>>/177060/, >>/177061/, >>/177062/, >>/177063/, >>/177064/, >>/177065/, >>/177066/, >>/177067/, >>/177068/, >>/177069/, >>/177070/, >>/177071/, >>/177072/, >>/177073/, >>/177074/, >>/177075/, >>/177076/, >>/177077/, >>/177078/, >>/177079/, >>/177080/, >>/177081/, >>/177082/, >>/177083/, >>/177084/, >>/177085/, >>/177086/, >>/177087/, >>/177088/, >>/177089/, >>/177090/, >>/177091/, >>/177092/, >>/177093/, >>/177094/, >>/177095/, >>/177096/, >>/177097/, >>/177098/, >>/177099/, >>/177100/, >>/177101/, >>/177102/, >>/177103/, >>/177104/, >>/177105/, >>/177106/, >>/177107/, >>/177108/, >>/177109/, >>/177110/, >>/177111/
....
Brandon Gill:Your own analysis says that you knew there was a risk you were violating the speech or debate clause. I have it right here. This is an email from John Keller at Public Integrity Section to your team.
As you are aware, quote, as you are aware, there is some litigation risk regarding whether compelled disclosure of toll records of a member's legislative cause violates the speech or debate clause in the D.C. Circuit.
That's from your own analysis right there. So you did know, didn't you?
Jack Smith: Sir, with respect to the item you just put up on the screen, the last sentence states....
Brandon Gill: Oh, we're going to get to the last sentence.
Jack Smith: Okay.
Brandon Gill:We're going to get to the last sentence. And you cite case law in here, quote, the bar on compelled disclosure is absolute. Is that right?
Or do you think that you didn't have to abide by that precedent?
Jack Smith: To be clear, this statement is not from my office.
Brandon Gill: This is your justification for those subpoenas and NDOs that you ordered. This was part of your analysis. It's a cursory analysis. I think it's worth noting.
Let's get to that last sentence then. Quote, given my understanding of the low likelihood that any of the members listed below would be charged, the litigation risk should be minimal here.
In other words, you're using a novel legal theory - which you knew was novel - has never been tested by any court. You're not charging any of these members.
Nobody's going to know about it because you issued NDOs. Nobody's going to sue about it, sue this.
So who cares? We're going to do it anyways.
I mean, you walked all over the Constitution throughout this entire process, spying on members of Congress, and you know it. It's absolutely disgraceful.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116163653947545766
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump - Deranged Jack Smith should be brought to Justice, NOW!!!
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116163621494579751
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump - Video: Chip Roy: Let me ask you this, am I on this list?
Did you target my records and subpoena my phone toll records?
Jack Smith: My understanding is your records were subpoenaed by prosecutors before I became special counsel.
Chip Roy: Well, staff put this up on the screen. I'm thankful for the great staff who discovered the email where I learned for the first time a few weeks ago that my phone records were indeed targeted.
We called AT&T and we've learned that they were given to the Department of Justice, as this email indicates, because I've been in communication with Scott Perry, one of my colleagues here in Congress, who literally had his phone taken from him in front of his family.
And of course, we've already talked about in this document, it talks about you could be in violation of the privilege by even obtaining and possessing this information if the member objected to the disclosure.
This happened four years ago in May of 2022, and I couldn't object because I didn't know. I didn't know until about three weeks ago!
My question here is, was there any limits to your investigation or the investigation that preceded you, Mr. Smith?
Because as egregious as a violation of separation of powers this is, as an egregious and abuse of power it is, it's far more concerning you are clearly targeting American citizens for merely being conservative or supporting the President.
52