Former Special Counsel Jack Smith delivers a high-stakes Senate hearing as Senator Richard Blumenthal presses him over the January 6 attack, efforts to challenge the 2020 election results, alleged pressure on state officials, and the criminal investigations involving Donald Trump. Smith defends his team’s work, saying the investigations followed the facts and the law and relied on evidence from witnesses and law enforcement.
The hearing also turns to grand jury proceedings and the classified documents investigation, with questions surrounding sensitive documents allegedly stored at Trump’s Florida residence. The intense exchange could have major political implications as the U.S. heads toward the 2026 midterm elections.
#JackSmith #Trump #DonaldTrump #SenateHearing #RichardBlumenthal #January6 #Jan6 #TrumpInvestigation #GOP #Republicans #USPolitics #2026Midterms #USMidterms #2020Election #ElectionInvestigation #TrumpDocuments #ClassifiedDocuments #SpecialCounsel #TrumpNews #BreakingNews #PoliticalNews #SenateHearing2026 #January6Investigation #TrumpLegalCase #AmericanPolitics
~HT.318~PR.462~ED.420~GR.538~VG.HM~
The hearing also turns to grand jury proceedings and the classified documents investigation, with questions surrounding sensitive documents allegedly stored at Trump’s Florida residence. The intense exchange could have major political implications as the U.S. heads toward the 2026 midterm elections.
#JackSmith #Trump #DonaldTrump #SenateHearing #RichardBlumenthal #January6 #Jan6 #TrumpInvestigation #GOP #Republicans #USPolitics #2026Midterms #USMidterms #2020Election #ElectionInvestigation #TrumpDocuments #ClassifiedDocuments #SpecialCounsel #TrumpNews #BreakingNews #PoliticalNews #SenateHearing2026 #January6Investigation #TrumpLegalCase #AmericanPolitics
~HT.318~PR.462~ED.420~GR.538~VG.HM~
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:01Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
00:04Mr. Smith, thank you for being here.
00:08You're here voluntarily, correct?
00:11Yes.
00:11You offered to come repeatedly more than a year ago, correct?
00:16I believe it was last October.
00:18And you didn't need to be subpoenaed to come here.
00:22You came here to tell your story.
00:24I want to give you the opportunity to respond to some of Senator Britt's questions
00:30if you feel that you have anything to add, because you were interrupted repeatedly.
00:35And I'm willing to take some of my time to give you an opportunity to clarify anything you'd like.
00:41Just very briefly, our nondisclosure orders were not predicated on the idea that members of Congress
00:49or members of this committee would commit acts of obstruction.
00:52It was based on a real concern that Donald Trump and his associates would do that
00:59because they had done it and they did it again.
01:02Donald Trump, in our case, in the elections case, later suggested that a witness,
01:09General Mark Milley, should be put to death.
01:11He said, if you come after me, I'm coming after you.
01:16Election workers in Georgia, Ruby Freeman and her daughter faced vile, racist death threats
01:25because of the things that Donald Trump said and how he targeted her.
01:29We had an absolute basis to seek protection of our investigation from that sort of obstruction.
01:35Pretty chilling stuff.
01:37I think everybody watching should be chilled by what you've just recounted.
01:43I want to remind folks why we're here today.
01:48And I think a picture is worth a thousand words.
01:51We're here today because Donald Trump incited a mob to attack us, the Capitol, members of Congress,
02:05to stop the counting of votes.
02:08He objected to the results of an election, and he tried to stop the peaceful transition of power
02:17by inciting rioters to attack the Capitol, including everybody here today.
02:27And we came to this very room on that day seeking safety, finding refuge.
02:36We were kept here for hours.
02:42And then we were given the choice to secretly go home to leave here
02:48as armed guards sought to protect us in this room.
02:53And I remember sitting over in that corner trying to recharge my phone
02:58so I could call my wife to tell her I was okay.
03:05That's what Donald Trump did on that day.
03:09And we decided it was a really great moment in the history of this body,
03:18at least recent history, that we would not go home.
03:21That we would continue the counting of votes.
