Jack Smith SHUTS DOWN Sen. Grassley’s Attack: “My Team Was Targeted Illegally”

[0:00] i'm not aware of any whistleblowers being investigated i believe public servants should [0:07] be protected the members of my team that you just mentioned i'm extremely proud to have worked with [0:13] them and the fact that they have been targeted illegally lost their jobs illegally and had their [0:19] lives turned upside down by this department of justice is an outrage well you said you didn't [0:25] know about it and i gave you evidence that they asked for investment what you're about to watch is [0:31] one of those congressional exchanges where the argument sounds simple at first until you start [0:35] looking at what is actually underneath it senator chuck grassley is pressing former special counsel [0:40] jack smith over how his investigation into donald trump handled donor information congressional [0:44] communications whistleblower complaints classified material and constitutional protections and [0:50] grassley is making some very serious accusations about smith's team smith meanwhile is defending [0:55] the investigation as a legitimate effort to investigate the events surrounding january 6 [0:59] and the effort to disrupt the transfer of presidential power and there's an important [1:03] distinction here some of the underlying records are documented while some of grassley's conclusions [1:08] about what those records prove remain contested so listen closely because the interesting part isn't [1:13] just who talks louder it's what the evidence actually shows and what it doesn't if you want [1:18] political commentary that explains the story instead of just replaying the shouting match hit subscribe [1:23] now watch this exchange in your public statements and testimony here today you've given blowing assessment [1:32] of your staff saying that they had an unwavering commitment to justice regardless of personal costs [1:40] that is blatantly untrue you're apparently in denial based on the litany of wrongdoing and political bias [1:49] supported by reams of evidence that i've referenced in my opening statements and i've either released [1:56] documents or will today that proves this moreover in your public report you said in part quote those materials [2:05] comprised a small part of the office's investigative record end of quote you're referring to the j6 committee [2:17] the j6 committee report that memo also said your staff quote went over it page by page and incorporated it [2:45] into investigative plan end quote the memo also said you quote unquote will leverage the report to avoid certain [2:55] interviews your report provided false information to the public your staff also obtained subpoena returns [3:04] that included the content of messages of 44 members of congress not just toll records as you [3:12] as you testified previously based on information provided to the committee that content was shared [3:22] with case agents and prosecutors before it went through any filter review for privileged information which [3:32] should have been done like it's been in other cases those are clear violations by your staff in addition [3:40] your deputy jp cuny said he'd quote prosecute any nun who still wears a head habit end of quote then cooney also [3:51] said regarding the speech and debate clause quote i'm an advocate for repealing the clause end of quote lastly [4:01] cooney and molly gaston filed a complaint with the justice department inspector general your staff [4:09] asks for the inspector general to investigate whistleblowers who bravely exposed abuses of authority to congress [4:20] by you and your staff these are just some of the violations of law or policy that your staff and office [4:28] committed and that doesn't include all the violations of disgraced former fbi agents like debo and jardina [4:37] committed while creating false predicate for your cases and others so question number one out of six i [4:45] have should whistleblowers who made lawful disclosures to congress about your taxpayer funded work [4:52] be investigated i'm not aware of any whistleblowers being investigated i believe public servants should [5:06] be protected the members of my team that you just mentioned i'm extremely proud to have worked with them [5:12] and the fact that they have been targeted illegally lost their jobs illegally and had their lives turned [5:19] upside down by this department of justice is an outrage well you said you didn't know about it and i [5:25] gave you evidence that they asked for investigation by the inspector general question number two [5:31] did your special counsel obtain uh special counsel operation obtain possession of donor data including [5:40] financial information yes or no our investigation uh was focused on uh investigating uh matters under my [5:53] mandate including whether any person or entity violated the law with attempts to block the peaceful transfer [6:01] of power let me uh let me ask the question again did your special counsel operation obtain possession of donor [6:09] data to include financial information yes or no yes we acquired financial information as i sit here right now i cannot [6:19] recite to you every subpoena we issued i can tell you why we issued subpoenas and it was to conduct [6:25] a criminal investigation of one of the most serious crimes that's ever happened in our nation's history [6:30] i had a duty to collect facts let me say indeed you did and you answered yes accordingly to protect [6:37] disclosures to my office you obtained at least 4782 donor checks many of those checks were five to ten dollars [6:49] the list includes checks from constituents in every state of every single member of this committee [6:55] both republicans and