Jack Smith's Testimony, Tim Walz's Subpoena, and Bill Clinton's Contempt Vote

This podcast is brought to you by ReliaQuest. Cybercriminals are constantly attacking. They want your data. They want your identity. They want your innovation. RelyQuest fortifies your business with agentic defense, AI that detects, contains, and eliminates cyber threats in minutes. It helps your security team move faster at the work that matters most to protect the business now and delivers insights to help them predict what's next. RelyaQuest. Agentic Defense for the Enterprise. Learn more at ReliQuest.com. That's R-E-L-I-A-Q-U-E-S-T.com. From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch. Former Special Counsel Jack Smith testifies to the House of Representatives about his two fruitless indictments of President Trump. The Justice Department delivers a subpoena to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, and a House committee calls for former President Bill Clinton to be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify on Jeffrey Epstein. Welcome, I'm Kyle Peterson with the Wall Street Journal. We're joined today by my colleagues on the journal's opinion pages, columnists Alicia Finley, and Bill McGern. On Thursday, Jack Smith offered his first public testimony about his criminal cases against President Trump. As a reminder, the first of those concerned Trump's classified document stash at Marlago. The second concerned Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election leading up to the riot on January 6th at the Capitol. Both cases then disappeared after Trump won the 2024 election, the judgment of the voters being passed on Jack Smith's efforts there. At the hearing, there was plenty of partisan hooting and hollering on other side, as might be expected, in the House Judiciary Committee. But here's a bit of what Jack Smith said. I am not a politician, and I have no partisan loyalties. My career has been dedicated to serving our country by upholding the rule of law. I stand by my decisions as special counsel, including the decision to bring charges against President Trump. Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity. If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or a Republican. No one. No one should be above the law in this country, and the law required that he be held to account. So that is what I did. Alicia, after watching these hearings, my takeaway was that there was not a whole lot of new information that was gleaned. Smith had previously testified to the House behind closed doors, and there was a transcript of that released. But one exchange that caught my eye was, member Congress asked him,

Do you have any regrets about the way you handled these investigations? Did you think you made any mistakes? And he said, my only regret, essentially, is I would have shown more appreciation for my staff, which I found a bit of an astounding response given the way these investigations proceeded and the way that they ended and the argument that they may have. helped boost President Trump in the 2024 Republican primaries and to re-election. Right. So it was a little bit like the Sinatra Song regrets. I may have had a few, but too few to mention. And I think this was kind of a dodge to that question. In the same way, when someone's asked in a job interview, oh, what's your biggest weekend is? Oh, I just worked too hard. I think he probably may have regretted some of the charges that he brought, that he overreach, that he rushed the process. At least I would say that that was one of his boyables in that he brought these sweeping charges based on things like conspiracy to defraud the U.S. based on some of what the electioneering or the statements that Donald Trump made on January 6th, he didn't consider some of the separation of powers and constitutional issues like executive immunity based on official acts. which the Supreme Court has actually ended up overturning, or rather rejecting the prosecution charges on that ground in 2024, a pretty affirmative ruling 6.3. Now, if he had brought maybe some narrower charges that, you know, considered the constitutional and separation of powers considerations, he might have actually got a little farther. And the same thing, if he, you know, was actually more meticulous and didn't rush the process. But he was really trying to get a conviction before the election. This was all based on a political timeline, which is the crux of the problem. He was appointed by Merrick Garland, the AG under Joe Biden, to give this kind of pretense of independence and impartiality. But this was all really a ruse that he knew why he was being appointed. He was being appointed to prosecute and get and convict Donald Trump so that Democrats could, you know. wave the scalp around during the campaign and try to disqualify him from the presidency. I find it hard to believe that Smith in private has not been more reflective of mistakes that he might have made or things that he could have done differently. To pick up where Alicia left off on the question of presidential immunity bill, he lost a Supreme Court ruling 6-3. And at the very least, the litigation over that immunity question as it went up the chain of the appeals courts delayed his case in a significant way. And if he had written a narrower indictment, that delay at least might have been avoided. That loss at the Supreme Court might have been avoided. But that is not the kind of prosecutor, I think, that Jack Smith is or has ever been given his record. He was on the team that helped prosecute. and convict former Virginia governor Bob McDonald of corruption charges in 2014. Those charges, that conviction was ultimately reversed by the Supreme Court unanimously.

