Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
Former Special Counsel, Jack Smith appears before the House Oversight Committee. Aired 2-2:30p ET
Aired January 22, 2026 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:00]
REP. JEFF VAN DREW, (R-NJ): -- 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 because people have a right, the American public has a right to know, the elected officials have a right to know. It's your right to subpoena them, but they should know.
Secondly, and I brought this up before, not one Democrat, it's all Republicans, all Republicans. Everything you've done, everything you've ever done is always against Republicans. Do you think that puts more trust in the system when you're so partisan in that way? Yes or no?
JACK SMITH, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL: No. Politics played no role in our investigation. I have prosecuted Republicans and Democrats throughout my career. I have dismissed cases against Republicans and Democrats.
VAN DREW: Because you didn't have the proof. If prosecutors routinely relied on politically imbalanced investigations, and by this I mean, let me appeal to your sense of fairness. You're saying you're a fair man.
We had a January 6th Committee, select committee, that was appointed only by a Democrat, the then Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Everybody on it was a Democrat, except two Republicans that hated Republicans. Was that fair?
(LAUGH)
Was that fair? I mean, look at our system here in Congress. We've got Democrats, man, they speak up. You've got Republicans, we speak up. You hear both sides. That's the way a select committee should be, and you based everything upon this biased, unfair, prejudiced system. How is that fair? Tell me how that's fair.
SMITH: That's not correct. We conducted an independent investigation.
VAN DREW: You based a lot on that commission. You got all their records.
SMITH: That's not correct. We did collect their records. We conducted our own independent investigation following the facts and the law.
(CROSSTALK)
VAN DREW: And you used a lot of their information. Mr. Smith, I don't mean to cut you off. I've got limited time.
Joe Biden took classified records that were not to be taken when he was Vice President and when he was in Senate, and I know you didn't deal directly with that case.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Chairman?
VAN DREW: But nevertheless, he did. Is that fair? Because he let him go, don't do anything to him. But on the other hand, when it's President Trump who did it as President, then there was all, you raided Mar-a-Lago. Is that fair?
JIM JORDAN, (R-OH) CHAIRMAN, HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: Time of the gentleman has expired.
VAN DREW: I'd like him to answer.
JORDAN: If the witness would like to respond, he can.
SMITH: I have no response.
VAN DREW: It's damn unfair. That's the answer.
JAMIE RASKIN, (D-MD) RANKING MEMBER, HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: We've got U.C. request.
JORDAN: U.C. request from the gentlelady from California.
REP. ZOE LOFGREN, (D-CA): Yes, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record, the government's sentencing memorandum for Capitol rioter, Cody Mattis, who said that, quote, "When the former president asked his supporters to march on the Capitol, it was not a call to peacefully and patriotically make your voice heard."
JORDAN: Without objection.
LOFGREN: -- but to storm and seize the building.
RASKIN: And I've got one, Mr. Chairman.
JORDAN: The gentleman is recognized.
RASKIN: This is a press release from Congressman Jeff Van Drew's statement on storming the Capitol building, calling it unacceptable, un-American, and disrespectful of democracy.
JORDAN: Without objection. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
REP. JESUS "CHUY" GARCIA, (D-IL): Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Smith, for being here today. Let's remember why we're here today. Donald Trump incited an insurrection in 2020 because he refused to accept that he lost that election. And when he -- and then he took classified documents with him and put them in Mar-a-Lago.
Republicans support impunity for criminals, not accountability. There's no clearer example than that of the blanket pardon of nearly 1,600 insurrectionists on day one of this disgraceful presidency.
Trump pardoned people convicted of seditious conspiracy who brutalized police officers. There are four of them who can testify to that here, and who wanted to kill Vice President, Pence. People who've committed more crimes since the insurrection -- sexual assault, child molestation, aggravated kidnapping. That's who Trump pardoned, and that's who side Republicans are on. They may not want to, but they are because they refuse to tell the truth.
Mr. Smith, let me ask you something. Does pardoning violent rioters who brutalized law enforcement officers, spray-peppering them, tasering them, beating them up, kicking them, smashing them in (ph) doorframes make our country safer?
