Jack Smith Testifies About Case Against Trump

0:00FanDuel is dropping bonus bets into everyone's account for the tournament. All you have to do is opt in to claim your bonus. But don't wait. These bonus bets are only available for a limited time. FanDuel. Play your game. 21 plus and present in select states. Bonus issued as non-withdrawable bonus bets which expire 7 days after receipt. Max bonus$500 unless otherwise specified. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER. Courage. I learned it from my adoptive mom. Hold my hand. You hold my hand. Learn about adopting a teen from foster care at AdoptUSKids.org.

0:40You can't imagine the reward. Brought to you by AdoptUSKids, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Ad Council. Welcome to The Beat, everyone. I'm Ari Melberg. The reason that we have special coverage tonight with Nicole and Rachel and our whole team later is that we will be making sense of what we live through today. A reckoning inside a crime scene. inside the nation's capital, which was famously criminally ransacked by Donald Trump's fans after he summoned them. This is the seat of government and democracy, which then outgoing President Trump tried to overthrow. And this is the first time the special counsel who famously indicted Donald Trump twice, Jack Smith, gave public testimony under oath about his case.

1:22and Jack Smith's headline was clear. Donald Trump belongs in prison. Donald Trump would have been convicted had, in Smith's view, the wheels of justice been allowed to move forward. Now, that is his view. A fair reporting of this also includes other views and members of both parties, of course, were represented in the questioning, but they are questioning an individual who has high credibility, who has prosecuted people in the public corruption unit in both parties, and who brought this case with mountains of evidence. So what he said today for the first time under oath in public matters. And he said Trump is guilty of serious crimes against our democracy, and that he had the goods, the evidence, the receipts to prove it.

2:11And what is different today, and we're going to show you not only what Smith said, but a lot of the supporting material right now. I've got some very special guests standing by from the top of the DOJ. But what we're going to show you right now is both some of what Smith said, so you're caught up on the highlights. But if you watch part of this hearing today, we're going to show you more than just what he said. We're going to give it to you in the context of the overwhelming evidence. Because here's the thing. Every defendant is legally presumed innocent in our system. That includes former defendant Donald Trump.

2:43But not every case is this strong with this much evidence that occurred in real time. Trump tried to overturn the election he lost. And he was caught, red-handed, with volumes and volumes, piles and piles of classified documents, which he had every right to review while he was president and no right to steal when his citizen era began. And so here's where we begin tonight with Jack Smith. President Trump engaged in criminal activity. Donald Trump suggested that one witness should be put to death. This is a Republican, mind you, who called it a little bit embarrassing. I felt confident in pursuing the case.

3:24I will not be intimidated. Republicans have called this hearing. We had proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Be careful what you wish for. We were ready, willing and able to go to trial. He's always sort of been very down the middle and just about the facts. It was an attack on the structure of our democracy. No one. No one should be above the law in this country. No one should be above the law. Smith was sober to the point of dry. He was fair to the point of sometimes even possibly boring, for those who watch all five plus hours of this. And he was serious in a forum that at times was not. Indeed, Republicans were of two minds about this formidable public servant, because remember, there was a private deposition they held, and they released that kind of under the cover of darkness over the holidays.

4:21Smith was the one who said, yes, I can appear in private or public, but bring it on. Former DOJ counsel appears today amidst this enemies list, which Trump has made it clear he wants to add Smith to. These are not just named opponents or targets, but people that have already been basically subjected to the DOJ's corrupt use of subpoenas and indictments, charges, probes. Smith told the committee he does prepare for the same type of abuse by Trump now. Do you believe that President Trump's Department of Justice will find some way to indict you. I believe that they will do everything in their power to do that because they've been ordered to by the president.

5:13And Trump posted about his view that the hunter should be hunted, that he wants to return to more and more of these kind of revenge prosecutions. His current record, by the way, 0-14. Pam Bondi takes the enemies list as an order, even though in a similar forum before Congress, she once claimed there would be no enemies list. Today at the hearing, Republicans also questioned and attacked Smith over what he did in the probe. Some view it as a kind of projection where the party of losing revenge prosecutions against the Fed chair, Trump cabinet members, local officials, a member of Congress, a congressional candidate, the list goes on.

5:56And that party now in Smith sees their own problems in the mirror. But key elements of the Trump plot, which we've reported on, are documented. Many of them indicted and convicted. Some of them through independent authorities. The threats against Pence, the elector fraud, and the effort to corrupt the DOJ. Did your investigation find that Donald Trump attempted to manufacture fraudulent slates of presidential electors in seven states that he lost? Yes. I just want to find 11 ,780 votes. Did he spread lies and conspiracies to his followers to make them believe that the election had been illegally rigged against him?