And another notable moment of this hearing to me was he was asked about that. Smith is saying even now that he believes that his investigation gathered enough evidence that a jury would have returned a guilty verdict for President Trump. But he was asked, did you not also have that belief for Bob McDonald? And his response, Jack Smith's response, was that the Supreme Court changed the law after that conviction, changed the meaning of the law on what constitutes. Institute's unofficial act. And there was no sense of having been chastened by law losing a unanimous case at the Supreme Court. Maybe as prosecutors we should have been a little bit more circumspect and read that bribery statute more narrowly. There was no sort of reflection like that. on offer bill. And maybe Smith will offer that later in a different form where he's not being yelled at by one half of the people up on the dais, a memoir or something like that. But it does suggest to me that he was the wrong choice. for this job. And Merrick Garland, the Biden Justice Department, must have known his record. And it seems like they wanted a bulldog. And that's what they got. Yeah. And we have to pretend so many things to the contrary. I mean, he testified today, said, I was not a partisan prosecutor. I mean, it's ridiculous if we're going to believe that. I think Alicia summed it up. He's put there. to get a president, make it easier for the Democrats. He did his best. He was aggressive, a lot of iffy calls, and he finally got called on it. The irony is that, you know, he obviously despises Trump, wanted to see him in jail. But everything he did, like so much else, ended up, like backfiring and helping Trump. Like, it discredited the whole system. And I think Trump still benefits on that. A lot of people just aren't paying attention to the details because they don't trust the system. And I think that even more than the Trump prosecution, that's Jack Smith's worst legacy. He has introduced massive distrust among the public with good reason for what he did. Claiming impartiality and nonpartisanship while he's behaving, again, like Inspector Javert in Le Miserables. Hunting down John Valjean. Hang tight. We'll be right back in a moment. This podcast is brought to you by RelyQuest. Cybercriminals are constantly attacking. They want your data. They want your identity. They want your innovation. RelyAQuest fortifies your business with agentic defense, AI that detects contains and eliminate cyber threats in minutes. It helps your security team move faster at the work that matters most to protect the business now and delivers insights to help them predict what's next. ReliQuest, agentic defense for the enterprise. Learn more at ReliQuest.com. That's R-E-L-I-A-Q-U-E-S-T.com. This episode is brought to you by Charles Schwab. Decisions made in Washington can affect your portfolio every day. Washington Wise from Charles Schwab is an original podcast that unpacks the stories making news in Washington. Listen at Schwab.com slash Washington Wise.

Welcome back. These cases also have contributed to this spiral, I would say, of lawfare that we are now in. President Trump publicly urging the Justice Department to go after some of his political enemies, including Jack Smith, calling him again on truth social amid this testimony saying he's a deranged animal who shouldn't be allowed to practice law. His license would be taken away from him if he was a Republican. And then Trump's saying, hopefully the attorney general is looking at what he's done, which is a pretty clear if implicit call for maybe some kind of criminal case now against Jack Smith. He said he. expected that the Justice Department would probably be looking at him and trying to find anything that they could charge against him in his testimony on Thursday. But Alicia, I wonder if the Trump administration is now maybe going down the same kind of path, making the same kind of mistakes on lawfare. We've seen the cases against Letitia James and James Comey, for example, thrown out. of court. There's now been recent news that the Justice Department has sent subpoenas to state and local officials in Minnesota, including Tim Walz, the governor, and Jacob Frey, the mayor of Minneapolis. And to be clear, I don't think that it is an immunity from the law to hold some kind of public office. One example that comes up as an obvious one is that state judge in Wisconsin, who was recently convicted of helping a migrant in her courthouse evade immigration ICE officers, federal officers that were there trying to take him into custody. But Alicia, there's not. evidence, as far as I know, that Tim Walz or Jacob Frey have directly done that kind of thing. What they have done is loudly opposed, and maybe you could say recklessly opposed President Trump's enforcement blitz. You know, Governor Tim Walz putting up that video statement, suggesting that everyday Minnesotans, if they see ICE officers operating around their neighborhoods, should... approach those active law enforcement investigations with their phones out, I worry that that is contributing to the problem of law enforcement running into hostile crowds, which is always a volatile situation where something can go wrong. But the suggestion here in the press about these subpoenas, at least, is that... The Justice Department might be trying to build some sort of case based on their political speech, perhaps, that they are contributing to obstruction of ICE activities, federal law enforcement activities in Minnesota and in Minneapolis. And I wonder if we're going to get the same sort of First Amendment questions that were raised about the Jack Smith indictment about what President Trump said on January 6th. Right. And in some ways, well, we don't know what the charges that they're going to bring against the governor or

