{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-questions-jack-smith-at-senate-judiciary-oversight-hearing", "Grassley Questions Jack Smith at Senate Judiciary Oversight Hearing", "2026-09-29", "2026", "2026-09", "Republican", "Senate", "IA", "Chuck Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", "grassley", "https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases", "scraper", "WASHINGTON \u2013 Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) questioned former Special Counsel Jack Smith at today\u2019s oversight hearing on Smith\u2019s abuse of authority and targeting of Republicans.\n\nGrassley pressed Smith on his collection of thousands of Americans\u2019 personal banking information, as well as his team\u2019s exposure of classified materials, retaliation against whistleblowers and disregard for constitutional guardrails. Smith stood by his former colleagues\u2019 reckless and political actions.\n\nVideo and a transcript of Grassley and Smith\u2019s exchange follow.\n\nVIDEO\n\nJack Smith\u2019s targeting of Republican donor data and Americans\u2019 personal checks\n\nGRASSLEY: \u201cDid your Special Counsel operation obtain possession of donor data, to include financial information? Yes or no?\u201d\n\nSMITH: \u201cYes, we acquired financial information. As I sit here right now, I cannot recite to you every subpoena we issued... I can tell you why we issued subpoenas, and it was to conduct a criminal investigation...\u201d\n\nGRASSLEY: \u201cIndeed you did, Mr. Smith. According to protected disclosures to my office, you obtained at least 4,782 donor checks. Many of those checks were five to 10 dollars. The list includes checks from constituents in every state of every single member in this committee, both Republicans and Democrats. It includes 42 checks from Iowans who dared to donate money to Republicans.\n\n\u201cNo matter what you say, there\u2019s no legitimate basis for what you did. Especially since your staff killed an investigation into the Clinton Campaign. Donations to Republican groups wasn\u2019t necessary to your investigation, which is proved out by the fact it wasn\u2019t mentioned in your public report.\n\n\u201cNow, the Justice Department and FBI will forever possess thousands of people\u2019s addresses, phone numbers, banks, bank account numbers, bank routing numbers and a copy of their true signatures. Every member on this committee ought to be outraged for what happened to their constituents. Which one of my Democratic colleagues will join me in that outrage?\u201d\n\nViolations of law or policy and whistleblower retaliation committed by Jack Smith\u2019s investigative staff:\n\nGRASSLEY: \u201cIn your public statements and testimony here today, you\u2019ve given glowing assessments of your staff, saying they had an unwavering commitment to justice regardless of personal costs. That is blatantly untrue. You\u2019re apparently in denial based on the litany of wrongdoing and political bias supported by reams of evidence that I referenced in my opening statement. And, I\u2019ve either released documents or will today that proves this.\n\n\u201cMoreover, in your public report you said, in part, \u2018Those materials comprised a small part of the Office\u2019s investigative record.\u2019 You\u2019re referring to J6 Committee materials. Records show that in your briefing memorandum for a meeting with [Attorney General] Garland you said your team \u2018fully read and reviewed\u2019 the J6 committee report. That memo also said your staff \u2018went over it page by page and incorporated it into our investigative plan.\u2019 The memo also said you \u2018will leverage\u2019 the report to avoid certain interviews. Your report provided false information to the public.\n\n\u201cYour staff also obtained subpoena returns that included the content of messages from 44 Members of Congress, not just toll records, as you\u2019ve testified previously. Based on information provided to the committee, that content was shared with the case agents and prosecutors before it went through any filter review for privileged information, which should\u2019ve been done like it\u2019s been in other cases. Those are clear violations by your staff.\n\n\u201cIn addition, your deputy, J.P. Cooney, said he\u2019d \u2018prosecute any nun who still wears a head habit.\u2019 Then Cooney also said regarding the Speech or Debate clause, \u2018I\u2019m an advocate for repealing the clause.