“The testimony of Jack Smith”

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Deadline: White House — “The Testimony of Jack Smith”

Host: Nicolle Wallace
Date: January 22, 2026
Main Theme:
A landmark, first-ever public testimony by Special Counsel Jack Smith, five years after the Jan 6th insurrection, providing an unprecedented inside look at the criminal case against Donald Trump for efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The episode dissects Smith’s statements, the political combat he faced, behind-the-scenes insights, and clarifies what's at stake for American democracy, featuring legal and political experts alongside live congressional reaction.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Setting the Stage: The Context and Stakes

• Nicolle Wallace introduces the testimony as “the most thorough accounting” to date of the criminal cases against Donald Trump, noting Smith’s background as a career prosecutor equally tough on both parties and describing the testimony as a “clear warning for all of us about the current state of the rule of law.” [01:07–02:35]
• Republican Attacks: Smith was repeatedly interrupted with “ludicrous” charges and “Fox News” whataboutism, yet remained calm and steadfast.

---

2. Jack Smith’s Core Testimony: The Legal Case, Witness Intimidation, and Personal Resolve

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

• [02:35] Jack Smith: “My review of the case, I came to the conclusion we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We were ready, willing, and able to go to trial in the case.”
• [09:55] Reiterates: “If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or a Republican. No one, no one should be above the law in this country..."

On Witness Intimidation

• [03:18] Smith: “He [Trump] said, if you come after me, I'm coming after you. He suggested a witness should be put to death. The courts found that those sort of statements… deter witnesses who've come forward, they deter witnesses who have yet to come forward.”
• [04:05] On gag orders: “It is not incumbent on a prosecutor to wait until someone gets killed before they move for an order to protect the proceedings.”

On Personal and Professional Attacks

• [05:16] “With respect to me, I think the statements are meant to intimidate me. I will not be intimidated… We followed the facts and we followed the law. And that process resulted in proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed serious crimes. I'm not going to pretend that didn't happen because he’s threatening me.”
• [06:02] “I believe they [the Trump DOJ] will do everything in their power to [indict me] because they've been ordered to by the president.”

On the Rule of Law

• [35:48] “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 they don't have to follow the law… people would think they don’t have to follow the law as well…”

---

3. Key Reactions and Panel Analysis

Dan Goldman (Judiciary Committee, D-NY)

• [07:23] Smith’s “apolitical” professionalism highlighted:
  “He didn’t even know whether he was registered to vote. He is so apolitical… He reiterated numerous times that he has charged Democrats, he has charged Republicans…”
• [09:09] Goldman sees the testimony as “the worst nightmare for Donald Trump… For a man like Jack Smith to say he had proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump was guilty...”
• [13:59] Predicts the findings will echo in public debate through November due to ongoing election denial.

Mark Elias (Voting Rights Attorney)

• [44:45] On the strength and possible resurrection of the charges:
  “If this still has the gravity that I think we all... believe it does, are we going to see it again?”

Tim Hafey (Former J6 Committee Chief Investigative Counsel)

• [16:29] On the compelling case and evidence:
  “Some of the most powerful witnesses were witnesses who... were fellow Republicans who had voted for Donald Trump, who had campaigned for him, and who wanted him to win the election.”
• [19:40/37:01] Praises Smith’s “powerful voice for the rule of law,” and reiterates the real-life impact of Trump’s rhetoric on election workers.

Andrew Weissmann (Former DOJ Official)

• [26:22] Reads Smith’s statement:
  “Adherence to the rule of law is not a partisan concept or endeavor... The rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to apply it. It requires dedicated service... especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs.”
• [32:11] Stresses the warning: “The people doing Donald Trump’s bidding today were people who lived through January 6th… who were saying things they know from their own personal experience is not true…”

Alex Wagner (Political Analyst)

• [28:38] Contrasts the professionalism of Smith vs. Trump’s team:
  “The idea that Jack Smith is ‘deranged’ is completely without basis… It takes an extraordinary character to withstand the pressure that he was under... I was just struck by how tragic it is that that person, Jack Smith, is now under scrutiny.”

---

4. Memorable Quotes and Moments (with Timestamps)

• On Witness Intimidation:
  “He [Trump] said, if you come after me, I’m coming after you. He suggested a witness should be put to death.” — Jack Smith [03:18]
• On Prosecutorial Duty:
  “It is not incumbent on a prosecutor to wait until someone gets killed before they move for an order to protect the proceedings.” — Jack Smith [04:05]
• On Relentless Resolve:
  “I will not be intimidated… I’m not going to pretend that didn’t happen because he’s threatening me.” — Jack Smith [05:16]
• On Universal Accountability:
  “No one, no one should be above the law in this country…” — Jack Smith [09:55]
• On the Rule of Law:
  “Adherence to the rule of law is not a partisan concept or endeavor… the rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to apply it.” — Jack Smith, quoted by Andrew Weissmann [26:22]
• On the Dangers of Not Prosecuting:
  “If we do not hold the most powerful people in our society to the same standards… it can be catastrophic.” — Jack Smith [35:48]
• On Mass Pardons:
  “I do not understand why you would mass pardon people who assaulted police officers. I don't get it. I never will.” — Jack Smith [39:49]
• On Legal Importance of Proving Knowledge:
  “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.” — Jack Smith [43:37]

---

5. Implications and Warnings for American Democracy

• Rule of Law’s Fragile State:
  Multiple panelists warn that America currently sits far closer to lawlessness than a healthy rule of law — and that “nostalgia is not a strategy.”