the mayor are. In some ways, they may be actually mirror images of the charges that were brought against Trump. Essentially, the real complaint about Trump's actions is he was incitement, right? That he was inflaming his supporters who then marched on the Capitol and created all kinds of mayhem. And that is essentially the complaint that Trump and his administration have against Jason Frey and Tim Walz is that they're essentially inciting their supporters by making these states. and encouraging their constituents to film ICE agents. Now, there is a First Amendment issue, as you point out. There is a free speech. It's not clear that they're screaming fire in a crowded theater. I guess that may be one argument that the Trump administration could make in charges to militate against the First Amendment defenses. But they'll probably find some other thread to hang the prosecution on, which will probably be very thin. But the purpose of all these charges, subpoenas, all that really is to harass their opponents and to chill speech and to send a message. Don't oppose me. Don't criticize me or what we're doing. Because if you do, we're going to try to get you. And I think actually that to some extent that was also the purpose of the Biden administration's lawfare. Bill, it does seem like the point is to send kind of an intimidating message. You could throw in the subpoena to Fed Chair Jerome Powell over his testimony about this Federal Reserve building renovation project. The public. allegations against Fed Governor Lisa Cook, which as far as I know, have not been adjudicated. It's just a criminal referral that Trump's housing regulator Bill Pulte sent over. It does raise the question, I think, in people's minds. Who's going to be next for the public social media accusation or the subpoena or the court date? And even if the targets of those things end up winning in court or if there are no charges that are ever brought, it can impose real. costs on people. Tim Walz, I'm assuming, is going to be represented here by the state of Minnesota if there's any sort of response to the subpoena that is required. But that is not necessarily true for people who are ex-aids, out of office, or others who are private individual. Yeah, that's exactly right. I will say for Tim Walz, it's the best thing that happened to him politically. to be attacked by the great evil orange ban. He's now a liberal folk here. The same thing with the mayor who has been absolutely irresponsible. When we want to talk about intimidation, how about going to a church and invading it and neither walls? Some say they don't support it, but they don't condemn it. That was an egregious violation of the First Amendment, and then no one's concerned about that. I don't think much is going to happen. I think a lot of the statements by the people targeted were really reckless and irresponsible. And I think they had the intent, if not the criminal effect. You can't prove it criminally.

of trying to interfere with ICE operations with federal law enforcement, I doubt they'll have to be able to prove that unless there's secret messages, at least based on what I've seen. I don't think they're going to recruit it, but there's been a lot of bad behavior out there. And it's just amazing to me. It's amazing to me to watch all this unfold and how little concern. there is for that Baptist church that had their First Amendment rights grossly violated by a group of lunatics that came into the church, disrupted services, scared kids. Everyone's like, never mind. I was glad to see indictments in those cases because I think they're different. Not just speech. These people are not just, they didn't just have an opinion on the church, which you can easily have. They went into the church, disrupted the service, scaredly some of the kids, and behaved like Kooligans. Hang tight. We'll be right back after one more break. This podcast is brought to you by ReliaQuest. Cybercriminals are constantly attacking. They want your data. They want your identity. They want your innovation. Reliacquest fortifies your business with agentic defense, AI that detects, contains, and eliminate cyber threats in minutes. It helps your security team move faster at the work that matters most to protect the business now. and delivers insights to help them predict what's next. ReliQuest, agentic defense for the enterprise. Learn more at ReliQuest.com. That's R-E-L-I-A-Q-U-E-S-T dot com. Don't forget, you can reach the latest episode of Potomac Watch anytime. Just ask your smart speaker, play the Opinion Potomac Watch podcast. From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch. Welcome back. Let's turn to one more legal story. This is from the House Oversight Committee, which on Wednesday voted 34 to 8. to recommend to the full House that former President Bill Clinton be held in contempt of Congress. A similar vote for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton passed the committee 28 to 15. The committee had asked the Clintons to come in and talk about, testify about their relationship, social relationship over the years with Jeffrey Epstein. The Clintons have denied that they have any pertinent information about Epstein's crimes. key thing here, Alicia, I think, is that subpoenas are subpoenas, and they're supposed to be obeyed. And so now this goes to a full House vote potentially, which could forward a criminal referral to the Justice Department for potential prosecution of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton. Let's start with a clip of the Oversight Committee Chair, Congressman James Comer, explaining why he felt the need to take this step. But subpoenas are not mere suggestions. They carry the force of law and require compliance. Former President Clinton and Secretary Clinton were legally required to appear for depositions before this committee. They refused. As Democrat Ranking Member Garcia stated, and I quote, defying a congressional subpoena is highly illegal, end quote. He also stated, and I quote, no one is above the law.