6:49Yes. They obviously were influencing a lot of people, members of the public. Did he pressure DOJ officials to stop the certification of the election? He did. And I recall toward the end saying what you're proposing is nothing less than the United States Justice Department meddling in the outcome of a presidential election. You don't understand, Mike. You can do this. I don't want to be your friend anymore if you don't do this. What you see there is the corroboration, including from Republican officials, from White House veterans, from people speaking under oath who did resist what Trump demanded, which was to stonewall what became his impeachment probe and later the Jan 6 investigation by Congress.

7:35And so again, I'm trying to tell you very clearly, we cover some hearings where somebody says a bunch of stuff, and that's all we have. We cover some legal proceedings where somebody says stuff, but some of it remains under seal. And that's true sometimes for good reasons in grand jury cases, or in other areas where Trump has continued to hide material against the law, like the Epstein probe. But this is not that case tonight. Jack Smith spoke under oath, under the penalty of perjury and more, in these tense times, and then referred to things that, as we're continuing to show you, happened and were corroborated by Trump's top aides and longtime Republican conservatives and Federalist Society members.

8:16Smith said it is that evidence, corroboration and witnesses, that meant he was confident he would win this case beyond a reasonable doubt. And if you remember the two cases, Today, he testified most about Jan 6th, but the two cases with felonies involved would lead typically to sentencing where the defendant would end up in prison for some time. Again, every defendant legally presumed innocent. These cases didn't go to trial. But remember, it was Trump's own supporters in the cases Smith was going to bring who would have become 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.

9:04I said, absolutely not. That's not how we do things in the United States. There's no legal authority to do that. What they were proposing, I thought, was nuts. Those are the voices of the insiders, the people who helped Trump all along the way, including on ideas that were controversial, to say the least, in the first term, but served his agenda. They just stopped at the point of ending our democracy as we know it, of trying to overthrow the incoming administration of President-elect Biden. And they failed, which is important to remember at a time like this, where some feel we've gone through the looking glass in the second term, and Jack Smith is being openly attacked by the sitting president, and they are willing to indict their foes we've seen.

9:45And yet that doesn't mean that insurrections work. The last one happened, and we measured some of that today, the damage. There were police officers in that room, by the way. We'll talk about that. But it didn't work then. And if they try it again, there are good reasons to think it would not work on a repeat. Jack Smith was, as I mentioned, under these rules, not going to get into the classified documents case. That's because unlike some of the people at the DOJ right now, this former DOJ employee closely adheres to every court order and the rule of law. So because there's a court order that limits that, he was extra careful to say he's not going to get into any of it.

10:33And I emphasize that because there are some people in government and law who would say, ah, that's the court order, but I'm going to go up against it, or I'm going to try to get really close to the line, or I'm going to say things that aren't about what I know from the government side of that case, but in general about, for example, you could not violate a court order, but say that as a general matter, leaving classified documents all over the place that you stole is dangerous to the United States. You could say that without, of course, revealing any secret investigative material, but he's very careful.

11:04And we're going to talk about this tonight as well. The difference in the tactics because he's playing by the rules even as others break them. And for people who look at this as politics or bloodsport, that can be frustrating. As a political matter, Democrats are often told to get tougher. And within the law and nonviolent available legal actions, they could get tougher. That's a political debate. But it is not the place of veterans of the Department of Justice or anyone who cares about the rule of law to say, oh, if the other side's doing crime or electromatism, or fraud or lying under oath, then you've got to hit back with that.

11:40And that certainly was not Jack Smith's approach today. And the Democrats are saying, when lawful, they actually want to get him back before the Congress to discuss that whole other case, which depends on whether that report is released and other matters in court. Smith made it clear what he sees at stake today. My belief is that if we do not hold the most powerful people in our society to the same standards of the rule of law, it can be catastrophic. If we don't call people to account when they commit crimes in this context, it can endanger our election process. It can endanger election workers and ultimately our democracy.

12:24I told you Jack Smith is sober and careful. He didn't make a bunch of sweeping statements like that. The warning you just heard there, he made on the strength of the evidence he'd gathered, on the very credible witnesses who had worked for Trump up until the insurrection and sedition plot, and then told the truth, he thinks under oath, many of them, about what we're up against. And you heard it there. If we don't patrol this, and we don't protect our democracy and rule of law, Americans are in danger. the actual counting and processing of the votes is in danger and ultimately the democracy itself there weren't any big fireworks coming from jack smith's side of the table today that's on purpose in a world of lies and ai slop and white house meme lies and wannabe performative internet fireworks he is the antithesis of that and yet if there were substantive fireworks if i can be so bold as to make up that kind of term.

