FULL Historic Hearing: Jack Smith Testifies Publicly Before House Judiciary Committee — AC1F

[0:00] Go ahead and take the stand. We want to make sure the Capitol Police remains in the room just in [0:03] case we have any other concerns. The general lady from Washington is recognized. Thank you, [0:11] Mr. Chairman. I have a unanimous consent request. General lady is recognized. This is an order of [0:16] the D.C. Circuit dated December 8th, 2023, in which the court recognizes that Donald Trump's [0:21] statements about the judge and his case have led to threats against the judge where callers [0:26] labeled the judge and clerk, quote, Nazis, dirty Jews and child molesters and represent, [0:32] quote, Mr. Trump's documented pattern of speech and its demonstrated real-time, real-world consequences [0:38] was a significant and imminent threat to the functioning of the criminal trial process in [0:44] this case. Without objection. A lot. And the gentleman from Colorado is recognized for five minutes. [0:52] Thank you, Mr. Smith. Thank you for being here. Thank you for your service to our country. [0:57] My colleague from Virginia, a Republican colleague who was questioning you right before the break. [1:05] Do you know what he said in the days after January 6th? Let me share this with you. This is a quote of [1:13] his from a press release on January 8th. Congress stands united in our rejection of the violence that [1:19] occurred this week. And I'll continue to urge the swift prosecution of those involved to the fullest [1:27] extent of the law. Mr. Smith, this is theater. Republicans are trying to rewrite history. That's what [1:38] this is. Many of them were with us in the House chamber on January 6th. I remember it well. The chairman [1:47] was there, as was I. There's been a lot of discussion about witnesses today. Perhaps the chairman could [1:56] muster the courage to call the four witnesses who I see, the American public may not see, I see standing [2:01] behind you, Mr. Smith, the four police officers who risked everything, life and limb, to do what? To protect the [2:12] Republican members on the dais. It's an outrage that they now sit here and have the audacity to try to [2:21] rewrite history in front of the very officers who sacrificed everything to protect them. [2:29] Mr. Smith, you're of course aware that President Trump was impeached for his conduct connected to [2:39] January 6th, right? Correct. Do you know how many members of Congress voted to impeach him? I don't [2:45] recall. 232. Do you know how many Republican members of Congress voted to impeach him? I don't recall. [2:51] 10 Republican members of Congress voted to impeach him for his conduct related to January 6th, [2:57] including at the time, the sitting Republican chairwoman of their conference. There was a trial [3:04] in the United States Senate. Senators sat as jurors. I remember it well because I was one of [3:10] the prosecutors who prosecuted that case. Do you know how many senators voted to convict [3:16] President Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors during that trial, Mr. Smith? I don't recall. [3:20] 57 senators. Do you know how many Republicans voted to convict him? I don't recall. [3:24] Seven Republican United States senators voted to convict President Trump of high crimes [3:30] and misdemeanors. It was the most bipartisan vote for conviction of a president in the history [3:37] of the republic. So they can engage in as much histrionics as they want to try to rewrite history. [3:47] But facts are facts. They talk about weaponization. They accuse you of weaponization of the justice [3:56] system while the Federal Reserve Board chairman sink, rings the alarm about political retaliation [4:05] by this Department of Justice. But Mr. Smith, I don't know if you're aware of this. I don't know [4:10] if your counsel has made you aware that President Trump is live tweeting live. I guess you call it [4:16] truth socially as we speak. Are you aware of this about this hearing? No. Let me read to you what he [4:23] posted an hour and a half ago. Deranged Jack Smith is being decimated before Congress. It was over [4:31] when they discussed his past failures and unfair prosecutions. He destroyed many lives under the [4:34] guise of legitimacy. Jack Smith is a deranged animal who shouldn't be allowed to practice law. [4:39] If you're a Republican, his license would be taken away from him and far worse. Hopefully the attorney [4:43] general is looking at what he's done. We have a word for this. It's called weaponization. It's called [4:53] corruption. Mr. Smith, if you care to respond, I'll give you an opportunity. But I will simply say, [5:01] we are grateful for your service to this country. We appreciate your fidelity to the rule of law. [5:07] And I would echo the comments that have been made by my Democratic colleagues to ignore the noise that [5:14] you hear from so many of my colleagues who debase themselves in this way. It is, in my view, [5:22] subversive of the oaths that we took to defend the Constitution. I'm happy to give you an [5:31] opportunity, Mr. Smith, if you'd like to. I don't have anything to add. Thank you for your service. [5:36] I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [5:41] In 2010, Mr. Smith, did you work for President Obama's Department of Justice? Yes. In 2010, [5:49] I was the chief of the Public Integrity Section. During that time, did you have any contact or [5:53] connection with Lois Lerner with the Obama IRS? Yes. I was new to the Public Integrity Section. I was [6:02] the chief. I was trying to learn about issues I had not been at. Did you attempt to work with [6:09] Lois Lerner and the IRS to investigate nonprofits? What I did was I asked for a meeting with the IRS [6:17] about nonprofits? So the simple answer is yes. Well, I didn't ask to work with Ms. Lerner. They [6:26] sent Ms. Lerner. That's the person who came to this meeting. I met her once. And they went after [6:30] Second Amendment groups, correct? If you remember correctly, that was, that's what was the offshoot [6:36] of it, that Second Amendment groups that tried to gain nonprofit status, they were slow rolled through [6:42] the IRS. Do you recall that? Separate from this, there was an investigation of that that I was a [6:49] part of in Public Integrity. Did you, you prosecuted Virginia Governor Bob McDonald, this was asked [6:56] earlier, you prosecuted him, correct? I was a part of the prosecution, yes. And that ended up with a, [7:02] being, that decision ended up being unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court, correct? [7:09] That is correct, sir. Yeah, including Justice Ginsburg joined in on that opinion, correct? [7:16] I believe that's correct. Yeah. You also prosecuted John Edwards and Bob Menendez, [7:21] and those both ended in mistrials. Is that right? The, the John Edwards case did the Menendez case. I [7:30] had left the Public Integrity section by the time that case was, was tried. I wasn't. So, Mr. Chairman, [7:36] what we heard from the other side here is that this gentleman is the gold standard. [7:40] Uh, for prosecution here in the United States. So, think about it. We had a witch hunt done by the [7:46] IRS, going after Second Amendment groups, unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court, [7:53] prosecuted two prominent political figures, and they ended up as mistrials. That's the gold standard [7:59] here in America. I would just say this, Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Smith ever works for the Department [8:05] of Justice again, I would recommend a remedial course on the First Amendment to the Constitution. [8:11] Before I yield the rest of my time, Mr. Smith, I just have one other question. Is there any [8:17] historical precedent for an alternate slate of electors to be sent to Congress? Has that ever [8:24] happened before? Uh, that had happened. Uh, not anything similar to this situation, but you're [8:30] correct. It was in Hawaii. I think it was Hawaii in, I want to say the 1960 election. So, it has [8:37] happened before that there was an alternate slate of electors that was sent to Congress, which does [8:43] the electoral count, correct? There was a prior time that an electoral slate was sent, uh, where [8:51] there was litigation and recounts going. Actually, there's, um, twice that it happened, Mr. Chairman. [8:56] It happened in 1876 and 1960 that these alternate electors happened. I'd like to ask unanimous consent [9:03] to introduce the 1960 Hawaii case. Objective. With that, I yield to the chairman. I appreciate the [9:10] gentleman yield. The gentleman from, uh, Colorado talked about noise from this side. It's not noise, [9:14] it's facts. The fact is you approved a $20,000 payment to a confidential human source. And I think [9:20] you said earlier, the reason this individual or entity or person was paid was to review photo and video [9:28] evidence. Why'd they have to be confidential? Why didn't you just contract with them? [9:36] My understanding is that this person was a confidential human source with the FBI. I do not [9:42] know why they were confidential, but it would make sense to me, uh, given that this person was [9:48] assisting. Well, confidential just raises the question of what were you trying to hide? [9:53] Why not tell us? We know you hid the fact that you were getting phone records from members of [9:58] Congress. We want to know why this payment had to be hidden. Why couldn't you just contract, [10:05] uh, which would be the customary normal way I think of doing it. I did not, uh, make the determination [10:10] that this, that this source would be confidential, but given that this person was working on an [10:15] investigation, uh, with involving attacks on the Capitol and given the violence, uh, in that, [10:21] uh, it makes complete sense to me that this, the Bureau would- [10:24] You know, of any of the other special counsels who approved, uh, payments to, like, I don't [10:29] remember Robert Mueller approving payments to confidential human sources. I don't remember [10:34] Durham. I don't remember her. We brought all those guys in front of the committee. It's the first [10:38] time I've ever heard of a special counsel having to pay secret money to someone to get information [10:43] when you had the broadest subpoena power you could possibly have. You aware of any of the [10:48] other special counsels who had to do this? I am not aware, uh, whether confidential sources were or [10:58] were not used in those investigations. That's because I don't think they were. I don't think [11:01] they were. I'm not aware one way or the other. I can say that the use of confidential human [11:05] sources is a standard, uh, uh, thing done by the Federal Bureau of Investigations. The time of the [11:12] gentleman from Wisconsin has expired. I now yield to the gentlelady from Georgia for five minutes, [11:16] Ms. McBath. Thank you, Chairman. And Mr. Smith, thank you for appearing today to speak publicly [11:21] about the major issues that you handled as special counsel. Your work on election interference in my [11:27] home state is especially important as Georgia still today remains ground zero for voting rights. [11:34] My state has a long history of voter suppression, including violent tactics and legislation that has [11:40] actively disfranchised our voters. In fact, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Georgia in [11:46] 2023, challenging recently passed voter suppression legislation. That lawsuit was later withdrawn by [11:54] Donald Trump's attorney, General Pam Bondi. But this is not the first time that Donald Trump has encouraged [12:00] voter suppression. In the 2020 presidential election, which many have accepted that he lost, [12:07] he pressured his party members to overturn a legal election. Thankfully, several public servants upheld [12:14] our constitutional process and respected the voice of the people. Your investigation revealed how far he is [12:23] willing to go. In your final report, you wrote that, and I'm quoting, the through line of all Mr. Trump's [12:30] criminal efforts was deceit, knowingly false claims of fraud. Mr. Smith, what did your investigation [12:38] reveal about President Trump's interactions with Georgia's officials regarding his frauds claims? [12:45] As I sit here now, I can recall two specific officials. The first was the Secretary of State, [12:56] who is a fellow Republican. My understanding, he voted for and supported Donald Trump in the election, [13:03] but told Donald Trump in a conversation that was recorded in no uncertain terms, [13:10] the results of the election, and debunked many of the fraud claims that Donald Trump had to him in [13:18] real time. In addition to that, I recall that Donald Trump also spoke firsthand with the Attorney General [13:26] of your state, also a Republican who informed Donald Trump that he had supported him and voted for him [13:33] twice in the past. He also told Donald Trump he did not see outcome determined of fraud in that state. [13:40] I have an audio from a phone call between Trump and the Georgia Secretary of State [13:45] regarding the 2020 election. Could you please play the audio? [13:49] They're angry. The people of the country are angry, and there's nothing wrong with saying that, [13:53] you know, uh, that you've recalculated. Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have [14:00] is the data you have is wrong. So all I want to do is this. I just want to find, uh, 11,780 [14:14] votes, which is one more that we have, because we won the state. Mr. Smith, you explained in your [14:20] deposition that Georgia Secretary of State was one of the witnesses who disabused President Trump's [14:26] false claims. How did Georgia Secretary of State push back against Trump's efforts? [14:31] I think my recollection is in this same call, uh, President Trump repeatedly, uh, raised fraud claims, [14:42] and, uh, the Secretary of State repeatedly explained not only that they weren't true, [14:47] but in, I believe my recollection is in several instances explained why they weren't true. Um, [14:53] and I believe that call ended, uh, my recollection is that it ended, uh, with President Trump, [15:01] in essence, threatening, uh, the Secretary of State that he might, uh, be a target for criminal, uh, [15:07] prosecution if he didn't do what President Trump wanted him to do. So see, that raises a very [15:12] critical point. President Trump didn't just spread lies about the election. In your words, [15:18] and I'm quoting, he preyed on, end quote, Republican officials in Georgia and other states [15:24] who believed would help him. Mr. Smith, Donald Trump thought these officials would break the law [15:30] out of party loyalty. And when those officials, his own political allies, told him the truth, [15:37] he dismissed them and continued to spread the lies anyway. Is that correct? That is correct. [15:43] Mr. Smith, if your case had gone to trial, would the evidence from Georgia have helped prove that [15:48] President Trump knowingly engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 election? [15:56] Yes. After an investigation, uh, following the facts and the law, we believed we had proof [16:01] beyond a reasonable doubt to prove those charges. And in your deposition, you mentioned a fake [16:06] elector witness in Georgia who you thought would have been a very powerful, uh, witness at trial. Can [16:13] you tell us a little bit more about that in a very limited amount of time? Sure. It was a witness [16:17] who had been, uh, made to understand that his electoral, uh, uh, vote, his alternative electoral vote, [16:25] would only be used if they won in court, if they won in litigation. Uh, that didn't happen. And, uh, [16:32] President Trump and his co-conspirators tried to use those alternative, uh, uh, fake elector [16:37] certificates, uh, to get Mike Pence. Mr. Chairman, regular order. Okay. Well, Mr. Smith, thank you so much [16:43] for your, the work that you and your team of career prosecutors have put forth in covering this [16:49] evidence. The American people need to know what happened, and they need to know how their president [16:53] pressured Georgia state officials to overturn their freedom from, uh, Alabama has the unanimous consent [16:59] request. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, December 6th, 2025, Atlanta news first. Fulton County admits to [17:07] verifying 315,000 votes in the 2020 without poll worker signatures. I yield back. Uh, without [17:14] objection, the chair now recognizes for five minutes, the gentleman from Arizona. Thank you, [17:17] Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, isn't it true that for a federal criminal conspiracy charge, [17:23] it requires more than one individual. It, in other words, you're making a contractual agreement [17:29] of some kind with somebody other than yourself, right? That is correct. There has to be an agreement. [17:36] And so when you made the determination to charge President Trump with conspiracy, [17:43] you surely knew that you had somebody else that he had must have agreed upon somewhere to, to engage in [17:52] this act that generated the conspiracy, right? That's correct. We alleged specific individuals [18:00] in the indictment as co-conspirators. And so when you, so you knew who you were going to do when you, [18:06] who you were going to charge when you, uh, pursued the indictment, you had the, you knew who the agreeing [18:14] parties were, but you chose to list them as co-conspirators, but you didn't indict them. How often have you done [18:20] that in the past? In the past, I have had a number of cases where I have charged some members of the [18:29] conspiracy. No, no, no. One member of the conspiracy. How many times have you done that? [18:34] Charged some, one member of the conspiracy and let everybody else off the hook. I'm sure that's [18:41] happened. That is not an, you don't remember doing that. That is not an uncommon, uh, thing to do in an [18:47] investigation. So, okay. I, I, I dispute that, but we're going to leave that as, as, as it may, [18:56] but let's just get to this. If a member of Congress moves to decertify a state's electors, [19:00] that would not be a crime, would it? When you say to decertify, make a motion to decertify [19:08] on that January 6th that we, every four years, that's not a, uh, that's not a crime, right? [19:15] Correct. And if another elected official urged someone to join them in that decertification, [19:20] that's not a crime either, right? As you stated, it's not. [19:26] Several members of Congress get together over breakfast. They say, this is, [19:29] this is the normal path. We watched it because we saw the Democrats do it [19:32] for every Republican president. So we are not sure how to do it. We've never done it before. [19:39] That's not a crime to sit down at breakfast to talk about that or any other time together [19:43] to talk about decertification, is it? No, it's not a crime to talk about that over breakfast. [19:51] In your deposition, you talked about, uh, you made the argument that an elected official who's [19:56] been deemed to have lost, could not knowingly make false statements about election fraud [20:01] to target a love, a lawful government operation. Isn't that true? That's what you said in your [20:05] deposition. Page 27. I believe it's a lawful government function is. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah. [20:11] Lawful government function. That's what you said. You remember saying that? [20:15] Uh, I said lawful government function. Could you read back what you said again? I'm sorry. Yeah. [20:19] An elected, it is, uh, see an elected official has been deemed to have lost, could not knowingly make [20:25] false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function. You said that would [20:30] be illegal. Remember that page? Do you want me to actually read this back? Surely you remember [20:36] that position. I'm not denying it and I apologize. I'm just trying to listen to you closely. [20:40] Okay. Let's, let's just go right from, from the, from this. You said there's, uh, as we said in the [20:47] indictment, he was free to say that he thought he won the election, right? That is correct. [20:52] He was even free to say falsely, falsely that he won the election, correct? That's correct. [20:59] What you said is he was not free to do was violate federal law and use knowing, knowingly false [21:06] statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function. That is correct. Yeah. And [21:12] for you, the, that lawful government function is, uh, the, the certification process I suppose on January [21:20] 6th. Well, it's, it's a slightly broader than that. It's the collecting, counting, uh, and certifying [21:26] of the votes. Uh, our view of the evidence is that begins from the point of time, uh, that the electors [21:32] are, uh, certified through the counting of the votes. So that would be. So the entire, so the entire [21:37] certification process from the state to the feds. My recollection as it's pled in the indictment, [21:42] as I sit here, I don't have it in front of me, but I believe it's from, um, December 14th. I think [21:49] that was the day through the voting. Okay. So, so you can't recall, but for you it's from the certification [21:55] moving forward to the sort of actual ratification of the certification process in, uh, on inaugural [22:01] day. My recollection, that's what we pled in the indictment. Okay. So, so you've managed to [22:07] filibuster us right out of this thing, but, uh, your, your beef was, you said that president Trump, [22:14] uh, engendered a level of distrust. You said he made false statements to state legislators to his [22:20] supporters of all sorts. And somehow you discerned that his supporters were angry and that that was [22:26] somehow related to a criminal offense. I find that absolutely weak. I think it's misdirected. [22:33] And I'm the gentleman, I'm the gentleman's expired. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into [22:41] the record. Uh, Axios dated August 2nd, 2023. Barr says Trump's first amendment argument in January 6th [22:50] case is not valid. Objection. Okay. Um, gentlelady from North Carolina is recognized. Thank you, [22:59] Mr. Chairman. Um, Mr. Smith, many of us were here on January 6th and directly experienced what happened. [23:08] Yet some of my colleagues across the aisle still insist that Trump had no role in the violence. [23:17] In videos of the raging battle against our brave Capitol police officers, many rioters were screaming [23:25] things like, we were invited here by the president. Mr. Smith, did your investigation uncover evidence [23:33] that some of the rioters had gone to the Capitol because they really believed the president had [23:39] invited them there? Uh, there were, uh, I believe there's video of, uh, of rioters saying in fact that, [23:50] uh, as we pled in the indictment, uh, the, uh, knowing laws that Donald Trump, uh, put out in the [23:59] weeks leading up to that, uh, led to a level of distrust. And he ultimately knew that the crowd, uh, [24:06] at the Capitol, uh, or at the ellipse, I should say, uh, was angry before he, he told them to march toward [24:12] the Capitol. And we've seen report after report of rioters who have said that if Donald Trump had not [24:20] convinced them that the election had been stolen, they might not have even come to Washington. [24:27] I'm going to share some quotes from some of those rioters. I believed I was following up on the [24:32] instructions of, of former president Trump. One rioter said about going to the Capitol. [24:37] I marched to the U S Capitol because president Trump said to do so. Another said he personally asked for [24:44] me to come that day, said another. Can you give us a few examples of Trump's rhetoric and language [24:53] that inspired people to go to the Capitol, believing that they were going on the president's direct [24:59] order? One instance I can recall is during, uh, the, uh, the speech he gave to his supporters and [25:13] in context, his supporters, uh, he told them to come to Washington DC and be wild. Uh, he, uh, [25:21] was on notice, uh, that they were angry and he told that crowd, um, we can't let this happen. [25:28] And he told them that I, my recollection is multiple times at a time when there was nothing [25:34] that could be done, uh, to, to stop the outcome of the election, but to obstruct it. Uh, in addition [25:40] to that, he told them when there is fraud, you can go, uh, by different rules. And my, my recollection [25:48] is there is a videotape of when he's making these sort of statements and he's saying that they need [25:55] to fight if they want to save their country. Uh, there are, in fact, people in the crowd chanting, [26:00] fight for Trump. Uh, that that all happened during, uh, the, uh, lip speech before, uh, people headed [26:08] towards the, uh, Capitol and the Capitol was attacked. And did your investigation find any of the [26:15] rioters trying to use Trump's words and calls to action as a defense in the criminal cases against [26:22] them? I can read you something from your special counsel report. I was just going to say, I think [26:30] we cited a number of rioters who, uh, ultimately admitted that, uh, they had committed their crimes [26:38] at the behest and in the name of Donald Trump. Um, and it happened several times. Um, and, uh, [26:46] many of those, um, accounts are on page 86 and page 87 of the special counsel report. Even the lawyer [26:54] for Jacob Chansley, also known as the QAnon shaman highlighted that his words, how the words affected [27:01] his client. He weren't heard the words of the president. He believed them. He genuinely believed them. [27:07] And he thought that the president was actually going to walk with them to the Capitol. Um, [27:13] for my final question, Mr. Smith, do you believe that Donald Trump motivated and was responsible [27:19] for the violence that occurred on that day, even if he didn't walk with them to the Capitol? [27:26] Yes. As we, as we stated in our report, uh, uh, the results of our investigation following [27:33] the facts and following the law was that he, uh, was the person most responsible for what happened [27:38] at the Capitol and that he caused what would happen at the Capitol and that it was foreseeable to him. [27:43] Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I have two UCs. [27:47] Don, uh, can state her unanimous consent request? [27:49] Um, I asked unanimous consent to enter into the record a tweet from Representative Biggs [27:55] on January 7th, 2021, in which he said, quote, yesterday, criminal rioters hijacked a joint session [28:02] of conduct. Objection, not objection. And, uh, the second one is a unanimous consent to enter into [28:09] their record and interview from March, 2024 on the Capitol Hill show in which you called on those [28:18] who attacked, um, the Capitol on January 6th to be, quote, held accountable because, quote, that's the [28:24] way our system does work and should work. Objection. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. [28:30] I recognize the gentleman from Texas. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Smith, how many members of Congress [28:35] or the Senate did you subpoena phone toll records? As I sit here right now, I do not recall a specific [28:43] number. Is this the complete list right here? Let me ask you this. Am I on this list? Did you [28:55] target my records and subpoena my phone toll records? My understanding is your records were [29:03] subpoenaed by prosecutors before I became special counsel. Well, staff would put this up on the [29:09] screen. I'm thankful for the great staff who discovered the email where I learned for the [29:13] first time a few weeks ago that my phone records were indeed targeted. We called AT&T and we've [29:20] learned that they were given to the Department of Justice, as this email indicates, because I've [29:27] been in communication with Scott Perry, one of my colleagues here in Congress, who literally had his [29:33] phone taken from him in front of his family. And of course, we've already talked about in this [29:38] document. It talks about you could be in violation of the privilege by even obtaining [29:41] and possessing this information if the member objected to the disclosure. This happened four [29:46] years ago in May of 2022, and I couldn't object because I didn't know. I didn't know until about [29:51] three weeks ago. My question here is, was there any limits to your investigation or the investigation [29:57] that preceded you, Mr. Smith? Because as egregious as a violation of separation of powers this is, [30:02] as an egregious and abusive power it is, it's far more concerning you are clearly targeting [30:07] American citizens for merely being conservative or supporting the president. We've got memos that [30:13] we've already been talking about in this hearing from April 2022 that preceded you that established [30:18] and opened the investigations, one of which has Attorney General Merrick Garland's signature on it, [30:23] and the focus was the electors. Now that was six months, six months before you were appointed. [30:28] You testified earlier, you met and interviewed Merrick Garland and Deputy AG Lisa Monaco, [30:32] and you briefed the AG and Deputy multiple times. Did you brief them on the electors and the [30:37] prosecution of their supposed crimes? I'm sorry. Did you