Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Jack Smith Testifies Before Senate Committee on Trump Investigations; Lindsay Clancy Back in Court for First Time Since Murder Case Mistrial. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired September 29, 2026 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer with Pamela Brown, and you're in The Situation Room.

Happening right now, we're following three breaking news stories this morning. First, a very important lunch date. In just a few hours, President Trump will meet with leading A.I. executives over at the White House. On the menu, the growing concerns about the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence technology.

Also, Pamela?

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Quote, I will not be silenced. Those are words from Jack Smith, who is facing a Senate Judiciary Committee right now. The former special counsel is expected to defend his decision to prosecute the president.

And for the first time since the judge declared a mistrial, Lindsay Clancy returns to court. We are live in Massachusetts as the judge determines what happens next for the mother who killed her three young children.

BLITZER: Now, let's begin with the major breaking news we're following right now. The former U.S. special counsel, Jack Smith, is currently testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, defending his legal authority to prosecute President Trump.

Remember, Smith secured two, yes, two federal criminal indictments against President Trump under the Biden Justice Department, one for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election, the other for mishandling classified documents. Both cases were dismissed before trial, but Smith has long drawn the fury of President Trump and his allies, who say those investigations were politically motivated.

Today marks the second time the former special counsel is publicly defending those investigations under oath, and he's making it very clear that he stands firmly behind the legitimacy of his work and will not be silenced.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JACK SMITH, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL: 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Let's go live right now to our Senior Justice Correspondent Evan Perez. He's up on Capitol Hill watching all of this unfold. Evan, you've done extensive reporting on Jack Smith's investigations. What are you watching for today?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, you're going to hear a lot from Republicans who are trying to paint the investigations that Jack Smith oversaw as politicized, as weaponization against Republicans, against the president of the United States. Of course, at the time, he was former president when Jack Smith was investigating him.

And what you hear there, what you heard there from Smith, is him backing up everything that happened in that investigation, that everything he believes that was done not for political purposes, as the president and some of his Republican allies in this room want to point -- want to make it out to be, that what he was doing was following the law and trying to bring a case.

For instance, there is going to be a lot of focus -- already is a lot of focus, on phone records belonging to members of Congress, bank records belonging to conservative organizations that were subpoenaed as part of this investigation.

Wolf and Pamela, you know, we know that that's a routine part of building a case. If you're doing a criminal case, you subpoena those records as part of an effort to make that case. Republicans say that they should never have -- that should never have happened because that was politicization. And so that's what a lot of the focus that we're going to hear about the questioning of Jack Smith over the next several hours.

BLITZER: It's certainly going to be lively indeed.

Evan Perez up on the Hill for us, thank you very, very much. Pamela?

BROWN: All right. I want to dip in now to this court hearing, the status conference, to determine whether there will be a second trial for Lindsay Clancy. Let's listen in.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But we are objecting to proceeding on that motion today. The reason for that is that we received the motion last Monday. It was our understanding that today was scheduled for possible trial assignment and the Rule 25 motion. We learned on Friday when defense counsel or someone working with him sent an email to the clerk that they would like to argue the motion today.

[10:05:06]

We were not aware that was going to happen, and so we've really had a very limited time in which to delve into this 34-page memorandum that was submitted by defense counsel and prepare for this motion today.

So, we are asking for more time on that than what we've had up to this point.

JUDGE WILLIAM SULLIVAN, MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT: All right. Counsel?

KEVIN REDDINGTON, LINDSAY CLANCY'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It's a matter of Your Honor's discretion. I'm prepared to argue it today. The Commonwealth has had eight days. It's a significant motion raising important issues that, if Your Honor was to decide in favor of the defendant, it would moot out a lot of the other issues. It would require an end to this litigation. I'm prepared to argue it today, Judge.

SULLIVAN: All right. Well, I appreciate that. But to be fair to both sides, this was a significant motion filed within the time span. There's certainly nothing -- not criticizing the defense for filing it and the timing of it, but I do understand the Commonwealth may need some additional time.

So, can we put that also on for that November 2nd date?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, Your Honor.

SULLIVAN: Counsel?

REDDINGTON: I'm available that day.

SULLIVAN: All right. So, why don't we -- we will hear that motion to dismiss on November 2nd.

The Commonwealth intend to file a memorandum in opposition?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, Your Honor.

