2 hours of contentious Jack Smith testimony before House Judiciary

[0:00] Mr. Smith, thank you for being here. Thank you for your service to our country. [0:06] My colleague from Virginia, a Republican colleague who is questioning you right before the break, [0:12] do you know what he said in the days after January 6th? Let me share this with you. [0:20] This is a quote of his from a press release on January 8th. Congress stands united in our [0:26] rejection of the violence that occurred this week, and I'll continue to urge the swift prosecution [0:31] of those involved to the fullest extent of the law. Mr. Smith, this is theater. Republicans are [0:43] trying to rewrite history. That's what this is. Many of them were with us in the House chamber on [0:52] January 6th. I remember it well. The chairman was there, as was I. There's been a lot of discussion [0:59] about witnesses today. Perhaps the chairman could muster the courage to call the four witnesses who [1:06] I see. The American public may not see. I see standing behind you, Mr. Smith, the four police [1:11] officers who risked everything, life and limb, to do what? To protect the Republican members [1:20] on the dais. It's an outrage that they now sit here and have the audacity to try to rewrite history [1:30] in front of the very officers who sacrificed everything to protect them. Mr. Smith, you're, [1:40] of course, aware that President Trump was impeached for his conduct connected to January 6th, right? [1:49] Correct. Do you know how many members of Congress voted to impeach him? [1:52] I don't recall. 232. Do you know how many Republican [1:55] members of Congress voted to impeach him? I don't recall. [1:59] Ten Republican members of Congress voted to impeach him for his conduct related to January 6th, [2:04] including at the time the sitting Republican chairwoman of their conference. There was a trial [2:12] in the United States Senate. Senators sat as jurors. I remember it well because I was one of the [2:18] prosecutors who prosecuted that case. Do you know how many senators voted to convict President Trump [2:24] of high crimes and misdemeanors during that trial, Mr. Smith? I don't recall. 57 senators. Do you know [2:29] how many Republicans voted to convict him? I don't recall. Seven Republican United States senators [2:34] voted to convict President Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors. It was the most bipartisan vote [2:42] for conviction of a president in the history of the republic. So they can engage in as much [2:51] histrionics as they want to try to rewrite history. But facts are facts. They talk about [2:58] weaponization. They accuse you of weaponization of the justice system. While the Federal Reserve [3:06] Board chairman rings the alarm about political retaliation by this Department of Justice. [3:14] Mr. Smith, I don't know if you're aware of this. I don't know if your counsel has made you aware [3:19] that President Trump is live tweeting, live, I guess you call it truth, socially as we speak. [3:25] Are you aware of this, about this hearing? No. Let me read to you what he posted an hour and a half [3:33] ago. Deranged Jack Smith is being decimated before Congress. It was over when they discussed his past [3:39] failures and unfair prosecutions. He destroyed many lives under the guise of legitimacy. Jack Smith is a [3:44] deranged animal who shouldn't be allowed to practice law. If you're a Republican, his license would be [3:48] taken away from him and far worse. Hopefully the Attorney General is looking at what he's done. [3:56] We have a word for this. It's called weaponization. It's called corruption. Mr. Smith, if you care to [4:04] respond, I'll give you an opportunity. But I will simply say we are grateful for your service to this [4:11] country. We appreciate your fidelity to the rule of law. And I would echo the comments that have been made [4:18] by my Democratic colleagues to ignore the noise that you hear from so many of my colleagues who would [4:25] debase themselves in this way. It is, in my view, subversive of the oaths that we took to defend the [4:37] Constitution. I'm happy to give you an opportunity, Mr. Smith, if you'd like to respond. [4:41] I don't have anything to add. Thank you for your service. I yield back. [4:44] The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [4:48] In 2010, Mr. Smith, did you work for President Obama's Department of Justice? [4:56] Yes. In 2010, I was the chief of the public integrity section. [4:59] During that time, did you have any contact or connection with Lois Lerner with the Obama [5:03] IRS? Yes. I was new to the public integrity section. I was the chief. I was trying to learn about [5:13] issues I had not been at. Did you attempt to work with Lois Lerner and the IRS to investigate [5:19] nonprofits? What I did was I asked for a meeting with the IRS about nonprofits. [5:29] So the simple answer is yes. Well, I didn't ask to work with Ms. Lerner. They sent Ms. Lerner. [5:34] That's the person who came to this meeting. I met her once. And they went after Second Amendment [5:39] groups, correct? If you remember correctly, that was that's what was the offshoot of it, [5:44] that Second Amendment groups that tried to gain nonprofit status. They were slow rolled through [5:49] the IRS. Do you recall that? Separate from this, there was an investigation of that that I was a part [5:57] of. Did you? Did you? You prosecuted Virginia Governor Bob McDonald. This was asked earlier. [6:04] You prosecuted him, correct? I was part of the prosecution. Yes. And that ended up with a [6:10] being that decision ended up being unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court, correct? [6:17] That is correct, sir. Yeah. Including Justice Ginsburg joined in on that opinion, correct? [6:24] I believe that's correct. Yeah. You also prosecuted John Edwards and Bob Menendez, [6:28] and those both ended in mistrials. Is that right? The John Edwards case did. The Menendez [6:36] case, I had left the public integrity section by the time that case was was tried. I wasn't. [6:43] So, Mr. Chairman, what we heard from the other side here is that this gentleman is the gold [6:47] standard for prosecution here in the United States. So think about it. We had a witch hunt [6:52] done by the IRS going after Second Amendment groups unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court, [7:00] prosecuted two prominent political figures, and they ended up as mistrials. That's a gold standard [7:07] standard here in America. I would just say this, Mr. Chairman. If Mr. Smith ever works for the [7:13] Department of Justice again, I would recommend a remedial course on the First Amendment to the [7:18] Constitution. Before I yield the rest of my time, Mr. Smith, I just have one other question. Is there [7:25] any historical precedent for an alternate slate of electors to be sent to Congress? Has that ever [7:31] happened before? That had happened. Not anything similar to this situation, but you're correct. It [7:38] was in Hawaii. I think it was Hawaii in, I want to say, the 1960 election. So it has happened before [7:46] that there was an alternate slate of electors that was sent to Congress, which does the electoral count, [7:52] correct? There was a prior time that an electoral slate was sent where there was litigation and recounts [8:01] going on. Actually, there's twice that it happened, Mr. Chairman. It happened in 1876 and 1960 that these [8:08] alternate electors happened. I'd like to ask unanimous consent to introduce the 1960 Hawaii case. [8:14] Objective. With that, I yield to the chairman. I appreciate the gentleman yield. The gentleman from [8:18] Colorado talked about noise from this side. It's not noise, it's facts. The fact is you approved a $20,000 [8:26] payment to a confidential human source, and I think you said earlier the reason this individual [8:31] or entity or person was paid was to review photo and video evidence. Why'd they have to be [8:38] confidential? Why didn't you just contract with them? My understanding is that this person was a [8:46] confidential human source with the FBI. I do not know why they were confidential, but it would make [8:52] sense to me, given that this person was assisting. Well, confidential just raises the question of what [8:59] were you trying to hide. Why not tell us? We know you hid the fact that you were getting phone records [9:05] from members of Congress. We want to know why this payment had to be hidden. Why couldn't you just [9:11] contract, which would be the customary normal way I think of doing it? I did not make the determination [9:18] that this source would be confidential, but given that this person was working on an investigation [9:23] involving attacks on the Capitol and given the violence in that, it makes complete sense to me [9:31] that the Bureau would- You know of any of the other special counsels who approved payments to [9:35] like, I don't remember Robert Mueller approving payments to confidential human sources. I don't [9:41] remember Durham. I don't remember her. We brought all those guys in front of the committee. It's the first time I've [9:46] ever heard of a special counsel having to pay secret money to someone to get information when you had [9:52] the broadest subpoena power you could possibly have. You aware of any of the other special [9:56] counsels who had to do this? I am not aware whether confidential sources were or were not used in those [10:07] investigations. That's because I don't think they were. I don't think they were. I'm not aware one way or the [10:10] other. I can say that the use of confidential human sources is a standard thing done by the Federal [10:18] Bureau of Investigations. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired. I now yield to the [10:22] gentlelady from Georgia for five minutes, Ms. McBath. Thank you, Chairman. And Mr. Smith, thank you for [10:27] appearing today to speak publicly about the major issues that you handled as special counsel. Your work [10:33] on election interference in my home state is especially important as Georgia still today remains ground zero for [10:40] voting rights. My state has a long history of voter suppression, including violent tactics and [10:46] suppression legislation that is actively disfranchised our voters. In fact, the Department of Justice filed a [10:52] lawsuit against Georgia in 2023 challenging recently passed voter suppression legislation. That lawsuit was [11:00] later withdrawn by Donald Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi. But this is not the first time that Donald Trump [11:07] has encouraged voter suppression. In the 2020 presidential election, which many have accepted that he lost, [11:14] he pressured his party members to overturn a legal election. Thankfully, several public servants upheld [11:22] our constitutional process and respected the voice of the people. Your investigation revealed how far he is [11:30] willing to go. In your final report, you wrote that, and I'm quoting, the through line of all Mr. Trump's [11:38] criminal efforts was deceit, knowingly false claims of fraud. Mr. Smith, what did your investigation reveal [11:46] about President Trump's interactions with Georgia's officials regarding his fraud claims? [11:53] As I sit here now, I can recall two specific officials. The first was the Secretary of State, who was a fellow [12:05] Republican. My understanding, he voted for and supported Donald Trump in the election, but told Donald Trump in a [12:14] conversation that was recorded in no uncertain terms, the results of the election, and debunked many of the fraud claims [12:23] that Donald Trump had to him in real time. In addition to that, I recall that Donald Trump also spoke firsthand with the [12:33] attorney general of your state, also a Republican, who informed Donald Trump that he had supported him and voted [12:40] for him twice in the past. He also told Donald Trump he did not see outcome determined of fraud in that state. [12:47] I have an audio from a phone call between Trump and the Georgia Secretary of State regarding the 2020 election. [12:54] Could you please play the audio? [12:56] The people of the country are angry, and there's nothing wrong with saying that, you know, that you've recalculated. [13:05] Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong. [13:11] So, look, all I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state. [13:27] Mr. Smith, you explained in your deposition that Georgia Secretary of State was one of the witnesses who disabused [13:33] President Trump's false claims. How did Georgia Secretary of State push back against Trump's efforts? [13:39] I think my recollection is in this same call. President Trump repeatedly raised fraud claims, and the Secretary of State repeatedly explained not only that they weren't true, but I believe my recollection is in several instances explained why they weren't true. [14:00] And I believe that call ended. My recollection is that it ended with President Trump, in essence, threatening the Secretary of State that he might be a target for criminal prosecution if he didn't do what President Trump wanted him to do. [14:18] So, see, that raises a very critical point. President Trump didn't just spread lies about the election. In your words, and I'm quoting, he preyed on, end quote, Republican officials in Georgia, [14:30] and other states who believed would help him. Mr. Smith, Donald Trump thought these officials would break the law out of party loyalty. And when those officials, his own political allies, told him the truth, he dismissed them and continued to spread the lies anyway. Is that correct? [14:50] That is correct. [14:50] Mr. Smith, if your case had gone to trial, would the evidence from Georgia have helped prove that President Trump knowingly engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 election? [15:03] Yes. After an investigation following the facts and the law, we believed we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt to prove those charges. [15:11] And in your deposition, you mentioned a fake elector witness in Georgia who you thought would have been a very powerful witness at trial. [15:20] Can you tell us a little bit more about that in a very limited amount of time? [15:23] Sure. It was a witness who had been made to understand that his electoral vote, his alternative electoral vote, would only be used if they won in court, if they won in litigation. [15:37] That didn't happen. And President Trump and his co-conspirators tried to use those alternative fake elector certificates to get Mike Pence. [15:48] Mr. Chairman, regular order. [15:49] Okay. Well, Mr. Smith, thank you so much for the work that you and your team of career prosecutors have put forth in covering this evidence. [15:57] The American people need to know what happened, and they need to know how their president pressured Georgia state officials to overturn their free... [16:05] The gentleman from Alabama has unanimous consent request. [16:07] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. December 6, 2025, Atlanta News First. Fulton County admits to verifying 315,000 votes in the 2020 without poll worker signatures. [16:20] I yield back. [16:21] Without objection. The chair now recognizes for five minutes the gentleman from Arizona. [16:24] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, isn't it true that for a federal criminal conspiracy charge, it requires more than one individual? [16:34] In other words, you're making a contractual agreement of some kind with somebody other than yourself, right? [16:41] That is correct. There has to be an agreement. [16:43] And so when you made the determination to charge President Trump with conspiracy, you surely knew that you had somebody else that he had must have agreed upon somewhere to engage in this act that generated the conspiracy, right? [17:04] That's correct. We alleged specific individuals in the indictment as co-conspirators. [17:09] And so when you... So you knew who you were going to do when you... Who you were going to charge when you pursued the indictment. [17:20] You had the... You knew who the agreeing parties were, but you chose to list them as co-conspirators, but you didn't indict them. [17:27] How often have you done that in the past? [17:31] In the past, I have had a number of cases where I have charged some members of a conspiracy and not charged others. [17:38] One member of the conspiracy. How many times have you done that? [17:42] Charged some... One member of the conspiracy and let everybody else off the hook? [17:47] I'm sure that's happened. That is not an... [17:50] You don't remember doing that? [17:51] That is not an uncommon thing to do in an investigation. [17:56] In my... [17:57] So... So, okay. I... I dispute that, but we're going to leave that as... as it may. [18:03] But let's just get to this. [18:04] If a member of Congress moves to decertify a state's electors, that would not be a crime, would it? [18:11] When you say to decertify... [18:13] You make a motion to decertify on that January 6th, that we... every four years, that's not a... that's not a crime, right? [18:23] Correct. [18:24] And if another elected official urged someone to join them in that decertification, that's not a crime either, right? [18:29] As you stated, it's not. [18:34] Several