Congressional Hearing on Legal Misconduct

So you went to try to get senators' phones, and their phone records, and their text messages. The only problem was the Constitution protects members of Congress work product and their phone records, and you, you knew that was the case, didn't you?

I understand there are constitutional protections. We followed the Constitution- Oh, you didn't. You didn't even attempt to. In fact, you told the attorney general, you briefed the attorney general, we've got

the memo right here, you told the attorney general that indeed members likely have a valid speech or debate privilege immunizing them from compelled testimony. Mr. Chairman, I'd ask consent this be entered into the

record. Objection so ordered. You knew that, but you went ahead anyway. In fact, you were also told that federal case law, that is the courts,

said that it doesn't matter how you try and get the material, whether you go to the senators directly or whether you go to phone companies, the speech and debate clause still applies. You were told that either way, the senators were likely to need to be

notified to be able to assert their privileges, weren't you? I don't believe that's accurate. Really? I understand- Because here's a memo to you from your own

office, John Pelletier, January 8th, 2023. I've got it right here. I'd ask now, Mr. Chairman, this be entered into the record. Objection so ordered. It's entitled Speech or Debate Litigation Summary, in which you are told, it's addressed to you, "To Jack Smith, Special Counsel.

From John M. Pelletier, Assistant Special Counsel." In which you are told, "The Rayburn Decision requires the government to give a member of Congress the opportunity to assert privilege," and it was your office's own assessment, it didn't matter what, matter whether you went to the member or

whether you went to a phone company, you still had to do it. But you decided to ignore that, blow right through it. You went to the phone companies and you hid the fact from the court that you were

seeking the records of members of Congress, didn't you? You didn't tell the court you were seeking subpoenas from the phone companies for members of Congress, did you? You, you hid that from the court, isn't that correct?

We did not say who the subpoenas for, were for when we sought a non-disclosure order. Yeah, exactly. That part is correct. Yeah, exactly right. I mean, here's your deposition before the

House when you were asked, "When you sought these orders, the judge didn't know it was a member of Congress, is that correct?" And you said, "I don't think we identified that."

So instead, what you decided to do was you didn't tell the members of Congress, my phone was one of them that you got, you didn't tell the court, you went to the phone companies. You didn't alert the court so that members would have a chance to

assert their privileges, you just ran roughshod over the whole thing. And then you also knew there was a federal law in addition to the Constitution, there was a federal law that requires the phone

companies to notify members of Congress, to be able to notify members of Congress when their records are requested. But you prevented the companies effectively from doing that by seeking a gag order against them, didn't you?

I don't think that's accurate. Oh, i- indeed it is, and we have the gag order right here. I mean, let's just look at, at what you said to the court. This is number one. You had the court sign a gag order, a

non-disclosure order finding, and you testified earlier today that you wrote it, that, "The court has reasonable grounds to believe that disclosure will result in destruction of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses, and serious

jeopardy to the investigation." So you did it, of course, when you had the court sign this, you didn't tell the court you were seeking the records of members of Congress. So the Constitution requires you to notify members. You didn't do that.

It requires you, if you're gonna go to phone companies, to give the members a chance to assert privilege. You didn't do that. It requires you to tell the court when you're going to go after members' phone

records. You didn't do that. It requires you to allow the phone companies to notify members. You got the court under false pretenses to prevent the companies from doing so. Any time the law stood in your way, any time the Constitution

stood in your way, you just ignored it. Is that why you lied to the House under oath about getting member text messages? I answered every question I was asked truthfully. Oh, I don't think so.

I am proud of our investigation. No, well, you shouldn't be. It- You should be totally ashamed. Let, let me just ask you this. On December 17th, 2025, you told the House

that you had never gotten text messages from members of Congress. Let's have a look. Here's what you said to the House. "Did you seek a search warrant for the content of any text messages of members?" You say, "From members?

Yes." You say, "I don't recall. It was, I don't recall that. It was just toll records?" You say, "Correct." Now, do, do you recall this exchange with the House on December 20- 17th, 2025?

I, I see it there, yes. Okay, good. But on June the 2nd, 2023, two full years earlier, you demanded from the National Archives records that included text

messages from 44 United States senators and members of Congress, and indeed, you got all of those records. Isn't that correct? Yes, and I'm happy to explain that if you'll give me the opportunity. Oh, no, I understand that you got them.

We all understand and we know it, not because you told us, but because the Department of Justice disclosed it. So two full years before this deposition, you were in possession of text messages from 44 members of Congress that you went and subpoenaed. You read them within 30

minutes, the Department of Justice told this committee. They said that within an hour of receiving those text messages, your team was reading them. And yet, not only did you not notify any member of Congress whose text messages you obtained

pursuant to your process, you told the House two full years later, having read all 44 members' messages, you told them you'd never gotten messages, you'd never requested messages from any member of

Congress. That was a lie, Mr. Smith. And you may try to lawyer your way out of it. "Well, it wasn't from the member, it was from the archives." You knew exactly what you were being asked, and you deliberately misled them.

You're a smart guy, I think that's pretty clear, but you used your ability and the powers of your office to lie to the court, to lie to Congress, to lie to the American people, to lie to the House.

It's the worst abuse of prosecutorial power in the history of the United States, and all I have to say is I'm glad you failed. I don't know what our democracy would be like if you had succeeded in your effort to interfere in the workings of a presidential election. If it were up to me, I'd charge you with perjury,

but you should certainly be disbarred. And I can only pray that nothing like this will ever happen again in the United States of America. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.