Highlights from Jack Smith's House testimony about Trump investigations

[0:00] We'll begin today's hearing with opening statements. [0:03] The chair is now recognized for an opening statement. [0:05] It was always about politics. [0:08] And to get President Trump, they were willing to do just about anything. [0:11] January 7th, 2023, Kevin McCarthy becomes Speaker of the House. [0:17] Sixteen days later, Jack Smith issues a subpoena for his phone records. [0:22] Phone records from two years prior for a two-month time frame, [0:25] Election Day 2020 to January 7th, 2021. [0:29] Jack Smith and the Biden Justice Department get the phone records [0:34] of the top Republican in government, the guy second in line to the President. [0:39] They know who he called, who called him, when the call took place, and how long it lasted. [0:46] You can pattern an individual's life. [0:49] They know who the Speaker talked to before big votes, who he talked to after big votes, [0:52] when he calls his colleagues, when he calls his family. [0:56] And to add insult to injury, they go to the judge with the subpoena for a gag order on the carrier. [1:02] AT&T, don't tell your customer, the Speaker of the House, [1:08] that you just gave his phone calls to Jack Smith and Joe Biden. [1:13] And here's the kicker. [1:15] They say to the court, we need this gag order because he's a flight risk. [1:22] Someone might tamper with witnesses or with evidence. [1:25] Are you kidding me? [1:26] The Speaker of the House is going to run? [1:29] They got my phone records for two and a half years. [1:31] Even the Democrats said this was wrong. [1:35] But of course, we shouldn't be. [1:37] We shouldn't be surprised. [1:38] Democrats have been going after President Trump for 10 years, for a decade. [1:44] And the country should never, ever forget what they did. [1:48] Over the next few hours, we're going to hear a lot of yelling and screaming, I assume, from the other side. [1:54] But we should never forget what took place, what they did to the guy we, the people, elected president twice. [2:04] It all started in 2016 when they spied on his campaign. [2:07] The Clinton campaign hired the law firm Perkins Coie, [2:11] who hired the public relations firm, Fusion GPS, [2:14] who hired a foreigner, Christopher Steele, to put together the fake dossier. [2:20] Bunch of garbage in that document. [2:22] But that was used by Jim Comey's FBI. [2:24] And we all know Jim Comey. [2:28] He was the guy who just last year was strolling along the beach [2:32] when the good Lord had the waves wash up on shore, seashells in the formation of 8647. [2:38] That guy took that dossier to the FISA court, [2:43] lied to the court. [2:44] And then spied on the other party's campaign. [2:48] This, of course, led to the Mueller investigation. [2:52] Two and a half years, 19 lawyers, 40 agents, $30 million to find nothing. [2:59] No conspiracy, no coordination whatsoever. [3:03] Then it was Impeachment One, the anonymous whistleblower. [3:07] We couldn't even know who was bringing the charge against the guy they were trying to take it, [3:11] the guy we elected, who they were trying to kick out of office. [3:14] We couldn't know. [3:15] Secret hearings in the bunker. [3:18] In the basement of the Capitol. [3:20] Again, nothing. [3:23] Then it was Impeachment Two. [3:25] No secret hearings here. [3:27] Because they didn't have any hearings. [3:29] It was a snap impeachment. [3:31] And the Senate trial actually took place after President Trump wasn't in office. [3:36] Then, of course, it was Alvin Bragg, [3:39] who said before he got elected District Attorney, [3:41] that there was no case here. [3:44] Then he gets elected and changes his mind [3:46] when the left starts pressuring him to go after President Trump. [3:49] He hires Michael Colangelo, [3:51] former Democrat National Committee consultant, [3:54] and the number three guy at the Department of Justice. [3:57] And then, of course, it's Fannie and Nathan, [4:01] Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade in Fulton County, Georgia. [4:06] We actually deposed Mr. Wade. [4:09] One of the most interesting depositions I've sat through. [4:11] We said to him, you know, you billed taxpayers in Georgia thousands of dollars for meetings in D.C. [4:17] with the January 6th committee and with the Biden administration. [4:20] And we asked him some questions. [4:22] Who did you talk to, Mr. Wade? [4:24] He couldn't remember. [4:27] We said, where did you meet? [4:29] Did you meet the Capitol? [4:30] Did you meet the White House? [4:32] Where did you meet? [4:33] Couldn't remember that either. [4:34] We said, were these meetings in person, on the phone? [4:38] Did you have a Zoom meeting? [4:40] Couldn't remember. [4:42] Couldn't remember. [4:44] Couldn't remember. [4:45] We finally just asked him, did you really come to D.C. and meet people? [4:48] He said, oh, yeah, I came. [4:50] And I billed the taxpayers. [4:51] I know I came. [4:52] Just no idea who he talked to or what he did. [4:55] And then there was the raid on President Trump's home, [4:59] you know, where they searched barons, [5:02] in his room, in the First Lady's closet. [5:05] In our deposition was Stephen D'Antuono, [5:07] head of the FBI Washington field office. [5:09] He told us none of the normal process, [5:11] none of the normal protocol was followed in the investigation. [5:16] He said, first of all, the case was run out of D.C. [5:20] Normally you run it out of the Miami field office. [5:22] No, no, no, we're going to run it out of D.C. [5:24] He said he recommended, and the people in the FBI at the time [5:28] in the Washington field office recommended [5:30] they give the president notice before they do the search [5:33] or at least when they got there, [5:35] before they start the search, call the president's lawyers, [5:38] ask them to come there and meet them [5:40] and conduct the search together. [5:42] Again, the answer from Maine justice was no, [5:47] which brings us back to Mr. Smith. [5:50] On November 18, 2022, three days after President Trump [5:54] announces he's running for president, [5:56] Attorney General Garland names Jack Smith special counsel. [6:00] One of the first things Mr. Smith does is put on his team [6:04] the very people responsible for the raid [6:07] on President Trump's home, the very people. [6:12] And then Jack Smith also puts on his team [6:15] the people responsible for getting the phone records [6:17] of dozens of members of Congress, [6:19] people like Thomas Windham, [6:22] who when we deposed him took the fifth 71 times. [6:26] We've actually referred him to the Justice Department [6:29] for obstructing our investigation. [6:31] Jack Smith then gets a gag order in his investigation [6:35] on President Trump from Judge Chutkan [6:37] without filing a single affidavit with the court [6:40] from a witness or a potential witness [6:43] that they felt threatened by statements from the president. [6:46] Stop and think about it. [6:49] Jack Smith restricts the speech of the former president [6:52] while he's a candidate for president. [6:56] Thank goodness Mr. Smith was slapped down on appeal [6:59] and the order was changed. [7:01] In fact, just two weeks ago, [7:04] the Washington Post editorial page, [7:06] Jack Smith would have blown a hole in the First Amendment. [7:09] I just want to read two sentences from this. [7:13] Mr. Smith seemed unconcerned about interfering [7:18] in the democratic process by seeking to muzzle [7:20] a candidate for high office. [7:22] Three appellate judges, all nominated by Democrat presidents, [7:25] ruled that Mr. Smith's proposed gag order [7:28] infringed on President Trump's First Amendment rights. [7:32] And of course they did. [7:34] And this wasn't the only time Mr. Smith lost in court. [7:38] In the classified documents case in Miami, [7:40] Judge Cannon held that Mr. Smith was not permitted [7:42] to be special counsel. [7:45] Jack Smith was never properly appointed. [7:47] In fact, he couldn't be properly appointed [7:50] because he was never confirmed by the Senate [7:52] for any position in the executive branch [7:54] as the law requires. [7:56] Here's what Judge Cannon stated, [7:59] quote, [8:00] the special counsel's position effectively usurps [8:02] that important legislative authority, [8:04] transferring it to a head of department [8:07] and in the process threatening the structural liberty [8:09] inherent in the separation of powers. [8:13] And of course, on July 1st, 2024, [8:17] the United States Supreme Court ruled [8:19] that President Trump had immunity for actions [8:21] taken in his official capacity as the president. [8:25] One month later, after this decision by the Supreme Court, [8:29] Jack Smith files a superseding indictment [8:32] on August 27th, 2024. [8:34] But Mr. Smith doesn't stop there. [8:36] He does something unprecedented. [8:40] On October 2nd, he files a motion with the court [8:44] before President Trump's defense counsel [8:46] has even responded to the indictment. [8:49] Everyone knows the normal process is the government indicts, [8:53] the defense responds with some motion, [8:55] and then the government responds to the defense. [8:58] But Mr. Smith skips the second step, [9:00] and the brief that he files is 165 pages, [9:03] almost four times the court limit. [9:06] Even liberal Judge Chutkin, [9:09] who's given Jack Smith everything he's asked for [9:11] in the course of this investigation, [9:13] even she called it atypical and irregular. [9:16] Now, why would Jack Smith do that? [9:19] Why would he abandon proper procedure? [9:22] Why would he ignore court rules? [9:25] Why would he do that? [9:26] Because he's running out of time. [9:29] There's an election around the corner. [9:32] It's coming in 33 days. [9:35] And he's got to get President Trump. [9:37] He's got to stop President Trump from running, [9:39] tie him up in court. [9:41] He's got to get to trial or, at a minimum, [9:43] insert an 