SUPERCUT: Most Shocking Moments From Jack Smith's Testimony Before The Senate Judiciary Committee

[0:00] and it was disgraceful. Let's just talk about the United States Senate. [0:05] You issued subpoenas for more than 20% of the Republicans in the Senate seeking their phone [0:12] records. You did so, and then you obtained orders, non-disclosure orders from Judge [0:23] Boesberg. I believe Judge Boesberg should be impeached for his complicity in your abuse of [0:27] power. Now, Judge Boesberg signed orders, and I want to read from the order Judge Boesberg signed [0:34] that I didn't know about, that the Republican senators targeted here didn't know about. [0:39] I want to read from the order. Quote, the court finds reasonable grounds to believe such disclosure, [0:49] in other words, disclosing to me that you were subpoenaing my phone records, will result in [0:55] destruction of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses, and serious [1:00] jeopardy to the investigation. Mr. Smith, do you have any evidence whatsoever to believe that I [1:06] and 20% of the members of the Republicans in the Senate will engage in destruction or tampering [1:14] of evidence and intimidation of potential witnesses? No, we had powerful evidence that Donald Trump and [1:20] his associates... Am I Donald Trump? You are not, sir. Are the members of the Senate Donald Trump? [1:27] No. Was this order directed at Donald Trump? No, I believe that... Did your office draft this order [1:34] that Judge Boesberg signed, and he signed them like he was signing Denny's Menus, one at a time, [1:39] over and over and over again? Facts be damned. Did your office draft this? [1:44] I'd have to look, but I'm assuming that's the correct order, and if so, we did, and I'm happy [1:49] to explain why we did, if you'd like. Good. I want you to tell us right now... Are you an officer [1:54] of the court? Yes. I want to tell us, did you have a shred of evidence that 20% of the Republicans [2:03] in the Senate will destroy evidence and intimidate witnesses? We had a strong reason to believe that [2:12] Donald Trump would destroy evidence and... That was not directed at Donald Trump. [2:16] It was stated disclosing it to members of the Senate. No, it was stated disclosing it to anyone, [2:22] and we do not have to wait for someone to be injured, for an investigation to be obstructed. [2:29] We had strong reason to believe that Donald Trump would obstruct our investigation, [2:35] given the obstruction alleged in the Florida indictment, given the attempts to intimidate witnesses [2:41] in the election case, given the threats that were later made to witnesses in the election case. [2:47] I, as a prosecutor, have a duty... Mr. Smith, are you aware of the statute to USC, [2:52] Section 6628? Yes, I am. That specifically protects Senate communication records and makes [3:01] this non-disclosure agreement that you gave Judge Boesberg and that he signed that makes it illegal. [3:07] Were you aware of it at the time? I do not recall discussing this statute at the time. [3:14] Did you bring it to the judge's attention? I do not recall this being part of our application. [3:21] So instead, you gave the judge an order that was contrary to federal law and you got the judge to [3:28] sign order after order after order that was contrary to federal law. Is that right? [3:31] No. We sought to follow department policy and the law at all times. [3:36] Excuse me, does department policy contravene federal statute? [3:40] It does not. And we intended to follow them both. We submitted these non-disclosure orders [3:46] consistent with the law and department policy. [3:49] By the way, when you sought my phone records from AT&T, a number of senators had their phone [4:01] records with Verizon. Verizon, unfortunately, was more than happy to comply. AT&T declined to hand over [4:08] my phone records because they concluded doing so would be unconstitutional. It would violate the [4:14] speech and debate clause. Now, ordinarily, when a prosecution seeks and issues a subpoena [4:22] and the individual receiving the subpoena refuses to turn it over, ordinarily, the prosecution goes to [4:27] court to enforce that. Is that right? I do not believe that's what happened in this case, sir. [4:35] In this case, you didn't do a damn thing because AT&T didn't hand it over because they concluded [4:39] it violated the speech and debate clause. And you know what your team said? Never mind. Nothing to see [4:43] here. We're not going to fight because you knew if you went to court, you would lose. [4:50] Our work and our securing these subpoenas and non-disclosure orders was consistent with the law. [4:57] The toll records. It was explicitly contrary to federal statute. It was explicitly contrary to the [5:02] federal constitution. Let me ask you this. You have any regrets? Regrets regarding my work, [5:12] his special counsel? Yes. Yes. I regret that the people I worked with have been unfairly [5:20] fired and vilified. Of course. Of course. You can't bring yourself. Well, let me say congratulations [5:26] because you have succeeded where Richard Nixon failed, which is weaponizing the Department of [5:33] Justice and the federal government to go after your political opponents. Congratulations. You are [5:38] stepping into the shoes of John Mitchell. And yet your abuse is far greater than John Mitchell. [5:45] And I understand for the rest of your life, you're going to be hailed [5:49] as a hero in the resistance movement. I assume you have a pink hat somewhere at home [5:56] and people will be proud of you for resisting. But I'll tell you what you have done. [6:02] You have brought the Department of Justice into disrepute because instead of being apolitical, [6:09] instead of enforcing the law, you willingly were conscripted