Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

U.K. Releases Suspects in Alleged Terror Plot; Live Coverage of Jack Smith Testimony. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired September 29, 2026 - 09:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[09:30:00]

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Big, open questions are. We know that the defense has filed this motion, which essentially says, you know what, your honor, there's not even legally sufficient evidence for this case to move forward, even on the facts as we know them, it doesn't constitute a crime because of her mental state. I think the judge will deny that.

We have the bigger, meatier issue, right? Not media, but meatier issue of whether or not it's a double jeopardy matter. What is double jeopardy? You can't be charged and tried for the same offense twice. The defense is arguing, you should not, judge, have declared a mistrial. You should have really focused on this one juror evaluated whether the juror was acting in good faith, and you declared a mistrial, there was no manifest necessity, compelling reason, to declare a mistrial, and therefore it's double jeopardy, dismiss this outright. I think that that argument will not fly. I think the judge had a firm basis to declare a mistrial. When you have a jury deliberating for that amount of time saying, judge, we just can't get there, and the judge says, hey, we'll declare a mistrial, I think that's appropriate.

Last point. And that is whether the judge followed the right procedures and mechanisms in declaring that mistrial. I would argue that the judge did. Why? Because when the judge realized, right, first of all, when the jury was having a difficult time reaching a conclusion, the judge gave them what's called the dynamite charge. Here in this jurisdiction it's called the Tuey-Rodriguez charge. Hey, jurors, we know you're trying real hard. We know that you have a right to be entrenched into your opinions. But if someone would say something to dislodge that, you're perfectly in your rights to reconsider and rethink. If there's no juror that would be better than you, right, you're doing your service. They go back and they deliberate.

They come back. Judge, we can't do it. And so, what does the judge then do when he finds out about this lone juror? What the judge does is he questions the jurors individually. You can follow my rules, right? You know what those rules are? Then he instructs the jury on this issue of reasonable doubt and says, go back and deliberate.

So, I think the judge exhausted what the judge can do. This is our process. It requires 12 jurors to get on the same page. It's hard to get two people on the same page. So, it is a challenge.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: And in all the cases I think that we've ever tried -- seen or had you talk about, it is very rare for a judge to rule against himself on something like this with the mistrial question.

JACKSON: Yes. And, you know what, Sara, that's why we have appellate courts and that type of thing.

SIDNER: Yes.

JACKSON: I think the judge feels that the judge did the appropriate thing. The jury, we want not to invade their space and allow them to deliberate properly and appropriately. And if the judge did something wrong, I think it's up to an appellate court to say so.

I think the judge was well within the rights again to declare the mistrial. I think the judge was in the right to give the jurors instructions as to the law. And I think it'll be up to the prosecutor as to whether or not this case is retried, a plea deal is given or the case is dismissed. Don't count on that.

SIDNER: Joey Jackson, stick with us because we are watching, as this hearing is about to get underway, a lot of the parties in court already. We will give you an update as soon as we get it.

Now to another story that is catching the world's attention. The five men arrested in an alleged terror plot targeting a British air base used by U.S. forces, they're out on bail this morning, even as authorities say they remain under investigation. President Trump said he's surprised that they were released and suggested that Iran might be connected. Iran denies any involvement, and British authorities have not confirmed any such foreign link.

But Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the alleged plot clearly involves a foreign actor and indicated a lot more news is coming.

CNN's Nic Robertson is live this morning in London.

What are you learning this morning about all of this?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes, I'm not sure that British officials are yet ready to release whatever it is that they know. If you listen to the language, as we did yesterday, to the assistant commissioner of counterterrorism, who announced the release of those five individuals on very tight bail conditions, said they'll continue to be investigated and essentially said that they didn't find any explosives in the three vans that were found at that site very close to the air base that was already on a high state of readiness and security.

He goes on to say, look, there's a lot of interest around this case about geopolitical nature behind it. And then he goes on to say, potentially these people could have been proxies acting wittingly or unwittingly for a foreign state. So, I think there's a certain amount of tie up there between what we're hearing from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and what we're hearing from British officials. They are very, very cautious. This is ongoing. It is an investigation. There is precedent in the U.K. for both actually Iran and Russia to have been accused and cases to have gone through courts here where the states have been implicitly in -- sort of had the finger pointed at them and, in some cases, evidence put forward that they were behind paying for low level criminals to do criminal acts that had sort of a bigger political, geopolitical initiative and content behind it.

[09:35:01]

So, there's all of that in the mix here today. Before I left the air base earlier on today, there was still armed security, armed police patrolling it. A lot of the residents that were moved out, evacuated when the bomb squad went in, they're back in their homes. But still, a lot of unease around there.

