and thought, "Oh, We got to have him sign this on the 14th day of September of the following year." So, why did you take the oath of office again on the 14th of September of the following year when you say you took the office in of 2022? Why did you need to do it twice?
▶ 2:29:43Uh my my recollection uh is that I took the oath of office, as you said, it was 18th or the 20th, and felt I was under the oath of office. I I I believe if you have in front of you, I think I signed an oath. Um you signed it, but there was no witness. There was supposed to be either notarized or a and apparently Attorney General Garland thought it was significant enough to have you do another oath 11 months later.
▶ 2:30:12That's That's strange, right? I I don't know why uh they asked me to sign it again. I don't recall ever discussing this issue with Attorney General Garland. Well, that is just wild to me. I'd like to yield the balance of my time to Mr. Jordan. Well, which one was the official one? I have
▶ 2:30:37that's what the gentleman's asking. Uh I understood myself to have taken the oath of office when I assumed the job.
▶ 2:30:48money did you Okay. How much money did you spend in the investigating President How much money did your office spend? Uh I do not recall as I sit here now, but I know that uh pursuant to I believe it's the special counsel regulations, reports were issued each 6 months detailing how much We we get we we gathered at $35 million and what I want to know is how much of that $35 million of taxpayer money did you give to confidential human sources?
▶ 2:31:23We know you gave 20,000 to someone. It just got reported last week. How much more money did you pay confidential people, people we don't know about, with American tax money going after the guy we elected president? Uh my recollection uh regards the the $20,000, which was not a payment from me. It was me approving a payment uh by the FBI to a confidential human source who was reviewing uh video and
▶ 2:31:55I do not know the identity of the source. What
▶ 2:31:58How many other payments went to this source or other sources? As I sit here, I do not know the answer to that question. My role as special
▶ 2:32:08$35 million and you're giving money to people the country doesn't know who they are, and you're giving their hard-earned money to these folks? The main question I have to with this is why'd you have to do it? You subpoenaed bank records from the RNC, phone records from members of Congress. You submit You got subpoenas for bank records for people sitting right down the front row. Why did you have to pay people for information when you could subpoena them and get it?
▶ 2:32:31Time is expired. Time is expired. You can answer the question now. Country like to know why you had to do Uh my my recollection and understanding is the payment the $20,000 that I approved was for a confidential human source to assist in the uh review of video and uh photographic uh uh evidence uh showing people who were attacking the capital, attacking police officers, obstructing the proceeding, and
▶ 2:33:01seeing if we could prove that some of those people had come directly
▶ 2:33:06my question, but uh my time has expired. Uh the gentleman from California is Mr. Smith, I want you to have the utmost confidence in what you did. You did everything right. Harry Dunn, Danny Hodges, Sergeant Canela, Mike Fanone, they did everything right. These guys, my Republican colleagues are a joke. They're wrong. History will harshly judge them. So, I want you to lean in today. You have nothing to be ashamed of.
▶ 2:33:35You did everything right, sir. And I am so These guys are so lucky they're not under oath cuz they would have to tell you what they really think of Trump. They call him crooked. They call him cruel. They call him a scumbag. I've heard you all say it. You're lucky you're not under Trump. When the lights go on and the cameras are on, you're tiny. You're small. You Everyone remembers Matt Gaetz coming over here after a committee hearing.
▶ 2:34:03He would laugh at how stupid he thought Trump was. This is all a show, and Mr. Smith, you're just the latest act that they've brought in. But they can't erase what happened on January 6th because we saw it with our own eyes. Mr. Smith, after the mainstream media called the race for Biden about a week after the election, did Donald Trump concede the election? He did not.
▶ 2:34:30The next month, the Electoral College met in every state and voted Biden as the winner. Did Donald Trump concede He did not. Shortly after that, the last court case that Donald Trump brought was thrown out. Did he concede then? No. Is it your judgment then that only Donald Trump could have convened the mob in the size that it was on January 6th?
▶ 2:34:57Uh our assessment of the evidence is that uh he is the person most responsible for what happened on January 6th. He caused what happened. It was foreseeable to him, and then uh when it happened, he tried to exploit it uh in furtherance of the conspiracy. And you actually obtained indictments from a grand jury, right? You went to a grand jury and did something that the Trump administration has not been able to do as they go after their enemies. Their cases are being thrown out. You obtained criminal indictments against the president. Is that right?
▶ 2:35:28That's correct. Mr. Smith, do you know who Edward Loia I'm sorry. Edward Loia, L O Y A. Uh I believe Mr. Loia worked at the public integrity section when I was
▶ 2:35:40Did you know that he said of you, "When it comes to investigating allegations of sophisticated federal criminal matters, Jack Smith is the gold standard."? Do you know who Mr. James McGovern is? Yes, he was a prosecutor I worked with in New York. Did you know that he said of you, "I have no idea what Mr. Smith's political beliefs are because he's completely apolitical."? So, are you a registered independent?
▶ 2:36:10Uh I have no partisan loyalties. I don't I don't know if I'm registered as independent or not registered at all. Are you glad you accepted Attorney General Garland's request to be a special prosecutor even though you've been dragged over political barbed wire and your family has been subjected to death threats? I don't regret it. Do you remember where you were on September 11th? I do. What did you think of that day? Uh I was in Brooklyn uh when that happened.
▶ 2:36:40Uh I was at the command center that night. Uh I worked on that uh investigation I remember pretty clearly. Do you remember where you were on January 6th? Uh on January 6th, I was living in Europe working for the State Department seconded to a war crimes tribunal. What did you think as you watched on television what happened at the Capitol that day?
▶ 2:37:09To be honest with you, I don't recall if I saw it that day or later day because of the time time period.
▶ 2:37:14you think when you saw I was shocked. Uh I was shocked by it. Um I obviously uh being in Europe and not following things as closely, I I was not uh frankly up to speed on the events leading up to it. What shocked you about I just never seen anything uh like that happen in our country. Mr. Smith, I don't know if I'll ever have the honor to talk to you again.
▶ 2:37:40If I don't, please know that I and my colleagues on the Democratic side, and even my Republican colleagues when they speak privately, have nothing but respect and appreciation for what you tried to do and how you did it. You, unlike many here, are a man of honor. And I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
▶ 2:38:06Smith, you appear before this committee today not as a neutral observer of the law, but at one point, you were one of the most powerful prosecutors in the federal system. Armed with enormous discretion, minimal oversight, and a mandate that goes to the very heart of a constitutional You brought charges during an active election cycle. You relied on legal theories that had never bore never before been tested in context.
▶ 2:38:31And you did so while disregarding long-standing Department of Justice policies designed to prevent prosecutors from influencing elections. Mr. Smith, you claimed in your you developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal scheme to overturn the results in the 2020 election and to prevent lawful transfer of power.
▶ 2:38:51However, a few weeks ago in Georgia, Fulton County election board official stated that 315,000 ballots were certified without required signatures on the tabulator tapes for poll workers. These signatures were required by the Georgia statute. If not counted, this could have turned the state of Georgia red and I won't doubt there were similar schemes in many other states.
▶ 2:39:15You were illegally appointed to serve as special counsel since you were not confirmed by the by advance and consent Senate and stated in the as the stated in the appointments clause. You also issued an indictment against then President Biden's most formidable political opponent. The candidate was President Trump and you issued a gag order for President Trump during a 2024 election cycle.
▶ 2:39:40This is a major violation of President Trump's First Amendment rights and a poor attempt to outright censor the leading political candidate. These actions were nothing short of election interference. Nine senators, including Senator Tuberville from my state of Alabama and multiple Republican members of the House of Representatives had their phones Or their records subpoenaed. Some you seize their phones.
▶ 2:40:03Even then Speaker of the House Kevin one of the highest ranking Republicans in the country, had his phone records subpoenaed. All for political gain. These subpoenas clearly violated the speech and debate clause. As John Keller of the DOJ's public and text integrity section addressed this issue in an email dated May 17th of DC Circuit President stated that the speech and debate clause in the bar is this, are compelled I'm sorry,
▶ 2:40:33bar on compelled disclosure is absolute. These instances are not only the tip of the iceberg about you and your team's flagrant disregard of the Constitution. Mr. Smith, your actions have changed the and damaged confidence in our justice Today, this committee will determine whether that damage was a result of reckless judgment, political bias, or deliberate misuse of authority. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield you the balance of my time for questions.
▶ 2:40:58I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to go back to that email. If we could If we could put that up, this email that Mr. Gill highlighted a few minutes ago. This is the justification from the public integrity section. If you look at the bottom, John Keller, public integrity section, for going and getting the phone records, the toll records of members of Congress. And there's a couple of things I want to highlight. That first highlighted area, there is some litigation risk. So, they admit there's some concern here.
▶ 2:41:27And they send this to the copy to Jack Smith's team. And then you go down later, as Mr. Gill pointed out, the case law is clear, a legislator may intervene and oppose such So, the risk is real. But here's the deal. There was really no risk cuz we weren't going to know. They weren't going to tell us. They made sure they didn't tell us cuz they went to the judge and got a gag order. And look at the last sentence. The last sentence.
▶ 2:41:54Low likelihood that any of the members listed below would be charged. So, they're not going to know cuz we're not going to charge any of these guys. They didn't do anything wrong. And the litiga- So, therefore, the litigation risk should be minimal. They're not going to be charged. They're not going to We're not going to go after them. They're not going to The litigation risk is is is minimal. And it's minimal because, frankly, it's non-existent because they're not going to know.
▶ 2:42:20And we're going to make sure they don't know cuz we're not even going to tell the judge who we're getting the gag orders on. And yet, Mr. Smith thought that was A That was just fine. That was in the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. I find that I find that hard to believe. And you know why? You know why it's You know why everyone knows it's wrong? Cuz the public integrity section at the Justice Department has now changed its policy. You can't do this anymore.
▶ 2:42:50They've changed their policy, but it was okay for Jack Smith to do it cuz we got to get Trump. We got to get the president. That's what this was all about. Yield back to the gentleman from Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Chairman. I have some unanimous Mr. Chairman, I have a a unanimous consent request. Gentleman from New York is recognized. Mr.
▶ 2:43:11Chairman, I ask unanimous consent entered into the record a transcript of the voicemail that President Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, left Senator Tuberville on January 6th in which he states, "I'm calling you because I want to discuss with you how they're trying to rush this hearing and how we need you, our Republican friends, to try to just slow it down so we can get these legislatures to get more information." Gentleman, I yield back to the chair. Now recognizes the uh gentleman from California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:43:41The House Judiciary Committee is responsible for helping to ensure the rule of law. the chairman of this committee ignored a bipartisan congressional subpoena directed at him. His actions have made it harder for this committee and other congressional committees to get witnesses and testimony and damage the rule of law. Now, before I ask questions of Mr.
▶ 2:44:05Smith, I just want to make a simple How scared are Republicans of talking about the Epstein files? They are so scared that they literally are calling Jack Smith, the distinguished federal prosecutor who secured multiple indictments against Donald Trump with multiple felony Republicans would rather talk about the criminality of Donald Trump in stealing trying to steal the election and trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power
▶ 2:44:35and the criminality of Donald Trump in stealing classified documents, obstruction of justice, than about Donald Trump's associations with Jeffrey Epstein and his pedophilia I demand this committee, this chairman, and Republicans to call an immediate asking why the Department of Justice is to release 99% of the Epstein files and why the DOJ is violating the law right I have questions, Mr. Smith, for you and thank you for being here today.
▶ 2:45:05My questions center on interactions or lack of interactions the Biden administration and yourself. Did President Biden or anyone in the Biden White House ever direct you to seek retribution against anyone perceived to be Biden's political opponent? No.
▶ 2:45:27the Biden administration or President Biden or anyone in the White House ever write a social media directing you to seek retribution against any particular individual? Did President Biden or anyone else in the Biden White House ever direct you to take any prosecutorial step whatsoever? No. Okay. Donald Trump made it clear he wanted to seek retribution against New York Attorney General Tish James.
▶ 2:45:54Trump repeatedly attacked her saying, {quote} she should be prosecuted and {quote} arrested and punished because she dared to hold Trump accountable for Trump's fraud in New Trump weaponized the Department of Justice and Trump DOJ opened a sham investigation into her alleged mortgage fraud. We know it's a sham investigation because they couldn't even get twice grand juries to secure indictments against her.
▶ 2:46:24When interim US Attorney Eric Seibert, who Donald Trump himself appointed, spent 5 months investigating Tish James, he concluded there was not enough evidence to go forward. And what did Trump do? He fired his own US Attorney. Mr. Smith, did President Biden or anyone else in the Biden White House ever tell you that Donald Trump should be {quote} arrested and punished?
▶ 2:46:49Did President Biden or anyone else in the Biden White House ever threaten to fire you based on any action you took or did not take? No. Donald Trump also directed the Trump DOJ to open investigations into his own who refused to do his bidding. His DOJ recently investigated Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell because Powell won't seed to Trump's bullying on interest rates.
▶ 2:47:15Did President Biden or anyone else in the Biden White House ever direct you to go after any Biden appointee? I just want to say a little bit about what the Republicans brought up about uh phone toll records. Uh do you believe the Speaker of the House is above the law? No, I don't believe anybody should be above the law.
▶ 2:47:38And US senators are not above the law, No. Yeah, and members of Congress are not above the law, right? No. Yeah, that's right cuz we're not. And what Republicans are trying to argue is somehow, if you're doing an investigation, you can't do stuff to senators or members of Congress. Get out of here. We're just under law like everybody else. And by the way, the speech and debate clause only applies to legislative acts, communications with legislative acts.
▶ 2:48:07Stealing a freaking election trying to So, it's not a legislative act. It is a crime. So, I don't even know what the heck they're talking about. And this is so stupid. I'm a former prosecutor. You'd never an investigation go and try to get someone's toll records or phone records and then tell them, "Hey, dude, we're about to get your phone records." Of course, you wouldn't tell them. What the Republicans are saying today is just idiotic.
▶ 2:48:31I'm so pleased you're here on Nash Show TV telling the American people that Trump was indicted, he was indicted lawfully, and multiple grand juries to secure those indictments. Thank you for your service, and history will look upon you well. Are you a back? General lady from Florida is recognized for 5 Mr. Smith, you have a long tenure at the Department of Justice.
▶ 2:48:56Would you agree with the statement that DOJ charging policies require prosecutors to bring charges only where the admissible evidence is expected to be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction? Is that right? That is correct. That's from the federal principles of prosecution.
▶ 2:49:15And in this case, in this case you brought against President Trump, one of the charges you pursued was under Title 18, Section 371, which requires an agreement to interfere with the lawful function of the United States through deceit or dishonesty, that the defendant knowingly and intentionally joined in an overt act. And what I'd like to ask you about is this.
▶ 2:49:39So, you would agree that Section 371 requires dishonesty or deceit, and also proof that a criminal defendant acted knowingly and intentionally. Is that Uh I believe that's correct. It requires uh knowing uh deceit targeted a lawful government function.
▶ 2:49:57So, you would then also agree, would you not, that opinion disagreement or even mistake is insufficient to satisfy the burden of criminal intent set forth in that Uh a a mistake uh certainly would. We needed to prove and intended to prove at trial that the false statements that Donald Trump made were knowingly false.
▶ 2:50:22They were false, and that it was done knowingly. So, even under your theory of the case, even if we took your facts as true, you still would have been required to prove that the president said something false, and that he or did it knowingly. So, going on to your next charge, let's talk about it in obstruction. There too, that charge requires proof of wrongful intent, does it not? That's correct.
