Josh Hawley blasts Jack Smith in heated election clash

[0:00] thank you very much mr chairman uh mr smith i have to start by saying i think that maybe i [0:05] underestimated you i underestimated in particular your comedic talent i've been watching this whole [0:12] hearing i've watched everything you said i noticed that you began by saying i have no partisan [0:17] loyalty and you repeated over and over and over there's nothing in your investigation about [0:22] politics that's hilarious in fact your investigation was all about politics from day one your [0:29] investigation so-called your prosecution so-called was nothing other than an attempt to interfere [0:35] politically in a presidential election in the united states of america you twice indicted a [0:43] presidential candidate the leading presidential candidate and a former president of the united [0:48] states during a presidential election against all justice department policy against all justice [0:54] department history something never before seen or contemplated in 250 years of this country's [0:59] history you did it anyway all for the purpose of keeping donald trump off the ballot all for the [1:06] purpose of denying the voters an opportunity to vote on a former president of the united states and at the [1:13] time the republican nominee for president we've never seen anything like it in our country's history before [1:18] if you'd had your way our elections in this country would be like russia's the one they just held oh they [1:23] had an election sure and they had an opposition sure it's just that putin chose the opposition [1:28] which is exactly what the biden justice department wanted to do with donald j trump and that's exactly [1:35] what you were doing twice indicted the president during the election tried to get his first trial [1:41] set for during the primaries in fact i think the first trial date you requested was like three days [1:46] before the iowa caucuses when all of that failed you then filed a superseding indictment a whole nother [1:52] indictment on october the second i believe 2024 five weeks before election day this despite the fact [2:00] that the public integrity division at justice and they must have gotten quite a workout while you were [2:03] around the public integrity division told you don't do it we're against it it will be seen as partisan [2:12] it will be seen as interfering and you did it anyway didn't you that's incorrect you filed the indictment [2:22] and indeed the public integrity division told you not to do it i've got it right here i've got your [2:26] notes from the meeting let's have a look they said to you these are your notes call with your team's [2:33] notes call with the public integrity division october august 17 2024 they said a large segment of the [2:38] population would see this as motivated bipartisan purposes and would not understand why the department [2:45] could not wait to supersede they said public integrity has no precedent it could cite to seek to [2:50] support a superseding indictment under these circumstances they said it's their advice you wait [2:55] to file this superseding indictment if you do it at all but you did it anyway because you were [3:01] desperate to stop donald j trump and then your top deputy went out and ran for congress as a democrat [3:09] boasting about it what was his name jp cooney do you remember him your deputy right he was your deputy jp cooney [3:15] yes he was right let's just take a look at his campaign poster running for congress as a democrat [3:21] boasting about the fact that he went after donald trump during an election here he is jp cooney candidate [3:27] for congress as a democrat in fact mr smith you have quite a history of every time the law or the [3:34] constitution got in your way you twist the facts you torture the facts you bend the law you wanted to [3:40] accuse donald trump for example of carrying on a vast right-wing conspiracy with members of congress [3:48] during the electoral count and so you went to try to get senators phones and their phone records and [3:54] their text messages the only problem was the constitution protects members of congress work product [4:02] and their phone records and you you knew that was the case didn't you i understand there are [4:08] constitutional protections we followed the constitution oh you didn't you didn't even attempt to in fact you [4:13] told the attorney general you briefed the attorney general we've got the memo right here you told [4:17] the attorney general that indeed members likely have a valid speech or debate privilege immunizing [4:24] them from compelled testimony mr chairman i'd ask consent this be entered into the record [4:27] objection so ordered you knew that but you went ahead anyway in fact you were also told that federal [4:35] case law that is the courts said that it doesn't matter how you try and get the material whether you go to [4:43] the senators directly or whether you go to phone companies the speech and debate clause still applies [4:49] you were told that either way the senators were likely to need to be notified to be able to assert [4:54] their privileges weren't you i don't believe that's accurate really because here's a memo to you from [5:02] your own office john pelletari january 8 2023 i've got it right here i'd ask now mr chairman this be entered [5:08] into the record it's entitled speech or debate litigation summary in which you are told it's [5:15] addressed to you to jack smith special counsel from john m pelletari assistant special counsel in which [5:22] you are told the rayburn decision requires the