members of Congress get together over breakfast. [18:36] They say, this is... this is the normal path. [18:38] We watched it because we saw the Democrats do it for every Republican president. [18:43] So we... I'm not sure how to do it. We've never done it before. [18:47] That's not a crime to sit down for breakfast to talk about that or any other time together [18:51] to talk about decertification, is it? [18:55] No, it's not a crime to talk about that over breakfast. [18:58] In your deposition, you talked about... [19:02] You made the argument that an elected official who's been deemed to have lost [19:05] could not knowingly make false statements about election fraud [19:08] to target a lawful government operation. [19:12] Isn't that true? [19:12] That's what you said in your deposition. [19:14] Page 27. [19:15] I believe it's a lawful government function. [19:17] Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah, lawful government function. [19:19] That's what you said. [19:21] You remember saying that? [19:23] I said lawful government function. [19:24] Could you read back what you said again? I'm sorry. [19:28] An elected... it is... [19:30] See, an elected official who's been deemed to have lost [19:32] could not knowingly make false statements about election fraud [19:34] to target a lawful government function. [19:37] You said that would be illegal. [19:39] Remember that, page 27? [19:40] Do you want me to actually read this back? [19:42] Surely you remember that position. [19:44] I'm not denying it, and I apologize. [19:46] I'm just trying to listen to you closely. [19:48] Okay, let's just go right from this. [19:53] You said there's... [19:54] As we said in the indictment, [19:55] he was free to say that he thought he won the election, right? [19:59] That is correct. [20:00] He was even free to say falsely, falsely, [20:02] that he won the election, correct? [20:05] That's correct. [20:07] What you said is he was not free to do [20:09] was violate federal law [20:11] and use knowingly false statements [20:14] about election fraud [20:15] to target a lawful government function. [20:19] That is correct. [20:20] Yeah, and for you, [20:21] that lawful government function [20:22] is the certification process, [20:27] I suppose, on January 6th. [20:28] Well, it's slightly broader than that. [20:31] It's the collecting, counting, [20:33] and certifying of the votes. [20:35] Our view of the evidence [20:36] is that begins from the point of time [20:38] that the electors are certified [20:41] through the counting of the votes. [20:42] So that would be... [20:43] So the entire certification process [20:46] from the state to the feds? [20:48] My recollection, [20:49] as it's pled in the indictment, [20:50] as I sit here, [20:51] I don't have it in front of me, [20:52] but I believe it's from December 14th. [20:56] I think that was the day [20:57] through the voting. [20:59] Okay, so you can't recall, [21:01] but for you, [21:01] it's from the certification [21:03] moving forward [21:04] to the sort of actual ratification [21:05] of the certification process [21:07] on inaugural day. [21:09] My recollection, [21:10] that's what we pled in the indictment, yes. [21:12] Okay. [21:13] So you've managed to filibuster us [21:15] right out of this thing, [21:16] but your beef was, [21:20] you said that President Trump [21:21] engendered a level of distrust. [21:25] You said he made false statements [21:26] to state legislators, [21:27] to his supporters of all sorts, [21:29] and somehow you discerned [21:31] that his supporters were angry. [21:33] And that that was somehow [21:34] related to a criminal offense. [21:35] I find that absolutely weak. [21:38] I think it's misdirected. [21:41] And... [21:41] Time of the gentleman. [21:42] Time of the gentleman's expired. [21:45] Gentleman yields back. [21:46] Mr. Chair, [21:46] I ask unanimous consent [21:47] to enter into the record. [21:50] Axios dated August 2nd, 2023. [21:53] Barr says Trump's First Amendment [21:56] argument in January 6th case [21:58] this is not valid. [21:59] Objection? [22:01] Did you have one? [22:02] No. [22:03] Okay. [22:04] General Lee from North Carolina [22:05] is recognized. [22:06] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [22:08] Mr. Smith, [22:09] many of us were here [22:11] on January 6th [22:12] and directly experienced [22:15] what happened. [22:16] Yet some of my colleagues [22:17] across the aisle [22:18] still insist [22:21] that Trump had no role [22:22] in the violence. [22:24] In videos [22:25] of the raging battle [22:27] against our brave [22:28] Capitol Police officers, [22:31] many rioters [22:31] were screaming things like, [22:33] we were invited here [22:35] by the president. [22:36] Mr. Smith, [22:38] did your investigation [22:39] uncover evidence [22:40] that some of the rioters [22:42] had gone to the Capitol [22:43] because they really believed [22:45] the president [22:46] had invited them there? [22:51] There were, [22:52] I believe there's video [22:54] of rioters [22:56] saying, in fact, [22:57] that as we pled [22:59] in the indictment, [23:01] the knowing laws [23:03] that Donald Trump [23:04] put out [23:06] in the weeks leading up to that [23:08] led to a level of distrust [23:11] and he ultimately knew [23:12] that the crowd [23:13] at the Capitol [23:15] or at the Ellipse, [23:16] I should say, [23:17] was angry [23:18] before he told them [23:19] to march toward the Capitol. [23:22] And we've seen report [23:23] after report [23:24] of rioters [23:25] who have said [23:26] that if Donald Trump [23:27] had not convinced them [23:29] that the election [23:30] had been stolen, [23:31] they might not have even come [23:33] to Washington. [23:34] I'm going to share [23:35] some quotes [23:36] from some of those rioters. [23:38] I believed I was following up [23:39] on the instructions [23:40] of former President Trump, [23:42] one rioter said [23:43] about going to the Capitol. [23:45] I marched to the U.S. Capitol [23:46] because President Trump [23:48] said to do so. [23:49] Another said. [23:50] He personally asked for me [23:52] to come that day, [23:54] said another. [23:55] Can you give us [23:56] a few examples [23:57] of Trump's rhetoric [23:59] and language [24:00] that inspired people [24:02] to go to the Capitol [24:03] believing that they were going [24:05] on the President's direct order? [24:08] One instance I can recall [24:14] is during [24:15] the speech he gave [24:19] to his supporters [24:20] and in context [24:22] his supporters [24:22] he told them [24:24] to come to Washington, D.C. [24:25] and be wild. [24:27] He was on notice [24:29] that they were angry [24:31] and he told that crowd [24:33] we can't let this happen. [24:36] And he told them [24:36] that my recollection [24:38] is multiple times [24:39] at a time [24:40] when there was nothing [24:41] that could be done [24:42] to stop the outcome [24:45] of the election [24:45] but to obstruct it. [24:46] In addition to that [24:48] he told them [24:50] when there is fraud [24:51] you can go [24:52] by different rules. [24:54] And my recollection [24:56] is there is a videotape [24:58] of when he's making [24:59] these sort of statements [25:00] and he's saying [25:01] that they need to fight [25:03] if they want to save [25:03] their country [25:04] there are in fact [25:06] people in the crowd [25:07] chanting fight for Trump. [25:09] That that all happened [25:10] during the lip speech [25:13] before people headed [25:16] towards the Capitol [25:17] and the Capitol [25:18] was attacked. [25:20] And did your investigation [25:21] find any of the rioters [25:23] trying to use Trump's words [25:25] and calls to action [25:26] as a defense [25:28] in the criminal cases [25:29] against them? [25:33] I can read you something [25:35] from your special counsel report [25:36] if you'd like. [25:37] I was just going to say [25:37] I think we cited [25:38] a number of rioters [25:40] who ultimately admitted [25:43] that they had committed [25:45] their crimes [25:45] at the behest [25:46] and in the name [25:47] of Donald Trump. [25:48] Okay. [25:49] And it happened [25:50] several times [25:52] and many of those [25:54] accounts are on page 86 [25:57] and page 87 [25:58] of the special counsel report. [26:01] Even the lawyer [26:02] for Jacob Chansley [26:03] also known as [26:04] the QAnon shaman [26:06] highlighted [26:06] that his words [26:08] how the words [26:08] affected his client. [26:09] He heard the words [26:11] of the president. [26:11] He believed them. [26:13] He genuinely believed them. [26:15] And he thought [26:15] that the president [26:16] was actually going to walk [26:18] with them [26:18] to the Capitol. [26:20] For my final question, [26:22] Mr. Smith, [26:22] do you believe [26:23] that Donald Trump [26:24] motivated [26:25] and was responsible [26:26] for the violence [26:27] that occurred on that day [26:29] even if he didn't walk [26:31] with them [26:32] to the Capitol? [26:34] Yes. [26:34] As we stated [26:36] in our report, [26:38] the results [26:39] of our investigation [26:40] following the facts [26:41] and following the law [26:42] was that he [26:43] was the person [26:44] most responsible [26:45] for what happened [26:46] at the Capitol [26:46] and that he caused [26:48] what would happen [26:49] at the Capitol [26:49] and that it was [26:50] foreseeable to him. [26:51] Thank you. [26:52] Mr. Chairman, [26:53] I have two UCs. [26:54] Joan, I can state [26:56] her unanimous consent request. [26:57] I asked unanimous consent [26:58] to enter into the record [27:00] a tweet [27:00] from Representative Biggs [27:02] on January 7, 2021, [27:05] in which he said, [27:06] quote, [27:06] yesterday criminal rioters [27:08] hijacked a joint session [27:09] of conduct. [27:10] Objection. [27:12] Not objection. [27:13] And the second one [27:14] is a unanimous consent [27:16] to enter into the record [27:17] an interview [27:18] from March 2024 [27:21] on the Capitol Hill show [27:23] in which you [27:24] called on those [27:26] who attacked [27:26] the Capitol [27:27] on January 6 [27:28] to be, quote, [27:29] held accountable [27:30] because, quote, [27:31] that's the way [27:32] our system does work [27:33] and should work. [27:35] Objection. [27:35] Thank you very much. [27:37] Thank you very much. [27:38] The gentleman from Texas. [27:40] Thank you, Chairman. [27:41] Mr. Smith, [27:41] how many members of Congress [27:42] or the Senate [27:43] did you subpoena [27:43] phone toll records? [27:45] As I sit here right now, [27:49] I do not recall [27:50] a specific number. [27:51] Is this the complete list [27:52] right here? [27:58] Let me ask you this. [27:59] Am I on this list? [28:02] Did you target my records [28:04] and subpoena my phone [28:05] toll records? [28:08] My understanding [28:10] is your records [28:10] were subpoenaed [28:11] by prosecutors [28:12] before I became [28:14] special counsel. [28:16] Well, staff put this [28:16] up on the screen. [28:18] I'm thankful for the great [28:19] staff who discovered [28:19] the email where I learned [28:20] for the first time [28:21] a few weeks ago [28:22] that my phone records [28:24] were indeed targeted. [28:27] We called AT&T [28:28] and we've learned [28:28] that they were given [28:29] to the Department of Justice [28:30] as this email indicates [28:33] because I've been [28:34] in communication [28:35] with Scott Perry, [28:37] one of my colleagues [28:38] here in Congress, [28:39] who literally had [28:41] his phone taken [28:42] from him in front [28:42] of his family. [28:44] And of course, [28:44] we've already talked [28:45] about in this document, [28:46] it talks about [28:47] you could be in violation [28:47] of the privilege [28:48] by even obtaining [28:49] and possessing [28:50] this information [28:50] if the member [28:51] objected to the disclosure. [28:52] This happened [28:54] four years ago [28:54] in May of 2022 [28:55] and I couldn't object [28:56] because I didn't know. [28:57] I didn't know [28:59] until about three weeks ago. [29:01] My question here is, [29:02] was there any limits [29:03] to your investigation [29:04] or the investigation [29:04] that preceded you, [29:05] Mr. Smith? [29:06] Because as egregious [29:07] as a violation [29:08] of separation of powers [29:09] this is, [29:10] as an egregious [29:10] and abuse of power it is, [29:12] it's far more concerning [29:13] you are clearly targeting [29:15] American citizens [29:16] for merely being conservative [29:17] or supporting the president. [29:20] We've got memos [29:21] that we've already [29:21] been talking about [29:22] in this hearing [29:23] from April 2022 [29:24] that preceded you [29:25] that established [29:26] and opened [29:26] the investigations, [29:27] one of which [29:28] has Attorney General [29:29] Merrick Garland's [29:30] signature on it [29:30] and the focus [29:31] was the electors. [29:33] Now that was six months [29:34] before you were appointed. [29:36] You testified earlier, [29:37] you met and interviewed [29:38] Merrick Garland [29:38] and Deputy AG Lisa Monaco [29:40] and you briefed the AG [29:41] and Deputy multiple times. [29:43] Did you brief them [29:43] on the electors [29:44] and the prosecution [29:45] of their supposed crimes? [29:48] Did I, I'm sorry, sir? [29:49] Did you brief them [29:49] on the electors [29:50] and their supposed crimes? [29:53] I don't recall [29:55] specific conversations [29:57] but I'm sure [29:58] that in the course [29:58] of briefing them [29:59] I discussed. [29:59] It wasn't that [30:00] the purpose [30:00] of the entire investigation [30:02] as it was set out? [30:04] Because putting aside [30:04] that in 1960 [30:05] it was already talked [30:06] about my friend [30:07] Mr. Tiffany [30:07] that Hawaii put forward [30:08] an alternate slate [30:09] of electors, [30:10] the investigation pivoted [30:11] to President Trump [30:12] and frankly anybody [30:13] who knew him. [30:14] Do you know [30:15] who Cleta Mitchell is? [30:18] Yes, I do. [30:19] She's an election lawyer [30:19] that was involved [30:20] in filing an election contest [30:21] on behalf of President Trump [30:23] in Georgia [30:23] in December of 2020. [30:25] A 64-page complaint [30:26] with over 1,100 pages [30:28] of exhibits, [30:29] witness affidavits [30:29] and expert witness reports [30:31] documenting thousands [30:32] of votes cast [30:32] in violation of Georgia law [30:34] but which were nevertheless [30:35] included in the vote totals. [30:37] Now, notwithstanding [30:38] the disposition [30:39] of the cases [30:40] that was filed, [30:42] is that a criminal act? [30:44] Filing an election contest [30:45] on behalf of a candidate [30:47] for office, [30:47] a client. [30:50] Is that a criminal act? [30:51] Yes or no? [30:52] No. [30:52] In fact, we stated... [30:53] So why did you deem it [30:54] appropriate to monitor [30:55] Cleta Mitchell's [30:56] long-distance phone records [30:57] in 2023, [30:58] two and a half years [30:59] after the election context [31:00] was filed [31:01] and after the presidential [31:02] electors were certified? [31:04] What about Jen Ellis? [31:05] What about Sidney Powell? [31:07] What about Bill Sepien? [31:09] What crime did you suspect [31:10] had been committed by them [31:11] that would warrant [31:12] monitoring their phone records [31:13] two and a half years [31:14] after the 2020 election [31:16] was certified? [31:22] With respect to Sidney Powell, [31:24] she is one of the co-conspirators [31:27] alleged in the indictment. [31:29] I don't know what you mean [31:30] by monitoring, sir. [31:32] Well, there were some 400-plus [31:33] Republican conservative groups [31:34] and leaders who were targeted [31:35] by your investigation. [31:36] Their financial records were [31:37] obtained, records of the RNC, [31:39] the Trump campaign, [31:40] Cleta Mitchell, [31:41] the conservative partnership [31:42] institute, [31:42] the America First League Policy [31:44] Institute, NRCC, NRSC, [31:46] PACs, conservative groups, [31:48] people all across the country, [31:49] citizens, [31:49] because we hear a lot [31:50] about members of Congress. [31:53] And we should because of [31:53] separation of powers. [31:54] And the egregious abuse of power. [31:56] But what we're not talking about [31:57] enough, in my opinion, [31:58] are the American citizens [31:59] that have been targeted. [32:01] Because, frankly, [32:01] are there any limits [32:02] to the power of a special prosecutor [32:04] or special counsel? [32:05] So much so in your abuse of power [32:07] that in the summer of 2024, [32:09] the indictment involving [32:11] classified documents [32:12] was dismissed [32:12] after determining your appointment [32:14] violated the appointments clause [32:15] of the Constitution, [32:17] but you continue to sign your name [32:18] on court filings [32:19] until the time you resigned [32:21] from office in January of 2025. [32:24] The federal judge has recently stated [32:25] a prosecutor who continues [32:26] to sign his name [32:27] in court filings [32:28] after a disqualification order [32:29] should face disciplinary action [32:31] or disbarment. [32:33] I yield back. [32:34] The gentleman yields back. [32:36] The gentleman [32:37] have the opportunity to respond? [32:39] If the gentleman wants [32:39] to respond, he