Transcript

LIVE: Jack Smith Testimony DISSECTED as Trump Crimes Unravel

From MeidasTouch · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 1 h 45 min · 17,075 words · 246 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "LIVE: Jack Smith Testimony DISSECTED as Trump Crimes Unravel", an episode of MeidasTouch published January 3, 2026 (1 h 45 min, about 17,075 words). It mentions 97 people, works and ideas, including January 6th, January 6, Jack Smith's final report, 2020 Election, Department of Justice.

What this episode is about

In this analysis, Allison Gil dissects the recently released transcript and video of Jack Smith's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, emphasizing his authoritative command of the details and calm demeanor in contrast to Robert Mueller’s earlier performance. She highlights key moments from the testimony that reflect Smith's experience and credibility, showcasing challenges faced by Republican questioning during the session.

Key takeaways

  • No surprise: Smith's calm testimony outshines Mueller's shaky 2019 performance—unflappability is a powerful tool.
  • Jim Jordan aimed for 'gotcha' moments; instead, they got 'gotcha by competence' from Smith.
  • Trump's bathroom confidential: Smith detailed how top-secret files found an unlikely home post-presidency.
  • Smith's bipartisan CV slays bias claims; legal facts trump political fiction: truth is nonpartisan.
  • Toll records: vital yet misunderstood; history shows these subpoenas follow the law, not callers.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 10:00: Lisa Monaco, 2020 Election, Andy McCabe, Andy McCabe
  2. – 20:00: January 6th, Lisa Monaco, January 6th Select Committee, January 6
  3. – 30:00: Jack Smith's final report, Department of Justice, FBI, Andy McCabe
  4. – 40:00: Jack Smith's final report, January 6th, 2020 Election, Department of Justice
  5. – 50:00: January 6th, Lisa Monaco, Bradley Wimer, Jim Trusty
  6. – 1:00:00: January 6th, January 6, Department of Justice, Kevin McCarthy
  7. – 1:10:00: January 6, Boris Epstein, January 6, Roger Stone
  8. – 1:20:00: January 6th, January 6, Judge Aileen Cannon, Daniel Rodriguez
  9. – 1:30:00: Kosh Patel, CT Patel, January 6th, Cash Patel
  10. – 1:40:00: Executive Order, Department of Justice, Lisa Monaco, January 6th
  11. – 1:44:55: Department of Justice, Lisa Monaco, January 6th, Andy McCabe

Notable quotes from "LIVE: Jack Smith Testimony DISSECTED as Trump Crimes Unravel"

  • We read every word of both volume one of Jacksmith's final report into the record as a podcast as well as his 165page immunity brief that he filed with Judge Chutkin just before the.
    about volume 2 · at
  • The decision to bring charges against President Trump was mine, but the basis for those charges rests entirely with President Trump and his actions as alleged in the indictments returned by.
    about 2020 Election · at
  • Career as a prosecutor. We followed Justice Department policies and observed legal requirements. The timing and speed of our work reflects the strength of the evidence and our confidence that we would have secured convictions at trial.
    about Department of Justice · at
  • January 6th was an attack on the structure of our democracy in which over 140 heroic law enforcement officers were assaulted.
    about January 6th · at
  • We were trying to move these cases expeditiously. In our briefs, we cited to repeated Supreme Court precedent that states that the interest in a speedy trial, the right to a speedy.
    about 2028 Presidential Election · at
  • Today. Again, consistent with our discussion this morning. If it's not in a public filing, I haven't seen the final report in almost a year. I'm not comfortable discussing issues like that because solely because of that issue.
    about Jack Smith's final report · at
  • Judge Cannon, an injunction regarding volume two. I want to make very clear that I do not want to do anything to violate that injunction or that order.
    about Judge Aileen Cannon · at
  • And, of, course,, don't, forget, Kosh, Patel comes up in volume two. That's why a lot of senators at least on the Democratic side wanted to get volume two while considering and providing advice.
    about Kosh Patel · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Judge Aileen Cannon — Person · Judicial actor · 5 mentions · first at
    Judge Eileen Cannon issued an injunction restricting discussion of volume 2 of Jack Smith's final report; her order shaped what Smith could discuss publicly in the interview.
  • Andy McCabe — Person · Co-host (referenced; absent this episode) · 4 mentions · first at
    Referenced as Gil's co-host on a prior podcast about the Special Counsel investigations; his absence explains why Gil solo-narrates the episode.
    Work carefully reading through this transcript multiple times. As you may know, former FBI Deputy Director Andy McCabe and I hosted a podcast about the special counsel's…
  • Andy McCabe — Person · Co-host (referenced; absent this episode) · 3 mentions · first at
    Referenced as Allison Gil’s co-host on prior coverage of the special counsel investigations; his absence explains why Gil narrates solo.
    Work carefully reading through this transcript multiple times. As you may know, former FBI Deputy Director Andy McCabe and I hosted a podcast about the special counsel's…
  • Andy McCabe — Person · Co-host (referenced; absent this episode) · 3 mentions · first at
    Referenced as Gil’s co-host on prior coverage of Smith’s investigations; his absence explains the solo-host format.
    Work carefully reading through this transcript multiple times. As you may know, former FBI Deputy Director Andy McCabe and I hosted a podcast about the special counsel's…
  • Kosh Patel — Person · Referenced official / Nominee discussed · 5 mentions · first at
    Referenced in connection with volume 2 and potential relevance to Senate advice-and-consent; name discussed in the context of DOJ staffing and confirmation implications.
  • CT Patel — Person · Referenced official · 4 mentions · first at
    Mentioned in relation to being in volume two of the report and questions about whether he testified before the grand jury; likely Kosh/CT Patel (senior DOJ official) — discussed in confirmation/advice-and-consent context.
    And, of, course,, don't, forget, Kosh, Patel comes up in volume two. That's why a lot of senators at least on the Democratic side wanted to get volume two while considering and providing advice.
  • Andy McCabe — Person · Co-host (previously) / Referenced contributor · 3 mentions · first at
    Former FBI Deputy Director and co-host of the earlier podcast 'Jack' with Allison Gil; referenced as collaborator and absent co-host for this episode.
    Work carefully reading through this transcript multiple times. As you may know, former FBI Deputy Director Andy McCabe and I hosted a podcast about the special counsel's…
  • Kevin McCarthy — Person · Referenced congressional figure (toll-records example; public critic) · 2 mentions · first at
    Appears via tweets criticizing the Mar-a-Lago search and as an example of why toll records were probative (Meadows-described call on Jan 6).
    And then exhibit 15 will be an August 8th, 2022 tweet from speaker Kevin McCarthy that says, Attorney General Garland preserve your documents and clear your.
  • Cash Patel — Person · Referenced figure (subject of inquiry; tied to sealed report volume) · 2 mentions · first at
    Raised in questioning about whether he was interviewed/testified/pleaded the Fifth; Smith declines due to Judge Cannon's injunction, underscoring limits on volume two discussion.
    Democratic side wanted to get volume two while considering and providing advice and consent when Kosh Patel was nominated to be the FBI director cuz he's in volume two. So he's…
  • Lisa Monaco — Person · Referenced senior DOJ official · 14 mentions · first at
    Mentioned in the context of public statements by Trump that suggested investigating senior DOJ officials including Lisa Monaco.
    I am both saddened and angered that President Trump has sought revenge against career prosecutors, FBI agents and support staff simply for doing their jobs and for.
  • Patrick McKay III — Person · Referenced January 6 defendant (pardon example) · 4 mentions
    Another example cited to argue pardons undermine rule of law and public safety; described as crushing Officer Daniel Hodges with a riot shield.
    Committed that day. end quote. Mr. McKay was sentenced to more than seven years in prison. Are you aware that Mr. McKay was one of those riers who assaulted law enforcement on January 6th that were pardoned by President Donald Trump?
  • Judge Chutkin — Person · Referenced judicial actor · 2 mentions · first at
    Judge mentioned in relation to Jack Smith's 165-page immunity brief filed before the election (Judge Chutkin received briefs).
    One of Jacksmith's final report into the record as a podcast as well as his 165page immunity brief that he filed with Judge Chutkin just before the election. I am very familiar…
  • Boris Epstein — Person · Referenced Trump associate / conduit in call effort · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as sending a text to Mark Meadows about Trump directing Giuliani to call senators; described as corroborating call attempts while “dissembling” about direction.
    Recollection and this comes from a email or I think it was a text maybe that Boris Epstein sent to Mark Meadows and it basically said something to the effect of the president…
  • Daniel Rodriguez — Person · Referenced January 6 defendant (pardon example) · 2 mentions · first at
    Used to illustrate Smith’s view that pardoning violent offenders endangers public safety; described as assaulting Officer Michael Fanone.
    12 years in prison after a federal judge called him a quote oneman army of hate. Are you aware of President Trump pardoning Mr. Daniel Rodriguez?
  • Daniel Rodriguez — Person · Example defendant (January 6 rioter) · 2 mentions · first at
    Used as an example of someone sentenced for violent conduct on January 6 and later pardoned by Trump; discussed when Smith described effects of blanket pardons.
    12 years in prison after a federal judge called him a quote oneman army of hate. Are you aware of President Trump pardoning Mr. Daniel Rodriguez?
  • Robert S. Mueller — Person · Referenced comparator · 1 mention · first at
    Used as a benchmark to describe Jack Smith's demeanor and testimony, contrasting Smith to Mueller's public testimony in 2019.
    Demeanor, his recollection is on point very different than Robert Mueller's public testimony in July of 2019. Jack Smith was so measured and so serious. He was unflapable and…
  • Walt Nadata — Person · Witness referenced · 4 mentions
    Referenced in the context of allegations about a threat (Jay Bratt/Woodward matter) and the classified documents investigation; witness whose counsel was allegedly pressured.
    To use to discredit the entire classified documents investigation when they alleged that Jay Brat had threatened Walt Nada's attorney, Stanley Woodward, by insinuating that…
  • Joe Biden — Person · Referenced political figure (election context) · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as the opponent Trump allegedly acknowledged losing to; appears in discussion of 2020 election and alleged admissions.
    Lost the election, you still fight like hell. And then the other was can you believe I lost to this effing guy.
  • Daniel Rodriguez — Person · Referenced Jan 6 rioter (pardon example) · 2 mentions · first at
    Cited as an example of violent assault on law enforcement on Jan 6 and as part of discussion about pardons and public safety implications.
    12 years in prison after a federal judge called him a quote oneman army of hate. Are you aware of President Trump pardoning Mr. Daniel Rodriguez?
  • William P. Barr — Person · Referenced former Attorney General (Mueller report framing analogy) · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as an analogy for alleged mischaracterization/spin (Barr’s handling of Mueller report) paralleling claims about Smith’s work.
    And also finally stop mischaracterizing my work. Kind of a call back to what Bill Barr did with the Mueller report. So, let's talk about what I consider to be the standout moments in this interview. And I want to.
  • Bradley Wimer — Person · DOJ official referenced · 1 mention · first at
    Named as present in a meeting regarding indictment decisions; part of DOJ staff that interacted with Smith and defense counsel.
    By the attorney general who could countermand it. that meeting was with me and Bradley Wimer who was in the Justice Department. Mr.
  • Patrick McKay III — Person · Referenced Jan 6 rioter (pardon example) · 1 mention · first at
    Another example used to illustrate severity of Jan 6 violence and to question whether pardons undermine rule of law and safety.
    Committed that day. end quote. Mr. McKay was sentenced to more than seven years in prison. Are you aware that Mr. McKay was one of those riers who assaulted law enforcement on January 6th that were pardoned by President Donald Trump?
  • Daniel Rodriguez — Person · Referenced January 6 defendant (pardon example) · 2 mentions · first at
    Used as a concrete example of violent assault on law enforcement on Jan 6 and the public-safety critique of blanket pardons.
    12 years in prison after a federal judge called him a quote oneman army of hate. Are you aware of President Trump pardoning Mr. Daniel Rodriguez?
  • Patrick Maki III — Person · Referenced January 6 defendant (pardon example) · 1 mention · first at
    Another example cited to illustrate severity of Jan 6 violence and the argument that pardons undermine safety and rule of law.
    Another example is a Mr. Patrick Maki III who used a stolen police riot to a police riot shield to crush officer Daniel Hodgees in a metal door frame at the entrance of the lower west.
  • Jay Bratt — Person · 8 mentions
  • Walt Nauta — Person · 4 mentions
  • Andy McCabe — Person · 3 mentions · first at
    Work carefully reading through this transcript multiple times. As you may know, former FBI Deputy Director Andy McCabe and I hosted a podcast about the special counsel's…
  • Patrick McCaughey III — Person · 3 mentions
  • Ray Hulser — Person · 3 mentions
  • JP Cooney — Person · 2 mentions · first at
    What, I, r, what, I, recall, is, tasking, JP Cooney to do this. I don't I don't know if he then tked somebody else or if he did it himself or with somebody else but that's who I remember speaking to.
  • Roger Stone — Person · 2 mentions · first at
    All, right., Next, up, is, Rep., Zolofrren, who gets to the bottom of why Roger Stone and Steve Bannon weren't charged.
  • Daniel Rodriguez — Person · 2 mentions · first at
    Secure the building on page 25 of your report. one of those riers was Daniel Rodriguez, who multiple times plunged a stun gun into the neck of officer Michael Fenone, causing…
  • Boris Epshteyn — Person · 2 mentions
  • Daniel Hodges — Person · 2 mentions
  • Justice Robert H. Jackson — Person · 2 mentions
  • Chris Mays — Person · 1 mention · first at
    Who had responsibility for liaisoning with the attorney general for the state of Arizona Chris Mays?
  • Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett — Person · 1 mention · first at
    And then here's a great clip where Representative Jasmine Crockett helps Jack Smith rebut the weaponization theories by exposing the actual weaponization of Trump's Justice Department. watch.
  • Stanley Woodward — Person · 1 mention · first at
    Classified documents investigation when they alleged that Jay Brat had threatened Walt Nada's attorney, Stanley Woodward, by insinuating that they would shut down his…
  • Jim Trusty — Person · 1 mention · first at
    Trump's attorneys were there. It was Jim Trusty, Lindseay Haligan, and there was a third attorney who I can't remember but I'm sure there's a record who that was. they gave reasons why they.
  • Elliot Burke — Person · 1 mention · first at
    Capital. That's very important evidence for criminal intent in our case right?, But, you, could, have, asked, Elliot Burke for that information, the speaker's lawyer. You could…