165-page political document [9:47] into the presidential campaign. [9:49] It was always about politics. [9:54] The good news is the American people saw through it. [9:57] They saw through it. [9:58] For so long, the left has controlled so much [10:02] in this country. [10:03] The left controlled big media. [10:06] The left controlled big tech. [10:07] The left controlled academia, Hollywood, [10:10] certainly the Democrat Party, [10:12] and I think all too much the federal bureaucracy. [10:15] But the left doesn't control we, the people. [10:17] And in spite of the left and the weaponization efforts [10:21] of Jim Comey, Alvin Bragg, [10:24] Bonnie Willis, and Jack Smith, [10:27] we, the people, saw through it all. [10:30] And we elected President Trump twice. [10:32] Before turning to the ranking members, [10:35] for his opening statement, [10:36] I would just ask unanimous consent [10:39] to enter into the record [10:41] the Washington Post editorial, [10:43] Jack Smith would have blown a hole [10:45] in the First Amendment. [10:46] With that, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland. [10:48] Well, thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. [10:50] I want to start by recognizing the presence [10:52] of four American heroes here today, [10:55] four of the hundreds of officers [10:57] who defended us on January 6, 2021, [11:00] Michael Fanone, Aquilino Ganel, [11:03] Daniel Hodges, and Harry Dunn. [11:05] And I thank them for being here today. [11:08] Mr. Smith, thank you for appearing [11:10] before the American people. [11:12] I'm glad that the committee has finally granted you [11:14] the same chance to report your findings [11:16] to the American people [11:18] that every other special counsel [11:20] investigating an American president has had. [11:23] The good chairman started by saying, [11:25] it's all about the politics. [11:26] Well, maybe for them, but for us, [11:28] it's all about the rule of law [11:30] and who's going to stand by the rule of law [11:32] and who's going to oppose it. [11:35] Now, Mr. Smith, you're one of America's great prosecutors. [11:39] For nearly three decades, [11:41] you worked for justice under both Republicans and Democrats, [11:44] the Manhattan DA office, [11:46] where you prosecuted sex crimes [11:48] and domestic violence cases, [11:50] the Eastern District of New York, [11:52] where you prosecuted murderers, rapists, [11:54] gangbangers, and other violent criminals, [11:57] leading the public integrity section. [12:00] At the Department of Justice, [12:02] you brought prosecutions against corrupt public officials, [12:05] across the political spectrum. [12:08] When you went to The Hague as chief prosecutor [12:11] in the Kosovo trial, [12:14] you prosecuted war crimes [12:17] and crimes against humanity [12:19] perpetrated against thousands of innocent victims. [12:22] While others may have devoted their lives [12:24] to corrupt self-enrichment, [12:26] you have devoted your life to the rule of law [12:29] and to public service. [12:31] You've never been prosecuted for anything. [12:34] You've never been convicted [12:36] of anything. [12:37] As far as I can tell, [12:38] you've never even been the subject [12:40] of a disciplinary proceeding [12:42] over the course of your multi-decade career. [12:44] But Donald Trump says you're a criminal [12:47] and you belong in prison. [12:51] He says you belong in prison, [12:52] not because you did anything wrong, mind you, [12:54] but because you did everything right. [12:56] You pursued the facts. [12:59] You followed the law. [13:00] You stuck with extreme caution [13:03] to every rule of professional responsibility. [13:07] You had the audacity to do your job. [13:10] Everybody here knows what you did wrong [13:16] in Donald Trump's eyes [13:18] and why he says you belong in prison. [13:20] You found, and I quote [13:22] from your sworn testimony before the committee, [13:24] you found proof beyond a reasonable doubt [13:28] that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme [13:32] to overturn the results of the 2020 election [13:34] and to prevent the lawful transfer of power. [13:38] When asked whether you believe the evidence [13:41] was enough to obtain a criminal conviction [13:43] against Donald Trump, [13:44] you had a one-word answer, yes. [13:47] When asked if Donald Trump was responsible [13:50] for the violence that took place at the Capitol [13:52] on January 6th, you said, [13:54] our view of the evidence was that he caused it [13:57] and that he exploited it [13:59] and that it was foreseeable to him. [14:02] You found that Trump knew he had lost the election. [14:06] How? [14:07] Well, his own Attorney General, William Barr, [14:10] repeatedly told him so [14:12] and described all of Trump's theories as BS. [14:14] Trump's top campaigners [14:16] and his top campaign advisors [14:18] told him he lost the election. [14:21] Vice President Pence told him he lost the election. [14:24] More than 60 federal, state, and court decisions, [14:27] including eight rendered by judges he appointed to the bench, [14:31] rejected every outlandish election fraud [14:34] and corruption claim that he made. [14:37] Trump himself even privately acknowledged it, [14:40] gesturing to Joe Biden on TV and saying, [14:43] quote, [14:44] can you believe I lost to that effing guy? [14:46] He knew he lost, [14:48] but he threw everything into his big lie, [14:51] which some people, even in this room to this day, [14:54] will stand by and swear by. [14:58] Well, when the big lie wasn't enough to convince officials [15:01] like Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, [15:04] a Republican, to commit election fraud [15:06] and just fine Trump 11,780 votes, [15:09] when it wasn't enough to convince Trump's DOJ [15:12] to, quote, just call the election corrupt [15:15] and leave the rest to me, [15:16] and the House Republicans, [15:18] when it wasn't enough to force Vice President Mike Pence [15:21] to announce and then exercise lawless powers [15:25] to reject electoral college votes [15:27] and use counterfeit slates to anoint Trump the winner, [15:31] that's when Trump incited mass violence on January 6th. [15:36] While more than 140 officers [15:38] were being brutally assaulted by Trump's mob, [15:41] while rioters beat them with flagpoles [15:44] and sprayed them with chemical agents, [15:46] and crushed them in doorways, [15:48] and while they chanted, [15:49] hang Mike Pence, [15:51] and chased the Vice President out of the Capitol, [15:53] Trump and his team worked the phones, [15:56] calling not the National Guard, [15:59] which was under the direct unilateral control of Donald Trump, [16:04] but calling members of Congress, [16:06] urging them to delay certification [16:09] and to nullify the election results. [16:12] Special Counsel Smith, you pursued the facts. [16:16] You followed every applicable law. [16:18] Ethics rule and DOJ regulation. [16:20] Your decisions were reviewed by the public integrity section. [16:24] You acted based solely on the facts, [16:26] the opposite of Donald Trump, [16:28] who now has purported to take over the Department of Justice. [16:32] He's in charge of the whole thing [16:34] under his unitary executive theory, [16:36] and he acts openly, [16:39] purely based on political vendetta [16:42] and motives of personal revenge, [16:45] and he doesn't deny it. [16:46] Our colleagues have complained about this, [16:50] but the special counsel's review of toll records, [16:53] which are phone records, like a phone bill, [16:55] showing only the timing and duration of calls, [16:58] and containing no content, [17:00] no substance whatsoever from the calls, [17:03] but those records were lawfully subpoenaed [17:06] because Donald Trump made those members of Congress [17:09] relevant to the investigation. [17:11] It was Trump who chose to call them [17:13] to advance his criminal scheme. [17:15] As you testified, Mr. Smith, [17:17] if Donald Trump had chosen to call [17:18] a number of Democratic senators, [17:20] we would have gotten toll records for them, too. [17:23] I trust our colleagues get the point, [17:25] because America certainly gets the point. [17:28] There is much Mr. Smith still can't talk about, [17:31] though we know he badly wants to. [17:34] His investigation developed what he calls [17:36] powerful evidence that Trump stole documents [17:38] containing our country's most sensitive secrets, [17:41] hoarded them in the ballrooms and the bathrooms [17:44] of his well-trafficked Mar-a-Lago social club. [17:48] He showed them off to visitors, [17:50] and then he obstructed a federal investigation [17:52] by instructing his attorney to pluck out anything really bad [17:56] before turning materials over to the FBI [17:59] and having his staff delete incriminating [18:02] security tape footage. [18:04] But today, we're not going to hear a lot about that, [18:06] because you are gagged by an absurd judicial order [18:09] rendered faithfully by Trump's most servile [18:12] and sycophantic appointee to the federal bench, [18:15] Judge Eileen Cannon. [18:17] This order not only blocks release of volume two [18:19] of your report, which is unprecedented, [18:22] about the classified documents scam, [18:24] it also gags you from discussing the report [18:27] or its contents with us, with America. [18:30] And so we don't know what's in it, [18:32] but it must be pretty devastating, [18:34] because Donald Trump is desperate to keep Mr. Smith [18:37] or any other DOJ official for all time [18:40] from ever releasing it to Congress [18:42] and to the American people. [18:44] Now, Mr. Smith, if any of our colleagues [18:48] foolishly choose to admit [18:51] to attack you and vilify you today, [18:54] and I know that's not going to happen [18:56] from some serious prosecutors over there, [18:58] like Mr. Knott and Mr. Schmidt, [19:00] who understand what federal prosecutors do [19:03] and what the rule of law means, [19:04] but if