SULLIVAN: All right. So, if you could file that maybe at least a week before the hearing date, that would be helpful.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, Your Honor.

SULLIVAN: All right. Then there's also it was filed I think yesterday or this morning, Commonwealth's motion to bar prejudicial extrajudicial statements, Commonwealth, are you ready to argue that motion?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. SULLIVAN: All right. Defendant?

REDDINGTON: Sure.

SULLIVAN: All right. Well, the other question is whether I am. All right this is a motion that was filed late yesterday. I didn't see it until about 5:00 this morning. So, I've had an -- I was also reviewing a number of the other motions. This raises some significant constitutional questions as well as under the Massachusetts law.

I'm going to suggest that we set a date on that so that the court can be ready as well as the counsel. Put that on November 2nd as well?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sure.

SULLIVAN: All right. And then I know there's a related motion filed by The Globe regarding access to arguments in sidebar conferences. I just received that last night as well. So, I'm not ready to address that. We'll mark that up for hearing. We'll reach out to counsel who filed that. We can set that up for a hearing.

REDDINGTON: All right, sir.

SULLIVAN: So, why don't we go forward first on the motion for required finding and then we can deal with the other motions and then we talk about schedule. Okay? All right, Mr. Reddington? Or I don't know which -- are you going to argue the Rule 25?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sure.

SULLIVAN: Okay.

REDDINGTON: Thank you. Your Honor, you know the posture at this point obviously is that the government rested. I filed a motion under Rule 25 for required finding. The court denied the motion. We then proceeded with the defense. When the defense rested, I renewed the motion for required finding procedurally. The court denied the motion.

The government then commenced their rebuttal case. When the government rested the rebuttal case and the case concluded, I renewed the motion for required finding, and this is a request for the court at this point to enter an order allowing a motion for required finding of not guilty.

The issue is really two. You've got, as it goes back to the motion for bifurcation, you may recall, I know you do, that I had filed the motion requesting that the court bifurcate the trial itself, arguing the Massachusetts Constitution, the difference in the language between the Mass Constitution and the Federal Constitution as it relates to presenting evidence against oneself whether or not it's an impingement on a defendant's rights to due process as well as their 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment due process rights to require a person who is asserting a defense of lack of criminal responsibility to have both issues tried.

[10:10:23] In other words, whether the person committed the offense and whether or not the person at the time of the commission of the offense lacked criminal responsibility. Two separate issues. But the way our present statute and law is set up, and as Your Honor denied that motion in your memorandum, you indicated obviously that we have to go forward on one trial, whether or not it's because of money that it would cost a lot of money to try two cases for anybody asserting a defense, a lack of criminal responsibility, or whether or not it's logistics, I don't know, but I suggest to the court that it's readily apparent that you are put in a conundrum where you have to, in effect, admit culpability, if you will, to raise the issue of lack of criminal responsibility.

Now, many, many laypeople have difficulty understanding the concept of the bifurcation and say, well, you know, she admitted that she did it, so she's guilty, and therefore she's just guilty, and then they go off on a tangent about all of these horrific allegations, you know, that she's a demon, and she's possessed, and she should be executed. And this is coming from politicians, you know, all from President Trump all the way down.

So, we end up trying the case. I tried to raise the issue as best I could on the issue of probable cause. The jury was instructed by you that they did have the obligation to make a determination as to whether or not the government has presented evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this young woman was actually guilty of this offense.

Your Honor then proceeded to indicate appropriately that in the event that the jury determined that there was evidence that in fact she had indeed committed the offense they would then proceed to the issue of whether or not the government sustained its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that in fact she was not suffering from a mental disease or defect such as which would have an effect on her being either unable to appreciate the criminality of the conduct alleged or in a disjunctive conform the conduct to the requirements of the law, which is our black letter law definition of lack of criminal responsibility.

So, I'd like to kind of bifurcate this argument this morning in the same way. And what I would do is address first the issue of the government's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And it's not riding the horse two ends against the middle and trying to play games with the system or gamesmanship or anything.

This is a constitutional due process obligation that the government -- when the government charges a person with a criminal offense, they have that burden of proof on each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your Honor knows from your review and recollection of the evidence that was presented, I submit to the court that a motion for required finding of not guilty should have been entered on the total and complete lack of evidence to indicate to a rational juror, which is consistent with the Lattimore standard, consistent with Jackson versus Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, where the courts note that to sustain the denial of a directed verdict, they call it directed verdict, we call it required finding.

