Jack Smith's Hearing Just Exposed Who Really Knew What Happened on January 6th

[0:00] and four of the brave officers who defended the Capitol and defended my colleagues on the other [0:06] side of the aisle are here today. Not a single Republican member of this committee has recognized [0:14] them or thanked them for their service, and I would like to do so today. Thank you, gentlemen. [0:20] Jack Smith is no longer a special counsel, but he's still at the center of the fight over January 6th. [0:27] At this House Judiciary hearing, a Democrat uses him to make the case that Donald Trump [0:32] knew he lost in 2020. A Republican uses him to make the opposite case and to attack how his [0:38] investigation was run. So who has the better of the argument? Let's go through the testimony. [0:44] This is the Capitol Brief. A gentleman from New York is recognized for five minutes. [0:48] I would caution my friend from South Carolina and others against jumping into bed with Judge Cannon, [0:54] who's been rebuked repeatedly by the 11th Circuit because she is completely lawless. [1:01] But let's go back to the actual evidence rather than all the procedural stuff about when you were [1:06] sworn in or not. I don't blame you for not remembering that. You've been probably sworn in [1:11] a dozen times. It doesn't jump out at you. I want to go back to the evidence though that Donald Trump [1:17] knew that he was lying about the election. And I'd ask you to say, if you could, specifically, [1:26] who gave evidence to you that supported your conclusion that he knew that he was lying? [1:36] That came from a number of sources. It came from staff in the White House who talked to him and told him [1:45] that his fraud claims were not true. It came from staff on his campaign who told him that. It came from [1:53] members of the Department of Justice. It came from state officials who, when he tried to press them [2:02] to do things in contravention of their oath, they refused to. They asked him for evidence and his [2:08] co-conspirators and they never provided it. Over and over again, the people who had the best, [2:17] who were best situated to know how the elections were conducted in these states, he either avoided [2:23] contacting them or disregarded the clear debunkings that were provided to him, such as by the Georgia [2:31] Secretary of State. That's the core question of the case Smith never got to try. Smith charged Trump in [2:37] August 2023 with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. The sources he lists are on the public [2:44] record. White House and campaign staff, state officials and Georgia's Secretary of State, Brad [2:50] Raffensperger, who told Trump directly that his fraud claims were wrong. Trump has always said he [2:57] believed the election was stolen and that belief is central to his defense. After he won in 2024, [3:04] the Justice Department dropped the case under its policy against prosecuting a sitting president. [3:09] So Smith's evidence was never tested in front of a jury. That matters for both sides. [3:15] Right. And I mean, that's a lot of evidence, but we know that his attorney general at the time [3:22] also concluded, quote, he knew well that he lost the election, Bill Barr. And yet he incited a riot on [3:30] January 6th and four of the brave officers who defended the Capitol and defended my colleagues [3:38] on the other side of the aisle are here today. Not a single Republican member of this committee [3:45] has recognized them or thanked them for their service. And I would like to do so today. Thank [3:51] you, gentlemen. Now, my colleague from California referred to a couple statements from your former [3:58] colleagues in Penn and the Eastern District about your impeccable reputation as an apolitical career [4:05] politician. As an alum of the Southern District of New York myself, I can tell you that many of my former [4:12] colleagues also feel the same. And that's saying something coming from the SDNY to the EDNY, as you know. [4:20] Mr. Smith, did you ever speak to President Biden about this case? [4:25] Mr. Smith, did you ever receive orders or direction from President Biden or anyone else in the White [4:33] House about this case? Mr. Smith, did you ever receive any direction from the Attorney General Merrick [4:40] Garland regarding how you should, whether or not you should charge this case? Mr. Smith, no, [4:47] I was given the independence to make that decision on my own. Mr. Smith, an independent special counsel. [4:52] Exactly. I just want to point out to my colleagues who seem to think this is a [4:57] politicized investigation that on February 10th, over a month, 2021, over a month after January 6th, [5:07] Marco Rubio said the January 6th attack on the Capitol was far more dangerous than most realize, [5:15] and we have a criminal justice system in place to address it. Who oversaw the Department of Justice [5:23] on February 10th, 2021? Who was president? [5:32] February 10th, 2021. That would be Joe Biden. [5:37] So Marco Rubio wanted Joe Biden's Department of Justice to investigate Donald Trump and his [5:44] January 6th insurrectionist. Here's the independence question. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed [5:52] Smith in November 2022. And under oath, Smith says neither Garland nor anyone at the White House directed [6:00] whether to charge. Republicans aren't convinced. They point to the timing, with charges landing as [6:06] Trump ran for president again, and to the wider tactics of the investigation, which we'll get to. [6:13] Goldman's point about Marco Rubio is that early on, even some Republicans said the justice system [6:19] should deal with January 6th. And on the officers in the room, around 140 police were injured that day, [6:25] recognizing them shouldn't be a partisan act. That's not about party loyalty. It's about accountability. [6:33] I want to ask you in my last few seconds, Mr. Smith, you're not the first special counsel to [6:40] investigate Donald Trump. Special counsel Mueller, also of impeccable integrity, concluded that the [6:46] 2016 Trump campaign welcomed foreign interference from Russia and used it to help them. Donald Trump has [6:55] made it a litmus test to be hired in this administration to say that the 2020 election was [7:04] fraudulent, even though, as you have established, it was not. And now there are senior officials in this [7:10] government who are responsible for protecting our elections who have our election deniers. Can you [7:18] describe in a few seconds what your concerns are about the upcoming election based on your investigation [7:25] and what we know today? I believe political litmus tests are not proper for career prosecutors. [7:35] I think my experience over 30 years as a prosecutor in the Department of Justice is having people who [7:42] are not guided by party allegiance, but guided by experience. That's how you can trust the criminal [7:48] justice system. It's the same way with our election system. Gentlemen's time has expired. [7:53] I yield back. Gentlemen yields back. Gentlemen from Wisconsin is recognized. [7:57] Aye. Now hold on, because one claim here needs a careful check. Robert Mueller did find that Russia [8:04] interfered in 2016 and that the Trump campaign expected to benefit from it. But Mueller did not [8:11] establish that the campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia. Goldman's summary goes further than the [8:18] report did. His point about loyalty tests is his own claim. But Smith's answer is worth hearing. [8:25] Prosecutors, he says, should be guided by experience, not party. With the midterms days away, [8:31] that's a standard both parties say they want and should be held to. [8:36] Yeah. First of all, just a couple of comments. There are probably 10 people on this committee who have [8:41] more conversations with 10, 15 people on this committee who have more conversations with Donald Trump than [8:46] 10, 15 people on this committee who have more conversations with us. But anybody who says that [8:49] Donald Trump thought he won that election, that is just plain not true. No way, unless he's the best [8:56] actor in the history of, uh, of this building. We agree. Did Donald Trump believe? Order. Or he, [9:07] Donald Trump did not believe, Donald Trump did not believe he lost that election. He just didn't. No way. [9:14] Um, and I think on January 6th, I think, I can't believe there were any congressmen here who didn't [9:23] think Joe Biden was going to be sworn as president. So this was, it was a riot, but it wasn't a, a threat [9:29] to the future of the Republic. Okay. Uh, now we should have, uh, posted up here, uh, a document for you to [9:38] look at. Here we are. Okay. Uh, this is something we received with regard to Arctic frost. It's a [9:45] list of about 70 names. I don't know whether or not you're familiar with the document. I don't [9:54] believe I'm familiar with this document. Okay. The document contains just about every person who was [10:03] higher up in the Donald Trump campaign. There's a little more emphasis on here on people involved [10:08] in Wisconsin, but you're not familiar with the document. I'm sorry, sir. What was your question? [10:16] Are you, would you know what was in this document? These names, you familiar with them at all? Um, [10:27] they're under the impression that most of these people, maybe almost all of them [10:31] were subpoenaed by you at some time or other. That helps you. Uh, some of these names I, I am [10:38] familiar with, uh, others I'm not familiar with, or I don't recall as I sit here now. [10:44] This is the Republican case and it's not trivial. Arctic frost was the FBI investigation that became [10:51] part of Smith's work. Last year, Senate Republicans released records