Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith appears before the House Oversight Committee. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired January 22, 2026 - 13:30   ET

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

[13:30:00]

JACK SMITH, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL: -- 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.

In addition to that, I recall that Donald Trump also spoke firsthand with the Attorney General of your state, also a Republican, who informed Donald Trump that he had supported him and voted for him twice in the past. He also told Donald Trump he did not see outcome- determinative fraud in that state.

REP. LUCY MCBATH, (D-GA): I had an audio from a phone call between Trump and the Georgia Secretary of State regarding the 2020 election. Could you please play the audio?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: They are angry. The people of the country are angry, and there's nothing wrong with saying that you've recalculated.

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, SECRETARY OF STATE, GEORGIA: Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong.

TRUMP: So, look, all I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCBATH: Mr. Smith, you explained in your deposition that Georgia Secretary of State was one of the witnesses who disabused President Trump's false claims. How did Georgia Secretary of State push back against Trump's efforts?

SMITH: I think my recollection is, in this same call, President Trump repeatedly raised fraud claims, and the Secretary of State repeatedly explained not only that they weren't true, but I believe my recollection is, in several instances, explained why they weren't true.

And I believe that call ended -- my recollection is that it ended with President Trump, in essence, threatening the Secretary of State that he might be a target for criminal prosecution if he didn't do what President Trump wanted him to do. MCBATH: So, see, that raises a very critical point. President Trump didn't just spread lies about the election. In your words, and I'm quoting, "He preyed on" Republican officials in Georgia and other states who believed would help him. Mr. Smith, Donald Trump thought these officials would break the law out of party loyalty. And when those officials, his own political allies, told him the truth, he dismissed them and continued to spread the lies anyway. Is that correct?

SMITH: That is correct.

MCBATH: Mr. Smith, if your case had gone to trial, would the evidence from Georgia have helped prove that President Trump knowingly engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 election?

SMITH: Yes. After an investigation, following the facts and the law, we believed we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt to prove those charges.

MCBATH: And in your deposition, you mentioned a fake elector witness in Georgia who you thought would have been a very powerful witness at trial. Can you tell us a little bit more about that in a very limited amount of time?

SMITH: Sure. It was a witness who had been made to understand that his electoral vote, his alternative electoral vote, would only be used if they won in court, if they won in litigation. That didn't happen, and President Trump and his co-conspirators tried to use those alternative fake electoral certificates to get Mike Pence --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Chairman, in regular order --

MCBATH: OK. Well, Mr. Smith, thank you so much for your -- the work that you and your team of career prosecutors have put forth in uncovering this evidence. The American people need to know what happened, and they need to know how their president pressured Georgia state officials -- to overturn their free and fair elections. And I yield

JIM JORDAN, (R-OH) CHAIRMAN, HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: Time of the gentlelady has expired. Gentleman from Alabama has unanimous consent request.

REP. BARRY MOORE, (R-AL): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. December 6, 2025, Atlanta News First. Fulton County admits to verifying 315,000 votes into 2020 without poll worker signatures. I yield back.

JORDAN: Without objection, the Chair now recognizes for five minutes the gentleman from Arizona.

REP. ANDY BIGGS, (R-AZ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, isn't it true that for a federal criminal conspiracy charge, it requires more than one individual? In other words, you're making a contractual agreement of some kind with somebody other than yourself, right?

SMITH: That is correct. There has to be an agreement. BIGGS: And so, when you made the determination to charge President Trump with conspiracy, you surely knew that you had somebody else that he must have agreed upon somewhere to engage in this act that generated the conspiracy, right?

SMITH: That's correct. We alleged specific individuals in the indictment as co-conspirators.

BIGGS: And so, when you -- so you knew you were going to do when you -- who you were going to charge when you pursued the indictment. You had the -- you know who the agreeing parties were, but you chose to list them as co-conspirators, but you didn't indict them.

