00:00Thank you so much Mr. Chairman and I'm also glad that we can talk about women's
00:03sports in the judiciary hearing. We certainly miss our colleagues on the
00:07other side of the aisle last week when we were talking about protecting women's
00:11sports, making sure that women have that space and they can learn to grow and
00:20learn to lead in a fair way that is safe and that is common sense. So I
00:29enjoy watching Caitlin Clark and I want to make sure that we continue to protect
00:32those spaces for young women to come and I would hope our colleagues on the other
00:36side of the aisle could join us in that so I'm glad we got to bring that up. Mr.
00:41Chairman I appreciate you convening the hearing today on such an important topic
00:46and thank you for the work that you've done over the last several years
00:50conducting rigorous oversight of the Arctic Frost investigation. We appreciate your
00:55leadership on this and we need to bring public attention to this investigation
01:01and those that followed it. The issue really gets at the heart of one of the
01:04most fundamental principles of our republic and that is that justice must be
01:10blind and that no American should be targeted by our justice system as a result
01:16of their politics. Unfortunately we've discovered that that principle was far too
01:22often violated in the course of Arctic Frost and the ensuing investigations and
01:27it's right that we focus on, shed light on, demand answers and also accountability so
01:33that we can better ensure that it doesn't happen again moving forward. Mr. Smith I
01:37wanted to start with the initiation of Arctic Frost investigation. The Arctic Frost
01:42investigation was opened by the FBI in April of 2022 before ultimately being
01:48assumed by your work after being appointed as special counsel in November of that
01:53year. While I understand you weren't personally involved in the initiation of
01:58Arctic Frost, it was the investigation that ultimately evolved into your 2020 case
02:03against President Trump. Yes or no, do you accept that the Arctic Frost was
02:10initiated by FBI personnel that were clearly infected by political bias? And before you
02:17answer, if you will pull your microphone closer to you, I find it interesting that
02:22I'm the only one that's having a hard time to hear. Sorry about that, how's that?
02:25That's better. Okay, I can't really speak to what happened before I was special
02:30counsel. What I can share is that the investigation I took over, I made sure
02:35politics played no role. Yeah but beforehand, just yes or no. I mean you know the
02:41same things that we do and probably even more. You know the political bias of
02:45Timothy Thibault, you've seen that laid out for you, you don't believe in any way
02:50that that affected his work in Arctic Frost. Yes or no? I do not know. Do you
02:59believe that it affected his work? Yes or no? I can't speak to that, I did not work with
03:05Timothy Thibault. You can't speak, it is your job to actually look at these things and
03:08figure out where there is bias, where there is fact, where there is fiction. You know what
03:12ensued, you know what happened. You've seen some of the same things that he said
03:16online. You saw what he said about President Trump. You've seen the post
03:20there that he made about Catholic priests and slurs towards Catholicism.
03:27You've been presented with the information that he's made about
03:31President Trump. His LinkedIn profile picture there with the Washington Post
03:37being on his profile saying the Trump administration abuses justice. You know
03:42that stuff, yes or no? You know some of that. You're saying, whoa, whoa, none of this
03:48has ever been brought to your attention? Yes or no? Never. In all of this,
03:55Timothy Thibault, no one's ever brought any of this, this political bias that he has
04:00clearly shared on social media accounts. Biased against Catholicism, bias, no one's
04:06ever shared that with you, yes or no. Senator, I'm here to testify about my work as
04:13special counsel. Sir, I get to use this time to ask you a question and you know
04:16that. This is very simple. Yes or no? And can you not answer that? I can. I'm sure
04:24there are things in the media about this agent. No, I didn't ask what's in the media. I
04:28ask what's in you. Do you know? Has this ever been brought to your attention? This
04:33is not hard. This is not a trick question. You're telling me that you, you took over
04:39this guy's entire investigation and you never looked at any of these things that
04:44all of us can see in open source? That's a lie. It's not true. Yes or no? Do you
04:50know any of these things I just said or anything similar to this about Timothy
04:54Tebow? I don't know the things you're saying to be true because I was not there at that
05:01time. Okay, so you took over an investigation. Ultimately in 2024, Tebow was found to have
05:07been violated the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, violated the Hatch Act for anti-Trump political
05:13conduct while at the FBI and you were saying you took over his investigation and nothing. You didn't
05:21look into any of this. You know none of this. So I guess that that goes to say that you
05:26didn't go
05:27back and check his work. Yes or no? I did check the work that was done before I was there
05:33and I did
05:33not see in that work any evidence of political bias whatsoever. I looked at that closely. Did you see,
05:40were you ever brought to your attention that he had political bias statements out in the public?