Books & papers

  • Jack Smith's final report — Book · Primary referenced work · 9 mentions · first at
    The special counsel's final report (volumes referenced) underpins many of Smith's statements and is central to the episode's analysis; volume 2 is under injunction.
  • volume 2 — Book · Referenced work (public portion of report) · 2 mentions · first at
    Volume 1 of Jack Smith's final report was read into the record and referenced extensively and is part of the public materials the host read and analyzed.

Companies & orgs

Concepts & topics

  • Volume 2 — Concept · Referenced document · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as part of Jack Smith's final report, with restrictions on its release due to a court order.
    Judge Cannon, an injunction regarding volume two. I want to make very clear that I do not want to do anything to violate that injunction or that order.
  • Executive Order — Concept · Referenced document · 5 mentions · first at
    Mentioned in the context of actions taken against Jack Smith's attorneys by the Trump administration.
    So, exhibit 20 is an executive order issued by I, know, it the, White, House, on, February, 25,, 2025 and it is entitled suspension of.
  • Fraud (legal carveout from First Amendment protection) — Concept · 10 mentions
  • January 6 — Concept · 6 mentions · first at
    The, stuff, we, got, from, the, January, 6 committee. I directed my staff to disclose it to the defense.
  • Affinity fraud — Concept · 2 mentions · first at
    Compares that with what Trump did. he compares what Trump did on January 6th to affinity fraud. He likes it to affinity fraud. This is a very good succinct argument. If there's…
  • Confidential human source — Concept · 2 mentions
  • Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution — Concept · 2 mentions
  • Judicial Nominating Commission — Concept · 1 mention · first at
    We attached this in one of our motions that says Stanley Ward Judicial Nominating Commission. that page makes it look like he is on at least if you look at it quickly on the…
  • Witness intimidation — Concept · 1 mention · first at
    Is, it, a, form, of, witness, intimidation?, I think it I think it's even deeper than that. I think, when we get to attacking the people who are the good guys,.
  • Title 18 U.S. Code Section 241 — Concept · 1 mention
  • United States Magistrate Judge — Concept · 1 mention

Places & events

  • January 6th — Event · Core topic · 24 mentions · first at
    Central event discussed in the podcast, involving an attack on democracy and law enforcement officers.
  • January 6 — Event · Core topic · 7 mentions · first at
    Central event discussed in the episode, involving an attack on democracy and the subsequent legal proceedings.
    January 6th was an attack on the structure of our democracy in which over 140 heroic law enforcement officers were assaulted.
  • 2020 Election — Event · Core topic · 5 mentions · first at
    Discussed as the context for the January 6th attack and the investigations into election interference.
  • 2028 Presidential Election — Event · Referenced event · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned in the context of the timing of investigations and the potential impact on the election.
  • Mara-a-Lago — Place · 6 mentions
  • Fulton County, Georgia — Place · 1 mention · first at
    Other state probes crop cropped up, in Arizona, in Fulton County, Georgia. and I'm wondering how you coordinated those efforts.

Sponsors

  • Midas Touch Network — Company · Partner / Promotional partner · 2 mentions · first at
    Named as a partner for this episode (episode presented in partnership with Midas Touch Network).
    Hi everybody, I'm Allison Gil and we're bringing you this very special episode of the Unjustified podcast in partnership with the Midas Touch Network. Now, this is our first episode of 2026. And as this past.

Full transcript with timestamps

Hi everybody, I'm Allison Gil and we're bringing you this very special episode of the Unjustified podcast in partnership with the Midas Touch Network. Now, this is our first episode of 2026. And as you know, this past Wednesday, New Year's Eve, the majority on the House Judiciary Committee released the transcript of Jack Smith's recent interview conducted behind closed doors. And they followed that up shortly by releasing the video of that interview. Now, I immediately went to work carefully reading through this transcript multiple times. As you may know, former FBI Deputy Director Andy McCabe and I hosted a podcast about the special counsel's investigations into Trump. It was called Jack. And as part of that podcast, I I can guarantee you I have read every single motion, every brief, every word written by Jack Smith every order from the district court, the appellet court, and the Supreme Court.

Uh we read every word of both uh volume one of Jacksmith's final report into the record as a podcast as well as his 165page immunity brief that he filed with Judge Chutkin just before the election. I am very familiar with this case inside and out. And after spending the last two days parsing the transcript uh and watching uh the video testimony I decided to compile a series of clips to share the ones that stood out to me the most. and I wanted to provide a little bit of commentary for you. Now Andy McCabe is out this week, so I'm going to walk you through these carefully selected and curated clips.

So, thank you very much for being here. Now, Jack Smith's testimony is noteworthy for several reasons. His command of the facts, uh, his calm demeanor, his recollection is on point very different than Robert Mueller's public testimony in July of 2019. Jack Smith was so measured and so serious. He was unflapable and unimpeachable with his decades of experience that it really made it hard for Republicans to feel comfortable spouting any of their ridiculousness that we generally hear from them. Now, Smith commanded respect.

Uh though that didn't really stop Jim Jordan or his staff from trying to get gotcha moments. Uh but they failed at every turn. This is a very embarrassing piece of testimony for the Republicans on this committee. So, let's start at the beginning with former special counsel Jack Smith's opening statement.

Thank, you, for, the, opportunity, to, discuss my work as special counsel. I was taught as a young prosecutor to follow the facts in the law and to do so without fear or favor, to do the right thing the right way for the right reasons. For nearly three decades, I've been a career prosecutor. I've served during both Republican and Democratic administrations, and I've been guided by those principles in every role I've held. I continued to honor those principles when I was appointed to serve as special counsel in November of 2022.

The decision to bring charges against President Trump was mine, but the basis for those charges rests entirely with President Trump and his actions as alleged in the indictments returned by grand juries in two different districts. Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power. Our investigation also developed powerful evidence that showed that President Trump willfully retained highly classified documents after he left office in January of 2021 storing them at his social club including in a ballroom and a bathroom.

He then repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents. I remain grateful for the counsel judgment, and advice of my team as I executed my responsibilities. I am both saddened and angered that President Trump has sought revenge against career prosecutors, FBI agents and support staff simply for doing their jobs and for having worked on those cases. These dedicated public servants are the best of us and they have been wrongly vilified and improperly dismissed from their jobs.

I made my decisions in the investigation without regard to President Trump's political association, activities beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election. We took our actions based on the facts and the law. the very lessons I learned early in my career as a prosecutor. We followed Justice Department policies and observed legal requirements. The timing and speed of our work reflects the strength of the evidence and our confidence that we would have secured convictions at trial. If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Republican or a Democrat.

Recent narratives about my team's work are false and misleading, including stories about our collection of toll records. Toll records were sought for historical telephone routing information collected after calls had taken place identifying the incoming and outgoing call numbers, the time of the calls, and their duration. Toll records do not include the content of calls. Those records were lawfully subpoenaed and were relevant to complete a comprehensive investigation. January 6th was an attack on the structure of our democracy in which over 140 heroic law enforcement officers were assaulted.

Over 160 individuals later plead guilty to assaulting police that day. Exploiting that violence, President Trump and his associates tried to call members of Congress in furtherance of their criminal scheme, urging them to further delay certification of the 2020 election. I did not choose those members. President Trump did. I hope that test that my testimony today serves to correct correct these mischaracterizations about my work. And to that end, I welcome your questions.

Straight, to, the, point., First,, we've, got powerful evidence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power. He he he did a coup and he willfully retained classified documents uh and obstructed justice. He also praised the people that worked on his team something that we don't see from this particular administration. Uh we we heard that Trump did this to himself. Were it not for Trump, we would not be here. Uh we learned that the phone records collected from Republicans in Congress was illegal and Trump was the reason for it. He picked those people.

Uh, and also finally stop mischaracterizing my work. Kind of a call back to what Bill Barr did with the Mueller report. So, let's talk about what I consider to be the standout moments in this interview. And I want to start with Jack Smith easily and swiftly debunking multiple right-wing conspiracy theories. These are all Republican talking points that they brought up one by one and he continued to debunk. So early in the hearing, a staffer, I think for Jim Jordan tried to corner Jack Smith with the right-wing conspiracy that Merrick Garland was against bringing the charges, that somehow Jack Smith went rogue. I'm sure this is probably one of the bases for their criminal investigation into Jack Smith which I'm sure will go nowhere, but Jack Smith shuts this down pretty handily.

Here's that clip. In June of 2023, you had a meeting uh with the attorney general to present um a prosecution memo and basically asking for his uh blessing to to bring the indictments. Is that correct?

