Trump Collapses as Jack Smith Rips Him in Senate Hearing as Definite Criminal

0:00Michael Popok:Jack is back. And just as we expected, he couldn't wait to unburden himself and tell the world that Donald Trump is a criminal. See, the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee thought they had one on Jack Smith. They thought that because they framed it as we're going to do oversight into your going after and politicizing and weaponizing the Department of Justice with your attack on Republicans. watch as Jack Smith turns the tables and outwits and outmatches his cross-examiners for the Republicans. And even caught one, Eric Schmidt of Missouri, in such a ridiculous, refutable lie as the premise of his question that it blew up the entire hearing.

0:46Michael Popok:And you know what they weren't able to accomplish during this examination of Jack Smith because he's too smart? they never got him to take the Fifth Amendment. See, that's what this was about. They didn't care what Jack Smith had to say. They only cared about their leading questions. They didn't care what his answers were. So they could go on podcasts and right-wing media and say, oh, we got him. What they really wanted was Jack Smith to take the Fifth Amendment. So they could say, see, he's a criminal like Dr. Fauci is. Although we know that Donald Trump took the Fifth Amendment hundreds of times in his depositions, but they wanted that moment, that gotcha moment, and they didn't get it.

1:26Michael Popok:So they had to flounder around with all sorts of canned questions that ended up getting fired back at them with counterpunches that they weren't expecting. Why? Because Jack Smith at least reminded the people in that room why he was picked to be the special prosecutor to go after a sitting president, if that's where the facts laid it, you let him, because of his toughness, because of his insightful mind, because of his skilled cross-examination and technical skills as a trial lawyer. He's a trial lawyer's trial lawyer. I'm a trial lawyer. He's my idol. You get what I'm trying to say? Let's get down to the backfiring of the moment and why, And I want to know, when history books are written, what moron for the Republican Party thought it was a good idea with 30 plus days until the midterms to let Jack Smith out of his cage to go after Donald Trump and say unequivocally to the American people, I will not be silenced.

2:33Michael Popok:This was not political. And there was irrefutable evidence proving that Donald Trump committed serious crimes. Whose idea was that? Is that the thing that the Trump administration and the Trump campaign wants to be talked about right now? What a bunch of buffoons. You're on Legal AF. Take a minute. Hit that free subscribe button as we continue to grow our pro-democracy channel. Let me use as an example of all of it. I'll show you lots of clips, but let me show you an example of it. The exchange with Eric Schmidt. Now, Eric Schmidt, along with a bunch of other ones, are upset because a number of Republicans had their phone records, not the actual eavesdropping.

3:15Michael Popok:It wasn't wiretapping. It wasn't recordings of their phone calls. It was their record showing who they called, when they called it, and how long of the duration of the call. And yes, it's true that the special counsel obtained those phone records from the Verizons of the world and the T-Mobiles of the world and made sure that the providers didn't tell the senators and congresspeople about it. Why? Because they didn't want obstruction of justice. They didn't want witnesses to be intimidated about who they were calling. And why were the Republicans the only ones that had their toll records obtained?

3:49Michael Popok:Because they're the only ones that was involved in the conspiracy that he was investigating. This was a Republican-led conspiracy to overthrow democracy. Hence all the Republicans, right? Including a number of Republicans from outside of Washington, particularly, who were witnesses for the prosecution, making the case even stronger. So Eric Schmidt is pissed off because his phone records were reviewed. Well, maybe if you weren't maybe involved with a conspiracy, you wouldn't have had to worry about having your phone records reviewed, the toll records. So he decides he's got it. So they create this ridiculous board, you know, said it's all about these giant boards that go behind the senators.

4:27Michael Popok:And if you want to watch, we've got it up on live stream. We had several hundred thousand people watch the live stream of Jack Smith up on Legal AF today. And they decide they're going to try to tie together Jack Smith with Fonnie Willis, the Fulton County Atlanta prosecutor. Right. Put them together. OK. How are you going to do that? Well, they must have had a meeting. Well, there's already been reporting, and we know from the Gen 6 committee, that there was very little, if any, interaction between Fonnie Willis and Jack Smith. She asked for some meetings and did not get them. But somewhere in the record keeping, they mixed up Hawks with Hawkeyes.

