Return to Transcripts main page
Inside Politics
Ex-Trump Prosecutor Testifies On Election, Classified Docs Probes. Aired 12:30-1p ET
Aired January 22, 2026 - 12:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[12:30:00]
REP. JERROD NADLER (D), NEW YORK: -- we need you, our Republican friends, to try to just slow it down so we can get these legislatures to get more information.
REP. JIM JORDAN (R), OHIO: Without objection. The gentleman yields back.
NADLER: Thank you.
JORDAN: The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California.
REP. TED LIEU (D), CALIFORNIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The House Judiciary Committee is responsible for helping to ensure the rule of law. Unfortunately, the chairman of this committee ignored a bipartisan congressional subpoena directed at him. His actions have made it harder for this committee and other congressional committees to get witnesses and testimony and damage the rule of law.
Now, before I ask questions of Mr. Smith, I just want to make a simple observation. How scared are Republicans of talking about the Epstein files? They're so scared that they literally are calling Jack Smith, the distinguished federal prosecutor who secured multiple indictments against Donald Trump with multiple felony counts.
Republicans would rather talk about the criminality of Donald Trump in stealing -- trying to steal an election and trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power, and the criminality of Donald Trump in stealing classified documents obstructing justice, than about Donald Trump's associations with Jeffrey Epstein and his pedophilia ring.
I demand this committee, this chairman, and Republicans to call an immediate hearing asking why the Department of Justice is refusing to release 99 percent of the Epstein files and why the DOJ is violating the law right now.
I have questions, Mr. Smith, for you, and thank you for being here today. My questions center on interactions, or lack of interactions, between the Biden administration and yourself. Did President Biden or anyone in the Biden White House ever direct you to seek retribution against anyone perceived to be Biden's political opponent?
JACK SMITH, ATTORNEY AND FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: No. LIEU: Did the Biden administration or President Biden or anyone in the White House ever write a social media post directing you to seek retribution against any particular individual?
SMITH: No.
LIEU: Did President Biden or anyone else in the Biden White House ever direct you to take any prosecutorial step whatsoever?
SMITH: No.
LIEU: OK. Donald Trump made it clear he wanted to seek retribution against New York Attorney General Tish James. Trump relentlessly attacked her, saying, quote, "She should be prosecuted," and quote, "arrested and punished," because she dared to hold Trump accountable for Trump's fraud in New York.
Trump weaponized the demand of justice, and the Trump DOJ opened a sham investigation into her alleged mortgage fraud. We know it's a sham investigation, because they could even get twice grand juries to secure indictments against her. When interim U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert, who Donald Trump himself appointed, spent five months investigating Tish James, he concluded there was not enough evidence to go forward. And what did Trump do? He fired his own U.S. attorney.
Mr. Smith, did President Biden or anyone else in the Biden White House ever tell you that Donald Trump should be, quote, "arrested and punished?"
SMITH: No.
LIEU: Did President Biden or anyone else in the Biden White House ever threaten to fire you based on any action you took or did not take?
SMITH: No.
LIEU: Donald Trump also directed the Trump DOJ to open investigations into his own appointees who refused to do his bidding. His DOJ recently investigated Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, because Powell won't cede to Trump's bullying on interest rates. Did President Biden or anyone else in the Biden White House ever direct you to go after any Biden appointee?
SMITH: No.
LIEU: OK. I just want to say a little bit about what the Republicans have brought up about these phone toll records. Do you believe the Speaker of the House is above the law?
SMITH: No, I don't believe anybody should be above the law.
LIEU: That's right. And U.S. senators are not above the law, correct?
SMITH: No.
LIEU: Yes. And members of Congress are not above the law, right? SMITH: No.
LIEU: Yes, that's right, because we're not. And what Republicans are going to argue is somehow if you're doing an investigation, you can't do stuff to senators or members of Congress. Get out of here. We're just under a law like everybody else.
