1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR-bhPzQYUE
2
3Transcript:
4
5Um, Mr
6
7Kowski, Mr
8
9Brewer. >> Thank you, Mr
10
11Caster
12
13On behalf of Lanny Brewer and myself, we uh do have some preliminary remarks that we would like to make
14
15Mr
16
17Smith is committed to providing information to this committee about the work of the special counsel's office while following all laws and rules restricting a former prosecutor's ability to disclose certain information.
18
19To that end, we appreciate the committee's assistance in working with the Department of Justice to provide Mr
20
21Smith with authorization and clarification on the parameters around Mr
22
23Smith's testimony today
24
25Of course, some restrictions remain on Mr
26
27Smith's testimony, two of which I would like to highlight before we begin.
28
29First, as the committee is aware, in its letter of December 11th, 2025, the Justice Department admonished Mr
30
31Smith that he is not authorized to divulge information that is prohibited by law or court, including that which is subject to federal rule of criminal procedure 6E
32
33It is our understanding from communications with the committee and the justice department that DOJ is interpreting a matter under rule 6E to be limited to the inner workings of the grand jury.
34
35On a call with committee staff and with the Department of Justice on December 11th to discuss the scope and application of grand jury secrecy requirements, Assistant Attorney General Patrick Davis agreed with Mr
36
37Caster's statement that based on DOJ's authorization letter and its interpretation of rule 6E, it would be virtually impossible for DOJ to prosecute Mr.
38
39Smith for violating grand jury secrecy restrictions
40
41Second, according to the Justice Department, discussion of volume two of the special counsel's report and any information or conclusions in volume two or in drafts thereof is specifically prohibited by Judge Canyon Canon's January 21st, 2025 order
42
43This morning, just just over an hour ago, the Department of Justice sent us an email affirming its view that Judge Canon's order applies to Mr.
44
45Smith and that it precludes him from disclosing any non-public information that may be contained in volume 2, including but not limited to interview transcripts, search warrant materials, business records, toll records, video footage, records obtained by grand jury subpoenas, attorney client communications, and potential 40 rule 404b evidence.
46
47This restriction significantly limits Mr
48
49Smith's ability to discuss the classified documents case
50
51Nevertheless, Mr
52
53Smith is committed to doing his best to answering questions consistent with the department's guidance
54
55And I ask that uh that email from the Department of Justice uh that was sent uh earlier this morning be made part of the record.
56
57>> That'll be exhibit five. >> Thank you
58
59Um, I also want to clarify that the email from the Department of Justice says that Mr
60
61Smith um can disclose information in answering questions where that information um is in the public record and has been made publicly available through authorized means
62
63And I want to specifically cite that language because yesterday the Department of Justice disclosed to Senator Grassly some emails related to the uh execution of the search warrant at Mara Lago
64
65I anticipate that those
66
67emails may be used during today's deposition and that Mr
68
69Smith maybe asked questions about that search warrants and the probable cause supporting the search warrant that was signed by a judge in the Southern District of Florida
70
71And I just want to confirm our understanding that because those emails were released by the Department of Justice to to Chairman Grassly, everyone here has a mutual understanding that those emails were made publicly available through authorized means.
72
73And we would concur with that
74
75In our discussion with the Justice Department, and it was in the context of the member toll records subpoenas, they indicated that documents that are in the public public realm are fair game for discussion and don't don't apply to the 6E um prohibition, you know, the disclosure of 6E material.
76
77They um and we would further acknowledge that if if Senator Grassly posted these materials on his official website, that is an authorized release
78
79I mean, these are materials that were produced to the House and the Senate and if Senator Grassly posted them publicly, um they are certainly um part of the public record. >> Thank you, Mr
80
81Caster.
82
83Um we are in agreement. >> Mr
84
85Caster, can I just note one thing for the record that council for the minority have not been involved in any of the discussions that Mr
86
87Ksky just discussed between the Judiciary Committee and Department of Justice
88
89I just want to make that clear for the record. >> All right
90
91Noted. >> Thank you.
92
93Um, my understanding is that if for whatever reason the questions today move into an area that we believe Mr
94
95Smith cannot answer because of some legal restriction, we have reached an agreement with the committee staff that uh we will raise our concern in the moment to see if we can navigate around the restrictions and if we are unable, we will move on to another topic and then revisit that issue during a break or at the end of the day.
96
97Um, yes. >> Just to augment what my partner said, we had proposed to the Department of Justice that it have a lawyer here present today so that if any issue came up, we could immediately resolve it because Mr
98
99Smith is committed to answering every question he can lawfully
100
101The Department of Justice chose not to have a lawyer here today.
102
103>> Thank you
104
105Um, finally, I feel compelled to make an observation about the risks of participating in this deposition
106
107The most powerful person in the world has said that Mr
108
109Smith should be in jail because of his work as special counsel
110
111Not because Jack did anything wrong, but because he had the audacity to follow the facts and the law and apply them to that powerful person.
112
113And through its actions, this Justice Department has demonstrated its eagerness to follow President Trump's orders despite the facts and the law
114
115Yesterday, the president's chief of staff is reported to have confirmed in interviews that the president is indeed pursuing criminal prosecutions against his perceived adversaries as part of a retribution campaign.
116
117In the face of those threats, Mr
118
119Smith appears today undaunted, comforted by the knowledge that not only did he do nothing wrong, he conducted his work as special counsel with integrity and partiality and an uncompromising commitment to the rule of law
120
121If the committee will allow, Mr
122
123Smith has some remarks that he would like to share.
124
125>> Okay
126
127Before that, I would just note from exhibit 4, the December 11th Justice Department letter, um they specifically say um at the last paragraph on page two as to your question about the department's recent disclosure to Congress of certain internal communications considering whether authorized toll record subpoenas, which Congress publicly released on November 25th, 2025.
128
129You are correct that the department does not believe that the specific materials it produced to Congress are covered by succeed for the reasons described above
130
131Thank you, Mr
132
133Caster
134
135That's helpful
136
137We are in agreement on that
138
139Um my concern is that u that doesn't address Judge Canon's order which the department has said Mr.
140
141Smith is still bound by because the toll record subpoenas were not part of the classified documents case
142
143And so, Judge Canon's order is a separate legal restriction that exists independent of rule 6. >> Okay
144
145And I would just note on our call with the Justice Department, their position was of course he can talk about it if it's in the public realm.
146
147And that that admonition from the department was not limited to um you know toll records question or or or something and you know, judge can. >> Thank you. >> Mr
148
149Smith, you have some remarks as well. >> Yes
150
151Thank you
152
153Uh, thank you for the opportunity to discuss my work as special counsel
154
155I 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.
156
157For nearly three decades, I've been a career prosecutor
158
159I've served during both Republican and Democratic administrations, and I've been guided by those principles in every role I've held
160
161I continued to honor those principles when I was appointed to serve as special counsel in November of 2022
162
163The 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.
164
165Our 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
166
167Our 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.
168
169He then repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents
170
171I remain grateful for the counsel, judgment, and advice of my team as I executed my responsibilities
172
173I 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.
174
175These dedicated public servants are the best of us and they have been wrongly vilified and improperly dismissed from their jobs
176
177I made my decisions in the investigation without regard to President Trump's political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election.
178
179We took our actions based on the facts and the law
180
181the very lessons I learned early in my career as a prosecutor
182
183We followed Justice Department policies and observed legal requirements
184
185The timing and speed of our work reflects the strength of the evidence and our confidence that we would have secured convictions at trial.
186
187If 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
188
189Recent narratives about my team's work are false and misleading, including stories about our collection of toll records.
190
191Toll 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
192
193Toll records do not include the content of calls
194
195Those records were lawfully subpoenaed and were relevant to complete a comprehensive investigation.
196
197January 6th was an attack on the structure of our democracy in which over 140 heroic law enforcement officers were assaulted
198
199Over 160 individuals later plead guilty to assaulting police that day
200
201Exploiting 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.
202
203I did not choose those members
204
205President Trump did
206
207I hope that test that my testimony today serves to correct correct these mischaracterizations about my work
208
209And to that end, I welcome your questions. >> A copy. >> We can get you a copy
210
211Yeah
212
213You just made some pretty definitive statements about, you know, your belief that President Trump was guilty of these um of these charges.
214
215Is that correct? >> Yes
216
217I believe we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt in both cases. >> And doesn't the justice manual prohibit prosecutors from asserting that a defendant is guilty of something before a jury makes a determination? >> Uh if when a case is pending, yes. >> Okay
218
219And so you think you're you're free you're free from that from the justice manual um rules, you know, once a case is dismissed.
220
221>> No, I think that it's important to state clearly the amount of evidence we had and the basis for why we proceeded
222
223Why we proceeded as we did is because we had a strong case as I set forth in the final report
224
225Um, but your final report makes what seems to be conclusive determinations of President Trump's guilt as opposed to laying out simply the facts and the evidence that you have.
226
227You you draw those conclusions that in your view he's guilty
228
229Is that not the case? >> Well, to be clear, um, the cases were never tried
230
231We were never put to our burden before a jury
232
233Uh, so we didn't conclusively prove it
234
235Uh the reason the report was written the way it was written and the reason I said what I just said is because it was our belief uh that if we went to trial we would prevail.
236
237>> But your your report differs you know if you look at special counsel her report and special counsel Mueller's report um I mean the language that you use and the way you describe the things that you believe President Trump committed you know is different
238
239um you know, her was careful um to use words like jurors could find or might at most would likely conclude.
240
241Um whereas the language you use is pretty definitive
242
243Uh the her report states his uh assessment of the evidence, mine does as well
244
245And as I said uh I feel and and feel to this day that we had a very strong case and so I communicated that
246
247Okay
248
249But you would agree that it's the role of the jury, not not the special counsel to weigh the facts and to determine guilt >> ultimately
250
251Yes.
252
253>> Okay
254
255Um, and then one other thing about uh you relating to your statement um and we'll get into this um a little later on, but the toll record subpoenas for members of Congress um you know have some very we have some very serious concerns about acquiring these toll records, you know, relating to uh senators and members of the House.
256
257I mean, members of the House and the Senate have protections under the Constitution to that that, you know, allows them speech or debate protections
258
259Um, and the toll record subpoenas in our view and if we had to litigate it, um, you know, the House lawyers would take the position that those toll record subpoenas violated the speech or debate protections.
260
261Um, and is that something you disagree with? >> Yes. >> Okay
262
263We'll get into that a little bit later
264
265Uh we first wrote to you on October 14th uh inviting you uh to to testify um and then we worked with the Justice Department and your council to make sure you had access to everything you needed to prepare for today
266
267Did that occur
268
269Did you have enough access to the information you need to prepare? >> Uh I uh yes.
270
271>> Okay
272
273So, we asked the Justice Department to make all your files available to allow you to go to the Justice Department whenever you wanted to um with your lawyers, whoever you wanted to
274
275And I just wanted to confirm that that you had the opportunity to review whatever you needed in your files before today.
276
277>> Uh yes, we we reviewed the files. >> Okay, that's correct. >> Um there might be an issue with classified materials
278
279We don't intend to ask you anything about uh anything classified
280
281Obviously, if your security clearance is no longer valid that there's an issue on that front, but everything except classified information was supposed to be made available to you.
282
283And I just want to confirm that that was the case. >> I'm not I'm not sure if everything was, for example, the emails of people on my staff
284
285Uh, I'm not sure I had access to that, but um, we did spend, consistent with what you said, time at the Department of Justice, and we had the opportunity to to review um, files >> and that access was made available um, early like November 10th, if I'm not mistaken, and and I I think you guys started reviewing it somewhat shortly thereafter.
286
287>> That sounds about right. >> Okay
288
289Um you have referenced um in in your pleadings I believe and also in in you know public statements you've made the um the famous Robert uh Jackson speech entitled the federal prosecutor that he delivered at the second annual conference of the United States Attorneys in 1940.
290
291You're familiar with the the Robert Jackson speech? >> I am
292
293Yes
294
295Okay
296
297And uh this is widely available in the internet
298
299I didn't I didn't make copies for everybody
300
301Everybody can Google it right now as long as your phones are working
302
303Um and I'm just going to flag some things that Robert Jackson said and just get your reaction to see if you agree with it or not.
304
305Um he says in the second sentence, "The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America
306
307His discretion is tremendous." Do you agree with that
308
309I agree that prosecutors have a lot of discretion
310
311Yes. >> Um Jackson stated, "While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficient forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.
312
313" Do you agree with that? >> I do
314
315On page four of his remarks, uh, in the penultimate paragraph, um, Attorney General Jackson states, "What every prosecutor is practically required to do is to select the cases for prosecution and to select those in which the offense is the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain.
316
317" Would you agree with that? >> Yes
318
319If a prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants
320
321Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor, that he will pick people he thinks he should get rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted
322
323With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone.
324
325In such a case, it's not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who committed it
326
327It is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books or putting investigators to work to pin some offenses on him
328
329Do you agree with that? >> Uh I I do
330
331I think yes
332
333It is here that law enforcement becomes personal and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor
334
335himself
336
337Do you agree that that that is a concern? >> Uh these are principles and I agree with these principles. >> Okay
338
339In times of fear or hysteria, political uh racial, religious, social and economic groups often from the best of motives cry for the scalps of individuals or groups because they do not like their views.
340
341>> You agree with that? >> Yes
342
343He concludes by saying, "The qualities of a good prosecutor are as elusive and as impossible to define as those which mark a gentleman, and those who need to be told would not understand it anyway
344
345A sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power.
346
347And the citizen's safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility
348
349Do you agree with that? >> Fully. >> And do you think um during the appendency of your special counsel work that you try to live up to those uh standards? >> I do.
350
351Um, was there ever was there ever a prospect after you were appointed special counsel when you thought maybe you would not bring an indictment against President Trump? >> Absolutely
352
353When I took this case, uh, I did not know enough about the facts or the law to have a judgment about whether we should proceed in either case, both cases or neither case.
354
355Uh I used my uh time when I was appointed to get up to speed on the facts and the law
356
357Uh but if the facts and the law did not justify going forward in this case, I would have been perfectly comfortable in doing that as I have throughout my career uh in uh cases involving political figures when I was in public integrity and throughout my career.
358
359So I did not have a preconceived outcome in mind when I took this job
360
361Was there any point where where you and your your prosecutors uh that made that formed your team um debated not bringing charges against the president? >> Of course
362
363I mean that that was that is the the process of being a prosecutor is you're you are analyzing evidence.
364
365are collecting facts and uh you're debating uh whether it's what the facts mean, the inferences to be drawn from the facts or debating uh what the law is and uh whether uh you can prove what you think is happening here or not
366
367And so that was a continual process uh to decide if in fact we could uh go forward.
368
369And that again just to be clear that is a process that I have undergone uh with uh in my career personally and with prosecutors I supervised. >> When was the decision made that you believed you needed to move forward with with both indictments both in in Florida and DC
370
371Uh well, so the decision wasn't made at the same time.
372
373To the best of my recollection, in both cases, the final decision was shortly before we saw an indictment. >> Okay
374
375In 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
376
377Is that correct
378
379Uh I did we did have a meeting and I think it was around that time.
380
381Uh I didn't think about it as uh his blessing
382
383I was presenting what I intended to do and um he had the ability to countermand that if he wanted to. >> Okay
384
385But certainly you couldn't bring an indictment without his authorization. >> He could he could block me from doing that
386
387That's correct. >> Okay.
388
389Um, 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
390
391Um, and so you can check me on on public records, but I believe by late June, the classified documents case had already been indicted
392
393Okay.
394
395So 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
396
397And the attorney general in the in the June meeting it's been reported that he expressed some reservations about the DC case.
398
399Is that correct
400
401Uh 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
402
403Um never in those meetings did he uh tell me I couldn't or shouldn't go forward or or should go forward
404
405Um 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
406
407Okay.
408
409Coming out of the June meeting, it's been reported that he he asked you to spend some time with the solicitor general to to review um the DC um case
410
411Is that correct? >> Again, I don't recall specific conversations
412
413What I can share with you is uh we consulted with the solicitor general uh regularly during my time as special counsel.
414
415That was a choice I made
416
417Um, we wanted to make sure uh not only that we got the facts right, but that we got the law right as well
418
419And so um I I I would be surprised if the first time I consulted with the solicitor general would have been in late June
420
421That would surprise me. >> Okay
422
423But you did have a one-on-one meeting with the solicitor general in person.
424
425>> Uh I've met the solicitor general in person
426
427Um my recollection is most often it would be members of my senior staff speaking with her staff about these legal issues
428
429I did have conversations uh with her as well, but um the majority of that was her staff and my staff speaking about >> Okay.
430
431Um, and as it's been reported, um, the attorney general at the time was concerned that the proposed indictment or the proposed, um, prosecution plan, you know, may have relied too heavily on statements that the president had made uh, and infringed on his free speech if you were going to prosecute him for it
432
433Is that is that fair
434
435As I sit here right now, I can't remember specific conversations.
436
437I c I do remember that we knew that uh a a sort of first amendment defense would be part of the case
438
439Um and I think um when I mentioned to you earlier about how to frame the case, we wanted to make clear that this was not about um trying to interfere with anyone's first amendment rights, that this was a fraud.
440
441And and as you know, under Supreme Court president, fraud is not protected by the First Amendment
442
443And so, uh, in my mind, it was important to, um, make that clear in the indictment, and that's why when we litigated this issue before the district court, um, we prevailed. >> But the president's statements that he believed the election, uh, was rife with fraud.
444
445Those certainly are statements that are protected by the First Amendment
446
447Correct. >> Absolutely not
448
449If they are made uh, to target a lawful government function and they are made uh, with knowing falsity
450
451No, they're not
452
453That that was my point about uh fraud not being protected by the first amendment. >> I mean, there's a long list of disputed elections.
454
455I mean, the election of 1800, um, 1960, the year 2000, um, where candidates believe they were wronged by the, you know, because they lost
456
457Um, 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
458
459And 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.
460
461Um, as we said in the indictment, uh, he was free, um, to say that he thought he won the election
462
463He was even, uh, free to say, uh, falsely that he won the election
464
465But 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.
466
467That he was not allowed to do
468
469And that differentiates this case uh from any any past history. >> A lot of these statements though, you know, people come into the Oval Office
470
471I mean, the president isn't conducting his own due diligence
472
473He is receiving people in his office that are telling him these things, whether it be Rudy Giuliani, whether it be John Eastman, whether it be Jeffrey Clark, um whether it be Sydney Powell.
474
475Um and you know for the most part he is just receiving this information and um you know his statements are almost just regurgitating what what what these people have told him
476
477I mean isn't that the case? >> No
478
479And in fact one of the strengths of our case and why we felt we had such strong proof is uh our witnesses were not going to be uh political enemies of the president.
480
481They were going to be political allies
482
483Uh we had numerous witnesses who would say, "I voted for President Trump
484
485I campaigned for President Trump
486
487I wanted him to win." Uh the speaker of the house in Arizona, the speaker of the house in Michigan
488
489Uh we had an elector uh in Pennsylvania uh who is a former congressman uh who was going to be an elector for President Trump who said that what they were trying to do was an attempt to overthrow the government and illegal.
490
491uh our case uh was built on frankly uh Republicans who put um their allegiance to the country before the party
492
493And so um the president got information from people he trusted on other issues
494
495Uh he rejected it whenever it didn't fit um him staying in office
496
497And there was a pattern in our case where uh any time any information came in that would um mean he could no longer be president, he would reject it.
498
499And any theory, no matter how far-fetched, no matter how not based in law that would indicate that he could, he latched on to that
500
501And we had uh we were confident that we had very strong proof of that pattern
502
503Um he also I would just add um very consciously did not try to reach out to the sort of people who have the most expertise on these issues.
504
505He reached out to people who he thought could back uh back him up. >> Yeah
506
507But let's be honest, the president doesn't reach out to anyone
508
509People are brought to him
510
511I mean the you know he doesn't like the people you mentioned that you were going to call a trial
512
513Those aren't you know some you know Pennsylvania Republican official.
514
515I mean, that's not somebody who was in the Oval Office communicating with the president. >> Well, right. >> Well, with respect to the Arizona um speaker of the house, that is someone the president reached out to. >> Uh he also reached out to governors
516
517He reached out to the governor of Arizona
518
519He reached out and again, Republicans, his allies.
520
521Um our case >> uh was a case in which the president was praying on the party allegiance of people who supported him
522
523And these are again the the record is rife with examples of him reaching out to those people, inviting to them to the White House
524
525And another example, sir, is uh the folks from Michigan.
526
527He invited them to the White House
528
529They told him you lost because you underperformed with educated females
530
531They told him that when he brought them there
532
533Uh and again, our case was filled with examples of that. >> Were you planning on calling John Eastman as a witness
534
535Uh, I do not believe we would have, but we would have welcomed if the defense called him.
536
537>> Okay
538
539Um, it gets tricky though for the defense to call him because the people like Eastman and Clark um, and you know, Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Pal, I mean, you know, they they were they were um, shrouded by the special counsel as you know, co-conspirators one through six
540
541Um, and so they all feared that they were going to be prosecuted if they said anything.
542
543Isn't that Isn't that fair? >> Well, they were co-conspirators
544
545I can't get into what was in their mind or not
546
547Uh, I can tell you some of the co-conspirators met with us in profers and did interviews with us
548
549And so, um, the idea that someone like Rudy Giuliani who sat with a profer with us, um, he was available as a witness and we would have welcomed, uh, President Trump calling him as a witness.
550
551Boris Epstein sat for an interview with us
552
553We would have welcomed calling him as a witness
554
555Kenneth Chzboro would have welcomed it. >> 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 analyzed the evidence against different co-conspirators.
556
557Um we uh my staff determined uh that we did have evidence to charge people at a certain point in time
558
559Uh 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. >> Right
560
561Um you're a you've had a 30-year career as a prosecutor.
562
563You prosecuted gang members, right? >> Yes
564
565you prosecuted organized crime members, right? >> Not as much. >> Um, but you know, surely one one of the, you know, fundamental principles of prosecutorial work is you work from the bottom up and you try to get um as many uh fact witnesses to to work with you
566
567Um, and a lot of times those fact witnesses have um criminal liability.
568
569And a lot of times those lower fact witnesses, the smaller fish, um, are almost always they're they're either prosecuted or they they um are given an immunity because they they fear they're going to be prosecuted
570
571But here you didn't, you know, you you kept laser focused only on President Trump. >> Uh, two points.
572
573um one as I said uh we were considering prosecutions of these people and uh I think um I don't want to say what the ultimate conclusion would have that would have been um but that was something that was being considered
574
575Uh the second thing I think to understand contextually is um this was a case where the issue was how to present it in a concise way.
576
577We had so many witnesses again, so many witnesses who were allies of President Trump uh available to us uh to testify
578
579Uh this was not a case where we needed more witnesses
580
581It was a case where we needed to be able to present the case in a streamlined way because there was so much evidence >> in this this book by the Washington Post um reporters on page 310.
582
583You you're familiar with this book
584
585Have you read it
586
587this uh it's called Injustice by um Len and Davis. >> No, I have not read it. >> Are you familiar with it? >> I have not seen it
588
589I mean, I saw I saw that it came out in the news, but I have not I have not read it. >> Okay
590
591Did you cooperate with the book
592
593Did you talk to Carolina Grand? >> Uh they reached out to my council.
594
595I did not speak to them. >> And did you ever speak with them during your tenure at the Justice Department? >> No. >> Anyway, they they report and you know the these are reporters
596
597did get some things wrong
598
599They called they called Chairman Jordan the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
600
601They they said Speaker McCarthy voted um in favor of the second impeachment and um I can confirm that it's just laughably um inaccurate.
602
603Um and so reporters get things, you know, wrong
604
605And so um if that's the case um you know, please please flag it
606
607But but in the book on 310 um the reporters write as each new trunch of information about fake electors came in members of Smith's team intermittently raised the idea of opening separate case files on Giuliani Eastman and others each time each time however Smith dismissed the idea.
608
609He said he did not want the office getting bogged down and potentially prosecuting those around Trump
610
611Is that >> I I don't think that's accurate
612
613I I did make the decision that the first case we brought was going to be Donald Trump and I was aware uh that there was evidence against other people.
614
615Um but I don't think that characterization is accurate. >> Okay
616
617Um, now people with different views than you can say the special counsel's office is only interested in prosecuting President Trump because an election's coming up and he is he's going to be the Republican nominee and the special counsel works for uh Democratic president.
618
619The special counsel works for a Democratic attorney general
620
621Um and so the special counsel's laser focus on President Trump is simply to prevent him from um you know either being the party's nominee or being a successful party's nominee or at the very least keeping him off the campaign trail
622
623How do you respond to that? >> Uh all of that is false and I'll say a few things.
624
625Uh the first is uh the evidence here made clear that President Trump was by a large measure the most culpable and most responsible person in this conspiracy
626
627The these crimes were committed uh for his benefit
628
629Um the attack that happened at the capital as part of this case does not happen without him
630
631Um the other co-conspirators were doing this for his benefit.
632
633So in terms of uh why we would pursue a case against him, I entirely disagree with any characterization uh that our work uh was in any way meant to hamper him in the presidential election
634
635Uh I would never um take orders from a political uh leader to uh hamper another person in an election
636
637Uh that's not who I am
638
639And I think people who know me and my experience over 30 years uh would find that laughable.
640
641>> So did you develop evidence that President Trump um you know was responsible for the violence at the capital on January 6? >> So our our view of the evidence was that he caused it uh and that he exploited it and that it was foreseeable to him
642
643But you you don't have any evidence that he instructed people to crash and crash the capital, do you? >> As I said, our evidence is that he in the weeks leading up to January 6th uh created a uh level of distrust.
644
645He uh used that level of distrust to get people to believe fraud claims that weren't true
646
647uh he made false statements to state legislatores, to his supporters, uh in all sorts of contexts uh and was aware in the days leading up to January 6th that um his supporters were angry when he invited them and uh then he directed them to the capital.
648
649Once they were at the capital and once the attack on the capital happened, um he refused uh to stop it
650
651uh he instead issued a tweet uh that without question in my mind endangered the life of his uh his own vice president
652
653Uh and uh when the violence uh was going on, he had to be pushed repeatedly by his staff members to do anything to quell it.
654
655uh and then even afterwards uh he directed co-conspirators uh to make calls to members of Congress, people who were his political allies uh to further delay the proceedings. >> Did you you you sought gag orders in both the Florida case and the DC case
656
657Is that correct
658
659uh we sought an order in the uh DC case under rule I think it's 57.
660
6612 uh and we did that because uh Donald Trump was making statements that were uh endangering witnesses, intimidating witnesses, endangering members of my staff, endangering court staff
662
663Uh, as you might remember in the uh right around when the indictment was released, he issued a tweet saying, "If you come after me, I'll come after you.
664
665" Uh, he uh called uh in a tweet he called uh General Mark Millie, a traitor, and and mentioned that that what he' done should in in olden times, people would be put to death
666
667um as a result of the things he was saying, the judge in this case was put uh uh received vile death threats and and with respect to DC uh both the district court and the court of appeals, a panel of judges found uh that his actions uh were in fact causing what we said they caused.
668
669They were causing witnesses to be intimidated and um endangering people
670
671And I believe it was the court of appeals also found that um in addition to intimidating or chilling witnesses who existed um it would chill witnesses who had not yet come forward uh because they'd afraid that they would be next.
672
673So yes, we did file that and I make uh I make no apologies for that
674
675I >> mean which witnesses do you think he he he would have intimidated
676
677I mean are there any specific witnesses did you identify for the court
678
679uh we did a filing
680
681I don't recall the specifics in that filing right now, but I as I said, one of the issues from my perspective was not only the witnesses who he had specifically called out and cause threats to be issued, this phenomena that was found by both courts.
682
683Uh it was the the result of that is that a rational witness who maybe had not come forward uh would be completely afraid to because they would see that they would be next
684
685And I think the courts both courts agreed with that
686
687Um >> well I mean the the the circuit court of appeals ultimately uh slimmed down the gag order.
688
689Isn't that correct? >> It it did. >> Yes. >> Um and what was the difference between the gag order you proposed and Judge Chuckton agreed to and the final gag order that the DC circuit um approved? >> Okay
690
691I I'm going to go off from my recollection
692
693I know one of the differences was um him making threatening statements towards me personally was no longer um no longer uh was I'm sorry was allowed in the I think in in the district court in our application we thought that shouldn't be allowed.
694
695Um I will I will share with you that I told my staff that it was much more important to me that he not be able to issue threats to court staff >> and my staff than me
696
697And uh so the court of appeals did narrow it in that way
698
699And as I'm sitting here now, I I I'm not debating you that they narrowed it
700
701I just can't remember these specific details.
702
703>> Okay. >> But the phenomena they they they concurred that the phenomena I'm describing to you today uh was real and it had real world consequences. >> Um 18 United States Code 1512 deals with tampering with witnesses
704
705Um, did you identify any any uh violations of 18USC 1512? >> We did we did not bring any charges.
706
707>> And did the president did you allege that he violated any any terms of his release? >> We did not
708
709want to turn to the uh the member toll records uh topic
710
711Um what's the difference between a subpoena for toll records uh and a 2703D order? >> Uh uh well a subpoena for toll records is is um non-content >> um doesn't have any content.
712
713doesn't have like a a the header of say an email, things of that nature
714
715Um whereas I think a 20 if I'm if I'm correct in the terminology, I think a 2703D would be regarding emails and would could have information like that. >> Could it have content? >> Well, at least I again this is my recollection.
716
717I haven't looked at this issue in some time, but I think it means it's not content, but it could at least have say the header like of a the message like not not the content of the message, but it might might include the header
718
719Did you use any 2703D orders on members of Congress or senators or their staff? >> I do not recall that at this time.
720
721>> Did you use any pen registers
722
723Like what's a maybe just walk us through what a pen register is and trap and trace
724
725Yeah, my my understanding or my recollection is a pen register a trap and trace is a thing where you're watching who someone's calling going forward
726
727Like so, you know, if there was a trap and trace on my phone, it would see going forward from today who I called and a pen register.
728
729I'm mixing up the terminology, but one is like calls in and the other one's calls out. >> Okay
730
731And did you use any of those techniques on uh members of Congress, senators or their staff? >> I don't recall anything like that
732
733Okay
734
735And when you say you don't recall, it's it's you think the answer is no, but you don't you're not able to give a definitive answer.
736
737>> Yeah
738
739I I have nothing in my memory that tells me that we did anything like that. >> Okay
740
741Um and so with the toll record, um so as it relates to members and their staff and senators, it's just the toll records as far as you remember. >> That's my recollection. >> Okay
742
743And >> well, I'm sorry.
744
745I'm sorry to interrupt you
746
747Before I was special counsel, um the um people who were working on one of the investigations did get a search warrant for the cell phone of one Congressman. >> Congressman Perry
748
749Yes, we are very familiar with that
750
751Um what with with the toll record subpoena, maybe just walk us through like what you get.
752
753You get the the um you get the the incoming the telephone numbers that call a particular cell phone, right? >> That's correct. >> And you get the time that the call occurred >> and you get the um you get the length of time of a call. >> I believe that's correct. >> Okay
754
755And you also get um the list of numbers that the outgoing you get the incoming and the outgoing, right? >> That's correct.
756
757And is there any other information that the toll record subpoenas provide? >> That that is the the the what I understand is the the major thing you're you're seeking to get with the 12 records. >> Okay
758
759Um and when when you get one of these subpoenas, um you just send it to the carrier
760
761Correct
762
763Doesn't involve the judge.
764
765>> The subpoena
766
767Yes, that's correct. >> Okay
768
769um >> doesn't require a judge. >> The only time a judge gets involved is if you're seeking a non-disclosure order
770
771Is that right? >> If it's a subpoena for toll records
772
773That's correct. >> Okay
774
775And do you always seek the you know, is it the practice of um of your team to to always seek the NDO
776
777Well, in this particular case, uh there was a grave risk of obstruction of justice um given the obstructive conduct of President Trump as is uh set forth for example in the indictment uh in Florida.
778
779Um uh President Trump tried to obstruct that uh case in multiple ways
780
781Um the um as I mentioned earlier um in the litigation we had regarding 57 two uh we had numerous instances of him attempting to uh in our view intimidate witnesses or um keep them from cooperating
782
783And so given uh that um that reality >> um we did seek uh non-disclosure orders for the total record subpoenas you're talking about
784
785Okay.
786
787The um and ordinarily you just go to how do you how do you pick your judge for that when you're seeking the the NDOS's
788
789Some of them were signed by the chief judge and then others were signed by a magistrate magistrate judge David Baker at least as it relates to the members
790
791How do you how does it how do you pick the judge or they pick it for you? >> Uh I I don't know that we picked the judge.
792
793I I have to say in my role in this I wouldn't have been I wouldn't have known that
794
795I don't I don't know that even a prosecutor can pick the judge but okay >> I don't know what local practice in Washington DC would be on that. >> I mean sometimes you some I think um Boseberg signed the NDOS's for the senators and then as it related to speaker McCarthy and some of our members um on the judiciary committee it was the magistrate judge David Baker.
796
797So you don't have any idea why the >> Well, a a common practice in my experience as a prosecutor, certainly when I was a prosecutor in Brooklyn, is there'll be a duty judge or a duty magistrate, and so whoever has duty that day is who you go to
798
799Okay. >> Uh I just want to be clear in this case, I don't have a recollection if that's how it works in DC, but it may well have been that way.
800
801>> Okay
802
803Um and these NDO orders, at least the ones we've seen, they're all the same
804
805Is that is that a fair um is that a fair statement? >> Um I think they're usually very similar
806
807Yes. >> Okay
808
809Um and you submit a proposed order, correct, for the judge to sign. >> That's correct
810
811And part of the language in this um states um that the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in flight from prosecution, destruction of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses, and serious jeopardy to the
812
813investigation
814
815Is that something you remember? >> Yes
816
817Th those are the um uh in the in the uh law and the number is escaping me right now, but in the law that sets forth the reasons why you could get a non-disclosure order, I believe those are the the different um prongs, if you will, of that of that statute.
818
819as it relates to members of Congress and senators and their st definitely their staff as well
820
821Um I mean that presents concern that we don't have an opportunity to um you know quash the subpoena
822
823How how does your office deal with with that prospect
824
825Well, the um the nature and I I should also be clear that when you're getting an NDO, say for toll records, it's not based on an allegation that necessarily the person who has um the phone number is personally going to obstruct the investigation.
826
827It's that if this gets out, uh people could obstruct the investigation
828
829So, I want to make that clear
830
831Uh second point would be um you you are correct in that inherent in getting an NDO is that at various times um people who might have arguments about why to quash a subpoena won't be able to make those arguments in our uh investigation.
832
833This came up uh with Twitter
834
835We wanted uh to get uh records from Twitter regarding President Trump
836
837uh Twitter uh and and we had we and we uh applied for an NDO from the judge
838
839Twitter refused to um uh provide the records unless they could tell President Trump about that
840
841And so we had litigation with this in the district court.
842
843Uh the district court agreed um that there are situations and there it was that uh Twitter argued that President Trump should be able to assert executive privilege uh over uh the the records we wanted
844
845And uh as a result of that litigation, the court of uh the district court found um that we it was proper of us given the level of obstruction in this case um to get that NDIO.
846
847That decision by the district court was upheld by the court of appeals
848
849And then that decision by the court of appeals uh Twitter, my recollection is Twitter sought to get the Supreme Court to overrule that and Supreme Court refused to
850
851And so I I I tell you all that to say >> and then you find them, right? >> Well, actually that's before they they refused to comply even after she ruled >> and she set a schedule of fines.
852
853And so part of the appeal was >> you sought the fines, right? >> Absolutely
854
855Yes. >> Okay. >> Um but the the point of of of telling you that was that inherent in an NDO is it may be that um certain arguments about why SAP should be quashed um can't be made
856
857that that happens and I think there's a parallel in in those situations.
