    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                  OVERSIGHT OF THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
                                  JACK SMITH

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                           THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 2026

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-53

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                   ______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    62-659                    WASHINGTON : 2026

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                            JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

    DARRELL ISSA, California             JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
    ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                      Member
    TOM McCLINTOCK, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York
    THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin         ZOE LOFGREN, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    CHIP ROY, Texas                      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin              Georgia
    BEN CLINE, Virginia                  ERIC SWALWELL, California
    LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  TED LIEU, California
    JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 J. LUIS CORREA, California
    BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
    KEVIN KILEY, California              JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
    HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming          LUCY McBATH, Georgia
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
    WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   BECCA BALINT, Vermont
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina           JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
    ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
    DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
    BRANDON GILL, Texas
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington

                   CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
                    ARTHUR EWENCZYK, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                           Thursday, January 22, 2026

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
      from the State of Ohio.........................................     1
    The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on
      the Judiciary from the State of Maryland.......................     4

                                    WITNESS

    Jack Smith, Former Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
      Oral Testimony.................................................     7
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    10

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    All materials submitted by the Committee on the Judiciary, for
      the record.....................................................    87

    An article entitled, ``Opinion | Jack Smith wrongly tried to
      silence Trump. He makes no apologies,'' Jan. 9, 2026, The
      Washington Post, submitted by the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair
      of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, for
      the record
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member
      of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland,
      for the record
        An article entitled, ``Trump Acknowledges He Wanted to Go to
            the Capitol On January 6,'' May 1, 2024, The New York
            Times
        An article entitled, ``Washington Post's Carol Leonnig
            Outlines Trump Deputy Tony Ornato's Troubling History
            With the Truth: `Not So Great,' '' Jun. 30, 2022,
            Mediaite
        An article entitled, ``The Men Disputing Hutchinson's
            Testimony Are Two of Trump's Biggest Acolytes,'' Jul. 1,
            2022, TruthOut
        An article entitled, ``Cassidy Hutchinson stands by her
            testimony amid push back,'' Jun. 29, 2022, CNN
        A criminal complaint entitled, ``Criminal Complaint by
            Telephone or Other Reliable Electronic Means,'' United
            States District Court, Central District of California,
            Dec. 12, 2025
        An article entitled, ``Peter Thiel was reportedly an FBI
            informant,'' Oct. 19, 2023, The Verge
        An article entitled, ``Hunting Leaks, Trump Officials Focused
            on Democrats in Congress,'' Jun. 14, 2021, The New York
            Times
        An article entitled, ``Trump's DOJ secretly obtained phone
            and text message logs of 43 congressional staffers and 2
            members of Congress,'' Dec. 10, 2024, NBC News
        A press release entitled, ``Congressman Jeff Van Drew
            Statement on Storming of the Capitol Building,'' Jan. 6,
            2021, Office of Congressman Jeff Van Drew
        An article entitled, ``Meme Rehashed Old, False Claim That J6
            Committee Destroyed Evidence,'' Oct. 15, 2024,
            factscheck.org
        An article entitled, ``Kenneth Chesebro, an architect of
            Trump's fake elector scheme, pleads guilty in Georgia,''
            Oct. 20, 2023, Politico
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson,
      Jr., a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State
      of Georgia, for the record
        A press release entitled, ``Joint Statement from Elections
            Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council & the
            Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive
            Committees,'' Nov. 12, 2020, America's Cyber Defense
            Agency
        The testimony from the former FBI Director Chris Wray, Sept.
            24, 2020
          Not provided at the time of publication
        An article entitled, ``Disputing Trump, Barr says no
            widespread election fraud,'' Jun. 28, 2022, AP News
    An article entitled, ``Rudy Giuliani Voicemail Transcript,'' Nov.
      19, 2025, Rev, submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a
      Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New
      York, for the record
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of the
      Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Arizona, for the
      record
        An article entitled, ``Biden's FBI Paid Anti-Trump Sedition
            Hundreds as Informants in J6 Arctic Frost Probes,'' Jan.
            20, 2026, MSN
          Not provided at the time of publication
        An article entitled, ``Jack Smith Team Approved $20,000.00
            Payment to Informant to Snitch on Trump During Arctic
            Frost Probe,'' MSN
          Not provided at the time of publication
        An article entitled, ``AT&T Turned Kevin McCarthy's Cell
            Phone Records over to Jack Smith.''
          Not provided at the time of publication
        An article entitled, ``Biden's Legal Team Met with Jack Smith
            Aide Before Trump Indictment.''
          Not provided at the time of publication
        An article entitled, ``Jack Smith Deposition Gives Insight
            into Failed Effort to Hold Trump Accountable.''
          Not provided at the time of publication
        An article entitled, ``Trump special counsel Jack Smith was
            involved in Lois Lerner IRS scandal,'' Nov. 25, 2022
          Not provided at the time of publication
        An article entitled, ``Special counsel Jack Smith's mixed
            history pursuing high-profile politicians,'' Nov. 22,
            2022, Washington Examiner
          Not provided at the time of publication
        An article entitled, ``FBI resisted opening probe into
            Trump's role on January 6,'' Jun. 12, 2023, The
            Washington Post
          Not provided at the time of publication
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Member of the
      Committee on the Judiciary from the State of California, for
      the record
        A clip entitled, ``Mike Pence Criticizes Former President
            Trump Over January 6 and Stolen Election Claims,'' Jun.
            7, 2023, C-SPAN
        A sentencing memorandum, United States of America v. Cody
            Mattice, Jun. 30, 2022, United States District Court,
            District of Columbia
    A Court Appeal document, United States of America v. Donald J.
      Trump, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia
      Circuit, No. 23-3190, Dec. 8, 2023, submitted by the Honorable
      Pramila Jayapal, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary
      from the State of Washington, for the record
    The Hawaii case, 1960, submitted by the Honorable Thomas P.
      Tiffany, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the
      State of Wisconsin, for the record
          Not provided at the time of publication
    An article entitled, ``Fulton County admits to Verifying 315,000
      votes in the 2020 without poll workers' signatures,'' Dec. 6,
      2025, Atlanta News First, submitted by the Honorable Barry
      Moore, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the
      State of Alabama, for the record
          Not provided at the time of publication
    An article entitled, ``Barr says Trump's First Amendment argument
      in Jan. 6 case is not valid,'' Aug. 2, 2023, Axios, submitted
      by the Honorable Sydney Kamlager-Dove, a Member of the
      Committee on the Judiciary from the State of California, for
      the record
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Deborah K. Ross, a Member of
      the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of North
      Carolina, for the record
        A tweet from the Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of the
            Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Arizona,
            Jan. 7, 2021
        A link to the interview entitled, ``The Capitol Hill Show |
            Episode 2: Jim Jordan,'' Mar. 15, 2024, TRT World
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Lucy McBath, a Member of the
      Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Georgia, for the
      record
        An article entitled, ``Wall Street Journal editorial board
            calls out MAGA's latest 2020 stolen election `nonsense,'
            '' Dec. 29, 2025, The Independent
        An article entitled, ``Fact Check: Fulton County's 315,000
            Unsigned Early Votes Are NOT Proof Of Electoral Fraud,''
            Dec. 23, 2025, Yahoo News/Lead Stories
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, a
      Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of
      Illinois, for the record
        A Staff Report entitled ``Where Are They Now: The
            Perpetrators of January 6th and the Defenders of
            Democracy Who Stopped Them,'' Jan. 2026, House Judiciary
            Democrats
        A Staff Report entitled, ``One Year Later: Assessing the
            Public Safety Implications of President Trump's Mass
            Pardons of 1,600 January 6th Rioters and
            Insurrectionists,'' Jan. 2026, House Judiciary Democrats
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Daniel S. Goldman, a Member
      of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York,
      for the record
        An article entitled ``With AG Bondi Next to Him, Trump Says
            `Deranged' Jack Smith Must be Investigated,'' Oct. 15,
            2025, Democracy Docket
        A tweet from Marco Rubio, ``There is nothing patriotic about
            what is occurring on Capitol Hill. This is 3rd world
            style anti-American anarchy,'' Jan. 6, 2021, X.com
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Jasmine Crockett, a Member
      of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Texas, for
      the record
        The DOJ press release entitled, ``Houston Man Sentenced to
            Prison for Assaulting Law Enforcement with Dangerous
            Weapons During January 6 Capitol Breach,'' Jun. 5, 2024,
            U.S. Department of Justice
        An article entitled, ``They ransacked the US Capitol and want
            the government to pay them back,'' Jan. 21, 2026, The
            Washington Post
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Becca Balint, a Member of
      the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Vermont, for
      the record
        A First Superseding Indictment, United States of America v.
            Thomas Caldwell, Donovan Crowl, Jessica Watkins, Sandra
            Parker, Bennie Parker, Graydon Young, Laura Steele, Kelly
            Meggs, and Connie Meggs, United States District Court,
            District of Columbia, Feb. 19, 2021
        The Superseding Indictment, United States of America v.
            Donald J. Trump, U.S. District Court, Department of
            Justice, Aug. 27, 2024

                                    APPENDIX

    An article entitled, ``I was Donald Trump's Lawyer, Jack Smith
      should be celebrated, not vilified,'' Dec. 16, 2025, MS Now,
      submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the
      Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland, for the
      record
    An article entitled, ``F.B.I. Director Sees No Evidence of
      National Mail Voting Fraud Effort,'' Sept. 24, 2020, The New
      York Times, submitted by the Honorable Henry C. ``Hank''
      Johnson, Jr., a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from
      the State of Georgia, for the record

                     QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD

    Questions for Jack Smith, Former Special Counsel, U.S. Department
      of Justice, submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of
      the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Arizona, for
      the record
        Response from Jack Smith, Former Special Counsel, U.S.
            Department of Justice

                  OVERSIGHT OF THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
                                  JACK SMITH

                                  ----------

                           Thursday, January 22, 2026

                            House of Representatives

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                 Washington, DC

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room
    2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jim Jordan [Chair
    of the Committee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Jordan, Issa, Biggs,
    Tiffany, Massie, Roy, Fitzgerald, Cline, Gooden, Van Drew,
    Nehls, Moore, Kiley, Hageman, Lee, Fry, Grothman, Knott,
    Harris, Onder, Schmidt, Gill, Baumgartner, Raskin, Nadler,
    Lofgren, Cohen, Johnson, Swalwell, Lieu, Jayapal, Scanlon,
    Neguse, McBath, Ross, Balint, Garcia, Kamlager-Dove, Moskowitz,
    Goldman, and Crockett.
        Chair Jordan. [Presiding.] The Committee will come to
    order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
    recess at anytime.
        We welcome everyone to today's hearing on Oversight of the
    Office of Special Counsel Jack Smith. The Chair now recognizes
    the gentlelady from Florida to lead us in the Pledge of
    Allegiance.
        All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
    of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
    Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
    all.
        Chair Jordan. We'll begin today's hearing with opening
    statements. The Chair is now recognized for an opening
    statement.
        It was always about politics, and to get President Trump,
    they were willing to do just about anything.
        On January 7, 2023, Kevin McCarthy becomes Speaker of the
    House. Sixteen days later, Jack Smith issues a subpoena for his
    phone records--phone records from two years prior for a two-
    month timeframe, Election Day 2020 to January 7, 2021
        Jack Smith and the Biden Justice Department get the phone
    records of the top Republican in government, the guy second in
    line to the President. They know who he called, who called him,
    when the call took place, and how long it lasted.
        You can pattern an individual's life. They knew who the
    Speaker talked to before big votes, who he talked to after big
    votes, when he called his colleagues, and when he called his
    family.
        To add insult to injury, they go to the judge for a
    subpoena for a gag order on the carrier. AT&T, don't tell your
    customer, the Speaker of the House, that you just gave his
    phone calls to Jack Smith and Joe Biden.
        Here's the kicker. They say to the courts: We need this gag
    order because he's a flight risk. Someone might tamper with
    witnesses or with evidence.
        Are you kidding me? The Speaker of the House is going to
    run?
        They got my phone records for 2\1/2\ years. Even the
    Democrats said this was wrong.
        Of course, we shouldn't be surprised. The Democrats have
    been going after President Trump for 10 years--for a decade.
    The country should never ever forget what they did.
        Over the next few hours, we're going to hear a lot of
    yelling and screaming, I assume, from the other side, but we
    should never forget what took place, what they did to the guy
    ``We the People'' elected the President twice.
        It all started in 2016 when they spied on his campaign. The
    Clinton campaign hired the law firm Perkins Cole, who hired the
    public relations firm Fusion GPS, who hired a foreigner,
    Christopher Steele, to put together the fake dossier.
        A bunch of garbage in that document, but that was used by
    Jim Comey's FBI. We all know Jim Comey. He was the guy who just
    last year was strolling along the beach, when the Good Lord had
    the waves wash up onshore seashells in the formation of ``86
    47.'' That guy took that dossier to the FISA Court, lied to the
    Court, and then, spied on the other party's campaign.
        This, of course, led to the Mueller investigation--2\1/2\
    years, 19 lawyers, 40 agents, and $30 million--to find nothing,
    no conspiracy, and no coordination whatsoever.
        Then, it was impeachment one, the anonymous whistleblower.
    We couldn't even know who was bringing the charge against the
    guy they were trying to take--the guy we elected who they were
    trying to kick out of office. We couldn't know. Secret hearings
    in the bunker, in the basement of the Capitol. Again, nothing.
        Then, it was impeachment two. No secret hearings here
    because they didn't have any hearings. It was a snap
    impeachment, and the Senate trial actually took place after
    President Trump wasn't in office.
        Of course, it was Alvin Bragg, who said before he got
    elected district attorney that there was no case here. Then, he
    gets elected and changes his mind, when the Left starts
    pressuring him to go after President Trump.
        He hires Michael Colangelo, former Democrat National
    Committee consultant, and the No. 3 guy at the Department of
    Justice.
        Of course, it's Fani and Nathan, Fani Willis and Nathan
    Wade in Fulton County, Georgia. We actually deposed Mr. Wade,
    one of the most interesting depositions I've sat through.
        We said to him, ``You know, you billed taxpayers in Georgia
    thousands of dollars for meetings in D.C. with the January 6th
    Committee and with the Biden Administration.''
        We asked him some questions. ``Who did you talk to, Mr.
    Wade?'' He couldn't remember. We said, ``Where did you meet?
    Did you meet at the Capitol? Did you meet at the White House?
    Where did you meet?'' He couldn't remember that, either. We
    said, ``Were these meetings in person, on the phone, or did you
    have a Zoom meeting?'' Couldn't remember, couldn't remember,
    couldn't remember.
        We finally just asked him, ``Did you really come to D.C.
    and meet people?'' He said, ``Oh, yes, I came and I billed the
    taxpayers. I know I came.'' He has no idea who he talked to or
    what he did.
        Then, there was the raid on President Trump's home where
    they searched Barron's room and the First Lady's closet.
        In our deposition with Steven D'Antuono, head of the FBI
    Washington Field Office, he told us: None of the normal
    process, none of the normal protocol was followed in the
    investigation.
        He said, first, ``the case was run out of D.C.'' Normally,
    you run it out of the Miami Field Office. No, no, no, we're
    going to run it out of D.C.
        He said, ``he recommended, and the people in the FBI at the
    time in the Washington Field Office recommended, they give the
    President notice before they do the search, or at least when
    they got there, before they start the search, call the
    President's lawyers; ask them to come there and meet them, and
    conduct the search together.'' Again, the answer from Main
    Justice was no.
        Which brings us back to Mr. Smith. On November 18, 2022,
    three days after President Trump announces he's running for
    President, Attorney General Garland names Jack Smith Special
    Counsel.
        One of the first things Mr. Smith does is put on his team
    the very people responsible for the raid on President Trump's
    home--the very people.
        Then, Jack Smith also puts on his team the people
    responsible for getting the phone records of dozens of Members
    of Congress--people like Thomas Windham, who when we deposed
    him, took the Fifth 71 times. We've actually referred him to
    the Justice Department for obstructing our investigation.
        Jack Smith then gets a gag order in his investigation on
    President Trump from Judge Chutkan without filing a single
    affidavit with the court from a witness, or a potential
    witness, that they felt threatened by statements from the
    President.
        Stop and think about it. Jack Smith restricts the speech of
    the former President while he's a candidate for President.
    Thank goodness Mr. Smith was slapped down on appeal, and the
    order was changed.
        In fact, just two weeks ago, The Washington Post editorial
    page, ``Jack Smith would have blown a hole in the First
    Amendment.'' I just want to read two sentences from this:

            Mr. Smith seemed unconcerned about interfering in the
            democratic process by seeking to muzzle a candidate for a high
            office. Three Appellate judges, all nominated by Democrat
            Presidents, ruled that Mr. Smith's proposed gag order infringed
            on President Trump's First Amendment rights.

    Of course, they did.
        This wasn't the only time Mr. Smith lost in court. In the
    classified documents case in Miami, Judge Cannon held that Mr.
    Smith was not permitted to be Special Counsel. Jack Smith was
    never properly appointed. In fact, he couldn't be properly
    appointed because he was never confirmed by the Senate for any
    position in the Executive Branch, as the law requires.
        Here's what Judge Cannon stated, quote:

            The Special Counsel's position effectively usurps that
            important legislative authority transferring it to a Head of
            Department, and in the process threatening the structural
            liberty inherent in the separation of powers.

        Of course, on July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
    that President Trump had immunity for actions taken in his
    official capacity as the President.
        One month later, after this decision by the Supreme Court,
    Jack Smith files a superseding indictment on August 27, 2024.
        Mr. Smith doesn't stop there. He does something
    unprecedented. On October 2nd, he files a motion with the court
    before President Trump's defense counsel has even responded to
    the indictment. Everyone knows the normal process is the
    government indicts. The defense responds with some motions, and
    then, the government responds to the defense.
        Mr. Smith skips the second step, and the brief that he
    files is 165 pages--almost four times the court limit. Even
    liberal Judge Chutkan, who's given Jack Smith everything he's
    asked for in the course of this investigation, even she called
    it ``atypical'' and ``irregular.''
        Now, why would Jack Smith do that? Why would he abandon
    proper procedure? Why would he ignore court rules? Why would he
    do that?
        Because he's running out of time. There's an election
    around the corner. It's coming in 33 days, and he's got to get
    President Trump. He's got to stop President Trump from running,
    tie him up in court. He's got to get to trial or, at a minimum,
    insert a 165-page political document into the Presidential
    campaign.
        It was always about politics. The good news is the American
    people saw through it. They saw through it.
        For so long, the Left has controlled so much in this
    country. The Left controlled big media, controlled big tech,
    controlled academia, Hollywood, and certainly the Democrat
    Party, and all too much the Federal bureaucracy.
        The Left doesn't control ``We the People.'' In spite of the
    Left, and the weaponization efforts of Jim Comey, Alvin Bragg,
    Fani Willis, and Jack Smith, ``We the People'' saw through it
    all and we elected President Trump twice.
        Before turning to the Ranking Member for his opening
    statement, I would just ask unanimous consent to enter into the
    record The Washington Post editorial, ``Jack Smith would have
    blown a hole in the First Amendment.''
        With that, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
        Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.
        I want to start by recognizing the presence of four
    American heroes here today, four of the hundreds of officers
    who defended us on January 6, 2021: Michael Fanone, Aquilino
    Gonell, Daniel Hodges, and Harry Dunn. I thank them for being
    here today.
        Mr. Smith, thank you for appearing before the American
    people. I'm glad that the Committee has finally granted you the
    same chance to report your findings to the American people that
    every other Special Counsel investigating an American President
    has had.
        The good Chair started by saying it's all about the
    politics. Well, maybe for them, but for us, it's all about the
    rule of law, and who's going to stand by the rule of law and
    who's going to oppose it.
        Mr. Smith, you're one of America's great prosecutors. For
    nearly three decades, you worked for Justice under both
    Republicans and Democrats; the Manhattan DA, where you
    prosecuted sex crimes and domestic violence cases; the Eastern
    District of New York, where you prosecuted murderers, rapists,
    gang bangers, and other violent criminals. Leading the Public
    Integrity Section at the Department of Justice, you brought
    prosecutions against corrupt public officials across the
    political spectrum.
        When you went to The Hague as Chief Prosecutor in the
    Kosovo trial, you prosecuted war crimes and crimes against
    humanity perpetrated against thousands of innocent victims.
        While others may have devoted their lives to corrupt self-
    enrichment, you have devoted your life to the rule of law and
    to public service.
        You've never been prosecuted for anything. You've never
    been convicted of anything. As far as I can tell, you've never
    even been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding over the
    course of your multidecade career.
        Donald Trump says you're a criminal and you belong in
    prison. He says you belong in prison--not because you did
    anything wrong, mind you, but because you did everything right.
        You pursued the facts. You followed the law. You stuck with
    extreme caution to every rule of professional responsibility.
    You had the audacity to do your job.
        Everybody here knows what you did wrong in Donald Trump's
    eyes and why he says you belong in prison. You found, and I
    quote from your sworn testimony before the Committee, you
    found,``proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump
    engaged in the criminal scheme to overturn the results of the
    2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.''
        When asked whether you believed the evidence was enough to
    obtain a criminal conviction against Donald Trump at trial, you
    had a one-word answer, ``Yes.''
        When asked if Donald Trump was responsible for the violence
    that took place at the Capitol on January 6th, you said, ``Our
    view of the evidence was that he caused it and that he
    exploited it, and that it was foreseeable to him.''
        You found that Trump knew he had lost the election. How?
    Well, he's own Attorney General William Barr repeatedly told
    him so, and described all Trump's theories as BS.
        Trump's top campaign advisors told him he lost the
    election. The Vice-President Pence told him he lost the
    election. More than 60 Federal, State, and court decisions,
    including eight rendered by judges he appointed to the bench,
    rejected every outlandish election fraud and corruption claim
    that he made.
        Trump himself even privately acknowledged it, gesturing to
    Joe Biden on TV and saying, quote, ``Can you believe I lost to
    that
    F--in' guy?'' He knew he lost.
        He threw everything into his big lie, which some people,
    even in this room to this day, will stand by and swear by.
        Well, when the big lie wasn't enough to convince officials
    like Georgia's Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a
    Republican, to commit election fraud and just find Trump 11,780
    votes; when it wasn't enough to convince Trump's DOJ to, quote,
    ``Just call the election corrupt and leave the rest to me and
    the House Republicans''; when it wasn't enough to force Vice
    President Mike Pence to announce, and then, exercise lawless
    powers to reject Electoral College votes and use counterfeit
    slates to anoint Trump the winner--that's when Trump incited
    mass violence on January 6th.
        While more than 140 officers were being brutally assaulted
    by Trump's mob, while rioters beat them with flagpoles and
    sprayed them with chemical agents, and crushed them in
    doorways, and while they chanted, ``Hang Mike Pence,'' and
    chased the Vice President out of the Capitol, Trump and his
    team worked the phones, calling not the National Guard, which
    was under the direct unilateral control of Donald Trump, but
    calling Members of Congress, urging them to delay certification
    and to nullify the election
    results.
        Special Counsel Smith, you pursued the facts. You followed
    every applicable law, ethics rule, and DOJ regulation. Your
    decisions were reviewed by the Public Integrity Section. You
    acted based solely on the facts
        The opposite of Donald Trump, who now has purported to take
    over the Department of Justice. He's in charge of the whole
    thing under his unitary executive theory, and he acts openly,
    purely based on political vendetta and motives of personal
    revenge. He doesn't deny it.
        Our colleagues have complained about the Special Counsel's
    review of toll records, which are phone records, like a phone
    bill showing only the timing and duration of calls and
    containing no content, no substance whatsoever from the calls.
    Those records were lawfully subpoenaed because Donald Trump
    made those Members of Congress relevant to the investigation.
    It was Trump who chose to call them to advance his criminal
    scheme. As you testified, Mr. Smith, if Donald Trump had chosen
    to call a number of Democratic Senators, we would have gotten
    toll records for them, too.
        I trust our colleagues get the point, because America
    certainly gets the point.
        There is much that Mr. Smith still can't talk about, but we
    know he badly wants to. His investigation developed what he
    calls ``powerful evidence'' that Trump stole documents
    containing our country's most sensitive secrets--hoarded them
    in the ballrooms and the bathrooms of his well-trafficked Mar-
    a-Lago social club. He showed them off to visitors.
        Then, he obstructed a Federal investigation by instructing
    his attorney to pluck out anything really bad before turning
    materials over to the FBI and having his staff delete
    incriminating security tape footage.
        Today, we're not going to hear a lot about that, because
    you are gagged by an absurd judicial order rendered faithfully
    by Trump's most servile and sycophantic appointee to the
    Federal bench, Judge Aileen Cannon. This order not only blocks
    release of Volume II of your report, which is unprecedented,
    about the classified document scam, it also gags you from
    discussing the report or its contents with us, with America.
        We don't know what's in it, but it must be pretty
    devastating, because Donald Trump is desperate to keep Mr.
    Smith, or any other DOJ official, for all time from ever
    releasing it to Congress and to the American people.
        Now, Mr. Smith, if any of our colleagues foolishly choose
    to attack you and vilify you today--and I know that's not going
    to happen from some serious prosecutors over there, like Mr.
    Knott and Mr. Schmidt, who understand what Federal prosecutors
    do and what the rule of law means--but if anybody decides to
    attack you personally, they will only be revealing their own
    ignorance of what prosecutors do and their own indifference to
    what the rule of law requires in America.
        They will only be stroking the wounded ego of a lawless,
    twice impeached, convicted felon President, who not only
    unleashed a mob against Congress and his own Vice President,
    but has now pardoned and released into our communities hundreds
    of extremists, insurrectionists, and cop-beating felons who
    have proceeded to commit dozens more crimes against the
    American people since they were pardoned.
        Mr. Smith, I understand you are a long-distance marathon
    runner. I read that you're a triathlete who's done more than
    100 triathlons and nine Ironman competitions. You are in the
    fight for justice and the rule of law for the long distance,
    for the long haul, and I thank you for that. We should all try
    to follow your example.
        America looks forward to your testimony today. I yield back
    to you, Mr. Chair.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. Without objection,
    all other opening statements will be included in the record. We
    will now introduce today's witness.
        Mr. Jack Smith was appointed as Special Counsel in
    November, on November 18, 2022. He served until January 7,
    2025. We welcome our witness today.
        We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and
    raise your right hand?
        Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
    testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best
    of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
        Mr. Smith. I do.
        Chair Jordan. Let the record reflect that the witness has
    answered in the affirmative. Thank you. You can be seated.
    Please know that your written testimony will be entered into
    the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you
    summarize your testimony. Mr. Smith, you may begin.