And by the way, the speech and debate clause only applies to legislative acts, communications with legislative acts. Stealing a frickin' election and trying to do so is not a legislative act. It is a crime. So I don't even know what the heck they're talking about.
And this is so stupid. I'm a former prosecutor. You never in an investigation go and try to get someone's toll records or phone records and then tell them, hey, dude, we're about to get your phone records. Of course you wouldn't tell them.
[12:35:03]
What the Republicans are saying today is just idiotic. I am so pleased you're here on national TV telling the American people that Trump was indicted. He was indicted lawfully. And multiple grand juries secured those indictments.
Thank you for your service. And history will look upon you well. I yield back.
JORDAN: Gentlelady from Florida is recognized for five minutes.
REP. LAUREL LEE (R), FLORIDA: Mr. Smith, you have a long tenure at the Department of Justice. Would you agree with the statement that DOJ charging policies require prosecutors to bring charges only where the admissible evidence is expected to be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction? Is that right?
SMITH: That is correct. That's from the federal principles of prosecution.
LEE: And in this case, in this case you brought against President Trump, one of the charges you pursued was under Title 18, Section 371, which requires an agreement to interfere with the lawful function of the United States through deceit or dishonesty, that the defendant knowingly and intentionally joined, and an overt act.
And what I'd like to ask you about is this. So you would agree that Section 371 requires dishonesty or deceit and also proof that a criminal defendant acted knowingly and intentionally. Is that right?
SMITH: I believe that's correct. It requires knowing deceit targeted a lawful government function.
LEE: So you would then also agree, would you not, that opinion, disagreement, or even mistake is insufficient to satisfy the burden of criminal intent set forth in that statute?
SMITH: A mistake certainly would. We needed to prove and intended to prove at trial that the false statements that Donald Trump made were knowingly false.
LEE: That they were false and that it was done knowingly. So even under your theory of the case, even if we took your facts as true, you still would have been required to prove that the president said something false and that he, or did it knowingly.
So going on to your next charge, let's talk about obstruction. There, too, that charge requires proof of wrongful intent, does it not?
SMITH: That's correct.
LEE: So if a defendant there actually believes a factual claim is true, that would mean he could not be convicted of that charge, isn't that right?
SMITH: Well, I --
LEE: Not correctly convicted.
SMITH: The defendant for that charge would have to behave corruptly, and corruptly could include seeking an unlawful benefit, seeking a benefit to benefit themselves in this case to stay in office when they had in fact not won the election. So --
LEE: But there, too, there's a requirement of intent that this conduct must be knowing and intentional, isn't that right?
SMITH: There is an intent requirement, yes. Corrupt --
LEE: And didn't you also acknowledge in your deposition that the president was receiving information from multiple advisers, Giuliani, Eastman, Clark, Powell, and in your deposition, you said he was almost just regurgitating what they told him, isn't that right?
SMITH: I don't believe I said he was regurgitating what they told him. I think what I said is that he was making knowingly false claims, that he was believing anything that would keep him in office, and he was rejecting anything --
LEE: But you would agree that those people, or some people, were giving the president conflicting advice at that time, would you not?
SMITH: You are correct in that his original campaign staff told him he had lost. He fired them and brought in people who would --
LEE: But criminal liability, under the statutes you used in your indictment, requires on -- requires proving intent, not simply the undermining of democratic norms or expressing an opinion with which you do not agree. So is it not correct, sir, that here, you charged two intent-based crimes without any direct proof whatsoever that the conduct charged was knowing, intentional, or that you were going to have an adequate basis to sustain a conviction at trial?
SMITH: I felt we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I felt that that proof included direct testimony from a number of witnesses to prove his -- the knowing falsity of his claims. LEE: Despite the fact that in your own deposition you acknowledge the existence of conflicting advice, if this defendant were anyone other than Donald J. Trump, Mr. Smith, I find it hard to believe that we would be sitting here today having a hearing about an indictment that was returned knowing that the elements of the offenses could not be demonstrated.