[13:35:00]

How often have you done that in the past?

SMITH: In the past, I have had a number of cases where I have charged some members of a conspiracy and not charged others.

BIGGS: No, no, no. One member of the conspiracy. How many times have you done that? Charged some -- one member of the conspiracy and let everybody else off the hook?

SMITH: I'm sure that's happened. That is not unusual.

BIGGS: You don't remember doing that?

SMITH: That is not an uncommon thing to do in an investigation, in my opinion.

BIGGS: So, OK. I dispute that, but we're going to leave that as it may, but let's just get to this. If a member of Congress moves to decertify a state's electors, that would not be a crime, would it?

SMITH: When you say to decertify --

BIGGS: Make a motion to decertify, on that January 6th, every four years, that's not a crime, right?

SMITH: Correct.

BIGGS: And if another elected official urged someone to join them in that decertification, that's not a crime either, right?

SMITH: As you stated, it's not.

BIGGS: Several members of Congress get together over breakfast. They say, this is the normal path. We watched it because we saw the Democrats do it for every Republican president. So, we're not sure how to do it. We've never done it before. That's not a crime to sit down at breakfast to talk about that or any other time together to talk about decertification, is it?

SMITH: No, it's not a crime to talk about that over breakfast. BIGGS: In your deposition, you talked about -- you made the argument that an elected official who's been deemed to have lost could not knowingly make false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government operation. Isn't that true? That's what you said in your deposition. Page 27.

SMITH: I believe it's a lawful government function.

BIGGS: Yeah, I'm sorry. Lawful government function, that's what you said. You remember saying that?

SMITH: I said lawful government function. Could you read back what you said again? I'm sorry.

BIGGS: Yeah. An elected, it is -- see, an elected official who's been deemed to have lost could not knowingly make false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function. You said that would be illegal. Remember that, Page 27? Do you want me to actually read this back? Surely, you remember that position.

(CROSSTALK)

SMITH: I'm not denying it, and I apologize. I'm just trying to listen to you closely.

BIGGS: OK, let's just go right from this. You said, as we have said in the indictment, he was free to say that he thought he won the election, right?

SMITH: That is correct.

BIGGS: He was even free to say falsely -- falsely that he won the election, correct?

SMITH: That's correct.

BIGGS: What you said is he was not free to do was violate federal law and use knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function.

SMITH: That is correct.

BIGGS: Yeah, and for you, that lawful government function is the certification process, I suppose, on January 6th.

SMITH: Well, it's slightly broader than that. It's the collecting, counting, and certifying of the votes. Our view of the evidence is that begins from the point of time that the electors are certified through the counting of the votes. So that would be --

BIGGS: So the entire certification process from the state to the feds?

SMITH: My recollection, as it's pled in the indictment, as I sit here, I don't have it in front of me, but I believe it's from December 14th. I think that was the day through the voting. BIGGS: BIGGS: OK, so -- so you can't recall, but for you, it's from the certification moving forward to the sort of actual ratification of the certification process in -- on Inaugural Day.

SMITH: My recollection, that's what we pled in the indictment. Yes.

BIGGS: OK, so you've managed to filibuster right out of this thing, but your beef was, you said that President Trump engendered a level of distrust. You said he made false statements to state legislators, to his supporters of all sorts, and somehow you discerned that his supporters were angry, and that that was somehow related to a criminal offense. I find that absolutely weak. I think it's misdirected and --

JORDAN: Time of the gentleman has expired. Gentleman yields back.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record, Axios dated August 2nd, 2023. Barr says Trump's First Amendment argument in January 6th case is not valid.

JORDAN: Objection? Do you have one? OK, gentlelady from North Carolina is recognized.

REP. DEBORAH ROSS, (D-NC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, many of us were here on January 6th and directly experienced what happened, yet some of my colleagues across the aisle still insist that Trump had no role in the violence.