                        STATEMENT OF JACK SMITH

        Mr. Smith. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, and the
    Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    discuss my work as Special Counsel.
        I love my country and believe deeply in the core principles
    on which it was founded. For nearly three decades, I've served
    as a career prosecutor in both Republican and Democratic
    Administrations. I've handled cases ranging from domestic
    assault and gang violence to public corruption and election
    crimes across the United States, and I prosecuted war crimes
    overseas.
        I am not a politician, and I have no partisan loyalties. My
    career has been dedicated to serving our country by upholding
    the rule of law.
        Throughout my public service, my approach has always been
    the same: Follow the facts and the law without fear or favor.
    Experienced prosecutors know its specific case outcomes are
    beyond our control. Our responsibility is to do the right thing
    the right way for the right reasons. These principles have
    guided me through my career, including as Special Counsel.
        I'm proud of the work my team did, and I appreciate the
    opportunity to appear here today to correct false and
    misleading narratives about our work.
        During my tenure as Special Counsel, we followed Justice
    Department policies; we observed legal requirements, and took
    actions based on the facts and the law. I made my decisions
    without regard to President Trump's political association,
    activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 election.
        President Trump was charged because the evidence
    established that he willfully broke the law--the very laws he
    took an oath to uphold. Grand juries in two separate districts
    reached this conclusion based on his actions, as alleged in the
    indictments they returned.
        Rather than accept his defeat in the 2020 election,
    President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the
    results and prevent the lawful transfer of power.
        After leaving office in January 2021, President Trump
    illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago social
    club and repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his
    continued retention of those documents. Highly sensitive
    national security information was held in a ballroom and a
    bathroom.
        As I testify before the committee today, I want to be
    clear: I stand by my decisions as Special Counsel, including
    the decision to bring charges against President Trump.
        Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt
    that President Trump engaged in criminal activity. If asked
    whether to prosecute a former President based on the same facts
    today, I would do so, regardless of whether that President was
    a Democrat or a Republican.
        No one--no one--should be above the law in this country,
    and the law required that he be held to account. That is what I
    did. To have done otherwise on the facts of these cases would
    have been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor and as a public
    servant, of which I had no intention of doing.
        I remain grateful for the counsel, judgment, and advice of
    my team. President Trump has sought to seek revenge against
    career prosecutors, FBI agents, and support staff simply for
    having worked on these cases. To vilify and seek retribution
    against these people is wrong. Those dedicated public servants
    are the best of us, and it has been a privilege to serve with
    them.
        After nearly 30 years of public service, including in
    international settings, I have seen how the rule of law can
    erode. My fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in
    our country for so long that many of us have come to take it
    for granted.
        The rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our
    collective commitment to apply it. It requires dedicated
    service on behalf of others, especially when that service is
    difficult and comes with costs. Our willingness to pay those
    costs is what tests and defines our commitment to the rule of
    law and to this wonderful country.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chair Jordan. We will now proceed under the five-minute
    rule.
        We have votes coming in any minute now, but I think we'll
    have time for three or four Members to get their five-minute
    questions in before the Committee will take a recess to vote.
    They are not going to close the vote until we get there; I know
    that. I know that much.
        We will start with the gentleman from California,
    recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Kiley. Good morning, Mr. Smith.
        When Attorney General Garland appointed you, he cited the
    ``particularly sensitive matters'' at issue and ``extraordinary
    circumstances'' as the reason for appointing a Special Counsel.
    What did you take that to mean?
        Mr. Smith. What I understood that meant to conduct an
    independent investigation and come to my own conclusions about
    whether the facts and the law supported a prosecution.
        Mr. Kiley. Clearly, he was alluding to the fact that we had
    an investigation into a leading candidate for President. That
    was part of the extraordinary circumstances, would you agree?
        Mr. Smith. I will rely on his public statements about that.
    I understood my role as Special Counsel was governed by the
    regulations which required me to make an independent decision
    on my own.
        Mr. Kiley. Certainly, you would agree it was important to
    approach the investigation with humility and restraint. Is that
    fair?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, that's what I sought to do. I sought to
    conduct the--
        Mr. Kiley. You thought you possessed those qualities. In
    fact, you testified in your deposition, quote, ``I thought I
    was the right person for the job.''
        Of course, some disagreed. Constitutional Law Professor
    Jonathan Turley, for example, has said, quote, ``Jack Smith has
    a reputation for stretching criminal statutes beyond the
    breaking point.'' I assume you disagree with that statement by
    Professor Turley?
        Mr. Smith. I do disagree with that statement. My career
    speaks for itself. I have been nonpartisan--
        Mr. Kiley. That statement was also--and I'm sorry to have
    to interrupt; I just have a short amount of time--that
    statement was also echoed by the U.S. Supreme Court in a
    unanimous opinion in McDonnell v. The United States, where the
    Court overturned convictions that you had pursued against a
    former Governor, criticizing your ``boundless interpretation''
    of the Federal criminal statute at issue. That opinion was
    joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Do
    you also disagree with that statement by those Justices?
        Mr. Smith. I have conducted my career in a nonpartisan
    fashion. That particular case, the legal position that the
    Department took, that wasn't my personal position. That was the
    position of the department.
        Mr. Kiley. I see. Mr. Smith, I've had the opportunity
    during my time on this Committee to review the work of two
    Special Counsels, John Durham during--appointed during the
    Trump Administration, and Robert Hur, during the Biden
    Administration. In both cases, they seemed to exhibit that
    humility and restraint that we talked about.
        In reviewing in detail the way you conducted this
    investigation, I see a very different mode of operation--one
    that sought maximum litigation advantage at every turn, one
    that repeatedly circumvented Constitutional limitations--to the
    point that you had to be reined in again and again throughout
    the process.
        For example, shortly after you became Special Counsel, you
    issued a subpoena for the phone records of the Speaker of the
    House of Representatives over a two-month period, along with
    for other Senators and Representatives, even though the Public
    Integrity Section at DOJ cited litigation risk to doing this.
    What was that litigation risk?
        Mr. Smith. With respect to the toll record subpoenas that
    we issued, they were approved by the Public Integrity Section.
    The Public Integrity Section, in approving those subpoenas,
    noted the fact that the subpoenas were for records for people
    who were not targets of our investigation.
        Mr. Kiley. They said there was a litigation risk, and you
    moved forward with it anyway. Not only that, but you also
    sought orders from judges making it so those who were being--
    having their records seized would not know about it. You even
    didn't tell those judges that it was Members of Congress whose
    records you were going after--in apparent contravention of a
    Federal statute saying that a telephone provider for a Senate
    office shall not be barred from providing notice that the
    records have been requested.
        Now, if you sought to do that today, would you be able to
    get away with asking the judges for a nondisclosure order
    without telling them these are Members of Congress?
        Mr. Smith. When we secured these toll record subpoenas, it
    was done consistent with the department policy. You're correct
    in that this policy has since changed.
        Mr. Kiley. They changed the policy based on the actions
    that you took. Similarly, you issued a gag order against
    President Trump that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated
    as overbroad, is that correct?
        Mr. Smith. Well, the D.C. Court of Appeals, in passing on
    that order, found that it was justified. They narrowed the
    order, but they confirmed that the phenomena--
        Mr. Kiley. They narrowed the order because it was
    overbroad.
        In addition to that, you sought an early trial date, that
    the District Court rejected. When you presented your
    prosecution memo to Attorney General Garland, it's been
    reported that he was visibly unimpressed and expressed First
    Amendment concerns.
        Mr. Smith, looking at the record, I see that you were
    reversed and rebuked by the Department of Justice itself, by
    the Attorney General, by the Solicitor General, by multiple
    District Court justices--judges, by the Court of Appeals, and
    by the U.S. Supreme Court itself.
        My final question is: Do you believe that you made any
    mistakes? Do you have any regrets as to how you conducted this
    investigation?
        Mr. Smith. If I have any regret, it would not expressing
    enough appreciation for my staff who worked so hard in these
    investigations. We followed the facts and the law. These people
    who worked for me sacrificed endlessly and have endured way too
    much for just doing their job. If anything, I wish that I had
    thanked them--
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has--
        Mr. Kiley. No mistakes? There's that humility. Mr. Chair, I
    yield back.
        Chair Jordan. Yes, the time of the gentleman was right. The
    Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member for five minutes.
        Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The good gentleman from California certainly knows, because
    he was a student of mine, that lawyers go to court, and
    sometimes they win motions and sometimes they lose motions.
    There's no crime in any of that.
        I'm just sorry that you had to be lectured about humility
    and restraint by a politician, because we might not be best
    poised to lecture you on those particular virtues.
        Let's go to the toll records, since that's been raised, Mr.
    Smith. First, Congress has allowed toll records to be
    subpoenaed. This Committee has actually tried to limit it over
    the years, and the Senators who are whining the most over on
    the Republican side in the Senate, they never went along with
    our determination to try to limit the government's ability to
    subpoena toll records.
        It's perfectly lawful what you did. Explain, why did you
    want those toll records.
        Mr. Smith. We wanted to conduct a thorough investigation of
    the matters that were assigned to me, including attempts to
    interfere with the lawful transfer of power.
        The conspiracy that we were investigating it was relevant
    to get toll records to understand the scope of that conspiracy,
    who they were seeking to coerce, who they were seeking to
    influence, who was seeking to help them.
        Mr. Raskin. That's normal investigative practice, right?
        Mr. Smith. In conducting a criminal investigation, securing
    noncontent toll records, as you described, is a common practice
    in almost any complex conspiracy--
        Mr. Raskin. OK. Let's go to something else that I've been
    hearing over the last week by our colleagues. As they've
    eagerly anticipated your arrival here, they've been saying that
    there's some kind of First Amendment defense that Donald Trump
    would have had to the crimes you indicted him for.
        Is there a valid First Amendment defense to defraud the
    public? Is there a valid First Amendment defense to disrupt a
    Federal proceeding? Is there a valid First Amendment defense to
    violating the voting rights of the people and cheating the
    public out of a fair election?
        Mr. Smith. The First Amendment is something we took
    seriously in our investigation, but the First Amendment does
    not protect speech that facilitates crime. Speech that is used
    to facilitate a crime, a fraud crime, in particular, is not
    protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court
    precedent on that is clear. This is an issue that we litigated
    before the District Court, and the District Court ruled as I
    just stated, ``that it is not, in fact, protected.''
        Mr. Raskin. The case law is perfectly clear on this, right?
    All frauds are perpetrated by speech, right?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Mr. Raskin. All conspiracies are perpetrated by speech.
    Just because your criminal conduct is brigaded with speech
    doesn't somehow mean you've got a First Amendment defense
    against trying to overthrow the government. The people who
    attacked the police officers on January 6th were chanting,
    ``Hang Mike Pence.'' I suppose that was political speech or
    they were saying, ``Stop the steal.'' Does that mean they've
    got a First Amendment defense to violent assault against the
    officers?
        Mr. Smith. It does not.
        Mr. Raskin. William Barr, by the way, was somebody who was
    perfectly clear about that. The Attorney--Donald Trump's own
    Attorney General said: There's no freedom of speech that you
    have to engage in a conspiracy to overthrow an election, to
    commit crime. He was perfectly clear about that.
        Back in those days, in fact, lots of people on that side of
    the aisle, including my good friend the Chair, denounced the
    violence that took place on January 6th. The cat's got their
    tongues these days. My friend Chair Jordan said, ``What
    happened last week was terrible. It was tragic. It's as wrong
    as wrong can be,'' He said, ``Republicans, we know all
    political violence is wrong.''
        I asked my friend Chair Jordan at a Rules hearing, ``Are
    you also not interested in what happened to us on January
    6th?'' He said, ``Of course. Everyone's interested in holding
    people accountable who did wrong. The FBI is doing that. The
    Justice Department is doing that, appropriately so.''
        What do you think about the attack on the Department of
    Justice and the Special Counsel for doing your jobs?
        Mr. Smith. The attack is unjustified. The people who worked
    with me as career public servants are people--they're part of
    the reason I've been a prosecutor for so long, is to work with
    people like that, not just the prosecutors in my office, but
    also the agents, FBI agents who are heroes, who have served
    their country, not only as agents, but also overseas.
        Those attacks are unwarranted, based on the facts, and that
    they have no basis in who we are as Americans, as a country. I
    don't see attacking people like that as anything appropriate.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield back to you.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Smith, is Cassidy Hutchinson a liar? She was their star
    witness, the January 6th Committee, their star witness in one
    of those staged and choreographed hearings they paid the former
    President of ABC News to put together. She was, in fact, the
    only witness at this special primetime hearing Tuesday, June
    28, 2022, eight o'clock in the evening, and she told some
    stories.
        These were some stories. She talked about the President
    lunged across the backseat, grabbed the steering wheel, tried
    to drive the car to the Capitol. I just want to know, do you
    think she was lying?
        Mr. Smith. Chair Jordan, my assessment of that particular
    issue is that, with respect to the testimony about someone
    lunge--the President lunging toward the driver, my recollection
    of her testimony about that is that it was secondhand. She said
    she had heard that from somebody.
        Chair Jordan. Do you know who--are you familiar with the
    name Tony Ornato?
        Mr. Smith. I'm sorry, sir?
        Chair Jordan. Are you familiar with the name Tony Ornato?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Chair Jordan. White House Deputy Chief of Operations,
    Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, right? Do you remember--
    do you remember what he said about it?
        Mr. Smith. As I sit here right now, I do not.
        Chair Jordan. Yes, he said it didn't happen. How about
    Bobby Engel? Are you familiar with that name?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, I am.
        Chair Jordan. The Secret Service Agent who was actually in
    the car that day. Do you know what he said? He said it didn't
    happen.
        They both said the first time they ever heard this story
    was when Ms. Hutchinson testified in the primetime hearing as
    their star witness of the January 6th Committee.
        By the way, did you ever confirm her testimony about this
    particular incident?
        Mr. Smith. We conducted, as I said before, our own
    independent investigation of all aspects of the case that we
    felt was relevant. We, attorneys from my office--
        Chair Jordan. Did you ever confirm it? That's a simple
    question.
        Mr. Smith. Well, we interviewed her. I should say,
    attorneys in my office--
        Chair Jordan. Did you ever confirm the President leaping
    across the seat, grabbing the steering wheel, this whole
    concoction she brought up in the January 6th hearing? Did you
    ever confirm that?
        Mr. Smith. Right. We interviewed another firsthand witness
    who was in the car who did not confirm that this happened, but
    also--
        Chair Jordan. OK. In your deposition to the Committee last
    month, Mr. Smith, you said this: ``My recollection with Ms.
    Hutchinson was a number of the things that she gave evidence on
    were secondhand hearsay.'' Do you remember making that
    statement to us last month in the deposition?
        Mr. Smith. I did and I was referring, particularly, to what
    we're talking about now.
        Chair Jordan. Yes, you also said, ``Ms. Hutchinson,
    regarding this particular claim, was a second- or even third-
    hand witness.'' We asked you, if you were a defense attorney,
    how would you handle cross-examining her if she was on the
    witness stand? You said, ``If I were a defense attorney and Ms.
    Hutchinson were a witness, the first thing I would do was seek
    to preclude her testimony because it was hearsay.'' Do you
    remember saying all that?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, that's correct, sir.
        Chair Jordan. That's correct, right? Were you going to put
    her on the witness stand, if you ever got to trial?
        Mr. Smith. We had not made final determinations as to who
    we were going to call as a witness. We had a large--
        Chair Jordan. You were still considering her?
        Mr. Smith. We had a large choice of witnesses in this case.
        Chair Jordan. Are you familiar with what The Washington
    Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Aaron Davis said in their
    book? They did this book, a 300-and-some-pages book on
    chronicling the whole investigation of the Justice Department.
    Here's what they said. On page 310, they said,

            Jack Smith had wondered whether some of Hutchinson's claims
            might be relied upon at trial. Still, at one point, Smith told
            the elections team he wasn't ready to give up on Hutchinson's
            account. Ultimately, however, Trump Administration officials
            uniformly fiercely disputed her accounts under oath.

    Prosecutors on your team, ``told Smith they wouldn't want to
    use Hutchinson as a witness in court, and Smith agreed.'' Are
    Carol Leonnig and Aaron Davis, who wrote this, are they lying?
        Mr. Smith. My recollection is that I had certainly, had not
    made any final determinations about who we were going to call.
        Chair Jordan. That's the point. That is the point. The fact
    that they used her in a primetime hearing and you won't rule
    out using her, or didn't rule out using her, putting her on the
    witness stand, when everybody knows she wasn't telling the
    truth. That says it all.
        That's the degree the Left and Democrats were willing to go
    to get President Trump--putting on the witness stand someone
    everybody knows is making it up. Everybody knows that. You were
    willing to--by the way, do you know how many times Cassidy
    Hutchinson was mentioned in their report, the January 6th
    report? Any idea, Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. I do not.
        Chair Jordan. A 185 times, someone that the whole country
    knows wasn't telling the truth, and you were still considering
    putting her on the witness stand because you had to get
    President Trump. Everybody can see that.
        We'd better take a recess for votes. We will resume as soon
    as votes are over. We're back here 10 minutes after. Mr. Smith,
    you guys can go back to the room that you were in.
        [Recess.]
        Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order. The
    gentleman from--the Ranking Member is recognized for a
    unanimous consent request.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you very kindly, Mr. Chair, and this goes
    to the question of the hypothetical witness at the trial that
    didn't happen. The New York Times, May 1, 2024, ``Trump
    acknowledges he wanted to go to the Capitol on January 6th.''
        Carol Leonnig, who you quoted, ``Carol Leonnig outlines
    Tony Ornato's history of lies.'' That is June 30, 2022.
        On July 1, 2022, ``The men disputing Hutchinson's testimony
    are two of Trump's biggest acolytes.'' Finally, June 29, 2022,
    CNN, ``Cassidy Hutchinson stands by her testimony amid push
    back.'' Thank you very much.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentleman from New
    York is recognized.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Smith, over the past
    few years, Republicans have waged constant attacks on you.
    Donald Trump has said you are totally compromised, a political
    hit man, a Left-wing radical, a criminal, a fully weaponized
    monster, and that you should be considered mentally deranged
    and thrown out of the country. Just this week he called you a
    sick bastard. Unfortunately, the rules of decorum prevent me
    from saying what I think of Donald Trump, but he is not the
    only one to launch attacks against you. Chair Jordan has
    accused you of abusive surveillance and accused you and your
    team of partisan and politically motivated prosecutions.
    Despite the mountain of evidence that you laid out in the
    Special Counsel's Report and in your court filings, President
    Trump supporters are convinced that the only reason your team
    tried to hold him accountable is because you have a vendetta
    against him.
        I want to address these allegations today. You have had a
    long and distinguished career with the Justice Department
    including serving as the Chief of DOJ's Public Integrity
    Section for five years. While leading the Public Integrity
    Section, you led investigations and prosecution of public
    figures and political leaders from both parties, Republicans
    and Democrats. Can you give us a couple of examples?
        Mr. Smith. Sorry about that. During my time as the Chief of
    Public Integrity, I investigated cases involving both
    Republicans and Democrats. The standard in all those cases was
    the same, follow the facts and the law. It didn't matter what
    party you were in; it mattered about the facts of the case. In
    doing that, there were cases I brought against Democrats and
    cases I brought against Republicans. There were also cases that
    I investigated and did not bring against Democrats and
    Republicans. Party affiliation played no role in my
    investigations. I can think of multiple cases of prominent
    Members of Congress that we investigated who were Republicans
    who upon reviewing the law and the facts, I decided not to go
    forward in those cases. The same can be said with people on the
    Democratic side.
        I have always tried to follow the facts and the law in my
    career.
        Mr. Nadler. When it comes to deciding whether to pursue a
    criminal prosecution of an individual, what factors do you
    consider?
        Mr. Smith. The primary factors are the facts and the law.
    As a Federal prosecutor in making a prosecutorial decision, you
    are guided by the Federal principles of prosecution which guide
    one not only to look at the facts and the law, but the Federal
    interests and that is exactly what we did in this case as set
    forth in my final
    report.
        Mr. Nadler. Does partisan politics play a role in your
    decision whether or not to prosecute someone?
        Mr. Smith. None.
        Mr. Nadler. To be clear, did partisan politics play a role
    in your decision to charge Donald Trump?
        Mr. Smith. It did not.
        Mr. Nadler. What does it do to the justice system if
    political leaders place pressure on prosecutors to file charges
    against their political enemies? What are the implications if
    prosecution decisions are based on politics, not the law?
        Mr. Smith. It weakens the rule of law in our country
    because it weakens the mechanism for us to prosecute, among
    other things, corruption. When there are political
    prosecutions, targeting people because they are enemies of the
    President, the department loses credibility and it can't do its
    job in all sorts of cases.
        Mr. Nadler. According to your deposition before this
    Committee, it sounds like your problem was not determining if
    you had enough evidence to charge Donald Trump, but rather that
    you might have had too much evidence and struggled to determine
    how to present the clear narrative to a jury. How would you
    characterize the evidence against Mr. Trump about inciting an
    insurrection against the laws of this country? Did you have too
    much?
        Mr. Smith. Well, with respect to presenting the case that
    we charged, one of the central challenges was trying to present
    that in a concise way because we did have so many witnesses.
    Some of the most powerful witnesses were witnesses who, in
    fact, were fellow Republicans who had voted for Donald Trump,
    who had campaigned for him, and who wanted him to win the
    election. These included State officials, people who worked on
    his campaign and advisors.
        I will say, however, with respect to the charge of
    insurrection, we did not charge that. As I set forth in my
    report, while I believe that courts have found that this was an
    insurrection, and that there is a reasonable interpretation, a
    reasonable prosecutor could interpret the evidence to support
    that charge, I chose not to do that looking at the facts and
    the law. I thought the charges we brought were appropriate
    given the evidence that we had.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for your decades' long
    public service and for working tirelessly to uphold the rule of
    law. Those who attack and smear you and your team to protect
    Donald Trump should be ashamed of themselves. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
    California is recognized.
        Mr. Issa. Mr. Smith, do you see criminals to my left, you
    don't see any. Do you see people who are committing crimes
    because they continue to believe things that just aren't true?
    That is paraphrasing Ronald Reagan, that liberals aren't
    stupid. They just know things that don't happen to be true.
        If the President believed that he was cheated in the
    election, that there was fraud or in some other way a number of
    items led to his defeat when, in fact, he should have won,
    according to the Constitution, does that make him a criminal?
        Mr. Smith. Sir--
        Mr. Issa. That is a yes or no. Please, Mr. Smith. These
    people here are continuing to grapple constantly with things
    that aren't true, like socialism works, or that somehow
    everything the Republicans do is evil and everything they do is
    right. They have never reached a conclusion in a typical
    partisan case in which we are not evil because we think
    something different and we are not wrong.
        You understand the Constitution. Do you understand the Bill
    of Rights that someone has the absolute right to believe
    something whether it is true or not, and to advocate for
    something whether it is true or not? Do you understand that in
    addition to your oath to the Constitution, that this is one of
    the things the First Amendment allows for, isn't it?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Issa. OK, if you know that people have a right to
    opine, lobby for, assert, do everything they can legally to ask
    for people to make different decisions, then why is it you saw
    criminal conduct on behalf of a President who believed he
    didn't win? Chair Jordan and myself have something in common
    along with a number of others here. We saw a wrongdoing and on
    January 6th, we voted not to confirm two States because they
    had violated the U.S. Constitution in how they selected who got
    ballots. Yet, you are going to come here and say oh, I just
    followed the law.
        When you went after these people and you said well,
    technically I can do that, you didn't see any selective nature
    or any separation of powers under the Constitution to spy on
    the activities and the conversations of the Speaker of the
    House? To what end would conversations between the Speaker of
    the U.S. House, second in line to be the President, and the
    President, and what basis would it be any of your business
    other than you believe there was a conspiracy without
    conspiracy as a basic premise?
        You, like the President's men for Richard Nixon, went after
    your political enemies. Maybe they are not your political
    enemies, but they sure as hell were Joe Biden's political
    enemies, weren't they? They were Harris' political enemies.
    They were the enemies of the President, and you were their arm,
    weren't you?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Mr. Issa. No? Oh, great. You spied on the Speaker of the
    House and these other Senators and so on, and informed no one,
    and in fact, put in a gag order so they couldn't discover it.
    If they were not subjects of a conspiracy investigation, why
    did Congress, a separate branch that you, under the
    Constitution, have to respect, why is it that no one should be
    informed, including the judges. As you went in to spy on these
    people, did you mention that you were spying on seeking records
    so you could find out about when conversations occurred between
    the U.S. Speaker of the House and the President? Did you inform
    the judge? Did you hold that back?
        Mr. Smith. My office didn't spy on anyone.
        Mr. Issa. Wait a second. The question I asked you, Mr.
    Smith, was pretty straight forward. Did you withhold that
    information from an Article III judge in the process of taking
    the records of the Speaker of the House?
        Mr. Smith. We complied with the--
        Mr. Issa. Did you--
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, would you please instruct the
    gentleman to allow the witness to answer the question.
        Mr. Issa. It is not your time. I would like my time back.
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, you have repeatedly done that in the
    past. The witness has the right to answer the question.
        Mr. Issa. There will be due time to answer the question.
    Would you please put my time back and let me finish this.
        Mr. Smith, I asked you a question and you were not
    responsive to it and I want you to be responsive to it. Did
    you, whether you think it was legal or not, whether you think
    it was right or not, did you withhold the name of Kevin
    McCarthy, Speaker of the House, when you were seeking records
    on Kevin McCarthy, the Speaker of the House, or Jim Jordan, the
    Chair of this Committee?
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman is--
        Mr. Issa. No. Please give me back the time.
        Chair Jordan. Your time has expired. We are going to let
    the witness answer your question because it is an important
    question. The witness can respond.
        Mr. Smith. We did not provide that information to the judge
    when we requested a nondisclosure order, consistent with the
    law and consistent with the--
        Mr. Issa. Mr. Chair, the amazing thing here today is that
    we have an admission that an Article I--
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time has expired by now 34
    seconds.
        Mr. Goldman. He gets more than five minutes?
        Mr. Issa. How many times are you going to interrupt me?
        Chair Jordan. The time belongs to the gentleman from
    California.
        Mr. Issa. I will be brief in my address to the Chair. We
    have the evidence that an Article I representative on behalf of
    the President--
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time was expired.
        [Simultaneous speaking.]
        Mr. Issa. I yield back in disgust at this witness.
        Chair Jordan. Sticking with California, the gentlelady from
    California is now recognized.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Smith, thank you for being here today.
    Earlier, the Chair spent a lot of time talking about Cassidy
    Hutchinson who we know is just one of many witnesses. It is
    important to note that there was testimony that she was told
    something by Mr. Ornato, not that she had personal knowledge
    and of course, Mr. Ornato was of very questionable veracity.
        We had testimony from the Metropolitan Police Department
    official about an argument, a big argument that the President
    was having about going to the Capitol and, in fact, the vehicle
    was delayed going back to the Capitol while that argument
    occurred. Having said that, I want to focus on something my
    colleagues across the aisle seem to want to ignore. The fact
    that your investigation into President Trump's attempt to
    overturn the 2020 election was built on testimony from the
    Members of the Republican Party.
        In fact, last week, The New York Times published grand jury
    transcripts from Georgia that showed the same pattern in
    Trump's Georgia criminal case. Georgia's Republican Attorney
    General Chris Carr testified that he told, this is a quote,
    ``We are just not seeing the things that you are seeing.'' The
    late Georgia House Speaker David Ralston, also a Republican
    testified that Trump's fake election scheme was ``the craziest
    things I have heard.''
        Then, there is Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the
    President's closest allies. In his secret grand jury testimony,
    Senator Graham told the jurors, ``I have told him more times
    than we can count that he fell short.'' He said this: ``If you
    told him Martians came and stole votes, he would be inclined to
    believe it.'' Martians, that is from Senator Graham speaking
    under oath.
        Here is my question. Mr. Smith, in your deposition with
    this Committee, you testified and here is a quote, ``Our case
    was built on frankly Republicans who put their allegiance to
    the country before the party.'' Also, that the President's
    closest allies are telling him that his claims of election
    fraud are wrong.
        I am just wondering, can you explain what you meant in your
    deposition that it was Republicans who were putting their
    allegiance to their country ahead of their party?
        Mr. Smith. Yes. There were witnesses who I felt would be
    very strong witnesses, including for example, the Secretary of
    State in Georgia, who told Donald Trump the truth, told him
    things that he did not want to hear and put him on notice that
    what he was saying was false. These were people who knew how
    the elections were conducted in these States and I believe that
    witnesses of that nature, witnesses who are willing to tell the
    truth, even if it is going to impose a cost of them in their
    lives, my experience as a prosecutor over 30 years is that
    witnesses like that are very credible and that jurors tend to
    believe witnesses like that because they pay a cost for telling
    the truth.
        Ms. Lofgren. In terms of the grand jury testimony that has
    now been released, the fact that Donald Trump, according to
    Senator Graham would believe that Martians stole the election,
    what does that tell you about Trump's state of mind?
        Mr. Smith. That statement is consistent with what we found
    in our investigation in that our investigation revealed that
    Donald Trump was not looking for honest answers about whether
    there was fraud in the election. He was looking for ways to
    stay in power. When people told him things that conflicted with
    him staying in power, he rejected them or he chose not even to
    contact people like that who would know if the election was
    done properly in the State.
        On the other hand, when individuals would say things that
    would allow him to stay in power, no matter how fantastical, he
    would latch on to those. That pattern over time we felt was
    powerful evidence that he, in fact, knew that the fraud claims
    that he was making were false.
        Ms. Lofgren. Who were some of the Republican witnesses who
    told President Trump that his claims of election fraud were
    false? Can you share that with us?
        Mr. Smith. Yes. There were a range of witnesses. They
    ranged from people on his campaign team who had wanted him to
    win, who were employed to help him win the election. They
    included State officials, State Republican officials who wanted
    him to win, voted for him, campaigned for him, asked him to
    provide--asked him and his coconspirators to provide evidence
    to support their claims and invariably they never did. It
    included officials, advisors, people he worked with in the
    White House who he relied on for important decisions and who he
    trusted in other contexts. We felt we had strong evidence from
    a variety of sources--
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chair, with my fellow Californian, you
    were allowing the witness to answer.
        Mr. Goldman. That is a good question. Isn't that grounds to
    let him answer?
        Chair Jordan. I have given him 30 second extra. The
    gentlelady 30 seconds extra. If the gentleman can be concise
    and finish up here quickly, we will allow him to finish.
        Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. Just to conclude, saying we felt that
    constituted powerful evidence of his knowing falsity of his
    statements in furtherance of the fraud.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chair, I would like to yield back noting
    the presence of officers who were severely attacked, protecting
    our lives on January 6th.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman
    from Texas, Mr. Gill, is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Gill. Mr. Smith, in January 2023, did you subpoena then
    Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy's toll records?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. We did.
        Mr. Gill. Yes, you did. The subpoena covered the time
    period between November 2020 and January 2021, is that right?
        Mr. Smith. I am sorry, sir. Could you say that again?
        Mr. Gill. We are not going to delay like this. The subpoena
    covered the time period between November 2020 and January 2021.
    How many days after Kevin McCarthy was sworn-in as Speaker did
    you subpoena his records?
        Mr. Smith. I don't recall, but those two things had nothing
    to do with one another.
        Mr. Gill. It was 16 days after becoming the highest-ranking
    Republican in the House of Representatives, you subpoenaed his
    toll records. Do you agree that this might reasonably be
    considered a violation of the speech or debate clause?
        Mr. Smith. I do not and I want to be clear that the toll
    records--
        Mr. Gill. You were collecting months' worth of phone data
    on the Republican Speaker of the House, the leader of the
    opposition. Right after he got sworn-in as Speaker, all around
    the time of a major vote, that sounds like a flagrant violation
    of the speech or debate clause to me, and most people agree
    with me.
        Speaker McCarthy had no recourse, did he, because you
    issued a nondisclosure order ensuring that neither he nor any
    of the American people knew about these subpoenas. Is that
    right?
        Mr. Smith. The toll records, the noncontent toll records
    subpoenas, we did secure nondisclosure orders for those
    subpoenas.
        Mr. Gill. You did and let me ask you, Mr. Smith, at the
    time you secured those nondisclosure orders, was Speaker
    McCarthy a flight risk?
        Mr. Smith. The nondisclosure order was based on concerns
    about--
        Mr. Gill. Was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk?
        Mr. Smith. He was not.
        Mr. Gill. He was not, then why did your nondisclosure order
    refer to him as a flight risk? It says right here, the court
    finds reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will
    result in flight from prosecution.
        Mr. Smith. When securing a nondisclosure order, the risks
    don't have to be associated--
        Mr. Gill. The Speaker of the House is a flight risk?
        Mr. Raskin. Can he finish answering the question?
        Mr. Gill. This is not your time. This is my time. Do you
    think the Speaker of the House is a flight risk? Do you think
    he is going to hop on a plane and leave the country?
        Mr. Smith. No. What I was trying to explain is with respect
    to a nondisclosure order, the risks aren't necessarily
    associated with the subscriber to the phone. They are at risk
    to the investigation.
        Mr. Gill. OK. That you were using--this is clearly in
    reference to Speaker McCarthy and you were using clearly false
    information to secure nondisclosure order to hide from Speaker
    McCarthy and from the American people the fact that you were
    spying on his toll records. I have got more, so let's move on.
        In May 2023, you also issued subpoenas for toll records of
    nine U.S. Senators and an additional Representative. is that
    right?
        Mr. Smith. In May 2023, we did issue--
        Mr. Gill. You did. There were nondisclosure orders in
    conjunction with those subpoenas as well, right?
        Mr. Smith. That is correct, consistent with the department
    policy and law.
        Mr. Gill. Again, nobody would know what you were doing. The
    Senators wouldn't, the Representatives wouldn't, and the
    American people wouldn't know what you were doing. Is that
    right?
        Mr. Smith. The toll records that we secured and the
    nondisclosure orders were consistent with policy and consistent
    with--
        Mr. Gill. You knew whenever you were doing that there was a
    risk you were violating the speech or debate clause, is that
    right?
        Mr. Smith. The toll records subpoenas that we secured were
    with the concurrence of the public integrity--
        Mr. Gill. Your own analysis says that you knew that there
    was a risk you were violating the speech or debate clause. I
    have it right here. This is an email from John Keller at Public
    Integrity Section to your team.