[12:40:08]
Now, let's talk about this. I assume you're also familiar with the Department of Justice policy that prohibits prosecutors from selecting the timing of investigative or prosecutorial actions for the purpose of affecting any election.
SMITH: Yes, I am. That's the election year sensitivities policy, and we followed it in all respects. The public integrity section who administers that policy concurred that we followed it in all respects.
LEE: Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.
JORDAN: The gentlelady yields back. The chair recognizes the ranking member for J.C.
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D), RANKING MEMBER, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, this is from John Dowd. I was Donald Trump's lawyer. Jack Smith should be celebrated, not vilified, December 16th, 2025, last month.
JORDAN: Without objection.
RASKIN: I have -- I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a criminal complaint filed by the Trump Department of Justice in December 13th, 2025, detailing how Kash Patel and the FBI used a confidential human source and an undercover FBI agent to investigate a bomb threat in Los Angeles.
And then finally, this is an article published by The Verge on October 19th, 2023, titled, "Peter Thiel Was Reportedly An FBI Informant," which reports that Peter Thiel served as a confidential human source for the FBI.
JORDAN: Without objection. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for unanimous consent.
REP. ANDY BIGGS (R), ARIZONA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First one is from msn.com. Biden's FBI paid anti-Trump sedition hunters as informants in J6 Arctic Frost probes.
JORDAN: Without objection.
BIGGS: Jack Smith team approved $20,000 payment to informant to snitch on Trump during Arctic Frost probe.
JORDAN: Without objection.
BIGGS: AT&T turned Kevin McCarthy's cell phone records over to Jack Smith.
JORDAN: Without objection.
BIGGS: Biden's legal team met with Jack Smith aide before Trump indictment.
JORDAN: Without objection.
BIGGS: Jack Smith deposition gives insight into failed effort to hold Trump accountable.
JORDAN: Without objection.
BIGGS: Trump's special counsel, Jack Smith, was involved in Lois Lerner IRS scandal.
JORDAN: Without objection.
BIGGS: Special Counsel Jack Smith's mixed history pursuing high profile politicians.
JORDAN: Without objection.
BIGGS: And FBI resisted opening probe into Trump's role on January 6th.
JORDAN: Without objection. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for five minutes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's our turn. Do you yield your time?
JORDAN: I lost track after all those unanimous consent requests. Gentlelady from Washington is recognized and then the gentleman from North Carolina.
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D), WASHINGTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, thank you for coming here today. Your willingness to speak directly to us and to the American people about your investigation is professional, is courageous, and it's patriotic.
It's high time that the American people hear directly from you about the results of your investigation of President Donald Trump for his criminal actions leading up to and the day of January 6th, 2021. The facts according to your report are simple. Without a single piece of evidence, Trump sowed doubt about the 2020 election results and urged his followers to, quote, "walk down to the Capitol and fight like hell" on January 6th.
And that's exactly what they did. Thousands of insurrectionists violently tried to stop Congress from certifying the 2020 election and doing our duty. And they assaulted law enforcement officers, some of whom are sitting right here in the chamber with us. I was trapped in the House gallery with a small number of members that day, and I will never forget the pounding on the doors and the insurrectionists threatening to kill us right outside.
My Republican colleagues keep trying to rewrite history. They claim that somehow Trump's words and actions did not legally rise to the level of criminal activity, that he did not directly cause violence at the Capitol. And so I want to set that record straight with you right now.
First of all, you successfully secured indictments against Donald Trump in two major federal cases, election interference in the 2020 election and mishandling of classified documents after leaving office. Is that correct?
SMITH: Yes.
JAYAPAL: And you've been a federal prosecutor for nearly 30 years. You led this investigation, combing through hundreds of thousands of documents, photos, videos, and communication. Did your investigation find that Donald Trump attempted to manufacture fraudulent state -- slates of presidential electors in seven states that he lost?
