Jack Smith RIPS Jim Jordan TO SHREDS in PUBLIC BEATDOWN!!

Former special counsel Jack Smith. ripping Jim Jordan, the MAGA Republican, to shreds after Jim Jordan, who. currently chairs the House Judiciary. Committee, referred Jack Smith to the. Department of Justice for criminal. prosecution. Jim Jordan contriving and. lying that Jack Smith lied during his. testimony before Congress. We all showed. you Jack Smith's testimony, both the. initial deposition, which the MAGA's.

wanted to not show publicly, and then. they were like, all right, let's try. again cuz the whole goal was to try to. lay a perjury trap to then criminally. prosecute Jack Smith. And you know, Jack. Smith went in there knowing that quite. literally every word he said, even if it. was a I don't recall or an um or an ah, that Donald Trump and Jim Jordan and. James Comer and these vile MAGA cultists. would do everything possible to try to. prosecute him by just trying to find any.

lie or anything. And so, he was very. careful. Uh his testimony was very strong. He. answered every question. He made it. clear he would have answered more. But. you'll recall that the MAGA's working. with Trump's DOJ uh refused to allow him. to testify about volume two of his. investigation, the Mar-a-Lago document. aspect of it, where Trump took the. classified information. Although, based. on all of Donald Trump's uh war crimes.

and horrible behavior right now, that. even just the the notion of Donald Trump. taking classified information, you know, to Mar-a-Lago feels kind of tame and. generic compared to what he does any. given day right now. And it's sad and. sick that we've gotten here, but the but. here we are. So, Jack Smith is. represented by Covington, uh one of the top firms in this country. Uh they sent the following letter to Jim. Jordan and Todd Blanche just ripping Jim.

Jordan. It's succinct. It's a powerful. letter. I want to share it with you. because this is like a just a perfect a. perfect lawyer letter aggressively. dealing with these issues. He's represented by Lanny Brewer and. Peter Koski. Let's take a look at what they wrote to. Jim Jordan. Dear Chairman Jordan and. Blanche, the House Judiciary's Committee. referral to the Department of Justice of. our client Jack Smith is based on a. spurious claim that Smith provided false.

testimony during his 8-hour deposition. on December 17, 2025. The referral is. made not because Mr. Smith made a false. statement. The letter concedes he did. not, but because he did not proactively. disclose information that was not. responsive to a question asked. During. his testimony, Mr. Smith provided. truthful, responsive answers, and. candidly discussed his work as special. counsel. This referral reflects a. chilling eagerness to weaponize the.

justice system by attacking a career. non-partisan public servant who. faithfully and fearlessly performed his. duties by following the facts and the. law. The purported predicate for this. referral is based on the following. exchanges. Question, did you seek a. search warrant for the content of any. text messages from members? Answer, from. members? Question, yes. Answer, no. I. don't recall that. Question, okay. It. was just toll records? Answer, correct.

Next set of questions. Question, did the. toll records that you requested from the. senators, did they include the content. of the phone calls? Answer, no. Question, did the records that you. requested, the toll records from the. members of Congress, include the content. of the text messages? Answer, no. Those answers, Jack Smith's lawyers. write in this letter are unimpeachably. truthful. The toll record subpoenas that. were the focus of those questions did. not call for the content of text.

messages. The questions and answers. proceeding and following these exchanges. also make clear that the focus of the. questions was on the toll record. subpoena. Notably, the referral letter. does not contest the truthfulness of Mr. Smith's answers. Perhaps in recognition. of this deficiency, the referral letter. instead relies on the unprecedented. theory that Mr. Smith provided false. testimony not because of what he said, but because of what he did not say. Specifically, the referral argues that. by not proactively disclosing that the.

special counsel's office collected from. the National Archives records from the. White House phones that included text. messages between White House officials. and Republicans and Democratic members. of Congress, Mr. Smith violated 18. U.S.C. Section 1001, the federal false. statements statute. The letter advances. this theory even though that information. was not responsive to any question. asked. This dangerous theory of criminal. liability has no limiting principle and.