democrats it included 42 checks from iowans who dared to donate money to republicans [7:04] no matter what you say there is no legitimate basis for what you did especially since your staff killed [7:11] an investigation into the clinton campaign donations to republican groups wasn't necessary for your [7:20] investigation which is proved out by the fact that it was not mentioned in your public report [7:27] now the justice department the fbi will forever possess thousands of people's address [7:34] phone number bank and bank account number bank routing number and a copy of their true signature every [7:43] member of this committee ought to be outraged for what happened to their constituents i hope my [7:48] democratic colleagues will join me in this outrage question number three in october last year i asked you [7:57] this question but you never responded did you ever use a personal device for work purposes to include [8:05] communications such as email text or creation or editing of work product if so do you commit to [8:13] providing that material to the committee if not are you testifying that you've complied with all federal [8:20] records requirements uh yes uh when i first became special counsel uh i did not have a government phone or [8:32] government computer and so in the initial days when i was uh appointed and i was still living in the netherlands [8:38] uh i did use a personal device and email to communicate with folks in the justice department what i did when i got [8:47] government accounts is made sure uh to the best of my ability that those uh that information was forwarded to [8:54] government accounts so it would be within the federal records act i sought at all times to comply with the federal records [9:03] act as i expected uh my attorneys to do as well following up on my opening statement for the classified [9:11] document case where did you store the classified material decide describe the skiff arrangements for both doj and fbi [9:20] personnel during and after the court sessions i can't speak to fbi facilities i can explain [9:34] uh our office uh had a skiff a place to store classified information and my recollection is that there was [9:43] at least in florida an ability to store it there i can't recall if it was at the fbi field office or at [9:50] the courthouse but we had a a skiff at our office uh as part of our investigation uh knowing that classified [9:59] information would be involved in the investigation yeah i said in my opening statement that one of your [10:05] staff members suggested leaving the door open which is obviously be a violation of law question [10:12] number five have you ever received any consultation or counsel by john brennan former cia director whether [10:20] during your time as special counsel or otherwise if so when and for what purpose i've never met john [10:31] brennan okay have you ever well i guess you've answered my follow-up question question [10:42] number six and the last question when you became special counsel what direction did you give your [10:49] staff to handle speech or debate and attorney general attorney client material did you issue any [10:58] directories if so to whom and please explain so with respect to the speech or debate clause first [11:10] we took our obligations seriously under the speech or debate clause it's in my view an important part of [11:15] the separation of powers i had members of my staff uh who were very familiar with the clause having [11:22] worked in the public integrity section for years uh we also uh when it was appropriate or required [11:29] consulted with the public integrity section regarding application of that clause let me let me follow up [11:35] with this mr smith no amount of explanation can take away from documentary record my opening remarks and [11:43] the statements i made about your staff's clear failure show unequivocally how you breached constitutional [11:51] parameters and failed to require your staff to comply with relevant rules using the terrible acts on january [11:59] 6 as a predicate for your misguided investigation is irresponsible to that end either you are the world's [12:06] works manager or you shared your staff's political animus to fuel your partisan investigation an [12:14] investigation that ruined the lives of many innocent people senator durman okay now let's slow this down [12:21] for a second because there is a lot happening in that exchange and if you only watch the clip as a [12:25] political shouting match you're going to miss the actual issue grassley came into this hearing with a [12:30] very specific argument that jack smith's investigation went beyond investigating january 6 and the effort to [12:36] interfere with the peaceful transfer of power and that his team swept up information belonging to [12:41] republican donors members of congress journalists and others that's not a minor allegation grassley's [12:47] office says records show smith's team obtained at least 4782 donor checks from people across all 50 [12:53] states washington dc and puerto rico those checks reportedly contain sensitive information including [12:59] addresses bank account information routing numbers and signatures so when grassley asks essentially why did [13:06] your investigation need this information that's the real question underneath all the political [13:10] theater and yes the word theater is appropriate here congressional hearings have never exactly been [13:16] famous for their indoor voices but underneath the shouting is a legitimate oversight question what [13:22] information did investigators obtain why did they obtain it and how directly was it connected to the [13:27] criminal investigation smith's answer was basically that his team obtained financial