858
859>> When it comes to members of Congress though, there's this there there are, you know, the speech or debate protections which you totally sidestep
860
861I mean, the the toll records provide enormous valuable information um because it shows who who a member of Congress, who a senator is is taking calls from and who they're calling.
862
863uh and if you map it up against the Senate or the House calendar um you can see who you know what the inputs are to their legislative uh decisionm which is at the core of speech or debate
864
865Do you agree with it? >> Uh my office and I personally uh take the protections of the speech or debate clause seriously.
866
867Uh I think they're they're part of our constitution
868
869They're an important part of separation of powers
870
871Uh I think our respect for the speech or debate clause is evidenced by the litigation we engaged in in this office
872
873Um we conducted litigation with Congressman Perry and also Vice President Pence
874
875Um taking very that very seriously.
876
877And I I would just I would just also add that my office um had folks who were really the department experts on speech or debate
878
879And uh when we sought these um subpoenas, we got approval from public integrity who were the sort of keepers of that issue >> and they concurred in us getting these subpoenas. >> They did and we we saw some of that email traffic and we would I would um respectfully disagree with their um with their view of the speech or debate um law.
880
881Um, as you might imagine, um, when you sought these non these these non-disclosure orders, the judge didn't know it was a member of Congress
882
883Is that correct? >> Uh, I don't think we identified that because I don't think that was department policy at the time
884
885And you that you had some litigation with substantial litigation with Congressman Perry over the seizure of his phone, but you didn't have any litigation with us over the seizure of members of the judiciary committee's phones because we never knew about it.
886
887>> That's correct. >> Um, but sorry, I just want to clarify
888
889I think you said regarding the seizure of any senator's phones. >> Representative Perry had his phone seized. >> Yes
890
891But are you suggesting that there's a seizure of a senator's phone? >> No. >> Okay
892
893I just wanted to clarify that
894
895Thank you. >> The only seizure I'm aware of is Congressman Perry.
896
897Do you know of any other seizures? >> That's the one I recall. >> Okay
898
899So, no other members of Congress, no other senator had their phone seized. >> I don't. >> Did you seek um search warrants for the content of any um you know, of the telephone uh calls or or um you know, the content relies mostly to text messages.
900
901Did you seek a search warrant for the content of any text messages from members? >> From members
902
903Uh no, I don't recall. >> It was just toll records
904
905Correct. >> Okay
906
907Um but by not telling the members, you know, by going through this NDO process, I mean, they didn't have an opportunity to litigate the speech or debate concerns. >> That's correct.
908
909>> Uh and that's unfair in our view. >> I I understand your position and and as I I said before, uh we respect >> the speech or debate clause
910
911Uh I'm aware of no case in the Supreme Court or the DC circuit uh that says that getting non-content >> toll records from a third party >> uh violates the speech or debate clause particularly where and I think an important point here is um these records uh were not um to um sought um to use against uh members of Congress who targets.
912
913Um, the investigation we were conducting was uh uh of uh President Trump and his co-conspirators who were all obviously not members of Congress, but also uh private, not even members of the White House. >> I mean, the the House and DOJ has a big disagreement on this
914
915I mean, the the William Jefferson case
916
917Um, you familiar with the Rayburn House Office Building case? >> I am.
918
919>> Okay
920
921And so, when issuing grand jury subpoenas for toll records, um, do you consider yourself bound by that opinion
922
923Yes, but I would say that opinion does not deal that isn't a case where there was a search warrant of a congressman's office
924
925That congressman was a target of the investigation.
926
927The um the uh search warrant wasn't seeking non-content toll records
928
929It was seeking the actual records uh legislative material of the congressman to be used against that congressman. >> Right
930
931But I mean the the court in the in the Raburn case um concluded that there is a documentary non-disclosure privilege, not just a prohibition on the evidentiary use of that material against members.
932
933>> I I'm not debating the the Rayburn case exists
934
935What I'm saying is in the Supreme Court of the DC circuit, there is no case that says non-content
936
937Rayburn dealt with content non-content records not secured from a a member but secured from a third party are subject to the speech or debate clause and and if I may the the correspondence we talked about um that reading which was the reading of of my staff who are very familiar with this was consistent with the department's position on those issues and uh public integrity which was
938
939sort of the keeper of this issue concurred uh in our hitting these. >> We're making an exhibit
940
941Uh we have number six. >> Yes. >> And this is some back and forth
942
943the what exhibit six is going to be um an email between your office and public integrity um regarding the the Senate the toll records for the senators.
944
945>> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much
946
947They're they're relevant
948
949Um, >> these documents are helpfully not based. >> Yeah
950
951If you want to show me yours, I can look for it here. >> Okay
952
953So, the department has um you know, if you're going to has requirements for all prosecutors that you know, if you're going to bring a tax prosecution, you have to consult with the tax division, right? >> Correct.
954
955Um, if you're going to bring a national security related case for classified docu mishandling of classified documents, you need the national security division to to okay that, right? >> Correct. >> Um, and as it relates to, you know, sensitive political matters, the attorney general has to okay, and there's been a series of memos both from Attorney General Bar and Garland and so forth
956
957Correct.
958
959>> Um, sensitive political matters, I'm not I'm not sure if that's the terminology
960
961There's an election year sensitivities memo and there's also regulations specific regulations for specific situations
962
963Yes. >> Right
964
965The FBI calls it a sensitive investigative matter and you know they need to get the they can't do anything without getting the um the director of the FBI to okay um you know getting search warrants against members of Congress and so forth.
966
967>> Correct. >> I'm I'm not as familiar with the FBI regulations as the DOJ regulations
968
969But is public integrity before you seek member toll records is the hoop you have to jump through public integrity. >> So it was for my office because I directed my staff to um to consult them uh anytime we were going to do that.
970
971I I I understand that that was more of a practice and tradition
972
973Um it's since become a specific requirement um after these toll records were issued, but it was my policy to do that and it was again consistent with my policy of wanting to sort of um leverage the expertise in the department and so we so we did that.
974
975>> Is this back and forth and your staff had a memo that it um I think you know basically put an email um and then public integrity responds with this message
976
977Was that is that essentially the extent of the back and forth with public integrity? >> Um I I don't know that it that this is the extent of it.
978
979Uh I don't it it's there's a line here that says as you are aware that makes me think that there was also a telephone conversation but I don't just to be clear I don't have a specific recollection of that
980
981I told my staff that in this situation if we're going to seek these toll records you need to consult with public integrity.
982
983as you can see from the email chain
984
985I wasn't on that email chain
986
987Um >> um were there any other boxes you had to check
988
989Did you have to tell the attorney general or the the DAG to get these toll records or was was it just you and public integrity? >> Um the my direction was to tell for our our staff to um um go to public integrity.
990
991It may well have been that this is the sort of thing either I would have briefed the attorney general on or uh JP Cooney who was our contact with the the leadership of the department may have told them about but the thing that I was most concerned about was making sure public integrity who was sort of the experts on this issue that they were um consulted.
992
993I mean, this isn't if you look at the email, it's not it's not that wholesome, right
994
995It's not a complete analysis of the constitutionality um or even the propriety of the call record subpoenas under the speech or debate clause
996
997I mean, isn't that is that fair to say? >> Um yes, certainly there could be more analysis.
998
999Um but again, I don't know if there was an additional conversation that um it seemed I'm drawing an inference
1000
1001I don't recall this, but this seems to me to indicate there may have been an additional conversation. >> So, the email, you know, from our perspective, it seems to be a cursory litigation risk assessment
1002
1003It's not um you know, it doesn't raise the issues that we would raise if we were litigating um the speech or debate matter because I mean, our position is that the toll record subpoenas do violate speech or debate
1004
1005I mean, if you get a list of all
1006
1007the people calling members of the judiciary committee before a floor vote, um, that is pretty core protected material
1008
1009Um, and you know, this back and forth with public integrity doesn't doesn't address very much
1010
1011Is that fair? >> Well, again, I I can't I don't know if there were additional additional conversation or conversations.
1012
1013I also don't know, frankly, if this is the only email on this issue
1014
1015Um, so I I don't think I would call it cursory
1016
1017I I think an important context here is that the people involved in this um, including um, the people on this email chain as well as um, my one of my senior counselors, Ray Huler, who was really the department's expert on these issues.
1018
1019Um, but these are people with expertise in this area discussing it with one another
1020
1021But if you believe what the Washington Post reporters wrote in their book, you know, they say according to the their sources that you were legendary for being dialed into, you know, every last detail of of these cases that you were uh, you know, they stopped short of calling you a micromanager, but they say that, you know, you looked at um, you know, witness outlines, you know, two days before witness interviews.
1022
1023Is that is that fair? >> Uh, I did that with outlines of interviews, Jess. >> And you had, you know, at points, you know, you had daily meetings with the teams and you wanted to know, you know, every last detail of your case
1024
1025Is that fair? >> I try to be a responsible supervisor
1026
1027Yes. >> Um, but when it comes to uh taking the members of Congress, you know, phone records, you weren't as plugged into that.
1028
1029Is that fair? >> No, I don't I don't think that's fair
1030
1031I I um I spoke with my staff about this
1032
1033I ultimately approved it, >> right? >> Um I had faith in the expertise of my staff
1034
1035Um they discussed it with me
1036
1037I felt there was a basis for it
1038
1039I felt it was relevant in material to the investigation
1040
1041And I also felt comfortable because I knew that my view about that would be tested by an analysis of public interpreting.
1042
1043>> Look at the last sentence
1044
1045Low likelihood that any of the members listed below would be charged and the litigation risk would be minimal
1046
1047Not to mention, they're not going to net
1048
1049So the assessment is, as Steve described, precursory
1050
1051We're not going to charge anyone
1052
1053We're not going to get sued
1054
1055They're not going to know who cares about speech or debate.
1056
1057That's what the assessment looks like to me
1058
1059Your response, >> uh, chairman, I I would disagree with that characterization of it. >> Well, that's what the sentence says
1060
1061We're not going to charge these people
1062
1063I doubt if they take us to court
1064
1065Be hard for them to take it to court because they're not going to know for years that we did this.
1066
1067Move ahead
1068
1069And you you said fine to that
1070
1071Uh I I approve these uh these subpoenas
1072
1073Yes. >> Okay. >> And you know our view is this is inconsistent with the DC circuit case law um which establishes that the speech or debate protections includes a non-disclosure privilege period
1074
1075Um it's not just a privilege against using that material against the members.
1076
1077It's also a privilege against taking that you know taking that information and using it against the third party
1078
1079if you're going to prosecute Jeff Clark with Scott Perry's phone records
1080
1081Um, you know, we believe the DC circuit holds you can't do that
1082
1083Uh, and this back and forth with public integrity doesn't doesn't factor that in
1084
1085That's concerning to us.
1086
1087Did you have any discussions with the Office of Legal Counsel or the Solicitor General's office
1088
1089Are there any other components in the Justice Department that that analyze this >> on this discreet issue
1090
1091I don't have any recollection of those entities being involved in that discussion. >> Okay.
1092
1093Um and there's a a statute um regarding Senate phone records
1094
1095You familiar with two United States Code 6628? >> Yes. >> Um and did you analyze or factor in that statute before you issued the the subpoenas for the senator toll records
1096
1097As I sit here today, I don't recall specifically discussing that statute
1098
1099I will say that my reading of that statute as it existed at that time is that that was a statute uh directed at providers.
1100
1101Um, it it it actually envisions that a provider might actually get an NDO application and the provider who has the best information about whose phone line is whose uh that they're best situated to make to make these judgments. >> Okay
1102
1103So, that was my next question is like whose responsibility it is to flag um that there's a statute a law that that bars NDOS's with regards to certain Senate phone numbers
1104
1105Whose responsibility
1106
1107Is that the special counsel's office
1108
1109Is that the carrier
1110
1111Is that the judge
1112
1113Does the judge have
1114
1115to sort of figure this out
1116
1117The magistrate judge
1118
1119Certainly the magistrate judge doesn't have to figure it out like all on his own, does he? >> Well, that that statute, as I said, um my reading of that statute, the language of that statute as it existed at that time is that it it's the job of the carrier and and to me that makes sense because they're the ones who have the best and most accurate information about whose phone lines are whose.
1120
1121they actually have that information. >> But the the package of materials that you send off to the magistrate judge or or the chief judge, who'sever the duty judge, as you as you mentioned, um you don't identify that it's a Senate phone number or a member of Congress in those applications.
1122
1123And so there'd be no way for the judge to to um to know that that you know there's these additional considerations
1124
1125Is that fair? >> I I I think that is fair
1126
1127I think the department guidance on that issue has changed since these events were talking about and so now if one were to do that um you would notify the judge. >> Okay
1128
1129And my my time's up.
1130
1131So unfortunately I have to leave it there. >> We'll go off the record
1132
1133Mr
1134
1135Smith, let's just start with the
1136
1137bottom line up front
1138
1139One of your investigations focused on whether any person violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere in the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 election
1140
1141Is that correct? >> Yes
1142
1143At the conclusion of that investigation related to the interference in the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 election, when your office indicted Mr.
1144
1145Trump for his criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 election, did you believe that you had sufficient evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction against Mr
1146
1147Donald Trump? >> Yes. >> For these charges coming from Mr
1148
1149Trump's criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 election, did you believe that you had sufficient evidence to prove these charges beyond a reasonable doubt? >> Yes.
1150
1151And we know that it's more than just a reasonable doubt
1152
1153Did you believe that there were multiple substantial federal interests in proceeding with prosecuting Mr
1154
1155Trump after he attempted to criminally overturn the 2020 election? >> I did. >> Now, the second investigation that you were appointed to lead focused on the possession of highly classified documents at Mr.
1156
1157Trump's Mara Lago social club following his presidency
1158
1159When your office indicted Mr
1160
1161Trump for willfully keeping highly classified docks after he lost the 2020 election
1162
1163Did you believe that you have sufficient evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction against Mr
1164
1165Donald Trump? >> Yes. >> And for these charges stemming uh for these charges stemming from when Mr.
1166
1167Trump left the office in 2021, these highly classified documents, uh did you believe that you had sufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt? >> Yes. >> And did you believe that there were multiple substantial federal interests in proceeding with prosecuting Mr
1168
1169Trump for his unlawful possession of these highly classified documents.
1170
1171>> I did. >> How many years of experience do you have as a prosecutor, Mr
1172
1173Smith? >> Uh, in total I've been a prosecutor
1174
1175A little short of 30 years. >> Can you give us a high level overview of the different offices you might have worked in as a prosecutor? >> Sure
1176
1177Um, I started my career as an assistant district attorney at the Manhattan District Attorney's office in New York City.
1178
1179I was a uh I prosecuted uh local crimes there for 5 years
1180
1181Uh afterwards I became a federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of New York which is in Brooklyn and Long Island and I was there for about nine years
1182
1183Um I prosecuted larger more complex cases when I was there
1184
1185I was eventually the chief of criminal litigation there.
1186
1187Uh I left that office to go overseas and work at the International Criminal Court for a little short of two years
1188
1189I coordinated investigations of the office of the prosecutor there
1190
1191Uh I then returned to the department of justice uh where I was the chief of the public integrity section of the department of justice and I did that for somewhere between four and a half and five years.
1192
1193Uh I left Washington DC and moved to Nashville, Tennessee where I was the first assistant US attorney and then later the acting US attorney in the middle district of Tennessee which is in Nashville
1194
1195uh I uh left government uh for the only time in my career
1196
1197I was in uh worked for a private uh company for a brief period of time, a period of months and then uh I was offered a position uh by the state department to serve as a war crimes prosecutor at a European Union war crimes tribunal uh in uh the Hague, the Netherlands
1198
1199and I was there for a
1200
1201little over four years before I became special counsel. >> I'm sorry to interrupt
1202
1203Can you just speak up a little bit? >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Yeah, we the people in the back have trouble hearing you. >> Sorry about that. >> And can you describe the types of cases out of all these years of experience
1204
1205Just give us a broad overview of the seriousness of the case that you've brought in your career.
1206
1207>> Uh I've I've worked on all sorts of cases
1208
1209Um early in my career, uh I was a member of the offices in Manhattan, the domestic violence unit
1210
1211And so I did a number of cases, um of people who are abusing, uh uh domestic violence victims
1212
1213Uh those are some of the most memorable cases in my career
1214
1215Uh I worked on um gang cases, RICO gang cases uh in the Eastern District of New York.
1216
1217I worked on the um Admiral Luima case which was a assault of a Haitian immigrant by police officers
1218
1219Uh I did um uh other international an international murder for hire case
1220
1221Uh other sorts of violent crime cases
1222
1223Uh I was the I was one of the um the night of 911 I was part of the command center and in the weeks afterwards I was involved uh in um uh responding to uh to what happened uh on 911.
1224
1225Uh after the Eastern District of New York um when I was overseas I worked on war crimes cases that were uh in all sorts of different jurisdictions and all sorts of challenging investigative situations
1226
1227um and and political corruption cases obviously when I was in public integrity and also in in in Nashville. >> So taking all these cases you described I heard cases about you know gang about gangs in New York.
1228
1229It sounds like there were war crimes cases there were domestic violence cases just described taking all that experience uh when you finished your investigation the special counsel's office you believed uh that you had sufficient evidence in this case to prove Donald Trump uh committed those crimes after the 2020 election. >> I did.
1230
1231and you believe that you had enough evidence to think a conviction uh with Donald Trump taking or willfully taking the classified documents after he left office in 2020 and return to Florida in 2021. >> That's correct. >> So, we've heard a word a lot from this administration, from the majority Republicans, and that word is transparency
1232
1233And yet, Mr.
1234
1235Smith, we're in a closed door deposition today, meaning that members of the public and even congressional members and staff who are not part of the judiciary committee are not permitted to attend this proceeding
1236
1237Uh, did you offer to testify publicly before this committee? >> Yes. >> Uh, how did you offer I guess how did you make the offer to testify publicly to this committee? >> Uh, I think it was through my council.
1238
1239>> Did you send a letter to the committee
1240
1241Did your council send a letter to the committee offering to publicly testify? >> I think that's right. >> Uh, we'll we'll we'll enter that letter into the record just for your background
1242
1243And this will be exhibit 7
1244
1245It'll be an October 23rd, 2025 letter signed by Mr
1246
1247Mr
1248
1249Lanny Brewer or Mr.
1250
1251Peter Kausski
1252
1253It's addressed to Chairman Jordan and Chairman Brassley uh regarding uh Mr
1254
1255Smith's public offer to testify publicly. >> Are you familiar with this letter, Mr
1256
1257Smith? >> Yes. >> Uh can you tell us why you felt it was important to make a request for a public hearing
1258
1259Uh I'm proud of the work that we did at the special counsel's office.
1260
1261Uh I'm particularly proud of the people I worked with uh the uh career public servants I worked with uh who've been vilified by um President Trump and people who work for him
1262
1263And uh I think someone needs to speak up for them
1264
1265Did you want to testify publicly because you had something to hide about your investigation? >> No.
1266
1267>> Did you want to testify publicly to rebut some of these accusations from the president that you just mentioned about your investigation? >> Yes, that's what that's what I meant
1268
1269um accusations not just against me but against career prosecutors, career uh FBI agents, FBI agents who have served our country um and who've been vilified wrongly.
1270
1271Uh I think it's really important to correct the record on that. >> Were you granted the request to testify publicly before this committee
1272
1273Answer's probably obvious as we sit in this room, but were you granted that request? >> No
1274
1275Uh >> were you given any reasons or provided any reasons why you were not allowed to testify publicly and directly to the American people
1276
1277Uh, I don't I don't recall that.
1278
1279>> Are you aware that even President Trump thought that she should testify publicly before our committee? >> I heard that. >> Yeah
1280
1281Just to make it clear for the record, uh, Mr
1282
1283Trump said, and this is a quote, I'd rather see him, as in Jack Smith, testify publicly because there's no way he can answer the questions.
1284
1285So, let's turn to a few of those questions
1286
1287Um, do you recall the October 14th, 2025 letter to you from Chairman Jordan requesting a transcribe interview? >> I I know he he sent a letter asking for for me to be interviewed. >> We'll uh enter that into the record and make it exhibit eight. >> Thank you
1288
1289And I'll give you a second just to look through it as we pass it out.
1290
1291So in this October letter to you requesting a transcribe interview, the chairman characterized your investigation as quote politically motivated prosecutions of Donald J
1292
1293Trump end quote and said you conducted a quote unnecessary and abusive raid of the residents end quote of Donald Trump and that claimed that you quote manipulated key evidence in the investigation end quote among other claims.
1294
1295Um do you recall these accusations to you in the letter from Chairman Jordan? >> Yes
1296
1297The Republicans of our committee have made these letters to public
1298
1299Uh you can read it on the committee's website including these accusations that your office was weaponized
1300
1301Uh but this proceeding is behind closed doors and majority council just warned you earlier uh about keeping the contents of this deposition confidential.
1302
1303Do you remember that warning that you received at the beginning of this deposition? >> Yes. >> So we will get into this in more detail later, but just to quickly touch on this, do you agree with the majority's characterization that your office was weaponized? >> No. >> Was your special counsel's office weaponized in any way? >> No.
1304
1305>> Did the conduct did you conduct a politically motivated prosecution of Donald J
1306
1307Trump. >> I did not. >> Would you like to have explained directly to the American people why these characterizations are not true? >> Yes
1308
1309And again, particularly as to the career prosecutors and agents who've been vilified. >> Are you concerned that given that this deposition is not open to the public and the public cannot hear your answers or observe your demeanor or hear the way that you're responding to questions of the majority that some of your responses
1310
1311may be selectively published or released in a way that mischaracterizes your answers
1312
1313I would hope that wouldn't happen. >> But are you aware that's a risk of your testimony here today? >> I'm sure that's possible. >> Based upon your knowledge, is it generally the practice for the special counsel who investigated presidential conduct to be given the chance to testify at a public hearing to be able to explain their findings to the American public? >> Uh, yes.
1314
1315So, let's just take a few of those
1316
1317Are you aware of special counsel Robert Mueller testifying publicly before the House Judiciary Committee? >> Yes
1318
1319For the record that occurred in July of 2019, are you aware of special counsel John Durham testifying publicly before the House Judiciary Committee? >> Yes. >> For the record that occurred in June of 2023.
1320
1321Are you aware of special counsel Robert her who came up earlier in the majority's hour testifying before the House Judiciary Committee? >> Yes. >> For the record that occurred in March of 2024
1322
1323Uh, also want to touch a little bit on speaking of just transparency and the Fulsson investigation into you this committee's request for demi for documents related to your investigation.
1324
1325Um, we're going to enter into the record another letter from Chairman Jordan
1326
1327This one's addressed to Attorney General Bondi
1328
1329This letter uh seeks records related to the Arctic Frost Files and it's dated October 29th of 2025
1330
1331This will be exhibit nine
1332
1333And you might not be familiar with this document.
1334
1335So I'll give you a second to review it
1336
1337It's not very long though. >> Okay
1338
1339I've I've reviewed it. >> So after reviewing it, are you now aware that Chairman Jordan has sought the production of files related to your investigation from the Department of Justice? >> Yes. >> And just to read that request, it's request number two.
1340
1341It says in quotes, "All DOJ documents and communications referring or relating to Jack Smith's special counsel investigation for the period of November 18th, 2022 to January 20th of 2025
1342
1343I just want to get a better understanding of this broad request of all DOJ documents and communications referring to your investigation.
1344
1345I guess what types or categories of documents are associated or would be associated with your investigative files?" Um there would be numerous documents
1346
1347Uh I mean it was a prosecutor's office
1348
1349So the sort of documents you would associate with a prosecutor's office. >> Just to make it clear for the record, can you just give a few examples of what those records or memos might look like or what they might be about? >> Um prosecution memos, um email correspondence with my staff, um analysis of the case, uh things of that
1350
1351nature
1352
1353Would these documents include internal decision memos or other records of major decisions uh made by you and your team during the investigation? >> Yes. >> Do these files include communications with the attorney general or the deputy attorney general during the course of your investigation? >> Um I don't I don't think I had any files that would fall into that category.
1354
1355I'm not sure if there'd be u my deputy also communicated with the deputy attorney general's office
1356
1357So I there may be but um I don't think as to me. >> Do these files include communications just with other DOJ offices
1358
1359I think earlier you mentioned possible communications with the solicitor general but those files include possible communications with that person.
1360
1361>> Yes. >> Can I just follow up on that for one sec? >> Sure. >> Um you had no communications with the deputy attorney general. >> No
1362
1363Uh I I I took the question to mean in terms of like email or things of that nature
1364
1365We met um I met with the attorney general, the deputy attorney general uh uh at times at their request.
1366
1367So those those things did happen
1368
1369Uh I'm just saying I don't recall me having any sort of email communications with either of them. >> But in terms of the special counsel offices, just following up Mr
1370
1371Golden's question
1372
1373The office as a whole, if there were email communications between members of your team and the attorney general or the deputy attorney general, would that probably be a part of your special counsel case files? >> Yes.
1374
1375>> And as far as you're aware, the current Department of Justice has full access to your documents and memos and files from your investigation
1376
1377Is that correct? >> They should. >> In fact, you reviewed those files in preparation for your appearance today, right? >> Yes
1378
1379We were uh given access to a computer that had files on it.
1380
1381I I can't say that it's all the files, but we were given access to that and I reviewed that in preparation today. >> Did you follow DOJ protocol in your decision-m including consulting with relevant offices like the public integrity section, the office of legal counsel, and any other entities as required and encouraged by DOJ policy? >> Yes.
1382
1383>> Were there examples where these consultations were memorialized in writing
1384
1385uh either before or after you met with these officers? >> Yes. >> So given the majority's claim that the investigation was biased, do you think the case files would help eliminate some of the majority's questions about the actions you took while special counsel? >> I have no objection to people looking at the case file.
1386
1387>> To your knowledge, has DOJ released all the special counsel's files either to Congress or to the public? >> Uh I don't I don't I don't know what they've released to Congress
1388
1389Do you believe it's in the public's best interest to view the full case file rather than just selective samples as they've come out so far? >> Uh, the reason I'm pausing is I'm not sure it's proper for me to weigh in on that.
1390
1391I don't know if there are, for example, confidential information regarding witnesses that shouldn't be made public
1392
1393Um, and so, uh, I I think that's a matter for others besides me who have the case files in their possession now to review and decide
1394
1395So let's just narrow it a little bit
1396
1397Do you think it would be beneficial for the committee to review the case files so we can understand certain why certain investigative steps were taken? >> I'm going to leave that to others to decide
1398
1399I'm h here and I'm happy to
1400
1401answer any questions you or anybody else might have
1402
1403Uh >> if you if the case files were released, >> would they include any political considerations by you or your team as you investigated and charged these cases? >> We did not consider politics
1404
1405I did not consider politics, anyone's politics in charge in these cases.
1406
1407>> And that would be borne out presumably by the case files
1408
1409I'm not aware of anything in the case files that would contradict that >> because it never happened. >> It never happened. >> I also just want to note um the authorization that you got from DOJ and I think this is marked as exhibit two um no sorry exhibit three by the majority.
1410
1411It was fair it was quite broad right? >> Um which one is this now? >> This is exhibit three
1412
1413Um, a letter from Department of Justice to your council
1414
1415I have my own
1416
1417Apologize
1418
1419We've got a lot of letters here
1420
1421So, >> just don't have a lot of evidence
1422
1423Here you go. >> That's been disclosed. >> Okay
1424
1425I I have the letter now
1426
1427Yes. >> So, I'm looking at page three on the bottom, but this letter essentially walks through a series of topics that you are authorized by the DOJ to discuss.
1428
1429>> Correct. >> Okay
1430
1431So, on the bottom of page three, I'm reading I'm reading here from the letter
1432
1433The extraordinary events underlying this matter constitute exceptional circumstances warranting an extraordinary accommodate accommodation to Congress in this particular case
1434
1435Given these extraordinary circumstances to the greatest extent allowable by law, the department authorizes Mr.
1436
1437Smith to provide unrestricted testimony to the committee irrespective of potential privilege including the names of line attorneys and agents in the department as it pertains to the matter identified in this letter and as limited in paragraph one through five
1438
1439And the paragraph 1 through5 essentially goes through the investigations that you you undertook and um and I guess a couple of a couple of tangential matters related to uh the office of professional responsibility uh and the arctic frost investigation.
1440
1441Is that correct? >> That's what that says
1442
1443Yes. >> Okay
1444
1445So given that DOJ gave you unrestricted or authorization to provide unrestricted testimony, would it make sense that DOJ then should also give this committee unrestricted access to the case files that's currently in its possession? >> I'll I'll leave it to others to decide that.
1446
1447I will say that the the paragraph you read is is different than it's been with past special counsel
1448
1449Past special counsel usually testify about the contours of their report
1450
1451Um they've changed the process here and I'm still here willing to answer uh answer questions. >> Okay
1452
1453Thank you. >> Uh we're gonna believe we're on exhibit 10 now.
1454
1455Um we're going to we're going to give 10 which will be your special council report volume one dated January 7th of 2025
1456
1457Know this is a document you're very familiar with but we'll pass it around
1458
1459Thank you. >> So, as the date of your report says, on January 7th of 2025, and as your time of special counsel was coming to an end, you provided a final report to the attorney general where you explained the prosecution and declination decisions that you made as special counsel as required by 28
1460
1461CFR 600.8
1462
1463Is that correct, sir? >> That's correct. >> What was your goal in preparing this report
1464
1465Uh I wanted to uh at first make sure I fulfilled the obligation under the special counsel regulations to to do a report uh consistent with the regulations. >> And and was this final report an accurate account of your investigation and its findings? >> It was.
1466
1467>> Based upon your understanding, is it generally the practice for a special counsel's report to be made public to the American people? >> Uh I believe so
1468
1469I I know at times they've been uh portions have been redacted in the past, but my general understanding is yes. >> So, to the best of your knowledge, do you recall special counsel Mueller's report being made public? >> It was public
1470
1471Yes.
1472
1473>> To the best of your recollection, do you recall special counsel's report being made public? >> Yes. >> To the best of your knowledge, do you recall special counsel Weiss's report being made public? >> Uh, I don't recall
1474
1475I It may be
1476
1477I don't know
1478
1479Was your report made public in full? >> Uh this report uh this report as to the elections case I believe it was made public.
1480
1481>> Did you have a separate volume or a different a volume two of your report? >> That's correct. >> Was that made public? >> No. >> Touching on volume two
1482
1483In your letter to the attorney general, uh you also recommended that volume two of this report which discusses the classified documents case not be publicly released while the cases of Mr
1484
1485Walt Duta and Mr.
1486
1487Carlos de Olivera remained pending
1488
1489Uh do you recall saying that in your letter to the attorney general? >> That's what's in the letter
1490
1491Yes. >> Can you explain please just please explain why you included that recommendation? >> Uh when as special counsel when you draft a report like this, it's not for me to decide whether it gets made public or not.
1492
1493It's for the attorney general and it's for him to also to decide uh what portions, if any, get redacted in in that
1494
1495And so, uh, what I stated, uh, was my in essence recommendation that it should not be public because these cases are pending and there are facts in here, uh, that, um, that it might not be fair to have that be public while they have charges pending against them.
1496
1497>> Understood
1498
1499So, other than the fact that the cases of Mr
1500
1501No, Mr
1502
1503Aloe vera were still pending as you just discussed, did you have any other reasons to believe or to recommend that volume two of the report uh, should not be publicly released
1504
1505Well, again, that wasn't my choice
1506
1507My choice was to write a report for the attorney general to make a decision about whether it would be public.
1508
1509I have no objection to it being public
1510
1511And I didn't then, as long as it complies with the law in terms of 6E and other other issues like that
1512
1513If it's just going back to that recommendation in making the recommendation on the letter that had not be made public understanding that it's the AG's decision to release the report.
1514
1515>> Uh did you have any other reasons for making that recommendation other than the ongoing cases of Mr
1516
1517Nuts and Mr
1518
1519Olivera? >> I'm sorry I misunderstood your question
1520
1521No, no, no reason other than that. >> Is there any other reason right now since Mr
1522
1523Nuts and Mr
1524
1525Olivera's cases have been are no longer pending
1526
1527Is there any reason now that you can think of other than Judge Canon's order where volume two of the report should not be released? >> Judge Canon's order is the reason.
1528
1529>> Excuse me
1530
1531Can I jump in
1532
1533Um uh do you know who uh was respon did you dismiss the uh Nauda and Olivivera case cases? >> No. >> Do you know who dismissed them
1534
1535I don't recall, but I imagine it's a matter of public record. >> Um, if I told you that it was uh after Donald Trump was inaugurated, uh would you agree with that? >> I don't recall, but if that that may well be true.
1536
1537Um, for the purpose of this remaining conversation, since that's a uh publicly identifiable fact, uh, I will represent to you that it was done by the Trump administration
1538
1539Uh, you charged that case, correct? >> Correct. >> Um, you went through your, um, extensive experience as a prosecutor
1540
1541Um, do you believe that, uh, Mr
1542
1543Nauda and Mr.
1544
1545of error were guilty of the crimes that they were charged with. >> Yes, we believed that we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt for all the charges and that we would have gotten convictions at trial
1546
1547Yes
1548
1549And uh are you aware of any reason um within the rules, protocols, and regulations of the Department of Justice that that case should have been dismissed? >> In my view, no, it shouldn't have been.
1550
1551>> Real quickly before I turn over to Mr
1552
1553Jaw, are you able to speak about volume two today? >> I'm not
1554
1555Uh can you explain what you can and cannot speak about with respect to volume two? >> Uh well there is an order um of judge cannon an injunction uh regarding volume two.
1556
1557Uh I want to make very clear that I do not want to do anything to violate that injunction or that order
1558
1559And so, uh, given that I have not seen or 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
1560
1561And 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 can't remember the terminology, but uh
1562
1563properly publicly released information
1564
1565Uh I do not want to I want to be clear
1566
1567I 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.
1568
1569Now, >> so before we get to Miss Mipal, I just want to clear up two things
1570
1571One, um, so you've been an assistant DA, you've been a federal prosecutor, you were an international criminal court prosecutor, you were the chief of the public integrity section at DOJ, and you were a first assistant US attorney in Nashville and the acting US attorney.
1572
1573Do you have any um idea how many cases you've actually handled and prosecuted in >> that I've handled or supervised others handling
1574
1575It's I'm sure it's in the thousands. >> In the thousands
1576
1577Okay
1578
1579Um have you ever um been prosecuted for selective prosecution, vindictive prosecution, or partisan discrimination? >> Never
1580
1581Um, have you ever fired a prosecutor because they refused to engage in a prosecution on grounds that there was not sufficient evidence? >> No.
1582
1583>> Okay
1584
1585Uh and in in all of the cases that you have supervised and prosecuted yourself directly relating to domestic violence, relating to conspiracy, relating to murder, relating to war crimes
1586
1587Have you encountered the problem of witness intimidation? >> Very much so. >> Will you speak a bit about the problem of witness intimidation and what that does to the rule of law and justice
1588
1589Witness intimidation is probably the most corrosive um thing that can happen to the rule of law.
1590
1591And that is why as a young prosecutor, you are taught to move your cases expeditiously because you know that if there is uh someone trying to obstruct your case, the longer they have to do that, the more they can subvert justice
1592
1593And uh I've worked on a number of cases
1594
1595Um I've worked on murder cases where witnesses were murdered.
1596
1597I've worked on um cases overseas involving very serious witness um intimidation and obstruction of justice and as I mentioned earlier um this case as well and so I that was uh foremost in my mind as we were conducting these investigations but it's something I've encountered in different contexts throughout my career even back to those domestic violence cases that I started in earlier in my career um attempts to uh to uh threaten or influence the w those witnesses are are a way to subvert justice.
1598
1599>> So what what kinds of actions and precautions can you take as a prosecutor to prevent it and to try to protect witnesses against intimidation and violence? >> So depending on the situation, there would be different sorts of steps that you could take
1600
1601Um obviously um if it's if it's an imminent uh threat like someone's coming to kill the witness today, you try to move them and protect them for a period of time.