as a foot soldier for the DNC. [6:16] And you know what you also did? You reelected President Donald Trump because the American [6:22] people were disgusted at your willingness to abuse power in partisan ends. Javert from Les Mis [6:37] would look at you with astonishment. I believe you have no regrets. I believe you have convinced [6:43] yourself that this witch hunt targeting half the country for partisan ends was justified. Well, [6:49] let me say, you have brought the Department of Justice into disrepute and you have done enormous [6:58] damage. And I believe your conduct represents the most egregious abuse of power in the history of the [7:09] Department of Justice. And independence of the legislative process. Senator Britt. [7:16] Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And I'm also glad that we can talk about women's sports in the judiciary. [7:20] We certainly missed our colleagues on the other side of the aisle last week when we were talking about [7:25] protecting women's sports, making sure that women have that space and they can learn to grow and [7:36] learn to lead in a fair way that is safe and that is common sense. So, I enjoy watching Caitlin Clark and I [7:47] want to make sure that we continue to protect those spaces for young women to come. And I would hope our [7:51] colleagues on the other side of the aisle could join us in that. So, I'm glad we got to bring that up. [7:57] Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you convening the hearing today on such an important topic. And thank you [8:03] for the work that you've done over the last several years conducting rigorous oversight of the Arctic [8:09] Frost investigation. We appreciate your leadership on this. And we need to bring public attention to [8:16] this investigation and those that followed it. The issue really gets at the heart of one of the most [8:21] fundamental principles of our republic and that is that justice must be blind and that no American [8:28] should be targeted by our justice system as a result of their politics. Unfortunately, we've discovered [8:35] that that principle was far too often violated in the course of Arctic Frost and the ensuing investigations. [8:43] And it's right that we focus on, shed light on, demand answers, and also accountability so that we can [8:49] better ensure that it doesn't happen again moving forward. Mr. Smith, I wanted to start with the [8:54] initiation of Arctic Frost investigation. The Arctic Frost investigation was opened by the FBI in April of [9:01] 2022 before ultimately being assumed by your work after being appointed as special counsel in November [9:08] of that year. While I understand you weren't personally involved in the initiation of Arctic Frost, [9:14] it was the investigation that ultimately evolved into your 2020 case against President Trump. Yes or no, [9:22] do you accept that the Arctic Frost was initiated by FBI personnel that were clearly infected by political [9:31] bias? And before you answer, if you will pull your microphone closer to you, I find it interesting that [9:37] I'm the only one that's having a hard time to hear. Sorry about that. How's that? That's better. Okay. [9:42] I can't really speak to what happened before I was special counsel. What I can share is that the [9:48] investigation I took over, I made sure politics played no role in it whatsoever. Yeah, but beforehand, [9:54] just yes or no. I mean, you know the same things that we do and probably even more. You know the [9:59] political bias of Timothy Thiebaud. You've seen that laid out for you. You don't believe in any way that [10:06] that affected his work in Arctic Frost. Yes or no? I do not know. Do you believe that it affected his work? [10:17] Yes or no? I can't speak to that. I did not work with Timothy Thiebaud. You can't speak. It is your job [10:22] to actually look at these things and figure out where there is bias, where there is fact, where there is [10:26] fiction. You know what ensued. You know what happened. You've seen some of the same things that he said [10:32] online. You saw what he said about President Trump. You've seen the post there that he made about [10:38] Catholic priests and slurs towards Catholicism. You've been presented with the information that he's [10:46] made about President Trump. His LinkedIn profile picture there with the Washington Post being on his [10:53] profile saying the Trump administration abuses just. You know that stuff, yes or no? You know some of that. [11:01] You're saying, whoa, whoa. None of this has ever been brought to your attention? Yes or no? [11:06] I never have. In all of this, Timothy Thiebaud, no one's ever brought any of this, [11:14] this political bias that he has clearly shared on social media accounts, biased against Catholicism, [11:22] no one's ever shared that with you, yes or no? Senator, I'm here to testify about my work as special [11:29] counsel. Sir, I get to use this time to ask you a question and you know that. This is very [11:33] simple. Yes or no? And can you not answer that? I can. I'm sure there are things in the media about [11:41] this agent. No, I didn't ask what's in the media. I asked what's in you. Do you know? Has this ever [11:48] been brought to your attention? This is not hard. This is not a trick question. You're telling me [11:54] that you took over this guy's entire investigation and you never looked at any of these things that all [12:00] of us can see an open source? That's a lie. It's not true. Yes or no? Do you know any of these things [12:07] I just said or anything similar to this about Timothy Thiebaud? I don't know the things you're [12:13] saying to be true because I was not there at that time. Okay, so you took over an investigation. [12:19] Ultimately, in 2024, Thiebaud was found to have been violated