Actions have consequences. Six months ago, Republicans and Democrats on the House Oversight Committee's Federal Law Enforcement Subcommittee unanimously approved deposition subpoenas for the Clintons by voice vote as part of our investigation into the federal government's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell criminal cases. More than five months ago. I issued those bipartisan subpoenas. Alicia, I guess my view is that this is hopefully a shot across the bow. And the Clintons and the committee will now come to some agreement for whatever kind of testimony they can figure out will work. And maybe that won't be in public. But James Comer is saying it sure ought to be transcribed. And I think he's right that a subpoena is a lawful subpoena and you can't just ignore it. I think that's right. I have a little bit of sympathy for the Clintons here in that it's pretty clear what the House Republicans and Democrats are after. is, you know, partisan theatrics to embarrass the Clintons, at least for the Republicans, to point to, oh, well, the Clintons knew this about Jeffrey Epstein. Now, I think this is really a distraction. This isn't what the House Oversight Committee or the House in general should be spending their time on. There's just much more important things to exercise oversight. over and think Bill Clinton at least made the argument that I want that the subpoenas raised at least separation powers issues because you are subpoenaing a former president. I think the problem with that argument is that they're subpoenaing him, questioning him on conduct that occurred. Outside his office, you know, post-presidency, the Clintons also raised the argument that they don't have to respond because these hearings don't really have a valid legislative purpose. And I do agree with that. But you could have made the same argument when the House Democrats tried to subpoena all kinds of Trump administration officials on the January 6th, supposedly to find out what happened and all that. But nonetheless, they were allowed to do so. And Geter Navarro, Trump, a... as well as Steve Bannon, failed to respond and defied these subpoenas. And as a result, they were indicted and actually convicted. So I think it's important just on principle that Congress enforce its powers over subpoena power. because otherwise you will have executive branch officials or others disrespecting them left and right. So a referral for contempt of Congress may not be an overreach. But as you say, maybe the best possible outcome would be for the Clintons to negotiate some kind of a compromise in which they could testify not publicly in a public hearing, but nonetheless have their responses transcribed for the record. I agree with that assessment of the whole issue being a distraction.

and I have hard time thinking that there is a lot of useful testimony that the Clintons could provide. on Epstein. So it's not hard for me to imagine that this is the House playing politics on both sides. Democrats are now all cheering for the release of the Epstein files and arguing that President Trump is engaging in a cover-up for the fact that it is taking the Justice Department a while to review those files and redact any names of witnesses and accusers who might be exposed. Republicans want to bring the Clintons in, maybe in part because of all the criticism around President Trump. And they want to make prominent Democrats also an issue here. But Bill, it is notable to me. Again, the vote in this committee on holding Bill Clinton in contempt was 34 to 8. So there was a good number of Democrats even on this oversight committee who crossed the aisle to vote for that recommendation to the full House. And maybe some of that is wanting to vindicate. the House's subpoena power, if you get a subpoena, and if the House starts to let those subpoenas slide, I can only imagine who else might find it a little uncomfortable and not want to come in when asked. On the other hand, part of that might also be a reflection of the fact that Bill Clinton is now disposable to Democrats who are in the House. They don't mind throwing him under the bus anymore the way that they definitely would have 10 or 15 years ago. Right. I think you're absolutely right. I agree with everything Alicia said. This is theater. We don't know where it's going. Usually they avoid the kind of threatened outcome by negotiated settlement to come to some workable compromise. I suspect that's what's going. No one believes that Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton is going to go to jail because of this peanut. There'll be some negotiated solution. They might not like it. It might be as... at least it's just testifying in some form, not as public as they want. So it's largely a game. I think the public gets really tired of seeing this stuff. You know, if you're a member of Congress, a politician, it's been a, it should be an awesome thing that you're worried about it. You take it very seriously. And it's not taken seriously because for a long time it's really just used against Republicans. You know, Steve Bannon went to jail for contempt motion. I don't recall any Democrats going. So what I hope is we get back to a situation normally. where Congress has these tools, they issue them for the right reasons, and they have the desired effect. Thank you, Bill and Alicia. Thank you all for listening. You can email us at PW Podcast at WSJ.com. If you like the show, please hit that subscribe button. And we'll be back next week with another edition of Potomac Watch. This podcast is brought to you by ReliQuest. Cybercriminals are constantly attacking. They want your data. They want your identity. They want your innovation.

RelyEquest fortifies your business with agentic defense, AI that detects, contains, and eliminate cyber threats in minutes. It helps your security team move faster at the work that matters most to protect the business now and delivers insights to help them predict what's next. RelyA-A-E-A-Gentic defense for the enterprise. Learn more at R-E-E-Quest.com. That's R-E-L-A-Q-U-E-S-T dot com.