  • “We’re not… just a few more wake up calls for the American public to [return] back to that thing. We're not. We're moving forward with the world in which we live...” — Tim Hafey [41:10]

• 2024 and Beyond:

  • Panelists fear continued abuse of presidential power, with Trump vowing prosecution of critics and mass pardons for Jan 6 rioters, and ongoing threats to election integrity.
  • The urgency of vigilance, civic action, and upholding standards is a resounding theme: “It only snaps back if we make it snap back.… be ready for there to be more political prosecutions, more misuse of force and power by the federal government.” — Nicole Wallace & Tim Hafey [21:07, 41:10]

---

6. Closing Reflections

• The episode closes with expressions of alarm and urgency; gratitude for Smith’s integrity; reminders that “facts are at war with disinformation and lies,” and that the ultimate stakes are free and fair elections, and the fate of American democracy itself.
• “I heard everything he said today as a wake up call and a warning that we better decide which we want: this banana republic… or free and fair elections in a democracy, which is what is on the line in November.” — Nicole Wallace [31:08]

---

Notable Segment Timestamps

• Introduction and Context: [01:07–02:35]
• Jack Smith’s Core Testimony: [02:35–06:10]
• First Panel Reactions (Goldman, Elias): [07:23–13:59]
• Witness Evidence, Republican Testimony: [15:31–19:13]
• Panel Reflection on Rule of Law: [26:14–28:07]
• Rule of Law Warning & Mass Pardons: [35:39–41:10]
• Legal Significance of Proof Trump Knew He Lied: [43:32–44:30]
• Final Reflections on State of Democracy: [46:07–47:42]

---

Overall Tone and Language

• The tone is somber, urgent, and occasionally incredulous, matching the gravity of the subject. Smith’s own language is direct, measured, and legalistic; panelists are frank, occasionally emotional, but always grounded in fact and concern for the system.
• Exchanges are often impassioned, but grounded in deep institutional knowledge and experience.

---

For listeners and readers:
This pivotal episode captures a critical moment in American democratic life, offering a rare first-hand look at high-stakes legal prosecution and a sober warning about the health and future of American democracy. Jack Smith’s testimony stands as both a legal accounting and a call to civic action.

Transcript

[Commercial Narrator]

Now is your time to get into a new Dr. Horton home by taking advantage of its national red tag sales event going on right now through January 25th. Stop by any of its participating communities and find select red tag homes at Incredible Pricing. So whether you're buying your first home or looking for an upgrade, you don't want to miss the red tag sales event going on right now. Discover the Dr. Horton Difference. Tap your screen now or visit Dr. Horton.com Dr. Horton America's Builder and Equal Housing Opportunity Builder.

[Spanish Language Announcer]

El programa Nacional de bececas hace serde McDonald's a beneficiado mas de bieciente mil.

[Nicole Wallace]

Estudiantes con mas de trentai cinco milliones de dolares.

[Spanish Language Announcer]

Esta es ma Historia de generaciones que Dude.

[Nicole Wallace]

Hi there, everyone. It's 4 o' clock in New York. Exactly five years and 16 days after the January 6th insurrection at the actual scene of the crime, the American public heard for the very first time the fruits of their government's criminal investigation into Donald Trump. Lifelong career prosecutor Jack Smith, who prior to investigating Donald Trump was brought cases against Democrats and Republicans calmly and dispassionately answered questions from lawmakers that ranged from the inquisitive to the ludicrous. Today's testimony amounts to the most thorough accounting of the criminal cases against Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn an election and end the tradition of a peaceful transfer of power in the United States of America. Jack Smith came into this hearing today as a political target for Republicans. They barely let him speak. At times, they interrupted him with absurd conspiracy theories and whataboutism better suited for Fox News. But when Jack Smith did get a chance to speak uninterrupted, he was crystal clear. He said he had full confidence in his cases, the ones he was ready to bring to trial against Donald Trump. Relying on the facts of those investigations, he pushed back against the conspiracy theory that the Justice Department or the justice system was somehow weaponized against Donald Trump. That, of course, is the basis for Donald Trump's entire retribution campaign against the rule of law and law enforcement.

[Jack Smith]

My my review of the case, I came to the conclusion we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We were ready, willing and able to go to trial in the case. Of course, as I said in my opening statement, prosecutors can't control outcomes. But I felt confident in pursuing the.

[Nicole Wallace]

Case to trial, proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump was guilty. At points, Jack Smith pulled the curtain back on his investigation as best as he was able to, saying that Donald Trump's statements about the cases did intimidate the witnesses.

[Spanish Language Announcer]

Did you have any evidence that President Trump's statements about the cases against him intimidated witnesses or prevented them from coming forward?