[13:40:00]

In videos of the raging battle against our brave Capitol Police officers, many rioters were screaming things like, we were invited here by the President. Mr. Smith, did your investigation uncover evidence that some of the rioters had gone to the Capitol because they really believed the president had invited them there?

SMITH: There were -- I believe there's video of rioters saying, in fact, that as we pled in the indictment, the knowing lies that Donald Trump put out in the weeks leading up to that led to a level of distrust. And he ultimately knew that the crowd at the Capitol or at the Ellipse, I should say, was angry before he told them to march toward the Capitol.

ROSS: And we've seen report after report of rioters who have said that if Donald Trump had not convinced them that the election had been stolen, they might not have even come to Washington. I'm going to share some quotes from some of those rioters.

I believed I was following up on the instructions of former President Trump, one rioter said about going to the Capitol.

I marched to the U.S. Capitol because President Trump said to do so, another said.

He personally asked for me to come that day, said another.

Can you give us a few examples of Trump's rhetoric and language that inspired people to go to the Capitol believing that they were going on the president's direct order?

SMITH: One instance I can recall is during the speech he gave to his supporters and in context to his supporters, he told them to come to Washington, D.C., and be wild. He was on notice that they were angry and he told that crowd, we can't let this happen.

And he told them that, my recollection is, multiple times, at a time when there was nothing that could be done to stop the outcome of the election, but to obstruct it. In addition to that, he told them when there is fraud, you can go by different rules.

And my recollection is there is a videotape of when he is making these sort of statements and he is saying that they need to fight if they want to save their country, there are, in fact, people in the crowd chanting fight for Trump. That that all happened during the Ellipse speech before people headed towards the Capitol and the Capitol was attacked.

ROSS: And did your investigation find any of the rioters trying to use Trump's words and calls to action as a defense in the criminal cases against them? I can read you something from your Special Counsel Report if you'd like.

SMITH: I was just going to say I think we cited a number of rioters who, ultimately, admitted that they had committed their crimes at the behest and in the name of Donald Trump.

ROSS: OK. And it happened several times and many of those accounts are on Page 86 and Page 87 of the Special Counsel Report. Even the lawyer for Jacob Chansley, also known as the QAnon Shaman, highlighted that his words, how the words affected his client. He heard the words of the president, he believed them, he genuinely believed them, and he thought that the president was actually going to walk with them to the Capitol.

For my final question, Mr. Smith, do you believe that Donald Trump motivated and was responsible for the violence that occurred on that day, even if he didn't walk with them to the Capitol?

SMITH: Yes, as we -- as we stated in our report, the results of our investigation following the facts and following the law was that he was the person most responsible for what happened at the Capitol and that he caused what would happen at the Capitol and that it was foreseeable to him.

ROSS: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have two UCs.

JORDAN: Gentlewoman can state her unanimous consent request.

ROSS: I asked unanimous consent to enter into the record a tweet from Representative Biggs on January 7th, 2021, in which he said quote, "Yesterday, criminal rioters hijacked a joint session of Congress."

JORDAN: Objection? Without objection.

ROSS: And the second one is a unanimous consent to enter into the record an interview from March 2024 on the Capitol Hill Show, in which you called on those who attacked the Capitol on January 6th to be "held accountable" because "that's the way our system does work and should work."

[13:45:00]

JORDAN: Without objection.

ROSS: Thank you very much.

(CROSSTALK)

JORDAN: The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas.

REP. CHIP ROY, (R-TX): Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Smith, how many members of Congress or the Senate did you subpoena phone toll records?

SMITH: As I sit here right now, I do not recall a specific number.

ROY: Is this the complete list right here? Let me ask you this. Am I on this list? Did you target my records and subpoena my phone toll records?

SMITH: My understanding is your records were subpoenaed by prosecutors before I became special counsel.