anybody decides to attack you personally, [19:07] they will only be revealing their own ignorance [19:10] of what prosecutors do and their own indifference [19:13] to what the rule of law requires in America. [19:16] They will only be stroking the wounded ego [19:19] of a lawless, twice-impeached, [19:21] convicted felon president [19:23] who not only unleashed a mob [19:25] against Congress and his own vice president, [19:27] but has now pardoned and released into our communities [19:30] hundreds of extremists, insurrectionists, [19:33] and cop-beating felons [19:35] who have proceeded to commit [19:37] dozens more crimes [19:39] against the American people [19:41] since they were pardoned. [19:43] Mr. Smith, I understand [19:45] you are a long-distance marathon runner. [19:47] I read that you're a triathlete [19:49] who's done more than 100 triathlons [19:51] and nine Ironman competitions. [19:53] You are in the fight for justice [19:55] and the rule of law for the long distance, [19:58] for the long haul, [19:59] and I thank you for that. [20:01] And we should all try to follow your example. [20:03] America looks forward to your testimony today. [20:05] I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. [20:07] Chairman Jordan, [20:09] Ranking Member Raskin, [20:10] members of the committee, [20:11] thank you for the opportunity [20:14] to discuss my work in special counsel. [20:16] I love my country [20:18] and believe deeply in the core principles [20:22] upon which it was founded. [20:25] For nearly three decades, [20:26] I've served as a career prosecutor [20:28] in both Republican and Democratic administrations. [20:31] I've handled cases ranging from [20:34] domestic assault and gang violence [20:36] to public corruption and election crimes [20:38] across the United States, [20:41] and I've prosecuted war crimes overseas. [20:43] I am not a politician, [20:45] and I have no partisan loyalties. [20:49] My career has been dedicated to serving our country [20:52] by upholding the rule of law. [20:54] Throughout my public service, [20:58] my approach has always been the same. [20:59] Follow the facts and the law [21:02] without fear or favor. [21:04] Experienced prosecutors know [21:07] that specific case outcomes [21:09] are beyond our control. [21:11] Our responsibility is to do the right thing, [21:14] the right way, [21:15] for the right reasons. [21:17] These principles have guided me through my career, [21:20] including as special counsel. [21:22] I'm proud of the work my team did, [21:25] and I appreciate the opportunity [21:27] to appear here today [21:28] to correct false and misleading narratives [21:31] about our work. [21:32] During my time [21:35] as special counsel, [21:36] we followed Justice Department policies, [21:38] we observed legal requirements, [21:40] and took actions based on the facts and the law. [21:45] I made my decisions without regard [21:50] to President Trump's political association, [21:53] activities, beliefs, [21:55] or candidacy in the 2024 election. [21:58] President Trump was charged [22:01] because the evidence established [22:03] that he willfully broke the law. [22:05] The very laws he took an oath to, [22:07] he took an oath to uphold. [22:10] Grand juries in two separate districts [22:12] reached this conclusion based on his actions, [22:14] as alleged in the indictments they returned. [22:19] Rather than accept his defeat in the 2020 election, [22:22] President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme [22:24] to overturn the results [22:26] and prevent the lawful transfer of power. [22:30] After leaving office in January of 21, [22:32] President Trump illegally kept classified documents [22:35] at his Mar-a-Lago social club [22:37] and repeatedly tried to obstruct justice [22:40] to conceal his continued retention of those documents. [22:44] Highly sensitive national security information [22:48] was held in a ballroom and a bathroom. [22:51] As I testify before the committee today, [22:56] I want to be clear. [22:58] I stand by my decisions as special counsel, [23:01] including the decision to bring charges [23:04] against President Trump. [23:06] Our investigation developed proof [23:09] beyond a reasonable doubt [23:10] that President Trump engaged in criminal activity. [23:13] If asked whether to prosecute [23:16] a former president based on the same facts today, [23:19] I would do so regardless of whether that president [23:22] was a Democrat or a Republican. [23:24] No one, no one should be above the law in this country, [23:30] and the law required that he be held to account, [23:33] so that is what I did. [23:36] To have done otherwise on the facts of these cases [23:39] would have meant to shirk my duties [23:41] as a prosecutor and as a public servant, [23:45] of which I had no intention of doing. [23:49] I remain grateful for the counsel, judgment, and advice [23:52] of my team. [23:53] President Trump has sought to seek revenge [23:56] against career prosecutors, FBI agents, [24:00] and support staff simply for having worked on these cases. [24:06] To vilify and seek retribution against these people is wrong. [24:11] Those dedicated public servants are the best of us, [24:14] and it has been a privilege to serve with them. [24:19] After nearly 30 years of public service, [24:21] including in international settings, [24:23] I have seen how the rule of law can erode. [24:27] The most severe is that we have seen the rule of law [24:31] function in our country for so long [24:33] that many of us have come to take it for granted. [24:38] The rule of law is not self-executing. [24:41] It depends on our collective commitment to apply it. [24:46] It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, [24:51] especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs. [24:55] Our willingness to pay those costs is what tests [24:59] and defines our commitment to the rule of law [25:02] in this wonderful country. [25:05] Thank you. [25:06] A gentleman from California is recognized. [25:09] Mr. Smith, do you see criminals to my left? [25:14] You don't see any. [25:18] Do you see people who are committing crimes [25:23] because they continue to believe things that just aren't true? [25:27] That's paraphrasing Ronald Reagan, [25:31] that liberals aren't stupid, [25:34] they just know things that don't happen to be true. [25:36] If the president believed that he was cheated in an election, [25:40] that there was fraud, [25:42] or in some other way a number of items led to his defeat [25:47] when in fact he should have won according to the Constitution, [25:51] does that make him a criminal? [25:53] Sir? [25:55] No, no, that's a yes or no. [25:57] Please, Mr. Smith. [25:59] These people here are continuing to grapple constantly [26:03] with things that aren't true, like socialism works [26:06] or that somehow everything the Republicans do is evil [26:09] and everything they do is right. [26:11] They've never reached a conclusion [26:14] in a typical partisan case [26:16] in which we're not evil because we think something different [26:19] and we're not wrong. [26:20] You understand the Constitution. [26:23] Do you understand the Bill of Rights, [26:25] that someone has the absolute right [26:28] to believe something whether it's true or not [26:31] and to advocate for something whether it's true or not? [26:34] Do you understand that in addition to your oath to the Constitution [26:38] that that's one of the things the First Amendment allows for, isn't it? [26:41] Yes, sir. [26:44] Okay, so if you know that people have a right [26:48] to opine, lobby for, assert, [26:52] do everything they can legally [26:55] to ask for people to make different decisions, [26:58] then why is it you saw criminal conduct [27:01] on behalf of a president who believed he didn't win? [27:04] Chairman Jordan and myself have something in common [27:08] along with a number of others here. [27:10] We saw wrongdoing, and on January 6th, [27:13] we voted not to confirm two states [27:16] because they had violated the U.S. Constitution. [27:19] In how they selected who got ballots. [27:22] And yet, you're gonna come here and say, [27:26] oh, I just followed the law. [27:28] When you went after these people and you said, [27:33] well, technically I can do that, [27:35] you didn't see any selective nature [27:37] or any separation of powers under the Constitution [27:41] to spying on the activities and the conversations [27:45] of the Speaker of the House. [27:47] To what end would conversations [27:49] between the Speaker of the U.S. House, [27:51] third or second in line to be the president, [27:55] and the president? [27:57] In what basis would it be any of your business [28:00] other than you believe that there was a conspiracy [28:03] without conspiracy as a basic premise? [28:07] You, like the president's men for Richard Nixon, [28:12] went after your political enemies. [28:14] Maybe they're not your political enemies, [28:16] but they sure as hell were Joe Biden's political enemies, [28:18] weren't they? [28:20] They were Harris's political enemies. [28:23] They were the enemies of the president, [28:25] and you were their arm. [28:27] Weren't you? [28:28] No. [28:29] No. [28:30] Oh, great. [28:31] So you spied on the Speaker of the House [28:35] and these other senators and so on [28:37] and informed no one and in fact put in a gag order [28:41] so they couldn't discover it. [28:43] If they were not subjects of a conspiracy investigation, [28:48] why did Congress, a separate branch [28:52] that you under the Constitution have to respect, [28:55] why is it that no one should be informed, [28:58] including the judges? [29:01] As you went in to spy on these people, [29:03] did you mention that you were spying on seeking records [29:07] so you could find out about when conversations occurred [29:10] between the U.S. Speaker of the House and the president? [29:13] Did you inform the judge or did you hold that back? [29:17] My office didn't spy