Skip to playerSkip to main content
Ted Cruz and former Special Counsel Jack Smith clashed during a fiery Senate hearing over subpoenas for Republican lawmakers, political organizations and phone records.

Cruz accused Smith’s team of abusing Justice Department power and called the investigation a “massive fishing expedition” and the “most egregious abuse of power” in DOJ history. Smith defended the investigation and said his team had powerful evidence related to concerns over obstruction.

Watch the full exchange as Ted Cruz presses Jack Smith over secret subpoenas, Republican records, nondisclosure orders and the Justice Department’s handling of the investigation.

#TedCruz #JackSmith #SenateHearing #DonaldTrump #DOJ #JusticeDepartment #USPolitics #Congress #Republicans #TrumpInvestigation #Senate #PoliticalNews

~PR.462~ED.102~GR.508~HT.178~VG.HM~

Category

🗞
News
Transcript
00:00Republicans in the Senate will destroy evidence and intimidate witnesses.
00:05We had a strong reason to believe that Donald Trump would destroy evidence.
00:11That was not directed at Donald Trump.
00:12It was stated disclosing it to members of the Senate.
00:16Mr. Smith, you and I have never met.
00:20But your team wanted to know to whom I spoke.
00:23When I spoke to them and for how long.
00:28You subpoenaed records associated with my phones, both personal and office.
00:33And you sought and obtained a court order to prevent me from knowing about it.
00:39For years, you were able to ask your questions in secret without me in the room.
00:47Today, the Senate gets to ask questions.
00:49And unlike you, we will do so in public.
00:53You have insisted that politics played no role in your investigation.
00:59The American people can judge for themselves.
01:03Let's start with your subpoenas.
01:06Did your team subpoena records concerning the Republican National Committee?
01:13We subpoenaed a number of records.
01:16That's a yes or no question.
01:19I do not have.
01:21I just want to be clear with you, Senator.
01:22I do not have a recollection of every subpoena.
01:24We did subpoena numerous records.
01:27Did your team subpoena the RNC?
01:29I would have to look at those records, but we did.
01:31You're testifying you don't remember?
01:32Yes, no, or I don't remember.
01:34There's your three options.
01:35It is very possible.
01:37I do not have a recollection of every.
01:43Again, I would have to look at the records.
01:44Do you have any idea who you subpoenaed?
01:46Can you name?
01:47All right.
01:47Let me help you.
01:49Did your team subpoena the Conservative Partnership Institute?
01:54That I do remember.
01:55Okay, good.
01:56We found one.
01:57And I can explain why.
01:58Did your subpoenas demand communications with Fox News?
02:04The subpoenas that we issued did ask for communication regarding ad buys because it was relevant to the false statements
02:12we were investigating.
02:13Purchasing advertising on a news agency you somehow believe is criminal.
02:17Did your team seek and obtain donor and fundraising data?
02:23I would have to look at the subpoenas, but again, I'm happy to.
02:26You don't know if you had donor and fundraising data?
02:29I'm happy to explain why we issued these subpoenas.
02:31Do you know if you had donor and fundraising data?
02:33I would have to look at the subpoenas.
02:35You don't know?
02:36Are you testifying right now you don't know if you obtained donor and fundraising data?
02:44You can sigh all you like.
02:46It's a very simple question.
02:47You know damn well you did.
02:48You've been questioned about the checks that you guys got.
02:51You know the answer.
02:54So why don't you answer the question?
02:56Did your team obtain donor and fundraising information?
03:00It's a yes.
03:01You can say yes.
03:03I do not recall the attachments to specific subpoenas.
03:07I'm happy to explain why we issued them.
03:09So you're testifying you don't remember if you got donor and fundraising material?
03:13Really?
03:15I do not recall because I have not seen those subpoenas in a very long time,
03:20but I'm happy to explain why we issued them.
03:23All in all, I get you want to dance and avoid the questions.
03:25I understand it because you can't answer a simple, straightforward question.
03:28All in all, you issued 197 subpoenas to 34 individuals at least and 163 businesses.
03:35And you sought records on at least 430 Republican individuals and entities.
03:40Is that right?
03:41And you're going to say you don't remember.
03:42Is that correct?
03:44I do not recall those numbers.
03:46I understand.
03:46You know, if you look at the list, there is one thing that is consistent.
03:51Every name on it is a Republican.
03:54Is it your view?
03:55Is it a crime to be a Republican?
03:58Absolutely not, sir.
04:00Is it a crime to write a check to Republicans?
04:02It is not.
04:03And I'm happy to explain why we issued these subpoenas, if you'd like.
04:08Sure, briefly.
04:10We had to conduct an investigation about whether any person or entity violated the law
04:16with respect to the attempt to block the peaceful transfer of power.
04:20To make that decision.
04:21Yes, I understand, and you used that as an excuse to engage in a massive fishing expedition targeting
04:27over 400 Republicans, and it was disgraceful.
04:30Let's just talk about the United States Senate.
04:33You issued subpoenas for more than 20% of the Republicans in the Senate seeking their phone records.
04:42You did so, and then you obtained orders, non-disclosure orders from Judge Bozberg.
04:52I believe Judge Bozberg should be impeached for his complicity in your abuse of power.
04:57Now, Judge Bozberg signed orders, and I want to read from the order Judge Bozberg signed
05:03that I didn't know about, that the Republican senators targeted here didn't know about.
05:07I want to read from the order.
