About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of Full hearing: Ex-special counsel Jack Smith testifies to Senate Judiciary from CNN, published October 12, 2026. The transcript contains 33,116 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"you'll absurdly hear from democrats that it was importantly mr smith has claimed his focus was on january 6 but his own conduct conduct contradicts that assertion listen when his team subpoenaed records sometimes the date ranges extended weeks months or years before and after january 6. indeed some"
[0:00] you'll absurdly hear from democrats that it was importantly mr smith has claimed his focus
[0:08] was on january 6 but his own conduct conduct contradicts that assertion listen when his team
[0:21] subpoenaed records sometimes the date ranges extended weeks months or years before and after
[0:33] january 6. indeed some examples mr smith subpoenaed and obtained information on republican groups as
[0:44] early as 2019 and as late as 2023 you see that's what you must do if your case is designed to map
[1:00] out and target the entire republican party messages obtained between jack smith's senior
[1:09] officials also exposed how they were aware of constitutional speech and debate clause concerns
[1:19] and targeting congressional toll records in these messages his future staff discussed how they can
[1:29] circumvent the statutory barriers congress put in place to obtain congressional toll records then in
[1:38] 2023 cooney gaston windham and ray halzer were giving warnings that subpoenaing congressional records
[1:52] could violate the speech and debate clause they were warned that legislators may intervene and oppose
[2:01] that subpoena process they didn't care then or when they obtained the content
[2:09] of messages from 44 members including this senator in fact smith's deputy jp cooney said this about the speech and
[2:22] debate clause quote i'm an advocate for repealing the clause end of quote in effect he and smith did exactly
[2:32] that they ignored the constitution this wasn't a normal prosecution accordingly mr smith's secretive
[2:45] efforts obtained members toll records and ultimately content then he sought non-disclosure orders
[2:56] to hide his effort from members while also apparently failing to apprise the court of the targets judges
[3:06] bozberg and howell also didn't bother to raise any questions and instead complicitly rubber stamped
[3:18] this political charade judge howell who was a former democrat deputy staff director of this very committee
[3:28] even met privately with partisan prosecution to help them map out strategy then smith appeared before the house
[3:41] and gave dishonest testimony indeed the fbi at mr smith's request also issued preservation letters to apple
[3:54] against members of congress those letters also sought the preservation of a range of content not just totaling
[4:07] data it's worth noting that cooney and ray hulzer killed an investigation into the clinton foundation
[4:17] and the clinton campaign so on the one hand they covered up for democrats but on the other hand
[4:25] went full scope on republicans another example of mr smith's partisan operation now because of mr smith
[4:38] the department of justice and fbi have reams of very personal information on thousands of republicans
[4:48] once the department of justice and fbi obtained these records we all know they'll never delete them
[4:58] the exception of course is hillary clinton in that case the comey fbi agreed to destroy information
[5:05] on her behalf including laptops associated with the stat just another example of outrageous double
[5:14] standard in the end mr smith indicted one person that one person was president trump but in the process
[5:25] successfully mapped out the republican apparatus of fact that he didn't put in his report i'll have
[5:37] more to show the public later today on that point now mr smith prosecuted trump for allegedly mishandling
[5:47] classified information while doing so getting back to classified information his team left a classified
[5:57] facility open causing a security violation while prosecuting trump for effectively the same offense
[6:07] on at least one occasion jp cooney asked that the door to the classified facility remain unlocked so talk
[6:17] about hypocrisy as they throw the book at trump the prosecutors are playing fast and loose with the rules
[6:25] in july of 2022 before the raid on mar-a-lago fbi officials raised strong concerns about the lack of
[6:37] probable cause and overzealous prosecutors moreover in february 2022 emails show that the fbi was actually
[6:51] going to treat mar-a-lago as a spillage not a criminal investigation and mr smith represented to the court
[7:03] that the national archives didn't substantially help the case in response to trump's team arguing they did
[7:13] these representations to the court were absolutely false records from the archives show that gary stern
[7:22] the archives general council subs substantive substantively assisted smith said he and his staff
[7:33] responsibly quote is to do the right thing the right way for the right reasons end of quote mr smith's
[7:44] operation was a partisan weapon that broke the rules lied to the court and engaged in bad faith
[7:53] throughout his operation has no credibility only to the partisan media and democrats who cheered him on
[8:03] as they will do today senator durbin thank you mr chairman i'm glad my republican colleagues have finally
[8:10] accepted special counsel jack smith's offer long-standing offer to appear before this committee and testify
[8:18] under oath republicans have spent months spreading baseless conspiracy theories about mr smith's
[8:27] investigation instead of hearing from him directly nearly a year ago mr smith volunteered to testify
[8:36] under oath before this committee we democrats joined in that offer saying let's get to the bottom of it
[8:44] put him under oath and let's ask questions and then almost a year passed house republicans called mr
[8:52] smith to testify in january but senate republicans refused his offer to testify and instead held eight
[9:00] hearings on his supposed wrongdoing never calling him directly in fact this committee held only three
[9:09] hearings to question telecom companies for following the law and hear from mega loyalist witnesses with no
[9:17] firsthand knowledge of mr smith's investigation finally the senate republicans relented and we have today's
[9:25] hearing here are the facts mr smith was tasked with investigating president trump's efforts to overturn the
[9:34] 2020 presidential election and his unlawful retention and distribution of sensitive classified documents
[9:44] after president trump left office in the weeks following president trump's 2020 election loss
[9:52] and yes for the record the president did lose the election he tried to subvert the will of the people
[9:59] and steal the presidency the president did all of this while knowing and privately admitting he'd lost the
[10:06] election to joe biden by seven million votes president trump threatened state election officials
[10:15] in battleground states where he lost urging them to submit fraudulent election certificates to overturn the
[10:23] votes in those states now that's a pretty tough allegation that the president asked election officials in
[10:30] various states to change the outcome to overturn the election what proof do you have durbin the voice of
[10:38] the president himself how do we know this the president said it he called the election official in georgia
[10:47] and asked him to find find was his word 11 780 votes i hope that that never happened before in american
[10:57] history and i hope it never happens again president trump pressured two attorneys general to have the
[11:04] justice department falsely declare election fraud and pressure states to overturn the will of the people
[11:13] one of these attorney generals resigned and when his successor still refused trump threatened to
[11:19] replace him with a loyalist who would do his bidding the president's own white house council called this
[11:26] threat quote a murder suicide pact trump only backed down when he was informed that his entire department
[11:34] of justice leadership threatened to resign in mass rather than violate their oaths to the constitution
[11:42] president trump's efforts to steal the election reached a crescendo on january 6th of 2021 when he
[11:51] exhorted his supporters at a rally by the white house to quote fight like hell and told them quote we're
[11:59] going to the capitol the words of the president i was here on january 6 when that armed mob overran this
[12:09] building in a violent attempt to stop the election certification process which was taking place in the
[12:15] house and the senate in the wake of that attack of january 6th and you saw it on video exactly what
[12:24] happened five law enforcement officers who defended us and the visitors to the capitol and the ideals they
[12:34] represented lost their lives more than 140 policemen were injured it's been my honor to serve for 30
[12:44] years in the united states senate there are moments i'll never forget 25 years ago 9 11 was one of those
[12:51] moments when we were asked to evacuate the capitol for fear of what might happen if the terrorists attacked
[12:58] but today i'll also remember as long as i live is january 6 2021 when this cathedral of democracy was
[13:06] overrun by violent insurrectionists at the direction of the president of the united states when he finally
[13:15] left office in 2021 president trump seized boxes of classified documents containing top secret information
[13:24] on our defense and weapon capabilities our nuclear programs and potential vulnerabilities of the united
[13:31] united states and its allies to military attacks these were government documents the president took
[13:39] not his personal effects yet he stored these extremely sensitive documents haphazardly in a mar-a-lago ballroom
[13:50] about a bathroom shower his bedroom and other unsecured spaces and then he showed off these secret
[13:59] documents documents to seemingly anyone at random including his publisher staff members and representatives
[14:08] of his political action committee when members of the senate are shown documents like this it is in a
[14:14] closed setting and guarded document room where we are told don't take anything in writing out of this
[14:22] room afterwards the president was showing these things off at mar-a-lago in both his theft and
[14:29] distribution of these classified documents and his attempts to steal the 2020 election president trump
[14:35] demonstrated a wanton disdain for the laws of the united states the will of the people and our national
[14:43] security malfeasance by government officials is sadly not a new phenomenon but president trump's misconduct
[14:52] was egregious differing in kind and scale from what we had seen by any president before him investigating
[15:00] misconduct by government officials requires scrupulous care thankfully mr smith who is here today
[15:09] and will be under oath and his team of non-partisan career prosecutors had the necessary experience to
[15:17] tackle this assignment mr smith's resume as a professional prosecutor is solid and extensive he's done
[15:28] everything from securing a capital murder conviction against a gang leader who murdered two new york police
[15:35] department officers to securing convictions against war criminals from the kosovo war but in return mr smith
[15:45] and his special counsel staff have had their names dragged through the mud by the mega machine timothy
[15:53] tebow heard his name this morning it was said repeatedly by the chairman timothy timothy tebow retired from the fbi
[16:05] in august of 2022 mr smith was appointed special counselor three months later in november of 2022 as an
[16:16] example this is a result of the president trump's campaign aided and abetted by many congressional republicans
[16:27] to whitewash the history of the 2020 election in the january 6 insidious attack on this capitol building
[16:36] republicans have released documents and details related to these investigations in a haphazard
[16:42] non-chronological order to muddle the professional nature of mr smith's efforts and the manufacturer
[16:50] controversy where there is none they just decry mr smith for following the facts in the law
[16:56] and say nothing nothing about a president who continued to break the law in an effort to prevent
[17:03] the truth from coming to light trump frequently threatened public officials and likely witnesses in
[17:09] the election interference case by name which encouraged further threats and intimidation by his supporters
[17:16] in the classified documents case trump took obstruction to a new level he suggested to his attorneys
[17:23] that they lie and say they had submitted all the documents or did not have them he suggested they
[17:30] remove some documents prior to returning them directed his employees to hide documents directed his
[17:36] employees to delete video footage of the boxes being hidden at his home in mar-a-lago it is sad to
[17:43] see my republican colleagues colleagues contort themselves to support president trump's lies i expect that
[17:52] will continue today because of the limits placed on mr smith's ability to testify by mega loyalist judge
[18:00] aileen cannon and the trump administration judge cannon has enjoyed the release of volume two of the
[18:08] special counsel report on classified documents and mr smith himself is enjoined from providing information
[18:15] about that investigation unless the justice department makes that information public let me be clear there
[18:22] was nothing untoward about special counsel smith and his fellow prosecutors conducting this investigation
[18:30] the aspersion cast on mr smith non-stop are petty personal and political they are nothing but a
[18:39] smoke screen to distract from the president's own clear unlawful conduct after years of whitewashing
[18:48] president trump's crimes my republican colleagues can finally raise their concerns with the one
[18:54] person who can address them maybe this will finally free the committee from the endless endless debate
[19:02] and based on baseless conspiracy theories and allow us to address real problems affecting the american
[19:08] people i yield mr smith would you please rise you affirm that the testimony you're about to give before
[19:20] the committee will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god thank you you may
[19:26] proceed to your opening statement is your microphone on oh wait i think we have it chairman grassley
[20:42] ranking member durbin members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to discuss my work as
[20:48] special counsel i've been fortunate to serve a country that i love for nearly 30 years in local national
[20:56] and international settings my service has spanned both republican and democratic administrations i am not a
[21:04] politician and i have no partisan loyalty my career has been dedicated to serving our country by upholding
[21:13] the rule of law and the core principles upon which our country was founded i believe there is no role for
[21:21] politics in the proper administration of justice a prosecutor's decisions must be based on the facts
[21:27] and the law the status power prominence or political affiliation of the subject of an investigation
[21:36] must play no role in the decision to investigate prosecute or decline to prosecute i approached my role
[21:45] as special counsel following these principles the special counsel's office followed justice department
[21:52] policy observed legal requirements and took actions based on the facts and the law i stand by my
[22:00] decisions as special counsel including my decision to bring charges against president trump i made those
[22:07] decisions without regard to president trump's political association activities beliefs or candidacy in the 2024
[22:17] presidential election our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that president trump
[22:25] engaged in serious crimes against our nation if asked whether to prosecute a former president
[22:33] today based on the same facts i would do so regardless of whether that president was a republican or a democrat
[22:43] the charges against president trump were the result of the evidence grand juries and two separate
[22:49] districts reached this conclusion based on his actions as alleged in the indictments they returned rather
[22:57] than accept his defeat in the 2020 presidential election president trump engaged in a criminal scheme
[23:04] to overturn the results and prevent the lawful transfer of power after leaving office in january of 2021
[23:13] president trump illegally kept classified documents at his mar-a-lago social club and repeatedly
[23:20] tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents highly sensitive national
[23:28] security information was held in a bathroom in a ballroom where events and gatherings took place
[23:36] as with my appearance before the u.s house of representatives committee on the judiciary i am
[23:42] prepared to answer your questions truthfully i stand by my testimony before the house of representatives
[23:49] and i will not be silenced by continued threats of prosecution from the president or others as i appear before
[23:59] you today it is my belief that the rule of law faces challenges unlike any we have experienced in our lifetime
[24:08] individuals are threatened with criminal prosecution because they are perceived to have opposed the
[24:14] president predetermined outcomes increasingly seem to take precedence over the justice department's
[24:21] long-standing core values and traditions history teaches that the rule of law is rarely destroyed all
[24:28] at once it's often weakened by attacks on the institutions and the public servants sworn to uphold it
[24:37] since january of 2025 we have witnessed precisely such an effort including the vilification of the
[24:43] agents prosecutors and staff who worked on my team simply because of their unwavering dedication to the
[24:51] rule of law i myself have been threatened with jail by the president of the united states however i remain
[25:00] confident that the rule of law will endure because so many continue to uphold it faithfully each day
[25:09] throughout our legal system public servants have remained faithful to their oaths despite extraordinary
[25:16] pressure to do otherwise their example demonstrates that while fear may be contagious courage is as
[25:26] well thank you for the opportunity to testify today i look forward to your questions thank you mr smith
[25:34] we'll have 10 minute uh opportunities to ask questions and we'll only have one round for each member in your public statements and testimony here today you've given glowing assessment of your staff saying that they had an unwavering commitment to justice regardless of personal costs
[25:57] uh that is blatantly untrue you're apparently in denial based on the litany of wrongdoing and political bias supported by reams of evidence
[26:10] that i've referenced in my opening statements and i've either released documents or will today that proves this
[26:18] moreover in your public report you said in part quote those materials comprised a small part
[26:26] of the office's investigative record end of quote you're referring to the j6 committee materials records show that in your
[26:40] briefing memorandum for a meeting with uh garland you said your team quote fully read and reviewed end quote
[26:52] the j6 committee report that memo also said your staff quote went over it page by page and incorporated it into
[27:04] investigative plan end quote the memo also said you quote unquote will leverage the report to avoid certain
[27:14] interviews your report provided false information to the public your staff also obtained subpoena returns
[27:23] that included the content of messages of 44 members of congress not just toll records as you
[27:33] testified previously based on information provided to the committee that content was shared with case
[27:42] agents and prosecutors before it went through any filter review for privileged information
[27:50] which should have been done like it's been in other cases those are clear violations by your staff in addition your
[27:59] deputy jp cuny said he'd quote prosecute any nun who still wears a head habit end of quote then cuny also said
[28:10] regarding the speech and debate clause quote i'm an advocate for repealing the clause end quote lastly cuny and molly
[28:21] gaston filed a complaint with the justice department inspector general your staff asks for the inspector
[28:29] general to investigate whistleblowers who bravely exposed abuses of authority to congress by you and your staff
[28:40] these are just some of the violations of law or policy that your staff and office committed
[28:46] and that doesn't include all the violations of disgrace former fbi agents like tebow and jardina
[28:55] committed while creating false predicate for your cases and others so question number one out of six
[29:03] i have should whistleblowers who made lawful disclosures to congress about your taxpayer-funded work be
[29:12] investigated i'm not aware of any whistleblowers being investigated i believe public servants should
[29:24] be protected the members of my team that you just mentioned i'm extremely proud to have worked with
[29:30] them and the fact that they have been targeted illegally lost their jobs illegally and had their
[29:37] lives turned upside down by this department of justice is an outrage well you said you didn't
[29:43] know about it and i gave you evidence that they asked for investigation by the inspector general question
[29:49] number two did your special counsel obtain uh special counsel operation obtain possession of donor data
[29:58] including financial information yes or no our investigation uh was focused on uh investigating
[30:11] uh matters uh matters under my mandate including whether any person or entity violated the law
[30:17] with attempts to block the peaceful transfer of power let me uh let me ask the question again did your
[30:23] special counsel operation obtain possession of donor data to include financial information yes or no yes we
[30:34] acquired financial information as i sit here right now i cannot recite to you every subpoena we issued i can tell
[30:40] you why we issued subpoenas and it was to conduct a criminal investigation of one of the most serious crimes
[30:47] that's ever happened in our nation's history i had a duty to collect facts let me say indeed you did
[30:53] and you answered yes accordingly to protect disclosures to my office you obtained at least four thousand
[31:00] seven hundred and eighty two donor checks many of those checks were five to ten dollars the list includes
[31:09] checks from constituents in every state of every single member of this committee both republicans
[31:15] and democrats it included 42 checks from iowans who dared to donate money to republicans no matter what you
[31:24] say there is no legitimate basis for what you did especially since your staff killed an investigation into
[31:32] the clinton campaign donations to republican groups wasn't necessary for your investigation which is
[31:41] proved out by the fact that it was not mentioned in your public report now the justice department the fbi
[31:48] will forever possess thousands of people's address phone number bank and bank account number bank routing
[31:58] number and a copy of their true signature every member of this committee ought to be outraged for
[32:04] what happened to their constituents i hope my democratic colleagues will join me in this outrage question
[32:12] number three in october last year i asked you this question but you never responded did you ever use a personal
[32:21] device for work purposes to include communications such as email text or creation or editing of work product
[32:31] if so do you commit to providing that material to the committee if not are you testifying that you've complied with
[32:38] all federal record requirements uh yes uh when i first became special counsel i did not have a government phone
[32:50] or government computer and so in the initial days when i was uh appointed and i was still living in the netherlands
[32:58] uh i did use a personal device and email to communicate with folks in the justice department what i did when i
[33:06] got government accounts is made sure uh to the best of my ability that those uh that information was
[33:12] forwarded to government accounts so it would would be within the federal records act i sought at all times
[33:20] to comply with the federal records act as i expected uh my attorneys to do as well following up on my
[33:28] opening statement for the classified document case where did you store the classified material decide
[33:34] describe the skiff arrangements for both doj and fbi personnel during and after the court sessions
[33:49] i can't speak to fbi facilities i can explain our office uh had a skiff a place to store classified
[33:58] information and my recollection is that there was at least in florida an ability to store it there i can't
[34:05] recall if it was at the fbi field office or at the courthouse but we had a a skiff at our office uh as part
[34:15] of our investigation uh knowing that classified information would be involved in the investigation
[34:21] yeah i said in my opening statement that one of your staff members suggested leaving the door open which
[34:27] is uh obviously be a violation of law question number five have you ever received any consultation
[34:35] or counsel by john brennan former cia director whether during your time as special counsel or
[34:42] otherwise if so when and for what purpose i've never met john brennan okay have you ever well i guess you've
[34:58] answered my follow-up question question number six and the last question when you became special consul
[35:07] what direction did you give your staff to handle speech or debate and attorney general attorney client
[35:14] material did you issue any directories if so to whom and please explain so with respect to the speech
[35:27] or debate clause first uh we took our obligations seriously under the speech or debate clause it's in my
[35:33] view an important part of the separation of powers i had members of my staff uh who were very familiar