13:21The substance that came through was, your democracy is at stake. You better fight to keep it. We have two titans of the Justice Department who served at the highest levels dealing with criminal cases, Andrew Weissman and Leslie Caldwell, when we return.

13:40FanDuel is dropping bonus bets into everyone's account for the tournament. All you have to do is opt in to claim your bonus. But don't wait. These bonus bets are only available for a limited time. FanDuel, play your game. 21 plus and present in select states. Bonus issued as non-withdrawable bonus bets, which expire seven days after receipt. Max bonus$500 unless otherwise specified. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER. Did you know about one in three people with plaque psoriasis may also develop psoriatic arthritis, which causes joint pain, stiffness and swelling?

14:19Does this sound like you? Listen to what it sounds like to be a million miles away.

14:31Trimphia, Gucelcomab, taken by injection, is a prescription medicine for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who may benefit from taking injections or pills or phototherapy and for adults with active psoriatic arthritis. Serious allergic reactions and increased risk of infections and liver problems may occur. Before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. Tell your doctor if you have an infection, flu-like symptoms, or if you need a vaccine. Imagine being a million miles away. Explore what's possible. Ask your doctor about Trimphia. Tap this ad to learn more about Trampaya, including important safety information.

15:10Courage. I learned it from my adoptive mom. Hold my hand. You hold my hand. Learn about adopting a teen from foster care at AdoptUSKids.org. You can't imagine the reward. Brought to you by AdoptUSKids, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Ad Council.

15:28Special Counsel Jack Smith testified in public under oath for the first time ever about his cases against Donald Trump today. And we are joined by two special guests from the top of the DOJ. Andrew Weissman was a top Mueller probe prosecutor. He was also FBI general counsel. He's an analyst for us. And he has the only other known public discussion with Jack Smith on these topics, not under oath and not before the Congress. But I'll remind people he brings that unique background here. And Leslie Caldwell, who we've called on before because she has overseen the criminal division of the Justice Department, basically doing the work, the guardrails, the evidence, reviews, everything you can think of for preparing cases.

16:08She would oversee all of that. And the two of them also go quite a ways back. We'll remind everyone here they were with those kind of French presidential shades long before you knew that was a look. Houston in the early 2000s. Welcome to you both, Andrew. That photo is probably the last lighter moment of this conversation, I admit, because I want to play now what the Congresswoman Jayapal shared. And as I told viewers, this is some new from today, but with the underlying corroboration, the evidence provided what it looked like at the time. Take a look. I was trapped in the House gallery with a small number of members that day, And I will never forget the pounding on the doors and the insurrectionists threatening to kill us right outside.

16:56Breach the line. We need backup. We have a breach of the Capitol. Breach of the Capitol. We host the line. We host the line. Our proof showed that he caused what happened on January 6th, that it was foreseeable, and that he exploited that violence. fact check true uh your view on what we heard from jack smith there on this point on people reliving uh what sometimes has been lied about uh how those uh convicts attacked members of congress and both parties they wanted to hurt people they wanted to hurt mike pence that was clear uh they vowed to murder him assassinate him uh they of course did the breach you just saw And all of that was, of course, later pardoned by Donald Trump.

17:47So what did you think of the way Smith presented it today? Well, you know, picking up on what you're talking about, I mean, it's not just that you have Jack Smith speaking truth to power, but the people in that room, so many of them were in Congress on January 6th. They saw what happened themselves. They were eyewitnesses to the crimes. And they couldn't bring themselves today to all Republicans and Democrats to just say, look, this is what happened. And so the Democrats repeatedly went to the prior statements of Republicans right after January 6th saying this is what happened, including statements that the president was responsible.

18:36responsible. And look, this is true. We have that, Andrew. So I'm going to play that point because you're going there and then you'll continue and analyze out of this. But Moskowitz showed that and here was some McConnell. Take a look. 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. This failed insurrection only underscores how crucial the task before us is for our republic. We had police officers, the men and women that we walked by every single day that guard the doors and we say hello to, out there with riot gear getting spit on and attacked.

19:21All I can say is count me out. Enough is enough.

19:29So here, I think, is the key message of where we are. And Jack Smith said this at the end of his opening statement. He said that he, in his 30 years, including overseas, has seen what can happen when there's an erosion of the rule of law. And he said, my fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in this country for so long that many of us have come to take it for granted. But the rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to apply it. It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs. Our willingness to pay those costs is what tests and defines our commitment to the rule of law and to this wonderful country.