05:10Quote, the court finds reasonable grounds to believe such disclosure, in other words,
05:18disclosing to me that you were subpoenaing my phone records, will result in destruction
05:24of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses, and serious jeopardy
05:29to the investigation.
05:31Mr. Smith, do you have any evidence whatsoever to believe that I and 20% of the members of
05:36the Republicans in the Senate will engage in destruction or tampering of evidence and
05:43intimidation of potential witnesses?
05:46No, we had powerful evidence that Donald Trump and his associates were-
05:50Am I Donald Trump?
05:51You are not, sir.
05:52Are the members of the Senate Donald Trump?
05:55No.
05:56Was this order directed at Donald Trump?
06:00No, I believe that-
06:01Did your office draft this order that Judge Bozberg signed, and he signed them like he was signing
06:06Denny's menus, one at a time, over and over and over again, facts be damned.
06:10Did your office draft this?
06:13I'd have to look, but I'm assuming that's the correct order, and if so, we did, and I'm
06:18happy to explain why we did, if you'd like.
06:19Good.
06:20I want you to tell us right now, are you an officer of the court?
06:24Yes.
06:25I want to tell us, did you have a shred of evidence that 20% of the Republicans in the
06:32Senate will destroy evidence and intimidate witnesses?
06:37We had a strong reason to believe that Donald Trump would destroy evidence-
06:42That was not directed at Donald Trump.
06:44It was stated disclosing it to members of the Senate.
06:47No, it was stated in disclosing it to anyone, and we do not have to wait for someone to
06:54be injured, for an investigation to be obstructed.
06:57We had strong reason to believe that Donald Trump would obstruct our investigation, given
07:04the obstruction alleged in the Florida indictment, given the attempts to intimidate witnesses
07:10in the election case, given the threats that were later made to witnesses in the election
07:15case.
07:15I, as a prosecutor, have a duty-
07:17Mr. Smith, are you aware of the statute to USC, section 6628?
07:23Yes, I am.
07:24That specifically protects Senate communication records and makes this non-disclosure agreement
07:32that you gave Judge Boesberg and that he signed that makes it illegal.
07:36Were you aware of it at the time?
07:39I do not recall discussing this statute at the time.
07:42Did you bring it to the judge's attention?
07:46I do not recall this being part of our application.
07:50So instead, you gave the judge an order that was contrary to federal law and you got the
07:56judge to sign order after order after order that was contrary to federal law.
08:00Is that right?
08:01No.
08:02We sought to follow department policy and the law at all times.
08:06Does department policy contravene federal statute?
08:09It does not.
08:10And we intended to follow them both.
08:12We submitted these non-disclosure orders consistent with the law and department policy.
08:21By the way, when you sought my phone records from AT&T, a number of senators had their phone
08:29records with Verizon.
08:30Verizon, unfortunately, was more than happy to comply.
08:35AT&T declined to hand over my phone records because they concluded doing so would be unconstitutional.
08:42It would violate the speech and debate clause.
08:45Now, ordinarily, when a prosecution seeks and issues a subpoena and the individual receiving
08:52the subpoena refuses to turn it over, ordinarily, the prosecution goes to court to enforce that.
08:57Is that right?
09:00I do not believe that's what happened in this case, sir.
09:03In this case, you didn't do a damn thing because AT&T didn't hand it over because they
09:07concluded it violated the speech and debate clause.
09:09And you know what your team said?
09:10Never mind.
09:11Nothing to see here.
09:12We're not going to fight because you knew if you went to court, you would lose.
09:19Our work in our securing these subpoenas and non-disclosure orders was consistent with
09:25the law.
09:25The toll records were...
09:27It was explicitly contrary to federal statute.
09:29It was explicitly contrary to the federal constitution.
09:32Let me ask you this.
09:36Do you have any regrets?
09:40Regrets regarding my work as special counsel?
09:43Yes.
09:44I regret that the people I worked with have been unfairly fired and vilified for doing their
09:51Of course.
09:51You can't bring yourself...
09:53Well, let me say congratulations.
09:54Congratulations.
09:55Because you have succeeded where Richard Nixon failed, which is weaponizing the Department
10:01of Justice and the federal government to go after your political opponents.
10:05Congratulations.
10:06You are stepping into the shoes of John Mitchell, and yet your abuse is far greater than John
10:12Mitchell.
10:13And I understand for the rest of your life, you're going to be hailed as a hero in the
10:18resistance movement.
10:20I assume you have a pink hat somewhere at home, and people will be proud of you for resisting, but
10:27I'll tell you what you have done.
10:30You have brought the Department of Justice into disrepute.
10:36Because instead of being apolitical, instead of enforcing the law, you willingly were conscripted as a foot soldier for the
10:43DNC.
10:44And you know what you also did?
10:47You re-elected President Donald Trump.
10:49Because the American people were disgusted at your willingness to abuse power in partisan ends.
11:01Javert from Les Mis would look at you with astonishment.
11:09I believe you have no regrets.
11:11I believe you have convinced yourself that this witch hunt, targeting half the country for partisan ends, was justified.
11:18Well, let me say, you have brought the Department of Justice into disrepute, and you have done enormous damage.
11:27And I believe your conduct represents the most egregious abuse of power in the history of the Department of Justice.

Recommended