Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Jack Smith Testifies to Congress. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired January 22, 2026 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:03]

REP. BEN CLINE (R-VA): Actually, that's incorrect.

JACK SMITH, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL: And, as a result, that conviction was overturned.

CLINE: That's incorrect. They applied the law, and they said in their ruling: "Our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes and ball gowns. It's instead with the broader legal implications of the government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.

"A more limited interpretation of the term official act leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption while comporting with the text of the statute and the precedent of this court."

They accused you of using a boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute. Now, did you believe when you went after John Edwards that your interpretation of the facts in the law were correct and that you would convict John Edwards of corruption?

SMITH: Yes.

CLINE: But, in fact, that case resulted in a jury deadlock on five charges and acquittal on another charge. Is that correct?

SMITH: That is my recollection. That's correct.

CLINE: Let's move on to the court's interpretation of your gag order requests.

Mr. Smith, America was founded on the principle that the government doesn't silence political speech, in particular, speech before it happens. You sought a prior restraint against President Trump without a single violation of pretrial release.

In fact, there was no real-world harm that you could articulate justified giving the federal government the power to silence him as a presidential candidate, was there?

SMITH: The court granted those motions and found that the prosecutor did not have to wait until someone was harmed to make such a motion.

CLINE: Actually, the request was rejected when the case was actually -- when you actually were not able to -- it was restricted, correct? The gag order was restricted, correct?

SMITH: Well, we filed for an order in the district court. The district court granted an order. Mr. -- President Trump appealed that order.

The Court of Appeals absolutely agreed that there was a basis and that the threats to witnesses that came from the targeting by Donald Trump were real and that we had a duty to protect them. You are correct, in that the Court of Appeals narrowed the order so the order covered witnesses, court staff, the judge, and my staff.

The difference was that it didn't cover me anymore, which I was fine with.

CLINE: Did you have any evidence that President Trump's statements about the cases against him intimidated witnesses or prevented them from coming forward?

SMITH: I had evidence that he said: "If you come after me, I'm coming after you."

He asked -- he suggested a witness should be put to death. The courts found that those sort of statements not only deter witnesses who've come forward. They deter witnesses who have yet to come forward.

CLINE: But you weren't able to identify a single witness who didn't come forward because they were intimidated by President Trump.

SMITH: We had extremely thorough evidence that his statements were having an effect on the proceedings that is not permitted in any court of law in the United States.

CLINE: Don't you think it's a pretty low bar to clear if you're trying to silence a candidate for president? I mean, if you can't identify a single witness who's intimidated, that maybe you should reconsider the gag order?

SMITH: Both courts upheld the orders. And it is not incumbent on a prosecutor to wait until someone gets killed before they move for an order to protect the proceedings.

CLINE: Did anyone on your team raise concerns that this expansive gag order you were seeking would infringe on President Trump's First Amendment rights?

SMITH: My recollection is that we, of course, discussed First Amendment issues regarding this application, because I and my staff respect the First Amendment.

But the First Amendment does not allow one to make statements that interfere with the administration of justice and a judicial proceeding. My interpretation was supported and agreed upon by the district court and the Court of Appeals in terms of the phenomena of the statements being made targeting individuals causing threats to happen to them. I would also add, sir, that in the days after Donald Trump made some

of these statements, the district court in this case received vile threats, threats to the district court's life. In that environment, I felt a duty as a prosecutor to make that motion. And I make no apologies.

CLINE: And the court stayed that motion on August 20, 2024. I yield back.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Gentlemen, yields back.

I should have mentioned this a little bit earlier. Mr. Smith, if ever you need a break, if you need a restroom break, you or your counsel can just let us know. I think it's now the gentleman from Colorado gets five minutes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Smith.

SMITH: Can they -- yes -- can we take a short break?

JORDAN: We will take a five-, 10-minute recess, and then we will be right back at it.

[13:05:07]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: All right, a short break there, as we are watching this breaking news on Capitol Hill for the first time, where we're hearing from former special counsel Jack Smith, testifying publicly about his past prosecutions of President Trump.