Uh, I, did, we, did, have, a, meeting, and, I think it was around that time. Uh I didn't think about it as uh his blessing. I was presenting what I intended to do and um he had the ability to countermand that if he wanted to.

Okay., But, certainly, you, couldn't, bring an indictment without his authorization.

He, could, he, could, block, me, from, doing that. That's correct. Okay., Um, and, during, that, June, 2023 um meeting with the attorney general, uh would did you guys discuss both indictments, potential indictments, or just just the Florida indictment or just the DC indictment?

If, it, was,, I, don't, have, a, specific recollection of dates. Um, and so you can check me on on public records, but I believe by late June

the, classified, documents, case, had already been indicted. Okay. So it again, this is my recollection, but that would have been a discussion in late June would have likely been about just the elections case if it was about an indictment.

Okay., And, the, attorney, general, in, the, in the June meeting, it's been reported that he expressed some reservations about the DC case. Is that correct? Uh, I had several meetings with the attorney general about both cases and in those meetings we regularly discussed legal issues, factual issues, things of that nature. Um, never in those meetings did he uh tell me I couldn't or shouldn't go forward or or should go forward. Um, it was more talking through uh with another experienced lawyer the legal issues uh present in the cases uh as well as if if if I was going to go forward, how to best frame those. Now the Republicans also implied that Merrick Garland forced Jack Smith to speak to the solicitor general about the DC case, but Smith rebutted that as well and informed Jim Jordan and his staffers that he alone made the choice to meet with the solicitor general because he wanted to discuss Trump's First

Amendment rights, his first amendment defense that was inevitably going to come up. And we'll get to his testimony uh about the First Amendment later, but let's get back to debunking more of these Republican conspiracy theories. In this next clip, Jack Smith quickly dispenses with the right-wing theory that he conspired against Trump with state attorneys general. Let's listen.

Did, your, office, coordinate, with, state officials? Coord, You, mean, interview, state officials?

No,, coordinate., you, know,, that, several other um you know, state probes crop cropped up, you know, in Arizona, in um Fulton County, Georgia. Uh and I'm wondering how you coordinated uh those efforts.

I, I, know, that, we, got, inquiries, from, um state um authorities. I'm aware of that. Uh my recollection is that we did not share any evidence with them.

Mhm., And, I, don't, think, my, recollection is we did not uh get any evidence from them. We got it from that is my recollection that it was all or part largely from public sources.

Okay., Was, there, somebody, on, your, team who had responsibility for liaisoning with the um attorney general for the state of Arizona Chris Mays?

Uh I I don't believe so. But also the liaisoning I I don't think that my recollection is that there was not like an ongoing discussion. What I was thinking of I I know we got a letter for example from the attorney general in New Mexico asking for information from us. Um I don't have a specific recollection as well as to other states. It may well be that we got other inquiries.

So, there, was, no, proactive, coordination. No. Okay., There, was, no, proactive coordination. regular communications with Chris Ma's office in Arizona.

Uh,, I, don't, recall, any, regular communications, but I I'm hesitating just because uh I I don't recall as I sit here how many times they might have reached out to us or that sort of thing

right?, Um,, how, about, with, the, Fulton County DA's office with Fonnie Willis and um and uh Mr. Wade? Yeah, I've never had contact with either of those people.

So,, no,, no, coordination., I, never, spoke with those people. Don't know what you're talking about. Shut it down. Next, more collusion and coordination conspiracy theories because they want to ask Jack Smith about his communications with the January 6th select committee. Now, here we learned something uh that I wasn't aware of. We learned that the committee actually waited until the very last minute. We we knew they waited till the very last minute, but we didn't know that people went to actually get their information from them from Jack Smith's team. That was another cause of delay in this case. It took months to get that information. But more importantly Smith's answer shuts down the Republican theory that Democrats on the January 6th select committee deleted all their files to hide the truth. Because as Jack Smith testifies here, uh, he actually handed over all of the January 6th committee's

work to Trump's team in discovery. So they had it. Watch. What, types, of, communications, did, you, or your staff have with the January 6th committee? Um so when I um was appointed to special counsel um I asked at some point whether we had gotten evidence from the special counsel from the uh select committee. Um we had not and so I directed uh my staff to uh get that evidence get whatever evidence we could from them. Uh and uh I think it was I think it was in December or so that we did in fact get evidence from them and get a copy of their final report. And and this is the um this is referenced in the um uh in our final report there's a paragraph or a footnote regarding that.

Okay., Do, you, know, who, at, the, the, select committee your staff was communicating with? Were you?

I, was, not., Okay., So,, you, didn't, have, any communications with members or staff at the select committee?

I, did, not., No. Okay., And, who, on, your, staff, did? What, I, r, what, I, recall, is, tasking, JP Cooney to do this. I don't I don't know if he then tked somebody else or if he did it himself or with somebody else but that's who I remember speaking to about this.

Okay., Um the um the book we've been referring to reports that on January 1, less than 48 hours before Republicans could lock down all the evidence or perhaps deleted entirely, I don't think we would do that. Um a committee staffer summoned an attorney from Smith's team to Capitol Hill to receive a hard drive containing the committee's work. Is that consistent with your understanding of what happened? I I wouldn't have remembered that level of detail if you hadn't read it. But we asked to get everything they would give us and we took everything they gave us and we disclosed to the defense everything we got.

Okay., You, you, disclosed, everything, you you received from the January. The, stuff, we, got, from, the, January, 6 committee. I directed my staff to disclose it to the defense.

Okay., Um, and the book reports that, you know Cooney drove to the capital and at the last minute succeeded in collecting two hard drives containing about 200 interview transcripts uh less than 24 hours before Republicans began shutting down the committee's website. Uh, is that something you have any recollection of?

That, level, of, specificity?, I, I, don't, I, I can't say that that's not accurate, but I don't recall that level of specificity. And do you know if the um the hard drives that you obtained uh contained u video of the interviews the January 6th committee conducted?

As, I, sit, here, right, now,, I, don't, recall one way or the other. If if they were in there, we uh we looked at them and we provided them to the defense, but I don't know one way or the other. And when it comes to deleting documents, um you know, while the Republicans didn't do that, what I can tell you is that the January 6th committee files when we were able to have access to them did not include the um the videos that they that they recorded. And so the question is um you know do you know and I apologize if I'm repeating this but do you know if the special counsel's office you know took act took possession of the videos and the interviews because we we didn't get it they were gone by the time we had access to it.

Yeah., As, I, sit, here, now,, I, don't, know what I recall is give us everything you can, give us any evidence you can, and then we reviewed that evidence and uh disclose it to the defense. What it included in terms of that level of specificity, I don't have that recollection right now.

Um, the, the, videos, that, they, used, at their um at the the public hearings were obviously snippets and they were um you know, they were they were cherrypicked. I don't really mean that in a pjorative way, but they were they were selected to make the points they wanted to make. Um and you know, if a if there was a defense attorney involved with the proceeding, if there was a active minority involved with that proceeding um, you know, we would have had a chance to point out that, you know, the videos are selectively edited, um, and didn't have, um, you know, the full the full context. Um, and you would agree as a prosecutor that if there is a video you'd want the whole video, not just the snippet.

Yeah,, we, we, asked, for, everything, they would give us. So, we wanted whatever they were willing to give us.

Okay. All, right., The, next, debunked, right-wing conspiracies are about election interference. As you know, Trump and Republicans claim that Jack Smith's investigation amounted to election interference, uh, political retribution and that's also part of their ridiculous criminal investigation into special counsel. They he interfered in the elections. He didn't follow DOJ policy and he interfered in the elections. Now here they're implying that the investigations into Trump moved too quickly and too aggressively. uh and and they Jack Smith went rogue and he did that to get them done before the election when in fact the election wasn't a consideration at all but rather the speed necessary for the public's right to a speedy trial. Let's listen.

getting back to the the Robert Jackson um you know statement that I read this morning. Um you know he he concludes that a sensitive a sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against abuse of power. Uh and the citizen safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth not victims who s who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility. Do you think in hindsight that that you exhibited the the kindness in dealing with President Trump that Robert Jackson events here? I think in our conducting both of these investigations, uh, we did it consistent with the best traditions of the department and the principles that, uh, Justice Jackson was talking about there. So, yes, I do think in both cases, uh, we adhere to those principles.

And, is, it, also, fair, to, say, that, you, were in fact trying to get these cases wrapped up before the election in 2024? We were trying to move these cases expeditiously. In our briefs, we cited to repeated Supreme Court precedent that states uh that uh the interest in a speedy trial, the right to a speedy trial isn't just the defendant's right it's the public's right as well.

And, uh, given, the, gravity, of, these, crimes and the public interest, uh it was our duty to move them forward as expeditiously as as we thought fair and reasonable.

Okay., So,, so, in, hindsight,, there's nothing about uh the aggressiveness of your schedule that you would have done differently.

I, thought, the, schedule, was, appropriate. Also,, I, don't, know, if, you, caught, that., I can't believe they asked him if he thought he was too mean to Donald Trump. It's like, no, we followed the facts and the law. Now, this next clip debunks the Republican theory that Jack Smith interfered in the election when he filed his 165page immunity brief. This was his response to when the Supreme Court said the president enjoys immunity. He he did a a superseding indictment and filed 165page immunity brief with all of his evidence. That was before the election.

Andy and I read that brief in full on the Unjustified podcast. It's still available if you want to hear it. We did that when it was filed. And as it turns out, the government, Jack Smith actually didn't object to releasing the evidence after the election, but the court disagreed. So, it wasn't his decision. Further, the Department of Justice policy about election interference, about not doing anything within 60 days of an election. First of all, it's just a policy, so he's not violating any law. But also, that's about overt investigatory steps like executing search warrants or indicting someone, not filing an ordered brief in an already indicted case. So, check out this clip. the the 165page brief that you filed at the beginning of October.

Did you ever was there any consideration of, maybe, filing, it, under, seal, at least until the election was over?

Well,, um obviously, you'd, have, to, go, to, the, court and all parties would have to agree, but but certainly if all parties agreed that the judge would be um immunable.

I, feel, like, this, came, up, in, the, status conference that we had. I can't recall. What I can recall though now that you're reminding me is um there was an issue and this is referenced in our final report where um we filed our brief. They were given time to file their brief. They wanted more time which would put their brief after the election. Um we had our exhibits which were really the evidence you know that we were citing. uh that evidence um they made a motion that that should that that evidence the key fact should be filed under seal

and, um, they, before, filing, their, motion usually the practice is to ask opposing counsel what's your position about this uh but they filed uh their motion before they could get our position and so we contacted the court uh and we said that we had no objection to that evidence being filed under seal um if the court agreed. Now the court ultimately did not agree and so uh this is referenced in a footnote in our report. I think that that is pretty direct evidence that we were not seeking to put the maximum amount of the facts in the public record that we were happy to have that be under seal and even after the election if that's what the court agreed.

Okay., But, you, you, could, have, you, could have sought permission to to file that big brief under seal, right? I suppose we could have and again this is where my memor is escaping me. I feel like this issue was possibly discussed with the court

and, um, I, think, the, record, of, of, what, any briefing on this what the court said will be better than my memory about this.

Okay., Did, did, you, think, it, was, important that that evidence be in the public realm before the election so um you know people could make up their mind about about who they were going to vote for? No, I did not see it as our role to provide evidence for people to make their voting decisions on. Yeah, if I if I could just to the final report on page 107, footnote 258. Um, on the 17th of October, Mr. Trump filed a motion to delay public disclosure of our appendix to the brief meaning the actual evidence.