And don't forget, in all of this, this began because there was -- or part of it was the picture behind this. There was a high state of alert over the past week at the base. Now, the events that happened over the weekend maybe didn't conform to what intelligence chatter was providing, but it is a concern about what's going on. And both U.S. and U.K. say they work together, pointing out a foreign state potentially behind it.

SIDNER: Nic Robertson, thank you so much for your reporting.

And stick with us because we're standing by for former Special Counsel Jack Smith's testimony on Capitol Hill. The attacks have already started. The Senate Judiciary chairman, Chuck Grassley, has already accused him of acting as a partisan weapon. The hot seat, we'll be hearing from Jack Smith from there in just a bit.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:40:47]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, let's go to Capitol Hill right now. Former Special Counsel Jack Smith delivering his opening statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

JACK SMITH, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL: Justice, a prosecutor's decisions must be based on the facts and the law. The status, power, prominence or political affiliation of the subject of an investigation must play no role in the decision to investigate, prosecute or decline to prosecute. I approached my role as special counsel following these principles.

The special counsel's office followed Justice Department policy, observed legal requirements and took actions based on the facts and the law. I stand by my decisions as special counsel, including my decision to bring charges against President Trump. I made those decisions without regard to President Trump's political association, activities, beliefs or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election.

Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in serious crimes against our nation. If asked whether to prosecute a former president today based on the same facts, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Republican or a Democrat. The charges against President Trump were the result of the evidence. Grand juries in two separate districts reached this conclusion based on his actions as alleged in the indictments they returned.

Rather than accept his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results and prevent the lawful transfer of power. After leaving office in January of 2021, President Trump illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago social club and repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents. Highly sensitive national security information was held in a bathroom and a ballroom where events and gatherings took place.

As with my appearance before the U.S. House of Representative's Committee on the Judiciary, I am prepared to answer your questions truthfully. I stand by my testimony before the House of Representatives, and I will not be silenced by continued threats of prosecution from the president or others.

As I appear before you today, it is my belief that the rule of law faces challenges unlike any we have experienced in our lifetime. Individuals are threatened with criminal prosecution because they are perceived to have opposed the president. Predetermined outcomes increasingly seem to take precedence over the Justice Department's long standing core values and traditions. History teaches that the rule of law is rarely destroyed all at once. It's often weakened by attacks on the institutions and the public servants sworn to uphold it.

Since January of 2025, we have witnessed precisely such an effort, including the vilification of the agents, prosecutors and staff who worked on my team simply because of their unwavering dedication to the rule of law.

I myself have been threatened with jail by the president of the United States. However, I remain confident that the rule of law will endure because so many continue to uphold it faithfully each day. Throughout our legal system, public servants have remained faithful to their oaths despite extraordinary pressure to do otherwise. Their example demonstrates that while fear may be contagious, courage is as well.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

[09:45:02]

I look forward to your questions.

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): Thank you, Mr. Smith.

We'll have ten-minute opportunities to ask questions, and we'll only have one round for each member.

In your public statements and testimony here today you've given glowing assessment of your staff, saying that they had an unwavering commitment to justice, regardless of personal costs. That is blatantly untrue. You're apparently in denial based on the litany of wrongdoing and political bias, supported by reams of evidence that I've referenced in my opening statements. And I've either released documents or will today that proves this.

Moreover, in your public report, you said in part, quote, "those materials comprised a small part of the office's investigative record," end of quote. You're referring to the J-6 committee materials. Records show that in your briefing memorandum for a meeting with Garland, you said your team, quote, "fully read and reviewed," end quote, the J-6 committee report. That memo also said your staff, quote, "went over it page by page and incorporated it into investigative plan," end quote. The memo also said you, quote/unquote, "will leverage" the report to avoid certain interviews. Your report provided false information to the public.

Your staff also obtained subpoena returns that included the content of messages of 44 members of Congress, not just total records, as you testified previously. Based on information provided to the committee, that content was shared with case agents and prosecutors before it went through any filter review for privileged information, which should have been done like it's been in other cases. Those are clear violations by your staff.

In addition, your deputy, J.P. Cooney (ph), said he'd, quote, "prosecute anyone who still wears a head habit (ph)," end of quote. Then Cooney also said, regarding the speech and debate clause, quote, "I'm an advocate for repealing the clause," end of quote.

Lastly, Cooney and Molly Gaston (ph) filed a complaint with the Justice Department inspector general. Your staff asked for the inspector general to investigate whistleblowers who bravely exposed abuses of authority to Congress by you and your staff. These are just some of the violations of law or policy that your staff and office committed. And that doesn't include all the violations of disgraced former FBI agents like Tebow (ph) and Giardina (ph) committed while creating false predicate for your cases and others.