[Jack Smith]

I had evidence that he said, if you come after me, I'm coming after you. He asked. He suggested a witness should be put to death. The courts found that those sort of statements not only deter witnesses who've come forward, they deter witnesses who have yet to come forward.

[Spanish Language Announcer]

But you weren't able to identify a single witness who didn't come forward because they were intimidated by President Trump.

[Jack Smith]

We had extremely thorough evidence that his statements were having an effect on the proceedings. That is not permitted in any court of law in the United States.

[Spanish Language Announcer]

Don't you think it's a pretty low bar to clear if you're trying to silence a candidate for president? I mean, if you can't identify a single witness who's intimidated, that maybe you should reconsider the gag order?

[Jack Smith]

Both courts upheld the orders. And it is not incumbent on a prosecutor to wait until someone gets killed before they move for an order to protect the proceedings.

[Nicole Wallace]

It's not incumbent to wait for someone to get killed. Scattered throughout Jack Smith's testimony today, a clear warning for all of us about the current state of the rule of law in this country and exactly where things are heading. Jack Smith said it would be catastrophic if the most powerful people in our country are not held to the same legal standard as everybody else. As for himself, he says that Donald Trump's attacks on him, which were ongoing while he was testifying, will not stop him. Watch.

[Mark Elias]

Trump has said that you, Mr. Smith, should be investigated and put in prison. He called you a disgrace to humanity, a radical left, Marxist, a criminal. In fact, Trump has used the words deranged Jack Smith 185 times on truth Social. How do you think that these statements have impacted you, your staff, and your investigation?

[Jack Smith]

With respect to me, I think the reports. I'm sorry, the statements are meant to intimidate me. I will not be intimidated. I think these statements are also made as a warning to others what will happen if they stand up. And I am, as I say, I'm not going to be intimidated. We did our work pursuant to department policy. We followed the facts and we followed the law. And that process resulted in proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed serious crimes. I'm not going to pretend that didn't happen because he's threatening me.

[Mark Elias]

And, Mr. Smith, do you believe that President Trump's Department of Justice will find some way to. To indict you?

[Jack Smith]

I believe they will do everything in their power to do that because they've been ordered to by the president.

[Nicole Wallace]

And seeming to want to prove Jack Smith's point there, Donald Trump posted in the last hour exactly what Jack Smith warned about a call to prosecute Jack Smith claiming without any evidence that Jack Smith committed, quote, large scale perjury during his testimony. Today, special counsel Jack Smith testifying for the very first time in public on Capitol Hill is where we start today. Joining me for the hour, former top official at the Department of Justice, legal analyst Andrew Weissman is here. Plus former lead investigator for the January 6th select committee, Tim Hafey is back with us. He is a partner at the law firm Hafey Smith, as in Jack Smith, Harbach and Windham. As I said, Smith being Jack Smith. Also joining us, Democracy Docket founder, voting rights attorney Mark Elias and and senior political analyst Alex Wagner joins us. She's a contributing host on Pod Save America and she is the host of the podcast Runaway Country. I want to start, though, with Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman of New York. He's a member of the Judiciary Committee. He took part in the questioning of Jack Smith today. Start by telling me what the most important thing was that the public learned from Jack Smith today.

[Dan Goldman]

Well, I think perhaps the most important thing was just to see his demeanor. His demeanor did not change from start to finish, Democrat or Republican. And that is the demeanor of a professional career, a political prosecutor. And you can see why so many people who were former prosecutors rave about him as the prosecutor's prosecutor. And this notion that he would have conducted a political investigation is so preposterous. And as it started coming out, of course, he got he had no conversations with President Biden. He had no conversations with the White House. He got no direction from Merrick Garland. So then it just goes on whether Jack Smith himself had political motivations. He didn't even know whether he was registered to vote. He is so apolitical that it's just not even a consideration for him. He reiterated numerous times that he has charged Democrats, he has charged Republicans, and he has decided not to charge Democrats and not to charge Republicans. And that politics and partisanship do not play a role. And ultimately, that is what Donald Trump's allegations have been. The Republicans were all over the map, as you say, trying to come up with some good Newsmax or Fox News clip about what the constitutionality of his appointment or some, you know, other stuff that just seemed so beside the point. But what was clear is it was apolitical and he had Overwhelming evidence that Donald Trump himself knew that the election was not stolen and yet perpetrated this massive conspiracy to overturn it.

[Nicole Wallace]

In any event, what's also clear, I mean, you and I have been watching the conduct of Donald Trump and the Republicans in the body in which you now serve for a decade. They'll study our brains when we're dead, but they're acting like this was the worst day in the world for Donald Trump, because it is the worst nightmare for Donald Trump. For a man like Jack Smith to say he had proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump was guilty of the crimes he charged him with. I thought the most devastating thing for Donald Trump was that even now that he's president, Jack Smith said today he would bring the very same case again tomorrow if asked to. Let me play that part of his testimony.