1602
1603Uh but if it's a more pervasive threat where um a defendant or people on his behalf are are issuing statements and issuing threats uh trying to get people not to cooperate with your case or trying to make an example of people who have cooperated with your case
1604
1605Uh the best thing you can do is um limit their ability to make those threats and shorten the time they have to make those threats.
1606
1607>> Thank you
1608
1609Let me go to Mr
1610
1611Ch
1612
1613Can I just one thing on volume two before we go
1614
1615Um it's obviously a case related to classified documents
1616
1617Um without getting into the detail, h how was it construct
1618
1619How was it written
1620
1621Was there a an unclassified portion and a classified portion or is the classified material interwoven in the in the volume? >> I don't think I should even talk about that.
1622
1623I I don't I don't want to have any any implication that I gave some sort of insight about how that report is constructed
1624
1625Um, and so I don't really think I could speak about that given her order. >> Can I ask you this question
1626
1627Um, is it possible to release parts of that report uh while also that while also protecting classified material? >> I I very much want to answer your question, but I don't want to say anything that will imply what is in the report.
1628
1629And so unfortunately I don't think I can answer. >> Okay, Dan, I'm gonna go to Miss Jipole
1630
1631We'll come back to you. >> Thank you
1632
1633Um Mr
1634
1635Smith, I want to get to questions of transparency again, but I want to pull out to a bigger question
1636
1637Um do you think that it's important for our democracy to hold free and fair elections without interference or obstruction? >> Yes.
1638
1639>> And theoretically, what happens if uh there is election interference
1640
1641Can the who are responsible for that are not held accountable. >> Uh it becomes the new norm and that becomes uh how we how we conduct elections. >> And so the toll on our democracy, if you had to describe that, what would that be? >> Catastrophic.
1642
1643>> Um you stated in your testimony in the first hour that you've tried to be as transparent as possible with the American people about your investigation
1644
1645The chairman of the committee has repeatedly put out that you were subpoenaed uh for your testimony today and in fact you are here under a subpoena but you have requested to appear voluntarily in a public hearing.
1646
1647Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And why were you willing to appear voluntarily in a public? >> Uh we conducted our investigation in a way that I'm proud of
1648
1649I'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
1650
1651I know you have a couple of questions on this, but I want to reiterate this.
1652
1653>> That is my general understanding
1654
1655Yes. >> 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
1656
1657Can 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 at my opening remarks, uh there have been mischaracterizations about my work.
1658
1659uh the um we did our work in 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.
1660
1661>> What's the effect of that on their democracy? >> Well, I think it drives people away from public service. >> Is it a form of witness intimidation? >> I I think it I think it's even deeper than that
1662
1663I think, you know, when we get to um attacking the people who are the good guys, >> um I just don't know where that goes.
1664
1665I I >> it's counter to how I was raised
1666
1667And 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. >> Can I jump in really quickly just on the witness intimidation issue
1668
1669Um, as I understand it, you were asked a lot of questions about filings that your office made as it relates to trying to protect witnesses.
1670
1671um specifically the gag orders
1672
1673Do you have any regrets about the steps that you took as it relates to um seeking bag orders against this defendant um in an effort to protect witnesses? >> Are our uh applications for orders limiting Donald Trump's ability to intimidate witnesses, intimidate court staff, intimidate my staff
1674
1675I have no regrets about that.
1676
1677>> Um dovetailing on that, have you only been further um convicted in the decisions that you decided to make as it relates to that in watching some of the president's actions even in present day? >> Uh I I think the record of our case speaks for itself on those issues. >> Could I just follow up on the uh gag orders relative to the defendants
1678
1679In every case, a judge decided that that was warranted
1680
1681Correct.
1682
1683In the in the cases in the District of Columbia, a judge did decide that and the court of appeals agreed
1684
1685They narrowed the order as I as I said earlier
1686
1687Uh in Florida, we applied for an order because of statements Donald Trump had made that I viewed endangered FBI agents that hadn't been decided um when the case was dismissed.
1688
1689>> Thank you
1690
1691And 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. >> Have you been threatened? >> Yes
1692
1693Have you learned of other persons um whether they worked under you as attorneys or other support staff
1694
1695Are you aware of any threats that have been made against any of them? >> Yes.
1696
1697>> And um Okay, I'll stop there. >> Mr. >> Thank you, Mr
1698
1699Smith
1700
1701I really have two questions
1702
1703First question which our council abley covered just so we're clear
1704
1705You wanted to testify publicly today
1706
1707Correct. >> Yes, I was willing to. >> And Chairman Jordan declined that opportunity
1708
1709Correct. >> Yes. >> Any thoughts as to why Chairman Jordan is scared to have you testify in public? >> I'm I'm not going to characterize the chairman's decision.
1710
1711I offered he decided that we would do it in this setting and that's that is what it is
1712
1713Well, I think uh Americans who review this transcript once it's concluded will understand why questions. >> Marks, let's come back to you. >> Thank you, sir
1714
1715Uh I'm going to switch gears a little bit to your appointment as special counsel.
1716
1717Uh do you recall when you were appointed as special counsel? >> Yes, it was November, I believe, uh November of 2022. >> Does November 18th of 2022 sound right? >> That sounds about right
1718
1719Uh, do you recall the day that Donald Trump announced his candidacy for the 2024 election? >> I believe it was shortly before that
1720
1721Okay. >> So, who offered you the position of special counsel? >> The attorney general.
1722
1723>> And what was your understanding of why the attorney general felt it was necessary to appoint a special counsel in this circumstance? >> Uh, I believe the attorney general made a public statement about uh why and that public statement is my understanding. >> Okay
1724
1725Um, we can maybe enter that public statement in a little later.
1726
1727Um, but what did you understand the scope of your investigation to be specifically when you were appointed? >> Uh, the scope was defined by the appointment order which encompassed the two investigations that I've referred to today. >> And can you just make the record clear again
1728
1729Just briefly describe those two investigations and that appointment order.
1730
1731>> Sure
1732
1733And I I I don't have the order in front of me
1734
1735So just >> actually So we'll make that an exhibit
1736
1737We'll make it an exhibit
1738
1739Let's make the appointment exhibit
1740
1741And this will be a little bit 11 I believe. >> Make it easier just to refresh your recollection. >> Thank you. >> So after you've taken a minute a minute to review it and please take your time, uh the question will be what did you understand the scope of your investigation to be? >> Okay.
1742
1743So uh consistent with this order, the scope um was um two investigations, both of them ongoing at the time
1744
1745Uh the first was an ongoing in investigation into whether any person or entity violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the electoral college vote held on or about January 6, 2021, as well as any matters that arose or might directly arise uh from this investigation
1746
1747Okay.
1748
1749Uh, do you know why or have you heard why the attorney general chose you to be the special counsel? >> Why why he chose me? >> Yes. >> No. >> Okay
1750
1751At the time of your appointment, I understand you were living in the Netherlands
1752
1753Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Uh, did you lobby for this position? >> No.
1754
1755>> Did you petition the attorney general to be the special counsel? >> I did not. >> Did you reach out to any former colleagues of the Department of Justice expressing your interest in being the special counsel
1756
1757Uh I had been in contact with a former colleague by the name of Marshall Miller
1758
1759Um he had returned to the department uh sometime that summer and uh I had spoken to him and expressed to him an interest in if there was the right position returning to the department >> ultimately
1760
1761Why did you accept the
1762
1763special counsel position? >> Uh because I thought I was the right person for the job
1764
1765I knew that this would be a challenging job
1766
1767I knew it would be a job where uh whoever held the job or whatever decision they made um somebody would would want to attack them for that decision and uh I felt that given my uh nearly 30 years as a prosecutor made me uniquely qualified to do the work.
1768
1769>> Did you have any reservations about accepting the special counsel position? >> No
1770
1771Uh there were a lot of attacks on you shortly after you named and throughout the the um time as special counsel
1772
1773You said earlier, I think you use the term intimidated
1774
1775Um I guess how did you move forward consistently with those attacks while special counsel? >> Uh I think uh attacks and praise are noise and uh as a prosecutor I've learned to tune those things out.
1776
1777Um I'm more concerned again about the attacks on my staff
1778
1779Um but for myself I understand that that's um can be part of the work at times. >> Did you accept the role as summit suggested because you had animist towards President Trump? >> No. >> Did you accept the role as Summit suggested because you hope to influence the 2024 presidential election in favor of the Democratic nominee? >> No.
1780
1781Did you accept the role because you thought it would help the Democratic nominee by prosecuting Donald Trump before the election took place in 2024? >> No. >> Let's consider the same facts related to the attack on the capital on January 6 or the mishandling of classified documents
1782
1783So that's the facts we're going to consider here.
1784
1785Take the same facts but insert a president who was a Democrat
1786
1787Would you have still accepted the role of special counsel? >> 100%
1788
1789Considering the same facts, so the same fact pattern of the attack on Janu on the capital on January 6th, the same facts of unlawfully taking classified documents after leaving the White House.
1790
1791Um, would you still have accepted the role of special counsel to investigate former President Barack Obama? >> Yes. >> Again, considering the same facts, would you have accepted the role of special counsel to investigate former President Joe Biden? >> Yes
1792
1793Looking back and you've talked about the investigation steps that you've taken here in the deposition today.
1794
1795I think I've heard you talk about, you know, process of an investigation and how that's important
1796
1797Uh would your investigative process have differed if the president of the United States would have been a Democrat? >> No. >> Have a follow on that? >> Yeah
1798
1799Um, 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
1800
1801And we
1802
1803in our conclusions uh cited a number of statutes um which ended up I think being part of your investigation including conspiracy to obstruct a federal proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, false statements and so on
1804
1805But 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
1806
1807conspiracy to violate the voting rights of the people. >> Sure
1808
1809Uh the right to vote in a presidential election is one of the most sacred rights that American has
1810
1811Um 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.
1812
1813Uh we had evidence in just a couple examples where um President Trump was asking local officials to find 11,000 votes
1814
1815Uh when you find 11,000 votes, you're deluding other people's votes
1816
1817Uh 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.
1818
1819Um, 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
1820
1821We want to to subtract them and uh diluting the vote count in that way
1822
1823Um, there's strong precedent for for that uh being a violation of of of the statute that we charge.
1824
1825There were 60 federal or state court decisions rejecting claims of electoral fraud, electoral corruption that been brought by President Trump or his uh teammates
1826
1827Uh to what extent did that figure into your analysis of that problem
1828
1829Well, the the the lawsuits, you know, we made clear in our indictment that there um there are proper ways to dispute an election and asking for an audit, which President Trump did and I believe in only two of the states that were in question
1830
1831That's a way you can do that.
1832
1833Uh filing lawsuits, completely legal and proper way to to do that
1834
1835Uh but in this case um those lawsuits uh were part of our proof that put President Trump and his co-conspirators on notice
1836
1837The the the suits, their results and the things that court said in finding those suits without merit uh put him were one component of evidence that put him on notice that uh these um allegations were false.
1838
1839Also, there were instances uh where there were protectual lawsuits
1840
1841There was one lawsuit, for example, that was filed in New Mexico minutes before the deadline so they could say there was a dispute in New Mexico so they could proceed forward with the fake electors ballot
1842
1843There was another lawsuit in Georgia where um one of the co-conspirators explicitly said in an email, "We're on notice that the things in this lawsuit aren't accurate, so we shouldn't have the president sign a certification of this lawsuit.
1844
1845" and then they played with the language a little and had him sign a certification nonetheless
1846
1847And so these lawsuits, while filing a lawsuit absolutely clearly is something you can do, um they were probitative evidence of the criminal intent in this case for those limited reasons I just suggested. >> Can I go back to volume two just for a second
1848
1849You said that they that the department gave you access to volume two and you chose not to use it.
1850
1851>> That's correct. >> Did I I I believe so
1852
1853I 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 and I didn't look at that. >> Did they give you access to uh any classified information that was a part of your files
1854
1855No. >> Um, was uh did you did you or your attorneys have any discussions with the department about that? >> I I don't recall.
1856
1857>> Do you still have your um security clearance? >> No. >> Um when and how was that taken away
1858
1859Uh 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
1860
1861That's I it's vague but that's my recollection of what happened at my conclusion of my service.
1862
1863>> 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
1864
1865Um, 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.
1866
1867>> Again, I don't want to speak about anything that could infer the content of of volume two
1868
1869When you provided volume two to the attorney general, did you provide proposed redactions? >> I believe we did, but I believe we did. >> And the redactions, >> but I I just want to be I'm sorry to interrupt, you sir.
1870
1871I with the understanding that it was ultimately the attorney general's decision whether to make it public, whether to do redactions, uh things of that nature. >> And what were the nature of your proposed redactions? >> I don't recall as I sit here now. >> What was it related to the classified information? >> I I don't recall.
1872
1873It it could have been it could have been 6E
1874
1875It could have been things of that nature
1876
1877Did you make proposed redactions because of your concern at all about the ongoing case against not? >> I I don't recall that, but I I can't be conclusive
1878
1879I I really don't have a good memory of the subject. >> I'm curious.
1880
1881Um shifting gears just a little bit
1882
1883When you first sat down, the majority was asking you questions that seemingly um were tied into the general duties of a prosecutor and uh your resume has been laid out
1884
1885Um it is interesting or at least it was interesting to me to hear the majority characterized who should be prosecuted under the current circumstances.
1886
1887I'm not sure if you've followed along, but are you aware that this under this DOJ they have indicted Tis James as well as they ultimately indicted James Comey
1888
1889Are you aware of that? >> I am
1890
1891And um are you also aware of um the fact that this DOJ um has consistently dismissed members of the DOJ for refusing to um bring forth indictments that they don't believe have merit? >> Yes.
1892
1893The 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
1894
1895Um, 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 negatives in that.
1896
1897>> I know
1898
1899Um they were trying to >> you're not supposed to go after people who you believe are not guilty. >> Okay
1900
1901Thank you
1902
1903Um in your experience of three decades, have you ever needed to seek the same indictment three times while being rejected? >> Never. >> Um okay, I think that's all I have
1904
1905Have you ever prosecuted someone that you did not believe was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? >> Never.
1906
1907>> As we hit I know we're getting close to the end of our time, I want to hit on a few questions
1908
1909Um, and I apologize they come off as very obvious to you with your experience and the way that you conducted yourself with the Department of Justice
1910
1911Uh, did but did Attorney General Garland or other DOJ officials direct investigative steps within your office of the special counsel
1912
1913No.
1914
1915>> Did Attorney General Garland or other DOJ officials direct litigation decisions within your office? >> No. >> Uh, did you experience Attorney General Garland or other DOJ DOJ officials interfering with your ability to conduct this investigation? >> No. >> Did President Biden ever give you any instructions about what you should or should not do related to these investigations? >> No.
1916
1917Did you ever speak to President Biden about this these investigations? >> No. >> I think Mr
1918
1919Moss would say a question of retribution
1920
1921So now >> uh off the top of my head I do not. >> If I profered that it was exacting a punishment against someone
1922
1923Would that sound better? >> Yes
1924
1925And it Yes. >> Your lawyers lost their security clearance.
1926
1927Is that correct? >> Yes. >> The people who worked under you were fired
1928
1929Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> You're here today on a deposition that Sherman has brought you into, but I wouldn't give you a public hearing
1930
1931Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Did you see the comments by the president's chief of staff talking about retribution? >> I did.
1932
1933>> So, everyone was fired
1934
1935You're here on a deposition
1936
1937Your lawyers lost their security clearance
1938
1939Seems like it meets 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.
1940
1941Uh I have no doubt um that um that's the intent
1942
1943the exact quote was he doesn't wake up thinking about it, but when there's an opportunity, he goes for it
1944
1945I mean, this seems like a opportunity
1946
1947You 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
1948
1949Uh I I know that.
1950
1951Uh, I don't frankly connect that with this hearing
1952
1953Um, I don't have any connection
1954
1955I came here
1956
1957I was asked to come. >> No. >> 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
1958
1959I >> What's the likelihood that there were less than zero conversations between the White House and >> I'm not I'm not going to speculate on that.
1960
1961I will say I I I agree that this department wants to seek retribution against anybody who worked on cases against President Trump
1962
1963I just don't have any evidence. >> Why do you think the chairman wouldn't give you a public? >> That's not for me to say
1964
1965Um, I I want to go back to your testifying that in every case you've ever brought, you've believed that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt to demonstrate that the defendant is guilty.
1966
1967Uh, I'm not sure it would be even ethical to bring a case if you didn't have that belief
1968
1969But is there anything inconsistent about having that belief that you can sustain the prosecutor's burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of the crime are satisfied
1970
1971and also wanting to see that constitutional due process is observed in the trial.
1972
1973Is there any conflict between those two? >> I I don't see one. >> In other words, as a prosecutor, you go in with the belief that you can make your case, but you also want to make that case within the rule of law and within due process
1974
1975And you've never experienced uh that as a problem, right
1976
1977You've never wanted to to trample the rules of due process in order to convict someone.
1978
1979>> That's correct. >> Okay, Mark, back to you. >> Um, I just wanted to piggy back on something that Miss Crockett brought up earlier, but are you familiar with Justice Manual 927220? >> You're going to have to give me more than the number, I think. >> All right
1980
1981Um so that provision basically is uh states the condition but with which a prosecutor can commence or recommend federal prosecution.
1982
1983Uh and I can quote from that uh that section for you
1984
1985It says uh prosecutor may commence or recommend federal prosecution only if he or she believes that the person will more likely than not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by an unbiased trier of fact and that the conviction will be upheld on appeal. >> So does that sound familiar to you? >> Yes.
1986
1987>> Okay
1988
1989Did you follow this provision when you indicted President Trump in the election interference case? >> Yes
1990
1991And did you follow that provision when you indicted President Trump and his co-conspirators
1992
1993Oh, sorry, just President Trump in the classified documents case. >> Yes. >> And his co-conspirators.
1994
1995>> Did you? >> In that case, yes. >> Okay
1996
1997And the majority in their hour questioned you about why you included conduct um that has not been found uh that has not been brought forth before a tri, right
1998
1999that has not been proven in a court of law
2000
2001But aren't you just essentially restating the standard that was uh that's stated in justice manual 927220? >> Yes.
2002
2003I I with our report I wanted to explain my prosecutorial decisions, why we made them, the basis for them, and that's why we wrote the report the way we did. >> Thank you. >> In my last few minutes of our hour, please bear with me as I go through these next questions
2004
2005There's a lot of inferences and accusations being made about your bias as a special um counsel's office and I want to make sure that we rebut these in the first hour.
2006
2007I think it's important to So, did the attorney general or any other DOJ official ever press you to be more aggressive in your investigation of President Donald J
2008
2009Trump? >> No. >> Did the attorney general, any other DOJ official ever suggest that you were expected to bring charges against President Trump? >> No.
2010
2011Did anyone from the White House, including President Biden, ever tell you they expected you to bring charges against Donald Trump? >> No. >> Uh, when you eventually did bring charges against Donald Trump, how did you make that decision
2012
2013Walk us through it at a high level if you don't mind. >> Sure
2014
2015Uh, it was based on the facts and based on the law.
2016
2017Uh, I ultimately made that decision
2018
2019Uh but I consulted with uh my team of prosecutors on that case who were outstanding public servants, people with uh great experience and complex investigations
2020
2021Uh I I took their advice and in counsel in making that decision
2022
2023Uh and I tried to consider all factors including um both the strength of the case that we believed we had, possible defenses, all things of that nature.
2024
2025So what which based on what you just said, it sounds like you made this prostitution a prosecution, not prostitution, I apologize, prosecution decision based on the evidence in the law
2026
2027Is that correct? >> That's correct
2028
2029Would would you have done if you felt any improper pressure from a DOJ official official or the White House? >> Uh I I think people who know me and have known my reputation uh would know that that would not end well.
2030
2031That someone tried to pressure me to uh move a case in one direction or the other
2032
2033wasn't supported by the law
2034
2035Uh, I wouldn't stand for it
2036
2037And I would also say the people who work in my office wouldn't stand for that either. >> Yep
2038
2039We're at our hour, so we'll end there
2040
2041Thank you
2042
2043Mr
2044
2045Jordan, you're going to you're going
2046
2047to start with some Smith
2048
2049Who's Marshall Miller? >> Uh Marshall Miller uh was a uh a prosecutor I've worked with >> and um let me go back to to last hour
2050
2051you you said uh the Democrats, I believe, asked you uh whether you lobbyed for the position and you said you didn't, but then you followed up and you said you made a call to the Justice Department, someone you knew there, and I think I think I got the quote right.
2052
2053You said, "If there was the right position, I would be interested." What was the right position you were talking about
2054
2055Um, if I could take you back, um, Marshall Miller is the person I was talking about
2056
2057Um, that was my next question. >> Yeah
2058
2059I I learned that he was returning to the Department of Justice.
2060
2061I was still overseas at this point in my State Department position
2062
2063Uh, I reached out to congratulate him about coming back to the department
2064
2065Um, >> what position did he have at the department? >> He was a a senior position in the deputy attorney general's office
2066
2067I'm not sure I'm going to get the exact title right, but it was a senior position in the deputy attorney general.
2068
2069>> My understanding he was principal deputy attorney general, number three position. >> That that could well be. >> Okay
2070
2071So, you called him and you told him what? >> Um well, I initially called him to congratulate him on coming back to the department. >> Okay. >> And at some point I told him um that if the right position came up, I would be interested in returning to the department.
2072
2073>> And what was the right position? >> Uh I didn't I wasn't specific about it
2074
2075Um, I just told him if the right thing came up to sort of keep me in mind. >> What What were you What did you have in mind? >> Do you want to go back to running the public integrity section? >> So, >> you want to be a line lawyer
2076
2077What do you want to do? >> What I what I recall is right around then there was a domestic terrorism unit being set up >> and uh I don't and I don't know if I shared that with Marshall, but that idea that that was being set up
2078
2079I was
2080
2081interested in things like that, but I didn't have a specific >> When did the call take place? >> Well, it wasn't I'm not going to remember specific conversations
2082
2083I know shortly after he returned, I reached out to um congratulate him on returning to the department
2084
2085At some point, I don't know if it was then or in a call after that, I said if the right position came up, I would be interested.
2086
2087So you're you're you're saying today you were no way referencing what many assume might happen, which would be there be a special counsel looking into President Trump
2088
2089That wasn't on your mind. >> Uh >> you weren't anticipating that >> when I told him I'd be interested
2090
2091Um no. >> Okay
2092
2093Okay
2094
2095Let's go back to um the Okay.
2096
2097Where we left off in our first hour with the uh the toll records
2098
2099So, um, you you seem to indicate that you felt the burden was on the carrier to comply and that you felt that was consistent with the statute that applies to the United States Senate
2100
2101Did you feel like you had a burden at all to tell um to let the carriers know that we in fact are looking for toll records for numerous United States senators? >> You're I'm sorry, sir.
2102
2103You could which statute are you talking about? >> The statute that applies to the Senate where you you referenced that you think the burden is placed on the carriers um to deal with this issue with senators don't apply to the House but the senators in our first hour you said the burden's on them to if they're going to they're going to they're going to let the Senate know that their toll records are going to the government.
2104
2105The burden is on them
2106
2107And I'm just asking do you feel like there was any burden on the prosecutor on you to tell uh to make that public
2108
2109to make that public, >> not to make it public, to let the carriers know we are in fact make it public to the carriers
2110
2111We are in fact asking for toll records for the United States Senator.
2112
2113>> Sir, I I I don't I don't recall discussing that particular statute
2114
2115I may have uh what I meant to communicate was that reading that statute as it existed at the time reading it now it's clear to me that the process that was envisioned >> so you didn't know about the statute back when you requested the polls >> I I do not recall discussing this statute I can't recall if I knew about it then or not >> okay there's definitely a burden based on what what the justice department is now going to going to do move forward.
2116
2117There's definitely a burden now, but you didn't think there was any type of burden for you to let the carriers know these numbers we are giving you are numbers for, excuse me, four United States senators
2118
2119As you referenced, the statute has now been changed
2120
2121Um and before that change uh my understanding is that the statute uh directed carriers uh to to do this analysis and in fact envisioned that carriers might get >> so there's no burden on >> no burden on the prosecutor >> I get that >> my reading of that statute as it was
2122
2123drafted at that time is there was not >> okay and you ran the public integrity section in in back in your days at justice department is that right >> correct Did you ever get requests for toll records for uh this internal analysis that you think was as as Steve said pretty crucially
2124
2125Did you ever get requests for members of Congress or United States senators their their whole records? >> Um it was some time ago.
2126
2127I'm sure we may have
2128
2129I I as I sit here now, I can't remember a specific instance, but I I I'm not saying >> How long were you How long did you uh were you head of the public section? >> I was the head from May of 2010 until it was either January or February of two I believe 2015. >> Okay
2130
2131Five years
2132
2133And in that time frame, you don't if you got you don't you can't recall you may have I think is I'm going to be fair to you uh that you you don't recall any request for the toll records of members of Congress or United States senator
2134
2135>> well I I'm saying we may well have and I that may well have happened I just as I sit here right now don't recall a specific instance of that I'm not denying that that happened >> okay What once the department gets the records um what does it do with them
2136
2137I know that the FBI has a something they call the cellular analysis survey team cast but do you know what what happens with the records once they get them? >> Uh the analysis like how they do the analysis.
2138
2139>> What do you do with the records? >> That that would not be in my area of expertise
2140
2141How 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
2142
2143Um, >> so you you subpoenaed um Speaker McCarthy's um toll records uh after he became speaker and you sought records from November 2020 through January 8th, 2021.
2144
2145Like what were you looking for with his records
2146
2147Like what what did you do with the information you obtained
2148
2149Okay
2150
2151So what the relevance of those records um there' 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.
2152
2153And 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
2154
2155Um getting the exact toll records for when that happened um was relevant for our investigation.
2156
2157both 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 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
2158
2159Um, so one way you could
2160
2161have 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
2162
2163Right. >> Well, you say now that nobody's disputing
2164
2165Uh, 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.
2166
2167And so when I conduct a criminal investigation, I don't assume there will be no disputes
2168
2169uh 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.
2170
2171Then 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
2172
2173That's very important evidence for criminal intent in our case, >> right
2174
2175But you could have asked Elliot Burke for that information, the speaker's lawyer.
2176
2177You 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.
2178
2179There was nothing improper about how we got these records. >> The same with Representative Perry's phone
2180
2181I mean, you could have asked Representative Perry's lawyer
2182
2183I mean, there's no evidence that Representative Perry or Speaker McCarthy was interested in obstructing your work
2184
2185Was there? >> Uh, I don't have any evidence that Speaker McCarthy was I I don't recall any evidence, I should say, that Speaker McCarthy was interested in obstructing our work.
2186
2187>> Okay
2188
2189So, with Representative Perry, you could have contacted his lawyer and you could have said, "This is what we're looking for
2190
2191Can you can you help us achieve this without seizing his phone
2192
2193Uh well, with Congressman Perry, I I should point out that the seizure of his phone happened several months before I was ever special counsel.
2194
2195I I wasn't involved in that process. >> Yeah
2196
2197Okay
2198
2199But but in hindsight, um would you have counseledled um taking a different avenue to acquiring a member's file? >> I'm not going to speculate on investigative steps that occurred before I became special counsel. >> Okay
2200
2201when obtaining the the toll records of members of Congress um or anyone, what is the standard
2202
2203Must there be um some evidence that you know relates to a criminal um prosecution or criminal investigation? >> So there has to be a reasonable basis to believe that there will be uh relevant
2204
2205materially relevant evidence. >> Okay
2206
2207Now, with the chairman of the judiciary committee, the subpoena with Speaker McCarthy, the subpoena, the time frame was November 2020 through January 8th, 2021
2208
2209With the the now chairman of the judiciary committee, the time frame went back to January 2020
2210
2211So it was for a full year uh where you know between January 2020 and December of 2020 nobody you know had any telephone calls about um these matters.
2212
2213Just curious why you went back to January 2020
2214
2215The office did. >> Sorry I just want to clarify when you say you went back can we just get the date of when >> it was May 1st 2022 and it was before you you were appointed
2216
2217Um, when I say you, I apologize
2218
2219I mean the office state, the effort
2220
2221I mean, this was um before you became special counsel.
2222
2223Um, the DC matters were were headed up by Thomas Windham, as I understand it. >> I believe that's right. >> And the the Florida matters were headed up by um Jay Brat. >> That's correct
2224
2225Um, and so the the the question is why would DOJ why would the team seek records from January 2020 um, you know, through November um, of that year before any of these issues, you know, before anyone knew about any of these issues.
2226
2227>> Yeah, I played no role in that subpoena
2228
2229I I was still in Europe at the time
2230
2231Uh, and because I wasn't present or involved, I'm not going to speculate on the basis for the the range of time that the prosecutors in that case uh saw it. >> Okay
2232
2233After you became the special counsel, um, that information obtained from the subpoena um, you know, was available to the special counsel team.
2234
2235What did the team do with it after you became, you know, after you were sworn in
2236
2237You mean when you say that information, you're talking about the to >> the total 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.
2238
2239Um 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.
2240
2241the credible people that that the president relied on
2242
2243And I I what I recall was um uh Meadows stating that um I've never seen Jim Jordan scared of anything
2244
2245And 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.
2246
2247And 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
2248
2249Extremely probative to our case. >> Right
2250
2251But DOJ took Mr.
2252
2253Jordan's phone records from January 2020 through November
2254
2255Um 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
2256
2257And 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 breadth of it and so I can't speak to that.
2258
2259>> Okay
2260
2261Um can you see from our point of view that there's a perception that there's some overreach going on there? >> I I understand your question
2262
2263Uh I don't have any and and I I I do understand it
2264
2265I don't have any reason to believe that that subpoena was um secured for any improper purpose or that it was secured uh in contravention of uh department regulations or the law.
2266
2267>> Okay
2268
2269And in terms of who is involved with the authorizations for that type of subpoena, it's your team, it's public integrity, any other justice department component
2270
2271Uh I cannot speak to that before I was special counsel
2272
2273I can say that when I was special counsel I was the person who approved subpoenas of that nature.
2274
2275>> Okay. >> And with of course the fact that I wanted it I wanted um consultation with um with public integrity. >> Okay
2276
2277So that was the the universe of of um of DOJ authorization
2278
2279It was it was you and public integrity
2280
2281You didn't have to go to the DAG
2282
2283You didn't have to go to OLC
2284
2285Correct. >> That's correct.
2286
2287>> Okay
2288
2289Um when the subpoena was served um for certain members of the judiciary committee, it was served by an official at the Department of Justice's um inspector general
2290
2291Um which from our point of view raises a conflict of interest
2292
2293I mean the inspector general is supposed to be conducting uh oversight if necessary of department components.
2294
2295Um certainly if department components are u being real aggressive with members of Congress, we might want the IG to conduct a a probe of that, right
2296
2297But if the IG's on your team and they're doing they're doing this with you, that presents a problem for us
2298
2299And so the question is why was the IG's office um serving these subpoenas
2300
2301Why were they you know they they went and I know it was before you were the special counsel, but they went on the Perry uh search.
2302
2303They took his phone and then they imaged his phone
2304
2305I mean, the IG here is is just like a regular part of the team
2306
2307Can you explain why that happened
2308
2309Yes, with the understanding that I obviously wasn't in in that decision chain because I wasn't involved in the case, but my understanding is that um the Jeffrey Clark component of this investigation um he was a Department of Justice employee during the period of time uh that we were uh and and my predecessors were investigating this and it's my understanding um that that is why uh they were
2310
2311involved in the investigation
2312
2313But understood
2314
2315But why when it comes to members of Congress didn't like I don't understand like yeah I understand they had the Jeffrey Clark investigation going on but when it comes to members of Congress I mean the IG has a special you know relationship with Congress.
2316
2317Um why are they allowed to be involved? >> Again this I all I can tell you is what I just told you
2318
2319This was before my time but my understanding about why it occurred is because they were involved in that aspect of the investigation
2320
2321And were they involved after you became the special counsel
2322
2323Were they involved in serving toll record subpoenas related to members of Congress to your knowledge? >> Uh my recollection is that uh they may still have been involved.
2324
2325My primary dealings were with the FBI
2326
2327Um but they may well have stayed uh as part of the investigation
2328
2329I just I didn't have a lot of interaction with them. >> Okay
2330
2331And when some of these toll record subpoenas were served by the IG's office, um, do you know whether they knew they were serving toll record subpoenas relating to a member of Congress? >> Are you talking about in the period of time when I was special counsel or before? >> When you were the special counsel.
2332
2333>> Okay
2334
2335I, as I sit here, just to be clear, I'm not aware
2336
2337I don't recollect that people in the DOJ Inspector General's office were serving subpoenas during my time. >> Okay. >> Could well be
2338
2339I I just don't have recollection of that. >> Okay
2340
2341Uh I can represent to you that they did serve subpoenas before your time.
2342
2343I mean, they served one in May of 2022 relating to the chairman of committee. >> Yeah
2344
2345And as I said, before my time, I can't speak to that because I again, I was in Europe
2346
2347I wasn't I wasn't in the investigation
2348
2349But after you became um after you were appointed that that wasn't occurring to the best of your knowledge. >> Uh I just don't have a recollection of that.
2350
2351>> Okay
2352
2353Um >> but I I I should I want to just to be clear, I'm not sure in my role I would know which individual agent was serving a subpoena
2354
2355So that's not something I would have um necessarily known in the first place
2356
2357Just I wanted to make that clear. >> Fair enough
2358
2359But if it was from the IG's office, wouldn't that raise like like an issue
2360
2361I I'm just saying to you my in my role I was not >> like directing which agent would serve which subpoena.
2362
2363>> Okay
2364
2365Has any did you have um interactions with with the IG's office on the Jeff Clark matter? >> I can't think of any now, but I don't want to say that they may have been possible
2366
2367I did, but as I sit here now, I can't think of any
2368
2369I mean, were they uh a part of the team after you were appointed? >> That's what I said earlier.
2370
2371My my recollection is that they were. >> Okay. >> With the total record subpoenas for the the senators, um one of one of the lines requested was a Senate landline
2372
2373Did you know about that
2374
2375I don't recall knowing about any particular lines
2376
2377What I my role as I saw it was to uh understand who my prosecutors thought we should be getting toll records for >> uh to make sure we had a a basis for that under the statute, a reasonable basis.
2378
2379Um, I don't recall discussions about how they figured out what lines, >> okay, >> we would be going for >> because at least in the house, you know, if you place a call from a landline in the house, it goes out scrambled
2380
2381So, you know, to the extent DOJ thinks they have the right number, it's, you know, it would be it would be scrambled.
2382
2383And so it's just raises questions as to why um the office would subpoena toll records for a Senate landline and and you don't have any additional information or recollections on that? >> I really don't. >> Okay
2384
2385Um there was some litigation with AT&T um over the subpoenas for for the Senate lines.
2386
2387Do you have any recollection of that
2388
2389Was it litigation or was I know I I saw or I was shown that there was a letter that um from AT&T to Senator Grassley
2390
2391I don't I don't recall any litigation. >> Okay
2392
2393Um maybe litigation was was the wrong word, but AT&T I guess pushed back on the toll records subpoena and according to them after they pushed back and said they didn't they weren't comfortable producing the records, the special counsel's office stood down.
2394
2395Do do you have any um recollections from that? >> I don't have any recollection of that. >> Okay
2396
2397You know, and essentially AT&T represented um at least to Senator Grassley's office that um you know, after after they said no, we're not going to give you those records
2398
2399Um your office didn't didn't press the matter further.
2400
2401Um which raises the question why
2402
2403But >> the testimony is you don't have any recollection of that? >> I don't have any recollection of it
2404
2405But I also don't know uh from the letter what the reason they gave for not giving it
2406
2407But I I don't have a memory of any of this. >> Okay. >> 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.