▶ 2:50:52So, if a defendant there actually believes a factual claim is that would mean he could not be convicted of that charge. Isn't that uh I I
▶ 2:51:06Not correctly convicted. the defendant for that charge would have to behave behave corruptly, and corruptly could include uh seeking an unlawful benefit, uh seeking a benefit to benefit themselves in this case to stay in office when they had in fact not uh won the election.
▶ 2:51:25But there too, there's a requirement of intent that this conduct must be knowing and intentional. Isn't that right? There is an intent requirement. Yes,
▶ 2:51:34you also acknowledge in your deposition uh that the president was receiving information from multiple advisers, Giuliani, Eastman, Clark, Powell, and in your deposition you said he was almost just regurgitating what they told him. Isn't that right? I don't believe I said he was regurgitating what they told him.
▶ 2:51:58I think uh what I said is that he was making knowingly false claims, that he was believing anything that would keep him in office, and he was rejecting
▶ 2:52:09agree that those people or some people were giving the president conflicting advice at that time. Would you not? You are correct in that his original campaign staff told him he had lost. He fired them and brought in people who
▶ 2:52:28But criminal liability under the statutes you used in your indictment requires on proof requires proving not simply the undermining of democratic norms or expressing an opinion with which you do not agree. So, is it not correct, sir, that here you charged two intent-based crimes without any direct proof whatsoever that the conduct charged was knowing, intentional, or that you were going to have an adequate basis to sustain a conviction at trial?
▶ 2:52:59Uh I felt we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I felt that that proof included direct testimony from a number of witnesses uh to prove his know the knowing falsity of his claims. Despite the fact that in your own deposition you acknowledge the existence of conflicting advice. If this defendant were anyone other than Donald J. Trump, Mr.
▶ 2:53:23Smith, I find it hard to believe that we would be sitting here today having a hearing about an indictment that was returned knowing that the elements of the offenses could not be demonstrated. Now, let's talk about this. I assume you're also familiar with the Department of Justice policy that prohibits prosecutors from selecting the timing of investigative or prosecutorial actions for the purpose of affecting any election. Yes, I am. That's the election year sensitivities policy, and we followed it in all respects.
▶ 2:53:51The Public Integrity Section, who administers that policy, concurred that we followed it in all Mr. Chairman, my time is expired.
▶ 2:54:00General lady yields back. Uh the chair recognizes the ranking member for UC. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. Uh this is from John Dowd. I was Donald Trump's lawyer, Jack Smith should be celebrated, not vilified. December 16th, 2025, last month. Without objection.
▶ 2:54:14I have um I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a criminal complaint filed by the Trump Department of Justice in December 13th, 2025, detailing how Kash Patel and FBI used a confidential human source and an undercover FBI agent to investigate a bomb threat. Without
▶ 2:54:31And then finally, um this is an article published by The Verge on October 19th, 2023, titled Peter Thiel was reportedly an FBI informant, which reports that Peter Thiel served as a confidential human source for the FBI. Uh without objection, the gentleman from Arizona is recognized for unanimous consent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First one is from msn.com. Biden's FBI paid anti-Trump sedition hunters as informants in J6 Arctic Frost probes. Without objection.
▶ 2:55:00Jack Smith team approved $20,000 payment to informant to snitch on Trump during Arctic Frost probe. Without objection. AT&T turned Kevin McCarthy's cell phone records over to Jack Smith. Without objection. Biden's legal team met with Jack Smith aide before Trump indictment. Without objection. Jack Smith deposition gives insight into failed effort to hold Trump accountable. Without objection. Trump special counsel Jack Smith was involved in Lois Lerner IRS scandal. Without objection.
▶ 2:55:27Special counsel Jack Smith's mixed history pursuing high-profile politicians. Without objection. And FBI resisted opening probe into Trump's role in January 6th.
▶ 2:55:36Without objection, the gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry. I think it's our turn. Do you yield your time?
▶ 2:55:47track after all those unanimous consent General lady from Washington is recognized, and then the gentleman from North Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, thank you for coming here today. Um your willingness to speak directly to us and to the American people about your investigation is professional, is courageous, and it's patriotic.
▶ 2:56:07It's high time that the American people hear directly from you about the results of your investigation of President Donald Trump for his criminal actions leading up to and the day of January 6th, 2021. The facts, according to your report, are simple.
▶ 2:56:25Without a single piece of evidence, Trump sowed doubt about the 2020 election results, and urged his followers to quote, "Walk down to the capital and fight like hell January 6th." And that's exactly what they did.
▶ 2:56:39Thousands of insurrectionists violently tried to stop Congress from certifying the 2020 election and doing our duty, and they assaulted law enforcement officers, some of whom are sitting right here in the chamber with I was trapped in the House Gallery with a small number of members that day, and I will never forget the pounding on the doors and the insurrectionists threatening to kill us right outside.
▶ 2:57:10My Republican colleagues keep trying to rewrite history. They claim that somehow Trump's words and actions did not legally rise to the level of criminal activity, that he did not directly cause violence at the capital. And so, I want to set that record straight with you right now. First of all, you successfully secured indictments against Donald Trump in two major federal cases, election interference in the 2020 election, and mishandling of classified documents after leaving office.
▶ 2:57:38Is that And you've been a federal prosecutor for nearly 30 years. You led this investigation, combing through hundreds of thousands of documents, photos, videos, and communication. Did your investigation find that Donald Trump attempted to manufacture fraudulent state slates of presidential electors in seven states that he lost?
▶ 2:58:06Did he pressure state officials to ignore true vote counts in those states? Did he spread lies and conspiracies to his followers to make them believe that the election had been illegally rigged against him? Yes. Did he pressure DOJ officials to stop the certification of the of the He did.
▶ 2:58:31Did he pressure his own Vice President, Mike Pence, to stop the certification against the oath of office that he had sworn to the Constitution? He did. And when all of this didn't did he, Donald Trump, motivate and inspire an angry mob to the US Capitol to stop the certification? Uh, our proof showed uh that he caused what happened on January 6th, that it was foreseeable, uh and that he exploited that violence.
▶ 2:59:02Did Donald Trump know that his allegations of election fraud were lies when he spread them? Our proof was that he did and we intended to prove that at trial. In fact, as the quotes from your report behind me show, he even privately admitted that he lost the election, Yes.
▶ 2:59:23He said, quote, "It doesn't matter if you won or lost the election, you have to fight like hell." And he said, "Can you believe I lost to this effing During your closed-door deposition last you and I had an exchange um about the impact on our democracy, the toll on our democracy, for not holding a president accountable for trying to steal an election. Do you remember that exchange? I do.
▶ 2:59:51I want to return to it because I think what you said in the closed-door deposition is important for the American people to hear right here in your public How would you describe the toll on our democracy if we do not hold a president accountable for attempting to steal an my belief is that if we do not hold the most powerful people in our society to the same standards of the rule of law, it can be catastrophic
▶ 3:00:22uh because uh if they don't have to follow the law, it's very uh easy for to understand why people would think they don't have to follow the law as well. And so, uh I think the law should be applied equally to everyone. And what do you think the toll is for future elections and future presidents who try to steal an election? Uh I think if we don't uh hold people to account when they commit crimes, it's uh sends a message that those crimes are okay, that our society accepts that.
▶ 3:00:52Uh I believe that uh if we don't call people to account when they commit crimes in this context, uh it can endanger our election process, it can endanger election workers, and ultimately uh our democracy. The The attack on this Capitol on January 6th was uh and the Court of Appeals in Washington, DC said this, it was an attack on the structure of our democracy.
▶ 3:01:19And we could experience much worse results down the road if this happens again. I thank you for your work, for your courage, and for your patriotism, and I yield back.
▶ 3:01:27Gentlelady yields back. Gentleman from North Carolina, excuse me, North Carolina is recognized. Mr. Smith, just briefly, if there was no uh mob on January 6th that attacked the Capitol, we would not be here today, would we? I can't I can't speak to hypotheticals. Uh the case I investigated involved a a mob of supporters of Donald Trump's
▶ 3:01:55Sure, I understand that. I understand that, but if had there not been a mob that rushed the Capitol, if they had just stayed in the original speech, if they had obeyed the instruction, go peacefully and patriotically and make your voices heard, we would not be here, isn't that correct? in that case, Donald Trump wouldn't have done many of the things
▶ 3:02:15No, no, no. I'm just asking, if they had gone peacefully and patriotically, we would not have had a special prosecutor, President Trump would not have been indicted, there would not have been quote the attack on the foundations of our democracy, correct? Uh that's a hypothetical and I I think it's a counterfactual hypothetical.
▶ 3:02:33Well, and second point, in regards to what we just heard from my colleague from Washington, I think it's noteworthy that uh the Vice President, despite the enormous toll that he has taken in these events, was against charging the president criminally in this case. But in regards to my own experience, Mr. Smith, I've charged many conspiracies. There's obviously a lot of benefit to that charge.
▶ 3:02:56It's a useful tool for fact-finding, scrutinizing evidence, figuring out exactly what happened, um trying to form charges, trying to prove charges, trying to solidify the evidence. And in your case, sir, you've detailed, number one, the unprecedented criminal scheme, your words not mine, in the press conference you said there was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy. Do you remember saying that? I believe so, yes.
▶ 3:03:25And in regards to your investigative authority, it was quite it was quite broad. We've already established that you had millions of dollars at your disposal. You had teams of lawyers. You had total subpoena power. You used campaign officials as witnesses. You uh you know, millions of documents. You had civilian witnesses. You had political leaders. You had campaign officials that worked with the president, folks who were in the room.
▶ 3:03:51And after all of this, sir, you charged a conspiracy and notably absent, there was no insurrection There was no seditious conspiracy And there was only one defendant. Donald Trump. That is correct.
▶ 3:04:09Despite six co-conspirators identified in the indictment, only one person was charged. Is that correct? Yes, as
▶ 3:04:19Despite there being an unprecedented criminal scheme, you did not find it necessary to charge anybody else who was admittedly, by your own evidence, involved in a criminal conspiracy that amounted to an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy.
▶ 3:04:40Yes, at the time of uh the conclusion of our work, uh my lawyers had determined uh had believed that we did have proof to charge other people. Uh I was in the process of making that determination when our work was concluded. But you are correct that the only person charged in this case was Donald Trump, who in my estimation was the person most culpable for the crimes
▶ 3:05:04Well, I understand your position, sir, but again, you started at the very top and only charged the top conspirator in your opinion. You didn't charge anybody underneath him.
▶ 3:05:16Despite that charge requiring that you you would agree that a a criminal conspiracy federally is a criminal agreement, correct?
▶ 3:05:25So, by extension, people under your theory, people besides the president, were involved in the unprecedented assault on American democracy, but you didn't find it necessary to charge them criminally. I had not yet charged anyone besides the
▶ 3:05:43You didn't You You decided not to charge anybody but Donald Trump in that Consistent with the federal principles of prosecution, which emphasize uh the degree of someone's culpability in making a charging decision, Donald Trump is the person that was
▶ 3:05:58I understand that. I understand your position, but you made the decision to charge one person and nobody else, correct? I made the decision to make the charges in this case. In regards to the the uh the way that the case handled from there, sir, I just want to get this on the record. In regards to your press conference, politics played no role, correct? That is correct.
▶ 3:06:22you brought, politics played no role,
▶ 3:06:26The expedited trial date played no role Politics played no role, correct? I followed the facts and the law, Department policy,
▶ 3:06:35The speedy trial request, there was no role in politics, correct? That's correct. Supreme Court precedent emphasizes the And even your brief that the court found atypical, politics played no role. Mr. Mr. Chairman, the the time has
▶ 3:06:50of the gentleman has expired. The uh gentlelady from Pennsylvania is Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for being here today. I believe it's important for the American people to finally hear from you directly about your investigations uh that you and your office conducted with integrity, following the facts and the law without fear or favor, as is Department policy.
▶ 3:07:11And as people do hear from you, I think they're going to better understand why the White House and congressional Republicans are trying to rewrite history and seeking to discredit you and your investigations so that they can help the president avoid accountability for his crimes against the American people. So, I'd like to move on from some of these baseless conspiracy theories we've been hearing and focus on your actual work as special counsel. In volume one of your report, you concluded that when it became clear that Mr.
▶ 3:07:41Trump had lost the election and that lawful means of challenging the election results had failed, he resorted to a series of criminal efforts to retain power. Chief among those criminal efforts was Mr. Trump's dissemination of demonstrably and often obviously false claims of election fraud in key states, claims that Donald Trump himself knew weren't true.
▶ 3:08:04In order to pressure officials to ignore vote tallies and submit fraudulent certif- certificates of fake electors to Congress, he repeated these false claims and ultimately used them to direct an angry mob to attack the Capitol. So, I represent Southeastern Pennsylvania, which was one of the states targeted by Mr. Trump's criminal Um so, being mindful of the clock, I wanted to try to explore three topics.
▶ 3:08:29First, the evidence that Trump made false claims of election fraud in Pennsylvania knowing they were false. Second, the evidence concerning the submission of fake elector certificates from Pennsylvania to Congress. And third, why the evidence and witnesses concerning Trump's efforts in Pennsylvania were so compelling. So, first up, in your report and deposition, you detailed the overwhelming evidence that Trump had lost Pennsylvania and he knew it.
▶ 3:08:55Despite this, he and his co-conspirators continued to make false statements about that result to advance their criminal plan. Can you describe the evidence that these were false claims and they knew they were false, including statements um by election officials, court cases, and conversations between Trump and his Republican allies in the state?
▶ 3:09:22what springs to mind uh most immediately is I recall one particular claim uh that uh there were more votes than ballots than had been sent out. Uh this was a claim uh that was obviously false because many in even in the campaign uh knew uh that the reason for that discrepancy is we were talking about two different One was the primary
▶ 3:09:53and one was the um the general election. uh team interviewed Rudy Giuliani regarding that claim and he admitted it was wrong. He admitted flat out that that was a mistake. Uh and so that's one of of several.
▶ 3:10:09Uh with respect to to um in Pennsylvania what springs to mind is uh the chair of the Republican Party, I believe, in this is relatively early shortly after the election had informed Donald Trump that um his uh the the idea that fraud was the uh was not accurate.
▶ 3:10:35It was because of the counting of mail-in ballots, which was totally normal uh in this process. And again, this is someone who is a Republican who supported Donald Trump, wanted him to win. Uh I submit he would have been a a credible witness uh at trial. And I I mean, the second part of this, in addition to making false claims about um election results that they knew were false, and and your deposition and report go into this in some detail.
▶ 3:11:03There was also this fraudulent elector plan where Trump and his co-conspirators folks who had been planning to be Trump electors if he won and asking them to submit fake certificates to Congress. Um and I think what you found was pretty remarkable, including a former congressman who told the co-conspirators that this was illegal and it was an attempt to overturn the government. Is that right? That's correct.
▶ 3:11:30That particular uh elector who was signed up to be a legitimate elector had Donald Trump, in fact, won the election was a former uh US attorney and former member of this Congress. I mean, the bottom line is that despite the facts and over objections from his allies, Trump still went to the ellipse on January 6th and lied about Pennsylvania's votes to direct his angry mob to attack the capital.