5:08Michael Popok:Remember that, Hawks with Hawkeyes. They mixed up NBA with college women's basketball. What am I talking about? Well, you've got this whole moment where Eric Schmidt decides he's got him. He's got text messages to show that there's going to be a game with seats reserved for Jack Smith. Okay, great. It doesn't have to do with anything. And he says, it's in Atlanta. That's Fonny Willis' territory. Except it wasn't in Atlanta. It was a game between the Maryland Lady Terps and the Iowa Hawkeyes with Caitlin Clark that was in Maryland that Jack Smith attended with his team with Secret Service or Federal Marshals for protection along with him because they wanted to see Caitlin Clark play basketball.

5:58Play the clip. Did you go to an NBA game between the Golden State Warriors and the Atlanta Hawks on February 3rd, 2024?

6:10I'm sorry, could you say that again? Did you go to an NBA game between the Golden State Warriors in the Atlanta Hawks on February 3rd, 2024? What city would that be in? Atlanta. No. Okay.

6:25So your testimony today is that you did not go to a Hawks game on February 3rd, 2024. Is that correct? I have no recollection of that. Okay. Is it your testimony that you were not in Atlanta on February 3rd, 2024?

6:42Let me just give you a little context. The day before Fannie Willis came clean with her affair with the prosecutor, you know the Atlanta prosecutor that was also trying to get Trump, the next day were you in Atlanta? I do not believe so. Did you ever go to Atlanta during your time as special counsel?

7:03I really don't think so. It's possible I flew through the Atlanta airport on the way to Florida, but I do not have a recollection of going to Atlanta. I definitely did not go to a Hawks game. I'm sure of that. Did you ever meet Nathan Wade or Fannie Willis in your time at special counsel? No. What would you say if I had a series of text messages from your team that said you were in Atlanta at a Warrior Hawks game on February 3rd, 2024, the day after Willis and Wade announced their affair?

7:40I don't think you know that we have this stuff. So I'll give you a second to process it so you don't perjure yourself You just took it down really quick. If I could look at that again Mr. Chairman, can we give the witness a copy so he can see what's being read to him? Well, I think you've already sufficiently answered. I want to run through We'll put it in a follow-up. You can respond. I think you've already perjured yourself, but Did you or your office Can we see it? Can we see it? Did you or your office seek? This is my time. If you want to use your time to criticize my question, go ahead. Just very briefly.

8:17If this is the correct basketball game, I recall going to a University of Maryland basketball game where Caitlin Clark was playing right around that time, and the marshal service was there with me. You could check if that was the exact date. It was Maryland playing Iowa, I think, February of 2024. But again, you can check that out if that's what we're talking about. And he won't even apologize for calling Jack Smith a dirtbag and accusing him of perjury. It took Senator Klobuchar to call out Schmidt in real time. Play that clip. Is that correct? It was because Caitlin Clark was coming to Maryland to play.

9:03I know, but that might be the confusion over the names of the team, but perhaps you should have looked at it more carefully. Whose questioning is this, by the way, Mr. Chairman? Are you using your time, Senator? Is this what this is? Are we just having an open session here? I will begin my questions. I'm just in shock. Well, I'm glad you're trying to rehabilitate the witness, but it's not your time. When you are calling a witness a dirtbag and showing him these things. I presented him with text messages about him wanting to meet with people. that could have obviously been related to the prosecution that was coordinated with his office in Atlanta.

9:36Well, I'm going to begin my questions now, but I think that people should have their facts straight before they accuse someone of being a dirtbag and not get the team's wrong. I stand by that statement. The thing that they wanted, I can't show you because it never happened. He never took, Jack Smith, never took the Fifth Amendment,

9:54Michael Popok:which is a credit to him. He found a way to pick his way ever so delicately through a minefield laid out by the Republicans on that Senate Judiciary Committee, 12 Republicans, 10 Democrats. And then was able to look the American people in the eye and say, I will not be silenced. And there is, beyond a reasonable doubt, evidence that Trump committed serious crimes. Play the clips. I stand by my testimony before the House of Representatives, and I will not be silenced by continued threats of prosecution from the president or others. As I appear before you today, it is my belief that the rule of law faces challenges unlike any we have experienced in our lifetime.