It is not enough for the court to find that there was some record evidence, which is always what the government always argues. They go, There's some re-there's some record evidence here. There was an evidence on this, evidence on that element. Dr. Saathoff testified to something, and there's enough for a jury. It's a question of fact. No, that's not the standard. The standard is whether or not that there is evidence that a court is able to determine that there's record evidence to support each essential element of the offense.

It must find that there is enough evidence that could have satisfied a rational trier of fact of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. We consider the directed verdict standard required by Jackson versus Virginia to be comparable to that heretofore applied in Commonwealth versus Cooper, and that's in Lattimore.

[10:15:00]

Jackson case further indicates that the evidence must not just be some record evidence. It has to be reliable, and it has to be sufficient that would allow a rational juror to make a determination beyond a reasonable doubt, not just that there's some record evidence that touches on each element of the offense.

So, I ask the court to hearken back to the evidence that was presented and ask yourself, where's the evidence that she did this? Where is the evidence that she did this? You have a situation where Patrick comes home. Your Honor recalls the evidence that he indicates that when he came home, that he enters the house, he puts the food down on the table, comes back from the restaurant.

It's quiet, eerily quiet, as the government indicates in their motion. That he then indicates that he goes upstairs into the bedroom. After yelling downstairs to the basement, there's no response. He goes upstairs, and when he goes upstairs, he goes into the bedroom, and, Your Honor, will recall that the evidence is that he's able to make an observation that the window is open.

It's cold in the room. He sees blood. My memory is that it appeared as though it was sprayed on the walls. In fact, Your Honor may recall from the last hearing --

BROWN: All right. You've been listening to Kevin Reddington, the attorney for Lindsay Clancy. This is a hearing to determine whether there should be a second trial in the Lindsay Clancy case after there was a mistrial, as you'll probably recall, a few weeks ago.

So, let's go live now to CNN's Jean Casarez, who is right outside the courtroom. So, what are the takeaways for you, Jean?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I think number one would have to be we are not hearing that there has been a deal. We are not hearing that this case is over. This is an active criminal case right now, and they are proceeding as such in arguing these motions. So, I think that's number one. Number two, we saw stand up in court the Massachusetts attorney, we do not know her name, I don't believe it was read in court, but the Massachusetts attorney for the holdout juror. He now has representation here in Massachusetts, and she was asked by the judge to file a memorandum of what she wants this court.

Because, remember, there is an outstanding motion from the defense that they want to collect his cellphone, that they want surveillance video of outside the jury deliberation room to be preserved to see what he was doing. They want his confidential questionnaire to be preserved to see what he wrote on that.

They want this juror to be brought into court, according to the defense motion, to be asked a number of questions of whether they were faithful and true and honest in what they did during their deliberations and what was on their cellphone. He now has representation.

November 2nd will be the date we will hear more about that, of this lone holdout juror. Number two motion to dismiss. Defense filed it, prosecution said, we have not had a chance to respond. It was just filed. November 2nd is when the motion to dismiss will be heard.

And now the current motion that is being actually argued by the defense is asking the judge to make a determination of finding Lindsay Clancy on his own not guilty. Why? Because of insufficiency of the evidence, that there was not evidence presented to this jury that any jury rationally could have found beyond reasonable doubt that she knew right from wrong, that she knew what she was doing.

And so that's where we are at this point, but my headline is still that this case continues onward. And we have learned the name of the attorney representing Juror Doe, that is how he is being referred to in this courtroom. Remember, the judge still has an order that jurors are to remain anonymous, at least inside the courtroom. Heather O'Connor is the attorney representing Juror Doe now here in Massachusetts, who has become a big focal point to the defense argument that this case should be outright dismissed because of that juror.

BROWN: All right. Jean Casarez in Plymouth, thank you.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Breaking news. Lindsay Clancy is back in a Massachusetts courtroom for the first time since the judge in her triple murder case declared a mistrial. The judge is addressing questions about a potential retrial. We, of course, will bring you any updates or decisions as they come in.

Wolf, over to you.