▶ 3:11:57So, I just want to thank you for your work and your years of service to the country, and I would invite everyone to read your deposition and to read the report because it tells a very different story than what our colleagues do. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent.
▶ 3:12:11is recognized. Uh Mr. Chairman, I have uh I ask unanimous uh consent to enter into a record a speech by former Vice President Pence published on C-SPAN uh in June of '23 which he calls the president's comments on January 6th reckless. President Trump was wrong then, he's wrong now. Anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be president. Uh and anyone who asks someone else to put them over the Constitution should never be president.
▶ 3:12:40And I Um the gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, you've said several times in your deposition that you believe that the facts and the law, your interpretation of the law, would lead to a conviction of President Trump.
▶ 3:12:55Is that did you believe that same thing, that your interpretation of the law, your reading of the law, would have resulted in the conviction when you went after Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell back in 2014? did you believe it at the time? I did believe and uh And ultimately, you got a conviction in lower court, but that was overturned by the Supreme Court, correct?
▶ 3:13:23Yes, the Supreme Court changed the law on what constituted an official act, and as a result, that conviction was overturned.
▶ 3:13:30That's incorrect. They applied the law and they said in their ruling, "Our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It's instead with the broader legal implications of the government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute. A more limited interpretation of the term official act leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption while comporting with the text of the statute and the precedent of this court." Uh they accused you of using a boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.
▶ 3:13:57Now, did you believe when you went after John Edwards that your interpretation of the facts and the law were correct and that you would convict John Edwards of Yes. But in fact, that case resulted in a jury deadlock on five charges and acquittal on another charge. Is that correct? That is my recollection. That's correct. Let's move on to the court's interpretation of your gag order requests. Uh Mr.
▶ 3:14:27Smith, America was founded on the principle that the government doesn't silence political speech, in particular speech before it happens. You sought a prior restraint against President Trump without a single violation of pretrial release. In fact, there was no real-world harm that you could articulate justified giving the federal government the power to silence him as a presidential candidate, was The court granted those motions and found that the prosecutor did not have to wait until someone was harmed to make such a motion.
▶ 3:14:57request was uh rejected uh when the case was actually when when you actually uh were not able to it was restricted, The the gag order was restricted, correct? Well, we we filed for an order in the district court. The district court granted an order. This uh President Trump appealed that order.
▶ 3:15:21The court of appeals uh uh agreed that there was a basis uh 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. You are correct in that the uh 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.
▶ 3:15:50Did you have any evidence that President Trump's statements about the cases against him intimidated witnesses or prevented them from coming forward? Uh I had evidence that he said, "If you come after me, I'm coming after you." He asked uh he suggested a witness should be put to death. The courts found that those sort of statements not only deter witnesses who've come forward, they deter witnesses who've yet to come
▶ 3:16:14But you weren't able to identify a single witness who didn't come forward because they were intimidated by President Trump. we had extremely thorough evidence that his statements were having an effect on the proceedings that uh is not permitted in any court of law in the United Don't you think it's a pretty low bar to clear if you're trying to silence a candidate for president?
▶ 3:16:37I mean, if you can't identify a single witness who's that maybe you should reconsider the gag Both courts upheld the orders uh and it is not uh incumbent on a prosecutor to wait until someone gets killed before they move for an order to protect the proceedings. Did anyone on your team raise concerns that this expansive gag order you were seeking would infringe on President Trump's First Amendment rights?
▶ 3:17:06My recollection is that we uh of course discussed First Amendment issues regarding this application because I and my staff respect the First Amendment, but the First Amendment does not allow uh to make statements that interfere with the administrator administration of justice in a judicial proceeding.
▶ 3:17:28Uh my interpretation was supported and agreed upon by the district court uh and the court of appeals in terms of the phenomena of the statements being made targeting individuals, causing threats to happen to them. I would I would also add, sir that in the days after uh Donald Trump made some of these statements, uh the district court in this case received vile threats, threats to the district court's life.
▶ 3:17:56Uh in that environment, I felt a duty as a prosecutor to make that motion and I make no apologies.
▶ 3:18:02And the court stayed that motion on August 3rd, 2024. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Uh I should have mentioned this a little bit earlier. Mr. Smith, if ever you need a break, if you need a restroom break, uh you or your counsel can just let us know. I think it's now the gentleman from Colorado gets 5 minutes. Mr. Smith Can they Can we take a short break? we take a short break?
▶ 3:18:24I'll take a 5-10 minute uh recess and then we'll be right back at it.
▶ 3:26:14Hey, the committee will be in order.
▶ 3:26:16Mr. Mr. Chairman, will you Committee will be in order. treating these people that way. Yeah, with the Members of the audience Members of the audience will please sit down or remove themselves from the committee room. Sit down, please.
▶ 3:26:50I have to call them in. Thank you, Officer Finone. Mr. Chairman, please control the deranged observer, Mr. Raklin, so he doesn't create any other problems with us today.
▶ 3:30:13We will come to order. Mr. Chairman. Witness will go ahead and take the stand. We want want to make sure the Capitol Police remains in the room just in case we have any other concerns. Mr. Chairman, you see request with me. General lady from Washington is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a unanimous consent request. General lady is recognized.
▶ 3:30:32This is an order of the DC Circuit dated December 8th, 2023 in which the court recognizes that Donald Trump's statements about the judge in his case have led to threats against the judge where callers labeled the judge and clerk, quote, "Nazis, dirty Jews, and child molesters, and represent, quote, Mr. Trump's documented pattern of speech and its demonstrated real-time, real-world consequences Without posed a significant and imminent threat to the functioning of the criminal trial process in this case."
▶ 3:31:02Without objection. A lot. Uh and the gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Thank you for being here. Thank you for your service to our My colleague from Virginia, his Republican colleague who was questioning you right before the break, do you know what he said in the days after January 6th? Let me share this with you.
▶ 3:31:30This is a quote of his from a press release on January 8th. Congress stands united in our rejection of the violence that occurred this week, and I'll continue to urge the swift of those involved to the fullest extent of the law. Mr. Smith, this is theater. Republicans are trying to rewrite That's what this is.
▶ 3:31:58Many of them were with us in the House chamber on January 6th. I remember it well. The chairman was as was I. There's been a lot of discussion about witnesses today. Perhaps the chairman could muster the courage to call the four witnesses who I see, the American public may not see, I see standing behind you, Mr. Smith, the four police officers who risked everything, life and limb, to do what?
▶ 3:32:28To protect the Republican members on the It's an outrage that they now sit here and have the audacity to try to rewrite history in front of the very officers who sacrificed everything to protect Mr. Smith, you're of course aware that President Trump was impeached for his conduct connected to January 6th,
▶ 3:32:59Do you know how many members of Congress voted to impeach him? I don't recall.
▶ 3:33:03232. Do you know how many Republican members of Congress voted to impeach I don't recall. 10 Republican members of Congress voted to impeach him for his conduct related to January 6th, including at the time the sitting Republican chairwoman of their conference. There was a trial in the United States Senate. Senators sat as jurors. I remember it well because I was one of the prosecutors who prosecuted that case.
▶ 3:33:31Do you know how many senators voted to convict President Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors during that trial, Mr. I don't recall. 57 senators. Do you know how many Republicans voted to convict I don't recall. Seven Republican United States senators voted to convict President Trump of high crimes and It was the most bipartisan vote for conviction of a president in the history of the Republic.
▶ 3:33:59they can engage in as much histrionics as they want to try to rewrite history, but facts are facts. They talk about weaponization. They accuse you of of weaponization of the justice system. While the Federal Reserve Board chairman sing rings the alarm about political retaliation by this Department of Justice. Mr. Smith, I don't know if you're aware of this.
▶ 3:34:28I don't know if your counsel has made you that President Trump is live tweeting, live, I guess you call it Truth as we speak. Are you aware of this about this hearing? Let me read to you what he posted an hour and a half ago. Deranged Jack Smith is being decimated before Congress. It was over when they discussed his past failures and unfair prosecutions. He destroyed many lives under the guise of legitimacy. Jack Smith is a deranged animal who shouldn't be allowed to practice law.
▶ 3:34:57If he were a Republican, his license would be taken away from him and far worse. Hopefully, the Attorney General is looking at what he's done. We have a word for this. It's called weaponization. It's called corruption. Mr. Smith, if you care to respond, I'll give you an opportunity, but I will simply say we are grateful for your service to this country.
▶ 3:35:23We appreciate your fidelity to the rule of law, and I would echo the comments that have been made by my Democratic colleagues to ignore the noise that you hear from so many of my colleagues who would debase themselves in this way. It is, in my view, of the oaths that we took to defend the Constitution. I'm happy to give you an opportunity, Mr. Smith, if you'd like to respond. I don't have anything to add.
▶ 3:35:53Thank you for your service. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
▶ 3:35:57Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 2010, Mr. Smith, did you work for the President President Obama's Department of Justice? Yes, in 2010, I was the chief of the Public Integrity Section. During that time, did you have any contact or connection with Lois Lerner with the Obama IRS? Yes. Uh I was new to the Public Integrity Section. I was the chief. Uh I was uh trying to learn about issues I had not been at.
▶ 3:36:25Did you attempt to work with Lois Lerner in the IRS to investigate nonprofits? What I did uh was I I asked for a meeting with the IRS uh about Uh they
▶ 3:36:39So, so the simple answer is yes, correct? Well, I I didn't ask to work with Ms. Lerner. They sent Ms. Lerner. That's the person who came to this meeting. I met her once. And they went after Second Amendment groups, correct? If you remember correctly, that was that's what was the offshoot of it, that Second Amendment groups that tried to gain nonprofit status, they were slow-rolled through the IRS. Do you recall that?
▶ 3:37:02Separate from this, there was an investigation of that uh that I was a part of in the Public Integrity Did you uh you prosecuted uh Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. This was asked earlier. You prosecuted him, correct? I I was uh part of the prosecution, yes. It was
▶ 3:37:18And that ended up with a um being that decision ended up being unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court, correct? That is correct, sir. Yeah, including Justice Gins- Ginsburg joined in on that opinion, correct? I I believe that's correct. Yeah. You also prosecuted John Edwards and Bob Menendez, and those both ended in mistrials. Is that right? The uh the John Edwards case did.
▶ 3:37:46The Menendez case, I had left the Public Integrity Section by the time uh that case uh was was tried. I wasn't
▶ 3:37:53So, Mr. Chairman, what we heard from the other side here is that this gentleman is the gold standard uh for prosecution here in the United States. So, think about it. We had a witch hunt done by the IRS going after Second Amendment groups, unanimously overturned by the Supreme Prosecuted two prominent political figures, and they ended up as mistrials. That's the gold standard here in I would just say this, Mr. Chairman. If Mr.
▶ 3:38:21Smith ever works for the Department of Justice again, I would recommend a remedial course on the First Amendment to the Constitution. Um before I yield the rest of my time, Mr. Smith, I just have one other uh question. Is there any historical precedent for an alternate slate of electors to be sent to Congress? Has that ever happened before? Uh that had happened. Uh not anything similar to this situation, but you're correct.
▶ 3:38:48It was in Hawaii I think it was Hawaii in I want to say the 1960 election. So, it has happened before that there was an alternate slate of electors that was sent to Congress, which does the electoral count. Correct? There was a prior time that an electoral slate was sent uh where there was litigation and recounts going.
▶ 3:39:11Actually, there's um twice that it happened, Mr. Chairman. It happened in 1876 and 1960 that these alternate electors happened. I'd like to ask unanimous consent to introduce the 1960 Hawaii case. I object. With that, I yield to the chairman. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The gentleman from uh Colorado talked about noise from this side. It's not noise, it's facts. The fact is you approved a $20,000 payment to a confidential human source.
▶ 3:39:38And I think you said earlier the reason this individual or entity or person was paid was to review photo and video Why did they have to be confidential? Why didn't you just contract with them? Um my understanding is that this person was a confidential human source with the FBI. I do not know why they were confidential, but it would make sense to uh given that this person was assisting
▶ 3:40:06uh well, confidential just raises the question of what were you trying to hide? Why not tell us? We know you hid the fact that you were getting phone records from members of Congress. We want to know why this payment had to be hidden. Why couldn't you just uh which would be the customary normal way I think of doing it?
▶ 3:40:25I did not uh make the determination that this that this source would be confidential, but given that this person was working on an investigation uh with involving attacks on the capital and given the violence uh in that, uh it makes complete sense to me that this the bureau would
▶ 3:40:42of any of the other special counsels who approved uh payments to Like, I don't remember Robert Mueller approving payments to confidential human sources. I don't remember Durham. I don't remember Hur. We brought all those guys in front of the committee. It's the first time I've ever heard of a special counsel having to pay secret money to someone to get information when you had the broadest subpoena power you could possibly have. Do you remember any of the other special counsels had to do this?
▶ 3:41:11I am not aware uh whether confidential sources were or were not used in those
▶ 3:41:17That's because I don't think they were. I don't think they were. I'm not aware one way or the other. I can say that the use of confidential human sources is a standard uh uh thing done by the Federal Bureau of Investigations. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired. I now yield to the gentlelady from Georgia for 5 minutes, Ms. McBath. Thank you, Chairman. And Mr. Smith, thank you for appearing today to speak publicly about the major issues that you handled as special counsel.
▶ 3:41:43Your work on election interference in my home state is especially important as Georgia still today remains ground zero for voting rights. My state has a long history of voter suppression, including violent tactics and legislation that has actively disenfranchised our voters. In fact, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Georgia in 2023 challenging recently passed voter suppression legislation.
▶ 3:42:09That lawsuit was later withdrawn by Donald Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi. But this is not the first time that Donald Trump has encouraged voter suppression. In the 2020 presidential election, which many have accepted that he lost, he pressured his party members to overturn a legal election. Thankfully, several public servants upheld our constitutional process and respected the voice of the people.
▶ 3:42:37Your investigation revealed how far he is willing to go. In your final report, you wrote that, and I'm quoting, "The through line of all Mr. Trump's criminal efforts was deceit." Knowingly false claims of fraud. Mr. Smith, what did your investigation reveal about President Trump's interactions with Georgia's officials regarding his frauds claims?
▶ 3:43:05Uh as I sit here now, I can recall uh two specific officials. Uh the first was the Secretary of State uh uh who was a uh fellow Republican. My understanding, he voted for and supported Donald Trump in the election, uh but uh told Donald Trump in a uh conversation that was recorded in no uncertain terms uh the results of the election and debunked uh many of the fraud claims that Donald Trump had to him in
▶ 3:43:35real Uh in addition to that, uh I recall that uh Donald Trump also spoke firsthand with the Attorney General of your state, also Republican, who informed Donald Trump that he had supported him and voted for him twice in the past. He also told Donald Trump he would did not see uh outcome to term the fraud in that I have an audio from a phone call between Trump and the Georgia Secretary of State regarding the 2020 election.
▶ 3:44:04Could you please play the the audio? Sir, I agree. The people of the country are angry. And there's nothing wrong with saying that, you know, uh that you've recalculated. Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong. So, look, what I want to do is this. I just want to find votes, which is one more than we have.
▶ 3:44:35Because we won the state. Mr. Smith, you explained in your deposition that Georgia's Secretary of State was one of the witnesses who disabused President Trump's false claims. How did Georgia's Secretary of State push back against Trump's efforts?
