00:00Instruct the gentleman to allow the witness to answer the question.
00:03It's not your time. I'd like my time back.
00:05Mr. Chairman, you've repeatedly done that in the past.
00:07The witness has the right to answer the question.
00:09And there'll be due time to answer.
00:11Do you see criminals to my left?
00:17You don't see any.
00:19Do you see people who are committing crimes
00:23because they continue to believe things that just aren't true?
00:30That's paraphrasing Ronald Reagan, that liberals aren't stupid.
00:34They just know things that don't happen to be true.
00:36If the president believed that he was cheated in an election,
00:40that there was fraud, or in some other way,
00:43a number of items led to his defeat,
00:46when in fact he should have won according to the Constitution,
00:51does that make him a criminal?
00:54Sir, no, no, that's a yes or no, please, Mr. Smith.
00:59These people here are continuing to grapple constantly
01:04with things that aren't true, like socialism works,
01:06or that somehow everything the Republicans do is evil
01:10and everything they do is right.
01:12They've never reached a conclusion in a typical partisan case
01:15in which we're not evil because we think something different
01:18and we're not wrong.
01:21You understand the Constitution.
01:24Do you understand the Bill of Rights,
01:26that someone has the absolute right
01:28to believe something, whether it's true or not,
01:31and to advocate for something, whether it's true or not?
01:34Do you understand that in addition to your oath
01:37to the Constitution, that that's one of the things
01:38the First Amendment allows for, isn't it?
01:43Yes, sir.
01:45Okay, so if you know that people have a right
01:48to opine, lobby for, assert,
01:53do everything they can legally
01:55to ask for people to make different decisions,
01:59then why is it you saw criminal conduct
02:02on behalf of a president who believed he didn't win?
02:05Chairman Jordan and myself have something in common,
02:08along with a number of others here.
02:10We saw wrongdoing, and on January 6th,
02:13we voted not to confirm two states
02:16because they had violated the U.S. Constitution
02:20in how they selected who got ballots.
02:23And yet, you're going to come here and say,
02:26oh, I just followed the law.
02:31When you went after these people and you said,
02:33well, technically I can do that,
02:35you didn't see any selective nature
02:37or any separation of powers under the Constitution
02:41to spying on the activities
02:43and the conversations of the Speaker of the House.
02:47To what end would conversations
02:49between the Speaker of the U.S. House,
02:53third or second in line to be the President,
02:55and the President,
02:56in what basis would it be any of your business
03:00other than you believe that there was a conspiracy
03:03without conspiracy as a basic premise?
03:08You, like the President's men for Richard Nixon,
03:12went after your political enemies.
03:14Maybe they're not your political enemies,
03:16but they sure as hell were Joe Biden's political enemies,
03:19weren't they?
03:19They were Harris's political enemies.
03:22They were the enemies of the President,
03:25and you were their arm, weren't you?
03:28No.
03:29No.
03:30Oh, great.
03:31So you spied on the Speaker of the House
03:35and these other senators and so on
03:37and informed no one
03:38and, in fact, put in a gag order
03:40so they couldn't discover it.
03:42If they were not subjects of a conspiracy investigation,
03:47why did Congress, a separate branch
03:51that you, under the Constitution, have to respect,
03:55why is it that no one should be informed,
03:58including the judges?
04:00As you went in to spy on these people,
04:03did you mention that you were spying on,
04:05seeking records so you could find out
04:08about when conversations occurred
04:10between the U.S. Speaker of the House
04:12and the President,
04:13did you inform the judge
04:15or did you hold that back?
04:18My office didn't spy on anyone.
04:20Wait a second.
04:21The question I asked you, Mr. Smith,
04:23was pretty straightforward.
04:25Did you withhold that information
04:27from an Article III judge
04:29in the process of taking the records
04:33of the Speaker of the House?
04:35We complied with the department.
04:36Did you hold back that information?
04:37Mr. Chairman, would you please instruct
04:39the gentleman to allow the witness
04:41to answer the question?
04:42It's not your time.
04:43I'd like my time back.
04:44Mr. Chairman, you've repeatedly done that in the past.
04:46The witness has the right to answer the question.
04:48And there'll be due time to answer the question.
04:50Would you please put my time back
04:52and let me finish this?
04:55Mr. Smith, I asked you a question
04:57and you were not responsive to it
04:59and I want you to be responsive to it.