government to give a member of congress the [5:27] opportunity to assert privilege and it was your office's own assessment it didn't matter what matter [5:32] whether you went to the member or whether you went to a phone company you still had to do it but you [5:38] decided to ignore that blow right through it you went to the phone companies and you hid the fact [5:49] from the court that you were seeking the records of members of congress didn't you you didn't tell the [5:55] court you were seeking subpoenas from the phone companies for members of congress did you you you [5:59] hid that from the court isn't that correct we did not say who the subpoenas were for when we sought [6:06] a non-disclosure order that exactly correct yeah exactly right i mean here's your deposition before [6:12] the house when you were asked when you sought these orders the judge didn't know it was a member of [6:17] congress is that correct and you said i don't think we identified that so instead what you decided to do [6:24] was you didn't tell the members of congress my phone was one of them that you got you didn't tell [6:28] the court you went to the phone companies you didn't alert the court so that members would have [6:33] a chance to assert their privileges you just ran rough rod shot over the whole thing and then you [6:37] also knew there was a federal law in addition to the constitution there was a federal law that requires [6:43] the phone companies to notify members of congress to be able to notify members of congress when their [6:49] records are requested but you prevented the companies effectively from doing that by seeking a gag order [6:55] against them didn't you i don't think that's accurate oh indeed it is and we have the gag order [7:03] right here i mean let's just look at at what you said to the court this is number one you had the [7:10] court sign a gag order a non-disclosure order finding and you testified earlier today that you [7:15] wrote it that the court has reasonable grounds to believe that disclosure will result in destruction [7:21] of or tampering with evidence intimidation of witnesses and serious jeopardy of the investigation [7:27] so you did of course when you had the court sign this you didn't tell the court you were seeking [7:31] the records of members of congress so the constitution requires you to notify members you didn't do that [7:37] it requires you if you're going to go to phone companies to give the members a chance to assert [7:41] privilege you didn't do that it requires you to tell the court when you're going to go after [7:45] members phone records you didn't do that it requires you to allow the phone companies to notify [7:49] members you got the court under false pretenses to prevent the companies from doing so [7:55] anytime the law stood in your way anytime the constitution stood in your way you just ignored [8:02] it is that why you lied to the house under oath about getting member text messages i answered every [8:11] question i was asked truthfully oh i don't proud of our investigation no well you shouldn't be you should [8:16] be totally ashamed let me just ask you this on december 17 2025 you told the house that you had never [8:24] gotten text messages from members of congress let's have a look here's what you said to the house did [8:31] you seek a search warrant for the content of any text messages of members you say from members yes you [8:40] say i don't recall it was i don't recall that it was just toll records you say correct now do you recall [8:47] this exchange with the house on december 2017 2025 i i see it there okay good but on june the 2nd 2023 [8:56] two full years earlier you demanded from the national archives records that included text messages [9:03] from 44 united states senators and members of congress and indeed you got all of those records [9:12] isn't that correct yes and i'm happy to explain that if you'll give me oh no i understand that you got [9:17] them we all understand and we know it not because you told us but because the department of justice [9:22] disclosed it so two full years before this deposition you are in possession of text messages [9:29] from 44 members of congress that you went and subpoenaed you read them within 30 minutes the [9:36] department of justice told this committee they said that within an hour of receiving those text messages [9:42] your team was reading them and yet not only did you not notify any member of congress whose text messages [9:49] you obtained pursuant to your process you told the house two full years later having read all 44 [9:56] members messages you told them you'd never gotten messages you'd never requested messages from any [10:01] member of congress that was a lie mr smith and you may try your lawyer your way out of it well it wasn't [10:09] from the member it was from the archives you knew exactly what you were being asked and you deliberately [10:15] misled them you're a smart guy i think that's pretty clear but you use your ability and the powers [10:22] of your office to lie to the court to lie to congress to lie to the american people to lie to the house [10:29] it's the worst abuse of prosecutorial power in the history of the united states and all i have to say [10:35] is i'm glad you failed i don't know what our democracy would be like if you had succeeded in your [10:40] effort to interfere in the workings of a presidential election if it were up to me i'd charge you with [10:47] perjury but you should certainly be disbarred and i can only pray that nothing like this will ever [10:53] happen again in the united states of america thank you mr chairman