can. [32:41] With respect to the last point, [32:43] Judge Cannon's order [32:44] specifically limited [32:45] her finding to that proceeding. [32:47] So there would be [32:48] nothing improper [32:49] about continuing [32:51] to litigate the cases [32:52] in Washington, D.C. [32:56] And with respect [32:56] to Florida, [32:59] there was nothing improper [33:00] about taking an appeal [33:02] of that very decision. [33:03] The gentlelady from Vermont [33:05] is recognized for five minutes. [33:06] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [33:07] Mr. Smith, [33:08] I want to discuss volume two [33:09] of your report, [33:10] which summarizes [33:12] the findings [33:12] of your investigation [33:13] into President Trump's hoarding [33:15] of classified documents [33:16] at Mar-a-Lago [33:17] and his efforts [33:18] to obstruct [33:19] the FBI's investigation. [33:21] Mr. Smith, [33:22] is it generally the practice [33:23] for a special counsel's report [33:25] to be made public [33:26] to the American people? [33:29] I want to say first, [33:31] I'm limited [33:32] what I can say [33:33] about volume two [33:34] because of Judge Cannon's order. [33:37] I can say generally [33:38] that with respect [33:41] to special counsels, [33:42] there are regulations [33:43] that direct a special counsel [33:45] to draft a regulation [33:46] report. [33:47] Whether that report [33:48] becomes public [33:48] is determined, [33:51] the attorney general [33:51] has the authority [33:52] to determine that. [33:53] To the best of your knowledge, [33:55] was special counsel [33:56] Mueller's report [33:57] made public in full? [33:58] I know it was made public. [34:02] I'm not sure [34:03] if it was made public in full. [34:04] What about special counsel [34:05] Herr's report? [34:08] My recollection [34:09] is his report [34:10] was made public in full. [34:13] I believe that's correct. [34:14] And special counsel [34:15] Weiss's report? [34:16] I do not know. [34:18] Okay. [34:19] Now, I understand [34:20] that the district judge [34:22] Aileen Cannon, [34:23] the Trump appointee [34:24] who oversaw the case [34:25] in Florida, [34:26] issued a gag order [34:27] that prevents you [34:28] from discussing [34:28] any parts [34:29] of the classified documents [34:31] investigation. [34:31] That is not already public. [34:33] I understand that. [34:34] Including your findings [34:35] that you laid out [34:36] in volume two [34:37] of that report. [34:38] Am I correct [34:39] that the reason [34:40] your report [34:40] is not available [34:42] in full to the public [34:43] is because of this gag order? [34:44] Uh, I wrote a report [34:48] uh, the attorney general [34:51] it was submitted to him. [34:52] I understand [34:53] generally [34:54] that there's been litigation [34:55] about whether this report [34:57] would be public or not. [34:58] I have not been [34:59] a party to that litigation. [35:00] I just know [35:01] that there is an order [35:02] and I know [35:03] uh, the department of justice [35:05] the current department [35:06] of justice [35:06] has interpreted [35:07] that in order [35:08] in a way [35:09] that I cannot speak [35:10] about anything [35:11] that, uh, could possibly [35:13] be in that report [35:14] uh, in its findings. [35:16] And when Judge Cannon [35:17] issued that gag order [35:19] she cited pending cases [35:20] against Trump's [35:21] co-defendants. [35:22] Is that correct? [35:23] I'm sorry? [35:24] When Judge Cannon [35:25] issued the gag order [35:26] she cited pending cases [35:29] against Trump's [35:30] co-defendants. [35:31] Is that correct? [35:32] That's my recollection. [35:33] Are those cases [35:33] still pending? [35:35] No, they're not. [35:37] No, they're not. [35:38] So there is no reason [35:39] from where I sit [35:41] for this important information [35:42] to be not made public. [35:44] At this point [35:46] I want to turn now [35:47] to President Trump's [35:48] attacks on you. [35:51] Trump has a playbook [35:52] for how he handles people [35:53] who try to hold him [35:55] accountable. [35:56] In August 2023 [35:57] right after your office [35:58] indicted him [35:59] President Trump [36:00] shared that playbook [36:01] on social media [36:02] for everyone to see. [36:04] He wrote [36:04] if you go after me [36:06] I'm coming for you. [36:08] Trump has said [36:08] that you, Mr. Smith [36:10] should be investigated [36:11] and put in prison. [36:13] He called you a disgrace [36:14] to humanity. [36:14] A radical left Marxist. [36:17] A criminal. [36:18] In fact, Trump has used [36:19] the words deranged Jack Smith [36:21] 185 times on truth social. [36:26] How do you think [36:27] that these statements [36:28] have impacted you, [36:30] your staff, [36:31] and your investigation? [36:36] With respect to me, [36:37] I think the reports, [36:38] I'm sorry, [36:39] the statements [36:39] are meant to intimidate me. [36:42] I will not be intimidated. [36:44] I think these statements [36:47] are also made [36:48] as a warning to others [36:50] what will happen [36:50] if they stand up. [36:52] And I am, [36:53] as I say, [36:54] I'm not going to be intimidated. [36:56] We did our work [36:57] pursuant to department policy. [37:00] We followed the facts [37:01] and we followed the law. [37:02] And that process [37:04] resulted in proof [37:06] beyond a reasonable doubt [37:07] that he committed serious crimes. [37:08] I'm not going to pretend [37:10] that didn't happen [37:10] because he's threatening me. [37:11] And Mr. Smith, [37:13] do you believe [37:14] that President Trump's [37:16] Department of Justice [37:17] will find some way [37:19] to indict you? [37:21] I believe they will do [37:23] everything in their power [37:24] to do that [37:24] because they've been ordered to [37:25] by the president. [37:29] That's very concerning, [37:30] obviously. [37:31] It's very concerning [37:32] to all of us, [37:33] at least on this side [37:34] of the aisle. [37:36] This is Trump's playbook [37:37] at work. [37:39] Complain loudly, [37:40] gin up hatred [37:41] and resentment, [37:41] then express our hope [37:42] that somebody [37:43] will do something, [37:44] but never explicitly [37:45] order anyone to act. [37:47] And then watch [37:48] as his followers [37:49] and loyalists [37:50] go after their targets. [37:51] This is what happened [37:52] on January 6th. [37:54] Trump stood at the ellipse [37:55] and gave a campaign speech [37:56] to his supporters [37:57] and he said, [37:58] if you don't fight like hell, [37:59] you're not going to have [38:00] a country anymore. [38:02] And I think it's clear [38:03] that his intimidation [38:05] will stop at nothing. [38:07] I want to speak [38:08] on behalf, [38:10] in closing, [38:10] I want to speak on behalf... [38:11] No closing. [38:12] Chairman, regular order. [38:13] No, I'm sorry. [38:14] Mr. Chairman, regular order. [38:15] You have gone over [38:16] numerous times. [38:18] I am taking my few moments. [38:20] I'll let you go. [38:20] A couple more seconds. [38:21] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [38:21] Like I have all day. [38:22] Thank you. [38:24] On behalf of the people [38:25] of the state of Vermont, [38:26] thank you [38:27] for all of your 30 years [38:29] of service to this country [38:30] and to the police officers [38:31] sitting here. [38:33] I'm ashamed. [38:34] I'm ashamed [38:35] that you have not [38:37] gotten your due. [38:38] Time of the general aid [38:39] has expired. [38:39] I yield back. [38:40] The gentleman from New Jersey [38:41] is recognized. [38:41] I've got a UC request. [38:42] Gentleman, ranking member [38:43] is recognized for UC. [38:44] Thank you kindly, [38:45] Mr. Chairman. [38:45] The first is a New York Times [38:47] article titled [38:48] Hunting Leaks, [38:49] Trump DOJ Officials [38:51] Seized Records of Democrats [38:52] Explaining How the Trump [38:55] Administration Subpoenaed Apple [38:56] for Data from the Council [38:57] of at Least a Dozen People [38:58] Tied to the House Intelligence [39:00] Committee in 2017-18, [39:02] including Representative [39:03] Swalwell [39:03] and Senator Adam Schiff. [39:05] Objection. [39:06] And the other similarly [39:07] is Trump's DOJ secretly [39:09] obtained phone and text [39:11] message logs of 43 [39:12] congressional staffers [39:13] and two members of Congress. [39:15] That's December 10, 2024. [39:17] Without objection. [39:18] The chair now recognizes [39:19] the gentleman from New Jersey. [39:20] Thank you, Chairman. [39:21] You know, I don't even know [39:22] where to go [39:23] because there's so much, [39:24] Mr. Smith. [39:25] There really is. [39:26] But it isn't, [39:27] what I do know is [39:28] it's much more [39:29] than how much people [39:31] like or hate you [39:32] or like or hate Donald Trump [39:34] or like or hate Republicans [39:36] or like or hate Democrats. [39:39] This is about the system. [39:41] It's about what [39:41] the Department of Justice did. [39:43] It's about what you did. [39:44] The core of the hearing [39:46] is all about [39:48] can Americans [39:49] still trust [39:50] the justice system? [39:52] Is it fair? [39:53] Was it fair under you? [39:55] And all they expect, [39:56] they don't expect you [39:57] to be perfect, [39:58] but they expect you [39:59] to treat everyone the same, [40:01] Republicans [40:01] and Democrats, [40:03] liberals and conservatives. [40:04] But that wasn't the case. [40:06] When you treat people [40:08] differently [40:08] because of their political status, [40:11] their political party, [40:12] their ideals, [40:13] that's hypocrisy. [40:16] And I'm sorry to say, [40:18] and I don't say it lightly, [40:19] I do consider you [40:20] to be a hypocrite. [40:22] With that being said, [40:24] you know, [40:25] I think the prosecutors [40:26] and the people around you [40:28] stretch norms, [40:29] change standards [40:30] depending upon [40:31] who was under investigation, [40:32] so you don't like [40:33] Donald Trump [40:34] and so you're [40:35] a liberal Democrat, [40:36] whatever the case may be. [40:38] And they went after him. [40:40] And by the way, [40:40] it's interesting, [40:41] in all those congressional records [40:42] that were subpoenaed, [40:44] all those congressional records [40:45] that were looked at, [40:47] was one of them [40:48] a Democrat? [40:52] No. [40:53] The answer is no. [40:54] I'll answer for you. [40:55] So I got simple questions. [40:57] I always say I'm a simple guy, [40:59] but it really boils down to this. [41:00] How much can Americans [41:01] trust this system? [41:02] In your special counsel report, [41:04] you stated President Trump engaged [41:06] and was guilty [41:07] of criminal conspiracies [41:08] and he was guilty [41:09] of criminal conduct [41:10] and you publicly testified [41:11] you believed [41:12] you had the proof, etc. [41:14] If prosecutors deal this way [41:16] with cases, [41:17] if they declare [41:18] that it's guilty [41:18] and it's over [41:19] before a jury verdict, [41:21] would Americans trust [41:22] the justice system more [41:24] or would they? [41:25] Would they trust the system more? [41:28] The answer, [41:28] go ahead, answer, please answer. [41:30] I'm sorry, [41:30] I didn't understand [41:32] what you were asking me. [41:32] So when this was all going on, [41:35] before, [41:36] and I believe it was political, [41:37] before there was an entire case [41:39] and we went through the whole case, [41:41] you pretty much declared, [41:42] and I'm not going to read [41:43] the whole thing through again, [41:44] that President Trump was guilty. [41:46] That wasn't your job. [41:47] That's a judge's job. [41:48] It's a jury's job. [41:49] It's not your job. [41:51] Don't you think that's unfair, [41:53] that that's wrong, [41:54] that it didn't make [41:55] the playing field level? [41:57] Did it make people [41:58] less trustworthy of the system? [42:01] Yes or no? [42:02] No. [42:03] When I announced the charges [42:04] in the election case, [42:06] I specifically stated [42:07] that the case needed to be tried [42:09] and that he had a right [42:12] to go to trial [42:12] and he was presumed innocent. [42:13] And thank you for, [42:14] I just want a simple answer [42:15] because we are limited on time. [42:17] I disagree with you. [42:18] I don't think you did. [42:20] Your office secretly subpoenaed [42:21] and phone record, [42:22] got records of members of Congress [42:25] and you kept those subpoenas [42:27] hidden through non-disclosure orders. [42:30] That's wrong. [42:31] They should have known. [42:32] You want to do that, fine. [42:33] It's wrong. [42:34] Number one, it's wrong [42:35] because people have a right, [42:36] the American public has a right to know, [42:38] the elected officials have a right to know. [42:40] It's your right to subpoena them, [42:42] but they should know. [42:43] Secondly, [42:44] and I brought this up before, [42:46] not one Democrat, [42:47] it's all Republicans, [42:48] all Republicans. [42:49] Everything you've done, [42:51] everything you've ever done [42:51] is always against Republicans. [42:53] Do you think that puts more trust [42:55] in the system [42:56] when you're so partisan in that way? [42:58] Yes or no? [43:00] No. [43:00] Politics played no role [43:02] in our investigation. [43:03] I have prosecuted Republicans [43:04] and Democrats throughout my career. [43:06] I have dismissed cases [43:08] against Republicans and Democrats. [43:10] You didn't have the proof. [43:11] If prosecutors routinely relied [43:13] on politically imbalanced [43:15] investigations, [43:16] and by this I mean, [43:17] let me appeal to your sense of fairness. [43:19] You're saying you're a fair man. [43:20] We had a January 6th committee, [43:23] select committee, [43:24] that was appointed only by a Democrat, [43:27] the then speaker, Nancy Pelosi. [43:29] Everybody on it was a Democrat, [43:31] except two Republicans [43:33] that hated Republicans. [43:36] Was that fair? [43:38] Was that fair? [43:39] I mean, look at our system here in Congress. [43:42] We've got Democrats, man, they speak up. [43:44] You've got Republicans, we speak up. [43:45] You hear both sides. [43:47] That's the way a select committee should be. [43:49] And you based everything upon [43:51] this biased, unfair, prejudiced system. [43:56] How is that fair? [43:58] Tell me how that's fair. [43:59] That's not correct. [44:00] We conducted an independent investigation. [44:02] You based a lot on that commission. [44:04] You got all their records. [44:05] That's not correct. [44:06] We did collect their records. [44:08] We conducted our own independent investigation [44:10] following the facts and the law. [44:12] And you used a lot of their information, [44:13] Mr. Smith. [44:14] I don't mean to cut you off. [44:15] I've got limited time. [44:17] Joe Biden took classified records [44:19] that were not to be taken [44:21] when he was vice president [44:23] and when he was Senate. [44:25] And I know you didn't deal directly [44:26] with that case. [44:27] Mr. Chairman? [44:28] But nevertheless, he did. [44:31] Is that fair? [44:32] Because he let him go. [44:34] Don't do anything to him. [44:35] But on the other hand, [44:36] when it's President Trump [44:37] who did it as president, [44:39] then there was all... [44:39] And you raided Mar-a-Lago. [44:41] Is that fair? [44:41] I'm the gentleman. [44:42] Mr. Chairman? [44:43] Well, I'd like him to answer. [44:44] If the witness would like to respond, he can. [44:47] I have no response. [44:48] It's damn unfair. [44:49] That's the answer. [44:50] We've got UC requests. [44:51] UC requests from the gentleman from California. [44:52] Yes, I have a unanimous consent request. [44:54] I ask unanimous consent [44:55] to enter into the record [44:57] the government's sentencing memorandum [44:59] for Capitol rioter Cody Mattis [45:01] who said that, quote, [45:02] when the former president [45:03] asked his supporters to march on the Capitol, [45:06] it was not a call [45:07] to peacefully and patriotically [45:09] make your voice heard. [45:09] Objection. [45:10] But to storm and seize the building. [45:12] And I've got one, Mr. Chairman, [45:13] the gentleman's recognized. [45:14] This is a press release [45:15] from Congressman Jeff Van Drew's [45:16] statement on storming the Capitol building, [45:18] calling it unacceptable, un-American, [45:20] and disrespectful of democracy. [45:22] Without objection. [45:23] The chair now recognizes [45:25] the gentleman from Illinois. [45:30] Thank you, Chairman, [45:31] and thank you, Mr. Smith, [45:32] for being here today. [45:34] Let's remember why we're here today. [45:37] Donald Trump incited an insurrection in 2020 [45:41] because he refused to accept [45:43] that he lost that election. [45:44] And then he took classified documents with him [45:48] and put them in Mar-a-Lago. [45:50] Republicans support impunity for criminals, [45:54] not accountability. [45:55] There's no clearer example [45:57] than that of the blanket pardon [45:59] of nearly 1,600 insurrectionists [46:02] on day one of this disgrateful presidency. [46:06] Trump pardoned people convicted [46:07] of seditious conspiracy [46:09] who brutalized police officers. [46:11] There are four of them [46:12] who can testify to that here [46:15] and who wanted to kill [46:16] Vice President Pence, [46:19] people