the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, [12:26] violated the Hatch Act for anti-Trump political conduct while at the FBI and you were saying [12:32] you took over his investigation and nothing. You didn't look into any of this. You know none of this. [12:39] So I guess that that goes to say that you didn't go back and check his work. Yes or no? I did check [12:46] the work that was done before I was there and I did not see in that work any evidence of political bias [12:54] whatsoever. I looked at that closely. Did you see, were you ever brought to your attention that he [12:58] had political bias statements out in the public? Yes or no? I do not recall discussing this. Look, [13:07] you're really smart. You can recall that. Surely, surely, surely. Either that or you skated through [13:15] Harvard some other way. I mean, come on. It's not hard. This is not a hard question. Look, it's clear [13:28] that Mr. Thiebaud actually made investigative decisions related to President Trump and Arctic [13:35] Frost and had a political bias and had an agenda. It's unbelievable that you would take over such a [13:49] case that would have such ramifications on our nation and you wouldn't do your due diligence. [13:56] I don't believe it. I don't believe it. And for you to sit in front of this committee [14:02] and not answer a simple question, when you say you're here to tell us all about it, [14:07] and you can't tell us whether or not you looked at the bias of the gentleman before you, [14:14] it's just absurd. And look, I have left. I do want to ask you about a couple of things. [14:21] Did you go to an NBA game between the Golden State Warriors and the Atlanta Hawks on February 3rd, [14:26] 2024? I'm sorry. Could you say that again? Did you go to an NBA game between the Golden State [14:35] Warriors and the Atlanta Hawks on February 3rd, 2024? What city would that be in? Atlanta. [14:42] No. Okay. So your testimony today is that you did not go to a Hawks game on February 3rd, 2024. Is [14:52] that correct? I have no recollection. Okay. Is it your testimony that you were not in Atlanta on [14:58] February 3rd, 2024? Let me, let me just give you a little context. The day before Fannie Willis came [15:07] clean with her affair with the prosecutor, you know, the Atlanta prosecutor that was also trying to get [15:11] Trump the next day, were you in Atlanta? I do not believe so. Okay. Did you ever go to Atlanta [15:18] during your time as special counsel? I really don't think so. It's possible I flew through the Atlanta [15:28] airport on the way to Florida, but I do not have a recollection of going to Atlanta. I definitely [15:35] did not go to a Hawks game. I'm sure of that. Okay. Did you ever meet Nathan Wade or Fannie Willis [15:40] in your time in your time as special counsel? No. What would you say if I had a series of text messages [15:46] from your team that said you were in Atlanta at a Warrior Hawks game on February 3rd, 2024, [15:52] the day after Willis and Wade announced their affair? I don't think you know that we have this [16:02] stuff. So I'll give you a second to process it. So you don't, you know, perjure yourself. [16:08] You just took it down really quick. If I could look at that again. Okay. [16:12] Mr. Chairman, can we give the witness a copy so he can see what's being read to him? [16:18] Well, I think you've already sufficiently. And so I want to, I want to run through, [16:21] we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll put it in a follow up. You can respond. You've, I think you've already [16:25] perjured yourself, but, um, did you or your office? Can we see it? Can we see it? Did you [16:32] or your office seek? This is my time. Senator, if you want to use your time to criticize my question, [16:36] go ahead, ranking member. Did you or your office seek the contents of members of, of members of [16:42] Congress's emails or text messages? Uh, we, uh, sought toll record subpoenas. [16:53] It did not contain the content of calls. I am also aware that we sought, uh, White House [17:01] phones for individuals who are relevant to our investigation, uh, government phones in which [17:06] they had no expectation of privacy. Let me ask you this way. Did you seek the content of messages [17:12] from members of Congress by other means, meaning the subpoenas you sent to the other 197 organizations [17:20] asking for communications from members of Congress? Because you've said you didn't with relate with, [17:24] as relates to members of Congress, but did you do it through another means, the other 97, 197 subpoenas? [17:30] I can't address every subpoena we issued. What I can say is that I am aware that in the example of [17:38] Congressman Perry, uh, prosecutors, this is before I was special counsel, did in fact seek a search [17:44] warrant and receive a judicial authority for a search warrant of his telephone. So that definitely [17:50] happened. Thank you, Mr. Smith. In closing, I just want to say in the famous words of the chief of the [17:56] secret police under Stalin of show me the man, I'll show you the crime. You may think you're a hero in [18:03] this story, but let me tell you something. You're the villain. You've done so much damage. As a former [18:09] prosecutor, I can say there's so much damage the trust and faith people have in our system. You have [18:13] weaponized the department of justice against political enemies to an extent that has never [18:18] happened in the history of this country. You will go down as a total dirt bag. I yield my time. [18:25] Mr. Chairman. Before I call on Senator Klobuchar without objection, I'll enter into the record [18:31] emails showing the FBI of all agencies raised concern with the DOJ that there was a sufficient [18:39] probable cause to obtain