The Harry Sisson Show - The Footage Just LEAKED... Trump Is PANICKING

Episode Date: January 1, 2026

Harry Sisson reacts to new clips of Jack Smith, the special counsel who investigated Trump's crimes, testifying before Congress about his probe. Republicans tried to pull gotcha moments, but it completely backfired.

All right, folks, this is awful news for Donald Trump, but amazing news for American democracy and the rule of law. Jack Smith, who was the special counsel investigating many of Donald Trump's crimes, recently sat in front of Congress for a deposition. Now, it was behind closed doors because that's what Republicans wanted to do, even though Jack Smith wanted it to be public for people to watch. And now we know why they wanted it behind closed doors because the deposition was devastating for Donald Trump. Jack Smith was in command of the facts, command of the room, and the Republicans who tried their gotcha moments just simply couldn't land anything. So I have three clips, some of the most significant clips from the over eight hours of footage, and I'm going to show you them. We'll talk about it a little bit. Before I do any of that, make sure to subscribe down below. Drop a like on the video if you appreciate what we're doing here,

and make sure to comment and let me know what you think about the story. So we're going to start with this clip right here, where Jack Smith was asked, a question that a lot of Republicans have asked about the case, saying, but the president's statements that he believed the election was fraudulent, those are statements protected by the First Amendment. And Jack Smith breaks down how not true, actually, they were not protected by the First Amendment. And what Donald Trump did was criminal, especially on January 6th. Watch. As I sit here right now, I can't remember specific conversations.

I do remember that we knew that a sort of First Amendment defense would be part of the case. And I think when I mentioned to you earlier about how to frame the case, we want to make clear that this was not about trying to interfere with anyone's First Amendment rights, that this was a fraud. And as you know, under Supreme Court precedent, fraud is not protected by the First Amendment. And so in my mind, it was important to make that clear in the indictment. And that's why when we litigated this issue for the district court, we prevailed. But the president's statements that he believed the election was rife with fraud, those certainly are statements that are protected by the First Amendment, correct? Absolutely not if they are made to target a lawful government function and they are made

with knowing falsity. No, they're not. That was my point about fraud not being protected by the First Amendment. I mean, there's a long list of disputed elections. I mean, the election of 1800, 1960, year 2000, where candidates believe they were wronged by the, you know, because they lost. And there's a long history of candidates speaking out about they believe there's been fraud, there's been other problems with the integrity of the election process. And I think you would agree that those types of statements are sort of at the, core of the First Amendment rights of a presidential candidate, right?

There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case. As we said in the indictment, he was free to say that he thought he won the election. He was even free to say falsely that he won the election. But what he was not free to do was violate federal law and use knowing that. knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function that he was not allowed to do. And that differentiates this case from any past his fraud time. Yeah, he just has such an amazing understanding of the facts. He just has it down to a T. The Republicans can try their, you know, their gotcha moments. So isn't this the First Amendment

or are you attacking the First Amendment? Isn't this freedom of speech? Jack Smith is not saying that Donald Trump can't go out there and say, oh, I think the election. was unfair. He can go out there and say, that's protected speech. It's wrong. It's not true, but he can go do that. But when he's saying that to encourage people to overturn a free and fair election, and that's part of his scheme, that's illegal, that's a crime. I mean, what is wrong with these Republicans? And it's so funny that they think they can catch Jack Smith off guard, like, as if he's not one of the most successful prosecutors that could have been assigned to this case, as if he's not a constitutional scholar, as if he hasn't written the indictment and knows it

in and out. I mean, it's just, I don't know what they're doing here. They're trying to make Donald Trump look good. Donald Trump looks pretty bad right there. And on top of that, I want to show you this next clip where, you know, this is another point Republicans have been making. Did the Attorney General or any other DOJ official or even President Biden ask you to bring indictments against Donald Trump? And the answer is, as we all expect. There's a lot of inferences and accusation of being made about your bias as a special counsel's office. And I want to make sure that we rebut these in the first hour. I think it's important too.

So do the Attorney General or any other DOJ official ever pressure you to be more aggressive in your investigation of President Donald J. Trump? No. Did the Attorney General, any other DOJ official ever suggest that you were expected to bring charges against President Trump? No. Did anyone from the White House, including President Biden, ever tell you they expected you to bring charges against Donald Trump?

