Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Potential Greenland Agreement?; Jack Smith Testifies. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired January 22, 2026 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:03]

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: But he does feel safe from the idea of a military intervention here by the United States. That also came across clearly.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Very quickly, Nic, what, if anything, did he say about Trump's assertion that this deal that he's now accepted will continue indefinitely, go on forever, in his words?

ROBERTSON: Yes.

And the prime minister was asked about that, and he didn't -- he didn't provide an alternative. He didn't say that is incorrect. He just said, look, high-level talks, we've agreed to have them. We're going to have them. As long as they respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity, self-determination of the people of Greenland, we can have any amount of talks.

And he was asked, does that mean more troops? Does that mean more missiles? Does that mean more access to minerals and asked as well if that changes the 1951 defense agreement? He did not himself get into those details. He just said that we can work towards and have a discussion about what the United States wants here.

He wasn't ruling anything out of the conversation, Wolf.

BLITZER: And just once again, Trump said it would go on infinitely, forever, if you will.

All right, Nic Robertson in Greenland for us, thank you very, very much -- Pamela.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: All right, Wolf, still ahead here in THE SITUATION ROOM: The head of the Border Patrol speaks out of Minneapolis after we see this video of Gregory Bovino using a chemical agent on a crowd in Minnesota.

You're in THE SITUATION ROOM. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: All right, recess is over. Let's listen back into this hearing with former special counsel Jack Smith. (JOINED IN PROGRESS)

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Carol Leonnig, who you quoted, Carol Leonnig outlines Tony Ornato's history of lies. That's June 30, 2022.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): No objection.

RASKIN: In July 1, 2022, the men disputing Hutchinson's testimony are two of Trump's biggest acolytes.

And finally, June 29, 2022, CNN: "Cassidy Hutchinson stands by her testimony amid pushback."

Thank you very much.

JORDAN: The gentlemen from New York is recognized.

REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Smith, over the past few years, Republicans have waged constant attacks on you. Donald Trump has said you are totally compromised, a political hit man, a left-wing radical, a criminal, a fully weaponized monster, and that you should be considered mentally deranged and thrown out of the country.

Just this week, he called you a sick bastard. Unfortunately, the rules of the core and prevent me from saying what I think of Donald Trump. But he is not the only one to launch attacks against you. Chairman Jordan has accused you of abusive surveillance and accused you and your team of partisan and politically motivated prosecutions.

Despite the mountain of evidence that you laid out in the special counsel's report and in your court filings, President Trump's supporters are convinced that the only reason your team tried to hold him accountable is because you have a vendetta against him.

[11:35:00]

I want to address these allegations today. You have had a long and distinguished career with the Justice Department, including serving as the chief of DOJ's Public Integrity Section for five years.

While leading the Public Integrity Section, you led investigations and prosecution of public figures and political leaders from both parties, Republicans and Democrats. Can you give us a couple of examples?

JACK SMITH, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL: Sorry about that.

During my time as the chief of public integrity, I investigated cases involving both Republicans and Democrats. The standard in all of those cases was the same, follow the facts and the law. It didn't matter what party you were in. It mattered the facts of the case.

In doing that, there were cases I brought against Democrats and cases I brought against Republicans. There were also cases that I investigated and did not bring against Democrats and Republicans. Party affiliation played no role in my investigations. I can think of

multiple cases of prominent members of Congress that we investigated who were Republicans who, upon reviewing the law and the facts, I decided not to go forward in those cases. And the same could be said with people on the Democratic side.

I have always tried to follow the facts and the law in my career.

NADLER: When it comes to deciding whether to pursue a criminal prosecution of an individual, what factors do you consider?

SMITH: The primary factors are the facts and the law.

As a federal prosecutor, in making a prosecutorial decision, you're guided by the federal principles of prosecution, which guide one not only to look at the facts and the law, but the federal interests. And that is exactly what we did in this case as set forth in my final report.

NADLER: Does partisan politics play a role in your decision whether or not to prosecute someone?

SMITH: None.

NADLER: To be clear, did partisan politics play a role in your decision to charge Donald Trump?

SMITH: It did not.

NADLER: What does it do to the justice system if political leaders place pressure on prosecutors to file charges against their political enemies? What are the implications if prosecution decisions are based on politics, not the law?

SMITH: I think it weakens the rule of law in our country because it weakens the mechanism for us to prosecute, among other things, corruption.