2408
2409Um you know, who should be held accountable for for answering these questions
2410
2411Well, I think who should be accountable for this is Donald Trump
2412
2413These records are are people in the case of the senators
2414
2415Donald Trump directed his co-conspirators to call these people to further delay the proceedings
2416
2417He chose to do that.
2418
2419If Donald Trump had chosen to call a number of Democratic senators, we would have got toll records for a de Democratic senator
2420
2421So, responsibility >> uh for why these records, why we collected them, that's that lies with Donald Trump
2422
2423I understand that's your perspective, but in terms of um there are calls from United States senators to impeach Judge Boseberg because he signed this NDO order.
2424
2425Um we we've asked you questions, you know, for a good bit now about whether your office should have um taken additional steps
2426
2427So, it's either your office, you know, the judge, uh, the carrier
2428
2429Uh, in your view, who needs to be, um, held to account on on these toll record subpoenas? >> Uh, well, I I don't, uh, certainly my office did everything consistent with the law and department regulations at the time.
2430
2431As I think we referenced earlier this morning, um the department regulations on this since we issued these toll records has changed
2432
2433Uh if uh I believe now uh and I I believe this is in 2024
2434
2435If we were to make an NDO application to a judge, we would need to identify if they were members of Congress
2436
2437And so to the extent you think something needs to be changed, that change happened
2438
2439Okay.
2440
2441>> Um but that was not required
2442
2443Mhm. >> Uh at the time that we uh issued these subpoenas. >> Okay. >> Sort of begs the point though, doesn't it? >> I think sort of begs the point like it makes the point like maybe that should have been the standard
2444
2445It should have been burden on the prosecution actually give that information to the to the carriers.
2446
2447>> Would you agree? >> Uh no
2448
2449As I said earlier, I I think we followed the regulations that they existed at the time
2450
2451Um, if the regulations that were that are now in effect were in effect then, we would have followed those regulations. >> I just want to circle back for a second
2452
2453Um, who first contacted you about taking the position of special interest? >> Uh, Marshall Miller, >> same guy you reached out to early on, >> correct? >> Said you'd be interested in the right position.
2454
2455So, when did he call him
2456
2457It was some point I I I told you earlier there was this initial conversation where I said that >> right some point after that um he uh he contacted me uh about uh about ultimately the position that I ended up having. >> Okay
2458
2459And I'm trying to find out when that was because you called him when he took the job in the summer of 22, which is before before President Trump announces he's running for president, before you get appointed by the attorney general.
2460
2461I want to know when you talked to Mr
2462
2463Miller the second time or the third time or how many times did you talk to him
2464
2465Uh, between the time that I originally reached out to Marshall Miller and the time that I was appointed a special counsel, I spoke to Marshall Miller several times. >> Several times
2466
2467Okay
2468
2469And then he's the one who first asked you, would you be interested in being a special counsel
2470
2471Is that right? >> I don't remember how he phrased it, but my my recollection to the extent I have one is it was not phrased in terms of being the special counsel
2472
2473I think it
2474
2475was in terms of being involved in these investments. >> Again, when was that? >> I'm having trouble recollecting
2476
2477It definitely was after uh he first reached out to me
2478
2479Um >> Wait, wait, wait
2480
2481I thought you called him first. >> I'm sorry
2482
2483You're right
2484
2485You're right
2486
2487I I I after I first reached out to him, we had multiple conversations between then and when I was >> in the summer of 22 when he takes the position as number three guy in Justice Department and between November 18th, 2022 when you get named, you had
2488
2489multiple discussions, multiple conversations. >> Yes
2490
2491I I just also to be clear, uh not all those conversations were about this position, >> not multiple conversations
2492
2493Did he ask you to uh did he talk about special counsel position, the one you took prior to the attorney general asking you to take the job? >> I thought he said yes to that earlier.
2494
2495>> Yeah
2496
2497I what I'm what I'm trying to remember is my my recollection and it and it is a little vague is that the idea that working on these cases would be in the format of being a special counsel
2498
2499My recollection that it's imperfect is that was very near very short. >> Did you talk about Arctic Frost
2500
2501Did you talk about Plasma Gecko
2502
2503Do you talk about these investigations
2504
2505The Florida case, DC case
2506
2507What did he talk about? >> I don't recall him ever talking about uh Arctic frost or plasma.
2508
2509I don't remember. >> Those are some names
2510
2511Did you talk about the two cases >> at Yes
2512
2513At some point it was it was not clear to me whether when he first my recollection again and it's it's not perfect is it wasn't clear to me if it would be working on one case or the other or both
2514
2515I didn't I didn't I'm not clear of how that first came up.
2516
2517>> And these conversations were before President Trump announced that he was running for president. >> Yes. >> Okay
2518
2519And were they before the midterm elections in 22? >> When were the midterm elections? >> November first Tuesday after the first Monday in November
2520
2521Um, I think I spoke to him both before then and after that.
2522
2523>> Okay
2524
2525And then, uh, how did it go down at the end
2526
2527Did you tell Mr
2528
2529Miller, you know what, President Trump's announce they may be considered
2530
2531How did it go
2532
2533Did you just tell Mr
2534
2535Miller, I'd be interested if that's, if there's an official special counselor, how did it go after President Trump announces
2536
2537How'd that conversation go
2538
2539My recollection of this is that um I was asked if I would accept the position if it were offered to me and that was before President Trump um announced his candidacy >> when you were sworn you were sworn in as
2540
2541special counsel when you were in Amsterdam
2542
2543Is that correct
2544
2545Yes. >> Who swore you in? >> I don't recall. >> And was it over Zoom or something? >> Don't recall. >> Or or was was someone present
2546
2547Was you know Mr
2548
2549Cooney or Mr
2550
2551Cooney and Brat and several folks came to visit you in Amsterdam
2552
2553Is that right? >> Uh not in Amsterdam.
2554
2555I was in the H Netherlands
2556
2557They probably flew into Amsterdam. >> Okay. >> Yeah
2558
2559Um, >> and yes, they um they came to see me shortly after I was appointed. >> But you don't remember who administered the oath
2560
2561Who who can administer the oath
2562
2563Like who's authorized at DOJ to administer the oath? >> I don't know. >> But you did take it up.
2564
2565Do you remember that? >> I I do recall that. >> But you don't remember whether it was on was it in in the Netherlands? >> I was still in the Netherlands as my recollection. >> Okay
2566
2567So, it had to be either a DOJ official came to see you or it had to be over Zoom, right
2568
2569Those were the options >> or over the phone
2570
2571I I really I I don't have a recollection that I can help you here.
2572
2573>> Okay. >> And do you know the total cost of your probe? >> Uh I do not >> rough
2574
2575Can you give a rough estimate or >> Well, the uh the special counsel our office consistent with past special counsels gives a public report of of expenditures >> and um the uh the last I'm not sure if the last one that we covered the last however many period of time >> was ever actually published.
2576
2577>> And so um you'd have to add that into the total
2578
2579Um So that that's why I say I don't >> time the last published report I think it was at 20 million. >> Okay
2580
2581I I I don't recall that whatever is in the public um reporting on this would be accurate. >> Okay
2582
2583Um the the genesis of the alternate alternate electors uh case started with the national archives IG.
2584
2585Is that your understanding
2586
2587they first raised flags that they were receiving uh alternate electors um to the Justice Department. >> That that I believe would have been well before I was special counsel. >> Okay
2588
2589And when you became special counsel, was that part of your um like where did the alternate electors um case stand, you know, when you became uh the special counsel in November of 2022
2590
2591So the the fake elector scheme uh was um was part of what I was investigating and if it ultimately became part of the the charges in the case.
2592
2593>> Okay
2594
2595But where did it stand as of November 2022? >> Um where did it stand
2596
2597Um I think the people assigned to that investigation were investigating it
2598
2599Exactly
2600
2601how many interviews they conducted, things of that nature
2602
2603I I I can't recall as I sit here right now. >> Before you became the special counsel, there was an effort to have get DOJ moving on this.
2604
2605And um an individual named Amanda Vaughn, a prosecutor on on JP Cooney's team um indicated that the you know DOJ would not be pursuing the case
2606
2607Were you aware of that
2608
2609Uh, was this when I was special counsel? >> This is before you became special counsel. >> I don't recall that
2610
2611And so the the the question ultimately is is it seems like the alternate electors um matter.
2612
2613Uh it seems like it was subject to a lot of starts and stops and wanted to know whether after you became the special counsel in November of 2022, were there any starts and stops or was that full speed ahead on that probe
2614
2615that was uh a part of the case that we uh investigated from the time I started until the indictment.
2616
2617It ended up being uh one of the most powerful parts of the case
2618
2619Um we had electors who were going to be witnesses
2620
2621I referenced earlier a congressman from >> Pennsylvania who had said this was an attempt to overthrow the government
2622
2623We had other electors who said I was told that this would only be used if we won in litigation.
2624
2625And obviously that the record in our case showed that >> the co-conspirators were trying to use their elector votes
2626
2627Uh despite that fact, and again this goes to the point I made earlier, >> these are people who wanted to be electors for Donald Trump
2628
2629They are not people who are opposed to him
2630
2631They were not people who are from a different political party or enemies.
2632
2633And so the fact that we had elector witnesses like that um who felt uh either they'd been misled or they felt that this whole effort was was an attempt to overthrow the government
2634
2635I thought that was pretty powerful evidence
2636
2637And so um we we moved that part of the investigation forward with the rest of the case. >> Um >> did your office coordinate with state officials
2638
2639You 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,
2640
2641Georgia
2642
2643Uh and I'm wondering how you coordinated those efforts. >> I I know that we got inquiries from um state um authorities
2644
2645I'm aware of that
2646
2647Uh my recollection is that we did not share any evidence with them. >> And I don't think my recollection is we did not uh get any evidence from them
2648
2649We got it from that is my recollection that it was all or part largely from public sources.
2650
2651>> Okay
2652
2653Was there somebody on your team who had responsibility for liaisoning with the um attorney general for the state of Arizona, Chris Mays
2654
2655Uh I I don't believe so
2656
2657But also the liaisoning I I don't think that my recollection is that there was not like an ongoing discussion
2658
2659What 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.
2660
2661Um I don't have a specific recollection as well as to other states
2662
2663It may well be that we got other inquiries. >> So there was no proactive coordination
2664
2665No. >> Okay
2666
2667There's 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.
2668
2669Right. >> Um how about with the Fulton County DA's office with Fonnie Willis and um and Mr
2670
2671Wade
2672
2673Yeah, I've never had contact with either of those people. >> Okay
2674
2675Do you know if anyone on the special counsel team on your team had contact with him after after you were appointed in November of 2022? >> I I don't believe so.
2676
2677I I will just say though that one of the things we were investigating uh was uh things that happened in Fulton County particularly there was an election worker by the name of Ruby Freeman
2678
2679Her mother and uh uh she was the mother of a woman named Sheamos
2680
2681Uh they were people that um Rudy Giuliani and uh Donald Trump targeted uh with absolutely false claims of election fraud.
2682
2683Claims that Rudy Giuliani later admitted he didn't have evidence for claims that he was held liable in defamation for um caused them to endure all these sort of vile threats
2684
2685And uh that whole episode as well as sort of the the claims the false claims about the vote count in in Fulton County
2686
2687We did look into that and collect evidence.
2688
2689I don't have a recollection as I sit here that we interacted with the Fulton County DA's office for that, but if we did, it would be only for that. >> Okay
2690
2691Did you try to deconlict their prosecution from what you were working on? >> Well, uh, we didn't I was not interested in sharing information with them
2692
2693So, I did not I did not give them information.
2694
2695Uh, I'm not even sure my recollection now, but I don't even think we got a request for information from them. >> Did you have coordination as far as scheduling was concerned? >> I don't recall anything like that. >> Okay
2696
2697Because their proceedings were were um going on concurrently with with your DC case, with the Florida case.
2698
2699Um, so you don't remember you or anyone on your team having communications with Fulton County to um coordinate scheduling? >> No, I I was aware obviously that their case was pending, but I I did not coordinate um any scheduling with them. >> Okay
2700
2701Um how about with the attorney general for the state of Michigan
2702
2703Again, it may be that they requested information from us.
2704
2705Uh, as I sit here right now, I should say I don't have a really good recollection of this subject matter you're talking about, but I don't I don't recall any us giving them information and I don't recall getting information from them. >> Who who on your team would have that um that information
2706
2707Uh well, Thomas Windam uh and Molly Gaston uh led that case and along with JP Cooney, they would probably be people who might recall these things
2708
2709Okay.
2710
2711>> With more specificity than I am. >> Okay
2712
2713So, if somebody has the information, one of those three people should be able to help. >> There may be other people in the office as well
2714
2715I'm just saying I'm saying them because they were the direct supervisors of the prosecutors on that case and they may have a better recollection.
2716
2717Um, same question um with the District Attorney of New York's office
2718
2719Did your did your office have any communications with that office coordination? >> No recollection of that. >> Um, did you have any uh communications regarding scheduling? >> Again, I have no recollection of that
2720
2721I was aware of their case pending >> uh but I don't recall any coordination with them.
2722
2723Did your office or anyone at DOJ your knowledge try to dissuade um the district attorney of New York from bringing that case? >> I do not recall that at all
2724
2725And that that I'll just say I have a better memory
2726
2727I I I do not remember anything like that. >> Were you enthusiastic that the district attorney district attorney of New York was bringing that case? >> No, I didn't take any position about it.
2728
2729>> Okay
2730
2731uh because you know it was going on at the same time that you were trying to um move forward your two cases
2732
2733Correct. >> Correct. >> Um and did you didn't have a view that um that the case out of the district attorney of New York's office was was going to be a distraction
2734
2735um you know litigating whether there's payments to some uh performer uh and how that relates to you know the Trump organization's accounting um protocols.
2736
2737I mean that is very different from the two cases you you were you were pursuing. >> Yeah, the two cases are completely different
2738
2739Um, and so the question was, do you think that the district attorney of New York's case um presented a distraction for what you were trying to accomplish? >> A distraction
2740
2741I I don't know that I thought about it that way.
2742
2743I can't I can't recall any discussions along those lines
2744
2745I mean, there were a number of times when you wanted to be in in court in DC and you had to work around the president's schedule because he was in court in in in Manhattan
2746
2747Correct
2748
2749I'm not sure that's right
2750
2751Maybe that's right
2752
2753I I don't know if there's a record about that.
2754
2755I I don't Is there was there if I shouldn't be asking you questions, but is there I I don't recall. >> Yeah, there is. >> Okay
2756
2757So, I'm not disputing you then
2758
2759Um, I mean, one of the issues is, you know, the president was represented by, um, you know, he had his his team of lawyers
2760
2761It was it was pretty pretty small group.
2762
2763Uh, they weren't backed by big law, right
2764
2765So, they didn't they didn't have um they didn't enjoy a robust, you know, hundreds of, you know, lawyers back at the office to be able to digest some of these things
2766
2767Uh, and so, you know, President Trump's lawyers, you know, were required to be in New York um part of the week and then they had to come to DC and then they had to go to to go to Florida.
2768
2769And so the question is, did you ever coordinate with the district attorney of New York um to, you know, maybe not be at trial one day so you could have the president and his lawyers here in DC? >> I don't recall that. >> Okay
2770
2771And was any of that a distraction
2772
2773uh it wasn't a distraction from us because as you said that case had nothing to do with our case.
2774
2775>> Okay
2776
2777Um there were a number of times that I believe Jay Brad took the position that the president ought to go get some more lawyers like if he if you know if Todd Blanch and John Laro if they can't if they can't handle all these cases they should they should just go find different attorneys for for President Trump.
2778
2779Uh were you aware of that uh statement by Mr
2780
2781Brad
2782
2783What context was that >> in before the before um the court in DC and Florida
2784
2785Actually, Mr
2786
2787Brad was in Florida. >> Yeah, I don't I don't think Mr
2788
2789Brat appeared in court in DC. >> In Florida, I'm sorry. >> Um if you could direct me to specifically what he said as I sit here now, I don't I don't recall that, but I'm not I'm not denying that happened.
2790
2791>> Maybe we'll we'll revisit that, but we we can point you to >> Sure
2792
2793Um, >> but you would certainly agree that the president gets to pick who his lawyers are and if he wants to have Todd Blanch and John Laro and and not not others that um that's something that the government ought to be able to work with
2794
2795Correct.
2796
2797>> Sure
2798
2799Although um you know I not this case but other cases I've seen judges say that if you're going to pick lawyers because they're unavailable um that you can't do that
2800
2801And if you don't want to pick a here, >> well, if you're picking lawyers because they um that will allow you to sort of delay the case, >> um that's not something that judges usually put up with.
2802
2803>> But, you know, I mean, President Trump, I mean, nobody from big law would represent him
2804
2805I mean, isn't that isn't that a pretty well established case? >> I I don't know that. >> Uhu
2806
2807And like Mr
2808
2809Blanch had to like leave leave his firm to take on the representation. >> I know he he chose to leave his firm.
2810
2811I don't know the circumstances behind that
2812
2813Okay
2814
2815I mean, it might might maybe maybe it comes as a surprise to you, but but there are, you know, really two different Washingtons when it comes to um lawyers
2816
2817And, you know, big law downtown just does not um, you know, have a great appetite for hiring former, you know, Trump alumni, you know, lawyers that worked in the Trump administration with, you know, Republicans, uh, generally.
2818
2819I mean, are you aware of that
2820
2821I have not uh worked in big law
2822
2823I've been a public servant my whole career
2824
2825That's the world I know. >> Okay
2826
2827By contrast to, you know, the lawyers on the January 6th committee, I mean, they they leave the Hill one day and, you know, they're immediately gobbled up by by um big law very quickly.
2828
2829That just doesn't happen with Republicans
2830
2831Would you agree >> that Republicans don't get jobs as lawyers
2832
2833I mean, I'm sorry
2834
2835at big law firms
2836
2837I >> I don't actually know that that's true
2838
2839I mean, again, this isn't a world I have worked in, >> but I think there are Republicans at big law firms. >> Okay. >> Um, Republicans that represented Donald Trump zealously.
2840
2841>> I I haven't kept track of that, but you you'd said Republicans at law firms, so Okay
2842
2843When your office filed its uh proposed DC schedule in August of 2023, were you aware that your office um also had a concurrent schedule um you know operating in in the s southern district of Florida.
2844
2845I mean, you essentially had two cases going at once. >> Correct. >> And so, how did you deconlict those scheduling appearances? >> Well, there were two separate uh groups of lawyers working on those cases, one in the classified documents case, one in the investigations case. >> Was that the case for President Trump? >> I'm sorry. >> Was that the case for President Trump as well? >> Uh, I'm trying to recall.
2846
2847Well, I know John Luro, who I think was the lead counsel in Washington in the Washington DC case, I don't believe he had any involvement in the Florida case, and I know Christopher Kis, I think was his name, was in the Florida case and didn't have any involvement here
2848
2849I don't know
2850
2851Also, I should say, I don't know how many lawyers supporting the lawyers in court President Trump had that were supporting one case or the other case.
2852
2853>> Okay
2854
2855Um, in February of 2024, your office proposed an April hearing in the Southern District of Florida
2856
2857Uh, at the time, uh, you were aware that President Trump was scheduled for a full day jury trial proceedings in New York on April 1st, 2nd, and 4th
2858
2859Um, so your proposal required the president to attend trial in New York on April 1st and 2nd, travel to Florida for a hearing on April 3rd, and return to New York for trial on April 4th.
2860
2861Do you recall that type of extraordinary logistics the president was put through? >> Can you say that back to me
2862
2863I just didn't
2864
2865You You said some dates in the beginning
2866
2867If I could just hear it again
2868
2869Uh on February 29th, 2024, your office proposed an April 3rd hearing in the Florida case. >> Okay
2870
2871At the time, President Trump was scheduled for, you know, full day jury trial in the um in New York on April 1st, 2nd, and 4th.
2872
2873So, he picked the third the one day that he had off from trial
2874
2875Um, does that ring any bells as we refresh you about that
2876
2877It >> it doesn't ring bells, but I I want to be clear
2878
2879I'm not I'm not >> denying that those those dates are accurate. >> Um, I mean, do you think that's reasonable in hindsight? >> I I think our requests to the court were reasonable
2880
2881Yes.
2882
2883>> And you think it's reasonable that President Trump had to be in New York on the first, second, and fourth and then travel to Florida on the third
2884
2885I think our requests were reasonable
2886
2887Yes. >> Just just to clarify, what kind of hearing was it
2888
2889You said a hearing in the Southern District of Florida on April 3rd.
2890
2891>> Is there any more information about what kind of hearing it was
2892
2893I mean, was it just a status conference or something different? >> As we understand it, President Trump had to be there
2894
2895Um, I think, you know, if this is a status conference, I'm sure the judge would We only have a >> So you can move on.
2896
2897I didn't mean to delay things
2898
2899No, you can keep going
2900
2901Um, just keep >> Mr
2902
2903Smith, can I just ask a few questions
2904
2905When you were when you were hired in November of 22, how did the department educate you about the predications for the investigation
2906
2907What evidence had been collected? >> Uh, I got educated on the cases uh by debriefing with the people who were leading the investigations.
2908
2909And in terms of when that full autonomy was handed over, how quickly did that happen? >> Sure. >> So, I was appointed on November 18th, that Friday. >> Uh, and time difference, right, because I'm in the H. >> Uh, I requested that evening that someone get on a plane to come over and debrief me immediately. >> Uh, who that was? >> It was JP Cooney was the first person who came over.
2910
2911>> He came alive
2912
2913Uh, I believe he did in my recollection right now and I think he got there maybe it was till I can't remember if it was Saturday or Sunday but he got there Sunday and began giving me a summary of uh the work. >> And was that just digital case files
2914
2915Was it hard copies? >> Uh, it was oral. >> All oral.
2916
2917>> Uh, he came over to debrief me orally
2918
2919Yes. >> When was the first time you started to look at some of the materials
2920
2921Only reason I'm asking DOJ alum >> when you get when I got an investigative memo I'll start going through and looking through the materials myself. >> I I did that
2922
2923I'm having difficulty remembering exactly when that happened but I certainly did that and >> it was early on.
2924
2925>> In terms of of the way you approach this, did you go through and kind of review the predication for all the investigative steps that have been taken to that point? >> Review the predication for >> So whether it's me uh pen registers, search warrants
2926
2927Did you review all of that or were you just looking at kind of the summaries of the information the evidence had been collected? >> I think I was looking at kind of the overall where the investigation was at this point in time.
2928
2929>> Okay
2930
2931In terms of the staff decisions that you made, how soon did you start staffing up your office? >> Uh well, the office was primarily staffed with people who had already been on the investigations
2932
2933uh uh the majority I think were people who had already been on the investigations and so there was a period of time shortly after I appointed where we had to determine they had to determine if they were going to stay on on the investigation.
2934
2935>> Did you ultimately make that decision? >> Yes. >> Okay
2936
2937Did you go and meet with every one of those individuals? >> Um I was still in the H at that point in time and so uh JP Cooney had those meetings
2938
2939In regards to the law enforcement officers, did you have any say in which agents worked for this investigation? >> The um the squads that worked on these investigations were the same squads that were already working on the investigations when I took them over.
2940
2941>> Did you amend those uh that personnel at all? >> The FBI? >> Yeah, >> I don't recall doing that. >> Okay
2942
2943Um, and then just to follow up on what he said, was there ever any contact between you or any of your team with some of those other prosecutorial offices, whether it be DA, AGs, um, for the purposes of evidence sharing, information sharing.
2944
2945>> Yeah, as I said earlier, I don't have a recollection of that. >> But was there a policy as as the boss of the office
2946
2947Did you did you have a policy with that
2948
2949that you would if someone had if someone had done that, would they have had to report other chain to you? >> Yeah.
2950
2951If someone had said, "I I want to call Fonnie Willis and have a conversation and get evidence from them." I would expect no one would do that unless I said it was all right. >> And and your recollection is that never happened? >> I don't have a recollection of that
2952
2953I as I said, I just want to be as clear as I can.
2954
2955I don't have a great recollection of spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe specifics with different um attorney general's offices
2956
2957Uh but my recollection is we did get reached out to by offices
2958
2959I I'm thinking of one letter I do recall u may have been yeah >> other officers reached out to you.
2960
2961>> Yes, that that's what I recall and so there may have been interactions as that result
2962
2963As I sit here, I don't recall asking >> you initiating >> or or asking them for evidence
2964
2965But again, I think as I directed, I think the people who are the team leaders on those cases and JPuni might might have a more a closer recollection of that.
2966
2967>> But your memory is there was no outreach that you had to approve or sign off on. >> Outreach that I had to sign off on
2968
2969I don't recall anything like that. >> Did the letter come from
2970
2971Again, just refresh my memory
2972
2973Said you got one letter
2974
2975The one I the one the only one I remember is I remember we got a letter from the attorney general in I believe it was New Mexico.
2976
2977That's my recollection. >> Okay
2978
2979Um anyone else in the in the Justice Department just again to circle back uh you talked about the series of conversations you had with Mr
2980
2981Miller the pay
2982
2983Anyone else in the Justice Department you talked with prior to Mr
2984
2985Garland offering you the position of special counsel
2986
2987You talked to the dad.
2988
2989You talked to Lisa Mon. >> Well, yeah
2990
2991So, uh, I flew to, um, the United States from the Hague some point in late October and I met the attorney general and I met Lisa Monaco
2992
2993Um, that was in late October of 22. >> Okay
2994
2995And anyone else in that meeting? >> Uh, Mr
2996
2997Miller in that meeting
2998
2999So, it wasn't a meeting
3000
3001It was separate.
3002
3003I was at the DOJ
3004
3005I met with uh Lisa Monaco
3006
3007And then separately from that, I met with the attorney general
3008
3009I do recall the meeting with the attorney general wasn't that long
3010
3011Uh Clapper, Matt Clapper was present for that meeting and I believe Marshall Miller was present for that meeting
3012
3013With regards to Lisa Monaco, I cannot recall if Mr
3014
3015Miller was there or not.
3016
3017He may have or he may not have been. >> The subject matter both both meetings, one with Monter, the other one with Mr
3018
3019Clapper and Mr
3020
3021Darling was >> um they they asked me about um my work in the H
3022
3023Um that was what both conversations were about
3024
3025And I I just also add that same trip I also went and spoke uh to the human rights section at DOJ about the work I was doing in the H for the State Department.
3026
3027That was all you talked about was your work in the Hag >> my work in the Hagen sort of like my my experience as a prosecutor my sort of um uh how I viewed the job we didn't we didn't talk about these investigations >> to my recollection >> in hindsight was it was it an interview >> um in hindsight yes >> okay >> but >> and okay go ahead >> in high insight yes but it wasn't in the sense of I wasn't asked about I don't recall being asked about these investigations.
3028
3029>> Fair enough
3030
3031Uh did has in your conversation with Mr
3032
3033Miller had he already communicated to the attorney general and Lisa Monica that you were interested in the special counsel position if in fact that was going to be done. >> I wouldn't know. >> Um >> sorry I just I just want to clarify that this finding on that this was end of October 2022.
3034
3035Um, and Chairman Jordan, your question assumed that there was discussion about the special counsel position
3036
3037Did Marshall Miller convey that to Lisa Monaco or Mayor Garland that Mr
3038
3039Smith was interested in that position
3040
3041I just want to clarify because I thought I heard you say earlier that the discussion was not necessarily in context of a special counsel appointment >> or is that not right? >> Well, they they asked me about my work in the Hague and my my work as a prosecutor.
3042
3043I don't know what conversations Mr
3044
3045Miller had with them. >> Fair enough. >> When I wasn't there, >> but you said earlier you had conversations with Mr
3046
3047Miller about the two two investigations, not special counsel specifically, but about the DC investigation, Florida investig investigation
3048
3049And then you've also said that in the meeting with the attorney general and Mr.
3050
3051Clapper, in the other meeting with Lisa Monaco, you didn't have discussions about those two investigations
3052
3053Is that accurate? >> That's right
3054
3055with the addition that uh I can't place when the conversations about generally working on the investigations was but I think my recollection to the extent I can remember this is that it was sometime before I took this trip and and uh to Washington DC.
3056
3057>> So those those conversations with Mr
3058
3059Miller about the investigations took place prior to you sitting down with the attorney general and the deputy attorney general. >> I believe that's right
3060
3061But I I I want to emphasize that my recollection here is not as sharp as it has been on other subjects that we've talked about today.
3062
3063>> Power is up
3064
3065So the April 3rd hearing was a pre-trial motion. >> Okay
3066
3067Thank you
3068
3069We'll now go off the Um, welcome back, Mr
3070
3071Smith
3072
3073Uh, I want
3074
3075to start by addressing or starting on the issue about the collection of call records related to certain members of Congress
3076
3077Um, you recall the majority asking about this at length in their first two rounds so far today? >> Yes
3078
3079Uh, did Donald Trump and his co-conspirators try to reach out to members of Congress before January 6 and on January 6 of 2021? >> Yes.
3080
3081>> Um, can you tell us a little bit about what your investigation uncovered regarding communications with members of Congress uh that's related to the attack on the capital on January 6? >> Uh, there was um pretty extensive um contact with members of Congress
3082
3083Uh there were uh instances of uh members of Congress um again specifically on January 6th but also before that where um either they were reaching out to the White House or the White House was reaching out to them or and through um you know conduits to the president including as I said Mark
3084
3085Meadows
3086
3087Okay. >> And and what were the what was the nature let's start with before January 6
3088
3089What was the nature of some of these communications with the White House or with co-conspirators of Donald Trump leading up to January 6 and members of Congress? >> Um well, it it varied
3090
3091Um um sometimes u the communications were relevant to us to show that people um were uh telling Donald Trump uh that the things he was saying were not true.
3092
3093Uh other times they were evidence of the um uh the false nature of um the things that we're saying
3094
3095So for an example would be um there are two voicemails that uh Rudy Giuliani left for senators
3096
3097Uh and those voicemails um show him saying things that were not true
3098
3099um using uh knowingly false claims to try to get those senators uh to further delay the certification of the vote.
3100
3101>> You just mentioned that there were instances before January 6 of members calling the White House uh and I'm summarizing to basically express that some of the claims the president and his co-conspirators were making were not true
3102
3103Did you is that what you just said? >> Well, I I I should be specific there.
3104
3105There were a variety of reasons uh that and we're not and I'm not trying to say that anytime someone contacted the White House they were involved in in a crime themselves or doing anything improper
3106
3107Uh but how this conspiracy that was trying to um stop the lawful transfer of power, how that worked, it was important for us to understand.
3108
3109Um, we had evidence uh from uh Department of Justice officials that Donald Trump said to them uh just say the election is corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressman
3110
3111Uh I think given that was the perspective um that Donald Trump had um our view is that the case we would have presented at trial uh would have been uh Donald Trump praying on the party allegiance of people in his party and uh people like the vice president um didn't agree to that.
3112
3113People like the um elector from Pennsylvania I mentioned didn't agree to that
3114
3115People like the um speaker of the house in Arizona didn't agree to that
3116
3117But the extent to which those contacts were happening uh was relevant to our investigation. >> Okay. >> So let's dig down a little bit in that
3118
3119Uh let's start on January 6.
3120
3121So I believe in the evening
3122
3123Uh did your investigation uncover or learn that Mr
3124
3125Trump personally called members of Congress on the evening of January 6? >> Yes. >> Uh do you remember who those members were
3126
3127Um, 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 Howley and Senator Hagerty.
3128
3129Um, and then there were several senators uh who uh he directed uh Rudy Giuliani to get in touch with
3130
3131And who were those senators that Mr
3132
3133Trump directed Mr
3134
3135Giuliani 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.
3136
3137And 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 and ended up understanding that they didn't have the right phone numbers
3138
3139In 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.
3140
3141And the message that 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
3142
3143Um we had also interviewed um Boris Epstein uh before these subpoenas were issued
3144
3145He corroborated that they were in fact trying to call senators.
3146
3147uh 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
3148
3149Uh 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.
3150
3151Taking a step back, um, this might be obvious for a lot of folks, but just make sure it's clear for the record
3152
3153Who is Mr
3154
3155Epstein? >> Uh, Boris Epstein was one of the co-conspirators in this case. >> And what role did Mr
3156
3157Epstein play in in the larger conspiracy, if you can summarize it? >> Well, he he he played several roles
3158
3159He was involved in the fake elector scheme uh though uh and also in sort of pushing out some of these these false uh fraud claims.
3160
3161Uh the other thing I'm sorry just to go back to to mention is >> uh we also in the course of the investigation interviewed Rudy Giuliani and um one of the things that we asked him if you recall in the um in the message and I can't remember which senator it was for but in the message that he left he said um uh um reference refence the fact that he was calling on fellow Republicans.
3162
3163And in the interview, we asked him, you know, why did you say you were calling on your fellow Republicans
3164
3165And he he said, "Well, I wasn't going to be calling Democrats about this
3166
3167Even some Republicans wouldn't go along with this." Um so, of course, I would I would um call only Republicans
3168
3169And in fact, that was consistent with our investigation throughout that um the people that um that uh President Trump and his co-conspirators reached out to were people who they thought would go along or help them because of party allegiance
3170
3171And Giuliani in
3172
3173particular would reference um that he expected their cooperation because they were Republicans
3174
3175There was one particular meeting that he attended where um he got a hostile reception because he had no evidence to back up the fraud claims and he said something to the effect of I thought we were all Republicans here.
3176
3177And so that was a theme throughout the case and it went to the strength of the case that we had because our the witnesses we were going to call were the people that the president reached out to to sort of further these these uh this criminal scheme
3178
3179Uh, 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
3180
3181Is that is that okay if
3182
3183I if I use that term? >> You can use whatever term you like. >> Oh, I'm going to use the big lie
3184
3185So, do you do you recall any evidence uh when you were talking to Mr
3186
3187Giuliani 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.
3188
3189And in fact, when we interviewed him, uh he disavowed a number of the claims
3190
3191He claimed they were mistakes or hyperbole
3192
3193Even the claim about Ruby Freeman where he, you know, basically destroyed this poor woman's life by claiming um she was a vote scammer
3194
3195Uh, President Trump did the same thing in a recorded call with the Secretary of State.
3196
3197Uh, he disavowed things he'd said uh, in that interview. >> Thank you. >> Can I ask a question? >> Were you able to interview some of the individuals that our January 6 committee was unable to interview
3198
3199For example, did you interview Mark Meadows? >> We did. >> Um, we were unable to uh, talk to Mr
3200
3201Meadows.
3202
3203Were were you able to find out what the communication was between Mr
3204
3205Meadows and um Mr
3206
3207Bannon and potentially Mr
3208
3209Stone on the evening of January 5th at the so-called war room at the hotel? >> I don't recall that as I sit here right now
3210
3211I know Mr
3212
3213Meadows uh spoke to a number of people who were either involved in or adjacent to this conspiracy.
3214
3215Um as I sit here right now, I don't recall that specific evidence
3216
3217I think he I think he was in touch with Bannon
3218
3219Um I uh but I don't recall specifically the answer to that question. >> Mr
3220
3221Bannon made an extraordinary uh video basically predicting uh the events of January 6 on the day before
3222
3223Were you able to um discover either by interviewing Mr.
3224
3225Bannon or those who had knowledge of what he was doing how he was aware of the riot before it happened? >> Uh we did not interview Mr
3226
3227Bannon
3228
3229Um we uh uh I believe I believe that that particular um statement you're talking about would have been part of our proof
3230
3231And I I my recollection is that we had evidence that would indicate from some point um not immediately after the election but shortly thereafter sometime might have been closer to December period that Bannon who had been out of touch with President Trump for some period of time uh got back in more
3232
3233regular touch with him at some time
3234
3235And in fact, this is reminding me um my recollection is that that we had a text thread that between uh Bannon and Epstein that went through a lot of this period
3236
3237Uh on that text thread, um I believe it was the evening of January 6th, right around the time the senator's calls were occurring at the direction of the president.