Yeah,, sure., It's, 107. I'll, let, you, get, to, it., 107, footnote 258. Um, they, filed, a, motion, to, delay, the appendix, meaning the evidence until after he filed his own appendix, which would have been November 14th, well after the election.

Yeah. Um, so, that, both, appendixes, will, be released simultaneously after the election.

Um, he, filed, that, motion, before, obtaining our position. So we emailed the court's chambers copying defense informing the court that we did not object to that procedure. Continuing with Jack Smith swiftly and succinctly refuting right-wing conspiracies. There are so many of them and and I wanted to go over what I thought were the most important ones. Let's look at a couple clips that deal with misinformation about the search executed at Mara Lago in the classified documents case. In this next exchange, Jack Smith defended Merrick Garland's decision to search Trump's residence. That was Merrick Garland's decision. And you'll hear at the end that they had just gone through the indictment, which they had. Um, they spent a lot of time going through that whole indictment bit by bit because he couldn't talk outside of the indictment and we'll get to the reasons why in a minute, but I'm leaving that out because

we've gone over that indictment on this show and on many other shows with a fine tooththed comb. We all know what's in that indictment, but watch this.

We're, going, to, enter, into, the, record, two exhibits. I believe they'll be exhibits uh 14 and 15. Thank you. Exhibit 13 will be a House Judiciary GOP tweet uh that says, "This is what happens in third world countries, not the United States. Doesn't the FBI have better things to do than harass the former president?" And this tweet is from August 8th of 2022. And then exhibit 15 will be an August 8th, 2022 tweet from uh speaker Kevin McCarthy uh that says, "Attorney General Garland preserve your documents and clear your calendar."

What is your response to statements? And actually, I want to preface this by saying, look, I understand that you were not the special counsel when this search was uh conducted in August of 2022, but what is your response to statements made accusing the FBI of harassing Mr. Trump um in the aftermath or after the FBI conduct this court authorized search of Mara Lago?

Uh, I, I, don't, think, those, um, those statements are accurate. Do, you, uh, can, you, explain, why, you, do, not believe they're accurate? Uh the the search of the Maraago Social Club was conducted pursuant to a warrant, a search warrant as u the Department of Justice and FBI does every day, continues to do every day. Um it was approved by a United States magistrate. And uh

in, your, in, your, prosecutorial experience, can you describe what types of factors a prosecutor would have considered before seeking a court order to search someone's home or private residence? Well uh most clearly you would need to have a factual support for that basis and a need, uh, need reason to believe that evidence of a crime would be recovered and probable cause to believe it would recovered at the locations you're asking to search based on the facts.

That's, kind, we, just, went, through, for, the indictment of Eric's paragraphs. We just went through the indictment. Is that correct?

That's, correct. And do you remember when Trump and his allies tried to get the whole case tossed out because some documents had ended up out of numerical order in the boxes during transit? Now, Republicans asked about that. They harped on this for for a very long time. And then they go on to imply that Jack Smith was stealing stuff that Trump wanted to put in his presidential library. Now Smith's answer is is pretty great here. Uh and then the discussion turns into Republicans trying to allege that the documents were totally safe at Mara Lago to be stored there. Uh and then finally whether Jack Smith tried to remove Judge Cannon. That's all in this clip. Check it out.

Do, you, know, if, he, was, intending, to, save those materials for his presidential library?

You, mean, the, classified, documents? The, items, in, the, boxes., problem. Well,, if, he, if, his, defense, were, that, he was intending to take classified documents that he had no authority to take and he did it intentionally um because he wanted to uh start a presidential library um and keep those documents in the locations that we talked about today um that's a crime. No, but my question was all the all the items in the boxes, the the shirts and the the other momentos, were they being saved for a presidential library?

Uh, to, the, extent, you, you, were, able, to develop that in the course of your investigation,

you, know,, I, mean,, there, were, newspaper clippings in there. There were I I think, you know, different sorts of things that I wouldn't wouldn't to me seem like the sort of things that would be in a presidential library. I I to be honest, I've never been to a presidential library. So, um, but if I were starting one, I don't think that's the sort of things I would put in it.

Okay., But, you, didn't, develop, any evidence during the course of your investigation that the materials were intended to to be saved for presidential library.

Um, I don't recall that. And I also want to be careful of not getting outside the parameters of these filings because I don't think we addressed that issue in the filings we're talking about.

Okay., Um and during the times relevant that we're discussing Mara Lago was protected by the Secret Service. Is that correct?

That's, correct., Um, so, to, the, extent, a adversary wanted to come in and steal some of these um classified documents they would have had to gone through the Secret Service to get them. Right.

Well,, as, we, alleged, in, paragraph, 13, of the indictment, um the Secret Service provided protection services to Trump and his family after he left office including at Mara Lago. Uh but it was not responsible for the protection of boxes or their contents. And uh the the indictment states that Trump did not inform the Secret Service he was storing boxes of classified documents at Mara Lago, meaning they didn't know that they were protecting classified documents. Right. But if Joe Hugh citizen had classified documents from their time serving in government and they brought it home to their basement um and some foreign adversary was aware of that, it would be much easier for a foreign adversary to break into the Joe public's uh basement and take those classified documents. If foreign adversary wanted to go and get those documents out of Mara Lago would have been a lot more difficult. I mean

a person can't just walk into Mara Lago and and try to abscond with these materials right?

I, would, very, much, like, to, answer, that question, but I cannot answer that question due to the final report.

Okay. Was there an effort um by your office? Did you consider um seeking the removal of Judge Cannon? Uh again, uh I don't think that's in any public filing and so I cannot address that um given the the injunction

whether you know the internal office discussions involve consideration of removing Judge Cannon. I mean that's not something you can talk about.

I, don't, think, I, can, talk, about, things today. Again, consistent with our discussion this morning. If it's not in a public filing, I haven't seen the final report in almost a year. Uh I'm not comfortable discussing issues like that um because solely because of that issue.

Okay. I'm, trying, to, be, as, consistent, as, I, can about that. Okay., Um, the, the, book, by, the, Washington Post reporters that we were referencing earlier reported that you've considered and by you I mean your office your your um you know collectively the collective you um considered petitioning the removal of Judge Cannon but the solicitor general's office um recommended against it because um And and if you had gone to the attorney general, um that would have had to been reported to um publicly reported reported to Congress. Is that something you have a recollection of?

Mr., Master,, sorry., I, just, on, on, this point, I just want to make sure that we're in agreement that the Department of Justice has taken an expansive interpretation of Judge Cananan's order in its application to Mr. Smith and that he's not permitted to disclose non-public information that may be contained in volume two of the special counsel's report. Um, and I know you cited this book, but um, the email that we both received from the Department of Justice this morning said that um, this prohibition uh, does not apply to information that has been made publicly available through authorized means. And so if something was leaked to some reporters who wrote a book about it, I I I would not consider that to be made publicly available through authorized means.

Now,, up, next,, I, have, a, series, of exchanges about the Republican theory that Jack Smith had weaponized his office to go after Donald Trump and Republicans. Listen to this exchange about why Smith only charged Trump and no one else in the January 6th case. Why didn't you charge any of those folks?

I'm, sorry. Why, didn't, you, charge, any, of, those, those co-conspirators? As, we, stated, uh, in, the, uh, in, the, final report, um we analyze the evidence against different co-conspirators. Um we uh my staff determined uh that we did have evidence to charge people at a certain point in time. Uh, I had not made final determinations about that at the time that President Trump won re-election, meaning that our office was going to be closed down.

So,, yeah,, Republicans, sitting, there trying to say, "Oh, you only went after Trump. That's because you were focused on Trump and you wanted to interfere in the elections and it was political and you went rogue." That's one of that's part of their whole theory here. And he just completely set that aside u very calmly, very succinctly and said, "No, I was considering indicting others. We then had an election. Uh but uh Trump was the central reason for this whole thing. So that's who I was investigating. There was so much evidence. I love it at the end. He's like, "There was so much evidence against Trump. We had to streamline the case because we had so much evidence."

And then here's a great clip where Representative Jasmine Crockett helps Jack Smith rebut the weaponization theories by exposing the actual weaponization of Trump's Justice Department. watch.

The, majority, was, asking, you, about, why, it is that you characterized your belief that there was guilt as it relates to the indictment that you sought. Um, as a trained prosecutor, um, typically, are you supposed to go after people that you don't believe are actually guilty?

I'm, trying, to, There's, a, couple, of negatives in that question. I, know., Um, they, were, trying, to

you're, not, supposed, to, go, after, people who you believe are not guilty. Okay., Thank, you., Um in your experience of three decades, um have you ever needed to seek the same indictment three times while being rejected?

Never. Now,, this, next, one, is, pretty, great., uh, a Jordan staffer tries to shoehorn in some old Republican election conspiracy theories about Pennsylvania and Jack Smith just drops the hammer in his own subtle but devastating way. Um Mr. Jordan wanted me to point out that there was a discussion earlier um I think it was with um Congresswoman Scanland talking about the Pennsylvania election and and you I think you used the term that you know in the normal course of of of things the you know things that happen in Pennsylvania. Am I jogging your memory with this?

I, I, I, know, we, spoke, about, that., There was another uh series of questions about this, so I do remember that. Yeah.

Okay., And, we, just, wanted, to, point, out for the record that I mean there was nothing normal about what happened in Pennsylvania during the you know the the 2020 election. I mean the um you know the state legislature who ordinarily is responsible for making you know the election law picking the time plates and manner and prescribing uh the blowby-blows in an election was you know basically usurped by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Um and they changed all sorts of things in in the 2020 election. Um you know for example they said that the election instead of ending on ordinarily would end on a Tuesday election day uh was going to end on a Friday. Um the uh the Supreme Court said that where where signature verification was ordinarily required that was that was the Pennsylvania state uh legislaturator's um uh yeah that's how the the statute set up you know in terms of administering elections and the Supreme Court changed

that and said that you know signature verification wasn't required um you know the the volume of absentee ballots was completely different than an ordinary election. Um there were over two million, you know, absentee ballots. Um and so um you know, we we just wanted to point out and I guess ask you the question were you aware of all these irregularities and disparities because of the you know, because of the COVID and so forth? So many things had changed um by the time it got to election day in Pennsylvania. Uh well, what I can say uh is that um some of the issues you raised are the sort of issues that a a campaign or someone who's a candidate can raise in the courts and I believe a lot of these issues were raised in the courts.

Uh I think uh Donald Trump lost those litigations. All, right,, I've, got, two, more, clips, of Jack Smith shutting down conspiracy theories. This one is a big conspiracy theory and it it really is hampering the current Justice Department's pursuit of the alleged pipe bomber. Uh that January 6th was actually an inside job. It was carried out by the feds uh which Trump was in control of at the time. So this is a weird conspiracy theory, but that it was carried out by the feds, the deep state within the FBI. And you can kind of hear how pained this questioner is asking knowing ridiculous questions of this very serious man. Watch.

Were, you, during, the, pendency, of, the investigation um were you aware that at the capital on January 6th FBI had confidential human sources?

Uh I'm sure I probably was. I think there was public reporting on that. Um, but did you did you know that also as a part of your as part of your work?

I'm, sure., Yeah. Okay., And, do, you, know, how, many, there were? As, I, sit, here, now,, I, can't, recall., I know there was an Office of Inspector General report about this that there were no undercover officers there as had been

reported., Uh,, but, there, were, uh informants there, some who had gone on their own. And did your office oppose um President Trump's discovery request for information relating to the confidential human sources?

