MS NOW's special report on the Jack Smith testimony: Prime Time recap Part 2

That winning feeling you love? Take it everywhere you go with the Hollywood Casino app. Real money wins on all your favorite games, including exclusive titles and app-wide cash jackpots that hit all day, every day. The casino floor is now at your fingertips. New players bet $5 and get 300 bonus spins, plus up to $500 back in casino credits if you lose $10 plus in your first 24 hours. Hollywood Casino. Download and play today. Must be 21 plus. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER. If you dread dealing with your insurance more than getting stuck in an elevator with an overshare. Bean burrito for lunch. You have Insuranoia. You should have NJM. They go to great lengths to do what's best for their policyholders. Insurance underwritten by NJM Insurance Company and its subsidiaries. Welcome back to our special primetime recap of today's historic hearing with Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought two indictments against Donald Trump and who says he was prepared to prove Trump's guilt on dozens of felony counts beyond a reasonable doubt. As you know, there was there's a lot to this hearing today. Republicans came loaded for bear. They left without any bear skins. But there was there was a really interesting moment in today's proceedings, one I certainly did not anticipate. When Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson, very colorful congressman who always comes at things from a different direction, I think, than all of his colleagues, has always got a very original take on things. He asked Jack Smith whether the cases he brought against Trump, cases which were dismissed once Trump was elected president, he asked whether those cases could ever come back. We followed the facts and we followed the law. Where that led us was to an indictment of an unprecedented criminal scheme to block the peaceful transfer of power. and those indictments have been dismissed, can they be re-brought or resurrected after Trump leaves office? They were dismissed without prejudice. So they can be refiled and he can be prosecuted after he leaves office. Is that correct? I'm not going to speak to that. I can only speak to what we did, which was dismiss the case without prejudice. dismissed without prejudice. This is all he would say. Jack Smith, we're very reticent today before the House Judiciary Committee when he's asked whether the indictments he brought against Trump might someday be brought back, whether those trials effectively could go ahead against Trump. In just a moment, we're going to be joined live by the top Democrat on that committee, Jamie Raskin. We're going to see if Congressman Raskin might be any less reticent on that point. I will say it's no small thing that the Democrats have Congressman Raskin as their leader on the Judiciary Committee. That's the committee that oversees DOJ. It makes it possibly the most important oversight body in Congress right now, given that Trump has turned DOJ into his own personal machine for attacking his enemies and pardoning his allies. There really is pretty much no one better suited and better prepared for a hearing with Jack Smith than a congressman like Jamie Raskin. Congressman Raskin was the lead impeachment manager during Trump's second impeachment trial, one where he was charged with incitement of insurrection for his role in the in the January 6th attack. The prosecution that Raskin led got 57 senators to vote for Trump's conviction, including seven Republicans. That's the largest bipartisan impeachment conviction vote in the history of the United States. Congressman Raskin also served as part of the of the January 6th investigation in Congress. And before any of that, before he was in Congress, Jamie Raskin was a constitutional law professor for more than 25 years. In fact, there was a great moment in today's hearing where Congressman Raskin kind of scolded one of his Republican colleagues, Kevin Kiley, for a particular line of questioning he pursued. In scolding him, he pointed out that Kevin Kiley used to be his student and therefore should certainly have known better. Having a constitutional law professor in a hearing like today's turns out to be a really useful thing when you're talking about the criminal indictment of a United States president. They've been saying that there's some kind of First Amendment defense that Donald Trump would have had to the crimes you indicted him for. Is there a valid First Amendment defense to defrauding the public? Is there a valid First Amendment defense to disrupting a federal proceeding? Is there a valid First Amendment defense to violating the voting rights of the people and cheating the public out of a fair election? The First Amendment is something we took seriously in our investigation. But the First Amendment does not protect speech that facilitates a crime. speech that is used to facilitate a crime, a fraud crime in particular, is not protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court precedent on that is clear. And the case law is perfectly clear on this, right? All frauds are perpetrated by speech, right? All conspiracies are perpetrated by speech. So just because your criminal conduct is brigaded with speech doesn't somehow mean you've got a First Amendment defense against trying to overthrow the government. Joining us now exclusively is Congressman Jamie Roskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. Congressman, I know it has been a long and busy day. Thank you so much for being being with us tonight. It is my pleasure, Rachel. I'd rather be nowhere else than with you guys. Oh, that's very kind of you to say. First of all, I'd like two top line results from you or two top line takeaways from you. Number one, why