[Jack Smith]

I stand by my decisions as special counsel, including the decision to bring charges against President Trump. Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity. If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or a Republican. No one, no one should be above the law in this country, and the law required that he be held to account. So that is what I did. To have done otherwise, on the facts of these cases would have been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor and as a public servant, of which I had no intention of doing. I remain grateful for the counsel, judgment, and advice of my team. President Trump has sought to seek revenge against career prosecutors, FBI agents, and support staff simply for having worked on these cases. To vilify and seek retribution against these people is wrong. Those dedicated public servants are the best of us, and it has been a privilege to serve with them.

[Nicole Wallace]

Congressman, he is the most senior former leader of the Merrick Garland Justice Department to say that, to defend the men and women who've been purged from the FBI in droves, in numbers that experts worry leave us vulnerable on the national security front. The most senior former Justice Department official to say that the prosecutor's being targeted for being parts of these cases being punished. He's defending their integrity in this very public space, calling out Republicans for, quote, vilifying and seeking retribution against them. Why is that? Why is that important? Why was that important to him, do you think?

[Dan Goldman]

Well, I think I can say with quite certain, with a lot of certainty, that Jack Smith holds a lot of pride in the people who work under him and takes responsibility for them and feels responsible for them. And that's what great leaders do. That's what, you know, great, great prosecutors do. And so he, as he said himself, he won't be intimidated, but he's worried about everybody else who's losing their job and getting death threats and all just because they did their job. Let's be real, they did their job. Theoretically, if there's a problem with this investigation, it's Jack Smith. It's not the people who worked under him. And yet Donald Trump's pursuit of retribution and revenge has no bounds. And it has gone after so many of the, the agents and the prosecutors who worked on that, those investigations. And I would just add at the end here, Nicole, he couldn't even talk about volume two, the classified documents case. And there is undoubtedly a lot of information in that volume that we don't know about that is going to be very damaging to Donald Trump. And we know that for two reasons. One, Judge Aileen Cannon, who is literally an extension of Donald Trump in the judiciary, has sat on that request to unseal volume two for a year, and she's doing that to protect him. And if you had any doubt, Donald Trump himself intervened in that case this past week to against his own Department of Justice to prohibit them from ever releasing volume two. And Jack Smith, because of that order, could not even talk about volume two today. The classified documents mar a Lago case.

[Nicole Wallace]

Congressman, what happens now? I mean, do you, do you think this is the last we'll ever hear of the case, quote, proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Donald Trump's guilt in the criminal charges brought against him?

[Dan Goldman]

No, I don't think it's the last you'll hear because I think you will hear it repeatedly from now until November because Donald Trump has required those who work for him to take a loyalty oath that includes denying the legitimacy of the 2020 election. And what Jack Smith made so clear today, and he recited all of the different types of evidence and witnesses that he had to support this conclusion, is that Donald Trump unquestionably knew that the election in 2020 was legitimate and was not marred by fraud. And yet he continues to perpetuate that today. And what I fear is that he has put in senior positions overseeing our elections, people who also believe that, and we are now having an election in November that it is quite clear Donald Trump is going to try to mess with. And that's got to be the next focus for us, is making sure that we prevent him from doing that.

[Nicole Wallace]

Congressman, thank you for making time to talk to us after so such a busy day. We appreciate it my pleasure. Mark Elias, let me ask you to pick up on that point. Jack Smith testified that Donald Trump knew he had lost the election. I think everyone is familiar with some of the evidence, but let me show you how he described the strongest witnesses in the case that he was prepared to bring against Donald Trump. This is number two for my control.

[Jack Smith]

Room 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 advisors.

[Nicole Wallace]

So in terms of credibility, and again, let's forget the 30% or 32%. I guess today's poll suggests it's down to less than that. But we'll leave that for the pollsters. The case that was going to be made against Donald Trump was going to be made not by Jack Smith, but by people who, quote, voted for Donald Trump, people who, quote, worked on his campaign and his, quote, advisers.

[Andrew Weissman]

Yeah.

[Tim Hafey]

And they were going to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You know, I mean, like Jack Smith, let's not forget Jack Smith has said he had that evidence, and he had that evidence sufficient to convince a jury of 12 people unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's not a surprise. I mean, the fact is that Donald Trump did lose the 2020 election. And sometimes I think we lose sight of just how badly he lost it. You know, we, we kind of conflate, you know, the 2000 election, which was really close with the 2020 election, which was actually not that close. Like, I mean, you know, Joe Biden won Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Nevada. Like, he swept, as Donald Trump oftentimes points out about his own victory in 2004, he swept every swing state. So it's not like even if Donald Trump had flipped one of those states, it would have flipped the outcome. Like, he lost by every possible metric and he went to court 60 times. My, I was, I was proud and fortunate enough to help lead the charge in defeating Donald Trump and his allies in all of those cases heard by Democratic judges, Republican judges. The one of the cases he filed was in the U.S. supreme Court. Like, of course he knew he lost because he lost and it wasn't particularly close. But that's, that's why he has to continue to spreading the big lie today. It's the reason why, you know, just think about it. This way, Nicole. In the last three weeks, he has said, number one, he wish he had seized the ballot boxes in 2020. Well, that's a hell of a piece of evidence that Jack Smith didn't have, but comes out of the words of Donald Trump's own mouth. Now, to the New York Times, he has said that he wish we don't have elections in the midterms at all. Well, that's like a hell of a piece of evidence. Right? And he says that because. Because incumbent presidents tend to lose the midterm election. So let's everyone bookmark that for this November when Donald Trump says that they actually won the midterm elections. And that's why he needs to seize ballot boxes and the like. And then third, and this is the one that's most chilling, given the testimony today, is on the stage yesterday in Davos, Donald Trump said, I'm breaking news. And the breaking news he had was that there are going to be criminal prosecutions of people involved in the 2020 election. Now, that could be Jack Smith. It could be people on his staff. It could be people like me who are lawyers, could be people on the Biden campaign, who the hell knows what Donald Trump's addled brain is thinking. But, you know, when you add all those things up, it's clear where we stand, which is that Donald Trump lost the election. He has spread. He has built a movement on a big lie. Of course, Jack Smith could approve proven that. And Donald Trump is now going to abuse the Department of Justice to go after everybody who tells the truth.