brief them on the electors [30:43] and their supposed crimes? I don't recall specific conversations, but I'm sure [30:50] that in the course of briefing them, I discussed- It wasn't that the purpose of the [30:53] entire investigation as it was set out? Because putting aside that in 1960, as we already talked [30:58] about my friend, Mr. Tiffany, that Hawaii put forward an alternate slate of electors, [31:02] the investigation pivoted to President Trump and, frankly, anybody who knew him. [31:06] Do you know who Cleta Mitchell is? Yes, I do. She's an election lawyer that was involved in [31:12] filing an election contest on behalf of President Trump in Georgia in December of 2020. A 64-page [31:18] complaint with over 1,100 pages of exhibits, witness affidavits, and expert witness reports [31:23] documenting thousands of votes cast in violation of Georgia law, but which were nevertheless included [31:28] in the vote totals. Now, notwithstanding the disposition of the cases that was filed, [31:34] is that a criminal act? Filing an election contest on behalf of a candidate for office, [31:40] a client. Is that a criminal act? Yes or no? No. In fact, we stated- So why did you deem [31:46] it appropriate to monitor Cleta Mitchell's long-distance phone records in 2023, two and a [31:51] half years after the election context was filed and after the presidential electors were certified? [31:56] What about Jen Ellis? What about Sidney Powell? What about Bill Sepian? What crime did you suspect [32:02] had been committed by them that would warrant monitoring their phone records two and a half years [32:06] after the 2020 election was certified? With respect to Sidney Powell, she is one of the co-conspirators [32:19] alleged in the indictment. I don't know what you mean by monitoring, sir, if you're talking about- [32:24] Well, there were some 400 plus Republican conservative groups and leaders who were [32:27] targeted by your investigation. Their financial records were obtained, records of the RNC, the Trump [32:32] campaign, Cleta Mitchell, the Conservative Partnership Institute, the American First Policy Institute, [32:37] NRCC, NRSC, PACs, conservative groups, people all across the country, citizens, because we hear a lot [32:43] about members of Congress. And we should because of separation of powers and the egregious abuse of [32:48] power. But what we're not talking about enough, in my opinion, are the American citizens that have [32:52] been targeted. Because frankly, are there any limits to the power of a special prosecutor or special [32:56] counsel? So much so in your abuse of power that in the summer of 2024, the indictment involving [33:03] classified documents was dismissed after determining your appointment violated the Appointments Clause [33:08] of the Constitution. But you continue to sign your name on court filings until the time you resigned [33:14] from office in January 2025. A federal judge has recently stated a prosecutor who continues to sign [33:19] his name in court filings after a disqualification order should face disciplinary action or disbarment. [33:24] I yield back. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman have the opportunity to respond? [33:31] If the gentleman wants to respond, he can. With respect to the last point, [33:35] Judge Cannon's order specifically limited her finding to that proceeding. So there would be [33:40] nothing improper about continuing to litigate the case in Washington, D.C. And with respect [33:49] to Florida, there was nothing improper about taking an appeal of that very decision. [33:56] The gentlelady from Vermont is recognized for five minutes. [33:58] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Smith, I want to discuss volume two of your report, [34:03] which summarizes the findings of your investigation into President Trump's hoarding [34:07] of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and his efforts to obstruct the FBI's investigation. [34:13] Mr. Smith, is it generally the practice for a special counsel's report [34:18] to be made public to the American people? [34:20] I want to say first, I'm limited what I can say about volume two because of Judge Cannon's order. [34:30] I can say generally that with respect to special counsels, there are regulations [34:36] that direct a special counsel to draft a report. Whether that report becomes public [34:41] is determined. The Attorney General has the authority to determine that. [34:46] To the best of your knowledge, was Special Counselor Mueller's report made public in full? [34:50] I know it was made public. I'm not sure if it was made public in full. [34:56] What about Special Counsel Herr's report? [35:00] My recollection is his report was made public in full. I believe that's correct. [35:06] And Special Counsel Weiss's report? [35:09] I do not know. [35:11] Okay. Now, I understand that the District Judge Aileen Cannon, the Trump appointee who oversaw the [35:17] case in Florida, issued a gag order that prevents you from discussing any parts of the classified [35:23] documents investigation. That is not already public. I understand that. [35:26] Including your findings that you laid out in volume two of that report. [35:31] Am I correct that the reason your report is not available in full to the public is because of this gag order? [35:39] I wrote a report. The Attorney General, it was submitted to him. I understand generally that [35:47] there's been litigation about whether this report would be public or not. I have not been a party to [35:52] that litigation. I just know that there is an order. And I know the Department of Justice, [35:57] the current Department of Justice, has interpreted that order in a way that I cannot speak about [36:03] anything that could possibly be in that report and its findings. [36:08] And when Judge Cannon issued that gag order, she cited pending cases against Trump's co-defendants. [36:14] Is that correct? [36:15] I'm sorry? [36:16] When Judge Cannon issued the gag order, she cited pending cases against Trump's co-defendants. [36:23] Is that correct? [36:24] That's my recollection. [36:25] Are those cases still pending? [36:26] No, they're not. [36:28] No, they're not. [36:30] So there is no reason, from where I sit, for this important information to be not made public. [36:37] At this point, I want to turn now to President Trump's attacks on you. [36:42] Trump has a playbook for how he handles people who try to hold him accountable. [36:48] In August 2023, right after your office indicted him, President Trump shared that playbook on social [36:54] media for everyone to see. He wrote, if you go after me, I'm coming for you. [37:00] Trump has said that you, Mr. Smith, should be investigated and put in prison. He called you [37:05] a disgrace to humanity, a radical left Marxist, a criminal. In fact, Trump has used the words [37:12] deranged Jack Smith 185 times on Truth Social. How do you think that these statements have impacted [37:22] you, your staff, and your investigation? [37:25] With respect to me, I think the reports, I'm sorry, the statements are meant to intimidate me. [37:35] I will not be intimidated. I think these statements are also made as a warning to others what will [37:42] happen if they stand up. And I am, as I say, I'm not going to be intimidated. We did our work [37:50] pursuant to department policy. We followed the facts and we followed the law. And that process [37:57] resulted in proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed serious crimes. I'm not going to pretend [38:02] that didn't happen because he's threatening me. And Mr. Smith, do you believe that President [38:08] Trump's Department of Justice will find some way to indict you? [38:12] I believe they will do everything in their power to do that because they've been ordered to [38:18] by the president. That's very concerning, obviously. It's very concerning to all of us, [38:25] at least on this side of the aisle. This is Trump's playbook at work. [38:31] Complain loudly, gin up hatred and resentment, then express our hope that somebody will do something, [38:36] but never explicitly order anyone to act. And then watch as his followers and loyalists go after [38:43] their targets. This is what happened on January 6th. Trump stood at the ellipse and gave a campaign [38:48] speech to his supporters. And he said, if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country [38:53] anymore. And I think it's clear that his intimidation will stop at nothing. I want to speak on behalf, [39:02] in closing, I want to speak on behalf of people. No closing. Chairman, regular order. No, I'm sorry. [39:06] Mr. Chairman, regular order. I'm sorry you have gone over numerous times. [39:10] I am taking my few moments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. On behalf of the people of the state [39:18] of Vermont, thank you for all of your 30 years of service to this country and to the police officers [39:24] sitting here. I'm ashamed. I'm ashamed that you have not gotten your due. I yield back. [39:32] The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. I've got a UC request. The gentleman, ranking members [39:36] recognized for UC. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. The first is a New York Times article [39:40] titled Hunting Leaks, Trump DOJ Officials Seized Records of Democrats, explaining how the Trump [39:47] administration subpoenaed Apple for data from the council of at least a dozen people tied to the [39:52] House Intelligence Committee in 2017-18, including Representative Swalwell and Senator Adam Schiff. [39:57] No objection. And the other similarly is Trump's DOJ secretly obtained phone and text message [40:04] logs of 43 congressional staffers and two members of Congress. That's December 10, 2024. [40:10] That objection. The chair now recognized the gentleman from New Jersey. [40:12] Thank you, Chairman. You know, I don't even know where to go because there's so much, Mr. Smith. [40:17] There really is. But it isn't. What I do know is it's much more than how much people like or hate you [40:25] or like or hate Donald Trump or like or hate Republicans or like or hate Democrats. This is about the system. [40:33] It's about what the Department of Justice did. It's about what you did. The core of the hearing [40:38] is all about can Americans still trust the justice system? Is it fair? Was it fair under you? [40:48] And all they expect, they don't expect you to be perfect, but they expect you to treat everyone [40:52] the same, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. But that wasn't the case. [40:58] When you treat people differently because of their political status, their political party, their ideals, [41:06] that's hypocrisy. And I'm sorry to say, and I don't say it lightly, I do consider you to be a hypocrite. [41:14] With that being said, you know, I think the prosecutors and the people around you stretch norms, [41:21] change standards, depending upon who was under investigation. So you don't like Donald Trump. [41:26] And so you're a liberal Democrat, whatever the case may be. And they went after him. [41:32] And by the way, it's interesting that all those congressional records that were subpoenaed, [41:36] all those congressional records that were looked at, was one of them a Democrat? [41:45] No. The answer is no. I'll answer for you. [41:47] So I got simple questions. I always say I'm a simple guy, but it really boils down to this. [41:52] How much can Americans trust this system? In your special counsel report, [41:57] you stated President Trump engaged and was guilty of criminal conspiracies and he was guilty of [42:01] criminal conduct. And you publicly testified, you believed you had the proof, et cetera. [42:06] If prosecutors deal this way with cases, if they declare that it's guilty and it's over before a [42:12] jury verdict, would Americans trust the justice system more or would they? Would they trust the [42:18] system more? The answer, go ahead, answer, please answer. I'm sorry. I didn't, I didn't understand [42:24] what you were asking me. So when this was all going on before, and I believe it was political, [42:30] before there was an entire case and we went through the whole case, you pretty much declared, [42:34] and I'm not going to read the whole thing through again, that President Trump was guilty. That wasn't [42:39] your job. That's a judge's job. It's a jury's job. It's not your job. Don't you think that's unfair, [42:45] that that's wrong. That was, didn't make the playing field level. Did it make people less [42:51] trustworthy of the system? Yes or no? No. When I announced the charges in the election case, [42:58] I specifically stated, uh, that the case needed to be tried and, uh, that he had a right to go to [43:04] trial and he was presumed innocent. And thank you for, I just want a simple answer because we are [43:08] limited on time. I disagree with you. I don't think you did. Your office secretly subpoenaed and phone [43:14] record, got records of members of Congress and you kept those subpoenas hidden through [43:20] non-disclosure orders. That's wrong. They should have known. You want to do that? Fine. It's wrong. [43:26] Number one, it's wrong because people have a right. The American public has a right to know. [43:30] The elected officials have a right to know. It's your right to subpoena them, but they should know. [43:36] Secondly, and I brought this up before, not one Democrat, it's all Republicans, all Republicans, [43:42] everything you've done. Everything you've ever done is always against Republicans. Do you think [43:46] that puts more trust in the system when you're so partisan in that way? Yes or no? No. Politics [43:53] played no role in our investigation. I have prosecuted Republicans and Democrats throughout [43:58] my career. I have dismissed cases against Republicans and Democrats. You didn't have the proof. [44:04] If prosecutors routinely rely on politically imbalanced investigations, and by this I mean, [44:09] let me appeal to your sense of fairness. You're saying you're a fair man. We had a January 6th [44:15] committee, select committee, that was appointed only by a Democrat, the then Speaker Nancy Pelosi. [44:22] Everybody on it was a Democrat, except two Republicans that hated Republicans. Was that fair? [44:30] Was that fair? I mean, look at our system here in Congress. We've got Democrats, man, they speak up. [44:36] You've got Republicans we speak up. You hear both sides. That's the way a select committee should be. [44:42] And you based everything upon this biased, unfair, prejudiced system. How is that fair? Tell me how [44:50] that's fair. That's not correct. We conducted an independent investigation. You based a lot on that [44:55] commission. You got all their records. That's not correct. We did collect their records. We conducted [45:01] our own independent investigation following the facts and the law. And you used a lot of their [45:05] information. Mr. Smith, I don't mean to cut you off. I've got limited time. Joe Biden took classified [45:11] records that were not to be taken when he was vice president and when he was sent. And I know you [45:17] didn't deal directly with that case. It's true. But nevertheless, he did. Is that fair? Because he [45:25] let him go. Don't do anything to him. But on the other hand, when it's President Trump, who did it as [45:30] President, then there was all you raided Mar-a-Lago. Is that fair? I'm the gentleman. I'm the gentleman's [45:35] part of this. Well, I'd like him to answer. If the witness would like to respond, he can. I have no [45:40] response. It's damn unfair. That's the answer. We've got UC requests. You see requests from the [45:44] gentleman from California. Yes, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent to enter [45:48] into the record the government's sentencing memorandum for Capitol rioter Cody Mattis, who said that, [45:54] quote, when the former president asked his supporters to march on the Capitol, it was not [45:59] a call to peacefully and patriotically make your voice. Objection. To storm and seize the building. [46:04] And I've got one, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman's recognized. This is a press release from Congressman [46:08] Jeff Van Drew's statement on storming the Capitol building, calling it unacceptable, un-American, [46:13] and disrespectful of democracy. Without objection. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois. [46:20] Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Schmidt, for being here today. [46:26] Let's remember why we're here today. Donald Trump incited an insurrection in 2020 [46:34] because he refused to accept that he lost that election. And then he took classified documents [46:40] with him and put them in Mar-a-Lago. Republicans support impunity for criminals, not accountability. [46:48] There's no clearer example than that of the blanket pardon of nearly 1,600 insurrectionists on day one [46:55] of this disgraceful presidency. Trump pardoned people convicted of seditious conspiracy who brutalized [47:02] police officers. There are four of them who can testify to that here and who wanted to kill [47:09] Vice President Pence. People who've committed more crimes since the insurrection, sexual assault, [47:17] child molestation, aggravated kidnapping. That's who Trump pardoned. And that's who side Republicans are on. [47:26] They may not want to, but they are because they refuse to tell the truth. Mr. Smith, let me ask you [47:31] something. Does pardoning violent rioters who brutalized law enforcement officers, spray-peppering [47:39] them, tasering them, beating them up, kicking them, smashing them in door frames, make our country safer? [47:46] Absolutely not. As a prosecutor, can you describe why these pardons make our communities less safe and [47:58] undermine our criminal legal system more broadly? The people who assaulted police officers and were [48:11] convicted after trial, in my view, and I think in the view of the judges who sentenced them to prison, [48:17] are dangerous to their community. As you've mentioned, some of these people have already [48:23] committed crimes against their communities again. And I think all of us, if we're reasonable, know that [48:30] there's going to be more crimes committed by these people in the future. I do not understand why you [48:37] would mass pardon people who assaulted police officers. I don't get it. I never will. [48:43] That's exactly right. And none of this is a coincidence. The entire purpose of the Republican [48:52] Party, unfortunately, has become to help criminals and corporate interests evade accountability. Republicans [48:59] want impunity, not accountability. They want impunity for the January 6th people, for the classified documents [49:08] case, for the Epstein files, for billionaires and big corporations, and for terror that DHS is sowing on [49:16] our streets. The Gestapo tactics by ICE and CBP are the obvious result of President Trump and the Republican [49:25] Party that protects anyone who helps them turn our country into an authoritarian gangster state. Whether [49:33] it's storming the Capitol to overthrow an election or murdering people in broad daylight, Republicans will [49:41] back you if you back their political mafia and racketeering operation. That's why Democrats must fight for [49:49] accountability through oversight, through legislation, evidence collection, and through prosecution for [49:57] the openly criminal acts that we're seeing in our communities every day. Democracy doesn't exist without [50:06] accountability, but you've got to have a spine. I thank you, Mr. Smith, for doing your part. Our fight continues [50:16] for accountability, for accountability, not for impunity. Thank you, and I yield back. [50:23] Mr. Chairman, I would yield to a gentleman from New York. [50:27] Mr. Smith, I just want to take a minute and allow you to explain why you requested the toll records of [50:34] those officials for January 6th. For the January 6th investigation, correct? [50:41] Well, with regard to the toll records that were subpoenaed regarding the period of the 4th, I think [50:52] it was to the 7th, we had evidence that the President had directed Rudy Giuliani, one of his co-conspirators, [51:01] to contact members of Congress to try to further delay the proceedings and exploit the violence that [51:07] happened in the Capitol. We had evidence that those calls had happened. We wanted to get more evidence [51:13] of that, to corroborate it for trial. That is, again, as I mentioned earlier today, a standard part of an [51:20] investigation to understand who a conspiracy is trying to reach out to, how they're trying to influence people. [51:27] And you want a documentary confirmation? [51:29] Yes, correct. [51:31] I mean, the gentleman is expired. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Nels, is recognized. [51:36] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, I'll just cut right to the chase here. [51:41] Your investigation and attempted prosecution of President Trump, it wasn't about justice. [51:46] It was about politics. Politics. From day one, under the Biden-Harris DOJ, you weaponized the law [51:54] to go after their top political opponent. You pushed flawed legal theories and even the far-left [52:01] Washington Post called you out. They called you out, sir, for violating the First Amendment. [52:07] You tried to criminalize political speech, slap unlawful gag orders on a presidential candidate, [52:13] and spy on Republican members of Congress in violation of the Speech or Debate Clause, [52:18] including the sitting Speaker of the House. Mr. Smith, you mishandled documents, [52:26] pressured defense lawyers, and dumped a massive trove of so-called evidence right before the election. [52:33] And you did it. You did it to sway voters. That's why you did it. [52:37] And don't get me started on that right at Mar-Lago or your unconstitutional appointment, [52:42] which a federal judge in Florida rightly tossed out. A very bad day for you. [52:48] This wasn't, Mr. Smith, about upholding the law. It was about tearing down President Trump and anyone, [52:55] anyone close to him. You even tried to ram through a politically motivated final report after your [53:02] cases collapsed, including the Presidential Transition Act and basic fairness. [53:08] But here's the good part, America. Here's the good part. The American people saw right through it. [53:15] They rejected, sir, your witch hunt loud and clear in November, handing President Trump a commanding [53:23] victory. The voters spoke loud and clear. They wanted an end to the weaponization of our justice system. [53:30] In your opening statement, you spoke about proof of beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Smith, [53:37] I will give you proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Donald Trump winning the popular vote by over 2 million [53:45] votes. The electoral college by 85 votes along with every single swing state. Now, sir, that is proof [53:57] beyond a reasonable doubt that the crap you were shoveling did not pass the smell test with the [54:03] American people. To put it bluntly, Mr. Smith, the stink remains on you. And lastly, I would like to [54:12] quickly address the police officers on January 6th. Mr. Don, Mr. Fanon, Mr. Gonal, Mr. Hodges. I'm a member [54:21] of the new select committee to actually examine, actually examine what happened that day. And I can [54:27] tell you, gentlemen, that the fault does not lie with Donald Trump. It lies with Yogananda Pittman and the [54:36] U.S. Capitol leadership team. We know, we know they had the intelligence and there was going to be [54:44] a high propensity for violence that day. Claim my time. Yeah. You will be in order. The time belongs [54:50] to the gentleman from Texas. We've had some disruptions already. We don't need that. But [54:55] the gentleman may continue. We know the Capitol leadership team, specifically Yogananda Pittman, [55:02] had the intelligence and there was going to be a high propensity for violence that day. And the Capitol [55:08] itself was the target. We knew the extremist groups are going to be there. And why do I say that? It was [55:13] your own report from your intelligence section, the IICD, which was run by Pittman in the January 3rd [55:20] special events section. It was in it. It was in it. And Mr. Dunn, I believe that you thought that day [55:27] would be like just any other in your testimony to the January 6th committee. You said you found out [55:33] how Doug was going to get on a cell phone. Somebody sent you some information on social media. The point [55:39] is you were all unprepared to deal with that day. And that's because your leadership failed to share [55:47] the intelligence with you. It was their fault, folks. It was their fault. It was not President [55:53] Trump. And we are going to expose it for the first time because the Benny Thompson, the sham committee [56:00] didn't do it. Will the gentleman yield for the question? The sham committee didn't do it. The report [56:04] is 845 pages. Donald Trump's name is mentioned 4,207 times. We know what the committee wanted to do [56:12] is to not allow Donald Trump to come back and win again. And they failed and they failed miserably. [56:20] And I hope you now can see that. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance to my distinguished [56:25] colleague out of Jersey. I just want to quickly go over something because we keep rewriting history. [56:30] The president said peacefully and patriotically. What don't we understand about peacefully and [56:36] patriotically? He asked for the National Guard. That was ignored. He asked Speaker Pelosi. What [56:42] don't we understand that? Will the gentleman yield for a question? Are you saying Nancy Pelosi [56:45] controls the National Guard? Wait a minute. The president could have warned the National [56:48] Guard if he wanted to. And you know that. I lost some of my time. The time belongs to the gentleman [56:53] from New Jersey. You have a few more seconds. And finally, how many elected officials say we're [56:58] going to fight to win an election? You terminology used all the time. Seriously. And of course, [57:04] if they were guilty, they should be prosecuted. The problem was there were many in the mix. [57:09] The gentleman yields back. The gentleman yields back. And last thing, [57:12] your hand gestures, Mr. Fanone. No, no, no, no. You need medication. The time of the gentleman [57:16] expired. The audience will be in order. The committee will be in order. And the gentlelady from [57:21] Georgia is recognized for unanimous consent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two unanimous [57:26] consent requests to enter into the record. Two articles. An article dated December 29, 2025 titled [57:33] Wall Street Journal Editorial Board calls out MAG's latest 2020 stolen election nonsense. Objection. [57:40] And the second article, an article dated December 23, 2025 titled Fact Check. Bolton County's 315,000 [57:48] unsigned early votes are not proof of electoral fraud. Got objection. The gentleman from Illinois [57:54] is recognized for unanimous consent. Thank you, Chairman. Under unanimous consent, I ask to enter [57:59] into the record the Judiciary Democrats January 2026 report titled Where Are They Now? The Perpetrators [58:06] of January 6th and the Defenders of Democracy Who Stopped Them, which profiles the illustrious career [58:11] trajectories of some of the key actors from January 6th. Okay. [58:14] were pardoned by Donald Trump. Okay. And secondly. Objection. A second report, January 2026 report [58:23] from Judiciary Democrats one year later assessing the public safety implications of President Trump's [58:28] mass pardon of 1600 January 6th rioters and insurrections. Without objection. The gentlelady [58:33] from California is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Smith, for joining us. You know, [58:38] most people are wondering why you are even here today. But it's because we've heard conspiracy after [58:44] conspiracy that the 2020 election was rigged and Capitol Police officers were harmed and died because of [58:53] those conspiracies. And we have important elections coming up and the people want them to happen and [59:00] they want them to be fair. And the one person who should be telling the truth about elections is the [59:07] president. But Donald Trump has not and is still not telling the truth about the 2020 elections. In fact, [59:15] there is a January 6th page on the taxpayer funded White House website that says the election was [59:22] stolen from Trump, a blatant disproven lie he knows is totally false. So one of my Republican colleagues [59:30] earlier brought up Trump's mind state that he knew he lost and he knew that what he was saying was untrue, [59:37] but that you had no proof. So Mr. Smith, what evidence did you develop to suggest Trump knew [59:44] he had lost the 2020 election? We had evidence from a variety of sources, evidence from people who were [59:57] close to Donald Trump and who he relied on, people who wanted him to win the election, people who were [1:00:03] employed by his campaign to help him win the election. Our evidence is that this was a conspiracy [1:00:12] and that Donald Trump specifically sought to prey on party loyalty. Our investigation involved [1:00:20] interviewing and subpoenaing records of Republicans because that's who Donald Trump sought to prey on to [1:00:29] stay in