03:24And we decided, I was so inspired by this moment, Republicans and Democrats alike, all of us,
03:33that we wanted that transition of democracy to go forward.
03:37And it did.
03:39In spite of Donald Trump.
03:42Donald Trump, I want to read to you what you told the House Committee.
03:47Our assessment of the evidence is that the person most responsible for what happened on January 6th,
03:56that he is the person most responsible for what happened on January 6th.
04:01He caused what happened.
04:02It was foreseeable to him.
04:05And then when it happened, he tried to exploit it in furtherance of the conspiracy.
04:12You stand by that statement?
04:14I do.
04:15And you conducted this investigation.
04:18It lasted months, correct?
04:21That's correct.
04:22And you concluded that on January 6th, Donald Trump directed an angry mob to the U.S. Capitol
04:32to obstruct congressional certification of the presidential election, correct?
04:38Yes.
04:38And he exploited the rioters' violence to delay the counting of the vote, correct?
04:46Correct.
04:47It was the result of a criminal conspiracy that resulted from his denying the results of the 2020 election, correct?
04:57Yes.
04:58And he knew those claims were false.
05:03Yes, that's what we alleged in our indictment, and that's what we intended to prove at trial.
05:08You intended to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, correct?
05:11Absolutely.
05:12And you brought that indictment, even though the standard was probable cause, because you
05:18had proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
05:22Yes.
05:23We had evidence from a variety of sources.
05:26As I mentioned earlier, we had Republicans who wanted Donald Trump to win the election,
05:33people who had hoped he would win but who put country before party.
05:37We felt those would be very powerful witnesses.
05:40We also had law enforcement officers who sought to defend this Capitol, who put their lives
05:45on the line for our democracy.
05:47Those two would be very powerful witnesses.
05:50And, in fact, more than 140 were assaulted, correct?
05:54Yes.
05:55Now, the inciting of that mob and the riot was following his attempt to induce state officials.
06:05This point is really important, induce state officials to ignore the true vote count and manufacture
06:13fraudulent state electors, slaves, in not just one or two, but seven separate states, correct?
06:23Yes.
06:24And, again, these charges were not brought by you personally.
06:31They were the result of a grand jury indictment involving how many people sit on a grand jury?
06:38Up to 23.
06:40They're everyday Americans, correct?
06:43Yes.
06:44Who hear all the evidence and they make a judgment without fear or favor and their identities are
06:50protected, correct?
06:51Yes.
06:54And this indictment was not the result of some extraordinary process.
07:00I'm a former federal prosecutor.
07:02I was U.S. attorney in Connecticut.
07:04I was a state attorney general in Connecticut.
07:09Indictments are returned by grand juries composed of 23 everyday Americans in the course of criminal
07:17proceedings throughout the country, and that's the way the process works, correct?
07:22That is correct.
07:24Now, there is something larger at stake here, I think, and I think you've alluded to it.
07:34The reason why these criminal charges and they are serious felony counts against Donald Trump
07:42are so important is deterrence.
07:49That's why conviction would have been important, and it was forestalled by forces beyond your control.
07:57But deterrence of criminal conduct is one of the valid goals of criminal proceedings, correct?
08:03Yes, it is.
08:04And what we're trying to deter here is an attack on democracy, another assault on the Capitol or
08:16some other symbol of democracy.
08:18And more than a symbol, it is the fulcrum, one of the central points of our democracy.
08:28We want to make sure that this attack on our election system doesn't happen again, correct?
08:36Yes.
08:38So this criminal proceeding is not about personal retribution against Donald Trump.
08:45It really is, in a sense, a defense of our democracy to stop another attack on our democracy, correct?
08:56We brought the case based on the facts and the law.
08:59My view is that those facts amply supported the prosecution we brought.
09:05But you didn't bring it as a matter of public policy.
09:09You brought it as a prosecutor following the facts and law, correct?
09:13That's correct.
09:14As a prosecutor, I work within the confines of my profession and the rules of the department,
09:19as well as the law.
09:21My job is to follow the facts and law and bring a case if it's appropriate and not bring a
09:26case
09:26if it's appropriate.