[Nicole Wallace]

Yeah. I mean, Tim Havey, Mark Elias got a deeper cut of that Davos press conference than I did. I missed that, and I felt like I watched 11 hours of it. Your thoughts on how we as a country take what Jack Smith very sort of solemnly and seriously shared with the country and the world today and apply it to the next test for our democracy, the midterms.

[Spanish Language Announcer]

Yeah. I think Jack today, Nicole, both stylistically and substantively provided a powerful voice for the rule of law. As Congressman Goldman said, part of the hearing today was the American people's opportunity to see Jack's demeanor, to see his credibility, to hear him dispassionately answer questions, hostile questions, on unfair questions, without getting upset, without getting defensive, but simply retreating again and again to the fact. And again, the facts, the facts that he had, that he assembled during his investigation are so compelling. So we need more adherence to facts and law. And when you hear from a dedicated public service like Jack Smith describe his process in the face of False narratives, lies, mischaracterizations. I hope it gives people faith. Now it's out of favor and he is vilified for that. And we're still, you know, as everybody here on your panel knows, in a bit of a sort of a turbulent stretch. But bottom line, he's a voice for the rule of law. And it's a reminder of the standard, the tradition that's bipartisan. It's not Democratic or Republican. It's the standard by which the Department of Justice has always operated. It was nice to see that again in the flesh in the person of Jack Smith.

[Nicole Wallace]

Yeah, I mean, I have to sneak in a break, but I think what I want to turn to you on Andrew Weissman is it's a relic. I mean, that is not what we have right now. It is not a glimpse at what is normal and what will snap back. It only snaps back if we make it snap back. That is not. We do not have a Justice Department filled with Jack Smiths. It's certainly not run by Jack Smiths. So I want to, I want to ask you and Alex Wagner to weigh in on that. I want to continue to play for you. If you didn't watch all of it, I want you to see how Jack Smith responded to some of the new evidence things, as Mark Elias said, Trump has said publicly, things Lindsey Graham has said publicly since his investigation concluded. Later in the broadcast, we'll turn our attention back to Minnesota and the now three week long occupation by ICE there, where the cruelty and depravity and willingness to target children seems to be on the uptick. Reports of agents actually baiting a child to arrest more people. Jacob Sobroff is on the ground with some of that reporting press in Minneapolis. We'll get to all that and more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. Today, el Programa Nacional de Vacas HACE Ser the McDonald's.

[Olivia (Ollie Commercial)]

Hey, it's Olivia from Ollie. Is it just me or are these wellness trends getting ridiculous? Protein tracking, biohacking. It's too much. Start small with Ollie's daily multivitamin. Just two gummies a day. Help support your immune system, heart and bone health. It's that easy. Less tracking, more doing. You boo. Go to o l l y.com to learn more. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

[Commercial Narrator]

Ollie.

[Okta Commercial Narrator]

These days it seems like AI agents are just about everywhere. You turn every field and every function, but without identity, you can't trust they'll serve your business instead of jeopardizing it. Fortunately, OKTA helps you get identity right by securing your AI agents identities, giving you a single layer of control, a single standard of trust. So whether an AI agent supports a single user or your entire enterprise, with Okta, you'll turn risk into opportunity. Secure every AGENT Secur ANY agent OKTA secures AI.

[Nicole Wallace]

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

[Jack Smith]

That 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 the 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 onto those. That pattern, over time, we felt, was powerful evidence that he, in fact knew that the fraud claims he was making were false.

[Nicole Wallace]

Andrew Roisman In 100 years, when they come back and they try to understand these times, they're going to have to deal with this, that there was actual sworn testimony from an actual sitting senator that claimed, quote, Donald Trump would believe that Martians stole the elections. That's a quote from Lindsey Graham testifying under oath in front of a grand jury in the Georgia case. Jack Smith. Then I think that might be the closest he comes to maybe cracking a smile. Testifies under oath that that statement is consistent with what we found in our investigation. Our investigation revealed that Donald Trump was not looking for honest answers to the point that he would believe that Martians stole the elections. That this is where we are just feels like another break glass moment. Your thoughts on what was shared for the first time with the public today. You're on mute. You're on mute, my friend. We're gonna wait. Can you hear us? Okay. We're gonna fix Andrew Weissman's mic. Oh, there we go. There you are.