SMITH: Yes.
JAYAPAL: Did he pressure state officials to ignore true vote counts in those states?
SMITH: Yes.
JAYAPAL: Did he spread lies and conspiracies to his followers to make them believe that the election had been illegally rigged against him?
SMITH: Yes.
JAYAPAL: Did he pressure DOJ officials to stop the certification of the election?
SMITH: He did.
[12:45:06]
JAYAPAL: Did he pressure his own vice president, Mike Pence, to stop the certification against the oath of office that he had sworn to the Constitution?
SMITH: He did.
JAYAPAL: And when all of this didn't work, did he, Donald Trump, motivate and inspire an angry mob to the U.S. Capitol to stop the certification?
SMITH: Our proof showed that he caused what happened on January 6th, that it was foreseeable, and that he exploited that violence.
JAYAPAL: Did Donald Trump know that his allegations of election fraud were lies when he spread them?
SMITH: Our proof was that he did, and we intended to prove that at trial.
JAYAPAL: In fact, as the quotes from your report behind me show, he even privately admitted that he lost the election, correct?
SMITH: Yes.
JAYAPAL: He said, quote, "It doesn't matter if you won or lost the election, you have to fight like hell." And he said, "Can you believe I lost to this f-ing guy?" During your closed-door deposition last month, you and I had an exchange about the impact on our democracy, the toll on our democracy, for not holding a president accountable for trying to steal an election. Do you remember that exchange?
SMITH: I do.
JAYAPAL: I want to return to it, because I think what you said in the closed-door deposition is important for the American people to hear right here in your public testimony. How would you describe the toll on our democracy if we do not hold a president accountable for attempting to steal an election?
SMITH: My belief is that if we do not hold the most powerful people in our society to the same standards of the rule of law, it can be catastrophic. Because if they don't have to follow the law, it's very easy to understand why people would think they don't have to follow the law as well. And so I think the law should be applied equally to everyone.
JAYAPAL: And what do you think the toll is for future elections and future presidents who try to steal an election?
SMITH: I think if we don't hold people to account when they commit crimes, it sends a message that those crimes are OK, that our society accepts that. I believe that if we don't call people to account when they commit crimes in this context, it can endanger our election process, it can endanger election workers, and ultimately our democracy. The attack on this Capitol on January 6th was -- and the Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. said this, it was an attack on the structure of our democracy.
JAYAPAL: And we could experience much worse results down the road if this happens again. I thank you for your work, for your courage, and for your patriotism. And I yield back.
JORDAN: Gentlelady yields back. Gentleman from North Carolina, excuse me, North Carolina is recognized.
REP. BRAD KNOTT (R), NORTH CAROLINA: Mr. Smith, just briefly, if there was no mob on January 6th that attacked the Capitol, we would not be here today, would we?
SMITH: I can't speak to hypotheticals. The case I investigated involved a mob of supporters, of Donald Trump supporters.
KNOTT: Sure. I understand that. I understand that. But had there not been a mob that rushed the Capitol, if they had just stayed in the original speech, if they had obeyed the instruction, go peacefully and patriotically, and make your voices heard, we would not be here. Isn't that correct?
SMITH: Well, in that case, Donald Trump wouldn't have done many of the things he did.
KNOTT: I'm just asking, if they had gone peacefully and patriotically, we would not have had a special prosecutor, President Trump would not have been indicted, there would not have been, quote, "the attack on the foundations of our democracy," correct?
SMITH: That's a hypothetical, and I think it's a counterfactual hypothetical.
KNOTT: Well, in second point, in regards to what we just heard from my colleague from Washington, I think it's noteworthy that the Vice President, despite the enormous toll that he has taken in these events, was against charging the president criminally in this case.
But in regards to my own experience, Mr. Smith, I've charged many conspiracies. There's obviously a lot of benefit to that charge. It's a useful tool for fact-finding, scrutinizing evidence, figuring out exactly what happened, trying to form charges, trying to prove charges, trying to solidify the evidence.