risks ensnaring every witness who. testified before a congressional. committee who does not proactively. disclose information that is not. responsive to questions asked. Mr. Smith. approached the investigation into Trump. as he approached every other. investigation throughout his career. following the facts and the law while. adhering to the Department of Justice. protocols and regulations. He was. transparent in disclosing that these. text messages to Trump's personal. counsel in discovery. If Trump's. attorneys thought that Mr. Smith and his.

team had done something unlawful or. improper in obtaining these text. messages, they could have filed a motion. to that effect. Notably, they did not. Mr. Smith agreed to testify before the. House Judiciary Committee fully. cognizant of the risk that Trump's. Justice Department would try to find. something in his testimony to serve as. the basis for a criminal charge. This. risk existed not because Smith would. make a false statement, but because. Trump has repeatedly ordered that Mr. Smith be prosecuted in jail. That is not.

the rule of law and it contravenes the. principles that are critical to the. vitality of our democracy. An honest. assessment of the facts and the law. compels a rejection of the meritless. referral signed by his lawyers at the. Covington law firm. Let's bring in Harry. Litman from the Talking Fed's YouTube. channel, Substack, and podcast. Harry, I. wanted to read the full letter, 90% of it, so people can understand what. was being laid out there, how ridiculous. this referral is, and that now the DOJ. is not even referring people out for.

what you say or what you do, but. hypothetically what they want you to do. It's now thought crimes that they are. going to prosecute Donald Trump's. political enemies for. It reminds me of. that movie with Tom Cruise in the. future, where they start prosecuting. people for things that aren't even done. yet, and this is a dystopian. modern-day version of of of of that. And. hat tip to Covington for also staying in.

the fight when so many firms bent the. knee. Harry, what do you make of it? >> Wow. So, um, look, Covington did a smart. thing by just starting with the words. If you listen to, oh, spurious argument, thus and so, that sounds like what. lawyers always say. But, this case is a. dog equaled only by the James Comey, uh, prosecution for the seashells of 8647.

No self-respecting prosecutor would even. give a moment's thought. I just want to, want to say it again. Did you seek a. search warrant for the content of any. text messages from members? And so, I. think the Midas Mighty knows this and. and and Talking Fed Heads as well, but. there are two very different things that. uh prosecutors can seek. A very common.

thing that doesn't require uh much of a. showing in the Supreme Court has said, "No expectation of privacy." It's just a. little readout that says, "Here's the. number they called. Here's how long the. call lasted." That's really what you use. it for and and I as um Smith actually. explained in another part of his. testimony, this would have been the. stuff that you could say, "What was. going on January 6th? Okay, 2:15, Perry. calls Meadows. 2:22, Meadows calls.

Trump." I mean, it's not only uh. uh not uh sinister to do it, it's. essential. Remember, every all this. stuff was going on on the hill, and we. don't even know about this yet, but you. have now a refrain of senators and. members of Congress saying, "You spied. on the content of my um my emails and. texts." And the simplest thing to say. is, "No, not at all. The law makes a. distinction. Here is just the little.

metadata as it's called, and then here's. the text." And you can get that, but. with a much higher level of proof and. subpoena, etc. That's a serious. expectation of privacy issue. So, when. they ask, "Did it did the search. warrant" It's a search warrant. They're. asking a specific one. Uh "Did you seek. a search warrant?" Which would be what. you would do for the content for the. content of any text message from.

members? No, I don't recall that. Just. toll records. Correct. And then you go. on. "Did the toll records that you. requested, did they include the content. of the phone calls? I think this is. actually friendly questioning making. clear that the senators, Hawley and. others who are up in arms, just don't. know what they're talking about or. they're trying to fool the American. people and Smith is calmly explaining. no, no, no. What I got is just the. metadata and I'm here to hopefully.

calmly explain that is such a routine. standard required move in this sort of. investigation when they're trying to put. together what happened on January 6th. Did the records that you requested from. the members of Congress include the. context of text messages? No. All right, and here is the theory. It is so. hairbrained, so nuts, is he received from the archives. The. archives gave Smith some records that it.

had. That was and those records were. turned over from different members of. the administration, different members of. Congress. That's a standard thing at the. end of an administration. They give it. to him and some of that in fact is the. content of emails and the like that was. sent to the administration. The notion. that here where they're asking that toll. records that you requested, were you. getting at email content? That the right. answer there was no. Oh, but you know.