information [13:32] because it was investigating potential crimes connected to efforts to interfere with the peaceful [13:36] transfer of power and grassley pushes back by emphasizing that many of these were ordinary americans who [13:42] had donated relatively small amounts of money to trump or republican aligned organizations now here's [13:48] where we need to separate the facts from the political spin the fact that investigators obtained financial [13:52] information does not by itself prove that the investigation was politically motivated or unlawful [13:58] investigators can subpoena financial records when they believe those records are relevant to a criminal [14:02] investigation so the real question isn't simply did they get the information the question is was [14:09] obtaining it legally authorized appropriately limited and actually relevant to the investigation that's [14:17] a much harder question grassley also raises the issue of congressional communications he alleges that [14:22] smith's team obtained message content involving 44 members of congress and that investigators had access [14:28] to the material before privileged information was properly filtered now that's serious if proven but [14:34] notice the important distinction an allegation made during a hearing is not automatically a proven [14:39] violation just because somebody delivers it with a very serious expression nice try washington if [14:45] investigators violated the speech or debate clause or failed to properly protect privileged congressional [14:49] material congress absolutely should investigate that but if the evidence shows the required legal [14:55] procedures were followed then the political accusation gets a lot weaker that's why documentation matters more [15:00] than volume then grassley moves into the personal device issue and this is where the viral clips [15:06] can get misleading smith acknowledges that when he was first appointed special counsel he did not [15:10] yet have a government phone or computer because he was still living in the netherlands he says he [15:16] used a personal device and email to communicate with justice department personnel during that initial [15:20] period but he also says that once government accounts were established he forwarded the information [15:25] to government accounts and complied with federal records requirements so no the answer wasn't i never used a [15:31] personal device he admitted that he did but that's different from proving that he deliberately hid [15:36] government records or violated federal records law and that distinction matters a 20-second clip can [15:42] make a complicated records question look like a confession when the actual exchange is much more nuanced [15:47] then grassley moves into classified information and security procedures smith says his office had access to a [15:53] sif a secure facility designed for handling classified information he also says he couldn't remember every detail [16:00] about specific fbi facilities grassley then connects that to an allegation involving a staff member who [16:05] supposedly suggested leaving a door open if that allegation is substantiated obviously that's serious [16:12] but again we're dealing with separate factual questions was there actually a security violation was [16:17] classified information improperly handled was there a legitimate investigative reason for obtaining the donor records [16:24] were congressional communications properly screened for privilege were whistleblowers improperly [16:29] targeted those questions need evidence and this is where grassley's larger political argument starts [16:35] to become very clear republicans are trying to build the case that the trump investigations weren't [16:40] simply aggressive law enforcement they want to establish that federal investigative power was used [16:45] improperly against trump republican organizations and ordinary republican supporters smith's defense is essentially [16:52] the opposite he says his team was investigating what he viewed as an extraordinarily serious effort to [16:57] interfere with the peaceful transfer of power and that investigators had a responsibility to follow [17:02] the evidence wherever it led so the central dispute isn't whether smith investigated trump we already know [17:07] he did the real dispute is over the scope and methods of that investigation were investigative tools [17:17] used appropriately were subpoenas sufficiently connected to the criminal investigation were constitutional protections [17:23] respected were ordinary citizens swept into the investigation unnecessarily and did the [17:28] investigative record justify the breadth of what investigators collected those are the questions [17:33] that actually deserve answers and here's where grassley's argument needs some skepticism he points to the [17:39] donor checks and essentially argues that because these were ordinary republican supporters the information [17:44] couldn't have been necessary but that's not automatically true an investigative subpoena can produce [17:49] information belonging to people who aren't accused of wrongdoing the existence of innocent people in a [17:54] subpoena return doesn't by itself prove the subpoena was unlawful that's why relevance and legal [17:59] authority matter at the same time smith saying i had a duty to collect the facts doesn't magically settle [18:05] the issue either that's not a magic phrase if investigators collected substantially more sensitive [18:11] information than was reasonably necessary that deserves scrutiny both things can be true an investigation can have [18:17] a legitimate criminal purpose while particular investigative methods still deserve serious oversight and honestly that's