SMITH: Absolutely not.
GARCIA: As a prosecutor, can you describe why these pardons make our communities less safe and undermine our criminal legal system more broadly?
SMITH: The people who assaulted police officers and were convicted after trial, in my view, and I think in the view of the judges who sentenced them to prison, are dangerous to their community.
[14:05:00]
As you've mentioned, some of these people have already committed crimes against their communities again, and I think all of us, if we're reasonable, know that there's going to be more crimes committed by these people in the future.
I do not understand why you would mass pardon people who assaulted police officers. I don't get it. I never will.
GARCIA: That's exactly right, and none of this is a coincidence. The entire purpose of the Republican Party, unfortunately, has become to help criminals and corporate interests evade accountability. Republicans want impunity, not accountability. They want impunity for the January 6th people, for the classified documents case, for the Epstein files, for billionaires and big corporations, and for terror that DHS is throwing on our streets.
The Gestapo tactics by ICE and CBP are the obvious result of President Trump and the Republican Party that protect anyone who helps them turn our country into an authoritarian gangster state. Whether it's storming the Capitol to overthrow an election or murdering people in broad daylight, Republicans will back you if you back their political mafia and racketeering operation.
That's why Democrats must fight for accountability through oversight, through legislation, evidence collection, and through prosecution for the openly criminal acts that we're seeing in our communities every day.
Democracy doesn't exist without accountability, but you got to have a spine. I thank you, Mr. Smith, for doing your part. Our community -- our fight continues for accountability, not for impunity. Thank you, and I yield back.
May I have your time?
GARCIA: Mr. Chairman, I would yield to a gentleman from New York.
REP. DANIEL GOLDMAN, (D-NY): Mr. Smith, I just want to take a minute and allow you to explain why you requested the toll records of those officials for January 6th.
SMITH: For the January 6th investigation you mean, correct?
GOLDMAN: Yeah.
SMITH: Well, with regard to the toll records that were subpoenaed regarding the period of the 4th, I think it was to the 7th, we had evidence that the President had directed Rudy Giuliani, one of his co- conspirators, to contact members of Congress to try to further delay the proceedings and exploit the violence that happened in the Capitol. We had evidence that those calls had happened.
We wanted to get more evidence of that to corroborate it for trial. That is, again, as I've mentioned earlier today, a standard part of an investigation to understand who a conspiracy is trying to reach out to, how they're trying to influence people.
GOLDMAN: And you wanted a documentary confirmation?
SMITH: Yes, correct.
GOLDMAN: I yield back.
JORDAN: Time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Nehls, is recognized.
REP. TROY NEHLS, (R-TX): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, I'll just cut right to the chase here. Your investigation and attempted prosecution of President Trump, it wasn't about justice, it was about politics -- politics. From day one, under the Biden-Harris DOJ, you weaponized the law to go after their top political opponent. You push flawed legal theories and even the far-left "Washington Post" called you out.
They called you out, sir, for violating the First Amendment. You tried to criminalize political speech, slap unlawful gag orders on a presidential candidate, and spy on Republican members of Congress in violation of the Speech or Debate Clause, including the sitting Speaker of the House.
Mr. Smith, you mishandled documents, pressured defense lawyers, and dumped a massive trove of so-called evidence right before the election, and you did it -- you did it to sway voters. That's why you did it. And don't get me started on that raid at Mar-a-Lago or your unconstitutional appointment, which a federal judge in Florida rightly tossed out. A very bad day for you.
This wasn't, Mr. Smith, about upholding the law. It was about tearing down President Trump and anyone, anyone close to him. You even tried to ram through a politically motivated final report after your cases collapsed, including the Presidential Transition Act and basic fairness. But here's the good part, America. Here's the good part.
The American people saw right through it. They rejected, sir, your witch hunt loud and clear in November, handing President Trump a commanding victory.
[14:10:00]
The voters spoke loud and clear. They wanted an end to the weaponization of our justice system.
In your opening statement, you spoke about proof of beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Smith, I will give you proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Donald Trump winning the popular vote by over 2 million votes, the Electoral College by 85 votes, along with every single swing state.