Right now, this is a short break. It seems about five minutes that he's asking for there. And so far, Smith has defended himself over and over again as Republican lawmakers rip into him.

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: At one point, Smith actually telling lawmakers President Trump -- quote -- "willfully broke the law," laws Smith says the president had sworn to uphold.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMITH: Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity.

If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or a Republican. No one, no one should be above the law in this country. And the law required that he be held to account. So that is what I did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Well, it seemed the president is paying attention to what's happening in Washington.

President Trump just a few minutes ago firing off his first reaction. You see it here in his TRUTH Social post -- quote -- "Deranged Jack Smith is being decimated before Congress. It was over when they discussed his past failures and unfair prosecutions. He destroyed many lives under the guise of legitimacy."

"Jack Smith," the president writes, "is a deranged animal who shouldn't be allowed to practice law," and also went on to say, hopefully, the attorney general is looking at what he's done. That, of course, is notable.

CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez has been following all of this throughout the morning with us.

So, walk us through your big takeaways in this moment. It's notable the president mentioned some of Jack Smith's past cases. Those have certainly been a focus.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Right.

Republicans have tried to undermine not only his record in this case, but also have tried to paint him as a political animal, someone who has repeatedly failed to go after, for instance, the former Republican governor of Virginia.

But they have also brought up, by the way, that he was at Public Integrity, the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department when they went after John Edwards. Those were failures by the Public Integrity Section, but they have tried to pin them on Jack Smith. And that's part of the game here that Republicans are playing.

They're also trying to undermine everything that was done in this case to show that essentially what Jack Smith tried to do, which is to prosecute the former president at the time, he was a former president, for the January 6 case was basically practicing politics to try to prevent Americans from being able to choose who they wanted for president, which of course, the voters of this country decided to return Donald Trump to the White House despite what happened on January 6.

So I think they're being -- I think they're being quite effective in trying to just tar him, partly because you see what -- you're seeing from Jack Smith is some hesitation. There's some tentativeness in the way he speaks, and there's a reason for that.

This is one big giant perjury trap. They are laying the work here so that, if Jack Smith says something that differs perhaps from what he said in his deposition in December or from anything else in the record, that they can use that as a referral. They have done that already with someone else that they brought in from the Smith team.

So, I think Smith is being very careful because he knows everything he says is going to be parsed and could end up causing the problems that President Trump here in his TRUTH Social post is asking for. He's asking the attorney general to go after him to prosecute him.

KEILAR: Any surprises so far?

PEREZ: Yes, I mean, I think it's been surprising that the Democrats haven't been able to turn this more as a case to essentially put Donald Trump on trial.

That's what I was expecting more of, for them to essentially give Jack Smith the opportunity to try the case that he never got to have in federal court. And you see a little bit of that here and there, but it's been largely, I think, ineffective, because Republicans have been so unrelenting in trying to get the record changed.

And then they spent a little bit of that time trying to correct what Republicans were saying.

HILL: You mentioned this is sort of a giant potential for perjury issues for Jack Smith.

Jack Smith, though, was really pushing for this. He really wanted to testify in public.

PEREZ: He did.

HILL: But part of that concern for him, right, is not just when you see the president telling Pam Bondi to go after him, but it's also because there is a record, right, from when he was testifying behind closed doors. And so there is a record that exists that he has to be careful about.

PEREZ: And there's another problem.

There is like an entire second case, the case about the classified documents that President Trump had at his Mar-a-Lago estate, and the extraordinary case that that was, and, frankly, the more damaging case against the president, that he cannot talk about, because that is under seal by a judge, by a judge's order, Judge Aileen Cannon, who is the one that tossed that case, saying that Jack Smith was illegally appointed.

[13:10:14]

She has an order that remains to this day that says he's not allowed to talk about that. And so that's one of the -- some of the tentativeness there...

HILL: Yes.

PEREZ: ... because he can't violate her order, because then he could be in trouble for that.

So there is that dance that he's playing where I think the Republicans -- you're right. The Republicans were resisting this hearing. Jack Smith wanted this publicly, but I think he would have preferred for this to be a hearing about all of the work. And, basically, half of it, he can't talk about.

