[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]