Trump Wants Jack Smith JAILED Smith's First Interview: "I Will Not Be Intimidated"

[0:00] In the middle of Jack Smith's public testimony in January, a Colorado congressman stopped and [0:05] asked him if he knew what the President of the United States was writing about him, [0:09] at that moment, on social media. Smith didn't. So, the congressman read it to him. [0:16] Mr. Smith, I don't know if you're aware of this. I don't know if your counsel has made you aware [0:22] that President Trump is live tweeting, live, I guess you'd call it truth, [0:25] socially, as we speak. Are you aware of this, about this hearing? No. Let me read to you what [0:33] he posted an hour and a half ago. Deranged Jack Smith is being decimated before Congress. [0:39] It was over when they discussed his past failures and unfair prosecutions. He destroyed many lives [0:43] under the guise of legitimacy. Jack Smith is a deranged animal who shouldn't be allowed to [0:48] practice law. If you're a Republican, his license would be taken away from him, and far worse. [0:52] Hopefully, the Attorney General is looking at what he's done. We have a word for this. It's called [1:00] weaponization. It's called corruption. Hopefully, the Attorney General is looking at what he's done. [1:07] The President, in writing, asking his own Attorney General to go after the man who prosecuted him [1:13] during the hearing. Smith declined to respond in the room. Months later, he sat down for his first [1:19] television interview with MS Now, and he did respond. Not with insults, with a list of names and a [1:26] warning about what comes next. This is the hearing room. First, who he is, in his own words, because [1:37] the President's version and the record are very different. Early in the interview, Smith described [1:43] his career and why he decided to speak at all. And I don't know if your viewers know this, but I work in [1:49] Republican and Democratic administrations over and over. I was the acting U.S. Attorney in the first Trump [1:56] administration in Nashville, Tennessee. And that administration pointed me to a position running [2:02] a war crimes tribunal for the State Department. So I have investigated cases focusing on the facts [2:08] and the law throughout my career. We did this case the same way, under the same standards. And, you know, [2:15] the thing that's, I think, important for your viewers to know is those standards are not meant to [2:19] change from one administration to the next. And in my experience, until now, they haven't. And so, [2:25] you know, I think we are facing an attack on the rule of law that is different in kind and scope [2:33] to anything I've seen in my lifetime. Acting U.S. Attorney in Nashville [2:37] under the first Trump administration. Appointed by that administration to run a war crimes tribunal. [2:43] That is the man the President now calls a radical. At the House hearing, a New York Democrat read the [2:49] full list of things the President has called him before getting to the newest one. [2:53] The Republicans have waged constant attacks on you. Donald Trump has said you are totally compromised, [2:59] a political hitman, a left-wing radical, a criminal, a fully weaponized monster, [3:05] that you should be considered mentally deranged and thrown out of the country. Just this week, [3:10] he called you a sick bastard. Unfortunately, the rules of decorum prevent me from saying what I think [3:15] of Donald Trump. But he is not the only one to launch attacks against you. Chairman Jordan has [3:20] accused you of abusive surveillance and accused you and your team of partisan and politically motivated [3:25] prosecutions. The words are one thing. The actions are another. When Smith left government, [3:32] he hired a law firm, Covington & Burling, to represent him. In his closed-door deposition, [3:38] a Democratic lawyer read him what happened next. Think about what that does to any lawyer in America [3:44] deciding whether to represent someone the President dislikes. [3:47] The Attorney General and all other relevant heads of executive departments and agencies [3:54] to immediately take steps consistent with applicable law to suspend any active security clearances held [4:00] by Peter Kosky and all members, partners, and employees of Covington & Burling LLP, [4:06] who assisted former Special Counsel Jack Smith during his time as Special Counsel, [4:11] pending a review and determination of their roles and responsibilities, if any, in the weaponization [4:16] of the judicial process. And the executive order also directs the Attorney General and heads of agencies [4:24] to take such action as are necessary to terminate any engagement of Covington & Burling LLP by any agency [4:32] to the maximum extent permitted by law and consistent with the memorandum that shall be issued by the [4:38] director of the Office of Management and Budget. Did I read that correctly? Yes. To your knowledge, [4:49] is this executive order still in effect? I believe it is. What do you think was his purpose for [4:55] issuing this executive order? To seek retribution against me. Is it also to harm your relationship [5:06] with your attorney and to make it more difficult for a lawyer to represent