Trump's Phone Call Recording At Jack Smith Hearing Causes Uproar: Watch — Midterms,Democrat,GOP,Jan 6

[0:00] Thank you chairman and Mr. Smith, thank you for appearing today to speak publicly about the major [0:05] issues that you handled as special counsel. Your work on election interference in my home state [0:11] is especially important as Georgia still today remains ground zero for voting rights. [0:17] My state has a long history of voter suppression, including violent tactics and legislation that [0:22] has actively disfranchised our voters. In fact, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against [0:28] Georgia and 2023 challenging recently passed voter suppression legislation. That lawsuit was later [0:35] withdrawn by Donald Trump's attorney general Pam Bondi, but this is not the first time that Donald [0:42] Trump has encouraged voter suppression. In the 2020 presidential election, which many have accepted [0:48] that he lost, he pressured his party members to overturn a legal election. Thankfully several [0:55] public servants upheld our constitutional process and respected the voice of the people. Your [1:02] investigation revealed how far he is willing to go. In your final report, you wrote that, and I'm quoting, [1:11] the through line of all Mr. Trump's criminal efforts was deceit, knowingly false claims of fraud. Mr. Smith, [1:20] what did your investigation reveal about President Trump's interactions with Georgia's officials regarding [1:26] his frauds claims? As I sit here now, I can recall two specific officials. The first was the Secretary of State, [1:37] who is a fellow Republican. My understanding, he voted for and supported Donald Trump in the election, [1:44] but told Donald Trump in a conversation that was recorded in no uncertain terms the results of the [1:52] election and debunked many of the fraud claims that Donald Trump had to him in real time. In addition to [2:02] that, I recall that Donald Trump also spoke firsthand with the Attorney General of your state, also a [2:08] Republican who informed Donald Trump that he had supported him and voted for him twice in the past. [2:15] He also told Donald Trump he did not see outcome determined of fraud in that state. [2:22] I have an audio from a phone call between Trump and the Georgia Secretary of State [2:26] regarding the 2020 election. Could you please play the audio? [2:30] They're angry. The people of the country are angry, and there's nothing wrong with saying that, [2:34] you know, that you've recalculated. Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the [2:42] data you have is wrong. So look, all I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, [2:56] which is one more than we have, because we won the state. Mr. Smith, you explained in your deposition [3:02] that Georgia Secretary of State was one of the witnesses who disabused President Trump's false claims. [3:09] How did Georgia Secretary of State push back against Trump's efforts? [3:14] I think my recollection is in this same call. President Trump repeatedly [3:22] raised fraud claims, and the Secretary of State repeatedly explained not only that they weren't true, [3:29] but I believe my recollection is in several instances explained why they weren't true. And I believe [3:36] that call ended. My recollection is that it ended with President Trump in essence threatening [3:44] the Secretary of State that he might be a target for criminal prosecution if he didn't do what [3:50] President Trump wanted him to do. So see, that raises a very critical point. President Trump didn't [3:55] just spread lies about the election. In your words, and I'm quoting, he preyed on, end quote, [4:02] Republican officials in Georgia and other states who believed would help him. Mr. Smith, [4:08] Donald Trump thought these officials would break the law out of party loyalty. And when those officials, [4:15] his own political allies, told him the truth, he dismissed them and continued to spread the lies [4:21] anyway. Is that correct? That is correct. Mr. Smith, if your case had gone to trial, [4:27] would the evidence from Georgia have helped prove that President Trump knowingly engaged in a criminal [4:33] scheme to overturn the 2020 election? Yes. After an investigation following the facts in the law, [4:41] we believed we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt to prove those charges. And in your deposition, [4:46] you mentioned a fake elector witness in Georgia who you thought would have been a very powerful [4:53] witness at trial. Can you tell us a little bit more about that in a very limited amount of time? [4:57] Sure. It was a witness who had been made to understand that his electoral [5:04] vote, his alternative electoral vote, would only be used if they won in court, if they won in litigation. [5:11] That didn't happen. And President Trump and his co-conspirators tried to use those alternative [5:16] uh, uh, fake elector certificates, uh, to get Mike Pence. Mr. Chairman, regular order himself. [5:23] Okay. Well, Mr. Smith, thank you so much for your, the work that you and your team of career [5:27] prosecutors have put forth in covering this evidence. The American people need to know what [5:32] happened and they need to know how their president pressured Georgia state officials to overturn their [5:38] Fulton County. The gentleman from Alabama has the unanimous consent request. [5:41] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. December 6, 2025, Atlanta news first. Fulton