05:01Did you, whether you think it was legal or not,
05:04whether you think it was right or not,
05:05did you withhold the name of Kevin McCarthy,
05:10Speaker of the House,
05:11when you were seeking records on Kevin McCarthy,
05:14the Speaker of the House,
05:15or Jim Jordan, the Chairman of this committee?
05:17At the time, the gentleman is...
05:20No, please give me back the time.
05:21You've got a few more seconds.
05:21Take it away.
05:22Time has expired,
05:23but we're going to let the witness answer your question
05:24because it's an important question.
05:25The witness can respond.
05:26We did not provide that information to the judge
05:29when we requested a non-disclosure order
05:32consistent with the law
05:34and consistent with the party.
05:35Mr. Chairman,
05:36the amazing thing here today
05:37is that we have an admission
05:40that an Article 1...
05:42the gentleman's time has expired
05:43by now 34 seconds.
05:45It gets more than five minutes
05:46because it's a good question.
05:48The time belongs to the gentleman from California,
05:51but it has expired.
05:52I will be brief in my address to the Chairman.
05:55We have the evidence
05:57that an Article 1 representative
05:59on behalf of the President
06:00with held that Article 3
06:02to determine our witness's information.
06:04With that, I yield back
06:06in disgust of this witness.
06:08Sticking with California,
06:10the gentlelady from California
06:11is now recognized.
06:13Mr. Smith, thank you for being here today.
06:16Earlier, the Chairman spent a lot of time
06:18talking about Cassidy Hutchinson,
06:20who we know is just one of many witnesses.
06:25It's important to note
06:26that there was testimony
06:29that she was told something
06:31by Mr. Ornato,
06:33not that she had personal knowledge.
06:34And, of course,
06:35Mr. Ornato was of very questionable veracity.
06:39We had a testimony
06:42from a Metropolitan Police Department official
06:45about an argument,
06:47a big argument,
06:48that the President was having
06:50about going to the Capitol.
06:52And, in fact,
06:52the vehicle was delayed
06:54going back to the Capitol
06:55while that argument occurred.
06:57But, having said that,
06:58I want to focus on something
07:00my colleagues across the aisle
07:01seem to want to ignore.
07:03The fact that your investigation
07:05into President Trump's attempt
07:06to overturn the 2020 election
07:08was built on testimony
07:10from members of the Republican Party.
07:12In fact, last week,
07:13the New York Times published
07:15grand jury transcripts from Georgia
07:17that show the same pattern
07:18in Trump's Georgia criminal case.
07:20Georgia's Republican Attorney General
07:22Chris Carr testified
07:23that he told,
07:25quote,
07:25and this is a quote,
07:25we're just not seeing
07:27the things that you are seeing.
07:28And the late Georgia House Speaker
07:30David Ralston,
07:31also a Republican,
07:32testified that Trump's
07:34fake elector scheme
07:35was, quote,
07:35the craziest thing I've heard.
07:38And then there's
07:38Senator Lindsey Graham,
07:40one of the President's
07:40closest allies.
07:42In his secret grand jury testimony,
07:44Senator Graham told the jurors,
07:45quote,
07:46I have told him more times
07:47than we can count
07:48that he fell short,
07:49unquote.
07:50And then he said this,
07:52quote,
07:52if you told him Martians
07:54came and stole votes,
07:55he'd be inclined
07:56to believe it.
07:57Martians,
07:58that's from Senator Graham
07:59speaking under oath.
08:00So here's my question.
08:02Mr. Smith,
08:02in your deposition
08:03with this committee,
08:05you testified,
08:06and here's a quote,
08:07our case was built
08:08on, frankly,
08:09Republicans
08:10who put their allegiance
08:11to the country
08:12before the party.
08:13also,
08:16that the President's
08:17closest allies
08:18are telling him
08:19that his claims
08:20of election fraud
08:21are wrong.
08:22And so I'm just wondering,
08:24can you explain
08:25what you meant
08:26in your deposition
08:28that it was Republicans
08:29who were putting
08:30their allegiance
08:31to their country
08:32ahead of their party?
08:35Yes.
08:38There were witnesses
08:39who I felt
08:40would be very strong witnesses,
08:41including,
08:42for example,
08:43the Secretary of State
08:44in Georgia,
08:45who told Donald Trump
08:49the truth,
08:50told him things
08:51that he did not want
08:52to hear,
08:53and put him on notice
08:55that what he was saying
08:55was false.