Uh, I, would, have, to, look, at, our, filings on that. Okay., Um, as we understand it, your office did oppose that and said any such information is not relevant to the charge conduct or as a valid defense in the case. Um and so consequently, uh, you um, were not in favor of that. Um, does that ring any question to action at all?

Uh,, I, I'm, not, disputing, what, you're saying. I haven't read the filing. What I what I recall is there was also a a database of evidence from January 6th that the DC US Attorney's Office would give access to

um, to, to, defendants, who, were, involved, in those cases and we gave President Trump and his attorneys access to that. I'm not sure they ever accessed it, but

Okay. Um, I, do, recall, that, and, and, there, may have been a filing like you talked about.

Okay., And, finally,, this, clip, refers, to the conspiracy theory that Trump tried to use to discredit the entire classified documents investigation when they alleged that Jay Brat had threatened Walt Nada's attorney, Stanley Woodward, by insinuating that uh they would shut down his application for a judgeship if he didn't get his witness Walt Nada, to cooperate with the government. That is all explained here perfectly. Do you think it was inappropriate for Mr. Brat to make a suggestion to Mr. Woodward that um you know he ought to he ought to cooperate and if he does cooperate if Mr. Matada chooses to cooperate that that you know the implication was that his his um application to be um you know a judge will be looked on more favorably by by the Democrats at the Justice Department. Uh, I don't think that happened, but I'm happy to share with you my perspective on this.

Okay. So,, um, and, let, me, just, say, one, thing, if, I, may. Sure. Um you, know,, these, judges, for, the, District of Columbia, I mean, the Justice Department weighs in on it. Is that not the case?

I, mean,, the, White, the, White, House council's office, you know, works to to um to come up with the names they're going to they're going to submit for nomination. But the way the procedure works is the justice department, you know, does the vetting.

Uh, I, don't, think, I, knew, that, until, this issue came up, which I'm happy again happy to explain.

So,, um, with, the, District, of, Columbia particularly. Okay. Um, so,, um, very, short, time, before, this matter of days, um this is right around the time we had given notice that we intended to move forward with an indictment in the classified documents case of both Mr. Trump, uh, President Trump and, um, Mr. Natada. Uh, as as is my practice in, uh, cases like this, um uh, we gave Mr. Trump's attorneys an opportunity to come in and give me arguments as to why, um, not to indict the case. And in the course of my life I've heard those arguments and sometimes not move forward on cases. uh in this particular situation because um my decision uh would ultimately be reviewed by the attorney general who could countermand it. Um that meeting was was with me and uh Bradley Wimer who was um in the Justice Department. Uh Mr.

Trump's attorneys were there. It was Jim Trusty, Lindseay Haligan, and there was a third attorney who I can't remember um but I'm sure there's a record who that was. um they gave reasons um uh why they thought the case shouldn't be indicted and for the first time this is my recollection they raised this issue that somehow Jay Brad has had threatened um Stanley Woodard now I was surprised by this because we had interacted my I hadn't but my council had interacted with Mr. Twitter numerous times over my time as special counsel. He not only represented Walt Natada, he represented other witnesses on on the classified documents case, he represented I I believe multiple people in the elections case. And so all this time passing, this has never been raised before. Uh I went back to my office. That meeting was at the main justice building. I went back to my office and uh very short shortly afterwards I informed my deputy JP

Cooney about this and Ray Hulzer about this. Um they contacted uh Mr. Woodard uh to ask him about this. Um I believe um there are notes about that notes of either JP Cooney or Ray Huler. I'm not I'm not sure. Um my recollection of that and again they would remember this better is that Mr. Woodard expressed surprise that anybody had raised this and he said something to the effect of well um I know how to to make a complaint if I want to take that for what you will. That was the initial response.

What, day, was, this? Yeah, time, frame, generally like, early, June., So, like, the, before, the meeting on with the attorneys was in the days before we ultimately went forward with the case. I'm not sure how late this letter was after this this when I came back to the office. Um Mr. um I tked Mr. Cooney and Mr. um hoser to uh speak to the people who were present for this meeting. Um none of them believed uh that Jay Brat would threaten uh Mr. Woodard. Uh it didn't make a lot of sense that a a career prosecutor would in the first meeting with a council they never met threaten them. Um one of the things they asked about was this issue about the judicial nominating thing.

And Mr. Brat explained that he had not met Mr. Woodard before and not had a case with him. So, he had looked up him up. And uh when you pull up um information about Mr. Woodard at the time, there's a page that comes up and we we attached this in one of our motions that says um Stanley Ward Judicial Nominating Commission. Um that page makes it look like he is on at least if you look at it quickly on the judicial nominating commission, not that he has a candidacy. Um Mr. Brat explained to us that he was under the impression that Mr. Woodard was on the commission and raised it as sort of like icebreaker like I understand you're on this commission. Now whether whether Mr.

Woodard misunderstood that or some other reason. Um, here he says he drew an inference that he was making some sort of threat. Uh, that didn't make a lot of sense to me given all the interactions he'd had with our office. Um, I think Mr. Woodard later started talking about a campaign against him, but he had meetings with people in my office repeatedly in positive ways. Um and finally, uh, I I also thought it was noteworthy that Mr. Order didn't bring up this issue for many months.

Uh,, and, then, the, first, time, that, he brings it up in this letter, he's doing it to seek strategic advantage because he didn't report it to um, OPR. Didn't want it reported OPR. Never asked that. and now he wants it not only reported to OPR, but he actually wants to delay the indictment of the case until that's concluded. Um, I will say that when we um confronted um I say we my uh my deputy spoke to Mr. uh Brat about this he self-reported it to OPR, which is um pretty standard in these sort of situations. And so um and I would also just say this was some time ago. We did a filing on this that I believe is public and that filing will reflect my best recollection of these things and so I did not credit these allegations. Um but um I we made they were we made sure they were referred to OPR.

There's, nothing, like, our, elected, members of Congress providing important oversight for themselves. Uh, the number one grievance from Republicans in the behind closed doors interview of Jack Smith wasn't anything that impacts the American people or government generally. They're mad that Jack Smith got their phone records. And and not even the content, just the toll records so they could see when calls were placed and to whom. And I'm not going to bore you with the dozens and dozens of pages of whining Republicans whining about these toll records, but I do have a couple of clips that I thought were important that I wanted to share that illustrate how Jack Smith handled these questions. Here's a clip that includes Jack Smith using Jim Jordan himself as an example. after you became the special counsel um that information obtained from the subpoena um you know was available to the special

counsel team. What did the team do with it after you became you know after you were sworn in?

You, mean, when, you, say, that, information you're talking about the to the, full, record, subpoena, for, for, the chairman of the committee? Um well I can tell you that for example um there were um there was contact on for example January 6th um that again an another example for you is um Mark Meadows uh when he uh interviewed when we interviewed him um uh he referenced the fact that that afternoon Chairman Jordan had been in contact with the White House uh and like uh Congressman McCarthy 's um contact with the White House. It was relevant because and again Meadows stated this that these were supporters. These were credible people that the the president relied on. And I I what I recall was um uh Meadows stating that um I've never seen Jim Jordan scared of anything. And the fact that we were in this different situation now where people were scared really made it clear that what was going

on at the capital could not be mistaken for anything than what it was. And it it goes back to that sort of information from someone who is a credible source to the president. Proving that that actually happened and that there's actually a record of that call and exactly when it happened and what actions happened after that or didn't happen after that. extremely probative to our case.

Right., But, DOJ, took, Mr., Jordan's, phone records from January 2020 through November. Um through January of the subsequent I mean what what on earth could could the Justice Department want with with his phone records before time's relevant?

Sure., And, the, the, breadth, of, that subpoena was before I was special counsel and I wasn't involved in the deliberations about um seeking that subpoena or the breath of it and so I can't speak to that.

Okay. I, mean, anyone, else, remember, Jim, Jordan on TV being asked if he spoke to the president on January 6th? I talk to the president all the time. I don't even know what you're talking about. Maybe. I don't know. I talk to him all the time. I talk to him all the time. I talk to the president. I'm a congressman. It's not weird. Oh my gosh, it was it was hard to watch. Uh, but there it is laid out for you by Jack Smith. Now, here's some related questioning about who should be held accountable for the terrible, terrible crime of subpoenaing members of Congress according to the law.

You have to watch this. you know, to the extent um members of Congress and and senators are are are um up in arms that this happened to them uh and they're seeking accountability. Um you know, who should be held accountable for for answering these questions?

Well,, I, think, who, should, be, accountable for this is Donald Trump. These records are are people in the case of the senators, Donald Trump directed his co-conspirators to call these people to further delay the proceedings. He chose to do that. If Donald Trump had chosen to call a number of Democratic senators we would have got toll records for a dem Democratic senator. So, responsibility uh for why these records, why we collected them, that's that lies with Donald Trump.

Donald, Trump, Donald, Trump, should, be, held responsible. He chose them. He called them or he asked Meadows to tell Epstein to tell Meadows to call them. He did. He chose those people. not Jack Smith. So maybe don't get on the phone and do crimes if you don't like it when you're uh when your toll records are subpoenaed. And when Jim Jordan is tired of being embarrassed, he sends in his staffers. This happens a lot. Either that or he just didn't doesn't think it's that important. And Jack Smith explains again why the toll records are legal and necessary. This time using Kevin McCarthy as an example. But do you know what what happens with the records once they get them?

Uh, the, analysis, like, how, they, do, the analysis. What, do, you, do, with, the, records?

That, that, would, not, be, in, my, area, of expertise. How how the analysis is actually conducted.

And, how, does, that, get, rolled, back, into the team? What, do, you, mean? The, team's, work,, the, prosecutor's, work. Um,

so, you, you, subpoenaed, um, Speaker McCarthy's um co-records uh after he became speaker and you sought records from November 2020 through January 8th, 2021. Like what were you looking for with his records? Like what what did you do with the information you obtained? Okay. So, what the relevance of those records um there'd be several examples but um his contacts with um either co-conspirators, the president or conduits of information to the president was relevant to our investigation. And an example I could give you is on January 6th, uh we had information uh from Mark Meadows who was present um for a call uh where Congressman McCarthy was asking for help.

Um, he, was, asking, um, the, president, to come to his aid um while the the capital was being seized. Um getting the exact toll records for when that happened um was relevant for our investigation both to question other witnesses about so we had, an, accurate, timeline, uh and, also, to corroborate that the call happened in approximately the time witnesses said it it it happened.

But, it's, pretty, significant, to, subpoena the speaker of the house's toll records. Right.

Uh, we, followed, department, policy, and, we followed all legal requirements in getting those records. I mean, you know to get the information you're looking for, nobody disputed the speaker and the president were having communications on on January 6th. Um, so one way you could have gotten that information is you could have asked the speaker's lawyer to look at his phone records and to give you the information you needed, right?

Well,, you, say, now, that, nobody's disputing. Uh but my experience in criminal investigations is that people people often at trial dispute things that you never thought were going to be in dispute during the investigation. And so when I conduct a criminal investigation, I don't assume there will be no disputes. Uh having a record that is a hard record about a time in the timeline that afternoon was particularly important uh because uh that violence started.

The, president, refused, to, stop, it., um, he endangered the life of his vice president and he's getting calls and not just not calls from from Democrats, not calls from people he doesn't know, calls from people he trusts, calls from people he relies on uh and still refuses um to come to the aid of the people at the capital. That's very important evidence for criminal intent in our case

right?, But, you, could, have, asked, Elliot Burke for that information, the speaker's lawyer. You could have asked Elliot Burke to say, "Can you get us the speaker's, you know, phone records for this time?" and he probably would have said of course in avoiding a toll record subpoena.