Now, sir, that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the crap you were shoveling did not pass the smell test with the American people. To put it bluntly, Mr. Smith, the stink remains on you.
And lastly, I would like to quickly address the police officers of January 6th. Mr. Dunn, Mr. Fanone, Mr. Gonell, Mr. Hodges -- I'm a member of the new select committee to actually examine -- actually examine what happened that day. And I can tell you, gentlemen, that the fault does not lie with Donald Trump.
It lies with Yogananda Pittman and the U.S. Capitol leadership team. We know -- we know they had the intelligence and there was going to be a high propensity for violence that day.
Claim my time, yeah.
JORDAN: You will be in order. The time belongs to the gentleman from Texas. We've had some disruptions already. We don't need that. Let the gentleman -- the gentleman may continue.
NEHLS: We know the Capitol leadership team, specifically Yogananda Pittman, had the intelligence and there was going to be a high propensity for violence that day. And the Capitol itself was the target. We knew the extremist groups are going to be there. And why do I say that?
It was your own report from your intelligence section, the IICD, which was run by Pittman, in the January 3rd special events section. It was in it. It was in it.
And Mr. Dunn, I believe that you thought that day would be like just any other. In your testimony to the January 6th Committee, you said you found out how ugly it was going to get on a cell phone. Somebody sent you some information on social media. The point is, you were all unprepared to deal with that day and that's because your leadership failed to share the intelligence with you.
It was their fault, folks. It was their fault. It was not President Trump. And we are going to expose it for the first time because the Bennie Thompson, the sham committee, didn't do it.
RASKIN: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
NEHLS: The sham committee didn't do it. The report is 845 pages. Donald Trump's name is mentioned 4,207 times. We know what the committee wanted to do is to not allow Donald Trump to come back and win again. And they failed, and they failed miserably, and I hope you now can see that.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance to my distinguished colleague out of Jersey.
VAN DREW: I just want to quickly go over something because we keep rewriting history. The president said, peacefully and patriotically -- what don't we understand about peacefully and patriotically? He asked for the National Guard. That was ignored. He asked Speaker Pelosi. What don't we understand that?
RASKIN: Will the gentleman yield for a question? Are you saying Nancy Pelosi controls the National Guard?
VAN DREW: Wait a minute. And finally --
RASKIN: The president could have deployed the National Guard if he wanted to, and you know that.
(CROSSTALK)
VAN DREW: I want to claim my time; I lost some of my time.
JORDAN: The time belongs to the gentleman from New Jersey. You have a few more seconds.
VAN DREW: And finally, how many elected officials say we're going to fight to win an election? New terminology used all the time. Seriously. And of course, if they were guilty, they should be prosecuted. The problem was there were many in the mix.
JORDAN: Unanimous consent. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Texas yields back.
NEHLS: And last thing, is your hand gestures, Mr. Fanone.
JORDAN: No, no, no.
NEHLS: You need medication.
JORDAN: The time of the gentleman has expired. The time of the gentleman has expired. The audience will be in order, the committee will be in order. And the gentlelady from Georgia is recognized for unanimous consent.
REP. LUCY MCBATH, (D-GA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two unanimous consent requests to enter into the record. Two articles.
JORDAN: Gentlelady can proceed.
MCBATH: An article dated December 29, 2025, titled "Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Calls Out MAGA's Latest 2020 Stolen Election Nonsense."
JORDAN: Without objection.
MCBATH: And the second article, an article dated December 23rd, 2025, titled "Fact Check: Fulton County's 315,000 unsigned early votes are not proof of electoral fraud."
JORDAN: Without objection. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for unanimous consent.
GARCIA: Thank you, Chairman. Under unanimous consent, I ask to enter into the record the Judiciary Democrats January 2026 report, titled "Where Are They Now? The Perpetrators of January 6th and the Defenders of Democracy Who Stopped Them," which profiles the illustrious career trajectories of some of the key actors from January 6th who were pardoned by Donald Trump.
JORDAN: OK. Without objection.