did this happen today? Why do you think your Republican colleagues wanted to do this? And how do you think Jack Smith did? One, I mean, there are different theories about why they ended up doing it after trying to blockade a public hearing for so long. I mean, one possibility is that they're just trying to fill the airwaves with anything other than Epstein files. So that's one theory that's out there. The other is that it looks inevitable that the 11th Circuit is going to reverse Judge Eileen Cannon's utterly bizarre and ridiculous and paranormal judicial order, thwarting the ability of the public to get a hold of Jack Smith's second volume relating to the stolen and hoarded documents case. So they wanted to do it before that happened. So he couldn't talk about it. And that relates to the motion that I brought up at the very end of the hearing. You know, basically what I said to Chairman Jordan was, look, we just had 50 percent of the hearing. We just heard about the admittedly central and important issue of Donald Trump trying to overthrow the 2020 election. But also Jack Smith was working on the stealing of all these classified documents and hiding them in the ballroom and in the bathroom and then obstructing justice to not turn them over and so on. And he wasn't able to testify about any of that stuff because of the gag order imposed by Judge Cannon. So once that gag order is lifted, I said, we need to have a second part two of the hearing. And he hemmed it hard and said, well, we'd have to wait to see what happens and so on. And at that point, I invoked a rule that the Judiciary Committee has, which is called the minority rule, which is that if there's only one witness called by the majority and the minority doesn't get a witness, we get to have a hearing of our own. And so we'd like to have another hearing. It happens to be with the same witness, Jack Smith, so we can have the second half of the hearing that we didn't exercise proper oversight over because of the ridiculous canon order. I will say in live in the moment, as Congressman Jordan was trying to gavel the hearing to a close and you jumped in with that explanation, essentially making that case in very plain English that you as the Democrats on the committee plan to bring him back. Jim Jordan seemed quite surprised. It really felt like you pulled a rabbit out of a hat. We then got the letter from you formalizing your explanation pursuant to rule 11 clause to J. one of the rules of the House, we the undersigned majority of the minority, right, to notify you of our intent to call Jack Smith to testify in continuation of this full committee hearing. The way that I hear you're explaining it now, the way that I understand it from your letter, is that Congressman Jordan, as surprised as he may have been to have heard this from you today, he doesn't have a choice. You guys now get to bring Jack Smith back again when that when volume two is unsealed and you can talk to him about that case. Yeah. Well, not only did we have a majority of the Democratic minority, we had every member of the Democratic minority together on it. And I should use that as an opportunity, Rachel, just to commend my extraordinary members on the House Judiciary Democratic side who were there for four or five hours today and were absolutely zeroed in and focused on everything going on and did a magnificent job of rebutting all of the Republican trivia and nonsense while giving Jack Smith the platform to tell America about what he had found. Congressman, it's Jen Psaki. First of all, it was very enjoyable to watch you there today. It seemed like you've been ready. You had your Wheaties this morning. So thank you for everything you did today. I wanted to ask you about that Hank Johnson, Congressman Hank Johnson moment that Rachel just played, because I think for a lot of people watching when Jack Smith essentially didn't want to give any more information or answer the question further, it may have made people watching at home think, wait a second, is it possible that when Donald Trump leaves office that charges could be brought again or there could be another round of accountability? Can you just refresh our memories on that and tell people, all of us and people watching at home. What is or isn't possible? All right. Well, remember, Jen, nothing is more important to the Republicans than the absolute untouchability, immunity and impunity of Donald Trump. OK, that's number one. When we moved just to impeach him and try and convict him and remove him from office and disqualify him from office. And indeed, it was a 57 to 43 vote, the most sweeping bipartisan vote to impeach and to try and convict a president in American history. A lot of the Republicans were saying, well, if there were really crimes there, try him. Let the Department of Justice do it if there were really crimes. Then, of course, when he escaped by the skin of his teeth being impeached and tried, removed, convicted, disqualified, then and a special counsel was appointed, Then they threw everything into trying to wrap him in doctrines of presidential immunity. And, of course, the Roberts court pulled out of a hat completely the idea that the president cannot be prosecuted for felony crimes he commits if they are somehow under the auspices of the core functions of the presidency. I mean, just a completely magical doctrine like the stork brought it out of nowhere. So Hank Johnson asked an excellent question, which is all right. It was dismissed without prejudice, which means it could still be alive in the future. Of course, you've got to deal with all the statute of limitations questions. But then you also have to deal with all of these radical novel Supreme Court immunity doctrines that have been generated So nothing impossible here But look I think that