showing investigators had obtained [10:58] phone toll records, which log calls, but not their content for several Republican senators. [11:05] Grothman says a list of around 70 names, including a Wisconsin radio host, [11:10] shows how wide it went. Smith says he doesn't recognize the document. Supporters of the investigation [11:17] say records like these are routine in large conspiracy cases. Critics say they're a dangerous [11:24] reach into political speech. On January 6th itself, Grothman calls it a riot, not a threat to the [11:31] republic. More than 1500 people were charged. Almost all were pardoned or had their sentences commuted [11:39] when Trump returned to office. Okay. We'll eventually submit another, uh, question for you on this later on. [11:46] Um, from the time you were appointed as special counsel to your resignation in January, in January, 2025, [11:55] did you ever have contact with the January 6th select committee? Uh, I did not personally. When I became [12:04] special counsel, I directed, uh, my deputy to, uh, uh, ask the select committee to provide us whatever [12:13] evidence they would provide us. Uh, so you directed people to have direct contact? I directed, uh, [12:19] my deputy to make contact, to, uh, collect evidence from them. And that's JP Cooney. JP Cooney, [12:25] my deputy. Correct. Okay. Did you have any concern that the evidence collected by the [12:30] partisan select committee would be in any way tainted by politics? I apologize, sir. I just couldn't [12:37] hear you because of the door. I'm sorry. We had people going through here. Did you have any concern [12:41] that the evidence collected by the partisan select committee would be in any way tainted by politics? [12:46] Uh, I intended to conduct an independent investigation and my goal was to collect the evidence, [12:53] assess it, and consider it with all the other evidence we would collect and make an independent [12:58] determination, uh, in my investigation, separate from that investigation. I'm going to go back and [13:02] ask you something on that one before, cause I, I think I know the answer. There's a person on that [13:08] list by the name of Vicki McKenna, who we believe did have, uh, her record subpoenaed. Are you familiar [13:15] with that name at all? Uh, as I sit here right now, I am not familiar with that name. Okay. Thank you. [13:24] Um, uh, with regard to, um, part of the documents that you received was with regard to Cassidy, Cassidy [13:33] Hutchison, right? Uh, we, we requested that they give us everything, uh, they were willing to give us. [13:41] As I sit here now, I don't recall if specifically her information was in there, but I, I'm not denying [13:47] that it was, it may well have been. Okay. Uh, we'll go back. Your team issued subpoenas to various [13:53] financial institutions, telecommunications providers, and conservative entities, uh, requesting [13:59] communications between them and President Trump's campaign, right? Uh, we did issue, uh, subpoenas for [14:06] various sorts of information, correct? Okay. And the bank records, you would say, or we could [14:11] describe were fairly broad, the request? Uh, we, uh, issued, uh, subpoenas for certain bank records [14:20] as part of our investigation. Yes. Okay. Shortly after you're appointed, you issued subpoenas to state [14:25] and local officials for their communications with President Trump. Is that correct? Uh, and his [14:31] campaign? Uh, I, as I sit here now, I'm trying to recall specifically, uh, which officials, but I know we [14:40] issued a number of subpoenas in our investigation to understand the communications between President [14:46] Trump and, uh, various entities, including, uh, state officials. One final question. One quick final [14:54] question. Uh, yeah. Do you really believe that President Trump thinks he lost that election? Yes. Uh, [15:02] our investigation following the facts and the law, uh, determined that... No way. Thank you. That's enough. [15:09] So where does this leave us? Groffman's last question is the whole hearing in one line. [15:14] Does Trump think he lost? Smith says, yes. His investigation found that. Groffman says, no way. [15:22] Neither of them can prove what was in Trump's mind. And because the case was dropped, no jury ever [15:27] decided it. Here's where I draw the line. Democrats are right that the evidence of pressure on state [15:33] officials is extensive and public. Republicans are right to ask hard questions about how widely [15:40] investigators cast their net. Those are not the same thing and both deserve answers. Now, [15:46] I want to hear from you. Did Trump believe he won? And did Smith's investigation go too far? [15:52] Tell me in the comments and give me your reasoning, not just your team. And subscribe to [15:58] the Capitol brief for more congressional hearings and commentary that looks beyond the headlines.