When there is political prosecutions targeting people because they're enemies of the president, the department loses credibility and it can't do its job in all sorts of cases.

NADLER: According to your deposition before this committee, it sounds like your problem was not determining if you had enough evidence to charge Donald Trump, but rather that you might have had too much evidence and struggled to determine how to present the clear narrative to a jury.

How would you characterize the evidence against Mr. Trump about inciting an insurrection against the laws of this country? Did you have too much?

SMITH: Well, with respect to presenting the case that we charged, one of the central challenges was trying to present that in a concise way because we did have so many witnesses. Some of the most powerful witnesses were witnesses who, in fact, were

fellow Republicans who had voted for Donald Trump, who had campaigned for him, and who wanted him to win the election. These included state officials, people who worked on his campaign and advisers.

I will say, however, with respect to the charge of insurrection, we did not charge that. As I set forth in my report, while I believe that there is -- courts have found that was an insurrection and that there's a reasonable interpretation, a reasonable prosecutor could interpret the evidence to support that charge, I chose not to do that, looking at the facts and the law.

I thought the charges we brought were appropriate, given the evidence that we had.

NADLER: Thank you, Mr. Smith, for your decades-long public service and for working tirelessly to uphold the rule of law. Those who attack and smear you and your team in order to protect Donald Trump should be ashamed of themselves.

I yield back.

JORDAN: The gentleman yields back.

The gentleman from California is recognized.

REP. DARRELL ISSA (R-CA): Mr. Smith, do you see criminals to my left? You don't see any. Do you see people who are committing crimes because they continue to believe things that just aren't true?

That's paraphrasing Ronald Reagan, that liberals aren't stupid. They just know things that don't happen to be true. If the president believed that he was cheated in an election, that there was fraud or in some other way a number of items led to his defeat, when, in fact, he should have won, according to the Constitution, does that make him a criminal?

[11:40:17]

SMITH: Sir...

ISSA: No, that's a yes or no, please, Mr. Smith.

These people here are continuing to grapple constantly with things that are true, like socialism works, or that somehow everything the Republicans do is evil and everything they do is right, they have never reached a conclusion in a typical partisan case in which we're not evil because we think something different and we're not wrong.

You understand the Constitution. Do you understand the Bill of Rights, that someone has the absolute right to believe something, whether it's true or not, and to advocate for something, whether it's true or not? Do you understand that, in addition to your oath to the Constitution, that that's one of the things the First Amendment allows for, isn't it?

SMITH: Yes, sir.

(CROSSTALK)

ISSA: OK, so if that people have a right to opine, lobby for, assert, do everything they can legally to ask for people to make different decisions, then why is it you saw criminal conduct on behalf of a president who believed he didn't win?

Chairman Jordan and myself have something in common, along with a number of others here. We saw wrongdoing, and, on January 6, we voted not to confirm two states because they had violated the U.S. Constitution in how they selected who got ballots.

And yet you're going to come here and say, oh, I just followed the law. When you went after these people and you said, well, technically, I can do that, you didn't see any selective nature or any separation of powers under the Constitution to spying on the activities and the conversations of the speaker of the House?

To what end would conversations between the speaker of the U.S. House, third or second in line to be the president, and the president, in what basis would it be any of your business, other than you believe that there was a conspiracy without conspiracy as a basic premise?

You, like the president's men for Richard Nixon, went after your political enemies. Maybe they're not your political enemies, but they sure as hell were Joe Biden's political enemies, weren't they? They were Harris' political enemies. They were the enemies of the president, and you were their arm, weren't you?

SMITH: No.

ISSA: No. Oh, great. So, you spied on the speaker of the House and these other senators and so on, and informed no one, and in fact put in a gag order so they couldn't discover it.

If they were not subjects of a conspiracy investigation, why did Congress, a separate branch that you under the Constitution have to respect, why is it that no one should be informed, including the judges? As you went in to spy on these people, did you mention that you were spying on, seeking records so you could find out about when conversations occurred between the U.S. speaker of the House and the president?

Did you inform the judge, or did you hold that back?

SMITH: My office didn't spy on anyone.

ISSA: Wait a second. I -- the question I asked you, Mr. Smith, was pretty straightforward. Did you withhold that information from an Article 3 judge in the process of taking the records of the speaker of the House?

SMITH: We complied with department...

(CROSSTALK)

SMITH: Did you hold back that information?