KEILAR: Yes, he still does have half of it, to your point, though.

Evan, stay with us.

Let's bring in CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig. Elie, just walk us through again these two cases that Smith oversaw,

especially that one that he can talk about today.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Brianna, a very eventful morning.

Just to step back for a moment, Jack Smith, of course, became special counsel in November of 2022. He was appointed by Merrick Garland. Now, Jack Smith ended up bringing two separate federal indictments against Donald Trump, of course, one relating to the effort to steal the 2020 election, and then a separate indictment relating to his retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

As Evan just said, though, the reason you're hearing almost nothing about the classified documents case is because there's an existing order from the judge who had that case restricting what Jack Smith can say about that.

That's why 90, 95 percent of the questions have focused on the one case, the January 6 case.

KEILAR: Yes.

HILL: In terms of what we're hearing too, one of the things we have heard a lot of from Republicans are these accusations of spying over these toll records. So, these are the cell phone records that we have heard so much about.

HONIG: Yes.

HILL: What really happened there? Is it spying, Elie?

HONIG: It is not spying. So this is how the hearing opened. Jim Jordan came out with some explosive accusations. Jack Smith did obtain phone records on nine Republican members of Congress.

Later, we heard a Republican House member use that phrase spying. But Jack Smith set the record straight here. What he clarified is, first of all, these are phone records only, meaning all that he got was the phone number that called another phone number, when and for how long. There was no eavesdropping.

Jack Smith made clear he did not have a wiretap. He never had the ability to listen into these phone calls. He didn't get any transcripts of the phone calls. And the last clarification point that Jack Smith made is he obtained those records through a subpoena, which is the normal process.

Now, there are fair political questions about whether Jack Smith should have done this. This has been a recurring theme. However, Jack Smith made clear that, when he got those subpoenas, he was doing his best to abide by DOJ's guidelines and practices.

KEILAR: Lots of questions too about former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson. Tell us about that. HONIG: Yes, so Cassidy Hutchinson, people will probably remember, was

a key witness in the congressional January 6 hearings back in the summer of 2022.

Jim Jordan came right out and asked Jack Smith -- quote -- "Is Cassidy Hutchinson a liar?"

What Jack Smith explained is that Cassidy Hutchinson had this testimony you may remember about this dramatic incident that happened in the presidential SUV, where Donald Trump allegedly lunged for the steering wheel. But Jack Smith said Cassidy Hutchinson's original testimony and her testimony to Jack Smith was that that was secondhand hearsay.

She never said: I witnessed this. She said somebody else, this other Secret Service agent, told me about it.

So Jack Smith seemed to acknowledge that that testimony would not be technically admissible at trial, but that's different than somebody being a liar. Jim Jordan actually asked, would you have called Cassidy Hutchinson as a trial witness? Jack Smith deferred. He did not commit to answering that one either way.

HILL: Absolutely.

We have also -- speaking of that Cassidy Hutchinson testimony, we have heard a lot about January 6 so far this morning. What stands out to you, Elie, in those moments?

HONIG: Yes, Erica, there was a really interesting moment when Representative Hank Johnson brought up the White House Web site that's seeking to recast much of what happened on January 6, 2021.

Representative Johnson read those pieces to Jack Smith. And Jack Smith sort of stressed two fundamental things, first of all, that this was a violent assault on the Capitol, no matter how you spin it, no matter what else may have gone around it. Jack Smith stressed that that was one of his key findings.

And, second of all, in Jack Smith's view, according to the indictments he brought, those attacks were caused by Donald Trump. Now, later, a Republican congressman pointed out you never charged Donald Trump with insurrection, never actually directly charged Donald Trump with responsibility for the January 6 attack.

As Jack Smith has made clear, his indictment really relates to the weeks long effort leading up to January 6 to steal the election by what Jack Smith considers fraud. So there's a lot of back-and-forth, Brianna and Erica. You can see the tenor is varying greatly depending on who's asking the questions.

HILL: Yes.

HONIG: Democrats are trying to bring it back to the facts that Jack Smith brought. Republicans are trying to poke holes in the way he went about this investigation, arguing that he was really a political missive more than a prosecutor.