office. And the reality is certain people refused to do that. The vice president refused to [1:00:36] go along with that. People in various states legislatures refused to go along with that. And the reality is [1:00:45] that if we took this case to trial, a good number of our witnesses would be Republicans. If a Democrat had [1:00:54] committed these crimes, had done these things, I would have subpoenaed a number of Democrats. I would [1:01:00] have subpoenaed their records. And I'm just going to, I'm going to ask you about that, but correct. It's [1:01:04] not like he was calling Nancy Pelosi. So why is it legally important to know that Trump knew he was lying [1:01:13] when he said the election was stolen? That was part of our proof at trial and it was relevant to the [1:01:21] charges. Specifically to the first charge to defraud the United States. It is permissible for someone to [1:01:30] lie. But when they use speech to commit a crime, to facilitate a crime, that is not protected by the [1:01:38] First Amendment. The Supreme Court has been very clear on that. And this very issue was litigated in [1:01:45] the case. The defense raised this very issue. And one thing I want to be clear about today, the case [1:01:52] that I investigated and the case we had, it was built to be tried in a courtroom, not in the media. Our [1:01:59] case was built to withstand the crucible of litigation. And our assessment was that we had proof beyond a [1:02:07] reasonable doubt that would do that. So what I heard you say is that when you lie and you know you're lying [1:02:14] and then you act on that lie to overturn the democratic process, that that is a felony. A January sixer [1:02:22] actually said, if I can't trust him, then who can I trust? Exactly. You know, we cannot even trust our own [1:02:28] president. And in fact, there's so many other things that you can say that you're not allowed to say, because [1:02:35] Trump, a Trump appointed judge, sealed the documents, refusing to release the files yet again. Which is why we could [1:02:44] probably ask you far more questions if those were unsealed. So I know I don't have that much time. I [1:02:49] want to now shift to these allegations from my Republican colleagues about the collection of phone [1:02:54] records of Republican senators. I guess some of the ones that were trying to get $500,000 of taxpayer [1:03:00] dollars. So many of the phone records of members were requested before you were appointed as special [1:03:06] counsel. Yes or no? That's true? Is that accurate? Yes. Some subpoenas occurred before I was special [1:03:12] counsel. And you, what do you say to those who claim you chose to target Republicans because you [1:03:17] only collected phone records for Republicans? The conspiracy I was investigating targeted Republicans. [1:03:26] Right. As I mentioned earlier. That's right. And so you would have requested any relevant call [1:03:30] records necessary for your investigation of a Republican or of a Democrat. That's correct. And [1:03:37] to be clear, if a Democrat committed these acts, we would have sought those. I could have just [1:03:43] add one thing. We interviewed Rudy Giuliani in the course of this investigation. And we asked him, [1:03:50] why did you say, why did you, in one of the voicemails he left for the senator, [1:03:56] mention the fact that it was Republicans that you were reaching out to? And he said, [1:04:00] because the Democrats weren't going to help us, and even some Republicans wouldn't help us. And so [1:04:05] our evidence showed repeatedly that the plan was to see if you could prey on people's part of the [1:04:14] Senate. Some of the general ladies expired. General lady. Thank you. I yield back. General [1:04:19] lady yields back. The general lady from Wyoming is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Smith, it was [1:04:26] during your deposition with our committee that you revealed that you tasked your team, specifically JP [1:04:32] Cooney, to engage with the partisan January 6th committee. You had to have known at the time the [1:04:37] controversy surrounding this committee, including the fact that all of the members had been appointed [1:04:42] by Nancy Pelosi, who disallowed the Republicans from being able to engage. Yet you proceeded anyway, [1:04:48] raising numerous questions as to your strategy for conspiring with the J6 committee. You had every [1:04:56] possible resource available to you. Your prosecution of President Trump was clearly a priority for the Biden [1:05:04] administration. And it is clear that you had an unlimited budget. And yet, and you also left no [1:05:10] stone unturned, even subpoenaing records from sitting members of the House and Senate. So what [1:05:17] information could the J6 committee possess that you and the nation's top law enforcement agency could not [1:05:24] obtain on your own? I did request JP Cooney. What did they have that you couldn't obtain on your own? [1:05:31] Uh, in any investigation. What, what information did they have that you did not, you were not able to obtain [1:05:38] on your own? I couldn't know that until I had their information. Was there anything there? Did you, did you [1:05:44] find that they had information that you were not able to obtain? Uh, I don't recall specifically, uh, every [1:05:51] bit of information. What I can tell you is, uh, we took in their information because we wanted to collect in any [1:05:57] information that could be relevant. We made our own independent assessment. Okay. So from the time that you [1:06:03] were appointed as special counsel up to the date of your resignation in January of 2025, did you personally [1:06:10] have any contact with any members, staff, or contractors of the House's January 6th select committee? And if so, who? [1:06:17] Uh, I do not believe I had contact with anybody personally from the January. Okay. The January 6th [1:06:25] committee failed to archive or preserve its video recordings of witness interviews, deleting or [1:06:31] destroying as many as 900 interview summaries or transcripts involving more than one full terabyte of [1:06:40] digital data. I repeat the J 6th committee destroyed evidence. Let that sink in. Why would they do such a [1:06:51] thing? I think we have a dang good idea. The committee actually used selective clips from these videos and [1:06:59] transcripts during their hearings. And yet by destroying this evidence, they have denied Congress and the [1:07:05] public the ability to obtain their full content and context. They created their narrative by selective use [1:07:13] of the evidence before them. So how, so how very convenient. Did you or your team receive any of [1:07:21] those witness transcripts or video recordings of transcribed interviews from the select committee that [1:07:28] were not released to the public? What I can tell you is that I requested JP Cooney to contact the select [1:07:36] committee. Do you know if you received any of the evidence or testimony that the J 6 committee eventually [1:07:42] destroyed? I don't have any information that the J 6. You don't know one way or the other as you sit [1:07:49] here today. No, what I'm telling you is that I requested all the information we could get from the [1:07:57] January 6th. Has all of the information that you requested been preserved? All of the information from [1:08:02] the J 6 committee, has that been preserved? The information that we requested and received, we reviewed it. [1:08:09] Has it been preserved? Yes. Thank you. Were you or your team advised or did you get the impression [1:08:16] from anyone affiliated with the January 6th committee that these documents were not for public release, [1:08:22] even though portions of them had already been shown to the American people? Were you advised to keep any [1:08:27] of the information from the J 6 committee confidential? As I sit here right now, I don't recall that. [1:08:34] I recall. Did the J 6 committee provide you with the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony as part of the trove of [1:08:40] documents that you received? As I sit here now, I don't recall. Well, you're familiar with her [1:08:47] testimony, aren't you? I am. In fact, wouldn't you agree with me that Ms. Hutchinson's testimony, [1:08:53] especially the most explosive allegations made, was comprised of hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay? [1:09:03] Come on, you're an attorney. Mr. Smith, you can answer the question. Of course it was hearsay. [1:09:08] And hearsay isn't admissible in a court of law, is it? Why? Because it is inherently unreliable and the [1:09:14] victim or the target of a prosecution is not able to cross examine. Isn't that correct? In fact, [1:09:19] Mr. Smith, if you had attempted to walk into court with Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony, [1:09:24] you would have been thrown out on your ear. No judge, no legitimate judge would have ever allowed [1:09:31] the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson's to be admitted in a court of law, would they? [1:09:37] I disagree. [1:09:38] Well, and then we've already talked about your records. [1:09:41] Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady's time has long since expired. [1:09:45] The time of the gentlelady has expired. The gentleman from Florida. [1:09:49] Can I do one UC request first? [1:09:51] The gentleman is recognized. [1:09:52] This is from factcheck.org. Meme rehashes old false claim that J6 committee destroyed [1:09:59] evidence from October 15, 2024. And this is from the District of Columbia National Guard website, [1:10:06] stating that this is the only National Guard unit in America which reports exclusively and only [1:10:11] to the president. [1:10:12] Uh, without objection, the gentleman from Florida is recognized. [1:10:15] Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mean, we're definitely not in a court of law today. Half [1:10:19] this wouldn't come in if we were. I mean, good God, you know? Um, you know, I want to talk about [1:10:28] something one of my colleagues, Mr. Nell said from Texas. He sits on this new January 6th subcommittee, [1:10:34] which I also happen to sit on. And he said the same thing in the subcommittee the other week, [1:10:39] that it wasn't President Trump that inspired January 6th, right? It wasn't him. Uh, he said in [1:10:47] the subcommittee that it was actually Ray Epps. Ray Epps, he was the one who told people to break [1:10:52] the law and the windows and the doors and to beat police officers and hang Mike Pence and try to break [1:11:00] into the floor of the house and wiping feces on the walls. It was all this guy Ray Epps, right? So who is [1:11:06] Ray Epps? Why is he so powerful? So, I mean, I just did a quick, you know, Google search of Ray Epps [1:11:11] and his Wikipedia page says the powerful Ray Epps is a wedding planner to the Oath Keepers. [1:11:18] This is the wedding planner. That's the mastermind of Jan. You couldn't, you went from Donald Trump. [1:11:24] It wasn't Donald. Who do, well, who are we going to blame? Who could it be? Uh, how about the wedding [1:11:28] planner to the Oath Keepers? I mean, it's just pathetic, but you know, my colleagues love the past. Mr. [1:11:37] Smith, love the past. That's why you're here before Pam Bondi. Okay. We, we haven't had the [1:11:42] attorney general here. We didn't have her last year. She's the only one in the cabinet to not [1:11:47] come and committee a reference, but they love the past. Oh, they, you know, love talking about January [1:11:52] 6th and Hunter Biden and COVID and Barack Obama and Hillary's emails. They love the past. These [1:11:58] people love the past so much. They're still reenacting the civil war. Okay. Love the past, [1:12:04] but I hate talking about the present, but you know what, let's talk about the past real quick. [1:12:08] Here are some quotes because I heard one of my colleagues call you a hypocrite. Here are some [1:12:12] quotes from my colleagues. Chairman Jordan, uh, right after January 6th, stop the violence, [1:12:17] support Capitol Police. Ted Cruz, those storming the Capitol need to stop right now. The Constitution [1:12:22] protects, but not violence. Chip Roy, today the People's House was attacked, which is an attack on [1:12:27] the Republic itself. Steve Scalise, United States Capitol Police saved my life. Lindsey Graham, [1:12:32] when it comes to accountability, the president needs to understand his actions were the problem. [1:12:37] Troy Nels, oh my God, him again. I'm happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with Capitol Police, [1:12:43] Daryl Issa. The violence and turmoil we witnessed in Washington, DC was completely unacceptable. [1:12:48] Rep McClintock, the attack on Capitol strikes the most sacred act of our democracy. And former Speaker [1:12:54] of the House, Kevin McCarthy, whose name we heard a lot today. What did he have to say about it? Let me be [1:12:59] clear. Last week's violence attack on the Capitol was undemocratic, on American and criminal. And [1:13:03] make no mistake, those who were responsible should be brought to justice. The president bears [1:13:09] responsibility. Period. Or exclamation point. You know, but let's talk also about, you know, [1:13:16] the present. That's the past. Let's talk about the present. These are the guys who created the [1:13:20] weaponization committee for the DOJ. So let's talk about the present. Jerome Powell facing investigation. [1:13:26] Okay. In fact, we, you know, we, we heard about Jonathan Turley, that he's some legal messiah. [1:13:31] Jonathan Turley calls the Jerome Powell thing, legitimate concerns of retaliation. Uh, [1:13:36] Lisa Cook, under investigation. Mark Kelly, United States Senator, under investigation. Adam Schiff, [1:13:42] United States Senator, under investigation. Eric Swaldwell, United States Representative, [1:13:46] under investigation. Chris Christie, potentially under investigation. Jack Smith, oh, that's you, [1:13:51] under investigation. Okay. Miles Taylor, former chief of staff, United, United States Department [1:13:57] of Homeland Security, under investigation. Christopher Krebs, former director of cyber [1:14:01] security, under investigation. Indicted. James Comey, Letitia James, John Bolton. It's weird that [1:14:07] they indicted John Bolton, but stole his foreign policy. Uh, accused of crimes, former President Joe [1:14:13] Biden, former President Barack Obama, revoked or threatened with revocation of Secret Service [1:14:18] Protection. Kamala Harris, Hunter Biden, Ashley Biden, the daughter of President Joe Biden. Uh, [1:14:23] Mayorkas, Mike Pompeo, Brian Hook, General Mark Milley, John Bolton, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the guy Trump [1:14:30] gave a medal to. Security