ROY: Well, staff would put this up on the screen. I'm thankful for the great staff who discovered the email where I learned for the first time a few weeks ago that my phone records were indeed targeted. We called AT&T and we've learned that they were given to the Department of Justice as this email indicates because I've been in communication with Scott Perry, one of my colleagues here in Congress, who literally had his phone taken from him in front of his family.

And of course, we've already talked about in this document, it talks about you could be in violation of the privilege by even obtaining and possessing this information if the member objected to the disclosure. This happened four years ago in May of 2022 and I couldn't object because I didn't know. I didn't know until about three weeks ago.

My question here is, was there any limits to your investigation or the investigation that preceded you, Mr. Smith? Because as egregious as a violation of separation of powers this is, as an egregious and abusive power it is, it's far more concerning you are clearly targeting American citizens for merely being conservative or supporting the president.

We've got memos that we've already been talking about in this hearing from April 2022 that preceded you that established and opened the investigations, one of which has Attorney General Merrick Garland's signature on it, and the focus was the electors.

Now, that was six months before you were appointed. You testified earlier, you met and interviewed Merrick Garland and Deputy AG, Lisa Monaco, and you briefed the AG and deputy multiple times. Did you brief them on the electors and the prosecution of their supposed crimes?

SMITH: Did I -- I'm sorry, sir?

ROY: Did you brief them on the electors and their supposed crimes?

SMITH: I don't recall specific conversations but I'm sure that in the course of briefing them I discussed --

ROY: Wasn't that the purpose of the entire investigation as it was set out? Because putting aside that in 1960, we already talked about my friend, Mr. Tiffany, that Hawaii put forward an alternate slate of electors, the investigation pivoted to President Trump and frankly anybody who knew him. Do you know who Cleta Mitchell is?

SMITH: Yes I do.

ROY: She's an election lawyer that was involved in filing an election contest on behalf of President Trump in Georgia in December of 2020. A 64-page complaint with over 1,100 pages of exhibits, witness affidavits, and expert witness reports documenting thousands of votes cast in violation of Georgia law, but which were nevertheless included in the vote totals. Now, notwithstanding the disposition of the cases that was filed, is that a criminal act?

Filing an election contest on behalf of a candidate for office, a client, is that a criminal act? Yes or no?

SMITH: No, in fact we --

ROY: So, why did you deem it appropriate to monitor Cleta Mitchell's long-distance phone records in 2023, two-and-a-half years after the election contest was filed and after the presidential electors were certified? What about Jenna Ellis? What about Sidney Powell? What about Bill Stepien?

What crime did you suspect had been committed by them that would warrant monitoring their phone records two-and-a-half years after the 2020 election was certified?

SMITH: With respect to Sidney Powell, she is one of the co- conspirators alleged in the indictment. I don't know what you mean by monitoring, sir. If you are talking about --

(CROSSTALK)

ROY: Well, there were some 400 plus Republican conservative groups of leaders who were targeted by your investigation. Their financial records were obtained, records of the RNC, the Trump campaign, Cleta Mitchell, the Conservative Partnership Institute, the American First League Policy Institute, NRCC, NRSC, PACS, conservative groups, people all across the country, citizens, because we hear a lot about members of Congress, and we should because of separation of powers and the egregious abuse of power.

But what we're not talking about enough, in my opinion, are the American citizens that have been targeted. Because frankly, are there any limits to the power of a special prosecutor or a special counsel? So much so in your abuse of power, that in the summer of 2024, the indictment involving classified documents was dismissed after determining your appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, but you continued to sign your name on court filings until the time you resigned from office in January of 2025.

A federal judge has recently stated a prosecutor who continues to sign his name in court filings after a disqualification order should face disciplinary action or disbarment. I yield back.

[13:50:00]

JORDAN: The gentleman yields back.

JAMIE RASKIN, (D-MD) RANKING MEMBER, HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: Does the gentleman have the opportunity to respond?

JORDAN: If the gentleman wants to respond, he can.