RASKIN: Mr. Chairman, would you please instruct the gentleman to allow the witness to answer the questions?

ISSA: It's not your time. I'd like my time back.

RASKIN: Mr. Chairman, you have repeatedly done that in the past. The witness has the right to answer the question.

ISSA: And there will be due time to answer the question. Would you please put my time back and let me finish this?

Mr. Smith, I asked you a question, and you were not responsive to it, and I want you to be responsive to it. Did you -- whether you think it was legal or not, whether you think it was right or not, did you withhold the name of Kevin McCarthy, speaker of the House, when you were seeking records on Kevin McCarthy, the speaker of the House, or Jim Jordan, the chairman of this committee?

JORDAN: The time of the gentleman is...

(CROSSTALK)

ISSA: Please give me back the time that was taken away.

JORDAN: No, no, no, time has expired, but we're going to let the witness answer your question, because it's an important question. The witness can respond.

SMITH: We did not provide that information to the judge when we requested a nondisclosure order, consistent with the law and consistent with department policy.

ISSA: Mr. Chairman, the amazing thing here today is that we have an admission that an article...

(CROSSTALK)

[11:45:05]

RASKIN: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's time has expired by now 34 seconds.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He gets more than five minutes?

(CROSSTALK)

ISSA: How many times do you need to interrupt me?

JORDAN: The time belongs to the gentleman from California, but it has expired.

ISSA: I will be brief in my address to the chairman. We have the evidence that an Article I representative...

(CROSSTALK)

ISSA: And with that, I yield back in disgust of this witness.

JORDAN: Sticking with California, the gentlelady from California is now recognized.

REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): Mr. Smith, thank you for being here today.

Earlier, the chairman spent a lot of time talking about Cassidy Hutchinson, who we know is just one of many witnesses. It's important to note that there was testimony that she was told something by Mr. Ornato, not that she had personal knowledge. And, of course, Mr. Ornato was of very questionable veracity.

We had a testimony from a Metropolitan Police Department official about an argument, a big argument that the president was having about going to the Capitol. And, in fact, the vehicle was delayed going back to the Capitol while that argument occurred.

But having said that, I want to focus on something my colleagues across the aisle seem to want to ignore, the fact that your investigation into President Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election was built on testimony from members of the Republican Party.

In fact, last week, "The New York Times" published grand jury transcripts from Georgia that show the same pattern in Trump's Georgia criminal case. Georgia's Republican Attorney General Chris Carr testified that he told -- quote -- and this is a quote -- "We're just not seeing the things that you are seeing."

And the late Georgia House Speaker David Ralston, also a Republican, testified that Trump's fake electors scheme was -- quote -- "the craziest thing I have heard."

And then there's Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the president's closest allies. In his secret grand jury testimony, Senator Graham told the jurors -- quote -- "I have told him more times than we can count that he fell short" -- unquote.

And then he said this -- quote -- "If you told him Martians came and stole votes, he'd be inclined to believe it."

Martians. That's from Senator Graham's speaking under oath.

So here's my question. Mr. Smith, in your deposition with this committee, you testified -- and here's a quote -- "Our case was built on, frankly, Republicans who put their allegiance to the country before the party, also that the president's closest allies are telling him that his claims of election fraud are wrong."

And so I'm just wondering, can you explain what you meant in your deposition that it was Republicans who were putting their allegiance to their country ahead of their party?

SMITH: Yes. There were witnesses who I felt would be very strong witnesses, including, for example, the secretary of state in Georgia, who told Donald Trump the truth, told him things that he did not want to hear, and put him on notice that what he was saying was false.

These were people who knew how the elections were conducted in the states. And I believe that witnesses of that nature, witnesses who are willing to tell the truth, even if it's going to impose a cost on them in their lives, my experience as a prosecutor over 30 years is that witnesses like that are very credible, and that jurors tend to believe witnesses like that because they pay a cost for telling the truth.

LOFGREN: In terms of the grand jury testimony that's now been released, the fact that Donald Trump, according to Senator Graham, would believe that Martians stole the election, what does that tell you about Trump's state of mind?

SMITH: That statement is consistent with what we found in our investigation, in that our investigation revealed that Donald Trump was not looking for honest answers about whether there was fraud in the election. He was looking for ways to stay in power.

And when people told him things that conflicted with him staying in power, he rejected them, or he chose not even to contact people like that who would know if the election was done properly in a state.