you? I think it's to chill [5:12] people from having an association with me. I just want to say for the record, we're still here, [5:19] proud to represent Jack Smith. We're still here, proud to represent Jack Smith. That was his lawyer [5:26] speaking up in the room. Exhibit A, the firm that didn't blink. In the interview, Smith told the story [5:33] from his side. Pay attention to the contrast he draws, because several of the country's biggest firms [5:39] made deals with the administration instead. My life. I resign as special counsel. I know I need to [5:47] get a lawyer because the president has said he wants to jail me for doing my job. And so I retain [5:53] lawyers Covington & Burling. As soon as that becomes public, the president and the Justice Department [5:59] target that law firm. And they do it because they don't want me to have counsel. They don't want to [6:04] have anyone represent me. And what happened next was, the very day that happened to Cole, [6:09] the lawyers at the firm called me up and said, Jack, don't worry about it. We're there for you. [6:15] They did not blink for a second. And as you know, that's very different than how some other law [6:20] firms behaved. I think we should focus on things like that and separating a firm like Covington & Burling [6:26] from other ones that didn't show courage to come forward. Well… [6:30] Exhibit B, the people who paid. Smith keeps steering every conversation back to the same people, [6:37] the career prosecutors and FBI agents who worked his cases, [6:40] many of whom were fired after Trump returned to office. The host asked about one of them. [6:46] These are not political appointees. They are career employees who serve whoever wins. [6:52] What did you expect to happen to these agents? And do you regret putting any of them in that position? [6:59] I feel terrible about what has happened to them. If there's one thing I've spent my time on [7:04] since leaving my work as special counsel, is doing what I can to help and support them. [7:09] The individual you're talking about, he was nursing his wife who was dying of cancer. [7:18] And they fired him shortly after she died. I went to the funeral. That funeral was filled with heroes, [7:24] public servants on both families. And I just can't believe that if people knew the character of these [7:30] people I worked with, that they could ever stand for the demonizing that's happened to them. It's just [7:36] beyond anything I can understand. According to a lawsuit filed by fired FBI supervisors, [7:42] as reported by the New York Times and read on air by the host, FBI Director Kash Patel was warned that [7:48] pushing out that agent, who had been caring for his dying wife, would be inexcusably cruel. He was [7:54] fired anyway. And it is not only Smith's team. Smith named another career official, someone with [8:01] no connection to his cases. You know, an example I can give you, Brian Driscoll. I don't know if you [8:06] know who he is. He was the… He made a great video at the beginning to kind of rally the troops, [8:12] it seemed, from the outside. Yeah, I mean, he's a folk hero in the FBI. If you were casting for a hero, [8:18] that's what they look like, right? And just for your viewers, this is a guy, career agent, [8:25] you know, mob investigator, SWAT team, hostage rescue, served overseas, Medal of Value or bravery [8:32] medals, all these things, and an expert in counterintelligence. They got rid of him because he [8:38] stood up for agents who were being targeted improperly. You can't tell me, you cannot tell [8:43] me our country is as safe as it was when people like that are being let go and fired for no reason. [8:50] And Smith made a point that is easy to miss. When you purge the experts, the damage isn't [8:56] only to the people who lose their jobs. It is to every case the department brings afterward. [9:01] Right? One of the problems right today, besides the retribution prosecutions, is that the Justice [9:08] Department can't do its job, right? If you go to court- Explain that. [9:12] Well, if you go to court and the judges don't trust you, you can't do the basic things that [9:16] you need to do to represent the American people in court. And we have seen judges across the country [9:24] say they can't trust prosecutors anymore. And that has such a cascading effect on any sort of case. [9:30] And, you know, I can't count how many opinions, but one opinion like that in my career would have been [9:36] seismic. People could not- would not know what to do if a court said, you know, trust that's been [9:42] built over generations has been lost in days, right? And that's happening every day. And so- [9:47] Exhibit C. The targets. Smith is not the only name on the president's list. [9:53] At the House hearing, Congressman Jared Moskowitz of Florida read the list out loud. It is long. [9:59] Listen to the whole thing. [10:01] But let's talk also about, you know, the present. That's the past. Let's talk about the present. [10:06] These are the guys who created the weaponization committee for the DOJ. So let's talk about the [10:11] present. Jerome Powell facing investigation, okay? In fact, we, you know, we heard about [10:16] Jonathan Turley, that he's some