SMITH: With respect to the last point, Judge Cannon's order specifically limited her finding to that proceeding, so there would be nothing improper about continuing to litigate the case in Washington, D.C. And with respect to Florida, there was nothing improper about taking an appeal of that very decision.

JORDAN: The gentlelady from Vermont is recognized for five minutes.

REP. BECCA BALINT, (D-VT): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Smith, I want to discuss Volume II of your report, which summarizes the findings of your investigation into President Trump's hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and his efforts to obstruct the FBI's investigation. Mr. Smith, is it generally the practice for a special counsel's report to be made public to the American people?

SMITH: I want to say first, I'm limited what I can say about Volume II because --

BALINT: I understand.

SMITH: -- of Judge Cannon's order. I can say generally that, with respect to special counsels, there are regulations that direct a special counsel to draft a report. Whether that report becomes public is determined -- the Attorney General has the authority to determine that.

BALINT: To the best of your knowledge, was Special Counsel Mueller's report made public in full?

SMITH: I know it was made public. I'm not sure if it was made public in full.

BALINT: What about Special Counsel Hur's report?

SMITH: My recollection is his report was made public in full. I believe that's correct.

BALINT: And Special Counsel Weiss' report?

SMITH: I do not know.

BALINT: OK. Now, I understand that the District Judge Aileen Cannon, the Trump appointee who oversaw the case in Florida, issued a gag order that prevents you from discussing any parts of the classified documents investigation that is not already public. I understand that, including your findings that you laid out in Volume II of that report.

Am I correct that the reason your report is not available in full to the public is because of this gag order?

SMITH: I wrote a report. The attorney general, it was submitted to him. I understand, generally, that there's been litigation about whether this report would be public or not. I have not been a party to that litigation.

I just know that there is an order and I know the Department of Justice, the current Department of Justice, has interpreted that order in a way that I cannot speak about anything that could possibly be in that report and its findings.

BALINT: And when Judge Cannon issued that gag order, she cited pending cases against Trump's co-defendants. Is that correct?

SMITH: I'm sorry?

BALINT: When Judge Cannon issued the gag order, she cited pending cases against Trump's co-defendants. Is that correct?

SMITH: That's my recollection.

BALINT: Are those cases still pending?

SMITH: No, they're not.

BALINT: No, they're not. So there is no reason, from where I sit, for this important information to be not made public. At this point, I want to turn now to President Trump's attacks on you.

Trump has a playbook for how he handles people who try to hold him accountable. In August 2023, right after your office indicted him, President Trump shared that playbook on social media for everyone to see. He wrote, "If you go after me, I'm coming for you."

Trump has said that you, Mr. Smith, should be investigated and put in prison. He called you a disgrace to humanity, a radical left Marxist, a criminal. In fact, Trump has used the words, deranged Jack Smith, a 185 times on Truth Social. How do you think that these statements have impacted you, your staff, and your investigation?

SMITH: With respect to me, I think the reports -- I'm sorry, the statements are meant to intimidate me. I will not be intimidated. I think these statements are also made as a warning to others, what will happen if they stand up. And I am, as I say, I'm not going to be intimidated. We did our work pursuant to department policy. We followed the facts and we followed the law, and that process resulted in proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed serious crimes. I'm not going to pretend that didn't happen because he's threatening me.

BALINT: And Mr. Smith, do you believe that President Trump's Department of Justice will find some way to indict you?

SMITH: I believe that they will do everything in their power to do that because they've been ordered to by the president.

[13:55:00]

BALINT: That's very concerning, obviously. It's very concerning to all of us, at least on this side of the aisle.

This is Trump's playbook at work. Complain loudly, gin up hatred and resentment, then express our hope that somebody will do something, but never explicitly order anyone to act, and then watch as his followers and loyalists go after their targets.

This is what happened on January 6. Trump stood at the Ellipse and gave a campaign speech to his supporters and he said, if you don't fight like hell, you're not going have a country anymore. And I think it's clear that his intimidation will stop at nothing. I want to speak on behalf, in closing, I want to speak on behalf of people of --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No closing. Chairman, regular order.