the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago. Senator Klobuchar. [18:46] Mr. Chairman, then you're going to be able to allow the witness to see this fast poster board that we [18:53] saw? Is that going to be included then in the so the witness can look at that at some point here [18:59] before the hearing's over? Because we couldn't see what it said. And I'm a former prosecutor too, [19:05] and I have never seen anyone just say, what do you think of this, and put it down. We need a copy [19:16] of the actual text. Can you give the witness the courtesy of giving him a copy of that? Thank you. [19:27] Mr. Chairman, can the witness be allowed to comment now that he can see the chart? [19:30] Mr. Chairman, should we maybe give him the chance to look at it and then go back at it so he can see it? [19:40] Mr. Chairman, I think I can address it. [19:41] Mr. Chairman, okay, do you want to, this isn't in my time, but yes, Mr. Smith, please address it. [19:45] Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, and this can, if this is the correct basketball game, [19:52] I recall going to a University of Maryland basketball game where Caitlin Clark was playing [19:59] right around that time, and the Marshall Service was there with me. You could check if that was [20:04] the exact date. It was Maryland playing Iowa, I think, February of 2024. But again, that's, [20:12] you could check that out if that's what we're talking about. [20:14] Mr. Chairman, could it then be that University of Iowa's the Hawkeyes? Could that be it? And maybe, [20:24] before we show this kind of thing, I know, but if he was at an Iowa game, is that correct? [20:32] Mr. Chairman, it was because Caitlin Clark was coming to Maryland to play. [20:36] Mr. Chairman, I know, but that might be the confusion over the names of the team, [20:41] but perhaps you should have looked at it more carefully. [20:43] Mr. Chairman, who's questioning is this, by the way, Mr. Chairman? Are you using your time, [20:48] Senator? Is this what this is? Are we just, are we just having like an open session here? [20:52] I will begin my questions. I just, I'm just in shock that when you're trying to rehabilitate [20:55] the witness, but it's not your time. When you are calling a witness a dirtbag, [20:58] I presented him with text messages about him wanting to meet with people [21:04] that could have obviously been related to the prosecution that was coordinated with his office [21:09] in Atlanta. Well, I'm going to begin my questions now, but I think that people should have their [21:13] facts straight before they accuse someone of being a dirtbag and not get the teams wrong. [21:18] I stand by that statement. [21:21] You had the teams wrong, sir. Mr. Chairman. [21:25] Proceed with your questions. Thank you. From the state of Minnesota, where we have the gophers. [21:30] So there's not a lot of confusion. There's not a lot of professional teams with those names. [21:35] Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, you and I have never met. [21:44] But your team wanted to know to whom I spoke, when I spoke to them, and for how long. [21:52] You subpoenaed records associated with my phones, both personal and office. And you sought and obtained [21:58] a court order to prevent me from knowing about it. For years, you were able to ask your questions [22:06] in secret without me in the room. Today, the Senate gets to ask questions. And unlike you, [22:14] we will do so in public. You have insisted that politics played no role in your investigation. [22:20] The American people can judge for themselves. Let's start with your subpoenas. [22:28] Did your team subpoena records concerning the Republican National Committee? [22:37] We subpoenaed a number of records. That's a yes or no question. [22:43] I do not have, I just want to be clear with you, Senator. I do not have a recollection of every [22:47] subpoena. We did subpoena numerous records. Did your team subpoena the RNC? [22:52] I would have to look at those records, but we did. You're testifying you don't remember? Yes, [22:56] no, or I don't remember. Those are your three options. [22:59] It is very possible. I do not have a recollection. Okay. Did your team subpoena Turning Point USA? [23:06] Again, I would have to look at the records. Do you have any idea who you subpoenaed? [23:09] Can you name? All right. Let me help you. Did your team subpoena the Conservative Partnership [23:15] Institute? That I do remember. Yes. Okay, good. We found one. [23:20] And I can explain why. Did your subpoenas demand communications with Fox News? [23:27] The subpoenas that we issued did ask for communication regarding ad buys because it was [23:33] relevant to the false statements we were investigating. Purchasing advertising on a [23:38] news agency you somehow believe is criminal. Did your team seek and obtained donor and fundraising [23:44] data? I would have to look at the subpoenas, but again, I'm happy to. You don't know if you had [23:50] donor and fundraising data? I'm happy to explain why we issued these subpoenas. [23:55] Do you know if you had donor and fundraising data? I would have to look at the subpoenas. [23:58] You don't know? Are you testifying right now you don't know if you obtained donor and fundraising [24:04] data? You can sigh all you like. It's a very simple question. You know damn well you did. [24:12] You've been questioned about the checks that you guys got. You know the answer. So why don't you [24:18] answer the question? Did your team obtain donor and fundraising information? It's a yes. You can say yes. [24:25] I do not recall the attachments to specific subpoenas. I'm happy to explain why. So you're [24:32] testifying. You're testifying. You don't remember if you got donor and fundraising material? Really? [24:39] I do not recall because I have not seen