on anyone. [29:20] Wait a second. [29:21] The question I asked you, Mr. Smith, [29:23] was pretty straightforward. [29:25] Did you withhold that information from an Article III judge [29:29] in the process of taking the records [29:33] of the Speaker of the House? [29:35] We complied with the... [29:36] Did you hold back that information? [29:38] Mr. Chairman, would you please instruct the gentleman [29:40] to allow the witness to answer the question? [29:42] It's not your time. [29:43] I'd like my time back. [29:44] Mr. Chairman, you have repeatedly done that in the past. [29:46] The witness has the right to answer the question. [29:48] And there'll be due time to answer the question. [29:50] Would you please put my time back and let me finish this? [29:54] Mr. Smith, I asked you a question [29:57] and you were not responsive to it [29:59] and I want you to be responsive to it. [30:01] Did you, whether you think it was legal or not, [30:04] whether you think it was right or not, [30:06] did you withhold the name of Kevin McCarthy, [30:09] Speaker of the House, [30:11] when you were seeking records on Kevin McCarthy, [30:14] the Speaker of the House, [30:15] or Jim Jordan, the chairman of this committee? [30:18] At the time, the gentleman is... [30:20] Please give me back the time and take it away. [30:22] Time has expired, [30:23] but we're going to let the witness answer your question [30:25] because it's an important question. [30:26] The witness can respond. [30:27] We did not provide that information [30:29] to the judge when we requested a non-disclosure order [30:33] consistent with the law and consistent with the... [30:35] Mr. Chairman, the amazing thing here today [30:38] is that we have an admission that an Article 1... [30:41] Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's time has expired [30:43] by now 34 seconds. [30:45] It gets more than five minutes. [30:46] How many times do you interrupt me? [30:48] The time belongs to the gentleman from California, [30:51] but it has expired. [30:52] I will be brief in my address to the chairman. [30:55] We have the evidence that an Article 1 representative [30:58] on behalf of the president withheld Article 3... [31:01] Mr. Chairman, our witness... [31:03] With that, I yield back in disgust of this witness. [31:07] Mr. Smith, thank you for being here today. [31:10] You know, earlier, the chairman spent a lot of time [31:12] talking about Cassidy Hutchinson, [31:14] who we know is just one of many witnesses. [31:17] It's important to note that there was testimony [31:24] that she was told something by Mr. Ornato, [31:27] not that she had personal knowledge. [31:29] And, of course, Mr. Ornato was of very questionable veracity. [31:34] We had testimony from a Metropolitan Police Department official [31:40] about an argument, a big argument, [31:43] that the president was having about going to the Capitol, [31:47] and the fact that the vehicle was delayed [31:49] going back to the Capitol while that argument occurred. [31:52] But having said that, I want to focus on something [31:55] my colleagues across the aisle seem to want to ignore. [31:58] The fact that your investigation into President Trump's attempt [32:01] to overturn the 2020 election was built on testimony [32:05] from members of the Republican Party. [32:07] In fact, last week, the New York Times published [32:09] grand jury transcripts from Georgia that show the same pattern [32:13] in Trump's Georgia criminal case. [32:15] Georgia's Republican Attorney General Chris Carr testified [32:18] that he told, quote, and this is a quote, [32:20] we're just not seeing the things that you are seeing. [32:23] And the late Georgia House Speaker David Ralston, [32:26] also a Republican, testified that, [32:28] Trump's fake electoral scheme was, quote, [32:31] the craziest thing I've heard. [32:33] And then there's Senator Lindsey Graham, [32:35] one of the president's closest allies. [32:37] In his secret grand jury testimony, [32:39] Senator Graham told the jurors, quote, [32:41] I have told him more times than we can count [32:43] that he fell short, unquote. [32:45] And then he said this, quote, [32:47] if you told him Martians came and stole votes, [32:50] he'd be inclined to believe it. [32:53] Martians, that's from Senator Graham speaking under oath. [32:56] So here's my question, Mr. Smith, [32:58] in your deposition with this committee, [33:00] you testified, and here's a quote, [33:02] our case was built on, frankly, [33:04] Republicans who put their allegiance to the country [33:07] before the party. [33:09] Also, that the president's closest allies [33:13] are telling him that his claims of election fraud are wrong. [33:17] And so I'm just wondering, [33:19] can you explain what you meant in your deposition [33:23] that it was Republicans who were putting their allegiance [33:26] to their country ahead of their party? [33:28] Yes. [33:32] There were witnesses who I felt would be very strong witnesses, [33:37] including, for example, the Secretary of State in Georgia, [33:41] who told Donald Trump the truth, [33:44] told him things that he did not want to hear, [33:48] and put him on notice that what he was saying was false. [33:51] These were people who knew how the elections [33:55] were conducted in these states. [33:58] And I believe that witnesses of that nature, [34:01] witnesses who are willing to tell the truth, [34:03] even if it's going to impose a cost on them in their lives, [34:08] my experience as a prosecutor over 30 years [34:11] is that witnesses like that are very credible, [34:14] and that jurors tend to believe witnesses like that [34:17] because they pay a cost for telling the truth. [34:20] In terms of the grand jury testimony [34:23] that's now been released, [34:25] the fact that Donald Trump, according to Senator Graham, [34:28] would believe that Martians stole the election, [34:30] what does that tell you about Trump's state of mind? [34:38] That statement is consistent [34:41] with what we found in our investigation, [34:44] in that our investigation revealed [34:48] that Donald Trump was not looking for honest answers [34:52] about whether there was fraud in the election. [34:55] He was looking for ways to stay in power. [34:57] And when people told him things [35:01] that conflicted with him staying in power, [35:03] he rejected them. [35:04] Or he... [35:05] chose not even to contact people like that [35:08] who would know [35:09] if the election was done properly in the state. [35:12] On the other hand, [35:13] when individuals would say things [35:16] that would allow him to stay in power, [35:18] no matter how fantastical, [35:20] he would latch onto those. [35:22] That pattern, over time, [35:24] we felt was powerful evidence [35:26] that he, in fact, [35:28] knew that the fraud claims he was making were false. [35:33] You know, who are some of the Republican witnesses [35:35] who told you that President... [35:38] who told President Trump [35:39] that his claims of election fraud were false? [35:41] Can you share that with us? [35:43] There were a range of witnesses. [35:50] They ranged from people on his campaign team [35:55] who had wanted him to win, [35:58] were employed to help him win the election. [36:00] They included state officials, [36:03] state Republican officials, [36:05] who wanted him to win, [36:08] voted for him, [36:09] campaigned for him, [36:10] asked him to provide... [36:12] asked him and his co-conspirators [36:14] to provide evidence to support their claims. [36:16] And invariably, they never did. [36:19] It included officials, advisors, [36:22] people he worked with in the White House [36:24] who he relied upon [36:26] for important decisions [36:28] and who he trusted in other contexts. [36:30] We felt we had strong evidence [36:32] from a variety of sources... [36:34] The time of the gentle lady has expired. [36:36] Ms. Chairman, [36:37] with my fellow Californian, [36:39] you were allowing the witness to answer. [36:40] Yeah, it's a good question. [36:41] Isn't that grounds to let him answer? [36:43] I've given him 30 seconds extra, [36:45] the gentle lady 30 seconds extra. [36:46] If the gentleman can be concise [36:48] and finish up here quickly, [36:49] we will allow him to finish. [36:51] Yes, sir. [36:52] And just conclude saying [36:53] we felt that that constituted powerful evidence [36:57] of the knowing falsity of his statements [37:00] in furtherance of the fraud. [37:01] Mr. Chairman, [37:02] I would like to yield back [37:04] noting the presence of officers [37:06] who were severely attacked... [37:07] You've got nothing to yield back. [37:08] The gentleman from Texas... [37:10] Protecting our lives on January 6th. [37:12] Mr. Smith, [37:13] I want you to have the utmost confidence [37:15] in what you did. [37:16] You did everything right. [37:19] Harry Dunn, [37:21] Danny Hodges, [37:22] Sergeant Cano, [37:23] Mike Fanone, [37:24] they did everything right. [37:25] These guys, [37:26] my Republican colleagues, [37:27] are a joke. [37:28] They're wrong. [37:29] History will harshly judge them. [37:32] So I want you to lean in today. [37:34] You have nothing to be ashamed of. [37:36] You did everything right, sir. [37:37] And I am so... [37:39] These guys are so lucky they're not under oath. [37:41] Because they would have to tell you [37:43] what they really think of Trump. [37:45] They call him crooked. [37:48] They call him cruel. [37:49] They call him a scumbag. [37:51] I've heard you all say it. [37:52] You're lucky you're not under Trump. [37:55] But when the lights go on [37:56] and the cameras are on, [37:57] you're tiny. [37:58] You're small. [37:59] You shrink. [38:00] Everyone remembers Matt Gaetz [38:02] coming over here after a committee hearing. [38:04] He would laugh [38:05] at how stupid he thought Trump was. [38:07] This is all a show. [38:08] And Mr. Smith, [38:09] you're just the latest act [38:10] that they've brought in. [38:11] By the way, [38:13] they can't erase what