who've committed more crimes [46:21] since the insurrection, [46:23] sexual assault, [46:24] child molestation, [46:26] aggravated kidnapping. [46:28] That's who Trump pardoned, [46:30] and that's who side Republicans are on. [46:34] They may not want to, [46:35] but they are because [46:35] they refuse to tell the truth. [46:37] Mr. Smith, let me ask you something. [46:39] Does pardoning violent rioters [46:42] who brutalized law enforcement officers, [46:46] spray-peppering them, [46:47] tasering them, [46:48] beating them up, [46:49] kicking them, [46:50] smashing them in door frames, [46:52] make our country safer? [46:54] Absolutely not. [46:56] As a prosecutor, [46:59] can you describe [47:00] why these pardons [47:03] make our communities [47:05] less safe [47:05] and undermine [47:06] our criminal legal system [47:08] more broadly? [47:10] The people who assaulted police officers [47:18] and were convicted after trial, [47:21] in my view, [47:22] and I think in the view of the judges [47:23] who sentenced them to prison, [47:25] are dangerous to their community. [47:27] As you've mentioned, [47:29] some of these people [47:29] have already committed crimes [47:32] against their communities again, [47:34] and I think all of us, [47:36] if we're reasonable, [47:37] know that there's going to be [47:38] more crimes committed [47:39] by these people in the future. [47:42] I do not understand [47:44] why you would mass pardon [47:46] people who assaulted police officers. [47:49] I don't get it. [47:50] I never will. [47:52] That's exactly right. [47:54] And none of this is a coincidence. [47:57] The entire purpose [47:58] of the Republican Party, [48:00] unfortunately, [48:01] has become to help criminals [48:03] and corporate interests [48:04] evade accountability. [48:06] Republicans want impunity, [48:08] not accountability. [48:09] They want impunity [48:10] for the January 6th people, [48:14] for the classified documents case, [48:16] for the Epstein files, [48:18] for billionaires [48:18] and big corporations, [48:19] and for terror [48:21] that DHS is sowing [48:23] on our streets. [48:26] The Gestapo tactics [48:27] by ICE and CBP [48:29] are the obvious result [48:30] of President Trump [48:32] and the Republican Party [48:33] that protect anyone [48:34] who helps them [48:35] turn our country [48:36] into an authoritarian, [48:39] gangster state. [48:41] Whether it's storming the Capitol [48:42] to overthrow an election [48:44] or murdering people [48:45] in broad daylight, [48:47] Republicans will back you [48:49] if you back [48:50] their political mafia [48:51] and racketeering operation. [48:54] That's why Democrats [48:56] must fight [48:57] for accountability [48:58] through oversight, [49:00] through legislation, [49:01] evidence collection, [49:02] and through prosecution [49:04] for the openly criminal acts [49:07] that we're seeing [49:08] in our communities [49:09] every day. [49:11] Democracy [49:11] doesn't exist [49:13] without accountability, [49:15] but you've got to have [49:16] a spine. [49:16] I thank you, Mr. Smith, [49:19] for doing your part. [49:21] Our community, [49:22] our fight continues [49:23] for accountability, [49:25] not for impunity. [49:26] Thank you, [49:27] and I yield that. [49:28] May I have a touch? [49:30] Mr. Chairman, [49:32] I would yield [49:32] to the gentleman [49:33] from New York. [49:35] Mr. Smith, [49:36] I just want to take a minute [49:37] and allow you to explain [49:39] why you requested [49:40] the toll records [49:41] of those officials [49:43] for January 6th. [49:46] For the January 6th [49:48] investigation, [49:48] you mean, correct? [49:49] Yeah. [49:49] Correct? [49:50] Well, with regard [49:51] to the toll records [49:53] that were subpoenaed [49:56] regarding the period [49:57] of the 4th, [49:59] I think it was [49:59] to the 7th, [50:01] we had evidence [50:02] that the president [50:04] had directed [50:04] Rudy Giuliani, [50:07] one of his co-conspirators, [50:09] to contact members [50:10] of Congress [50:10] to try to further delay [50:12] the proceedings [50:13] and exploit the violence [50:15] that happened in the Capitol. [50:16] We had evidence [50:17] that those calls [50:18] had happened. [50:19] We wanted to get [50:20] more evidence of that [50:21] to corroborate it [50:22] for trial. [50:23] That is, again, [50:25] as I mentioned earlier today, [50:26] a standard part [50:27] of an investigation [50:28] to understand [50:30] who a conspiracy [50:31] is trying to reach out to, [50:33] how they're trying [50:34] to influence people. [50:35] And you want [50:36] a documentary confirmation? [50:38] Yes, correct. [50:39] I mean, [50:40] the gentleman [50:40] has expired. [50:41] The gentleman from Texas, [50:43] Mr. Nels, [50:43] is recognized. [50:44] Thank you, [50:44] Mr. Chairman. [50:45] Mr. Smith, [50:46] I'll just cut [50:46] right to the chase here. [50:48] Your investigation [50:49] and attempted prosecution [50:51] of President Trump, [50:52] it wasn't about justice. [50:54] It was about politics. [50:56] Politics. [50:57] From day one, [50:58] under the Biden-Harris DOJ, [51:00] you weaponized the law [51:01] to go after [51:02] their top political opponent. [51:05] You pushed [51:05] flawed legal theories [51:06] and even the far-left, [51:08] Washington Post, [51:09] called you out. [51:10] They called you out, sir, [51:12] for violating the First Amendment. [51:15] You tried to criminalize [51:16] political speech, [51:17] slap unlawful gag orders [51:19] on a presidential candidate, [51:20] and spy on Republican [51:22] members of Congress [51:23] in violation [51:24] of the speech [51:25] or debate clause, [51:26] including the sitting [51:27] Speaker of the House. [51:30] Mr. Smith, [51:31] you mishandled documents, [51:33] pressured defense lawyers, [51:35] and dumped a massive trove [51:37] of so-called evidence [51:38] right before the election. [51:40] And you did it. [51:41] You did it to sway voters. [51:43] That's why you did it. [51:45] And don't get me started [51:46] on that right at Mar-a-Lago [51:47] or your unconstitutional appointment, [51:50] which a federal judge in Florida [51:52] rightly tossed out. [51:53] A very bad day for you. [51:56] This wasn't, Mr. Smith, [51:57] about upholding the law. [51:59] It was about tearing down [52:01] President Trump [52:01] and anyone, [52:03] anyone close to him. [52:04] You even tried to ram [52:05] through a politically motivated [52:07] final report [52:08] after your cases collapsed, [52:11] including the Presidential Transition Act [52:13] and basic fairness. [52:16] But here's the good part, America. [52:18] Here's the good part. [52:20] The American people [52:21] saw right through it. [52:23] They rejected, sir, [52:25] your witch hunt, [52:26] loud and clear in November, [52:29] handing President Trump [52:30] a commanding victory. [52:32] The voters spoke loud and clear. [52:33] They wanted an end [52:34] to the weaponization [52:36] of our justice system. [52:38] In your opening statement, [52:40] you spoke about proof [52:41] of beyond a reasonable doubt. [52:43] Mr. Smith, [52:44] I will give you proof [52:46] beyond a reasonable doubt. [52:48] Donald Trump winning [52:50] the popular vote [52:51] by over two million votes. [52:53] The Electoral College [52:55] by 85 votes, [52:58] along with every single swing state. [53:03] Now, sir, [53:03] that is proof [53:04] beyond a reasonable doubt [53:06] that the crap [53:07] you were shoveling [53:08] did not pass the smell test [53:10] with the American people. [53:12] To put it bluntly, [53:13] Mr. Smith, [53:14] the stink remains on you. [53:18] And lastly, [53:19] I would like to quickly address [53:20] the police officers [53:21] for January 6th. [53:23] Mr. Dunn, [53:23] Mr. Fanone, [53:25] Mr. Gonnell, [53:26] Mr. Hodges. [53:28] I'm a member [53:29] of the new select committee [53:30] to actually examine, [53:32] actually examine [53:33] what happened that day. [53:34] And I can tell you, [53:36] gentlemen, [53:36] that the fault [53:37] does not lie [53:38] with Donald Trump. [53:40] It lies [53:41] with Yogananda Pittman [53:42] and the U.S. [53:44] Capitol leadership team. [53:46] We know, [53:47] we know [53:47] they had the intelligence [53:49] and there was going to be [53:52] a high propensity [53:53] for violence that day. [53:54] Claim my time. [53:55] Yeah. [53:56] It will be in order. [53:57] The time belongs [53:57] to the gentleman from Texas. [53:59] We've had some disruptions already. [54:01] We don't need that. [54:03] Let the gentleman, [54:03] the gentleman may continue. [54:04] We know [54:05] the Capitol leadership team, [54:07] specifically, [54:08] Yogananda Pittman, [54:09] had the intelligence [54:10] and there was going to be [54:12] a high propensity [54:13] for violence that day. [54:15] And the Capitol itself [54:16] was the target. [54:17] We knew the extremist groups [54:18] were going to be there. [54:19] And why do I say that? [54:21] It was your own report [54:22] from your intelligence section, [54:24] the IICD, [54:25] which was run by Pittman [54:26] in the January 3rd [54:28] special events section. [54:29] It was in it. [54:30] It was in it. [54:30] And Mr. Dunn, [54:32] I believe that you thought [54:34] that day would be [54:35] like just any other [54:36] in your testimony [54:37] to the January 6th committee. [54:39] You said you found out [54:40] how Doug Elgie was going to get [54:42] on a cell phone. [54:43] Somebody sent you [54:44] some information [54:44] on social media. [54:47] The point is, [54:48] you were all unprepared [54:50] to deal with that day. [54:52] And that's because [54:53] your leadership failed [54:54] to share the intelligence [54:56] with you. [54:57] It was their fault, folks. [54:59] It was their fault. [55:00] It was not President Trump. [55:01] And we are going to expose it [55:03] for the first time [55:04] because the Benny Thompson, [55:06] the sham committee [55:07] didn't do it. [55:08] Will the gentleman [55:09] yield for a question? [55:09] The sham committee [55:10] didn't do it. [55:11] The report is 845 pages. [55:13] Donald Trump's name [55:14] is mentioned 4,207 times. [55:17] We know what the committee [55:19] wanted to do [55:19] is to not allow Donald Trump [55:22] to come back and win again. [55:24] And they failed. [55:25] And they failed miserably. [55:27] And I hope you now [55:29] can see that. [55:30] With that, Mr. Chairman, [55:31] I yield the balance [55:32] to my distinguished colleague [55:33] out of Jersey. [55:34] I just want to quickly [55:35] go over something [55:36] because we keep rewriting history. [55:38] The president said [55:39] peacefully and patriotically. [55:41] What don't we understand [55:43] about peacefully and patriotically? [55:45] He asked for the National Guard. [55:47] That was ignored. [55:48] He asked Speaker Pelosi. [55:49] What don't we understand that? [55:51] Will the gentleman [55:51] yield for a question? [55:52] Are you saying Nancy Pelosi [55:53] controls the National Guard? [55:54] Wait a minute. [55:55] The president could have [55:55] warned the National Guard [55:56] if he wanted to. [55:57] And you know that. [55:58] I lost some of my time. [55:59] The time belongs [56:00] to the gentleman from New Jersey. [56:01] You have a few more seconds. [56:02] And finally, [56:03] how many elected officials [56:05] say we're going to fight [56:06] to win an election? [56:08] It's terminology used [56:09] all the time. [56:10] Seriously. [56:11] And of course, [56:11] if they were guilty, [56:12] they should be prosecuted. [56:14] The problem was [56:15] there were many in the mix. [56:16] The gentleman yields back. [56:18] The gentleman yields back. [56:18] And last thing, [56:19] your hand gestures, [56:21] Mr. Fanon. [56:21] No, no, no, no. [56:22] You need medication. [56:22] The gentleman's expired. [56:23] The time of the gentleman's expired. [56:25] The audience will be in order. [56:26] The committee will be in order. [56:27] And the gentlelady from Georgia [56:29] is recognized for unanimous consent. [56:31] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [56:32] I have two unanimous consent requests [56:34] to enter into the record. [56:36] Two articles. [56:36] The gentlelady can proceed. [56:37] An article dated December 29, 2025, [56:40] titled Wall Street Journal, [56:41] Editorial Board, [56:42] calls out MAGA's latest [56:44] 2020 stolen election nonsense. [56:47] Objection. [56:47] And the second article, [56:49] an article dated December 23, 2025, [56:52] titled Fact Check. [56:53] Bolton County's [56:54] 315,000 unsigned early votes [56:57] are not proof of electoral fraud. [57:00] Not objection. [57:01] The gentleman from Illinois [57:02] is recognized for unanimous consent. [57:03] Thank you, Chairman. [57:04] Under unanimous consent, [57:06] I ask to enter into the record [57:08] the Judiciary Democrats [57:09] January 2026 report titled [57:11] Where Are They Now? [57:13] The Perpetrators of January 6th [57:15] and the Defenders of Democracy [57:16] Who Stopped Them, [57:17] which profiles the illustrious [57:18] career trajectories [57:19] of some of the key actors [57:21] from January 6th [57:22] who were pardoned by Donald Trump. [57:23] And secondly, [57:25] Objection. [57:25] A second report, [57:28] January 2026 report [57:30] from Judiciary Democrats [57:32] one year later, [57:33] assessing the public safety implications [57:35] of President Trump's mass pardon [57:36] of 1,600 January 6th riders [57:39] and insurrectors. [57:39] Without objection. [57:40] The gentlelady from California [57:41] is recognized. [57:42] Thank you, Mr. Chair, [57:43] and thank you, Mr. Smith, [57:44] for joining us. [57:46] You know, most people are wondering [57:47] why you are even here today, [57:49] but it's because we've heard [57:51] conspiracy after conspiracy [57:53] that the 2020 election [57:55] was rigged [57:56] and Capitol Police officers [57:58] were harmed and died [58:00] because of those conspiracies. [58:02] And we have important elections [58:04] coming up [58:05] and the people want them to happen [58:07] and they want them to be fair. [58:09] And the one person [58:10] who should be telling the truth [58:12] about elections [58:14] is the president. [58:16] But Donald Trump has not [58:18] and is still not [58:19] telling the truth [58:20] about the 2020 elections. [58:22] In fact, [58:22] there is a January 6th page [58:25] on the taxpayer-funded [58:26] White House website [58:27] that says the election [58:29] was stolen from Trump. [58:31] A blatant, disproven lie [58:33] he knows is totally false. [58:36] So one of my Republican colleagues [58:37] earlier brought up [58:38] Trump's mind state [58:40] that he knew he lost [58:42] and he knew that [58:43] what he was saying [58:43] was untrue, [58:44] but that you had no proof. [58:47] So, Mr. Smith, [58:48] what evidence did you develop [58:50] to suggest Trump knew [58:52] he had lost the 2020 election? [58:54] We had evidence [58:59] from a variety of sources, [59:01] evidence from people [59:03] who were close to Donald Trump [59:05] and who he relied on, [59:07] people who wanted him [59:08] to win the election, [59:10] people who were employed [59:11] by his campaign [59:12] to help him win the election. [59:16] Our evidence [59:17] is that this was a conspiracy [59:19] and that Donald Trump [59:21] specifically sought to prey [59:23] on party loyalty. [59:25] Our investigation involved [59:27] interviewing [59:29] and subpoenaing records [59:31] of Republicans [59:32] because that's who Donald Trump [59:34] sought to prey on [59:36] to stay in office. [59:38] And the reality is [59:39] that if we took this case to trial, [59:55] a good number of our witnesses [59:57] would be Republicans. [1:00:00] If a Democrat had committed [1:00:02] these crimes, [1:00:03] had done these things, [1:00:04] I would have subpoenaed [1:00:06] a number of Democrats. [1:00:08] I would have subpoenaed [1:00:09] their records. [1:00:09] And I'm going to ask you [1:00:11] about that. [1:00:11] But correct. [1:00:12] It's not like he was calling [1:00:13] Nancy Pelosi. [1:00:15] So why is it legally important [1:00:17] to know that Trump knew [1:00:19] he was lying [1:00:20] when he said [1:00:21] the election was stolen? [1:00:25] That was part of our proof [1:00:26] at trial [1:00:27] and it was relevant [1:00:28] to the charges, [1:00:29] specifically to the first charge [1:00:31] to defraud the United States. [1:00:34] It is permissible [1:00:36] for someone to lie, [1:00:38] but when they use speech [1:00:40] to commit a crime, [1:00:42] to facilitate a crime, [1:00:43] that is not protected [1:00:45] by the First Amendment. [1:00:47] The Supreme Court [1:00:48] has been very clear on that. [1:00:50] And this very issue [1:00:51] was litigated in the case. [1:00:54] The defense raised [1:00:55] this very issue. [1:00:56] And one thing [1:00:57] I want to be clear about today, [1:00:59] the case that I investigated [1:01:01] and the case we had, [1:01:02] it was built to be tried [1:01:04] in a courtroom, [1:01:05] not in the media. [1:01:06] Our case was built [1:01:08] to withstand [1:01:09] the crucible of litigation [1:01:10] and our assessment [1:01:12] was that we had proof [1:01:14] beyond a reasonable doubt [1:01:15] that would do