KEILAR: There's also this sort of -- as this plays out a little bit like a court case, right?

HONIG: Sure.

KEILAR: And you have the two sides here.

[13:15:00]

There's this attempt by Democrats, Elie, to introduce evidence by U.C., which is unanimous consent. You just sort of say like, all right, everyone just agree to this.

HONIG: Right.

KEILAR: They have been trying to introduce things like the Chris Krebs statement that 2020 was the most secure election ever. I'm sort of paraphrasing, but really that pretty much describes it, a Christopher Wray statement. There was a Giuliani statement.

These are just kind of factual things, right, that you can read about in the news. There are bits of evidence that could be introduced. And someone is objecting, presumably a Republican. I'm not sure which one. They're putting Republicans in this position of having to object to the unanimous consent.

It's sort of an interesting device that we're seeing play out in this hearing. I wonder what you make of it.

HONIG: Well, it's an interesting blending of congressional tactics and trial tactics.

And this is what you're seeing. In between each set of questioning, you will see a member say, I offer this article, I offer that news article, and Jim Jordan saying unanimous consent. Someone's objecting, and then they're being -- so essentially admitted into the congressional record.

And I think the point, Brianna, that Democrats are pointing at is that various people, many people told Donald Trump that 2020 was a safe and secure election, and others told him that he had lost. One of the Republican House members, though, tried to rebut that a few minutes ago by asking Jack Smith, well, Donald Trump was also told by several of his advisers, you may not like them, but several of Donald Trump's advisers told them that he had won the election.

Therefore, this representative argued, the record was mixed, and therefore, she argued, your indictment was flawed. Now, Jack Smith, again, stands by his indictment, but that's absolutely a dynamic that we have seen going back and forth throughout the morning.

KEILAR: Yes, I think it was Congressman Darrell Issa basically saying it's not a crime for Donald Trump to think that he won.

Of course, there, as you are hearing from Jack Smith, he believes that Trump broke the law and that he had evidence to prove it.

Elie, thank you so much for taking us through there.

HONIG: Thanks, guys.

KEILAR: We are keeping our eye right now on this hearing room. It appears that imminently, this is going to begin again. They took this brief recess just for a handful of minutes, and you see Jack Smith there, the former special counsel, walking into the building.

Let's listen in.

REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): ... recognizes that Donald Trump's statements about the judge in his case have led to threats against the judge where callers labeled the judge and clerk -- quote -- "Nazis, dirty Jews, and child molesters" and represent -- quote -- "Mr. Trump's documented pattern of speech, and it's demonstrated real-time, real-world consequences without a significant and imminent threat to the function of the criminal trial process in this case."

(CROSSTALK)

JORDAN: Without objection. A lot. And the gentleman from Colorado is recognized for five minutes.

REP. JOE NEGUSE (D-CO): Thank you.

Mr. Smith, thank you for being here. Thank you for your service to our country.

My colleague from Virginia, a Republican colleague who was questioning you right before the break. do you know what he said in the days after January 6? Let me share this with you.

This is a quote of his from a press release on January 8: "Congress stands united in our rejection of the violence that occurred this week. And I will continue to urge the swift prosecution of those involved to the fullest extent of the law."

Mr. Smith, this is theater. Republicans are trying to rewrite history. That's what this is. Many of them were with us in the House chamber on January 6. I remember it well. The chairman was there, as was I. There's been a lot of discussion about witnesses today.

Perhaps the chairman could muster the courage to call the four witnesses who I see, the American public may not see, I see standing behind you, Mr. Smith, the four police officers who risked everything, life and limb, to do what? To protect the Republican members on the dais.

It's an outrage that they now sit here and have the audacity to try to rewrite history in front of the very officers who sacrificed everything to protect them.

Mr. Smith, you're, of course, aware that President Trump was impeached for his conduct connected to January 6, right? SMITH: Correct.

NEGUSE: Do you know how many members of Congress voted to impeach him?

SMITH: I don't recall.

NEGUSE: Two hundred and thirty-two.

Do you know how many Republican members of Congress voted to impeach him?

SMITH: I don't recall.