[35:40] with the clause having worked in the public integrity section for years uh we also uh when it was
[35:46] appropriate or required consulted with the public integrity section regarding application of that
[35:51] clause let me let me follow up with this mr smith no amount of explanation can take away from
[35:58] to the public integrity section of the public integrity section of that documentary record my opening
[36:01] remarks and the statements i made about your staff's clear failure show unequivocally how you breached
[36:09] constitutional parameters and failed to require your staff to comply with relevant rules using the terrible
[36:16] acts on january 6th as a predicate for your misguided investigation is irresponsible to that end
[36:24] either you are the world's worst manager or you shared your staff's political animus to fuel your
[36:31] partisan investigation an investigation that ruined the lives of many innocent people senator durbin mr
[36:39] smith thank you for being here there is i think appropriate concern by members of this committee and
[36:47] members of congress as to your activities related to their telephone conversations text messages and records
[36:56] please explain to us what involvement you had with any information from members of congress
[37:09] uh first with respect to uh toll records uh toll records are non-content um records they show
[37:17] who a call was to who a call was from and the length of that call uh my office did secure uh toll records
[37:26] uh from third parties third party uh telephone companies in the course of our investigation
[37:32] uh that were records for members of congress before we did that uh we consulted with the public
[37:38] integrity section regarding whether those uh toll records subpoenas were appropriate
[37:45] i approved those records and those records were materially relevant to our investigation
[37:50] why were they relevant uh for a number of reasons first um with respect to the toll records
[37:58] regarding the evening of january 6th those records corroborated evidence that we had that the president
[38:07] president donald trump and his co-conspirators were seeking to exploit the violence on january 6th in
[38:14] furtherance of their criminal scheme they were taking the fact that law enforcement officers had been
[38:19] brutally assaulted at this institution and using that to seek to delay the proceedings further in
[38:27] violation of the law it was an important part of our investigation we had interviewed co-conspirators
[38:34] who talked about the calls that were made to uh members of congress uh we had recordings of
[38:43] voicemails that showed that these voicemails are public uh where the co-conspirators were again
[38:49] providing false information uh to try to delay the proceedings uh it was an important part of our
[38:55] investigation and it was centrally relevant to the issue of criminal intent um to seek to further delay the
[39:06] proceedings in violation of the law given what had happened that afternoon at january 6th in my view
[39:14] added to the powerful evidence we had of donald trump's guilt and the participation of his co-conspirators
[39:22] in his criminal scheme at his behest so we have the capitol under siege we have the vice president
[39:28] removed from presiding over the senate by the secret service we have members of the senate and house and
[39:36] both political parties who are told to leave the building because of the danger uh i want to ask is it
[39:43] fair to surmise from what you have said that the president was in contact with some members of congress
[39:48] um we uh gained evidence uh reaching out to the white house asking please help us please stop what's
[40:09] happening please have your supporters stop attacking the capitol and then also uh again after the attack uh
[40:17] had occurred um telling uh his co-conspirators there's a message uh i believe it's between uh mark meadows
[40:25] and one of the co-conspirators that the president uh wants you to call these senators and that that record
[40:31] should be in the material that you all have um co-conspirators including rudy giuliani then sought
[40:38] to make those calls we also had evidence that the president himself was trying to reach out to individual
[40:45] senators now this has been characterized by some as a wiretap did you initiate any wiretaps relative
[40:55] to members of congress of either party no the records that we're talking about are non-content
[41:04] records the toll records are non-content records that we sought to corroborate evidence we had and
[41:11] also to assist us in questioning witnesses about these events among other things so what did the records
[41:16] disclose to you if they didn't disclose the content and conversation well they were relevant for a
[41:23] number of reasons first uh they corroborated other records we already had um some of those records were
[41:30] helpful but they had gaps in them in terms of when certain calls happened uh there was also the issue
[41:36] of when we interviewed um one of these co-conspirators who was involved in making these calls
[41:42] it was unclear from that interview uh how many phones were in fact being used to make those calls
[41:49] and so getting these records would help us figure out uh how many phones in fact were being used uh to
[41:56] make these calls and to see who else if anyone uh was involved in that it is possible and certainly
[42:03] as i understand legal for a member of congress to have more than one phone uh the official uh business of
[42:11] the uh senate may require uh one phone number uh there may be a personal phone number for you and your
[42:19] family there may even be a political phone number uh which you could resort to if you were involved in
[42:25] political activity did you make any distinction in terms of the phone messages which you were investigating
[42:33] of these three possibilities uh my recollection is being focused on the phones of the co-conspirators
[42:42] and so when you say co-conspirators do you mean members of congress no no um i'm thinking specifically
[42:49] uh of rudy giuliani one of the things that we learned in this interview of another co-conspirator
[42:55] is that he had multiple phones and so the question was if we had records did we have all the records
[43:02] of the phones that were making calls to try to exploit the violence but in terms of the phones themselves of
[43:11] the members of congress where did you find those phone numbers uh as i sit here i do not recall what i
[43:21] recall my role uh in this aspect of the investigation was i was asked by my staff to approve toll records
[43:30] uh subpoenas for these sort of records uh after uh discussing the matter with my staff
[43:37] i told them i wanted to make sure that public integrity section approved of that process that
[43:43] process happened and they did um with respect to how agents figured out or thought they had figured
[43:50] out which phones belong to which senators i don't i don't have an answer to that assume for a moment that
[43:56] one of the phone conversations was between the president of the united states and a member of the congress
[44:01] does the white house maintain any records of calls made by the president or on his behalf my
[44:12] understanding is the the white house does but my recollection and i think the terminology is the white
[44:18] house switchboard uh my recollection is that there we had discovered at various points and times
[44:24] those records were incomplete uh or we didn't or something we didn't have all the records and so that
[44:29] was another important point uh to corroborate for example evidence of an email where someone says
[44:36] uh the president is trying to reach out to these people but then to find the actual records of of
[44:43] the actual call mr smith my colleagues have spent an extensive amount of time discussing timothy tebow
[44:51] who retired from the fbi in august of 2022 according to our information you were appointed special
[44:59] counsel three months after his retirement in november of 2022 was timothy tebow a part of your special
[45:07] counsel team no did you ever meet him during your work as special counsel no not that i recall did
[45:17] timothy tebow or the work that he had done whatever it was influence any of your decision making a
[45:22] special counsel no we did we made our decisions based on the facts and based on the law based on the
[45:30] investigation uh that my team conducted so i would say to those who are following the hearing after hearing
[45:36] all these references to timothy tebow he was gone he was gone from the fbi
[45:42] by the time mr smith was appointed and he never met him and he was not part of his team some of
[45:49] these conspiracy theories just keep mushrooming despite the evidence to the contrary mr chairman i
[45:57] yield say uh before we go to the next person which will be mr lee uh you said you never met john brennan
[46:09] uh but have you ever had any conversation with john brennan uh i i have no recollection of having a
[46:20] conversation with john brennan uh senator lee's not here so then that'd be senator uh kennedy no crew crew
[46:33] oh cruz isn't here senator kennedy you're you're up now are you ready if you aren't go ahead mr smith you
[46:54] were uh pretty well known around washington even before you decided to prosecute president trump
[47:06] weren't you and aren't you i i might would say a number of people in the justice department knew
[47:13] me i don't know about washington dc what what does the word arrogant mean uh i suppose it means that
[47:31] you're full of feel full of yourself that sort of thing would you pull that mic closer to you sorry
[47:35] is that better yeah um what what does the word self-righteous mean i think it's pretty similar
[47:49] to arrogant uh have you ever heard the expression often wrong but never in doubt i don't believe i have
[48:03] yeah um you used to work for the international criminal court did you yes i did is that a is that
[48:21] a worthy organization in your opinion uh i believe the the mission of the international criminal court is a
[48:29] worthy one i think it's had numerous uh challenges and numerous problems over the year but i think the
[48:35] idea of that that no one should be above the law and that we should apply that principle around the world
[48:41] i think that's a good one we should aspire to and that would be the same uh international criminal court
[48:48] that has threatened to uh prosecute american soldiers is that right uh i am not aware of a single
[48:58] american soldier ever being prosecuted by the international criminal court i didn't say they'd
[49:02] prosecute i said they'd been threatened i can tell you during my time at the court which was a short
[49:09] period of time it was about a year and a half yeah i don't recall any threats to prosecute american
[49:16] soldiers i don't you don't get around much do you um when president or when when president trump
[49:27] defeated secretary clinton you were bitterly disappointed weren't you uh i i don't recall
[49:37] that you don't recall at all um mrs smith was wasn't she i'm uh i'm not going to talk about my family
[49:48] what i can share is that i accepted a position in the trump administration as the acting u.s attorney
[49:55] in tennessee after that election and then i accepted a second position in the trump administration as a war
[50:02] crimes prosecutor your your spouse it's certainly her right i'm not being critical uh is an ardent
[50:09] supporter of of uh president and first lady obama is that right i'm not going to talk about my family
[50:19] here today i'm here to talk about my work as special counsel in fact she made a a a glowing saccharine
[50:27] sweet documentary about first lady obama didn't she that she sold to netflix i'm not going to speak
[50:38] about my family here today i'm happy though to answer any questions you have about my actual work as
[50:43] special counsel um you you asked general garland to appoint you special counsel didn't you uh i don't
[50:59] think that's accurate uh he made the decision to appoint me you uh in fact you had people call
[51:06] general garland to lobby him to appoint you didn't you i don't recall anything like that you really
[51:18] wanted to be special counsel didn't you i accepted the position as special counsel because i had spent 30
[51:28] years as a non-partisan prosecutor i had investigated every sort of criminal case you could possibly
[51:35] imagine and i thought i was qualified to do the job i knew that i would do it independently and i would
[51:42] conduct it the same way whether a republican or a democrat you you uh you really wanted president
[51:49] biden to be re-elected didn't you i have no views about that my job as a prosecutor was to enforce
[52:01] the law i wanted to prosecute our case that's absolutely true because i felt that we had proof
[52:07] beyond a reasonable doubt that donald trump committed incredibly serious crimes and i did i got that part
[52:13] i got that part um when you when you decided to prosecute president trump um you told judge you
[52:25] you told general gardeners garland is that right uh there were two separate decisions one in the
[52:33] classified documents case and one in the elections case in both instances once i determined i'm sorry
[52:40] counselor i don't mean to be rude but you know i've got only 10 minutes so and you're you've been
[52:46] around don't please don't filibuster me it's a simple question did you tell the attorney general of the
[52:52] united states that you're going to prosecute the former president of the united states i did so twice
[52:59] okay and uh and and and and the attorney general checked with president biden is that right i have
[53:09] absolutely no idea well you know general garland right uh i know attorney general garland in a
[53:19] professional is he a smart guy i know him in a professional setting and in that setting i found him
[53:26] to be an experienced guy in a professional setting i found him to be experienced and intelligent is
[53:33] he a dummy that was not my experience yeah mine neither so you're telling me that you're about to
[53:47] prosecute a former president of the united states first time in history not only that you're about
[53:57] to prosecute a former president of the united states who's also the current opponent of judge
[54:04] garland's boss and you told judge garland here's what i'm about to do and and you you don't think
[54:14] he checked with president biden to see if it was okay i have no idea what he did my job as a prosecutor
[54:24] on the special counsel regulations was to make an independent decision and and attorney general
[54:30] garland could have countermanded that decision yeah but i made that decision on my own consulting with
[54:36] my staff and reviewing the incredibly strong evidence that we had accumulated in fact president biden and
[54:43] or his white house staff told told general garland to prosecute the president didn't they again i have
[54:52] no idea about that what my job was don't know anything about that do you believe in the tooth fairy
[55:00] i do not how about how about the easter bunny i no longer believe in the easter bunny yes do you think
[55:08] jimmy hoffa died of natural causes i do not now you you you sought the phone records of a bunch of u.s
[55:20] senators right uh we sought uh the toll records non-content records any any any democrats or just
[55:31] republicans if uh president trump had reached out to democrats but i'm just trying to get the facts
[55:38] were there any democrats he sought their phone records just republicans right the toll the toll records that
[55:45] we sought were relevant to the investigation and they were republicans i'm asking you you stalled
[55:51] me again counselor you know that you saw just the records of the republicans and you knew that
[55:58] violated the speech and debate cause didn't you that is incorrect we sought to comply with
[56:06] did you take con law i'm sorry senator were you in the quad playing frisbee during con law at harvard
[56:16] law school i did take constitutional law yes well then you had to know it violated the speech and
[56:22] debate clause in fact when when you went to judge bozberg you you didn't even tell him you were
[56:31] seeking the phone records of members of congress did you because you knew he wouldn't agree he he would
[56:38] he would say hey counselor anybody who knows a law book from a j crew catalog knows that this violates
[56:45] the constitution but you didn't tell him did you uh we sought non-disclosure orders from you didn't
[56:53] tell him did you in seeking non-disclosure orders we did not didn't tell him but you're unbiased you
[57:01] you you you have no personal feelings you make me want to throw up in my mouth mr chairman mr chairman
[57:14] his time's up i'd like to say a word this hearing is of constitutional and historic importance this
[57:22] witness should be allowed to answer the questions complete a sentence we have given that courtesy
[57:28] to witnesses from both political parties and it should be extended to mr smith okay your time's up
[57:34] senator well we i'd also like with respect dick for the for the chairman to instruct the witness
[57:42] he's not bambi's baby brother okay he's been around everybody knows him and he he was famous or
[57:49] infamous even before he was hired to prosecute president trump and i'd like you to instruct him
[57:54] not to not not to fiddle busters thank you before i call on senator coons before without objection i will
[58:04] enter it into the federal record employee payroll records for a conservative entity where jack smith's
[58:13] team obtained the personal and pay information for every employee on staff that includes monthly tax and
[58:22] health insurance payments senator coons mr chairman i'd also like to enter into the record mrs smith's
[58:29] documentary about uh former first lady obama without objection it's it's called becoming thank
[58:39] you mr chairman um thank you mr smith thank you for your testimony for your service to our government
[58:45] and your decades of work supporting our constitutional order i appreciate you being here today to testify
[58:52] something you have long offered to do something the ranking member and my colleagues on this side of
[58:58] the dais have been asking for for almost a year i want to be very clear about why we are here today
[59:05] centrally it's the events of january 6th 2021 i was here that day as were many of my colleagues on both
[59:13] sides of the dais on that day armed insurrectionists poured into the halls of this capitol complex
[59:21] looking for members of congress assaulting more than a hundred law enforcement officers
[59:27] and seeking to overturn the results of a free and fair election they assaulted members of the capitol
[59:34] police like those who are with us today and like a friend of mine former capitol police officer howie
[59:41] leaving good they were doing so at the direction encouragement of one man president donald trump
[59:49] you mr smith were later charged with investigating whether anyone interfered with the peaceful transfer
[59:56] power that day or in the weeks after the 2020 election including the then former president
[1:00:01] this was not an assignment you sought out you were a private citizen at the time but you accepted
[1:00:07] this request to serve your country and you served with distinction you and your team uncovered an
[1:00:14] unprecedented coordinated effort to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power following a presidential
[1:00:20] election the creation and presentment of fake slates of state electors knowingly false claims of
[1:00:29] election fraud repeatedly rejected by federal courts across our nation and ultimately a mob sent to attack
[1:00:36] the capitol to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power through the certification of an election
[1:00:41] twice federal grand juries agreed with you that there was sufficient evidence to bring federal charges
[1:00:47] against the then former president for his role in that insurrection but that wasn't all your team also
[1:00:54] discovered former president trump hid dozens of classified documents at mar-a-lago and when this issue was
[1:01:03] raised with him tried to hide them rather than return them our nation's most sensitive nuclear and military
[1:01:09] secrets stashed in a bathroom and in a ballroom again a federal grand jury agreed there was sufficient
[1:01:14] evidence to bring charges more than three dozen counts you and your team chose to pursue justice and
[1:01:21] i'm sorry to say some of my republican colleagues have made you pay personally for that spreading conspiracy
[1:01:27] theories about your work calling your reputation for fairness into question but president trump has gone
[1:01:32] further he carried out mass firings of men and women at the justice department prosecutors and fbi agents
[1:01:39] assigned to assist assigned to assist in your investigation non-political government servants who
[1:01:45] lost their jobs saw their careers destroyed for being asked to stand up for the rule of law and one of his
[1:01:51] first actions when re-elected was to issue sweeping pardons for everyone convicted of their actions on january
[1:01:58] 6th including many who assaulted law enforcement officers i am grateful that chairman grassley has
[1:02:04] scheduled this hearing and i appreciate your candidativeness today our responsibility is
[1:02:08] straightforward to protect the independence of the justice department defend the rule of law and make
[1:02:13] sure that all presidents republican or democrat are accountable to our people mr smith can you explain
[1:02:21] how you staffed your team did you work with rank and file line prosecutors and agents and what happened to
[1:02:28] the members of your team after president trump returned to the white house my team was composed of
[1:02:38] career prosecutors people who had spent their lives in service of this country the prosecutors and agents
[1:02:46] on my team many of them veterans are people who had devoted themselves to public service
[1:02:53] many of them had expertise in investigating complex criminal matters those people as i think
[1:03:01] we all know have been fired illegally for doing their jobs and their firing is something that in my view
[1:03:11] makes is unfair to them but it makes our country less safe these are people who stood sentry for us
[1:03:19] experts in national security experts in corruption investigations who are simply fired because they
[1:03:26] worked on the wrong case that has never happened in my career i have never seen anything remotely like it
[1:03:34] in any republican or democratic administration in your time as special counsel did then president
[1:03:41] biden or attorney general garland ever try to influence your decision making and your actions as
[1:03:46] special counsel no what sort of safeguards were in place to ensure that your investigative efforts as
[1:03:54] special counsel were shielded from partisan politics and independent well first it's the appointment of
[1:04:05] special counsel the regulations define the relationship between the special counsel
[1:04:09] and the attorney general uh and i was brought in to make an independent decision in this case i think
[1:04:15] anybody who has worked with me and knows me during the course of my career knows that i would not let
[1:04:22] politics play a role and i would just add uh that if you knew the people i worked with they would not
[1:04:29] either mr smith you've been accused of targeting republicans throughout your investigation
[1:04:35] my understanding is you worked extensively with republicans during your investigation
[1:04:40] can you say more about that and why was it important for you to speak with and work with
[1:04:45] republicans during your investigation into the incidents of january 6th and the transfer of power after
[1:04:51] the 2020 election the criminal scheme we investigated uh was predicated upon donald trump preying on party
[1:05:03] loyalty he preyed on party loyalty and fear fear that uh he could force people to do things the reality is
[1:05:12] one of the reasons uh our democracy held up one of the reasons he was not able to take power uh even though
[1:05:20] uh he was seeking to do these things is because republicans stood up our witnesses the strongest witnesses
[1:05:28] would have been republican members of congress i personally find it very hard to understand how
[1:05:36] our investigation can be viewed as partisan when the strongest witnesses the people who were the
[1:05:42] difference between the rule of law standing and not in our case were republicans people like rusty
[1:05:47] bowers uh in arizona people like mike pence who uh did the right thing uh and put the interests of the
[1:05:55] country over the personal interest of donald trump i just don't understand how
[1:06:01] an investigation predicated on witnesses like that can be partisan um mr smith what signal do you think
[1:06:08] it sends um that president trump when he was reelected um carried out mass firings of career
[1:06:14] non-partisan prosecutors what message do you think that sent to americans interested in raising their
[1:06:21] hand to serve their nation uh or to law enforcement prosecutors judges throughout our system of law
[1:06:30] i think the message it sends is that public servants uh will not be protected and if we cannot protect
[1:06:37] public servants who enforce the rule of law without fear or favor the justice department cannot work
[1:06:44] and it cannot have credibility that is why we have seen the erosion of the credibility of the department
[1:06:50] in courts across this country uh it's important i believe incredibly important to protect public
[1:06:55] servants if we want to have a rule of law that works i want to focus my last two minutes on ndos or
[1:07:01] so-called non-disclosure orders the special counsel's investigation into unprecedented efforts to
[1:07:06] unturn a presidential election was lawful and necessary um i want you to briefly walk me through the
[1:07:12] process by which you obtained non-disclosure orders for the toll records of members of congress these