09:28And that's what we did.
09:31I want to show you a picture.
09:33You're going to recognize it, even though I know it's going to be difficult to see.
09:37It comes from one of the indictments from the grand jury.
09:44It is of how Donald Trump stored classified documents in his ballroom and bathroom, in his personal home.
09:53These were classified documents that he bragged were secret.
09:58He showed it to visiting journalists.
10:00He showed it to friends and he stored it in this way with the documents sloon across the floor, classified
10:09documents about American vulnerabilities to attack by our enemies and plans to counter those attacks.
10:20Is that the way classified documents ought to be stored, Mr. Smith?
10:24No.
10:24And he was indicted by a grand jury for taking those classified documents without authorization and without safeguarding them in
10:37even the most minimal way.
10:40He didn't even put them in a safe or in a closet.
10:44They were strewn across the floor, correct?
10:47The indictment lays out the allegations that we brought and that the grand jury voted.
10:52Senator Lee, thank you for your answers to my question, Mr. Smith.
10:57Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10:58Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11:00Mr. Smith, in your testimony before the House of Representatives, you testified under oath that the information you sought for
11:10many of your targets, including members of Congress, you sought only toll records.
11:17Is that correct?
11:19I did not testify that members of Congress were targets of our investigation.
11:24I did answer questions about toll records, and each question I was asked, I answered truthfully.
11:31Okay.
11:32But your statement was to the effect that for the records that you requested as to cell phones of members
11:41of Congress, you were seeking only toll records.
11:45Did you not?
11:47Did you seek more than toll records from members of Congress?
11:52The records that we sought were the toll records subpoenas that we talked about.
11:57There was also, previous to my time as special counsel, a search warrant executed on the telephone of a member
12:05of Congress, Congressman Scott Perry.
12:07In addition to that, we did request records from the National Archives, another executive agency regarding White House phones.
12:18I understand that those White House phones ended up having.
12:23Right.
12:24Incidental communications involving some members of Congress.
12:27Yeah, I get that.
12:28By the way, when you use the term toll records, just define for us what you mean.
12:34My understanding of what a toll record gives you is who placed a call, who the call was to, and
12:44the duration of the call.
12:46That's my understanding of the primary information you get from a toll record subpoena.
12:51It does not include, for example, the content of the call.
12:56Okay.
12:57Now, in December of 2022, you and your team sent preservation requests to Apple.
13:07These are preservation requests that went not to the telecom providers, you know, not to T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T,
13:15but rather to Apple,
13:16demanding that Apple preserve the entire contents of targeted phones, everything contained on the targeted phone,
13:25on the targeted Apple ID, which would include all devices attached to that Apple ID account.
13:32This could include information, naturally would, in some circumstances that would cover not just the days, weeks, or months in
13:40question,
13:42but many years, perhaps a decade or more, of information.
13:46You specifically directed you and your team, ordered Apple not to disclose the request and to contact you and your
13:55team first
13:56if the users were about to be alerted.
13:59Is that correct?
14:03I don't have a recollection of specific requests.
14:08I can say, though, just to be clear.
14:10I'm going to hand you two copies of these requests.
14:14One in December of 22 and another one in March of 23, extending the time frame and asking for an
14:23additional 90 days of that information.
14:25And what I wanted to make clear, Senator, is that a preservation request gives a prosecutor no information whatsoever.
14:32No, I get that.
14:33It just leaves open the possibility for a request in the future.
14:36Yes, yes.
14:37Now, so with these preservation requests, you cover a lot more than toll records in the preservation request.
14:47And the preservation request requests basically everything on that phone or on that Apple ID.
14:53Sweeping.
14:54One question I've got for you is why make such a broad preservation request if you intended only to seek
15:03toll records?
15:05Do you want me to take the time and read these records now or do you want me to tell
15:09you how I understand this works?
15:10Well, tell me how you understand it works.
15:13The part of it that I'm most interested in, I believe, appears on the second page of both the December
15:1822 letter and the March of 23 letter.