County admits to verifying 315,000 [5:50] votes in the 2020 without poll worker signatures. I yield back. [5:55] Without objection, the chair now recognizes for five minutes, the gentleman from Arizona. [5:58] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, isn't it true that for a federal criminal conspiracy charge, [6:05] it requires more than one individual. In other words, you're making a contractual agreement of [6:11] some kind with somebody other than yourself, right? That is correct. There has to be an agreement. [6:17] And so when you made the determination to charge President Trump with conspiracy, [6:24] you surely knew that you had somebody else that he had must have agreed upon somewhere to engage in this [6:34] act that generated the conspiracy, right? That's correct. We alleged specific individuals in the [6:41] indictment as co-conspirators. And so when you, so you knew who you were going to do when you, [6:47] who you were going to charge when you, uh, pursued the indictment. You had the, you knew who the agreeing [6:55] parties were, but you chose to list them as co-conspirators, but you didn't indict them. How often [7:01] have you done that in the past? In the past, I have had a number of cases where I have charged [7:09] some members of the conspiracy. No, no, no. One member of the conspiracy. How many times have you [7:14] done that charged some one member of the conspiracy and let everybody else off the hook? I'm sure that's [7:22] happened. That is not an, you don't remember doing that. That is not an uncommon, uh, thing to do in [7:28] an investigation. So, so, okay. I, I, I dispute that, but we're going to leave that as, as, as it [7:37] may, but let's just get to this. If a member of Congress moves to decertify state's electors, [7:41] that would not be a crime, would it? When you say to decertify. You make a motion to decertify [7:49] on that January 6th, that we, every four years, that's not a, uh, that's not a crime, right? Correct. [7:57] And if another elected official urged someone to join them in that decertification, that's not a crime [8:02] either, right? As you stated, it's not. Several members of Congress get together over breakfast. [8:09] They say this is, this is the normal path. We watched it because we saw the Democrats do it [8:14] for every Republican president. So we are not sure how to do it. We've never done it before. That's [8:20] not a crime to sit down at breakfast to talk about that or any other time together to talk about [8:25] decertification, is it? No, it's not a crime to talk about that over breakfast. In your deposition, [8:34] you talked about, uh, you made the argument that an elected official who's been deemed to have lost [8:39] could not knowingly make false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government [8:45] operation. Isn't that true? That's what you said in your deposition. Page 27. I believe it's a lawful [8:50] government function is. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah, lawful government function. That's what you said. [8:54] You remember saying that? Uh, I said lawful government function. Could you read back what you [8:59] said again? I'm sorry. Yeah. An elected, it is, uh, see, an elected official who's been deemed to have [9:05] lost could not knowingly make false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function. [9:10] You said that would be illegal. Remember that, Page 27? Do you want me to actually read this back? [9:16] Surely you remember that position. I'm not denying it, and I apologize. I'm just trying to listen to [9:21] you closely. Okay. Let's, let's just go right from, from the, from this. You said there's, uh, [9:27] as we said in the indictment, he was free to say that he thought he won the election, right? [9:32] That is correct. He's even free to say falsely, falsely, that he won the election, correct? [9:39] That's correct. What you said is he was not free to do was violate federal law and use knowing, [9:46] knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function. [9:52] That is correct. Yeah. And for you, the, that lawful government function is, uh, [9:58] the, the certification process, I suppose, on January 6th. Well, it's, it's slightly broader than [10:04] that. It's the collecting, counting, uh, and certifying of the votes. Uh, our view of the evidence is that [10:10] begins from the point of time, uh, that the electors are, uh, certified through the counting of the [10:15] votes. So that would be. So the entire, so the entire certification process from the state to the [10:21] feds. My recollection as it's pled in the indictment, as I sit here, I don't have it in front of me, [10:25] but I believe it's from, um, December 14th. I think that was the day through the voting. Okay. So, [10:33] so you can't recall, but for you, it's from the certification moving forward to the sort of [10:38] actual ratification of the certification process in, uh, on inaugural day. My recollection, that's [10:44] what we pled in the indictment. Okay. So, so you've managed to filibuster us right out of this thing, [10:50] but, uh, your, your beef was, you said that president Trump, uh, engendered a level of distrust. [10:58] You said he made false statements to state legislators, to his supporters of all sorts. [11:03] And somehow you discerned that his supporters were angry and that that was somehow related to a criminal [11:08] offense. I find that absolutely weak. I think it's misdirected. And time of the gentleman.