            As you are aware, there is some litigation risk regarding
            whether a compelled disclosure of toll records of a Member's
            legislative calls violates the speech or debate clause in the
            D.C. Circuit.

    That is from your own analysis right there. You did know,
    didn't you?
        Mr. Smith. With respect to the item you just put up on the
    screen, the last sentence states--
        Mr. Gill. Oh, we are going to get to the last sentence.
        Mr. Smith. OK.
        Mr. Gill. We are going to get to the last sentence. You
    cite case law in here, ``the bar on compelled disclosure is
    absolute.'' Is that right or do you think that you didn't have
    to abide by that precedent?
        Mr. Smith. To be clear, this statement is not from my
    office. This is the statement of the Public Integrity Section--
        Mr. Gill. This is your justification for those subpoenas
    and NDOs that you ordered. This was part of your analysis. It
    is a cursory analysis. It is worth noting.
        Let's get to that last sentence then:

            Given my understanding of the low likelihood that any of the
            Members listed below would be charged, the litigation risk
            should be minimal here.

    In other words, you are using a novel legal theory which you
    knew was novel, has never been tested by any court. You are not
    charging any of these Members. Nobody is going to know about it
    because you issued NDOs. Nobody is going to sue about it, sue
    this, so who cares, we are going to do it anyway. We walked all
    over the Constitution throughout this entire process--
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, the gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Gill. Spying on Members of Congress and you know it. It
    is absolutely disgraceful. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. They're not going
    to be charged. They're not going to see it. They're not going
    to know because we're not going to tell them. Let's go ahead
    and do it--is exactly what happened.
        The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Smith, it's great that you've been allowed to come here
    and testify to the American public. Is there anything you'd
    like briefly to discuss that Mr. Gill brought up on the reasons
    why you needed those phone records and the limitations that you
    thought might have been on you and the prosecution--at risk--
    because to risk the investigation?
        Mr. Smith. Sure. I would begin by pointing out that the
    email that was referenced wasn't a justification from my
    office. It was an email from the Public Integrity Section to my
    office approving the subpoenas.
        The subpoenas that we secured with nondisclosure orders
    from a judge, because I had grave concerns about obstruction of
    justice in this investigation, specifically, with regard to
    Donald Trump. Not only did we have the obstruction of justice
    that we were investigating in the classified documents case,
    but I was aware during the course of our investigation of a
    targeting of witnesses during the course of the conspiracy
    itself.
        There were election workers who had their lives turned
    upside-down and received vile death threats because they were
    targeted by Donald Trump and his coconspirators. I had a duty
    to protect witnesses in this investigation. That risk, that
    threat to witnesses was only confirmed when we went forward in
    this case, and Donald Trump suggested that one witness should
    be put to death, and then, also issued a statement to the
    effect of: If you come after me, I'm coming after you.
        In my mind, I can't think of a more direct threat to
    witnesses and individuals involved in that proceeding. Given
    that sort of threats, it was, in my view, completely
    appropriate to protect the integrity of the investigation, to
    protect against destruction of evidence, and to protect the
    witnesses in our case.
        Mr. Cohen. Just to make clear, you did not see any of the
    discussion? There was not any, it was just the content that
    they made a call to the President, and vice versa, but nothing
    about any content whatsoever?
        Mr. Smith. That's correct. A toll records subpoena gives
    you who a call is from, who it is to, and the length of that
    call. It does not tell you the content of what people are
    speaking about.
        Mr. Cohen. You felt that you had a case that was one that
    you would win beyond a reasonable doubt and moral certainty. Is
    there anything in your facts that you've had, that you would
    have used at trial that you believe has not been presented to
    the public in the past, or have been misrepresented to the
    public?
        Mr. Smith. Is there anything--
        Mr. Cohen. Essential facts that you had that you felt would
    have resulted in a conviction of the President on the charges
    that he was indicted on?
        Mr. Smith. My report, the report of our case, the final
    report summarizes the evidence in a way that gives a fair
    reading of the strength of the case.
        Mr. Cohen. You have no question, but it would have been
    successful before a jury?
        Mr. Smith. My review of the case, I came to the conclusion
    we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We were ready, willing,
    and able to go to trial in the case. Of course, as I said in my
    opening statement, prosecutors can't control outcomes, but I
    felt confident in pursuing the case to trial.
        Mr. Cohen. Did Merrick Garland ever pressure you to bring
    an indictment, or to do anything in your investigation?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Mr. Cohen. Did anybody else in the administration--
    President Biden or Vice President Harris, et cetera?
        Mr. Smith. I was given the independence of conduct my
    investigation, I came to the decision to bring charges in this
    case without undue influence from anybody in the department.
        Mr. Cohen. You dropped the case. Why did you drop the case?
        Mr. Smith. The cases against Donald Trump were dismissed,
    pursuant to Department policy.
        Mr. Cohen. Department policy, Office of Legal Counsel,
    said, ``If somebody's President, you can't bring a charge
    against him or they can't be held liable.'' Is that correct?
        Mr. Smith. That's correct. There had not been a case of
    this nature ever, where someone was elected President with
    charges pending. That was slightly different. We consulted with
    Public--I'm sorry--with the Office of Legal Counsel, and they
    determined, pursuant to policy, that the cases needed to be
    dismissed.
        Mr. Cohen. You weren't pleased with that, but you had to
    follow the law, and that's what you did?
        Mr. Smith. We followed policy throughout my investigation.
    My job was not to set policy. My job was to follow it. That's
    what we did.
        Mr. Cohen. I want to thank you for your service. You're a
    great American, and you came out of this as being somebody who
    people can respect and look up to in a fashion that we should
    be instilling people's desire to go into justice, to go into
    law, and to go into government. You're example of the type of
    person they should follow.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
    Wisconsin is recognized.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Smith, there's something that's really
    bothering me since your deposition. It's how and why you got
    the position of Special Counsel.
        In your personal relationship with Marshall Miller, let's
    go back to 1999, when you were working for the United States
    Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York. Is that
    when you first met Marshall Miller?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. After ED New York, did the two of you ever
    work together again prior to becoming Special Counsel?
    According to the public bios for you and Mr. Miller, you
    overlapped at DOJ from 2014-2015, when you were Chief of DOJ's
    Public Integrity Section and Mr. Miller was Chief of Staff for
    DOJ's Criminal Division. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Smith. I believe that is accurate, yes.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. OK. Were the two of you social outside of
    work?
        Mr. Smith. I would say intermittently, yes.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. OK. After 20 years of knowing each other,
    it's safe to say you were friends, correct?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. OK. Let's fast forward to 2022. Mr. Miller
    is appointed Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General at
    DOJ, the No. 3 at DOJ. You call your friend to congratulate
    him, and according to the deposition transcript, you say you'd
    be interested in a position at DOJ. Is that correct?
        Mr. Smith. Yes. What I recall is that I expressed an
    interest, if the right position came up, I would be interested
    in considering it.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. At that point, there is no discussion about
    Special Counsel, is that correct?
        Mr. Smith. This is some time ago and I don't have a
    specific recollection of all these conversations. I've--
        Mr. Fitzgerald. You were first approached about Special
    Counsel, and that role, before the 2022 midterm elections.
    According to the deposition transcript, in October 2022, you
    fly to D.C., meet with the AG and the Deputy Attorney General,
    is that correct?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, I flew to D.C. I believe it was in October
    and I met the Deputy Attorney General and, also, I met the
    Attorney General.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. In multiple conversations with your friend
    Marshall Miller, he never once tipped you off that the Attorney
    General, or Deputy Attorney General, have you on the short list
    for Special Counsel? That never came up?
        Mr. Smith. Again, this was some time ago, but my
    recollection is I came to Washington and I met with those
    individuals, as well as the Human Rights Section. Marshall
    Miller is the person who set that up.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. He was at the meetings? Was he at the
    meetings? Just to tie all this together, you've known Mr.
    Miller since you were both AUSA in New York. You stayed in
    touch over a 20-year career in Federal Government. He gets a
    job with the Biden Administration, and just a few short months
    later, you're offered the role of Special Counsel.
        I'm having a hard time believing that this is some big
    coincidence and that there wasn't a back-and-forth on the
    Special Counsel. Maybe you never received directives explicitly
    from the AG or the Deputy Attorney General, but was Marshall
    Miller--did he become a two-way conduit throughout the
    investigation with DOJ?
        Mr. Smith. No, I would not take direction from a political
    person, a political figure, about how I should conduct an
    investigation.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. You never spoke to him throughout the
    entire time you were conducting an investigation?
        Mr. Smith. No, I didn't say that. What I said was that he
    was--
        Mr. Fitzgerald. OK.
        Mr. Smith. I think you asked if he was a conduit of
    information. He was present, to my recollection, at meetings,
    briefings that I had with the Attorney General and Deputy
    Attorney General during my time as Special Counsel.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't want to assume anything, but Mr.
    Miller wanted you in that position, not because you're
    necessarily the best lawyer he ever met, but because of the
    long-term friendship that you have with him?
        Mr. Smith. What I can tell you is I have been a prosecutor
    for 30 years. I have been an apolitical public servant for 30
    years. I've prosecuted cases against Democrats and Republicans
    all the same. I've had, in my view, the experience necessary
    for this position, and that's why I accepted it.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. He knew that you would pursue--he had to
    have an idea that you would pursue exactly what the Biden
    Administration wanted, which was criminal charges against
    President Trump?
        Mr. Smith. That anybody who knows me well knows the idea
    that I would take direction from a political figure about how
    an investigation should come out. I don't think anybody who
    knows me thinks that's true.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, Chair Jordan, the next deposition
    should be with Marshall Miller at this point.
        I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
    Georgia is recognized.
        Mr. Johnson. While we are deposing Marshall Miller, maybe
    we can depose Donald Trump about why he chose his personal
    lawyer to be the head of the DOJ.
        On January 6, 2026, the fifth anniversary of the
    insurrection, the White House launched a taxpayer-funded
    website that attempts to rewrite history about what happened on
    that day of infamy.
        On January 6, 2021, there was an insurrection at the United
    States Capitol that resulted in a police officer dying the next
    day, another four officers dying by suicide in the months
    thereafter, with at least 140 police officers being injured by
    the insurrectionists, with 15 of them requiring
    hospitalization.
        I'm proud that we have four former officers, as well as on-
    duty Capitol Hill police officers, here today.
        Mr. Smith, I want to ask you about this website. Because
    the Trump Administration is using taxpayer dollars to lie to
    the American people about the events leading up to, and the
    events taking place on January 6, 2021.
        For example, this Trump propaganda site claims that the
    2020 election was, quote, ``stolen.'' Mr. Smith, did your
    investigation undercover evidence sufficient to prove beyond a
    reasonable doubt that Donald Trump knew that his claim that the
    election was stolen was false?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, it did.
        Mr. Johnson. Did your investigation uncover evidence
    sufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Donald
    Trump publicly claimed that the 2020 election was stolen from
    him, while he privately acknowledged that he had lost the
    election?
        Mr. Smith. Yes. We cited instances of that in our case.
        Mr. Johnson. Here we see that, on the fifth anniversary of
    the insurrection, the Trump White House propaganda machine is
    still promoting the stolen election theory on this government
    webpage, with a text box titled, quote, ``Fraudulent Election:
    Stolen Election Certified.'' The site also has a subsection
    reading, in part, quote: ``FBI entrapment operation exposed.''
        Mr. Smith, did your investigation develop any evidence to
    support the allegation that the FBI entrapped insurrectionists
    into committing crimes on January 6th?
        Mr. Smith. Our investigation revealed that Donald Trump is
    the person who caused January 6th; that it was foreseeable to
    him, and that he sought to exploit the violence.
        Mr. Johnson. This website also accuses you of being a,
    quote, ``Biden prosecutor'' who brought, quote, ``weaponized
    charges against Mr. Trump.'' Mr. Smith, were you a Biden
    prosecutor, who weaponized the Department of Justice against
    Donald Trump?
        Mr. Smith. Absolutely not.
        Mr. Johnson. Did Attorney General Merrick Garland direct
    you to prosecute Trump, because Donald Trump was running
    against Joe Biden in the Presidential election?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Mr. Johnson. There are also allegations that President
    Trump was the victim of, quote, ``lawfare,'' and accusations
    that the Department of Justice lawyers, who prosecuted Donald
    Trump used, quote, ``fabricated indictments, and rigged show
    trials.''
        Did you, Mr. Smith, or the men and women working on your
    team, work to fabricate indictments or put on rigged show
    trials?
        Mr. Smith. No. We secured indictments from grand juries,
    and we were prepared to prove our case in court beyond a
    reasonable doubt.
        Mr. Johnson. Did you use your appointment as Special
    Counsel to conduct a politically motivated witch hunt, scam
    investigation and prosecution of Donald Trump?
        Mr. Smith. I did not. We followed the facts; we followed
    the law. Where that led us to an indictment of an unprecedented
    criminal scheme to block the peaceful transfer of power.
        Mr. Johnson. Those indictments have been dismissed. Can
    they be rebrought or resurrected after Trump leaves office?
        Mr. Smith. They were dismissed without prejudice.
        Mr. Johnson. They can be refiled? He can be prosecuted
    after he leaves office. Is that correct?
        Mr. Smith. I'm not going to speak to that. I can only speak
    about what we did, which was dismiss the case without
    prejudice.
        Mr. Johnson. All right. The website put out by the Trump
    White House on the anniversary of January 6th, is nothing more
    than a pack of lies. It proves that Donald Trump is hellbent on
    misusing taxpayer dollars in a feeble attempt to rewrite his
    criminal history, and the history of what happened on January
    6, 2021.
        With that, I yield back. I would like to, Mr. Chair, offer
    for the record an unanimous consent.
        Chair Jordan. Unanimous consent?
        Mr. Johnson. A statement from the Cybersecurity and
    Infrastructure Security Agency, released on November 12, 2020,
    that states, ``The November 3rd election was the most secure in
    American history.''
        Also, testimony from--I would like to request unanimous
    consent to enter into the record the September 24, 2020,
    testimony of Trump's former FBI Director Chris Wray, who told
    the Homeland Security Committee of the Senate, that the FBI
    had, quote, ``not seen or historically had any kind of
    coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election.''
        Last, but not least, Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask unanimous
    consent to enter into the record this article titled,
    ``Disputing Trump: Barr Says No Widespread Election Fraud.''
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Gooden. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Smith, on November
    18, 2022, AG Garland appointed you as Special Counsel. Can you
    tell me about your swearing-in, or the oath of office that you
    took after that?
        Mr. Smith. I don't recall the specifics of it. I know I was
    sworn-in. I don't recall the specifics of how that was done.
        Mr. Gooden. You don't remember who swore you in?
        Mr. Smith. I don't.
        Mr. Gooden. Would you agree that taking the oath of office
    is a legal requirement for the job that you had?
        Mr. Smith. I have taken oaths of office regularly. I
    haven't researched whether it's required or not, but I have
    done that in every government case to the present.
        Mr. Gooden. Well, it is required. The terms I heard earlier
    today were ``atypical,'' ``irregular,'' and ``no proper
    procedure.'' In your opening statement, you said that ``We
    followed Justice Department policies.'' I would assume you
    meant the law as well.
        It strikes me as odd that you don't remember who sworn you
    in, how you were sworn-in. It's pretty significant. We all get
    sworn-in here and I remember every day. You don't remember who
    swore you in?
        Mr. Smith. I don't remember the details of it, as I sit
    here today. I know I--
        Mr. Gooden. You did take the oath of office before you got
    rolling?
        Mr. Smith. My recollection is it was when I was appointed.
        Mr. Gooden. It strikes me as odd that Attorney General
    Garland had you retake the oath of office on the 14th of
    September of the following year. Why did he make you do that?
        Mr. Smith. As I am sitting here right now, I do not recall.
    I know that there is the oath of office that I signed; I
    believe it was on the 18th, the day that I was appointed. I
    know the department had me do a second one. I don't know the
    particulars of why they asked me to do it again, but I know--
        Mr. Gooden. Well, you signed it on November 20, 2022. There
    was no witness, which you have to agree it's a little odd if
    there's no witness saying that you took the oath of office, it
    would maybe make someone like me question whether or not you
    were legitimately doing the job, until you finally took the
    oath of office.
        It sounds like the Attorney General had the same question
    and thought, ``Oh, shit, we've got to have him sign this,'' on
    the 14th day of September of the following year.
        Why did you take the oath of office again on the 14th of
    September of the following year, when you say you took the
    office in November 2022? Why did you need to do it twice?
        Mr. Smith. My recollection is that I took the oath of
    office--as you said, it was the 18th or the 20th--and felt I
    was under the oath of office. I believe, if you have it in
    front of you, I signed an oath.
        Mr. Gooden. You signed, but there was no witness. There
    was--it's supposed to be either notarized or witnessed.
    Apparently, Attorney General Garland thought it was significant
    enough to have you do another oath--11 months later. That
    struck--that's strange, right?
        Mr. Smith. I don't know why they asked me to sign it again.
    I don't recall ever discussing this issue with Attorney General
    Garland.
        Mr. Gooden. Well, that is just wild to me. I'd like to
    yield the balance of my time to Mr. Jordan.
        Chair Jordan. Well, which one was the official one? Which
    one counted? I think that's what the gentleman is asking.
        Mr. Smith. I understood myself to have taken the oath of
    office when I assumed the job--
        Chair Jordan. How much money did--OK. How much money did
    you spend in the--investigating President Trump? How much money
    did your office spend?
        Mr. Smith. I do not recall, as I sit here now, but I know
    that, pursuant to--I believe it's the Special Counsel
    regulations--reports were issued each six months detailing how
    much--
        Chair Jordan. We have gathered $35 million. What I want to
    know is, how much of that $35 million of taxpayer money did you
    skiv to confidential human sources? We know you gave $20,000 to
    someone. It just got reported last week. How much more money
    did you give confidential people, people we don't know about,
    with American tax money going after the guy we elected
    President?
        Mr. Smith. My recollection regards the $20,000, which was
    not a payment from me. It was me approving a payment by the FBI
    to a confidential human source who was reviewing video and
    photographic--
        Chair Jordan. Who's the source?
        Mr. Smith. I do not know the identity of the source. What
    I--
        Chair Jordan. How many other payments went to this source
    or other sources?
        Mr. Smith. As I sit here, I do not know the answer to that
    question. My role as Special Counsel, I didn't--
        Chair Jordan. Thirty-five million dollars and you're giving
    money to people--the country doesn't know who they are, and
    you're giving their hard-earned money to these folks?
        The main question I have, too, with this is, why did you
    have to do it? You subpoenaed bank records from the RNC, phone
    records for Members of Congress. You got subpoenas for bank
    records for people sitting right there in the front row. Why
    did you have to pay people for information when you could
    subpoena people and get it?
        Ms. Jayapal. Time, Mr. Chair. Time has expired.
        Chair Jordan. Time has expired. You can answer the
    question, though. The country would like to know why you had to
    do it.
        Mr. Smith. My recollection and understanding is the
    payment, the $20,000 that I approved, was for a confidential
    human source to assist in the review of video and photographic
    evidence, showing people who were attacking the Capitol,
    attacking police officers, obstructing the proceeding, and
    seeing if we could prove that some of those people had come
    directly--
        Chair Jordan. That wasn't my question, but my time has
    expired. The gentleman from California is recognized.
        Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Smith, I want you to have the utmost
    confidence in what you did. You did everything right.
        Harry Dunn, Danny Hodges, Sergeant Gonell, and Mike Fanone,
    they did everything right. These guys, my Republican
    colleagues, are a joke. They're wrong. History will harshly
    judge them.
        I want you to lean in today. You have nothing to be ashamed
    of. You did everything right, sir.
        I am so--these guys are so lucky they're not under oath,
    because they would have to tell you what they really think of
    Trump. They call him ``crooked.'' They call him ``cruel.'' They
    call him ``a scumbag.'' I've heard you all say it. You're lucky
    you're not under Trump--but when the lights go on and the
    cameras are on, you're tiny; you're small; you shrink.
        Everyone remembers Matt Gaetz coming over here after a
    Committee hearing. He would laugh at how stupid he thought
    Trump was. This is all a show. Mr. Smith, you're just the
    latest act that they've brought in. They can't erase what
    happened on January 6th because we saw it with our own eyes.
        Mr. Smith, after the mainstream media called the race for
    Biden about a week after the election, did Donald Trump concede
    the election?
        Mr. Smith. He did not.
        Mr. Swalwell. The next month, the Electoral College met in
    every State and voted Biden as the winner. Did Donald Trump
    concede then?
        Mr. Smith. He did not.
        Mr. Swalwell. Shortly after that, the last court case that
    Donald Trump brought was thrown out. Did he concede then?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Mr. Swalwell. Is it your judgment, then, that only Donald
    Trump could have convened the mob, in the size that it was
    assembled, on January 6th?
        Mr. Smith. Our assessment of the evidence is that he is the
    person most responsible for what happened on January 6th. He
    caused what happened. It was foreseeable to him, and then, when
    it happened, he tried to exploit it in furtherance of the
    conspiracy.
        Mr. Swalwell. You actually obtained indictments from a
    grand jury, right? You went to a grand jury and did something
    that the Trump Administration has not been able to do. As they
    go after their enemies, their cases are being thrown out. You
    obtained criminal indictments against the President, is that
    right?
        Mr. Smith. That's correct.
        Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Smith, do you know who Edward Loya is?
        Mr. Smith. I'm sorry?
        Mr. Swalwell. Edward Loya, L-o-y-a?
        Mr. Smith. I believe Mr. Loya worked at the Public
    Integrity Section when I was there.
        Mr. Swalwell. Did you know that he said of you, ``When it
    comes to investigating allegations of sophisticated Federal
    criminal matters, Jack Smith is the gold standard''?
        Do you know who Mr. James McGovern is?
        Mr. Smith. Yes. He was a prosecutor I worked with in New
    York.
        Mr. Swalwell. Did you know that he said of you, ``I have no
    idea what Mr. Smith's political beliefs are because he's
    completely apolitical''? Sir, are you a registered Independent?
        Mr. Smith. I have no partisan loyalties. I don't know if
    I'm registered as Independent or not registered at all.
        Mr. Swalwell. Are you glad you accepted Attorney General
    Garland's request to be a Special Prosecutor, even though
    you've been dragged over political barbed wire and your
    family's been subjected to death threats?
        Mr. Smith. I don't regret it.
        Mr. Swalwell. Do you remember where you were on September
    11th?
        Mr. Smith. I do.
        Mr. Swalwell. What did you think of that day?
        Mr. Smith. I was in Brooklyn when that happened. I was at
    the Command Center that night. I worked on that investigation.
    Yes, I remember pretty clearly.
        Mr. Swalwell. Do you remember where you were on January
    6th?
        Mr. Smith. On January 6th, I was living in Europe, working
    for the State Department, seconded to a War Crimes Tribunal.
        Mr. Swalwell. What did you think, as you watched on
    television, what happened at the Capitol that day?
        Mr. Smith. To be honest with you, I don't recall if I saw
    it that day or a later day, because of the time period.
        Mr. Swalwell. What did you think when you saw it?
        Mr. Smith. I was shocked. I was shocked by it. I,
    obviously, being in Europe and not following things as closely,
    I was not, frankly, up-to-speed on the events leading up to it.
        Mr. Swalwell. What shocked you about it?
        Mr. Smith. I'd just never see anything like that happen in
    our country.
        Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Smith, I don't know if I'll ever have the
    honor to talk to you again. If I don't, please know that I and
    my colleagues on the Democratic side--and even my Republican
    colleagues when they speak privately--have nothing but respect
    and appreciation for what you tried to do and how you did it.
    You, unlike many here, are a man of honor.
        I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
    Alabama is recognized.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Smith, you appear before this Committee today not as a
    neutral observer of the law, but at one point you were one of
    the most powerful prosecutors in the Federal system--armed with
    enormous discretion, minimal oversight, and a mandate that goes
    to the very heart of our Constitutional order.
        You brought charges during an active election cycle. You
    relied on legal theories that had never never before been
    tested in context. You did so while disregarding longstanding
    Department of Justice policies designed to prevent prosecutors
    from influencing elections.
        Mr. Smith, you claim in your investigation you developed
    proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in
    a criminal scheme to overturn the results in the 2020 election
    and to prevent lawful transfer of power.
        However, a few weeks ago in Georgia, Fulton County Election
    Board officials stated that 315,000 ballots were certified
    without required signatures on the tabulator tapes for poll
    workers. These signatures were required by the Georgia statute.
    If not counted, this could have turned the State of Georgia
    red, and I won't doubt there were similar schemes in many other
    States.
        You were illegally appointed to serve as Special Counsel,
    since you were not confirmed by advice and consent of the
    Senate and stated in the--as is stated in the Appointments
    Clause.
        You also issued an indictment against then-President
    Biden's most formidable political opponent. The candidate was
    President Trump. You issued a gag order for President Trump
    during a 2024 election cycle. This is a major violation of
    President Trump's First Amendment rights and a poor attempt to
    outright censor the leading political candidate. These actions
    were nothing short of election interference.
        Nine Senators, including Senator Tuberville from my State
    of Alabama, and multiple Republican Members of the House of
    Representatives had their phones subpoenaed--or their records
    subpoenaed. Some, you seized their phones.
        Even then, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, one of the
    highest-ranking Republicans in the country, had his phone
    records subpoenaed--all for political gain. These subpoenas
    clearly violated the Speech and Debate Clause.
        As John Keller of the DOJ's Public Integrity Section
    addressed, they sent you an email, dated May 17, 2023, D.C.
    Circuit President stated that the Speech and Debate Clause--and
    the bar is this--are compelled--I'm sorry--``bar on compelled
    disclosure is absolute.''
        These instances are not only the tip of the iceberg about
    you and your team's flagrant disregard of the Constitution, Mr.
    Smith, your actions have changed and damaged confidence in our
    justice
    system.
        Today, this Committee will determine whether that damage
    was a result of reckless judgment, political biased, or
    deliberate misuse of authority.
        With that, Mr. Chair, I'll give you the balance of my time
    for questions.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman for yielding.
        I want to go back to that email. If could put that up? This
    email that Mr. Gill highlighted a few minutes ago.
        This is the justification from the Public Integrity
    Section--if you look at the bottom, John Killer, Public
    Integrity Section--for going and getting the phone records and
    toll records of the Members of Congress.
        There's a couple things I want to highlight.
        That first highlighted area, ``There is some litigation
    risk.'' They admit there's some concern here. They send this
    copy to Jack Smith's team.
        Then, you go down later, as Mr. Gill pointed out, ``The
    case law is clear a legislator may intervene and oppose such
    use.'' The risk is real.
        Now, here's the deal: There was really no risk because we
    weren't going to know. They weren't going to tell us. They made
    sure they didn't tell us because they went to the judge and got
    a gag order.
        Look at the last sentence. The last sentence: ``Low
    likelihood that any of the Members listed below would be
    charged.'' They're not going to know because we're not going to
    charge any of these guys; they didn't do anything wrong.
        Therefore, ``the litigation risk should be minimal.''
    They're not going to be charged. They're not going to--we're
    not going to go after them. They're not going to--litigation
    risk is minimal. It's minimal because, frankly, it's
    nonexistent, because they're not going to know, and we're going
    to make sure they don't know because we're not even going to
    tell the judge who we're getting the gag orders on.
        Yet, Mr. Smith thought that was A-OK. That was just fine.
    That was in the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. I
    find that hard to believe.
        Do you know why? Do you know why? Do you know why everyone
    knows it's wrong? Because the Public Integrity Section at the
    Justice Department has now changed its policy. You can't do
    this anymore. They've changed their policy, but it was OK for
    Jack Smith to do it because we've got to get Trump. We've got
    to get the President. That's what this was all about.
        I yield back to the gentleman from Alabama.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I have some--Mr. Chair, I have a
    unanimous consent request.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter
    into the record a transcript of the voicemail that President
    Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani left Senator Tuberville on January
    6th, in which he states, ``I'm calling you because I want to
    discuss with you how they're trying to rush this hearing and
    how we need you, our Republican friends, to try to just slow it
    down, so we can get these legislatures to get more information
    to.''
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
        Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    California.
        Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The House Judiciary Committee is responsible for helping to
    ensure the rule of law. Unfortunately, the Chair of this
    Committee ignored a bipartisan Congressional subpoena directed
    at him. His actions have made it harder for this Committee and
    other Congressional Committees to get witnesses, and testimony
    and damaged the rule of law.
        Now, before I ask questions of Mr. Smith, I just want to
    make a simple observation. How scared are Republicans of
    talking about the Epstein files? They are so scared that they
    literally are calling Jack Smith, a distinguished Federal
    prosecutor, who secured multiple indictments against Donald
    Trump, with multiple felony counts.
        Republicans would rather talk about the criminality of
    Donald Trump in trying to steal an election, of trying to stop
    the peaceful transfer of power, and the criminality of Donald
    Trump in stealing classified documents, obstructing justice,
    than about Donald Trump's associations with Jeffrey Epstein and
    his pedophilia ring.
        I demand this Committee, this Chair, and Republicans to
    call an immediate hearing asking why the Department of Justice
    is refusing to release 99 percent of the Epstein files, and why
    the DOJ is violating the law right now.
        I have questions, Mr. Smith, for you, and thank you for
    being here today. My questions center on interactions, or lack
    of interactions, between the Biden Administration and yourself.
        Did President Biden or anyone in the Biden White House ever
    direct you to seek retribution against anyone perceived to be
    Biden's political opponent?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Mr. Lieu. Did the Biden Administration, or President Biden,
    or anyone in the White House, ever write a social media post--
    directing you to seek retribution against any particular
    individual?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Mr. Lieu. Did President Biden or anyone else in the Biden
    White House, ever direct you to take any prosecutorial step
    whatsoever?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Mr. Lieu. OK. Donald Trump made it clear he wanted to seek
    retribution against New York Attorney General Tish James.
        Trump relentlessly attacked her saying quote, ``she should
    be prosecuted,'' arrested and punished because she dared to
    hold Trump accountable for Trump's fraud in New York.
        Trump weaponized the Department of Justice, and the Trump
    DOJ opened a sham investigation into her alleged mortgage
    fraud.
        We know it's a sham investigation because they couldn't
    even get twice, grand juries to secure indictments against her.
        When interim U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert, who Donald Trump
    himself appointed, spent five months investigating Tish James,
    he concluded there was not enough evidence to go forward.
        What did Trump do? He fired his own U.S. Attorney. Mr.
    Smith, did President Biden or anyone else in the Biden White
    House, ever tell you that Donald Trump should be quote,
    ``arrested and punished''?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Mr. Lieu. Did President Biden or anyone else in the Biden
    White House, ever threaten to fire you based on any action you
    took, or did not take?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Mr. Lieu. Donald Trump also directed the Trump DOJ to open
    investigations into his own appointees who refused to do his
    bidding.
        His DOJ recently investigated Federal Reserve Chair Jerome
    Powell, because Powell won't cede to Trump's bullying on
    interest rates.
        Did President Biden or anyone else in the Biden White
    House, ever direct you to go after any Biden appointee?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Mr. Lieu. OK. I just want to say a little bit about what
    the other side brought up about these phone toll records. Do
    you believe the Speaker of the House is above the law?
        Mr. Smith. No, I don't believe anybody should be above the
    law.
        Mr. Lieu. That's right, U.S. Senators are not above the
    law, correct?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Mr. Lieu. The Members of Congress are not above the law,
    right?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Mr. Lieu. Yes, that's right because we're not. What
    Republicans are trying to argue is somehow if you're doing an
    investigation, you can't do stuff to Senators, or the Members
    of Congress.
        Get out of here. We're just under a law like everybody
    else. By the way, the Speech and Debate Clause only applies to
    legislative acts, communications with legislative acts.
        Stealing a fricking election, or trying to do so, is not a
    legislative act. It is a crime. I don't know what the heck
    they're talking about.
        This is so stupid. I'm a former prosecutor. You never had
    an investigation go and try to get someone's toll records, or
    phone records, and then tell them, ``hey dude, we're about to
    get your phone records.''
        Of course, you wouldn't tell them. What the Republicans are
    saying today is just idiotic. I am so pleased you're here on
    national TV telling the American people that Trump was
    indicted. He was indicted lawfully, and multiple grand juries
    secured those indictments.
        Thank you for your service, and history will look on you
    well. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from Florida is recognized for
    five minutes.
        Ms. Lee. Mr. Smith, you have a long tenure at the
    Department of Justice. Would you agree that the statement that
    DOJ charging policies require prosecutors to bring charges,
    only where the admissible evidence is expected to be sufficient
    to obtain and sustain a conviction? Is that right?
        Mr. Smith. That is correct. That's from the Federal
    Principles of Prosecution.
        Ms. Lee. In this case, you brought against President Trump,
    one of the charges you pursued was under Title 18, Section 371,
    which requires an agreement to interfere with the lawful
    function of the United States through deceit or dishonesty.
    That the defendant knowingly and intentionally joined in an
    overt act.
        What I'd like to ask you about is this. You would agree
    that Section 371 requires dishonesty or deceit, and also proof
    that a criminal defendant acted knowingly and intentionally, is
    that right?
        Mr. Smith. I believe that's correct. It requires knowing
    deceit targeted a lawful government function.
        Ms. Lee. You would then also agree would you not, that
    opinion, disagreement, or even mistake, is insufficient to
    satisfy the burden of criminal intent set forth in that
    statute?
        Mr. Smith. A mistake certainly would. We needed to prove
    and intended to prove at trial, that the false statements that
    Donald Trump made were knowingly false.
        Ms. Lee. That they were false and that it was done
    knowingly. Even under your theory of the case, even if we took
    your facts as true, you still would have been required to prove
    that the President said something false, and that he or did
    knowingly.
        Going on to your next charge, let's talk about obstruction.
    Thereto, that charge requires proof of wrongful intent, does it
    not?
        Mr. Smith. That's correct.
        Ms. Lee. If a defendant there actually believes a factual
    claim is true, that will mean he could not be convicted of that
    charge, isn't that right?
        Mr. Smith. Well, I--
        Ms. Lee. Not correctly convicted?
        Mr. Smith. The defendant for that charge would have to
    behave corruptly. Corruptly could include seeking unlawful
    benefit, seeking a benefit to benefit themselves.
        In this case, to stay in office when they had, in fact, not
    won the election.
        Ms. Lee. Thereto, there's a requirement of intent that this
    conduct must be knowing and intentional, isn't that right?
        Mr. Smith. There is an intent requirement, yes. Corrupt
    intent.
        Ms. Lee. Didn't you also acknowledge in your deposition,
    that the President was receiving information from multiple
    advisors? Giuliana, Eastman, Clark, and Powell.
        In your deposition, you said he was almost just
    regurgitating what they told him. Isn't that right?
        Mr. Smith. I don't believe I said he was regurgitating what
    they told him. What I said is that he was making knowingly
    false claims, that he was believing anything that would keep
    him in office, and he was rejecting anything--
        Ms. Lee. You would agree that those people or some people,
    were giving the President conflicting advice at that time,
    would you not?
        Mr. Smith. You are correct in that his original campaign
    staff told him he had lost. He fired them and brought in people
    who would--
        Ms. Lee. Criminal liability under the statues you used in
    your indictment, requires on proving intent. Not simply the
    undermining of democratic norms or expressing an opinion with
    which you do not agree.
        Is it not correct sir, that here, you charged two intent-
    based crimes without any direct proof whatsoever, that the
    conduct charged was knowing, intentional, or that you were
    going to have an adequate basis to sustain a conviction at
    trial?
        Mr. Smith. I felt we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I
    felt that the proof included direct testimony from a number of
    witnesses, to prove his, the knowing falsity of his claims.
        Ms. Lee. Despite the fact that in your own deposition, you
    acknowledge the existence of conflicting advice? If this
    defendant were anyone other than Donald J. Trump, Mr. Smith, I
    find it hard to believe that we would be sitting here today
    having a hearing about an indictment that was returned, knowing
    that the elements of the offenses could not be demonstrated.
        Now, let's talk about this. I assume you're also familiar
    with the Department of Justice policy that prohibits
    prosecutors from selecting the timing of investigative or
    prosecutorial actions for the purpose of affecting any
    election?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, I am. That's the Election Year
    Sensitivities Policy, and we followed it in all respects. The
    Public Integrity Section, who administers that policy,
    concurred that we followed it in all respects.
        Ms. Lee. Chair, my time is expired.
        Chair Jordan. Gentlelady yields back. The Chair recognizes
    the Ranking Member for UC.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you, kindly, Mr. Chair. This is from John
    Dowd: ``I was Donald Trump's lawyer, Jack Smith should be
    celebrated, not vilified,'' December 16, 2025, last month.
        I have another unanimous consent to enter into the record,
    a criminal complaint filed by the Trump Department of Justice
    in December 13, 2025, detailing how Kash Patel and the FBI used
    a confidential human source in an undercover FBI agent to
    investigate a bomb threat.
        In Los Angeles. Then, finally, this is an article published
    by The Verge on October 19, 2023, titled, ``Peter Thiel Was
    Reportedly an FBI Informant,'' which reports that Peter Thiel
    served as a confidential human source for the FBI.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection, the gentleman from Arizona
    is recognized for unanimous consent.
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        First, from msn.com, ``Biden's FBI Paid Anti-Trump Sedition
    Hundreds as Informants in J6 Arctic Frost Probes.''
        Second, ``Jack Smith Team Approved $20,000.00 Payment to
    Informant to Snitch on Trump During Arctic Frost Probe.''
        Third, ``AT&T Turned Kevin McCarthy's Cell Phone Records
    over to Jack Smith.''
        Fourth, ``Biden's Legal Team Met with Jack Smith Aide
    Before Trump Indictment.''
        Fifth, ``Jack Smith Deposition Gives Insight into Failed
    Effort to Hold Trump Accountable.''
        Sixth, ``Trump Special Counsel Jack Smith was Involved in
    Lois Lerner IRS Scandal.''
        Seventh, ``Special Counsel Jack Smith's Mixed History
    Pursuing High Profile Politicians.''
        Eighth, ``FBI Resisted Opening Probe into Trump's Role on
    January 6.''
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentleman from North
    Carolina is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Knott. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it's your turn. Do
    you yield her turn. Do you yield your time?
        Chair Jordan. I lost track after all those unanimous
    consent replies. Gentlelady from Washington is recognized, and
    then the gentleman from North Carolina.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Smith, thank you for
    coming here today. Your willingness to speak directly to us and
    to the American people about your investigation, is
    professional, it's courageous, and it's patriotic.
        It's high time that the American people hear directly from
    you about the results of your investigation of President Donald
    Trump, for his criminal actions leading up to and the day of
    January 6, 2021.
        The facts according to your report are simple. Without a
    single piece of evidence, Trump sowed doubt about the 2020
    election results, and urged his followers to quote, ``walk down
    to the Capitol and fight like hell, on January 6th.''
        That's exactly what they did. Thousands of insurrectionists
    violently tried to stop Congress from certifying the 2020
    election and doing our duty.
        They assaulted law enforcement officers, some of whom are
    sitting right here in the chamber with us.
        I was trapped in a House gallery with a small number of
    Members that day. I will never forget the pounding on the
    doors. The insurrectionists threatening to kill us right
    outside.
        My Republican colleagues keep trying to rewrite history.
    They claim that, somehow, Trump's words and actions did not
    legally rise to the level of criminal activity. That he did not
    directly cause violence at the Capitol.
        I want to set that record straight with your right now.
    First, you successfully secured indictments against Donald
    Trump in two major Federal cases, election interference in the
    2020 election, and mishandling of classified documents after
    leaving office. Is that correct?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Ms. Jayapal. You've been a Federal prosecutor for nearly 30
    years. You've led this investigation, combing through hundreds
    of thousands of documents, photos, videos, and communication.
        Did your investigation find that Donald Trump attempted to
    manufacture fraudulent State slates of Presidential electors in
    seven States that he lost?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Ms. Jayapal. Did he pressure State officials to ignore true
    vote counts in those States?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Ms. Jayapal. Did he spread lies and conspiracies to his
    followers, to make them believe that the election had been
    illegally rigged against him?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Ms. Jayapal. Did he pressure DOJ officials to stop the
    certification of the election?
        Mr. Smith. He did.
        Ms. Jayapal. Did he pressure his own Vice President Mike
    Pence, to stop the certification against the oath of office
    that he had sworn to the Constitution?
        Mr. Smith. He did.
        Ms. Jayapal. When all this didn't work, did he, Donald
    Trump, motivate and inspire an angry mob to the U.S. Capitol to
    stop the certification?
        Mr. Smith. Our proof showed that he caused what happened on
    January 6th, that it was foreseeable, and that he exploited
    that violence.
        Ms. Jayapal. Did Donald Trump know that his allegations of
    election fraud were lies when he spread them?
        Mr. Smith. Our proof was that he did, and we intended to
    prove that at trial.
        Ms. Jayapal. In fact, as the quotes from your report behind
    me show, he even privately admitted that he lost the election,
    correct?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Ms. Jayapal. He said quote, ``it doesn't matter if you won
    or lost the election, you have to fight like hell.'' He said,
    ``can you believe I lost to this f--ing guy?''
        During your closed-door deposition last month, you and I
    had an exchange about the impact on our democracy, the toll on
    our democracy for not holding the President accountable for
    trying to steal an election. Do you remember that exchange?
        Mr. Smith. I do.
        Ms. Jayapal. I want to return to it because what you said
    in the closed-door deposition is important for the American
    people to hear, right here in your public testimony.
        How would you describe the toll on our democracy if we do
    not hold a President accountable for attempting to steal an
    election?
        Mr. Smith. My belief is that if we do not hold the most
    powerful people in our society to the same standards as the
    rule of law, it can be catastrophic.
        Because if they don't have to follow the law, it's very
    easy to understand why people would think they don't have to
    follow the law as well. The law should be applied equally to
    everyone.
        Ms. Jayapal. What do you think the toll is for future
    elections, and future Presidents who try to steal an election?
        Mr. Smith. If we don't hold people to account when they
    commit crimes, it sends a message that those crimes are OK.
    That our society accepts that.
        I believe that if we don't call people to account when they
    commit crimes in this context, it can endanger our election
    process. It can endanger election workers. Ultimately, our
    democracy.
        The attack on this Capitol on January 6th was, and the
    Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, said this, ``It was an
    attack on the structure of our democracy.''
        Ms. Jayapal. We could experience much worse results down
    the road if this happens again. I thank you for your work, for
    your courage, and for your patriotism, and I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. Gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from
    North Carolina, excuse me, North Carolina is recognized.
        Mr. Knott. Mr. Smith, just briefly, if there was no mob on
    January 6th that attacked the Capitol, we would not be here
    today, would we?
        Mr. Smith. I can't speak to hypotheticals. The case I
    investigated involved a mob of supporters, of Donald Trump
    supporters that did attack the Capitol.
        Mr. Knott. Sure, I understand that. Had there not been a
    mob that rushed the Capitol, if they had just stayed on the
    original speech, if they had obeyed the instruction go
    peacefully and patriotically and make your voices heard, we
    would not be here. Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Smith. Well, in that case Donald Trump wouldn't have
    done many of the things that--
        Mr. Knott. I'm just, no, no, I'm just asking. If they had
    gone peacefully and patriotically, we would not have had a
    special prosecutor, President Trump would not have been
    indicated.
        There would not have been quote, ``the attack on the
    foundations of our democracy,'' correct?
        Mr. Smith. That's hypothetical and it's counter-factual
    hypothetical.
        Mr. Knott. Well, second point, in regards to what we just
    heard from my colleague from Washington, it's noteworthy that
    the Vice President, despite the enormous toll that he has taken
    in these events, was against charging the President criminally
    in this case.
        In regards, to my own experience, Mr. Smith, I've charged
    many conspiracies. There's obviously a lot of benefit to that
    charge.
        It's a useful tool for fact finding, scrutinizing evidence,
    figuring out exactly what happened. Trying to form charges.
    Trying to prove charges, trying to solidify the evidence.
        In your case, sir, you detailed No. 1, ``the unprecedented
    criminal scheme,'' your words, not mine. In the press
    conference you said, ``there was an unprecedented assault on
    the seat of American democracy.''
        Do you remember saying that?
        Mr. Smith. I believe so, yes.
        Mr. Knott. In regard to your investigative authority, it
    was quite broad. We've already established that you had
    millions of dollars at your disposal. You had teams of lawyers.
        You had total subpoena power. You used campaign officials
    as witnesses. You subpoenaed millions of documents. You had
    civilian witnesses.
        You had political leaders. You had campaign officials that
    work with the President. Folks who were in the room. After all
    of this, sir, you charged a conspiracy and notably absent,
    there was no insurrection charged. There was no seditious
    conspiracy charged.
        There was only one defendant, correct? Donald Trump?
        Mr. Smith. That is correct.
        Mr. Knott. Despite six coconspirators identified in the
    indictment, only one person was charged. Is that correct?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Mr. Knott. Despite there being an unprecedented criminal
    scheme, you did not find it necessary to charge anybody else
    who was admittedly by your own evidence, involved in a criminal
    conspiracy that amounted to an unprecedented assault on the
    seat of American democracy?
        Mr. Smith. Yes. At the time of the conclusion of our work,
    my lawyers had determined, had believed that we did have proof
    to charge other people.
        I was in the process of making that determination when our
    work was concluded. You are correct that the only person
    charged in this case, was Donald Trump, who in my estimation,
    was the person most culpable for the crimes charged.
        Mr. Knott. Well, I understand your position, sir, but
    again, you start at the very top and only charged the top
    conspirator in your opinion. You didn't charge anybody
    underneath him, correct?
        Mr. Smith. Correct, I--
        Mr. Knott. Despite that charge requirement, you would agree
    that a criminal conspiracy federally is a criminal agreement,
    correct?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Mr. Knott. By extension, people, under your theory, people
    besides the President, were involved in the unprecedented
    assault on American democracy.
        You didn't find it necessary to charge them criminally?
        Mr. Smith. I had not yet charged anyone besides the
    President.
        Mr. Knott. You didn't, you decided not to charge anybody
    but Donald Trump in that indictment?
        Mr. Smith. Consistent with the Federal Principles of
    Prosecution, which emphasize the degree of someone's
    culpability in making a charging decision, Donald Trump is the
    person that was charged.
        Mr. Knott. I understand that. I understand your position.
    You made the decision to charge one person, and nobody else,
    correct?
        Mr. Smith. I made the decision to make the charges in this
    case.
        Mr. Knott. In regard to the, the way that the case handled
    from there, sir, I just want to get this on the record. In
    regard to your press conference, politics played no role,
    correct?
        Mr. Smith. That is correct.
        Mr. Knott. The charges you brought, politics played no
    role, correct?
        Mr. Smith. Correct.
        Mr. Knott. The expedited trial date played no role,
    politics played no role, correct?
        Mr. Smith. I followed the facts and the law, the department
    policy in--
        Mr. Knott. The speedy trial request, there was no role in
    politics, correct?
        Mr. Smith. That's correct. Supreme Court precedent
    emphasizes that--
        Mr. Knott. Even your brief that the court found atypical,
    politics played no role?
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, the time has expired.
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman is expired. The
    gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Smith,
    for being here today. I believe it's important for the American
    people to finally hear from you directly about your
    investigations that you and your office conducted with
    integrity, following the facts and the law without fear or
    favor, as is department policy.
        As people do hear from you, they're going to better
    understand why the White House and Congressional Republicans
    are trying to rewrite history.
        Seeking to discredit you in your investigation so that they
    can help the President avoid accountability for his crimes
    against the American people.
        I'd like to move on from some of these baseless conspiracy
    theories we've been hearing and focus on your actual work as
    Special Counsel.
        In Volume 1 of your report, you concluded that when it
    became clear that Mr. Trump had lost the election and that
    lawful means of challenging the election results had failed, he
    resorted to a series of criminal efforts to retain power.
        Chief among those criminal efforts was Mr. Trump's
    dissemination of demonstrably and often obviously false claims
    of election fraud in key States. Claims that Donald Trump
    himself knew weren't true.
        To pressure officials to ignore vote tallies and submit
    fraudulent certificates of fake electors to Congress, he
    repeated these false claims.
        Ultimately, used them to direct an angry mob to attack the
    Capitol.
        I represent Southeastern Pennsylvania, which was one of the
    States targeted by Mr. Trump's criminal efforts. Being mindful
    of the clock, I wanted to try to explore three topics:
        First, the evidence that Trump made false claims of
    election fraud in Pennsylvania, knowing they were false.
        Second, the evidence concerning the submission of fake
    elector certificates from Pennsylvania to Congress.
        Third, why the evidence and witnesses concerning Trump's
    efforts in Pennsylvania were so compelling.
        First, in your report and deposition, you detailed the
    overwhelming evidence that Trump had lost Pennsylvania, and he
    knew it.
        Despite this, he and his coconspirators continued to make
    false statements about that result to advance their criminal
    plan.
        Can you describe the evidence that these were false claims,
    and they knew they were false, including statements by election
    officials, court cases, and conversations between Trump and his
    Republican allies in the State?
        Mr. Smith. Sure. What springs to mind most immediately is I
    recall one particular claim that there were more votes than
    ballots that had been sent out.
        This was a claim that was obviously false because many,
    even in the campaign, knew that the reason for that discrepancy
    is we were talking about two different elections.
        One was the primary, and one was the general election. My
    team interviewed Rudy Giuliani regarding that claim, and he
    admitted it was wrong. He admitted flat out that was a mistake.
        That's one of several. With respect to witnesses in
    Pennsylvania, what springs to mind is the Chair of the
    Republican party I believe in Pennsylvania.
        This is relatively early, shortly after the election, had
    informed Donald Trump that the idea that fraud was the reason,
    was not accurate.
        It was because of the counting of mail-in ballots, which
    was totally normal in this process. Again, this is someone who
    is a Republican, who supported Donald Trump, wanted him to win.
    I submit he would have been a credible witness at trial.
        Ms. Scanlon. A second part of this. In addition to making
    false claims about election results that they knew were at
    fault, and your deposition and report go into this in some
    detail, there was also this fraudulent elector plan where Trump
    and his coconspirators solicited folks who had been planning to
    be Trump electors if he won, and asking them to submit fake
    certificates to Congress.
        What you found was pretty remarkable, including a former
    Congressman who told the coconspirators that this was illegal,
    and it was an attempt to overturn the government. Is that
    right?
        Mr. Smith. That's correct. That particular elector, who was
    signed up to be a legitimate elector had Donald Trump in fact,
    won the election, was a former U.S. attorney, and former Member
    of this Congress.
        Ms. Scanlon. The bottom line is that despite the facts and
    over objections from his allies, Trump still went to the
    Ellipse on January 6th and lied about Pennsylvania's votes, to
    direct his angry mob to attack the Capitol.
        I just want to thank you for your work and your years of
    service to the country, and I would like to invite everyone to
    read your deposition and to read the report. Because it tells a
    very different story than what our colleagues do, Ms. Lofgren.
    Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent.
        Chair Jordan. Gentlelady is recognized.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chair, I have, I ask unanimous consent to
    enter into a record, a speech by former Vice President Pence
    published on C-SPAN in June 1923, in which he calls the
    President's comments on January 6th reckless, as Trump was
    wrong then, he's wrong now.
        Anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should
    never be President, and anyone who has someone else to put them
    over the Constitution, should never be President.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentleman from
    Virginia is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Smith, you've said
    several times in your deposition that you believe that the
    facts and the law, your interpretation of the law, would lead
    to a conviction of President Trump, is that correct?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Mr. Cline. Did you believe that same thing, that your
    interpretation of the law, your reading of the law, would have
    resulted in the conviction when you went after Virginia
    Governor Bob McDonnell, back in 2014? Did you believe it at the
    time?
        Mr. Smith. I did believe and--
        Mr. Cline. Ultimately, you got a conviction in the lower
    court, but that was overturned by the Supreme Court, correct?
        Mr. Smith. Yes. The Supreme Court changed the law on what
    constituted an official act and as a result, that conviction
    was overturned.
        Mr. Cline. Actually, that's incorrect. That's incorrect.
    They applied the law and they said in their ruling, our concern
    is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes and ball gowns,
    it's instead with the broader legal implications of the
    government's boundless interpretation of the Federal bribery
    statute.
        A more limited interpretation of the term official act
    leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption while comporting
    with the text of the statute, and the precedent of this court.
        They accused you of using a boundless interpretation of the
    Federal bribery statutes. Now, did you believe when you went
    after John Edwards, that your interpretation of the facts and
    the law were correct and that you would convict John Edwards of
    corruption?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Mr. Cline. In fact, that case resulted in a jury deadlock
    on five charges, an acquittal on another charge. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Smith. That is my recollection. That's correct.
        Mr. Cline. Let's move on to the court's interpretation of
    your gag order requests. Mr. Smith, America was founded on the
    principle that the government doesn't silence political speech,
    and in particular, speech before it happens.
        You sought a prior restraint against President Trump
    without a single violation of pretrial release. In fact, there
    was no real-world harm that you could articulate, justify,
    giving the Federal Government the power to silence him as a
    Presidential candidate, was there?
        Mr. Smith. The court granted those motions and found that
    the prosecutor did not have to wait until someone was harmed to
    make such a motion.
        Mr. Cline. Actually, the request was rejected when the case
    was actually, when you were not able to, it was restricted,
    correct? The gag order was restricted, correct?
        Mr. Smith. Well, we, we filed an order in the District
    court. The District court granted an order. President Trump
    appealed that order. The Court of Appeals absolutely agreed
    that there was a basis, and that the threats to witnesses that
    came from the targeting by Donald Trump, were real. That we had
    a duty to protect them.
        You are correct in that the Court of Appeals narrowed the
    order, so the order covered witnesses, court staff, the judge,
    and my staff. The difference was that it didn't cover me
    anymore, which I was fine with.
        Mr. Cline. Did you have any evidence that President Trump's
    statements about the cases against him intimidated witnesses,
    or prevented them from coming forward?
        Mr. Smith. I had evidence that he said if you come after
    me, I'm coming after you. He asked, he suggested a witness
    should be put to death.
        The courts found that those statements not only deter
    witnesses who have come forward, they deter witnesses who have
    yet to come forward.
        Mr. Cline. You weren't able to identify a single witness
    who didn't come forward because they were intimated by
    President Trump?
        Mr. Smith. We had extremely thorough evidence that his
    statements were having an effect on the proceedings that is not
    permitted in any court of law in the United States.
        Mr. Cline. Don't you think it's a pretty low bar to clear
    if you're trying to silence a candidate for President? If you
    can't identify a single witness who is intimidated, that maybe
    you should reconsider the gag order?
        Mr. Smith. Both courts upheld the orders, and it is not
    incumbent on a prosecutor to wait until someone gets killed,
    before they move for an order to protect the proceedings.
        Mr. Cline. Did anyone on your team raise concerns that this
    expansive gag order you were seeking, would infringe on
    President Trump's First Amendment rights?
        Mr. Smith. My recollection is that we, of course, discussed
    First Amendment issues regarding this application because I and
    my staff respect the First Amendment.
        The First Amendment does not allow one to make statements
    that interfere with the administration of justice in a judicial
    proceeding.
        My interpretation was supported and agreed on by the
    District court and the Court of Appeals in terms of the
    phenomena of the statements being made, targeting individuals,
    causing threats to happen to them.
        I would also add, sir, that in the days after Donald Trump
    made some of these statements, the District court in this case
    received vile threats. Threats to the District court's life.
        In that environment, I felt a duty as a prosecutor to make
    that motion and I make no apologies for that.
        Mr. Cline. The court stayed that motion on August 3, 2024.
    I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. Gentleman yields back. I should have
    mentioned this a little bit earlier. Mr. Smith, if ever you
    need a break, you need a restroom break, you or your counsel
    can just let us know.
        It's now the gentleman from Colorado gets five minutes.
        Mr. Smith. Yes, can we take a short break?
        Chair Jordan. About 5-10 minutes recess, then we'll be
    right back at it.
        [Recess.]
        Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order.
        Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Chair?
        Chair Jordan. The witness will go ahead and take the stand.
    We want to make sure the Capitol Police stay in the room, just
    in case we have any other concerns.
        The gentlelady from Washington is recognized.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a unanimous
    consent request.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady is recognized.
        Ms. Jayapal. This is an order of the D.C. Circuit, dated
    December 8th, 2023, in which the court recognizes that Donald
    Trump's statements about the judge in his case have led to
    threats against the judge, where callers labeled the judge and
    clerk, quote, ``Nazis, dirty Jews, and child molesters,'' and
    represent, quote, ``Mr. Trump's documented pattern of speech
    and its demonstrated real-time, real-world consequences pose a
    significant and imminent threat to the functioning of the
    criminal trial process in this case.''
        Chair Jordan. OK. Without objection. That's a lot. The
    gentleman from Colorado is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Neguse. Thank you. Mr. Smith, thank you for being here.
    Thank you for your service to our country.
        My colleague from Virginia, who's a Republican colleague
    who was questioning you right before the break, do you know
    what he said in the days after January 6th? Let me share this
    with you.
        This is a quote of his from a press release on January 8th,