▶ 3:44:50Uh I think my recollection is in this same call uh President Trump repeatedly uh raised fraud claims and uh the Secretary of State repeatedly explained not only that they weren't true, but in I believe my recollection is in several instances explained why they weren't Um and I believe that call ended uh my recollection is it it ended uh with President Trump in essence threatening
▶ 3:45:20uh the Secretary of State that he might be a target for criminal uh prosecution if he didn't do what President Trump wanted him to do. So, see, that raises a very critical point. President Trump didn't just spread lies about the election. In your words, and I'm quoting, "He preyed on" in quote "Republican officials in Georgia and other states who believed would help him." Mr. Smith, Donald Trump thought these officials would break the law out of party loyalty.
▶ 3:45:50And when those officials, his own political allies, told him the truth, he dismissed them and continued to spread the lies anyway. Is that correct? That is correct. Mr. Smith, if your case had gone to trial, would the evidence from Georgia have helped prove that President Trump knowingly engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 Yes, after an investigation uh following the facts and the law, we believed we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt
▶ 3:46:20to prove those charges. And in your deposition, you mentioned a fake elector witness in Georgia who you thought would have been a very powerful uh witness at trial. Can you tell us a little bit more about that in a very limited amount of
▶ 3:46:33Sure. It was a witness who had been uh made to understand that his electoral uh uh vote, his alternative elector vote, would only be used if they won in court, if they won in litigation. Uh that didn't happen and uh President Trump and his co-conspirators tried to use those alternative uh uh fake elector certificates uh to get Mr. Chairman, regular order. Okay. Well, Mr.
▶ 3:47:00Smith, thank you so much for your the work that you and your team of career prosecutors have put forth in uncovering this evidence. The American people need to know what happened, and they need to know how their president pressured Georgia state officials
▶ 3:47:12Time of the gentlelady has expired. to overturn their free
▶ 3:47:16uh Alabama has unanimous consent request. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh December 6th, 2025, Atlanta News First. Fulton County admits to verifying votes in the 2020 without poll worker I yield back. Uh without objection, the chair now recognizes it for 5 minutes, the gentleman from Arizona. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, isn't it true that for a federal criminal conspiracy charge, it requires more than one individual?
▶ 3:47:43It In other words, you're making a contractual agreement of some kind with somebody other than yourself, right? That is correct. There has to be an agreement. And so, when you made the determination to charge President Trump with conspiracy, you surely knew that you had somebody else that he had must have agreed upon to to to engage in this act that generated the conspiracy.
▶ 3:48:14That's correct. We alleged specific individuals in the indictment as co-conspirators. And so when you So you knew who you were going to do when you who you were going to when you pursued the indictment. You had the you knew who the agreeing parties were, but you chose to list them as co-conspirators, but you didn't indict them. How often have you done that in the past?
▶ 3:48:42In the past, I have had number of cases where I have charged some members of the conspiracy and not charged others.
▶ 3:48:49member of the conspiracy. How many times have you done that? Charged some one member of the conspiracy and let everybody else off the hook. I I'm sure I that's happened. That is not an
▶ 3:49:00You don't remember doing that. That is not an uncommon uh thing to do in an investigation. In my So So, okay. I I dispute that, but we're going to leave that as as as it may, but let's just get to this. If a member of Congress moves to decertify a state's electors, that would not be a crime, would it? When you say to decertify
▶ 3:49:23You make a motion to decertify on that January 6th that we every 4 That's not a uh that's not a crime, right? Correct. And if another elected official urged someone to join them in that decertification, that's not a crime either, right? As you stated, it's not. Several members of Congress get together over breakfast. They say, "This is This is the normal path.
▶ 3:49:48We watched it because we saw the Democrats do it for every Republican So we don't not sure how to do it. We've never done it before. That's not a crime to sit down at breakfast to talk about that or any other time together to talk about decertification, is it? No, it's not a crime to talk about that over breakfast.
▶ 3:50:09In your deposition, you talked about uh you made the argument that an elected official who's been deemed to have lost could not knowingly make false statements about election fraud to target a love a lawful government operation. Isn't that true? That's what you said in your deposition, page 27. I I believe it's a lawful government function is Yeah, I'm sure. Yeah, law- lawful government function. That's what you said. You remember saying that? Uh I said lawful government function. Could you read back what you said again? I'm sorry.
▶ 3:50:38An elected it is uh See, an elected official who's been deemed to have lost could not knowingly make false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function. You said that would be illegal. Remember that page 52? Do you want me to actually read this back? Surely you remember that position.
▶ 3:50:54I'm I'm not denying it, and I apologize. I'm just trying to listen to you closely. Okay. Let's Let's just go right from from the from this. The you said there's uh as we said in the indictment, he was free to say that he thought he won the election, right? That is correct.
▶ 3:51:10He's even free to say falsely falsely that he won the election, That's correct. What you said is he was not free to do was violate federal law and use knowing knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function. That is correct. Yeah, and for you the that lawful government function is uh the decertification process, I suppose, on January 6th.
▶ 3:51:39Well, it's it's a slightly broader than that. It's the collecting, counting, and certifying of the votes. Our view of the evidence is that begins from the point of time that the electors are certified through the counting of the votes. So that would be So the entire So the entire certification process from the state to the feds. My recollection as it's pled in the indictment as I sit here, I don't have it in front of me, but I believe it's December 14th. I think that was the day through the
▶ 3:52:09Okay. So So you can't recall, but it for you it's from the certification moving forward to the cert- actual ratification of the certification process in on Inaugural Day. My recollection that's what we pled in the indictment. Yes. So So you've managed to filibuster us right out of this thing, but uh your your beef was you said that President Trump uh engendered a a level of distrust.
▶ 3:52:35You said he made false statements to state legislators, to his supporters of all sorts, and somehow you discerned that his supporters were angry, and that that was somehow related to a criminal offense. I find that absolutely weak. I think it's misdirected, and Time of the gentleman Time of the gentleman's expired. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 3:52:55Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record Axios dated August 2nd, 2023, "Barr says Trump's First Amendment argument in January 6th case is not valid." Did you have one? Okay. Um gentlelady from North Carolina is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um Mr. Smith, many of us were here on January 6th and directly experienced what happened.
▶ 3:53:26Yet some of my colleagues across the aisle still insist that Trump had no role in the violence. In videos of the raging battle against our brave Capitol Police officers, many rioters were screaming things like, "We were invited here by the president." Mr.
▶ 3:53:47Smith, did your investigation uncover evidence that some of the rioters had gone to the Capitol because they really believed the president had invited them there? there were uh I believe there's video of uh of rioters saying in fact that and as we pled in the indictment uh the uh knowing lies that he Donald Trump uh put out in the
▶ 3:54:17weeks leading up to that uh led to a level of distrust, and he ultimately knew that the crowd uh at the Capitol uh or at the Ellipse, I should uh was angry before he he told them to march toward the Capitol. And we've seen report after report of rioters who have said that if Donald Trump had not convinced them that the election had been stolen, they might not have even come to Washington.
▶ 3:54:44I'm going to share some quotes from some of those rioters. "I believed I was following up on the instructions of of former President Trump," one rioter said about going to the Capitol. "I marched to the US Capitol because President Trump said to do so," another said.
▶ 3:55:00"He personally asked for me to come that day," said Can you give us a few examples of Trump's rhetoric and language that inspired people to go to the Capitol believing that they were going on the president's direct order?
▶ 3:55:23One instance I can recall is during uh the uh uh the speech he gave to his supporters, and in context his supporters he told them to come to Washington DC and be wild. Uh he was on notice that they were angry.
▶ 3:55:41And he told that crowd um "We can't let this happen." And he told them that I my recollection is multiple times at a time when there was nothing that could be done to to stop the outcome of the election but to obstruct it.
▶ 3:55:57Uh in addition to that, he told them, "When there is fraud, you can go uh by different rules." And my my recollection is there is uh video tape of when he's making these sort of statements, and he's saying that they need to fight if they want to save their country.
▶ 3:56:15Uh there are in fact people in the crowd chanting, "Fight for Trump." Uh that that all happened during uh the Ellipse speech before uh people headed towards the uh Capitol and the Capitol was attacked. And did your investigation find any of the rioters trying to use Trump's words and calls to action as a defense in the criminal cases against them?
▶ 3:56:44I can read you something from your special counsel report if you'd
▶ 3:56:47going to say I think we cited a number of rioters who ultimately admitted that uh they had committed their crimes at the behest and in the name of Donald Trump. Okay. Um and it happened several times. Um and many of those um accounts are on page 86 and page 87 of the special counsel report.
▶ 3:57:11Even the lawyer for Jacob Chansley, also known as the QAnon Shaman, highlighted that his words how the words affected his client. He wor- heard the words of the president. He believed them. He genuinely believed them, and he thought that the president was actually going to walk with them to the Capitol. Um for my final question, Mr.
▶ 3:57:32Smith, do you believe that Donald Trump motivated and was responsible for the violence that occurred on that day, even if he didn't walk with them to the Yes, as we as we stated in our report uh uh the results of our investigation following the facts and following the law was that he was the person most responsible for what happened at the Capitol, and that he caused what would happen at the Capitol, and that it was foreseeable to him. Thank you.
▶ 3:58:02Uh Mr. Chairman, I have two UCs. Gentle, I can state her unanimous consent request. Um I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a tweet from Representative Biggs on January 7th, 2021, in which he said, quote, "Yesterday criminal rioters hijacked a joint session of Congress." No objection.
▶ 3:58:23And uh the second one is a unanimous consent to enter into the record an interview from March 2024 on the Capitol Hill Show in which you called on those who attacked um the Capitol on January 6th to be, quote, "held accountable because, quote, that's the way our system does work and should work." Objection. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
▶ 3:58:48the gentleman from Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, how many members of Congress or the Senate did you subpoena phone toll records? Uh as I sit here right now, I do do not recall a specific number. Is this the complete list right here? Let me ask you this. Am I on this list? Did you target my records and subpoena my phone toll records?
▶ 3:59:19my understanding is your records were subpoenaed by prosecutors before uh I became special counsel. Well, if staff would put this up on the Um thankful for the great staff who discovered the email where I learned for the first time a few weeks ago that my phone records were indeed We called AT&T and we've learned that they were given to the Department of as this email indicates because I've been in communication with Scott Perry.
▶ 3:59:48One of my colleagues here in Congress who literally had his phone taken from him in front of his family. And of course, as we've already talked about in this document, it talks about you could be in violation of privilege by even obtaining and possessing this information if the member objected to the disclosure. This happened 4 years ago in May of 2022 and I couldn't object because I didn't I didn't know until about 3 weeks ago. My question here is was there any limits to your investigation or the investigation that preceded you, Mr.
▶ 4:00:16Because as egregious as a violation of separation of powers this is, is an egregious and abusive power it is. It's far more concerning you were clearly targeting American citizens for merely being conservative or supporting the president. We've got memos that we've already been talking about in this hearing from April 2022 that preceded you that establish and open the investigations, one of which has Attorney General Merrick Garland's signature on it. And the focus was the electors. Now, that was 6 months 6 months before you were appointed.
▶ 4:00:46You testified earlier you met and interviewed Merrick Garland and Deputy AG Lisa Monaco. And you briefed the AG and Deputy multiple times. Did you brief them on the electors and the prosecution of their supposed crimes? Did I I'm sorry, say
▶ 4:00:58Did you brief them on the electors and their supposed crimes? I don't recall specific uh conversations, but I'm sure that in the course of briefing them, I discussed
▶ 4:01:09Wasn't that the purpose of the entire investigation as it was set out? Cuz putting aside that in 1960, it was already talked about my friend, Mr. Tiffany, that Hawaii put forward an alternate slate of electors, the investigation pivoted to President Trump and frankly, anybody who knew him. Do you know who Cleta Mitchell is? Yes, I do. She's an election lawyer that was involved in filing an election contest on behalf of President Trump in Georgia in December of 2020.
▶ 4:01:35A 64-page complaint with over 1,100 pages of exhibits, witness affidavits, and expert witness reports documenting thousands of votes cast in violation of Georgia law, but which were nevertheless included in the vote totals. Now, notwithstanding the disposition of the cases that that was filed, is that a criminal act? Filing an election contest on behalf of a candidate for office, a client. Is that a criminal act? Yes or no? No, in fact, we stated
▶ 4:02:03So, why did you deem it appropriate to monitor Cleta Mitchell's long-distance phone records in 2023, 2 and 1/2 years after the election contest was filed and after the presidential electors were What about Jenna Ellis? What about Sidney Powell? What about Bill Stepien? What crime did you suspect had been committed by them that would warrant monitoring their phone records 2 and 1/2 years after the 2020 the 2020 election was certified?
▶ 4:02:32Uh with respect to Sidney Powell, uh she is one of the co-conspirators alleged in the indictment. Uh I I don't know what you mean by monitoring, sir. If you're talking
▶ 4:02:42Well, there were some 400-plus Republican conservative groups and leaders who were targeted by your investigation. Their financial records were obtained, records of the RNC, the Trump campaign, Cleta Mitchell, the Conservative Partnership Institute, the America First Policy Institute, NRCC, NRSC, PACs, conservative groups, people all across the country, citizens. Cuz we hear a lot about members of Congress. And we should because of separation of powers and the egregious abuse of power. But what we're not talking about enough, in my opinion, are the American citizens that have been targeted.
▶ 4:03:11Cuz frankly, are there any limits to the power of a special prosecutor, a special counsel? So much so in your abuse of power that in the summer of 2024, the indictment involving classified documents was dismissed after determining your appointment violated the appointments clause of the Constitution, but you continue to sign your name on court filings until the time you resigned from office in January 2025.
▶ 4:03:34A federal judge has recently stated a prosecutor who continues to sign his name on court filings after a disqualification order should face disciplinary action or disbarment. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The uh The gentleman have the opportunity to respond? If the gentleman wants to respond, he can. With respect to the last point, Judge Cannon's order specifically limited her finding to that proceeding.
▶ 4:03:57So, there would be nothing improper about uh continuing to litigate the cases in uh Washing the case in Washington, D.C. And with respect to uh Florida, uh there was nothing improper about uh taking a an appeal of that very decision. The gentlelady from Vermont is recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr.
▶ 4:04:17Smith, I want to discuss volume two of your report, which summarizes the findings of your investigation into President Trump's hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and his efforts to obstruct the FBI's investigation. Mr. Smith, is it generally the practice for a special counsel's report to be made public to the American people? I I want to say first uh I'm limited in what I can say about volume two because of uh Judge Cannon's order.
▶ 4:04:47Uh I can say generally that uh with respect to special special counsels, there are regulations uh that direct a special counsel to draft a report. Whether that report becomes public is uh determined uh the Attorney General has the authority to determine that. To the best of your uh knowledge, was Special Counsel Mueller's report made public in full? Uh I know it was made public. I'm not sure if it was made public in full. What about Special Counsel Hur's report?
▶ 4:05:18My recollection is his report was made made public in full. I believe that's correct. And Special Counsel Weiss's I do not know. Okay. Now, I understand that the district judge, Aileen Cannon, the Trump appointee who oversaw the case in Florida, issued a gag order that prevents you from discussing any parts of the classified documents investigation that is not already public. I understand that. Including your findings that you laid out in volume two of that report.
▶ 4:05:48Am I correct that the reason your report is not available in full to the public is because of this gag order? I I wrote a report uh the Attorney General that was submitted to him. I understand generally that there's been litigation about whether this report would be public or not. I have not been a party to that litigation.