[14:15:00]
GARCIA: And secondly, a second report, a January 2026 report from Judiciary Democrats one year later, assessing the public safety implications of President Trump's mass pardon of 1,600 January 6th rioters and insurrectionists.
JORDAN: Without objection. The gentlelady from California is recognized.
REP. SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Mr. Smith, for joining us. You know, most people are wondering why you are even here today, but it's because we've heard conspiracy after conspiracy that the 2020 election was rigged, and Capitol Police officers were harmed and died because of those conspiracies. And we have important elections coming up, and the people want them to happen, and they want them to be fair.
And the one person who should be telling the truth about elections is the president. But Donald Trump has not and is still not telling the truth about the 2020 elections. In fact, there is a January 6th page on the taxpayer-funded White House website that says the election was stolen from Trump, a blatant, disproven lie he knows is totally false. So one of my Republican colleagues earlier brought up Trump's mind state, that he knew he lost, and he knew that what he was saying was untrue, but that you had no proof. So, Mr. Smith, what evidence did you develop to suggest Trump knew he had lost the 2020 election?
SMITH: We had evidence from a variety of sources, evidence from people who were close to Donald Trump and who he relied on, people who wanted him to win the election, people who were employed by his campaign to help him win the election. Our evidence is that this was a conspiracy and that Donald Trump specifically sought to prey on party loyalty.
Our investigation involved interviewing and subpoenaing records of Republicans because that's who Donald Trump sought to prey on to stay in office, and the reality is certain people refused to do that.
The vice president refused to go along with that. People in various states' legislatures refused to go along with that, and the reality is that if we took this case to trial, a good number of our witnesses would be Republicans.
If a Democrat had committed these crimes, had done these things, I would have subpoenaed a number of Democrats. I would have subpoenaed their records.
KAMLAGER-DOVE: And I'm going to ask you about that, but correct, it's not like he was calling Nancy Pelosi. So, why is it legally important to know that Trump knew he was lying when he said the election was stolen?
SMITH: That was part of our proof at trial and it was relevant to the charges, specifically to the first charge to defraud the United States. It is permissible for someone to lie, but when they use speech to commit a crime, to facilitate a crime, that is not protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has been very clear on that, and this very issue was litigated in the case.
The defense raised this very issue, and one thing I want to be clear about today, the case that I investigated in the case we had, it was built to be tried in a courtroom, not in the media. Our case was built to withstand the crucible of litigation, and our assessment was that we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt that would do that.
KAMLAGER-DOVE: So, what I heard you say is that when you lie, and you know you're lying, and then you act on that lie to overturn the democratic process, that that is a felony. A January 6-er actually said, "If I can't trust him, then who can I trust?" Exactly. You know, we cannot even trust our own president.
And in fact, there are so many other things that you can say that you're not allowed to say because a Trump-appointed judge sealed the documents, refusing to release the files yet again, which is why we could probably ask you far more questions if those were unsealed.
So, I know I don't have that much time. I want to now shift to these allegations from my Republican colleagues about the collection of phone records of Republican Senators, I guess, some of the ones that were trying to get $500,000 of taxpayer dollars. So, many of the phone records of members were requested before you were appointed as special counsel, yes or no?
That's true? Is that accurate? Yeah.
SMITH: Yes, some subpoenas occurred before I was special counsel.
KAMLAGER-DOVE: And you -- what do you say to those who claim you chose to target Republicans because you only collected phone records for Republicans?
[14:20:00]
SMITH: The conspiracy I was investigating targeted Republicans.
KAMLAGER-DOVE: Right.
SMITH: As I mentioned earlier.
KAMLAGER-DOVE: That's right. And so, you would have requested any relevant call records necessary for your investigation, of a Republican or of a Democrat?
SMITH: That's correct. And to be clear, if a Democrat committed these acts, we would have sought those. I could just add one thing. We interviewed Rudy Giuliani in the course of this investigation. And we asked him, why did you say -- why did you, in one of the voicemails he left for the Senator, mention the fact that it was Republicans that you were reaching out to?
