Sen. Josh Hawley confronts former Special Counsel Jack Smith during a congressional hearing, accusing Smith of giving false testimony to the House in 2025 regarding text messages involving members of Congress. Hawley says that, if it were up to him, he would charge Smith with perjury and argues that Smith should face professional consequences. The heated exchange has drawn attention to the ongoing political and legal controversy surrounding the investigation and Smith’s testimony.
#JoshHawley #JackSmith #SenatorHawley #JackSmithHearing #CongressHearing #CongressionalHearing #HawleyVsSmith #Perjury #JackSmithTestimony #USPolitics #PoliticalNews #BreakingNews #Congress #Senate #HouseHearing #CSPAN #WashingtonDC #TrumpInvestigation #SpecialCounsel #PoliticalControversy #LatestNews #USNews #HearingHighlights #JoshHawleyJackSmith #JackSmithInvestigation
~HT.318~PR.460~ED.194~GR.538~VG.HM~
#JoshHawley #JackSmith #SenatorHawley #JackSmithHearing #CongressHearing #CongressionalHearing #HawleyVsSmith #Perjury #JackSmithTestimony #USPolitics #PoliticalNews #BreakingNews #Congress #Senate #HouseHearing #CSPAN #WashingtonDC #TrumpInvestigation #SpecialCounsel #PoliticalControversy #LatestNews #USNews #HearingHighlights #JoshHawleyJackSmith #JackSmithInvestigation
~HT.318~PR.460~ED.194~GR.538~VG.HM~
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00You'd never requested messages from any member of Congress.
00:04That was a lie, Mr. Smith.
00:07And you may try your lawyer your way out of it.
00:09Well, it wasn't from the member, it was from the archives.
00:13You knew exactly what you were being asked.
00:15And you deliberately misled them.
00:17You're a smart guy, I think that's pretty clear.
00:19But you use your ability and the powers of your office
00:24to lie to the court, to lie to Congress,
00:27to lie to the American people, to lie to the House.
00:30Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
00:32Mr. Smith, I have to start by saying
00:35I think that maybe I underestimated you.
00:37I underestimated in particular your comedic talent.
00:41I've been watching this whole hearing.
00:42I've watched everything you said.
00:44I noticed that you began by saying
00:46I have no partisan loyalty.
00:48And you repeated over and over and over
00:50there's nothing in your investigation about politics.
00:53That's hilarious.
00:54In fact, your investigation was all about politics from day one.
00:59Your investigation so-called, your prosecution so-called
01:02was nothing other than an attempt to interfere politically
01:06in a presidential election in the United States of America.
01:11You twice indicted a presidential candidate,
01:15the leading presidential candidate
01:17and a former president of the United States,
01:19during a presidential election
01:20against all Justice Department policy,
01:23against all Justice Department history,
01:25something never before seen or contemplated
01:28in 250 years of this country's history.
01:30You did it anyway,
01:31all for the purpose of keeping Donald Trump off the ballot.
01:36All for the purpose of denying the voters an opportunity
01:39to vote on a former president of the United States
01:43and, at the time, the Republican nominee for president.
01:46We've never seen anything like it in our country's history before.
01:49If you'd had your way,
01:50our elections in this country would be like Russia's,
01:52the one they just held.
01:53Oh, they had an election, sure.
01:55And they had an opposition, sure.
01:57It's just that Putin chose the opposition,
01:59which is exactly what the Biden Justice Department
02:02wanted to do with Donald J. Trump.
02:05And that's exactly what you were doing.
02:07Twice indicted the president during the election,
02:09tried to get his first trial set for during the primaries.
02:13In fact, I think the first trial date you requested
02:15was like three days before the Iowa caucuses.
02:18When all of that failed,
02:19you then filed a superseding indictment,
02:22a whole other indictment,
02:23on October the 2nd, I believe, 2024,
02:26five weeks before Election Day.
02:29This despite the fact that the Public Integrity Division
02:31of Justice,
02:32and they must have gotten quite a workout while you were around,
02:34the Public Integrity Division told you,
02:36don't do it.
02:39We're against it.
02:40It will be seen as partisan.
02:42It will be seen as interfering.
02:46And you did it anyway, didn't you?
02:49That's incorrect.
02:50You filed the indictment,
02:52and indeed, the Public Integrity Division
02:54told you not to do it.
02:55I've got it right here.
02:56I've got your notes from the meeting.
02:58Let's have a look.
03:00They said to you,
03:01these are your notes,
03:03call with your team's notes,
03:04call with the Public Integrity Division.
03:05August 17, 2024,
03:07they said a large segment of the population
03:09would see this as motivated
03:10by partisan purposes
03:12and would not understand
03:14why the department could not wait to supersede.
03:16They said public integrity
03:18has no precedent it could cite
03:20to seek to support
03:21a superseding indictment
03:22under these circumstances.
03:24They said it's their advice
03:25you wait to file
03:26this superseding indictment
03:27if you do it at all.
03:29But you did it anyway
03:30because you were desperate
03:32to stop Donald J. Trump.