▶ 4:06:11I just know that there is an order and I know uh the Department of Justice, the current Department of Justice, has interpreted that in order in a way that I cannot speak about anything that uh could possibly be in that report uh in its findings. And and when Judge Cannon issued that gag order, she cited pending cases against Trump's co-defendants. Is that correct? I'm sorry. When Judge Cannon issued the gag she cited pending cases against Trump's co-defendants.
▶ 4:06:41Is that correct? That's my recollection. Are those cases still No, they're not. No, they're not. So, there is no reason from where I sit for this important information to be not made public. At this point, I want to turn now to President Trump's attacks on you. Trump has a playbook for how he handles people who try to hold him accountable.
▶ 4:07:06In August 2023, right after your office indicted him, President Trump shared that playbook on social media for everyone to see. He wrote, "If you go after me, I'm coming for you." Trump has said that you, Mr. Smith, should be investigated and put in prison. He called you a disgrace to humanity, a radical left Marxist, a criminal. In fact, Trump has used the words "deranged Jack Smith" 185 times on Truth Social.
▶ 4:07:36How do you think that these statements have impacted you, your staff, and your investigations? With respect to me, I think the reports, I'm sorry, the statements uh are meant to intimidate me. Uh I will not be intimidated. Uh I think these statements are also made uh, as a warning to others what will happen if they stand up. And uh, I am as I said, I'm not going to be intimidated.
▶ 4:08:06Uh, we did our work pursuant to Department policy. We followed the facts and we followed the law and that uh, process resulted in proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed serious crimes. I'm not going to pretend that didn't happen because he's threatening me. And Mr.
▶ 4:08:23Smith, do you believe that President Trump's Department of Justice will find some way to indict Uh, I believe that they will do everything in their power to do that because they've been ordered to by the That's very concerning, obviously. It's very concerning to all of us, at least on this side of the aisle. This is Trump's playbook at work.
▶ 4:08:48Complain loudly, gin up hatred and resentment, then express a hope that somebody will do something, but never explicitly order anyone to act, and then watch as his followers and loyalists go after their targets. This is what happened on January 6th. Trump stood at the ellipse and gave a campaign speech to his supporters. And he said, "If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." And I think it's clear that his intimidation will stop at nothing.
▶ 4:09:17I want to speak on behalf, in closing, I want to speak on behalf
▶ 4:09:21No closing. Chairman regular order.
▶ 4:09:23I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, regular order.
▶ 4:09:26gone over numerous times.
▶ 4:09:28Time belongs to the gentleman from Vermont. I'll let you go a couple more
▶ 4:09:31all day. Thank you. On behalf of the people of the state of Vermont, thank you for all of your 30 years of service to this country and to the police officer sitting here. I'm ashamed. I'm ashamed that you have not gotten your due. Time of the gentlelady has expired. Gentleman from New Jersey is rec- I've got a UC request. Gentleman uh, ranking member is recognized for UC. Thank you. Finally, Mr.
▶ 4:09:55Chairman, the first is a New York Times article titled Hunting Leaks, Trump DOJ officials seized records of Democrats, explaining how the uh, the Trump administration subpoenaed Apple for data from the Council of at least a dozen people tied to the House Intelligence Committee in 2017-18, including Representative Swalwell and Senator Adam Schiff. Without objection.
▶ 4:10:16And the other, similarly, um, is Trump's DOJ secretly obtained phone and text message logs of 43 congressional staffers and two members of Congress that's December 10, 2024. Without objection. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey. Thank you, Chairman. You know, I don't even know where to go cuz there's so much, Mr. Smith. There really is.
▶ 4:10:36But it isn't What I do know is it's much more than how much people like or hate you or like or hate Donald Trump or like or hate Republicans or like or hate Democrats. This is about the system. It's about what the Department of Justice did. It's about what you did. The core of the hearing it is all about can Americans still trust the justice system? Is it fair?
▶ 4:11:03Was it fair under And all they expect, they don't expect you to be perfect, but they expect you to treat everyone the same, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, but that wasn't the case. When you treat people differently because of their political status, their political party, their ideals, that's hypocrisy.
▶ 4:11:26And I'm sorry to say, and I don't say it lightly, I do consider you to be a With that being said, um, you know, I think the prosecutors and the people around you stretch norms, change standards depending upon who was under investigation. So, you don't like Donald Trump and so you're a liberal demo- whatever the case may be. And they went after him.
▶ 4:11:50And by the way, it's interesting in all those congressional records that were subpoenaed, all those congressional records that were looked at, was one of them a Democrat? The answer is no. I'll answer for you. So, I got simple questions. I always say I'm a simple guy, but it really boils down to this. How much can Americans trust this system?
▶ 4:12:13In your special counsel report, you stated President Trump engaged and was guilty of criminal conspiracies and he was guilty of criminal conduct and you publicly testified you believed you had the proof, etc. If prosecutors deal this way with cases, if they declare that it's guilty and it's over before a jury verdict, would Americans trust the justice system more or would they? Would they trust the system more? The answer would God, answer, please answer. I'm I'm I'm sorry. I I didn't I didn't understand what you were asking me.
▶ 4:12:43So, when this was all going on be- before, and I believe it was political, before there was an entire case and we went through the whole case, you pretty much declare, and I'm not going to read the whole thing through again, that President Trump was guilty. That wasn't your job. That's a judge's job, it's a jury's job, it's not your job. Don't you think that's unfair, that that's wrong, that wasn't didn't make the playing field level? Didn't make people less trustworthy of the system? Yes or no? No.
▶ 4:13:13When I announced the charges in the election case, I specifically stated uh, that the case needed to be tried and uh, that he had a right to go to trial and he was presumed innocent.
▶ 4:13:23And thank you for I just want a simple answer cuz we are limited on time. I disagree with you. I don't think you Your office secretly subpoenaed and phone record got records of members of Congress. And you kept those subpoenas hidden through non-disclosure orders. That's wrong. They should have known. You want to do that, fine. It's wrong. Number one, it's wrong because people have a right The American public has a right to know. The elected officials have a right to know. It's your right to subpoena them, but they should know.
▶ 4:13:53Secondly, and I brought this up before, not one Democrat. It's all Republicans, all Republicans. Everything you've done, everything you've ever done is always against Republicans. Do you think that puts more trust in the system when you're so partisan in that way? Yes or No. Politics played no role in our investigation. I have prosecuted Republicans and Democrats throughout my career. I have dismissed cases against Republicans and Democrats.
▶ 4:14:20didn't have the proof. If prosecutors routinely rely on politically imbalanced investigations, and by this I mean, let me appeal to your sense of fairness. You're saying you're a fair man. We had a January 6th committee, select committee, that was appointed only by a Democrat, the then speaker Nancy Pelosi. Everybody on it was a Democrat except two Republicans that hated Republicans. Was that fair? Was that fair?
▶ 4:14:49I mean, look at our system here in Congress. We've got Democrats, man, they speak up. You've got Republicans, we speak up. You hear both sides. That's the way a select committee should be. And you based everything upon this biased, unfair, prejudiced system? How was that fair? Tell me how that's fair. That's not correct. We conducted an independent
▶ 4:15:12a lot on that commission. You got all their records. That's not correct. We did collect their records. We conducted our own independent investigation following the facts and the law. The
▶ 4:15:22And you used a lot of their information, Mr. Smith. I don't mean to cut you off. I've got limited time. Joe Biden took classified records that were not to be taken when he was vice president and when he was senate. And I know you didn't deal directly with that Mr. Chairman. But nevertheless, he did. Is that fair because he let him go, don't do anything to him, but on the other hand, when it's President Trump who did it as president, then there was all and you raided Mar-a-Lago. Is that
▶ 4:15:52Time of the gentleman. Time of the gentleman has expired. I like him to answer. This one would like to respond, he can. I I have no response.
▶ 4:15:58It's damn unfair. That's the answer.
▶ 4:16:00We've got UC requests. UC request from the gentlelady from California.
▶ 4:16:03Yes, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the government's sentencing memorandum for Capitol rioter Cody Mathes, who said that, quote, "When the former president asked his supporters to march on the Capitol, it was not a call Without objection. to storm and seize the building." And I I've got one, Mr. Chairman. Gentleman is recognized. This is a press release from Congressman Jeff Van Drew's statement on storming the Capitol building, calling it unacceptable, un-American, and disrespectful of democracy.
▶ 4:16:33Without objection. Uh, the chair now recognizes gentleman from Illinois. Thank you, uh, Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Smith, for being here today. Let's remember why we're here today. Donald Trump incited an insurrection in 2020 because he refused to accept that he lost that election. And when he and then he took classified documents with him and put them in Mar-a-Lago.
▶ 4:17:00Republicans support impunity for criminals, not accountability. There's no clearer example than that of the blanket pardon of nearly 1,600 insurrectionists on day one of this disgraceful presidency. Trump pardoned people convicted of seditious conspiracy, who brutalized police officers. There are four of them who can testify to that here, and who wanted to kill Vice President Pence.
▶ 4:17:29People who've committed more crimes since the insurrection, sexual assault, child molestation, aggravated That's who Trump pardoned and that's whose side Republicans are on. They may not want to, but they are because they refuse to tell the truth. Mr. Smith, let me ask you something.
▶ 4:17:49Does pardoning violent rioters who brutalized law enforcement officers, spray peppering them, tazing them, beating them up, kicking them, smashing them in door frames, make our country Absolutely not. As a prosecutor, can you describe why these pardons make our communities less safe and undermine our criminal legal system more broadly?
▶ 4:18:25The people the the people who assaulted police officers and were convicted after uh in my view and I think in the view of the judges who sentenced them to prison are dangerous to their community. Um as you've mentioned, some of these people have already uh committed crimes against their communities again and I think all of us if we're reasonable know that there's going to be more crimes committed by these people uh in the future.
▶ 4:18:52Uh I do not understand why you would mass pardon people who assaulted police officers. I don't get it. I never That's exactly right. And none of this is a coincidence. The entire purpose of the Republican Party unfortunately has become to help criminals and corporate interests evade accountability. Republicans want impunity, not accountability.
▶ 4:19:19They want impunity for the January 6th people, for the classified documents case, for the Epstein files, for billionaires and big corporations, and for terror that DHS is sowing on our streets.
▶ 4:19:36The Gestapo tactics by ICE and CBP are the obvious result of President Trump and the Republican Party that protect anyone who helps them turn our country into an authoritarian gangsters state. Whether it's storming the capital to overthrow an election or murdering people in broad daylight, Republicans will back you if you back their political mafia and racketeering operation.
▶ 4:20:04That's why Democrats must fight for accountability, through oversight, through legislation, evidence collection, and through prosecution for the openly criminal acts that we're seeing in our communities every day. Democracy doesn't exist without accountability, but you got to have a I thank you, Mr. Smith, for doing your part.
▶ 4:20:31Our community Our fight continues for accountability, not for impunity. Thank you and I yield back. Mr. Chairman, I would uh yield to the gentleman from New York. Um Mr. Smith, I just want to take a minute and allow you to explain why you requested the toll records of those officials for January 6th. Uh for the January 6th investigation. Yeah. Correct?
▶ 4:21:00Uh well, uh with regard uh to the toll records uh that uh were subpoenaed uh regarding the period of the 4th, I think it was to the 7th. Uh we had evidence uh that the president had directed uh Rudy Giuliani, uh one of his co-conspirators, to contact members of Congress uh to try to further delay the proceedings and exploit the violence that happened in the capital. Uh we had evidence that those calls had happened.
▶ 4:21:29Uh we wanted to get more evidence of that to corroborate it for Uh that is again as I've mentioned earlier today, a standard part of an investigation uh to understand who a conspiracy is trying to reach out to, how they're trying to influence people. And you want a documentary confirmation. Yes, correct. Time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Nehls, is
▶ 4:21:54Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, I'll just cut right to the chase here. Your investigation and attempted prosecution of President Trump, it wasn't about justice. It was about Politics. From day one under the Biden-Harris DOJ, you weaponized the law to go after their top political You pushed flawed legal theories and even the far-left Washington Post called you out. They called you out, sir, for violating the First Amendment.
▶ 4:22:25You tried to criminalize political slapped unlawful gag orders on a presidential candidate, and spied on Republican members of Congress in violation of the speech or debate clause, including the sitting speaker of the House. Mr. Smith, you mishandled documents, pressured defense lawyers, and dumped a massive trove of so-called evidence right before the election, and you did it you did it to sway voters. That's why you did it.
▶ 4:22:55And don't get me started on that raid at Mar-a-Lago or your unconstitutional appointment, which a federal judge in Florida rightly tossed out. A very bad day for you. This wasn't, Mr. Smith, about upholding the law. It was about tearing down President Trump and anyone anyone close to him. You even tried to ram through a politically motivated final report after your cases collapsed, including the Presidential Transition Act and basic fairness.
▶ 4:23:26But here's the good part, America. Here's the good part. The American people saw right through They rejected, sir, your witch hunt loud and clear in November, handing President Trump a commanding victory. The voters spoke loud and clear. They wanted an end to the weaponization of our justice system. In your opening statement, you spoke about proof of beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr.
▶ 4:23:54Smith, I will give you proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Donald Trump winning the popular vote by over 2 million votes, the Electoral College by 85 votes, along with every single swing state. Now, sir, that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the crap you were shoveling did not pass the smell test with the American people. To put it bluntly, Mr.
▶ 4:24:24Smith, the stink remains on And lastly, I would like to quickly address the police officers of January 6th. Mr. Dunn, Mr. Fanone, Mr. Gonell, Mr. Hodges, I'm a member of the new select committee to actually examine actually examine what happened that day, and I can tell you, gentlemen, that the fault does not lie with Donald Trump.
▶ 4:24:50It lies with Yogananda Pittman and the US Capitol Leadership Team. We know we know they had the intelligence and there was going to be a high propensity for violence that day. Claim my time. Yeah. You will be in order. The time belongs to the gentleman from Texas. We've had some disruptions already. We don't need that. Let the gentleman The gentleman may continue.
▶ 4:25:14We know the Capitol Leadership Team, specifically Yogananda Pittman, had the intelligence and there was going to be a high propensity for violence that day. And the capital itself was the target. We knew the extremist groups were going to be there. And why do I say that? It was your own report from your intelligence section, the IICD, which was run by Pittman in the January 3rd special events section. It was in it. It was in it. And Mr.
▶ 4:25:41Dunn, I believe that you thought that day would be like just any other. In your testimony to the January 6th Committee, you said you found out how duck-duck-ugly was going to get on a cell phone. Somebody sent you some information on social media. The point is, you were all unprepared to deal with that day. And that's because your leadership failed to share the intelligence with you. It was their fault, folks. It was their fault.
▶ 4:26:10It was not President Trump, and we are going to expose it for the first time cuz the the Bennie Thompson, the sham committee, didn't do it. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
▶ 4:26:20committee didn't do it. The report is 845 pages. Donald Trump's name is mentioned 4,207 times. We know what the committee wanted to do is to not allow Donald Trump to come back and win again, and they failed and they failed miserably, and I hope you now can see that. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance to my distinguished colleague out of Jersey. I just want to quickly go over something because we keep rewriting history.
▶ 4:26:48The president said peacefully and patriotically. What don't we understand about peacefully and patriotically? He asked for the National Guard. That was ignored. He asked Speaker Pelosi. What don't we understand that?
▶ 4:27:01Will the gentleman yield for a question? Are you saying Nancy Pelosi controls the National Guard?