[1:07:19] types of ndo requests are fairly typical in doj investigations and your ndo requests were fully
[1:07:26] compliant with the department of justice policy at the time is that correct that is correct and we had
[1:07:33] in my view an ample legal basis to seek non-disclosure orders in this case in fact the same thing happened
[1:07:41] to democratic members of congress during the first trump administration confirmed by a 2024 doj ig report
[1:07:47] is that correct i believe that's correct the thing that was unique to our case is the uh extreme
[1:07:54] concern over obstruction of our investigation uh intimidation of witnesses destruction of evidence
[1:08:01] and um interference with the integrity of the investigation by donald trump and his co-conspirators
[1:08:08] let me close on this point my republican colleagues including some long-time friends have tried to
[1:08:13] suggest there was something wrong with your decision to obtain non-disclosure orders during your
[1:08:18] investigation um i believe the government bar the current bar for granting ndos may be too low
[1:08:25] and that government requests for secrecy are too often granted my ndo fairness act with senator mike lee
[1:08:32] would ensure ndos are only issued in circumstances requiring secrecy in a way that would better protect
[1:08:38] all americans including members of congress this bill has already passed the house by voice vote the
[1:08:44] constitution protects americans right to privacy and their personal communications but we can only
[1:08:49] assert that right if we know our privacy has been violated i'm not suggesting you've done anything
[1:08:54] wrong i'm just suggesting that if i have colleagues who were enraged by your legal and appropriate and
[1:09:02] timely pursuit of ndos there's something we can and should do about it you said in your opening that
[1:09:08] while fear may be contagious courage is as well i want to thank you for your courage for standing up to
[1:09:14] relentless biased attacks on you and your family for groundless conspiracy theories and for frankly
[1:09:21] the shocking lack of forceful engagement by my colleagues to defend the rule of law in the face of one of
[1:09:29] the most challenging treacherous moments in our democracy's history the assaults on this capital
[1:09:35] and our constitution of january 6th thank you mr smith without objection i'll enter into the record
[1:09:42] emails showing the department of justice who's looking for predication so they could open a
[1:09:49] classified document case against president trump without objection during none ordered senator schmidt
[1:09:58] thank you mr chairman mr smith used to lead the public integrity section at doj is that correct
[1:10:04] yes sir you told senator durbin that you followed the public integrity section's advice and work
[1:10:09] closely with them on getting the toll records of members of congress is that correct i directed my
[1:10:15] staff to consult with them and seek their approval with regards to the toll records we sought regarding
[1:10:22] members but you said you followed their uh recommendation correct i believe what i said
[1:10:29] is that i asked my staff to consult with them and seek their approval my understanding is that the
[1:10:35] public integrity section did in fact approve these subpoenas okay in your time as special counsel did you
[1:10:41] always follow the public integrity section's advice in my time as special counsel correct uh what i did
[1:10:52] is that yes or no's would be sufficient i don't have a ton of time i know what you're doing uh we consulted with
[1:10:59] them were required by department regulations and uh they had approval of certain charges they had approval
[1:11:07] was there a time that you did not follow their advice or went against their advice i can't think of
[1:11:17] one as we sit here now well i got one for you in august of 2024 you were advised not to file a
[1:11:22] superseding indictment by the public integrity section same public integrity section you led is that correct
[1:11:29] in august of 24 correct i disagree with that well you may not know this but we have a readout of your
[1:11:36] phone call with the public integrity section where they explicitly told you in violation of the 60-day
[1:11:43] rule that you shouldn't file the superseding indictment that close to election now do you recall that
[1:11:47] advice that you ignored what you stated is inaccurate and i'm happy to clear it up well i have the
[1:11:54] highlighted version of the memo of the readout with the phone call with the public integrity section
[1:12:00] and i would remind you mr smith you are under oath so is it your testimony that they did not advise you
[1:12:07] to not file the superseding indictment that close to the election we consulted with the public integrity
[1:12:14] about filing a superseding indictment okay what'd they say there were multiple drafts of the indictment
[1:12:19] that went back and forth the first draft that we submitted they did not approve subsequent to that
[1:12:26] there was a draft that we submitted that they did approve and the public integrity section to be very clear senator
[1:12:32] concurred that we followed the election year sensitivities policy in all respects uh you did not
[1:12:40] um and after you lost the immunity decision you filed a brief in the district course based on your
[1:12:44] superseding indictment so not only do you file the superseding indictment you filed a brief that was
[1:12:49] essentially your plea to the american people in violation of the public integrity section advice isn't that correct
[1:12:57] that is incorrect okay my recollection is that we consulted the public integrity section that brief was
[1:13:04] required by the court to litigate the issues that had come up as a result of the immunity decision
[1:13:10] normally i would cut you off but you keep digging this is great it was filed uh pursuant to our duty to
[1:13:18] litigate our case in court and the public integrity section concurred that we complied with the executive
[1:13:27] i'm sorry the election year sensitivities policy in all respects i have a feeling that your testimony
[1:13:33] is going to be read back to you uh in in subsequent hearings you've lost a lot of big cases in your
[1:13:38] career haven't you i have lost cases in my career just curious what are you writing down there i'm sorry
[1:13:49] never mind um you were the chief uh of doj's public integrity section when john edwards was prosecuted
[1:13:55] that's correct and you lost that case right i believe it was a hung jury and we decided not to
[1:14:03] retry well he he was acquitted on one count and a hung jury on five is that jive i think that's right
[1:14:09] okay while you're ahead of the public integrity section you also prosecuted governor bob mcdonald
[1:14:14] correct that's correct and you lost that case right uh we won that case at trial it was upheld
[1:14:23] on this the fourth circuit and unanimously vacated by the supreme court that doesn't happen very often does
[1:14:28] it uh i can't speak it's pretty rare uh the bob menendez investigation while you're public integrity
[1:14:36] uh chief that prosecution resulted in a loss is that correct uh i had left the public integrity
[1:14:43] section by the time that case was right after you lost all these high profile cases in america you
[1:14:47] fled to the hague correct and prosecuted the president of kosovo in 2020 uh yes and he was just convicted of
[1:14:56] over uh 300 acts of torture and 96 murders and then you got a chance to come back to get trump is that
[1:15:04] right that's not right at all um did you purposely assemble a team of partisan hacks for your special
[1:15:14] prosecution of president trump no okay i want to talk about a couple of them real quickly walter uh grd
[1:15:21] and fbi agent who helped analyze the 197 fishing expedition subpoenas you sent to republican
[1:15:26] organizations basically the crime was if you were associated with a republican organization you got
[1:15:32] a subpoena multiple fbi agents have stated and sworn statements that giardina had a history of openly
[1:15:38] open his desire to invent open open with his desire to investigate president trump instructed other
[1:15:43] agents to quote dig around on president trump and signed the fisa application against the trump campaign
[1:15:49] advisor he knew contained materially false information it's been talked about cooney already um who famously
[1:15:57] said he'd like to prosecute any nun who still wears a head habit before joining your team a federal
[1:16:04] district judge criticized his improper investigation and his conduct of obtaining communications in the
[1:16:10] steve bannon case you also you all you previously testified cooney was not interested in politics
[1:16:19] do you know what cooney just ran for office recently as a democrat did you know that i'm aware of that yeah and uh
[1:16:26] his his central plank of his team of his campaign was that he had prosecuted president trump the limited
[1:16:34] time i have left i do want to ask you about a couple of things um did you go to an nba game between the
[1:16:41] golden state warriors and the atlanta hawks on february 3rd 2024 i'm sorry could you say that again did
[1:16:50] you go to an nba game between the golden state warriors and the atlanta hawks on february 3rd 2024
[1:16:56] what city would that be in atlanta no okay so your testimony today is that you did not go to a hawks
[1:17:08] game on february 3rd 2024 is that correct i have no recollection okay is it your testimony that you
[1:17:15] were not in atlanta on february 3rd 2024 let me let me just give you a little context the day before
[1:17:24] fanny willis came clean with her affair with the prosecutor you know the atlanta prosecutor that was
[1:17:28] also trying to get trump the next day were you in atlanta i do not believe so okay did you ever go to
[1:17:35] atlanta during your time as special counsel i really don't think so it's possible i flew through
[1:17:45] the atlanta airport on the way to florida but i do not have a recollection of going to atlanta i
[1:17:53] definitely did not go to a hawks game i'm sure that did you ever meet nathan wade or fanny willis
[1:17:58] in your time in your time at special counsel no what would you say if i had a series of text messages
[1:18:04] from your team that said you were in atlanta at a warrior hawks game on february 3rd 2024 the day
[1:18:10] after willis and wade announced their affair i don't think you know that we have this stuff
[1:18:21] so i'll give you a second to process it so you don't you know perjure yourself you just took it down
[1:18:27] really quick if i could look at that again okay mr chairman can we give the witness a copy so he can
[1:18:32] see what's being read to him well i think you've already sufficiently and so i want to i want to run
[1:18:38] through we'll we'll put it in a follow-up you can respond you've i think you've already perjured
[1:18:43] yourself but um did you and we or your office can we see it can we see it did you or your office
[1:18:50] seek this is my time senator if you want to use your time to criticize my question go ahead ranking
[1:18:55] member did you or your office seek the contents of members of of members of congress's emails or text
[1:19:01] messages uh we uh sought toll record subpoenas that did not contain the content of calls i am also aware
[1:19:15] that we sought uh white house phones for individuals who are relevant to our investigation
[1:19:22] uh government phones in which they had no ex did you seek the content let me ask you this way did
[1:19:27] you seek the content of messages from members of congress by other means meaning the subpoenas you
[1:19:34] sent to the other 197 organizations asking for communications from members of congress because
[1:19:40] you've said you didn't with relate with as relates to members of congress but did you do it through
[1:19:44] another means the other 97 197 subpoenas i can't address every subpoena we issued what i can say
[1:19:52] is that i am aware that in the example of congressman perry uh prosecutors this is before
[1:19:59] i was special counsel did in fact seek a search warrant and receive a judicial authority for a search
[1:20:06] warrant of his telephone so that definitely happened thank you mr smith in closing i just want
[1:20:10] to say in the famous words of the chief of the secret police under stalin of show me the man
[1:20:17] i'll show you the crime you may think you're a hero in this story but let me tell you something
[1:20:23] you're the villain you've done so much damage as a former prosecutor i can say there's so much damage
[1:20:29] the trust and faith people have in our system you have weaponized the department of justice against
[1:20:33] political enemies to an extent that has never happened in the history of this country you will go down
[1:20:39] as a total dirt bag i yield my time mr chairman before i call on senator klobuchar without objection
[1:20:47] i'll enter into the record emails showing the fbi of all agencies raised concern with the doj
[1:20:55] that there was a sufficient probable cause to obtain the search warrant at mar-a-lago senator klobuchar
[1:21:04] mr chairman then you're going to be able to allow the witness to see this fast poster board that we
[1:21:11] saw is that going to be included then in the so the witness can look at that at some point here
[1:21:17] before the hearing's over because we couldn't see what it said and i'm a former prosecutor too
[1:21:23] and i have never seen anyone just say what do you think of this and put it down we need a copy of the
[1:21:34] actual text can can you give the witness the courtesy of giving him a copy of that thank you
[1:21:46] can the witness be allowed to comment now that he can see the chart uh should we maybe give him the
[1:21:55] chance to look at it and then go back at it so he can see i think i can address it gold okay do you
[1:22:00] want to kid this isn't in my time but yes mr smith please address it just very briefly and this can if
[1:22:05] if this is the correct um um basketball game i recall going to a university of maryland basketball
[1:22:14] game where caitlyn clark was playing uh right around that time uh and the marshal service was
[1:22:20] there with me you could check if that was the exact date it was maryland playing iowa i think february
[1:22:28] of 2024 but again that's you could check that out if that's what we're talking about yes could could it
[1:22:37] then be that university of iowa's the hawkeyes could that be it and maybe before we show this
[1:22:44] kind of thing i know but if he was at an iowa game is that correct it was because caitlyn clark
[1:22:52] was coming to maryland to play and so we went to the i know but that might be the confusion over the
[1:22:58] names of the team but perhaps you should have looked at it more carefully who's questioning is
[1:23:03] this by the way you are you are you using your time center is this what this is no are we just are
[1:23:08] we just having like an open session here questions i just i'm just well i'm glad you're trying to
[1:23:12] rehabilitate the witness but it's not you are calling a witness a dirt i presented him with text
[1:23:18] messages about him wanting to meet with people that could have obviously been related to the prosecution
[1:23:25] that was coordinated with his office in atlanta well i'm going to begin my questions now but i think
[1:23:30] that people should have their facts straight before they accuse someone of being a dirt bag and not get the
[1:23:36] team i stand by that statement you had the teams wrong sir mr chairman as the floor go proceed with
[1:23:44] your question thank you from the state of minnesota where we have the gophers so there's not a lot of
[1:23:49] confusion there's not a lot of professional teams with those names mr chairman many of us in this room
[1:23:56] were here on january 6th one of the hardest days our democracy has faced insurrectionists tried to overrun
[1:24:04] this capitol and overturned an election they assaulted our heroic capitol police officers and attacked not
[1:24:15] only the capitol but american democracy itself as incoming chair of the senate rules committee it was
[1:24:22] my job with senator blunt to ensure that the electoral ballots were counted that morning began with pomp and
[1:24:30] in circumstance senator blunt vice president pence and i led a train of senators from the senate to the house
[1:24:38] to start this ceremony three pairs of young women held the mahogany boxes with the electoral ballots
[1:24:46] for the entire country and then came the insurrection capitol police were attacked pepper sprayed clubbed
[1:24:55] and trampled i remember senators gathered in a room trying to call the national guard to see if anyone
[1:25:03] would help and i will always remember the second walk and that was when all the senators had been sent home
[1:25:11] except for senator blunt and myself that walk with vice president pence who of course had been
[1:25:17] threatened to be hung at the time many people had told him to leave the capitol but he stayed
[1:25:23] vice president pence and senator blunt and i made that walk again with the same three pairs of young
[1:25:29] women holding the mahogany boxes with the electoral ballots that were in those boxes only because
[1:25:35] someone had the presence of mind to secure those boxes but this time the walk wasn't a pageantry we were
[1:25:45] walking over broken glass we were walking over marble pillars spray painted with vulgarities but we did
[1:25:55] our jobs and we made clear to the world before the sun came up and that was our goal that democracy
[1:26:02] prevailed since then the president has repeatedly tried to rewrite the story of what happened that
[1:26:10] day he wants us to forget that he tried to overturn the will of the american voters he wants us to
[1:26:16] forget that his supporters tried to carry out an insurrection where capitol police officers were
[1:26:22] assaulted tragically five brave officers who reported for duty that day ultimately passed away
[1:26:30] and the president and his allies have repeatedly attacked the heroes who defended us that day he
[1:26:37] called january 6th a day of love he has pardoned more than 1500 criminals who attacked the capitol
[1:26:44] described the prosecutions of those who attacked law enforcement as a grave national injustice and
[1:26:50] even set up a fund to use taxpayer dollars to pay those convicted of crimes he and his allies have
[1:26:56] tried to discredit the investigation into these events and smear the people who worked to hold him
[1:27:03] accountable as president trump continues to spread falsehoods about the 2020 election and is trying
[1:27:10] to undermine our democracy ahead of the 2026 elections i am grateful that you are with us today mr smith
[1:27:18] to set the record straight so i will begin with these questions through the evidence you obtained can you
[1:27:26] describe the threats that law enforcement faced that day on january 6th law enforcement officers
[1:27:38] who sought to protect the people in the capitol were brutally assaulted over 140 officers were assaulted
[1:27:47] they were assaulted with weapons as you mentioned some of them lost their lives
[1:27:52] and sort of 밖en movements were represented on the punishment of the presbyulates uh these are people in my view who we do not thank enough and that the fact that peeple are
[1:28:02] forgetting what happened that day and the sacrifices and the courage these people showed
[1:28:08] to protect people and this institution i find that troubling i will never forget uh their sacrifice
[1:28:14] thank you uh you previously wrote this about the investigators and prosecutors who worked for your office as you
[1:28:22] worked for your office as you investigated what happened.
[1:28:26] You said they are people of great decency and the highest personal integrity.
[1:28:31] The intense public scrutiny of our office, threats to their safety, and relentless unfounded
[1:28:37] attacks on their character and integrity did not deter them from fulfilling their oaths
[1:28:43] and professional obligations.
[1:28:45] What do you want the American people to know about the public servants who worked with
[1:28:49] and the work they were doing for the American people?
[1:28:54] These were good and decent people.
[1:28:58] These were people who devoted their lives to working for their communities, working for
[1:29:04] our country.
[1:29:06] They were much like the agents and prosecutors and staff that I worked with throughout my
[1:29:11] career as a prosecutor in the Department of Justice.
[1:29:15] It's the privilege and honor of my life to work with people like that.
[1:29:20] Many of these people, in addition to their work with me as a prosecutor, have served in other
[1:29:27] branches of our government.
[1:29:29] People who served in the military and literally put their lives on the line for our country.
[1:29:35] FBI agents who have stood to protect our national security.
[1:29:40] My view, these people are heroes.
[1:29:43] And I believe our country does not recognize and pay enough attention to people like that.
[1:29:49] I think if we did, the partisan things that we're discussing today, a lot of that would
[1:29:56] go away.
[1:29:57] Mm-hmm.
[1:29:58] Thank you.
[1:29:59] The Trump administration has fired career prosecutors and agents who worked on matters involving President
[1:30:06] Trump and the January 6th attack.
[1:30:09] We heard from one of those fired prosecutors who couldn't hold back the tears when describing
[1:30:14] how she had evaluated over 1,500 cases, examining each one based on the law and the evidence
[1:30:20] to determine if charges should be brought.
[1:30:23] And the Trump administration fired her simply for doing her job.
[1:30:27] One of the things that really bothered me about this as having run a prosecutor's office
[1:30:32] with 400 employees is just sometimes how you are assigned to a case is just serendipity.
[1:30:40] You're a new person, you get assigned to a team, you're on a case.
[1:30:44] You are a more experienced person and you have a certain skills, you're assigned to a case.
[1:30:49] Is it true that they don't often choose which cases they're assigned to, Mr. Smith?
[1:30:54] It is true.
[1:30:55] And it's also true that I think you may have had the same experience.
[1:30:59] These are not people who toot their own horn.
[1:31:02] These are not people who are seeking self-promotion.
[1:31:04] They're people who get satisfaction out of doing their work and doing it on behalf of the American
[1:31:09] people.
[1:31:11] And how does firing career prosecutors and agents just because they worked on January
[1:31:16] 6th cases weaken public safety and send the wrong message to law enforcement?
[1:31:22] It weakens public safety in a number of respects.
[1:31:26] If you fire people who have the expertise to conduct investigations properly and to represent
[1:31:32] the United States in court properly, you are making our country less safe.
[1:31:37] If you drive those people out of public service, the institutions we rely on for justice, for
[1:31:45] protecting our country, those institutions are weakened.
[1:31:49] We have seen this with courts across the country losing credibility in the department because
[1:31:56] the department is no longer credible in their eyes.
[1:32:00] Thank you.
[1:32:03] Isn't it true that immediately following the tweet where the president put intense pressure
[1:32:13] on Vice President Pence telling him that hundreds of thousands of people would hate his guts?
[1:32:18] And then he tweeted leading up to this, he said this, Mike Pence didn't have the courage
[1:32:23] to do what should have been done.
[1:32:25] Isn't it true that immediately following that tweet, Pence's Secret Service detail was forced
[1:32:31] to evacuate the vice president?
[1:32:35] My recollection is that those two things were very close in time.
[1:32:40] And our view was that that conduct endangered the vice president.
[1:32:46] And it also provided further evidence of the president's intent, criminal intent, to obstruct
[1:32:55] the certification procedure and have his supporters who were attacking the Capitol continue to obstruct
[1:33:01] it.
[1:33:02] Thank you.
[1:33:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, since it involves your state.
[1:33:07] We have confirmed that, in fact, you were right, Mr. Smith, Iowa, the Iowa Hawkeyes, played
[1:33:14] Maryland on February 3rd, 2024.
[1:33:19] The final score was 93 to 85, Iowa won, and Kaitlin Clark scored over, scored 30 points.
[1:33:28] So it must have been a pretty good game.
[1:33:30] The game was, in fact, in Maryland, Mr. Smith.
[1:33:32] And I would just say for a U.S. senator to have false information and imply, based on a confusion
[1:33:39] about the name of a team, which I knew, knowing my Midwestern sports, and imply that you were
[1:33:45] in another city, that you were somehow involved that day in what was happening in Georgia, and
[1:33:51] that you were in a state.
[1:33:52] And I would like to thank you for that.
[1:33:55] I know that.
[1:33:56] Because I know that I've been going to call you a dirtbag is something that deserves an
[1:33:58] apology.
[1:33:59] Thank you, Mr. Smith.
[1:34:00] Before that, without objection, I'll enter into the record a statement from Senator Blackburn.
[1:34:08] I appreciate that, Senator, chairing the subcommittee hearing on Arctic Frost as part of this committee's investigation.
[1:34:16] Also, without objection, I'll enter into the record a statement from Senator Hagerty.
[1:34:22] Both these senators were victims of Smith's prosecution campaign, and I appreciate their words concerning the importance of defending the Constitution and independence of the legislative process.
[1:34:35] Senator Brett.
[1:34:36] Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I'm also glad that we can talk about women's sports in the judiciary hearing.
[1:34:42] We certainly missed our colleagues on the other side of the aisle last week when we were talking about protecting women's sports,
[1:34:47] making sure that women have that space and they can learn to grow and learn to lead in a fair way that is safe and that is common sense.
[1:35:04] So I enjoy watching Caitlin Clark, and I want to make sure that we continue to protect those spaces for young women to come.