legal messiah. Jonathan Turley calls the Jerome Powell thing [10:21] legitimate concerns of retaliation. Lisa Cook under investigation. Mark Kelly, United States Senator, [10:27] under investigation. Adam Schiff, United States Senator, under investigation. Eric Swaldwell, [10:32] United States Representative, under investigation. Chris Christie, potentially under investigation. [10:37] Jack Smith, oh, that's you, under investigation. Okay? Miles Taylor, former Chief of Staff, United [10:43] United States Department of Homeland Security, under investigation. Christopher Krebs, former Director [10:47] of Cybersecurity, under investigation. Indicted. James Comey, Letitia James, John Bolton. It's weird [10:54] that they indicted John Bolton but stole his foreign policy. Accused of crimes, former President Joe Biden, [11:01] former President Barack Obama. Revoked or threatened with revocation of Secret Service protection. [11:05] Kamala Harris, Hunter Biden, Ashley Biden, the daughter of President Joe Biden. Mayorkas, Mike Pompeo, [11:12] Brian Hook, General Mark Milley, John Bolton, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the guy Trump gave a medal to. [11:18] Security clearance revoked. Joe Biden, Anthony Blinken, Jacob Sullivan, Lisa Monaco, Mark Zaid, [11:24] Norman Eisen, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, Andrew Weissman, Hillary Clinton, Liz Cheney, [11:29] Kamala Harris, Adam Kinzinger, Fiona Hill, Alexander Vindman, Miles Taylor, I can keep going. [11:35] That is a list of the president's critics, former officials, and political opponents, [11:41] with something done to each of them. Smith was asked in the interview what separates his work [11:46] from what is happening now. He answered with names from that same list. [11:50] That contrasts what we're seeing today, where there is a predetermined outcome, process doesn't matter, [11:57] and we just have to find a way to get to that outcome. And if there's facts that don't fit [12:01] that outcome, we don't recognize them. And if there's facts that make it not a crime, [12:09] we just pretend those don't exist. [12:10] I mean, a judge basically said that in the Kilmer Arrigo Garcia case, [12:14] said that he found that this was an instance where basically criminality was being reverse [12:20] engineered all the way up to Todd Blanche. If a judge has found that, [12:24] what do you think they're capable of with two more years? [12:27] Well, as I said earlier, I, from my perspective, I've seen a number of cases. [12:34] James Comey, Letitia James, Jerome Powell, I mean, right? There's not criminality here. I mean, [12:42] seashells. I mean, so the only reasonable explanation is the president has it out for these people, [12:50] and he has people who, his former personal lawyers, who are going to do what he says, [12:55] regardless of the facts or the law. I mean, you know, again, just to juxtapose it. [12:59] Um, I didn't have people on my team resigning because they refused to go along with the scheme [13:05] to go after somebody. That was not what happened. [13:07] The seashells are a reference to a social media post by James Comey that the administration [13:13] treated as a threat. Smith's point is simple. On his team, nobody resigned rather than bring a case. [13:20] In the cases now being brought against the president's critics, career prosecutors have. [13:25] Exhibit D, the question everyone wanted to ask, does he expect to be indicted himself? [13:32] Do you think that this is a department that you could send someone to go work in and they could [13:36] be asked to indict you? Oh, I think that could happen. But I also think in the Justice Department, [13:42] even as we sit here right now, there are lots of people doing good work, prosecuting violent crime, [13:48] protecting their communities, doing the everyday work of being a prosecutor. [13:52] And yes, it could happen. That could happen. And that would be unfortunate. And then you might [13:57] have to step down. But I don't want to see people run from public service because of that possibility. [14:03] Do you expect to be indicted? Listen, Donald Trump has made a bunch of statements about me. [14:10] He said he would indict you. Yes. I'll tell you, Nicole, I honestly do not spend a lot of time [14:15] thinking about the things he says about me and his threats about me. [14:18] In the closed door deposition, his answer to the same question was even shorter. [14:23] Do you feel like you have a target on your back? I believe that President Trump wants to [14:31] seek retribution against me because of my role as special counsel. Would you be surprised if [14:36] President Trump direct the DOJ to indict you? No. Are you concerned about the safety of people who [14:45] associate with you like your former colleagues and your attorneys here today? I would prefer if it's [14:53] all right not to talk about my safety because I think doing so could in fact endanger my safety [14:58] and those of the people around me. He would prefer not to talk about his own safety because talking [15:03] about it could make it worse. Sit with that for a second. A former federal prosecutor describing [15:10] threats to his life in a congressional deposition. Exhibit