happened on January 6th [38:15] because we saw it with our own eyes. [38:19] Mr. Smith, [38:22] after the mainstream media called the race for Biden [38:25] about a week after the election, [38:26] did Donald Trump concede the election? [38:28] He did not. [38:31] The next month, [38:32] the Electoral College met in every state [38:34] and voted Biden is the winner. [38:36] Did Donald Trump concede then? [38:37] He did not. [38:39] Shortly after that, [38:40] the last court case that Donald Trump brought [38:43] was thrown out. [38:44] Did he concede then? [38:45] No. [38:47] Is it your judgment then [38:48] that only Donald Trump [38:50] could have convened the mob [38:51] in the size that it was assembled [38:53] on January 6th? [38:56] Our assessment of the evidence [38:59] is that he is the person most responsible [39:02] for what happened on January 6th. [39:04] He caused what happened. [39:06] It was foreseeable to him. [39:08] And then when it happened, [39:10] he tried to exploit it [39:11] in furtherance of the conspiracy. [39:13] And you actually obtained indictments [39:15] from a grand jury, right? [39:16] You went to a grand jury [39:17] and did something [39:18] that the Trump administration [39:19] has not been able to do [39:20] as they go after their enemies. [39:22] Their cases are being thrown out. [39:23] You obtained criminal indictments [39:25] against the president. [39:26] Is that right? [39:27] That's correct. [39:29] Mr. Smith, [39:31] do you know who Edward Loya is? [39:32] I'm sorry? [39:34] Edward Loya? [39:35] L-O-Y-A? [39:36] I believe Mr. Loya [39:39] worked at the public integrity section [39:40] when I was there. [39:41] Did you know that he said of you, [39:42] when it comes to investigating allegations [39:44] of sophisticated federal criminal matters, [39:46] Jack Smith is the gold standard? [39:48] Do you know who Mr. James McGovern is? [39:52] Yes. [39:54] He was a prosecutor [39:55] I worked with in New York. [39:56] Did you know that he said [39:58] of you, [39:59] I have no idea [40:00] what Mr. Smith's political beliefs are [40:02] because he's completely apolitical. [40:04] So are you a registered independent? [40:10] I have no partisan loyalties. [40:13] I don't know [40:14] if I'm registered as independent [40:15] or not registered at all. [40:16] Are you glad you accepted [40:18] Attorney General Garland's request [40:19] to be a special prosecutor, [40:20] even though you've been dragged [40:22] over political barbed wire [40:23] and your family has been subjected [40:25] to death threats? [40:27] I don't regret it. [40:28] Do you remember [40:31] where you were on September 11th? [40:33] I do. [40:36] What did you think of that day? [40:37] I was angry. [40:39] I was in Brooklyn [40:40] when that happened. [40:41] I was at the command center [40:42] that night. [40:43] I worked on that investigation. [40:44] I remember pretty clearly. [40:45] Do you remember [40:46] where you were on January 6th? [40:49] On January 6th, [40:50] I was living in Europe, [40:53] working for the State Department, [40:54] seconded to a war crimes tribunal. [40:57] What did you think [40:58] as you watched on television [40:59] what happened at the Capitol [41:01] that day? [41:02] To be honest with you, [41:03] I don't recall [41:04] if I saw it that day [41:05] or a later day [41:06] because of the time, [41:10] time period. [41:11] What did you think [41:12] when you saw it? [41:13] I was shocked. [41:14] I was shocked by it. [41:15] I don't know [41:17] if I saw it [41:19] that day [41:20] but I was shocked by it. [41:21] I obviously, [41:23] being in Europe [41:24] and not following things [41:25] as closely, [41:26] I was not, [41:27] frankly, [41:28] up to speed [41:29] on the events [41:30] leading up to it. [41:31] What shocked you about it? [41:32] I'd just never seen anything [41:34] like that happen [41:35] in our country. [41:36] Mr. Smith, [41:37] I don't know [41:38] if I'll ever have the honor [41:39] to talk to you again. [41:40] If I don't, [41:41] please know [41:42] that I [41:43] and my colleagues [41:44] on the Democratic side [41:45] and even my Republican colleagues [41:46] when they speak privately [41:47] have nothing [41:48] but respect [41:49] and appreciation [41:50] for what you tried to do [41:51] and how you did it. [41:52] You, [41:53] unlike many here, [41:54] are a man of honor [41:55] and I yield back. [41:57] Thank you, [41:59] Mr. Chairman. [42:00] Mr. Smith, [42:01] thank you [42:02] for coming here today. [42:03] Your willingness [42:04] to speak directly [42:05] to us [42:06] and to the American people [42:07] about your investigation [42:08] is professional, [42:09] is courageous, [42:10] and is patriotic. [42:11] It's high time [42:12] that the American people [42:13] hear directly [42:14] from you [42:15] about the results [42:16] of your investigation [42:18] of President Donald Trump [42:20] for his criminal actions [42:22] leading up to [42:23] and the day [42:24] of January 6th, 2021. [42:27] The facts, [42:28] according to your report, [42:29] are simple. [42:30] Without a single piece [42:31] of evidence, [42:32] Trump sowed doubt [42:33] about the 2020 election results [42:35] and urged his followers [42:37] to, quote, [42:38] walk down to the Capitol [42:39] and fight like hell [42:41] on January 6th. [42:42] And that's exactly [42:43] what they did. [42:44] Thousands of insurrectionists [42:46] violently tried [42:47] to stop Congress [42:48] from certifying [42:49] the 2020 election [42:50] and doing our duty [42:53] and they assaulted [42:54] law enforcement officers, [42:55] some of whom [42:56] are sitting [42:57] right here [42:58] in the chamber [42:59] with us. [43:01] I was trapped [43:02] in the House gallery [43:03] with a small number [43:04] of members that day [43:05] and I will never forget [43:06] the pounding [43:07] on the doors [43:08] and the insurrectionists [43:09] threatening [43:10] to kill us [43:11] right outside. [43:12] My Republican colleagues [43:13] keep trying [43:14] to rewrite history. [43:15] They claim [43:16] that somehow [43:17] Trump's words [43:18] and actions [43:19] did not legally rise [43:20] to the level [43:21] of criminal activity, [43:22] that he did not [43:23] directly cause [43:24] violence [43:25] at the Capitol. [43:26] And so I want [43:27] to set that record [43:28] straight with you [43:29] right now. [43:30] First of all, [43:31] you successfully secured [43:32] indictments against [43:33] Donald Trump [43:34] in two major [43:35] federal cases, [43:36] election interference [43:37] in the 2020 election [43:38] and mishandling [43:39] of classified documents [43:40] after leaving office. [43:41] Is that correct? [43:42] Yes. [43:44] And you've been [43:45] a federal prosecutor [43:46] for nearly 30 years. [43:47] You led [43:48] this investigation, [43:49] combing through [43:50] hundreds of thousands [43:52] of documents, [43:53] photos, [43:54] videos, [43:55] and communication. [43:56] Did your investigation [43:58] find that [43:59] Donald Trump [44:00] attempted to [44:01] manufacture [44:02] fraudulent [44:03] state slates [44:04] of presidential [44:05] electors [44:06] in seven states [44:07] that he lost? [44:09] Yes. [44:11] Did he pressure [44:12] state officials [44:13] to ignore [44:14] true [44:15] vote counts [44:16] in those states? [44:18] Yes. [44:19] Did he spread [44:20] lies and conspiracies [44:21] to his followers [44:22] to make them [44:23] believe [44:24] that the election [44:25] had been illegally [44:26] rigged against him? [44:28] Yes. [44:29] Did he pressure [44:30] DOJ officials [44:31] to stop [44:32] the certification [44:33] of the election? [44:34] He did. [44:35] Did he pressure [44:36] his own [44:37] vice president, [44:38] Mike Pence, [44:39] to stop [44:40] the certification [44:41] against the oath [44:42] of office [44:43] that he had sworn [44:44] to the Constitution? [44:45] He did. [44:46] And when all of this [44:47] didn't work, [44:48] did he, [44:49] Donald Trump, [44:50] motivate [44:51] and inspire [44:52] an angry mob [44:53] to the U.S. Capitol [44:54] to stop [44:55] the certification? [44:57] Our proof [44:58] was that [44:59] Donald Trump [45:00] showed [45:01] that he caused [45:02] what happened [45:03] on January 6th, [45:04] that it was foreseeable, [45:05] and that he exploited [45:07] that violence. [45:08] Did Donald Trump [45:09] know that his allegations [45:10] of election fraud [45:11] were lies [45:13] when he spread them? [45:14] Our proof [45:15] was that he did, [45:16] and we intended [45:17] to prove that at trial. [45:18] In fact, [45:19] as the quotes [45:20] from your report [45:21] behind me show, [45:22] he even privately [45:23] admitted [45:24] that he lost [45:27] the election, [45:28] correct? [45:29] Yes. [45:30] He said, [45:31] when you lose [45:32] the election, [45:33] you have to fight [45:34] like hell. [45:35] And he said, [45:36] can you believe [45:37] I lost [45:39] to this effing guy? [45:40] During your closed-door [45:41] deposition [45:42] last month, [45:43] you and I [45:44] had an exchange [45:45] about the impact [45:46] on our democracy, [45:47] the toll [45:48] on our democracy [45:49] for not holding [45:50] a president [45:51] accountable [45:52] for trying [45:53] to steal an election. [45:54] Do you remember [45:56] that exchange? [45:57] I do. [45:58] I want to return [45:59] to it, [46:00] because I think [46:01] what you said [46:02] right here [46:03] in your public [46:04] testimony, [46:06] how would you [46:07] describe [46:08] the toll [46:09] on our democracy [46:10] if we do not hold [46:11] a president [46:12] accountable [46:13] for attempting [46:14] to steal an election? [46:16] My belief [46:17] is that [46:18] if we do not [46:19] hold the most [46:20] powerful people [46:21] in our society [46:22] to the same [46:23] standards [46:24] of the rule [46:25] of law, [46:26] it can be catastrophic, [46:27] because [46:28] if [46:29] they