3238
3239And um there was an exchange between those two where in um I believe it was Epstein asked Bannon are you in touch with him and the answer was affirmative and it was something to the effect of he's still on fire
3240
3241Uh and that's right at the same time that these calls are happening after he refused to do what he could to stop the attack on the capital uh after the tweet about about Mike Pence.
3242
3243>> In December, there were several meetings in the White House uh where efforts were um to overthrow the election were discussed in terms of the fake elector scheme
3244
3245uh the president issued his tweet calling um the mob to Washington that it would be wild
3246
3247Um did you identify members of Congress who participated in any of those meetings? >> Participated in meetings at the White House >> in December.
3248
3249I'm thinking now I can't I can't I can't say that we didn't but as I sit here right now I can't think of a member of Congress in spec in particular that attended the meetings I'm thinking of right now >> not saying it didn't happen I just don't have a >> follow on that there was a December 18th meeting uh do you remember a December 18th meeting at the White House uh right before President Trump then issued the will be wild tweet in the early morning of December 19th.
3250
3251Do you remember a big I believe Miss Powell was there uh and others were at the White House discussing with Mr
3252
3253Trump? >> I remember there was a meeting with Sydney Powell where there was a discussion about whether she would be appointed a sort of special counsel uh for um uh to to sort of um uh uh have this role that would assist Trump in pushing these election um these claims of election fraud that were false.
3254
3255Um, my recollection of that is the meeting ended, I believe, with President Trump saying, "I want her in that position." But then it didn't happen because she she didn't fill out the paperwork uh clearance paperwork necessary for that
3256
3257That's my if that I don't know if that's the 18th, but it's around that time.
3258
3259>> And do you recall any members just following Miss Lman's point, do you recall any members of Congress being present or participating in that meeting
3260
3261the there's a record of this in our files
3262
3263I remember certain individuals
3264
3265I think Mark Meadows was there
3266
3267An individual by the name of Eric Hershman was there.
3268
3269There I think Rudy Giuliani was there
3270
3271There was a number of people there
3272
3273I'm not remembering whether if there's anybody in particular you can ask me and I could see if I could remember, but I that's what I remember now. >> Who uh introduced the idea of Mr
3274
3275Clark becoming attorney general
3276
3277Uh, our investigation determined uh that Congressman Perry had a role in getting uh uh Jeff Clark on the radar of President Trump as someone who could help him and getting uh meetings with uh Jeff Clark and the president.
3278
3279>> And we might touch on uh Mr
3280
3281Perry's involvement later on
3282
3283Um just want to flag that for you
3284
3285Uh, so it sounds like, and I want to hear it from you, did your request for the toll records of certain congressional members, did that relate to phone calls made to these members of Congress on or around January 6th of 2021, >> including that
3286
3287Yes.
3288
3289>> Uh, and how how big was the window of of records that you requested for these these members of Congress
3290
3291Uh well uh the records regarding those calls on January 6th, they the the period of time was from I believe it was January 4th to 7th, but there was earlier um subpoenas including the one referenced earlier today regarding um Congressman McCarthy.
3292
3293There was a broader period of time from I want to say it's about November 3rd through again it was either January 6th or 7th. >> Okay
3294
3295And I've heard you mention evidence such as text messages with Mr
3296
3297Epste, Mr
3298
3299Giuliani
3300
3301Um, did you also Mr
3302
3303Giuliani's records as part of your investigation
3304
3305Did you collect those phone records
3306
3307I mean, >> we did.
3308
3309>> Okay
3310
3311So, in your prosecutorial experience, do you generally seek to obtain call records from both individuals involved in a telephonic call or message? >> We do
3312
3313And uh in this case with the records for that evening, it was particularly important um because uh when we interviewed uh Boris Epstein um one of the things that came out was that Rudy Giuliani had two phones and that Boris Epstein had another phone and uh we needed to make sure that we weren't missing any calls in terms of um where the calls came from and so it
3314
3315would it would corroborate the records that we had, but also make sure that there's not calls that we missed. >> Did you ever learn why Mr
3316
3317Giuliani, Mr
3318
3319Absene, had multiple phones? >> Uh, no. >> Did the the toll records that you requested um from the senators uh did they include the content of the phone calls? >> No.
3320
3321>> Uh did the records that you requested, the toll records from the members of Congress include the content of text messages? >> No
3322
3323Can you explain for us on the record what information generally is included in a toll records request? >> Sure
3324
3325Uh again, my my understanding from a prosecutor's perspective is it is non-content information.
3326
3327It's generally about um when the call started, when the call stopped
3328
3329That would include obviously the duration of the call and who the call is to and who the call's from
3330
3331That's the the basic information that you want to give from a toll records subpoena. >> Then let's fast forward to say this would have gone to a trial.
3332
3333How would you in your experience have used this type of evidence in a trial? >> Oh, it would have been relevant in a number of ways
3334
3335So it would have been relevant
3336
3337You could put it together in a summary chart to show the series of contacts and it could be relevant to show the campaign that evening to um reach out to um senators to to delay the proceedings could also be relevant to show um for example on the afternoon of January 6th of notice that um there was notice that violence was going on congressmen both Republican and Democrat
3338
3339and the vice president were in danger
3340
3341That text records would make that incontrovertible that those calls actually happened
3342
3343Uh they'd also be relevant for examining witnesses
3344
3345um whether it would be a prosecution witness who might not remember exactly when a call happened or a defense witness for example if um any of the co-conspirators were to testify um which as I mentioned before was something we would have welcomed um we would have had uh toll records to question them about the calls that they made the calls that
3346
3347they received things of that nature which in my experience um is very can be very effective
3348
3349Can I ask we um 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
3350
3351Um Roger Stone appeared but uh took the fifth.
3352
3353Were you able to um provide to to to get information from any of those three individuals and in case of Mr
3354
3355stone provide use immunity so that he would have to testify. >> We did not. >> Why not? >> Uh we pursued the in uh investigative u uh routes that we thought were the most fruitful
3356
3357We pursued those that we thought were uh necessary to get a complete understanding of the scope of the conspiracy.
3358
3359And 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 us in my view wasn't worth immunizing them for their own possible conduct. >> Going back to the toll records, I just want to make sure we make a few things clear.
3360
3361When you were requesting toll records, did it mean that DOJ or FBI was conducting surveillance on members of Congress? >> No
3362
3363When you were collecting toll records, did it mean that DOJ or FBI would be able to wiretap phone calls made by members of Congress? >> No. >> I want to actually go back to some of the lines of questioning that you endured by the majority.
3364
3365Um, there seemed to be this insinuation that there was a lack of respect for the defendant's schedule
3366
3367Do you recall kind of some of that line of questioning? >> I recall questions about his schedule
3368
3369Yes. >> Okay
3370
3371Um, I just want to level set because this is going to be a record and it may be public one day.
3372
3373Um, considering all the years of experience that you have prosecuting, um, is it more often or less often that you've had a defendant that has been charged in four different jurisdictions with crimes? >> I have I don't know if I've had that before, but it certainly hasn't been often. >> Okay.
3374
3375And as it relates to these four jurisdictions, we know that he was charged not only on the federal level, but he was also charged on the state level
3376
3377Correct. >> That's correct. >> And in your experience, um, typically has it been that if you have a defendant that is charged in multiple federal cases that the federal magistrates or the sitting judges typically confer and figure out scheduling conflicts.
3378
3379>> That can happen
3380
3381Yes
3382
3383Okay
3384
3385the the issue in this case or a number of issues in this case was not so much your prosecution but was the fact that there was alleged criminal conduct all over the place
3386
3387Correct. >> Well, I I was focused on my my case and my prosecutions. >> Okay
3388
3389Um, so I guess what I I want to do this because they a different way.
3390
3391Um, essentially, did it seem as if President Trump was actually enjoying privileges that the average defendant did not? >> Uh, I certainly wouldn't want that to be the case
3392
3393I think the law should be the same for everybody
3394
3395I don't think anybody should be above the law
3396
3397I think in a case like this that could be challenging, but it was my goal to make sure he was treated as anybody else as any of us would be treated.
3398
3399>> So, let me ask you this
3400
3401Um because in my experience, I've never had a defendant have so many charges and not spend one day in jail
3402
3403In your experience, um, have you ever had a defendant charged with so many cases and not spend one day in jail
3404
3405And when I'm talking about a day in jail, I'm talking about pre-incarceration.
3406
3407Um, what I was observing is that the president was experiencing walkthroughs for seemingly every case that he got instead of going through the typical process that a defendant would normally go through
3408
3409Well, I I have to say in our cases in terms of um you know, we did not try our cases.
3410
3411We did not prove our cases in a court beyond a reasonable doubt
3412
3413And so any sort of sentence, whether it would be incarceratory or otherwise, we never reach that point in the proceedings
3414
3415And uh in our case, um uh whether someone would be detained before trial, um there's factors you look to for that
3416
3417We did not ask for President Trump to be detained uh before trial.
3418
3419And so, uh, as I think I've made clear, I wish we had been able to try these cases because I am confident we had the proof to sustain convictions
3420
3421Uh, but and I did try at every place to make sure he was not being treated better or worse than anybody else
3422
3423But, um, with respect to those things, um, that was the state of the record in our case.
3424
3425>> You've tried cases on the state level, correct? >> I have. >> Okay
3426
3427So, he was charged in Georgia as well as New York
3428
3429Are you aware of that? >> Yes. >> And um in your experience in handling trial cases on the state level, typically, and correct me if I'm wrong, typically a defendant is incarcerated and then given a bail or not to get out.
3430
3431Has that been your experience as it relates to the trial level on the state level? >> Depending on the charge, yes
3432
3433And and obviously the charge depends on what the bail level is. >> Correct
3434
3435Correct
3436
3437Um, okay. >> I just have one more question about the toll records
3438
3439Um, so in this past October in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with uh, Attorney General Bondi, Senator Josh Howley claimed that uh, the uh, the subpoena of his phone records was quote tapping his phone.
3440
3441As part of your investigation, did you or anyone from your office tap the phone of Senator Howie? >> No. >> So, is his suggestion that his phone had been tapped just simply false? >> It's inaccurate. >> Okay
3442
3443Thank you
3444
3445Uh, I believe earlier, we're turning back to January 6, the conspiracy leading up the events on January 6, and I believe earlier, um, you said that the reason why, and, I'm paraphrasing here, that you, uh, charged the president was that he was the most culpable person related to the crime of attempting to
3446
3447criminally overturn the 2020 election
3448
3449Do you recall saying words to that effect earlier today? >> Yes
3450
3451and because we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt and met the the requirements in the federal principles of prosecution. >> Uh and I believe you said some of the false claims he was putting out created a certain level of distrust about the the val the the validity of the election of 2020.
3452
3453Do you recall saying something like that as well? >> Correct
3454
3455That's alleged in the indictment. >> Correct. >> So I want I want to start with how that level of distrust was created
3456
3457Um in your report you say and this is a quote the through line of all of Mr
3458
3459Trump's criminal efforts was deceit, knowingly false claims of fraud.
3460
3461Can you gently describe some of these knowingly false claims of fraud that were spread uh after the 2020 election? >> Sure
3462
3463There there's a number of them
3464
3465Um uh and and you know, part of the explanation is is why they're false
3466
3467And 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.
3468
3469uh 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
3470
3471He chose to present that as evidence of fraud uh and to people who were not maybe as informed as him or informed as um his campaign managers who told him these things.
3472
3473Um that's the sort of thing that creates distrust
3474
3475There 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
3476
3477I'm thinking of the Secretary of State
3478
3479Um he reflexively rejected those things and continued to state false things after he'd been told that repeat repeatedly that they weren't true.
3480
3481>> And why was it important
3482
3483It probably goes to the mind, but why was it important of all of these repeat uh statements from individuals that his that Donald Trump's claims were untrue
3484
3485How 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.
3486
3487um he only uh brought fraud claims that involved um states that he'd lost
3488
3489He only approached people um generally who had party allegiance to him
3490
3491Uh when he was told that a fraud claim wasn't true, he didn't stop making it
3492
3493Um, 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.
3494
3495Uh, shortly after she began making statements that, uh, really nobody could credit um that that were facially false
3496
3497And um at some point um Giuliani made a statement that she wasn't on the legal team anymore
3498
3499Uh 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.
3500
3501Uh but then after that point, he continued to promote her fraud claims and lawsuits
3502
3503he 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
3504
3505And so I think that sort of like claims that were so outlandish and so just fantastical.
3506
3507um continuing to push those sort of claims after they've been disabused with strong evidence of our of our case. >> It seems like the evidence that your case uncovered was for I think you said Mr
3508
3509Trump contacting mostly or all Republican officials about his his voter claims as from the election of 2020.
3510
3511Is that correct? >> That's my recollection
3512
3513As I sit here now, I can't think of anyone who wasn't uh someone who uh was loyal to him politically
3514
3515And again, many many people um who would have been our witnesses rejected his uh intreaties to do that
3516
3517And again, I think it was in Michigan and in Arizona and and also the attorney general in um in Georgia that stated, "I voted for him twice.
3518
3519Um, I wanted and others stated, I wanted him to win
3520
3521I campaigned for him
3522
3523Um, so it's not as if it was effective in every place, but that was who he focused this at
3524
3525And that's why I had said earlier today that the witnesses in this case, um, the subjects of the toll records in this case, um, those were chosen by President Trump.
3526
3527So if President Trump would have pressured, for example, a Democratic state leader about these false claims for the election, would you have looked into that Democratic state member as well? >> Absolutely. >> You mentioned earlier um talking about, you know, individuals pushing back on these false claims
3528
3529When you're talking about the fake electors, you mentioned a congressman from Pennsylvania who I guess might have would have been a witness who might have pushed back on the pick elector scheme being legal.
3530
3531Do you recall saying that earlier? >> I do. >> Who was that member
3532
3533Uh my recollection I think his name was Thomas Marino
3534
3535He was a former US attorney and he was a former he's a Republican former congressman
3536
3537Uh and he had agreed to be and this is before the election agreed to be an elector for Donald Trump.
3538
3539And when he was presented with this idea of the fake elector scheme, my recollection of of his reaction was that this um was an attempt to overthrow the government and it was illegal. >> You also mentioned a few of the states that Mr
3540
3541Trump and his co-conspirators such as Mr
3542
3543Giuliani, Miss Pal targeted about these false claims about the election.
3544
3545Do you recall which states were the the main targets of this this group
3546
3547Yes, I believe it was seven states
3548
3549Um, let me count them
3550
3551Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona
3552
3553I'm missing one because New Mexico and New Mexico was memorable because he lost that by 10%. >> Um, there's one more I'm forgetting. >> Nevada. >> Nevada
3554
3555Thank you.
3556
3557Uh, and I just want to confirm Nevada was the last state of the correct sir
3558
3559Okay
3560
3561Uh, did your investigation uncover why Mr
3562
3563Trump and individuals like Mr
3564
3565Giuliani, Miss Powell might have selected these seven states? >> Uh, well, the the states were all states that he lost by a pretty small margin
3566
3567Um, except for again New Mexico was 10%.
3568
3569I I mean depends what you define as small, but um the others were all much closer than that
3570
3571And these states had all voted in support of Mr
3572
3573Biden being president
3574
3575Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay
3576
3577So, m just to be clear, Donald Trump had lost all seven of these states, but it appears narrowly, depending on how you define narrowly.
3578
3579>> That's correct. >> Uh, one of the bigger parts of your report and what you've talked about here today comes down to the knowledge, Mr
3580
3581Trump's knowledge that he had lost the election
3582
3583I know you've talked about it um at various stages of today, but I would just like a pretty clear answer if you don't mind about what evidence did you collect about Mr.
3584
3585Trump's knowledge that he had indeed lost the election of 2020. >> Okay
3586
3587Well, there were there are two types of knowledge
3588
3589One that he lost the election and another that the things he was saying the false the fraud claims were in fact false. >> And I want to start with the first one that he said that he had lost the election.
3590
3591>> Yeah
3592
3593Um I think um again it's the same uh sort of bucket of evidence that uh he was repeatedly told by people that the very fraud claims that would change the outcome were not true
3594
3595Um uh as you may remember um when he was told by his campaign team um in essence that if you can't win Arizona, you can't win the election
3596
3597and then he'd lost Arizona.
3598
3599He changed out that team and went with um Giuliani and his group
3600
3601Um we also had statements from other individuals
3602
3603Um uh I believe it was General Mark Millie who said he was going to leave this for the next guy
3604
3605Um there was another staffer who overheard him saying that something to the effect of and I want to make sure I'm not inaccurate here.
3606
3607It's in our final report, but basically like you keep fighting regardless of whether you won or lost
3608
3609things of that nature which were corroborative of um the other the very strong evidence of um that the things he was saying about these about the election claims that were not true. >> And then you said earlier when I asked you the original question, I I thank you for parsing out the various knowledge, right
3610
3611The second part was that Mr.
3612
3613Trump knew that his claims were false
3614
3615And in the report, uh you say that Mr
3616
3617Trump, and this is a quote, knowingly made false claims
3618
3619So, I'm assuming that um talked about the false claims he made after he knew that he had lost the election
3620
3621Can you describe or summarize some of these false claims he made to the American public after he knew that he had lost the election? >> Sure.
3622
3623Um these would be false claims about um dead voters
3624
3625It would be false claims about underage voters
3626
3627It would be false claims about um illegal alien voters
3628
3629Um the the false claims were generally uh as as a general matter about urban centers where he had lost the vote in a particular state that was otherwise close by a lot
3630
3631Um and uh yes and again these were claims that were uh rebutted by people around him uh who who knew that they were false and and in in many cases told them they were false.
3632
3633>> I go to January 6 itself
3634
3635The president gave a speech on the rally and uh we received uh information testimony that a couple of things that his supporters were leaving their weapons outside the magn magnetometers because they wouldn't they couldn't go through and also that at some point Mr
3636
3637Trump said let them come through anyhow because they're not going to hurt me.
3638
3639Um it was subsequent to that uh knowledge that some of these supporters were armed that he called on them to go to the capital
3640
3641Was that set of facts subject to your investigation in the review? >> I I recall what you're talking about
3642
3643Uh I remember we interviewed different people who were near or we interviewed people who were near or around President Trump in that period of time before the Ellipse speech and uh on that point there were different um recollections and different points of view.
3644
3645Some people said what you said, other people had more innocuous explanations about why people stayed outside the magnetometers
3646
3647Um clearly people did stay outside the magnetometers
3648
3649You could see that in the in the video of the crowd
3650
3651Um, so I do recall that
3652
3653Um, I uh and as I said, I remember different people hearing different parts of that and having different perspectives on it.
3654
3655>> Metropolitan police as well as Secret Service identified a number of people who were armed along the route, some of them in trees
3656
3657Did you get information about that? >> I don't recall
3658
3659I I do recall there were people who certainly had weapons at the capital
3660
3661um that I recall with certainty.
3662
3663And there's people who used uh weapons, whether they be poles or sticks or other weapons uh against police officers
3664
3665I know there was one officer who they they took his gun
3666
3667Uh and so um the use of weapons against u members of law enforcement um it was outrageous, but it figured heavily in what happened at uh the capital that day. >> Thank you.
3668
3669>> Uh I'm actually, if you don't mind, I believe it's exhibit 10
3670
3671It's your volume one of your report
3672
3673I think we entered as an exhibit earlier and I'm going to direct you to page 39 of of your report and I'm going to focus on the the middle paragraph
3674
3675There's three different paragraphs on this page.
3676
3677I'm going to focus on the middle one that starts with Mr
3678
3679Trump's intent and spreading knowing falsehoods
3680
3681Do you see that paragraph, Mr
3682
3683Smith? >> Yes
3684
3685This was um what I this paragraph was what I was referring to when I I spoke earlier
3686
3687That's what I thought
3688
3689Uh, did you did President Trump ever acknowledge and I believe you talk about in this paragraph, but did President Trump ever acknowledge that he knew that he had actually lost the election of President Biden? >> Yeah.
3690
3691So, this paragraph references different um statements that he made in the presence of other people
3692
3693One is that uh it doesn't matter if you won or lost the election, you still fight like hell
3694
3695And 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.
3696
3697Trump or how could you what's a way you could have argued this admission um for Mr
3698
3699Trump to a jury
3700
3701Well, I I think I I saw these admissions as corroborative of of the larger case
3702
3703Um, 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.
3704
3705uh 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
3706
3707This this sort of evidence would corroborate that um um but it would sort of be the the cherry on top if you will
3708
3709the 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
3710
3711them
3712
3713Uh 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 >> and and I want to I want you to elaborate a little bit on that on your experience with these types of witnesses.
3714
3715So I'm assuming you know individuals from the same party as Mr
3716
3717Trump pushing back on his assertions of voter fraud and various other claims
3718
3719Why would that in your opinion have been powerful to present to a jury
3720
3721Well, I think someone who puts uh country before party, I think my understanding of people of jurors that people appreciate that
3722
3723I know I certainly do.
3724
3725The um the other part about that is um the reality of like when people speak out against their political party, there can be costs
3726
3727And when people are willing to pay those costs because they believe in something, because they're going to tell the truth, uh I think people get that
3728
3729And uh I think the witnesses I'm talking about um if I had to cross-examine them and make them not look credible, that would be very hard.
3730
3731I think that would be very hard
3732
3733Assignment, >> you mentioned just now as part of your trial strategy would have been, you know, having individuals from each state come up and talk about their experiences um pushing back on Mr
3734
3735Trump's false claims um about the election
3736
3737And and one of those states you mentioned earlier was Pennsylvania.
3738
3739And so I do want to give Miss Scandlin from Pennsylvania a chance to ask a few questions. >> Thank you
3740
3741Appreciate you being here and and certainly we were paying very close attention to this whole process in Pennsylvania since Pennsylvania was one of the main targets um for the president's attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
3742
3743Can you just outline for us what actions President Trump, if any, took in Pennsylvania, a state that Joe Biden clearly won
3744
3745uh in the 2020 presidential election to overturn its results and gain the electoral votes for himself. >> Sure
3746
3747Um like like the other six states involved um there were knowing um false statements about uh fraud claims.
3748
3749uh you're testing my memory here, but one one was I remember he there was a persistent claim that uh more people had voted than it had be giving been given ballots and it was a very clear thing that we were talking about two different elections and um there's uh traffic email traffic among his staff and people who work for him about how obvious this wasn't true uh and um persist consistently kept making that statement over and over again.
3750
3751I also remember in Pennsylvania the chair of the Republican party in Pennsylvania, guy by the name of I think his name was Tabis, um very shortly after the election, this is in I want to say mid to early November, disabused uh President Trump of the idea that the reason his vote total uh his lead was going down was because of fraud.
3752
3753and he explained again um that's how we all knew that that's how this was going to work with absentee ballots in in the state of Pennsylvania which we had very strong evidence that Trump in fact had been briefed upon by his campaign staff
3754
3755So, those aren't the only examples, but they're the ones that come to mind.
3756
3757Um, as I said here, now >> you you have a really good memory, but that first one you mentioned that claimed that there were more ballots being cost or cast than have been issued is one than some of our colleagues here despite the fact that the entire state election apparatus has contested it for five years now.
3758
3759Um, I think your report mentions the conversation that the president had with Larry Thomas, the chair of the Republican party, in which he explained to him just a couple days after the election concluded why Pennsylvania's system had all these absentee ballots which Democrats had embraced because the president had told Republicans not to use them.
3760
3761Um, did the fact that the chair of the Pennsylvania Republican Party told the president that there was nothing fraudulent about the fact that the Democrats vote total was continuing to grow
3762
3763Uh, did that stop the president from continuing his efforts to promote claims of voter fraud in Pennsylvania or elsewhere? >> It did not
3764
3765But again, that witness, Mr.
3766
3767Tavis, was of a similar group of witnesses who these are not enemies of the president
3768
3769These are people in his party who supported him and I think the fact that they were telling him these things uh would have had in my view would have had great weight and great credibility with a jury. >> It's kind of the principle that we use in the love and admission against interest.
3770
3771You know when when your your party loyalty need you to support the president but instead you're saying you'll be wrong
3772
3773You think that might give them credibility? >> Yeah, I I I think witnesses of that nature would have had um very strong credibility
3774
3775I agree
3776
3777I know some of these folks
3778
3779Um, did President Trump try to carry out his fraudulent elector plan in Pennsylvania as well? >> Yes.
3780
3781>> And, uh, how do you do this? >> Uh, well, what happened with the elector plan was when they came up with the idea of having these fake electors, uh, there were certain electors who would just not put up with it
3782
3783Um, Thomas Marino, I think he was from Pennsylvania is an example of that.
3784
3785And so as a result and and he wasn't the only one uh in the scheme generally as a result they had to replace electors
3786
3787And again just to keep in mind all the electors we're talking about here are people who supported Donald Trump
3788
3789These are people who signed up and said I want to be an elector for Donald Trump.
3790
3791And these people um when they stepped out they had to replace them
3792
3793and and part of what's required under um the Electoral Count Act is that there are procedures for doing that and and they couldn't follow those procedures because uh they were replacing people without the consent of the governor and things of that nature
3794
3795Um, also in Pennsylvania, I I believe it was Pennsylvania, there was a call where um, and there's a text of this where um, electors were pushing back on this and also wanting to be covered if there was liability and um, you know, to be
3796
3797indemnified and things of that nature
3798
3799And they wanted like statements in in their certificates basically saying you're only going to use this if you know you win these these lawsuits
3800
3801And there was a text chain with some of the people who are carrying out this scheme for President Trump basically ended with these people should be shot.
3802
3803>> Um because um and that we can't let this snowball like this otherwise we're going to have to do this in all the other states. >> I again your recollection >> I I I'm sorry
3804
3805I want to I don't think you said these people should be shot
3806
3807I think they said whoever put this slate together should be shot.
3808
3809I think I think that's what it said
3810
3811Well, I think it is one of the reasons the Pennsylvania uh fake electors didn't get prosecuted was because they pushed back and said, "We're not going to sign this unless you include language saying um that this will only be used um if if their court cases say that we are the real electors.
3812
3813In your investigation, did you find that the people who were conspiring with the president to push this plan uh were telling electors one thing and using their their certificates in another way
3814
3815Yes, the the um electors were told um that they they would only be used in these circumstances and as you know other ways of overturning the election fell away uh and as President Trump and his co-conspirators became more desperate uh they came up with even more obviously illegal ways to try to stay in power and it eventually
3816
3817devolved to Let's just say that these are the electors regardless of whether any court has said so, the governor has said so, the people of the state and most have said so
3818
3819Uh and uh they didn't go back to electors and say, "Hey, we're going to use your I know we told you we were only going to use this if you um if we won a lawsuit.
3820
3821" They just went ahead and used it
3822
3823And I think again um even among the fake electors, there would have been witnesses
3824
3825Um, I'm thinking of one witness in particular in Georgia who would I thought would have been very powerful of I would never have done this if I thought they were going to use my name to overturn the will of the people um just because one person said so.
3826
3827>> Okay. >> Okay
3828
3829I mean there were other efforts in Pennsylvania
3830
3831We had the very famous four seasons landscape days press conference which um is famous to this day
3832
3833But there was also a meeting that Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mosiano hosted in a hotel in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania around Thanksgiving weekend.
3834
3835So between the certification in Pennsylvania and the presentation of the electors in in DC
3836
3837So even though it was framed as a hearing, um Julian attended that that event and ended up speaking to promote some of these falsehoods about election fraud or votes or whatever and made it sort of a rally.
3838
3839Um Donald Trump even called into this event and claimed that he had won Pennsylvania by a lot
3840
3841Are you familiar with that event? >> I I do recall that
3842
3843I think that's in our final report. >> I believe so
3844
3845Yes
3846
3847Um did you uncover in connection with that event with with respect to what they were trying to do with Pennsylvania votes.
3848
3849>> Well, I I think I think they were calling them hotel hearings and it's because they couldn't have hearings actually in the legislature
3850
3851And so I don't think Pennsylvania was the only state uh where that happened
3852
3853There's nothing obviously nothing illegal about having a political rally or having a a meeting of people political party.
3854
3855Um our case was about knowing knowingly false fraud claims, >> right
3856
3857Yeah, it did appear to be more of just some of the kind of performative stuff that we see here where they try to make something out of nothing
3858
3859Well, I just I want to thank you for your testimony, for your work, for your integrity and that of your entire staff who I know worked extremely hard and with great integrity um and wholly support your request to testify before the American people.
3860
3861I would really like to see that
3862
3863American tax dollars, including my constituents, have funded your investigation, and I think that they should hear from you directly about what you thought and not have your testimony hidden from them
3864
3865So, thank you. >> On another state, on November 20th, um Mr.
3866
3867Trump called Republican legislators from Michigan to the White House uh and urged them to remove uh the Biden electors and replace them with uh electors that would um elect Trump
3868
3869They uh subsequent to that made a statement that there was no evidence for that and went back and the electors were certified as the votes had indicated they should be.
3870
3871Subsequent to that in December there was an effort uh to create fake electors and in fact um on December 14th when the electoral colleges meet in all the state legislatores there were 16 fake electors in the basement uh in in Michigan uh and four of them tried to get into the uh capital to uh overturn the election.
3872
3873Did you look at that whole phenomena? >> We did
3874
3875And what was your conclusion
3876
3877What was the uh how would that have played, if at all, in your prosecution? >> Well, I think I think that event you're referring to and I think we interviewed some of the law enforcement officers who were there that day when they were trying to get in.
3878
3879Uh what what they were doing and and what the email traffic among co-conspirators showed is they were trying to mimic the procedures of that are required by Electoral Count Act
3880
3881Uh but they couldn't mimic them
3882
3883And if I recall, the email traffic on this started with we have to follow these procedures
3884
3885And then when it became clear they couldn't follow all the procedures, it was like, well, do the best you can to follow as many as you can.
3886
3887And so I think if I if I do recall, certain states, it may have been Michigan, that the electors had to convene in a loca a certain government location
3888
3889And so as a result, I believe there may have been a state official involved in trying to get them into, if I'm thinking of the right um situation, get them in there so again they could mimic the procedures um even though they were not the electors um that represented the the will of the people that how the vote was actually counted.
3890
3891>> Thank you. >> I know we're getting close to our hour
3892
3893We about five minutes left
3894
3895So, I want to end on um asking about and can you just summarize for us the actions that Mr
3896
3897Trump took um with with Vice President Pence
3898
3899What did Donald Trump want Vice President Pence to do to overturn the election results? >> Well, ultimately he wanted him to just hand him the election to say he he won.
3900
3901There were different proposals that President Trump and his co-conspirators put to Mike Pence, but in essence, he wanted Mike Pence to uh impose his own choice about who should be president uh over the will of the American people who voted in the election. >> Was one of those ways that uh Donald Trump tried to pressure Mr.
3902
3903Pence was to reject the lawful electors certificates of their votes during the electoral counting process
3904
3905Was that one of the ways that you recall? >> That's correct. >> Um, how did Mr
3906
3907Pence respond back to Mr
3908
3909Trump's pressure about rejecting the lawful elector certificates? >> Uh, I think, uh, Mike Pence, Vice President Mike Pence, falls into the category that I described before.
3910
3911Um, he did something that was, uh, very hard to do
3912
3913He went against his party
3914
3915Uh, he paid a price for it
3916
3917Um uh but I think again someone like that putting country over party I think he would have been an effective witness
3918
3919He did not agree to go along. >> Did you uh have the opportunity to interview Mr.
3920
3921Pence as part of your investigation? >> Um so uh can we can we stop for one sec
3922
3923We >> go off the record
3924
3925Go off the record
3926
3927Yeah
3928
3929I'll repeat my question
3930
3931Did you have the opportunity to interview Mr
3932
3933Pence as part of your investigation? >> I think the answer to that question might involve uh Sixie and so I I'm not going to answer that.
3934
3935>> Going back to the response that you uh just talked about with Mr
3936
3937Pence's response to uh President Trump's pressure, is this yet another example of evidence that showed Mr
3938
3939Trump knew or should have known that what he was saying to the American public was false regarding the election of 2020. >> Yes.
3940
3941Uh the vice president was one and this is alleged in our indictment in our filings was one of several people saying he was not seeing um the outcome determinative fraud that Donald Trump was claiming. >> And what would have happened if Vice President Pence would have gone along and refused to count the lawful elector certificates
3942
3943Uh well thankfully we don't know but I I I would say that he he and the other people who stood up and said I'm not going to do that um may have changed the course of history in terms of our country of having an election where um
3944
3945someone took power in our country who didn't actually win the election
3946
3947So as I said I think it took a lot of courage on his part
3948
3949He's also someone who, as you all know, um, when the attack on the capital happened, he wouldn't leave
3950
3951People wanted him to leave
3952
3953Uh, and I think again that reflects very well on him.
3954
3955>> My last question, I know earlier when you were talking to the majority, there was this discussion of first amendment uh, issues with Mr
3956
3957Trump uh, talking about these false claims of the election
3958
3959Do you remember that discussion? >> Yes. >> And during our hour, we talked a lot about the knowledge that Mr
3960
3961Trump had.
3962
3963one that he had lost the 2020 election and two that what he was saying to the American public was false about the 2020 election
3964
3965Can you help now bring us full circle on how you analyze the first amendment claims with the knowledge uh of the fraud that Mr
3966
3967Trump was putting out to the American public in 2020 and 2021? >> Sure.
3968
3969Uh from a legal perspective um this is really quite clear
3970
3971Uh 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
3972
3973I think I I certainly feel that way
3974
3975I'm sure everybody in this room feels that way
3976
3977Uh but there is a very clear um carveout for fraud uh in our case law
3978
3979Supreme Court um uh I think there's one case is the Stevens case um talks about that
3980
3981And um and there are others.
3982
3983Uh 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
3984
3985uh that's not that's not protected by the first amendment
3986
3987Uh people commit crimes all the time using words.
3988
3989Uh and uh when someone commits a fraud, 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
3990
3991That's all words
3992
3993Um but it's not protected by the first amendment
3994
3995And in a lot of ways, this case was an affinity fraud.
3996
3997Um 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
3998
3999Um some people wouldn't do it, others would
4000
4001Um we're lucky that enough wouldn't uh that the election was upheld. >> Thank you
4002
4003With that, we'll go off the record at 3:30 p.m. Eastern time.
4004
4005I understand, Mr
4006
4007Smith, you wanted to make some additional comments about the exchange you had regarding your communications with the payday, Marshall Miller. >> Yes, thank you
4008
4009Um, Chairman Jordan didn't ask me this directly, but I just wanted to make sure it was clear in the record.
4010
4011Um, in the the series of conversations that I had with Marshall Miller before I, um, accepted the position of special counsel, um, previous to discussing the idea of working on any of these investigations, uh, he did, um, uh, bring up the idea of me, uh, working on another case, um, before that
4012
4013um that that happened and I ultimately declined uh to work on that case and then the other conversations happened after that.
4014
4015So I just wanted to put that on the record. >> Okay. >> Case not related to >> not related
4016
4017Correct. >> At that point were you were you ready to to seek a new opportunity
4018
4019You know you had been in the HEG for some time
4020
4021Were were you looking for an opportunity to come back to the United States? >> Uh I really loved my work in the H
4022
4023Um, but uh, for family reasons, if the right opportunity happened, I wasn't desperate to come back, but if the right opportunity happened, I was I was willing to do that.
4024
4025That's one of the reasons I spoke to, Mr
4026
4027Miller. >> Okay. >> Um, at the end of the last round, I asked you whether you had any communications with the Michigan Attorney General, Dana Nestle, >> and you said you did not. >> Yeah, I don't I don't recall any
4028
4029And to the best of your knowledge, you don't believe anyone on your staff was having communications with the Michigan Attorney General's office? >> Well, what I what I thought I said was um I don't recall that.
4030
4031It may be that we've gotten that we got inquiries from them
4032
4033That may be possible and it maybe we responded to those inquiries
4034
4035Um I don't recall sharing information with them uh or getting information from them
4036
4037But to the extent there's an allegation made that your office was coordinating with state attorney general's offices to have prosecutions go on and you know different prosecutions happen in the states.