08:57These were people
08:58who knew
08:59how the elections
09:00were conducted
09:01in these states,
09:02and I believe
09:04that witnesses
09:05of that nature,
09:06witnesses who are willing
09:07to tell the truth,
09:08even if it's going
09:09to impose a cost
09:11on them
09:11in their lives,
09:13my experience
09:14as a prosecutor
09:15over 30 years
09:16is that witnesses
09:17like that
09:18are very credible
09:19and that jurors
09:20tend to believe
09:21witnesses like that
09:22because they pay a cost
09:24for telling the truth.
09:26In terms of the
09:27grand jury testimony
09:28that's now been released,
09:30the fact that
09:31Donald Trump,
09:32according to
09:33Senator Graham,
09:34would believe
09:34that Martians
09:35stole the election,
09:36what does that tell you
09:37about Trump's
09:38state of mind?
09:44That statement
09:45is consistent
09:46with what we found
09:47in our investigation
09:49in that
09:51our investigation
09:52revealed that
09:53Donald Trump
09:54was not looking
09:55for honest answers
09:56about whether
09:58there was fraud
09:59in the election.
10:00He was looking
10:00for ways
10:01to stay in power
10:02and when people
10:03told him
10:05things that
10:06conflicted with him
10:07staying in power,
10:08he rejected them
10:09or he chose not even
10:11to contact people
10:12like that
10:12who would know
10:14if the election
10:14was done properly
10:15in the state.
10:16On the other hand,
10:18when individuals
10:20would say things
10:21that would allow
10:22him to stay in power
10:23no matter how
10:23fantastical,
10:25he would latch
10:26onto those.
10:26That pattern
10:28over time
10:29we felt
10:30was powerful evidence
10:31that he in fact
10:33knew that the fraud
10:34claims he was making
10:35were false.
10:37You know,
10:38who were some
10:39of the Republican
10:40witnesses
10:40who told you
10:41President Trump
10:44that his claims
10:45of election fraud
10:46were false.
10:47Can you share
10:48that with us?
10:52There were
10:53a range
10:54of witnesses.
10:55They ranged
10:56from people
10:58on his campaign
10:59team
11:00who had
11:01wanted him
11:02to win,
11:03were employed
11:04to help him
11:04win the election.
11:05They included
11:07state officials,
11:09state Republican
11:09officials
11:10who wanted
11:12him to win,
11:13voted for him,
11:14campaigned for him,
11:15asked him
11:16to provide,
11:17asked him
11:17and his co-conspirators
11:18to provide evidence
11:19to support their claims
11:21and invariably
11:22they never did.
11:23It included
11:24officials,
11:26advisors,
11:27people he worked
11:28with in the White House
11:29who he relied upon
11:30for important decisions
11:32and who he trusted
11:33in other contexts.
11:35We felt
11:36we had strong evidence
11:37from a variety
11:38of sources.
11:39I'm the gentlelady
11:40has expired.
11:41Ms. Chairman,
11:42with my fellow
11:43California,
11:44you were allowing
11:44the witness to answer.
11:45Yeah, it's a good question.
11:46Isn't that grounds
11:47to let him answer?
11:48I've given him
11:4930 seconds extra,
11:50the gentlelady
11:5130 seconds extra.
11:52If the gentleman
11:52can be concise
11:53and finish up here quickly,
11:54we will allow him
11:55to finish.
11:56Yes, sir.
11:57And just conclude
11:58saying we felt
11:59that that
12:01constituted
12:01powerful evidence
12:02of the knowing
12:04falsity
12:04of his statements
12:05in furtherance
12:06of the fraud.
12:06Mr. Chairman,
12:07I would like
12:08to yield back
12:09noting the presence
12:10of officers
12:11who were severely
12:12attacked.
12:13You've got nothing
12:13to yield back.
12:14You're a minute over.
12:14The gentleman from Texas.
12:15Protecting our lives
12:16on January 6th.
12:17The gentleman from Texas,
12:18Mr. Gill,
12:19is recognized
12:19for five minutes.
12:22Subscribe to OneIndia
12:23and never miss
12:24an update.
12:27Download the
12:28OneIndia app now.
Comments