And in your case, sir, you've detailed, number one, the unprecedented criminal scheme, your words, not mine. In the press conference, you said there was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy. Do you remember saying that?
SMITH: I believe so, yes. And in regards to your investigative authority, it was quite broad. We've already established that you had millions of dollars at your disposal.
[12:50:06]
You had teams of lawyers. You had total subpoena power. You used campaign officials as witnesses. You subpoenaed, you know, millions of documents. You had civilian witnesses. You had political leaders. You had campaign officials that worked with the president, folks who were in the room.
And after all of this, sir, you charged a conspiracy, and notably absent. There was no insurrection charged. There was no seditious conspiracy charged. And there was only one defendant, correct? Donald Trump.
SMITH: That is correct.
KNOTT: Despite six co-conspirators identified in the indictment, only one person was charged. Is that correct?
SMITH: Yes.
KNOTT: Despite there being an unprecedented criminal scheme, you did not find it necessary to charge anybody else who was admittedly, by your own evidence, involved in a criminal conspiracy that amounted to an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy.
SMITH: Yes. At the time of the conclusion of our work, my lawyers had determined, had believed, that we did have proof to charge other people. I was in the process of making that determination when our work was concluded. But you are correct that the only person charged in this case was Donald Trump, who, in my estimation, was the person most culpable for the crimes charged.
KNOTT: Well, I understand your position, sir, but again, you started at the very top and only charged the top conspirator, in your opinion. You didn't charge anybody underneath him, correct?
SMITH: Correct.
KNOTT: Despite that charge requiring it, you would agree that a criminal conspiracy federally is a criminal agreement, correct?
SMITH: Yes.
KNOTT: So, by extension, people, under your theory, people besides the president were involved in the unprecedented assault on American democracy, but you didn't find it necessary to charge them criminally.
SMITH: I had not yet charged anyone besides the president.
KNOTT: You decided not to charge anybody but Donald Trump in that indictment.
SMITH: Consistent with the federal principles of prosecution, which emphasize the degree of someone's culpability in making a charging decision, Donald Trump is the person that was charged.
KNOTT: I understand that. I understand your position. But you made the decision to charge one person and nobody else, correct?
SMITH: I made the decision to make the charges in this case.
KNOTT: In regards to the way that the case handled from there, sir -- I just want to get this on the record -- in regards to your press conference, politics played no role, correct?
SMITH: That is correct.
KNOTT: The charges you brought, politics played no role, correct?
SMITH: Correct.
KNOTT: The expedited trial date played no role -- politics played no role, correct?
SMITH: I followed the facts and the law, department policy...
KNOTT: The speedy trial request, there was no role in politics, correct?
SMITH: That's correct. Supreme Court precedent emphasizes that... KNOTT: And even your brief that the court found atypical, politics played no role.
RASKIN: Mr. Chairman, the time has expired.
JORDAN: Time of the gentleman has expired. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized.
REP. MARY GAY SCANLON (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for being here today. I believe it's important for the American people to finally hear from you directly about your investigations that you and your office conducted with integrity, following the facts and the law without fear or favor, as is department policy.
And as people do hear from you, I think they're going to better understand why the White House and congressional Republicans are trying to rewrite history and seeking to discredit you and your investigation so that they can help the president avoid accountability for his crimes against the American people.
So I'd like to move on from some of these baseless conspiracy theories we've been hearing and focus on your actual work as special counsel. In Volume 1 of your report, you concluded that when it became clear that Mr. Trump had lost the election and that lawful means of challenging the election results had failed, he resorted to a series of criminal efforts to retain power.
Chief among those criminal efforts was Mr. Trump's dissemination of demonstrably and often obviously false claims of election fraud in key states, claims that Donald Trump himself knew weren't true. In order to pressure officials to ignore vote tallies and submit fraudulent certificates of fake electors to Congress, he repeated these false claims and ultimately used them to direct an angry mob to attack the Capitol.