            Congress stands united in our rejection of the violence that
            occurred this week, and I'll continue to urge the swift
            prosecution of those involved to the fullest extent of the law.

        Mr. Smith, this is theater. Republicans are trying to
    rewrite history. That's what this is. Many of them were with us
    in the House Chamber on January 6th. I remember it well. The
    Chair was there, as was I.
        There's been a lot of discussion about witnesses today.
    Perhaps the Chair could muster the courage to call the four
    witnesses who I see--the American public may not see--I see
    standing behind you, Mr. Smith, the four police officers who
    risked everything--life and limb. To do what? To protect the
    Republican Members on the dais. It's an outrage that they now
    sit here and have the audacity to try to rewrite history in
    front of the very officers who sacrificed everything to protect
    them.
        Mr. Smith, you're, of course, aware that President Trump
    was impeached for his conduct connected to January 6th, right?
        Mr. Smith. Correct.
        Mr. Neguse. Do you know how many Members of Congress voted
    to impeach him?
        Mr. Smith. I don't recall.
        Mr. Neguse. Two hundred and thirty-two. Do you know how
    many Republican Members of Congress voted to impeach him?
        Mr. Smith. I don't recall.
        Mr. Neguse. Ten Republican Members of Congress voted to
    impeach him for his conduct related to January 6th, including
    at the time, the sitting Republican Chair of their Conference.
        There was a trial in the U.S. Senate. Senators sat as
    jurors. I remember it well because I was one of the prosecutors
    who prosecuted that case.
        Do you know how many Senators voted to convict President
    Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors during the trial, Mr.
    Smith?
        Mr. Smith. I don't recall.
        Mr. Neguse. Fifty-seven Senators. Do you know how many
    Republicans voted to convict him?
        Mr. Smith. I don't recall.
        Mr. Neguse. Seven Republican United States Senators voted
    to convict President Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors. It
    was the most bipartisan vote for conviction of a President in
    the history of the Republic.
        They can engage in as much histrionics as they want to try
    to rewrite history, but facts are facts.
        They talk about weaponization. They accuse you of
    weaponiza-tion of the justice system, while the Federal Reserve
    Board Chair rings the alarm about political retaliation by this
    Department of Justice.
        Mr. Smith, I don't know if you're aware of this. I don't
    know if your counsel has made you aware. That President Trump
    is live tweeting, I guess you'd call it ``Truth Socialing,'' as
    we speak. Are you aware of this about this hearing?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Mr. Neguse. Let me read to you what he posted an hour and a
    half ago,

            Deranged Jack Smith is being decimated before Congress. It was
            over when he discussed his past failures and unfair
            prosecutions. He destroyed many lives under the guise of
            legitimacy. Jack Smith is a deranged animal who shouldn't be
            allowed to practice law. If he were a Republican, his license
            would be taken away from his, and far worse. Hopefully, the
            Attorney General is looking at what he's done.

