We’ve got Freedom of Information Act requests after Freedom of Information Act requests. On Jack Smith, we’ve been battling for years. Obviously, it’s one thing to get opposed by the Biden administration in turning over the truth about Jack Smith, but we’re still being opposed by the Trump administration about turning over the truth about Jack Smith and what he was up to. And that’s exceedingly frustrating, to put it mildly. So, Special Counsel Jack Smith testified to Congress this week. Now, he did have a deposition earlier, I guess earlier, was it this month? Maybe it was last month.

And, you know, he testified as he would testify. He pretends everything he does is fine. And the Republicans are mad at him, highlighting some of his abuses, not all of them. And he essentially says that if you dispute an election, you’re going to go to jail. That’s his rule. That was the rule he made up for Trump. And in doing so, he abused all sorts of other people, like yours truly, like Judicial Watch. He harassed us with subpoenas, forced me to testify to a grand jury where I was arguing with these prosecutors about First Amendment protected activity, arguing about elections.

It was ridiculous. I mean, it was ridiculous, but was outrageous about it. It’s the grand jury process that was being abused to harass me and your Judicial Watch. And if you’re a supporter of Judicial Watch, it means you’re targeted, too, indirectly. And they were spying on members of Congress, the Speaker of the House, Mr. McCarthy, taking up their phone records, hiding it, and abusing Trump six ways to Sunday through abuse of process. And, you know, I like to see, you know, the hearings are as good as they are. But, you know, frankly, I was kind of underwhelmed by the hearing.

Because when you think about it, if you thought you were going to go to jail for something, would you go and testify to Congress? To me, the fact that Jack Smith is testifying without invoking the Fifth Amendment strongly suggests that he does not fear prosecution. I’m presuming he has private lawyers advising him. So Jack Smith’s going to, he gets to abuse his office, abuse the civil rights of countless Americans, and he’s not going to be prosecuted. If he’s going to be prosecuted, you know, you could knock me over with a feather if that happened.

But nevertheless, there was at least some good educational benefit to having him testify. And we had Congressman Chip Roy highlight some of his abuses of power. And Chair Roy, I guess, was also a crime victim of the Biden gang. It’s been exposed. Let’s watch this video of Chip interviewing or questioning Jack Smith. Do you know who Cleta Mitchell is? Yes, I do. She’s an election lawyer that was involved in filing an election contest on behalf of President Trump in Georgia in December of 2020. A 64-page complaint with over 1,100 pages of exhibits witness affidavits and expert witness reports documenting thousands of votes cast in violation of Georgia law, but which were nevertheless included in the vote totals.

Now, notwithstanding the disposition of the cases that was filed, is that a criminal act? Filing an election contest on behalf of a candidate for office, a client? Is that a criminal act? Yes or no? No. In fact, we see why did you deem it appropriate to monitor Cleta Mitchell’s long-distance phone records in 2023, two and a half years after the election context was filed and after the presidential electors were certified? What about Jen Ellis? What about Sidney Powell? What about Bill Sepien? What crime did you suspect had been committed by them that would warrant monitoring their phone records two and a half years after the 2020 election was certified? With respect to Sidney Powell, she is one of the co-conspirators alleged in the indictment.

I don’t know what you mean by monitoring, sir, if you’re talking about that. Well, there were some 400-plus Republican conservative groups and leaders who were targeted by your investigation. Their financial records were obtained, records of the RNC, the Trump campaign, Cleta Mitchell, the Conservative Partnership Institute, the American Personal Policy Institute, NRCC, NRSC, PACs, conservative groups, people all across the country, citizens, because we hear a lot about members of Congress. And we should because of separation of powers and the egregious abuse of power. But what we’re not talking about enough, in my opinion, are the American citizens that have been targeted.

Because frankly, are there any limits to the power of a special prosecutor or special counsel? So much so in your abuse of power that in the summer of 2024, the indictment involving classified documents was dismissed after determining your appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, but you continue to sign your name on court filings until the time you resigned from office in January of 2025. The federal judge has recently stated a prosecutor who continues to sign his name in court filings after a disqualification order should face disciplinary action or disbarment.

Yes, so a pretty good summary by Chip Roy about some of the abuses of power. And that Cleta Mitchell lawsuit, the lawsuit that was filed in Georgia is a good example of the dishonesty of the media and people like Jack Smith, who suggest falsely that all of Trump’s cases were dismissed on the merits. You know, they talk about 60 cases were dismissed. I mean, that could include, you know, that includes cases that were completely tertiary and irrelevant to the core issues that Trump was pursuing. And none of Trump’s cases were allowed to proceed on the merits.