So I represent Southeastern Pennsylvania, which was one of the states targeted by Mr. Trump's criminal efforts. So being mindful of the clock, I wanted to try to explore three topics.
[12:55:04]
First, the evidence that Trump made false claims of election fraud in Pennsylvania, knowing they were false. Second, the evidence concerning the submission of fake elector certificates from Pennsylvania to Congress. And third, why the evidence and witnesses concerning Trump's efforts in Pennsylvania were so compelling.
So first up, in your report and deposition, you detailed the overwhelming evidence that Trump had lost Pennsylvania and he knew it. Despite this, he and his co-conspirators continue to make false statements about that result to advance their criminal plan. Can you describe the evidence that these were false claims and they knew they were false, including statements by election officials, court cases and conversations between Trump and his Republican allies in the state? SMITH: Sure. What springs to mind most immediately is I recall one particular claim that there were more votes than ballots that had been sent out. This was a claim that was obviously false because many in even in the campaign knew that the reason for that discrepancy is we were talking about two different elections. One was the primary and one was the general election.
My team interviewed Rudy Giuliani regarding that claim and he admitted it was wrong. He admitted flat out that that was a mistake. And so that's one of several. With respect to witnesses in Pennsylvania, what springs to mind is the chair of the Republican Party, I believe, in Pennsylvania.
This is relatively early, shortly after the election, had informed Donald Trump that his -- the idea that fraud was the reason was not accurate. It was because of the counting of mail-in ballots, which was totally normal in this process. And again, this is someone who is a Republican who supported Donald Trump, wanted him to win. I submit he would have been a credible witness at trial.
SCANLON: And, I mean, a second part of this, in addition to making false claims about election results that they knew were false and your deposition and report go into this in some detail, there was also this fraudulent elector plan where Trump and his co-conspirators solicited folks who had been planning to be Trump electors if he won and asking them to submit fake certificates to Congress.
And I think what you found was pretty remarkable, including a former congressman who told the co-conspirators that this was illegal and it was an attempt to overturn the government. Is that right?
SMITH: That's correct. That particular elector who was signed up to be a legitimate elector had Donald Trump in fact won the election, was a former U.S. attorney and former member of this Congress.
SCANLON: I mean, the bottom line is that despite the facts and over objections from his allies, Trump still went to the ellipse on January 6th and lied about Pennsylvania's votes to direct his angry mob to attack the Capitol. So I just want to thank you for your work and your work and your years of service to the country. And I would invite everyone to read your deposition and to read the report because it tells a very different story than what our colleagues do.
REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D), CALIFORNIA: Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent.
JORDAN: The lady is recognized.
LOFGREN: Mr. Chairman, I have, I have -- I ask unanimous consent to enter into a record, a speech by former Vice President Pence published on C-SPAN in June of '23 --
JORDAN: Without objection.
LOFGREN: -- in which he calls the president's comments on January 6th reckless. President Trump was wrong then, he's wrong now. Anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be president. And anyone who asks someone else to put them over the Constitution should never be president.
JORDAN: Without objection.
LOFGREN: And I --
JORDAN: The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for five minutes.
REP. BEN CLINE (R), VIRGINIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, you've said several times in your deposition that you believe that the facts and the law, your interpretation of the law would lead to a conviction of President Trump. Is that correct?
SMITH: Yes.
CLINE: And did you believe that same thing that your interpretation of the law, your reading of the law would have resulted in the conviction when you went after Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell back in 2014? Did you believe it at the time?
SMITH: I did believe and --
CLINE: And ultimately you got a conviction in lower court, but that was overturned by the Supreme Court, correct?
SMITH: Yes. The Supreme Court changed the law on what constituted an official act.
CLINE: Actually, that's incorrect.
SMITH: That conviction was overturned.
CLINE: That's incorrect. They applied the law and they said in their ruling, our concern is not --