[1:35:10] And I would hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle could join us in that, so I'm glad we got to bring that up.
[1:35:16] Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you convening the hearing today on such an important topic,
[1:35:22] and thank you for the work that you've done over the last several years conducting rigorous oversight of the Arctic Frost investigation.
[1:35:31] We appreciate your leadership on this.
[1:35:33] And we need to bring public attention to this investigation and those that followed it.
[1:35:39] The issue really gets at the heart of one of the most fundamental principles of our republic,
[1:35:43] and that is that justice must be blind and that no American should be targeted by our justice system as a result of their politics.
[1:35:54] Unfortunately, we've discovered that that principle was far too often violated in the course of Arctic Frost and the ensuing investigations.
[1:36:03] And it's right that we focus on, shed light on, demand answers, and also accountability so that we can better ensure that it doesn't happen again moving forward.
[1:36:11] Mr. Smith, I wanted to start with the initiation of Arctic Frost investigation.
[1:36:18] The Arctic Frost investigation was opened by the FBI in April of 2022 before ultimately being assumed by your work after being appointed as special counsel in November of that year.
[1:36:30] While I understand you weren't personally involved in the initiation of Arctic Frost,
[1:36:34] it was the investigation that ultimately evolved into your 2020 case against President Trump.
[1:36:42] Yes or no, do you accept that the Arctic Frost was initiated by FBI personnel that were clearly infected by political bias?
[1:36:52] And before you answer, if you will pull your microphone closer to you,
[1:36:56] I find it interesting that I'm the only one that's having a hard time to hear.
[1:36:59] Sorry about that. How's that?
[1:37:01] That's better.
[1:37:02] Okay. I can't really speak to what happened before I was special counsel.
[1:37:07] What I can share is that the investigation I took over, I made sure politics played no role.
[1:37:13] Yeah, but beforehand, just yes or no.
[1:37:15] I mean, you know the same things that we do and probably even more.
[1:37:19] You know the political bias of Timothy Thiebaud.
[1:37:23] You've seen that laid out for you.
[1:37:24] You don't believe in any way that that affected his work in Arctic Frost.
[1:37:31] Yes or no?
[1:37:32] I do not know necessarily.
[1:37:34] Do you believe that it affected his work?
[1:37:37] Yes or no?
[1:37:38] I can't speak to that.
[1:37:40] I did not work with Timothy Thiebaud.
[1:37:40] You can't speak.
[1:37:41] It is your job to actually look at these things and figure out where there is bias,
[1:37:46] where there is fact, where there is fiction.
[1:37:48] You know what ensued.
[1:37:49] You know what happened.
[1:37:50] You've seen some of the same things that he said online.
[1:37:53] You saw what he said about President Trump.
[1:37:55] You've seen the post there that he made about Catholic priests and slurs towards Catholicism.
[1:38:03] You've been presented with the information that he's made about President Trump.
[1:38:08] His LinkedIn profile picture there with the Washington Post being on his profile,
[1:38:14] saying the Trump administration abuses just will sit.
[1:38:17] You know that stuff, yes or no?
[1:38:20] You know some of that.
[1:38:21] You're saying, whoa, whoa, none of this has ever been brought to your attention?
[1:38:26] Yes or no?
[1:38:28] I never have heard.
[1:38:31] In all of this, Timothy Thiebaud, no one's ever brought any of this, this political bias
[1:38:36] that he has clearly shared on social media accounts, biased against Catholicism, bias.
[1:38:41] No one's ever shared that with you, yes or no.
[1:38:46] Senator, I'm here to testify about my work as special counsel.
[1:38:50] Sir, I get to use this time to ask you a question, and you know that.
[1:38:53] This is very simple.
[1:38:54] Yes or no?
[1:38:56] And can you not answer that?
[1:38:58] I can.
[1:38:59] I'm sure there are things in the media about this agent.
[1:39:02] No, I didn't ask what's in the media.
[1:39:04] I asked what's in you.
[1:39:06] Do you know, has this ever been brought to your attention?
[1:39:09] This is not hard.
[1:39:11] This is not a trick question.
[1:39:13] You're telling me that you took over this guy's entire investigation, and you never looked
[1:39:19] at any of these things that all of us can see in open source?
[1:39:23] That's a lie.
[1:39:24] It's not true.
[1:39:25] Yes or no?
[1:39:26] Do you know any of these things I just said or anything similar to this about Timothy Thiebaud?
[1:39:31] I don't know the things you're saying to be true because I was not there at that time.
[1:39:37] So you took over an investigation.
[1:39:40] Ultimately, in 2024, Thiebaud was found to have violated the U.S. Office of Special Counsel,
[1:39:46] violated the Hatch Act for anti-Trump political conduct while at the FBI, and you were saying
[1:39:52] you took over his investigation and nothing.
[1:39:57] You didn't look into any of this.
[1:39:58] You know none of this.
[1:40:00] So I guess that that goes to say that you didn't go back and check his work.
[1:40:05] Yes or no?
[1:40:06] I did check the work that was done before I was there, and I did not see in that work
[1:40:11] any evidence of political bias whatsoever.
[1:40:15] I looked at that closely.
[1:40:16] Did you see, were you ever brought to your attention that he had political bias statements
[1:40:20] out in the public?
[1:40:23] Yes or no?
[1:40:25] I do not recall discussing.
[1:40:27] Look, you're really smart.
[1:40:28] You can recall that.
[1:40:30] Surely.
[1:40:31] Surely.
[1:40:33] Surely.
[1:40:34] Either that or you skated through Harvard some other way.
[1:40:37] I mean, come on.
[1:40:39] It's not hard.
[1:40:41] This is not a hard question.
[1:40:45] Look, it's clear that Mr. Thiebaud actually made investigative decisions related to President
[1:40:54] Trump and Arctic Frost and had a political bias and had an agenda.
[1:41:01] It's unbelievable that you would take over such a case that would have such ramifications
[1:41:12] on our nation and you wouldn't do your due diligence.
[1:41:17] I don't believe it.
[1:41:18] I don't believe it.
[1:41:20] And for you to sit in front of this committee and not answer a simple question when you say
[1:41:26] you're here to tell us all about it and you can't tell us whether or not you looked at
[1:41:31] the biased of the gentleman before you, it's just absurd.
[1:41:36] And look, look, in that vein, I want to turn to some of the excesses that occurred once
[1:41:42] you and your team fully took over the Arctic Frost investigation, starting with the erosion
[1:41:46] of the separation of powers.
[1:41:48] It's been widely reported that you and your team issued some 44 subpoenas related to the
[1:41:52] tolling records of at least 20 Republican members of Congress, including at least eight
[1:41:57] U.S. senators, including at least four members of this committee, and the subpoenas issued
[1:42:02] to telecom companies for member toll records included court records, non-disclosure orders
[1:42:08] attempting to bar telecommunication companies from providing any notice, any notice to impacted
[1:42:18] members.
[1:42:20] The NDO attached to the subpoenas stated that non-disclosure was necessary because, among
[1:42:26] other things, disclosure of subpoenas would lead to, quote, destruction of or tampering with
[1:42:31] evidence and, quote, intimidation of potential witnesses.
[1:42:35] So, with respect to members of this committee, whose records were subpoenaed, do you believe
[1:42:41] that there were reasonable grounds to conclude that the senators on this committee were going
[1:42:47] to engage in destruction of tampering with evidence or intimidation of a potential witness
[1:42:53] if notified about a subpoena?
[1:42:55] Yes or no?
[1:42:56] No.
[1:42:57] Our concern was that President Trump would-
[1:42:59] Wait, so, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, but that's what you said.
[1:43:01] No, that-
[1:43:01] That's what you said, so-
[1:43:02] Mr. Chairman, can we let the witness answer?
[1:43:04] He- You know what, that is what you said.
[1:43:09] You said, and my question is a yes or no, and he answered it.
[1:43:12] He answered it.
[1:43:13] That's incorrect.
[1:43:13] So, based on the records released by Chairman Grassley, it appears the actual reason for
[1:43:19] the NDOs was to avoid giving those members the opportunity to challenge the subpoenas pursuant
[1:43:27] to the protection that they enjoyed under the Constitution's speech and debate clause.
[1:43:34] At the beginning, you said that you had no partisan loyalty, and you said you were very
[1:43:40] familiar with all of this law, but you and your team were aware of the protections and
[1:43:45] chose a court of action that nonetheless was designed to undermine them.
[1:43:51] To undermine Senator Graham, to undermine Senator Cruz, Senator Hawley, Senator Blackburn.
[1:43:57] It's ironic to me that in carrying out an investigation framed by many, particularly on the left,
[1:44:05] as a righteous crusade to defend democracy and the Constitution, your team took actions to
[1:44:14] directly undermine the separation of powers at the heart of the Constitution.
[1:44:20] The fruit of the poisonous tree continues to grow.
[1:44:26] And I'd like to ask several more questions.
[1:44:32] Um, yes, sir.
[1:44:37] Well, you know, a lot of people got back and forth time that wasn't included, and people
[1:44:41] have gotten minutes afterwards, so I'm going to ask one more question, please, sir.
[1:44:47] Mr. Smith, it's your testimony to this committee that you observe the proper investigative protocols
[1:44:54] at all times, including the filter team protocols.
[1:45:00] Yes, we sought to do things consistent with the law and department policy at all times.
[1:45:04] And just a clarification, you never said that you wanted this case, not to one person,
[1:45:11] in any way, shape, or form, did you seek this case?
[1:45:17] Uh, I previously explained that I had contacted a former colleague and indicated to him I wish,
[1:45:24] I wish to come back to the Justice Department if there was a case where I could be of use.
[1:45:29] This ended up being that case, and I accepted the position when, uh...
[1:45:33] You never mentioned this case.
[1:45:36] Uh... Never.
[1:45:36] When I brought up the idea of coming back to the Justice Department, I do not recall
[1:45:43] mentioning this case.
[1:45:44] I'm not even sure, um, the exact timeline of that.
[1:45:48] What I can say is that eventually it is correct that this position was offered to me and I did accept it.
[1:45:54] Thank you.
[1:45:55] Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
[1:46:10] Uh... Mr. Smith, thank you for being here.
[1:46:16] You're here voluntarily, correct?
[1:46:18] Yes.
[1:46:18] You offered to come repeatedly more than a year ago, correct?
[1:46:24] I believe it was last October.
[1:46:26] And you didn't need to be subpoenaed to come here.
[1:46:30] You came here to tell your story.
[1:46:32] I want to give you the opportunity to respond to some of Senator Britt's questions, if you
[1:46:38] feel that you have anything to add, because you were interrupted repeatedly.
[1:46:43] Uh... And I'm willing to take some of my time to give you an opportunity to clarify anything
[1:46:48] you'd like.
[1:46:49] Just very briefly, um, our nondisclosure orders were not predicated on the idea that members
[1:46:55] of Congress or members of this committee would commit acts of obstruction.
[1:47:00] It was based on a real concern that Donald Trump and his associates would do that because
[1:47:06] they had done it and they did it again.
[1:47:10] Donald Trump, in our case, uh, in the elections case, later, uh, uh, suggested that a witness,
[1:47:16] General Mark Milley, should be put to death, uh, he said, uh, if you come after me, I'm coming
[1:47:22] after you.
[1:47:23] Um, election workers in Georgia, um, Ruby Freeman and her daughter faced vile, racist death threats
[1:47:32] because of the things that Donald Trump said and how he targeted her.
[1:47:37] We had an absolute basis to seek protection of our investigation from that sort of obstruction.
[1:47:43] Pretty chilling stuff.
[1:47:44] I think everybody watching should be chilled by what you've just recounted.
[1:47:50] I want to remind folks why we're here today.
[1:47:56] And I think a picture is worth a thousand words.
[1:48:00] We're here today because Donald Trump incited a mob to attack us, the Capitol, members of
[1:48:11] Congress, to stop the counting of votes.
[1:48:16] He objected to the results of an election and he tried to stop the peaceful transition
[1:48:24] of power by inciting rioters to attack the Capitol, including everybody here today.
[1:48:35] And we came to this very room on that day seeking safety, finding refuge.
[1:48:45] We were kept here for hours.
[1:48:50] And then we were given the choice to secretly go home to leave here as armed guards sought
[1:48:59] to protect us in this room.
[1:49:01] And I remember sitting over in that corner trying to recharge my phone so I could call
[1:49:08] my wife to tell her I was okay.
[1:49:13] That's what Donald Trump did on that day.
[1:49:17] And we decided it was a really great moment in the history of this body, at least recent
[1:49:26] history, that we would not go home.
[1:49:29] That we would continue the counting of votes.
[1:49:32] And we decided, I was so inspired by this moment, Republicans and Democrats alike, all of us,
[1:49:41] that we wanted that transition of democracy to go forward.
[1:49:45] And it did, in spite of Donald Trump.
[1:49:50] I want to read to you what you told the House committee.
[1:49:55] Our assessment of the evidence is that the person most responsible for what happened on
[1:50:00] January 6th, that he is the person most responsible for what happened on January 6th.
[1:50:08] He caused what happened.
[1:50:10] It was foreseeable to him.
[1:50:13] And then when it happened, he tried to exploit it in furtherance of the conspiracy.
[1:50:20] You stand by that statement?
[1:50:22] I do.
[1:50:23] And you conducted this investigation.
[1:50:26] It lasted months, correct?
[1:50:29] That's correct.
[1:50:30] And you concluded that on January 6th, Donald Trump directed an angry mob to the U.S. Capitol
[1:50:40] to obstruct congressional certification of the presidential election, correct?
[1:50:45] Yes.
[1:50:46] He exploited the rioters' violence to delay the counting of the vote, correct?
[1:50:54] Correct.
[1:50:55] It was the result of a criminal conspiracy that resulted from his denying the results
[1:51:02] of the 2020 election, correct?
[1:51:05] Yes.
[1:51:06] And he knew those claims were false.
[1:51:10] Yes.
[1:51:11] That's what we alleged in our indictment.
[1:51:13] And that's what we intended to prove at trial.
[1:51:15] You intended to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, correct?
[1:51:19] Absolutely.
[1:51:20] And you brought that indictment, even though the standard was probable cause, because you
[1:51:26] had proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1:51:29] Yes.
[1:51:31] We had evidence from a variety of sources.
[1:51:34] As I mentioned earlier, we had Republicans who wanted Donald Trump to win the election,
[1:51:40] people who had hoped he would win, but who put country before party.
[1:51:45] We felt those would be very powerful witnesses.
[1:51:48] We also had law enforcement officers who sought to defend this Capitol, who put their lives
[1:51:52] on the line for our democracy.
[1:51:54] Those two would be very powerful witnesses.
[1:51:57] And, in fact, more than 140 were assaulted, correct?
[1:52:01] Yes.
[1:52:01] Now, the inciting of that mob and the riot was following his attempt to induce state officials,
[1:52:12] this point is really important, induce state officials to ignore the true vote count and
[1:52:19] manufacture fraudulent state electors' slaves in not just one or two, but seven separate
[1:52:29] states, correct?
[1:52:30] Yes.
[1:52:31] And again, these charges were not brought by you personally.
[1:52:39] They were the result of a grand jury indictment involving how many people sit on a grand jury?
[1:52:46] Up to 23.
[1:52:48] They're everyday Americans, correct?
[1:52:50] Yes.
[1:52:52] Who hear all the evidence and they make a judgment without fear or favor and their identities
[1:52:57] are protected, correct?
[1:52:59] Yes.
[1:53:00] And this indictment was not the result of some extraordinary process.
[1:53:08] I'm a former federal prosecutor.
[1:53:10] I was U.S. attorney in Connecticut.
[1:53:11] I was a state attorney general in Connecticut.
[1:53:17] Indictments are returned by grand juries composed of 23 everyday Americans in the course of criminal
[1:53:24] proceedings throughout the country.
[1:53:27] And that's the way the process works, correct?
[1:53:29] That is correct.
[1:53:31] Now, there is something larger at stake here, I think, and I think you've alluded to it.
[1:53:43] The reason why these criminal charges and their serious felony counts against Donald Trump
[1:53:50] are so important is deterrence.
[1:53:57] That's why conviction would have been important.
[1:54:00] And it was forestalled by forces beyond your control.
[1:54:05] But deterrence of criminal conduct is one of the valid goals of criminal proceedings, correct?
[1:54:10] Yes, it is.
[1:54:12] And what we're trying to deter here is an attack on democracy.
[1:54:20] Another assault on the Capitol or some other symbol of democracy.
[1:54:26] More than a symbol, it is the fulcrum, one of the central points of our democracy.
[1:54:36] We want to make sure that this attack on our election system doesn't happen again, correct?
[1:54:44] Yes.
[1:54:46] So this criminal proceeding is not about personal retribution against Donald Trump.
[1:54:53] It really is, in a sense, a defense of our democracy to stop another attack on our democracy, correct?
[1:55:04] We brought the case based on the facts and the law.
[1:55:07] My view is that those facts amply supported the prosecution we brought.
[1:55:13] But you didn't bring it as a matter of public policy.
[1:55:16] You brought it as a prosecutor following the facts and law, correct?
[1:55:21] That's correct.
[1:55:22] As a prosecutor, I work within the confines of my profession and the rules of the department,
[1:55:27] as well as the law.
[1:55:29] My job is to follow the facts and law and bring a case if it's appropriate and not bring
[1:55:33] a case if it's appropriate.
[1:55:36] And that's what we did.
[1:55:38] I want to show you a picture.
[1:55:40] You're going to recognize it, even though I know it's going to be difficult to see.
[1:55:45] It comes from one of the indictments from the grand jury.
[1:55:52] It is of how Donald Trump stored classified documents in his ballroom and bathroom, in his
[1:56:00] personal home.
[1:56:01] These were classified documents that he bragged were secret.
[1:56:05] He showed it to visiting journalists.
[1:56:08] He showed it to friends.
[1:56:09] And he stored it in this way with the documents slew across the floor, classified documents
[1:56:18] about American vulnerabilities to attack by our enemies and plans to counter those attacks.
[1:56:28] Is that the way classified documents ought to be stored, Mr. Smith?
[1:56:31] No.
[1:56:32] And he was indicted by a grand jury for taking those classified documents without authorization
[1:56:41] and without safeguarding them in even the most minimal way.
[1:56:47] He didn't even put them in a safe or in a closet.
[1:56:52] They were strewn across the floor, correct?
[1:56:53] The indictment lays out the allegations that we brought and that the grand jury voted.
[1:57:00] Senator Lee, thank you for your answers to my question, Mr. Smith.
[1:57:05] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:57:06] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:57:08] Mr. Smith, in your testimony before the House of Representatives, you testified under oath
[1:57:15] that the information you sought for many of your targets, including members of Congress,
[1:57:22] you sought only toll records.
[1:57:24] Is that correct?
[1:57:27] I did not testify that members of Congress were targets of our investigation.
[1:57:32] I did answer questions about toll records, and each question I was asked, I answered truthfully.
[1:57:38] Okay.
[1:57:41] But your statement was to the effect that for the records that you requested as to cell
[1:57:48] phones of members of Congress, you were seeking only toll records.
[1:57:53] Did you not?
[1:57:54] No.
[1:57:55] Did you seek more than toll records from members of Congress?
[1:57:59] The records that we sought were the toll records subpoenas that we talked about.
[1:58:05] There was also, previous to my time as special counsel, a search warrant executed on the telephone
[1:58:12] of a member of Congress, Congressman Scott Perry.
[1:58:15] In addition to that, we did request records from the National Archives, another executive agency
[1:58:24] regarding White House phones.
[1:58:26] I understand that those White House phones ended up having-
[1:58:31] Right.
[1:58:32] Incidental communications involving some members of Congress.
[1:58:34] Yeah, I get that.
[1:58:35] By the way, when you use the term toll records, just define for us what you mean.
[1:58:41] My understanding of what a toll record gives you is who placed a call, who the call was to,
[1:58:51] and the duration of the call.
[1:58:53] That's my understanding of the primary information you get from a toll record subpoena.
[1:58:58] It does not include, for example, the content of the call.
[1:59:03] Okay.
[1:59:04] Now, in December of 2022, you and your team sent preservation requests to Apple.
[1:59:15] These are preservation requests that went not to the telecom providers, you know, not
[1:59:20] to T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T, but rather to Apple, demanding that Apple preserve the entire
[1:59:26] contents of targeted phones.
[1:59:30] It's been contained on the targeted phone, on the targeted Apple ID, which would include
[1:59:35] all devices attached to that Apple ID account.
[1:59:40] This could include information, naturally would, in some circumstances that would cover not just
[1:59:46] the days, weeks, or months in question, but many years, perhaps a decade or more, of information.