▶ 4:27:04Wait a minute.
▶ 4:27:05could have warned the National Guard if he wanted to, and you know that. time. I lost some of my time. Time belongs to the gentleman from New Jersey. You have a few more seconds. And and finally, how many elected officials say we're going to fight to win an election? It's you terminology used all the time, seriously. And of course, if they were guilty, they should be prosecuted. The problem was there were many in the mix. Have the unanimous consent Gentleman yields back to the gentleman The last thing uh Your hand gestures, Mr. Fanone, you need medication.
▶ 4:27:41Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two unanimous consent requests to enter into the record, two articles.
▶ 4:27:47finish your statement. An article dated December 29th, 2025 titled Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Calls Out Maga's latest 2020 stolen election nonsense. And the second article, an article dated December 23rd, 2025 titled Fact Check, Fulton County's 315,000 unsigned early votes are not proof of electoral fraud.
▶ 4:28:10Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is recognized for unanimous consent. Thank you, Chairman. Under uh unanimous consent, I ask uh to enter into the record the Judiciary Democrats January 2026 report titled, "Where Are They Now? The Perpetrators of January 6th and the Defenders of Democracy Who Stopped Them", which profiles the illustrious career trajectories of some of the key actors from January 6th who were pardoned by Donald Trump. And secondly, um Objection.
▶ 4:28:35a second uh report uh uh January 2026 report from Judiciary Democrats 1 year later assessing the public safety implications of President Trump's mass pardon of 1,600 January 6th rioters and insurrectionists. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Smith, for joining us. You know, most people are wondering why you are even here today.
▶ 4:28:59Uh but it's because we've heard conspiracy after conspiracy that the 2020 election was rigged and Capitol Police officers were harmed and died because of those conspiracies. And we have important elections coming And the people want them to happen and they want them to be fair. And the one person who should be telling the truth about elections is the president.
▶ 4:29:26But Donald Trump has not and is still not telling the truth about the 2020 elections. In fact, there is a January 6th page on the taxpayer-funded White House website that says the election was stolen from Trump, a blatant disproven lie he knows is totally false. So, one of my Republican colleagues earlier brought up Trump's mind state, that he knew he lost and he knew that what he was saying was untrue, but that you had no proof.
▶ 4:29:57So, Mr. Smith, what evidence did you develop to suggest Trump knew he had lost the 2020 election? Uh we had evidence from a variety of Uh evidence from people who uh were close to Donald Trump and who he relied on. People who wanted him to win the election.
▶ 4:30:20Uh people who were employed by his campaign to help him win the our evidence is that this was a uh and that Donald Trump specifically sought to prey on party loyalty. Uh our investigation involved interviewing uh and uh subpoenaing records of Republicans because that's who Donald sought to prey on to stay in office.
▶ 4:30:48And the reality is certain people refused to do that. The Vice President refused to go along with that. Uh people in uh various states uh legislatures refused to go along with that. Uh and the reality is uh that if we took this case to trial, uh a good number of our witnesses would be Republicans. Uh if a Democrat uh I would have subpoenaed a number of Democrats.
▶ 4:31:18I would have subpoenaed their records. And I'm I'm going to I'm going to ask you about that. But correct, it's not like he was calling Nancy Pelosi. So, why is it legally important to know that Trump knew he was lying when he said the election was stolen? that was part of our proof at trial and it was relevant uh to the charges, specifically to the first charge to defraud the United States.
▶ 4:31:44it is uh permissible for uh someone to lie, uh but when they use speech to commit a crime, to facilitate a crime, that is not protected by the First Amendment. Uh the Supreme Court has been very clear on that. And this very issue uh was litigated in the case. The defense raised this very issue. Uh and one thing I want to be clear about today, the case that I investigated in the case we had, it was built to be tried in a courtroom.
▶ 4:32:15Mhm. Not in the media. Mhm. Our case was built to withstand the crucible of litigation. And our assessment was that we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt that would do that. Mhm. So, what I heard you say is that when you lie and you know you're lying and then you act on that lie to overturn the democratic process, that that is a felony. Uh a January 6th rioter actually said, "If I can't trust him, then who can I trust?" Exactly.
▶ 4:32:43You know, we cannot even trust our own president. And in fact, there are so many other things that you can say that you're not allowed to say because Trump a Trump-appointed judge sealed the documents refusing to release the files yet again, which is why we could probably ask you far more questions if those were unsealed. So, I know I don't have that much time.
▶ 4:33:06I want to now shift to these allegations from my Republican colleagues about the collection of phone records of Republican senators. I guess some of the ones that were trying to get $500,000 of taxpayer dollars. So, many of the phone records of members were requested before you were appointed as special counsel. Yes or no? Uh That's true. Is that accurate? Yes, some subpoenas occurred before I was special counsel. And you what do you say to those who claim you chose to target Republicans because you only collected phone records for Republicans?
▶ 4:33:39the conspiracy I was investigating targeted Republicans. Right. As I mentioned earlier. That's right. And so, you would have requested any relevant call records necessary for your investigation of a Republican or of a That's correct. And and to be clear, uh if a Democrat committed these acts, we would have sought those. I I I could have just add one thing. Uh we interviewed Rudy Giuliani in the course of this investigation.
▶ 4:34:06We asked him uh why did you say uh why did you in in one of the voicemails he left for the senator uh mention the fact uh that it was Republicans that you were reaching out to. And he said, "Because the Democrats weren't going to help us. And even some Republicans wouldn't help us." And so, our evidence shows repeatedly uh that the plan was to see if you could prey on people's party
▶ 4:34:31to I'm going to the gentlewoman's expired. Um gentle The gentlewoman from
▶ 4:34:35I yield back.
▶ 4:34:36Gentlewoman yields back. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5 Mr. Smith, it was during your deposition with our committee that you revealed that you tasked your team, specifically JP Cooney, to engage with the partisan January 6th Committee. You had to have known at the time the controversy surrounding this committee, including the fact that all of the members had been appointed by Nancy Pelosi who disallowed the Republicans from being able to engage.
▶ 4:35:04Yet you proceeded anyway, raising numerous questions as to your strategy for uh conspiring with the J6 Committee. You had every possible resource available to you. Your prosecution of President Trump was clearly a priority for the Biden administration, and it is clear that you had an unlimited budget. And yet and you also left no stone unturned, even subpoenaing records uh from sitting members of the House and Senate.
▶ 4:35:34So, what information could the J6 Committee possess that you and the nation's top law enforcement agency could not obtain on your own? I I did request JP Cooney.
▶ 4:35:47What did they have that you couldn't obtain on your own? in any investigation, you What what information did they have that you did not you were not able to obtain on your I couldn't know that until I had their Was there anything there? Did you did you find that they had information that you were not able to obtain? Uh I don't recall specifically uh every bit of information. What I can tell you is uh we took in their information because we wanted to collect any information that could be relevant.
▶ 4:36:17We made our own independent assessment of Okay. So, from the time that you were appointed as special counsel up to the date of your resignation in January of 2025, did you personally have any contact with any members, staff, or contractors of the House's January 6th Select Committee? And if so, who?
▶ 4:36:37Uh I do not believe I had contact with anybody personally from the January 6th The January 6th Committee failed to archive or preserve its video recordings of witness interviews, deleting or destroying as many as 900 interview summaries or transcripts involving more than 1 full terabyte of digital data. I repeat, the J6 Committee destroyed evidence. Let that sink in.
▶ 4:37:08Why would they do such a thing? I think we have a dang good idea. The committee actually used selective clips from these videos and transcripts during their hearings, and yet by destroying this evidence, they have denied Congress and the public the ability to obtain their full content and context. They created their narrative by selective use of the evidence before them. So, how So, how very convenient.
▶ 4:37:36Did you or your team receive any of those witness transcripts or video recordings of transcribed interviews from the select committee that were not released to the public? What I can tell you is that I requested J.P. Cooney to contact the select committee. Do you know if you received any of the evidence or testimony that the J6 Committee eventually destroyed? I don't have any information that the J6
▶ 4:38:05know one way or the other as you sit here today. No, what I what I'm telling is that I requested all the information we could get from the January 6th
▶ 4:38:15Has all of the information that you requested been preserved? All of the information from the J6 Committee, has that been preserved? The information that we requested and received we reviewed it. It was part of our
▶ 4:38:28preserved? Yes, as part of our files and Were you or your team advised or did you get the impression from anyone affiliated with the January 6th Committee that these documents were not for public release even though portions of them had already been shown to the American people? Were you advised to keep any of the information from the J6 Committee confidential? As I sit here right now, I don't recall that. I recall
▶ 4:38:53Did the J6 Committee provide you with the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony as part of the trove of documents that you As I sit here now, I don't recall, but it would have been
▶ 4:39:04Well, are you you're familiar with her testimony, aren't you? I am and it And in fact, wouldn't you agree with me that Ms. Hutchinson's testimony, especially the most explosive allegations made, was comprised of hearsay upon hearsay upon
▶ 4:39:21you're an attorney, Mr. Smith. You can answer the question. Of course, it was hearsay. There was
▶ 4:39:25And hearsay isn't admissible in court in a court of law, is it? Why? Because it is inherently unreliable and the victim or the the target of a of a prosecution is not able to cross-examine. Isn't that correct? In fact, Mr. Smith, if you had attempted to walk into court with Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony, you would have been thrown out on your ear. No judge, no legitimate judge would have ever allowed the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson's to be admitted in a court of law, would they? I disagree.
▶ 4:39:56Well, and then we've already talked about your record
▶ 4:39:59Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady's time has long since expired. The time of the expired. The gentleman from Florida
▶ 4:40:07Can I do one UC request first?
▶ 4:40:09is recognized. This is from "Meme rehashes old false claim that J6 Committee destroyed evidence" from October 15, 2024. And this is from the District of Columbia National Guard website stating that this is the only National Guard unit in America which reports exclusively and only to the Uh without objection, the gentleman from Florida is recognized. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mean, we're definitely not in a court of law today. Half this wouldn't come in if we were.
▶ 4:40:39I mean, good god. You know. Um You know, I want to talk about something one of my colleagues, Mr. uh Nehls said from Texas. He sits on this new January 6th subcommittee, which I also happen to sit And he said the same thing in in the subcommittee the other week that it wasn't President Trump that inspired January 6th, right? It wasn't him. Uh he said in in the subcommittee that it was actually Ray Epps.
▶ 4:41:07Ray Epps, he was the one who told people to break the law and the windows and the doors and the beat police officers and hang Mike Pence and try to break into the floor of the house and wiping feces on the walls. It was all this guy, Ray Right? So, who is Ray Epps? Why is he so So, I mean, I just did a quick, you know, Google search of Ray Epps and his Wikipedia page says, "The powerful Ray Epps is a wedding planner to the Oath This is the the wedding planner?
▶ 4:41:37That's the mastermind of You couldn't You went from Donald Trump It wasn't Donald. Who do Well, who are we going to blame? Who could it be? Uh how about the wedding planner to the Oath Keepers? I mean, it's just pathetic. you know, my colleagues love the past, Mr. Smith. Love the past. That's why you're here before Pam Bondi. Okay, we we haven't had the Attorney General here. We didn't have her last year. She's the only one in the cabinet to not come in committee of reference, but they love the past.
▶ 4:42:07Oh, they you know, love talking about January 6th and Hunter Biden and COVID and Barack Obama and Hillary's emails. They love the past. These people love the past so much, they're still reenacting the Civil Okay? Love the past.
▶ 4:42:21But they keep talking about the present. But you know what? Let's talk about the past real quick. Here are some quotes cuz I heard one of my colleagues call you a hypocrite. Here are some quotes from my colleagues. Chairman Jordan, all right after January 6th, "Stop the violence. Support Capitol Police." Ted Cruz, "Those storming the Capitol need to stop right now.
▶ 4:42:39The Constitution protects, but not violence." Chip Roy, "Today the people's house was attacked, which is an attack on the republic itself." Steve Scalise, "United States Capitol Police saved my life." Lindsey Graham, "When it comes to accountability, the president needs to understand his actions were the problem." Troy Nehls, "Oh my god, him again." "I'm happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with Capitol Police." Darrell Issa, "The violence and turmoil we witnessed in Washington, D.C. was completely unacceptable." Rep.
▶ 4:43:06McClintock, "The attack on Capitol strikes the most sacred act of our democracy." And former Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, whose name we heard a lot today, what did he have to say about it? "Let me be clear. Last week's violent attack on the Capitol was undemocratic, un-American, and criminal. And make no mistake, those who were responsible should be brought to justice. The president bears Or exclamation point. You know, but let's talk also about, you know, the present. That's the past.
▶ 4:43:36Let's talk about the present. These are the guys who created the weaponization committee for the DOJ. So, let's talk about the present. Jerome Powell facing investigation. Okay? In fact, we you know, we we heard about Jonathan Turley that he's some legal Messiah. Jonathan Turley calls the Jerome Powell thing "legitimate concerns of retaliation." Lisa Cook under investigation. Mark Kelly, United States Senator, under investigation. Adam Schiff, United States Senator, under investigation. Eric Swalwell, United States Representative, under investigation.
▶ 4:44:05Chris Christie, potentially under investigation. Jack Smith, oh, that's you, under investigation. Okay? Miles Taylor, former Chief of Staff to the United United States Department of Homeland Security, under investigation. Christopher Krebs, former Director of Cybersecurity, under investigation. Indicted. James Comey. Letitia James. John Bolton. It's weird that they indicted John Bolton, but stole his foreign policy. Uh Accused of crimes. Former President Joe Biden. Former President Barack Obama.
▶ 4:44:33Revoked or threatened with revocation of Secret Service protection. Kamala Harris. Hunter Biden. Ashley Biden, the daughter of President Joe Biden. Uh Mayorkas. Mike Pompeo. Brian Hook. General Mark Milley. John Bolton. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the guy Trump gave a medal to. Security clearance revoked. Joe Biden. Anthony Blinken. Jacob Sullivan. Lisa Monaco. Mark Zaid. Norman Eisen. Letitia James. Alvin Bragg. Andrew Weissmann. Hillary Clinton. Liz Cheney. Kamala Harris. Adam Kinzinger. Fiona Hill.
▶ 4:45:02Alexander Vindman. Miles Taylor, I could keep going. Any questions about any any of that? We know you don't. But will the gentleman yield for a I will, please. Cuz you have a way of synthesizing that nobody else does, Mr. Moskowitz. Um listening to our colleagues today, I wonder if they actually believe any of this would have happened had Donald Trump simply accepted the results of the election. You mean like Al Gore did when he lost 5 to 4 at the Supreme Court? Yeah. Yeah. Would any of this would the violence have happened?
▶ 4:45:30Would the fake counterfeit slates have happened? No, Would the threats against Vice President Pence? No, none of it would have happened. And Leon Panetta would still have a security clearance, so would John Brennan, so would Michael Morrell, Michael Vickers. I I I just I can't get them all in, Mr. Chairman. I can't I can't I can't get I have like four more pages of the weaponization of the Department of Justice.
▶ 4:45:49of the gentleman from Florida has The gentleman from South Carolina is Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, when was the initial indictment issued on President Trump? August 1st, 2023, does that sound about Uh that's in the election case. That's
▶ 4:46:09Right. And on that election case, after that, you asked for a trial date Uh I don't recall as I sit here right
▶ 4:46:18January 2024, does that sound about right? It sounds about right.