[Andrew Weissman]

Okay, you know what? Taking away my fancy microphone, that's what you're doing.

[Nicole Wallace]

So fancy. I loved it.

[Andrew Weissman]

So let me just be serious for a moment. I thought. I think that in a moment like this, to get through it, it is important to have leaders and role models. And I think that's What Jack Smith did today, I agree completely with Tim and I. I wanted to just channel my inner Rachel Maddow for a moment and just read what he said at the end of his opening statement, because I think that's what he wanted us to understand and know and to take away from this day. He said, adherence to the rule of law is not a partisan concept or endeavor. 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. And I think that is what Jack Smith and his team did for this country, I think is what Jack Smith did today. That is the message that he is sending to the many, many people, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, people with no party, but who believe in the rule of law and truth, that you need to be committed to it, and it can come with costs.

[Nicole Wallace]

Well, Alex Wagner, I think that if we really put this testimony in its place on a spectrum right. Of healthy rule of law to no rule of law, we're a lot closer to the no rule of law side in terms of what our president and our Department of Justice believes. As he was testifying and when he finished, Donald Trump called for his criminal prosecution and Jack Smith himself said he expected to be attempts to be prosecuted.

[Mark Elias]

Yeah, I was struck. First of all, Trump's nicknames usually have some basis in reality or there's something that there's some nodule on which they hang. The idea that Jack Smith is deranged is completely without basis. Right. The idea that this dispassionate, eloquent, really professional steward of the law is anything other than, I mean, I think, the paragon of justice and what we should strive for in our prosecutors. I don't know where Trump got that nickname, but it certainly, obviously it doesn't hold. But beyond that, it was such a study. In contrast, right? Like the utter unseriousness of the Trump Justice Department with Kash Patel and Pam Bondi atop of it, and Lindsey Halligan, people like Lindsey Halligan being recruited to be a U.S. attorney, someone who failed spectacularly at the witch hunt that Donald Trump dispatched her on, in contrast to someone like Jack Smith, who really. And I'm with Dan Goldman on this. You know, this was the first time A lot of Americans heard from Jack Smith, though Andrew Weissman conducted a very newsworthy interview with him. You know, this is, in terms of our domestic audience, this is the first time they've heard from this man. And he was so rigorous in his discipline and he was so he listened to people tell him that he is responsible for the destruction of democracy. You know, it takes an extraordinary character to withstand the pressure that he was under and remains to be remains under to, you know, sit there with, you know, a serious expression as people launch these deeply personal, completely baseless attacks on him to great peril while he's in the crosshairs of the President of the United States. I mean, I was just struck by how tragic it is that that person, Jack Smith, is now the person who's under scrutiny. And the people that are holding the sort of flaming, whatever you call them, torches to hunt him down are these just utterly incapable, craven fools that have been sent to do their jobs by Donald Trump. I mean, I don't know, Nicole. I want to try and try and find something optimistic in this. I guess I'm glad that people like Jack Smith exist, but I was so bereft watching someone like that give testimony. Given where we are in terms of our Justice Department today.

[Nicole Wallace]

I, Andrew Weissman, had a reaction like Alex's that I, and I also think that the idea that facts are at work war with disinformation and lies, to me, misses it. Like the disinformation and the lies prevailed at least a year ago and the facts lost and they're paying the price. In the indictment or the attempts to indict or the indictment of Jim Comey, the three attempts to indict Tish James, the judge, called it a masquerade, an insurance layer masquerading as a U.S. attorney, Jack Smith, to me, reminded me of something Mark Carney said yesterday. That and I, and look, I don't know him the way you all do, but, you know, nostalgia isn't a plan. I felt or I heard everything he said today as a wake up call and a warning that we better decide which we want this banana republic that they have no shame ushering in or free and fair elections in a democracy, which is what is on the line in November. Is that, am I laying too much onto him?

[Andrew Weissman]

ANDREW Weissman no, absolutely. I, I think that is exactly, excuse me. I think that's exactly what he was saying in its opening and throughout. This is going to be hard. And just to make matters worse, the people who were doing Donald Trump's bidding today were people in large measure who lived through January 6th who were saying things that they know from their own personal experience is not true.

[Mark Elias]

Right?

[Andrew Weissman]

No one with a straight face who lived through January 6 can say that they thought there weren't serious crimes there that deserved to be prosecuted. In fact, Democrats today pointed out over and over again the number of people who are sitting there cross examining Jack Smith, who had said the exact opposite when January 6 had happened, how these people had to be held to account for what they did. And then when Jack Smith comes and does that, to use Alex's term, they cravenly turn around. So there is no question this is going to be a daunting task. And I think that is why Jack Smith said it is really a time to stand up and it comes at a cost. And you need to be fearless. And I think the best thing that Jack Smith did today is exemplifying that courage and his demeanor and his words and his truth throughout the day.

[Nicole Wallace]

All right, everyone sticks around. He did speak to the threats and the dangers to election workers specifically. I'll play that for all of you. We're going to sneak in a quick break. Everyone will be right back on the other side.