clearance revoked. Joe Biden, Anthony Blinken, Jacob Sullivan, Lisa Monaco, [1:14:36] Mark Zaid, Norman Eisen, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, Andrew Weissman, Hillary Clinton, Liz Cheney, [1:14:42] Kamala Harris, Adam Kinzinger, Fiona Hill, Alexander Vindman, Miles Taylor. I can keep going. [1:14:48] Any questions about any, any of that? We know you don't. Will the gentleman yield for a question? [1:14:52] I will, please. Because you have a way of synthesizing that nobody else does, Mr. Moskowitz. [1:14:56] Um, listening to our colleagues today, I wonder if they actually believe any of this would have [1:15:02] happened had Donald Trump simply accepted the results of the election. You mean like Al [1:15:08] Gordon when he lost five to four at the Supreme Court? Yeah. Yeah. Would any of this, would the [1:15:12] violence have happened? Would the fake counterfeit slates have happened? The threats against Vice President [1:15:17] Pence? No, none of it would have happened. And Leon Panetta would still have a security clearance. [1:15:21] So would John Brennan. Show with Michael Morrell, Michael Vickers. I just, I can't get them all in, [1:15:26] Mr. Chairman. I can't, I can't, I can't get, I have like four more pages of the weaponization of the [1:15:31] Department of Justice. The time of the gentleman from Florida has expired. The gentleman from South [1:15:37] Carolina is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, when was the initial indictment issued on [1:15:43] President Trump? August 1st, 2023. Does that sound about right? Uh, that's in the election case. [1:15:50] That's correct. Correct. And on that election case, uh, after that, you asked for a trial date. [1:15:56] When? I don't recall as I sit here right now. January, 2024. Does that sound about right? [1:16:03] It sounds about right. Okay. So, so after the indictment, you, uh, in August, you asked for a [1:16:10] January trial date. That's about five months, five months. How many, how much evidence did you have? [1:16:16] Millions of pages? As I sit here right now, I don't recall the exact. I think in your testimony, [1:16:23] they talked about a number of 13 million pages. Is that a ballpark accurate number? Uh, I think [1:16:30] that was the question asked of me. And as I sit here, I don't have an accurate number. So, so let's [1:16:35] just assume that that's true, right? Cause you had a bunch of stuff. You have $50 million that you blew [1:16:39] through the treasury on, uh, a trial that went nowhere. How many pages per day is that? A hundred [1:16:46] thousand? Does that sound about right? What would we break that down per hour? It's 4,166 per minute [1:16:55] is 70 pages. You like to read, sir? You like to read? I do. Do you read 70 pages a minute? I do not. I [1:17:05] mean, that would be remarkable. So how do you prepare for a trial in five months if you're asking the [1:17:12] defense counsel to read 70 pages a minute? How do you do that and prepare a defense and look at all the [1:17:19] witness testimony and video evidence that you supposedly had? How do you do that? You know, [1:17:24] what's shocking to me? I think that the most, one of the most egregious aspects of this case, [1:17:28] Mr. Smith, is that if you get a traffic ticket in Washington, DC, you're not going to trial in five [1:17:34] months, but you want the president, the former president of the United States to have a trial date [1:17:40] with 13 million pages of documents within five months. I think that's ridiculous. And I think that [1:17:46] speaks exactly to what we talk about when we examine not only your record, but the things in this case [1:17:53] that are deeply troubling. That this was not the pursuit of facts and law and letting the judge and [1:17:59] the jury decide. That this was an exercise in political, it was a political hit shop, timed perfectly [1:18:08] against the president of the United States. Sir, in the Florida case, in the records case, what happened [1:18:13] ultimately in that case? What happened ultimately in the case? Yeah, the Mar-a-Lago records case. [1:18:23] I'm going to answer because I don't think this is covered by Judge Cannon's order. We moved to [1:18:30] dismiss that case pursuant to Justice Department policy. No, the records case in Florida. Against [1:18:39] Donald Trump. The records case in Mar-a-Lago. Were you ruled to be, what was the ruling in that? [1:18:47] That was Judge Cannon's ruling and she ruled my appointment unlawful and we sought to appeal that. [1:18:56] And that appeal was pending at the time that we dismissed the cases. So from the very beginning, [1:19:03] were you ever confirmed by the United States Senate? I have never been confirmed by the United [1:19:11] States Senate. I will say that the history supporting my appointment is over 100 years old. [1:19:18] Other special counsels have been approved. Isn't there a statute of appointment? I mean, [1:19:21] you have to be confirmed by the Senate. So I think that's kind of interesting. But I think the point is, [1:19:26] from the very beginning, on the documents case and others, you weren't even lawfully appointed. [1:19:33] And that's why Judge Cannon ruled the way that she did. And from the beginning, we talk about [1:19:38] that you followed Department of Justice policy. You followed the facts. You followed the law. [1:19:44] You followed the Constitution. That's what you have said all throughout this day, parroted by the [1:19:48] Democrats, that you have done nothing wrong. But from the very beginning, you weren't even lawfully, [1:19:53] and you can't even recall who swore you in. So we don't, we, as we sit here today, based on your [1:19:59] testimony in the, in the transcribed interview, can you tell us who swore you in as special [1:20:05] prosecutor? As I said, I know I took the oath of office. I don't recall who swore me in. What I can [1:20:12] share, what I can share with you. I don't know, sir. Call me, call me naive. But like, that's, like, [1:20:17] that's a milestone career move for you that you get to do this, and you don't remember the circumstances. [1:20:23] I just find that a little bit odd. But here's the thing, and I'm going to wrap up quick. [1:20:27] You're unconstitutionally appointed. You breached the 60-day rule releasing this very partisan attack [1:20:35] against the president right before the election. You tampered with evidence in the Mar-a-Lago case [1:20:39] that you admitted to in court filings. You subpoenaed members of Congress in their phone records in [1:20:44] violation of the Constitution of current statutes. You didn't even let the court know that these were [1:20:49] members of Congress. How are we to assume otherwise that this wasn't political? Because it absolutely [1:20:55] was, sir. And I yield back. The gentleman from New York is recognized for five minutes. [1:21:01] I would caution my friend from South Carolina and others against jumping into bed with Judge Cannon, [1:21:07] who's been rebuked repeatedly by the 11th Circuit because she is completely lawless. [1:21:15] But let's go back to the actual evidence rather than all the procedural stuff about when you were sworn in [1:21:20] or not. I don't blame you for not remembering that. You've been probably sworn in a dozen times. [1:21:26] It doesn't jump out at you. I want to go back to the evidence, though, that Donald Trump knew that [1:21:33] he was lying about the election. And I'd ask you to say, if you could, specifically, who gave evidence to [1:21:41] you that supported your conclusion that he knew that he was lying? That came from a number of sources. [1:21:52] It came from staff in the White House who talked to him and told him that his fraud claims were not [1:22:01] true. It came from staff on his campaign who told him that. It came from members of the Department of [1:22:07] Justice. It came from state officials who, when he tried to press them to do things in contravention [1:22:18] of their oath, they refused to. They asked him for evidence and his co-conspirators and they never [1:22:23] provided it. Over and over again, the people who were best situated to know how the elections were [1:22:32] conducted in these states, he either avoided contacting them or disregarded the clear debunkings [1:22:40] that were provided to him, such as by the Georgia Secretary of State. Right. And I mean, that's a lot [1:22:46] of evidence. But we know that his attorney general at the time also concluded, quote, he knew well that he [1:22:56] lost the election, Bill Barr. And yet he incited a riot on January 6th. And four of the brave office [1:23:03] officers who defended the Capitol and defended my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are [1:23:10] here today. Not a single Republican member of this committee has recognized them or thanked them [1:23:18] for their service. And I would like to do so today. Thank you, gentlemen. Now, my colleague from [1:23:24] California referred to a couple of statements from your former colleagues in Penn and the Eastern [1:23:30] District about your impeccable reputation as an apolitical career politician. As an alum of the [1:23:37] Southern District of New York myself, I can tell you that many of my former colleagues also feel the [1:23:43] same. And that's saying something coming from the SDNY to the EDNY, as you know. Mr. Smith, did you ever [1:23:53] speak to President Biden about this case? Never. Did you ever receive orders or direction from President [1:24:01] Biden or anyone else in the White House about this case? No. Did you ever receive any direction from the [1:24:09] Attorney General Merrick Garland regarding how you should whether or not you should charge this case? [1:24:17] No, I was given the independence to make that decision on my own. An independent special counsel. [1:24:22] Exactly. I just want to point out to my colleagues who seem to think this is a politicized investigation [1:24:30] that on February 10th, over a month, 2021, over a month after January 6th, Marco Rubio said [1:24:39] the January 6th attack on the Capitol was far more dangerous than most realize. And we have a criminal [1:24:46] justice system in place to address it. Who oversaw the Department of Justice on February 10th, 2021? [1:24:56] Who was president? February 10th, 2021. That would be Joe Biden. So Marco Rubio wanted Joe Biden's [1:25:09] Department of Justice to investigate Donald Trump and his January 6th insurrectionist. I ask you in my last [1:25:19] few seconds, Mr. Smith. You're not the first special counsel to investigate Donald Trump. Special [1:25:26] counsel Mueller, also of impeccable integrity, concluded that the 2016 Trump campaign welcomed [1:25:33] foreign interference from Russia and used it to help them. Donald Trump has made it a litmus test to be [1:25:42] hired in this administration to say that the 2020 election was fraudulent, even though, as you have [1:25:49] established, it was not. And now there are senior officials in this government who are responsible [1:25:57] for protecting our elections who have our election deniers. Can you describe in a few seconds what your [1:26:05] concerns are about the upcoming election based on your investigation and what we know today? [1:26:13] I believe political litmus tests are not proper for career prosecutors. I think my experience over [1:26:21] 30 years as a prosecutor in the Department of Justice is having people who are not guided by party [1:26:28] allegiance, but guided by experience. That's how you can trust the criminal justice system. It's the same [1:26:34] way with our election system. Gentleman's time is expired. Thank you, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. [1:26:39] Gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized. Yeah, first of all, just a couple of comments. [1:26:45] There are probably 10 people on this committee who have more conversations with, and 15 people on [1:26:49] this committee who have more conversations with Donald Trump than myself. But anybody who says that [1:26:55] Donald Trump thought he won that election, that is just plain not true. No way, unless he's the best [1:27:03] actor in the history of, of this building. We agree. Did Donald Trump believe? Order. Order. [1:27:12] Donald Trump did not believe. Donald Trump did not believe he lost that election. He just did. No way. [1:27:21] And I think on January 6th, I think, I can't believe there were any congressmen here who didn't [1:27:29] think Joe Biden was going to be sworn as president. So this was, it was a riot, but it wasn't a threat to [1:27:35] the future of the republic. Okay. Now we should have posted up here a document for you to look at. [1:27:45] Here we are. Okay. This is something we received with regard to Arctic Frost. It's a list of about 70 [1:27:53] names. I don't know whether or not you're familiar with the document. I don't believe I'm familiar with [1:28:01] this document. Okay. The document contains just about every person who was higher up in the Donald [1:28:10] Trump campaign. There's a little more emphasis on here, on people involved in Wisconsin, but you're [1:28:15] not familiar with the document. I'm sorry, sir. What was your question? Are you, would you know what [1:28:23] was in this document? These names, you familiar with them at all? They're under the impression that [1:28:35] most of these people, maybe almost all of them were subpoenaed by you at some time or other. That helps you? [1:28:41] Some of these names are, I am familiar with others. I'm not familiar with, or I don't recall as I sit [1:28:49] here now. Okay. We'll eventually submit another question for you on this later on. From the time [1:28:56] you were appointed as special counsel to your resignation on January, in January, 2025, did you [1:29:03] ever have contact with the January 6th select committee? I did not personally, when I became special [1:29:12] counsel, I directed my deputy to ask the select committee to provide us whatever evidence they [1:29:21] would provide us. So you directed people to have direct contact? I directed my deputy to make contact, [1:29:28] to collect evidence from them. And that's JP Cooney? JP Cooney, my deputy, correct. Okay. Did you have any [1:29:35] concern that the evidence collected by the partisan select committee would be in any way tainted by politics? [1:29:41] I intended to conduct an independent investigation and my goal was to collect the evidence, assess it, [1:30:01] and consider it with all the other evidence we would collect and make an independent determination [1:30:07] in my investigation separate from that investigation. I'm going to go back and ask you something on that [1:30:11] one before, because I think I know the answer. There's a person on that list by the name of Vicki McKenna, [1:30:18] who