BLITZER: There's more breaking news we're following up on Capitol Hill, Pamela. The former special counsel, Jack Smith, currently testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, defending, strongly defending his legal authority to prosecute President Trump. Remember, Smith secured two, yes, two federal criminal indictments against President Trump under the Biden Justice Department.

He's being questioned by Senator Chris Coons of Delaware right now. Let's listen in.

SMITH: -- investigated was predicated upon Donald Trump preying on party loyalty. He preyed on party loyalty and fear, fear that he could force people to do things.

The reality is, one of the reasons our democracy held up, one of the reasons he was not able to take power even though he was seeking to do these things, is because Republicans stood up. Our witnesses, the strongest witnesses, would've been Republican members of Congress.

[10:25:01]

I personally find it very hard to understand how our investigation can be viewed as partisan when the strongest witnesses, the people who were the difference between the rule of law standing and not in our case, were Republicans, people like Rusty Bowers in Arizona, people like Mike Pence, who did the right thing and put the interest of the country over the personal interest of Donald Trump. I just don't understand how an investigation predicated on witnesses like that can be partisan.

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): Mr. Smith, what signal do you think it sends that President Trump when he was reelected carried out mass firings of career nonpartisan prosecutors? What message do you think that sent to Americans interested in raising their hand to serve their nation or to law enforcement, prosecutors, judges throughout our system of law?

SMITH: I think the message it sends is that public servants will not be protected. And if we cannot protect public servants who enforce the rule of law without fear or favor, the Justice Department cannot work, and it cannot have credibility. That is why we have seen the erosion of the credibility of the department in courts across this country.

It's important, I believe, incredibly important, to protect public servants if we want to have a rule of law that works.

COONS: I want to focus my last two minutes on NDOs, or so-called non- disclosure orders. The special counsel's investigation into unprecedented efforts to unturn a presidential election was lawful and necessary. I want you to briefly walk me through the process by which you obtained non-disclosure orders for the toll records of members of Congress. These types of NDO requests are fairly typical in DOJ investigations, and your NDO requests were fully compliant with the Department of Justice policy at the time. Is that correct?

SMITH: That is correct, and we had, in my view, an ample legal basis to seek non-disclosure orders in this case.

COONS: In fact, the same thing happened to Democratic members of Congress during the first Trump administration, confirmed by a 2024 DOJ I.G. report. Is that correct?

SMITH: I believe that's correct. The thing that was unique to our case is the extreme concern over obstruction of our investigation, intimidation of witnesses, destruction of evidence, and interference with the integrity of the investigation by Donald Trump and his co- conspirators.

COONS: Let me close on this point. My Republican colleagues, including some longtime friends, have tried to suggest there was something wrong with your decision to obtain non-disclosure orders during your investigation. I believe the government bar, the current bar, for granting NDOs may be too low, and that government requests for secrecy are too often granted. My NDO Fairness Act with Senator Mike Lee would ensure NDOs are only issued in circumstances requiring secrecy in a way that would better protect all Americans, including members of Congress. This bill has already passed the House by voice vote.

The Constitution protects Americans' right to privacy in their personal communications, but we can only assert that right if we know our privacy has been violated. I'm not suggesting you've done anything wrong. I'm just suggesting that if I have colleagues who were enraged by your legal and appropriate and timely pursuit of NDOs, there's something we can and should do about it.

You said in your opening that while fear may be contagious, courage is as well. I want to thank you for your courage, for standing up to relentless biased attacks on you and your family, for groundless conspiracy theories, and for, frankly, the shocking lack of forceful engagement by my colleagues to defend the rule of law in the face of one of the most challenging, treacherous moments in our democracy's history, the assaults on this Capitol and our Constitution of January 6th.

Thank you, Mr. Smith.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Without objection, I'll enter into the record the --

BLITZER: All right. So we've been listening to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Democratic senator, Chris Coons, asking questions, making statements about the former special counsel Jack Smith, who's testifying under oath about his investigation into President Trump.

We're going to continue to monitor this important testimony, get back to it. But right now, I want to go back to Plymouth, Massachusetts right now. That's where Lindsay Clancy is now back in court for the first time since her mistrial.

REDDINGTON: -- a reasonable doubt. And as this woman sits in front of you today, I suggest to the court they did not prove probable cause, and they certainly did not prove that she was not acting at the time of a psychosis and should be found not guilty.

[10:30:02]