\u2019 Lastly, Cooney and Molly Gaston filed a complaint with the Justice Department Inspector General. Your staff asked for the inspector general to investigate whistleblowers who\u2019ve bravely exposed abuses of authority to Congress by you and your staff. These are just some of the violations of law or policy your staff and office committed. And that doesn\u2019t include all of the violations disgraced former FBI agents like Thibault and Giardina committed while creating a false predicate for your cases and others\u2026\n\n\u201cShould whistleblowers who made lawful disclosures to Congress about your taxpayer funded work be investigated?\u201d\n\nSMITH: \u201cI'm not aware of any whistleblowers being investigated\u2026 The members of my team that you just mentioned, I'm extremely proud to have worked with them...\u201d\n\nGRASSLEY: \u201cI gave you evidence that [your staff] asked for an investigation by the Inspector General.\u201d\n\nJack Smith and his investigative team\u2019s disregard for the Speech or Debate Clause:\n\nGRASSLEY: \u201cWhen you became Special Counsel, what direction did you give your staff to handle Speech or Debate and Attorney-Client material? Did you issue any directives? If so, to whom? Please explain.\u201d\n\nSMITH: \u201cSo, with respect to the Speech or Debate clause, first, we took our obligations seriously under the Speech or Debate clause. It's, in my view, an important part of the separation of powers. I had members of my staff who were very familiar with the clause, having worked in the public integrity section for years. We also, when it was appropriate or required, consulted with the public integrity section regarding application of that clause.\u201d\n\nGRASSLEY: \u201cMr. Smith, no amount of explanation can take away from the documentary record. My opening remarks and the statement I made about your staff\u2019s clear failures show unequivocally how you breached constitutional parameters and failed to require your staff to comply with relevant rules. Using the terrible acts on January 6 as a predicate for your misguided investigation is irresponsible.\n\n\u201cTo that end, either you are the world\u2019s worst manager, or you shared your staff\u2019s political animus to fuel your partisan investigation \u2013 an investigation that ruined the lives of many innocent people.\u201d\n\nPotential exposure of classified materials by Jack Smith and his investigative staff\n\nGRASSLEY: \u201cFollowing up from my opening statement. For the classified document case, where did you store the classified material? Describe the [Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF)] arrangement for both DOJ and FBI personnel during and after court sessions.\u201d\n\nSMITH: \u201cI can't speak to FBI facilities\u2026 our office had a SCIF, a place to store classified information, and my recollection is that there was, at least in Florida, an ability to store it there. I can't recall if it was at the FBI field office or at the courthouse. But we had a SCIF at our office as part of our investigation, knowing that classified information would be involved in the investigation.\u201d\n\nGRASSLEY: \u201cI said in my opening statement that one of your staff members suggested leaving the door open, which [would] obviously be a violation of law.\u201d\n\nJack Smith\u2019s use of a personal device as former Special Counsel\n\nGRASSLEY: \u201cIn October last year I asked you this question, but you never responded. Did you ever use a personal device for work purposes, to include communications such as email, text or the creation or editing of work product? If so, do you commit to providing that material to the committee? If not, are you testifying that you\u2019ve complied with all federal records requirements?\u201d\n\nSMITH: \u201cYes, when I first became special counsel, I did not have a government phone or government computer, and so in the initial days when I was appointed and I was still living in the Netherlands, I did use a personal device and email to communicate with folks in the Justice Department. What I did when I got government accounts is made sure, to the best of my ability, that that information was forwarded to government accounts, so it would be within the Federal Records Act\u2026\u201d\n\nJack Smith\u2019s relationship with former CIA Director John Brennan\n\nGRASSLEY: \u201cHave you ever received any consultation or counsel by John Brennan, former CIA Director, whether during your time as Special Counsel or otherwise? If so, when and for what purpose?\u201d\n\nSMITH: \u201cI've never met John Brennan.\u201d", 1, "2026-09-30T10:57:52Z", "2026-09-30T10:59:04Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-questions-jack-smith-at-senate-judiciary-oversight-hearing"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 2.3943129926919937, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}