that. [1:01:17] So, what I heard you say [1:01:19] is that when you lie [1:01:20] and you know you're lying [1:01:21] and then you act on that lie [1:01:23] to overturn [1:01:24] the democratic process, [1:01:26] that that is a felony. [1:01:28] A January 6er actually said [1:01:30] if I can't trust him, [1:01:31] then who can I trust? [1:01:32] Exactly. [1:01:33] You know, we cannot even [1:01:34] trust our own president. [1:01:36] And in fact, [1:01:37] there's so many other things [1:01:38] that you can say [1:01:39] that you're not allowed to say [1:01:41] because a Trump-appointed judge [1:01:45] sealed the documents [1:01:46] refusing to release the files [1:01:48] yet again, [1:01:50] which is why we could probably [1:01:52] ask you far more questions [1:01:53] if those were unsealed. [1:01:55] So, I know I don't have [1:01:56] that much time. [1:01:56] I want to now shift [1:01:57] to these allegations [1:01:59] from my Republican colleagues [1:02:00] about the collection [1:02:01] of phone records [1:02:02] of Republican senators. [1:02:04] I guess some of the ones [1:02:05] that were trying to get [1:02:06] $500,000 of taxpayer dollars. [1:02:09] So, many of the phone records [1:02:10] of members were requested [1:02:12] before you were appointed [1:02:13] as special counsel, [1:02:14] yes or no? [1:02:16] That's true? [1:02:16] Is that accurate? [1:02:17] Yes. [1:02:17] Some subpoenas occurred [1:02:19] before I was special counsel. [1:02:20] And you, [1:02:21] what do you say to those [1:02:22] who claim you chose [1:02:22] to target Republicans [1:02:24] because you only collected [1:02:25] phone records for Republicans? [1:02:28] The conspiracy I was [1:02:30] investigating targeted [1:02:32] Republicans. [1:02:33] Right. [1:02:34] As I mentioned earlier. [1:02:35] That's right. [1:02:36] And so, you would have requested [1:02:37] any relevant call records [1:02:38] necessary for your investigation [1:02:40] of a Republican or of a Democrat. [1:02:43] That's correct. [1:02:44] And to be clear, [1:02:46] if a Democrat committed these acts, [1:02:49] we would have sought those. [1:02:50] I could have just added one thing. [1:02:52] We interviewed Rudy Giuliani [1:02:54] in the course of this investigation. [1:02:56] We asked him, [1:02:58] why did you say, [1:03:00] why did you in one of the voicemails [1:03:01] he left for the senator [1:03:02] mentioned the fact [1:03:04] that it was Republicans [1:03:06] that you were reaching out to? [1:03:07] And he said, [1:03:08] because the Democrats [1:03:09] weren't going to help us [1:03:10] and even some Republicans [1:03:11] wouldn't help us. [1:03:12] And so, [1:03:13] our evidence showed repeatedly [1:03:16] that the plan [1:03:19] was to see [1:03:19] if you could prey [1:03:20] on people's party. [1:03:21] Some of the gentlelady's expired. [1:03:23] The gentlelady from- [1:03:25] Thank you, I yield back. [1:03:26] The gentlelady yields back. [1:03:27] The gentlelady from Wyoming [1:03:28] is recognized for five minutes. [1:03:30] Mr. Smith, [1:03:34] it was during your deposition [1:03:35] with our committee [1:03:36] that you revealed [1:03:37] that you tasked your team, [1:03:39] specifically J.P. Cooney, [1:03:40] to engage with the partisan [1:03:41] January 6th committee. [1:03:43] You had to have known at the time [1:03:45] the controversy surrounding [1:03:46] this committee, [1:03:47] including the fact [1:03:48] that all of the members [1:03:49] had been appointed by Nancy Pelosi, [1:03:51] who disallowed the Republicans [1:03:52] from being able to engage. [1:03:54] Yet, you proceeded anyway, [1:03:56] raising numerous questions [1:03:57] as to your strategy [1:03:59] for conspiring [1:04:01] with the J6 committee. [1:04:03] You had every possible resource [1:04:05] available to you. [1:04:06] Your prosecution [1:04:07] of President Trump [1:04:08] was clearly a priority [1:04:10] for the Biden administration. [1:04:13] And it is clear [1:04:13] that you had an unlimited budget. [1:04:16] And yet, [1:04:16] and you also left [1:04:17] no stone unturned, [1:04:19] even subpoenaing records [1:04:20] from sitting members [1:04:22] of the House and Senate. [1:04:23] So what information [1:04:25] could the J6 committee possess [1:04:27] that you and the nation's [1:04:29] top law enforcement agency [1:04:30] could not obtain on your own? [1:04:34] I did request J.P. Cooney. [1:04:36] What did they have [1:04:37] that you couldn't obtain [1:04:38] on your own? [1:04:40] In any investigation, [1:04:42] you would... [1:04:42] What information did they have [1:04:43] that you did not, [1:04:44] you were not able [1:04:45] to obtain on your own? [1:04:47] I couldn't know that [1:04:48] until I had their information. [1:04:50] Was there anything there? [1:04:51] Did you find that [1:04:52] they had information [1:04:53] that you were not able [1:04:54] to obtain? [1:04:55] I don't recall [1:04:57] specifically every bit [1:04:59] of information. [1:05:00] What I can tell you is [1:05:01] we took in their information [1:05:03] because we wanted [1:05:04] to collect any information [1:05:06] that could be relevant. [1:05:07] We made our own [1:05:08] independent assessment [1:05:09] of the evidence. [1:05:10] Okay, so from the time [1:05:11] that you were appointed [1:05:11] as special counsel [1:05:12] up to the date [1:05:13] of your resignation [1:05:14] in January of 2025, [1:05:16] did you personally [1:05:17] have any contact [1:05:18] with any members, [1:05:20] staff, or contractors [1:05:21] of the House's [1:05:22] January 6th Select Committee [1:05:24] and if so, who? [1:05:27] I do not believe [1:05:28] I had contact [1:05:28] with anybody personally [1:05:30] from the January 2nd. [1:05:31] January 6th Committee [1:05:32] failed to archive [1:05:34] or preserve [1:05:34] its video recordings [1:05:36] of witness interviews, [1:05:38] deleting or destroying [1:05:39] as many as 900 [1:05:41] interview summaries [1:05:43] or transcripts. [1:05:44] involving more than [1:05:46] one full terabyte [1:05:47] of digital data. [1:05:49] I repeat, [1:05:51] the J6th Committee [1:05:52] destroyed evidence. [1:05:55] Let that sink in. [1:05:58] Why would they do [1:05:58] such a thing? [1:06:00] I think we have [1:06:01] a dang good idea. [1:06:03] The committee actually [1:06:04] used selective clips [1:06:06] from these videos [1:06:06] and transcripts [1:06:07] during their hearings [1:06:08] and yet by destroying [1:06:10] this evidence, [1:06:11] they have denied [1:06:12] Congress and the public [1:06:13] the ability to obtain [1:06:15] their full content [1:06:16] and context. [1:06:17] They created [1:06:18] their narrative [1:06:19] by selective use [1:06:20] of the evidence [1:06:21] before them. [1:06:22] So how very convenient. [1:06:26] Did you or your team [1:06:27] receive any of those [1:06:29] witness transcripts [1:06:30] or video recordings [1:06:31] of transcribed interviews [1:06:33] from the Select Committee [1:06:35] that were not released [1:06:36] to the public? [1:06:37] What I can tell you [1:06:39] is that I requested [1:06:40] J.P. Cooney [1:06:41] to contact the Select Committee [1:06:44] to contact the Select Committee. [1:06:44] Do you know [1:06:45] if you received [1:06:45] any of the evidence [1:06:47] or testimony [1:06:47] that the J6th Committee [1:06:49] eventually destroyed? [1:06:51] I don't have any information [1:06:53] that the J6th Committee [1:06:54] destroyed any of them. [1:06:54] You don't know [1:06:55] one way or the other [1:06:56] as you sit here today? [1:06:58] No. [1:06:58] What I'm telling you [1:06:59] is that I requested [1:07:03] all the information [1:07:04] we could get [1:07:04] from the January 16th. [1:07:05] Has all of the information [1:07:06] that you requested [1:07:07] been preserved? [1:07:09] All of the information [1:07:09] from the J6th Committee, [1:07:11] has that been preserved? [1:07:12] The information [1:07:13] that we requested [1:07:15] and received, [1:07:16] we reviewed it. [1:07:17] Has it been preserved? [1:07:19] Yes. [1:07:19] Thank you. [1:07:20] Were you or your team advised [1:07:22] or did you get the impression [1:07:23] from anyone affiliated [1:07:25] with the January 6th Committee [1:07:26] that these documents [1:07:28] were not for public release [1:07:30] even though portions of them [1:07:31] had already been shown [1:07:32] to the American people? [1:07:33] Were you advised [1:07:34] to keep any of the information [1:07:35] from the J6th Committee [1:07:37] confidential? [1:07:40] As I sit here right now, [1:07:41] I don't recall that. [1:07:42] I recall... [1:07:43] Did the J6th Committee [1:07:44] provide you with [1:07:45] the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony [1:07:46] as part of the trove [1:07:47] of documents that you received? [1:07:51] As I sit here now, [1:07:52] I don't recall, [1:07:53] but it was... [1:07:53] Well, you're familiar [1:07:54] with her testimony, aren't you? [1:07:56] I am. [1:07:57] In fact, [1:07:58] wouldn't you agree with me [1:07:59] that Ms. Hutchinson's testimony, [1:08:01] especially the most explosive [1:08:02] allegations made, [1:08:03] was comprised of hearsay [1:08:05] upon hearsay upon hearsay? [1:08:10] Come on, you're an attorney, [1:08:12] Mr. Smith. [1:08:12] You can answer the question. [1:08:13] Of course it was hearsay. [1:08:15] And hearsay isn't admissible [1:08:17] in a court of law, is it? [1:08:18] Why? [1:08:19] Because it is inherently unreliable [1:08:21] and the victim or the target [1:08:23] of a prosecution [1:08:24] is not able to cross-examine. [1:08:26] Isn't that correct? [1:08:27] In fact, Mr. Smith, [1:08:28] if you had attempted [1:08:29] to walk into court [1:08:30] with Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony, [1:08:32] you would have been [1:08:33] thrown out on your ear. [1:08:34] No judge, [1:08:35] no legitimate judge, [1:08:37] would have ever allowed [1:08:38] the testimony [1:08:39] of Cassidy Hutchinson's [1:08:41] to be admitted [1:08:42] in a court of law, [1:08:43] would they? [1:08:45] I disagree. [1:08:46] Well, and then we've already [1:08:48] talked about your record. [1:08:49] Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, [1:08:50] the gentlelady's time [1:08:51] has long since expired. [1:08:52] I yield back. [1:08:52] The time of the gentlelady [1:08:53] has expired. [1:08:55] The gentleman from Florida. [1:08:57] Can I do one UC request first? [1:08:58] Gentleman is recognized. [1:08:59] This is from factcheck.org. [1:09:02] Meme rehashes old false claim [1:09:05] that J6 committee [1:09:06] destroyed evidence [1:09:07] from October 15, 2024. [1:09:10] And this is from [1:09:11] the District of Columbia [1:09:12] National Guard website [1:09:13] stating that this is [1:09:15] the only National Guard unit [1:09:16] in America [1:09:16] which reports exclusively [1:09:18] and only to the president. [1:09:20] Without objection, [1:09:21] the gentleman from Florida [1:09:22] is recognized. [1:09:23] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:09:25] I mean, we're definitely [1:09:25] not in a court of law today. [1:09:26] Half this shit wouldn't come in [1:09:27] if we were. [1:09:28] I mean, good God. [1:09:31] You know? [1:09:32] You know, I want to talk about [1:09:36] something one of my colleagues, [1:09:37] Mr. Nell, said from Texas. [1:09:39] He sits on this new [1:09:40] January 6th subcommittee [1:09:41] which I also happen to sit on. [1:09:44] And he said the same thing [1:09:45] in the subcommittee [1:09:46] the other week [1:09:47] that it wasn't President Trump [1:09:49] that inspired January 6th. [1:09:52] Right? [1:09:53] It wasn't him. [1:09:54] He said in the subcommittee [1:09:55] that it was actually Ray Epps. [1:09:57] Ray Epps. [1:09:58] He was the one who told people [1:10:00] to break the law [1:10:01] and the windows [1:10:02] and the doors [1:10:02] and the beat police officers [1:10:04] and hang Mike Pence [1:10:06] and try to break [1:10:07] into the floor of the house [1:10:09] and wiping feces on the walls. [1:10:10] It was all this guy Ray Epps. [1:10:13] Right? [1:10:13] So who is Ray Epps? [1:10:14] Why is he so powerful? [1:10:15] So, I mean, [1:10:16] I just did a quick, [1:10:17] you know, [1:10:18] Google search of Ray Epps [1:10:19] and his Wikipedia page says [1:10:20] the powerful Ray Epps [1:10:22] is a wedding planner [1:10:23] to the Oath Keepers. [1:10:25] This is the wedding planner? [1:10:27] That's the mastermind of January 6th. [1:10:29] You couldn't... [1:10:30] You went from Donald Trump. [1:10:32] It wasn't Donald. [1:10:33] Well, who are we going to blame? [1:10:34] Who could it be? [1:10:35] How about the wedding planner [1:10:36] to the Oath Keepers? [1:10:38] I mean, [1:10:39] it's just pathetic. [1:10:41] But, you know, [1:10:43] my colleagues love the past, [1:10:44] Mr. Smith. [1:10:45] Love the past. [1:10:46] That's why you're here [1:10:46] before Pam Bondi. [1:10:48] Okay? [1:10:49] We haven't had [1:10:49] the Attorney General here. [1:10:51] We didn't have her last year. [1:10:53] She's the only one [1:10:54] in the Cabinet [1:10:54] to not come [1:10:55] and commit a reference. [1:10:56] But they love the past. [1:10:57] Oh, they, you know, [1:10:59] love talking about January 6th [1:11:00] and Hunter Biden [1:11:01] and COVID [1:11:02] and Barack Obama [1:11:03] and Hillary's emails. [1:11:04] They love the past. [1:11:05] These people love the past so much [1:11:07] they're still reenacting [1:11:07] the Civil War. [1:11:09] Okay? [1:11:10] Love the past. [1:11:11] Right now. [1:11:11] But I hate talking [1:11:13] about the present. [1:11:14] But you know what? [1:11:14] Let's talk about the past [1:11:15] real quick. [1:11:16] Here are some quotes [1:11:17] because I heard [1:11:18] one of my colleagues [1:11:18] call you a hypocrite. [1:11:19] Here are some quotes [1:11:20] from my colleagues. [1:11:22] Chairman Jordan, [1:11:23] right after January 6th, [1:11:24] stop the violence, [1:11:25] support Capitol Police. [1:11:26] Ted Cruz, [1:11:27] those storming the Capitol [1:11:28] need to stop right now. [1:11:29] The Constitution protects [1:11:31] but not violence. [1:11:32] Chip Roy, [1:11:33] today the People's House [1:11:33] was attacked, [1:11:34] which is an attack [1:11:35] on the Republic itself. [1:11:36] Steve Scalise, [1:11:37] United States Capitol Police, [1:11:39] saved my life. [1:11:39] Lindsey Graham, [1:11:40] when it comes to accountability, [1:11:42] the President needs to understand [1:11:43] his actions were the problem. [1:11:45] Troy Nels, [1:11:46] oh my God, him again. [1:11:47] I'm happy to stand [1:11:48] shoulder to shoulder [1:11:49] with Capitol Police. [1:11:50] Daryl Issa, [1:11:52] the violence and turmoil [1:11:52] we witnessed in Washington, D.C. [1:11:54] was completely unacceptable. [1:11:56] Rep. McClintock, [1:11:57] the attack on Capitol [1:11:57] strikes the most sacred act [1:11:59] of our democracy. [1:12:00] And former Speaker [1:12:01] of the House, [1:12:02] Kevin McCarthy, [1:12:03] whose name we heard a lot today, [1:12:04] what did he have to say about it? [1:12:06] Let me be clear, [1:12:07] last week's violence attack [1:12:08] on the Capitol [1:12:09] was undemocratic, [1:12:10] un-American, and criminal. [1:12:10] And make no mistake, [1:12:12] those who were responsible [1:12:13] should be brought to justice. [1:12:14] The President bears responsibility. [1:12:18] Period. [1:12:19] Or exclamation point. [1:12:22] But let's talk also about, [1:12:23] you know, the present. [1:12:24] That's the past. [1:12:26] Let's talk about the present. [1:12:27] These are the guys [1:12:27] who created the weaponization [1:12:29] committee for the DOJ. [1:12:30] So let's talk about the present. [1:12:32] Jerome Powell facing investigation. [1:12:34] Okay? [1:12:35] In fact, we, you know, [1:12:36] we heard about Jonathan Turley, [1:12:37] that he's some legal messiah. [1:12:39] Jonathan Turley [1:12:39] calls the Jerome Powell thing [1:12:41] legitimate concerns of retaliation. [1:12:44] Lisa Cook, [1:12:45] under investigation. [1:12:46] Mark Kelly, [1:12:47] United States Senator, [1:12:48] under investigation. [1:12:49] Adam Schiff, [1:12:50] United States Senator, [1:12:50] under investigation. [1:12:51] Eric Swaldwell, [1:12:53] United States Representative, [1:12:54] under investigation. [1:12:55] Chris Christie, [1:12:56] potentially under investigation. [1:12:57] Jack Smith, [1:12:58] oh, that's you, [1:12:59] under investigation. [1:13:01] Okay? [1:13:01] Miles Taylor, [1:13:02] former chief of staff [1:13:03] of the United States Department [1:13:04] of Homeland Security, [1:13:05] under investigation. [1:13:06] Christopher Krebs, [1:13:07] former director of cybersecurity, [1:13:09] under investigation. [1:13:10] Indicted. [1:13:11] James Comey, [1:13:12] Letitia James, [1:13:14] John Bolton. [1:13:14] It's weird that they indicted [1:13:15] John Bolton, [1:13:16] but stole his foreign policy. [1:13:18] Accused of crimes, [1:13:20] former President Joe Biden, [1:13:21] former President Barack Obama. [1:13:23] Revoked or threatened with revocation [1:13:25] of Secret Service protection, [1:13:26] Kamala Harris, [1:13:27] Hunter Biden, [1:13:28] Ashley Biden, [1:13:29] the daughter of President Joe Biden. [1:13:31] Mayorkas, [1:13:32] Mike Pompeo, [1:13:33] Brian