E. The Warning. Smith's biggest concern in the [15:18] interview was not himself. It was the next election. The host asked if what he sees now [15:24] looks like what he investigated. Well, I've been thinking about it more in terms of what needs [15:30] to be done based on what we saw happen last time. And, you know, it's a different situation now based [15:35] on, you know, the people who perpetrated January 6th. They probably learned from how they did that. [15:41] My personal view is I think the state attorney generals have a tremendous role to play here. [15:47] They can make sure the rule of law functions in their state. And I would also say that I think a thing [15:53] that all of us can do is support election workers and election officials. The last time around, [16:00] we saw that those people stood firm and they were, in many cases, the difference. It's clear to me, [16:07] anyways, that what I've seen publicly that those people are going to be put under great pressure. [16:11] And my experience, not only just the special counsel, but, you know, I was the chief of the public [16:17] integrity section at the Department of Justice for five years, had a number of cases with election [16:22] officials. These are people also, they're not tooting their own horn. They're not self-promoters. [16:28] They just care about our democracy. We need to show them that we have their back. I think those [16:33] two things are central to getting ready for the elections that are coming up. [16:39] What is your advice to state attorney general? [16:42] I would be ready to litigate everything. I would brainstorm, and I think they are, [16:47] I get that sense. Every possible permutation, and don't let reason be a limitation. Imagine [16:56] everything that could possibly be tried. That Trump will do. [16:58] Yeah. And I also think it's important for them to be proactive and, you know, [17:04] initiate litigation where it's appropriate and where it would make sense to you if you have a... [17:08] The people who perpetrated January 6th probably learned from how they did it. [17:13] That is a former special counsel telling state attorneys general to imagine everything and not [17:20] let reason be a limitation. Near the end, the host asked if he was afraid to be speaking out. [17:26] You know, with me being targeted by the president, um, you get to find out who's who, right? You get [17:32] to find out who runs towards the fire, who kind of backs away. Um, it's difficult in the moment, [17:38] but I think for the future, that's going to be really helpful to know. [17:41] Are you afraid to be speaking out? No, not at all. I'm not, I am not going to be [17:46] intimidated. Uh, and there's no way in the world if, if the thought was to, to go after me so that [17:52] I wouldn't speak up about the corruption that's happening or speak up to defend these agents and [17:58] prosecutors, that is a grave miscalculation. There is no way I'm going to be intimidated. [18:02] And at the very end, he talked about the office he once ran, the Public Integrity Section, [18:08] created after Watergate to prosecute corruption without fear or favor. [18:13] Yeah, I'm saddened by it because when I was, uh, at Public Integrity when I was the chief of the [18:18] section, and this was a, a section that was created in the wake of Watergate as one of the reforms [18:23] after Watergate to deal with corruption in the government. Uh, we did good work. We did important [18:28] work. We did nonpartisan work. And seeing that section gutted, uh, saddens me. Uh, but I have to say, [18:35] at the same time, that started because the attorneys in that section stood up. Uh, when [18:42] the Adams case in New York, um, that they forced the dismissal of a completely legitimate case that [18:49] the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York brought, uh, and they tried to force public [18:53] integrity to sort of lend their credibility to the dismissal. Um, that's what I'm talking about, [18:58] about people of integrity. You know, the Southern District prosecutors, I don't know. [19:00] But they left. I mean, they're not in the department anymore. [19:02] Right. So here is our verdict. There is a word Republicans used over and over about Jack Smith. [19:10] Weaponization. That the Justice Department was turned into a weapon against a political opponent. [19:16] Hold that word up against this video. A president posting during a hearing that his prosecutor is a [19:22] deranged animal and hoping the attorney general is looking at him. An executive order aimed at the [19:27] prosecutor's lawyers. Agents fired for working the wrong case, one of them weeks after burying his [19:34] wife. A list of investigations of critics so long that a congressman stopped reading. [19:40] Smith's answer to all of it was not a counterattack. It was a name, a funeral, a law firm that didn't blink, [19:47] and a sentence. There is no way I am going to be intimidated. If this matters to you, subscribe and [19:55] share it with someone who only heard one side of the weaponization story. Leave a comment. Should [20:00] the fired agents get their jobs back? This is the hearing room. We will be here when the next hearing [20:06] starts.