[Olivia (Ollie Commercial)]

Hey, it's Olivia from Olli. Is it just me or are these wellness trends getting ridiculous? Protein tracking, biohacking. It's too much. Start small with Ollie's Daily Multivitamin. Just two gummies a day help support your immune system, heart and bone health. It's that easy. Less tracking, more doing. You boo. Go to o l l y.com to learn more. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

[Commercial Narrator]

The new year brings new health goals and wealth goals. Protecting your identity is an important step. Your info is in endless places that could expose you to identity theft, leading to lost funds. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, our restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Resolve to make identity, health and wealth part of your New year's goals. With LifeLock, save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com specialoffer terms apply.

[Okta Commercial Narrator]

These days, it seems like AI agents are just about everywhere you turn, every field and every function. But without identity, you can't trust they'll serve your business instead of jeopardizing it. Fortunately, Okta helps you get identity right by securing your AI agents identities, giving you a single layer of control, a single standard of trust. So whether an AI agent supports a Single user or your entire enterprise. With Okta, you'll turn risk into opportunity. Secure every agent, Secure any agent. Okta secures AI.

[Nicole Wallace]

How would you describe the toll on.

[Mark Elias]

Our democracy if we do not hold a president accountable for attempting to steal an election?

[Jack Smith]

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. Because if they don't have to follow the law, it's very easy to understand why people would think they don't have to follow the law as well. And so I think the law should be applied equally to everyone.

[Nicole Wallace]

And what do you think the toll is for future elections and future presidents.

[Mark Elias]

Who try to steal an election?

[Jack Smith]

I think if we don't hold people to account when they commit crimes, it sends a message that those crimes are okay, that our society accepts that. I believe that 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.

[Nicole Wallace]

Tim Hafey, you and the members of the Select Committee spent a lot of time probing that last point about the lies impacts on the election process, election workers, and ultimately our democracy. Your thoughts about that part of his testimony today?

[Tim Hafey]

Yeah.

[Spanish Language Announcer]

Nicole, thank you. Look, I should disclose up front that Jack is my law partner and I'm an unabashed partisan of his. Very proud of that association. So I don't want to hide from any of your viewers the fact that I've sort of hitched my professional livelihood to his. But before I was his law partner, I was the chief investigative counsel to the Select Committee. And we did spend a lot of time developing the very same facts that Jack talked about today. Threats to election workers and real human consequence of the President's irresponsible rhetoric. There was a lot of discussion today about the Select Committee and then a lot of misinformation about our process. This narrative that somehow the committee destroyed evidence. Completely ridiculous. Every single page of every single interview. All of the documents we obtained were preserved for the archives as required by law, and turned over to the special counsel. This narrative that we suborned perjury and put Cassidy Hutchinson on the witness stand, knowing that she was lying. Absolutely false. We presented the testimony of Ms. Hutchinson, which. Some of which was hearsay things that she had heard from other people. We subsequently interviewed some of those people who did not recall those conversations, and all of that was disclosed candidly in our report. And people can judge Cassidy Hutchinson's demeanor and her testimony for herself. This narrative that Speaker Pelosi failed to call out the National Guard. Ridiculous. The speaker of the House cannot call out the National Guard. Uniquely in Washington, it is only the president and through his designees, the Secretary of the army, who has control over the D.C. national Guard. So there were so many facts that just by repetition that Chairman Jordan and the other Republicans stated as true that just aren't true. And that just was really reminiscent to me of all of the false claims of election fraud that the president threw out. The period between his election loss in 2020 and January 6th just kept repeating without foundation. There seems to be this ethic that if you just say something again and again, people are going to believe it even if it's not true. So, Nicole, stand behind the findings of the Select Committee. Stand proudly behind Jack Smith and his credibility. And look, history and scrutiny has continued to uphold those findings and will continue to.

[Nicole Wallace]

I mean, Mark Elias, the history of the last year also proves that the mass pardons of the insurrectionists themselves were beyond offensive and dangerous to the law enforcement officers they beat. Some of them would go on to lose their lives. They've also gone on to commit other crimes. Let me show you Jack Smith on the mass pardons of the rioters.

[Jack 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. 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.

[Nicole Wallace]

Your thoughts?

[Tim Hafey]

Oh, I totally get it. Donald Trump pardoned them because he wants them to be a force for him in the future. I mean, like, here's the thing. I think the, I think the most insightful comment that you have, that you have quoted is what, is what Mark Carney said. So I want to repeat what you said. Nostalgia is not a strategy. And if I have any criticism of Jack Smith's testimony, and I agree he's a true public servant and just an honorable person who gave extraordinary testimony under difficult circumstances, it is that in that quote that you played from him, he is saying if we don't have, if we don't hold elites to account or if the powerful don't, or if this, or if that we don't hold the powerful to account, like Donald Trump is that if Donald Trump does these things, Donald Trump has done these things. Like, we are not like facing in front of us a potential problem with rule of law. The problem with the rule of law is now in a rear view mirror. I mean, it's been in the rearview mirror for a year and it's not going to get any better, but it's going to get worse by just being more of the same. So we need to lose the nostalgia and we need to recognize that the norms that we expected for federal prosecutors, the expectations that they would comport themselves the way that Jack Smith comports himself went out the window at the same time that we expected law enforcement to comport themselves by calling people ma' am and sir and not calling them effect tasks while they were prepared to shoot them in the face and kill them. So, like, we just don't live in this world and we need to stop acting as if we are just a few more wake up calls for the American public to going back to that thing. We're not. We're moving forward with the world in which we live in, which we need to be steel our spines and be ready for there to be more political prosecutions, more misuse of force and power by the federal government. And we need to build an opposition movement that accepts that as the reality rather than nostalgia.