05:47Yes or no? I do not recall discussing. Look, you're really smart. You can recall that. Surely. Surely.
05:56Surely. Either that or you skated through Harvard some other way. I mean, come on. It's not hard.
06:05This is not a hard question.
06:07This is not a hard question. Look, it's clear that Mr. Tebow actually made investigative decisions
06:17related to President Trump and Arctic Frost and had a political bias and had an agenda.
06:29It's unbelievable that you would take over such a case that would have such ramifications on our
06:37nation and you wouldn't do your due diligence. I don't believe it. I don't believe it. And for you
06:45to sit in front of this committee and not answer a simple question when you say you're here to tell
06:51us
06:51all about it. And you can't tell us whether or not you looked at the bias of the gentleman before
06:57you.
06:58It's just absurd. And look, look, in that vein, I want to turn to
07:03some of the excesses that occurred once you and your team fully took over the Arctic Frost investigation,
07:09starting with the erosion of the separation of powers.
07:11It's been widely reported that you and your team issued some 44 subpoenas related to the tolling records
07:17of at least 20 Republican members of Congress, including at least eight U.S. senators,
07:22including at least four members of this committee. And the subpoenas issued to telecom companies for
07:28member toll records included court records, non-disclosure orders attempting to bar telecommunication
07:34companies from providing any notice, any notice to impacted members.
07:43The NDO attached to the subpoenas stated that non-disclosure was necessary
07:49because, among other things, disclosure of subpoenas would lead to, quote,
07:53destruction of or tampering with evidence and, quote, intimidation of potential witnesses. So
07:59with respect to members of this committee whose records were subpoenaed,
08:04do you believe that there were reasonable grounds to conclude that the senators on this committee
08:10were going to engage in destruction of tampering with evidence or intimidation
08:15of a potential witness if notified about a subpoena? Yes or no?
08:20No. Our concern was that President Trump would...
08:23But that's what you said. That's what you said.
08:26Mr. Chairman, can we let the witness answer?
08:29You know what? That is what you said. You said, and my question is a yes or no. And he
08:35answered it.
08:35He answered it. That's incorrect. So, based on the records released by Chairman Grassley,
08:41it appears the actual reason for the NDOs was to avoid giving those members the opportunity to
08:48challenge the subpoenas pursuant to the protection that they enjoyed under the Constitution's speech and
08:56debate clause. At the beginning, you said that you had no partisan loyalty and you said you were very
09:04familiar with all of this law. But you and your team were aware of the protections and chose a
09:09court of action that nonetheless was designed to undermine them, to undermine Senator Graham,
09:17to undermine Senator Cruz, Senator Hawley, Senator Blackburn. It's ironic to me that in carrying out an
09:24investigation framed by many, particularly on the left, as a righteous crusade to defend democracy and the
09:33constitution, your team took actions to directly undermine the separation of powers at the heart
09:43of the constitution. The fruit of the poisonous tree continues to grow. And I'd like to ask several more
09:55questions. Yes, sir. Well, you know, a lot of people got back and forth time that wasn't included and
10:04people have gotten minutes afterwards. So, I'm going to ask one more question, please, sir. Mr. Smith,
10:11it's your testimony to this committee that you observe the proper investigative protocols
10:17protocols at all times, including the filter team protocols. Yes, we sought to do things consistent
10:26with the law and department policy at all times. And just a clarification, you never said that you
10:32wanted this case. Not to one person in any way, shape, or form did you seek this case. I previously
10:42explained that I
10:43had contacted a former colleague and indicated to him I wish I wish to come back to the Justice
10:49Department if there was a case where I could be of use. This ended up being that case and I
10:55accepted the
10:55position when... You never mentioned this case. Never. When I brought up the idea of coming back to the
11:04Justice Department, I do not recall mentioning this case. I'm not even sure the exact timeline of that.
11:12What I can say is that eventually it is correct that this position was offered to me and I did
11:17accept it. Thank you.
11:23Subscribe to One India and never miss an update. Download the One India app now.
Comments