4038
4039Would you say that that did not happen and that would be false if somebody made that allegation? >> We were not try trying to coordinate prosecutions uh with other offices
4040
4041No. >> Okay
4042
4043And you were not trying to encourage prosecutions at the state level. >> No, I don't recall anything like that. >> Okay.
4044
4045Um, and so the same can be said with the attorney general for the state of Wisconsin, Josh Call
4046
4047Did you have any communications with him? >> I've never spoken to Josh Call. >> Okay. >> Again, we we may have got inquiries from their office and it could be by phone or by a letter
4048
4049Uh, I can't say that didn't happen. >> Okay.
4050
4051And to the best of your knowledge, your staff did not have a regular set of communications um with the Wisconsin Attorney General's office. >> I don't know about regular
4052
4053If if there were uh requests or if there were people who reached out to us, we may have spoken to them back
4054
4055Uh I don't recall uh with much specificity anything about that.
4056
4057Um we definitely were not trying to coordinate a case with them. >> Okay
4058
4059And the same can the same be said for the attorney general for Nevada, Aaron Ford? >> I I don't even know that name, Aaron Ford
4060
4061Um, again, I just want to be clear th this this subject you're asking me about about interactions with um state attorney general's office.
4062
4063This was not a focus of mine um as the special counsel
4064
4065was focused on our cases, our investigations, um, and our case and and what we were doing in court in our investigations
4066
4067Um, this is the sort of thing that, uh, other people in my office would have dealt with
4068
4069And so, I'm probably not your best witness in terms of the level of interaction or witnesses, but I don't recall sharing evidence with with those offices.
4070
4071>> But if your office did have meaningful coordination with the state attorney generals, you probably would know about it
4072
4073Is that fair
4074
4075uh meaningful coordination
4076
4077I don't know what that term means, but I like I said, I'm trying to be as specific as I can, limited by my memory
4078
4079I don't recall us sharing information or sharing our files with attorney general's offices.
4080
4081I don't remember recall them giving us their files, things of that nature
4082
4083Beyond that, the number of times an office may have reached out to us and how we replied to that, I I I really don't have a recollection of those sort of subjects
4084
4085I I I'm trying to be as clear as I can. >> Fair enough
4086
4087Um how about with outside um Democrat Democratic um lawyers such as Norm Eisen
4088
4089Did you have any communications with Norm Eisen? >> No.
4090
4091>> During the dependency of your investigation, do you know if anyone on your staff did? >> I don't know of anybody having such a communication
4092
4093No. >> Okay
4094
4095And how about with Mark Elias
4096
4097He is a um election law attorney for for Democrats
4098
4099No, I've never met him. >> Okay
4100
4101And to the best of your knowledge, your staff wasn't communicating with Mr.
4102
4103Elias? >> To the best of my knowledge, yes. >> Um, same question
4104
4105Uh, a gentle lady by the name of Mary McCord. >> Uh, Mary McCord I do know
4106
4107Uh, I I didn't know her well, but I knew her from when, uh, I had brief interactions with her
4108
4109She was I think at the US Attorney's office in um Washington DC while I was the chief of public integrity.
4110
4111Uh I don't recall having any interactions with her uh during the pendency of the investigations
4112
4113At the conclusion of the investigations, one of my lawyers went to work uh at her project at Georgetown and I did speak to her about that. >> Okay
4114
4115And what is her project at Georgetown
4116
4117It's some It's some sort of clinic at uh Georgetown University.
4118
4119Uh as I sit here right now, I don't know the specifics, >> but you didn't have any discussions with her about the uh the facts of the the case. >> No, I my recollection that may may have been the first time her and I had ever actually had a conversation, her and I talking to each other. >> Okay. >> Um but we definitely didn't talk about uh the case while it was being prosecuted and investigated
4120
4121Okay.
4122
4123Um We've discussed um both sides I think have you know raised the fact that President Trump was um you know he's being prosecuted by a lot of different um tribunals at the same time
4124
4125I mean he had the district attorney of New York
4126
4127He had a civil case with the attorney general for the state of New York
4128
4129Um he had two federal cases.
4130
4131Um and you know I had asked you about how you managed um the calendar and the calendar with President Trump
4132
4133I mean, there were times when he was required to be in New York three or four days of the week and and then he had to be in Florida um for I think we discussed at the end of our last round for a pre-trial emotion hearing.
4134
4135Um, and it just seems it just seems that at every instance when President Trump and his lawyers requested a little bit of a delay because of the cases they're defending, um, your office uh, was not willing to indulge that request. >> It is correct that we were not willing to indulge delays that we thought were inappropriate.
4136
4137I will add and uh this is in the litigation uh there were numerous instances uh where judges chided um council for President Trump for trying to delay things
4138
4139I'm thinking as I'm saying it now I'm thinking specifically um of the executive privilege litigation uh that we had
4140
4141This is referenced in our final report of uh him attempting to delay things.
4142
4143And so, um, we, uh, we agreed to dates that we thought were appropriate
4144
4145Um, all of that, as far as I'm concerned, was very public and transparent
4146
4147what the dates were and and the arguments to the judges about those dates >> were clear and I uh thought they were fair and reasonable >> even against the backdrop that he was being tried by the district attorney of New York and even against the backdrop that he was involved in a high stakes proceeding with uh the New York attorney general.
4148
4149>> Yes
4150
4151You know, for example, at the time you proposed the DC schedule, you were also aware that Georgia prosecutors had proposed motions hearings um you know, essentially during the same time period
4152
4153Um if if President Trump's lawyers had requested a delay for that, would you have indulge that or did you indulge that if they did ask for it
4154
4155Uh I don't recall if they asked for a delay and um to consider whether I would indulge that I would have to be back in that moment and look at the the facts as they existed at that time
4156
4157I don't I don't
4158
4159recall uh that as I sit here now
4160
4161President Trump complained um that he was treated unfairly with respect to access to the classified information that was at the heart of the the Florida case that um he wasn't able to review the materials at the heart of a the trial because of uh restrictions imposed by the government um that required him to only review the materials, you know, on on your turf.
4162
4163Um, is that something that your office uh did intentionally? >> Uh, I I think this may be one of those subjects that uh may be uh in the uh final report in Florida, so I don't think I can get into that. >> Okay
4164
4165Um >> I'm not sure it is, but I it may be and I just want to exercise caution. >> So I I have some questions along along this line.
4166
4167If that's going to be your answer, I understand that
4168
4169So, I'll just >> if you can point to a public filing where this has been discussed, I'm happy to comment on the subject in the public filing because I think my understanding is it's pretty clear that I I'm allowed to discuss >> public filings and so if there is a public filing you're aware of, I'm happy to >> to address that to the extent I I I can recall it.
4170
4171>> Okay. >> I I want to answer your questions as much as I can
4172
4173I just don't want to run a file of this injunction
4174
4175The the heart of the question is, you know, he had a skiff at Mara Lago that was decommissioned when he was no longer president, but during the pendency of the case would have been relatively easy for him to to get that skiff at Mara Lago back up and running.
4176
4177Um and you know he he indicates that your office blocked that and you know required him to only look at the classified documents only talk with his attorneys about the content of the classified documents in a DOJ >> and that that that puts us you know a remarkable burden on him especially given all the other cases that he was um defending.
4178
4179>> Okay
4180
4181So if there is a public filing about this I am happy to discuss this with you
4182
4183I just want to make sure that there's a public filing
4184
4185So, I'm not running a file of anything in the injunction. >> See if we can get it quickly
4186
4187If not, >> of course. >> Maybe we'll move on. >> Yeah.
4188
4189And then we could come back >> come back to it >> after the uh immunity determination um at the Supreme Court was decided in July of 2024
4190
4191Um you you filed a a remarkably long brief in in September um of 2024
4192
4193I think it was like 165 pages and it you know the the brief um was very very unusual uh in terms of length and content
4194
4195Um what can you tell us about your decision to proceed with that type of u meaty um brief
4196
4197It's it's almost as if you were writing your you know special counsel report um in that brief.
4198
4199>> Sure
4200
4201Um so uh as an initial matter uh I think vast amount of the factual material in that brief was was not new
4202
4203it was just uh put in there to to address the issues >> uh at hand
4204
4205Um the context of this is we received this immunity decision
4206
4207The immunity decision affected not only the um indictment uh it affected the evidence we could use at trial.
4208
4209And so for there to be a um a litigation of this um the defense would have to know the evidence at trial
4210
4211we would have to say this is this is the indictment and here's the other evidence that we're going to use at trial
4212
4213Um in summary at least um we all understood at least certainly I did that this case was going to go up to the Supreme Court at least one more time um for an interpretation of a lot of the questions that the Supreme Court left open which we addressed in the final report.
4214
4215Uh, our goal was to have that beet one time and to have the evidence and the um indictment get rulings from the court
4216
4217If the defense didn't like them, they would get to appeal them
4218
4219That would go up to the Supreme Court
4220
4221We get a final understanding and then we be back um before the um before the court to try the case.
4222
4223And so to do that in one trip as opposed to multiple trips and multiple trips could mean years in terms of how long would take take to try a case
4224
4225Um that required us to go first to in essence put this there
4226
4227And um I I said this earlier in the day to you
4228
4229Uh, one of the challenges in this case is we had an in my view a very strong case with a lot of evidence and trying to condense that into a brief at that stage where we were not going to be precluded from offering things that we thought were important um that could possibly be relevant to um any of the immunity
4230
4231issues uh but also have a wholesome brief uh that's what we filed
4232
4233It was my judgment that that was what was necessary
4234
4235And I think again if you look at that brief uh the vast majority of factual information in that brief had been um in the public or some something close to it in the past >> required you to go first or you chose to go first because the normal case is you f you file my understanding you file a superseding indictment.
4236
4237Defense is going to make some motion
4238
4239They're going to have some reaction to that and then you would do a brief but you you flipped it
4240
4241Well, because in this particular case, we had a a um the opinion that caused us to supersede the indictment
4242
4243It that the court said, not only what's in the indictment, but the evidence, too.
4244
4245And there had never been a point at that point where we had put on the table, here's all the evidence that might be related to immunity
4246
4247And so, we needed to do that
4248
4249Otherwise, the defense couldn't respond to it
4250
4251What would have happened if if would be we file a brief of our trial evidence of our indictment
4252
4253They say no or not
4254
4255Then that goes all the way up to the Supreme Court.
4256
4257Then we come back from the Supreme Court
4258
4259Now we're going to do a second year. >> Let's change the question, Mr
4260
4261Smith
4262
4263Required or did you choose it? >> I I believe that was the most appropriate way to go forward
4264
4265Yes. >> It's not my question
4266
4267Did you Was it required or did you choose to go that route? >> Oh, I chose it. >> Okay
4268
4269But I I'm sorry that I was I wanted to explain the reasons why I chose it.
4270
4271>> And did you have to file a motion with the judge to for leave to to offer that type of uh filing? >> Uh we had a status conference with the judge shortly after the return of the superseding indictment and we proposed my choice that that that um sequence uh but we left it to the judge to decide the timing of that sequence of when our brief would be due.
4272
4273And what was the timing of that sequence to the extent you can recall? >> Um, I'm happy to to venture a guess, but there's there's a public record of this
4274
4275I want to say it was two to three weeks we were given to write our brief, but >> trust trust the record instead of my memory on that. >> And so the the brief was filed um right at the beginning of October, I think, at the end of September, >> whatever the record shows.
4276
4277>> Um, and the election was just weeks away, correct
4278
4279Uh the election was November 3rd. >> Yes. >> Y >> um did you have any communications amongst your staff that this presented potentially a problem with the Justice Department's election year sensitivities guidelines? >> So um when when we um got the immunity decision, we had a series of of decisions to make.
4280
4281The first was to look at our evidence and see do we still have a case here
4282
4283do we still have admissible evidence that would allow us to proceed to trial
4284
4285So that's what we did first
4286
4287Um once we determined that we did have that evidence, uh the next thing we determined is do we need to supersede the indictment
4288
4289And because there was evidence before the grand jury that the Supreme Court had clearly said um was immune, we determined that we needed to supersede the indictment.
4290
4291Um once and I'm sorry I'm being long, but I think the context will help
4292
4293Once we determined that, we had to make sure that our conduct in in going forward with an indictment and everything after uh complied with the election year sensitivities policy
4294
4295And to do that, we consulted with public integrity on drafts of the indictment uh on our plan forward.
4296
4297And as we set forth in the um in the final report, Ping concurred that we had complied with that policy
4298
4299And I would just add that policy um is uh does not uh stop prosecutors from trying their cases in court. >> Okay
4300
4301Um did you or anyone in your office discuss the potential political or electoral impact of publicly filing that amount of information, you know, just with the election a month out.
4302
4303My focus was on making sure we complied with the election year sensitivities policy which which is the way the department addresses those issues. >> Okay
4304
4305Um and so I mean the whole purpose behind the policy is not to interfere with elections
4306
4307Right. >> Correct. >> Um and so the way the policy is written I guess is that as long as you have filed your case and as long as um you're already in court then there's no limitations on the types of court filings you can make.
4308
4309Is that right
4310
4311Well, I will say and I, as you know, I was the chief of public integrity
4312
4313Um, historically, um, I can't think I don't recall any cases where it ever applied to anything
4314
4315It was really about investigative stage steps, you know, doing a search warrant, uh, or taking investigative steps before an election
4316
4317Uh, but this is one of those issues where this is why you consult with public integrity because they're now the keepers of that policy
4318
4319Correct.
4320
4321>> And so we consulted with them about the path we we took and they agreed that what we ended up doing did comply with the with the rules
4322
4323I >> mean after you left public integrity, you know, there was a a February 2020 memo from Attorney General Bar and um Attorney General Garland in effect re-uped Bar's memo with his own election sensitivities memo.
4324
4325I think he incorporated it by reference in fact >> um you know and this is against the backdrop that a lot of what happened during the 2016 election um caused a lot of concern that what happened at FBI um what happened with you know both the crossfire hurricane investigation and and the midyear exam investigation you know may have un you know affected the outcome of the 2016 election
4326
4327Correct.
4328
4329Um, I'm not saying that's wrong
4330
4331I I I'm not sure
4332
4333I followed that closely. >> Okay
4334
4335Um, I mean, you're aware of the concerns of the Justice Department, you know, in the fallout of the Crossfire hurricane investigation. >> I I don't think the election year sensitivities policy was born out of that.
4336
4337I think it's existed for a long time and in kind of the same format for a long time
4338
4339And I know the last person to sort of restate it was Attorney General Garland, who I think did it shortly before I was appointed if my recollection is correct. >> But he incorporated by reference, you know, Attorney General Bar's um memo from 2020.
4340
4341Attorney General Bar, you know, his memo was in the in the fall, you know, was in the wake of everything that happened with the steel dossier, what happened with, you know, Crossfire hurricane
4342
4343um and so forth
4344
4345And so the question is your you know your 165page brief a month out from the election
4346
4347It's you know it seems from an outsers's perspective that that runs you know runs the risk of you know impacting the outcome of the election.
4348
4349>> Yeah we certainly were not in any way intending to affect the outcome of the election and to make sure we complied with the policy
4350
4351uh we met with public integrity to make sure we were doing that
4352
4353They agreed and they're the ones who enforced that policy
4354
4355Uh and so I felt comfortable taking the course that we did going forward.
4356
4357>> Did your did your office ever consider um some of the some of the things that happened to President Trump, you know, in in the 2016 election with the with the steel dossier with, you know, using the steel dossier to get, you know, FISA warrants
4358
4359Um, did you ever discuss any of that as as um, you know, background that we need to be careful here with President Trump that we don't uh, you know, repeat some of the the things the Justice Department went a foul of in 2016? >> I don't recall ever discussing the steel
4360
4361dossier or anything like that with my staff
4362
4363I don't recall that
4364
4365Um, and you know, I know Justice Department officials often like to say that a everyone at the Justice Department is nonpartisan, apolitical, they check their politics at the door
4366
4367Um, and and I think you would you would say that that is the case with everybody on your team
4368
4369Correct.
4370
4371>> I I would say that that has been my experience in the Justice Department through both Democratic and Republican administrations
4372
4373I've worked in the department through both and that has been my experience. >> Um and you know we learned in the fallout of the 2016 the events of the 2016 um time frame that you know there's Peter Struck and Lisa Page and you know I think we can all agree they were not apolitical and nonpartisan.
4374
4375They were, you know, very clearly, you know, as their text message traffic um, you know, bears out, they were, you know, very interested in in preventing President Trump from becoming president. >> Is that something that you were aware of? >> I was I was aware factually of that
4376
4377Yes. >> And can you agree that, you know, as the text message traffic bears out, those two officials were not, you know, nonpartisan and apolitical
4378
4379Well, I I certainly agreed with uh Director Muller's choice to move them off the team once he discovered those.
4380
4381Absolutely. >> And did you ever have any discussions with with your senior management to to make sure that your team wasn't infected by any of those types of issues? >> Yes, I did. >> Okay
4382
4383And can you tell us about that? >> So, I I made it clear from the day that I began at uh the special counsel's office this was going to be a nonpartisan uh investigation.
4384
4385this was not the politics would play no role in it
4386
4387Uh I think everybody in my office agreed to that
4388
4389Um I can tell you of one incident where um we were uh reviewing the email chains of um agents who might be witnesses in the case for Jiggly overview and uh we needed them to give us all their um their emails.
4390
4391uh an FBI agent uh who was working on the case um took that direction and actually provided us with uh his private emails with his family
4392
4393Um we didn't ask for that
4394
4395Um but he uh gave us his private emails uh in one of those emails uh and I can't remember if I saw this or my deputies saw this uh he was having a dispute with family members um where uh it was about January 6th.
4396
4397Uh once I saw that or heard about that, I decided he could no longer work on this investigation
4398
4399Uh and I think that was consistent with how I ran the office
4400
4401And I'll just I want to also be clear, I never saw that agent do anything that I considered partisan
4402
4403Um but just to make 100% clear to my staff and I don't this is an agent who volunteered this beyond what was required.
4404
4405Uh I wanted to make very clear that anything like that was not going to be part of our investigation
4406
4407the 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 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.
4408
4409>> I feel like this came up in the status conference that we had
4410
4411I can't recall
4412
4413What 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
4414
4415They were given time to file their brief
4416
4417They wanted more time which would put their brief after the election.
4418
4419Um we had our exhibits which were really the evidence you know that we were citing
4420
4421uh 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
4422
4423Now, the court
4424
4425ultimately did not agree >> and so uh this is referenced in a footnote in our report
4426
4427I think that that is pretty direct evidence that we were not seeking to put the maximum amount of 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.
4428
4429>> Okay
4430
4431But you you could have you could have sought permission to to file that big brief under seal, right
4432
4433I suppose we could have and again this is where my memor is escaping me
4434
4435I feel like this issue was possibly discussed with the court >> and um I think the record of of what any briefing on this or what the court said will be better than my memory about this.
4436
4437>> Okay
4438
4439Did 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
4440
4441No, 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.
4442
4443Um, on the 17th of October, Mr
4444
4445Trump filed a motion to delay public disclosure of our appendix to the brief, meaning the actual evidence. >> Yeah, sure
4446
4447It'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.
4448
4449>> Yeah. >> Um so that both appendixes will be released simultaneously after the election. >> Um he filed that motion before obtaining our position
4450
4451So, we emailed the court's chambers copying defense informing the court that we did not object to that procedure, meaning we did not object to our evidence >> being in essence embargoed from the public until after the election.
4452
4453So I again I think that's pretty strong evidence that we were not trying to uh have >> notwithstanding the fact that it's 165 page brief that you said >> it it was >> and that's my understanding that's first of all you choose to do it 165 pages I think it's four times the size of a normal briefs that are supposed to happen with these type of motions and I believe the judge said this was not typical is that right >> yes but >> said it was not typical >> she used a word like that but I would just say when you say these type of
4454
4455motions I filing a brief after an immunity decision uh is not a a a common issue and having to have a new evidentiary issue added to the mix in addition to immunity issue
4456
4457Uh, I don't think this is this >> is there any new evidence in 165 page page? >> I'm sure there was
4458
4459Um, but I, as I said, my recollection is the majority of the evidence um was um was already public.
4460
4461the the the brief emphasized uh how we could prove our case um using evidence of his role as a candidate as opposed to evidence that might otherwise be precluded uh by uh the official act
4462
4463So, for example, a thing in the brief would be that uh at least two of the White House um staff members who would have been witnesses that they'd also uh were also working on the campaign.
4464
4465And so, not a particularly important fact in the world, but important for our particular brief
4466
4467So, there were facts like that and others that were new that were in the brief. >> I just want to summarize, but you you choose to do this
4468
4469It's not required
4470
4471You go out of the normal order
4472
4473So, that that's that's different
4474
4475is four times the size of the brief that the court wants you to file.
4476
447745 pages and you do 165 pages
4478
4479The judge herself said it was atypical
4480
4481You introduced new evidence that is public and used this 32 days before the election
4482
4483The public integrity said just fine. >> They they agreed that our course was consistent and in compliance with the election public integrity said all the toll analysis was just okay.
4484
4485Were 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
4486
4487I 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
4488
4489Yeah.
4490
4491>> Okay
4492
4493And do you know how many there were? >> As I sit here now, I can't recall
4494
4495I know there was an Office of Inspector General report about this that there were no undercover officers there as had been >> reported
4496
4497Uh but there were uh informants there, some who had gone on their own
4498
4499And 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.
4500
4501>> Okay
4502
4503Um 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
4504
4505Um and so consequently, uh you um were not in favor of that
4506
4507Um does that ring any professional recollection at all? >> Uh I I'm not disputing what you're saying
4508
4509I haven't read the filing.
4510
4511What 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
4512
4513and we gave President Trump and his attorneys access to that
4514
4515I'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.
4516
4517>> Okay. >> Make us an exhibit. >> The next exhibit will be number 12
4518
4519And this is a letter from Stanley Woodward, Stan Brand about um the interactions they had with Jay Brat on August 24th, 2022 before you were appointed special counsel
4520
4521Um you familiar with the the allegations that Mr
4522
4523Woodward raised about Mr.
4524
4525Brat? >> Yes
4526
4527I'm going to refer you to two paragraphs in this letter
4528
4529The first paragraph is uh the last one on page one and the second paragraph on page two
4530
4531And you please, you know, familiarize yourself with this
4532
4533Um, but I just wanted to flag in advance that I'm going to zero your attention in on the on those two paragraphs.
4534
4535>> Yes. >> Okay
4536
4537Um this letter to Judge Boseberg from Brandon Woodward um states that the again this is the last paragraph on on page one
4538
4539Um despite the purported purpose of the meeting, it began with department attorney Jay Brat referencing a folder of materials in highlighting Mr
4540
4541Woodward's professional background.
4542
4543Specifically, Mr
4544
4545Brat remarked that he was aware of the fact that Mr
4546
4547Woodward had been recommended for a presidential nomination to the Superior Court of District Columbia
4548
4549Mr
4550
4551Brat also advised that the government's case against Mr
4552
4553Nuada was strong, referencing his belief that one way or the other, Mr.
4554
4555Nuada would be giving up a lifestyle to private planes and private golf courses and that it would behoove him, Mr
4556
4557Nuada, to cooperate in the government's investigation
4558
4559It was inappropriate for Mr
4560
4561brat who mentioned the fact that Mr
4562
4563Woodward had been recommended for a presidential nomination to the superior court of the District of Columbia.
4564
4565The only rationale the only rational inference to be drawn from this reference combined with the assertion that the government's case against Mr
4566
4567Natada was strong and that Mr
4568
4569Woodward was not a so-called Trump attorney who would do the right thing is that somehow Mr
4570
4571Woodward's potential nomination to the Superior Court would be implicated by Mr.
4572
4573Natada's decision not to cooperate in government's investigation
4574
4575Indeed, to the best of Mr
4576
4577Woodward's recollection, Mr
4578
4579Brack concluded his observations with words to the effect of, "I wouldn't want you to do anything to mess that up," referring to the potential nomination
4580
4581It is, of course, noteworthy that the statements given rise to this inference were coming from a senior official with the Justice Department.
4582
4583Um, I asked you whether you you um had a recollection of these events and you said you did. >> I do. >> Um do you think it was inappropriate for Mr
4584
4585Brat to make a suggestion to Mr
4586
4587Woodward that um you know he ought to he ought to cooperate and if he does cooperate if Mr
4588
4589Vada 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.
4590
4591Uh, 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
4592
4593Sure
4594
4595Um, you know, these judges for the District of Columbia, I mean, the Justice Department weighs in on it
4596
4597Is 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.
4598
4599But 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 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.
4600
4601Trump, President Trump, and um Mr
4602
4603Natada
4604
4605Uh as is is my practice in uh cases like this
4606
4607Um uh we gave Mr
4608
4609Trump's attorneys an opportunity to come in and give me arguments as to why um not to indict the case
4610
4611And in the course of my life, I've heard those arguments and sometimes not move forward on cases
4612
4613uh in this particular situation because um my decision uh would ultimately be reviewed by the attorney general who could countermand it.
4614
4615Um that meeting was was with me and uh Bradley who was um in the Justice Department
4616
4617Uh Mr
4618
4619Trump's attorneys were there
4620
4621It was Jim Trusty, Lindseay Halligan, and there was a third attorney who I can't remember um but I'm sure there's a record of who that was
4622
4623um 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 counsel had interacted
4624
4625with Mr
4626
4627Woodard numerous times over my time as special counsel
4628
4629He not only represented Walt Nada, he represented other witnesses on on the classified documents case, he represented I I believe multiple people in the elections case
4630
4631And so all this time passing, this has never been raised before.
4632
4633Uh I went back to my office
4634
4635That meeting was at the main justice building
4636
4637I went back to my office and uh very short shortly afterwards I informed my deputy JP Cooney about this and Ray Hulzer about this
4638
4639Um they contacted uh Mr
4640
4641Woodard uh to ask him about this
4642
4643Um I believe um there are notes about that.
4644
4645Notes of either JP Cooney or Ray Holster
4646
4647I'm not I'm not sure
4648
4649Um my recollection of that and again they would remember this better is that Mr
4650
4651Woodard 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.
4652
4653That was the initial response. >> What day was this? >> Yeah frame generally >> like early June
4654
4655So 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
4656
4657Um Mr
4658
4659um I tked Mr
4660
4661Cooney and Mr.
4662
4663um Huler to uh speak to the people who were present for this meeting
4664
4665Um, none of them believed uh that Jay Brat would threaten uh Mr
4666
4667Woodard
4668
4669Uh, it didn't make a lot of sense that a a career prosecutor would in the first meeting with the council they ever met threaten them
4670
4671Um, one of the things they asked about was this issue about the judicial nominating thing
4672
4673And Mr.
4674
4675Brat explained that he had not met Mr
4676
4677Woodard before and not had a case with him
4678
4679So, he had looked up him up and uh when you pull up um information about Mr
4680
4681Woodard 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
4682
4683Um 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.
4684
4685>> Um Mr
4686
4687Brat explained to us that he was under the impression that Mr
4688
4689Woodard was on the commission and raised it as sort of like icebreaker like I understand you're on this commission
4690
4691Now whether whether Mr
4692
4693Woodard misunderstood that or some other reason um here he says he drew an inference that he was making some sort of threat.
4694
4695Uh that didn't make a lot of sense to me given all the interactions he'd had with our office
4696
4697Um I think Mr
4698
4699Woodard later started talking about a campaign against him, but he had meetings with people in my office repeatedly in positive ways
4700
4701Um, and finally, I I also thought it was noteworthy that Mr.
4702
4703Woodard didn't bring up this issue for many months
4704
4705Mhm. >> 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
4706
4707Didn't want it reported OPR
4708
4709Never asked that
4710
4711And now he wants it not only reported to OPR, but he actually wants to delay the indictment of the case until that's concluded.
4712
4713Um, I will say that when we um confronted um I say we my uh my deputy spoke to Mr
4714
4715uh Brat about this
4716
4717He self-reported it to OPR, which is um pretty standard in these sort of situations
4718
4719And so um and I would also just say this was some time ago
4720
4721We did a filing on this that I believe is public and that filing will reflect my best recollection of these things.
4722
4723And so I did not credit these allegations
4724
4725Um but um I we made they were we made sure they were referred to OPR. >> But you know a counterpoint to that if if Woodward has a bunch of cases before your office and he's you know representing a bunch of people
4726
4727I mean he may have felt felt threatened but he also may have felt that it was in his strategic advantage to just try to forget about it because he doesn't want to make an enemy of J Brat.
4728
4729I mean isn't that isn't that a fair counterpoint
4730
4731I I don't think so based on the number of interactions we've had with him and also the fact that he didn't even bring it up
4732
4733Um someone else brought it up and when he was again I was told when he was confronted with it he was surprised someone brought it up made a reference of I know how to make a complaint if I need to
4734
4735That was my recollection.
4736
4737And then when he did make the complaint he didn't just say I think this should be referred to OPR
4738
4739He said, and it may be in this letter that yes, I think I think that this um this let me let me make sure I get the language correct
4740
4741Yes, we we we respectfully suggest that this matter be referred to the department's office of professional responsibility for a thorough investigation and that any indictment arising from this investigation not lie until such an assessment is reached knowing as as we do that an OPR investigation can take many many months.
4742
4743So that that's my take on on what happened
4744
4745Um and uh I think our office responded appropriately to this
4746
4747I I I don't credit it, but at the same time, I we referred it to OPR so they could look into it. >> So, if it did happen the way M Mr
4748
4749Woodward or Mr
4750
4751Brand um say it did, you would have an issue with that then.
4752
4753Is that fair? >> I have no evidence that any of my prosecutors threatened defense attorneys
4754
4755If prosecutors under my supervision threatened defense attorneys, they wouldn't be working with me any longer
4756
4757Okay
4758
4759Um, you know, what we're here is talking about a, you know, essentially a veiled threat um that, you know, he believes, um, you know, Brat was mentioning this off the cuff to try to, you know, try to get him to play ball with with N's cooperation.
4760
4761So, if that had happened, you certainly wouldn't condone that, would you
4762
4763I I would not condone anyone threatening a defense attorney, but I also say that if you've practiced law uh and practice criminal law, I mean, that's just not something that would work
4764
4765I mean, that's not something that I've I've seen an experienced prosecutor do.
4766
4767And to do it in front of several other prosecutors, um it just in addition to for all the reasons I said I didn't credit it, I also think it just doesn't make a lot of sense
4768
4769But um to your point um if unlike this situation, >> unlike this situation, uh a lawyer who worked under me threatened a defense attorney.
4770
4771Yes, that would be inappropriate. >> Uh during the last hour, turning the page to a different topic
4772
4773Um you said that you had not yet considered a sentencing recommendation had um President Trump been found guilty in either one of the cases
4774
4775Um, I mean, do you think that you would have recommended uh um you think you would have recommended a uh a jail sentence, prison sentence if he was convicted? >> I'm not going to speculate that on on that because that would require a very detailed analysis of the sentencing guidelines factors of what he was
4776
4777convicted of, of any mitigating factors
4778
4779That's not something uh you do off the cuff
4780
4781um whether someone should be incarcerated or not or how long, that's not something I would do um without significant analysis. >> And had your office undertaken any type of analysis on that front? >> Uh in terms of a thorough analysis, I I don't recall anything like that.
4782
4783I'm sure that we knew how much um the sentence could be in each individual thing, but I certainly had not turned to thinking about um what sentences should be
4784
4785as a rule
4786
4787Uh I don't do that until there's a conviction in a case. >> Okay
4788
4789And but what what would have the sentence have been for the charges that you indicted for? >> Uh I'm not going to speculate.
4790
4791I mean, if if we sat down and went over the sentencing guidelines, we could talk about what that would be, but I I have not done that analysis and I haven't >> fought or looked at or thought about that iss that issue. >> Would that analysis have yielded some jail time or recommendation for some jail time
4792
4793Again, I'm not going to speculate on that because um as I mentioned earlier, you only get to that if you try your case and you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
4794
4795We did not do that in this case
4796
4797There was no trial and we didn't we didn't do that. >> We have any members here? >> Just we have a couple minutes left in our rounds
4798
4799Just making sure we had some members here that needed to ask some questions
4800
4801Make sure we factored that in the um individual who worked for Mark Meadows by the name of Cassidy Hutcherson um was a you know she was a a star witness for the January 6th committee proceedings.
4802
4803Um and she made some real um some real outlandish claims um that you know for example you know one of them was that President Trump tried to um take take control of the wheel of the suburban that he was being driven in
4804
4805Um is that an allegation that you you're familiar with
4806
4807uh the the circumstances regarding President Trump getting in the Secret Service vehicle after the speech.
4808
4809Yes, I am. >> Okay
4810
4811And what what did your offices um you know, did you evaluate that claim? >> We did. >> Okay
4812
4813And what was your determination >> uh Miss Hutchinson uh regarding that that particular claim
4814
4815uh was a second or even thirdand witness
4816
4817She had heard other people talk about that. >> Okay. >> And so we went to um we interviewed I think the people she talked to and then we also interviewed uh my recollection's correct um officers who were there and including the officer who was in the car.
4818
4819>> Right
4820
4821Um, and uh, uh, that officer um, if my recollection is correct, and I want to make sure I'm I'm right about this, uh, said that President Trump was very angry and wanted to go to the capital
4822
4823Um, but the the version of events that he explained was not the same as what Cassid Hutchinson said she heard from somebody secondhand.
4824
4825That's correct
4826
4827On the morning of January 6th, White House officials told President Trump that people at the rally had weapons
4828
4829Uh this is the the um President Trump's speech on the Ellipse um and that they did not want to go through magnetometers because they didn't want their weapons confiscated.
4830
4831Um, Cassie Hutcherson initially testified that no one informed President Trump before or during the rally that people did not want to pass through the magnetometers um because they didn't want their weapons confiscated
4832
4833During a subsequent interview, she sort of changed her her her tune a little bit and claimed that um Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations Tony Ornado and other officials did inform President Trump that people standing outside the rally area did not want to go through the magnetometers because they did not want their weapons
4834
4835confiscated
4836
4837Uh other witnesses contradicted this claim um pretty thoroughly
4838
4839Did Did your office evaluate um that claim
4840
4841Yes
4842
4843And I I think I I discussed this earlier
4844
4845We uh interviewed a number of people and I think on this particular claim there were a number of different perspectives about that.
4846
4847Um uh I believe it was Miss Hutchinson, Mr
4848
4849Ornado, um I believe Mr
4850
4851Meadows we spoke to about this
4852
4853As I sit here right now, I cannot recall which what each of them said
4854
4855I know each of them were seeing it from a different perspective and they were with Mr
4856
4857Trump at slightly different times
4858
4859Um so as I as I sit here now I can't recall but I do recall that there were different perspectives on that question.
4860
4861Yes. >> Did your office consider whether um you would call Captain Hutcherson as a witness at trial
4862
4863We did not make we didn't make a final determination about any witnesses
4864
4865But um my recollection as I sit here now is that one of the uh issues uh two there were two issues really
4866
4867One there were so many witnesses that we could have called and there was a a need if we wanted to present a case in a in a um digestible format where there wasn't just weeks and weeks and weeks of testimony, we had to slim it down
4868
4869And
4870
4871my recollection with Miss Hutchinson that at least one of the issues was um a number of the things that she gave evidence on were secondhand hearsay or things that she'd heard from other people and as a result um that testimony may or may not be admissible and it certainly wouldn't be as powerful as firsthand testimony.
4872
4873Um, so I don't recall if we made a final determination about that, but I remember in my mind that being a consideration that uh some of the things that she could offer testimony on would be hearsay and we wanted to condense the case as much as possible for a a clear presentation. >> Did you reach a determination about whether her testimony was reliable? >> I don't I don't recall reaching any sort of conclusion like that because we were again far away from trial.