Americans understand the core thing right now is for the forces of democracy and freedom to stay together to get us through this nightmare, and to make sure that American democracy survives. That's the critical thing. And we can, you know, let the prosecutors deal with the prosecutor questions in the future. Let's focus on defending and preserving and strengthening our democracy. Congressman Raskin, it's Nicole Wallace. In that spirit, if Democrats are in control of the House, which seems like something even Donald Trump is girding himself for, would you invite Jack Smith back a year from now and ask him to detail the evidence he gathered and how Donald Trump sought to overturn the 2020 election ahead of the 2028 presidential election? Well, you know, as we were saying before, Nicole, we need to get him to come back to testify on volume two of his report, because that will also demonstrate an extraordinary sequence of obstructive events where Donald Trump did everything in his power to literally physically hide evidence, to steal classified documents, and then to use them in utterly improper ways in the well-trafficked Mar-a-Laga Hotel with all of these international visitors and Russians running around and everything. We got to get to the bottom of that. And we're not waiting until the 2026 or 2028 elections. We want to do that one now. Hey, Congressman Ari here. The Republicans on the panel also tried to get Jack Smith to sort of give a report card to the prior congressional Jan 6 probe, which is a little odd. And one of their points seemed to be, well, some of the witnesses used secondhand information, things that not only they saw, but things they heard from other people, their colleagues. Cassie Hutchinson was named, for example. And I just wanted to ask you, what does it say about the Republican members of your committee that during that entire investigation, they backed up the White House position that they weren't going to cooperate, that firsthand witnesses weren't going to cooperate even to a criminal degree. Navarro and Bannon famously going to prison rather than talking to the committee. And now they're saying out loud they don't want secondhand witnesses. So their plan seems to be no witnesses. And what does that tell us about their view of what would happen if witnesses actually told the truth about how Trump tried to steal the election? Yeah, I mean, it was an imbecilic line of inquiry. First of all, Cassidy Hutchinson worked for Donald Trump. She was a Trump witness. She was the top assistant to Mark Meadows, something that they never mentioned in going after her. And of course, one of the amazing things here is the way that they're very willing to cast overboard anybody who doesn't demonstrate a thousand percent loyalty to the criminal in chief. But in any event, of course, in a congressional investigation, we don't have a rule against hearsay. People can quote other people. The Republicans do it all the time. They did it today. And that's just not one of the rules we use. So that is a court rule. And so I think Jack Smith was pretty clear about that. Of course, they would follow the hearsay rules. But nobody needed Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony about the fact that Donald Trump wanted to march in like Mussolini with the mob he incited to commit violence against Congress and his own vice president because Donald Trump himself said it as recently as 2024. He said, I wanted to go down there. He said it in the speech on the ellipse and I'll be there with you. He said, you've got to go and fight and fight like hell. And if you don't, you won't have a country anymore. And he also said, and I'll be there with you. So that whole thing was just nonsense. You know, it strikes me that they were basically, you know, treating this like the Rocky Horror Picture Show. You know, they're throwing rice. They're throwing toast. They're throwing tomatoes. None of it made any sense. They have no coherent, rational alternative to what was found by the January 6th Select Committee, which they insisted on calling a partisan committee today when it was a bipartisan committee. And by the way, we originally had an agreement with the Republicans for an outside 9-11 style commission, not with members of Congress, but other people appointed outside with five Republican appointees, five Democratic appointees, equal funding, equal staff, equal subpoena power. And Donald Trump blew it up because he didn't want any investigation at all. And that's when Kevin McCarthy tried to put people who participated in the events of January 6th, like Chairman Jordan, on the committee. And Pelosi said, we're not going to have that. We'll put other Republicans on it. And so that's what happened. And that's how that ended up being perhaps one of the greatest committees in the whole history of the U.S. Congress, which produced a report which they have not laid a glove on. Congressmen Chris Hayes, just quickly on the vote that Rachel mentioned earlier when you had to leave to go vote. The House rejecting the almost comically corrupt actions by the Senate to give a few of their members a shot at half a million dollars or maybe more because their phone records were lawfully subpoenaed. That was unanimous. What happens now on that vote? I mean, is there going to be pressure on the Senate? It is so embarrassing. There's such unanimity in the House. Do you see that going anywhere? Well, we'll see. I mean, they are a notoriously corrupt group and they all want their million dollars and they've said it publicly. They want a million dollars for each violation. And what's comical about the situation is that these are people who have insisted that there be no reform of these practices. In other words, they've got no problem with prosecutors and investigators having