NEGUSE: Ten Republican members of Congress voted to impeach him for his conduct related to January 6, including, at the time, the sitting Republican chairwoman of their conference.

There was a trial in the United States Senate. Senators sat as jurors. I remember it well because I was one of the prosecutors who prosecuted that case. Do you know how many senators voted to convict President Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors during that trial, Mr. Smith?

[13:20:13]

SMITH: I don't recall.

NEGUSE: Fifty-seven senators.

Do you know how many Republicans voted to convict him?

SMITH: I don't recall.

NEGUSE: Seven Republican United States senators voted to convict President Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors. It was the most bipartisan vote for conviction of a president in the history of the republic.

So they can engage in as much histrionics as they want to try to rewrite history, but facts are facts. They talk about weaponization. They accuse you of weaponization of the justice system, while the Federal Reserve Board chairman rings the alarm about political retaliation by this Department of Justice.

Mr. Smith, I don't know if you're aware of this. I don't know if your counsel has made you aware that President Trump is live-tweeting live -- I guess you call it TRUTH Socialing as we speak. Are you aware of this about this hearing?

SMITH: No.

NEGUSE: Let me read to you what he posted an hour-and-a-half ago.

"Deranged Jack Smith is being decimated before Congress. It was over when they discussed his past failures and unfair prosecutions. He destroyed many lives under the guise of legitimacy. Jack Smith is a deranged animal who shouldn't be allowed to practice law. If you're a Republican, his license would be taken away from him and far worse. Hopefully, the attorney general is looking at what he's done."

We have a word for this. It's called weaponization. It's called corruption. Mr. Smith, if you care to respond, I will give you an opportunity, but I will simply say we are grateful for your service to this country. We appreciate your fidelity to the rule of law, and I would echo the comments that have been made by my Democratic colleagues to ignore the noise that you hear from so many of my colleagues who would debase themselves in this way.

It is, in my view, subversive of the oaths that we took to defend the Constitution. I'm happy to give you an opportunity, Mr. Smith, if you would like to respond.

SMITH: I don't have anything to add.

NEGUSE: Thank you for your service. I yield back.

JORDAN: The gentleman yields back.

The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.

REP. THOMAS TIFFANY (R-WI): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In 2010, Mr. Smith, did you work for the President Obama's Department of Justice?

SMITH: Yes, in 2010, I was the chief of the Public Integrity Section.

TIFFANY: During that time, did you have any contact or connection with Lois Lerner with the Obama IRS?

SMITH: Yes. I was new to the Public Integrity Section. I was the chief. I was trying to learn about issues. I had not been at...

TIFFANY: Did you attempt to work with Lois Lerner and the IRS to investigate nonprofits?

SMITH: What I did was, I asked for a meeting with the IRS about nonprofits. They...

TIFFANY: So the simple answer is yes.

SMITH: Well, I didn't ask to work with Ms. Lerner. They sent Ms. Lerner. That's the person who came to this meeting. I met her once.

TIFFANY: And they went after Second Amendment groups, correct? If you remember correctly, that was -- that's what was the offshoot of it, that Second Amendment groups that tried to gain nonprofit status, they were slow-rolled through the IRS. Do you recall that?

SMITH: Separate from this, there was an investigation of that, that I was a part of at Public Integrity.

TIFFANY: Did you -- you prosecuted Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. This was asked earlier. You prosecuted him, correct?

SMITH: I was a part of the prosecution, yes.

TIFFANY: And that ended up with a being -- that decision ended up being unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court, correct?

SMITH: That is correct, sir.

TIFFANY: Yes, including Justice Ginsburg joined in on that opinion, correct?

SMITH: I believe that's correct.

TIFFANY: Yes.You also prosecuted John Edwards and Bob Menendez, and those both ended in mistrials, is that right?

SMITH: The John Edwards case did. The Menendez case, I had left the Public Integrity Section by the time that case was tried. I wasn't...

(CROSSTALK)

TIFFANY: So, Mr. Chairman, what we heard from the other side here is that this gentleman is the gold standard for prosecution here in the United States. So think about it. We had a witch-hunt done by the IRS, going after Second Amendment groups, unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court, prosecuted two prominent political figures, and they ended up as mistrials.