10:49Individuals are threatened with criminal prosecution because they are perceived to have opposed the president. Predetermined outcomes increasingly seem to take precedence over the Justice Department's longstanding core values and traditions. History teaches that the rule of law is rarely destroyed all at once. It's often weakened by attacks on the institutions and the public servants sworn to uphold it. Since January of 2025, we have witnessed precisely such an effort, including the vilification of the agents, prosecutors, and staff who worked on my team, simply because of their unwavering dedication to the rule of law.

11:34I myself have been threatened with jail by the President of the United States. However, I remain confident that the rule of law will endure because so many continue to uphold it faithfully each day. Throughout our legal system, public servants have remained faithful to their oaths despite extraordinary pressure to do otherwise. Their example demonstrates that while fear may be contagious, courage is as well. I've been fortunate to serve a country that I love for nearly 30 years in local, national, and international settings. My service has spanned both Republican and Democratic administrations.

12:21I am not a politician, and I have no partisan loyalty. My career has been dedicated to serving our country by upholding the rule of law and the core principles upon which our country was founded. I believe there is no role for politics in the proper administration of justice. A prosecutor's decisions must be based on the facts and the law. The status, power, prominence, or political affiliation of the subject of an investigation must play no role in the decision to investigate, prosecute, or decline to prosecute. I approached my role as special counsel following these principles. The special counsel's office followed Justice Department policy, observed legal requirements, and took actions based on the facts and the law.

13:17I stand by my decisions as special counsel, including my decision to bring charges against President Trump. I made those decisions without regard to President Trump's political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election. Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in serious crimes against our nation. If asked whether to prosecute a former president today based on the same facts, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Republican or a Democrat. The charges against President Trump were the result of the evidence.

14:05Grand juries in two separate districts reached this conclusion based on his actions, as alleged in the indictments they returned. Rather than accept his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results and prevent the lawful transfer of power. After leaving office in January of 2021, President Trump illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago Social Club and repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents. Highly sensitive national security information was held in a bathroom and a ballroom where events and gatherings took place.

14:53As with my appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, I am prepared to answer your questions truthfully. I stand by my testimony before the House of Representatives, and I will not be silenced by continued threats of prosecution from the President or others. As I appear before you today, it is my belief that the rule of law faces challenges unlike any we have experienced in our lifetime. individuals are threatened with criminal prosecution because they are perceived to have opposed the president predetermined outcomes increasingly seem to take precedence over the justice department's long-standing core values and traditions history teaches that the rule of law is rarely destroyed all at once it's often weakened by attacks on the institutions and the public servants sworn to uphold it.

15:54Since January of 2025, we have witnessed precisely such an effort, including the vilification of the agents, prosecutors, and staff who worked on my team, simply because of their unwavering dedication to the rule of law. I myself have been threatened with jail by the President of the United States. However, I remain confident that the rule of law will endure because so many continue to uphold it faithfully each day. Throughout our legal system, public servants have remained faithful to their oaths despite extraordinary pressure to do otherwise. Their example demonstrates that while fear may be contagious, courage is as well.

16:44Michael Popok:Now, why they let, first of all, I've always been shocked that they replaced Lindsey Graham on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the late senator from South Carolina, with his sister, a political neophyte. I think, I don't know if she is a doctor. I don't know what she is. But I don't know why they didn't take a stronger member from the Senate and put them on the Senate Judiciary Committee. because I guess she thinks that she's going to get elected again come the midterms because she's been temporarily filling that spot. Not with questions like this, where she got back on the phone records. They gave her talking points.

17:19Michael Popok:Hey, Darlene Graham, bring this up about the phone records. So she tried to challenge Jack Smith. Boy, was this a mismatch. This is like a, what could I fill it in here? This is like a German Shepherd versus a Chihuahua, if that. she says you think my brother my brother would have been obstructing justice and hiding documents and that's why how dare you and I'm sorry I end up using the old foghorn leghorn cartoon voice for somebody like Darlene Graham and how dare you and all this other stuff and Jack Smith had a very good counterpunch bam play it so Mr. Smith do you really believe that Lindsay was going to destroy evidence that was not even in his possession?