access to the phone records, the toll records of everybody in the country except for them. And when it happens to them, they want a million dollars apiece. And so the Democrats have actually been moving. And in fairness to Chairman Jordan, with the support of some Republicans over the last several Congresses to try to reform that generally. And it is the Republicans in the Senate who have killed it every single time. So they are not civil libertarians. They're people who want a million dollar payout and think that they should be above the law, just like Donald Trump, their hero. Congressman Raskin, it's Rachel again. I just want to ask you one last question, because I feel like you are a keen and unreserved observer of your colleagues in a way that not every member of Congress is. But I feel like sometimes I get my best insights into what's going on in the Republican conference because you're willing to be very blunt about it. So I have a blunt question. Do you feel like you understand right now what your Republican colleagues take is on January 6th? Because I feel like today sometimes they were saying, oh, January 6th was not that big of a deal. Why are you making such a big deal of it? Other times they were saying it was a terrible, horrible thing, but it was Nancy Pelosi's fault. you and your Democratic colleagues introduced statements into the record today from your Republican colleagues from the immediate aftermath of January 6th that were totally at odds with their language today, referring to it as very serious and indeed criminal, something that should be responded to by the criminal justice system. I just feel like they're everywhere on January 6th right now. Do you have a handle on where Republicans, what Republicans in Congress think about it now? Well, that's perceptive. I think there are many rooms in the mansion of Trump apologists. I mean, the lowest common denominator is all of them will perform triple back somersaults to end up defending Donald Trump. But some of them, like Representative Nels today, actually directly addressed the police officers in the room and said, don't worry about it. It wasn't Donald Trump. This is a guy who didn't even thank them for their service. But he said it wasn't Donald Trump. It was the Capitol Police themselves at fault. I mean, that that that occupies a realm with the, you know, 9-11 inside job people. Then you've got Representative Fry, who was talking about how this was all unfair to Donald Trump, what Jack Smith did, because there was too much evidence against Trump. And giving him only five and a half months to prepare for trial was impossible because there was so much to get ready for. Well, this brought to mind Mark Twain's statement, which is if you just tell the truth, you never have anything to remember. Why does it take five and a half months to tell everybody what you were doing on January 6th when the president's whereabouts are known at every time? And, you know, another one that really blew my mind, Rachel, was Representative Van Drew from New Jersey. It was absurd. He was saying Donald Trump really wanted to send in the National Guard, but Nancy Pelosi wouldn't allow him to. So I introduced just the website of the D.C. National Guard saying the D.C. National Guard is the only National Guard in America that reports directly and exclusively and only to the president of the United States. It's solely within his power. And so you're telling me the guy who wants to just go ahead and send military into Venezuela or Panama or Greenland couldn't send the National Guard in when they're under his direct control because Nancy Pelosi wouldn't allow him to. Now, of course, in the real world, Pelosi was begging him, calling on him to send in the National Guard, along with Democrats and Republicans across the board. But, you know, each one of these Republicans now occupies a different realm of conspiracy theory. It's just the most extraordinary thing to witness. I mean, in defense of Congressman Andrew of New Jersey, he did concede on the record today. I'm a simple guy. and so i felt like oh okay you know what i mean if you're gonna if you're gonna set the table that way basically anybody could be put in the placement yeah well that's something he says that i agree with although i think it's an understatement congressman jamie raskin of maryland the top democrat on the house judiciary committee uh sir this has been a a big day and i know it was a lot of preparation to get ready for today too thank you so much for staying up late and being here with us we really appreciate it my pleasure all right john i have to ask you because you sat down with us. Let me get your reaction to what Congressman Raskin there. But I also just wanted to get your take on what you saw today. First of all, I mean, as he was talking, it was making me think about the fact that they have known this hearing was coming for some time. And the way that these Republicans prepared was to put together essentially process arguments, some of which were offensive, some of which were incorrect, some of which were hard to follow, all of the above, about a day that is the most documented day in modern history that happens in our nation's capital and one that we all watched with our own eyes. And it made me think just about this split screen because we're all covering many stories right now, of course, including this hearing today, but just about Minneapolis. And today, J.D. Vance was in Minneapolis, the vice president of the United States, telling the people of Minneapolis that they didn't see what they saw with their own eyes two weeks ago. So as much as things have changed in some ways over the last five years, you still have this tremendous gaslighting of the American people and telling them they are not seeing the abuses