03:35And then your top deputy
03:37went out and ran for Congress
03:38as a Democrat
03:39boasting about it.
03:40What was his name?
03:41J.P. Cooney?
03:42Do you remember him?
03:42Your deputy, right?
03:44He was your deputy, J.P. Cooney?
03:46Yes, he was.
03:46Right.
03:47Let's just take a look
03:47at his campaign poster
03:49running for Congress
03:50as a Democrat
03:51boasting about the fact
03:52that he went after Donald Trump
03:54during an election.
03:56Here he is, J.P. Cooney,
03:57candidate for Congress
03:58as a Democrat.
03:59In fact, Mr. Smith,
04:01you have quite a history
04:02of every time the law
04:04or the Constitution
04:05got in your way,
04:06you twist the facts,
04:07you torture the facts,
04:08you bend the law.
04:10You wanted to accuse
04:11Donald Trump, for example,
04:12of carrying on a vast
04:14right-wing conspiracy
04:16with members of Congress
04:18during the electoral count.
04:20And so you went
04:21to try to get senators' phones
04:23and their phone records
04:24and their text messages.
04:26The only problem was
04:27the Constitution protects
04:30members of Congress'
04:31work product
04:32and their phone records.
04:33And you knew
04:34that was the case,
04:35didn't you?
04:37I understand
04:38there are
04:38constitutional protections.
04:40We followed the Constitution.
04:41Oh, you did,
04:42and you didn't even attempt to.
04:43In fact, you told
04:43the Attorney General,
04:44you briefed the Attorney General,
04:46we've got the memo
04:46right here,
04:47you told the Attorney General
04:49that indeed members
04:50likely have a valid
04:51speech or debate privilege
04:54immunizing them
04:55from compelled testimony.
04:56Mr. Chairman,
04:56I'd ask consent
04:57this to be entered
04:57into the record.
04:58Objection so ordered.
04:59You knew that,
05:00but you went ahead anyway.
05:02In fact,
05:02you were also told
05:04that federal case law,
05:06that is the courts,
05:08said that
05:08it doesn't matter
05:10how you try
05:11and get the material,
05:12whether you go
05:13to the senators directly
05:14or whether you go
05:15to phone companies,
05:16the speech and debate clause
05:17still applies.
05:19You were told
05:20that either way,
05:21the senators
05:21were likely to need
05:22to be notified
05:23to be able to assert
05:24their privileges,
05:25weren't you?
05:26I don't believe
05:27that's accurate.
05:28Really?
05:28Because here's a memo
05:30to you
05:31from your own office,
05:33John Pelletieri,
05:34January 8, 2023.
05:36I've got it right here.
05:37I'd ask now,
05:38Mr. Chairman,
05:38this be entered
05:39into the record.
05:40It's entitled
05:41Speech or Debate
05:42Litigation Summary
05:44in which you are told,
05:46it's addressed to you,
05:47to Jack Smith,
05:47Assistant Special Counsel,
05:49from John M. Pelletieri,
05:50Assistant Special Counsel,
05:52in which you are told
05:53the Rayburn decision
05:54requires the government
05:55to give a member
05:56of Congress
05:57the opportunity
05:58to assert privilege
05:59and it was your office's
06:01own assessment.
06:01It didn't matter
06:02whether you went
06:03to the member
06:04or whether you went
06:05to a phone company,
06:06you still had to do it.
06:08But you decided
06:09to ignore that,
06:11blow right through it.
06:13you went
06:14to the phone companies
06:17and you hid the fact
06:19from the court
06:20that you were seeking
06:21the records
06:22of members of Congress,
06:24didn't you?
06:25You didn't tell the court
06:25you were seeking
06:27subpoenas
06:27from the phone companies
06:28for members of Congress,
06:29did you?
06:29You hid that from the court.
06:30Isn't that correct?
06:32We did not say
06:34who the subpoenas
06:35were for
06:36when we sought
06:36a non-disclosure order.
06:38That part is correct.
06:39Yeah, exactly right.
06:40I mean,
06:41here's your deposition
06:42before the House
06:43when you were asked
06:44when you sought
06:45these orders
06:46the judge didn't know
06:47it was a member
06:48of Congress
06:48is that correct?
06:49And you said
06:50I don't think
06:51we identified that.
06:53So instead
06:53what you decided
06:54to do was
06:55you didn't tell
06:55the members of Congress
06:56my phone was one
06:57of them that you got.
06:58You didn't tell
06:59the court.
06:59You went to
07:00the phone companies.
07:01You didn't alert
07:02the court so that
07:03members would have
07:04a chance to assert
07:04their privileges.
07:05You just ran
07:06rough rod shot
07:06over the whole thing.
07:07And then you also knew
07:08there was a federal
07:09law in addition
07:10to the Constitution
07:10there was a federal
07:12law that requires
07:13the phone companies
07:15to notify members
07:16of Congress
07:17to be able
07:17to notify members
07:19of Congress
07:19when their records
07:20are requested.
07:21But you prevented
07:22the companies
07:23effectively from doing
07:24that by seeking
07:25a gag order
07:26against them.