Hook, [1:13:33] General Mark Milley, [1:13:35] John Bolton, [1:13:36] Dr. Anthony Fauci, [1:13:37] the guy Trump gave a medal to. [1:13:39] Security clearance revoked, [1:13:40] Joe Biden, [1:13:41] Anthony Blinken, [1:13:42] Jacob Sullivan, [1:13:42] Lisa Monaco, [1:13:43] Mark Zaid, [1:13:44] Norman Eisen, [1:13:45] Letitia James, [1:13:46] Alvin Bragg, [1:13:47] Andrew Weissman, [1:13:48] Hillary Clinton, [1:13:49] Liz Cheney, [1:13:50] Kamala Harris, [1:13:51] Adam Kinzinger, [1:13:52] Fiona Hill, [1:13:52] Alexander Vindman, [1:13:54] Miles Taylor. [1:13:55] I can keep going. [1:13:56] Any questions about any of that? [1:13:58] We know you don't. [1:13:58] But will the gentleman yield for a question? [1:13:59] I will, please. [1:14:00] Because you have a way of synthesizing [1:14:02] that nobody else does, [1:14:03] Mr. Moskowitz. [1:14:05] Listening to our colleagues today, [1:14:06] I wonder if they actually believe [1:14:08] any of this would have happened [1:14:10] had Donald Trump [1:14:12] simply accepted the results of the election. [1:14:14] You mean like Al Gordon [1:14:15] when he lost five to four at the Supreme Court? [1:14:17] Yeah. [1:14:18] Yeah. [1:14:18] Would any of this, [1:14:19] would the violence have happened? [1:14:20] Would the fake counterfeit slates have happened? [1:14:23] The threats against Vice President Pence? [1:14:25] No, none of it would have happened. [1:14:26] And Leon Panetta would still have a security clearance, [1:14:28] so would John Brennan, [1:14:30] show with Michael Morrell, [1:14:31] Michael Vickers. [1:14:32] I just, [1:14:33] I can't get them all in, [1:14:34] Mr. Chairman. [1:14:34] I can't, [1:14:35] I can't, [1:14:35] I can't get, [1:14:36] I have like four more pages [1:14:38] of the weaponization of the department. [1:14:39] The time of the gentleman from Florida [1:14:41] has expired. [1:14:42] The gentleman from South Carolina [1:14:45] is recognized. [1:14:47] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:14:48] Mr. Smith, [1:14:48] when was the initial indictment [1:14:50] issued on President Trump? [1:14:52] August 1st, 2023, [1:14:54] does that sound about right? [1:14:56] That's in the election case, [1:14:58] that's correct. [1:14:59] Correct. [1:14:59] And on that election case, [1:15:00] after that, [1:15:01] you asked for a trial date, [1:15:03] when? [1:15:06] I don't recall, [1:15:07] as I sit here right now. [1:15:08] January 2024, [1:15:09] does that sound about right? [1:15:11] That sounds about right. [1:15:11] Okay, so after the indictment [1:15:14] in August, [1:15:17] you asked for a January trial date. [1:15:18] That's like five months? [1:15:19] Five months? [1:15:21] How many, [1:15:22] how much evidence did you have? [1:15:24] Millions of pages? [1:15:27] As I sit here right now, [1:15:28] I don't recall the exact. [1:15:29] I think in your testimony, [1:15:30] they talked about a number, [1:15:31] 13 million pages. [1:15:33] Is that a ballpark, [1:15:35] accurate number? [1:15:37] I think that was the question asked of me, [1:15:39] and as I sit here, [1:15:40] I don't have an accurate number. [1:15:42] So let's just assume that that's true, [1:15:44] right? [1:15:44] Because you had a bunch of stuff. [1:15:45] You had $50 million that you blew [1:15:47] through the treasury [1:15:48] on a trial that went nowhere. [1:15:52] How many pages per day is that? [1:15:54] 100,000? [1:15:55] Does that sound about right? [1:15:57] What if we break that down per hour? [1:15:59] It's 4,166 per minute. [1:16:03] It's 70 pages. [1:16:04] You like to read, sir? [1:16:07] You like to read? [1:16:08] I do. [1:16:09] Do you read 70 pages a minute? [1:16:12] I do not. [1:16:12] I mean, that would be remarkable. [1:16:14] So how do you prepare for a trial [1:16:16] in five months [1:16:18] if you're asking the defense counsel [1:16:20] to read 70 pages a minute? [1:16:23] How do you do that? [1:16:24] And prepare a defense [1:16:26] and look at all the witness testimony [1:16:28] and video evidence that you supposedly had? [1:16:31] How do you do that? [1:16:31] You know what's shocking to me? [1:16:33] And I think that the most, [1:16:33] one of the most egregious aspects [1:16:35] of this case, Mr. Smith, [1:16:37] is that if you get a traffic ticket [1:16:39] in Washington, D.C., [1:16:40] you're not going to trial in five months. [1:16:42] But you want the president, [1:16:44] the former president of the United States [1:16:45] to have a trial date [1:16:47] with 13 million pages of documents [1:16:50] within five months. [1:16:52] I think that's ridiculous. [1:16:53] And I think that speaks exactly [1:16:55] to what we talk about [1:16:56] when we examine not only your record, [1:16:59] but the things in this case [1:17:01] that are deeply troubling. [1:17:03] That this was not the pursuit of facts [1:17:05] and law and letting the judge [1:17:07] and the jury decide. [1:17:08] that this was an exercise [1:17:10] in political, [1:17:12] it was a political hit shop, [1:17:14] timed perfectly [1:17:15] against the president of the United States. [1:17:17] Sir, in the Florida case, [1:17:18] in the records case, [1:17:20] what happened ultimately in that case? [1:17:27] What happened ultimately in the case? [1:17:28] Yeah, the Mar-a-Lago records case. [1:17:30] I'm going to answer [1:17:31] because I don't think this is covered [1:17:33] by Judge Cannon's order. [1:17:37] We move to dismiss that case [1:17:39] pursuant to Justice Department policy. [1:17:41] No, no, the records case in Florida. [1:17:44] Against Donald Trump. [1:17:48] The records case in Mar-a-Lago. [1:17:50] Were you ruled to be, [1:17:52] what was the ruling in that? [1:17:54] That was Judge Cannon's ruling [1:17:56] and she ruled my appointment unlawful [1:18:01] and we sought to appeal that [1:18:04] and that appeal was pending [1:18:05] at the time that we dismissed the cases. [1:18:08] So from the very beginning, [1:18:12] were you ever confirmed [1:18:13] by the United States Senate? [1:18:16] I have never been confirmed [1:18:18] by the United States Senate. [1:18:19] I will say that [1:18:20] the history supporting my appointment [1:18:24] is over 100 years old. [1:18:26] Other special counsels have been approved. [1:18:27] Isn't there a statute of appointment? [1:18:29] I mean, you have to be confirmed [1:18:30] by the Senate. [1:18:30] So I think that's kind of interesting. [1:18:32] But I think the point is [1:18:33] from the very beginning [1:18:34] on the documents case [1:18:36] and others, [1:18:38] you weren't even lawfully appointed [1:18:40] and that's why Judge Cannon ruled [1:18:42] and that's why Judge Cannon ruled the way that she did. [1:18:44] And from the beginning, [1:18:45] we talk about [1:18:45] that you followed Department of Justice policy, [1:18:49] you followed the facts, [1:18:50] you followed the law, [1:18:51] you followed the Constitution. [1:18:53] That's what you have said [1:18:54] all throughout this day, [1:18:55] parroted by the Democrats, [1:18:57] that you have done nothing wrong. [1:18:58] But from the very beginning, [1:18:59] you weren't even lawfully, [1:19:00] and you can't even recall [1:19:02] who swore you in. [1:19:03] So we don't, [1:19:04] as we sit here today, [1:19:05] based on your testimony [1:19:07] in the transcribed interview, [1:19:10] can you tell us [1:19:11] who swore you in [1:19:12] as special prosecutor? [1:19:14] As I said, [1:19:15] I know I took the oath of office. [1:19:18] I don't recall who swore me in. [1:19:19] What I can share with you... [1:19:22] I don't know, sir. [1:19:22] Call me naive. [1:19:23] But, like, [1:19:24] that's a milestone career move [1:19:27] for you, [1:19:27] that you get to do this, [1:19:28] and you don't remember [1:19:29] the circumstances. [1:19:30] I just find that a little bit odd. [1:19:32] But here's the thing, [1:19:33] and I'm going to wrap up quick. [1:19:35] You're unconstitutionally appointed. [1:19:37] You breached the 60-day rule [1:19:38] releasing this very partisan [1:19:41] attack against the president [1:19:43] right before the election. [1:19:44] You tampered with evidence [1:19:45] in the Mar-a-Lago case [1:19:46] that you admitted to [1:19:47] in court filings. [1:19:49] You subpoenaed members of Congress [1:19:51] in their phone records [1:19:52] in violation of the Constitution [1:19:53] of current statutes. [1:19:54] You didn't even let the court know [1:19:56] that these were members of Congress. [1:19:58] How are we to assume otherwise [1:20:00] that this wasn't political? [1:20:01] Because it absolutely was, sir. [1:20:04] And I yield back. [1:20:05] The gentleman yields back. [1:20:06] The gentleman from New York [1:20:07] is recognized for five minutes. [1:20:09] I would caution my friend [1:20:10] from South Carolina [1:20:11] and others against [1:20:12] jumping into bed [1:20:13] with Judge Cannon, [1:20:14] who's been rebuked repeatedly [1:20:16] by the 11th Circuit [1:20:17] because she is completely lawless. [1:20:22] But let's go back [1:20:23] to the actual evidence [1:20:25] rather than all the procedural stuff [1:20:26] about when you were sworn in or not. [1:20:29] I don't blame you [1:20:30] for not remembering that. [1:20:31] You've been probably sworn in [1:20:32] a dozen times. [1:20:33] It doesn't jump out at you. [1:20:35] I want to go back [1:20:36] to the evidence, though, [1:20:37] that Donald Trump knew [1:20:39] that he was lying [1:20:41] about the election. [1:20:42] And I'd ask you to say, [1:20:44] if you could, [1:20:45] specifically, [1:20:47] who gave evidence to you [1:20:49] that supported your conclusion [1:20:53] that he knew that he was lying? [1:20:57] That came from a number of sources. [1:21:00] It came from staff [1:21:03] in the White House [1:21:04] who talked to him [1:21:05] and told him [1:21:06] that his fraud claims [1:21:07] were not true. [1:21:09] It came from staff [1:21:10] on his campaign [1:21:11] who told him that. [1:21:12] It came from members [1:21:14] of the Department of Justice. [1:21:15] It came from state officials [1:21:17] who, when he tried to press them [1:21:22] to do things in contravention [1:21:25] of their oath, [1:21:26] they refused to. [1:21:27] They asked him for evidence [1:21:28] and his co-conspirators [1:21:30] and they never provided it. [1:21:31] over and over again [1:21:33] the people who had the best, [1:21:38] who were best situated [1:21:39] to know how the elections [1:21:40] were conducted in these states. [1:21:42] He either avoided contacting them [1:21:44] or disregarded the clear debunkings [1:21:48] that were provided to him, [1:21:50] such as by the Georgia [1:21:51] Secretary of State. [1:21:53] Right. [1:21:53] And, I mean, [1:21:54] that's a lot of evidence. [1:21:55] But we know [1:21:56] that his attorney general [1:21:58] at the time [1:21:59] also concluded, [1:22:01] quote, [1:22:02] he knew well [1:22:03] that he lost the election. [1:22:05] Bill Barr. [1:22:06] And yet he incited a riot [1:22:07] on January 6th [1:22:09] and four of the brave officers [1:22:11] who defended the Capitol [1:22:12] and defended my colleagues [1:22:15] on the other side of the aisle [1:22:17] are here today. [1:22:19] Not a single Republican member [1:22:21] of this committee [1:22:22] has recognized them [1:22:24] or thanked them [1:22:25] for their service [1:22:26] and I would like to do so today. [1:22:28] Thank you, gentlemen. [1:22:30] Now, my colleague from California [1:22:32] referred to a couple statements [1:22:34] from your former colleagues [1:22:36] in Penn and the Eastern District [1:22:38] about your impeccable reputation [1:22:40] as an apolitical career politician. [1:22:44] As an alum of the Southern District [1:22:46] of New York myself, [1:22:47] I can tell you [1:22:48] that many of my former colleagues [1:22:50] also feel the same [1:22:51] and that's saying something [1:22:53] coming from the SDNY [1:22:54] to the EDNY, [1:22:55] as you know. [1:22:57] Mr. Smith, [1:22:59] did you ever speak [1:23:01] to President Biden [1:23:02] about this case? [1:23:03] Never. [1:23:04] Did you ever receive orders [1:23:06] or direction [1:23:07] from President Biden [1:23:09] or anyone else [1:23:10] in the White House [1:23:11] about this case? [1:23:13] No. [1:23:14] Did you ever receive [1:23:15] any direction [1:23:16] from the Attorney General [1:23:17] Merrick Garland [1:23:18] regarding how you should, [1:23:22] whether or not [1:23:22] you should charge [1:23:23] this case? [1:23:24] No, I was given [1:23:25] the independence [1:23:26] to make that decision [1:23:27] on my own. [1:23:28] An independent [1:23:29] special counsel. [1:23:30] Exactly. [1:23:31] I just want to point out [1:23:32] to my colleagues [1:23:33] who seem to think [1:23:34] this is a politicized [1:23:35] investigation [1:23:37] that on February 10th, [1:23:39] over a month, [1:23:40] 2021, [1:23:41] over a month [1:23:42] after January 6th, [1:23:44] Marco Rubio said [1:23:46] the January 6th attack [1:23:48] on the Capitol [1:23:49] was far more dangerous [1:23:50] than most realized [1:23:52] and we have a criminal [1:23:54] justice system [1:23:54] in place [1:23:55] to address it. [1:23:57] Who oversaw [1:23:59] the Department of Justice [1:24:01] on February 10th, 2021? [1:24:03] Who was president? [1:24:09] February 10th, 2021. [1:24:13] That would be Joe Biden. [1:24:14] So Marco Rubio [1:24:15] wanted Joe Biden's [1:24:16] Department of Justice [1:24:17] to investigate [1:24:19] Donald Trump [1:24:21] and his January 6th [1:24:23] insurrectionist. [1:24:23] I want to ask you [1:24:26] in my last few seconds, [1:24:28] Mr. Smith, [1:24:29] you're not the first [1:24:30] special counsel [1:24:31] to investigate Donald Trump. [1:24:33] Special counsel Mueller, [1:24:34] also of impeccable integrity, [1:24:37] concluded that [1:24:38] the 2016 Trump campaign [1:24:40] welcomed foreign interference [1:24:42] from Russia [1:24:43] and used it to help them. [1:24:46] Donald Trump has made it [1:24:47] a litmus test [1:24:49] to be hired [1:24:50] in this administration [1:24:52] to say that [1:24:54] the 2020 election [1:24:55] was fraudulent [1:24:56] even though, [1:24:57] as you have established, [1:24:58] it was not. [1:24:59] And now there are [1:25:00] senior officials [1:25:01] in this government [1:25:03] who are responsible [1:25:04] for protecting [1:25:06] our elections [1:25:06] who have [1:25:07] our election deniers. [1:25:10] Can you describe [1:25:11] in a few seconds [1:25:12] what your concerns are [1:25:14] about the upcoming election [1:25:15] based on your investigation [1:25:17] and what we know today? [1:25:18] I believe [1:25:22] political litmus tests [1:25:23] are not proper [1:25:24] for career prosecutors. [1:25:26] I think my experience [1:25:28] over 30 years [1:25:29] as a prosecutor [1:25:30] in the Department of Justice [1:25:31] is having people [1:25:33] who are not guided [1:25:34] by party allegiance [1:25:36] but guided by experience. [1:25:38] That's how you can trust [1:25:39] the criminal justice system. [1:25:41] It's the same way [1:25:42] with our election system. [1:25:43] Gentleman's time is expired. [1:25:44] Thank you. [1:25:44] I yield back. [1:25:46] Gentleman yields back. [1:25:47] Gentleman from Wisconsin [1:25:48] is recognized. [1:25:49] Yeah. [1:25:50] First of all, [1:25:50] just a couple of comments. [1:25:52] There are probably [1:25:53] 10 people on this committee [1:25:54] who have more conversations [1:25:55] with 10, 15 people [1:25:57] on this committee [1:25:57] who have more conversations [1:25:58] with Donald Trump [1:25:59] than myself. [1:26:00] But anybody who says [1:26:02] that Donald Trump [1:26:03] thought he won that election, [1:26:05] that is just plain [1:26:06] not true. [1:26:08] No way, [1:26:09] unless he's the best actor [1:26:10] in the history [1:26:11] of this building. [1:26:15] We agree. [1:26:16] Donald Trump [1:26:17] did Donald Trump believe. [1:26:19] Order. [1:26:20] Order. [1:26:20] Order. [1:26:21] Donald Trump did not believe [1:26:22] Donald Trump did not believe [1:26:24] he lost that election. [1:26:26] He just did. [1:26:27] No way. [1:26:29] And I think [1:26:30] on January 6th, [1:26:32] I think, [1:26:34] I can't believe [1:26:35] there were any congressmen here [1:26:36] who didn't think [1:26:37] Joe Biden was going to be [1:26:38] sworn in as president. [1:26:39] So this was, [1:26:39] it was a riot, [1:26:40] but it wasn't a threat [1:26:42] to the future [1:26:44] of the republic. [1:26:45] Okay. [1:26:45] Now we should have [1:26:47] posted up here [1:26:50] a document [1:26:51] for you to look at. [1:26:53] Here we are. [1:26:54] Okay. [1:26:55] This is something [1:26:56] we received [1:26:57] with regard to Arctic Frost. [1:26:59] It's a list [1:26:59] of about 70 names. [1:27:02] I don't know [1:27:02] whether or not [1:27:03] you're familiar [1:27:03] with the document. [1:27:07] I don't believe [1:27:08] I'm familiar [1:27:09] with this document. [1:27:11] Okay. [1:27:12] The document [1:27:13] contains [1:27:13] just about [1:27:15] every person [1:27:15] who was higher up [1:27:17] in the Donald Trump campaign. [1:27:19] There's a little more [1:27:20] emphasis on here [1:27:21] on people involved [1:27:22] in Wisconsin, [1:27:23] but you're not familiar [1:27:23] with the document. [1:27:28] I'm sorry, sir. [1:27:28] What