that are actually happening before their own eyes. And J.D. Vance, who's only in Minneapolis today because the last guy who had that job was literally left for yet. Right. I mean, he's only there. There's never any nod to the fact that he's Donald Trump's second vice president who is only there because Trump left the first one for dead on January 6th. Yeah And of course tonight the eve of what is expected to be effectively a general strike tomorrow in Minneapolis with clergy converging on Minneapolis from all over the country and businesses schools public accommodation everything essentially in Minneapolis expected to come to a halt tomorrow as the entire city walks out participates in a demonstration at 2 p but also just walks out and refuses to participate in public life or any commerce in order to tell ICE to get out of that city Tomorrow is going to be a dramatic day in Minneapolis. All right. We still got much more to come tonight. Several police officers who were at the Capitol on January 6th were in attendance at today's hearing. One of them had some choice words and one very choice hand gesture for one of the Republican congressmen on the panel today. That's next. Stay with us. Lots to come. 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. What do you know about the Family Detention Center in Dilley, Texas? It's where our government imprisons immigrant parents, children, and even newborns. A place with putrid drinking water, food with bugs and worms, and even a confirmed measles outbreak. These conditions are unsafe and inhumane The Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, or RAICES Is the only legal aid provider inside Dili, day in and day out We're there right now, defending immigrants' rights to due process And filing emergency petitions to free families illegally detained You can fuel our fight to protect the rights of our children, our neighbors, and all of us Donate at freeallfamilies.org. That's freeallfamilies.org. Life with kids is nonstop. Snacks on the counter, fingerprints everywhere, toys you swear you just cleaned. That's why Lysol is a go-to. Proven disinfection that kills 99.9% of viruses and bacteria on surfaces, and now a clean that smells great, like lavender. Lysol disinfectant wipes handle everyday surfaces. The all-purpose cleaner tackles kitchens and bathrooms. And the Power Toilet Bowl Cleaner disinfects the brush and bowl for two-in-one disinfection. Because when you're juggling everything, cleaning has to keep up. Don't just clean, Lysol Clean. Enjoy even more before you spin with Caesars Palace Online Casino. Download today and register with code RADIOLAUNCH. $10 no-deposit casino bonus on select slot games, one-time wagering requirement. Plus 100% deposit match up to $1,000 on select slot games, 15 times wagering requirement. Plus 2,500 bonus reward credits. Must be 21 plus and physically present in New Jersey. Minimum wagering within seven days required to unlock bonuses. Full terms and wagering requirements at caesarspalaceonline.com slash promos. If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, call 1-800-GAMBLER. This next song is dedicated to a guy who wears orange makeup. His pants and his diapers. Let's go. First class loser. It's the first. Close. Ah. You got another line in. The inimitable Boston punk band, the Dropkick Murphys in all their glory. Do you want to know why the Dropkick Murphys are relevant to our primetime recap of the Jack Smith hearing tonight? I'll tell you, the Dropkick Murphys have been emphatically railing at Donald Trump throughout his second term. They are as unrestrained in their criticism of the president as they are glorious in it. And that may be the necessary context you need to understand why Michael Fanon, the former D.C. police officer who defended our nation's capital on January 6th, showed up to today's hearing in an excellent Dropkick Murphy's T-shirt, which says on the back of it, fighting Nazis since 1996. That turned out to be a bit of foreshadowing for what would happen when the hearing went into a brief recess and a kerfuffle broke out in the audience. It seemed to start when a notorious MAGA troll provocateur guy seemed to be trying to provoke Officer Fanon. Can you brace it now? Come get me. Look at me. No. Total control over my mouth. Hey, this meeting will be in order. Mr. Chairman, will you? No shame. No shame. Sir. No shame. Treat these people that way. This guy is threatening us. Members of the audience, members of the audience will please sit down and remove themselves from the committee room. Rape my children, you sick bastard. Rape my children. Thank you, Officer Fanone. You can hear Officer Fanone there accusing the man of threatening his family and threatening to, quote, rape his children as fellow officers held him back. You also might have heard some of the Democratic members of Congress there, including Becca Ballant from Vermont, sort of intervene and say shame to the man who was arguing and provoking Officer Fanone. That man is an acolyte of Trump's former national security adviser, Mike Flynn. He has helped push Trump's election conspiracies and lead up to January 6th. When the hearing finally resumed, Republican Congressman Troy Nels decided he thought it would be a good idea to address directly and invoke the January 6th officers who were sitting in the room while he was defending the president who had sent the mob after them that day. Once again, Officer Fanone was having none of it. And he let everybody in the room know using words that he sort of coughed and also some expressive hand gestures. Lastly, I would like to quickly address the police officers of January 6th. Mr. Don, Mr. Fanone, Mr. Go Now, 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 there was going to be a high propensity for violence that