And, your, and, your, question, why, didn't, you, do, that? Uh,, we, got, these, records, in, a, manner that was consistent with the law and consistent with department policy. There was nothing improper about how we got these records.

All right., Next,, I'd, like, to, share, a, few exchanges about Jack Smith's strategies both for the investigations themselves and some things that he had planned for trial and how to bring witnesses and which witnesses to bring. Here's an exchange with Jamie Rascin about why Jack Smith charged Trump with Title 18 US Code section 241, conspiracy against rights. A lot of folks were expecting him to be charged with inciting an insurrection uh or sedition. Uh but Jack Smith went with uh section 241 and he explains why. I served on the January 6 select committee and we spent a lot of time looking through the criminal statutes that may have been implicated uh in the attack on the peaceful transfer of power, the attempt to overthrow the election and then the violent assault on the capital. And we in our conclusions uh cited a number of statutes um which ended up I think being part of your investigation including

conspiracy to obstruct federal proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, false statements and so on. But you added something which uh I think uh was very interesting which was a conspiracy to violate voting rights which is something that we hadn't done and I wonder if you would take a moment to expound on why you thought you had sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a conspiracy to violate the voting rights of the people.

Sure., Uh, the, right, to, vote, in, a presidential election is one of the most sacred rights that American has um Americans have. And um in this particular case um we had uh strong evidence uh that the defendants in this case uh sought to interfere with obstruct injure that right. Uh we had evidence in just a couple examples where um President Trump was asking local officials to find 11,000 votes. Uh when you find 11,000 votes, you're diluding other people's votes. Uh we had evidence that they were targeting certain states and particularly certain parts of certain states, generally urban parts of states, uh to have those votes thrown out with no factual basis whatsoever.

Um, I believe we cited this in our final report, but there's even statements of the co-conspirators in this case, at least one I'm coming to mind now, you know, specifically saying we want to get rid of these votes. We want to to subtract them and uh diluting the vote count in that way. Um, there's strong precedent for for that uh being a violation of of of the statute that we charge.

Now,, next, up, is, a, fascinating, exchange. This one really stood out to me uh as one of the the more important exchanges in this testimony because I constantly asked myself throughout the entirety of the Trump, you know, being here in politics actually, not just the entirety of the investigation, but since he rolled down that golden escalator. I always wondered if they believe their own lies. Now, this clip starts with questions about which members of Congress Trump interacted with, and it ends with us learning that neither Rudy Giuliani nor Trump himself believed their own election lies, and that Jack Smith had proof of that. Check this out.

Okay,, so, let's, dig, down, a, little, bit, in that. Let's start on January 6. So, I believe in the evening. Uh, did your investigation uncover or learn that Mr. Trump personally called members of Congress on the evening of January 6th.

Yes. Uh, do, you, remember, who, those, members were? Um I'd have to look at the records to be sure, but the best of my recollection he was trying to get in touch uh directly himself with Senator Holly and Senator Hagerty. Um, and then there were several senators uh who uh he directed uh Rudy Giuliani to get in touch with.

And, who, were, those, senators, that, Mr. Trump directed Mr. Giuliani to get in contact with to the best of your recollection? to the best of my recollection and and this comes from a um email or I think it was a text maybe that Boris Epstein sent to Mark Meadows and it basically said something to the effect of uh the president told the mayor to call these senators and they needed numbers and what our what our investigation ultimately showed was they they sent that text after they'd already started trying to call members uh and didn't think they had and ended up understanding that they didn't have the right phone numbers. In fact, the message that they left for um Senator Lee, which he voluntarily provided to our office, uh that was meant for Senator Tuberville, I believe.

And the message that uh he left for Senator Sullivan, I believe it was was for Senator uh the name's escaping me now, but it was another senator that he meant to call. Um we had also interviewed um Boris Epstein uh before these subpoenas were issued. He corroborated that they were in fact trying to call senators. uh he dissembled and tried to imply that the president hadn't directed him to do it even though there was a text message saying specifically that they had. Uh but he agreed that they tried to call these senators and that they had certain senators numbers themselves and so they didn't need those numbers and that would be I believe it was Senator Cruz and possibly I think he said they possibly tried to call Senator Graham as well. I want to touch on a point because it seems like the evidence you uncovered showed certain members of Congress including Republicans, pushing back on this assertion about the big lie, and

I'm characterizing some of these um claims about the the election as the big lie. Is that is that okay if I if I use that term?

You, can, use, whatever, term, you, like. Oh,, I'm, going, to, use, the, big, lie., So,, do you do you recall any evidence uh when you were talking to Mr. Giuliani that he truly believed all the voter fraud claims that he was putting out around the the country.

Uh, our, our, evidence, was, he, did, not., And in fact, when we interviewed him, uh he disavowed a number of the claims. He claimed they were mistakes or hyperbole. Even the claim about Ruby Freeman where he, you know, basically destroyed this poor woman's life by claiming um she was a vote scammer. Uh, President Trump did the same thing in a recorded call with Secretary of State. Uh, he disavowed things he'd said uh, in that interview.

All, right., Next, up, is, Rep., Zolofrren, who gets to the bottom of why Roger Stone and Steve Bannon weren't charged. I had thought they should be immunized. I thought they should be questioned, but Jack Smith explains why he didn't go down that road. We attempted in the January 6 committee to um question Peter Navaro as well as um Steve Bannon and they were both prosecuted and spent time in jail. Um Roger Stone appeared but uh took the fifth. Were you able to um provide to to get information from any of those three individuals and in case of Mr. stone provide uh use immunity so that he would have to testify.

We, did, not. Why, not? Uh, we, pursued, the, uh, investigative, uh, uh routes that we thought were the most fruitful. We pursued those that we thought were uh necessary to get a complete understanding of the scope of the conspiracy. And given uh the highly uncooperative nature of the individuals you talked about, uh I didn't think it would be fruitful to try to question them. And the sort of information that they could provide is in my view wasn't worth immunizing them for their own possible conduct.

Thank, you. Next,, Jack, Smith, lists, some, of, Trump's knowingly false claims of election fraud. We know uh most of these from the indictment if you read the indictments and the court filings, but it's something else to hear Jack Smith lay them out one after the other off the top of his head. His command of the facts are unimpeachable. Watch.

So,, I, want, I, want, to, start, with, how, that level of distrust was created. Um in your report, you say, and this is a quote, "The through line of all of Mr. Trump's criminal efforts was deceit knowingly false claims of fraud." Can you gently describe some of these annoyingly false claims of fraud that were spread uh after the 2020 election?

Sure., There, there's, a, number, of, them., Um uh and and you know, part of the explanation is is why they're false. And so, you know, to just off the top of my head, an example is um there uh was um he was on notice in this election that um in Pennsylvania, for example, that he would be ahead um in the vote count for a period of time and then when the mail and ballots were counted, his lead would dissipate. uh he chose to represent that phenomena that he'd been briefed on that was normal course of an election that all sides knew that that's how it was going to be. He chose to present that as evidence of fraud. Uh and to people who are not maybe as informed as him or informed as um his campaign managers who told him these things. Um that's the sort of thing that creates distrust.

There were fraud claims in, you know Michigan, Georgia, where he was specifically disabused by people he trusted, by political allies, by the people um when he chose to call them who are best situated to know in Georgia. I'm thinking of the Secretary of State. Um he reflexively rejected those things and continued to state false things after he'd been told that repeat repeatedly that they weren't true.

And, why, was, it, important?, It, probably goes to the minds, but why was it important of all of these repeat uh statements from individuals that his that Donald Trump's claims were untrue? How did that play into your overall investigative findings?

Well,, I, think, the, the, pattern, and, the depth of the pattern and the length of the pattern um was pretty damning evidence that he knew these things were false. um he only uh brought fraud claims that involved um states that he'd lost. He only approached people um generally who had party allegiance to him. Uh when he was told that a fraud claim wasn't true he didn't stop making it. Um, another example I can give is that um, Sydney Powell, who's alleged as one of the co-conspirators, um, was part of his his team um, at the beginning of this conspiracy. Uh shortly after she began making statements that, uh, really nobody could credit um that that were facially false.

And um at some point um Giuliani made a statement that she wasn't on the legal team anymore. Uh and Trump at one point was on a call, President Trump, uh where he he bas, if I recollect it right, he muted the call and said she was was crazy. Uh but then after that point, he continued to promote her fraud claims and lawsuits. he uh try um considered putting her as a special counsel uh even though um he'd admitted you know, he used the word crazy um and the statement she was making could by any reasonable person be viewed as as true. And so I think that sort of like claims that were so outlandish and so just fantastical um continuing to push those sort of claims after they've been disabused was strong evidence of our of our case.

So, Jack, Smith, had, evidence, that, Trump knew and understood the red mirage especially in Pennsylvania. Do you remember that? the red mirage, meaning the initial vote would look very red and then that would be chipped away slowly and his lead would dissipate as more mail-in votes were counted. And Jack Smith had evidence that Trump knew about that. He knew about the red mirage, but claimed it was fraud anyhow and used that to break the law. So that's not part of your First Amendment rights, and we'll talk more about that later. He knew he was lying about election fraud.

So the next logical question is whether Trump knew he actually lost the election. And I have to say just another stellar example of Jack Smith's command of details and his recall. Watch.

Did, President, Trump, ever, acknowledge that he knew that he had actually lost the election of President Biden?

Yeah., So, this, paragraph, references different um statements that he made in the presence of other people. One is that uh it doesn't matter if you won or lost the election, you still fight like hell. And then uh the other was uh can you believe I lost to this effing guy.

So, referring, to, to, uh, Joe, Biden. So if this would have gone to a trial and using your years of experience um being a prosecutor and a trial attorney how would you have argued this admission Mr. Trump or how could you what's a way you could have argued this admission um for Mr. Trump to a jury? Well, I I think I I saw these admissions as corroborative of of the larger case. Um, we would have presented um what I viewed as very strong witnesses from each state to explain how the elections occurred in that state and why the events uh the outcomes were trustworthy and debunking various flaw fraud claims that um President Trump made. uh we would present we would have presented the false claims that he made uh repeatedly interspersed with debunkings to him uh or um other evidence that showed they weren't true and that that they that evidence got to him. This this sort of evidence would corroborate that um um but it would sort

of be the the cherry on top, if you will. the the evidence that I felt was most powerful was the evidence that came from people in his own party uh who as I said earlier put country before party and were willing to tell the truth to him even though it could mean trouble for them. Uh I think witnesses like that in my experience would be very powerful witnesses in front of a jury and this sort of evidence that you're pointing to here would be extra but I think those other evidence those other witnesses would be very strong proof. All right next up we have Jack Smith thoughts on uh whether the Supreme Court's immunity ruling exonerated Trump. That's something else that a lot of right-wing influencers claimed as soon as the Supreme Court granted him immunity that it somehow exonerated him from these crimes. But Smith shuts that down as well.

Mr., Smith,, do, you, believe, that, the Supreme Court's decision on executive immunity uh constitutes an exoneration of President Trump's conduct in the months and weeks leading up to January 6 or on January 6th?

No. Would, you, just, explain, that, for, us, why you don't see that as an exoneration for what he did?