those subpoenas in a very long time, but I'm happy. [24:44] All in all, you issued. Look, look, I get you want to dance and avoid the questions. I understand it [24:49] because you can't answer a simple straightforward question. All in all, you issued 197 subpoenas [24:55] to 34 individuals at least and 163 businesses and you sought records on at least 430 Republican [25:03] individuals and entities. Is that right? And you're going to say you don't remember. Is that correct? [25:07] I do not recall those numbers. I understand. You know, if you look at the list, [25:12] there is one thing that is consistent. Every name on it is a Republican. Is it your view? Is it a crime to [25:19] be a Republican? Absolutely not, sir. Is it a crime to write a check to Republicans? It is not. And I'm [25:27] happy to explain why we issued these subpoenas if you'd like. Um, sure. Briefly. We had to conduct [25:35] an investigation about whether any person or entity violated the law with respect to the attempt to [25:41] block the peaceful transfer of power. To make that decision. Yes, I understand. And you use that as an [25:47] excuse to engage in a massive fishing expedition targeting over 400 Republicans. And it was [25:52] disgraceful. Let's just talk about the United States Senate. You issued subpoenas for more than [25:59] 20 percent of the Republicans in the Senate seeking their phone records. You did so. And then you [26:08] obtained orders, non-disclosure orders from Judge Boesburg. I believe Judge Boesburg should be impeached [26:17] for his complicity in your abuse of power. Now, Judge Boesburg signed orders. And I want to read [26:24] from the order Judge Boesburg signed that I didn't know about that, that the Republican senators targeted [26:30] here didn't know about. I want to read, read from the order, quote, the court finds reasonable grounds [26:39] to believe such disclosure. In other words, disclosing to me that you were subpoenaing my phone records [26:45] will result in destruction of or tampering with evidence, [26:50] intimidation of potential witnesses and serious jeopardy to the investigation. Mr. Smith, [26:55] do you have any evidence whatsoever to believe that I and 20 percent of the members of the [27:00] Republicans in the Senate will engage in destruction or tampering of evidence and [27:06] intimidation of potential witnesses? No, we had powerful evidence that Donald Trump [27:12] and his associates. Am I Donald Trump? You are not, sir. Are the members of the Senate Donald Trump? [27:19] No. Was this order directed at Donald Trump? No, I believe that. Did your office [27:25] draft this order that Judge Boesburg signed and he signed them like he was signing Denny's menus, [27:30] one at a time, over and over and over again? Facts be damned. Did your office draft this? [27:36] Uh, I'd have to look, but I'm assuming that's the correct order. And if so, we did. And I'm happy [27:41] to explain why we did, if you'd like. Good. I want you to tell us right now, [27:45] are you an officer of the court? Yes. I want to tell us, did you have a shred of evidence [27:50] evidence that 20 percent of the Republicans in the Senate will destroy evidence and intimidate [27:59] witnesses? We had a strong reason to believe that Donald Trump would destroy evidence. [28:06] That was not directed at Donald Trump. It was stated disclosing it to members of the Senate. [28:11] No, it was stated disclosing it to anyone. And we do not have to, uh, wait for someone to be injured, [28:19] for an investigation to be obstructed. We had strong reason to believe that Donald Trump would [28:25] obstruct our investigation, given the obstruction alleged in the Florida indictment, given the [28:31] attempts to intimidate witnesses in the election case, given the threats that were later made to [28:37] witnesses in the election case. I, as a prosecutor, have a duty- Mr. Smith, are you aware- [28:42] your top deputy went out and ran for Congress as a Democrat, boasting about it? What was his name? [28:46] J.P. Cooney? Do you remember him? Your deputy, right? He was your deputy, J.P. Cooney? Yes, he was. [28:52] Right. Let's just take a look at his campaign poster, running for Congress as a Democrat, [28:57] boasting about the fact that he went after Donald Trump during an election. Here he is, J.P. Cooney, [29:03] candidate for Congress as a Democrat. In fact, Mr. Smith, you have quite a history of every time the law [29:10] or the Constitution got in your way, you twist the facts, you torture the facts, you bend the law. [29:15] You wanted to accuse Donald Trump, for example, of carrying on a vast right-wing conspiracy with [29:23] members of Congress during the electoral count. And so you went to try to get senators' phones and [29:29] their phone records and their text messages. The only problem was the Constitution protects members [29:36] of Congress' work product and their phone records. And you knew that was the case, didn't you? [29:43] I understand there are constitutional protections. We followed the Constitution. [29:47] Oh, you did, and you didn't even attempt to. In fact, you told the Attorney General, [29:50] you briefed the Attorney General. We've got the memo right here. You told the Attorney General that, [29:55] indeed, members likely have a valid speech or debate privilege immunizing them from compelled [30:01] testimony. Mr. Chairman, I'd ask consent this to be entered into the record. [30:03] Objection so ordered. [30:05] You knew that, but you went ahead anyway. In fact, you were also told that federal case [30:11] law, that is the courts, said that it doesn't matter how you try and get the material, whether [30:18] you go to the senators directly or whether you go to phone companies, the speech and debate clause [30:24] still applies. You were told that