BALINT: No, I'm sorry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Chairman, regular order.

BALINT: I'm sorry you have gone over numerous times. I am taking my few moments.

(CROSSTALK)

JORDAN: Time along (ph), gentlelady from Vermont, I'll let you go a couple of seconds.

BALINT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

JORDAN: I don't have all day.

BALINT: Thank you. On behalf of the people of the state of Vermont, thank you for all of your 30 years of service to this country and to the police officers sitting here. I'm ashamed -- I'm ashamed that you have not gotten your due. I yield back.

JORDAN: Time of the gentlelady has expired. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.

RASKIN: I've got a U.C. request.

JORDAN: Gentleman, the Ranking Member is recognized for U.C.

RASKIN: Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. The first is a New York Times article titled, "Hunting Leaks." Trump DOJ officials seized records of Democrats, explaining how the Trump administration subpoenaed Apple for data from the Council of at least a dozen people tied to the House Intelligence Committee in 2017-18, including Representative Swalwell and Senator Adam Schiff.

JORDAN: Without objection.

RASKIN: And the other, similarly, is Trump's DOJ secretly obtained phone and text message, logs of 43 congressional staffers and two members of Congress. That's December 10, 2024.

JORDAN: Without objection. The ,Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.

REP. JEFF VAN DREW, (R-NJ): Thank you, Chairman. You know, I don't even know where to go because there's so much. Mr. Smith, there really is. But it is in -- what I do know is, it's much more than how much people like, or hate you or like or hate Donald Trump, or like or hate Republicans, or like or hate Democrats. This is about the system. It's about what the Department of Justice did. It's about what you did.

The core of the hearing is all about, can Americans still trust the justice system? Is it fair? Was it fair under you? And all they expect -- they don't expect you to be perfect, but they expect you to treat everyone the same, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. But that wasn't the case.

When you treat people differently because of their political status, their political party, their ideals, that's hypocrisy. And I'm sorry to say, and I don't say it lightly, I do consider you to be a hypocrite.

With that being said, you know, I think the prosecutors and the people around you stretch norms, change standards depending upon who was under investigation. So you don't like Donald Trump and so you're a liberal Dem (ph) -- whatever the case may be, and they went after him. And by the way, it's interesting, in all those congressional records that were subpoenaed, all those congressional records that were looked at, was one of them a Democrat? No. The answer's no. I'll answer for you.

So I got simple questions. I always say I'm a simple guy, but it really boils down to this. How much can Americans trust this system? In your Special Counsel Report, you stated President Trump engaged and was guilty of criminal conspiracies and he was guilty of criminal conduct, and you publicly testified you believed you had the proof, et cetera.

If prosecutors deal this way with cases, if they declare that it's guilty and it's over before a jury verdict, would Americans trust the justice system more, or would they? Would they trust the system more? The answer -- go ahead, answer, please answer.

SMITH: I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you were asking me.

VAN DREW: So when this was all going on before, and I believe it was political, before there was an entire case and we went through the whole case, you pretty much declared, and I'm not going to read the whole thing through again, that President Trump was guilty. That wasn't your job. That's a judge's job. It's a jury's job. It's not your job.

Don't you think that's unfair, that that's wrong, that didn't make the playing field level? Did it make people less trustworthy of the system, yes or no?

SMITH: No. When I announced the charges in the election case, I specifically stated that the case needed to be tried, and that he had a right to go to trial, and he was presumed innocent.

VAN DREW: And thank you for -- I just want a simple answer because we are limited on time. I disagree with you. I don't think you did.

Your office secretly subpoenaed and phone record -- got records of members of Congress, and you kept those subpoenas hidden through non- disclosure orders. That's wrong. They should have known. You want to do that, fine, it's wrong. Number one, it's wrong --