18:13No, I believe your brother was a patriotic public servant. He was not a target of our investigation. And in fact, he likely would have been a witness in our case. Your brother investigated the claims that Donald Trump was making. He found them to be false. He said so on the House floor. Well, I have another question. Then why does the gang order say that disclosure of the subpoena would result in destruction of our tampering with evidence?

18:42Michael Popok:And it went on like that for six or seven hours. Finally, the Democrats were able to take over. And here's a clip of Cory Booker trying to say, what are we doing here? We're now setting trials up for the prosecutors instead of the criminals on Jan 6th. Play the Booker clip. I want to say it once and for all. Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, everybody. And he criminally, found by two grand juries, he criminally was charged for trying to obstruct that election. That shouldn't be shocking news. That's historical fact. His own Justice Department told him there was no evidence of widespread fraud sufficient to change the outcome.

19:29His own campaign lost over and over again in court. And yet he continued. He pressured state officials. He asked Georgia's Republican secretary to find those 11 ,000 plus votes. His allies organized fraudulent electors in seven states. He pressured his own Justice Department. He pressured his vice president. And on January 6th, he created one of the worst crimes an American has ever committed against his own nation, inciting people to storm the Capitol.

20:02Michael Popok:I am not sure what this was supposed to do. It started with, you know, we had the gavel-to-gavel coverage. It started with 92-year-old Chuck Grassley saying, oh, the Democrats wanted us to do this earlier, but we wanted to get our evidence together. And so, you know, now we have all the evidence. You have all the evidence? The evidence of what? Of him attending an Atlanta Hawks, sorry, an Iowa Buckeyes or Hawkeyes game versus the Lady Terrapins? Is that the evidence that you have? I was once in a case, I'll just give you my own personal anecdote, where the other side had this one piece of evidence that they fell in love with.

20:47Michael Popok:And it was ridiculous. It was a video clip of something that my client had done at the time, our client had done at the time. And it was silly and ridiculous, but they thought it was an indication of a grander conspiracy. And so they brought it into the courtroom. And they had been talking about this and flashing it for months. And finally, they brought it into the courtroom for a hearing with the judge. And they wheeled in this old television to play it on an old VCR. You can tell how old this story is. Anyway, they played it. They put out the lights. It was hushed tones. Nobody could hear a pin drop.

21:19Michael Popok:And the lights came up and the judge looked at them and said, tell me you have more than that. Tell me your entire case is not based on that. And that was sort of what happened in the Senate today. This is your case against Jack Smith? You're so incompetent that you can't even get him into a gotcha moment where he feels he's got to assert the Fifth Amendment because he's struggling. He's not struggling. He didn't commit perjury. And you know what they're going to do? If they get the Senate, they're going to try to bring it back with another perjury hearing, try to argue he perjured himself like about the basketball game.

21:53Michael Popok:This is, if you needed another reason to make sure the Senate goes to the Democrats as does the House, getting rid of these kind of communist banana republic trials of somebody who we should be building, we should be building statues and naming buildings after Jack Smith. It should be like next to the Kennedy Center, There should be the Jack Smith Center of Justice and special counsel history. Something like that. In fact, I am calling on the next president of the United States to take that ballroom and not use it as a ballroom. Make it a museum dedicated to Jan 6th and Jack Smith with his name on it.

22:41Michael Popok:That's what I want to see. I would rather see people who are heroes have their name on buildings to replace the letters of Donald Trump. That's what we need to do together. There's going to be a lot more analysis of what just happened to Jack Smith. I don't think even the Republicans know what just happened, but it wasn't good for them. Here on Legal AF, take a minute, hit the free subscribe button. Help us to continue to grow our pro-democracy channel. Until my next report, I'm Michael Popak. Can't get your fill of Legal AF? Me neither. That's why we formed the Legal AF Substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the Substack.

23:21Michael Popok:You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do call, wait for it, Morning AF. What else? All the other contributors from Legal AF are there as well. We got some new reporting. We got interviews. We got ad-free versions of the podcast and hot takes where legal AF on Substack. Come over now to free subscribe.