[1:59:54] You specifically directed, you and your team, ordered Apple not to disclose the request and
[2:00:02] to contact you and your team first if the users were about to be alerted.
[2:00:07] Is that correct?
[2:00:11] I don't have a recollection of specific requests.
[2:00:16] I can say, though, just to be clear.
[2:00:18] I'm going to hand you two copies of these requests.
[2:00:20] Thank you.
[2:00:21] One in December of 22, and another one in March of 23, extending the time frame and asking
[2:00:30] for an additional 90 days of that information.
[2:00:33] And what I wanted to make clear, Senator, is that a preservation request gives a prosecutor
[2:00:38] no information whatsoever.
[2:00:39] No, I get that.
[2:00:40] I get that.
[2:00:41] It just leaves open the possibility for a request in the future.
[2:00:43] Yes.
[2:00:44] Now, so, with these preservation requests, you cover a lot more than toll records in the
[2:00:53] preservation request, and the preservation request requests basically everything on
[2:00:58] that phone or on that Apple ID, sweeping.
[2:01:03] One question I've got for you is, why make such a broad preservation request if you intended
[2:01:09] only to seek toll records?
[2:01:13] Do you want me to take the time and read these records now, or do you want me to tell you how
[2:01:16] I understand this works?
[2:01:17] Well, tell me how you understand it works.
[2:01:21] The part of it that I'm most interested in, I believe, appears on the second page of
[2:01:24] both the December 22 letter and the March of 23 letter.
[2:01:29] It basically just says, send us everything, all documents and all, you know, data on the
[2:01:34] phone in question.
[2:01:35] So, but tell me why it is that you make such a broad preservation request if you did not
[2:01:41] intend to get anything beyond toll records?
[2:01:43] Sure.
[2:01:44] The other question is, is that the preservation requests are, by their nature, broad, because
[2:01:51] when you're early in an investigation, you don't know what will be relevant later on.
[2:01:57] Again, my understanding generally as a prosecutor for a number of years is these preservation requests
[2:02:04] are pretty boilerplate in the sense that prosecutors request kind of the same information, a broad array
[2:02:11] of information to be preserved in any case. I get that. And these preservation requests signed
[2:02:25] by members of your team asked them not to disclose anything about this. I want to get
[2:02:34] back for a moment to subpoenas that actually were issued and then I'll circle back to the gag orders
[2:02:42] in a moment. The speech and debate clause of article one section six clause one should factor in to some
[2:02:51] of these insofar as you are you and your team are looking into communications of individual members
[2:03:02] officers of a coordinate branch of government here the legislative branch members of the house
[2:03:07] and of the senate and it's there to give them a type of privilege as to their internal
[2:03:14] deliberative processes involving their legislative actions including things like congress's
[2:03:22] obligation to open and count electoral votes. Now on this and and matters broadly the department
[2:03:30] of justice's own public integrity section it did give you explicit warnings that going after the phone
[2:03:37] records of members of the legislative branch carried what they referred to as litigation risks due to
[2:03:44] these constitutional privileges. Yet with your express approval your approval your office issued 44
[2:03:52] subpoenas that were wrapped in very strict gag orders. At least 19 of those targets were in fact officers of a
[2:04:00] coordinate branch of government that is the legislative branch. Now Chief Judge Boasberg of the U.S.
[2:04:06] District Court for the District of Columbia signed those gag orders. But as you admitted on page 42
[2:04:13] of your deposition uh before the House Judiciary Committee you never actually told
[2:04:19] Chief Judge Boasberg that you were targeting 19 members of a coordinate branch of government the
[2:04:25] legislative branch. Is that right? Uh are we speaking about the toll records?
[2:04:31] No. Yeah we're talking about the subpoenas that were signed by Chief Judge Boasberg involving the
[2:04:37] toll records. Yes. I think Judge Boasberg didn't sign the subpoenas. I think he signed off on the
[2:04:43] non-disclosure order that went with the subpoenas. But you are correct in that my recollection is that uh
[2:04:50] pursuant to department policy we did not share with him uh who the underlying toll records um were for at
[2:04:58] that time. I think that's correct. Okay. Now this highlights and underscores something that my friend
[2:05:02] and colleague uh uh Senator Coons um uh a reference. He and I have a bill a bipartisan bill called the
[2:05:11] NDO Fairness Act. It seeks to guarantee as the name implies fairness and non-disclosure orders issued by
[2:05:18] courts. There should be an articulated basis for secrecy when you're asking for a gag order. Now that that
[2:05:26] bill has been passed unanimously by the House of Representatives. The Senate has yes to pass it. The
[2:05:31] Senate needs to pass it. It must pass it. But even without that passing obviously it's not law now and
[2:05:37] it wasn't law in December of 2022 or 2023 or any any point. But still the speech of debate clause of
[2:05:46] article one section six was intact and has been since 1789 when the constitution was ratified. Shouldn't
[2:05:55] that play some role here? And doesn't that uh shouldn't that have um uh been more carefully considered as
[2:06:04] you were seeking these records involving members of a coordinate branch of government the legislative
[2:06:11] branch when you were seeking these uh these documents? Uh when we requested the toll record subpoenas
[2:06:20] I had staff who were familiar with the speech of debate clause. They uh litigated issues related to it.
[2:06:26] Uh we also I made it a condition of getting these subpoenas that the public integrity section which is
[2:06:32] familiar with these issues be consulted. Uh my recollection is that they approved of the subpoenas
[2:06:40] and um as a result of that that is why we sought the subpoenas. So in my view uh we did consider these
[2:06:47] issues with respect to the bill you mentioned. I'm not familiar with that as a prosecutor my job is to
[2:06:54] follow the law and department regulations as they exist. I get it. My point is to make the case for this.
[2:07:00] But I want to make sure that I understand. Do you define toll records to include geolocation data?
[2:07:09] I would have to look at the subpoena. My my uh understanding of what was most relevant to us would be
[2:07:16] the uh to and from and duration. Uh I haven't looked at one of those subpoenas in a long time. Again
[2:07:24] like the um preservation requests. I think the the uh information requested is pretty standard in those
[2:07:32] subpoenas. Um I'm just not I don't recall as I sit here whether there are other things. What I focused
[2:07:38] on was the to from and and I I get it and I'm I'm out of time. Uh my my point is this even without that
[2:07:45] bill and deal fairness becoming law. It's not yet law. It needs to become law. There still
[2:07:50] were all kinds of limitations even separate and apart from the speech or debate clause.
[2:07:54] Uh uh uh a Supreme Court precedent involving uh Jones Carpenter more recently Chowtri recognizes
[2:08:03] that uh the Fourth Amendment especially insofar as you're seeking things like geolocation data.
[2:08:09] You can get such an exquisite view into someone's life by tracking them that the uh if when you request
[2:08:18] it this way with new technology that implicates the Fourth Amendment in a very direct way in a very
[2:08:24] direct way that often requires compliance not only with the Fourth Amendment's uh uh probable cause
[2:08:31] requirement but also with the particularity requirement. The American Revolution was fought
[2:08:36] and won because of the flagrant abuse by the Crown and Parliament uh of those privacy protections
[2:08:43] which uh have their origins in many centuries of uh Anglo-American legal precedent and tradition
[2:08:51] prior to the American Revolution prior to the Constitution. You trampled on those sir and you did so
[2:08:57] in a way that arguably makes what Richard Nixon did in Watergate look like a Sunday picnic. Thank you.
[2:09:03] Thank you. Before I call on Senator Hirano without objection I'll enter into the record preservation
[2:09:09] requests from the FBI the majority of which were Mr. Smith's request to Apple and Google for member of
[2:09:19] Congress records. Senator Hirano. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh Mr. Smith thank you very much for
[2:09:25] volunteering to testify today and it's been about a year since you offered to do that and I'm glad that
[2:09:33] my Republican colleagues have finally uh allowed you to come and testify uh but from what uh um I've been
[2:09:41] hearing uh I don't think uh a number of my Republican colleagues really uh want to get to the bottom of
[2:09:49] what happened um and what happened that led to your lawful investigations into the crimes committed by
[2:09:58] President Trump including by the way we were witness to a uh a narrative a false
[2:10:05] narrative accusing you of being at a game that you were nowhere near and I suppose that was supposed
[2:10:12] to be in furtherance of some sort of conspiracy or something I really don't know but uh you would
[2:10:18] hope that uh members uh of this committee uh would not uh make those kinds of accusations and then to call
[2:10:27] you names on top of that well um we want to get to the bottom of what happened when you were a special
[2:10:39] counsel and a lot of the facts in fact the facts surrounding what happened on January 6th are facts
[2:10:47] and as John Adams once said facts are stubborn things and the facts here again are damning in August
[2:10:57] 2024 you obtained a revised indictment from a grand jury and Mr. Chairman I'd like uh to have this
[2:11:06] indictment included in the record uh as unanimous consent that this 36 page of indictment be included
[2:11:20] this 36 page indictment lays out in detail the way President Trump and his co-conspirators
[2:11:26] pressured and harassed state officials and election workers to undermine confidence in the 2020 election
[2:11:34] including calling Georgia's Secretary of State and telling him to find over 11,000 votes and suggesting
[2:11:42] he could be prosecuted if he failed to find these votes the indictment then outlines a coordinated
[2:11:48] multi-state scheme to assemble groups of fake electors fake electors to set up a legal dispute in Congress over
[2:12:02] certification of the election the indictment next details a campaign by President Trump to coerce Vice
[2:12:10] President Pence to derail the electoral certification process on January 6th seeking to have him fraudulently
[2:12:21] altered the election results and when Pence said there was no constitutional basis for him to do that
[2:12:28] President Trump told Vice President Pence you are too honest finally the indictment outlines the way
[2:12:37] President Trump and his co-conspirators exploited the violence and chaos at the capitol and as the
[2:12:45] Capitol was attacked by a violent mob this included President Trump having a co-conspirator call to
[2:12:54] lawmakers to try to delay the certification of the election only the heroic actions of law enforcement
[2:13:02] allowed a restoration of order and the completion of the legitimate certification of the election and of the
[2:13:08] the process it was a chaotic violent day I was there many of us were there now legally the allegations
[2:13:21] in the indictment I just summarized are only allegations because thanks to President Trump's
[2:13:26] delaying tactics and a willing Supreme Court Mr. Smith never got the chance to prove them these
[2:13:33] allegations to a jury but those events happened we were all here those crimes were committed President
[2:13:43] Trump lost the 2020 election and he wouldn't accept his loss and committed a series of crimes in his
[2:13:51] attempt to keep power in fact to this day President Trump cannot admit that he lost the 2020 election and
[2:13:59] every single one of his nominees all his judicial nominees his executive branch nominees every single
[2:14:06] one of them when they are asked who won the 2020 election are unable to say that Joe Biden won the election that
[2:14:14] is how much President Trump is hanging on to this lie to his lie that he lost the 2020 election
[2:14:24] I'd like to turn to you Mr. Smith for a question now under federal law each of the allegations in the
[2:14:32] August 2024 indictment had to be found to be supported by probable cause by at least 12 grand juries
[2:14:41] correct that is correct and as a federal prosecutor under the justice manual ethics rules and case law
[2:14:52] you had to believe in good faith that the allegations contained in the indictment were true and provable
[2:15:01] beyond a reasonable doubt in court is that correct yes we believe we could prove our case in court beyond a
[2:15:10] reasonable doubt and you never got that chance Mr. Smith it's not clear whether critics of your investigation
[2:15:17] are upset about those investigations being opened or about where they led so let's start with the
[2:15:28] investigations being opened both the classified documents case and the election conspiracy
[2:15:34] investigations were already open when A.G. Garland appointed you in November 2022 correct yes
[2:15:46] Mr. Chairman I'll put two documents into the record as unanimous consent detailing the basis for the
[2:15:53] basis for the investigations docket 2770 277 in the Florida documents case and an April 2022 memo from the FBI to DOJ
[2:16:05] about the election conspiracy I asked unanimous consent that these documents be included in the record
[2:16:16] it's rich for my colleagues to talk about weaponization of the DOJ when they sat in this room last year as Pam
[2:16:24] Bondi no longer with us admitted that a social media post from President Trump directed her to investigate his
[2:16:33] perceived enemies we all know this the president makes no bones about the fact that he considers the
[2:16:41] Department of Justice his law firm and he considers the Attorney General his lawyer and they are supposed to
[2:16:48] do whatever he wants and he says hey Pam go after so-and-so Mr. Smith did President Biden direct you to do anything
[2:16:59] using social media no did President Biden A.G. Garland or anyone at DOJ interfere or interfere with or improperly
[2:17:11] influence your decision to bring charges no I think you testified as to how you bring charges can you remind us
[2:17:22] on what basis you bring charges uh as a federal prosecutor we bring charges after we do an investigation and
[2:17:30] collect the facts and review the law facts and the law I think we should all be reminded facts and the
[2:17:36] law that is my expectation of all of the uh all of our prosecutors but believe me that is not what we
[2:17:42] have in this regime Mr. Smith to quote volume one of your report President Trump's attempts to overturn the
[2:17:52] election were and quoting volume one without historical analog can you expand on that point what was unique
[2:18:00] about President Trump's conduct here uh in the history of our country uh this capital where the votes were
[2:18:11] being counted had never been violently attacked uh there had never been a campaign um an unprecedented
[2:18:18] criminal scheme that we uh alleged in the indictment uh to block the peaceful transfer of power uh as there
[2:18:27] was in this case and we felt that we had very strong proof from a variety of sources to make that case uh the
[2:18:36] challenge of our uh trial presentation would have been how to present that in a concise way uh given the
[2:18:43] number of witnesses and the number of types of corroborative evidence we had in our case
[2:18:48] thank you I think we should all remind ourselves that what happened on January 6th was untoward
[2:18:56] it's not normal and it is certainly not normal for a president to commit the kinds of crimes that your
[2:19:02] indictment uh alleged and uh our nation is poorer for the fact that you could not uh prove your case
[2:19:12] through events beyond your control thank you Mr. Chairman Mr. Smith the attorney general of the
[2:19:25] United States Merrick Garland appointed you special counsel on November the 18th 2022 three days three
[2:19:34] days after President Trump announced his candidacy for office in 2024 correct yes sir well trying to
[2:19:44] make some sense of all of this um how is it that any supporter of the president of which let's say
[2:19:55] roughly half the country President Trump in this case would view that as a non-political
[2:20:01] or non-partisan act I understood it as an act uh to take politics out of the decision uh my job was to
[2:20:11] be an independent prosecutor and make an independent judgment uh regardless of what anyone from a
[2:20:17] political party thought or wanted you didn't you didn't make the decision to appoint you as special
[2:20:23] counsel three days after President Trump announced his candidacy in 2024 that was Merrick Garland's
[2:20:29] decision uh a member of President Biden's cabinet correct yes sir well let's you know put the shoe
[2:20:38] on the other foot so let's say President Trump is president of the United States and um three days after
[2:20:48] someone announced their candidacy to run against him for that position his attorney general appoints a
[2:20:56] special counsel to investigate and potentially prosecute that political opponent would you agree with me
[2:21:03] that um that creates some perception problems in other words it may not be something that you did as
[2:21:12] special counsel but the fact that so close to the election shortly after the opponent was uh announced
[2:21:20] that the incumbent president of the United States through his attorney general makes a decision
[2:21:25] to investigate that political opponent I understand your your concern I think the factor here is that in
[2:21:34] my case the investigations were already pending and so that meant uh if they were going to go forward
[2:21:40] did you want to make sure someone independent was reviewing them well you a special counsel you not
[2:21:46] truly independent you uh report to the attorney general correct yes my understanding on the regulations
[2:21:52] is I wish to make an independent decision and he could overrule that decision well he could fire you at
[2:21:58] will correct the attorney general could I believe I'm not sure I'd have to look at the regulations I
[2:22:05] can't remember if it's with cause or at will I'm sure that uh once appointed special counsel you know
[2:22:12] what we're not special counsel for life you were subject to being dismissed by the attorney general the
[2:22:17] very person who appointed you in the first place um so it seems to me that the the original sin
[2:22:28] of this ill-conceived prosecution of a political opponent really occurred uh by because of uh attorney
[2:22:36] general merrick garland a member of the president's president biden's cabinet um are you aware of
[2:22:46] whether this has ever happened before in the 250 year history of the united states of america where
[2:22:53] uh an incumbent president um attorney general appoints a special counsel to investigate
[2:23:02] his his or her political opponent has that ever happened before uh i i know special counsels have been
[2:23:09] appointed in a number of instances where there was a need for an independent prosecutor as i sit here
[2:23:15] now i can't recall an exact situation like this yeah i can't either ultimately the supreme court of the
[2:23:26] united states and trump versus united states decided on july the first 2024 decided that a president
[2:23:34] um enjoys immunity for official acts is that your understanding of the supreme court's decision yes
[2:23:44] uh immunity for core uh acts and then presumptive immunity for other official acts right and the the court
[2:23:53] um remanded the case arising out of the january 6 prosecution um back to the trial court that eventually
[2:24:10] eventually dismissed the case based on that supreme court decision is that right that's that's not
[2:24:16] correct um i moved to dismiss the case because so you you've moved to dismiss it yes because justice
[2:24:23] department policy um uh from the office of legal counsel does not permit the prosecution to go forward
[2:24:30] given donald trump's re-election that's the department of policy uh department policy and i was
[2:24:36] committed to following the department policy at all times well isn't it true that judge cannon uh
[2:24:43] throughout the documents case uh partly on the theory that uh that it violated the appointment
[2:24:50] appointments clause of the united states constitution this is something that justice scalia previewed back
[2:24:56] in 1988 was that uh part of the reason that the judge decided to throw the case out my recollection
[2:25:05] is that she uh dismissed the case because she believed that the attorney general did not have
[2:25:11] statutory authority to appoint me our position was that there is decades of precedent and supreme court
[2:25:18] precedent on point and we were in the process of appealing that decision uh when uh i was required to
[2:25:24] dismiss the case so judge cochran basically said it was illegal to appoint you as special counsel it was
[2:25:32] unconstitutional that was the basis of her decision because it violated the appointments appointments clause
[2:25:39] of the constitution correct my recollection is that judge cannon dismissed the case because there was not
[2:25:47] a statutory basis uh of the four statutes we uh cited even though those statutes had been used to pro
[2:25:55] to appoint prosecutors like the watergate prosecutor and i believe that judge cannon is the first judge of
[2:26:02] several to have considered this issue and come to that conclusion other courts who had reviewed these
[2:26:07] very same statutes had concluded that these were a legitimate basis and that is why we appealed the
[2:26:14] decision and i was confident that if the 11th circuit heard this case we would prevail well i've heard a
[2:26:20] lot of lawyers predict what appellate courts are going to do and uh i guess they uh have a 50 50 chance of
[2:26:27] being right but in this case you dismissed the case before any appellate court could review the decision made
[2:26:33] by judge cannon correct that's correct but i want to be clear i did not dismiss it because of any infirmity
[2:26:39] in the case i felt we could prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt i did it because department policy
[2:26:45] requires it to be dismissed regardless of how strong the case is mr smith in your opinion is it a good idea
[2:26:54] for a sitting president of the united states the commander-in-chief of the armed forces the leader of the free
[2:26:59] world to have to be subjected to criminal investigations and indictments and prosecutions while he or she is
[2:27:07] sitting as president isn't as a policy matter that's why the supreme court held that uh the president
[2:27:14] enjoys immunity while he or she is in office because that would totally divert and distract their attention
[2:27:22] from performing the duties of their office wasn't that in essence what the supreme court said uh the
[2:27:30] supreme court uh did take those factors into consideration uh i believe that nobody should
[2:27:37] be above the law regardless of what job they hold uh and i have a concern uh obviously we as you know we
[2:27:44] followed the supreme court decision and we litigated uh consistent with it uh but i do have a concern
[2:27:50] uh that when we uh create such exceptions for powerful people it can be very dangerous for the rule of law
[2:27:57] well i've been a lawyer for a long time and you have too so i know lawyers have different opinions
[2:28:02] about different things but ultimately uh the supreme court of the united states is final
[2:28:07] on these matters correct that's correct thank you mr chairman uh thank you very much thank you uh mr
[2:28:16] smith for being here you know as i've listened to the questions and i'm trying to understand what's really
[2:28:25] behind the inquiries and also behind the attacks on the prosecution i think it divides into two things
[2:28:33] number one we have a very divided country politically that half the country voted for president trump
[2:28:39] they liked his policies and preferred them over the democrats half the country voted for the for his
[2:28:46] opponent and here we are that battle that political battle is raging as we sit here in this committee
[2:28:57] in in this country but there's a second issue that's really quite distinct and separate and that
[2:29:05] issue is what happened with those documents that were in mar-a-largo but more importantly what
[2:29:12] happened on january 6th and was that a crime so many of the questions or statements directed towards
[2:29:20] this prosecutor you could put any other prosecutor there but whoever was the one that was pursuing the
[2:29:28] question of legality of january 6th and documents in mar-a-largo would be facing the same personal
[2:29:36] attacks system attacks as mr smith and what keeps puzzling me is why we can't make a distinction between
[2:29:49] our legitimate political differences we can fight it out and the reality that january 6th happened that