    We have a word for this. It's called ``weaponization.'' It's
    called corruption.
        Mr. Smith, if you care to respond, I'll give you an
    opportunity.
        I will simply say we are grateful for your service to this
    country. We appreciate your fidelity to the rule of law. I
    would like to echo the comments that have been made by my
    Democratic colleagues to ignore the noise that you hear from so
    many of my colleagues who would debase themselves in this way.
    It is, in my view, subversive of the oaths that we took to
    defend the Constitution.
        I'm happy to give you an opportunity, Mr. Smith, if you'd
    like to respond.
        Mr. Smith. I don't have anything to add.
        Mr. Neguse. Thank you for your service. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
    Wisconsin is recognized.
        Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In 2010, Mr. Smith, did
    you work for the President--President Obama's Department of
    Justice?
        Mr. Smith. Yes. In 2010, I was the Chief of the Public
    Integrity Section.
        Mr. Tiffany. During that time, did you have any contact or
    connection with Lois Lerner with the Obama IRS?
        Mr. Smith. Yes. I was new to the Public Integrity Section.
    I was the Chief. I was trying to learn about issues I had been
    at--
        Mr. Tiffany. Did you attempt to work with Lois Lerner and
    the IRS to investigate nonprofits?
        Mr. Smith. What I did was asked for a meeting with the IRS
    about nonprofits.
        Mr. Tiffany. The simple answer is yes, correct?
        Mr. Smith. Well, I didn't ask to work with Ms. Lerner. They
    sent Ms. Lerner. That's the person who came to this meeting. I
    met her once.
        Mr. Tiffany. They went after Second Amendment groups,
    correct? If you remember correctly, that's what was the
    offshoot of it, that Second Amendment groups that tried to gain
    nonprofit status, they were slow-rolled through the IRS. Do you
    recall that?
        Mr. Smith. Separate from this, there was an investigation
    of that, that I was a part of Public Integrity.
        Mr. Tiffany. You prosecuted Virginia Governor Bob
    McDonnell? This was asked earlier. You prosecuted him, correct?
        Mr. Smith. I was a part of the prosecution, yes. There
    was--
        Mr. Tiffany. That ended up with a--that decision ended up
    being unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court, correct?
        Mr. Smith. That is correct, sir.
        Mr. Tiffany. Yes. Including Justice Ginsburg joined in on
    that opinion, correct?
        Mr. Smith. I believe that's correct.
        Mr. Tiffany. Yes. You also prosecuted John Edwards and Bob
    Menendez, and those both ended in mistrials, is that right?
        Mr. Smith. The John Edwards case did. The Menendez case, I
    had left the Public Integrity Section by the time that case was
    tried.
        Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chair, what we heard from the other side
    here is that this gentleman is the gold standard for
    prosecution here in the United States. Think about it. We had a
    witch hunt done by the IRS going after Second Amendment groups,
    unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court. They prosecuted
    two prominent political figures, and they ended up as
    mistrials. That's the gold standard here in America?
        I would just say this, Mr. Chair. If Mr. Smith ever works
    for the Department of Justice again, I would recommend a
    remedial course on the First Amendment to the Constitution.
        Before I yield the rest of time, Mr. Smith, I just have one
    other question. Is there any historical precedent for an
    alternate slate of electors to be sent to Congress? Has that
    ever happened before?
        Mr. Smith. That had happened, not anything similar to this
    situation, but you're correct, it was in Hawaii. I think it was
    Hawaii in--I want to say the 1960 election.
        Mr. Tiffany. It has happened before, that there was an
    alternate slate of electors that was sent to Congress, which
    does the electoral count. Correct?
        Mr. Smith. There was a prior time that an electoral slate
    was sent where there were litigation and recounts going on.
        Mr. Tiffany. Actually, there's twice that had happened, Mr.
    Chair. It happened in 1876 and 1960, that these alternate
    electors happened. I'd like to ask unanimous consent to
    introduce the 1960 Hawaii case here.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection.
        Mr. Tiffany. With that, I yield to the Chair.
        Chair Jordan. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The
    gentleman from Colorado talked about noise from this side. It's
    not noise; it's facts.
        The fact is you approved a $20,000 payment to a
    confidential human source, and I think you said earlier the
    reason this individual or entity or person was paid was to
    review photo and video evidence. Why did they have to be
    confidential? Why didn't you just contract with them?
        Mr. Smith. My understanding is that this person was a
    confidential human source with the FBI. I do not know why they
    were confidential, but it would make sense to me, given that
    this person was assisting--
        Chair Jordan. Well, confidential just raises the question
    of, what were you trying to hide? Why not tell us? We know you
    hid the fact that you were getting phone records for Members of
    Congress. We want to know why this payment had to be hidden.
    Why couldn't you just contract, which would be the customary
    and normal way I think of doing it?
        Mr. Smith. I did not make the determination that this
    source would be confidential. Given that this person was
    working on an investigation involving attacks on the Capitol,
    and given the violence in that, it makes complete sense to me
    that the Bureau would want a civilian who is--
        Chair Jordan. Do you know of any of the other Special
    Counsels who approved payments to--like I don't remember Robert
    Mueller approving payments to confidential human sources. I
    don't remember Durham. I don't remember Hur. We brought all
    those guys to the front of this Committee. This is the first
    time I've ever heard of a Special Counsel having to pay secret
    money to someone to get information, when you had the broadest
    subpoena power you could possibly have. Are you aware if any of
    the other Special Counsels had to do this?
        Mr. Smith. I am not aware whether confidential sources were
    or were not used in those investigations.
        Chair Jordan. That's because I don't think they were. I
    don't think they were.
        Mr. Smith. I'm not aware one way or the other. I can say
    that the use of confidential human sources is a standard thing
    done by the Federal Bureau of Investigations.
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has
    expired. I now yield to the gentlelady from Georgia for five
    minutes, Ms. McBath.
        Ms. McBath. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Smith, thank you for
    appearing today to speak publicly about the major issues that
    you handled as Special Counsel.
        Your work on election interference in my home State is
    especially important, as Georgia still today remains ground
    zero for voting rights. My State has a long history of voter
    suppression, including violent tactics and legislation that has
    actively disfranchised our voters.
        In fact, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against
    Georgia in 2023 challenging recently passed voter suppression
    legislation. That lawsuit was later withdrawn by Donald Trump's
    Attorney General Pam Bondi.
        This is not the first time that Donald Trump has encouraged
    voter suppression. In the 2020 Presidential election, which
    many have accepted that he lost, he pressured his Party members
    to overturn a legal election. Thankfully, several public
    servants upheld our Constitutional process and respected the
    voice of the people.
        Your investigation revealed how far he is willing to go. In
    your final report, you wrote that quote, ``The throughline of
    all Mr. Trump's criminal efforts was deceit--knowingly false
    claims of fraud.''
        Mr. Smith, what did your investigation reveal about
    President Trump's interactions with Georgia's officials
    regarding his frauds claims?
        Mr. Smith. As I sit here now, I can recall two specific
    officials.
        The first was the Secretary of State, who is a fellow
    Republican. My understanding, he voted for and supported Donald
    Trump in the election, but told Donald Trump in a conversation
    that was recorded, in no uncertain terms, the results of the
    election and debunked many of the fraud claims that Donald
    Trump had to him in real time.
        In addition to that, I recall that Donald Trump also spoke
    firsthand with the Attorney General of your State, also a
    Republican, who informed Donald Trump that he had supported him
    and voted for him twice in the past. He also told Donald Trump
    he did not see an outcome determined with fraud in that State.
        Ms. McBath. I have an audio from a phone call between Trump
    and the Georgia Secretary of State regarding the 2020 election.
    Could you please play the audio?
        [Audio played.]
        Ms. McBath. Mr. Smith, you explained in your deposition
    that Georgia's Secretary of State was one of the witnesses who
    disabused President Trump's false claims. How did Georgia's
    Secretary of State push back against Trump's efforts?
        Mr. Smith. 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.
        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.
        Ms. McBath. 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,'' in quote,
    ``Republican officials in Georgia and other States who believed
    would help him.''
        Mr. Smith, Donald Trump thought these officials would break
    the law out of Party locality. When those officials, his own
    political allies, told him the truth, he dismissed them, and
    continued to spread the lies anyway. Is that correct?
        Mr. Smith. That is correct.
        Ms. McBath. 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?
        Mr. Smith. Yes. After an investigation following the facts
    and the law, we believed we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt
    to prove those charges.
        Ms. McBath. In your deposition, you mention a fake elector
    witness in Georgia who you thought would have been a very
    powerful witness at trial. Can you tell us a little bit more
    about that in a very limited amount of time?
        Mr. Smith. 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. That didn't happen and President Trump and his
    coconspirators tried to use those alternative fake electoral
    certificates to get Mike Pence to perjure himself.
        Mr. Issa. Mr. Chair, regular order.
        Ms. McBath. OK. Well, Mr. Smith, thank you so for the work
    that you and your team of career prosecutors have put forth in
    covering this evidence. The American people need to know what
    happened and they need to know how their President pressured
    Georgia's State officials to overturn their free and fair
    election. I yield.
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The
    gentleman from Alabama has a unanimous consent request.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. December 6, 2025,
    Atlanta News First, ``Fulton County admits to Verifying 315,000
    votes in the 2020 without poll workers' signatures.''
        I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. The Chair now recognizes
    for five minutes the gentleman from Arizona.
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Smith, isn't it true that, for a Federal criminal
    conspiracy charge, it requires more than one individual. In
    other words, you're making a contractual agreement of some kind
    with somebody other than yourself. Correct?
        Mr. Smith. That is correct, there has to be an agreement.
        Mr. Biggs. When you made the determination to charge
    President Trump with conspiracy, you surely knew that you had
    somebody else that he must have agreed on somewhere to engage
    in this act that generated the conspiracy. Right?
        Mr. Smith. That's correct. We alleged specific individuals
    in the indictment as coconspirators.
        Mr. Biggs. When you knew what you were going to do, when
    who you were going to charge when you pursued the indictment.
    You knew who the agreeing parties were, but you chose to list
    them as coconspirators, but you didn't indict them. How often
    have you done that in the past?
        Mr. Smith. Charge--in the past, I have had a number of
    cases where I have charged some members of the conspiracy and
    not charged others.
        Mr. Biggs. No, no, no. One member of the conspiracy, how
    many times have you done that, charged one member of the
    conspiracy and let everybody else off the hook?
        Mr. Smith. I'm sure I--that's happened. That is not an
    uncommon--
        Mr. Biggs. You don't remember doing that?
        Mr. Smith. That is not an uncommon thing to do in an
    investigation, in my view.
        Mr. Biggs. OK. I dispute that, but we're going to leave
    that as it may. Let's just get to this. If a Member of Congress
    moves to decertify a State's electors, that would not be a
    crime, would it?
        Mr. Smith. When you say, ``to decertify''--
        Mr. Biggs. You make a motion to decertify. On that January
    6th--every four years, that's not a crime. Right?
        Mr. Smith. Correct.
        Mr. Biggs. If another elected official urged someone to
    join them in that decertification, that's not a crime, either,
    right?
        Mr. Smith. As you stated, it's not.
        Mr. Biggs. Several Members of Congress get together over
    breakfast. They say, ``This is a normal path. We watched
    because we saw the Democrats do it for every Republican
    President. We are not sure how to do it; we've never done it
    before.'' That's not a crime to sit down at breakfast to talk
    about that, or any other time together, to talk about
    decertification, is it?
        Mr. Smith. No, it's not a crime to talk about that over
    breakfast.
        Mr. Biggs. In your deposition, you made the argument that
    an elected official who's been deemed to have lost could not
    knowingly make false statements about election fraud to target
    a lawful government operation, isn't that true? That's what you
    said in your deposition, page 27.
        Mr. Smith. I believe it's a lawful government function,
    is--
        Mr. Biggs. Yes, I'm sorry. Yes, a lawful government
    function, that's what you said. Do you remember saying that?
        Mr. Smith. I said, ``lawful government function.'' Could
    you read back what you said again? I'm sorry.
        Mr. Biggs. Yes. An elected official who has been deemed to
    have lost could not knowingly make false statements about
    election fraud to target a lawful government function. You said
    that would be illegal. Do you remember that page? Do you want
    me to actually read this back? Surely, you remember that
    position. That's your position?
        Mr. Smith. I'm not denying it and I apologize. I'm just
    trying to listen to you closely.
        Mr. Biggs. OK. Let's just go right from this. You said
    there's, ``As we've said in the indictment, he was free to say
    that he thought he won the election.'' Right?
        Mr. Smith. That is correct.
        Mr. Biggs. He was even free to say falsely--that he won the
    election. Correct?
        Mr. Smith. That's correct.
        Mr. Biggs. Well, you said this: ``What he was not free to
    do was violate Federal law,'' and ``knowingly use false
    statements about election fraud to target a lawful government
    function.''
        Mr. Smith. That is correct.
        Mr. Biggs. Yes. For you, that lawful government function is
    the certification process, I suppose, on January 6th?
        Mr. Smith. Well, it's slightly broader than that. It's the
    collecting, counting, and certifying of the votes. Our view of
    the evidence is that it begins from the point of time that the
    electors are certified through the counting of the votes. That
    would be--
        Mr. Biggs. The entire certification process from the State
    to the Feds?
        Mr. Smith. My recollection, as it's pled in the
    indictment--as I sit here, I don't have it in front of me--but
    I believe it's from December 14th that was the day--through the
    voting--
        Mr. Biggs. OK. You can't recall, but for you, it's from the
    certification moving forward to the actual ratification of the
    certification process on Inaugural Day?
        Mr. Smith. My recollection, that's what we pled in the
    indictment, yes.
        Mr. Biggs. OK. You've managed to filibuster us right out of
    this thing. Your beef was--you said that, ``President Trump
    engendered a level of distrust.'' You said, ``he made false
    statements to State legislators, to his supporters in all
    sorts.'' Somehow, you discerned that his supporters were angry,
    and that this was somehow related to a criminal offense. I find
    that absolutely weak. It's misdirected and--
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman--the time of the
    gentleman has expired. The gentleman yields back.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to
    enter into the record an Axios, dated August 2, 2023, ``Bar
    says Trump's First Amendment argument in January 6 case is not
    valid.''
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. Did you have one? OK. The
    gentlelady from North Carolina is recognized.
        Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Smith, many of us were here on January 6th and directly
    experienced what happened. Some of my colleagues across the
    aisle still insist that Trump had no role in the violence.
        In videos of the raging battle against our brave Capitol
    Police Officers, many rioters were screaming things like, ``We
    were invited here by the President.''
        Mr. Smith, did your investigation uncover evidence that
    some of the rioters had gone to the Capitol because they really
    believed the President had invited them there?
        Mr. Smith. There were--I believe there's video of rioters
    saying, in fact, that.
        As we pled in the indictment, the knowing lies that Donald
    Trump put out in the weeks leading up to that led to a level of
    distrust, and he, ultimately, knew that the crowd at the
    Capitol, or at the Ellipse, I should say, was angry before he
    told them to march toward the Capitol.
        Ms. Ross. We've seen report after report of rioters who
    have said that, if Donald Trump had not convinced them that the
    election had been stolen, they might not have even come to
    Washington.
        I'm going to share some quotes from some of those rioters.
        ``I believed I was following up on the instructions of
    former President Trump,'' one rioter said about going to the
    Capitol.
        ``I marched to the U.S. Capitol because President Trump
    said to do so,'' another said.
        ``He personally asked for me to come that day,'' said
    another.
        Can you give us a few examples of Trump's rhetoric and
    language that inspired people to go to the Capitol, believing
    that they were going on the President's direct order?
        Mr. Smith. One instance I can recall is, during the speech
    he gave to his supporters--and in context, his supporters, he
    told them to come to Washington, DC, and be wild. He was on
    notice that they were angry, and he told that crowd, ``We can't
    let this happen.'' He told them that, my recollection is,
    multiple times--at a time when there was nothing that could be
    done to stop the outcome of the election, but to obstruct it.
        In addition to that, he told them, when there is fraud, you
    can go by different rules. My recollection is there is a
    videotape of when he's making these sort of statements, and
    he's saying that they need to fight if they want to save their
    country. There are, in fact, people in the crowd chanting,
    ``Fight for Trump.''
        That all happened during the Ellipse speech before people
    headed toward the Capitol, and the Capitol was attacked.
        Ms. Ross. Did your investigation find any of the rioters
    trying to use Trump's words and calls to action as a defense in
    the criminal cases against them?
        I can read you something from your Special Counsel Report,
    if you'd like.
        Mr. Smith. I was just going to say I think we cited a
    number of rioters who, ultimately, admitted that they had
    committed their crimes at the behest and in the name of Donald
    Trump.
        Ms. Ross. OK. It happened several times, and many of those
    accounts are on pages 86-87 of the Special Counsel Report.
        Even the lawyer for Jacob Chansley, also known as the QAnon
    Shaman, highlighted that his words--how the words affected his
    client. He heard the words of the President; he believed them.
    He genuinely believed them, and he thought that the President
    was actually going to walk with them to the Capitol.
        For my final question, Mr. Smith, do you believe that
    Donald Trump motivated and was responsible for the violence
    that occurred on that day, even if he didn't walk with them to
    the Capitol?
        Mr. Smith. Yes. As stated in our report, the results of our
    investigation following the facts and following the law was
    that he was the person most responsible for what happened at
    the Capitol, and that he caused what happened at the Capitol,
    and that it was foreseeable to him.
        Ms. Ross. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I have two UCs.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlewoman can State her unanimous
    consent requests.
        Ms. Ross. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record
    a tweet from Representative Biggs on January 7th, 2021, in
    which he said, quote, ``Yesterday, criminal rioters hijacked a
    Joint Session of Congress.''
        The second one is a unanimous consent to enter into the
    record an interview from March 2024 on The Capitol Hill Show in
    which you called on those who attacked the Capitol on January
    6th to be, quote, ``held accountable'' because, quote, ``that's
    the way our system does work and should work.''
        Chair Jordan. Without objection
        Ms. Ross. Thank you very much--
        Chair Jordan. Now, the Chair now recognizes the gentleman
    from Texas.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair. Mr. Smith, how many Members of
    Congress or the Senate did you subpoena phone toll records?
        Mr. Smith. As I sit here right now, do not recall a
    specific number.
        Mr. Roy. Is this the complete list right here? Well, let me
    ask you this: Am I on this list? Did you target my records and
    subpoena my phone toll records?
        Mr. Smith. My understanding is your records were subpoenaed
    by prosecutors before I became Special Counsel.
        Mr. Roy. Well, if the staff would put this up on the
    screen?
        I'm thankful for the great staff who discovered the email,
    where I learned for the first time a few weeks ago that my
    phone records were, indeed, targeted.
        We called AT&T and we've learned that they were given to
    the Department of Justice, as this email indicates, because I
    had been in communication with Scott Perry, one of my
    colleagues here in Congress, who literally had his phone taken
    from him in front of his family.
        Of course, we've already talked about in this document it
    talks about whether you could be in violation of the privilege
    by even obtaining or possessing this information, if the Member
    objected to the disclosure.
        This happened four years ago in May 2022, and I couldn't
    object because I didn't know. I didn't know until about three
    weeks ago.
        My question here is: Was there any limits to your
    investigation or the investigation that preceded you, Mr.
    Smith? Because as egregious as a violation of separation of
    powers this is, as egregious and abusive power it is far more
    concerning you were clearly targeting American citizens for
    merely being conservative or supporting the President.
        We've got memos that we've already been talking about in
    this hearing from April 2022 that preceded you, that
    established and opened the investigations, one of which has
    Attorney General Merrick Garland's signature on it. The focus
    was the electors.
        Now, that was six months before you were appointed. You
    testified earlier you met and interviewed Merrick Garland and
    Deputy AG Lisa Monaco, and you briefed the AG and Deputy
    multiple times. Did you brief them on the electors and the
    prosecution of their supposed crimes?
        Mr. Smith. I'm sorry, sir.
        Mr. Roy. Did you brief them on the electors and their
    supposed crimes?
        Mr. Smith. I don't recall specific conversations, but I'm
    sure that in the course of briefing them, I discussed--
        Mr. Roy. Yes, wasn't that the purpose of the entire
    investigation as it was set out? Because, putting aside that in
    1960, as we've already talked about, my friend, Mr. Tiffany,
    that Hawaii put forward an alternate slate of electors, the
    investigation pivoted to President Trump, and frankly, anybody
    who knew him.
        Do you know who Cleta Mitchell is?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, I do. She's an election lawyer that was
    involved in filing an election contest on behalf of President
    Trump in Georgia in December 2020, a 64-page complaint with
    over 1,100 pages of exhibits, witness affidavits, and expert
    witness reports, documenting thousands of votes cast in
    violation of Georgia law, but which were, nevertheless,
    included in the vote totals.
        Now, notwithstanding the disposition of the case that was
    filed, is that a criminal act? Filing an election contest on
    behalf of candidate for office, a client, is that a criminal
    act, yes or no?
        Mr. Smith. No. In fact, we stated--
        Mr. Roy. Why did you deem it appropriate to monitor Cleta
    Mitchell's long distance phone records in 2023, 2\1/2\ years
    after the election contest was filed, and after the
    Presidential electors were certified?
        What about Jenna Ellis? What about Sidney Powell? What
    about Bill Stepien? What crime did you suspect had been
    committed by them that would warrant monitoring their phone
    records 2\1/2\ years after the 2020 election was certified?
        Mr. Smith. With respect to Sidney Powell, she is one of the
    coconspirators alleged in the indictment. I don't know what you
    mean by monitoring, sir, if you're talking about--
        Mr. Roy. Well, there were some 400-plus Republican
    conservative groups and leaders who were targeted by your
    investigation. Their financial records were obtained, records
    of the RNC, the Trump Campaign, Cleta Mitchell, the
    Conservative Partnership Institute, the America First Policy
    Institute, RNCC, RNNC, PACs, conservative groups, people all
    across the country, citizens.
        Because we hear a lot about Members of Congress, and we
    should because of separation of powers and the egregious abuse
    of power. What we're not talking about enough, in my opinion,
    are the American citizens that have been targeted.
        Because, frankly, are there any limits to the power of a
    Special Prosecutor or a Special Counsel? In your abuse of
    power, that in the Summer 2024, the indictment involving
    classified documents was dismissed after determining your
    appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the
    Constitution, but you continued to sign your name on court
    filings until the time you resigned from office in January
    2025.
        A Federal judge just recently stated a prosecutor who
    continues to sign his name in court filings after it a
    disqualification order should face disciplinary action or
    disbarment.
        I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Raskin. Could the gentleman have the opportunity to
    respond to the--
        Chair Jordan. If the gentleman wants to respond, he can.
        Mr. Smith. With respect to the last point, Judge Cannon's
    order specifically limited her finding to that proceeding.
    There would be nothing improper about continuing to litigate
    the cases in Washington--the case in Washington, DC. With
    respect to Florida, there was nothing improper about making an
    appeal of that very decision.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from Vermont is recognized for
    five minutes.
        Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Smith, I want to discuss Volume II of your report,
    which summarizes the findings of your investigation into
    President Trump's hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-
    Lago and his efforts to obstruct the FBI's investigation.
        Mr. Smith, is it generally the practice for a Special
    Counsel's report to be made public to the American people?
        Mr. Smith. I want to say, first, I am limited in what I can
    say about Volume II because of Judge Cannon's order.
        Ms. Balint. I understand.
        Mr. Smith. I can say, generally, that with respect to
    Special Counsels, there are regulations that direct a Special
    Counsel to draft a report. Whether that report becomes public
    is determined--the Attorney General has the authority to
    determine that.
        Ms. Balint. To the best of your knowledge, was Special
    Counsel Mueller's report made public in full?
        Mr. Smith. I know it was made public. I'm not sure if it
    was made public in full.
        Ms. Balint. What about Special Counsel Hur's report?
        Mr. Smith. My recollection is his report was made public in
    full. I believe that's correct.
        Ms. Balint. Special Counsel Weiss' report?
        Mr. Smith. I do not know.
        Ms. Balint. OK. Now, I understand that the District Judge
    Aileen Cannon, the Trump appointee who oversaw the case in
    Florida, issued a gag order that prevents you from discussing
    any parts of the classified documents investigation that is not
    already public--I understand that--including your findings that
    you laid out in Volume II of that report.
        Am I correct that the reason your report is not available
    in full to the public is because of this gag order?
        Mr. Smith. I wrote a report. The Attorney General, it was
    submitted to him. I understand, generally, that there's been
    litigation about whether this report would be public or not. I
    have not been a party to that litigation. I just know that
    there is an order, and I know the Department of Justice, the
    current Department of Justice, has interpreted that order in a
    way that I cannot speak about anything that could possibly be
    in that report and its findings.
        Ms. Balint. When Judge Cannon issued that gag order, she
    cited pending cases against Trump's codefendants, is that
    correct?
        Mr. Smith. I'm sorry?
        Ms. Balint. When Judge Cannon issued the gag order, she
    cited pending cases against Trump's codefendants, is that
    correct?
        Mr. Smith. That's my recollection.
        Ms. Balint. Are those cases still pending?
        Mr. Smith. No, they're not.
        Ms. Balint. No, they're not. There is no reason, from where
    I sit, for this important information to be not made public.
        At this point, I want to turn now to President Trump's
    attacks on you. Trump has a playbook for how he handles people
    who try to hold him accountable. In August 2023, right after
    your office indicted him, President Trump shared that playbook
    on social media for everyone to see. He wrote, ``If you go
    after me, I'm coming for you.''
        Trump has said that you, Mr. Smith, should be investigated
    and put in prison. He called you ``a disgrace to humanity,''
    ``a radical left Marxist,'' and ``a criminal.'' In fact, Trump
    has used the words ``deranged Jack Smith'' 185 times on Truth
    Social.
        How do you think that these statements have impacted you,
    your staff, and your investigation?
        Mr. Smith. I want to say first I am limited to what I can
    say about Volume 2 because of Judge Cannon's order.--
        Ms. Balint. Judge Cannon.
        Mr. Smith. I can say generally that with respect to the
    Special Counsels there are regulations that direct the Special
    Counsel to draft a report. Whether that report becomes public
    is determined, the Attorney General has the authority to
    determine that.
        Ms. Balint. To the best of your knowledge, was Special
    Counsel Mueller's report made public in full?
        Mr. Smith. I know it was made public. I am not sure if it
    was made public in full.
        Ms. Balint. What about Special Counsel Hur's report?
        Mr. Smith. My recollection is his report was made public in
    full. I believe that is correct.
        Ms. Balint. Special Counsel Weiss' report?
        Mr. Smith. I do not know.
        Ms. Balint. OK. Now, I understand that the District Judge
    Aileen Cannon, the Trump appointee who oversaw the case in
    Florida, issued a gag order that prevents you from discussing
    any parts of the classified documents investigation that is not
    already public. I understand that.
        Including the findings that you laid out in Volume 2 of
    that report, am I correct that the reason your report is not
    available in full to the public is because of this gag order?
        Mr. Smith. I wrote a report. The Attorney General, it was
    submitted to him.
        I understand generally that there has been litigation about
    whether this report will be public or not. I have not been a
    party for that litigation. I just know that there is an order.
    I know the Department of Justice, the current Department of
    Justice has interpreted that order in a way that I cannot speak
    about anything could possibly be in that report and its
    findings.
        Ms. Balint. When Judge Cannon issued that gag order she
    cited pending cases against Trump's codefendants; is that
    correct?
        Mr. Smith. I am sorry?
        Ms. Balint. When Judge Cannon issued the gag order, she
    cited pending cases against Trump's codefendants; is that
    correct?
        Mr. Smith. That is my recollection.
        Ms. Balint. Are those cases still pending?
        Mr. Smith. No, they are not.
        Ms. Balint. No, they are not. There is no reason, from
    where I sit, for this important information to be not made
    public. At this point I want to turn now to President Trump's
    attacks on you.
        Trump has a playbook for how he handles people who try to
    hold him accountable. In August 2023, right after your office
    indicted him, President Trump shared that playbook on social
    media for everyone to see. He wrote, ``If you go after me, I am
    coming for you.''
        Trump has said that you, Mr. Smith, should be investigated
    and put in prison. He called you a disgrace to humanity, a
    radical left Marxist, a criminal. In fact, Trump has used the
    words ``deranged Jack Smith,'' 185 times on Truth Social.
        How do you think that these statements have impacted you,
    your staff, and your investigation?
        Mr. Smith. With respect to me, I think the reports--I am
    sorry, the statements are meant to intimidate me. I will not be
    intimidated.
        These statements are also made as a warning to others what
    will happen if they stand up. I am, as I say, I am not going to
    be intimidated. We did our work pursuant to Department policy.
    We followed the facts; we followed the law. That process
    resulted in proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed
    serious crimes.
        I am not going to pretend that didn't happen because he is
    President.
        Ms. Balint. Mr. Smith, do you believe that President
    Trump's Department of Justice will find some way to indict you?
        Mr. Smith. I believe that they will do everything in their
    power to do that because they have been ordered to by the
    President.
        Ms. Balint. That is very concerning, obviously. It is very
    concerning to all of us, at least on this side of the aisle.