No. When you eventually did bring charges against Donald Trump, how did you make that decision? Walk us through it at a high level, if you don't mind. Sure. It was based on the facts and based on the law. I ultimately made that decision, but I consulted with my team of prosecutors on that case who were outstanding public servants, people with great experience and complex investigations, I took their advice and in counsel in making that decision.

And I tried to consider all factors, including both the strength of the case that we believe we had, possible defenses, all things of that nature. So basically of what you just said, it sounds like you made this prosecution, a prosecution, not prostitution, I apologize, prosecution decision based on the evidence in the law. Is that correct? That's correct. Would you have done if you felt any improper pressure from a DOJ official or the White House? I think people who know me and have known my reputation would know that that would not end well that someone trying to pressure me to move a case in one direction to the other where it's not

supported by the law. I wouldn't stand for it. And I would also say the people who worked in my office wouldn't stand for that either. Just the total destruction of these Republican talking points that we've heard for years about Jack Smith and his investigation, that it was political. It was Joe Biden it was this, anybody that says that it was not informed by the law and the facts is just simply uninformed. They have no idea what they're talking about. They've never gone to law school, let alone even read a statute in like high school or college.

They've never done that. They have no idea what they're talking about. They have no idea how indictments work. If you ask them who indicted them, they wouldn't even talk about a grand jury being involved in that process. They have no idea. And so Jack Smith followed the law. He followed the facts.

The facts are overwhelming. It's not even up for debate as if, well, you know, did what, you know, was it like a split decision? Was it, you know, kind of up in the air? No. No. Probably one of the easiest decisions Jack Smith has ever had to make in terms of bringing charges in his career. The final clip I want to show you is a Jack Smith saying, talking about Donald Trump's criminal intent. Again, Republicans say, oh, how do you know he wanted to commit crimes?

How was you? How do you know it's a crime? Well, first of all, again, the law. But second of all, Donald Trump was acting with the mens rea, which means the criminal mind, the criminal intent to want to do something like this and something that he knew was against the law. That's what Jack Smith says. Take a look. But it's pretty significant to subpoena the Speaker of the House's toll records, right? We followed Department policy and we followed all legal requirements in getting those records.

You know, to get the information you're looking for, nobody disputed the Speaker and the President were having communications on January 6th. So one way you could have gotten that information is you could have asked the speaker's lawyer to look at his phone records and to give you the information you needed, right? Well, you say now that nobody's disputing, but my experience in criminal investigations is that people often at trial dispute things that you never thought were going to be in dispute during the investigation. And so when I conduct a criminal investigation, I don't assume there will be no disputes. having a record that is a hard record about a time in the timeline that afternoon was particularly important because that violence started. The president refused to stop it. He endangered the life of his vice president. Then he's getting calls and not just not calls from from Democrats,

not calls from people he doesn't know, calls from people he trusts, calls from people he relies on and still refuses to come to the aid of the people at the Capitol. That's very important evidence for criminal intent in our case. Yeah. Again, I'm just blown away by not only, again, Jack Smith's understanding of the case, but I'm blown away by the idea that Republicans had that they thought this would go well for them. Like they really brought in Jack Smith thinking that, oh, we're going to get him. Oh, yeah, we're going to get him. Oh, he's going to say he worked for Biden.

and it was the Democrats. I mean, you can just see from these clips. The footage is eight hours. So if you'd like to watch it, I'd encourage you, there's a 200 plus page transcript as well of it. If you'd like to dive more into clips you weren't able to see today or things that Jack Smith wasn't talking about here, like such as, Jack Smith said he was still considering charging some of Donald Trump's alleged co-conspirators.

But when Trump won the election, obviously became a moot point. They couldn't move forward on those charges. Smith also said that Donald Trump. without question added danger or added to the danger to Mike Pence's life with his 2.24 p.m. tweet while the Capitol was under attack. There's a lot of really interesting things in here, a lot of damning things in here. So I'd encourage you to watch the whole thing or read it if you get an opportunity. But just a really bad day for Republicans.

This is coming out. They wanted it behind closed doors. Now we know why. And it's because of clips like this. So I will leave the video there. Make sure to share this stuff around. So as many people as possible see it. Make sure to subscribe below down as well.

It goes an incredibly long way. drop a like on the video, comment, let me know what you think about everything. And as I always say, I greatly appreciate you. And I hope you have an amazing rest of your day.