[2:29:59] happened i mean you heard senator klobuchar walking uh with senator blunt and with mike pence i was out
[2:30:08] on the mall where there was a gallows set up that said hang mike pence i was 30 feet from where the shot
[2:30:16] was fired i was in the house when the mob was breaking the doors down that happened so it's a
[2:30:25] separate question about even the timing senator corner you make a very good point a lot of people who
[2:30:34] look at this would say what's going on is there an agenda here fit you know that's a fair question
[2:30:40] but what's it continues to be beyond dispute is that january 6th did happen and the question is do you
[2:30:48] look the other way because there's going to be a lot of division a lot of questioning of motivation
[2:30:53] or do you say we've got to get to the bottom of this and you know the president's conduct on this
[2:30:59] was pretty amazing you know election night before the votes are counted trump declared it was a fraud
[2:31:09] we did win this election he asserted that before the votes were counted he went ballistic when the uh
[2:31:15] when fox news called the the arizona election uh he was calling randy bowers in the arizona house
[2:31:23] speaker's office uh he was at demanding that uh the ag bar uh come up with a an explanation of why this
[2:31:31] was a fraudulent election uh he had asked the georgia secretary of state to find him 11 780 votes
[2:31:42] that happened so the question is should that be investigated or not and you know there are some
[2:31:51] on our side who think maybe we'd have been better off if it wasn't because it actually made president
[2:31:57] trump into quote a martyr as he saw it but the idea that we are going to put a blindfold on as though
[2:32:06] january 6th didn't happen as though there weren't documents down in mar-a-largo uh means that we're
[2:32:12] just given a pass to what was the first time in the history of our country that violence was used in
[2:32:19] the united states capital in an effort to overturn the will of the american people and you know this
[2:32:26] hasn't stopped just a few weeks ago when the president was at his golf club in ireland he asserted
[2:32:37] again that he won the 2020 election he won it and then a few days after that in anticipation of what
[2:32:48] is happening with this upcoming election where the stakes are very large for america for all of us
[2:32:55] he said the only way the democrats win is by cheating so this is the narrative my view is a tough call
[2:33:04] should the prosecution have occurred from a political standpoint but from a justice standpoint
[2:33:09] january 6th happened so mr smith you didn't have any decision on whether or not to bring the
[2:33:18] prosecution except after you were appointed is that correct yes and you had to do what any prosecutor
[2:33:26] has to do and that is to make an exhaustive effort to get us accumulate the evidence and come to a
[2:33:33] conclusion about whether you have probable cause to proceed to convict beyond a reasonable doubt is
[2:33:39] that correct that's correct we start to collect facts look at the law and make a decision all right and
[2:33:44] the other the other point that i think is really disturbing my colleagues and with some
[2:33:48] understandable basis as i uh as as uh ranking member durbin said is getting the phone logs of members of
[2:33:56] congress but as i understand your explanation if you are doing an investigation that involved
[2:34:04] information that rudy giuliani called certain numbers you'd want to and he was a suspect and you had
[2:34:12] his own words talking about uh pressuring to delay the outcome of this election you're not going after
[2:34:21] me individually you just find out you you get my number shows up in his uh call log so then that's how
[2:34:29] you get my number is that correct yes and that we had an ample basis in my view evidentially to seek
[2:34:38] these toll records because they corroborated other information that we had from a variety of sources
[2:34:44] about this attempt to exploit the violence of january 6th and furtherance of the conspiracy all right and
[2:34:49] i want to ask you know senator kennedy made uh your point about this uh in in asserted that you might not
[2:34:55] have been uh taken that speech and debate uh uh course uh in constitutional law i took it but if
[2:35:03] i'm a witness that has nothing to do with my speech and debate privileges is that correct uh my
[2:35:10] understanding of the speech and debate clause which is a important part of separation of powers
[2:35:15] is it is to meant to protect legislators from having uh their acts used against them or being forced
[2:35:23] to compel testimony but the speech and debate clause doesn't in any way privilege a member of congress
[2:35:28] house or senate to commit a crime correct well when you are looking at this effort the decision was not
[2:35:44] made by you to appoint a special prosecutor correct that's correct you were appointed special prosecutor
[2:35:54] yes in the two areas where you proceeded was on documents that in fact were taken
[2:36:01] taken from mar-a-largo that were classified documents and under the law classified documents cannot be
[2:36:09] removed even by a former president of the united states is that correct i i can't speak to aspects
[2:36:15] of the florida case unless they're in an indictment or a filing i think the indictments and filings speak
[2:36:20] for themselves all right and then we all know january 6th happened we all were here or most of us were here
[2:36:28] it was an assault people were injured property was desecrated and there was a determined effort
[2:36:36] to overturn that election and you proceeded on the basis of the facts that you found during your
[2:36:42] investigation is that correct yes that's why and how we proceeded okay thank you thank you very much
[2:36:49] mr smith i yield thank you mr chairman mr smith you and i have never met but your team wanted to know
[2:37:01] to whom i spoke when i spoke to them and for how long you subpoenaed records associated with my
[2:37:10] phones both personal and office and you sought and obtained a court order to prevent me from knowing
[2:37:17] about it for years you were able to ask your questions in secret without me in the room today
[2:37:27] the senate gets to ask questions and unlike you we will do so in public you have insisted that politics
[2:37:34] played no role in your investigation the american people can judge for themselves let's start with your
[2:37:44] subpoenas did your team subpoena records concerning the republican national committee uh we subpoenaed
[2:37:54] a number of records that's a yes or no question uh i do not have i just want to be clear with you
[2:38:01] senator i do not have a recollection of every subpoena we did subpoena numerous records your team
[2:38:07] subpoena the rnc i would have to look at those records but we did you're testifying you don't remember
[2:38:12] yes no or i don't remember those are your three options uh it is very possible i do not have
[2:38:17] a recollection okay did your team subpoena turning point usa again i would have to look at the
[2:38:23] you have any idea who you subpoenaed can you name all right let me help you did your team subpoena the
[2:38:30] conservative partnership institute uh that i do remember okay good we found one and i can explain
[2:38:37] why did your team sub did your subpoenas demand communications with fox news uh the subpoenas that we
[2:38:45] issued did uh ask for communication regarding ad buys because it was relevant to the false statements we
[2:38:52] were investigating purchasing advertising on a news agency you somehow believe is criminal did your
[2:38:57] team seek and obtained donor and fundraising data uh i would have to look at the subpoenas but again
[2:39:05] i'm happy you don't know if you had donor and fundraising data i'm happy to explain why we issued
[2:39:10] these do you know if you had donor and fundraising data i would have to look at the subpoenas you don't
[2:39:15] know are you testifying right now you don't know if you obtained donor and fundraising data you can sigh all
[2:39:24] you like it's a very simple question you know damn well you did you've been questioned about the
[2:39:29] checks that you guys got you know the answer so why don't you answer the question did your team obtain
[2:39:38] donor and fundraising information it's a yes you can say yes i do not recall the attachments to
[2:39:45] specific subpoenas i'm happy to so you're testifying you're testifying you don't remember if you got donor
[2:39:51] and fundraising material really i do not recall because i have not seen those subpoenas in a very long
[2:39:59] time but i'm happy all in all you should look look i get you want to dance and avoid the questions i
[2:40:05] understand it because you can't answer a simple straightforward question all in all you issued 197
[2:40:10] subpoenas to 34 individuals at least and 163 businesses and you sought records on at least 430
[2:40:17] republican individuals and entities is that right and you're going to say you don't remember is that
[2:40:22] correct i do not recall those numbers i understand you know if you look at the list there is one thing
[2:40:29] that is consistent every name on it is a republican is it your view is it a crime to be a republican
[2:40:37] absolutely not sir is it a crime to write a check to republicans it is not and i'm happy to explain why
[2:40:44] we issued these subpoenas if you'd like um sure briefly we had to conduct an investigation about
[2:40:52] whether any person or entity violated the law with respect to the attempt to block the peaceful transfer of
[2:40:59] power to make that decision yes i understand and you use that as an excuse to engage in a massive
[2:41:05] fishing expedition targeting over 400 republicans and it was disgraceful let's just talk about the
[2:41:10] united states senate you issued subpoenas for more than 20 percent of the republicans in the senate
[2:41:19] seeking their phone records you did so and then you obtained orders non-disclosure orders from judge
[2:41:31] bosberg i believe judge bosberg should be impeached for his complicity in your abuse of power now judge
[2:41:37] bosberg signed orders and i want to read from the order judge bosberg signed that i didn't know about
[2:41:43] that that the republican senators targeted here didn't know about i want to read read from the the order
[2:41:49] quote the court finds reasonable grounds to believe such disclosure in other words disclosing to me that
[2:41:59] you were subpoenaing my phone records will result in destruction of or tampering with evidence
[2:42:06] intimidation of potential witnesses and serious jeopardy to the investigation mr smith do you have
[2:42:12] any evidence whatsoever to believe that i and 20 percent of the members of the republicans in the senate
[2:42:19] will engage in destruction and or tampering of evidence and intimidation of potential witnesses
[2:42:26] no we had powerful evidence that donald trump and his associates am i donald trump
[2:42:31] you are not sir are the members of the senate donald trump no was this order directed at donald trump
[2:42:39] no i believe that your office draft this order that judge bosberg signed and he signed them like
[2:42:44] he was signing denny's menus one at a time over and over and over again facts be damned did your office
[2:42:50] draft this uh i'd have to look but i'm assuming that's the correct order and if so we did and i'm happy
[2:42:57] to explain why we did if you'd good i want you to tell us right now are you an officer of the court yes i
[2:43:04] want to tell us did you have a shred of evidence that 20 percent of the republicans in the senate will
[2:43:14] destroy evidence and intimidate witnesses we had a strong reason to believe that donald trump
[2:43:21] would destroy evidence that was not directed at donald trump it it was stated disclosing it to members
[2:43:26] of the senate no it was stated it disclosing it to anyone and we do not have to uh wait for someone to be
[2:43:34] injured for an investigation to be obstructed we had strong reason to believe that donald trump would
[2:43:41] obstruct our investigation given the obstruction alleged in the florida indictment given the
[2:43:47] attempts to intimidate witnesses in the election case given the threats that were later made to
[2:43:53] witnesses in the election case i as a prosecutor mr smith are you aware of the statute to usc section
[2:44:00] 6628 yes i am that specifically protects senate communication records and makes this non-disclosure
[2:44:11] agreement that you gave judge bozberg and that he signed that makes it illegal were you aware of it at
[2:44:16] the time i do not recall discussing this statute at the time did you bring it to the judge's attention
[2:44:26] i do not recall this being part of our application so instead you gave the judge an order that was
[2:44:34] contrary to federal law and you got the judge to sign order after order after order that was contrary
[2:44:38] to federal law is that right no we sought to follow department policy and excuse me does department
[2:44:45] policy contravene federal statute it does not and we intended to follow them both we submitted these
[2:44:53] non-disclosure orders consistent with the law and department policy by the way when you sought my phone
[2:45:03] records from at&t the number of senators had their phone records with verizon verizon on hat unfortunately
[2:45:12] was more than happy to comply at&t declined to hand over my phone records because they concluded doing
[2:45:20] so would be unconstitutional it would violate the speech and debate debate clause now ordinarily when
[2:45:26] a prosecution prosecution seeks and issues a subpoena and and the individual receiving the subpoena
[2:45:32] refuses to turn it over ordinarily the prosecution goes to court to enforce that is that right
[2:45:40] i do not believe that's what happened in this case sir in this case you didn't do a damn thing
[2:45:44] because at&t didn't hand it over because they concluded it violated the speech and debate clause
[2:45:48] and you know what your team said never mind nothing to see here we're not going to fight because you
[2:45:53] know if you went to court you would lose our work and our securing these subpoenas and non-disclosure
[2:46:02] orders was consistent with the law the toll records it was explicitly contrary to federal statute
[2:46:09] it was explicitly contrary to the federal constitution let me let me ask you this you have any regrets
[2:46:19] regrets regarding my work as special counsel yes yes i regret uh that the people i worked with have
[2:46:27] been unfairly uh fired and of course of course you can't bring yourself well let me say congratulations
[2:46:35] because you have succeeded where richard nixon failed which is weaponizing the department of justice
[2:46:41] and the federal government to go after your political opponents congratulations you are
[2:46:46] stepping into the shoes of john mitchell and yet your abuse is far greater than john mitchell and i
[2:46:54] understand for the rest of your life you're going to be hailed as a hero in the resistance movement
[2:47:00] i assume you have a pink hat somewhere at home and people will be proud of you for resisting but i'll tell
[2:47:07] you what you have done you have brought the department of justice into disrepute because instead of being
[2:47:17] apolitical instead of enforcing the law you willingly were conscripted as a foot soldier for the dnc
[2:47:24] and you know what you also did you re-elected president donald trump because the american people were
[2:47:31] disgusted at your willingness to abuse power in partisan ends javert from les mis would look at you with
[2:47:46] astonishment i believe you have no regrets i believe you have convinced yourself that this witch hunt
[2:47:54] targeting half the country for partisan ends was justified well let me say you have brought the
[2:48:01] department of justice into disrepute and you have done enormous damage and i believe your conduct
[2:48:12] represents the most egregious abuse of power in the history of the department of justice george i'm
[2:48:30] assuming it's my turn the chairman has not deferred to me my colleague goes almost two minutes over time
[2:48:35] quoting javert and les mis let me get back to what the reality of the american people and what they're
[2:48:41] witnessing right now this is gaslighting the american people it has been going on for eight years 30 days
[2:48:49] before an election when people are demanding their gas prices go down we've got a whole lot of hot wind
[2:48:56] energy and gaslighting continuing to perpetuate the big lie in america that donald trump was somehow
[2:49:05] cheated out of the 2020 election we are using precious time of one of the most vaunted committees
[2:49:13] in american history the judiciary committee to perpetrate one of the biggest gaslighting
[2:49:19] attempts we have ever seen in our 250 years as a country that somehow donald trump won the 2020
[2:49:26] election and when he didn't satisfy wasn't satisfied with his loss he then tried to cheat we all know
[2:49:34] it this is not shocking evidence he called republicans in georgia and said find me over 11 000 votes he
[2:49:42] called members of congress openly and asked them to find some way to have a peaceful transfer of power
[2:49:48] and then donald trump incited people to attack this capital in his impeachment trial seven republicans
[2:49:56] said he did and so here we are when the american people are suffering high gas prices high grocery
[2:50:03] prices high fuel prices and we're dragging an american not a partisan but a prosecutor here to try
[2:50:11] to perpetrate this lie and and and i'd say this to my ranking member here every person who they bring
[2:50:20] through to be confirmed for a position asked over and over again did donald trump win the 2020 election
[2:50:27] refuses to say the truth this is an eight-year attempt to lie to the american people and this is
[2:50:34] their closing argument everybody right before an election this is what they want to spend their time
[2:50:40] on perpetrating a lie this committee's republicans are more concerned with trump than the truth more
[2:50:49] concerned with trump's crimes than the constitution and i'm watching today people say oh this is an
[2:50:56] unprecedented investigation this man did unprecedented things heck yeah he did unprecedented things
[2:51:03] because when has the united states of america seeing people storm the capitol and try to stop
[2:51:10] the peaceful transfer of power beating capitol police officers nearly to death brian sicknick
[2:51:17] died days after his savage beating this is ridiculous that this is what we're spending the american people's
[2:51:24] times time with time with when everyone is concerned about donald trump taking away their health care
[2:51:29] donald trump's war in the middle east donald trump's chaotic tariffs and you have to sit here and hire
[2:51:35] security for your family because they're whipping you into their conspiracy theories and demanding that this
[2:51:42] is what the american people focus on this is utterly ridiculous i i'm so upset that they're fealty
[2:51:50] is to donald trump and not the constitution i am so sorry that they're attempting to put investigators on
[2:51:58] trial while ignoring the extraordinary conduct they are duty-bound to really investigate we who were
[2:52:06] here on january 6th remember republican and democrats were here we were evacuated i saw some of my
[2:52:15] colleagues running for their safety the vice president united states was they were chanting for his death
[2:52:20] they were putting gallows out there police officers lost all of this to stop the peaceful transfer of
[2:52:30] power and now this committee has not done what we should be doing which is investigating the crimes
[2:52:37] and yet we're putting on trial the investigators well here i want to say it once and for all donald trump
[2:52:42] lost the 2020 election everybody and he criminally found by two grand juries he criminally was charged for
[2:52:54] trying to obstruct that election that shouldn't be shocking news that's historical fact his own
[2:53:02] justice department told him there was no evidence of widespread fraud sufficient to change the outcome
[2:53:09] his own campaign lost over and over again in court and yet he continued he pressured state officials
[2:53:16] he asked georgia's republican secretary to find those 11 000 plus votes his allies organized fraudulent electors
[2:53:24] in seven states he pressured his own justice department he pressured his vice president and on january 6th he
[2:53:31] created one of the worst crimes an american has ever committed against his own nation inciting people
[2:53:39] to storm the capitol and minutes later while our capital was under attack republicans and democrats
[2:53:47] running for his life donald trump was attempting to reach senators as a part of that delay in certification
[2:53:56] that is part of a criminal investigation that understandably should be looked at think about
[2:54:02] that the capitol's under attack members are fleeing for their lives the vice president's being rushed to
[2:54:08] safety and the president united states is still working the phones in an effort to stop the peaceful
[2:54:14] transfer of power you all know what happened with kevin mccarthy the republican leader of the house calls the
[2:54:21] president begs him call off the mob please call off the mob and according to the evidence that you
[2:54:26] uncovered donald trump's response well kevin i guess the people are more upset about the election than
[2:54:32] you are hours more still pass and even after all that rudy giuliani is still calling senators asking
[2:54:44] them to slow down the certification mr smith i'm sorry i want to be clear about this what you are
[2:54:52] investigating is not something trivial trivial it's not a smash and grab crime it is the biggest assault on
[2:55:00] our democratic traditions in over a century and the danger that it unleashed people call it election
[2:55:15] interference or obstruction they use legal terminology but people were in danger lives were lost the vice
[2:55:23] president barely escaped for his life members of congress almost were physically assaulted and your
[2:55:28] report concluded that the violence was foreseeable because of donald trump and what he was doing that
[2:55:34] it benefited from his interference with the certification he incited the violence he made a
[2:55:39] conscious decision not to stop and instead sought to leverage it for further delay that's an accurate
[2:55:45] description of what your investigation found correct we found that he caused that violence
[2:55:52] that it was foreseeable to him and that he sought to exploit it oh my gosh an investigator who relied
[2:56:00] principally on republicans in his investigation he's testified before this committee it was republicans oh my
[2:56:07] gosh that statement should be chilling to every american that the commander-in-chief currently did everything
[2:56:14] he could to undermine the legal transfer of power incited a riot which seven republicans said he did and we're now
[2:56:24] persecuting the prosecutors who follow the evidence and they're trying to say this is partisanship
[2:56:33] my records were swept up my text messages were part of it karen bass's text messages were a part of it
[2:56:40] and dear god one of the greatest attempts to undermine our democracy since the confederates betrayed this
[2:56:47] nation and started the civil war that's what this was and the noble police officers who stood in the
[2:56:55] gap before a mob were savagely beaten have been pardoned people who savagely beat police officers were
[2:57:02] pardoned and what has happened to the career prosecutors the career fbi agents that did
[2:57:10] their job that followed the evidence mr smith what's happened to them they've been fired
[2:57:17] unlawfully they've been publicly vilified and they've been attacked in every possible way it is
[2:57:23] inconceivable to me how you can pardon people who assault law enforcement officers and then vilify
[2:57:30] the officers who are trying to uphold the rule of law sir thank you they have been thrown
[2:57:36] into the fire americans prosecutors fbi agents who were investigating the savage beating of police
[2:57:46] officers were fired fired their testimony is shocking but the people like you who stood up
[2:57:56] it's not just losing jobs you're thrown into this hate machine that is making you and your families
[2:58:04] not even safe to go to the grocery store right now as we are having a hearing pushing this false narrative
[2:58:13] that somehow donald trump is the victim that the poor president united states who's grifting right now off
[2:58:21] of his office to the tune of billions of dollars whose whole family has been enriched in unconscionable ways
[2:58:31] while americans get poorer and sicker while americans lose their health insurance see their gas prices go
[2:58:37] off the president and his family are richer than they've ever been and they're saying they've been victimized
[2:58:43] by you and the other prosecutors and investigators who've been fired from their office and vilified so
[2:58:50] much that they have to get security for their families this big lie has gone on enough we have
[2:58:59] people who are serving at the highest offices in the land that repeat the big lie we have people running
[2:59:03] for office in the republican party that can't even tell the truth and today's farce today's gaslighting