either way, the senators were likely to need to be notified [30:29] to be able to assert their privileges, weren't you? [30:31] I don't believe that's accurate. [30:34] Really? Because here's a memo to you from your own office, John Pelletari, January 8th, 2023. [30:42] I've got it right here. I'd ask now, Mr. Chairman, this be entered into the record. [30:46] It's entitled Speech or Debate Litigation Summary, in which you are told, it's addressed to you, [30:52] to Jack Smith, Special Counsel, from John M. Pelletari, Assistant Special Counsel, in which you are told the [30:59] Rayburn decision requires the government to give a member of Congress the opportunity to assert [31:05] privilege. And it was your office's own assessment. It didn't matter whether you went to the member [31:10] or whether you went to a phone company, you still had to do it. But you decided to ignore that, blow [31:17] right through it. You went to the phone companies and you hid the fact from the court that you were seeking [31:27] the records of members of Congress, didn't you? You didn't tell the court you were seeking [31:32] subpoenas from the phone companies for members of Congress, did you? You hid that from the court. [31:36] Isn't that correct? [31:37] We did not say who the subpoenas were for when we sought a non-disclosure order. [31:43] That part is correct. Yeah, exactly right. I mean, here's your deposition before the House when [31:49] you were asked, when you sought these orders, the judge didn't know it was a member of Congress. [31:54] Is that correct? And you said, I don't think we identified that. So instead, what you decided to [32:00] do was you didn't tell the members of Congress. My phone was one of them that you got. You didn't tell [32:05] the court. You went to the phone companies. You didn't alert the court so that members would have [32:09] a chance to assert their privileges. You just ran rough rod shot over the whole thing. And then you [32:13] also knew there was a federal law. In addition to the Constitution, there was a federal law that requires [32:19] the phone companies to notify members of Congress, to be able to notify members of Congress when their [32:25] records are requested. But you prevented the companies effectively from doing that by seeking a gag [32:31] order against them, didn't you? I don't think that's accurate. Oh, indeed it is. And we have [32:38] the gag order right here. I mean, let's just look at what you said to the court. This is number one. [32:45] You had the court sign a gag order, a non-disclosure order finding, and you testified earlier today that [32:51] you wrote it, that the court has reasonable grounds to believe that disclosure will result in destruction [32:57] of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses, and serious jeopardy of the investigation. [33:02] So you did it. Of course, when you had the court sign this, you didn't tell the court you were seeking [33:07] the records of members of Congress. So the Constitution requires you to notify members [33:12] you didn't do that. It requires you, if you're going to go to phone companies, to give the members [33:16] a chance to assert privilege. You didn't do that. It requires you to tell the court when you're going [33:20] to go after members' phone records. You didn't do that. It requires you to allow the phone companies [33:24] to notify members you got the court under false pretenses to prevent the companies from doing so. [33:31] Any time the law stood in your way, any time the Constitution stood in your way, [33:37] you just ignored it. Is that why you lied to the House under oath about getting member text messages? [33:45] I answered every question I was asked truthfully. I'm proud of our investigation. [33:51] No, well, you shouldn't be. You should be totally ashamed. Let me just ask you this. On December 17, [33:56] 2025, you told the House that you had never gotten text messages from members of Congress. Let's have a [34:03] look. Here's what you said to the House. Did you seek a search warrant for the content of any text [34:11] messages of members? You say, from members? Yes. You say, I don't recall. I don't recall that. [34:19] It was just toll records. You say, correct. Now, do you recall this exchange with the House on December [34:26] 2017, 2025? I see it there. Yes. Okay, good. But on June the 2nd, 2023, two full years earlier, [34:35] you demanded from the National Archives records that included text messages from 44 United States [34:43] senators and members of Congress. And indeed, you got all of those records. Isn't that correct? [34:49] Yes. And I'm happy to explain that if you'll give me the opportunity. Oh, no, I understand that you got [34:53] them. We all understand and we know it, not because you told us, but because the Department of Justice [34:58] disclosed it. So two full years before this deposition, you were in possession of text messages [35:05] from 44 members of Congress that you went and subpoenaed. You read them within 30 minutes, [35:12] the Department of Justice told this committee. They said that within an hour of receiving those text [35:17] messages, your team was reading them. And yet, not only did you not notify any member of Congress [35:24] whose text messages you obtained pursuant to your process, you told the House two full years later, [35:30] having read all 44 members' messages, you told them you'd never gotten messages. You'd never requested [35:36] messages from any member of Congress. That was a lie, Mr. Smith. And you may try your lawyer your way out [35:44] of it. Well, it wasn't from the member. It was from the archives. You knew exactly what you were being [35:50] asked. And you deliberately misled them. You're a smart guy. I think that's pretty clear. But you use [35:56] your ability and