we believe did have her records subpoenaed. Are you familiar with that name at all? [1:30:27] As I sit here right now, I am not familiar with that name. Okay. Thank you. [1:30:31] Um, with regard to, um, part of the documents that you received was regard to Cassidy, Cassidy Hutchison, [1:30:41] right? Uh, we, we requested that they give us everything, uh, they were willing to give us. [1:30:49] As I sit here now, I don't recall if specifically her information was in there, but I'm not denying that [1:30:55] it was, it may well have been. Okay. Uh, we'll go back. Your team issued subpoenas to various financial [1:31:02] institutions, telecommunications providers and conservative entities, uh, requesting communications [1:31:07] between them and president Trump's campaign, right? Uh, we did issue, uh, subpoenas for various [1:31:14] sorts of information. Correct. Okay. And the bank records you would say, or we could describe a fairly [1:31:20] broad request. Uh, we, uh, issued, uh, subpoenas for certain bank records as part of our investigation. [1:31:29] Yes. Okay. Shortly after you're appointed, you issued subpoenas to state and local officials [1:31:34] for their communications with president Trump. Is that correct? Uh, in his campaign. Uh, I, as I sit [1:31:43] here now, I'm trying to recall specifically, uh, which officials, but I know we issued a number of [1:31:49] subpoenas in our investigation to understand the communications between president Trump and, [1:31:55] uh, various entities, including, uh, state officials. One final question. One quick final question. [1:32:02] Uh, yeah. Do you really believe that president Trump thinks he lost that election? Uh, our investigation [1:32:11] following the facts in the law, uh, determined that. No way. Thank you. That's enough. [1:32:16] I have a unanimous consent request from New York is recognized for unanimous consent. [1:32:21] I actually have two. Um, one is to, uh, article entitled with AG Bondi next to him. Trump says [1:32:28] deranged Jack Smith must be investigated. And the other is a tweet from Marco Rubio. There is [1:32:35] nothing patriotic about what is occurring on Capitol Hill. This is third world style, anti-American [1:32:42] anarchy. [1:32:42] Without objection. The lady from Texas is recognized. [1:32:45] Can I get an extra 33 seconds? [1:32:47] You get your full five minutes. [1:32:48] Well, okay, fine. Um, so it's curious because you've sat here all day and thank you so much for [1:32:54] showing up because this was something that you wanted to do. The Republicans wanted to make sure [1:32:58] that you were hid in a room with no cameras because I was there. They didn't really want [1:33:03] you out public because they were afraid of what you would say, which is that you could have proven [1:33:08] your case because you are a career prosecutor who knows how to prosecute criminals. Um, so just to be [1:33:17] clear today, it seems like the Republicans have not really fought very much about whether or not [1:33:23] Trump was guilty or not. In fact, their fight seems to be over whether or not you were authorized to [1:33:29] prove their guilt. Do you recall a number of Republican members asking about whether or not [1:33:35] your appointment was okay, even though we know that you've testified about the more than 100 year [1:33:42] precedent that allowed for your appointment? I was asked questions about that today. And our position [1:33:48] as we filed in our appeal is that there was a strong support for my appointment, including [1:33:55] Supreme Court precedent directly on point. Thank you so much. Additionally, you know, [1:34:00] everybody's been all gingerly here today, but I don't know why we're acting surprised that a man who had [1:34:07] close to 90 allegations out of four different jurisdictions and ultimately ended up with 34 [1:34:14] convictions after a jury was able to hear all the evidence would possibly be committing a criminal [1:34:21] act on January 6th. In fact, considering the fact that we are now under the impression that he is [1:34:27] violating people's due process rights, he is ignoring court orders. Um, he's starting wars without [1:34:32] congressional authority in contradiction to the constitution. He's enriching himself to the tune [1:34:37] of over $1.4 billion. He's shaking down electives to draw maps that will help him stay in power [1:34:44] because the Republicans don't understand that they swore an oath to the constitution and that [1:34:48] we are supposed to do checks and balances. He's also shaking down TV stations to get money. So why [1:34:54] are we trying to pretend as if it is out of the realm for this particular man to commit the crime [1:35:00] that he committed on January 6th? And frankly, the only reason he ran for president was to make sure [1:35:05] that he would not be prosecuted because I fully believe that you would have put him under the jail [1:35:09] based on our long form conversation that we had. But according to, uh, your council, [1:35:15] your special counsel report on page 137, it states the department's view that the constitution [1:35:21] prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a president is categorical and does not turn on [1:35:26] the gravity of the crimes charge, the strength of the government's proof or the merits of the [1:35:30] prosecution. And that quote, but for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the presidency, [1:35:36] the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction [1:35:44] at trial. In other words, Donald Trump ran for president, like I said, so he wouldn't have to [1:35:48] spend the rest of his life in prison. The chairman and other members of this committee have spent all [1:35:52] day attacking you and trying to rewrite the history of January 6th. But Mr. Jim Jordan, [1:35:58] the chairman failed to mention how he was running around the Capitol terrified by the possibility that [1:36:04] all those insurrectionists would harm him. In fact, on page 97 of the deposition transcript, [1:36:09] you mentioned how Mark Meadows, the president's chief of staff, quote unquote, never saw Jim Jordan [1:36:16] so scared. The chairman also failed to mention that he was in direct contact with the White House [1:36:21] in the days leading up to and on January 6th, which is why his toll records were subpoenaed by your [1:36:27] office. Let me be clear, because they're trying to act like this is Democrats on Republicans. And I guess you [1:36:32] are a covert Democrat that knew that he was going to try to steal an election before he tried to [1:36:36] steal that election. And so therefore you were somehow put into place. I mean, the conspiracy [1:36:41] theories make your head spin. But nevertheless, were you going to subpoena the toll records of [1:36:46] every single Republican simply because they were a Republican? No, we subpoenaed the toll records [1:36:52] in the course of this investigation because they were relevant to our investigation. Relevant. Oh, [1:36:58] okay. All right. So that means something about facts. So let's talk about facts. Donald Trump [1:37:04] lost to Joe Biden. Yes or no? That's correct. Okay. In fact, 60 federal and state courts have found [1:37:12] that there was no evidence of election fraud. Trump's own attorney general and vice president [1:37:17] knew that he lost the election, but he still tried to steal the election by pressuring state officials, [1:37:23] designing fake elector plans, nearly having Mike Pence hanged and ultimately demanding that his [1:37:30] supporters quote, fight like hell. Correct? Correct. We all saw it happen. Once they reached, [1:37:37] we all saw what happened once they reached the US Capitol. As your report outlines, President Trump knew [1:37:43] that he would incite violence at the Capitol that day. In fact, some of Trump's senior advisors were [1:37:49] pushing for violence. For example, page 81 of the report details, how co-conspirators number two, John [1:37:56] Eastman tried to convince Mike Pence to break the law, stating that quote, violence was necessary. So it [1:38:03] isn't just Trump who was responsible for the death of multiple law enforcement officers and the injuries [1:38:08] of thousands of people. A lot of Republican members of Congress are also responsible. 147 Republicans [1:38:15] voted to overturn the 2020 election results, including multiple members currently serving on this [1:38:20] committee. And I will yield. General Lady Yields. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized. [1:38:26] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, we've heard a lot of information that's gone across [1:38:32] this day as we've spent it here. We've heard disregard for the First Amendment at times. We've heard [1:38:38] talk about solely seeking charges against Donald Trump, obviously targeting. We've talked about the [1:38:45] amount of time and reasonable timeframe. But I want to ask you for a moment, I can, about some [1:38:51] troubling reports that a prosecutor from your office, Jay Bratt, implied to Stanley Woodward that the [1:38:58] administration would look more favorably on a judgeship application if he managed to get his client, [1:39:05] Walt Nauta, to cooperate against President Trump and to flip on him. And we know this because Stanley [1:39:11] Woodward himself came forth with this information. And I guess my question for you, is this appropriate [1:39:18] behavior for a special counsel's office to leverage attorneys' future career prospects? [1:39:26] Sir, I believe I can answer this question, even though it's regarding the Florida case, [1:39:30] because we did filings on it and I'm not referring to anything in the final report. And my answer to you, [1:39:38] sir, is that when I was first notified about this issue, which was nine months after it allegedly [1:39:45] occurred, this is alleged to have occurred before I was even special counsel. What I did is I directed [1:39:53] my deputies to look into it. We made sure the person involved self-referred it to OPR. And then we did a [1:40:01] filing to the court. There was a motion by President Trump's attorneys. We responded and we laid out our [1:40:08] position and our position was that I did not believe that that allegation was credible. At best, it was [1:40:14] a misunderstanding because the people in the room did not understand any threat to be made. Even Mr. Woodard [1:40:22] in his allegation claimed it was only an inference. Nine months went by where we interacted with Mr. Woodard [1:40:30] in which we had no hearing of a complaint. When the complaint was raised for the first time, which was on the eve of [1:40:40] that indictment being brought. It was raised in the guise of asking the court to delay the indictment while an [1:40:48] investigation of it happened. So I take allegations of misconduct very seriously. I would not want any of my attorneys [1:40:56] threatening anybody. Ultimately, when I looked at this, I did not credit it. And we responded with our [1:41:03] position in court. But we also, it was clear that it was referred to the Office of Professional [1:41:08] Responsibility, which is what good prosecutors do in that situation. Well, again, to say that you didn't [1:41:16] consider it to be credible, I guess we have the United States Associate Attorney General, Stanley Woodward, [1:41:22] who claims that this threat was made to him. And I don't see what, what he would stand to gain, uh, from not [1:41:29] telling the truth there. And I, and I understand that you tasked two of your attorneys with investigating [1:41:34] those statements, uh, made by Bratt, but given the amount of publicity and the scrutiny that was surrounding [1:41:40] this entire investigation, why in the world did you not initiate an independent investigation into these very [1:41:47] alarming allegations? Two points there. Uh, you, you stated that, um, you don't, uh, why would he do [1:41:55] this? When he made the allegation, when this allegation first came from, uh, President Trump's [1:42:01] attorneys and then days later from Mr. Woodard, he did ask for the case, the indictment to be put off [1:42:07] in, in results of this. So there was a thing he was asking for in result. Uh, and with respect to an [1:42:13] independent investigation, uh, that's exactly why, uh, you refer this to the Office of Professional [1:42:19] Responsibility. They conduct an independent investigation outside of my office. [1:42:24] Well, let me just say for four years, we watched the Biden administration politicize [1:42:29] and weaponize the Department of Justice. From going after pro-life activists to spying on faithful [1:42:35] Catholics, the Biden administration showed disregard for impartiality. And this blatant disregard was perhaps [1:42:42] no clearer than in the targeting targeting of President Trump. We've talked about it all [1:42:47] throughout this day. They knew they couldn't beat him at the ballot box. So they pursued alternative [1:42:52] options. And I'm grateful for this committee's efforts today to investigate this conduct to ensure [1:42:58] accountability. And while elections are not akin to jury trials, I feel strongly that the results [1:43:05] of the 2024 election sent a clear message about how the American people feel [1:43:11] about these politicized charges. And I think they absolutely made a difference in those 24 elections. [1:43:17] And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. [1:43:19] The gentleman yields back to the gentleman from Missouri. [1:43:21] Mr. Chair, I actually have a UC. [1:43:23] The gentleman is recognized. [1:43:24] Um, this is, let's see, I had, I asked unanimous consent to enter into the record, [1:43:29] this DOJ press release titled, Houston man sentenced to prison for assaulting law enforcement [1:43:34] with dangerous weapons during January 6th Capitol breach. [1:43:36] Objection. [1:43:37] My second one is, I asked unanimous consent to enter into the record and article titled, [1:43:42] they ransacked the U.S. Capitol and want the government to pay them back, published by [1:43:46] the Washington Post January 21st, 2026. [1:43:49] Objection. [1:43:49] The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for five minutes. [1:43:52] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:43:53] Mr. Smith, after indicting the leading Republican candidate for the President of the United States [1:43:58] on August 1st, 2023, you asked her a trial date of January 2024, just five months later. [1:44:06] During your deposition, you did not dispute that it, that would have given Trump's legal team [1:44:13] just five months to review 13 million pages and thousands of hours of video evidence, [1:44:19] working out to nearly 100,000 pages per day. [1:44:23] Mr. Smith, you claim