▶ 4:46:22Okay. So, so after the indictment uh in August, you asked for a January trial date. That's like 5 months? 5 months? How many how much evidence did you have? Millions of pages? As I sit here right now, I don't recall the exact
▶ 4:46:39in your testimony, they talked about a number 13 million pages. Is that a ballpark accurate number? Uh I think that was the question asked of me and as I sit here, I don't have an accurate number.
▶ 4:46:52So, so let's just assume that that's true, right? Cuz you had a bunch of stuff. You had $50 million that you blew through the Treasury on a trial that went nowhere. How many pages per day is that? 100,000? Does that sound about right? What if we break that down per hour? It's 4,166. Per minute is 70 pages. You like to read, sir? You like to read? I do. Do you read 70 pages a minute?
▶ 4:47:22I do not.
▶ 4:47:23that would be remarkable. So, how do you prepare for a trial in 5 months if you're asking the defense to read 70 pages a minute? How do you do that? And prepare a defense and look at all the witness testimony and video evidence that you supposedly had. How do you do that? You know what's shocking to me and I think that the most one of the most egregious aspects of this case, Mr. is that if you get a traffic ticket in Washington, D.C., you're not going to trial in 5 months.
▶ 4:47:53But you want the president the former president of the United States to have a trial date with 13 million pages of documents within 5 months. I think that's ridiculous and I think that speaks exactly to what we talk about when we examine not only your record, but the things in this case that are deeply troubling. That this was not the pursuit of facts and law and letting the judge and the jury decide.
▶ 4:48:18That this was an exercise in political it was a political hit job timed perfectly against the president of the United States. Sir, in the Florida case in the the records case, what happened ultimately in that case? What happened ultimately in the case?
▶ 4:48:38Yeah, the Mar-a-Lago records case. Uh uh I'm I'm going to answer because I don't think this is covered uh by uh Judge Cannon's order of the uh we moved to dismiss that case pursuant to Justice Department policy.
▶ 4:48:51No, no, the records case. In Florida. Against Donald Trump. The records case in Mar-a-Lago. Were you Were you ruled to be uh what was the ruling in that? Uh that was uh Judge Cannon's ruling and she ruled uh my uh appointment uh unlawful and we sought to app- uh appeal that and that appeal was pending at the time uh that we dismissed the cases.
▶ 4:49:18So so from the very beginning, were you ever confirmed by the United States Senate? I have never been confirmed by the United States Senate. I will say that the uh history uh supporting my appointment is over 100 years old. Other special counsels have
▶ 4:49:37Isn't there a statutory appointment? I mean, you have to be confirmed by the Senate. So I think that's kind of interesting, but I think the point is from the very beginning on the documents case uh and others, you weren't even lawfully appointed and that's why Judge Cannon ruled the way that she did. And from the beginning, we talk about you that you that you followed Department of Justice policy, you followed the facts, you followed the law, you followed the Constitution.
▶ 4:50:03That's what you have said all throughout this day, paraded by the Democrats that you have done nothing wrong. But from the very beginning, you weren't even lawfully and you can't even recall who swore you in. So we don't we as we sit here today, based on your testimony in the in the uh transcribed interview, can you tell us who swore you in as special prosecutor? Uh as I said, I I know I took the oath of office. I don't recall who swore me in. What I can share What I can share with you I don't know, sir.
▶ 4:50:32Call me call me naive, but like this that's like that's a milestone career move for you that you get to do this and you don't remember the circumstances. I just find that a little bit odd. But here's the thing and I'm going to wrap up quick. You're unconstitutionally appointed. You breached the 60-day rule releasing this very partisan attack against the president right before the election. You tampered with evidence in the Mar-a-Lago case that you admitted to in court filings.
▶ 4:50:59You subpoenaed members of Congress and their phone records in violation of the Constitution of current statute. You didn't even let the court know that these were members of Congress. How are we to assume otherwise that this wasn't political? Because it absolutely was, sir, and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The uh gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
▶ 4:51:19I would caution my friend from South Carolina and others uh against jumping into bed with Judge Cannon, who's been rebuked repeatedly by the 11th Circuit uh because she is completely lawless. Um but let's go back to the actual evidence rather than all the procedural stuff about when you were sworn in or not. Um I don't blame you for not remembering that. You've been probably sworn in a dozen times. Uh doesn't jump out at you.
▶ 4:51:45I want to go back to the evidence though that Donald Trump knew that he was lying about the election. And I'd ask you to say, if you could, specifically who gave evidence to you that supported your uh conclusion that he knew that he was lying. Uh that came from a number of sources.
▶ 4:52:10Uh it came from uh staff uh in the White House who talked to him and told him that his fraud claims uh were not true. It came from staff on his campaign who told him that. It came from members of the Department of Justice. It came from state officials uh who uh when uh he tried to press them uh to uh do things in contravention of their oath, they refused to.
▶ 4:52:37They asked him for evidence and his co-conspirators and they never provided it. Uh over and over again, uh the people who had uh the uh best who were best situated to know how the elections were conducted in these states, uh he either avoided contacting them or uh disregarded the clear debunkings that were provided to him such as by the Georgia Secretary of State.
▶ 4:53:03Right. And I mean, that's a lot of evidence, but we know that his attorney general at the time also concluded, quote, he knew well that he lost the election, Bill Barr. And yet he incited a riot on January 6th and four of the brave officers who defended the Capitol and defended the my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are here today.
▶ 4:53:29Not a single Republican member of this committee has recognized them or thanked them for their service and I would like to do so today. Thank you, gentlemen. Now, my colleague from California uh referred to a couple statements uh from your former colleagues in Penn in the Eastern District about your impeccable reputation as an apolitical career politician.
▶ 4:53:54Uh as an alum of the Southern District of New York myself, I can tell you that many of my former colleagues also feel the same and that's saying something coming from the SDNY to the EDNY, as you know. Mr. Smith, did you ever speak to President Biden about this case? Never. Did you ever receive orders or direction from President Biden or anyone else in the White House about this case? No.
▶ 4:54:24Did you ever receive any direction from the Attorney General Merrick Garland regarding how you should uh whether or not you should charge this No, I was given the independence to make that decision on my own. An independent special counsel, exactly.
▶ 4:54:41I just want to point out to my colleagues who seem to think this is a uh investigation that on February 10th, over a month uh just 2021, over a month after January 6th, Marco Rubio said the January 6th attack on the Capitol was far more dangerous than most realize and we have a criminal justice system in place to address it.
▶ 4:55:07Who uh oversaw the Department of Justice on February 10th, 2021? Who was president? February 10th, 2021. That would be Joe Biden.
▶ 4:55:24So Marco Rubio wanted Joe Biden's Department of Justice to investigate Donald Trump and the his January 6th I want to ask you in my last few seconds uh Mr. Smith, uh you're not the first special counsel to investigate Donald Trump.
▶ 4:55:43Special Counsel Mueller, also of impeccable integrity, concluded that the 2016 Trump campaign welcomed foreign interference from Russia and used it to help them. Donald Trump has made it a litmus test to be hired in this administration uh to say that the 2020 election was fraudulent even though, as you have established, it was not.
▶ 4:56:09And now there are senior officials in this government who are responsible for protecting our elections who have our election deniers. Can you describe if in a few seconds what your concerns are about the upcoming election based on your investigation and what we know I believe political litmus tests are not proper for career prosecutors.
▶ 4:56:36Uh I think my experience over 30 years as a prosecutor in the Department of Justice is having people who are not guarded uh guided by party allegiance, but guided by experience. Uh that's how you can trust the criminal justice system. It's the same way with our election system. Gentleman's time is expired. Yield back. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized. Uh yeah. First of all, just a couple of comments.
▶ 4:57:02Uh there are probably 10 people on this committee who have more conversations with 10, 15 people on this committee who have more conversations with Donald Trump than myself. But anybody who says that Donald Trump thought he won that election, that is just plain not true. No way. Unless he's the best actor in the history of uh of this building. We agree. Did Donald
▶ 4:57:29Order. Order. Did he Donald Trump did not believe Donald Trump did not believe he lost that election. He just didn't. No way. And I think on January 6th, I think I can't believe there were any congressmen here who didn't think Joe Biden was going to be swearing as president. So this was it was a riot, but it wasn't a a threat to the future of the Republic.
▶ 4:57:56Now we should have posted up here a document for you to look at. Here we are. Okay. This is something we received with regard to Arctic Frost. It's a list of about 70 names. I don't know whether or not you're familiar with the document. I don't believe I'm familiar with this Okay.
▶ 4:58:22The document contains just about every person who was higher up in the Donald Trump campaign. There's a little more emphasis on here on people involved in Wisconsin, but you're not familiar with the document. I'm sorry, sir. What was your question? Are you would you know what was in this document? These names you're familiar with them at all?
▶ 4:58:50Um they're under the impression that most of these people, maybe almost all of them, were subpoenaed by you at some time or other. That helps you. Uh some of these names I for I am familiar with. Uh others I'm not familiar with or I don't recall as I sit here now. Okay. We'll eventually submit another uh question for you on this later on.
▶ 4:59:13from the time you were appointed as special counsel to your resignation on January in January 2025, did you ever con have contact with the January 6th Select Committee? I did not personally when I became special counsel, I directed uh my deputy uh ask the the Select Committee to provide us whatever evidence they would provide us. Uh So you directed people to have direct
▶ 4:59:43I directed uh my deputy to make contact to uh collect evidence from them. And that's J.P. Cooney. J.P. Cooney, my deputy, correct. Okay. Did you have any concern that the evidence collected by the partisan Select Committee would be in any way tainted by politics? I apologize, sir. I just couldn't Okay. I'm sorry we had people going through here. Did you have any concern that the evidence collected by the partisan Select Committee would be in any way tainted by politics?
▶ 5:00:12Uh I intended to conduct an independent investigation and my goal was to collect the evidence, assess it, and consider it with all the other evidence we would collect and make an independent determination uh in my investigation separate from that investigation.
▶ 5:00:27to go back and ask you something on on that one before cuz I I think I know the answer. There's a person on that list by name of Vicki McKenna who we believe did have uh her record subpoenaed. Are you familiar with that name at all? as I sit here right now, I am not familiar with that name. Okay.
▶ 5:00:49Thank Uh with regard to um part of the documents that you received was regard to Cassid Cassidy Hutchinson, Uh we we requested that they give us everything uh they were willing to give us. As I sit here now, I don't recall if specifically her information was in there, but I I'm not denying that it was. It may well have been. Uh we'll go back.
▶ 5:01:17Your team issued subpoenas to various financial institutions, telecommunications providers, and conservative entities uh requesting communications between them and President Trump's campaign, right? Uh we did issue uh subpoenas for various sorts of information, correct.
▶ 5:01:34Okay. And the bank records you would say or we could describe are fairly broad the request. Uh we uh issued uh subpoenas for certain bank records as part of our investigation, yes. Okay. Shortly after you're appointed, you issued subpoenas to state and local officials for their communications with President Trump. Is that correct? And his campaign.
▶ 5:01:59Uh I as I sit here now, I'm trying to recall specifically uh which officials, but I know we issued a number of subpoenas in our investigation to understand the communications between President Trump and uh various entities including uh state officials. One final question.
▶ 5:02:19One quick final question. Uh yeah. Do you really believe that President Trump thinks he lost that election? Yes. Uh our investigation following the facts and the law determined that
▶ 5:02:32No way. Thank you. That's enough. I mean unanimous consent from New York is recognized for unanimous consent.
▶ 5:02:39have two um one is to uh article entitled with AG Bondi next to him, Trump says deranged Jack Smith must be And the other is a tweet from Marco Rubio, there is nothing patriotic about what is occurring on Capitol Hill. This is third world style anti-American anarchy. Without objection, gentlelady from Texas is recognized.
▶ 5:03:03Can I get an extra 33 seconds? You get your full 5 minutes. Well, okay, fine. Um so I it's curious because you've sat here all day and thank you so much for showing up because this was something that you wanted to do. The Republicans wanted to make sure that you were hid in a room with no cameras cuz I was there. They didn't really want you out public because they were afraid of what you would say, which is that you could have proven your case because you are a who knows how to prosecute criminals.
▶ 5:03:33Um so just to be clear, today it seems like the Republicans have not really fought very much about whether or not Trump was guilty or not. In fact, their fight seems to be over whether or not you were authorized to prove their guilt. Do you recall a number of Republican members asking about whether or not your appointment was okay even though we know that you've testified about the more than 100-year precedent that allowed for your appointment.
▶ 5:04:02I I was asked questions about that today and our position as we filed in our appeal is that there was uh strong support for my appointment including uh Supreme Court precedent directly on point. Thank you so much.
▶ 5:04:17Additionally, you know, everybody's been all gingerly here today, but I don't know why we're acting surprised that a man who had close to 90 allegations out of four different jurisdictions and ultimately ended up with 34 convictions after a jury was able to hear all the evidence would possibly be committing a criminal act on January 6th.
▶ 5:04:40In fact, considering the fact that we are now under the impression that he is violating people's due process rights, he is ignoring court he's starting wars without congressional authority in contradiction to the Constitution, he's enriching himself to the tune of over 1.4 billion dollars, he's shaking down electeds to draw maps that will help him stay in power because the Republicans don't understand that they swore an oath to the Constitution and that we are supposed to do checks and balances.
▶ 5:05:08He's also shaking down TV stations to get money. So why are we trying to pretend as if it is out of the realm for this particular man to commit the crime that he committed on January 6th. And frankly, the only reason he ran for president was to make sure that he would not be prosecuted cuz I fully believe that you would have put him under the jail based on our long-form conversation that we had.
▶ 5:05:30But according to uh your counsel your special counsel report on page 137, it states the department's view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a president is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government's proof, or the merits of the prosecution. And that quote, but for Mr.
▶ 5:05:51Trump's election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial. In other words, Donald Trump ran for president like I said so he wouldn't have to spend the rest of his life in prison. The chairman and other members of this committee have spent all day attacking you and trying to rewrite the history of January 6th. But Mr.
▶ 5:06:15Jim Jordan, the chairman, failed to mention how he was running around the Capitol terrified by the possibility that all those insurrectionists would harm him. In fact, on page 97 of the deposition transcript, you mentioned how Mark Meadows, the president's chief of staff, quote unquote never saw Jim Jordan so scared.
▶ 5:06:34The chairman also failed to mention that he was in direct contact with the White House in the days leading up to and on January 6th, which is why his toll records were subpoenaed by your office. Let me be clear cuz they're trying to act like this is Democrats on Republicans and I guess you are a covert Democrat that knew that he was going to try to steal an election before he tried to steal that election. And so therefore you were somehow put into place.
▶ 5:06:57I mean the conspiracy theories make your head spin, but nevertheless, were you going to subpoena the toll records of every single Republican simply because they were a No. We subpoenaed the toll records in the course of this investigation because they were relevant to our investigation.
▶ 5:07:14Relevant. Oh, okay. All right. So that means something about facts. So let's talk about facts. Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden, yes or no? That's correct. Okay. In fact, 60 federal and state courts have found that there was no evidence of election fraud.
▶ 5:07:32Trump's own attorney general and vice president knew that he lost the election, but he still tried to steal the election by pressuring state officials, designing fake elector plans, nearly having Mike Pence hanged, and ultimately demanding that his supporters, quote, fight like hell. Correct. We all saw it happen. Once they reached We all saw what happened once they reached the US Capitol.