Sure., Um I I understand the Supreme Court decision. Uh if I just go back for a second, this was an issue we litigated in the district court. The district court agreed with us. We litigated it in the court of appeals. Court of Appeals agreed with us. We litigated in the Supreme Court. Supreme Court majority did not agree with us. Uh they took a view of executive power that was more expansive than what we argued. Um I disagreed with it for the reasons we set forth in our brief uh and the reasons stated by the disscent in the case uh Justice Sotomayor. Uh but it is the law of the land. Uh and um what my office sought to do in re in um responding to that was to follow the law and see do we still have a case and um I think the the evidence that we had uh after that um decision remained powerful.

All right., And, let's, end, this, blog, with Smith's thoughts on Trump pardoning the insurrectionists and why he thinks that's that is in contravention to to the rule of law. Watch.

I, believe, your, um your report talks about the riers the crowd that violently attacked the law enforcement officers attempting to secure the building on page 25 of of your report. Uh, one of those riers was Daniel Rodriguez, who multiple times plunged a stun gun into the neck of officer Michael Fenone, uh, causing officer Fenown to suffer a heart attack and sustain other injuries. Mr. Rodriguez was subsequently sentenced to 12 years in prison uh, after a federal judge called him a quote oneman army of hate. Are you aware of President Trump pardoning Mr. Daniel Rodriguez?

I am I not him specifically but my understanding is he pardoned all the people who uh violently assaulted police officers that day.

So, in, pardoning, all, the, people, who assaulted police officers that day. Another example is a Mr. Patrick Maki III who used a stolen police riot to a police riot shield to crush officer Daniel Hodgees in a metal door frame at the entrance of the lower west uh terrace tunnel. when he left officer Hud Hajes trapped, bleeding, uh even crying for help from his fellow officers. Um officer Hodes testified, and this is a quote, "If if I was there much longer being assaulted in such a way, I knew that there was very likely I wouldn't be able to maintain my consciousness." Uh Judge Trevor McFaden described Mr. McKay as a quote poster child of all that was dangerous and appalling about January 6 uh stating that his actions were quote some of the most egregious crimes ever committed that day. end quote. Mr. McKay was sentenced to more than seven years in prison. Are you aware that Mr. McKay was one of those riers who assaulted law

enforcement on January 6th that were pardoned by President Donald Trump? Again,, I, don't, know, his, specific, name, but I know people like him who did things like he did were pardoned.

And, are, you, aware, of, the, more, than, 140 police officers who were injured by the proTrump mob on January 6th? sustaining injuries such as cracked ribs, traumatic brain injuries, smashed spinal discs uh, and heart attacks as riers used bats, flag poles, chemical sprays stolen police shields, and batons to beat officers. Are you aware of those facts from that day?

Very, much, so. U,, do, you, believe, that, pardoning individuals like this who committed crimes against law enforcement that day makes our country safer?

It, does, not,, in, my, view., Can, you, explain why from your prosecutorial experience prosecuting gangs, prosecuting violent crimes, why pardoning individuals who um committed violence on January 6th doesn't make our country safer?

Well,, uh, I, don't, think, it's, really, my opinion. Uh I think we've already seen some of the people who were pardoned go on to commit other serious crimes and I don't have much doubt that in the coming months and years we'll see more of that. people who would otherwise be incarcerated, communities protected from them. They're going to be they're um out in communities. And my my view is that we will continue, unfortunately, to see people who were pardoned um for committing violence on January 6th uh continuing to commit additional crimes.

That's my view. You know, I I I just uh I don't understand why you would pardon people who assaulted law enforcement. I think it sends lots of messages. One of the messages is to law enforcement. The people uh who defended the capital that day in my view are heroes. And um I think pardoning people who assaulted them is wrong.

You, may, have, noticed, there's, not, a, lot of testimony about the classified documents case. And there's a reason for that. Judge Cannon, Judge Eileen Cannon still has a standing order blocking the release of volume 2 of Jack Smith's final report. She set it to expire February 24th. The 11th Circuit said it to expire just this Friday, January 2nd. Uh so we're keeping an eye on that. But he addressed that multiple times during the hearing. And here's how he answered an early question about it.

Before, I, turn, over, to, Mr., Jaw,, are, you able to speak about volume two today?

I'm, not. Uh, can, you, explain, what, you, can, and cannot speak about perspective volume two? Uh well, there is an order um of Judge Cannon, an injunction uh regarding volume two. Uh I want to make very clear that I do not want to do anything to violate that injunction or that order. And so uh given that I have not seen looked at volume two since I submitted it to the attorney general almost a year ago, uh I do not have a uh exact recollection of what is in there and not. And so, uh, unless something is, uh, in a public filing or and people can point me to a public filing or in, uh, I think the category that was mentioned in the letter that we got this morning of publicly, uh, I I can't remember the terminology, but, uh properly publicly released information.

Uh, I do not want to I want to be clear. I do not want to violate that order, and I don't want to do anything that could even be remotely construed as violating that order. Wait, so I'm sorry, but DOJ did not let you review volume two of your report.

They, It, may, well, have, been, there,, but, I chose not to review it because I didn't want any implication whatsoever that I was somehow violating the order by looking at it, not being a member of the department. Now

and, then, Dan, Goldman, asks, about, volume two, but in the context of Trump yanking Jack Smith's security clearance, which Smith says is actually quite normal when you leave government. Uh, but the security clearance of his attorneys will come up in a later clip. But watch this. C,

can, I, go, back, to, volume, two, just, for, a second? You said that they that the department gave you access to volume two and you chose not to use it.

That's, correct., Okay., Did I, I I, believe, so., I, I, I, did, not, given the injunction want to look at that. And so I believe it was there, but I I I I was looking at other things. cuz I did look at that.

Did, they, give, you, access, to, uh, any classified information that was a part of your files?

No. Um was uh did you did you or your attorneys have any discussions with the department about that?

I, I, don't, recall. Do, you, still, have, your um security clearance? No. Um when and how was that taken away?

Uh, I, I, think, in, the, normal, course, of things when you leave government service you sign papers basically saying you don't have your sec security clearance anymore. That's I it's vague but that's my recollection of what happened at my conclusion of my service. Okay.

Do, you, know, if, your, attorneys, requested for you to have temporary security clearance so you could review your own files?

I, I, don't, believe, we, did., Um,, and because you didn't look at the volume two that were they provided to you, you don't know whether or not classified material was provided to you in that in that volume.

Again,, I, don't, want, to, speak, about anything that could infer the content of of volume two.

And, of, course,, don't, forget, Kosh, Patel comes up in volume two. That's why a lot of senators uh at least on the Democratic side wanted to get volume two while considering and providing advice and consent when Kosh Patel was nominated to be the FBI director cuz he's in volume two. So he's asked about that. Um and uh he comes up with uh he comes up and the Kosh Patel comes up in this exchange. So watch how Jack Smith handles this.

In, the, last, hour, with, the, minority,, Mr. Smith, you talked we asked you about folks that were interviewed during the course of your January 6th investigation. I think we talked about Mr. Giuliani, we mentioned Mr. Meadows we mentioned Vice President Pence. An individual that um I failed to ask about was whether you interviewed Director Cash Patel as part of your investigation with special counsel's office.

Uh I can't get into that because of the um Judge Canon's injunction. Okay., Uh,, did, Director, Patel, testify before the grand jury as part of your investigation?

Same, answer. Can, you, mind, saying, that, just, for, the record to make it direct?

I, I, cannot, um, answer, that, question, due to Judge Canon's injunction. And, did, Dr., or, Director, Patel, assert, his right against self-inccrimination as part of your investigation?

Can't, answer, that, question. Uh,, in, general,, just, using, your, years, of experience as a prosecutor, are you aware of any prohibitions uh that would prevent Mr. Patel, Director Patel from disclosing his own testimony if he did testify with the special counsel's office.

Just, as, a, general, matter,, not, specific to anything with this case. My understanding is the witnesses can disclose their own testimony.

Thank, you. All, right., Next,, we, have, a, couple, of questions about why this testimony happened behind closed doors and not publicly because there was a public back and forth with letters between Jim Jordan and Jack Smith's attorneys. So here's an exchange with Jared Moscowitz. Watch this. Did you see the comments by the president's chief of staff talking about retribution?

I, did. So, everyone was fired. You're here on a deposition. Your lawyers lost their security clearance. Seems like it needs not only the definition in Webster, it seems like this is exactly what Trump's chief of staff was talking about.

No., Uh,, I, have, no, doubt, that, the president wants to seek retribution against me. Uh, I have no doubt um that um that's the intent.

You, got, the, exact, quote, was, he, doesn't wake up thinking about it, but when there's an opportunity, he goes for it. I mean, this seems like a opportunity. Do you think uh the White House gave instructions to Chairman Jordan to to set this deposition?

So, I, am, eyes, wide, open, that, this president will seek retribution against me if he can. Um I I know that uh I don't frankly connect that with this hearing. Um I don't have any connection. I came here. I was asked to come.

You, think, there, were, zero, conversations between the White House and Chairman Jordan?

I, don't, know., But, I'm, here, in, good, faith and I was asked to come testify.

So,, it's, interesting, that, this, took place behind closed doors. Uh Jim Jordan denied it. I think we can tell by the content of the interview and the release in that the the fact that they released it in the evening on New Year's Eve. Uh that Jim Jordan was very glad that he didn't interview Jack Smith in public. Um, and here's Congresswoman Gyipal asking about whether Smith would still be willing to testify publicly at some point in the future.

And, why, were, you, willing, to, appear voluntarily in a public? Uh,, we, conducted, our, investigation, in, a way that I'm proud of. I'm particularly proud of the people I conducted the investigation with and and I wanted to speak for them. And is it generally the practice of special counsel to appear in a public hearing? I know you have a couple of questions on this, but I want to reiterate this.

That, is, my, general, understanding., Yes. And, uh, can, you, tell, us, again, why, the, I understand you want to stick up for the prosecutors, the people that were part of the investigation. Can you tell us why it's important for the American people to hear directly from you about your investigation, what you discovered the process that you went through? Well, as I said in the beginning of I think of my opening remarks, uh there have been mischaracterizations about my work. Uh the um we did our work and the best traditions of the department and I I know I keep coming back to this. Uh but the attacks that the mischaracterizations that most offend me are not just prosecutors but career FBI agents, support staff in the department.

Uh these are people who uh devoted their lives to public servants to being public servants. They have not um they're not self-promoters. They're not people who like to go in front of the cameras and defend themselves. And uh I feel that they have been vilified in a way that I think is awful.

What's, the, effect, of, that, on, their democracy? Well,, I, think, it, drives, people, away, from public service.

Yeah. Is, it, a, form, of, witness, intimidation?, I I think it I think it's even deeper than that. I think, you know, when we get to um attacking the people who are the good guys,

Yeah. Um, I, just, don't, know, where, that, goes., I I it's, counter, to, how, I, was, raised.

And, let, me, ask, you,, even, after, this deposition today, are you still willing to appear at a public hearing before this committee and speak directly to the American people about your investigation?

Yes. Notice he's Jack Smith is very adamant. This came up over and over again in his testimony. He's very adamant about standing up for the people, the career prosecutors and agents at the FBI and people who worked at the DOJ and prosecutors on his team, all of the people on his staff that worked for him. He's very, very keen on defending them and their honor. That is quite a difference from people like Kosh Patel and Dan Bonino who never mention their employees ever. They are just like it's been the honor of a lifetime to work for Trump by uh you know cuz Dan Bonino is leaving. But they never mention them.