day. Claim my time. Yeah. He will be in order. The time belongs to the gentleman from Texas. The president's day. The last thing, your hand gestures, Mr. No, no, no, no. You need medication. The time of gentleman expired. The audience will be in order. The committee will be in order. Now, how much no matter how much Republicans try to rewrite the history of January 6th, they cannot ignore the fact that some of the police officers who risked their lives that day are right there in front of them, living, breathing people who will keep showing up to things like this, despite the fact that they apparently have no idea how to contend with that when it happens. Our colleague Stephanie Ruhle has joined us, Steph. Just like Epstein victims aren't going away, right? So we're now a month and four days past the Epstein deadline, and we're seeing the administration do every single thing possible, create distractions. But just like the January 6th officers are not, they were extraordinarily brave then, they're brave now. You can say the same thing for those Epstein victims. They're not going away. Yeah. Well, so I think there's been a lot of effort to understand why Republicans are such cowards, why Republicans who have been pro-NATO and anti-Putin are suddenly pro-Putin and anti-NATO because they're afraid of Donald Trump. Right. There is no need to understand why a survivor of Epstein's heinous child sex trafficking or someone who protected, The person who ran the fastest on January 6th, at least in the evidence that was produced by the select committee, was Republican Josh Hawley. I mean, he ran like a frickin Olympian sprinter. Like they weren't less afraid than the Democrats. They were at least as afraid. And in the case of Hawley, ran faster than any Democrat, at least captured on video. So the idea that they weren't also looking to Michael Fanone and Harry Dunn to save their asses, to save their lives that day, is what the offense is. And unlike Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy and the Republican cowards who are willing to pretend that they were anti-NATO and pro-Putin because they're afraid of losing something, I guess those jobs are so great. These guys have nothing to lose. Fanon, as he said there, he lives at constant fear that somebody happened to his mother who's had feces left on her lawn. There are constant death threats against his kids. He gets pizzas delivered regularly, which is the we know where you live threat. They do it to judges as well. They are dealing with physical and mental and emotional trauma that they'll deal with forever. And the idea that they won't go away, it's bigger than that. They're not the cowards that the Republicans are because they've already sort of been through the crucible of what Trump has done to them, what he's taken from them. And to the thing that you were saying, Jen, about the kind of gaslighting, you didn't see what you thought you saw. Like it's so important for them to be sitting in that hearing room because the entire project here is to completely create some alternate reality, to erase them, to erase the reality of what happened, that you didn't that it didn't happen. That didn't happen, as I think Jamie Raskin called it, the most documented crime in world history. And so for them to sit sit there, even when they're just sitting there and listening, is a rebuke to that. And again, we live in this world where like this is all happening, this hearing room. We all saw it. We all know Donald Trump gets up. is like, I won Minnesota three times. You know, he's talking about the rigged election. Like, the insistence on the lie has to be met with equal and opposite force on the other side of the insistence on the truth. And it is exhausting. Like, you see what it takes out of those men. You see what it takes out of the Epstein victims. But in both cases, the persistence of the truth has to endure. You have to, like, marshal it every day, day in, day out, because there is an effort on the other side to destroy it that is equally indefatigable. Yesterday in the president's remarks in Davos, he referred to Iceland twice as Greenland. Four times. Four times. Excuse me. And when he was asked about it, Caroline Levitt came out full force. No, I've got the printed script here. You have it wrong. It doesn't matter what it said in the printed script. It didn't matter. He said it wrong. And so people who are his supporters, what I almost said what I love, but no, all of these people in the business community who are too afraid to say anything. I called so many of them in the last 24 hours because so many of them were sitting in that room and they're just avoiding responding and avoiding responding, which is why whether you're a reporter, whether you're an Epstein victim, whether you're Michael Fanon, there is an assault on the truth. We're watching it day in and day out. And you're seeing the president use the Department of Justice as his weapon to silence the people on the other side to say, I'm too afraid of what I could face from from a legal perspective. I'm going to back down. But people aren't. Yeah. And it's you know, it's not just messaging. It's not just discourse. It's not just media. It's not in those things. It's people being willing to physically show up to embody. Yes. The truth. I said it backwards. He called Iceland Greenland. No, he called Greenland, Iceland. Yes, he was trying to talk about Greenland. No, you didn't misspeak. You didn't. No, no, no, no. It doesn matter what it called He wants you to say Trump on it Excuse me Yes More of our special recap to come Quick break We be right back Are you glad you accepted Attorney General Garland request to be a special prosecutor even though you've been dragged over political barbed wire and your family has been subjected to death