So, question number one, out of six I have, should whistleblowers who made lawful disclosures to Congress about your taxpayer funded work be investigated?

SMITH: I'm not aware of any whistleblowers being investigated. I believe public servants should be protected. The members of my team that you just mentioned, I'm extremely proud to have worked with them. And the fact that they have been targeted, illegally, lost their jobs illegally, and had their lives turned upside down by this Department of Justice is an outrage.

GRASSLEY: Well, you said you didn't know about it, and I gave you evidence that they asked for investigation by the inspector general.

Question number two, did your special counsel obtain -- special counsel operation obtain possession of donor data, including financial information, yes or no? SMITH: Our investigation was focused on investigating matters under my

mandate, including whether any person or entity violated the law with attempts to block the peaceful transfer of power.

GRASSLEY: Let me -- let me ask the question again. Did your special counsel operation obtain possession of donor data to include financial information, yes or no?

[09:50:03]

SMITH: Yes, we acquired financial information. As I sit here right now, I cannot recite to you every subpoena we issued. I can tell you why we issued subpoenas, and it was to conduct a criminal investigation of one of the most serious crimes that's ever happened in our nation's history. I had a duty to collect facts.

GRASSLEY: Let me say -- let me say, indeed you did. And you answered yes, accordingly. To protect disclosures to my office, you obtained at least 4,782 donor checks. Many of those checks were $5 to $10. The list includes checks from constituents in every state of every single member of this committee, both Republicans and Democrats. It included 42 checks from Iowans who dared to donate money to Republicans. No matter what you say, there is no legitimate basis for what you did, especially since your staff killed an investigation into the Clinton campaign. Donations to Republican groups wasn't necessary for your investigation, which has proved out by the fact that it was not mentioned in your public report.

Now, the Justice Department, the FBI, will forever possess thousands of people's address, phone number, bank and bank account number, bank routing number, and a copy of their true signature. Every member of this committee ought to be outraged for what happened to their constituents. I hope my Democratic colleagues will join me in this outrage.

Question number three. In October last year, I asked you this question, but you never responded. Did you ever use a personal device for work purposes to include communications such as email, text, or creation, or editing of work product? If so, do you commit to providing that material to the committee? If not, are you testifying that you've complied with all federal record requirements?

SMITH: Yes. When I first became special counsel, I did not have a government phone or government computer. And so, in the initial days when I was appointed and I was still living in the Netherlands, I did use a personal device and email to communicate with folks in the Justice Department. What I did when I got government accounts is made sure, to the best of my ability, that those -- that information was forwarded to government accounts so it would be within the Federal Records Act. I sought, at all times, to comply with the Federal Records Act, as I expected my attorneys to do as well.

GRASSLEY: Following up on my opening statement for the classified document case, where did you store the classified material? Decide -- describe the SCIF arrangements for both DOJ and FBI personnel during and after the court sessions. SMITH: I can't speak to FBI facilities. I can explain. Our office had

a SCIF, a place to store classified information. And my recollection is that there was, at least in Florida, an ability to store it there. I can't recall if it was at the FBI field office or at the courthouse. But we had a SCIF at our office as part of our investigation, knowing that classified information would be involved in the investigation.

GRASSLEY: Yes. I said in my opening statement that one of your staff members suggested leaving the door open, which is, obviously, be a violation of law.

Question number five, have you ever received any consultation or counsel by John Brennan, former CIA director, whether during your time as special counsel or otherwise? If so, when and for what purpose?

SMITH: I've never met John Brennan.

GRASSLEY: OK. Have you ever -- well, I guess you've answered my follow-up question.

Question number six, and the last question, when you became special counsel, what direction did you give your staff to handle speech or debate and attorney general -- attorney client material? Did you issue any directories? If so, to whom? And please explain.

SMITH: So, with respect to the speech and debate clause first. We took our obligations seriously under the speech and debate clause.

[09:55:03]

It's, in my view, an important part of the separation of powers. I had members of my staff, who were very familiar with the clause, having worked in the public integrity section for years. We also, when it was appropriate or required, consulted with the public integrity section regarding application of that clause.

GRASSLEY: Let me -- let me follow up with this. Mr. Smith --

BERMAN: All right, we're watching Jack Smith there facing the Senate Judiciary Committee, taking questions from the chair, Chuck Grassley, right now. This hearing is ongoing.

Also up in Plymouth, Massachusetts, we have our eye on the Lindsay Clancy case. A judge in the courtroom. We are waiting to find out what's happening inside that hearing.

A lot going on. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)