        This is Trump's playbook at work: Complain loudly, gin-up
    hatred and resentment, then express a hope that somebody will
    do something, but never explicitly order anyone to act. Then,
    watch as his followers and loyalists go after their targets.
        This is what happened on January 6th. Trump stood at the
    Ellipse and gave a campaign speech to his supporters. He said,
    ``if you don't fight like hell, you are not going to have a
    country anymore.''
        It is clear that his intimidation will stop at nothing. I
    want to speak on behalf, in closing, I want to speak on behalf
    of people--
        Mr. Issa. No closing. Mr. Chair, regular order.
        Ms. Balint. No, I am sorry.
        Mr. Issa. Mr. Chair, regular order.
        Mr. Balint. I am sorry. You have gone over numerous times.
        Chair Jordan. I am allowing the gentlelady from Vermont. I
    will let you go a couple of seconds.
        Ms. Balint. I am taking my few moment. Thank you, Mr.
    Chair.
        Chair Jordan. I have all day.
        Ms. Balint. Thank you. On behalf of the people of the State
    of Vermont, thank you for all your 30 years of service to this
    country. To the police officers sitting here, I am ashamed, I
    am ashamed that you have not gotten your due.
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
        Ms. Balint. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
        Mr. Raskin. I have a UC request.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman, the Ranking Member, is
    recognized for a UC.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.
        The first is from The New York Times article titled,
    ``Hunting Leaks. Trump DOJ officials seize records of
    Democrats,'' explaining how the Trump Administration subpoenaed
    Apple for data from accounts of at least a dozen people tied to
    the House Intelligence Committee in 2017-2018, including
    Representative Swalwell and Senator Adam Schiff.
        The other, similarly, is ``Trump's DOJ secretly obtained
    phone and text message logs of 43 Congressional staffers and
    two Members of Congress.'' That is December 10, 2024.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. The Chair now recognizes
    the gentleman from New Jersey.
        Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Chair. I don't even know where to
    go because there is so much, Mr. Smith, there really is. What I
    do know is it is much more than how much people like or hate
    you, or like or hate Donald Trump, or like or hate Republicans,
    or like or hate Democrats. This is about the system. It is
    about what the Department of Justice did. It is about what you
    did.
        The core of the hearing is all about can Americans still
    trust the justice system. Is it fair? Was it fair under you?
        All they expect, they don't expect you to be perfect, but
    they expect you to treat everyone the same, Republicans and
    Democrats, liberals and conservatives. That wasn't the case.
    When you treat people differently because of their political
    status, their political party, their ideals, that is hypocrisy.
        I am sorry to say, and I don't say it lightly, I do
    consider you to be a hypocrite.
        With that being said, the prosecutors and the people around
    you stretched norms, changed standards, depending on who was
    under investigation. You don't like Donald Trump, and so you
    are a liberal Democrat--whatever the case may be. They went
    after him.
        By the way, it is interesting, in all those Congressional
    Records that were subpoenaed, all those Congressional Records
    that were looked at, was one of them a Democrat? No. The answer
    is no. I will answer for you.
        I have a simple questions. I always say I am a simple guy,
    but it really boils down to this: How much can Americans trust
    this system?
        In your Special Counsel Report, you stated President Trump
    engaged and was guilty of criminal conspiracy, that he was
    guilty of criminal conduct. You publicly testified you believed
    you had the proof, et cetera.
        If prosecutors deal this way with cases, if they declare
    that it is guilty and it is over before a jury verdict, would
    Americans trust the justice system more or would they trust the
    system more?
        The answer, go ahead, answer, please.
        Mr. Smith. I am sorry, I didn't, I didn't understand what
    you are asking.
        Mr. Van Drew. When this was all going on before, and I
    believe it was political before there was an entire case, and
    we went through the whole case, you pretty much declared--I am
    not going to read the whole thing through again--that President
    Trump was guilty.
        That wasn't your job. That is a judge's job. It is a jury's
    job. It is not your job.
        Don't you think that is unfair, that is wrong, that it
    didn't make the playing field level? Did it make people less
    trustworthy of the system, yes or no?
        Mr. Smith. No. When I announced the charges in the election
    case, I specifically stated that the case needed to be tried,
    and that he had a right to go to trial and he was presumed
    innocent.
        Mr. Van Drew. Thank you. I just want a simple answer
    because we are limited on time. I disagree with you. I don't
    think you did.
        You also secretly subpoenaed phone records, got records of
    the Members of Congress. You kept those subpoenas hidden
    through nondisclosure orders. That is wrong. They should have
    known. If you want to do that, fine; it is wrong.
        First, it is wrong because people have a right, the
    American public has a right to know, the elected officials have
    a right to know. It is your right to subpoena them, but they
    should know.
        Second, I brought this up before, not one Democrat. It is
    all Republicans, all Republicans. Everything you have done,
    everything you have ever done is always against Republicans. Do
    you think that puts more trust in the system when you are so
    partisan in that way? Yes or no?
        Mr. Smith. No. Politics played no role in our
    investigation. I have prosecuted Republicans and Democrats
    throughout my career. I have dismissed cases against
    Republicans and Democrats.
        Mr. Van Drew. Because you didn't have the proof.
        If prosecutors routinely relied on politically imbalanced
    investigations, and by this let me appeal to your sense of
    fairness. You are saying you are a fair man.
        We had a January 6th Committee, Select Committee that was
    appointed only by a Democrat, the then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
    Everybody on it was a Democrat except two Republicans that
    hated Republicans. Was that fair? Was that fair?
        Look at our system here in Congress. We have got Democrats
    and they speak up. You have got Republicans; we speak up. You
    hear both sides. That is the way a Select Committee should be.
    You based everything on this biased, unfair, and prejudiced
    system? How is that fair? Tell me how that is fair?
        Mr. Smith. That is not correct. We conducted an independent
    investigation--
        Mr. Van Drew. Based a lot on that commission? You got all
    their records.
        Mr. Smith. That is not correct. We did collect their
    records. We conducted our own independent investigation
    following the facts and the law. The reality is--
        Mr. Van Drew. You used a lot of their information. Mr.
    Smith, I don't mean to cut you off. I have got limited time.
        Joe Biden took classified records that were not to be taken
    when he was Vice President and when he was Senate. I know you
    didn't deal directly with that case.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Van Drew. Nevertheless you did. Is that fair? Because
    you let him go, didn't do anything to him. On the other hand,
    when it is President Trump who did it as President, then there
    was you raided Mar-a-Lago. Is that fair?
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Van Drew. I would like an answer.
        Chair Jordan. If the witness would like to respond, he can.
        Mr. Smith. I have no response.
        Mr. Van Drew. It is damn unfair. That is the answer.
        Mr. Raskin. We have got a UC request.
        Chair Jordan. A UC request from the gentlelady from
    California.
        Ms. Lofgren. Yes. I have a unanimous consent request.
        I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the
    Government's sentencing memorandum for Capitol rioter Cody
    Mattice, who said that ``when the former President asked his
    supporters to March on the Capitol, it was not a call to
    peacefully and patriotically make your voice heard. To storm
    and seize the building.''
        Chair Jordan. Without objection.
        Mr. Raskin. I have got one, Mr. Chair.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Raskin. This is a press release from Congressman Jeff
    Van Drew; a statement on storming the Capitol Building calling
    it unacceptable, un-American, and disrespectful of democracy.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. The Chair now recognizes
    the gentleman from Illinois.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for
    being here today.
        Let's remember why we are here today. Donald Trump incited
    an insurrection in 2020 because he refused to accept that he
    lost that election. When he took classified documents with him
    and put them in Mar-a-Lago.
        Republicans support impunity for criminals, not
    accountability. There is no clearer example than that of the
    blanket pardon of nearly 1,600 insurrectionists on day one of
    this disgraceful Presidency. Trump pardoned people convicted of
    seditious conspiracy, who brutalized police officers--there are
    four of them who can testify to that here--and who wanted to
    kill Vice President Pence. People who have committed more
    crimes since the insurrection: Sexual assault, child
    molestation, and aggravated kidnapping.
        That is what Trump pardoned and that is whose side
    Republicans are on. They may not want to, but they are, because
    they refuse to tell the truth.
        Mr. Smith, let me ask you something. Does pardoning violent
    rioters who brutalize law enforcement officers, spray peppering
    them, tasering them, beating them up, kicking them, and
    smashing them in door frames make our country safer?
        Mr. Smith. Absolutely not.
        Mr. Garcia. As a prosecutor, can you describe why these
    pardons make our communities less safe and undermine our
    criminal legal system more broadly?
        Mr. Smith. The people who assaulted police officers and who
    were convicted at their trial, in my view, and in the view of
    the judges who sentenced them to prison, are dangers to their
    community.
        As you have mentioned, some of these people have already
    committed crimes against their communities again. I think all
    of us who are reasonable know that there is going to be more
    crimes committed by these people in the future.
        I do not understand why you would mass pardon people who
    assaulted police officers. I don't get it. I never will.
        Mr. Garcia. That is exactly right. None of this is a
    coincidence.
        The entire purpose of the Republican Party, unfortunately,
    has become to help criminals and corporate interests evade
    accountability. Republicans want impunity, not accountability.
    They want impunity for the January 6th people, for the
    classified documents case, for the Epstein files, for
    billionaires and big corporations, and for terror that DHS is
    sowing on our streets.
        The Gestapo tactics by ICE and CBP are the obvious result
    of President Trump and the Republican Party that protects
    anyone who helps them turn our country into an authoritarian
    gangster State. Whether it is storming the Capitol to overthrow
    an election, or murdering people in broad daylight, Republicans
    will back you if you back their political mafia and
    racketeering operation.
        That is why Democrats must fight for accountability through
    oversight, through legislation, evidence collection, and
    through prosecution for the openly criminal acts that we are
    seeing in our communities every day.
        Democracy doesn't exists without accountability. You have
    got to have a spine.
        I thank you, Mr. Smith, for doing your part. Our fight
    continues for accountability, not for impunity.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Goldman. May I have time?
        Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chair, I would yield to the gentleman from
    New York.
        Mr. Goldman. Mr. Smith, I just want to take a minute and
    allow you to explain why you requested the toll records of
    those officials for January 6th?
        Mr. Smith. For the January 6th investigation, correct?
        Mr. Goldman. Yes.
        Mr. Smith. Well, with regard to the toll records that were
    subpoenaed regarding the period of the 4th, it was through the
    7th, we had evidence that the President had directed Rudy
    Giuliani, one of his coconspirators, to contact the Members of
    Congress to try to further delay the proceedings and exploit
    the violence that happened in the Capitol.
        We had evidence that those calls had happened. We wanted to
    get more evidence of that to corroborate at the trial. That is,
    again as I mentioned earlier today, a standard part of an
    investigation, to understand who a conspiracy is trying to
    reach out to, how they are trying to influence people.
        Mr. Goldman. You wanted documentary confirmation?
        Mr. Smith. Yes. Correct.
        Mr. Goldman. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman is expired. The
    gentleman from Texas, Mr. Nehls, is recognized.
        Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Smith, I will just cut
    right to the chase here.
        Your investigation and attempt at prosecution of President
    Trump it wasn't about justice, it was about politics. Politics.
    From day one under the Biden-Harris DOJ you weaponized the law
    to go after their top political opponent.
        You pushed flawed legal theories. Even the far-Left
    Washington Post called you out. They called you out, sir, for
    violating the First Amendment.
        You tried to criminalize political speech, slap unlawful
    gag orders on a Presidential candidate, and spy on Republican
    Members of Congress in violation of the speech or debate
    clause, including the sitting Speaker of the House.
        Mr. Smith, you mishandled documents, pressured defense
    lawyers, and dumped a massive trove of so-called evidence right
    before the election. You did it to sway voters. That is why you
    did it.
        Don't get me started on that raid at Mar-a-Lago or your
    unconstitutional appointment, which a Federal judge in Florida
    rightly tossed out. A very bad day for you.
        This wasn't, Mr. Smith, about upholding the law. It was
    about treating down President Trump and anyone close to him.
    You even tried to ram through a politically motivated final
    report after your cases collapsed, including the Presidential
    Transition Act and basic fairness.
        Here is the good part, America. Here is the good part.
        The American people saw right through it. They rejected,
    sir, your witch hunt loud and clear in November, handing
    President Trump a commanding victory. The voters spoke loud and
    clear: They wanted an end to the weaponization of our justice
    system.
        In your opening statement you spoke about proof of beyond a
    reasonable doubt. Mr. Smith, I will give you proof beyond a
    reasonable doubt: Donald Trump winning the popular vote by over
    two million votes; the Electoral College by 85 votes; along
    with every single swing State.
        Now, sir, that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    crap you were shoveling did not pass the smell test with the
    American people. To put it bluntly, Mr. Smith, the stink
    remains on you.
        Last, I would like to quickly address the police officers
    of January 6th, Mr. Dunn, Mr. Fanone, Mr. Gonell, and Mr.
    Hodges, I am a Member of the new Select Committee to actually
    examine, actually examine what happened that day. I can tell
    you, gentlemen, that the fault does not lie with Donald Trump.
    It lies with Yogananda Pittman and the U.S. Capitol Leadership
    Team.
        We know they had the intelligence, and there was going to
    be a high propensity for violence that day. Claim my time, yes.
        Chair Jordan. We will be in order. The time belongs to the
    gentleman from Texas. We have had some disruptions already. We
    don't need that. The gentleman may continue.
        Mr. Nehls. We know the Capitol Leadership Team,
    specifically Yogananda Pittman, had the intelligence and there
    was going to be a high propensity for violence that day. The
    Capitol itself was the target. We knew the extremist groups
    were going to be there.
        Why do I say that? It was your report from your
    Intelligence Section, the IICD, which was run by Pittman, in
    the January 3rd, special event section. It was in it. It was in
    it.
        Mr. Dunn, I believe that you thought that day would be like
    just any other. In your testimony to the January 6th Committee,
    you said you found out how ugly it was going to get on a cell
    phone. Somebody sent you some information on social media.
        The point is you were all unprepared to deal with that day.
    That is because your leadership failed to share the
    intelligence with you.
        It was their fault, folks. It was their fault. It was not
    President Trump. We are going to expose it for the first time
    because the Bennie Thompson, the sham Committee, didn't do it.
        Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
        Mr. Nehls. The sham Committee didn't do it. The report is
    845 pages. Donald Trump's name is mentioned 4,207 times. We
    know what the Committee wanted to do is to not allow Donald
    Trump to come back and win again. They failed; they failed
    miserably. I hope you now can see that.
        With that, Mr. Chair, I yield the balance to my
    distinguished colleague out of Jersey.
        Mr. Van Drew. I just want to quickly go over something
    because we keep rewriting history.
        The President said, ``peacefully and patriotically.'' What
    don't we understand about ``peacefully and patriotically''? He
    asked for the National Guard. That was ignored. He asked
    Speaker Pelosi. Why don't we understand that?
        Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
        Mr. Van Drew. No, I--
        Mr. Raskin. Are you saying Nancy Pelosi controls the
    National Guard?
        Mr. Van Drew. Wait a minute.
        Mr. Raskin. The President could have called the National
    Guard if he wanted to, and you know that.
        Mr. Van Drew. Can I reclaim my time? I lost some of my
    time.
        Chair Jordan. The time belongs to the gentleman from New
    Jersey. You have a few more seconds.
        Mr. Van Drew. Finally, how many elected officials say we
    are going to fight to win an election? This is terminology used
    all the time, seriously. Of course, if they were guilty, they
    should be prosecuted. The problem was there were many in the
    mix.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Nehls. Last, your hand gestures, Mr. Fanone.
        Chair Jordan. No, no, no. The time has expired.
        Mr. Nehls. You need medication.
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
    audience will be in order. The Committee will be in order.
        The gentlelady from Georgia is recognized for a unanimous
    consent.
        Ms. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have two unanimous
    consent requests to enter into the record two articles.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentlelady can
    proceed.
        Ms. McBath. First, an article dated December 29, 2025,
    titled, ``Wall Street Journal Editorial Board calls out MAGA's
    latest 2020 stolen election nonsense.''
        Second, an article dated December 23, 2025, titled, ``Fact
    Check: Fulton County's 315,000 unsigned early votes are not
    proof of electoral fraud.''
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentleman from
    Illinois is recognized for an unanimous consent.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Chair.
        First, under unanimous consent I ask to enter into the
    record the Judiciary Democrats' January 2026 report titled,
    ``Where are they now? The perpetrators of January 6 and the
    defenders of democracy who stopped them,'' which profiles the
    illustrious career trajectories of some of the key actors from
    January 6 who were pardoned by Donald Trump.
        Second, a report dated January 2026, report from Judiciary
    Democrats, ``One Year Later: Assessing the public safety
    implications of President Trump's mass pardon of 1,600 January
    6 rioters and insurrectionists.''
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. Without objection. The
    gentlelady from California is recognized.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr.
    Smith, for joining us.
        Now, most people are wondering why you are even here today.
    It is because we have heard conspiracy, after conspiracy that
    the 2020 election was rigged. Capitol Police officers were
    harmed and died because of those conspiracies.
        We have important elections coming up. The people want them
    to happen, and they want them to be fair. The one person who
    should be telling the truth about elections is the President.
    Donald Trump has not and is still not telling the truth about
    the 2020 elections.
        In fact, there is a January 6th page on the taxpayer-funded
    White House website that says the election was stolen from
    Trump, a blatant, disproven lie he knows is totally false.
        One of my Republican colleagues earlier brought up Trumps
    mind State, that he knew he lost and he knew that what he was
    saying was untrue, but that you have no proof.
        Mr. Smith, what evidence did you develop to suggest Trump
    knew he had lost the 2020 election?
        Mr. Smith. We had evidence from a variety of sources,
    evidence from people who were close to Donald Trump and who he
    relied on, people who wanted him to win the election, people
    who were employed by his campaign to help him win the election.
        Our evidence is that this was a conspiracy and that Donald
    Trump specifically sought to prey on party loyalty.
        Our investigation involved interviewing and subpoenaing
    records of Republicans because that is who Donald Trump sought
    to prey on to stay in office. The reality is certain people
    refused to do that.
        The Vice President refused to go along with that. People in
    various State legislatures refused to go along with that.
        The reality is that if we took this case to trial a good
    number of our witnesses would be Republicans.
        If a Democrats had committed these crimes, had done these
    things, I would have subpoenaed a number of Democrats. I would
    have subpoenaed their records.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Yes, I am going to ask you about that.
    Correct, it is not like he was calling Nancy Pelosi. Why is it
    legally important to know that Trump knew he was lying when he
    said the election was stolen?
        Mr. Smith. That was part of our proof at trial. It was
    relevant to the charges, specifically to the first charge, to
    defraud the United States.
        It is permissible for someone to lie, but when they use
    speech to commit a crime, to facilitate a crime, that is not
    protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has been
    very clear on that.
        This very issue was litigated in the case. The defense
    raised this very issue.
        One thing I want to be clear about today, the case that I
    investigated and the case we had, it was built to be tried in a
    courtroom.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Smith. Not in the media.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Smith. Our case was built to withstand the crucible of
    litigation. Our assessment is that we had proof beyond a
    reasonable doubt that we would do that.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Uh-huh. What I heard you say is that
    when you lie and you know you are lying, and then you act on
    that lie to overturn the democratic process, that this is a
    felony.
        A January 6er actually said, ``if I can't trust him, then
    who can I trust?'' Exactly. We cannot even trust our own
    President.
        In fact, there are so many other things that you can say
    that you are not allowed to say because Trump, a Trump-
    appointed judge sealed the documents, refusing to release the
    files yet again. Which is why we could probably ask you far
    more questions if those were unsealed.
        I don't have that much time. I want to now shift to these
    allegations from my Republican colleagues about the collection
    of phone records of Republican Senators, I guess some of the
    ones that were trying to get $500,000 of taxpayer dollars.
        Many of the phone records of the Members were requested
    before you were appointed as Special Counsel; yes or no? That
    is true? Is that accurate?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Yes.
        Mr. Smith. Some subpoenas occurred before I was Special
    Counsel.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. What do you say to those who claim you
    chose to target Republicans because you only collected phone
    records for Republicans?
        Mr. Smith. The conspiracy I was investigating targeted
    Republicans.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Right.
        Mr. Smith. As I mentioned earlier.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. That is right. You would have requested
    any relevant call records necessary for your investigation of a
    Republican or of a Democrat?
        Mr. Smith. That is correct. To be clear, if a Democrats
    committed these acts we would have sought those.
        I could just add one thing. We interviewed Rudy Giuliani in
    the course of this investigation. We asked him why did you say,
    why did you in one of the voicemails you left for the Senator
    mention the fact that it was Republicans you were reaching out
    to?
        He said because the Democrats weren't going to help us.
    Even some Republicans wouldn't help us. Our evidence showed
    repeatedly that the plan was to see if he could play on
    people's party loyalty.
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The
    gentlelady from--
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. The gentlelady
    from Wyoming is recognized for five minutes.
        Ms. Hageman. Mr. Smith, it was during your deposition with
    our Committee that you revealed that you tasked your team,
    specifically J.P. Cooney, to engage with the partisan January
    6th Committee. You had to have known at the time the
    controversy surrounding this Committee, including the fact that
    all the Members had been appointed by Nancy Pelosi, who
    disallowed the Republicans from being able to engage.
        You proceeded anyway, raising numerous questions as to your
    strategy for conspiring with the J6 Committee.
        You had every possible resource available to you. Your
    prosecution of President Trump was clearly a priority for the
    Biden Administration. It is clear that you had an unlimited
    budget. You also left no stone unturned, even subpoenaing
    records from the sitting Members of the House and Senate.
        What information could the J6 Committee possess that you
    and the Nation's top law enforcement agency could not obtain on
    your own?
        Mr. Smith. I did request J.P. Cooney--
        Ms. Hageman. What did they have that you couldn't obtain on
    your own?
        Mr. Smith. In any investigation--
        Ms. Hageman. What information did they have that you did
    not, you were not able to obtain on your own?
        Mr. Smith. I couldn't know that until I had their
    information.
        Ms. Hageman. Was there anything there? Did you find that
    they had information that you were not able to obtain?
        Mr. Smith. I don't recall specifically every bit of
    information. What I can tell you is we took in their
    information because we wanted to collect any information that
    could be relevant. We made our own independent assessment of
    the--
        Ms. Hageman. OK. From the time that you were appointed as
    Special Counsel, up to the date of your resignation in January
    2025, did you personally have any contact with any of the
    Member's staff or contractors of the House January 6th Select
    Committee? If so, who?
        Mr. Smith. I do not believe I had contacted anybody
    personally from the January Select--
        Ms. Hageman. The January 6th Committee failed to archive or
    preserve its video recordings of witness interviews, deleting
    or destroying as many as 900 interview summaries or
    transcripts, involving more than one full terabyte of digital
    data. I repeat, the J6 Committee destroyed evidence. Let that
    sink in.
        Why would they do such a thing? We have a dang good idea.
        The Committee actually used selected clips from these
    videos and transcripts during their hearings and, yet, by
    destroying this evidence they have denied Congress and the
    public the ability to obtain their full content and context.
    They created their narrative by selected use of the evidence
    before them.
        How very convenient.
        Did you or your team receive any of those witness
    transcripts or video recordings of transcribed interviews from
    the Select Committee that were not released to the public?
        Mr. Smith. What I can tell you is that I requested J.P.
    Cooney to contact the Select Committee.
        Ms. Hageman. Do you know if you received any of the
    evidence or testimony that the J6 Committee eventually
    destroyed?
        Mr. Smith. I don't have any information that the J6
    Committee--
        Ms. Hageman. You don't know one way or the other as you sit
    here today?
        Mr. Smith. No, what I am telling you is that I requested
    all the information we could get from the January 6th
    Committee.
        Ms. Hageman. Has all the information that you requested
    been preserved? All the information from the J6 Committee has
    that been preserved?
        Mr. Smith. The information that we requested and received,
    we reviewed it. It was part of--
        Ms. Hageman. Has it been preserved?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
        Mr. Smith. As part of our files and--
        Ms. Hageman. Were you or your team advised, or did you get
    the impression from anyone affiliated with the January 6th
    Committee that these documents were not for public release,
    even though portions of them had already been shown to the
    American people? Were you advised to keep any of the
    information from the J6 Committee confidential?
        Mr. Smith. As I am sitting here right now, I don't recall
    that.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
        Mr. Smith. I recall--
        Ms. Hageman. Did the J6 Committee provide you with the
    Cassidy Hutchinson testimony as part of the trove of documents
    that you received?
        Mr. Smith. As I sit here now, I don't recall. It was very
    likely--
        Ms. Hageman. Well, you are familiar with her testimony,
    aren't you?
        Mr. Smith. I am.
        Ms. Hageman. In fact, wouldn't you agree with me that Ms.
    Hutchinson's testimony, especially the most explicit
    allegations made, was comprised of hearsay on hearsay on
    hearsay?
        Mr. Smith. There was--
        Ms. Hageman. Come one, you are an attorney, Mr. Smith. You
    can answer the question. Of course it was hearsay.
        Mr. Smith. There was--
        Ms. Hageman. Hearsay isn't admissible in a court of law, is
    it. Why? Because it is inherently unreliable and the victim or
    the target of a prosecution is not able to cross-examine. Isn't
    that correct?
        In fact, Mr. Smith, if you had attempted to walk into court
    with Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony you would have been thrown
    out on your ear. No judge, no legitimate judge would have ever
    allowed the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson to be admitted in a
    court of law, would they?
        Mr. Smith. I disagree.
        Ms. Hageman. Well, we have already talked about your
    record. That is why--
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, the gentlelady's time has long since
    expired.
        Ms. Hageman. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The
    gentleman from Florida--
        Mr. Raskin. Can I make one UC request first?
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Raskin. This is from factscheck.org, ``Meme rehashes
    old false claim that J6 Committee destroyed evidence,'' from
    October 15, 2024. This is from the District of Columbia
    National Guard website stating that this is the only National
    Guard unit in America which reports exclusively and only to the
    President.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentleman from Florida
    is recognized.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are definitely not
    in a court of law today. Half this shit wouldn't come in if we
    were. Good God, you know?
        I want to talk about something one of my colleagues Mr.
    Nehls said, from Texas. He sits on this new January 6
    Subcommittee, which I also happen to sit on. He said the same
    thing in the Subcommittee the other week, that it wasn't
    President Trump that inspired January 6th; right? It wasn't
    him. He said it in the Subcommittee that it was actually Ray
    Epps.
        Ray Epps. He was the one who told people to break the law,
    the windows, the doors, and to beat police officers, and hang
    Mike Pence, and try to break into the floor of the House, and
    wiping feces on the walls. It was all this guy Ray Epps; right?
        Who is Ray Epps? Why is he so powerful?
        I just did a quick Google search of Ray Epps, and his
    Wikipedia page says, ``The powerful Ray Epps is a wedding
    planner to the Oath Keepers.'' This is the wedding planner,
    that's the mastermind of Jan--you couldn't, you went from
    Donald Trump. It wasn't Donald. Who? Well, who are we going to
    blame? Who could it be?
        How about the wedding planner to the Oath Keepers?
        It just puts that--but, my colleagues love the past, Mr.
    Smith. Love the past. That's why you are here before Pam Bondi.
    OK? We haven't had the Attorney General here. We didn't have
    her last year. She is the only one in the cabinet to not come
    in Committee of reference.
        They love the past. They love talking about January 6th,
    Hunter Biden, COVID, Barack Obama, and Hillary's emails. They
    love the past. These people love the past so much they are
    still reenacting the Civil War. OK? Love the past.
        He is talking about the present.
        Let's talk about the past really quick. Here are some
    quotes, because I heard one of my colleagues call you a
    hypocrite. Here are some quotes from my colleagues:
        Chair Jordan right after January 6th, ``Stop the violence
    toward Capitol Police.''
        Ted Cruz, ``Those storming the Capitol need to stop right
    now. The Constitution protects but not violence.''
        Chip Roy, ``Today the People's House was attacked, which is
    an attack on the Republic itself.''
        Steve Scalise, ``The United States Capitol Police saved my
    life.''
        Lindsey Graham, ``When it comes to accountability, the
    President needs to understand his actions were the problem.''
        Troy Nehls, oh my God, him again, ``I am happy to stand
    shoulder to shoulder with Capitol Police.''
        Darrell Issa, ``The violence and turmoil we witnessed in
    Washington, DC, was completely unacceptable.''
        Rep. McClintock, ``The attack on Capitol strikes at the
    most sacred act of our democracy.''
        Former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, whose name we
    heard a lot today, what did he have to say about it?