threats? I don't regret it. CIDP can make your daily routine feel not so routine. The good news? With a self-injection for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, you have the option to treat at home. Discover more at CIDPSelfinjection.com and talk to your doctor. That's CIDPSelfinjection.com. Brought to you by Argenix. What if you could color your hair without worrying about the damage? With K-18 Molecular Repair Mask, you can. K-18 hair has been breaking rules and records since day one, delivering soft, strong, bouncy hair, even if you bleach, color, and use heat. The patented K-18 peptide is the greatest discovery in hair history. It reverses damage in four minutes, deep within hair's innermost layers. Before K-18, real, lasting, biomimetic repair didn't exist, so they went ahead and invented it. For breakthrough results, the K-18 mask gets molecular. My hair has never felt this healthy. You'll flip for hair like new too. Shop at Sephora or get 10% off your first purchase with code podcast at k18hair.com. That's code podcast at k18hair.com. Need to restock inventory, cover seasonal dips, or manage payroll? OnDeck's small business line of credit provides immediate access to funds up to $200,000 exactly when your business needs it. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and full control over repayment, you can tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. Apply today at ondeck.com, and funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval. Welcome back to our primetime recap of Jack Smith's historic testimony on Capitol Hill today. For anybody wondering why House Republicans wanted to do this, why they wanted to allow Jack Smith to explain the strength of his evidence, why they wanted to relitigate live for the American people for hours. The very strong, very damning criminal indictments of the sitting Republican president. Well, Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu offered a potent theory about that today. how scared are republicans of talking about the epstein files they're so scared that they literally are calling jack spiff the distinguished federal prosecutor who secured multiple indictments against donald trump with multiple felony counts republicans would rather talk about the criminality of donald trump in stealing trying to steal an election and trying to stop the peaceful transfer power and the criminality of Donald Trump and stealing classified documents of obstruction justice than about Donald Trump's associations with Jeffrey Epstein and his pedophilia ring. I demand this committee, this chairman and Republicans to call immediate hearing asking why the Department of Justice is refusing to release 99 percent of the Epstein files and why the DOJ is violating law right now. Republicans would rather talk about the criminality of Donald Trump than about Trump's associations with Jeffrey Epstein and his pedophilia ring. When when Congressman Liu said that today, I felt like you could feel all over the country people going, yeah, yes, exactly. Congressman Ted Liu calling out his Republican colleagues on the panel for being so desperate to talk about anything other than convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his longstanding deep ties with Donald Trump. that they were willing to literally hold a televised live public congressional hearing today all about Trump's alleged crimes and the evidence that supports the idea that maybe the word alleged shouldn't be there. Under Donald Trump, the Justice Department has now blown past a congressionally mandated deadline of December 19th to release all investigative files related to Epstein. Only a small fraction of the records have been made public so far. Steph, you were just talking about this. You just brought this up. I mean, there is I feel like there is a reasonable analysis that analysis that everything Trump is doing is about distracting from the Epstein files. I also feel like it doesn't matter if it's a distraction. It's everything he's doing is bad. Like the Greenland stuff is bad. The Minneapolis stuff is bad. Like the suing everybody stuff is bad. The destruction of the Justice Department stuff is bad. USAID is bad. It's all bad. Even if it is just a distraction. That said, there was nothing about this hearing that was any good for them at all. Unless they were under the mistaken impression that they were going to somehow ruin Jack Smith by doing this. Which they weren't going to do. But they can also continue to distract from the Epstein files. You know, Lauren Boebert, who was pressured by the White House to not want them to be released, she actually stood up to the president. She signed it. She told Politico in the past week she's done pushing for the Epstein files. She said, I did what I did. It's out of my hand. I've done all I can. It's out of my hand. They've released one percent of the files. So I consider myself done. The overwhelming majority of Congress, both sides of the aisle, you know, approved, signed it, excuse me, voted for it. The president signed it into law. And yes, we're over a month and haven't gotten it. None of us here, the broader media isn't going to stop demanding it, even if you're not interested in the Epstein files. If we're suddenly disregarding a law, what does that make us? Go ahead. I was going to say, I mean, I have pitched approximately a million stories in my life, two million if I combine with Nicole. And I read this headline today in Politico. Top federal prosecutors basically were crushed by Epstein files workload. And if you read the story, it's all about how hard they're working to review these files. I'm just going to call BS on this. This is a story that was pitched by somebody within the Trump administration to further punt it down the road. So, yes, people are