what? A whole different thing way back. over with the archives gave me, you. know, that is it's not simply you've. handled depositions a lot, you know, and. you tell the witness only answer the. question presented, but that's not even. this. We saw him, he was candid within. limits, but this is not a question that. anybody would think would call for the. revelation about. things from a whole 'nother subpoena, a.

whole 'nother party that happened to. have the content of some messages. The. idea that he's misleading here really is. spurious and but I mean, you know, spurious as the day is long. There's an. interesting thing going on that, you. know, you wonder right away. They did it. to Comey, they've done it to others. Will they just greenlight this referral? And, you know, is was Jim Jordan's the. fix already in? And I think the short. answer is I don't know. A if they if.

they indict him among other things and. he's got good counsel as you said, Lanny. Brewer from Covington and Burling, among. other things, I think he's got a very. good argument that for his own defense, he may need access to his report that. they've been trying to keep out of his. hands and out of the hands of records. within the court, uh all you know, in general. And it's. going to in some ways re-litigate. the whole.

gen both prosecutions, especially the. January 6th one, and I don't think I. need to remind you or the Midas mighty, but this whole propaganda campaign to. make it look as if it went away and. Smith made up these cases. Those are two. righteous cases with really overwhelming. proof against the President of the. United States who only by the. happenstance of the Supreme Court and an. election got has escaped the news there.

And so, you know, it might be um really. uh a kind of Br'er Rabbit thing for them. to now actually indict uh Smith. And. I'll tell you if they do on this record, I can't see this going to um trial. There's no special thing. Rather, I. think that as as you know, you go to you. there's an immediate kind of motion you. can make to a judge that says, "No reasonable juror. no reasonable. juror would would convict on these.

allegations." And on that basis, just. dismiss. Or it'll go to if it goes to. trial, there'll never be a conviction. This one, they they stretch, they really. do some very. uh. poor, under under supported, under. proven things. This one is just a. freaking joke. It's the weakest false. statement case I have ever seen. >> It is the seashells of false statement.

cases. It is the reflecting pool of. seashells of false statement cases. And. you know, we develop a body of kangaroo. court case law. And Harry, you and I may. do a video on this as well that the. Midas Mighty can look for, you know, you. look in places like Ecuador where the. prosecutor who was investigating a lot. of these uh individuals who Trump was. trying to kill on these fishing vessels. and these ships.

um who were missing and what happened to. them and were they being tortured and. all that. You know, the prosecutor in. Ecuador. uh under a Trump dictatorship in. Ecuador, you know, gets killed. And you. know, you you take a look at the systems. in other countries and just the way. their legal systems, you know, are full. kind of, you know, kangaroo court, you. know, law of the jungle type of. situations. Um you know, this is what. Trump wants our system to be. You'll get. prosecuted for seashells, for thought.

crimes, for uh Trump putting hydrogen. peroxide in reflecting pools, and that's. why I'll end where I started, which is. you take a look at the classified. information. uh charge against Trump. And in in a way, it feels quaint. Oh, Donald Trump brought some documents back. to Mar-a-Lago, and he was going to maybe. give him to Saudi Arabia. It's like, okay, that's Monday before 8:00 8:00. a.m. I know he's commander, you know, he's the president, but like the things.

that he does every day make this stuff. look like uh yeah, you know, like the. C-team of crimes compared to what he. does on a given basis anyway. I can go. on and on and on, but the point is is. that. >> Don't even get us started on the. emoluments clause. That's for another. segment. >> on emoluments, but get me started on. everybody going to Harry Litman's. YouTube channel. It's called Talking. Feds. Search on YouTube Talking Feds, and then. go to his YouTube channel, tell Harry. that I say hello, that I say WTF Harry.

Ben says WTF. Pre-order WTF America. right now. It comes out in October, but. uh everybody go to Harry's uh YouTube. Talking Feds and subscribe here as well. Thanks, Harry. >> Thank you, Ben. Breaking news right now. My brothers and I wrote a book. It's. called WTF America, and well, doesn't. that just say it all? It comes out. officially this October, but you can. pre-order your copy today. Just scan the. QR code or click the link in the. description below. >> [music].

[music].