And he said, because the Democrats weren't going to help us, even some Republicans wouldn't help us. And so, our evidence showed repeatedly that the plan was to see if you could prey on people's party loyalty --
(CROSSTALK)
JORDAN: Time of the gentlelady has expired.
KAMLAGER-DOVE: Thank you, I yield back.
JORDAN: The gentlelady yields back. The gentlelady from Wyoming is recognized for five minutes.
REP. HARRIET HAGEMAN, (R-WY): Mr. Smith, it was during your deposition with our committee that you revealed that you tasked your team, specifically J.P. Cooney, to engage with the partisan January 6th Committee.
You had to have known at the time the controversy surrounding this committee, including the fact that all of the members had been appointed by Nancy Pelosi, who disallowed the Republicans from being able to engage. Yet you proceeded anyway, raising numerous questions as to your strategy for conspiring with the J6 Committee. You had every possible resource available to you. Your prosecution of President Trump was clearly a priority for the Biden administration, and it is clear that you had an unlimited budget. And yet, and you also left no stone unturned, even subpoenaing records from sitting members of the House and Senate.
So, what information could the J6 Committee possess that you and the nation's top law enforcement agency could not obtain on your own?
SMITH: I did request J.P. Cooney.
HAGEMAN: What did they have that you couldn't obtain on your own?
SMITH: In any investigation, you --
HAGEMAN: What information did they have that you did not -- you were not able to obtain on your own?
SMITH: I couldn't know that until I had their information.
HAGEMAN: Was there anything there? Did you find that they had information that you were not able to obtain?
SMITH: I don't recall specifically every bit of information. What I can tell you is, we took in their information because we wanted to collect any information that could be relevant. We made our own independent assessment of the --
(CROSSTALK)
HAGEMAN: OK, so from the time that you were appointed as special counsel up to the date of your resignation in January of 2025, did you personally have any contact with any members, staff, or contractors of the House's January 6th Select Committee? And if so, who?
SMITH: I do not believe I had contact with anybody personally from the January 6th.
HAGEMAN: The January 6th Committee failed to archive or preserve its video recordings of witness interviews, deleting or destroying as many as 900 interview summaries or transcripts involving more than one full terabyte of digital data. I repeat, the J6 Committee destroyed evidence. Let that sink in.
Why would they do such a thing? I think we have a damn good idea. The committee actually used selective clips from these videos and transcripts during their hearings, and yet by destroying this evidence, they have denied Congress and the public the ability to obtain their full content and context.
They created their narrative by selective use of the evidence before them, so how very convenient. Did you or your team receive any of those witness transcripts or video recordings of transcribed interviews from the select committee that were not released to the public?
SMITH: What I can tell you is that I requested J.P. Cooney to contact the select committee.
HAGEMAN: Do you know if you received any of the evidence or testimony that the J6 Committee eventually destroyed?
SMITH: I don't have any information that the J6 Committee destroyed any --
(CROSSTALK)
HAGEMAN: You don't know one way or the other as you sit here today.
SMITH: No, what I'm telling you is that I requested all the information we could get from the January subpoena.
HAGEMAN: Has all of the information that you requested been preserved? All of the information from the J6 Committee, has that been preserved?
SMITH: The information that we requested and received, we reviewed it. It was part of our --
(CROSSTALK)
HAGEMAN: Has it been preserved?
SMITH: Yes, as part of our files.
HAGEMAN: Thank you. Where you or your team advised or did you get the impression from anyone affiliated with the January 6th Committee that these documents were not for public release, even though portions of them had already been shown to the American people?
[14:25:00]
Where you advised to keep any of the information from the J6 Committee confidential?
SMITH: As I sit here right now, I don't recall that. I recall --
HAGEMAN: Thanks. Did the J6 Committee provide you with the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony as part of the trove of documents that you received?
SMITH: As I sit here now, I don't recall. But it would --
(CROSSTALK)
HAGEMAN: Well, you're familiar with her testimony, aren't you?
SMITH: I am.