going to keep they're going to keep fighting for it. They're going to keep calling for it. But I think the world we're living in right now is that they are going to find ways to change the expectations of the public. And that's I mean, whether it's Greenland or Iceland or crazy hearings or whatever it may be, and even stories like this that are trying to kind of thwart our ability to get out. Am I insane or did Todd Blanche write a letter that was released to the public in spring of last year in which he said we have comprehensively reviewed all the files and found there's nothing more to see here, which then precipitated the scandal that led us to the point that we're in now where apparently everyone has to review the files because they didn't reveal the first time because he was obviously lying the first time. And the other thing about it, too, is like this is on the same day, this thing on the Epstein files on the same day that we got the announcement that TikTok has officially sold to an American majority owner, a law that was passed and signed a law, a real law, bipartisan majority signed by the last president that was just completely ignored for a year, completely ignored. It was on the books and completely ignored. And the truest thing Jack Smith said today is that the rule of law is not self-executing because here we sit. Right. Like the Epstein files are not yet released, despite the fact there's a law. TikTok sat there without being shut down, despite the fact there was law. Donald Trump very clearly acted criminally, in my humble opinion, in the opinion of Jack Smith. And he goes around. And so it's like, again, to come back to that eternal vigilance point we made. That's really the only answer. Right. Is that the law, the rule of law is not self-executing. Democracy is not self-executing. Like all it takes is consistent and constant organized effort on the other side. or what you get is lawlessness. Well, I think the other thing that Jack Smith reveals is that the rule of law is already dead. And of course, they're not following the law. Donald Trump signed the law knowing he wouldn't follow the law that he signed. And the part about this story that I think is pretty opaque to all of us is that after we all covered it as a heinous child sex trafficking story in the first Trump administration, it festered and simmered and spread in a grassroots manner, not in the mainstream media, not on the left, not in the center, on the far right of American politics. And so he can do whatever he wants. He can defy the law. He can lie. He can smear the survivors. They've believed it for so long that it all accrues to his political detriment. And when he goes out and tells them he's going to make things affordable, some of them will believe him because they're part of the cult, they're part of the tribe. But anyone who spent 10 years thinking that if they elected him again, he released the Epstein files, is gone. And the power of this issue politically really won't be tested until the midterms and the presidential. But I think it is it is sort of a known unknown to all of us how powerful the issue is, because it was it was elevated by the cash. Patel went on Joe Rogan's podcast and talked about all the gigabytes of evidence. Cash Patel is the person who testified to the massive amount of evidence he possessed. And Cash Patel is now the guy covering it up. Yeah. And Pam Bondi says she has the client list on her desk. All right. Right up next. What might be my favorite moment of the whole day, because I'm eight years old and because I have petty interests. The moment when it all just went super harmlessly but hilariously wrong for one seemingly sort of sleepy congressman from Wisconsin. We'll close up our recap with that right ahead. Stay with us. All right, we are going to try to be very disciplined. We're going to try to not spend too much time on the moment in the hearing today when Wisconsin Republican Congressman Glenn Grothman got all tangled up in his own words and accidentally made a very emphatic case that Jack Smith was absolutely right. accidentally, which prompted Congressman Jamie Raskin to pipe up cheerfully and shout out, we agree. Gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized. Yeah. First of all, just a couple of comments. There are probably 10 people on this committee who have more conversations with 10, 15 people on this committee who have more conversations with Donald Trump than myself. But anybody who says that Donald Trump thought he won that election, that is just plain not true. No way. Unless he's the best actor in the history of this building. We agree. Did Donald Trump believe? Order. Donald Trump did not believe he lost that election. Just plain not true. No way. No way that Donald Trump thought he won that election. Donald Trump knew he lost. Wait a second. That came out weird. He definitely knew he did. He did. He know he lost. I know he knew he because he won. I mean, he lost and we knew that he no way. Right. What was I saying? I'm going to be very, very disciplined and not spend more time on that at all. Congressman Glenn Groffman, if you listen very closely right now, you can actually still hear him banging his head onto a table in Wisconsin over and over and over again, trying to make sure that did not happen in his memory. You can come on my show tonight and clear it up. There you go. You got our number? All right, that's going to do it for our special recap of Jack Smith's testimony on Capitol Hill. If you dread dealing with your insurance more than getting stuck in an elevator with an overshare. Bean burrito for lunch. You have Insuranoia. You should have NJM. They go to great lengths to do what's best for their policyholders. Insurance underwritten by NJM Insurance Company and its subsidiaries.