[Nicole Wallace]

This is off topic, but there's a scene in Silver Linings Playbook where he hugs his brother and he says, I got nothing but love for you, brother. And as you're talking, I, I don't always arrive at the reality as quickly as you do or with the clarity or the forcefulness that you do. But I agree with you and I got nothing but love for you for saying that out loud on our air. I want to turn this back over to Alex Wagner. I want to play one more piece of Jack Smith. I have to sneak in a quick break before I do that. We'll be right back. On the other side. Oh, get much more legal analysis by subscribing to the Deadline Legal newsletter. You just scan the QR code. It's on your screen screen right now. And then it gets delivered to your inbox every Friday, which is tomorrow. Quick break for us. We'll be right back. Why is it legally important to know that Trump knew he was lying when.

[Mark Elias]

He said the election was stolen?

[Jack 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.

[Nicole Wallace]

Alex Wagner, that felt like the crescendo in terms of the drama that we saw from him, in his confidence, that he would have been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump was guilty of these crimes.

[Mark Elias]

Yeah. And I will say he was also asked by Congressman Hank Johnson, because the charges were dismissed, could they be resurrected? He did not want to really answer that. I think that I'm not going to speak to that. But the suggestion was if this is a watertight, airtight case, whatever, if you still have confidence in this, if this still has the gravity that I think we all, at least on the Democratic side, believe it does, are we going to see it again? And I will also say that the hearing ended with Jamie Raskin saying we didn't get to talk about Mar A Lago in the documents, something you pointed out at the top of the show. Nicole, there's a lot of unfinished business as it concerns Trump, Donald Trump's criminality, something that I think Donald Trump is well aware of. I mean, he's been very abundantly clear that he needs to keep control of Congress because he's terrified about investigations that could happen if the Democrats retake the House to say nothing in the Senate. So, you know, I mean, look, I think Mark's absolutely right that it's not about nostalgia and it's not necessarily about looking backwards to what coulda should have been, but it is about understanding the sort of stark reality in which we live in the contrast that Jack Smith provides us in terms of what justice looks like, what discretion looks like, what lawfulness looks like, and where we are today and pushing like hell against the degradation of our democracy and our rule of law and being unflinching in our assessment that we are in dire straits right now.

[Nicole Wallace]

Well, I think it also, Alex, to your point about where we are in our politics, you know, Gavin Newsom was in Davos going straight to the belly of the bees, fighting the fight where the fight is being waged, saying that Donald Trump is a T Rex, you either mate with him or he eats you. If I've got that wrong, I don't really know that much more than that about T. Rexes. But the whole idea that be these crimes were able to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt gets us right back to our politics. The only reason they weren't is because Donald Trump ran on his freedom as retribution, but not for any of his voters, for himself. And it sort of gets us back to the recent polling which has him more unpopular than at any moment, including Covid.

[Mark Elias]

That's why he's trying to talk about Greenland and calling it Iceland. Mistakenly, he went to Davos to make a speech on American affordability and instead unwound basically the global alliance that has shaped geopolitics for the last half century. I mean, what a colossal mess this clown has created. It's all to escape accountability. It's all to escape accountability, both as a president who's in charge of the executive of this country, running it and helping the American citizenry, and also to escape accountability as a man who's committed crimes. I mean, again, it's just about being disciplined in the hour and not letting the insanely shiny objects that Donald Trump is throwing out there distract us from what he's doing and how he's manipulating this country and trying to make it reshape it in his own sick fashion.

[Nicole Wallace]

It's just like the mission of what we all try to do every day. It's an honor to be here today with all of you. I feel like we've talked through all this history together as it was unfolding, and to have all of you here today with me is a privilege. Thank you. Andrew Weissman, Tim Hafey, Mark Elias and Alex Wagner. Thank you. Tune in tonight for full primetime special coverage of Jack Smith's testimony led by the one and only Rachel Maddow. She'll be helming a recap and analysis. I'll be there as well. A very short break for us, Ben. White House continues after that. We'll check in on what's happening on the ground. For the people living in Minneapolis and across the state of Minnesota today.

[Andrew Weissman]

The.

[Commercial Narrator]

New year brings new health goals and wealth goals. Protecting your identity is an important step. Your info is in endless places that could expose you to identity theft leading to lost funds. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, our restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Resolve to make identity, health and wealth part of your New year's goals. With LifeLock, save up to 40% your first year visit LifeLock.com specialoffer terms apply.