07:26Didn't you?
07:28I don't think
07:29that's accurate.
07:30Oh, indeed it is.
07:31And we have
07:32the gag order
07:33right here.
07:34I mean, let's just
07:34look at what you said
07:36to the court.
07:37This is number one.
07:39You had
07:40the court sign
07:41a gag order,
07:43a non-disclosure
07:43order,
07:44finding,
07:44and you testified
07:45earlier today
07:45that you wrote it,
07:47that the court
07:47has reasonable
07:48grounds to believe
07:49that disclosure
07:50will result
07:51in destruction
07:51of or tampering
07:52with evidence,
07:53intimidation of witnesses,
07:54and serious jeopardy
07:55of the investigation.
07:57So you did it.
07:58Of course,
07:58when you had the court
07:59sign this,
07:59you didn't tell the court
08:00you were seeking
08:01the records
08:02of members of Congress.
08:04So the Constitution
08:05requires you
08:06to notify members
08:07you didn't do that.
08:07It requires you,
08:08if you're going
08:09to go to phone companies,
08:10to give the members
08:10a chance to assert privilege.
08:12You didn't do that.
08:12It requires you
08:13to tell the court
08:14when you're going
08:15to go after members
08:15phone records.
08:16You didn't do that.
08:17It requires you
08:17to allow the phone companies
08:19to notify members
08:20you got the court
08:21under false pretenses
08:22to prevent the companies
08:24from doing so.
08:25Any time the law
08:27stood in your way,
08:28any time the Constitution
08:29stood in your way,
08:31you just ignored it.
08:34Is that why you lied
08:35to the House
08:36under oath
08:36about getting
08:37member text messages?
08:39I answered every question
08:41I was asked truthfully.
08:43Oh, I don't think so.
08:44I am proud of our investigation.
08:45No, well, you shouldn't be.
08:46You should be totally ashamed.
08:47Let me just ask you this.
08:49On December 17, 2025,
08:51you told the House
08:53that you had never gotten
08:55text messages
08:56from members of Congress.
08:57Let's have a look.
08:58Here's what you said
08:59to the House.
09:01Did you seek
09:02a search warrant
09:03for the content
09:04of any text messages
09:05of members?
09:06You say,
09:07from members?
09:09Yes.
09:10You say,
09:11I don't recall.
09:12I don't recall that.
09:13It was just toll records?
09:15You say, correct.
09:16Now, do you recall
09:18this exchange
09:19with the House
09:19on December 17, 2025?
09:21I see it there, yes.
09:23Okay, good.
09:24But on June 2, 2023,
09:27two full years earlier,
09:29you demanded
09:30from the National Archives
09:31records that included
09:32text messages
09:33from 44 United States senators
09:37and members of Congress.
09:39And indeed,
09:40you got all of those records.
09:42Isn't that correct?
09:43Yes, and I'm happy
09:44to explain that
09:45if you'll give me the opportunity.
09:46Oh, no, I understand
09:47that you got them.
09:47We all understand,
09:48and we know it,
09:49not because you told us,
09:50but because the Department
09:52of Justice disclosed it.
09:54So two full years
09:55before this deposition,
09:57you were in possession
09:58of text messages
09:59from 44 members of Congress
10:02that you went and subpoenaed.
10:04You read them
10:05within 30 minutes,
10:06the Department of Justice
10:07told this committee.
10:08They said that within
10:09an hour of receiving
10:11those text messages,
10:12your team was reading them.
10:14And yet,
10:15not only did you not notify
10:17any member of Congress
10:18whose text messages
10:19you obtained
10:20pursuant to your process,
10:22you told the House
10:23two full years later,
10:24having read all 44 members' messages,
10:27you told them
10:28you'd never gotten messages,
10:29you'd never requested messages
10:30from any member of Congress.
10:33That was a lie, Mr. Smith.
10:36And you may try
10:37your lawyer your way out of it.
10:39Well, it wasn't from the member,
10:40it was from the archives.
10:42You knew exactly
10:43what you were being asked.
10:45And you deliberately misled them.
10:46You're a smart guy,
10:48I think that's pretty clear.
10:49But you use your ability
10:51and the powers of your office
10:53to lie to the court,
10:55to lie to Congress,
10:56to lie to the American people,
10:58to lie to the House.
11:00It's the worst abuse
11:02of prosecutorial power
11:03in the history
11:04of the United States.
11:05And all I have to say is,
11:06I'm glad you failed.
11:07I don't know what our democracy
11:08would be like
11:09if you had succeeded
11:10in your effort
11:12to interfere
11:13in the workings
11:14of a presidential election.
11:16If it were up to me,
11:17I'd charge you with perjury.
11:18But you should certainly
11:19be disbarred.
11:21And I can only pray
11:22that nothing like this
11:23will ever happen again
11:24in the United States of America.
11:26Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11:29Subscribe to One India
11:30and never miss an update.
11:34Download the One India app now.
11:37And'll see you next time.
11:38Ben and
11:38I'll see you next time. Bye
11:38now. have a