15:22It basically just says, send us everything, all documents and all, you know, data on the phone in question.
15:28So but tell me why it is that you make such a broad preservation request if you did not intend
15:34to get anything beyond toll records.
15:36Sure. Not having seen these in some time, my understanding is that preservation requests are by their nature broad because
15:44when you're early in an investigation, you don't know what will be relevant later on.
15:49Again, my my understanding generally as a prosecutor for a number of years is these preservation requests are pretty boilerplate
15:57in the sense that prosecutors request kind of the same information,
16:02a broad array of information, a broad array of information to be to be preserved understood in any in any
16:08case.
16:08I get that. And and yet these these preservation requests signed by members of your team asked them not to
16:21disclose anything about this.
16:25I want to get back for a moment to subpoenas that actually were issued and then I'll circle back to
16:34the gag orders in a moment.
16:37The speech and debate clause of Article one, Section six, Clause one should factor in some of these insofar as
16:48you are you and your team are looking into communications of individual members,
16:55officers of a coordinate branch of government here, the legislative branch, members of the House and of the Senate.
17:01And it's there to give them a type of privilege as to their internal deliberative processes involving their legislative actions,
17:12including things like Congress's obligation to open and count electoral votes.
17:19Now, on this and matters broadly, the Department of Justice's own public integrity section did give you explicit warnings that
17:28going after the phone records of members of the legislative branch carried what they referred to as litigation risks due
17:37to these constitutional privileges.
17:39Yet with your express approval, your approval, your office issued 44 subpoenas that were wrapped in very strict gag orders.
17:49At least 19 of those targets were, in fact, officers of a coordinate branch of government.
17:55That is the legislative branch. Now, Chief Judge Bo Bozberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of
18:01Columbia signed those gag orders.
18:02But as you admitted on page 42 of your deposition before the House Judiciary Committee, you never actually told Chief
18:12Judge Bozberg that you were targeting 19 members of a coordinate branch of government, the legislative branch.
18:19Is that right?
18:22Are we speaking about the toll records?
18:24No.
18:25Yeah, we're talking about the subpoenas that were signed by Chief Judge Bozberg involving the toll records.
18:30Yes, I think Judge Bozberg didn't sign the subpoenas.
18:34I think he signed off on the nondisclosure order that went with the subpoenas.
18:38But you are correct in that my recollection is that pursuant to department policy, we did not share with him
18:46who the underlying toll records were for at that time.
18:51I think that's correct.
18:52Okay. Now, this highlights and underscores something that my friend and colleague, Senator Coons, a reference.
19:01He and I have a bill, a bipartisan bill, called the MDO Fairness Act.
19:05It seeks to guarantee, as the name implies, fairness in nondisclosure orders issued by courts.
19:11There should be an articulated basis for secrecy when you're asking for a gag order.
19:18Now, that bill has been passed unanimously by the House of Representatives.
19:22The Senate has, yes, to pass it.
19:24The Senate needs to pass it.
19:25It must pass it.
19:26But even without that passing, obviously, it's not law now, and it wasn't law in December of 2022 or 2023
19:33or at any point.
19:37But still, the speech of debate clause of Article I, Section 6 was intact and has been since 1789 when
19:45the Constitution was ratified.
19:47Shouldn't that play some role here, and shouldn't that have been more carefully considered as you were seeking these records
19:59involving members of a coordinate branch of government, the legislative branch, when you were seeking these documents?
20:09When we requested the toll record subpoenas, I had staff who were familiar with the speech of debate clause.
20:16They litigated issues related to it.
20:20We also, I made it a condition of getting these subpoenas that the public integrity section, which is familiar with
20:26these issues, be consulted.
20:29My recollection is that they approved of the subpoenas, and as a result of that, that is why we sought
20:36the subpoenas.
20:37So, in my view, we did consider these issues with respect to the bill you mentioned.
20:42I'm not familiar with that.
20:44As a prosecutor, my job is to follow the law and department regulations as they exist.
20:50I get it.
20:51My point is to make the case for this.
20:52But I want to make sure that I understand, do you define toll records to include geolocation data?