don't [46:30] have to follow [46:32] the law, [46:33] it's very easy [46:34] to understand [46:35] what's going [46:36] to happen [46:37] in the future. [46:38] So I think [46:39] the law [46:40] should be [46:41] applied [46:42] equally [46:43] to everyone. [46:44] And what do you think [46:47] the toll [46:48] is for future [46:49] elections [46:50] and future [46:51] presidents [46:52] who try [46:53] to steal [46:54] an election? [46:55] I think [46:56] if we don't [46:57] hold people [46:58] to account [46:59] when they commit [47:00] crimes, [47:01] it sends [47:02] a message [47:03] that those [47:04] crimes are [47:05] okay, [47:06] but if [47:07] we don't [47:08] hold people [47:09] to account [47:10] for those [47:11] crimes, [47:12] we're [47:14] going to [47:15] end up [47:16] in a [47:17] terrible [47:18] situation. [47:19] So I think [47:20] we need [47:21] to [47:22] hold [47:23] people [47:24] to account [47:25] for [47:26] what's [47:27] going [47:28] on [47:29] in our [47:30] society. [47:31] We need [47:32] to [47:33] hold [47:34] people [47:35] to account [47:36] for those [47:37] crimes. [47:38] And if [47:39] we don't [47:40] hold people [47:41] to account [47:42] for those [47:43] crimes, [47:44] we're [47:51] going to [47:52] end up [47:53] in a [47:54] terrible [47:55] situation. [47:56] So I [47:57] think [47:58] we need [47:59] to hold [48:00] people [48:01] to account [48:02] for those [48:03] crimes, [48:04] and if [48:05] we don't [48:06] hold [48:07] people [48:08] to account [48:09] for [48:10] what's [48:11] has heard we would not be here isn't that correct well in that case donald trump wouldn't have done [48:18] many of the things i'm just no no i'm just asking if they had gone peacefully and patriotically [48:24] we would not have had a special prosecutor president trump would not have been indicted [48:29] there would not have been quote the attack on the foundations of our democracy correct [48:33] that's a hypothetical and i think it's a counterfactual hypothetical well in second [48:39] point in regards to what we just heard from my colleague from washington i think it's noteworthy [48:43] that uh the vice president despite the enormous toll that he has taken in these events was against [48:51] charging the president criminally in this case but in regards to my own experience mr smith i've [48:57] charged many conspiracies there's obviously a lot of benefit to that charge it's a useful tool for [49:02] fact-finding scrutinizing evidence figuring out exactly what happened um trying to form charges [49:09] trying to prove charges trying to solidify the evidence and in your case sir [49:14] you [49:14] you've detailed number one the unprecedented criminal scheme your words not mine in the [49:20] press conference you said there was an unprecedented assault on the seat of american democracy do you [49:26] remember saying that i believe so yes and in regards to your investigative authority it was [49:32] quite it was quite broad we've already established that you had millions of dollars at your disposal [49:37] you had teams of lawyers you had total subpoena power you used uh campaign officials as witnesses [49:44] you subpoenaed uh [49:46] you know millions of documents you had civilian witnesses you had political leaders you had [49:51] campaign officials that worked with the president folks who were in the room and after all of this [49:57] sir you charged a conspiracy and notably absent there was no insurrection charged there was no [50:05] seditious conspiracy charged and there was only one defendant correct donald trump that is correct [50:14] despite six co-conspirators identified in the indictment only one person was charged with a [50:21] charge is that correct yes despite there being an unprecedented criminal scheme you did not find it [50:30] necessary to charge anybody else who was admittedly by your own evidence involved in a criminal [50:36] conspiracy that amounted to an unprecedented assault on the seat of american democracy yes [50:46] at the time of uh the conclusion of our work uh my lawyers had determined uh had believed that we [50:53] did have proof to charge other people uh i was in the process of making that determination when our [50:59] work was concluded but you are correct that the only person charged in this case was donald trump [51:04] who in my estimation was the person most culpable for the crimes charged well i understand your [51:10] position sir but again you started at the very top and only charged the top conspirator in your [51:16] opinion you didn't charge anybody underneath him correct correct despite that charge requiring me [51:22] that you you would agree that a criminal [51:24] conspiracy federally is a criminal agreement correct yes so by extension people under your [51:32] theory people besides the president were involved in the unprecedented assault on american democracy [51:40] but you didn't find it necessary to charge them criminally i had not yet charged anyone besides [51:47] the president you didn't you decided not to charge anybody but donald trump in that indictment [51:53] consistent with the federal principles of prosecution which emphasize uh the degree [51:58] of someone's culpability in making a charging decision donald trump is the person that was i [52:03] understand that i understand your position but you made the decision to charge one person and nobody [52:10] else correct i made the decision to make the charges in this case in regards to the the uh the [52:16] way that the case handled from there sir i just want to get this on the record in regards to your [52:21] press conference politics played no role correct that is correct the charges you brought politics [52:27] played no role correct correct the expedited trial of the president of the united states of america [52:32] date played no role politics played no role correct i followed the facts and the law department [52:39] policy the speedy trial request there was no role in politics correct that's correct supreme court [52:45] precedent emphasizes that and even your brief that the court found atypical politics played no role [52:52] mr chairman the time is the time the gentleman has expired mr smith you've said several times [52:57] in your deposition that you believe that the facts and the law your interpretation of the law [53:02] would lead to a conviction of president trump is that correct [53:05] yes and did you believe that same thing that your interpretation of the law your reading of the law [53:14] would have resulted in the conviction when you went after virginia governor bob mcdonald back in [53:20] 2014. uh did you believe it at the time i did believe and uh and ultimately you got a conviction [53:29] in lower court but that was overturned by the supreme court correct yes the supreme court [53:34] changed the law on what constituted an official act actually that conviction was overturned that's [53:40] incorrect they applied the law and they said in their ruling our concern is not with tawdry tales [53:45] of ferraris rolexes and ball gowns it's instead with the broader legal implications of the [53:49] government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute a more limited interpretation of [53:55] the term official act leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption while comporting with [53:59] the text of the statute and the president of this court they accused you of using a boundless [54:05] interpretation of the federal bribery statutes now did you believe when you went after john edwards [54:10] that your interpretation of the facts in the law were correct and that you would [54:13] convict john edwards of corruption yes but in fact that case resulted in a jury deadlock on five [54:24] charges and acquittal on another charge is that correct that is my recollection that's correct [54:32] let's move on to the court's interpretation of your gag order requests mr smith america was [54:38] founded on the principle that the government doesn't silence political speech in particular [54:41] speech before it happens you sought a prior restraint against president [54:44] trump without a single violation of pre-trial release in fact there was no real-world harm [54:49] that you could articulate justified giving the federal government the power to silence him as [54:53] a presidential candidate was there the court granted those motions and found that the [54:59] prosecutor did not have to wait until someone was harmed to make such a motion actually the request [55:08] was uh rejected uh when the case was actually when when you actually uh were not able to [55:18] make such a motion it was restricted correct the gag order was restricted correct well we we filed [55:24] for an order in the district court the district court granted an order this uh president trump [55:30] appealed that order the court of appeals uh absolutely uh agreed that there was a basis [55:38] and that the threats to witnesses that came from the targeting by donald trump were real [55:43] and that we had a duty to protect them you are correct in that the uh court of appeals [55:49] followed the order so the order covered witnesses court staff the judge and my staff the difference [55:56] was that it didn't cover me anymore which i was fine with did you have any evidence that [56:01] president trump's statements about the cases against him intimidated witnesses or prevented [56:05] them from coming forward uh i had evidence that he said if you come after me i'm coming after you [56:12] he asked he suggested a witness should be put to death the courts found that those sort of [56:18] statements not only deter what they're saying but they're not the same statements that the courts [56:20] have come forward they deter witnesses who have yet to come forward but you weren't able to identify [56:25] a single witness who didn't come forward because they were intimidated by president trump uh we had [56:31] extremely thorough evidence