4874
4875We had made final determinations. >> If you were a defense attorney and you were given the assignment of cross-examining Miss Hutcherson, would you consider that assignment a very challenging one? >> Uh, well, if I were a defense attorney and Miss Hutchinson were a witness
4876
4877Uh, the first thing I I would do is seek to preclude some of her testimony because it was hearsay and I don't have the full range of her testimony in front of me right now, but I do remember that that was a a decent part of it.
4878
4879And so that would have been my first gambit if I was a defense attorney. >> There was other evidence where she said she wrote a note whether it was to Mr
4880
4881Meadows or Mr
4882
4883Trump and but it wasn't her handwriting
4884
4885Eric Herschman wrote the note. >> Yes
4886
4887There was a conflict between them on that issue
4888
4889That's correct. >> You know, a witness says, "I wrote a note
4890
4891That's my handwriting.
4892
4893" I mean, that's a pretty pretty serious um um potentially false statement
4894
4895Correct
4896
4897Well, like I said, we didn't make any final determinations about who we were going to call or not, but there were instances, you cited a couple where um we had uh evidence, we had different perspectives about an issue, we had um secondhand hearsay about issue or two witnesses um um not remembering something the same way.
4898
4899So that those are all accurate
4900
4901was your office
4902
4903Um, you know, let me restate and just say that numerous witnesses that uh were ins snared by the investigation uh complained that they were uh debanked
4904
4905Does the does the term debank uh mean something to you? >> No
4906
4907where they were basically told by their bank that they needed to to go find a different bank.
4908
4909And there's a long list of, you know, Trump allied, you know, officials that were subpoenaed for for the grand jury that were um, you know, brought into brought into your into your um, investigation that that claimed they had been debanked um, and that Capital One told them to go find a different bank and and numerous other banks.
4910
4911Um, do you know anything about that? >> No, I do not. >> Okay
4912
4913So, your office didn't have any communications with banks urging um urging a bank to to uh separate from from any of their customers? >> I have no knowledge of that. >> Are you aware of that allegation or is this the first year you're hearing of it? >> I'm trying to think.
4914
4915I didn't know what the term meant when you first said it
4916
4917So, >> I mean, in the scheme of the world, if I heard of the word debanking, maybe
4918
4919But if you'd asked me to define it when you first said it, I don't think I could have. >> Okay
4920
4921Um but but have you so you haven't heard that allegation that that some of the the folks um in President Trump's inner circle have complained that they you know were kicked out of their bank >> complained to the special counsel's office.
4922
4923No, they've complained publicly that that that that you know the the fallout from this investigation has made their life very difficult that they have been um you know been forced to to uh to get a new bank because you know Capital One won't support them. >> I I don't I don't I don't recall that but I'm not denying that people may have said that
4924
4925I just I'm not aware of it.
4926
4927>> This is sort of the first you're hearing of it >> as far as I can recollect
4928
4929Yes
4930
4931Well, actually, sir, can I just >> you add one thing there? >> Of course. >> When you uh were interacting with my council and talking about the issues you might ask about, you said debanking was one of the issues.
4932
4933That was the first I'd ever heard about it
4934
4935Oh, >> okay
4936
4937All right
4938
4939Looks like we're hours mostly up here, so I'll stop there. >> Can we go off the record
4940
4941uh in the last hour with the minority,
4942
4943Mr
4944
4945Smith, you talked we asked you about folks that were interviewed during the course of your January 6th investigation
4946
4947I think we talked about Mr
4948
4949Giuliani, we mentioned Mr
4950
4951Meadows
4952
4953We mentioned Vice President Pence
4954
4955An 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.
4956
4957>> Uh I can't get into that because of the um Judge Canon's injunction. >> Okay
4958
4959Uh 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 the record
4960
4961I I cannot um answer that question due to Judge Canon's injunction.
4962
4963>> And did Dr
4964
4965or 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
4966
4967Patel or Director Patel from disclosing his own testimony if he did testify with the special counsel's office
4968
4969just as a general matter, not specific to anything with this case.
4970
4971My understanding is the witnesses can disclose their own testimony. >> Thank you
4972
4973Uh Mr
4974
4975Raskin, >> um Mr
4976
4977Smith, 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 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.
4978
4979Um I I understand the Supreme Court decision
4980
4981Uh if I just go back for a second, this was an issue we litigated in the district court
4982
4983The district court agreed with us
4984
4985We litigated it in the court of appeals
4986
4987Court of appeals agreed with us
4988
4989We litigated in the Supreme Court
4990
4991Supreme Court majority did not agree with us.
4992
4993Uh they took a view of executive power that was more expansive than what we argued
4994
4995Um I disagreed with it for the reasons we set forth in our brief uh and the reasons stated by the dissent in the case uh Justice Sotomayor
4996
4997Uh but it is the law of the land
4998
4999Uh and uh what my office sought to do in 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.
5000
5001I I talked earlier today about state officials um who uh put uh allegiance to the country before party
5002
5003Um those officials from Arizona, Wisconsin, um Michigan, Pennsylvania, all those >> I'm sorry, >> Georgia. >> All those witnesses, right
5004
5005All those witnesses would still be available to us.
5006
5007The heart of our case uh would still be available to us
5008
5009And I think it's important to know that while you know our view was that he abused his uh authority in the justice department to to effect as one way to effectuate this scheme
5010
5011This was about him as a candidate trying to say he won an election he didn't win
5012
5013And so um having to frame this in that manner uh uh obviously it limited some of the evidence.
5014
5015That's why we had to supersede the indictment
5016
5017Uh, but I don't think it was an exoneration because I I still believed that there was um substantial evidence um that would allow us to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. >> Someone can be guilty of a crime in a factual sense but still be immunized from prosecution, right? >> Well, I I mean that's getting sort of like theoretical or metaphysical.
5018
5019I mean, if the court says that that's not a crime, then it's not a crime
5020
5021But in our case, our view was that that ruling um excised a certain portion of our proof, but all the charges we brought, we felt were still valid
5022
5023Um we felt we still had um a lot of evidence to support those charges, >> right
5024
5025Um what does he have any questions
5026
5027But I wonder if you would um answer a question based on your experience as a war crimes prosecutor.
5028
5029And I don't know whether over the course of your long and distinguished career you've come to um u articulate a difference between ordinary crimes, run-of-the-mill crimes, and crimes that have some kind of world historical significance
5030
5031Perhaps so, perhaps not
5032
5033Um, but I wonder if um if you do put war crimes for example in a different category from say for example robberies that you prosecuted.
5034
5035um how you would think about classifying the crimes that you had uh investigated and were prepared to prosecute related to January 6 and the attempt to um overthrow a presidential election
5036
5037So I think as a prosecutor uh how you go about investigating those cases and make a decision to prosecute those cases in my view the principles in the robbery case or in my early career domestic violence case those are the exact same principles you'd use in the most terrible war crimes case or in the work I had as special counsel
5038
5039You follow the
5040
5041facts in the law
5042
5043Uh uh nobody's above the law
5044
5045You treat everybody the same
5046
5047um applying those principles in more complex cases requires experience and it's one of the reasons I felt I was qualified to do this job but the principles I think remain the same uh in my view my personal view is that the difference is the harm um um domestic violence case is awful should be prosecuted the full extent of the law but generally there's one victim um war crimes cases that I've worked on um can affect an entire country and entire
5048
5049culture Uh I think um and and this isn't just me
5050
5051Um the court of appeals in this case when we uh litigated it said that if the things we alleged were proven it would amount to attack on the structure of our democracy
5052
5053Um those aren't my words, those are the court's words
5054
5055And so um whether a case is of that import or of less, I think you go about it the same way.
5056
5057But obviously the consequences for our our country are are quite different
5058
5059Have 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.
5060
5061Uh yeah
5062
5063Um I think what has happened to career prosecutors and career FBI agents is awful
5064
5065It's contrary to the rule of law
5066
5067It's contrary to who I who I think we are as a country
5068
5069Uh one of the agents on our case
5070
5071He um he served his country overseas multiple times, war zones
5072
5073family of dedicated public servants.
5074
5075Wife's family, dedicated public servants
5076
5077Uh he got fired for doing his job
5078
5079Two weeks after his wife died, I went to the funeral
5080
5081I saw his family
5082
5083I saw a church full of public servants
5084
5085No reason a person like that should have to go through that
5086
5087And I'm getting emotional
5088
5089I'm sorry about that
5090
5091But um I just think that's wrong.
5092
5093>> Well, thank you for your service to America and to the Department of Justice and the people. >> Following up on that a little bit, um if individuals are fired or lose their jobs simply for taking part of an investigation into someone who is an authority figure in a high position of government, how does that impact our democracy
5094
5095Well, if you take the position that you cannot work in the federal government unless you have a political allegiance to the president, I think there are many harms to that
5096
5097Um, our country tried
5098
5099that in the past
5100
5101It's called the patronage system
5102
5103And what we learned in our history is and and this would be if it's a Democrat, a Republican, would not matter
5104
5105But what we learned is that those systems are rife with not only corruption but with incompetence because the people um who have these jobs, they didn't get them because of merit, because they've dedicated their career to learning national security law, to learning how to properly investigate a case.
5106
5107They got their jobs because they're loyal to a particular person
5108
5109Um that's not fair, but it also makes for people who really don't know how to do the work
5110
5111And so I think that's a danger um to the country
5112
5113It it saddens and angers me in the short term, but I think there are great costs to us long term if that's the direction we go in.
5114
5115>> If I'm going to pull on that last bit of your answer, if you don't mind, uh the damage it could cause long term
5116
5117uh team on elaborating that a little bit especially as it relates to you know recruiting the talent to the government to public service who actually has the knowledge and the specialty and the competence for the job.
5118
5119What types of dangers do you see if this continues? >> Well, I I've just seen uh career prosecutors who have served um again Republican and Democratic administrations over and over again
5120
5121These are the the knowledge sources in the department in different areas
5122
5123These are the people who mentor young lawyers
5124
5125Uh and when you take them away, those young lawyers don't have anybody to learn from.
5126
5127Um my experience in the department, again, doesn't matter
5128
5129The administration, these are not partisans
5130
5131They're people who have decided they don't want to make a lot of money
5132
5133They're not looking for fame
5134
5135They just want to do good work
5136
5137And I think when you lose that culture, you lose a lot
5138
5139Speaking of, you know, sections within the government or within DOJ specifically that have particular skill sets and knowledge, I want to talk a little bit about the public integrity section or pen.
5140
5141Um that's come up earlier in the majority's hour, but what's the mission of PEN
5142
5143Uh the public integrity section was formed um after Watergate and uh the section uh litigates uh complex corruption cases around the country
5144
5145It does some of those cases on its own
5146
5147It does um or at least during my time there, it also does cases uh in conjunction with uh in partnership with local US attorney's office bringing expertise about some of the issues we've talked about today to them.
5148
5149Uh and it also is a sort of clearing house for expertise on these issues like the future debate clause or things of that nature. >> Does the public integrity section play a role in checking potential abuses by DOJ as it relates to investigating members of Congress
5150
5151Well, in particular, I think it's valuable um for prosecutors uh uh to make sure they get things right.
5152
5153Um they're the sort of keeper of these issues and um they're the people you go to to make sure you're doing things the right way, >> I guess
5154
5155Are you aware of some of the firings or dismantling that's been going on the public integrity section uh since the beginning of 2025? >> Yes
5156
5157Do you care to elaborate on how how this might affect the investigations or prosecutions of public corruption and bribery case that you just mentioned? >> Well, I I'm concerned that the department um is going to cease to have an ability
5158
5159to prosecute public corruption, that there's going to be the expertise necessary uh to do that or the um uh direction to do that
5160
5161Uh and so again, I think there's short-term costs and long-term costs
5162
5163Isn't Pin also kind of a gatekeeper or uh for even beginning uh any kind of uh prosecution or investigation of public figures or congressional members
5164
5165Right
5166
5167Don't don't they don't department regulations require that PIN be consulted or provide approval before certain steps can be taken or you know uh litigation can commence.
5168
5169>> That's correct
5170
5171There are are several enumerated uh investigated steps or or procedures that public integrity oversees
5172
5173It's not so much for public figures but more for again members of Congress, people who are in government positions um where the investigations are sensitive and it's important that we get it right and we do it have work on the same standards.
5174
5175Everyone works off the same standards
5176
5177Okay. >> And what happens so when public integrity is dismantled and that protection is removed
5178
5179Well, it always existed during my career in the department and I fear without it um uh there'll be as I said an inability to uh prosecute public corruption uh and also a lack of expertise that when you do do it to do it the right way.
5180
5181I think during the majority hour um there were some in intimations that you know pin sometimes maybe rubber stamping approvals or when you know prosecutors consult with them they just uh provide their clearance or approval without um really engaging with the issues
5182
5183Has that been your experience? >> No. >> Okay
5184
5185Um, >> all right.
5186
5187>> Okay
5188
5189Well, we're going to turn now to uh the classified documents investigation
5190
5191Um, we want to ask a few questions
5192
5193We understand um the disclosure that your attorney said at the beginning and something that you talked about during earlier questioning, but uh we do have a few questions and we're going to enter the record.
5194
5195It'll be I believe exhibit 13 which will be in a superstating indictment uh filed in the southern district of Florida on July 27th of 2023
5196
5197Uh it's the United States versus Donald Trump Walting now to Carlos de Va
5198
5199Um and when we ask questions we're going to be referencing this document which is uh docket number 85 uh of the court.
5200
5201So, I'll give give you a chance to look at the document
5202
5203I'm sure you're very familiar with it, but as I ask questions, I will do my best to reference paragraphs in this indictment
5204
5205Before we actually get to the substance of this indictment, um, and I might have just said this, but I just want to make it.
5206
5207What court did you or or what district did you actually indict Mr
5208
5209Trump for mishandling classified documents and his obstructive behavior after he left office in 2021
5210
5211uh Southern District of Florida. >> And can you explain to us why you uh sought the indictment in Florida versus, for example, Washington DC? >> Uh when I uh took over supervision of this investigation, the investigation was pending uh in a grand jury in Washington DC.
5212
5213Um, actually I just want to think now whether the answer to the question about venue is something if you have a filing about that I'd be happy to answer it
5214
5215I don't think there's anything about venue in this indictment
5216
5217So otherwise I don't want to address that in the in the event that it's in the um final report and not somewhere else.
5218
5219>> Okay
5220
5221Understood
5222
5223I understand
5224
5225Actually, let's just move on then to page 38 of this indictment
5226
5227Let's talk about the charges that were actually brought in the Southern District of Florida
5228
5229Um, can you summarize for us, I know we haven't gotten to it very much, but can you summarize, starting with page 38 through 52, the charges against Mr.
5230
5231Trump and his co-conspirators went to the classified documents that he kept after leaving office in January 2021? >> Sure
5232
5233Um, counts 1 through 32 uh charged Donald Trump with willful retention of national defense information
5234
5235This regards um classified documents
5236
5237Um the remaining counts uh relate to um and they charge uh Donald Trump, Walty Natada and then uh other counts I believe also charge Carlos Dioa Divera with various um counts relating to uh attempting to obstruct that investigation whether by uh be uh moving boxes so that those boxes wouldn't um be found by an
5238
5239attorney uh who was doing a search of uh of documents to return to the government
5240
5241Uh and also false statements um by um I believe both Mr
5242
5243Dabbera and Mr
5244
5245Walt Mada
5246
5247And I think there's also in here counts related to attempts to uh destroy video video footage um and delete uh security camera footage um related to all three of the defendants.
5248
5249>> Thanks
5250
5251Let's walk through what you just described, but through the through the lens of the indictments
5252
5253Let's start with page 10
5254
5255I believe you talked about boxes of classified documents and you were just uh giving your summary
5256
5257Um can you describe there's a picture on on on page 10.
5258
5259What what do we see in this picture on page 10 of the indictment? >> Okay, these are some of the uh it's referenced in the paragraph above
5260
5261Um these are some of Donald Trump's boxes um that were brought from the White House and then um stored in various places
5262
5263In this particular photograph, it shows them being stored on a uh ballroom stage uh at the Marilago Social Club.
5264
5265>> And and do you know what you said the ballroom
5266
5267Is this the gold ballroom
5268
5269I believe that's what's in the indictment in paragraph 26. >> The white and gold ballroom
5270
5271Yes, >> white and gold
5272
5273Uh what was the purpose of including these photos in the indictment? >> Uh I think it was important to um lay out uh the facts of our case and sometimes a uh picture uh can lay out the facts um uh more clearly than words or and can make the words um have more clear meaning.
5274
5275And so uh here I think they show um the sort of circumstances in which these boxes were being kept, boxes that contained highly classified documents. >> So going along that same theme, if we go to page 12, there's another picture of it appears boxes
5276
5277Um can you describe to us and I believe it's in the indictment
5278
5279um in in paragraph 30, but can you describe what we see in this picture with the boxes on this page 12 of the indictment? >> Yes, I think the the photo on page 12 actually refers to um the paragraph before that, the um paragraph 29
5280
5281And
5282
5283this is um the indictment lays out that these boxes were moved around to various locations where um lots of people had access to them
5284
5285uh after they were on the ballroom stage um they were in a business center um and then moved to a a bathroom and shower in the the lake room
5286
5287And you can see that is a you can see the shower curtain behind the um boxes.
5288
5289Um and so that's the uh that's the room that's referred to there
5290
5291And the last picture I asked about on page 14 and on paragraph 32 uh it looks like Mr
5292
5293Nata texts another employee and says quote I opened the door and found this and uh not attached two pair two photographs that he took of the spill it looks like of documents.
5294
5295Um can you describe this picture as well which is on page 14 of the indictment? >> Sure
5296
5297So, this this refers to um paragraph 32 of the indictment and um I believe it's it's blurred out in this picture, but one of the classified documents that's actually charged in the case is visible in this picture
5298
5299I think it's count eight.
5300
5301And um this is a room um where um others had access to
5302
5303Obviously, someone was able to go in there and and spill this box of uh of documents and u Mr
5304
5305Natada um took a picture of it
5306
5307So, I I I think it shows um how accessible these documents were and the sort of manner in which they were uh the care with which they were kept. >> Uh the court authorized search of Mara Lago has been subject of lots of discussion on this committee.
5308
5309Um, I think an important question to ask, I'm going to reference paragraph 38 on page 17, was whether any government agencies or individuals within the government had tried or attempted to collect the classified documents from President Trump after he left office in January of 2021. >> Yes
5310
5311Um sticking specifically to the indictment we have in front of us, beginning in paragraph 38, these paragraphs um detail um efforts uh by the National Archives and Records Administration uh to recover um I think the the originally it wasn't to recover
5312
5313classified documents
5314
5315It was to recover um presidential records that were missing
5316
5317uh in the effort to do that
5318
5319Um uh and as you can see that took several months
5320
5321Um what they eventually got was a number of boxes
5322
5323I believe it was um I think he said it was going to be 12 boxes and then it was 15 boxes
5324
5325Yes.
5326
5327Um what came back was a large number of highly classified documents including secret documents, top secret documents
5328
5329Top secret documents being documents that would cause grave danger to the national security. >> Turning to um page 21, paragraphs 51 and 52
5330
5331Uh, did the FBI open a criminal investigation uh into the potential classified material at at Mara Lago after President Trump left office in January 2021? >> That's correct.
5332
5333The dates are stated here
5334
5335That was obviously before I became special counsel. >> And and did a federal grand jury open an investigation, which I believe is referenced in paragraph 52. >> Correct. >> And and why did the did I guess did the FBI open its investigation
5336
5337and the federal grand jury open its investigation uh based upon the referral of an agency and I believe it might be referenced in paragraph 50.
5338
5339>> Yes, there was a referral uh by Nara to the Department of Justice on February 9th. >> Staying on page 21
5340
5341Um, after opening the this grand jury investigation, did the grand jury issue a subpoena for all documents with classified markings? >> Yes
5342
5343And you're referring to paragraph 53
5344
5345Is that correct? >> Yes, sir.
5346
5347>> Yes, the grand jury did. >> So, after sending out this uh grand jury subpoena, I believe this is when the most silly obstructive conduct takes place
5348
5349And so, we're going to be slipping through pages 21 through 26 of the indictment
5350
5351Um and and I believe the indictment even titles this conduct as the defendant's concealment of boxes.
5352
5353Um sticking to the indictment, can you summarize for us uh the efforts that the defendant took to conceal the boxes of classified documents in Marago? >> Sure
5354
5355Um, so paragraph 53 references the fact that a grand jury subpoena was issued on the 11th of May and uh that two attorneys representing Donald Trump um informed him of the subpoena and he authorized them to accept service.
5356
5357So he was on notice of the subpoena at that point
5358
5359Um 11 days later uh Walt Motto who was the parlance I think is his body man
5360
5361he'd previously been a valet for him at the um White House
5362
5363Um went into the storage room, which was the landing place, the last place these boxes were, and left 34 minutes later carrying one of uh President Trump's boxes.
5364
5365Uh the next day, um is the day that Donald Trump met with his attorneys to discuss the subpoena
5366
5367uh they told him that they would need to search for the subpoenas and provide a certification to show that they were in compliance with the subpoena
5368
5369And uh below that is a number of statements that um one of those attorneys memorialized that Donald Trump said uh during that conversation um as and paragraph 56 would be as well.
5370
5371Um, paragraph 57, uh, Donald Trump confirmed his understanding that, uh, one of those attorneys would return to the club on June 2nd to search for any documents with classification markings to satisfy the subpoena
5372
5373Um, and uh, Donald Trump indicated that he actually wanted to be there that day
5374
5375um when he returned to look at the boxes um he told the second attorney that second attorney didn't need to be there.
5376
5377Um and so after that meeting he actually he had planned to depart uh Marilago
5378
5379Um but he changed his summer plans to be there on the second when the first uh Trump that the attorney came to review the boxes
5380
5381I'm going to stop you real quick because I want to make sure this movement of boxes is clear from the indictment.
5382
5383And I want to reference paragraph 59, I believe. >> Um, >> so it sounds like you were able to determine the evidence showed from this indictment that Mr
5384
5385Trump directed Mr
5386
5387Nata to remove the boxes of documents from the storage room in Mara Lago
5388
5389Is that correct? >> Correct. >> And how many boxes I'm told that Mr
5390
5391Nata removed from the storage room in Mara Lago
5392
5393And I believe this reference in paragraph as well.
5394
5395>> Yes
5396
5397Uh I believe uh as it says in paragraph 59 between the 23rd um of May and I think it was June 2nd um he removed at Trump's Donald Trump's direction a total of 64 boxes and brought them to Trump's residence >> and he took them to Mr
5398
5399Trump's residence from the storage room
5400
5401Is that right? >> Yes. >> And just to confirm Mr.
5402
5403moved these boxes just a day after Mr
5404
5405Trump met with his attorneys about responding to the grand jury subpoena
5406
5407Is that correct? >> Well, yes
5408
5409He actually the first day that that is listed here is in paragraph 54 uh when he moved the first box and then yes
5410
5411So then if you look at paragraph 59 subsection A, three boxes were were removed on the 24th.
5412
5413On the 30th, um Trump and Nata spoke by phone for about 30 seconds and very shortly after that over a period of a little less than two hours, Nada moved another 50 boxes from the store to room
5414
5415Um that same day um uh there was an uh text exchange between Natada and um the president's wife
5416
5417And in that um she um I'm summarizing here, but it's on paper.
5418
5419She she was saying we're not going to have room for all these boxes uh in in on the plane
5420
5421And Mr
5422
5423replied, "Um, I think he wanted to pick from them
5424
5425I don't imagine him wanting to take the boxes
5426
5427He told me to put them in the room and that he was going to talk to you about them." Uh, and then on the first um 11 more boxes were moved out of the storage room.
5428
5429>> So, let's uh that's a lot of movement of boxes, right
5430
5431And that's and it makes sense that it's under the concealment of evidence uh section of your indictment
5432
5433I believe going to paragraph 63
5434
5435um you provide a pretty succinct summary of the number of boxes that were moved versus the number of boxes that were returned to the storage room.
5436
5437So, do you mind uh summarizing that piece for us so we understand exactly how many boxes were left in the summary room? >> So, paragraph storage room, sorry. >> Sure
5438
5439Paragraph 63 summarizes that between May 23rd and June 2nd, um NA at Trump's direction moved 64 boxes from the storage room to the residence
5440
5441Um and then uh afterwards Na and Da Va uh returned to the storage room.
5442
5443Only 30 boxes. >> So there were only 30 boxes left in the storage room
5444
5445Uh although there were 64 boxes that were at Mara Lago to your knowledge based upon this indictment. >> Well, they returned 30
5446
5447Um how many more were still in there um that they hadn't that they hadn't taken at all that would be added to that
5448
5449Um, why was the or was there any significance to moving all these boxes prior to June June 2nd of 2022
5450
5451And I believe this is referenced in the false certification of the FBI section of the indictment, but what's the significance
5452
5453of moving all these boxes just before June 2nd of of 2022
5454
5455uh because Donald Trump was on notice that his attorney was going to search uh that room, search for these for classified uh documents in that room
5456
5457And uh in between the time he was put on notice of that and the time that the per that he actually did that uh at Donald Trump's direction, 64 boxes were taken out, but only 30 were returned.
5458
5459>> So how many boxes did Mr
5460
5461Trump's attorney actually review when he returned to Mara Lago for the review on June 2nd of 2022
5462
5463And again, I believe this is in the false certification section of the indictment, >> right
5464
5465Um he looked the attorney looked through all the boxes that were in the room and uh located um reviewed the contents of the boxes in the storage room and he located 38 documents uh with classification markings that he took out and he put in a red wall folder.
5466
5467um and that he then taped um of >> did the evidence show in the indictment that Mr
5468
5469Trump's attorney believed that he had reviewed the entire universe of documents at Marago. >> I'm trying to see if that's here in the indictment
5470
5471I I could answer that question
5472
5473Um, well, I can't answer anything that's not in this indictment, but >> And just to make it clear for the record, why can't you answer anything that's not clear in this indictment
5474
5475Well, um that issue um the question of whether he uh reviewed in in his view all the boxes um if uh if the answer to
5476
5477that would be um within the uh final report and again I don't have a recollection one way or the other um unless there's another public filing about that
5478
5479I my understanding is I can't discuss issues like that um due to the injunction. >> Understood
5480
5481Let's move on to the next section about the attempt to delete security camera footage and and we're working our way up to this August court authorized search of Mara Lago if you can't see where we're going here.
5482
5483So on uh page 27, that's the section that starts the attempt to delete security camera footage
5484
5485Um do the evidence show that Mr
5486
5487Trump attempted to or tried to direct someone else to delete security camera footage at Mara Lago? >> Yes
5488
5489Can you please describe from the indictment for us um what evidence showed that Mr.
5490
5491Trump directed someone to delete security footage at Mara Lagoa? >> Well, just speaking to what's in the indictment, not anything outside it, unless you direct me to a public filing
5492
5493Um it starts on paragraph 74 and it goes through um paragraph um 87
5494
5495Is there any particular part you'd like
5496
5497I'm going to start with um June 22nd of 2022
5498
5499It's paragraph 75.
5500
5501>> Um I believe the Department of Justice sent a message to an attorney for Mr
5502
5503Trump's business organization that might have provided knowledge for him
5504
5505What what was emailed to an attorney from Mr
5506
5507Trump's business organization that kind of started off this process? >> Um there was a draft grand jury subpoena for the production of security uh camera footage.
5508
5509Um and and the previous paragraph notes that agents had observed surveillance cameras near the storage room where the classified documents uh were stored
5510
5511Uh and so a draft subpoena was sent uh on the 22nd uh of uh June. >> Yes
5512
5513And then following uh the draft grand jury subpoena being sent to the attorney for Mr
5514
5515Trump's business organization, it looks like Mr.
5516
5517Trump had a phone call with Mr
5518
5519day Olivea um the day after on June 23rd of 2022
5520
5521Is that correct? >> For 24 minutes. >> Yes
5522
5523And then the actual uh subpoena was sent by the Department of Justice to an attorney for Mr
5524
5525Trump's organization on on what day
5526
5527And I believe this in paragraph 77. >> Yeah
5528
5529Uh Friday, June 24th.
5530
5531>> And and what was that subpoena
5532
5533What records was it requesting
5534
5535uh any and all surveillance records, videos, images, photographs, and or CCTV from internal cameras at certain locations at the Mara Lago Club, including on ground floor basement, January 10th to June 24th of 2022. >> Notably, the same day that the Department of Justice emailed Mr.
5536
5537Trump's attorney the actual final grand jury subpoena, it looks like Mr
5538
5539Trump um may have tried to reach out to Mr
5540
5541NA and it's described in paragraph 78
5542
5543Do you mind uh discussing or telling us what this interaction might have looked like between Mr
5544
5545Kelly and Mr
5546
5547Nela? >> What paragraph 78 describes is um uh an attorney uh for Trump speaking to Donald Trump about the subpoena for security footage.
5548
5549Um uh a little over two hours later um Walt Natada received a a message from a co-orker uh indicating that Trump wanted to see him and then uh less than two hours after that um Na who was supposed to be traveling with Trump to Illinois that day changed his plans to um travel uh and began making arrangements to travel to Palm beach instead of Illinois where he was scheduled to be with Trump.
5550
5551>> So, fast forward to paragraph 80, the same day
5552
5553We're still on June 24th, right
5554
5555So, Mr
5556
5557Na changes his travel plans and then Mr
5558
5559Na, Mr
5560
5561Divera, looks like they reach out um to a Trump employee
5562
5563What position did the Trump employee have that Mr
5564
5565Na Mr
5566
5567Divera reached out to? >> This is in paragraph 80
5568
5569Let me see.
5570
5571uh he was the director of information technology
5572
5573Yeah. >> And and what was and this is in the subsection of paragraph 80 sub uh subsections A through E
5574
5575What was the nature of the conversation between Mr
5576
5577Nato, Mr
5578
5579Dale Aivera and the director of information technology at Mara Lago? >> Uh paragraph 80 re reflects a series of contacts and conversations.
5580
5581Um first Na reaching out to the director of IT um asking if he's around um Natto then also reaching out to Delo Vera um and they appears they had a call after he reached out um and then that same employee the director of IT um texted back to Nata that he was available
5582
5583Um, Nada responded to that
5584
5585Um, at 6:56 that same day, the Alivera texted the director of information technology um, saying, "Hey buddy, how are you
5586
5587Walter called me early, said it was trying to get in touch with you.
5588
5589I guess he's coming down tomorrow
5590
5591I guess needs you for something." And the employee u responded that he reached out but didn't say what he wanted
5592
5593I told him I'm local um entertaining family that came from New York City and he told me no worries
5594
5595And then the last entry is Trump the that same employee the employee the um director of information technology texted NA uh to say um if you need me I can get away just let me know.
5596
5597Na responded saying sounds good thank you. >> So fast forwarding to paragraph 82 because learn to the next day which is June 25th
5598
5599After having these conversations, it looks like Mr
5600
5601Nata, Mr
5602
5603De Alivea actually go and look at some of the information technology at Mara Lago um social club
5604
5605Can you tell us what um what Mr
5606
5607Nelson, Mr.
5608
5609Deivera, who did they go visit
5610
5611Uh I think they went to a security guard booth
5612
5613Is that correct
5614
5615Yes, there's a security guard booth where in that um at that booth it has the where the cameras are so you can see where the surveillance cameras like that would be where you could see them and then um they walked with a flashlight through the tunnels where the storage room was located and uh observed and pointed at the surveillance cameras uh that were there.
5616
5617And then Monday morning, first thing in the morning or 9:48 a.m. in the morning on Monday, June 27th, 2022
5618
5619And I'm trying to keep this tight timeline going
5620
5621It looks like Mr
5622
5623Divera um continues uh talking or at least visiting other IT officials at Mara Lago
5624
5625Believe this is in paragraphs 83 and 84.
5626
5627Do you mind summarizing what happened just two days later on June 27th of 2022
5628
5629And as you can see, we're building our way up to July and the August court authorized search parallel
5630
5631So, um, that day, this is paragraph 83 and 84, um, ZA walked to the IT office where the same director of IT was working with another employee
5632
5633There were two people there, um, and requested that the director of IT step away so he could talk with him.
5634
5635They left the area and they walked through a basement tunnel to a small room that was known as an audio closet
5636
5637And once inside that closet, um he told them uh he told he being deeiver told the employee uh first that their conversation should remain between them
5638
5639He then asked how many days the server footage was retained and the employee told them approximately 45 days.
5640
5641And then uh the Alivera told the employee that the boss wanted the server deleted
5642
5643The employee responded that he would not know how to do that and he did not believe he would have the rights to do that
5644
5645Um Trump employee uh that same employee told Da Va that Divera would have to reach out to another employee who is a supervisor of security for Trump's business organization.
5646
5647Uh but Divera persisted and insisted that uh Trump employee for uh insisted to Trump employee 4 that the boss wanted the server deleted and asked what are we going to do >> that same day
5648
5649So June 27th I believe of 2022
5650
5651Did you uh did the evidence show that Mr
5652
5653Trump had any conversation with Mr.
5654
5655Divera
5656
5657And I'm referencing paragraph 87
5658
5659Yes
5660
5661On uh 3:55 p.m. they spoke for about three and a half minutes. >> So, we're on June 27th of 2022 and then we move to July of 2022
5662
5663Did the FBI and grand jury uh actually obtain any of the surveillance that they requested through their grand jury subpoena? >> Uh they did. >> And then following uh the FBI and grand jury obtaining the surveillance video, uh can you explain what happened
5664
5665And I this is referenced in paragraph 89.
5666
5667>> Sure
5668
5669The FBI executed a search warrant at Mara Lago
5670
5671The search warrant was authorized the FBI to search and seize among other things all classified documents
5672
5673There's one thing I just want to correct though. >> The chronology we've gone through
5674
5675Um all of those facts were not known to the FBI at the search warrant.
5676
5677Um many of them were, but for example, this last bit where we talked about um attempting to delete the server
5678
5679um that was not uncovered until later. >> Thank you
5680
5681And during the execution of this court authorized search of Mara Lago Club in Florida, did the FBI actually seize any documents with classified markings
5682
5683Classification markings? >> Yes.
5684
5685>> And approximately how many documents did they seize with classification markings? >> Uh paragraph 90 states that they seized 102 documents with classification markings
5686
5687Um, and there's a chart that lists the level of classification and where they were found
5688
5689And just to note for the record, some of the classification markings that were found included top secret classification markings, secret and confidential and and as you just said, for a total of 102 documents.
5690
5691>> Yes
5692
5693And if I could, I want to correct something I said before
5694
5695I I I stated that the the um what it means if a document's top secret and I said it is grave damage to the national security
5696
5697Actually, a top secret document and I'm looking at paragraph 14A is information that reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.
5698
5699Um secret is um uh grave damage to the uh serious damage to the national security
5700
5701Going back and taking a step back to actual Mara Lago Club and this is referencing uh paragraphs 11 through 13
5702
5703Um was the Mara Lago Club a place that um members and staff frequently uh attended or was in the presence of or on the location of Mara Lago.
5704
5705>> Can you direct me to a paragraph again? >> Paragraphs 11 through 13
5706
5707And I'm I'm sorry, what was your question? >> Were there hundreds of members of the Mara Lago Club? >> Yes
5708
5709Uh there were hundreds of members and 150 full-time or part-time or temporary employees. >> Were some of the members or people who attended Mara Lago, were they foreign nationals? >> I can't answer that question.
5710
5711>> Were any of the staff that might have worked at Mara Lago foreign nationals
5712
5713Both of those are questions I can't answer because they're not in the indictment here
5714
5715If you have a filing about that, I'm happy to answer those questions. >> And um were any of the temporary employees, were they foreign nationals? >> Same answer.
5716
5717>> In addition to just the members and the staff that were there, what types of events uh might have been held at Mara Lago where these classified documents were found during your >> court authorized search in August of 2022
5718
5719And this is referencing paragraph 12
5720
5721So, paragraph 12 states that in the period between January 2021 and August of 2022, uh, the club hosted more than 150 social events, including weddings, movie premieres, fundraisers, um, and those events together drew tens of thousands of guests.