the powers of your office to lie to the court, to lie to Congress, to lie to the American [36:03] people, to lie to the House. It's the worst abuse of prosecutorial power in the history of the United [36:10] States. And all I have to say is, I'm glad you failed. I don't know what our democracy would be like [36:15] if you had succeeded in your effort to interfere in the workings of a presidential election. [36:22] If it were up to me, I'd charge you with perjury. But you should certainly be disbarred. [36:26] And I can only pray that nothing like this will ever happen again in the United States of America. [36:31] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. I have to start by saying I think that maybe I [36:37] underestimated you. I underestimated in particular your comedic talent. I've been watching this whole [36:43] hearing. I've watched everything you said. I noticed that you began by saying I have no partisan loyalty, [36:49] and you repeat it over and over and over. There's nothing in your investigation about politics. [36:54] That's hilarious. In fact, your investigation was all about politics from day one. Your investigation, [37:01] so-called, your prosecution, so-called, was nothing other than an attempt to interfere politically [37:07] in a presidential election in the United States of America. You twice indicted a presidential candidate, [37:16] the leading presidential candidate and a former president of the United States, during a presidential [37:21] election against all Justice Department policy, against all Justice Department history, something [37:27] never before seen or contemplated in 250 years of this country's history. You did it anyway, all for the [37:33] purpose of keeping Donald Trump off the ballot, all for the purpose of denying the voters an opportunity [37:41] to vote on a former president of the United States and, at the time, the Republican nominee for president. [37:47] We've never seen anything like it in our country's history before. If you'd had your way, our elections [37:51] in this country would be like Russia's, the one they just held. Oh, they had an election? Sure. And they had [37:56] an opposition? Sure. It's just that Putin chose the opposition, which is exactly what the Biden Justice [38:02] Department wanted to do with Donald J. Trump. And that's exactly what you were doing. Twice indicted the [38:09] president during the election, tried to get his first trial set for during the primaries. In fact, [38:15] I think the first trial date you requested was like three days before the Iowa caucuses. When all of that [38:20] failed, you then filed a superseding indictment, a whole nother indictment, on October the 2nd, [38:26] I believe, 2024, five weeks before Election Day. This, despite the fact that the Public Integrity Division [38:33] of Justice, and they must have gotten quite a workout while you were around, the Public Integrity [38:36] Division told you, don't do it. We're against it. It will be seen as partisan. It will be seen as [38:45] interfering. And you did it anyway, didn't you? That's incorrect. You filed the indictment, and indeed, [38:54] the Public Integrity Division told you not to do it. I've got it right here. I've got your notes [38:59] from the meeting. Let's have a look. They said to you, these are your notes, call with your team's notes, [39:05] call with the Public Integrity Division, August 17, 2024. They said a large segment of the population [39:10] would see this as motivated by partisan purposes and would not understand why the department could [39:16] not wait to supersede. They said public integrity has no precedent it could cite to seek to support [39:22] a superseding indictment under these circumstances. They said it's their advice you wait to file this [39:28] superseding indictment if you do it at all. But you did it anyway because you were desperate to stop [39:34] Donald J. Trump. And then... When President Trump defeated Secretary Clinton, you were bitterly [39:46] disappointed, weren't you? I don't recall that. You don't recall at all? Mrs. Smith was, wasn't she? [40:01] I'm not going to talk about my family. What I can share is that I accepted a position in the Trump [40:08] administration as the acting U.S. attorney in Tennessee after that election and then I accepted [40:14] a second position in the Trump administration as a war crimes prosecutor. Your spouse, it's certainly [40:21] her right, I'm not being critical, is an ardent supporter of President and First Lady Obama. Is that [40:28] right? I'm not going to talk about my family here today. I'm here to talk about my work as special [40:36] counsel. In fact, she made a a a glowing saccharine sweet documentary about First Lady Obama, didn't [40:47] she? That she sold to Netflix? I'm not going to speak about my family here today. I'm happy, [40:56] though, to answer any questions you have about my actual work as special counsel. You asked General [41:07] Garland to appoint you special counsel, didn't you? I don't think that's accurate. He made the decision to [41:17] appoint me. You, in fact, you had people call General Garland to lobby him to appoint you, [41:25] didn't you? I don't recall anything like that. You really wanted to be special counsel, didn't you? [41:40] I accepted the position as special counsel because I had spent 30 years as a nonpartisan prosecutor. [41:46] I had investigated every sort of criminal case you could possibly imagine and I thought I was [41:52] qualified to do the job. I knew that I would do it independently and I would conduct it the same way, [41:58] whether a Republican or a Democrat. You really wanted President Biden to be reelected, didn't you? [42:11] I have no views about that. My job as a prosecutor was to enforce the law. I wanted to prosecute our [42:18] case. That's