that his statements were having an effect on the proceedings [56:38] that uh is not permitted in any court of law in the united states don't you think it's a pretty [56:43] low bar to clear if you're trying to silence a candidate for president i mean if you can't [56:47] identify a single witness who's intimidated that maybe you should reconsider the gag order [56:55] both courts upheld the orders and it is not uh incumbent on a prosecutor to wait [57:02] until someone gets killed before they move for an order to protect the proceedings did anyone on [57:07] your team raise concerns that this expansive gag order you were seeking would infringe on [57:11] president trump's first amendment rights my recollection is that we uh of course discussed [57:20] first amendment issues regarding this application because i and my staff respect the first amendment [57:28] and someone else and i can't be denied that the third amendment does not allow one uh to make [57:34] statements that interfere with the administer administration of justice and a judicial [57:39] proceeding uh my interpretation was uh supported and agreed upon by the district court uh and the [57:47] court of appeals in terms of the phenomena of the statements being made targeting individuals [57:53] causing threats to happen to them i would i would also add sir that in the days after uh [57:59] the district court in this case received vile threats threats to the district court's life [58:05] in that environment i felt a duty as a prosecutor to make that motion and i make no apologies and [58:12] the court stayed that motion on august 3rd 2024 i yield back thank you mr chair mr smith i want [58:17] to discuss volume two of your report which summarizes the findings of your investigation [58:23] into president trump's hoarding of classified documents at mar-a-lago and his efforts to [58:28] obstruct the fbi's investigation mr smith is it generally the practice for a special counsel's [58:34] report to be made public to the american people uh i want to say first uh i'm limited what i can [58:42] say about volume two because of judge cannon's order uh i can say generally that uh with respect [58:50] to special special counsels there are regulations uh that direct a special counsel to draft a report [58:56] whether that report becomes public is uh [58:59] the [58:59] the [58:59] Determined the attorney general has the authority to determine that to the best of your knowledge was special counsel Muller's report made public in full. I know it was made public. I'm not sure if it was made public in full. What about special counsel hers report? My recollection is his report was made made public in full. I believe that's correct. And special counsel Weiss's report. I do not know. Okay. Now I understand that the district judge alien cannon, the Trump appointee who oversaw the case in Florida is [59:35] issued a gag order that prevents you from discussing any parts of the classified documents investigation that is not already public. I understand that, including your findings that you laid out in volume two of that report. Am I correct that the reason your report is not available in full to the public is because of this gag order? I wrote a report. The attorney general was submitted to him. I understand generally that there's been litigation about whether this report would be public. [1:00:07] Or not. I have not been a party to that litigation. I just know that there is an order. And I know the Department of Justice, the current Department of Justice has interpreted that in order in a way that I cannot speak about anything that could possibly be in that report and its findings. And when Judge Cannon issued that gag order, she cited pending cases against Trump's co defendants. Is that correct? I'm sorry. When Judge Cannon issued the gag order, she cited the gag order. [1:00:37] She cited pending cases against Trump's co defendants. Is that correct? That's my recollection. Are those cases still pending? No, they're not. No, they're not. So there is no reason from where I sit for this important information to be not made public. At this point, I want to turn now to President Trump's attacks on you. Trump has a playbook for how he handles people who try to hold him accountable in August 2023, right after your office indicted him. President Trump shared the [1:01:10] playbook on social media for everyone to see. He wrote, if you go after me, I'm coming for you. Trump has said that you, Mr. Smith, should be investigated and put in prison. He called you a disgrace to humanity, a radical left Marxist, a criminal. In fact, Trump has used the words deranged Jack Smith 185 times on Truth Social. How do you think that these statements have impacted you, your staff, your [1:01:41] investigation? With respect to me, I think the reports, I'm sorry, the statements are meant to intimidate me. I will not be intimidated. I think these statements are also made as a warning to others what will happen if they stand up. And I am, as I said, I'm not going to be intimidated. We did our work pursuant to department policy. We followed the facts and we followed the law. And that process resulted in [1:02:15] proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed serious crimes. I'm not going to pretend that didn't happen because he's threatening me. And Mr. Smith, do you believe that President Trump's Department of Justice will find some way to indict you? I believe that they will do everything in their power to do that because they've been ordered to by the president. That's very concerning. Obviously, it's very concerning to all of us, at least on this side of the aisle. This is Trump's playbook at work. Complain loudly. [1:02:49] Gin up hatred and resentment. Then express a hope that somebody will do something but never explicitly order anyone to act. And then watch as his followers and loyalists go after their targets. This is what happened on January 6th. Trump stood at the ellipse and gave a campaign speech to his supporters and he said, if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. And I think it's clear that his intimidation will stop at nothing. I want to speak on behalf, in closing, I want to speak on behalf of the [1:03:20] on behalf of the people. No, I'm sorry. I'm sorry you have gone over numerous times. I am taking my few moments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. On behalf of the people of the state of Vermont, thank you for all of your 30 years of service to this country and to the police officers sitting here. I'm ashamed. I'm ashamed that you have not gotten your due. I yield back. [1:03:49] Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Smith, for being here today. Let's remember why we're here today. Donald Trump incited an insurrection in 2020 because he refused to accept that he lost that election. And when he and then he took classified documents with him and put them in Mar-a-Lago. Republicans support impunity for criminals, not accountability. There's no clearer example than that of the blanket pardon of nearly [1:04:20] 1,600 insurrectionists on day one of this disgraceful presidency. Trump pardoned people convicted of seditious conspiracy who brutalized police officers. There are four of them who can testify to that here and who wanted to kill Vice President Pence. People who've committed more crimes since the insurrection. Sexual assault, child molestation, aggravated kidnapping. That's who Trump pardoned and that's who [1:04:51] sentenced to death. [1:04:51] Republicans are on. They may not want to, but they are because they refuse to tell [1:04:56] the truth. Mr. Smith, let me ask you something. Does pardoning violent rioters [1:05:02] who brutalize law enforcement officers, spray-peppering them, tasering them, [1:05:08] beating them up, kicking them, smashing them in door frames, make our country [1:05:13] safer? Absolutely not. As a prosecutor, can you describe why these pardons make [1:05:24] our communities less safe and undermine our criminal legal system more broadly? [1:05:29] The people who assaulted police officers and were convicted [1:05:39] after trial, in my view, and I think in the view of the judges who sentenced [1:05:44] them to prison, are dangerous to their community. As you've mentioned, some of [1:05:49] these people have already committed crimes against their communities again, [1:05:54] and I think all of us, if we're reasonable, know that there's going to be [1:05:58] more crimes committed against them. [1:05:59] I do not understand why you would mass pardon people who assaulted police [1:06:08] officers. I don't get it. I never will. That's exactly right. And none of this is [1:06:16] a coincidence. The entire purpose of the Republican Party, unfortunately, has [1:06:22] become to help criminals and corporate interests evade accountability. [1:06:26] Republicans want impunity, not accountability. They want impunity, [1:06:31] not accountability, for the January 6th people, for the classified documents case, [1:06:36] for the Epstein files, for billionaires and big corporations, and for terror that [1:06:42] DHS is sowing on our streets. [1:06:46] The Gestapo tactics by ICE and CBP are the obvious result of President Trump and [1:06:52] the Republican Party that protect anyone who helps them turn our country into an [1:06:58] authoritarian gangster state. Whether it's storming the Capitol, to over- [1:07:02] overthrow an election or murdering people in broad daylight, [1:07:08] Republicans will back you if you back their political mafia and [1:07:12] racketeering operation. That's why Democrats must fight for accountability [1:07:18] through oversight, through legislation, evidence collection, and through [1:07:24] prosecution for the openly criminal acts that we're seeing in our communities every day. [1:07:30] Democracy doesn't exist without accountability, but you've got to have a spine. [1:07:36] I thank you, Mr. [1:07:39] Smith, for doing your part. Our community, our