was your question? [1:27:29] Are you, [1:27:30] would you know [1:27:31] what was in this document? [1:27:33] These names, [1:27:33] you're familiar [1:27:34] with them at all? [1:27:41] They're under the impression [1:27:42] that most of these people, [1:27:43] maybe almost all of them, [1:27:45] were subpoenaed by you [1:27:46] at some time or other. [1:27:48] That helps you? [1:27:50] Some of these names [1:27:51] I am familiar with. [1:27:53] Others I'm not familiar with [1:27:55] or I don't recall [1:27:56] as I sit here now. [1:27:57] Okay. [1:27:58] We'll eventually submit [1:27:59] another question for you [1:28:01] on this later on. [1:28:03] From the time [1:28:04] you were appointed [1:28:04] as special counsel [1:28:05] to your resignation [1:28:06] in January 2025, [1:28:10] did you ever have contact [1:28:12] with the January 6th [1:28:14] select committee? [1:28:16] I did not personally. [1:28:19] When I became [1:28:19] special counsel, [1:28:21] I directed my deputy [1:28:23] to ask the select committee [1:28:28] to provide us [1:28:28] whatever evidence [1:28:29] they would provide us. [1:28:31] So you directed people [1:28:32] to have direct contact? [1:28:33] I directed my deputy [1:28:35] to make contact [1:28:36] to collect evidence [1:28:38] from them. [1:28:39] And that's J.P. Cooney? [1:28:40] J.P. Cooney, [1:28:41] my deputy, correct. [1:28:42] Okay. [1:28:42] Did you have any concern [1:28:44] that the evidence collected [1:28:45] by the partisan select committee [1:28:47] would be in any way [1:28:48] tainted by politics? [1:28:51] I apologize, sir. [1:28:52] I just couldn't hear you [1:28:53] because of the door. [1:28:53] I'm sorry, [1:28:53] we had people [1:28:54] going through here. [1:28:55] Did you have any concern [1:28:56] that the evidence collected [1:28:58] by the partisan select committee [1:29:00] would be in any way [1:29:01] tainted by politics? [1:29:03] I intended to conduct [1:29:04] an independent investigation [1:29:05] and my goal [1:29:07] was to collect the evidence, [1:29:08] assess it, [1:29:09] and consider it [1:29:10] with all the other evidence [1:29:11] we would collect [1:29:12] and make an independent determination [1:29:14] in my investigation [1:29:15] separate from that investigation. [1:29:17] I'm going to go back [1:29:17] and ask you something [1:29:18] on that one before [1:29:19] because I think [1:29:21] I know the answer. [1:29:22] There's a person [1:29:23] on that list [1:29:24] by the name of Vicki McKenna [1:29:25] who we believe [1:29:27] did have her record subpoenaed. [1:29:30] Are you familiar [1:29:31] with that name at all? [1:29:34] As I sit here right now, [1:29:36] I am not familiar [1:29:37] with that name. [1:29:38] Okay. [1:29:39] Thank you. [1:29:42] With regard to [1:29:44] part of the documents [1:29:45] that you received [1:29:46] was with regard [1:29:47] to Cassidy Hutchison, right? [1:29:51] We requested [1:29:53] that they give us everything [1:29:54] they were willing [1:29:55] to give us. [1:29:56] As I sit here now, [1:29:57] I don't recall [1:29:58] if specifically [1:29:59] her information [1:30:00] was in there, [1:30:01] but I'm not denying [1:30:02] that it was. [1:30:03] It may well have been. [1:30:04] Okay. [1:30:05] We'll go back. [1:30:07] Your team issued subpoenas [1:30:08] to various financial institutions, [1:30:10] telecommunications providers [1:30:12] and conservative entities [1:30:13] requesting communications [1:30:15] between them [1:30:16] and President Trump's campaign, [1:30:17] right? [1:30:19] We did issue subpoenas [1:30:21] for various sorts [1:30:22] of information, correct? [1:30:23] Okay. [1:30:24] And the bank records, [1:30:25] you would say, [1:30:26] or we could describe [1:30:27] were fairly broad, [1:30:29] the request? [1:30:30] We issued subpoenas [1:30:34] for certain bank records [1:30:35] as part of our investigation, [1:30:37] yes. [1:30:38] Okay. [1:30:38] Shortly after you're appointed, [1:30:39] you issued subpoenas [1:30:40] to state and local officials [1:30:42] for their communications [1:30:43] with President Trump, [1:30:44] is that correct? [1:30:46] And his campaign? [1:30:47] I, as I sit here now, [1:30:51] I'm trying to recall [1:30:52] specifically which officials, [1:30:54] but I know we issued [1:30:56] a number of subpoenas [1:30:57] in our investigation [1:30:58] to understand [1:30:59] the communications [1:31:00] between President Trump [1:31:02] and various entities, [1:31:05] including state officials. [1:31:07] One final question. [1:31:09] One quick final question. [1:31:10] Yeah. [1:31:11] Do you really believe [1:31:12] that President Trump [1:31:13] thinks he lost that election? [1:31:15] Yes. [1:31:17] Our investigation following [1:31:19] the facts and the law [1:31:20] determined that- [1:31:22] No way. [1:31:23] Thank you. [1:31:23] That's enough. [1:31:25] I have a unanimous consent request. [1:31:26] No way. [1:31:26] One comment from New York [1:31:27] is recognized for unanimous consent. [1:31:29] Actually, I have two. [1:31:30] One is to- [1:31:31] Article entitled, [1:31:33] With A.G. Bondi Next to Him, [1:31:35] Trump Says Deranged Jack Smith [1:31:37] Must Be Investigated. [1:31:39] And the other is a tweet [1:31:41] from Marco Rubio. [1:31:42] There is nothing patriotic [1:31:44] about what is occurring [1:31:45] on Capitol Hill. [1:31:46] This is third-world style [1:31:48] anti-American anarchy. [1:31:50] Without objection. [1:31:51] Gentleman from Texas [1:31:52] is recognized. [1:31:53] Can I get an extra 33 seconds? [1:31:54] You get your full five minutes. [1:31:55] Well, okay, fine. [1:31:58] So, it's curious [1:31:59] because you've sat here all day [1:32:01] and thank you so much [1:32:02] for showing up [1:32:02] because this was something [1:32:03] that you wanted to do. [1:32:04] The Republicans wanted to make sure [1:32:06] that you were hid in a room [1:32:07] with no cameras [1:32:08] because I was there. [1:32:10] They didn't really want you out public [1:32:11] because they were afraid [1:32:12] of what you would say, [1:32:13] which is that you could have [1:32:15] proven your case [1:32:16] because you are a career prosecutor [1:32:19] who knows how to prosecute criminals. [1:32:23] So, just to be clear, [1:32:24] today, it seems like [1:32:27] the Republicans [1:32:27] have not really fought [1:32:29] very much about whether or not [1:32:30] Trump was guilty or not. [1:32:32] In fact, their fight seems to be [1:32:34] over whether or not [1:32:35] you were authorized [1:32:36] to prove their guilt. [1:32:38] Do you recall [1:32:39] a number of Republican members [1:32:41] asking about whether or not [1:32:43] your appointment was okay [1:32:45] even though we know [1:32:46] that you've testified [1:32:47] about the more than [1:32:49] 100-year precedent [1:32:50] that allowed for your appointment? [1:32:51] I was asked questions [1:32:53] about that today [1:32:54] and our position [1:32:55] as we filed in our appeal [1:32:57] is that there was [1:32:59] strong support [1:33:01] for my appointment [1:33:02] including Supreme Court precedent [1:33:04] directly on point. [1:33:05] Thank you so much. [1:33:07] Additionally, you know, [1:33:08] everybody's being all gingerly [1:33:09] here today [1:33:10] but I don't know [1:33:12] why we're acting surprised [1:33:13] that a man who had [1:33:15] close to 90 allegations [1:33:17] out of four different jurisdictions [1:33:19] and ultimately ended up [1:33:21] with 34 convictions [1:33:22] after a jury [1:33:24] was able to hear [1:33:25] all the evidence [1:33:26] would possibly be committing [1:33:28] a criminal act [1:33:29] on January 6th. [1:33:30] In fact, considering the fact [1:33:32] that we are now [1:33:33] under the impression [1:33:34] that he is violating [1:33:35] people's due process rights, [1:33:37] he is ignoring court orders, [1:33:39] he's starting wars [1:33:40] without congressional authority [1:33:41] in contradiction [1:33:42] to the Constitution, [1:33:43] he's enriching himself [1:33:44] to the tune [1:33:45] of over $1.4 billion. [1:33:47] He's shaking down electives [1:33:49] to draw maps [1:33:50] that will help him [1:33:50] stay in power [1:33:52] because the Republicans [1:33:53] don't understand [1:33:54] that they swore an oath [1:33:55] to the Constitution [1:33:55] and that we are supposed [1:33:56] to do checks and balances. [1:33:58] He's also shaking down [1:33:59] TV stations [1:34:00] to get money. [1:34:02] So why are we trying [1:34:02] to pretend as if [1:34:03] it is out of the realm [1:34:05] for this particular man [1:34:06] to commit the crime [1:34:07] that he committed [1:34:08] on January 6th [1:34:09] and frankly, [1:34:10] the only reason he ran [1:34:11] for president [1:34:11] was to make sure [1:34:13] that he would not be [1:34:13] prosecuted [1:34:14] because I fully believe [1:34:15] that you would have [1:34:16] put him under the jail [1:34:16] that he would have [1:34:17] put him under the jail [1:34:18] that he would have [1:34:19] put him under the jail [1:34:20] based on our long-form [1:34:21] conversation that we had. [1:34:23] But according to your [1:34:25] special counsel report [1:34:27] on page 137, [1:34:28] it states, [1:34:30] the department's view [1:34:31] that the Constitution [1:34:32] prohibits the continued [1:34:33] indictment and prosecution [1:34:34] of a president [1:34:35] is categorical [1:34:36] and does not turn on [1:34:37] the gravity of the crimes [1:34:38] charged, [1:34:39] the strength of the [1:34:40] government's proof [1:34:41] or the merits [1:34:42] of the prosecution [1:34:43] and that, [1:34:44] the enforcement [1:34:47] of the police. [1:34:48] In the case of the [1:34:49] court, [1:34:50] the legislature's office [1:34:51] assessed that [1:34:52] the admissible evidence [1:34:53] was sufficient [1:34:54] to obtain [1:34:55] and sustain a conviction [1:34:56] at trial. [1:34:58] In other words, [1:34:59] Donald Trump ran for [1:35:00] president, like I said, [1:35:01] so he wouldn't have to [1:35:02] spend the rest of his [1:35:03] life in prison. [1:35:04] The chairman and other [1:35:05] members of this [1:35:06] committee have spent [1:35:07] to mention how he was running around the Capitol terrified by the possibility that all those [1:35:12] insurrectionists would harm him. In fact, on page 97 of the deposition transcript, you mentioned [1:35:18] how Mark Meadows, the president's chief of staff, quote unquote, never saw Jim Jordan so scared. [1:35:24] The chairman also failed to mention that he was in direct contact with the White House in the days [1:35:30] leading up to and on January 6th, which is why his toll records were subpoenaed by your office. [1:35:35] Let me be clear, because they're trying to act like this is Democrats on Republicans, and I guess [1:35:39] you are a covert Democrat that knew that he was going to try to steal an election before he tried [1:35:43] to steal that election, and so therefore you were somehow put into place. I mean, the conspiracy [1:35:48] theories make your head spin, but nevertheless, were you going to subpoena the toll records of every [1:35:54] single Republican simply because they were a Republican? No, we subpoenaed the toll records [1:36:00] in the course of this investigation because they were relevant to our investigation. Relevant. Oh, [1:36:05] okay. All right. So that means something about facts. So let's talk about facts. Donald Trump lost [1:36:12] to Joe Biden. Yes or no? That's correct. Okay. In fact, 60 federal and state courts have found that [1:36:20] there was no evidence of election fraud. Trump's own attorney general and vice president knew that he [1:36:25] lost the election, but he still tried to steal the election by pressuring state officials designing fake [1:36:32] elector plans, nearly having Mike Pence hanged, and ultimately demanding that his supporters, quote, [1:36:38] fight like hell. Correct? Correct. We all saw it happen once they reached, we all saw what happened [1:36:46] once they reached the U.S. Capitol. As your report outlines, President Trump knew that he would incite [1:36:52] violence at the Capitol that day. In fact, some of Trump's senior advisors were pushing for violence. [1:36:58] For example, page 81 of the report details how co-conspirators number two, John Eastman tried to [1:37:05] convince Mike Pence to break the law, stating that, quote, violence was necessary. So it isn't just Trump [1:37:12] who was responsible for the death of multiple law enforcement officers and the injuries of thousands [1:37:16] of people. A lot of Republican members of Congress are also responsible. 147 Republicans voted to [1:37:23] overturn the 2020 election results, including multiple members currently serving on this [1:37:28] committee. And I will yield. General Lee yields. Gentleman from North Carolina is recognized. [1:37:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, we've heard a lot of information that's gone across [1:37:39] this day as we've spent it here. We've heard disregard for the First Amendment at times. We've heard [1:37:45] talk about solely seeking charges against Donald Trump, obviously targeting. We've talked about the amount [1:37:53] of time and reasonable timeframe. But I want to ask you for a moment, I can, about some troubling reports [1:38:00] that a prosecutor from your office, Jay Bratt, implied to Stanley Woodward that the administration [1:38:06] would look more favorably on a judgeship application if he managed to get his client, Walt Nauta, [1:38:13] to cooperate against President Trump and to flip on him. And we know this because Stanley Woodward [1:38:19] himself came forth with this information. And I guess my question for you, is this appropriate [1:38:25] behavior for a special counsel's office to leverage attorney's future career prospects? [1:38:31] Sir, I believe I can answer this question, even though it's regarding the Florida case, [1:38:38] because we did filings on it and I'm not referring to anything in the final report. And my answer to you, [1:38:45] sir, is that when I was first notified about this issue, which was nine months after it allegedly occurred, [1:38:53] this is alleged to have occurred before I was even special counsel. What I did is I directed my deputies [1:39:01] to look into it. We made sure the person involved self-referred it to OPR. And then we did a filing to the court. [1:39:10] There was a motion by President Trump's attorneys. We responded and we laid out our position. [1:39:16] And our position was that I did not believe that that allegation was credible. At best, [1:39:21] it was a misunderstanding because the people in the room did not understand any threat to be made. [1:39:29] Even Mr. Woodward, in his allegation, claimed it was only an inference. Nine months went by where we [1:39:35] interacted with Mr. Woodward, in which we had no hearing of a complaint. When the complaint was raised [1:39:45] for the first time, which was on the eve of that indictment being brought, it was raised in the guise [1:39:52] of asking the court to delay the indictment while an investigation of it happened. So I take allegations of [1:39:59] misconduct very seriously. I would not want any of my attorneys threatening anybody. Ultimately, [1:40:06] when I looked at this, I did not credit it. And we responded with our position in court. But we also, [1:40:13] it was clear that it was referred to the Office of Professional Responsibility, [1:40:17] which is what good prosecutors do in that situation. [1:40:19] Well, again, to say that you didn't consider it to be credible, I guess we have the United States [1:40:27] Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, who claims that this threat was made to him. [1:40:32] And I don't see what he would stand to gain from not telling the truth there. And I understand that [1:40:39] you tasked two of your attorneys with investigating those statements made by Bratt. But given the amount [1:40:45] of publicity and the scrutiny that was surrounding this entire investigation, why in the world did you [1:40:51] not initiate an independent investigation into these very alarming allegations? [1:40:56] Well, two points there. You stated that you don't, why would he do this? When he made the [1:41:04] allegation, when this allegation first came from President Trump's attorneys and then days later from [1:41:10] Mr. Woodward, he did ask for the case, the indictment to be put off in results of this. So there was a [1:41:17] thing he was asking for in result. And with respect to an independent investigation, that's exactly why [1:41:25] you refer this to the Office of Professional Responsibility. They conduct an independent investigation [1:41:30] outside of my office. Well, let me just say for four years, we watched the Biden administration [1:41:36] politicize and weaponize the Department of Justice. From going after pro-life activists to spying on [1:41:42] faithful Catholics, the Biden administration showed disregard for impartiality. And this blatant [1:41:48] disregard was perhaps no clearer than in the targeting of President Trump. We've talked about it all [1:41:54] throughout this day. They knew they couldn't beat him at the ballot box, so they pursued alternative options. [1:42:01] And I'm grateful for this committee's efforts today to investigate this