On the other hand, when individuals would say things that would allow him to stay in power, no matter how fantastical, he would latch on to those. That pattern over time, we felt, was powerful evidence that he, in fact, knew that the fraud claims he was making were false.

[11:50:01]

LOFGREN: You know, who are some of the Republican witnesses who told you that President Trump -- told President Trump that his claims of election fraud were false? Can you share that with us?

SMITH: There were a range of witnesses. They ranged from people on his campaign team who had wanted him to win, were employed to help him win the election.

They included state officials, state Republican officials who wanted him to win, voted for him, campaigned for him, asked him to provide, asked him and his co-conspirators to provide evidence to support their claims. And, invariably, they never did. It included officials, advisers, people he worked with in the White House who he relied upon for important decisions and who he trusted in other contexts.

We felt we had strong evidence from a variety of sources.

JORDAN: The time of the gentlelady has expired.

LOFGREN: Mr. Chairman, with my fellow California, you were allowing the witness to answer...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, it's a good question. Isn't that grounds to let him answer?

JORDAN: I have given him 30 seconds extra, the gentlelady 30 seconds extra.

If the gentleman can be concise and finish up here quickly, we will allow him to finish.

SMITH: Yes, sir.

And just conclude saying we felt that that constituted powerful evidence of his -- knowing falsity of his statements in furtherance of the fraud.

LOFGREN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield back, noting the presence of officers who were severely attacked...

JORDAN: Yes, nothing to yield back. You're a minute over.

The gentleman from Texas...

LOFGREN: ... protecting our lives on January 6.

JORDAN: The gentleman from Texas Mr. Gill is recognized for five minutes.

REP. BRANDON GILL (R-TX): Mr. Smith, in January of 2023, did you subpoena then-Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy's toll records?

SMITH: Yes, sir, we did.

GILL: Yes, you did.

And the subpoena covered the time period between November 2020 and January 2021. Is that right?

SMITH: I'm sorry, sir. Could you say that again?

GILL: We're not going to delay like this.

The subpoena covered the time period between November of 2020 and January 2021. How many days after Kevin McCarthy was sworn in as speaker did you subpoena his records?

SMITH: I don't recall, but those two things had nothing to do with one another.

GILL: It was 16 days after becoming the highest-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives. You subpoenaed his toll records. Do you agree that that might reasonably be considered a violation of the Speech or Debate Clause?

SMITH: I do not. And I want to be clear that the toll records...

GILL: You were collecting months' worth of phone data on the Republican speaker of the House, the leader of the opposition, right after he got sworn in as speaker all around the time of a major vote. That sounds like a flagrant violation of the Speech or Debate Clause to me. And I think most people agree with me.

And Speaker McCarthy had no recourse, did he? Because you issued a nondisclosure order ensuring that neither he nor any of the American people knew about these subpoenas. Is that right?

SMITH: The toll record, the non-content toll record subpoenas, we did secure nondisclosure orders for those subpoenas.

(CROSSTALK)

GILL: You did.

And let me ask you, Mr. Smith, at the time you secured those nondisclosure orders, was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk?

SMITH: The nondisclosure order was based on concerns about obstruction.

GILL: Was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk?

SMITH: He was not.

GILL: He was not. Then why did your nondisclosure order refer to him as a flight risk? It says right here, the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in flight from prosecution.

SMITH: Sir, when securing a nondisclosure order, the risks don't have to be associated...

GILL: You think the speaker of the House is a flight risk?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can he finish answering the question?

GILL: No, this is not your time. This is my time.

You think the speaker of the House is a flight risk? You think he's going to hop on a plane and leave the country?

SMITH: No. What I was trying to explain is, with respect to a nondisclosure order, the risks aren't necessarily associated with the subscriber to the phone. They're the risks to the investigation.

GILL: OK. I think that you were using -- this was clearly in reference to Speaker McCarthy and you were using clearly false information to secure a nondisclosure order to hide from Speaker McCarthy and from the American people the fact that you were spying on his toll records.

But I have got more, so let's move on. In May of 2023, you also issued subpoenas for toll records of nine U.S. senators and an additional representative. Is that right?

SMITH: In May of 2023, we did issue...

GILL: You did. And there were nondisclosure orders in conjunction with those subpoenas as well, right?

SMITH: That's correct, consistent with department policy and the law.

GILL: Right. So, again, nobody would know what you were doing. The senators wouldn't, the representatives wouldn't, and the American people wouldn't know what you were doing. Is that right?