fight continues for accountability, not for impunity. [1:07:46] Thank you, and I yield back. [1:07:49] And lastly, I would like to quickly address the police officers of January 6th. Mr. Dunn, Mr. Fanone, [1:07:56] Mr. Gonel, Mr. Hodges, [1:07:58] I'm a member of the new select committee [1:08:01] to actually examine, actually examine what happened that day. And I can tell you, [1:08:07] gentlemen, that the fault does not lie with Donald Trump. It lies [1:08:13] with Yogananda Pittman and the U.S. Capitol leadership team. We know, we know [1:08:19] they had the intelligence and there was going to be a high propensity for violence that day. Claim my time, yeah. [1:08:27] You will be in order. The time belongs to the gentleman from Texas. We've had some disruptions already. We don't need that. [1:08:34] Let the gentleman, the gentleman may continue. [1:08:36] With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance to my distinguished colleague out of Jersey. [1:08:40] I just want to quickly go over something, because we keep rewriting history. The president said, [1:08:45] peacefully and patriotically. What don't we understand about peacefully and patriotically? [1:08:51] He asked for the National Guard. That was ignored. He asked Speaker Pelosi. What don't we understand that? [1:08:57] Will the gentleman yield for the question? Are you saying Nancy Pelosi controls the National Guard? [1:09:00] Wait a minute. [1:09:01] The president could have warned the National Guard if he wanted to, and you know that. [1:09:04] And finally- [1:09:04] My time, I lost some of my time. [1:09:06] The time belongs to the gentleman from New Jersey, you have a few more seconds. [1:09:08] And finally, how many elected officials say we're going to fight to win an election? [1:09:14] You terminology used all the time, seriously. [1:09:17] And of course, if they were guilty, they should be prosecuted. [1:09:20] The problem was, there were many in the mix. [1:09:23] The unanimous consensus. [1:09:24] The gentleman yields back. [1:09:24] The gentleman- [1:09:25] And last thing, your hand gestures, Mr. Fanone. [1:09:27] No, no, no, no, no. [1:09:28] You need medication. [1:09:29] The time of the gentleman has expired, the time of the gentleman has expired, the audience will be in order, the committee will be in order. [1:09:34] This concludes today's hearing. [1:09:35] We thank the- Mr. Chairman, forgive me, I just have one final question for you. [1:09:39] It begins really just as a point of order. [1:09:41] Okay. [1:09:42] Is it a point of order or a question? [1:09:45] It's a point of order leading to a question, if that's all right. [1:09:47] Wow, that's innovative. [1:09:49] Okay, so it's a- [1:09:51] I don't think that's in order, but because I'm such a nice guy- [1:09:54] Well, I appreciate that. [1:09:55] I'm going to let you state whatever you're stating. [1:09:56] It's straightforward and it's in good faith. [1:09:57] Okay, in good faith. [1:09:58] Because of nothing you've done and nothing that I've done, Jack Smith has not been able to answer the vast majority of questions. [1:10:04] About what's in volume two of his special counsel report relating to the stolen documents. [1:10:12] Now, it's been said that the judicial order that Eileen Cannon imposed will be lifted in February. [1:10:23] And so I guess my point of order is, do we intend to bring him back so he can answer questions about volume two and about the stolen documents case? [1:10:33] We'll take it under advisement. [1:10:34] Okay, well then- [1:10:35] We're going to see what the court decides to do, frankly. [1:10:36] I got you. [1:10:37] Well, then in that event, I've got the signatures of every member on our side who are writing to notify you of our intent to call him to testify in continuation of this hearing. [1:10:50] To answer all of the unanswered questions about the second half of his work. [1:10:54] That will certainly factor in tremendously when we make our decision. [1:10:57] Okay, because we have a right on the minority day to have a witness. [1:11:02] And we will exercise our right. [1:11:04] You're going to call him back again? [1:11:06] Yes. [1:11:07] Wow, okay. [1:11:08] We'll see. [1:11:09] We'll see. [1:11:10] Okay. [1:11:11] I'm citing rule 11 clause 2J- [1:11:12] We look forward to seeing the letter and we'll find out. [1:11:13] Thank you. [1:11:14] We'll take it all under advisement as we said. [1:11:15] That concludes today's hearing. [1:11:16] We thank the witness for appearing for the committee today. [1:11:20] Without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness or additional materials for the record. [1:11:29] Without objection, the hearing is adjourned. [1:11:32] For the first time, Jack Smith testified publicly. [1:11:33] Thank you. [1:11:34] On his two investigations into President Trump. [1:11:36] One on alleged election interference. [1:11:38] The other on alleged mishandling of classified documents. [1:11:41] Former special counsel defended his probe saying, quote, nobody is above the law. [1:11:45] President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law. [1:11:52] The very laws he took an oath to uphold. [1:11:55] CBS News justice correspondent Scott McFarland joins me now. [1:11:59] Scott, this went on all day. [1:12:01] There were, I guess, predictable partisan clashes about what Jack Smith did. [1:12:06] Or didn't do. [1:12:08] Very predictable. [1:12:09] Republicans appeared inordinately interested in the tolling records on phones that Republicans had in the House and Senate. [1:12:17] Democrats very curious about the underlying questions dealing with election interference. [1:12:21] But Jack Smith could not talk very much about the classified documents case. [1:12:25] First, tell our audience why. [1:12:26] He's limited by a court order right now speaking publicly about the classified records case in Florida because there's still some legal issues to iron out there. [1:12:33] You'll recall that case was dismissed in July 2020. [1:12:35] It was dismissed in July 2024 by a judge appointed by Trump who said Jack Smith wasn't lawfully appointed so the case had to go. [1:12:41] They were appealing that and that was stopped when Trump won reelection. [1:12:46] There's still some issues to iron out there. [1:12:48] So he couldn't talk about it. [1:12:49] There's a report he has. [1:12:50] He has a sealed report that the Trump Justice Department is trying to keep suppressed. [1:12:54] Is that correct? [1:12:55] In fact, the president and the administration just filed in court trying to keep that thing from coming out. [1:13:00] Now, that's not a permanent restriction on Jack Smith but it was relevant today. [1:13:04] Interesting. [1:13:05] What did we learn, if anything, about the election interference case? [1:13:08] What Jack Smith thought he had and some of the questions he got skeptically or supportively? [1:13:12] I filled a notebook. [1:13:13] Let me just tell you a top line. [1:13:14] Nothing we didn't really know already about the case. [1:13:16] But here's what I can tell you with certainty. [1:13:18] This was a cathartic moment for any number of critics of the president who don't think Jack Smith had his day in court and wanted to hear him explain what he had and what he was going to bring to a jury. [1:13:28] Jack Smith said among those things was overwhelming evidence, so much evidence it was difficult to contain it all and focus it on. [1:13:34] But evidence, he says, that would have convinced a jury to convict Donald Trump of election interference. [1:13:41] What's more, he said that Donald Trump was far and away the most responsible person for January 6th and the most responsible person for a conspiracy far and wide to overturn an American election. [1:13:51] I heard some Republicans questioning Jack Smith why he didn't indict other co-conspirators as if that was a sort of weakness in his case. [1:13:58] Republicans picked up on that. [1:14:00] Why was it only President Trump and why was it on the eve of an election, Don Jack Smith? [1:14:03] The inference there, it was political. [1:14:05] That's right. [1:14:06] And Jack Smith rebutted those criticisms. [1:14:08] There was a back and forth that was extended through the course of this hearing over those phone records you mentioned. [1:14:12] There was phone toll data, which means records were seized or searched that show where calls were made and to whom they were made, not the content of the calls. [1:14:20] Jack Smith did secure that for a number of Republican lawmakers who were believed to be targeted by Trump and his allies to help with the scheme to install fake electors and stop the election from being certified. [1:14:31] I think what Jack Smith was trying to argue. [1:14:32] . . [1:14:33] That was following Department of Justice policy. [1:14:35] And that's the thing a trained investigator would necessarily do. [1:14:39] And Jack Smith said one of the reasons he was curious about those phone calls was because Rudy Giuliani, the night of January 6, was still trying to call lawmakers to enlist them in efforts to block the certification of the electoral votes. [1:14:52] That's been the distinctive thing about Jack Smith's case from the start. [1:14:55] His argument was a unique one. [1:14:57] That Trump didn't incite an insurrection, according to Jack Smith's charges. [1:15:01] Trump used the insurrection. [1:15:02] the insurrection as a tool of a scheme to still continue to press those Republican lawmakers [1:15:08] after the vote had been stopped to flip and try to stop the certification. It's been a unique [1:15:13] argument. Jack Smith had a chance to make it today. And I think one thing you can guarantee, [1:15:18] Major, as congressional hearings always are, it was unfocused. People will clip out different [1:15:23] segments and shoot them out. There wasn't a whole lot of news there. But there's something [1:15:26] on the public record today that wasn't there yesterday. Scott McFarlane, thank you very much.