[2:59:12] today's mendacity perfidity lies mistruths cannot obscure what the mountain of evidence and americans saw
[2:59:22] with their own eyes donald trump's own national security team from his first administration said
[2:59:29] clearly in statement after statement people that served with him cabinet secretaries said he's a danger to
[2:59:34] this nation and our nation's national security and now he's back in that office using the power of
[2:59:40] the office to go after good americans many of whom are republicans who dare to tell the truth who dare
[2:59:46] to investigate criminal acts who dare to say it is not usual in the greatest democracy in the world to
[2:59:53] have violence be done to stop the peaceful transfer of power no sir i cannot sit here and let your
[2:59:59] reputation further be besmirched more lies being hurled at you being called names
[3:00:05] with false evidence before our eyes this is unfair to you it's unfair to your family but you know what
[3:00:11] you're not what most matters what most matters is that this is unfair to the american people
[3:00:17] there are families all over america who are struggling and suffering and saying maybe there's
[3:00:21] somebody in congress that will stick up for me i'm tired of the politics they're saying i'm tired of
[3:00:27] the lies maybe there's somebody in america that will stick up for me and help me with my gas prices and
[3:00:33] help me with my lack of insurance and help me with the too high expenses for child care and help me
[3:00:38] with an american dream to slipping away but no what does the republicans in control of congress do with
[3:00:44] their closing statement before an election they carry out the big lie they persecute prosecutors
[3:00:51] they do trump's bidding they choose trump over truth corruption and crimes over the constitution
[3:00:57] and i've had enough of it this could this this hearing is a farce and i'm sorry for what you and
[3:01:03] your family are enduring as a result thank you senator grassley had to leave either that or he quit
[3:01:18] i'm not sure which but i'm sure i'm told he's coming back yes okay so i guess i'm in charge and i'm gonna
[3:01:32] call on senator graham but then i've got to leave so when i leave you will be in charge okay thank you
[3:01:47] senator kennedy much has already been said today about the abuses of the justice department under
[3:01:53] president biden and attorney general merrick garland but i think it's worth reminding people at home
[3:01:59] while we're here today and why chairman grassley has called this hearing the arctic frost investigation
[3:02:06] was a politically motivated witch hunt it violated the law and during the course of the investigation
[3:02:16] the department of justice was weaponized to go after president trump in the midst of his successful
[3:02:23] 2024 presidential election but this was not only about a witch hunt targeting the president your
[3:02:32] weaponization also reached into the united states senate in may 2023 your office secured a subpoena
[3:02:41] for the phone records of my brother lindsey you received his official government phone records
[3:02:48] and his personal phone records including data on all the calls he made and received on those two phones
[3:02:57] in early january 2021 including i might add calls he made and received from me at that time he was a
[3:03:08] sitting united states senator from south carolina and the chairman of this very committee it was lindsey's
[3:03:16] job to cast a vote on whether to certify the 2020 election and as a chairman of the senate judiciary
[3:03:23] committee he was the one responsible for investigating whether that election had been tampered with
[3:03:29] but that didn't stop you not only did you request lindsey's and several other members phone records
[3:03:36] you asked judge jeb bosberg to issue a gag order to make sure lindsey didn't find out what you were
[3:03:42] doing judge bosberg rubber stamped your gag order to lindsey's cell phone carrier verizon verizon
[3:03:49] verizon complied with the order and did not tell the senate or lindsey about the subpoena
[3:03:54] even though verizon's contract was with the senate required contract with the senate required verizon to
[3:04:00] notify the senate sergeant at arms chairman grassley has pointed out that federal law does not let a
[3:04:07] carrier be barred from notifying a senate office unless the member is the target of the investigation
[3:04:14] which you never claimed lindsey was nevertheless the senate sergeant at arms never received that notice
[3:04:22] lindsey was kept in the dark as were several senators you targeted and i think every member of this
[3:04:30] committee republican and democrat should be mad as hell about that i want to talk a little bit more
[3:04:37] about this gag order because i think this is something that every american no matter how you vote or who
[3:04:43] you support needs to hear the gag order that you requested to hide your tracks says quote the court finds
[3:04:53] reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in destruction of or tampering with
[3:05:01] evidence intimidation of potential witnesses and serious jeopardy to the investigation end quote the quote
[3:05:12] reasonable grounds came from you you alleged to a federal judge that my brother lindsey a patriot who
[3:05:22] had dedicated over 30 years of his life wearing the uniform of his country in the united states air force
[3:05:28] a sitting united states senator and a chairman of this very committee had the potential to destroy evidence
[3:05:38] intimidate witnesses and cause serious jeopardy to your sham of an investigation in fact in a separate gag
[3:05:48] order you listed flight risk as a reason for obtaining a gag order for the speaker of the house
[3:05:54] a constitutional officer second in the presidential line of succession and let me point out something
[3:06:03] for everyone this subpoena wasn't being was being sent to verizon for records that verizon had in their own
[3:06:10] possession how the hell was lindsey going to tamper with evidence he didn't even have in his possession
[3:06:20] how was a member of congress a flight risk the legal term for your behavior would be obstruction of justice
[3:06:28] but in south carolina we just call it a lie this was undeniably a fishing expedition expedition by you
[3:06:38] and your team to intimidate the president's allies in congress how do you know this how do we know this
[3:06:46] because you didn't just send verizon a subpoena and a gag order you also sent one to at&t for senator
[3:06:52] cruz's records but unlike verizon at&t pushed back they asked you to explain how this request was in
[3:06:59] compliance with the constitution and you didn't have an answer in fact you didn't even respond
[3:07:06] and you never followed up with at&t because you knew what you were doing was wrong it doesn't make
[3:07:14] sense unless the only motivation you had was to take down president trump and his allies one by one
[3:07:23] before the election so mr smith do you really believe that lindsey was going to destroy evidence
[3:07:32] that was not even in his possession no i believe your brother was a patriotic public servant he was
[3:07:43] not a target of our investigation and in fact he likely would have been a witness in our case your
[3:07:49] brother investigated the claims that donald trump was making he found them to be false he said so
[3:07:56] on the other question then why does the gag order say that disclosure of the subpoena would result in
[3:08:03] destruction of our tampering with evidence because disclosure of that subpoena could result in
[3:08:10] donald trump attempting to intimidate witnesses as he had before and after we had an ample basis
[3:08:17] evidence in question belonged to lindsey and was in the possession of verizon it makes absolutely no sense
[3:08:26] that anyone would be able to destroy the evidence you are seeking do you know do you know what i think
[3:08:36] i think you're just trying to bully my brother and other allies of president trump you caused my brother
[3:08:45] and a lot of other senators a lot of stress and that makes me sick you should be ashamed of yourself
[3:08:55] it's also a damn shame that you weaponized our legal system to do this to go after a political opponent
[3:09:07] and his allies including lindsey what a disgrace to our justice system and the constitution that you
[3:09:16] would stoop this low shame on you i yield back the remainder of my time and call on senator schiff
[3:09:28] madam chair before you recognize senator schiff i'd like to make a unanimous consent request
[3:09:33] to introduce into the record two letters from the department of justice uh outlining the parameters
[3:09:38] of the witnesses testimony today one dated september 14th 2026 and the others go after a political
[3:09:47] opponent and his allies including lindsey what a disgrace to our justice system and the constitution
[3:09:56] that you would stoop this low shame on you i yield back the remainder of my time and call on senator
[3:10:08] schiff madam chair before you recognize senator schiff i'd like to make a unanimous consent request
[3:10:13] to introduce into the record two letters from the department of justice uh outlining the parameters
[3:10:19] of the witnesses testimony today one dated september 14th 2026 and the other to september 27 2026
[3:10:28] without objection thank you madam chair mr smith thank you for coming to testify today i'm sorry that
[3:10:35] you have been so villainized and attacked today i want to point out though what we've heard and i've
[3:10:43] sat through almost every minute of this hearing what we've heard and what we haven't heard from my
[3:10:48] colleagues across the aisle they have attacked you repeatedly aggressively inappropriately scandalously
[3:10:57] but none of them have contested what took place on this day none of them had said there was no attack
[3:11:07] on january 6th none of them have tried to deny the assault on the police officers none of them have even
[3:11:14] suggested the president wasn't involved none of them have contested any of these things now they've
[3:11:22] attacked you because they don't want to address the facts they don't want to talk about this they would
[3:11:27] rather attack you and just the level set here for all of the outrage of my colleagues over your
[3:11:34] requesting toll records because rudy giuliani and other co-conspirators were calling some of the members
[3:11:42] of this body for all the outrage over that i should let you know because you may not be aware of this
[3:11:49] the bar justice department sought toll records from members of congress not a peep from my colleagues
[3:11:55] about that but that involved toll records of democrats that apparently was okay that apparently
[3:12:01] doesn't violate speech and debate and just the level set a little further i want to tell you what
[3:12:08] my colleagues here have had to say about an attempt to indict two of their senate colleagues and four of
[3:12:19] their house colleagues for making a video that said that the military does not have to carry out an
[3:12:27] illegal order a plain statement of fact law and constitution not a peep about the fact that they
[3:12:34] were not just targeted they were sought to be indicted this justice department went before a grand
[3:12:41] jury and sought to indict them and you're probably familiar with what happened in that grand jury that
[3:12:47] is not a single grand juror would agree to return the indictment has that ever happened to you mr smith have
[3:12:54] you ever gone before grand jury and had not a single grand juror refuse to return indictment no
[3:13:01] i was a prosecutor almost six years i've never even heard of such a thing but that they don't care
[3:13:08] about that was democrats who the department sought to indict so they don't contest the facts on january
[3:13:15] 6th they don't contest and let me just go through a couple facts january 2nd 2021 days before the
[3:13:22] election results were certified in georgia trump calls the republican secretary of state
[3:13:28] brad raffensperger and presses him to find 11 780 votes just enough votes to overtake joe biden by a
[3:13:37] single vote what do my republican colleagues have to say about that do they say oh trump never did that
[3:13:44] did you ever hear one of my colleagues make that claim today no none of them denied the president called
[3:13:50] and pressured the georgia secretary to find votes that don't exist did you hear any of them make that
[3:13:54] argument no and of course that's on tape it'd be very difficult to contest that he also said so what
[3:14:04] are we going to do here folks this is trump on the phone i only need 11 000 votes fellas i need 11 000
[3:14:10] votes give me a break did you hear any of my republican colleagues say that that never took place
[3:14:16] no they don't contest those facts um how about this with respect to the mar-a-lago well actually
[3:14:25] respect to january 6th trump calls top doj officials december 27 2020 acting attorney general jeffrey rosen
[3:14:35] acting deputy attorney general richard donahue and in that 90-minute phone call trump complains the
[3:14:41] election was stolen from him even after doj officials repeatedly rebut his claims and ag rosen
[3:14:51] says understand the doj can't and won't snap its fingers and change the outcome of the election it
[3:14:56] doesn't work that way the president donald trump replies i don't expect you to do that just say
[3:15:06] the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the republican congressman did you hear any of my
[3:15:13] republican colleagues contest those facts no did you hear any of them say oh donald trump never tried to
[3:15:21] pressure the justice department to make stuff up about the 2020 election did you hear them make
[3:15:26] that argument no you heard them attack you a lot right i did but i'm not really concerned about that
[3:15:34] it's much more important that the public servants who i work with uh that we stop vilifying public
[3:15:40] servants well i i agree with you completely i mean i've seen how they've been vilified i heard cash
[3:15:46] patel sitting where you're saying sitting where you're sitting make the plainly false argument that
[3:15:53] none of the agents who work for you were fired for working on the investigation of donald trump
[3:15:58] he actually made that claim that is just patently absurd uh and there will be a time when he will
[3:16:06] face consequences for making claims like that under oath but let me ask you this for all of the the
[3:16:17] hyperventilation we heard today on the other side of the aisle if this committee really wanted to
[3:16:24] know the facts for example about the storage of all the mar-a-lago classified documents now can we see
[3:16:30] an image of the mar-a-lago documents wouldn't they want to see volume two of your report they wanted to
[3:16:37] know the facts wouldn't that report shed light on the facts of the president's sequestering all these
[3:16:43] documents in the bathroom at mar-a-lago i want to make sure i'm in compliance with judge cannon's order
[3:16:49] so i'm not going to speak about anything that would even imply what's in that report let me ask you
[3:16:53] about this procedurally then the justice department prior to donald trump become president wanted
[3:16:59] volume two of your report released did they not uh the justice department i believe released volume
[3:17:06] one that's correct i'm talking about volume two they also wanted to release volume two did they not
[3:17:11] uh you know honestly i submitted these reports under the special counsel regulations and i left the
[3:17:18] justice department immediately thereafter that was that was the position of the department of justice
[3:17:23] prior to the new crowd coming in under donald trump the new crowd under donald trump former criminal
[3:17:30] defense lawyers for donald trump changed their position they would no longer advocate for the
[3:17:36] release of your report i would think if our chairman and our republican colleagues really wanted
[3:17:42] to get to the facts they'd want to see that report the chairman and ranking member together have
[3:17:48] the power to subpoena that report i'm going to make a motion our next business meeting that calls
[3:17:55] for a subpoena to subpoena your report we should see it the country should see it those cases have
[3:18:01] been dismissed there's no prejudice to any ongoing prosecution they want to see the facts let's show
[3:18:06] them the facts but they don't want to see the facts they could have asked for your report they don't
[3:18:11] want to see your report they don't want the country to see report no they want to come in here
[3:18:15] today and call you a dirtbag because that that means they don't have to confront any of the evidence
[3:18:22] you produced and you made a point earlier that i want to underscore because i sat on the january 6
[3:18:28] committee what made those hearings powerful what made your investigation powerful the reason grand
[3:18:34] jurors among others indicted the president is because the witnesses well because donald trump was
[3:18:43] indicted in two separate cases something unprecedented in history then you must believe that the prosecutions
[3:18:51] were improper well that's one explanation it's the wrong explanation it could also be this is the
[3:19:00] first president in history who has repeatedly broken the law and the first president ever to incite an
[3:19:10] insurrection in an attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power it is the first president who has
[3:19:15] tried to obstruct an investigation into the withholding of boxes and boxes of classified materials
[3:19:25] so i want to thank you again for your service the country i want to thank you for the service of
[3:19:33] every member of your team on behalf of one representative of federal government i want to apologize for the
[3:19:42] deplorable treatment that your team has received from this congress and from this government for all
[3:19:49] the death threats they've received for their improper firing for the burdens placed on their families
[3:19:57] uh my colleagues talked about the stress on members of ever having their toll records requested as
[3:20:03] witnesses not even targets well what about the death threats that your team is receiving that you've
[3:20:10] received and so i thank you for taking on this challenge i thank you for your willingness to testify
[3:20:15] your egan risk to testify i hope that we can let the country see your work product and see the release of the
[3:20:25] the second volume of your report you can't testify about that today because judge cannon doesn't want
[3:20:32] you to her decisions have just bent over backwards to do service for the president and because this
[3:20:39] committee doesn't want you to and this justice department won't give you guidance about what you
[3:20:44] can even say today because they don't want you to they want you to have to fear they will come after you
[3:20:51] if you testify about the volumes of evidence that you have acquired so thank you for your service to
[3:20:58] the country and i'm sorry you have been treated with such shabby ad hominem attacks you deserve better
[3:21:07] and so do the american people i yield back on behalf of the chair i recognize myself um mr smith thank you
[3:21:14] for being here um the one thing that i just want to observe where i may be a bit of a odd duck
[3:21:23] in this committee is i've got very few skills but a good memory is one of them
[3:21:29] and i think it's fascinating how people want to pick up the mantle of vindictive prosecution or
[3:21:34] whatever else when their guy's not in office but i was just going back through ai as we were
[3:21:40] when you were after you finished your opening statement saying give me three examples where there
[3:21:48] was general consensus that there was a vindictive prosecution going on dating back to obama one
[3:21:54] every single one of them we had whether it was lois lerner and what the irs was doing or crossfire
[3:22:00] hurricane uh judicial or prosecutorial misconduct is something that's always going on so i find it
[3:22:07] interesting that people think they're the only party who is right and righteous on this okay that's a
[3:22:13] general statement don't expect you to to speak to it but more recently i've thought that 8647 was
[3:22:20] probably not a solid basis for making a former fbi director who disappointed me profoundly
[3:22:28] on this committee probably not the right way to spend our time or the perp walk so just so you know
[3:22:34] i had to get that out there i think we all need to be mindful of how we behave and how we're
[3:22:40] perceived and mr smith there were people who felt like there was a political motivation
[3:22:45] to what you were doing but i also think if you look at some of the facts the facts are what they
[3:22:51] are and it's going to be interesting to see if at some point in the future we can get down to who
[3:22:57] precisely was responsible for forcing every member of the u.s senate to be in this room while thugs
[3:23:03] destroyed this building and injured over 100 police officers i hope to hell someday we can find
[3:23:09] somebody uh who was accountable uh for that um and hopefully we can cool the political temperatures
[3:23:16] to get to that fact-based assessment but mr smith um if you were to look back uh at uh the two
[3:23:25] investigations we focused most of our time at um let's assume you you feel very strongly that that
[3:23:32] there was criminal intent there was sufficient evidence to move forward with the prosecution
[3:23:36] are there any things that if you did it differently um looking back you may have you may have taken a
[3:23:42] different tact or or or tried to build even in your job you still have to build public support for what
[3:23:49] you're doing because the default always is here whoever doesn't have the white house is a vindictive
[3:23:54] prosecution can you think of any examples of where you wish you'd manage the process differently or
[3:24:00] or engage different people to try and rise above that um the allegations that you've heard today
[3:24:06] about political motivation behind the prosecutions yes and and thank you for that question speak real
[3:24:12] loud i'm sorry yeah take that curl out there we go there you go okay um yes um one of the things that
[3:24:19] i was taught as a prosecutor through my career is you only do your talking in the courtroom and uh that
[3:24:26] you don't talk on the courthouse steps uh one of the things that i learned from this experience is
[3:24:32] that if you stick to that and that alone uh people can unfairly malign your team and unfairly malign you
[3:24:39] and your case in a way and you really can't respond because you don't want to interfere with someone's
[3:24:45] right to a fair trial and you don't want to get down in the gutter and start calling people names
[3:24:51] uh but at the same time there are things being put out daily that are patently untrue and you know
[3:24:57] they're untrue i'm not advocating that prosecutors in the future uh start going on the internet every
[3:25:04] day responding to comments uh but i do think that the school of prosecution i came from where you only
[3:25:10] speak in the courtroom i do agree that uh prosecutors in the future need to learn to be able to communicate
[3:25:17] to the outside world because i believe strongly we did our investigation the right way but i limited myself
[3:25:24] uh and who i talked to about that i talked about uh i think i did two announcements there were under
[3:25:30] four minutes in the time i was special counsel uh i think going forward uh to engender public trust in
[3:25:38] these cases i think that's a real thing we need to think about going forward in the future yeah you
[3:25:43] know you happen to have uh gotten into this uh job when we have the the amplifier and the sustainer of social
[3:25:51] media uh i don't think they're you know frankly people have always been criticizing prosecutors
[3:25:56] for cases you just didn't have that persistent inbox of things that were said about you but for
[3:26:01] what i think you need to look past that you got to win in the courtroom not in public opinion and i
[3:26:06] think we need people to set the example to stop worrying about i mean my god uh i get it every day
[3:26:12] that's why i don't look at social media but i think you've undermined some of the credibility by going
[3:26:17] out there and kind of being a spokesperson dealing with the politics of the prosecution where i think
[3:26:24] your observation that most of that talking should go in the courtroom is one that i hope people will
[3:26:28] internalize um the uh that the can you give me an idea the uh of the the just the sheer volume
[3:26:39] of the documentation that uh that was a you're talking to somebody who doesn't even bring a pen
[3:26:47] into a skiff i write nothing down i don't even take notes um and i never leave it with a piece of
[3:26:53] paper that was handed to me whether they say i can or not that removes any doubt about whether or not
[3:26:58] i'm in possession of classified documents can you give me some sense of the scale again of what you
[3:27:03] believe you found at moro argo uh i don't think i can due to judge cannon's order and that's in the volume
[3:27:10] two of the report that's correct okay and what is the substance of that report over time at what point
[3:27:16] will that report become known uh i don't know but i don't have any role in that i drafted a report