conduct to ensure [1:42:05] accountability. And while elections are not akin to jury trials, I feel strongly that the results of [1:42:13] the 2024 election sent a clear message about how the American people feel about these politicized [1:42:20] charges. And I think they absolutely made a difference in those 24 elections. And with that, [1:42:25] Mr. Chairman, I yield back. The gentleman yields back to the gentleman from Missouri. [1:42:28] Mr. Chair, I actually have a UC. [1:42:30] The gentleman is recognized. [1:42:32] Mr. Chairman. [1:42:36] Miss Lee. [1:42:36] I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record. This DOJ press release, [1:42:38] titled, Houston man, sentenced to prison for assaulting law enforcement with dangerous weapons [1:42:42] during January 6th, Capitol breach. [1:42:44] Objection. [1:42:44] My second one is, [1:42:48] I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record, an article titled, [1:42:50] They ransacked the U.S. Capitol and want the government to pay them back, [1:42:53] published by The Washington Post, January 21st, 2026th. [1:42:56] Objection. [1:42:57] Gentleman from Missouri is recognized for five minutes. [1:42:59] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:43:01] Mr. Smith, after indicting the leading Republican candidate for the President of the United States on August 1st, 2023, [1:43:09] you asked her a trial date of January 2024, just five months later. [1:43:13] During your deposition, you did not dispute that that would have given Trump's legal team [1:43:21] just five months to review 13 million pages and thousands of hours of video evidence, [1:43:27] working out to nearly 100,000 pages per day. [1:43:31] Mr. Smith, you claim that you acted independently of the upcoming presidential election, [1:43:37] and yet you pushed for a trial date ahead of the election. [1:43:40] Why such a rush to charge and try and pursue conviction on President Trump? [1:43:47] I sought to move that case forward expeditiously because the public has a right to a speedy trial [1:43:57] as well as a defendant. [1:43:58] That is, there is Supreme Court precedent directly on point regarding that. [1:44:03] I felt it was my duty to do that. [1:44:06] I considered all options. [1:44:07] I listened to- [1:44:08] But isn't the right to a speedy trial primarily a right of the defendant? [1:44:12] I honestly, before your arguments, I've never heard of the idea that the prosecution has a right [1:44:17] to speed up a trial and require the defense to review 100,000 pages a day in order to get a trial in before an election. [1:44:25] I've never heard of such a thing. [1:44:27] The Supreme Court, in at least, as I sit here now, three different cases, has stated pretty explicitly [1:44:35] that the right to a speedy trial is the public's as well as the defendant's. [1:44:40] And that just- [1:44:41] You were trying to get the president tried, convicted, and hopefully in prison before election day. [1:44:46] I understand. [1:44:47] Mr. Smith, I think it's very telling that during your deposition, [1:44:50] you could not articulate any evidence that President Trump instructed individuals to [1:44:55] unlawfully enter the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. [1:44:59] You claim that President Trump was, quote, responsible for the events at the Capitol on January 6th, [1:45:05] which was not charged in your indictment. [1:45:07] How do you reconcile that with the position of the department in other GA6-related cases [1:45:13] that President Trump wasn't responsible for the events at the Capitol that day? [1:45:17] I'm not aware of the department taking a position that Donald Trump was not responsible. [1:45:25] I think my recollection is the position that the department took in other cases is other defendants [1:45:32] weren't not responsible themselves because of Donald Trump. [1:45:37] that blaming him wasn't going to be a valid defense in their case. [1:45:40] That's my recollection. [1:45:41] So on January 6th, 2021, President Trump tweeted, quote, [1:45:44] please support our Capitol police and law enforcement. [1:45:47] They are truly on the side of the country. [1:45:49] Stay peaceful! [1:45:50] Exclamation point. [1:45:51] This seems to show clearly that Trump urged his supporters at the Capitol to remain peaceful. [1:45:58] Is that not right? [1:45:59] It's incorrect. [1:46:01] First off, that- [1:46:03] He didn't send that tweet? [1:46:04] He sent that tweet, but he sent that tweet only after [1:46:07] being harangued by people to send something to stop the violence of the Capitol. [1:46:12] Okay, let's get the timeline straight then. [1:46:15] At 1.55 p.m., there was a breach of the bike racks at the northeast perimeter. [1:46:19] At 2.13, there were protesters breaching the Capitol, breaking into the Northwest Senate [1:46:26] window and opening the doors. [1:46:28] At 2.38, President Trump tweeted what I just quoted. [1:46:33] That's 25 minutes between the Capitol building breach. [1:46:37] Is 25 minutes, that's too slow? [1:46:41] Would Trump have been guilty of insurrection if it were 15 minutes? [1:46:46] Would it- five minutes? [1:46:48] How quickly was he supposed to send that tweet to remain peaceful? [1:46:52] My recollection, as set forth in the indictment, is the timeline of when the attack of the [1:46:59] Capitol happened, including the tweet that endangered Vice President Mike Pence's life [1:47:04] was different than what he stated. [1:47:05] Okay, so that tweet was after, of course, the riot had started. [1:47:08] But President Trump also said, quote, we have come to demand that Congress do the right [1:47:12] thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully selected, lawfully selected. [1:47:16] I know that everyone will soon be marching to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically [1:47:22] make your voice heard. [1:47:23] Peacefully and patriotically, is that an incitement of a riot? [1:47:28] That is not. [1:47:29] Okay. [1:47:30] So, in November 2016, Hillary Clinton disputed, she actually, for years, called President [1:47:36] Trump an illegitimate president. [1:47:38] He knows he stole the election as recently as September 2019. [1:47:43] Had there been a riot around the 2016 presidential election, would Hillary Clinton be guilty of [1:47:49] inciting- inciting insurrection? [1:47:52] I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals. [1:47:56] I will say that President Trump's conduct was without historical analog. [1:48:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:48:04] I yield back. [1:48:05] Gentleman yields back to- [1:48:06] Mr. Chair, may I- [1:48:07] The lady from Vermont. [1:48:08] Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record. [1:48:11] This superseding indictment filed the Department of Justice on August 27, 2024. [1:48:15] The first superseding indictment for Capitol rioter and oath keeper Kelly Meggs, who brought [1:48:16] weapons and armor with him to D.C. and wrote to a friend. [1:48:20] Trump said it's going to be wild, it's going to be wild. [1:48:22] He wants us to make it wild. [1:48:23] That's what he said. [1:48:24] Okay. [1:48:25] He wants us to make it wild. [1:48:26] He wants us to make it wild. [1:48:27] Sir, yes, sir. [1:48:28] Gentlemen, we're heading to D.C. to pack our shit. [1:48:30] And, Mr. Chair, I have unanimous consent request. [1:48:34] I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record. [1:48:36] This superseding indictment filed the Department of Justice on August 27, 2024 that outlines [1:48:41] how Donald Trump, among other felonies, conspired to defraud the United States in his effort [1:48:46] to fraudulently and violently overturn the results of the 2020 election that he lost. [1:48:50] Without objection, the gentleman from Washington is recognized. [1:48:55] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [1:48:56] Well, five hours later, here we are. [1:48:58] One of the benefits of being a freshman member of this committee with the least amount of seniority [1:49:03] is you get the benefit of getting everybody else listening to him talk first. [1:49:06] I'm going to start by saying that starting out, I was not real familiar with this issue. [1:49:13] In fact, when the chairman of the committee told me we had Jack Smith coming in, my first [1:49:17] response privately was, who's Jack Smith? [1:49:21] And I say that because my wife and I have five young children. [1:49:24] We don't have cable television, and by the time we get them to bed, you know, we're either [1:49:28] watching Netflix or, better yet, reading books. [1:49:31] So when I came to this, I wanted to take a real honest look at what had happened. [1:49:37] And I should also say that, you know, a little about what I think happened on January 6th. [1:49:43] I think, like most Americans, think Donald Trump was cruising to re-election in 2019 with [1:49:48] the booming economy, and then COVID happened, George Floyd happened, a lot of things got [1:49:52] changed. [1:49:53] But I do think, in those circumstances, that Joe Biden won that election. [1:49:57] I also think, like most Americans, that January 6th was a terrible attack. [1:50:01] I think it was a terrible riot. [1:50:02] I don't believe it was an insurrection determined to overthrow the government, but I think it was [1:50:06] an abhorrent day for America. [1:50:09] I also think, like most Americans, it was extremely unfortunate for this country that [1:50:14] the January 6th committee was a partisan event, and there was not an ability to put folks [1:50:20] from both sides of their choosing on that committee, so there could have been a full and honest [1:50:24] debate for the American people. [1:50:25] I think it was politically motivated, what Nancy Pelosi did with that committee. [1:50:30] And so when I came to this issue with a fresh look, with those kind of my priors and what [1:50:35] I got into, what I wanted to find was that in the goodness of the rule of law, that you [1:50:41] as an investigator carried this out to the highest ideals, and it was not a politically [1:50:46] motivated investigation. [1:50:49] And I think a lot about that in the 250th anniversary of America, and I think about what the framers [1:50:54] would have thought of this in the state of the rule of law, you know, what makes America [1:50:58] special with checks and balances in what keeps us from being a banana republic. [1:51:03] But what I was disappointed to find when I looked into this issue and how you conducted [1:51:09] the investigation was that it was a politically motivated investigation determined to influence [1:51:17] the election in 2024. [1:51:20] And I say that, and the thing I cannot get around as I look into this, is the timing that [1:51:26] you fought for in when the court cases would be held. [1:51:31] Now, to my understanding, the Department of Justice says you're not supposed to have politically [1:51:37] motivated timing of a court case. [1:51:40] But when I look at the timing that you pushed for and the jurisdictions between New York and [1:51:45] Florida and with all the other things that President Trump was engaged in, that looks [1:51:50] very politically motivated to me, and I think the American people as they take a look at [1:51:54] this issue, to try to influence the election. [1:51:58] So that's where I come down after entails today's hearing, my own independent investigation, [1:52:03] and your commentary. [1:52:04] I sincerely hope that that conclusion is incorrect, but that's the conclusion I come to. [1:52:09] And I think when most people, if they look through this not through a partisan lens, I think [1:52:13] they'll come through. [1:52:14] They will not be able to get around the fact of how you timed these elections. [1:52:17] And I think that's really to the detriment of the American Republic and for where we sit [1:52:20] today as a country. [1:52:23] And so my one question for you, Jack Smith, is, are you familiar with the Vietnamese city [1:52:30] of Ben Trey? [1:52:31] I am not. [1:52:34] Well, Ben Trey was the site of an intense firefight in early 1968. [1:52:40] And after that intense firefight that destroyed the town, a reporter from the Associated Press interviewed [1:52:45] a U.S. Major, and he said it became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it. [1:52:52] Now, historians do not know what was the name of that U.S. Major, but I think when they look [1:52:58] back at your engagement with our democracy in this republic, they will remember your name. [1:53:03] And when it comes to the rule of law that is the foundation of this country, they will remember [1:53:09] someone who helped destroy the rule of law. [1:53:12] And with that, Mr. President, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. [1:53:16] The gentleman yields back. [1:53:17] The ranking member is recognized for. [1:53:18] Oh, I was just, I was wondering whether you would yield for a question. [1:53:21] I will differ on that. [1:53:22] I'll just yield to the chairman. [1:53:23] Okay. [1:53:24] The gentleman yields back. [1:53:25] I think the gentleman. [1:53:26] Yeah, then I've just got one U.C. request. [1:53:27] Mr. Chairman. [1:53:28] Then I think the gentleman from Wisconsin has a request. [1:53:30] Okay, this is from Politico, October 20th, 2023. [1:53:36] Kenneth Chesbrough, an architect of Trump's fake elector scheme, pleads guilty to the offense [1:53:41] in Georgia. [1:53:44] Without objection. [1:53:46] Gentleman from Wisconsin. [1:53:47] I just have to clarify something I said. [1:53:49] Yep. [1:53:50] I've talked to Donald Trump over a period of time. [1:53:53] Donald Trump is 100% certain he won that election. [1:53:57] There is 0% chance that he believes he lost. [1:54:01] And I say that based on private conversations, which is, boom, so I want to clarify that. [1:54:07] Noted for the record, we appreciate that. [1:54:10] This concludes today's hearing. [1:54:11] We thank you. [1:54:12] Mr. Chairman, forgive me. [1:54:13] I just have one final question for you. [1:54:15] It begins really just as a point of order. [1:54:17] Okay. [1:54:18] Is it a point of order or a question? [1:54:21] It's a point of order leading to a question, if that's all right. [1:54:24] That's innovative. [1:54:25] Okay. [1:54:26] So it's interesting. [1:54:27] I don't think that's an order, but because I'm such a nice guy. [1:54:30] Well, I appreciate that. [1:54:31] It's straightforward. [1:54:32] It's straightforward. [1:54:33] It's in good faith. [1:54:34] Okay. [1:54:35] In good faith. [1:54:36] Because of nothing you've done and nothing that I've done, Jack Smith has not been able [1:54:38] to answer the vast majority of questions about what's in volume two of his special counsel [1:54:44] report relating to the stolen documents. [1:54:48] I don't know. [1:54:49] Now, it's been said that the judicial order that Eileen Cannon imposed will be lifted in February. [1:54:59] And so I guess my point of order is, do we intend to bring him back so we can answer [1:55:04] questions about volume two and about the stolen documents case? [1:55:09] We'll take it under advisement. [1:55:10] Okay. [1:55:11] Well, then just- [1:55:12] We're going to see what the court decides to do, frankly. [1:55:13] I got you. [1:55:14] Well, then in that event, I've got the signatures of every member on our side who are writing [1:55:20] to notify you of our intent to call him to testify in continuation of this hearing to answer [1:55:27] all of the unanswered questions about the second half of his work. [1:55:30] That will certainly factor in tremendously when we make our decision. [1:55:33] Okay. [1:55:34] Because we have a right on the minority day to have a witness and we will exercise that [1:55:40] right. [1:55:41] You're going to call him back again? [1:55:42] Yes. [1:55:43] Wow. [1:55:44] Okay. [1:55:45] We'll see. [1:55:46] Okay. [1:55:47] I'm citing rule 11 clause 2J. [1:55:48] We look forward to seeing the letter and we'll find out. [1:55:50] Thank you. [1:55:51] We'll take it all under advisement, as we said. [1:55:52] That concludes today's hearing. [1:55:53] We thank the witness for appearing for the committee today. [1:55:56] Without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written [1:56:01] questions for the witness or additional materials for the record. [1:56:05] Without objection, the hearing is adjourned. [1:56:08] Awesome. [1:56:09] Here's. [1:56:34] Okay. [1:56:35] I. [1:56:36] I. [1:56:37] I. [1:56:38] I. [1:56:39] I. [1:56:40] I. [1:56:41] I. [1:56:42] I. [1:56:43] I. [1:56:44] I. [1:56:45] I. [1:56:46] I. [1:56:48] I. [1:56:51] I. [1:56:52] I. [1:56:53] I. [1:56:54] I. [1:56:55] I. [1:56:56] Thank you. [1:57:26] Thank you. [1:57:59] Thank you. [1:58:29] Thank you. [1:58:30] Thank you so much. [1:58:31] Thanks for being here. [1:58:36] I do want to thank my colleague Stephanie Quinn, who was with you for the last few hours, [1:58:59] helping to guide you through this coverage. [1:59:01] My name is Christina Evans. [1:59:02] I'm going to continue to do the same. [1:59:04] We're going to slide away for our first two-minute commercial break of the hour. [1:59:07] But on the other side, we're going to listen in to Vice President Vance. [1:59:11] He was giving a speech just wrapping up a few minutes ago in Minnesota. [1:59:16] We'll go to stay with us.