5722
5723>> We're going to enter into the record two exhibits
5724
5725I believe they'll be exhibits uh, 14 and 15
5726
5727Exhibit 13 will be a House Judiciary GOP tweet uh that says, "This is what happens in third world countries, not the United States
5728
5729Doesn't the FBI have better things to do than harass the former president?" And this tweet is from August 8th of 2022.
5730
5731And 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
5732
5733What is your response to statements?" And and actually I want to preface this by saying like 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.
5734
5735Trump um in the aftermath or after the FBI conducted 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 not believe they're accurate
5736
5737Uh the the search of the Mara Lago 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.
5738
5739Um it was approved by a United States magistrate
5740
5741And 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
5742
5743Well, uh, most clearly you would need to have a factual support for that basis and and need, uh, need reason to believe that evidence of a crime would be recovered and probable cause to believe it would recovered at the location you're asking to search based on the facts.
5744
5745>> That's kind we just went through for the indictment of Derrick's paragraphs
5746
5747We just went through the indictment
5748
5749Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Can I just wrap that up
5750
5751So before there was the court-ordered search at Naraga, you were your folks went before a court and established probable cause that a crime had been committed and that evidence of that crime would be found at the site of the search while ago.
5752
5753>> That's that's it was before I was I was special counsel, but yes, they got a they presented um an affidavit to a court and that uh court uh approved a search warrant. >> Okay
5754
5755response and even earlier than that, I mean, would you say that President Trump had multiple opportunities to return the uh classified documents that he had retained um back to uh the federal government voluntarily? >> Yes.
5756
5757>> He had an opportunity to return them when the National Archives first asked for them back, right? >> Yes
5758
5759And then he also had another opportunity to return them when he was subpoenaed by the grand jury
5760
5761Right. >> Correct. >> And he did not return all the documents that during that time
5762
5763Right. >> That's correct.
5764
5765>> And based on your indictment, is there information that led to believe that he was aware that at least some of these documents are highly sensitive documents? >> Yes
5766
5767Can you draw any conclusions about his refusal to return those documents in spite of having been given multiple opportunities? >> I don't think I can answer that question because it may involve non-public facts that are are part of the final report that is um currently under an injunction.
5768
5769>> Okay. >> Can you draw any conclusions about his motives for refusing to return documents
5770
5771um unless you can point me to a filing or a public filing on that issue, I I don't want to run any risk of running a foul of the injunction
5772
5773And so, um without a a public filing on that issue, I I don't think I can answer that.
5774
5775>> Um just one last question
5776
5777Did you come across in the course of your investigation any evidence about why President Trump took those documents in the first place
5778
5779Again, I don't think that's in the indictment here and unless you have a public filing that given the current state of the injunction, I don't think that's a question I can answer.
5780
5781>> Thank you. >> So, starting in paragraph 33 on page 14. >> Sorry. >> Oh, yeah
5782
5783I mean, just one other fact to mention
5784
5785This this is a my council just gave me this is a filing um uh on the document of uh Southern District of Florida
5786
5787This is regarding this is an order from Judge Cannon on June 27th, 2024 um denying a Frank's hearing.
5788
5789Uh and um >> we'll make that an exhibit that >> and uh this issue about whether there was in fact uh probable cause for the search warrant um was litigated and um the judge denied the motion for a Frank's hearing >> and and and found in and this is in footnote too that um the defense motion does not even meaningfully challenge the presence of probable will cause in the affidavit.
5790
5791>> Thank you
5792
5793And we've marked uh this order denying the motion for a Frank's hearing which uh I believe is document 655 dated June 27th, 2024
5794
5795We mark it as exhibit 16
5796
5797I know with the How much time do I have? >> Five minutes about six minutes
5798
5799All right
5800
5801My remaining time
5802
5803I want to talk about um and direct you to paragraph 33.
5804
5805And I believe this um focuses on conversations at the Bedminster Club
5806
5807The Bedminster Club is separate than the Maraago Club in Florida
5808
5809Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay
5810
5811And the Bedminster Clubs in New Jersey
5812
5813Is that your recollection from the indictment? >> Yes. >> Okay
5814
5815Um in paragraph 36, you detail a meeting at the BM Club in August or September of 2021.
5816
5817Um, what can you describe what happened in this meeting and whether Mr
5818
5819Trump shared classified information? >> Um, well, and I I just want to start by saying I I don't feel like I can say anything more than what's in the indictment here
5820
5821Um, unless you point me to anything otherwise
5822
5823So, I I can read a portion if you want.
5824
5825Um, >> please
5826
5827Um well on on in paragraph 34 uh references on July 21st of 2021 um Trump gave an interview and this was when he was no longer president at Bedminster
5828
5829Uh two member of his staff were there and um the interview was audio recorded with his knowledge and consent
5830
5831Um before the interview, media had published reports that at the end of Trump's term as president, a senior military official uh reportedly feared that Trump might order an attack on country A and the senior military official advised Trump against doing so.
5832
5833Um paragraph 35 says upon uh greeting the writer and publisher and his staff members, uh Trump stated, quote, "Look what I found
5834
5835this was senior military officials plan of attack
5836
5837Read it and just show it's interesting
5838
5839Uh and then following that there are additional statements that Donald Trump made regarding the document that he was showing and uh what other people in the room said.
5840
5841>> Um going to paragraph 36 the individuals that Mr
5842
5843Trump shares this information about the ongoing military operations with did they have the security clearance or need to know classifi need to know about the classified information about that military operation? >> Uh paragraph 36 it states that the pack representative did not have a security clearance or any need to know classified information about the military operation.
5844
5845>> Are you aware of whether the FBI conducted a similar search uh Mr
5846
5847Trump's residence at Bedminster
5848
5849Uh whether that happened or didn't happen, I I'm just trying to be very cautious
5850
5851Uh I don't think I can answer that uh due to the injunction. >> Do you think that the FBI was able to retrieve all the classified documents that President Trump improperly retained after he lost the 2020 election
5852
5853Uh, I'm struggling because I can't recall if that is in the final report and because I'm not sure of whether it's in there, I
5854
5855don't think I should answer that question
5856
5857All right, we'll go off the record
5858
5859record mark in exhibit
5860
586117
5862
5863Um, this is on the topic of the misordering of the documents and there's a filing that I wouldn't ordinarily mark, but given the situation on the >> the Florida case, um, we'll mark that because you, um, your office addresses what what what came to be a misordering of the documents
5864
5865ments
5866
5867Um, and so the question is, do you have any information about how the documents that were um, seized from Mara Lago were misordered? >> Uh, let me start by saying I think there's also another filing on this that we did later as well
5868
5869Um, so between
5870
5871those two filings, uh, what I can tell you is, uh, when a search warrant is executed at a location and there are documents in boxes, um, the search warrant can be executed in a manner where you just take out the doc the documents that you're looking for or you take the box with the the documents that surround them.
5872
5873Um the um both ways are are proper
5874
5875Um in this particular case, obviously the search warrant happened before I was special counsel and the special master litigation occurred um or began certainly before I was special counsel
5876
5877uh in that litigation, my recollection is that um President Trump's attorneys took the position that the government should not have even taken all the documents in the boxes uh and and just taken the classified documents such that um if things were done the way they proposed, there would not be other
5878
5879documents in the boxes
5880
5881it would just be those >> um the um as I think we set forth in our filings, uh when this issue got raised initially in court, um our um our attorney misstated that the documents were in fact in the exact order that they were found
5882
5883Uh I think you can see from the timing of these filings that once we realized that was incorrect, we uh corrected it with the court as quick as we could.
5884
5885Um and then at that point when uh President Trump's attorneys were now alleging that this was an important issue um we um looked into um uh in more detail exactly um why it was not possible to keep um the documents in the exact order
5886
5887And I I would just say everything I say today I'm deriving just from the filings we did on this.
5888
5889Um but my recollection from those filings is that one of the central issues about keeping the documents uh in the same order is that uh President Trump kept these incredibly highly classified documents in boxes uh with all different sorts of things of all different sorts of shapes and sizes
5890
5891um clothing, memorabilia, newspaper clippings, things of that nature.
5892
5893And so um while agents I think uh sought or wanted to keep the documents in order as best they could, I think once they saw um the order of these boxes, um clearly uh that was going to going to be an impossible thing to do
5894
5895And so um we set out our our views about that in these filings
5896
5897And again, I'm speaking only from from these filings.
5898
5899>> What's the upshot of the of the documents being taken um taken out of order
5900
5901Uh my my view is is there is no upshot um in the sense of these documents were um staff members referred to these documents as the quote beautiful mine boxes meaning um they were uh and and this wasn't just one staff member it was multiple staff members and they referred to the fact that Donald Trump these were his boxes um they were exclusively his belongings in them he had curated them >> and what was in them and so uh in our view um that that was not a live issue
5902
5903in the litigation
5904
5905Once the defense raised it and said, "Oh, now that you can't say what order they're in, we think that's a big issue." Um, we responded um but I think ultimately in the litigation given um President Trump stated um that the he believed these were all his these were his documents
5906
5907And so um the litigation in this case in my view was not going to turn on the location of documents in the boxes given he his position was all of this is mine.
5908
5909>> 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
5910
5911All of them
5912
5913Well, 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.
5914
5915No, 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 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.
5916
5917There 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
5918
5919I I to be honest, I've never been to a presidential library
5920
5921So, um, but if I were starting one, I don't think that's the sort of things I would put in it. >> Okay.
5922
5923But 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
5924
5925And 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.
5926
5927>> Okay
5928
5929Um and during the times relevant that we're discussing Mara Lago was protected by the Secret Service
5930
5931Is that correct? >> That's correct
5932
5933Um, 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
5934
5935Right.
5936
5937>> 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
5938
5939Uh, but it was not responsible for the protection of boxes or their contents
5940
5941And 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.
5942
5943Right
5944
5945But if Joe Q 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 Jok's uh basement and take those classified documents.
5946
5947If foreign adversary wanted to go and get those documents out of Mara Lago would have been a lot more difficult
5948
5949I 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.
5950
5951>> Okay
5952
5953Was there an effort um by your office
5954
5955Did you consider um seeking the removal of Judge Cannon
5956
5957Uh 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 involved consideration of removing Judge Cannon.
5958
5959I mean that's not something you can talk about. >> I don't think I can talk about things today
5960
5961Again, 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
5962
5963Uh 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.
5964
5965>> Okay
5966
5967Um 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.
5968
5969Is that something you have a recollection of? >> Mr
5970
5971Master, sorry
5972
5973I 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
5974
5975Smith and that he's not permitted to disclose non-public information that may be contained in volume two of the special counsel's report.
5976
5977Um, 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
5978
5979And so if something was leaked to some reporters who wrote a book about it, I I would not consider that to be made publicly available through authorized means.
5980
5981>> Okay
5982
5983Um you got a page >> noted and I'll just um just to give more context to to what I asked, it's on page 349 of the book
5984
5985Um it it states, "The final straw for Smith came when Canon dismissed the documents case, citing as a basis um Thomas's concurring opinion, which carried zero legal weight, making the choice a striking departure from judicial standards.
5986
5987Solicitor General Elizabeth, how do you say her
5988
5989Is it >> prelogger?" >> Priger, >> Pelagar, I think. >> Prolar
5990
5991Okay
5992
5993Excuse me
5994
5995um ultimately approved the appeal of Canon's ruling, but the former Garland law clerk rejected Smith's plan to seek to have Canon recused, saying he didn't have enough evidence to try to remove her.
5996
5997Uh Smith could have asked Garland to reconsider his trusted counselor's position, but he did not
5998
5999If Garland turned him down, it would have would would have have to have been reported to Congress
6000
6001Um, and so I guess the question in light of um, your council's observation is um, if you asked the attorney general for something and he turned you down, was it your understanding that it had to be reported to Congress? >> So, putting aside this whole situation, I believe it states something to that effect in the special counsel regulations.
6002
6003>> Okay
6004
6005And was that something you you were concerned with that you wouldn't you know you wouldn't want something like that reported to Congress? >> That was not a concern of mine. >> Okay
6006
6007Um I believe earlier you indicated you did not have any communications with White House officials
6008
6009I think that already asked you about whether you spoke with President Biden
6010
6011You said no.
6012
6013Um did you have communications with any White House staff? >> I did not. >> Okay
6014
6015Did anyone in your office
6016
6017uh my office uh interacted uh with staff in the White House uh in the following ways
6018
6019Uh there was one instance where um that I recall where uh we sought to interview a career um national security council staffer and to make arrangements to do that interview we had to do it through the White House.
6020
6021Um with respect to um the classification of the documents that we were using in the classified documents case, uh there were um um some of those documents National Security Council had equities in and as a result we needed uh a contact point to speak to uh I believe it was to speak to a career person who could be our contact point for that classification review.
6022
6023And so uh there was interaction between my staff and uh people I believe from the White House council's office
6024
6025Um I would add that all all of my understanding and my direction was that any interactions would be pursuant and consistent to the White House contacts policy. >> Okay.
6026
6027And I think also in the beginning of my time as special counsel, there was this litigation I referenced previously about executive privilege
6028
6029And uh we noticed um both uh the current uh White House and uh though I I don't know that we had to
6030
6031We noticed also President Trump on that in terms of whether they would uh wave executive privilege or not.
6032
6033I think I think in that instance >> I'm not sure over this but I think in that instance we requested the white we requested the DAG's office to ask the White House about that and so we didn't have direct contact but I wasn't involved in those contacts so um I'm not sure >> so nobody in your office had communications with White House chief of staff Jeff Science >> not that I recall >> and nobody had communications with the with the council's office on in terms of your strategies for pro prosecution these cases.
6034
6035No con in conjunction with your final report
6036
6037Um a letter was prepared by President Trump's defense council um Todd Blanch and John Laro um and they um raise issues concerning uh their review of the report over the Christmas uh season um and they they indicate that they were uh placed in a veritable hardship trying to review the report because the special counsel's office required them to come to DC special counsel's office wouldn't let them um you know use their laptop.
6038
6039They wouldn't you know have access to any you know internet
6040
6041Uh can can you walk us through your your posture um on some of those ownorous conditions that uh defense council raises? >> Sure
6042
6043And just for clarity, I'm going to confine my remarks to the election side case because whatever letter they sent or didn't send regarding the classified documents case, I don't remember if there was a letter, but I don't want to for the reasons we talked about talk about that.
6044
6045Um I >> I am referencing the letter in the part one of the report. >> Okay, great
6046
6047Um, so I do recall that and I recall being surprised and disappointed about their letter on that point because my recollection is that um we and I I'm not going to remember the specific dates, but I remember we gave them a a time period and conditions to look at the um to look at the report and uh they uh and it dealt it was around the Christmas holidays and they um were um unhappy uh with those conditions and uh we then changed the conditions to
6048
6049better suit uh what they wanted and I think this is in what I'm talking about if I recollect it correctly
6050
6051This may be in the letter that we attached to our to the final report as well and I remember them expressing appreciation uh to us uh for um allowing them them to change the schedule.
6052
6053That's my recollection of that
6054
6055So when they complained about the schedule, I remember being surprised about that. >> Okay
6056
6057Um >> and again the letter that we wrote, I believe re reflects this and that letter will be a better recollection of this than my memory right a year from now. >> They indicate in that letter though that they were required to delete prior discovery productions um preventing them from reviewing the underlying documents referenced in the report.
6058
6059Um well the deletion of um discovery that was pursuant to the protective order in the case and so put aside um the final the final report of their review
6060
6061The protective order that both parties signed um and again there'll be a record of this. >> Um that protective order stated that when the case was concluded the discovery had to be deleted and that was an order that both sides signed with the court.
6062
6063So that wasn't that was as much an obligation on their part to the court as to us
6064
6065And by this point in time >> um the cases as to um Donald Trump had been dismissed whatever date that was in November, >> right
6066
6067But they're reviewing the final report to try to, you know, position their client to, you know, make make some of the some rebuttals and and that type of thing, which is certainly, I think you would agree is a is a fair um a fair reason to want to have access to the report
6068
6069Correct.
6070
6071>> Yes. >> Um, what types of communications did you or your staff have with the January 6th committee
6072
6073Um 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
6074
6075Um we had not and so I directed uh my staff to uh get that evidence give whatever evidence we could from them.
6076
6077Uh 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
6078
6079And 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
6080
6081Do you know who at the the select committee your staff was communicating with
6082
6083Were you? >> I was not.
6084
6085>> Okay
6086
6087So you didn't have any communications with members or staff of the select committee? >> I did not
6088
6089No. >> Okay
6090
6091And who on your staff did? >> What I r what I recall is tasking JP Cooney to do this
6092
6093I 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.
6094
6095>> Okay
6096
6097Um 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
6098
6099Um a committee staffer summoned an attorney from Smith's team to Capitol Hill to receive a hard drive containing the committee's work.
6100
6101Is that consistent with your understanding of what happened
6102
6103I I wouldn't have remembered that level of detail if you hadn't read it
6104
6105But 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
6106
6107You disclosed everything you you received from January 6 >> stuff we got from the January 6 committee.
6108
6109I directed my staff to disclose it to the defense. >> Okay
6110
6111Um, and the book reports that, you know, Cooney drove to the Capitol and at the last minute succeeded in collecting two hard drives containing about 200 interview transcripts less than 24 hours before Republicans began shutting down the committee's website
6112
6113Uh, is that something you have any recollection of? >> That level of specificity
6114
6115I I don't I I can't say that that's not accurate, but I don't recall that level of specificity.
6116
6117And 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
6118
6119If 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
6120
6121And 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
6122
6123they recorded
6124
6125And 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.
6126
6127As 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
6128
6129What 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.
6130
6131I don't really mean that in a pajarative way, but they were they were selected to make the points they wanted to make
6132
6133Um, and you know, if it 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.
6134
6135Um, 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
6136
6137So, we wanted whatever they were willing to give us. >> Okay, >> let's mark the next exhibit, which will be number 18 and 19
6138
6139These are exhibits relating to um >> Thank you.
6140
6141>> what I referenced during our last hour about President Trump's access to classified information. >> Um Was it your understanding that the the skiff that was in existence at Mara Lago before President Trump um you know left office, was it your understanding that there there was a possibility they could have recommissioned that skiff? >> Can I can I just take one minute to look at this
6142
6143Yeah.
6144
6145Okay
6146
6147Thank you for allowing me to look at that. >> Sure
6148
6149Um, so you would agree if if an individual, not necessarily President Trump, is being prosecuted for mishandling classified information and is going to trial, you would agree that that you put defendant would have um ought to enjoy the ability to discuss the charges in a skiff with his lawyer.
6150
6151Correct? >> Yes. >> Uh have an ability to review the documents in question um in an environment um with his lawyer
6152
6153Correct
6154
6155in in a skiff
6156
6157Yes. >> Right
6158
6159Um now if you know in President Trump's case he had a decommission skiff at Mara Lago
6160
6161Correct. >> Uh I I am not sure about that
6162
6163That may be true.
6164
6165I I don't recall that but I'm not if there's a filing that says that. >> Do you have any recollection
6166
6167Did the defense ask that um you know the skiff be recommissioned or or or a secure area at Mara Lago be established so that he can have these communications with his lawyer? >> What I recall is that there was a skiff at some point at Maraago or a temporary skiff sort of thing.
6168
6169Um when you say decommissioned I didn't know that there was anything like a skiff unless you can show me something otherwise
6170
6171I don't remember there being a skiff like there that was like there but not being used
6172
6173Uh I'm not sure and again maybe my um maybe that's my recollection but um our position about this is is reflected in this filing and it's uh in some that uh the government was not aware of any case in which a defendant had been permitted to discuss classified information in a private residence and this would be exceptional treatment uh consistent with
6174
6175the law
6176
6177I'll just add one other thing that might be helpful is um we did work with the FBI uh to make uh Donald Trump's review of classified information at this gift and I think it was in Miami um more convenient and easier
6178
6179Um I I do recall um having conversations to do that
6180
6181Um, we did oppose him having classified documents at his home and social club, which is the same place where he was keeping these illegally.
6182
6183So, that that is accurate, >> right
6184
6185But if a skip was established, I mean, this isn't just any normal person
6186
6187This is the former president of the United States, now current president of the United States
6188
6189Um, and you know, if a skiff could be recommissioned at the Mara Lago residence, I mean, why would you have an issue with that? >> Well, I I think you just hit on it.
6190
6191uh any normal person uh he should have the same rules as everybody else and he at this time was a private citizen and uh I'm not aware of any private citizen in a litigation no matter how important a person they are no matter how busy they are >> being allowed to have a skiff in their home for their convenience.
6192
6193Um I I uh I again I think my recollection is we worked to um make his review of classified documents at the skiff and I think it was in Miami more convenient um and and uh we did that but uh I did not think it was appropriate um because I think he should be treated like anybody else. >> Okay
6194
6195Um, initially in the documents case, sorry, not the documents case, the um, the DC elections case, um, how quickly did you want to proceed to trial after that case was indicted
6196
6197What was the time frame if you remember? >> Uh, I know you requested a trial date.
6198
6199There's a public record of this
6200
6201I think the judge had a status conference where we discussed it
6202
6203We proposed a date >> um they proposed a date in 2026
6204
6205The date that the judge chose was not the date that we proposed, but was um I think two months after the date we proposed
6206
6207I'm going to say it's I'm going to guess four months, but there's a there's a record of that, >> right
6208
6209Yeah.
6210
6211I think the special counsel's office proposed um initially trying President Trump in January of 2024
6212
6213Um the judge um Judge Chuckkin came back with with with the Super Tuesday date, which of course um raises a whole other set of questions which aren't aren't necessarily directed to you
6214
6215Um but do do you think in hindsight that um I mean how how many how many months was that
6216
6217Four or five months after the when did the indictment drop
6218
6219Was it August
6220
6221The indictment was in August.
6222
6223>> August 1st of 2023, >> thereabouts
6224
6225I don't remember the exact date. >> Okay
6226
6227So, we're looking at four months or five months depending on when it is in January
6228
6229That's a pretty aggressive timeline, isn't it? >> We um uh organized the discovery in a way uh that we felt that that was a fair uh date. >> Do you remember, you know, as you sit here today, how many pages of documents there were for that case? >> I don't.
6230
6231>> Okay
6232
6233Um, does the number 13 million, I mean, if if I told you 13 million, would would that be um something that you would says, you know, sounds about right? >> Again, I I couldn't say. >> Um, and how many um how many witnesses um you know, did the did the defense need to need to digest
6234
6235you know, how many witness uh possible trial witnesses did the defense need to digest? >> Uh, I don't think we got to because the the court obviously didn't didn't um accept that trial date.
6236
6237So, I don't think we got to that question. >> Um, and how many hours of video footage? >> You mean like footage at the capital of of the attack on the capital
6238
6239just how many hours of video footage, you know, if the if the defense was going to take that to trial in, you know, in 4 months, how many hours of footage would they would they need to digest? >> I'm just trying to think if there was any video footage other than the footage of the attack on the capital.
6240
6241Um I I don't I I can't I can't answer that. >> President Trump's defense um team, you know, indicated that it was like thousands of hours of video
6242
6243And so to digest thousands of hours of video, to digest 13 million pages of documents would have put them in a situation to, you know, either a not review the documents or b, you know, they're looking at like reviewing 100,000, you know, pages per day.
6244
6245I mean, do do you think that's reasonable? >> I thought the trial date that we proposed, given the case, given the discovery was reasonable
6246
6247Yes
6248
6249So, if the math works out that they had to digest about 100,000 pages a day, you think that's uh you think that's reasonable? >> Uh I I don't know if that's the math and I don't know if that's the proper way to measure it, but I do think the date was reasonable.
6250
6251And while all this was going on, we went into this a little bit before, but you have the you had the DC case going on, you have the Florida case going on, and you know that President Trump is um required to be um in in Manhattan for the the um district attorney of New York case
6252
6253Um you know, at any point in time, did did you stop to you know, stop to think that maybe should have given him a little bit more time
6254
6255to to deal with all these cases, these competing cases.
6256
6257>> Well, we we thought through uh the dates we asked for
6258
6259Uh we thought they were reasonable. >> Uh we uh also deferred to the judges
6260
6261So when we asked for a date and the judge picked a different date, uh I don't recall that we objected to that date. >> Um >> a lot of times though, the judge just splits the baby, right? >> Well, um I don't know that that's always the case.
6262
6263Sometimes they pick the date that one party says, sometimes they pick the other, sometimes it's in the middle
6264
6265So, >> um, I mean, Judge Chuckin certainly picked the date closer to to yours than than the 2026 date
6266
6267Um, getting back to the the Robert Jackson um, you know, statement that I read this morning
6268
6269Um, you know, he he concludes that a sensitive a sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power uh and the citizen safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth not victims,
6270
6271who s who serves the law and not factional purposes and who approaches his task with humility
6272
6273Do you think in hindsight that that you exhibited the the kindness in dealing with President Trump that Robert Jackson events is 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.
6274
6275So yes, I do think in both cases uh we adhere to those principles
6276
6277And 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
6278
6279We 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.
6280
6281and 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.
6282
6283>> I just have a a couple other questions
6284
6285I'll jump around and I'll be done
6286
6287Hopefully I can do that very quickly
6288
6289Um the the Florida case, initially you had a grand jury operating in Washington DC
6290
6291Um how does that work
6292
6293You you you're taking evidence in DC for a case that you know you ultimately decided to venue in Florida.
6294
6295Were you able to use the material from the grand jury in DC for the case or did you have to to repurpose that
6296
6297Did you have to recirculate that material through a grand jury in Florida? >> Mr
6298
6299Caster, I'm sorry
6300
6301I'm just I'm a little concerned that questions about the grand jury in DC in the Southern District of Florida may implicate both 6E issues and uh the scope of judge.
6302
6303>> Can I ask hypothetically then um if you have a case that you're operating a grand jury in the district of Kansas and you're going to and you decide to move move a case to um you know the the central district of of California
6304
6305Um, how would you ordinarily what what's the department's posture on that? >> In what sense? >> So, you you you have a grand jury operating in Kansas and you you collect evidence.
6306
6307Um, are you allowed to use that evidence if you you ultimately decide to venue a case in the Central District of California? >> Collected in Kansas? >> Yes. >> Okay
6308
6309And are there any concerns um about that
6310
6311um you're speaking about a hypothetical case, but I think we're kind of speaking about the case in Florida
6312
6313And so, uh I think whether there would ever be concerns depends on the specific >> case we're talking about.
6314
6315And again, I I don't feel comfortable answering that because of this injunction, but for the injunction, I'd be happy to answer it. >> Okay. >> Mr
6316
6317Jordan wanted me to point out that there was a discussion earlier um I think it was with um Congresswoman Scandlin 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 happened in Pennsylvania.
6318
6319Am I jogging your memory with this? >> I I I know we spoke about that
6320
6321There was another uh series of questions about this, so I do remember that
6322
6323Yeah. >> Okay
6324
6325And 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.
6326
6327I mean the um you know the state legislature who ordinarily is responsible for making you know the election law picking the timelates and manner and prescribing uh the blowby-blows in an election was you know basically usurped by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
6328
6329Um and they changed all sorts of things in in the 2020 election.
6330
6331Um 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
6332
6333Um 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.
6334
6335um you know the the volume of absentee ballots was completely different than an ordinary election
6336
6337Um there were over 2 million you know absentee ballots
6338
6339Um 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.
6340
6341So many things had changed um by the time it got to election day in Pennsylvania
6342
6343Uh 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
6344
6345Uh I think uh Donald Trump lost those litigations and as we pointed out in our um indictment that bringing a lawsuit for some of the issues you talked about, that's the proper way um to dispute these things or asking for a recount as uh President Trump did in two states
6346
6347Um
6348
6349our case um was about um false allegations of fraud
6350
6351uh our case, we did the things you just mentioned, we didn't allege those um to be um part of the fraudulent conduct targeting a uh a government uh function. >> And so again, um those are issues that I think we are aware of in studying these things and in speaking to election officials there.
6352
6353Uh but they're the sort of issues that are dealt with through litigation in our court system
6354
6355And I think that's what happened uh in in the election after. >> Okay
6356
6357Let me go off the record briefly. >> Recall any discussions with public integrity
6358
6359Um, this is in the toll records um topic area
6360
6361um any any back and forth with public integrity about um acquiring toll records of staff, congressional staff? >> Um one of one of the subpoenas we asked for was for a staff member.
6362
6363>> Yes. >> Okay
6364
6365And do you remember House or Senate? >> House. >> Okay
6366
6367And do you remember who who it was or what the circumstances were? >> I do
6368
6369It was um a staff member for uh Congressman Gomer
6370
6371Okay. >> And that was the only time that that you you saw total records first. >> That's my only recollection as I sit here now.
6372
6373Yes, we can So, Mr
6374
6375Smith, you spoke earlier today
6376
6377about threats and attacks against um made by Donald Trump against witnesses um prosecutors, judges who had challenged him, including threats against yourself
6378
6379Do you remember that
6380
6381Yes. >> So, did President Trump target you personally in posts on 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.
6382
6383Do 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
6384
6385Uh then he also talked about investigating Lisa Monaco, Andrew Weisman, and Adam Schiff, saying quote, "I hope they're looking at all these people and I'm allowed to find out.
6386
6387I'm in theory the chief law enforcement officer." >> 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.
6388
6389>> That may be I I know there were several posts like this. >> Okay
6390
6391Um, 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.
6392
6393Is that right? >> Yes
6394
6395And 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.
6396
6397>> Okay
6398
6399I'm just going to offer this as exhibit 20
6400
6401And this is exactly what you just talked about
6402
6403So, exhibit 20 is an executive order issued by >> I know >> the White House on February 25, 2025 and it is entitled suspension of security clearances and evaluation of government contracts
6404
6405And 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
6406
6407law to suspend any active security clearances held by Peter Kofsky 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 and responsibilities, if any, in the weaponization of the judicial process.
6408
6409And the executive order also directs the attorney general and heads of agencies to take such action as are necessary to terminate any engagement of Cington 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.
6410
6411Did I read that correctly? >> Yes
6412
6413Um, 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
6414
6415I think it's to chill uh people from having an association with me.
6416
6417>> I just want to say for the record, we're still here proud to represent Jack Smith. >> Um thank you
6418
6419So once President Trump Trump took office, were members of the special counsel's office um was their employment affected? >> Yes. >> Were they fired? >> Yes
6420
6421Do you know roughly how many people were fired? >> Uh, I don't have specific numbers.
6422
6423>> Is it more than a dozen? >> I believe so
6424
6425Yes. >> Okay. >> Do you know who fired the former members of the special counsel's office? >> You mean who who told them or who issued? >> Yeah
6426
6427Who actually communicated
6428
6429Well, let us break it
6430
6431Do you know who authorized the firing of these staff members
6432
6433I'm assuming the president did.
6434
6435I don't know the specifics, but >> Okay
6436
6437Do you know how the termination messages were communicated? >> I don't recall if they were how they were communicated. >> And these are career attorneys and agents
6438
6439Is that right? >> That's correct. >> Okay
6440
6441They're not political appointees
6442
6443They've served different administrations with different political parties at the head.
6444
6445Is that right? >> That's correct
6446
6447Do you know what justifications were given for terminating those staff members? >> My understanding is no justification was given. >> Are you aware of any reason to target these individuals besides their work on your investigation or association with your investigation? >> None
6448
6449I think it's a travesty.
6450
6451Do you believe, well, you just answered it, but do you believe it's proper to retaliate against career prosecutors for their involvement in a federal investigation? >> Of course not. >> What about the support staff who aided those prosecutors? >> I don't understand that why you would do that. >> And what about FBI agents who carried out this investigation? >> As I said earlier, I I don't understand why someone would seek to do that.
6452
6453Do you think that firing all of these public servants make the country safer? >> No. >> Why not? >> As I mentioned previously, uh I think when you uh fire people who are career public servants serving both parties uh over many decades, you um you lose the expertise about how to do the job properly.
6454
6455And that has an effect on the department today and it'll have an effect on the department for some time if those people aren't there to be leaders and to teach young lawyers how to be public servants. >> Do you feel like you have a target on your back? >> I believe that uh President Trump wants to seek retribution against me because of my role as special counsel.
6456
6457>> Would you be surprised if President Trump direct the DOJ to indict you? >> No
6458
6459Are you concerned about the safety of people who associate with you like your former colleagues and your attorneys here today? >> I would prefer, if it's all right, not to talk about my safety because I think doing so could in fact endanger my safety and those of people around me.
6460
6461>> Understood. >> Going to turn a little bit to um the folks who actually attacked the capital on January 6
6462
6463I 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.
6464
6465Uh one of those riers was Daniel Rodriguez, who multiple times plunged a stun gun into the neck of officer Michael Fenown, causing officer Fenone to suffer a heart attack and sustain other injuries
6466
6467Mr
6468
6469Rodriguez was subsequently sentenced to 12 years in prison after a federal judge called him a quote oneman army of hate
6470
6471Are you aware of President Trump pardoning Mr.
6472
6473Daniel 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
6474
6475Patrick Makahi III who used a stolen police riot to police riot shield to crush officer Daniel Hajes in a metal doorframe at the entrance of the lower west uh terrace tunnel and he left officer Hajes Hodgees trapped bleeding even crying for help from his fellow officers
6476
6477Um officer
6478
6479Hodgees 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
6480
6481Uh, Judge Trevor McFadden described Mr
6482
6483McKahhee 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
6484
6485Mr.
6486
6487McKay was sentenced to more than seven years in prison
6488
6489Are you aware that Mr
6490
6491McKay was one of those riers who assaulted law enforcement on January 6 that were pardoned by President Donald Trump
6492
6493Again, 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, and heart attacks as riers used bats,
6494
6495flag poles, chemical sprays, stolen police shields, and batons to beat officers
6496
6497Are you aware of those facts from that day? >> Very much so
6498
6499U 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
6500
6501opinion
6502
6503Uh, I think we've already seen some of the people who were pardoned go on to commit other serious crimes
6504
6505And I don't have much doubt that in the coming months and years we'll see more of that
6506
6507People who would otherwise be incarcerated, communities protected from them
6508
6509They're going to be they're um out in communities.
6510
6511And 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
6512
6513That's my view. >> Can we go off the writer for a second
6514
6515Were you aware that on November 10th of 2025, President Trump issued a second sweeping pardon proclamation granting a quote full and complete and unconditional and quote pardons to at least 77 individuals related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election
6516
6517And uh were you aware of that
6518
6519that second pardon from November 10th of 2025? >> I was. >> Um and many of these individuals that were one of these 77 individuals, they were individuals identified as unindicted co-conspirators in your investigation
6520
6521Um is that correct as well? >> I believe that's correct. >> Uh some of these individuals that were pardoned include Mr.
6522
6523Giuliani, who we talked about earlier today, who was willingly willing to spread knowingly false claims uh and worked to subvert the results of the 2020 election
6524
6525Are you aware of that? >> Yes
6526
6527Um I guess taking a step back and looking at the fact that President Trump pardoned these folks, these 77 individuals who were uh previously working to overturn the election, the 2020 election.
6528
6529Uh what message does that send to folks living in the country
6530
6531uh particularly as it relates to election integrity in future elections. >> Uh you know I I I just uh I don't understand why you would pardon people who assaulted law enforcement
6532
6533I think it sends lots of messages
6534
6535One of the messages is to law enforcement
6536
6537The people uh who defended the capital that day in my view are heroes.
6538
6539And um I think pardoning people who assaulted them is wrong
6540
6541And what about pardoning the folks who actually worked on the conspiracy to overturn the election
6542
6543What message does that send about election integrity to folks living in the country? >> Well, uh I I don't have a full list of all the people that he pardoned there and so I don't want to speak generally about all those cases.
6544
6545Um we didn't charge anybody other than Donald Trump
6546
6547Um and so um I'm not going to speak about pardoning people who weren't charged with crimes
6548
6549All right, we'll go the record.