[11:55:01]

SMITH: The toll records that we secured and the nondisclosure orders were consistent with policy and consistent...

(CROSSTALK)

GILL: And you knew, whenever you were doing that, that there was a risk you were violating the Speech or Debate Clause. Is that right?

SMITH: The toll record subpoenas that we secured were with the concurrence of the Public Integrity...

(CROSSTALK)

GILL: Your own analysis says that you knew there was a risk you were violating the Speech or Debate Clause. I have it right here. This is an e-mail from John Keller at Public Integrity Section to your team.

"As you are aware" -- quote -- "As you are aware, there is some litigation risk regarding whether compelled disclosure of toll records of a member's legislative calls violates the Speech or Debate Clause in the D.C. Circuit." That's from your own analysis right there. So you did know, didn't you?

SMITH: Sir, with respect to the item you just put up on the screen, the last sentence states...

GILL: We're going to get to the last sentence.

SMITH: OK.

GILL: We're going to get to the last sentence. And you cite case law in here -- quote -- "The bar on compelled disclosure is absolute."

Is that right or do you think that you didn't have to abide by that precedent?

SMITH: To be clear, this is not -- this statement is not from my office. This is the statement of the Public Integrity...

(CROSSTALK)

GILL: This is your justification for those subpoenas and NDOs that you ordered. This was part of your analysis. It's a cursory analysis, I think it's worth noting.

But let's get to that last sentence then -- quote -- "Given my understanding of the low likelihood that any of the members listed below would be charged, the litigation risk should be minimal here."

In other words, you're using a novel legal theory, which you knew was novel, has never been tested by any court. You're not charging any of these members. Nobody's going to know about it because you issued NDOs. Nobody's going to sue about it, so -- sue this. So who cares? We're going to do it anyways.

You walked all over the Constitution throughout this entire process.

RASKIN: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's time has expired.

GILL: ... spying on members of Congress. And you know it. It's absolutely disgraceful.

I yield back.

JORDAN: The gentleman yields back.

Not going to be charged. They're not going to see it. They're not going to know because we're not going to tell them. So let's go ahead and do it. It's exactly what happened.

The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for five minutes.

REP. STEVE COHEN (D-TN): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Smith, it's great that you have been allowed to come here and testify to the American public. Is there anything you would like briefly to discuss that Mr. Gill brought up on the reasons why you needed those phone records and the limitations that you thought might have been on you and the prosecution because of the risk -- to risk the investigation?

SMITH: Sure.

And I would begin by pointing out that the e-mail that was referenced wasn't a justification from my office. It was an e-mail from the Public Integrity Section to my office approving the subpoenas.

The subpoenas that we secured, we secured with nondisclosure orders from a judge because I had grave concerns about obstruction of justice in this investigation, specifically with regards to Donald Trump. Not only did we have the obstruction of justice that we were investigating in the classified documents case, but I was aware during the course of our investigation of targeting of witnesses in -- during the course of the conspiracy itself.

There were election workers who had their lives turned upside down and received vile death threats because they were targeted by Donald Trump and his co-conspirators. I had a duty to protect witnesses in this investigation.

That risk, that threat to witnesses was only confirmed when we went forward in this case and Donald Trump suggested that one witness should be put to death and then also issued a statement to the effect of, if you come after me, I'm coming after you. In my mind, I can't think of a more direct threat to witnesses and

individuals involved in that proceeding. Given that sort of threats, it was, in my view, completely appropriate to protect the integrity of the investigation, to protect against destruction of evidence and to protect the witnesses in our case.

COHEN: And just to make clear, you did not see any of the discussion. It was not any -- it was just the content that they made a call to the president and vice versa, but nothing about any content whatsoever.

SMITH: That's correct. A toll record subpoena gives you who a call is from, who it is to, and the length of that call. It does not tell you the content of what people are speaking about.

COHEN: You felt that you had a case that was one that you would win beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.

Is there anything in your facts that you had that you would have used at trial that you believe has not been presented to the public in the past or has been misrepresented to the public?

SMITH: Is there anything...

COHEN: Essential facts that you had that you felt would have resulted in a conviction of the president on the charges that he was indicted upon?

[12:00:05]

SMITH: I think my report, the report of our case, the final report, summarizes the evidence, I think, in a way that is -- gives a fair reading of the strength of the case.