that you acted independently of the upcoming presidential election, [1:44:30] and yet you pushed for a trial date ahead of the election. [1:44:33] Why such a rush to charge and try and pursue conviction on President Trump? [1:44:39] Uh, I, I sought to move, uh, that case forward expeditiously, [1:44:45] uh, because, uh, the public has a right to a speedy trial as well as a defendant. [1:44:51] That is, there is a Supreme Court precedent directly on point regarding that. [1:44:55] Uh, I felt it was my duty to do that. [1:44:58] I considered all options. [1:44:59] I listened to, uh, [1:45:00] But isn't the right to a speedy trial primarily a right of the defendant? [1:45:04] I, I honestly, before your arguments, I've never heard of the idea that the prosecution [1:45:09] has a right to speed up a trial and require the defense to review 100,000 pages a day [1:45:15] in order to get a trial in before an election. [1:45:18] I've never heard of such a thing. [1:45:19] Uh, the Supreme Court in at least, as I sit here now, three different cases [1:45:26] has stated pretty explicitly, uh, that the right to a speedy trial [1:45:30] is the public's as well as the defendant's. [1:45:32] Uh, and that just- [1:45:33] You are trying to, you are trying to get the president tried, [1:45:36] tried, convicted, and hopefully in prison before election day. [1:45:39] I understand. [1:45:39] Mr. Smith, I think it's very telling that during your deposition, [1:45:43] you could not articulate any evidence that President Trump instructed [1:45:47] individuals to unlawfully enter the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. [1:45:52] Uh, you claim that President Trump was, quote, [1:45:54] responsible for the events at the Capitol on January 6th, [1:45:57] which was not charged in your indictment. [1:45:59] How do you reconcile that with the position of the department [1:46:04] in other GA6-related cases that President Trump wasn't responsible for the events at the Capitol that day? [1:46:10] I'm not aware of the department taking a position that, uh, Donald Trump was not responsible. [1:46:18] I think my recollection is the position that the department took in other cases is, uh, [1:46:23] other defendants, uh, weren't, uh, not responsible themselves, uh, because of Donald Trump. [1:46:29] That blaming him, uh, wasn't going to be a valid defense in their case. [1:46:33] That's my recollection. [1:46:34] So on January 6th, 2021, President Trump tweeted, quote, [1:46:37] please support our Capitol police and law enforcement. [1:46:40] They are truly on the side of the country. [1:46:42] Stay peaceful exclamation point. [1:46:44] This seems to show clearly that Trump urged his, uh, his, [1:46:48] his supporters at the Capitol to remain peaceful. [1:46:51] Is that not right? [1:46:52] Uh, it's incorrect. [1:46:54] Uh, first off that he didn't send that tweet. [1:46:57] He sent that tweet, but he sent that tweet only after being harangued [1:47:01] by people to send something to stop the violence. [1:47:04] Okay. [1:47:04] Okay. [1:47:05] Let's get the timeline, timeline straight then at 1 55 PM. [1:47:09] There was a breach of the bike racks at the Northeast perimeter at 2 13. [1:47:14] There were protesters breaching the Capitol, [1:47:17] breaking into the Northwest Senate window and opening the doors at 2 38. [1:47:22] President Trump tweeted what I just quoted. [1:47:25] That's 25 minutes between the Capitol building breach is 25 minutes. [1:47:31] That's too slow. [1:47:32] Would, uh, would Trump have been, uh, guilty of insurrection if it were 15 minutes? [1:47:39] Five minutes? [1:47:40] How quickly was he supposed to send that tweet to remain peaceful? [1:47:45] My recollection as set forth in the indictment is the timeline of, uh, [1:47:49] when the attack of the Capitol happened, uh, including the tweet that endangered [1:47:55] Vice President Mike Pence's life was different. [1:47:56] Okay. [1:47:57] So that tweet was after, of course, the riot had started, [1:48:00] but, uh, president Trump also said, quote, [1:48:02] we've come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been [1:48:06] lawfully selected, lawfully selected. [1:48:09] I know that everyone will soon be marching to the Capitol building and to peacefully and [1:48:13] patriotically make your voice heard peacefully and patriotically. [1:48:17] Is that an incitement of a riot? [1:48:20] That is not. [1:48:21] Okay. [1:48:22] So in November, 2016, Hillary Clinton, uh, disputed chief for actually for years called [1:48:28] President Trump, an illegitimate president. [1:48:30] He knows he stole the election as res as recently as September, 2019. [1:48:35] Had there been a riot around the 2016 presidential election, would, would Hillary Clinton be guilty [1:48:42] of inciting, inciting insurrection? [1:48:45] I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals. [1:48:48] I will say that, uh, President Trump's conduct was without historical analog. [1:48:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:48:56] I yield back. [1:48:56] Gentleman yields back to L.A. from Vermont. [1:48:59] Mr. Chair, may I ask a unanimous consent to enter into the record. [1:49:03] The first superseding, superseding indictment for Capitol rioter and oath keeper Kelly Meggs, [1:49:08] who brought weapons and armor with him to D.C. and wrote to a friend. [1:49:12] Trump said, it's going to be wild. [1:49:13] It's going to be wild. [1:49:14] He wants us to make it wild. [1:49:15] That's what he said. [1:49:17] He's calling us to the Capitol and wants to make it wild. [1:49:19] Sir, yes, sir. [1:49:20] Gentlemen, we're heading to D.C. to pack our shit. [1:49:22] And, uh, Mr. Chair, I have unanimous consent request. [1:49:26] I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record. [1:49:28] This superseding indictment filed the Department of Justice on August 27th, 2024, [1:49:33] that outlines how Donald Trump, among other felonies, conspired to defraud the United States [1:49:37] in his effort to fraudulently and violently overturn the results of the 2020 election that he lost. [1:49:43] Without objection, the gentleman from Washington is recognized. [1:49:48] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [1:49:48] Well, uh, five hours later, uh, here we are. [1:49:51] One of the benefits of being a freshman, uh, member of this committee with the least amount [1:49:55] of seniority is you get the benefit of getting everybody else listening to him talk first. [1:49:58] Um, let's start by saying that, um, I, starting out, I was not real familiar, uh, with this issue. [1:50:05] In fact, when, uh, chair of the committee told me we had Jack Smith, uh, coming in, [1:50:09] my first response privately was who's Jack Smith. [1:50:12] Uh, and I say that because my wife and I have five young children. [1:50:16] Uh, we don't have cable television. [1:50:18] And by the time we get them to bed, uh, you know, we're either watching Netflix or better [1:50:21] yet, uh, reading books. [1:50:23] Uh, so when I came to this, I wanted to take a real honest look at what had happened. [1:50:29] And I should also say that, you know, a little about what I think happened on January 6. [1:50:34] Uh, I, I think like most Americans think Donald Trump was cruising to reelection, [1:50:39] uh, in 2019 with the booming economy. [1:50:42] And then code happened, George Floyd happened, a lot of things got changed. [1:50:45] But I do think in those circumstances that Joe Biden won that election. [1:50:49] I also think like most Americans that, uh, January six was a terrible attack. [1:50:53] I think it was a terrible riot. [1:50:55] I don't believe it was an insurrection determined to overthrow the government, [1:50:58] but I think it was an important day, uh, for America. [1:51:01] I also think like most Americans, it was extremely unfortunate for this country [1:51:06] that the January six committee was a partisan event and there was not an ability to put [1:51:12] folks from both sides of their choosing on that committee. [1:51:15] So there could have been a full and honest debate, uh, for the American [1:51:18] Peter, I think it was politically motivated what Nancy Pelosi did, uh, with that committee. [1:51:23] And so when I came to this issue with a fresh look, with those kinds of my priors and what I got into, [1:51:28] what I wanted to find was that in the goodness of the rule of law, that you as an investigator [1:51:35] carried this out to the highest ideals and it was not a politically motivated, uh, investigation. [1:51:41] And I think a lot about that in the 250th anniversary of America, I think about what [1:51:46] the framers would have thought of this and the state of the rule of law, you know, what makes [1:51:50] special America special with checks and balances in what keeps us from being a banana republic. [1:51:55] But what I was disappointed to find when I looked into this issue and how you conducted the [1:52:01] investigation was that it was a politically motivated investigation determined to influence [1:52:09] the election, uh, in 2024. And I say that, and the thing I cannot get around as I look into this is [1:52:16] the timing, uh, that you fought for in, uh, when the court cases would be held. Now, to my understanding, [1:52:26] the department of justice says you're not supposed to have politically motivated timing of a court case. [1:52:32] But when I look at the timing that you pushed for and the jurisdictions between New York and Florida, [1:52:38] and with all the other things that president Trump, uh, was engaged in, that looks very politically [1:52:44] motivated to me. And I think the American people, as they take a look at this issue to try to influence [1:52:49] the election. So that's where I come down, uh, after entails today's hearing, my own independent [1:52:54] investigation and your commentary. I sincerely hope that that conclusion is incorrect, but that's the [1:53:01] conclusion I come to. And I think when most people, if they look through this, not through a partisan [1:53:04] lens, I think they'll come through, they will not be able to get around, uh, the fact of how you timed [1:53:09] these elections. I think that's related to the detriment of the American Republic and for where we [1:53:13] sit today, uh, as a country. And so my one question for you, uh, Jack Smith is, uh, are you familiar, [1:53:21] uh, with the Vietnamese city of Ben Trey? [1:53:23] I am not. Well, Ben Trey was the site of an intense firefight in early 1968. And after that [1:53:33] intense firefight that destroyed the town, a reporter from the Associated Press interviewed a U.S. Major, [1:53:39] and he said it became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it. Now, historians do not [1:53:46] know what was the name of that U.S. Major, but I think when they look back at your engagement with our [1:53:52] democracy in this Republic, they will remember your name. And when it comes to the rule of law, [1:53:58] that is the foundation of this country, they will remember someone who helped destroy the rule of law. [1:54:05] With that, Mr. President, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. [1:54:07] The gentleman yields back. Ranking members recognized for- [1:54:11] Oh, I would just, I was wondering whether you would yield for a question. [1:54:13] Uh, I will differ on that. I'll just yield to the chairman. [1:54:15] Okay. [1:54:16] The gentleman yields back. I think the gentleman- [1:54:18] Yeah, then I just got one U.C. request, Mr. Chairman. [1:54:20] You, then I think the gentleman from Wisconsin has a request. [1:54:22] Okay. This is, uh, from, uh, Politico. Um, October 20th, 2023. [1:54:29] Kenneth Chesbrough, an architect of Trump's fake elector scheme, [1:54:32] pleads guilty to the offense in Georgia. [1:54:34] Not objection. Uh, gentleman from Wisconsin. [1:54:39] Yeah, I just have to clarify something I said. [1:54:41] Yep. [1:54:42] I've talked to Donald Trump over a period of time. [1:54:45] Donald Trump is a hundred percent certain he won that election. [1:54:49] There is zero percent chance that he believes he lost. [1:54:53] And I say that based on private conversations, which just, so. [1:54:58] Okay. [1:54:59] I want to clarify that. [1:55:00] Noted for the record. We appreciate that. [1:55:02] This concludes today's hearing. We thank you. [1:55:03] No, Mr. Chairman, for me, I just have one final question for you. [1:55:07] That it begins really just as a point of order. [1:55:09] Okay. Um, as you say a point of order or is a point of order or a question? [1:55:13] It's a point of order leading to a question. [1:55:15] That's all right. [1:55:15] That's, that's innovative. [1:55:17] Okay. So, uh, it's interesting. [1:55:20] I don't think that's an order, but because I'm such a nice guy. [1:55:22] Well, I appreciate that. [1:55:23] I'm going to let you state whatever you're stating. [1:55:25] It's straightforward in good faith. [1:55:25] Okay. In good faith. [1:55:26] Because of nothing you've done and nothing that I've done. [1:55:29] Um, Jack Smith has not been able to answer the vast majority of questions [1:55:33] about what's in volume two of his special counsel report relating to the stolen documents. [1:55:40] Now, um, it's been said that, uh, the, the judicial order that Eileen Cannon, um, imposed will be, [1:55:49] um, lifted in February. And so I would, I guess my point of order is, [1:55:54] do we intend to bring him back so we can answer questions about volume two and about the, [1:55:59] the stolen documents case? [1:56:01] We'll take it under advisement. [1:56:02] Okay. Well, then just see what the court decides to do, frankly. [1:56:05] I got you. Well, then in that event, um, I've got the signatures of every member [1:56:10] on our side who are writing to notify you of our intent to call him to testify in continuation [1:56:17] of this hearing to answer all of the unanswered questions about the second half of his work. [1:56:22] That will certainly factor in tremendously when we make our decision. [1:56:25] Okay. Because, because what we have a right on the minority day to have a witness, [1:56:30] um, and we will exercise that right. [1:56:33] You're going to call him back again? [1:56:34] Yes. [1:56:34] Wow. Okay. [1:56:36] So I'm, I'm, I'm citing, uh, rule 11 [1:56:39] clause to Jane. [1:56:40] We look forward to seeing the letter and we'll find out. [1:56:42] Thank you. [1:56:42] We'll take it all under advisement. [1:56:43] As we said, that concludes today's hearing. [1:56:45] We thank the witness for appearing for the committee today without objection. [1:56:49] All members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions [1:56:54] for the witness or additional materials for the record without objection. [1:56:58] The hearing is adjourned.