20:17And I think that is what we saw Jack Smith and his team live and breathe. but it's a message to all of us in terms of what is at stake and what's going to be required of us if we want to save that part of this country. Leslie, your view on what Smith presented today, why it matters. Well, I think it was very important for the public, to the extent they were all watching, or at least many of them were, to see that Jack Smith is a very sober, serious person, not a deranged lunatic as he's been depicted by the president and others. um the format of a congressional hearing is not really uh designed to let somebody tell their story or let somebody answer real questions it's designed more to be speeches by members of congress followed up by generally short because the questions usually are sort of very leading and the witnesses don't usually get a chance to actually articulate what they might want to say if they could so i but i think it was important for the country to see that he's a serious person He took his job seriously.

21:23I've known him for several years, and he's always been a very serious and straightforward by-the-book prosecutor. And I think that was, to the extent he was able to talk, I think that was fairly clear. Yeah, and there were a lot of questions to him about investigative process. We didn't clip all of them because they kind of went down these strange rabbit holes. I was just curious, your view, having overseen so many criminal cases, when Republicans said, gosh, why did you use subpoenas? Why did you review documents to see who was in touch with whom after this large-scale national security attack?

21:59Why did you do interviews? Are those all standard investigative tools? Yeah, those are all investigation slash prosecution 101. If you find out that two people were talking at a particular time that's relevant to the case, you want to be able to confirm that they did in fact have a conversation. You're not going to know what was said because all that was subpoenaed was basically the time and the length of the conversation and who the two ends of the conversation were. That's normal to seek people's phone records. It's normal to subpoena documents. In fact, that's the only way prosecutors generally get documents is by subpoenaing them.

22:32And subpoenas go out in every kind of case, ranging from the simplest case to the most complicated case. And Jim Jordan probably knows that. I'm sure he does. Yes. Yeah. I mean, I think a lot of what we saw today was theater. Maybe not the greatest theater in the world, but it was theater and it wasn't really designed to get at the truth. It was designed to present individual people's perspectives based on their whatever their party affiliation is. Yeah, I mean, Leslie puts it very clearly, as she often does, Andrew. Theater is great if you go to Broadway. And I love fiction. It just has to be properly labeled.

23:07We are living, though, in upside down times where people with authority are putting out their fiction as nonfiction. That's a lie. And in the criminal context, Jack Smith reminded or explained to the Congress today in his sober way that, of course, words that are used for crimes are not protected speech. That's true in fraud. It's true in incitement. I mentioned to viewers, I'll show some of what Republicans said for those who were working or busy day didn't watch the whole thing. One Republican congressman drew, you know, audible gas in the room and concern from the officers who protected members of Congress with a conspiracy theory about what happened that day.

23:51And so a warning to viewers, he's referencing things that are not substantiated. But this was also the tenor of some of the back and forth from Rep Nels.

24:02I would like to quickly address the police officers on January 6th. Mr. Don, Mr. Fanon, Mr. Gonal, 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 on it went, Andrew, your thoughts on that effort to lie about a history which, even if one is accustomed to some amount of misleading and false claims in politics or in the MAGA era, to say that he wanted to specifically address those officers who protect members of Congress and do it from the seat of the crime scene was galling even by today's standards.

25:03Well, let's just take the logic of what that person is saying. If you want to argue that law enforcement at the time knew enough to take proactive steps, one, that's not a defense of the people who attacked the Capitol. That's just saying that the government at the time could have prevented it. Two, Donald Trump was the president of the United States at the time. And he either was then derelict in not doing something beforehand, and it is not a defense to the fact that when it was ongoing, as we all witnessed, he did not lift a finger for hours until really sort of forced to and people pleaded with him.

25:48And after he sent out a tweet that Jackson has said endangered the life of his own vice president of the United States, only then did he act. So even if you take that sort of callous attack by that member of Congress, it logically doesn't hold up in terms of assessing blame. Yeah. And I wanted to ask you, you worked for Mueller, who also did his testimony. These days have a kind of a history mood. And in both times with Trump, he got away. In the Mueller case, the sitting president was never going to have been prosecuted. And so a lot of people were refreshed on that on that baseline of DOJ rules.

26:32But I don't know, Andrew, I don't put you on the spot. You ever see arbitrage with Richard Gere? I did. okay so you know that you see this film and you learn this guy is doing financial fraud a rich guy stealing from others that's always bad then he is at least negligent if not worst uh in in losing someone's life in a car accident these are spoilers but it's old movie but by the end of the movie big spoiler richard gear gets away with it all and so the audience is left going is this our system the guy gets away you can see how that's frustrating even amidst the the facts and the receipts. And I'm going to put two of the work, two of the pieces of work we've done on this.