HAGEMAN: In fact, wouldn't you agree with me that Ms. Hutchinson's testimony, especially the most explosive allegations made, was comprised of hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay? Come on, you're an attorney. Mr. Smith, you can answer the question. Of course, it was hearsay. And hearsay isn't admissible in a court of law, is it? Why? Because it is inherently unreliable and the victim or the target of a prosecution is not able to cross-examine. Isn't that correct? In fact, Mr. Smith, if you had attempted to walk into court with Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony, you would have been thrown out on your ear.
No judge, no legitimate judge would have ever allowed the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson to be admitted in a court of law, would they?
SMITH I disagree.
HAGEMAN: Well, and then we've already talked about your record --
(CROSSTALK)
RASKIN: Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady's time has long since expired.
JORDAN: The time of the gentlelady has expired. The gentleman from Florida.
RASKIN: Can I do one UC request first?
JORDAN: Gentleman is recognized.
RASKIN: This is from FactCheck.org. Meme rehashes old false claim that J6 Committee destroyed evidence from October 15, 2024, and this is from the District of Columbia National Guard website stating that this is the only National Guard unit in America which reports exclusively and only to the president.
JORDAN: Without objection. The gentleman from Florida is recognized.
REP. JARED MOSKOWITZ, (D-FL): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mean, we're definitely not in a court of law today. Half this shit wouldn't come in if we were.
(LAUGH)
I mean, good God, you know. You know, I want to talk about something one of my colleagues, Mr. Nehls, said from Texas. He sits on this new January 6th Subcommittee, which I also happen to sit on, and he said the same thing in the Subcommittee the other week, that it wasn't President Trump that inspired January 6th riot? It wasn't him.
He said in the Subcommittee that it was actually Ray Epps. Ray Epps. He was the one who told people to break the law and the windows and the doors and to beat police officers and hang Mike Pence and try to break into the floor of the House and wiping feces on the walls. It was all this guy Ray Epps, right? So who is Ray Epps? Why is he so powerful?
So, I mean, I just did a quick, you know, Google search of Ray Epps and his Wikipedia page says the powerful Ray Epps is a wedding planner to the Oath Keepers. This is the wedding planner? That's the mastermind of January -- you couldn't -- you went from Donald Trump -- It wasn't Donald. Who do -- well, who are we going to blame? Who could it be? How about the wedding planner to the Oath Keepers? I mean, it's just pathetic. But, you know, my colleagues love the past, Mr. Smith. Love the past. That's why you're here before Pam Bondi, OK? We haven't had the Attorney General here. We didn't have her last year. She's the only one in the cabinet to not come and committee a reference, but they love the past. Oh, they, you know, love talking about January 6th and Hunter Biden and COVID and Barack Obama and Hillary's emails. They love the past.
These people love the past so much, they're still reenacting the Civil War, OK?
(LAUGH)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right now.
MOSKOWITZ: Love the past. But hate talking about the present. But, you know what, let's talk about the past real quick. Here are some quotes, because I heard one of my colleagues call you a hypocrite. Here are some quotes from my colleagues.
Chairman Jordan, right after January 6th, stop the violence, support Capitol Police.
Ted Cruz, those storming the Capitol need to stop right now. The Constitution protects, but not violence.
Chip Roy, today the People's House was attacked, which is an attack on the Republic itself.
Steve Scalise, United States Capitol Police saved my life.
Lindsey Graham, when it comes to accountability, the president needs to understand his actions were the problem.
Troy Nehls, oh my god, him again.
(LAUGH)
MOSKOWITZ: I'm happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with Capitol Police.
Darrell Issa, the violence and turmoil we witnessed in Washington, D.C., was completely unacceptable.
Rep. McClintock, the attack on Capitol strikes the most sacred act of our democracy.
And former Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, whose name we heard a lot today, what did he have to say about it? Let me be clear. Last week's violence attack on the Capitol was undemocratic, un-American, and criminal. And make no mistake, those who were responsible should be brought to justice.
The president bears responsibility, period, or exclamation point. But let's talk also about, you know, the present. That's the past. Let's talk about the present. These are the guys who created the Weaponization Committee for the DOJ. So let's talk about the present.
Jerome Powell facing investigation. OK? In fact, we -- you know, we heard --