[3:27:24] pursuant to the special counsel regulations saying i needed to draft a report for the attorney general
[3:27:30] the attorney general makes the decision whether that's public or not i've had no role in that
[3:27:34] well part of you know part of what i'm i'm trying to figure out i'm sorry to interrupt you but the um
[3:27:40] yeah i do believe that we've over classified a lot of documents so maybe some of these people
[3:27:44] that are getting into trouble is that they got documents that should have never been classified
[3:27:51] but it is very important to me to know about the uh the magnitude of some of these documents that
[3:27:59] were outside of a skip outside of a classified setting that's very very concerning to me and whether
[3:28:04] you're a democrat or republican i think you should be held accountable for it any of my colleagues that
[3:28:08] did it they should be held accountable for there's no excuse um so we're not really going to know about
[3:28:14] that until maybe some point in the future why is that odd why should i find that odd why can't
[3:28:21] we know about the substance of some of those documents now uh well you can't know about it
[3:28:27] from me because i want to follow judge cannon's order no i'm just talking about to the general public
[3:28:31] i mean why i i assume it could be could that evidence that's collected actually be resumed as
[3:28:37] the subsequent investigation at some point or is it off the table based on the way it was acquired
[3:28:42] i'm just trying to i'm not an attorney so i don't ask questions i know the answer to i legitimately
[3:28:47] trying to understand what that information is what status it's in now whether or not it's relevant to
[3:28:52] future prosecutions i'm just trying to be mindful of judge cannon's order i think the only thing i can
[3:29:00] share with you is that uh we dismissed the case and we dismissed it without prejudice i haven't given
[3:29:06] thought to what would happen after that you dismiss that based on the uh based on the reality that
[3:29:11] president won reelection that's correct that's correct both what about the other two dismissals
[3:29:17] the other two cases that were not uh related to the president that were dismissed after the president
[3:29:21] was sworn in you had nothing to do with that right the dismissal of the other that that's correct the
[3:29:27] dismissal of those cases was done um after january of 2025 the policy that required me to dismiss the case
[3:29:36] against president trump did not require me to dismiss those cases and but it was a decision made by the
[3:29:42] doj correct last thing i want to leave you with i think you would be and i know you've taken some notes
[3:29:50] because i i need to parse through uh some of what was said today i think there are some very important
[3:29:56] points that were made today that may be in conflict um are you know i you know from either either side i
[3:30:04] think you owe it to yourself and to this committee to commit to in writing addressing these and submit
[3:30:10] it to the committee can i get your commitment to do that i'm thinking particularly about some of the
[3:30:14] exchange with uh with uh senator schmidt uh but any of these things that kind of left out there an
[3:30:22] allegation that i'm not sure was completely proven i think you owe it to yourself in this committee to
[3:30:27] provide us with a fulsome response can i get your commitment to do that yes thank you on behalf of
[3:30:32] the chair senator whitehouse thanks very much chairman uh mr smith welcome um i served uh four years as a
[3:30:45] united states attorney and so i have some familiarity with department of justice procedures we did public
[3:30:54] corruption investigations in that period um and i think some of what has taken place today reflects
[3:31:02] a lack of familiarity with standard department of justice procedures so i'd like to spend my time
[3:31:12] with you talking about standard department of justice procedures specifically with respect
[3:31:19] to obtaining the toll records of members of congress we actually have a i guess what a realtor would call a
[3:31:29] comparable because before you obtained toll records of members of congress the department of justice under
[3:31:36] president trump in his first administration obtained toll records of members of congress and putting
[3:31:46] those two things side by side i think makes for an instructive comparison let me start by asking you
[3:31:53] to explain the difference between toll records and wiretap a uh a wiretap is a uh ongoing forward-looking uh in essence uh
[3:32:06] eavesdropping on a conversation that's happening as it's happening you need to go to a judge make an
[3:32:13] application uh findings need to be made uh before the government can engage in in a wiretap and you get access to
[3:32:21] content of a conversation through the wiretap correct that's correct okay tell about a toll record by
[3:32:26] comparison toll records uh to my understanding uh do not contain the content of conversations they the
[3:32:34] relevant portions in my understanding are they show who a call was from who a call it was to and uh the
[3:32:41] duration of that call they do not uh contain the content of the call so in the first trump administration
[3:32:49] the department of justice investigated classified information leaks to the press and obtained
[3:32:57] communication records for democratic members of congress and staffers when that came out chairman
[3:33:05] grassley said probes into congress are not unusual he said investigations into members of congress and
[3:33:14] staff are nothing new and he said the justice department has specific procedures for such sensitive
[3:33:20] investigations that was the response at the time when democrats were the subject of the acquisition of
[3:33:28] toll records by the department of justice so in that investigation the department of justice subpoenaed
[3:33:37] democrats toll records and you subpoenaed republicans toll records correct correct and i haven't heard much
[3:33:47] complaining about the subpoena of toll records done under trump one and we are here today with respect to your
[3:33:57] subpoenas the trump department of justice subpoenaed the records of one member of congress's spouse and child
[3:34:07] according to verizon you subpoenaed the records of a senator's family member is that correct uh i'm i'm not sure that is correct
[3:34:18] the records well if it is and that's something that is complained of it has a parallel in the doj investigation under
[3:34:26] trump one where a spouse and a child had their toll records subpoenaed in the first matter the trump
[3:34:35] department of justice obtained one staffer's emails from when that staffer worked for congress and you
[3:34:43] obtained members text messages correct uh i'm sorry could you say that again senator you obtained members
[3:34:51] text messages uh my recollection uh regarding text messages is that is not toll records that um if what
[3:35:01] you're referring to is uh we subpoenaed or secured other information like the information from the national
[3:35:08] archives that happened to have contacts with members of congress in it yes and and if a text of a
[3:35:17] member of congress appeared in the text chain of say a white house staffer whose text had been subpoenaed
[3:35:28] in the same way that a wiretap would pick up both sides of the conversation you would pick up the text
[3:35:35] messages from the member of congress because you would asked for records related to the recipient the
[3:35:42] other half of that text exchange correct that that's correct any for example if we were to seek a review
[3:35:49] of phone of someone outside the government or someone in the government um it may be that they had
[3:35:54] contacts with people in congress but that doesn't mean we're seeking their records we're seeking the
[3:35:58] records of in this case we're talking about the uh the phones uh the white house phones government
[3:36:05] phones uh in the national archives and in the earlier matter the trump department of justice obtained
[3:36:11] non-disclosure orders that prevented members of congress from learning that doj had subpoenaed their
[3:36:18] information and you obtained non-disclosure orders preventing members of congress from finding out
[3:36:24] about subpoenas for their toll records correct we did uh secure non-disclosure orders to prevent
[3:36:32] anybody including donald trump from learning about those uh subpoenas and the department of
[3:36:37] justice under trump had done the same thing with respect to obtaining non-disclosure orders correct
[3:36:44] uh that that's what i understand from the previous investigation yes um the trump department of
[3:36:51] justice said that non-disclosure orders were quote used to protect the integrity of an investigation and
[3:36:56] prevent evidence from being destroyed you told the house that you used non-disclosure orders to protect
[3:37:02] the integrity of your investigation and prevent evidence from being destroyed correct correct and
[3:37:11] you were worried about president trump and his confederates potentially interfering or destroying
[3:37:20] evidence correct that's correct and i believe we had good reason to i do not doubt that when the trump
[3:37:28] department of justice applied to judges for its non-disclosure orders with respect to members of congress
[3:37:37] the department of justice did not tell the judges that the subpoenas were for members of congress
[3:37:44] because that was not doj policy at the time you also didn't tell the judges who approved your
[3:37:51] non-disclosure orders that the subpoenas were for members of congress correct that's correct pursuant
[3:37:57] to policy and that was the doj's policy at the time correct yes um the doj inspector general looked
[3:38:11] into the trump doj uh review of members of congress toll records and the non-disclosure orders and said
[3:38:22] that the applications in the trump investigation used general language describing the risks that could
[3:38:31] arise if the subpoenas were disclosed you too used general language describing the risks that could arise
[3:38:38] when you applied for your non-disclosure orders correct to my recollection yes so again consistent
[3:38:46] with previous practice by the trump department of justice let me ask you finally are you aware of any
[3:38:56] effort by the committee majority to obtain volume two of your report for this hearing or other
[3:39:06] legislative or investigative purposes i am not but i don't know if i would be aware of that yeah i'm
[3:39:16] kind of doubt you would be um but i can say that from my perspective here as a member of the committee
[3:39:23] there's no evidence that the majority even tried to get access to the report didn't even try to get it
[3:39:33] under seal didn't even try to get it in camera didn't didn't even try to test the proposition
[3:39:41] that congressional oversight that comes directly from the text of the constitution could give us
[3:39:49] reasons to look behind a court order that may or may not stand up under scrutiny so my time has expired
[3:40:01] i will let it go but i think once again this is a committee that has defanged itself in its complicity
[3:40:12] in not making the slightest effort to get access to the volume two report whose continued secrecy
[3:40:19] has so cabined and inhibited your ability to answer questions here today thank you chairman on a point
[3:40:27] that before i call on holly uh a point that senator whitehouse made i want to without objection
[3:40:34] introduce into the record a november 2nd 2023 letter that i sent to doj oig concerning concerns that in
[3:40:44] 2017 the trump doj subpoenaed personal phone and email records of republican and democratic congressional
[3:40:54] staff i'm also entering into the record a november 8th 2023 letter sent from me senator cruz and senator lee
[3:41:05] to attorney general garland requesting information on subpoenas of congressional staff so contrary to
[3:41:12] what my democrat colleagues have asserted republicans did raise concerns about the doj obtaining records
[3:41:19] from congressional staff of both parties senator holly thank you very much mr chairman uh mr smith
[3:41:27] i have to start by saying i think that maybe i underestimated you i underestimated in particular
[3:41:32] your comedic talent i've been watching this whole hearing i've watched everything you said i noticed
[3:41:38] that you began by saying i have no partisan loyalty and you repeated over and over and over there's
[3:41:44] nothing in your investigation about politics that's hilarious in fact your investigation was all about
[3:41:50] politics from day one your investigation so-called your prosecution so-called was nothing other than an
[3:41:57] attempt to interfere politically in a presidential election in the united states of america you twice
[3:42:06] indicted a presidential candidate the leading presidential candidate and a former president of
[3:42:11] the united states during a presidential election against all justice department policy against all justice
[3:42:17] department history something never before seen or contemplated in 250 years of this country's history
[3:42:23] you did it anyway all for the purpose of keeping donald trump off the ballot all for the purpose of
[3:42:31] denying the voters an opportunity to vote on a former president of the united states and at the time the
[3:42:37] republican nominee for president we've never seen anything like it in our country's history before
[3:42:42] if you'd had your way our elections in this country would be like russia's the one they just
[3:42:46] held oh they had an election sure and they had an opposition sure it's just that putin chose the
[3:42:51] opposition which is exactly what the biden justice department wanted to do with donald j trump and
[3:42:59] that's exactly what you were doing twice indicted the president during the election tried to get his
[3:43:04] first trial set for during the primaries in fact i think the first trial date you requested was like three
[3:43:09] days before the iowa caucuses when all of that failed you then filed a superseding indictment a whole
[3:43:16] another indictment on october the 2nd i believe 2024 five weeks before election day this despite the
[3:43:23] fact that the public integrity division of justice and they must have gotten quite a workout while you
[3:43:27] were around the public integrity division told you don't do it we're against it it will be seen as
[3:43:35] partisan it will be seen as interfering and you did it anyway didn't you that's incorrect you filed the
[3:43:45] indictment and indeed the public integrity division told you not to do it i've got it right here i've
[3:43:50] got your notes from the meeting let's have a look they said to you these are your notes call with your
[3:43:57] team's notes call with the public integrity division october august 17 2024 they said a large segment of the
[3:44:02] population would see this as motivated bipartisan purposes and would not understand why the department
[3:44:08] could not wait to supersede they said public integrity has no precedent it could cite to seek to
[3:44:14] support a superseding indictment under these circumstances they said it's their advice you wait
[3:44:19] to file this superseding indictment if you do it at all but you did it anyway because you were desperate
[3:44:26] to stop donald j trump and then your top deputy went out ran for congress as a democrat boasting about
[3:44:33] it what was his name jp cooney do you remember him your deputy right he was your deputy jp cooney yes he
[3:44:40] was right let's just take a look at his campaign poster running for congress as a democrat
[3:44:44] boasting about the fact that he went after donald trump during an election here he is jp cooney
[3:44:50] candidate for congress as a democrat in fact mr smith you have quite a history of every time
[3:44:57] the law or the constitution got in your way you twist the facts you torture the facts you bend the law
[3:45:03] you wanted to accuse donald trump for example of carrying on a vast right-wing conspiracy with members
[3:45:11] of congress during the electoral count and so you went to try to get senators phones and their phone
[3:45:17] records and their text messages the only problem was the constitution protects members of congress work
[3:45:25] product and their phone records and you you knew that was the case didn't you i understand there are
[3:45:32] constitutional protections we followed the constitution oh you did and you didn't even attempt to in fact you
[3:45:36] told the attorney general you briefed the attorney general we've got the memo right here you told the
[3:45:41] attorney general that indeed members likely have a valid speech or debate privilege immunizing them
[3:45:48] from compelled testimony mr chairman i'd ask consent this be entered into the record you knew that but
[3:45:53] you went ahead anyway in fact you were also told that federal case law that is the courts said that it
[3:46:02] doesn't matter how you try and get the material whether you go to the senators directly or whether you
[3:46:08] go to phone companies the speech and debate clause still applies you were told that either way the
[3:46:14] senators were likely to need to be notified to be able to assert their privileges weren't you i don't
[3:46:20] believe that's accurate really because here's a memo to you from your own office john pelletari january 8th
[3:46:28] 2023 i've got it right here i'd ask now mr chairman this be entered into the record it's entitled speech or
[3:46:35] debate litigation summary in which you are told it's addressed to you to jack smith special counsel
[3:46:43] from john m pelletari assistant special counsel in which you are told the rayburn decision requires
[3:46:48] the government to give a member of congress the opportunity to assert privilege and it was your office's
[3:46:54] own assessment it didn't matter what matter whether you went to the member or whether you went to a phone
[3:46:59] company you still had to do it but you decided to ignore that blow right through it you went to
[3:47:09] the phone companies and you hid the fact from the court that you were seeking the records of members
[3:47:17] of congress didn't you you didn't tell the court you were seeking subpoenas from the phone companies
[3:47:21] for members of congress did you you you hid that from the court isn't that correct we did not say who
[3:47:28] the subpoenas were for when we sought a non-disclosure order that exactly correct yeah exactly right i mean
[3:47:34] here's your deposition before the house when you were asked when you sought these orders the judge
[3:47:40] didn't know it was a member of congress is that correct and you said i don't think we identified that
[3:47:46] so instead what you decided to do was you didn't tell the members of congress my phone was one of them
[3:47:50] that you got you didn't tell the court you went to the phone companies you didn't alert the court so that
[3:47:56] members would have a chance to assert their privileges you just ran rough rod shot over the
[3:48:00] whole thing and then you also knew there was a federal law in addition to the constitution there
[3:48:04] was a federal law that requires the phone companies to notify members of congress to be able to notify
[3:48:12] members of congress when their records are requested but you prevented the companies effectively from
[3:48:17] doing that by seeking a gag order against them didn't you i don't think that's accurate oh indeed it is and
[3:48:25] we have the gag order right here i mean let's just look at at what you said to the court this is
[3:48:31] number one you had the court sign a gag order a non-disclosure order finding and you testified
[3:48:38] earlier today that you wrote it that the court has reasonable grounds to believe that disclosure
[3:48:44] will result in destruction of or tampering with evidence intimidation of witnesses in serious jeopardy
[3:48:48] of the investigation so you did it of course when you had the court sign this you didn't tell
[3:48:53] the court you were seeking the records of members of congress so the constitution requires you to
[3:48:59] notify members you didn't do that it requires you if you're going to go to phone companies to give
[3:49:03] the members a chance to assert privilege you didn't do that it requires you to tell the court when you're
[3:49:08] going to go after members phone records you didn't do that it requires you to allow the phone companies
[3:49:12] to notify members you got the court under false pretenses to prevent the companies from doing so
[3:49:19] anytime the law stood in your way anytime the constitution stood in your way you just ignored
[3:49:25] it is that why you lied to the house under oath about getting member text messages i answered every
[3:49:34] question i was asked truthfully oh i don't proud of our investigation no well you shouldn't be you should
[3:49:39] be totally ashamed let me just ask you this on december 17 2025 you told the house that you had never
[3:49:48] gotten text messages from members of congress let's have a look here's what you said to the house did
[3:49:55] you seek a search warrant for the content of any text messages of members you say from members yes you
[3:50:04] say i don't recall it was i don't recall that it was just toll records you say correct now do you recall
[3:50:11] this exchange with the house on december 2017 2025 i i see it there okay good but on june the 2nd 2023
[3:50:20] two full years earlier you demanded from the national archives records that included text messages
[3:50:27] from 44 united states senators and members of congress and indeed you got all of those records
[3:50:35] isn't that correct yes and i'm happy to explain that if you'll give me oh no i understand that you
[3:50:40] got them we all understand and we know it not because you told us but because the department of
[3:50:46] justice disclosed it so two full years before this deposition you were in possession of text messages
[3:50:53] from 44 members of congress that you went and subpoenaed you read them within 30 minutes the
[3:51:00] department of justice told this committee they said that within an hour of receiving those text messages
[3:51:06] your team was reading them and yet not only did you not notify any member of congress whose text messages
[3:51:12] you obtained pursuant to your process you told the house two full years later having read all 44
[3:51:19] members messages you told them you'd never gotten messages you'd never requested messages from any
[3:51:24] member of congress that was a lie mr smith and you may try your lawyer your way out of it well it wasn't
[3:51:33] from the member it was from the archives you knew exactly what you were being asked and you deliberately
[3:51:39] misled them you're a smart guy i think that's pretty clear but you use your ability and the powers of
[3:51:46] your office to lie to the court to lie to congress to lie to the american people to lie to the house
[3:51:53] it's the worst abuse of prosecutorial power in the history of the united states and all i have to say is
[3:52:00] i'm glad you failed i don't know what our democracy would be like if you had succeeded in your effort
[3:52:05] to interfere in the workings of a presidential election if it were up to me i'd charge you with perjury
[3:52:12] we should certainly be disbarred and i can only pray that nothing like this will ever happen again
[3:52:18] in the united states of america thank you mr chairman mr chairman i'd like the uh mr smith to have an
[3:52:25] opportunity to respond if there are any areas of questioning he didn't get an opportunity to respond
[3:52:31] to uh there were several things uh that senator holly just said that are not accurate uh including uh among
[3:52:40] other things uh the process we went about to get these uh records from nara that was a request for
[3:52:46] white house phones uh it was also inaccurate to state that our indictment happened on october 2nd we
[3:52:54] indicted that case uh in august and uh we consulted with the public integrity section during uh that process
[3:53:04] and the public integrity section ultimately concurred that we had followed uh the election year
[3:53:09] sensitivities policy i just want that to be clear in closing mr smith has said that he had an all-star
[3:53:17] team and his investigators were superstars mr smith said that he did the right thing and he followed the
[3:53:27] rules but in my opening statement i made clear the records tell a very different story today this
[3:53:36] committee has given examples after examples proving his operation wasn't a normal prosecution we've made
[3:53:45] public emails text and other documents proving defects failures and political motives his own words
[3:53:55] and that of his staff have told the tale of rampant wrongdoing and political conduct mr smith and his
[3:54:06] staff used thug thuggish tactics to target the entire republican political apparatus including our
[3:54:15] constituents who were exercising their first amendment rights he effectively praised his team for infringing
[3:54:23] on the constitution rather than calling them out for their object obvious historic misconduct it's
[3:54:32] shameful and the american public deserve better uh than to have funded that work the hearing record
[3:54:40] will remain open for one week where questions will be submitted in writing and we expect responses within
[3:54:47] two weeks this hearing is part of my investigative work not the end of it
[3:54:55] my and senator johnson's uh investigation will continue but today's hearing is adjourned