            Let me be clear, last week's violent attack on the Capitol was
            undemocratic, un-American, and criminal. And make no mistake,
            those who were responsible should be brought to justice. The
            President bears responsibility!

    Oh, exclamation point.
        Let's talk also about the present. That is the past. Let's
    talk about the present. These are the guys who created the
    Weaponi-zation Committee for the DOJ. Let's talk about the
    present.
        Jerome Powell is facing investigation. OK. In fact, we
    heard about Jonathan Turley, that he is some legal Messiah.
    Jonathan Turley called the Jerome Powell thing, ``legitimate
    concerns of retaliation.''
        Lisa Cook is under investigation.
        Mark Kelly, United States Senator, under investigation.
        Adam Schiff, United States Senator, under investigation.
        Eric Swalwell, United States Representative, under
    investigation.
        Chris Christie, potentially under investigation.
        Jack Smith--oh, that is you--under investigation.
        OK? Miles Taylor, former Chief of Staff of the United
    States Department of Homeland Security, under investigation.
        Christopher Krebs, former Director of Cybersecurity, is
    under investigation.
        Indicted: James Comey and Letitia James, John Bolton, it is
    weird that they indicted John Bolton but stole his foreign
    policy.
        Accused of crimes: The former President Joe Biden and
    former President Barack Obama.
        Revoked or threatened with revocation of Secret Service
    protection: Kamala Harris; Hunter Biden; Ashley Biden, the
    daughter of President Joe Biden; Mayorkas; Mike Pompeo; Brian
    Hook; General Mark Milley; John Bolton; and Dr. Anthony Fauci,
    the guy Trump gave a medal to.
        Security clearance revoked: Joe Biden, Anthony Blinken,
    Jacob Sullivan, Lisa Monaco, Mark Zaid, Norman Eisen, Letitia
    James, Alvin Bragg, Andrew Weissmann, Hillary Clinton, Liz
    Cheney, Kamala Harris, Adam Kinzinger, Fiona Hill, Alexander
    Vindman, and Miles Taylor.
        I can keep going. Any questions about any of that? We know
    you don't.
        Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
        Mr. Moskowitz. I will. Please.
        Mr. Raskin. Because you have a way of synthesizing that
    nobody else does, Mr. Moskowitz.
        Listening to our colleagues today, I wonder if they
    actually believe any of this would have happened had Donald
    Trump simply accepted the results of the election?
        Mr. Moskowitz. You mean like Al Gore did when he lost five
    to four at the Supreme Court?
        Mr. Raskin. Yes.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Raskin. Would any of this, would the violence have
    happened, would the fake counterfeit slates have happened?
        Mr. Moskowitz. No, right? None of--
        Mr. Raskin. The threats against Vice President Pence?
        Mr. Moskowitz. No, none of it would have happened. Leon
    Panetta would still have his security clearance, so would John
    Brennan, so would Michael Morell and Michael Vickers.
        I just, I can't get them all in, Mr. Chair. I can't. I
    can't get them. I have four more pages of the weaponization of
    the Department of Justice.
        Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman from Florida has
    expired.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Yes, sir.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman from South Carolina is
    recognized.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Smith, when was the
    initial indictment issued on President Trump? August 1, 2023,
    does that sound about right?
        Mr. Smith. That is in the election case, but that is
    correct.
        Mr. Fry. Right. On that election case, after that you asked
    for a trial date when?
        Mr. Smith. I don't recall as I sit here right now.
        Mr. Fry. On January 2024, does that sound about right?
        Mr. Smith. That sounds about right.
        Mr. Fry. OK, so after the indictment you, in August, you
    asked for a January trial date. That is about five months? Five
    months? How much evidence did you have? Millions of pages?
        Mr. Smith. As I sit here right now, I don't recall the
    exact quantity.
        Mr. Fry. In your testimony they talk about a number of 13
    million pages. Is that a ballpark accurate number?
        Mr. Smith. I think that was the question asked of me. As I
    sit here I don't have an accurate number.
        Mr. Fry. Let's just assume that is true, right? Because you
    had a bunch of stuff, you had $50 million that you blew through
    the Treasury on a trial that went nowhere.
        How many pages per day is that, a hundred thousand? Does
    that sound about right? What if we were to break that down per
    hour, it's 4,166. Per minute, it's 70 pages. Do you like to
    read, sir? Do you like to read?
        Mr. Smith. I do.
        Mr. Fry. Do you read 70 pages a minute?
        Mr. Smith. I do not.
        Mr. Fry. That would be remarkable.
        How do you prepare for a trial in five months if you are
    asking the defense counsel to read 70 pages a minute? How do
    you do that? Prepare a defense, and look at all the witness
    testimony and video evidence that you supposedly had, how do
    you do that?
        Do you know what is shocking to me, I think the most, one
    of the most egregious aspects of this case, Mr. Smith, is that
    if you get a traffic ticket in Washington, DC, you are not
    going to trial in five months. You want the President, the
    former President of the United States to have a trial date with
    13 million pages of documents within five months.
        I think that is ridiculous. That speaks exactly to what we
    talk about when we examine not only your record but the things
    in this case that are deeply troubling. That this was not the
    pursuit of facts, and law, and letting the judge and the jury
    decide, that this was an exercise in political, it was a
    political hit shot, timed perfectly against the President of
    the United States.
        Sir, in the Florida case, in the records case, what
    happened ultimately in that case?
        Mr. Smith. What happened ultimately in the case?
        Mr. Fry. Yes, the Mar-a-Lago records case.
        Mr. Smith. I am going to answer because I don't think this
    is covered by Jude Cannon's order. We moved to dismiss that
    case pursuant to Justice Department policy.
        Mr. Fry. No, no. The records case in Florida against Donald
    Trump. The records case in Mar-a-Lago, were you--
        Mr. Smith. Oh, I am, I am sorry.
        Mr. Fry. --were you ruled to be, what was the ruling in
    that?
        Mr. Smith. That was Judge Cannon's ruling. She ruled my
    appointment unlawful. We sought to appeal that. That appeal was
    pending at the time that we dismissed the case.
        Mr. Fry. From the very beginning were you ever confirmed by
    the U.S. Senate?
        Mr. Smith. I have never been confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
    I will say that the history supporting my appointment is over
    100 years old. Other Special Counsel--
        Mr. Fry. Isn't there a statute on appointment? Do you have
    to be confirmed by the Senate? I think that is kind of
    interesting.
        The point is from the very beginning, on the documents case
    and others, you weren't even lawfully appointed. That is why
    Judge Cannon ruled the way that she did.
        From the beginning we talk you, that you followed
    Department of Justice policy, you followed the facts, you
    followed the law, you followed the Constitution. That is what
    you have said all throughout this day, parroted by the
    Democrats, that you have done nothing wrong.
        From the very beginning you weren't even lawfully. You
    can't even recall who swore you in.
        As we sit here today, based on your testimony in a
    transcribed interview, can you tell us who swore you in as
    Special Prosecutor?
        Mr. Smith. As I said, I know I took the oath of office. I
    don't recall who swore me in. What I can share with you?
        Mr. Fry. I don't know, sir, call me naive, but, that is a
    milestone career move for you that you get to do this. You
    don't remember the circumstances? I just find that a little bit
    odd.
        Here is the thing. I am going to wrap up quickly. You are
    unconstitutionally appointed.
        You breach the 60-day rule releasing this very partisan
    attack against the President right before the election. You
    tampered with evidence in the Mar-a-Lago case that you admitted
    to in court filings.
        You subpoenaed the Members of Congress and their phone
    records in violation of the Constitution, of current statutes.
    You didn't even let the court know that these were Members of
    Congress. How are we to assume otherwise that this wasn't
    political, because it absolutely was, sir.
        I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
    New York is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Goldman. I would caution my friend from South Carolina
    and others against jumping into bed with Judge Cannon, who has
    been rebuked repeatedly by the 11th Circuit because she is
    completely lawless.
        Let's go back to the actual evidence rather than all the
    procedural stuff about when you were sworn-in or not. I don't
    blame you for not remembering that. You have been probably
    sworn-in a dozen times. It doesn't jump out at you.
        I want to go back to the evidence, though, that Donald
    Trump knew that he was lying about the election. I would ask
    you to say, if you could, specifically who gave evidence to you
    that supported your conclusion that he knew that he was lying?
        Mr. Smith. That came from a number of sources. It came from
    staff in the White House who talked to him and told him that
    his fraud claims were not true. It came from staff on his
    campaign who told him that. It came from members of the
    Department of Justice.
        It came from State officials who when he tried to press
    them to do things in contravention of their oath but refused
    to. They asked him for evidence and his coconspirators, and he
    never provided it.
        Over and over again the people who had the best, who were
    best situated to know how the elections were conducted in these
    States he either avoided contacting them, or disregarded the
    clear debunking that was provided to him, such as by the
    Georgia Secretary of State.
        Mr. Goldman. Right. That is a lot of evidence. We know that
    his Attorney General at the time also concluded ``He knew well
    that he lost the election.'' Bill Barr. Yet, he incited a riot
    on January 6th. Four of the brave officers who defended the
    Capitol and defended my colleagues on the other side of the
    aisle are here today. Not a single Republican Member of this
    Committee has recognized them or thanked them for their
    service. I would like to do so today.
        Thank you, gentlemen.
        Now, my colleague from California referred to a couple
    statements from your former colleagues in Penn and the Eastern
    District about your impeccable reputation as an apolitical
    career politician. As an alum of the Southern District of New
    York myself, I can tell you that many of my former colleagues
    also feel the same. That is saying something, coming from the
    SDNY to the EDNY, as you know. Mr. Smith, did you ever speak to
    President Biden about this case?
        Mr. Smith. Never.
        Mr. Goldman. Did you ever receive orders or directions from
    President Biden or anyone else in the White House about this
    case?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Mr. Goldman. Did you ever receive any directions from
    Attorney General Merrick Garland regarding how you should--
    whether or not you should charge this case?
        Mr. Smith. No. I was given the independence to make that
    decision on my own.
        Mr. Goldman. Independent Special Counsel; exactly.
        I just want to point out to my colleagues who seem to think
    this is a politicized investigation that on February 10th, over
    a month, which is 2021, over a month after January 6th, Marco
    Rubio said,

            The January 6 attack on the Capitol was far more dangerous than
            most realized. And we have a criminal justice system in place
            to address it.