absolutely true because I felt that we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump [42:24] committed incredibly serious crimes and I did want those. I got that part. I got that part. When you [42:31] when you decided to prosecute President Trump, you told Judge, you told General Garland, Garland, [42:42] is that right? There were two separate decisions, one in the classified documents case and one in the [42:51] elections case. In both instances, once I determined. I'm sorry, Counselor, I don't mean to be rude, [42:57] but you know I've got only 10 minutes. So and you're you've been around. Don't please don't [43:02] filibuster me. It's a simple question. Did you tell the Attorney General of the United States that you [43:08] were going to prosecute the former President of the United States? I did so twice. Okay. And [43:17] the Attorney General checked with President Biden. Is that right? I have absolutely no idea. Well, [43:28] you know General Garland, right? I know Attorney General Garland in a professional. Is he a smart [43:36] guy? I know him in a professional setting and in that setting, I found him. Is he an experienced guy? [43:43] In a professional setting, I found him to be experienced and intelligent. Is he a dummy? [43:53] That was not my experience. Yeah, mine neither. So you're telling me that you're about to prosecute [44:04] a former President of the United States. First time in history. Not only that, you're about to [44:12] prosecute a former President of the United States who's also the current opponent of Judge Garland's [44:21] boss. And you told Judge Garland, here's what I'm about to do. And you don't think he checked [44:30] with President Biden to see if it was okay? I have no idea what he did. My job as a prosecutor on [44:40] the special counsel regulations was to make an independent decision. And Attorney General Garland [44:45] could have countermanded that decision. But I made that decision on my own, consulting with my staff [44:52] and reviewing the incredibly strong evidence that we had accumulated. In fact, President Biden [44:58] and or his White House staff told General Garland to prosecute the President, didn't they? Again, [45:07] I have no idea about that. What my job was was to make it. Don't know anything about that. Do you [45:12] believe in the tooth fairy? I do not. How about how about the Easter Bunny? I no longer believe in the [45:22] Easter Bunny. Yes. Do you think Jimmy Hoffa died of natural causes? I do not. Now you sought the phone [45:32] records of a bunch of U.S. senators, right? We sought the toll records, non-content records. Any Democrats or just [45:46] Republicans? If President Trump had reached out to Democrats? Yeah, but I'm just trying to get the [45:53] facts. Were there any Democrats who sought their phone records? Just Republicans, right? The toll, [45:59] the toll records that we sought were relevant to the investigation and they were Republicans. I'm asking [46:06] you. You're stalking me again, Counselor. You know that. You sought just the records of the Republicans. [46:13] And you knew that violated the speech and debate cause, didn't you? That is incorrect. We sought to comply [46:21] with that. Did you take con law? I'm sorry, Senator. Were you in the quad playing frisbee during [46:30] con law at Harvard Law School? I did take constitutional law, yes. Well, then you had to [46:36] know it violated the speech and debate clause. In fact, when you went to Judge Boasberg, you didn't even [46:45] tell him you were seeking the phone records of members of Congress, did you? Because you knew he wouldn't [46:51] agree. He would he would say, hey, Counselor, anybody who knows a law book from a J. Crew catalog knows [46:59] that this violates the Constitution. But you didn't tell him, did you? We sought non-disclosure orders from [47:08] You didn't tell him, did you? In seeking non-disclosure orders, we did not. You didn't tell him, [47:13] but you're unbiased. You have no personal feelings. You make me want to throw up in my mouth. [47:24] Now, are you ready? If you aren't, go ahead. Mr. Smith, you were pretty well known around [47:48] Washington, even before you decided to prosecute President Trump, weren't you? And aren't you? [47:58] I might would say a number of people in the Justice Department knew me. I don't know about [48:02] Washington, D.C. What does the word arrogant mean? I suppose it means that you're full of feel [48:19] full of yourself. That sort of thing. Would you pull that mic closer to you? Sorry. Is that better? [48:26] Yeah. What what does the word self-righteous mean? I think it's pretty similar to arrogant. Have you [48:42] ever heard the expression often wrong, but never in doubt? I don't believe I have. Yeah. You used to [48:59] work for the International Criminal Court, did you? Yes, I did. Is that a is that a worthy organization, [49:10] in your opinion? I believe the the mission of the International Criminal Court is a worthy one. I [49:18] think it's had numerous challenges and numerous problems over the years. But I think the idea [49:24] of that that no one should be above the law and that we should apply that principle around the world, [49:29] I think that's a good one we should aspire to. And that would be the same international criminal court [49:36] that has threatened to prosecute American soldiers. Is that right? I am not aware of a single American [49:47] soldier ever being prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. I didn't say they'd been prosecuted. [49:51] I said they'd been threatened. I can tell you during my time at the court, [49:56] which was a short period of time, it was about a year and a half. Yeah. I don't recall any threats [50:02] to prosecute American soldiers. I don't. You don't get around much, do you?