They never stick up for them. And Jack Smith is making sure to do that uh in this testimony. Like I said, it happened quite a bit. Now, earlier I said we'd get into the First Amendment arguments and although Jack Smith laid all this out in detail in the indictments and won litigation in briefings over the fact that the First Amendment doesn't cover fraud and its wellestablished president up to and including the Supreme Court Republicans still can't get the hang of how the First Amendment works. Here is a Republican staffer trying to first of all normalize what Trump did on January 6th and Jack Smith refuting it soundly.

the president's statements that he believed the election uh was rife with fraud, those certainly are statements that are protected by the first amendment. Correct.

Absolutely, not., If, they, are, made, uh, to target a lawful government function and they are made uh with knowing falsity. No, they're not. That that was my point about uh fraud not being protected by the First Amendment.

I, mean,, there's, a, long, list, of, disputed elections. I mean the election of 1800 um 1960 year 2000 um where candidates believe they were wronged by the you know because they lost um and there's a long history of of candidates speaking out about they believe there's been fraud, there's been um other other you know problems with the integrity of the election process. And I think you would agree that those types of statements are sort of at the core um of the first amendment rights of a of a presidential candidate, right?

Uh, there, is, no, historical, analog, for what President Trump did in this case. Um as we said in the indictment, uh he was free um to say that he thought he won the election. He was even uh free to say uh falsely that he won the election. But what he was not free to do was violate federal law and use knowing uh knowingly false statements about election fraud uh to target a lawful government function. That he was not allowed to do. And that differentiates this case uh from any any past history. Now, here's Jack Smith again discussing the very clear carveout for fraud which, you know, again, citing case law off the top of his head. Um, and he compares that with what Trump did. Uh he compares what Trump did on January 6th to affinity fraud. He likes it to affinity fraud. This is a very good succinct argument. If there's anybody in your life who doesn't quite understand how you fraud isn't covered by the First

Amendment, this is a great clip to play for them. Can, you, help, now, bring, us, full, circle, on how you analyze the First Amendment claims with the knowledge uh of the fraud that Mr. Trump was putting out to the American public in 2020 and 2021?

Sure., Uh, from, a, legal, perspective,, um this is really quite clear. Uh I think all of us want to make sure people's first amendment rights are not abridged in a way uh that they shouldn't be. I think I I certainly feel that way. I'm sure everybody in this room feels that way. Uh but there is a very clear um carveout for fraud uh in our case law. Supreme Court um uh I think there's one case is the Stevens case um talks about that and um and there are others. Uh and so when you're committing a fraud meaning you're not just saying something that's untrue, you're saying it knowing it's untrue or with reckless disregard for the truth, uh that's not that's not protected by the First Amendment. Uh people commit crimes all the time using words. Uh and uh when someone commits a fraud uh an investment fraud or someone commits what uh an affinity fraud where you try to um gain someone's trust uh

get them to trust you as a general matter and then you rip them off. You defraud them. That's all words. Um but it's not protected by the First Amendment. And in a lot of ways, this case was an infinity fraud. Um the president had people who he had built up who had built up trust in him including people in his own party and he prayed on that. Um some people wouldn't do it, others would. Um we're lucky that enough wouldn't uh that the election was upheld.

All right., All right., And, to, wrap, it, up today, I wanted to point out some exchanges about the threats uh that Jack Smith faces and his staff and his team and his lawyers uh and the retribution that he's facing. He's facing a criminal investigation into his investigations. And these lines of questioning are important in the face of the onslaught of Republican questioning that happened over the past eight hours of testimony implying that Jack Smith is the one weaponizing the Justice Department. And here in this clip, Jamie Rascin asked Jack Smith about the removal of career professionals by the Trump administration. Have you made any statements or are you willing to make any statements on the firing and removal of Department of Justice prosecutors who worked on January 6th on people at the FBI who were involved in the FBI investigation uh or on the president's uh mass summary pardon of 1600 January

6th insurrectionists and other people involved? Uh, yeah., Um,, I, think, what, has, happened to career prosecutors and career FBI agents is awful. It's contrary to the rule of law. It's contrary to who I who I think we are as a country. Uh, one of the agents on our case. He um he served his country overseas multiple times, war zones. family of dedicated public servants. Wife's family dedicated public servants. Uh he got fired for doing his job. Two weeks after his wife died I went to the funeral. I saw his family. I saw a church full of public servants.

No reason a person like that should have to go through that. And I'm getting emotional. I'm sorry about that. But um I just think that's wrong.

And, in, this, next, exchange, uh, he, lays, out Trump's weaponization um and retribution against Jack Smith pretty succinctly.

Mr., Smith,, you, spoke, earlier, today, about threats and attacks against um made by Donald Trump against witnesses um prosecutors, judges who had challenged him, including threats against yourself. Do you remember that?

Yes. So, did President Trump target you personally in posts um Truth Social? Yes., Are, you, aware,, for, example,, that, he called you a quote deranged lunatic unquote uh quote Trump hater unquote and quote psycho?

Yes. Do, you, recall, that, uh, on, October, 15th this year, President Trump speaking to reporters standing next to the attorney general and the deputy attorney general said, quote, "Deranged Jack Smith, in my opinion, is a criminal." unquote. Uh then he also talked about investigating Lisa Monaco, Andrew Weissman, and Adam Schiff, saying, quote, "I hope they're looking at all these people and I'm allowed to find out. I'm in theory the chief law enforcement officer," unquote.

Yes,, I'm, aware, of, that., And, are, you aware that President Trump posted on Truth Social on October 29th of this year that quote, "These thugs should all be investigated and put in prison. A disgrace to humanity, deranged Jack Smith is a criminal with four ex with three exclamation marks," unquote.

That, may, be, I, I, know, there, were, several posts like this. Okay., Um,, do, you, think, those, were, a direction potential direction to the Department of Justice to retaliate against you because of your role as special counsel in the investigation of him?

Yes. You, are, joined, by, your, counsel, today from coming uh from Cington and Berling. Is that right?

Yes., And, did, President, Trump, or, the White House take any actions against your attorneys due to his due to their relationship with you?

Yes. And, what, action, did, they, take? Uh, they, uh, filed, an, executive, order against uh the law firm and sought to withdraw the security clearances of my attorney.

Okay., I'm, just, going, to, offer, this, as exhibit 20. And this is exactly what you just talked about. So, exhibit 20 is an executive order issued by

I, know, it the, White, House, on, February, 25,, 2025 and it is entitled suspension of security clearances and evaluation of government contracts. And I just want to read into the record that this executive order says, I hereby direct the attorney general and all other relevant heads of executive departments and agencies to immediately take steps consistent with applicable law to suspend any active security clearances held by Peter Kausski and all members, partners, and employees of Cington and Berling LLP, who assisted former special counsel Jack Smith during his time as special counsel pending a review and determination of their roles or responsibilities, if any, in the weaponization of the judicial process.

And the executive order also directs the attorney general and heads of agencies to take such action as are necessary to terminate any engagement of Coington and Berling RP by any agency to the maximum extent permitted by law and consistent with the memorandum that shall be issued by the director of the office of management and budget. Did I read that correctly?

Yes. Um, to your knowledge, is this executive order still in effect? Uh,, I, believe, it, is.

What, do, you, think, was, his, purpose, for issuing this executive order? Uh,, to, seek, retribution, against, me.

Is, it, also, to to harm your relationship with your attorney and to make it more difficult for lawyer to represent you? I think it's to chill uh people from having an association with me.

I, just, want, to, say, for, the, record,, we're still here proud to represent Jack Smith.

And, I, figured, we'd, end, the, show, on, my favorite moment. Um I think that this tiny little piece of testimony uh spoke volumes and it and it and it came pretty early on in the testimony, too. And I think it sort of set the tone for how the rest of the testimony would go. Like I said, despite the numerous conspiracy theories that Republicans have about Jack Smith's investigation and what really happened uh, you know, what they say really happened on January 6th, they seemed reticent to continue to parrot those ridiculous talking points uh, in the face uh, of Jack Smith because of his demeanor and the things that he was saying, his succinct answers, his recall of law and case citations.

So, I think that even though I I want to end on this clip, even though it came early uh early on in his testimony, but I think it's um I think it's just a really good way I think it's just a really good way to end uh this particular set of of clips. Let's watch. And just to kind of finish up on this point, um you yourself, I'm not sure if this was discussed by the majority, but have you yourself been um intimidated as a result of the actions that you took um in this case?

Uh, I'm, not, going, to, be, intimidated. I, will, not, be, intimidated. So, good., All right., There, was, some testimony I didn't include with Jim Jordan trying desperately for a gotcha moment, questioning Jack Smith about how he got his job. Uh he said he was offered the job and that's how he got it, but that he did have a conversation with a friend of his when Smith was still at the HEG. He called a friend of his because um you know he he had heard that his his friend had gotten a job at that the Justice Department coming back out from from private service. And so he called his friend to congratulate him.

And during that conversation, Smith testified that his friend asked him if he'd ever return to Maine justice because he was at the HEG at the time prosecuting war crimes. And Jack Smith told the committee and and told Jim Jordan that he told his friend that if the job was right, if he got the right offer that he would come back to the Department of Justice. And so it's actually my hope that in January of 2029 that someone calls Jack Smith from the president-elect's transition team and offers him the job of attorney general of the United States.

Now, some may say he's too entrenched in politics because he investigated Donald Trump to be considered. Um, but I think this testimony demonstrates his apolitical nature. His command of the facts and his details are astounding. His time at the HEG prosecuting war crimes is more than relevant. And his willingness to follow the facts and the law without fear or favor, I think make him an excellent candidate for the job. And I think it might be a job that he's willing to do. Also, his willingness to speak out, I think, is important. I think we were missing that in the in the Merrick Garland Department of Justice. There was just a lot of silence.

So, I'd like to think he would consider attorney general as the right job for him to return to main justice again. There were a lot of policies that he had to follow as special counsel, and I could tell he didn't always agree with them. but he was bound by them nonetheless. Uh, and I think he would have no problem reforming them. And I think we're going to need a reformer in that job come 2029. Just my two cents. Thank you all so much for watching and listening to this special episode of Unjustified in partnership with the Midas Touch Network. Andy McCabe will be back next week. I'm Allison Gil. We'll see you then.

Love, this, video., Support, independent media and unlock exclusive content. Add free videos and custom emojis by becoming a paid member of our YouTube channel today. You can also gift memberships to others. Let's keep growing together.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "LIVE: Jack Smith Testimony DISSECTED as Trump Crimes Unravel"?

Allison Gill (Host), Jack Smith (Guest), Andy McCabe (Guest), Unidentified House Judiciary Committee Staffer (Majority/Republican) (Guest), Dan Goldman (Guest), Jared Moskowitz (Guest), Pramila Jayapal (Guest), Jamie Raskin (Guest).

What is "LIVE: Jack Smith Testimony DISSECTED as Trump Crimes Unravel" about?

In this analysis, Allison Gil dissects the recently released transcript and video of Jack Smith's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, emphasizing his authoritative command of the details and calm demeanor in contrast to Robert Mueller’s earlier performance. She highlights key moments from the testimony that reflect Smith's experience and credibility, showcasing challenges faced by…

What is mentioned in this MeidasTouch episode?

97 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including January 6th, January 6, Jack Smith's final report, 2020 Election, Department of Justice, volume 2. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "LIVE: Jack Smith Testimony DISSECTED as Trump Crimes Unravel"?

The episode runs 1 h 45 min; the transcript is about 17,075 words in 246 timestamped sections.

More from MeidasTouch

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated February 10, 2026.