That's the gold standard here in America? I would just say this, Mr. Chairman. If Mr. Smith ever works for the Department of Justice again, I would recommend a remedial course on the First Amendment to the Constitution.

[13:25:05]

Before I yield the rest of my time, Mr. Smith, I just have one other question. Is there any historical precedent for an alternate slate of electors to be sent to Congress? Has that ever happened before?

SMITH: That had happened, not anything similar to this situation, but you're correct. It was in Hawaii. I think it was Hawaii in, I want to say the 1960 election.

TIFFANY: So it has happened before that there was an alternate slate of electors that was sent to Congress, which does the electoral count, correct?

SMITH: There was a prior time that an electoral slate was sent where there was litigation and recounts going on.

TIFFANY: Actually, there's twice that had had happened, Mr. Chairman. It happened in 1876 and 1960 that these alternate electors happened. And I'd like to ask unanimous consent to introduce the 1960 Hawaii case here.

JORDAN: Without objection. TIFFANY: With that, I yield to the chairman.

JORDAN: I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

The gentleman from Colorado talked about noise from this side. It's not noise. It's facts. The fact is, you approved a $20,000 payment to a confidential human source. And I think you said earlier the reason this individual or entity or person was paid was to review photo and video evidence.

Why'd they have to be confidential? Why didn't you just contract with them?

SMITH: My understanding is that this person was a confidential human source with the FBI. I do not know why they were confidential, but it would make sense to me, given that this person was assisting...

JORDAN: Well, what confidential just raises the question of, what were you trying to hide? Why not tell us? We know you hid the fact that you were getting phone records from members of Congress. We want to know why this payment had to be hidden. Why couldn't you just contract, which would be the customary normal way, I think, of doing it?

SMITH: I did not make the determination that this source would be confidential. But given that this person was working on an investigation involving attacks on the Capitol, and given the violence in that, it makes complete sense to me that this -- the bureau would want a civilian who was...

JORDAN: Do you know of any of the other special counsels who approved payments to -- like, I don't remember Robert Mueller approving payments to confidential human sources. I don't remember Durham. I don't remember Hur.

We brought all those guys in front of the committee. This is he first time I have ever heard of a special counsel having to pay secret money to someone to get information when you had the broadest subpoena power you could possibly have. Are you aware of any of the other special counsels who had to do this?

SMITH: I am not aware whether confidential sources were or were not used in those investigations.

JORDAN: That's because I don't think they were. I don't think they were.

SMITH: I'm not aware one way or the other. I can say that the use of confidential human sources is a standard thing done by the Federal Bureau of Investigations.

JORDAN: The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired. I now yield to the gentlelady from Georgia for five minutes, Ms. McBath.

REP. LUCY MCBATH (D-GA): Thank you, Chairman. And, Mr. Smith, thank you for appearing today to speak publicly about

the major issues that you handled as special counsel. Your work on election interference in my home state is especially important, as Georgia still today remains ground zero for voting rights.

My state has a long history of voter suppression, including violent tactics and legislation that has actively disfranchised our voters. In fact, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Georgia in 2023 challenging recently passed voter suppression legislation.

That lawsuit was later withdrawn by Donald Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi. But this is not the first time that Donald Trump has encouraged voter suppression. In the 2020 presidential election, which many have accepted that he lost, he pressured his party members to overturn a legal election.

Thankfully, several public servants upheld our constitutional process and respected the voice of the people. Your investigation revealed how far he is willing to go.

In your final report, you wrote that -- and I'm quoting -- "The through line of all Mr. Trump's criminal efforts was deceit, knowingly false claims of fraud."

Mr. Smith, what did your investigation reveal about President Trump's interactions with Georgia's officials regarding his frauds claims?

SMITH: As I sit here now, I can recall two specific officials.

The first was the secretary of state, who is a fellow Republican. My understanding, he voted for and supported Donald Trump in the election, but told Donald Trump in a conversation that was recorded in no uncertain terms the results of the election and debunked many of the fraud claims that Donald Trump had to him in real time.