    Who oversaw the Department of Justice on February 10, 2021? Who
    was President?
        Mr. Smith. February 10, 2021. That would be Joe Biden.
        Mr. Goldman. Marco Rubio wanted Joe Biden's Department of
    Justice to investigate Donald Trump and his January 6th
    insurrectionists.
        I want to ask you in my last few seconds, Mr. Smith, you
    are not the first Special Counsel to investigation Donald
    Trump. Special Counsel Mueller, also of impeccable integrity,
    concluded that the 2016 Trump campaign welcomed foreign
    interference from Russia, and used it to help them.
        Donald Trump has made it a litmus test to be hired in this
    Administration to say that the 2020 election was fraudulent,
    even though you have established it was not. Now, there are
    senior officials in this Government who are responsible for
    protecting our elections who are election deniers.
        Can you describe in a few seconds what your concerns are
    about the upcoming election based on your investigation and
    what we know today?
        Mr. Smith. I believe political litmus tests are not proper
    for career prosecutors. My experience over 30 years as a
    prosecutor in the Department of Justice is having people who
    are not guided by party allegiance, but guided by experience.
    That is how you can trust the criminal justice system. The same
    way with our elections system.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. [Presiding.] The gentleman's time has
    expired.
        Mr. Goldman. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman
    from Wisconsin is recognized.
        Mr. Grothman. Yes. First, just a couple of comments.
        There are probably 10 people on this Committee who have
    more conversations, 15 people on this Committee who have more
    conversations with Donald Trump than myself. Anybody who says
    that Donald Trump thought he won that election, that is just
    plain not true. No way, unless he is the best actor in the
    history of this building, did Donald Trump believe
        Mr. Raskin. We agree.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Order. Order.
        Mr. Grothman. Donald Trump did not believe, Donald Trump
    did not believe he lost that election. He just didn't. No way.
        On January 6th, I can't believe there were any Congressman
    here who didn't think Joe Biden was going to be sworn-in as
    President. This was, it was a riot but it wasn't a threat to
    the future of the Republic.
        OK. Now, we should have posted here a document for you to
    look at. There we are, OK.
        This is something we received with regard to Arctic Frost.
    It is a list of about 70 names. I don't know whether or not you
    are familiar with the document?
        Mr. Smith. I don't believe I am familiar with this
    document.
        Mr. Grothman. OK. The document contains just about every
    person who was higher up in the Donald Trump campaign. There is
    a little more emphasis here on people involved in Wisconsin.
        You are not familiar with the document?
        Mr. Smith. I am sorry, sir, what was your question?
        Mr. Grothman. Would you know what was in this document,
    these names? Are you familiar with them at all?
        They are under the impression that most of these people,
    maybe almost all them, were subpoenaed by you at some time or
    other, if that helps you?
        Mr. Smith. Some of these names are--I am familiar with.
    Others I am not familiar with or I don't recall as I sit here
    now.
        Mr. Grothman. OK. We will eventually submit another
    question for you on this matter later on.
        From the time you were appointed as Special Counsel to your
    resignation in January 2025, did you ever have contact with the
    January 6th Select Committee?
        Mr. Smith. I did not personally. When I became Special
    Counsel, I directed my deputy to ask the Select Committee to
    provide us whatever evidence they would provide us.
        Mr. Grothman. You directed people to have direct contact?
        Mr. Smith. I directed my deputy to make contact to collect
    evidence from them.
        Mr. Grothman. That is J.P. Cooney?
        Mr. Smith. J.P. Cooney, my deputy. Correct.
        Mr. Grothman. OK. Did you have any concern with the
    evidence collected by the partisan Select Committee that would
    be in any way tainted by politics?
        Mr. Smith. I apologize, sir. I just couldn't hear because
    of the door.
        Mr. Grothman. OK. I am sorry, we had people going through
    here. Did you have any concern that the evidence collected by
    the partisan Select Committee would be in any way tainted by
    politics?
        Mr. Smith. I intended to conduct an independent
    investigation. My goal was to collect the evidence, assess it,
    and consider it with all the other evidence we would collect,
    and make an independent determination in my investigation,
    separate from that investigation.
        Mr. Grothman. I am going to go back and ask you something
    about that one before. Because, I know the answer.
        There is a person on that list by the name of Vicki McKenna
    who we believe had her records subpoenaed. Are you familiar
    with that name at all?
        Mr. Smith. As I sit here right now, I am not familiar with
    that name.
        Mr. Grothman. OK, thank you.
        With regard to part of the documents that you received was
    with regard to Cassidy, Cassidy Hutchinson; right?
        Mr. Smith. We requested that they give us everything they
    were willing to give us.
        As I sit here now, I don't recall if specifically her
    information was in there, but I am not denying that it was. It
    may well have been.
        Mr. Grothman. OK. We will go back.
        Your team issued subpoenas to various financial
    institutions, telecommunications providers, and identities,
    requesting communications between them and President Trump's
    campaign; right?
        Mr. Smith. We did issue subpoenas for various sorts of
    information. Correct.
        Mr. Grothman. OK. The bank records you would say we could
    describe a fairly broad request?
        Mr. Smith. We issued subpoenas for certain bank records as
    part of our investigation, yes.
        Mr. Grothman. OK. Shortly after you were appointed you
    issued subpoenas to State and local officials for their
    communications with President Trump; is that correct? His
    campaign.
        Mr. Smith. As I sit here now, I am trying to recall
    specifically which officials. I know we issued a number of
    subpoenas in our investigation to understand the communications
    between President Trump and various entities, including State
    officials.
        Mr. Grothman. One final question.
        Chair Jordan. [Presiding.] One quick final question.
        Mr. Grothman. Yes. Do you really believe that President
    Trump thinks he lost that election?
        Mr. Smith. Our investigation following the facts and the
    law determined that--
        Mr. Grothman. No way. Thank you. That is enough.
        Mr. Goldman. I have a consent request.
        Chair Jordan. The gentleman from New York is recognized for
    an unanimous consent.
        Mr. Goldman. Actually, I have two. First, an article
    entitled, ``With A.G. Bondi next to him Trump says deranged
    Jack Smith must be investigated.''
        The other is a tweet from Marco Rubio, ``There is nothing
    patriotic about what is occurring on Capitol Hill. This is
    Third World style anti-American anarchy.''
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentlelady from Texas
    is recognized.
        Ms. Crockett. Can I get an extra 33 seconds?
        Chair Jordan. You get your full five minutes.
        Ms. Crockett. Well, OK, fine. It is curious because you sat
    here all day. Thank you so much for showing up because this was
    something that you wanted to do, the Republicans wanted to make
    sure that you were hid in a room with no cameras, because I was
    there. They didn't really want you out in public because they
    were afraid of what you would say, which is that you could have
    proven your case because you are a career prosecutor who knows
    how to prosecute criminals.
        Just to be clear, today it seems like the Republicans have
    not really thought very much about whether or not Trump was
    guilty or not. In fact, their fight seems to be over whether or
    not you were authorized to prove their guilt.
        Do you recall a number of Republican Members asking about
    whether or not your appointment was OK, even though we know
    that you have testified about the more than 100-year precedent
    that allowed for your appointment?
        Mr. Smith. I was asked questions about that today. Our
    position as we filed in our appeal. Is that there was strong
    support for my appointment, including Supreme Court precedent
    directly on point.
        Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much. Additionally, everybody's
    been all gingerly here today, but I don't know why we're acting
    surprised that a man who had close to 90 allegations out of
    four different jurisdictions and ultimately ended up with 34
    convictions after a jury was able to hear all the evidence
    would possibly be committing a criminal act on January 6th. In
    fact, considering the fact that we are now under the impression
    that he is violating people's due process rights.
        He is ignoring court orders. He's starting wars without
    Congressional authority, in contradiction to the Constitution.
    He's enriching himself to the tune of over $1.4 billion. He's
    shaking down electeds to draw maps that will help him stay in
    power because the Republicans don't understand that they swore
    an oath to the constitution and that we are supposed to do
    checks and balances. He's also shaking down TV stations to get
    money.
        Why are we trying to pretend as if it is out of the realm
    for this particular man to commit the crime that he committed
    on January 6th? Frankly, the only reason he ran for President
    was to make sure that he would not be prosecuted. Because I
    fully believe that you would have put him under the jail based
    on our long-form conversation that we had.
        According to your counsel, your Special Counsel Report on
    page 137, it states,

            The department's view that the Constitution prohibits the
            continued indictment and prosecution of a President is
            categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes
            charged, the strength of the government's proof, or the merits
            of the prosecution.

    That, quote,

            But for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the
            Presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence
            was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.

        In other words, Donald Trump ran for President like I said,
    so he wouldn't have to spend the rest of his life in prison.
    The Chair and other Members of this Committee have spent all
    day attacking you and trying to rewrite the history of January
    6th. Mr. Jim Jordan, the Chair, failed to mention how he was
    running around the Capitol terrified by the possibility that
    all those insurrectionists would harm him. In fact, on page 97
    of the deposition transcript, you mention how Mark Meadows, the
    President's Chief of Staff, quote, ``never saw Jim Jordan so
    scared.''
        The Chair also failed to mention that he was in direct
    contact with the White House in the days leading up to and on
    January 6th, which is why his toll records here subpoenaed by
    your office.
        Let me be clear. Because they're trying to act like this is
    Democrats on Republicans. I guess you are a covert Democrat
    that knew that he was going to try to steal an election before
    he tried to steal that election, and so therefore you were
    somehow put into place. The conspiracy theories make your head
    spin, but nevertheless, were you going to subpoena the toll
    records of every single Republican simply because they were a
    Republican?
        Mr. Smith. No, we subpoenaed the toll records in the course
    of this investigation because they were relevant to our
    investigation.
        Ms. Crockett. Relevant. Oh, OK. All right. That means
    something about facts. Let's talk about facts. Donald Trump
    lost to Joe Biden, yes or no?
        Mr. Smith. That's correct.
        Ms. Crockett. OK. In fact, 60 Federal and State courts have
    found that there was no evidence of election fraud. Trump's own
    Attorney General and Vice President knew that he lost the
    election, but he still tried to steal the election by
    pressuring State officials, designing fake elector plans,
    nearly having Mike Pence hanged, and ultimately demanding that
    his supporters, quote, ``fight like hell.'' Correct?
        Mr. Smith. Correct.
        Ms. Crockett. We all saw it happened once they reached the
    U.S. Capitol. As your report outlines, President Trump knew
    that he would incite violence at the Capitol that day. In fact,
    some of Trump's Senior Advisers were pushing for violence. For
    example, page 81 of the report details how coconspirators, No.
    2, John Eastman, tried to convince Mike Pence to break the law.
    Stating that, quote, ``violence was necessary.''
        It isn't just Trump who is responsible for the death of
    multiple law enforcement officers and the injuries of thousands
    of people. A lot of Republican Members of Congress are also
    responsible. The 147 Republicans voted to overturn the 2020
    election results, including multiple Members currently serving
    on this Committee. I will yield.
        Chair Jordan. Gentlelady yields. Gentleman from North
    Carolina is recognized.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Smith, we've heard a
    lot of information that's gone across this day as we spent it
    here. We've heard disregard for the First Amendment at times.
    We've heard talk about solely seeking charges against Donald
    Trump, obviously targeting. We've talked about the amount of
    time and reasonable timeframe.
        I want to ask you for a moment about some troubling reports
    that a prosecutor from your office, Jay Bratt, implied to
    Stanley Wood ward that the administration would look more
    favorably on a judgeship application if he managed to get his
    client, Walt Nauta, to cooperate against President Trump and to
    flip on him. We know this because Stanley Woodward himself came
    forth with this information. My question for you; is this
    appropriate behavior for a Special Counsel's office to leverage
    attorney's future career prospects?
        Mr. Smith. Sir, I believe I can answer this question, even
    though it's regarding the Florida case, because we did filings
    on it and I'm not referring to anything in the final report. My
    answer to you, sir, is that when I was first notified about
    this issue, which was nine months after it allegedly occurred,
    this is alleged to have occurred before I was even Special
    Counsel.
        What I did was I directed my deputies to look into it. We
    made sure the person involved self-referred it to OPR. Then, we
    did a filing to the court. There was a motion by President
    Trump's attorneys. We responded and we laid out our position.
    Our position was that I did not believe that this allegation
    was credible. At best, it was a misunderstanding because the
    people in the room did not understand any threat to be made.
    Even Mr. Woodard, in his allegation, claimed it was only an
    inference.
        Nine months went by when we interacted with Mr. Woodard, in
    which we had no hearing of a complaint. When the complaint was
    raised for the first time, which was on the eve of that
    indictment being brought. It was raised in the guise of asking
    the court to delay the indictment while an investigation of it
    happened. I take allegations of misconduct very seriously. I
    would not want any of my attorneys to threaten anybody.
        Ultimately, when I looked at this, I did not credit it. We
    responded with our position in court. We also, it made was
    clear that it was referred to the Office of Professional
    Responsibility. Which are what good prosecutors do in that
    situation.
        Mr. Harris. Well, again, to say that you didn't consider it
    to be credible, I guess we have the United States Associate
    Attorney General, Stanley Woodward, who claims that this threat
    was made to him. I don't see what he would stand to gain from
    not telling the truth there. I understand that you tasked two
    of your attorneys with investigating those statements made by
    Bratt. Given the amount of publicity and the scrutiny that was
    surrounding this entire investigation, why in the world did you
    not initiate an independent investigation into these very
    alarming allegations?
        Mr. Smith. Well, two points there. You stated that you
    don't know why he do this? When he made the allegation--when
    this allegation first came from President Trump's attorneys and
    then days later from Mr. Woodard, he did ask for the case, the
    indictment, to be put off in result of this.
        There was a thing he was asking for in result, and with
    respect to an independent investigation. That's exactly why you
    refer this to the Office of Professional Responsibility. They
    conduct an independent investigation outside of my office.
        Mr. Harris. Well, let me just say, for four years, we
    watched the Biden Administration politicize and weaponized the
    Department of Justice. From going after prolife activists to
    spying on faithful Catholics, the Biden Administration showed
    disregard for impartiality. This blatant disregard was perhaps
    no clearer than in the targeting of President Trump.
        We've talked about it all throughout this day. They knew
    they couldn't beat him at the ballot box, so they pursued
    alternative options. I'm grateful for this Committee's efforts
    today to investigate this conduct to ensure accountability.
    While elections are not akin to jury trials, I feel strongly
    that the results of the 2024 election sent a clear message
    about how the American people feel about these politicized
    charges. They absolutely made a difference in those 24
    elections.
        With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. Gentleman yields back, the gentleman from
    Missouri.
        Ms. Crockett. Chair, I actually have a UC.
        Chair Jordan. The gentlelady is recognized.
        Ms. Crockett. This is--let's see. I asked unanimous
    consistent in terms of the records.
        First, this DOJ press release titled, ``Houston Man
    Sentenced to Prison for Assaulting Law Enforcement with
    Dangerous Weapons During January 6th Capitol Breach.''
        Second, I asked unanimous consent to enter into the record
    an article titled, ``They ransacked the U.S. Capitol and want
    the Government to Pay Them Back,'' published by The Washington
    Post, January 21, 2026.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. Gentlemen, from Missouri's
    recognized five minutes.
        Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Smith, after indicting the leading Republican candidate
    for the President of the United States on August 1, 2023, you
    asked for a trial date of January 2024, just five months later.
    During your deposition, you did not dispute that this would
    have given Trump's legal team just five months to review the 13
    million pages and thousands of hours of video evidence working
    out to nearly 100,000 pages per day.
        Mr. Smith, you claim that you acted independently of the
    upcoming Presidential election, and yet you pushed for a trial
    date ahead of the election. Why such a rush to charge and try
    and pursue conviction on President Trump?
        Mr. Smith. I sought to move that case forward expeditiously
    because the public has a right to a speedy trial as well as a
    defendant. That is, there is Supreme Court precedent directly
    on point regarding that, I felt it was my duty to do that. I
    considered all options. I listened to--
        Mr. Onder. Isn't the right to a speedy trial primarily a
    right of the defendant? I honestly, before your arguments, I've
    never heard of the idea that the prosecution has a right to
    speed up a trial and require the defense to review 100,000
    pages a day to get a trial in before an election. I've never
    heard of such a thing.
        Mr. Smith. The Supreme Court, at least as I sit here now,
    three different cases, has stated pretty explicitly that the
    right to a speedy trial is the public's as well as the
    defendants.
        Mr. Onder. That you you were trying to get the President
    tried, convicted, and hopefully imprisoned before Election Day,
    I understand, Mr. Smith. It's very telling that during your
    deposition, you could not articulate any evidence that
    President Trump instructed individuals to unlawfully enter the
    Capitol on January 6, 2021.
        You claim that President Trump was, quote, ``responsible
    for the events at the Capitol on January 6th,'' which was not
    charged in your indictment. How do you reconcile that with the
    position of the department in other J6-related cases that
    President Trump wasn't responsible for the events at the
    Capitol that day?
        Mr. Smith. I'm not aware of the Department taking a
    position that Donald Trump was not responsible. My recollection
    is the position that the department took in other cases is
    other defendants weren't not responsible themselves because of
    Donald Trump, that blaming him wasn't going to be a valid
    defense in their case.
        That's my recollection.
        Mr. Onder. On January 6, 2021, President Trump tweeted,
    quote, ``please support our Capitol Police and law enforcement.
    They are truly on the side of the country. Stay peaceful!''
    This seems to show clearly that Trump urged his supporters at
    the Capitol to remain peaceful. Is that not right?
        It's incorrect, first, that he didn't send that tweet.
        Mr. Smith. He sent that tweet, but he sent that tweet only
    after being harangued by people to send something to stop the
    violence that happened.
        Mr. Onder. OK, OK, let's get the timeline straight then. At
    1:55 p.m., there was a breach of the bike racks at the
    Northeast perimeter. At 2:13 p.m., there were protesters
    breaching the Capitol, breaking into the Northwest Senate
    window and opening the doors. At 2:38 p.m., President Trump
    tweeted what I just quoted. That's 25 minutes between the
    Capitol Building--breach is 25 minutes. That's too slow. Would
    Trump have been guilty of insurrection if it were 15 minutes?
    Would it be at five minutes? How quickly was he supposed to
    send that tweet to remain peaceful?
        Mr. Smith. My recollection, as set forth in the indictment,
    is the timeline of when the attack of the Capitol happened,
    including the tweet that endangered Vice President Mike Pence's
    life.
        Mr. Onder. That tweet was after, of course, the riot had
    started. President Trump also said, quote,

            We've come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only
            count the electors who have been lawfully selected.

    Lawfully selected.

            I know that everyone will soon be marching to the Capitol
            Building to peacefully and patriotically make your voice heard.
            Peacefully and patriotically.

    Is that an incitement of a riot?
        Mr. Smith. That is not.
        Mr. Onder. OK. In November 2016, Hillary Clinton disputed
    chief for--actually, for years. Called President Trump an
    illegitimate President. He knows he stole the election as
    recently as September 2019. Had there been a riot around the
    2016 Presidential election, would Hillary Clinton be guilty of
    inciting. Inciting insurrection?
        Mr. Smith. I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals. I will
    say that President Trump's conduct was without historical
    analog.
        Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. Gentleman yields back. Gentlelady from
    Vermont.
        Ms. Balint. Mr. Chair, I ask a unanimous consent to enter
    into the record the first Super Sighting Superseding Indictment
    for Capitol rioter and Oath Keeper Kelly Meggs, who brought
    weapons and armor with him to D.C., and wrote to a friend,
    ``Trump said it's going to be wild.'' It's going to be wild. He
    wants us to make it wild. That's what he said: He's calling us
    to the Capitol and wants to make it wild. Sir, yes, sir.
    Gentlemen, we're heading to D.C. to pack our shit and--
        Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask
    unanimous consent to enter into the record this superseding
    indictment filed by Department of Justice on August 27, 2024,
    that outlines how Donald Trump, among other felonies, conspired
    to defraud the United States in his effort to fraudulently and
    violently overturn the results of the 2020 election that he
    lost.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentleman from
    Washington is recognized.
        Mr. Baumgartner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, five hours
    later, here we are. One of the benefits of being a freshman
    Member of this Committee with the least amount of seniority is
    you get the benefit of everyone else, getting to listen to
    everyone else talk first.
        Let me start by saying, that starting out, I was not real
    familiar with this issue. In fact, when the Chair of the
    Committee told me we had Jack Smith coming in, my first
    response privately was, who's Jack Smith? I say that because my
    wife and I have five young children, we don't have cable
    television, and by the time we get them to bed we're either
    watching Netflix or, better yet, reading books.
        When I came to this, I wanted to take a real, honest look
    at what had happened and I should also say that you know a
    little about what I think happened on January 6th. Like most
    Americans think Donald Trump was cruising to reelection in 2019
    with the booming economy. Then COVID happened, George Floyd
    happened, and a lot of things got changed. I do think, in those
    circumstances, that Joe Biden won that election.
        I also think, like most Americans, that January 6th was a
    terrible attack. It was a terrible riot. I don't believe it was
    an insurrection determined to overthrow the government, but it
    was an important day for America. I also, like most Americans,
    think it was extremely unfortunate for this country that the
    January 6th Committee was a partisan event, and there was not
    an ability to put folks from both sides of their choosing on
    that Committee so there could have been a full and honest
    debate for the American people. It was politically motivated,
    what Nancy Pelosi did with that Committee.
        When I came to this issue with a fresh look, with those
    kind of my priors and what I got into, what I wanted to find
    was that in the goodness of the rule of law, that you as an
    investigator, carried this out to the highest ideals, and it
    was not a politically motivated investigation. A lot about that
    in the 250th Anniversary of America. About what the framers
    would have thought of this and the State of the rule law, what
    makes America special with checks and balances, and what keeps
    us from being a banana republic.
        What I was disappointed to find when I looked into this
    issue and how you conducted the investigation was that it was a
    politically motivated investigation determined to influence the
    election in 2024. I say that--and the thing I cannot get around
    as I look into this is the timing that you fought for when the
    court cases would be held.
        Now, to my understanding, the Department of Justice says
    you're not supposed to have politically motivated timing of a
    court case. When I look at the timing that you pushed for and
    the jurisdictions between New York and Florida, and with all
    the other things that President Trump was engaged in, that
    looks very politically motivated to me. The American people, as
    they take a look at this issue, to try to influence the
    election. That's where I come down after intell--today's
    hearing, my own independent investigation, in your commentary,
    I sincerely hope that this conclusion is incorrect, but that's
    the conclusion I come to. When most people, if they look
    through this not through a partisan lens, they'll come to, they
    will not be able to get around the fact of how you timed these
    elections, that's really to the detriment of the American
    republic and for where we sit today as a country.
        My one question for you, Jack Smith, is: Are you familiar
    with the Vietnamese city of Ben Tre?
        Mr. Smith. I am not.
        Mr. Baumgartner. Well, Ben Tre was the site of an intense
    firefight in early 1968. After that intense firefight that
    destroyed the town, a reporter from the Associated Press
    interviewed a U.S. Major and he said, ``it became necessary to
    destroy the village in order to save it.''
        Now, historians do not know what was the name of that U.S.
    Major, but when they look back at your engagement with our
    democracy in this republic, they will remember your name. When
    it comes to the rule of law that is the foundation of this
    country, they will remember someone who helped destroy the rule
    of law.
        With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Raskin. Gentlemen.
        Chair Jordan. Gentleman yields back. Making Members
    recognized for--
        Mr. Raskin. Oh, I was just. I was wondering whether you
    would yield for a question.
        Mr. Baumgartner. I will defer on. I'll just yield to the
    Chair.
        Chair Jordan. Gentleman yields back. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Raskin. Yes. Then, I've just got one UC request Mr.
    Chair.
        Chair Jordan. Then, the gentleman from Wisconsin has a
    request.
        Mr. Raskin. OK. This is from Politico, October 20, 2023,
    ''Kenneth Chesebro, an architect of Trump's fake elector
    scheme.'' The pleads guilty to the offense in Georgia.
        Chair Jordan. Without objection. Gentleman from Wisconsin.
        Mr. Grothman. I just have to clarify something I said.
        Chair Jordan. Yep.
        Mr. Grothman. I've talked to Donald Trump over a period of
    time. Donald Trump is 100 percent certain he won that election.
    There is zero percent chance that he believes he lost. I say
    that based on private conversations which just boom. I want to
    clarify.
        Chair Jordan. Noted for the record. We appreciate that.
    This concludes today's hearing. We thank you.
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair. For me, I just have one final
    question for you that begins really just as a point of order,
    as you--
        Chair Jordan. Point of order? Is it a point of order or a
    question?
        Mr. Raskin. It's a point of order leading to a question.
        Chair Jordan. That's innovative.
        Mr. Raskin. OK.
        Chair Jordan. I don't think that's an order, but because
    I'm such a nice guy.
        Mr. Raskin. Well, I appreciate that you stated good faith.
        Chair Jordan. OK, look, in good faith,
        Mr. Raskin. Because of nothing you've done and nothing that
    I've done, Jack Smith has not been able to answer the vast
    majority of questions about what's in Volume 2, of his Special
    Counsel Report relating to the stolen documents. Now, it's been
    said that the judicial order that Aileen Cannon imposed will be
    lifted in February.
        I guess my point of order is, do we intend to bring him
    back so he can answer questions about Volume 2, and about the
    stolen documents case?
        Chair Jordan. We'll take it under advisement.
        Mr. Raskin. OK. Well, then--
        Chair Jordan. We will see what the court decides to do,
    frankly.
        Mr. Raskin. I got you. Well, then, in that event, I've got
    the signatures of every Member on our side who are writing to
    notify you of our intent to call him to testify in continuation
    of this hearing to answer all the unanswered questions about
    the second half of his work.
        Chair Jordan. Certainly, factor in tremendously when we
    make our decision.
        Mr. Raskin. OK. OK. Because we have a right on the Minority
    day to have a witness. We will exercise that right.
        Chair Jordan. You're going to call him back again?
        Mr. Raskin. Yes.
        Chair Jordan. Wow. OK. We'll see, we'll see.
        Mr. Raskin. I'm citing Rule 11, Clause 2J.
        Chair Jordan. We look forward to seeing the letter and
    we'll find out. We'll take it all under advisement, as we said.
        That concludes today's hearing. We thank the witness for
    appearing before the Committee today. Without objection, all
    Members will have five legislative days to submit additional
    written questions for the witness or additional materials for
    the record. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:13 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

        All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
    Committee on the Judiciary can be found at: https://
    docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=118881.

                                     [all]