▶ 5:07:58As your report outlines, President Trump knew that he would incite violence at the Capitol that day. In fact, some of Trump's senior advisers were pushing for violence. For example, page 81 of the report details how co-conspirators number two, John Eastman, tried to convince Mike Pence to break the law, stating that, quote, violence was necessary. So, it isn't just Trump who is responsible for the death of multiple law enforcement officers and the injuries of thousands of people.
▶ 5:08:27A lot of Republican members of Congress are also responsible. 147 Republicans voted to overturn the 2020 election results, including multiple members currently serving on this committee, and I will yield. Gentlewoman yields. Gentleman from North Carolina is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Mr. Smith, we've heard a lot of information that's gone across uh this day as we've spent it here. Uh we've heard disregard for the First Amendment at times.
▶ 5:08:55We've heard talk about uh solely seeking charges against Donald Trump, obviously targeting. Um we've talked about the amount of time and reasonable time frame. But, I want to ask you for a moment I can about um some troubling reports that a prosecutor from your office, Jay Bratt, implied to Stanley Woodward that the administration would look more favorably on a judgeship application if he managed to get his client, Walt Nauta, to cooperate against
▶ 5:09:25President Trump and to flip on him. And we know this because Stanley Woodward himself came forth with this And I guess my question for you, is this appropriate behavior for a special counsel's office to leverage attorneys' future career prospects? Uh sir, I I believe I can answer this question even though it's regarding the Florida case because we did filings on it, and I'm not referring to anything uh in the uh final report.
▶ 5:09:54Uh and my answer to you, sir, is uh that when I was first notified about uh this issue, which was 9 months after it allegedly occurred, this is alleged to have occurred before I was even special counsel. Uh what I did is I directed my deputies to look into it. Uh we made sure the the person involved self-referred it to OPR. Uh and then we did a filing to the court. There was a a motion by uh President Trump's attorneys. We responded.
▶ 5:10:24We laid out our position, and our position was uh that I did not believe that that allegation was credible. At best, it was a misunderstanding because uh the people in the room did not understand any threat to be made. Uh even Mr. Woodward in his allegation claimed it was only an inference. Uh 9 months went by where we interacted with uh Mr. Woodward uh in which uh we had uh no hearing of a complaint.
▶ 5:10:53Uh when the complaint was raised for the first time, which was on the eve of that indictment being brought, uh it was raised uh uh in the guise of asking the court to delay the indictment uh while an investigation of it happened. So, uh I take allegations of misconduct very seriously. Uh I would not uh want any of my attorneys threatening anybody.
▶ 5:11:16Uh ultimately, when I looked at this, I did not credit it, and uh we responded with our position in court, uh but we also uh it was clear that it was referred to the Office of Professional Responsibility, which is what good prosecutors do in that situation.
▶ 5:11:30Well, uh again, uh to say that you didn't consider it to be credible, I I guess we have the United States Associate Attorney General, Stanley Woodward, who claims that this threat was made to him, and I don't see what what he would stand to gain uh from not telling the truth there.
▶ 5:11:48And I and I understand that you tasked two of your attorneys with investigating those statements uh made by Bratt, but given the amount of publicity and the scrutiny that was surrounding this entire investigation, why in the world did you not initiate an independent investigation into these very alarming Uh well, two points there. Uh you stated that um you don't why would he do this?
▶ 5:12:14When he made the allegation, when this allegation first came from uh President Trump's attorneys, and then days later from Mr. Woodward, he did ask for the case, the indictment to be put off in in result of this. So, there was a thing he was asking for in result. Uh and with respect to an independent investigation, uh that's exactly why uh you refer this to the Office of Professional Responsibility. They conduct an independent investigation outside of my office.
▶ 5:12:42Well, let me just say for 4 years we watched the Biden administration politicize and weaponize the Department of Justice. From going after pro-life activists to spying on faithful Catholics, the Biden administration showed disregard for impartiality. And this blatant disregard was perhaps no clearer than in the target targeting of President Trump. We've talked about it all throughout this day. They knew they couldn't beat him at the ballot box, so they pursued alternative options.
▶ 5:13:11And I'm grateful for this committee's efforts today to investigate this conduct to ensure accountability. And while elections are not akin to jury trials, I feel strongly that the results of the 2024 election send a clear message about how the American people feel about these politicized charges, and I think they absolutely made a difference in those 24 elections. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 5:13:37Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Missouri is recognized.
▶ 5:13:39Mr. Chair, I actually have a UC. Gentlewoman is recognized. Um this is, let's see, I had I asked unanimous consent to enter into the record this DOJ press release titled Houston man sentenced to prison for assaulting law enforcement with dangerous weapons during January 6th Capitol breach.
▶ 5:13:55My second one is I asked unanimous consent to enter into the record an article titled They ransacked the US Capitol and want the government to pay them back, published by the Washington Post, January 21st, 2026. I object. Gentleman from Missouri is recognized 5 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, after indicting the leading Republican candidate for the President of the United States on August 1st, 2023, you set your trial date of January 2024, just 5 months later.
▶ 5:14:25During your deposition, you did not dispute that it that would have given Trump's legal team just 5 months to review 13 million pages and thousands of hours of video evidence, working out to nearly 100,000 pages per day. Mr.
▶ 5:14:41Smith, you claimed that you acted independently of the upcoming presidential election, and yet you pushed for a trial date ahead of the Why such a rush to charge and try and pursue conviction on President Uh I I sought to move uh that case forward expeditiously uh because uh the public has a right to a speedy trial as well as a defendant.
▶ 5:15:08That is, there is Supreme Court precedent directly on point regarding that. Uh I felt it was my duty to do that. I considered all options. I listened to But, isn't the right to a a speedy trial primarily a right of the defendant? I I honestly, before your arguments, I've never heard of the idea that the prosecution has a right to speed up a trial and require the defense to review 100,000 pages a day in order to get a trial in before an election.
▶ 5:15:35I've never heard of such a the Supreme Court in at least, as I sit here now, three different cases has stated pretty explicitly uh that the right to a speedy trial is the public's as well as the defendant's. Uh and they just
▶ 5:15:51You were trying to You were trying to get President tried tried convicted and hopefully in prison before election day. I understand. Mr. Smith, I think it's very telling that during your deposition, you could not articulate any evidence that President Trump instructed individuals to unlawfully enter the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. Uh you claim that President Trump was, quote, responsible for the events at the Capitol on January 6th, which was not charged in your indictment.
▶ 5:16:17How do you reconcile that with the position of the Department in other GA6-related cases, that President Trump wasn't responsible for the events at the Capitol that day? I'm not aware of the Department taking a position that uh Donald Trump was not responsible.
▶ 5:16:35I think my recollection is the position that the Department took in other cases is uh other defendants uh weren't uh not responsible themselves uh because of Donald Trump, that blaming him uh wasn't going to be a valid defense in their case. That's my recollection.
▶ 5:16:51So, on January 6th, 2021, President Trump tweeted, quote, Please support our Capitol Police and law enforcement. They are truly on the side of the country. Stay peaceful, {exclamation point}. This seems to show clearly that Trump had urged his uh his his supporters at the Capitol to remain peaceful. Is that not It's incorrect. Uh first off, that
▶ 5:17:14send that tweet? He sent that tweet, but he sent that tweet only after being harangued by people to send something to stop the violence at the capital.
▶ 5:17:22let's get the time timeline straight then. At 1:55 p.m. there was a breach of the bike racks at the northeast perimeter. At 2:13, there were protesters breaching the capital, breaking into the northwest Senate window, and opening the doors. 2:38, President Trump tweeted what I just quoted. That's 25 minutes between the Capitol Building breach. Is 25 minutes that's too slow?
▶ 5:17:50Would would Trump have been guilty of insurrection if it were 15 minutes? Would it 5 minutes? How quickly was he supposed to send that tweet to remain peaceful? Uh my recollection as set forth in the indictment is the timeline of uh when the attack of the capital happened, uh including the tweet that endangered Vice President Mike Pence's life was different than what
▶ 5:18:15so that tweet was after, of course, the riot had started. But, uh President Trump also said, quote, "We've come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully selected, lawfully selected." I know that everyone will soon be marching to the Capitol Building and to peacefully and patriotically make your voice heard. Peacefully and patriotically, is that an incitement of a riot? That is not. Okay.
▶ 5:18:40So, in November 2016, Hillary Clinton uh disputed she for actually for years called President Trump an illegitimate president. He knows he stole the election as as recently as September 2019. Had there been a riot around the 2016 presidential election, would would Hillary Clinton be guilty of inciting insurrection? I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals.
▶ 5:19:06I will say that uh President Trump's conduct was without historical analog. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
▶ 5:19:14Gentleman yields back. Mr. Chairman. May I The lady from Vermont. Mr. Chair, I I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the first superseding superseding indictment for Capitol rioter and Oath Keeper Kelly Meggs, who brought weapons and armor with him to DC and wrote to a friend, "Trump said it's going to be wild. It's going to be wild. He wants us to make it wild." That's what he said. "He's calling us to the capital and wants to make it wild. Sir, yes, sir. Gentlemen, we're heading to DC to pack our shit." And uh Mr. Chair, I have unanimous consent request.
▶ 5:19:44I ask unanimous consent to enter in the record this superseding indictment filed the Department of Justice on August 27th, 2024, that outlines how Donald Trump, among other felonies, conspired to defraud the United States in his effort to fraudulently and violently overturn the results of the 2020 election that he
▶ 5:20:01Without objection, the gentleman from Washington is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, uh 5 hours later, uh here we are. One of the benefits of being a freshman uh member of this committee with the least amount of seniority is you get the benefit of getting everybody else listen to them talk first. Um I want to start by saying that um I starting out I was not real familiar uh with this issue.
▶ 5:20:23In fact, when uh chairman of the committee told me we had Jack Smith uh coming in, my first response privately was, "Who's Jack Smith?" Uh and I say that cuz my wife and I have five young children. Uh we don't have cable television and by the time we get them to bed, uh you know, we're either watching Netflix or or better yet, uh reading books. Uh so, when I came to this, I wanted to take a real honest look at what had happened. And I should also say that, you know, a little about what I think happened on January 6th.
▶ 5:20:52Uh I I think like most Americans think Donald Trump was cruising to reelection in 2019 with the booming economy, and then COVID happened, George Floyd happened, a lot of things got changed, but I do think in those circumstances that Joe Biden won that election. I also think like most Americans that January 6th was a terrible attack. I think it was a terrible riot. I I don't believe it was an insurrection determined to overthrow the government, but I think it was an important day uh for America.
▶ 5:21:19I also think like most Americans, it was extremely unfortunate for this country that the January 6th Committee was a partisan event, and there was not an ability to put folks from both sides of their choosing on that committee, so there could have been a full and honest debate uh for the American people. I think it was politically motivated what Nancy Pelosi did uh with that committee.
▶ 5:21:40And so, when I came to this issue with a fresh look, with those kind of my priors and and and what I got into, what I wanted to find was that in the goodness of the rule of law that you as an investigator carried this out to the highest ideals, that it was not a politically motivated um investigation. And I think a lot about that in the 250th anniversary of America.
▶ 5:22:03I think about what the framers would have thought of this and the state of the rule of law, you know, and what makes special America special with checks and balances, and what keeps us from being a banana republic. But, what I was disappointed to find when I looked into this issue and how you conducted the investigation that it was a politically motivated investigation determined to influence the election uh in 2024.
▶ 5:22:30And I say that, and the thing I cannot get around as I look into this is the timing uh that you fought for in uh when the court cases would be held. Now, to my understanding, the Department of Justice says you're not supposed to have politically motivated timing of a court case.
▶ 5:22:49But, when I look at the timing that you pushed for and the jurisdictions between New York and Florida, and with all the other things that President Trump uh was engaged in, that looks very politically motivated to me, and I think the American people as they take a look at this issue to try to influence the election. So, that's where I come down uh after today's hearing, my own independent investigation, and and your commentary.
▶ 5:23:14I sincerely hope uh that that conclusion is incorrect, but that's the conclusion I come to, and I think when most people if they look through this not through a partisan lens, I think they'll come to they will not be able to get around uh the fact of how you timed these elections. I think that's really to the detriment of the American Republic and for where we sit today as a country. And so, my one question for you uh Jack Smith is uh are you familiar uh with the Vietnamese city of Ben Tre? I am not.
▶ 5:23:44Well, Ben Tre was the site of an intense firefight in early 1968. And after that intense firefight that destroyed the town, a reporter from the Associated Press interviewed a US major. And he said it became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it. Now, historians do not know what was the name of that US major, but I think when they look back at your engagement with our democracy in this republic, they will remember your name.
▶ 5:24:13And when it comes to the rule of law that is the foundation of this country, they will remember someone who helped destroy the rule of law. And with that, Mr.
▶ 5:24:24I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Thank you. Member is recognized for Oh, I was just I was wondering whether you would yield for a Uh I will defer on that. I'll just yield to the chairman. Gentleman yields back. Thank you. The gentleman
▶ 5:24:36Yeah, then I've just got one UC request, Mr. Chair. The you, and then I think the gentleman from Wisconsin has a request. Okay. Th- This is uh from uh Politico, um October 20th, 2023. Kenneth Chesebro, an architect of Trump's fake electors scheme, pleads guilty to the offense in Without objection. Uh gentleman from Wisconsin is
▶ 5:24:57Uh I just have to clarify something I
▶ 5:24:59Yep. I've talked to Donald Trump over a period of time. Donald Trump is 100% certain he won that election. There is 0% chance that he believes he lost. And I say that based on private conversations, which is Boom. So, want to clarify that. And noted for the record, we appreciate This concludes today's hearing. We thank
▶ 5:25:21Mr. Chairman, forgive me. I just have one final question for you. The It begins really just as a point of order.
▶ 5:25:27Um the as you
▶ 5:25:28of order, or is it a point of order or a question? It's a point of order leading to a question, if that's all right.
▶ 5:25:33that's that's innovative. Okay. So, uh and it's it's a I don't think that's in order, but because I'm such a nice guy, I'm going to let you state whatever you're stating.
▶ 5:25:42in good faith. Okay. In good faith. Because of nothing you've done and nothing that I've done, um Jack Smith has not been able to answer the vast majority of questions about what's in volume two of his special counsel report relating to the stolen documents.
▶ 5:25:58Now, um it's been said that uh the the judicial order that Aileen Cannon um imposed will be um lifted in February, and so I would I guess my point of order is do we intend to bring him back so he can answer questions about volume two and about the the stolen documents case? We'll We'll take it under advisement.
▶ 5:26:20Okay. Well, then just
▶ 5:26:21the court decides to do, frankly. I I got you. Well, then in that event, um I've got the signatures of every member on our side who are writing to notify you of our intent to call him to testify in continuation of this hearing to answer all of the unanswered questions about the second half of his work.
▶ 5:26:40factor in tremendously when we make our
▶ 5:26:43Okay, because because what what we have a right on the minority day to have a witness, um and we will exercise that right. You're going to call him back again? Yes. Wow. Okay. So, and I'm okay. Um I'm I'm citing uh rule 11, clause 2J.
▶ 5:26:58forward to seeing the letter, and we'll find out we'll take it all under advisement, as we said. That concludes today's hearing. We thank the witness for appearing before the committee today. Without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness or additional materials for the record. Without objection, the hearing is Awesome. Here's