In Georgia, they literally refused to appoint a judge. They literally refused to appoint a judge to consider his case. He was denied any justice in Georgia with that case. So when they say the cases were all dismissed, that’s propaganda and it’s false. And in that they mislead people about the substance of the allegations and whether they were properly adjudicated. And they were never properly adjudicated, at least Trump’s specific allegations in many of the swing states in which I believe the election was stolen from him improperly. And here we have Congressman Brandon Gill.

And if you’re not following him online, you should because he’s a he’s kind of he’s a very talented young congressman who is particularly talented in his ability to cut through the you-know-what when it comes to questioning witnesses. Let’s watch Congressman Gill. Mr. Smith, at the time you secured those non-disclosure orders, was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk? The non-disclosure order was based on concerns about- Was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk? He was not. He was not. Then why did your non-disclosure order refer to him as a flight risk? It says right here the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in flight from prosecution.

Sir, when securing a non-disclosure order, the risks don’t have to be associated- Do you think that the Speaker of the House is a flight risk? Did he finish answering the question? This is not your time. This is my time. You think the Speaker of the House is a flight risk? Do you think he’s going to hop on a plane and leave the country? No, what I was trying to explain is with respect to a non-disclosure order, the risks aren’t necessarily associated with the subscriber to the phone. They’re the risks to an investigation.

Okay. I think that you were using- This is clearly in reference to Speaker McCarthy, and you were using clearly false information to secure a non-disclosure order to hide from Speaker McCarthy and from the American people the fact that you were spying on his toll records. And he’s exactly right there, and Jack Smith, in my view, is being dishonest and suggesting the flight from prosecution wasn’t about McCarthy. Well, who was going to escape the country? Who was going to leave the country as a result of McCarthy’s phone record subpoena being disclosed to the American people? No one.

Was President Trump going to flee the country? It’s absurd and dishonest, and the fact is they held that information from Congress as they spied on Congress, extraordinary abuses of the civil rights and the constitutional system in targeting Congress like this for daring to oppose Joe Biden’s election, for disputing the election, or even worse, talking about disputing the election, talking about disputing the election. And I’m sorry. You know, I haven’t seen any action that’s reassuring to me that Jack Smith is the subject of a serious investigation. He should be. Now, is it possible something’s happening I don’t know about? Maybe, but unlikely.

There’s talk of a grand jury in Florida that may be looking at these issues comprehensively. Maybe. Have I seen evidence that’s happening? No. I mean, there’s been noise about some subpoenas going out, but if there was like a comprehensive investigation into the coordinated lawfare that goes back a decade against President Trump, including by this guy, Jack Smith, you know, part of the hearing was talking about really disclosures that were uncovered by Judicial Watch showing that Jack Smith’s Justice Department, when he was working for the Obama gang back in the day, coordinated with Lois Lerner’s IRS to steal, in my view, IRS files and try to prosecute people and put them in jail, all of whom were opponents of Trump, excuse me, all of whom were opponents of Obama.

And it also was a way to suppress the political opposition to Obama and the run up to his reelection campaign in 2012. Remember, Obama used the IRS to suppress his political opposition to help ensure that he was elected in 2012, or reelected in 2012. That was the first run through, a successful one, in abusing, weaponizing government to target their opponents. And who was involved in it? Jack Smith. You won’t hear the media tell you about that. So we’ve got Freedom of Information Act requests after Freedom of Information Act requests on Jack Smith.

We’ve been battling for years. Obviously, it’s one thing to get opposed by the Biden administration in turning over the truth about Jack Smith. But we’re still being opposed by the Trump administration about turning over the truth about Jack Smith and what he was up to. And that’s exceedingly frustrating, to put it mildly. I mean, who’s running the show with the Justice Department on these FOIA issues, these transparency issues? Some records are being released to Congress. We don’t know what other records they have. So some of that’s being disclosed, and we applaud any transparency.

But there’s got to be also transparency under law here. And so we need to get the full details about the abuses of Smith and Company and the Biden Lawfare against Trump. Because that’s one way to get accountability, and it’s one way to generate pressure for fuller accountability, either through the criminal process or any other appropriate ways in our system of government. [tr:trw].

See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.