Jack Smith

And I am, as I say, I'm not gonna be intimidated.

We did our work pursuant to department policy.

We followed the facts and we followed the law.

And that process resulted in proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed serious crimes.

I'm not gonna pretend that didn't happen because he's threatening me.

I believe they will do everything in their power to do that because they've been ordered to by the president.

Let's go to something else that I've been hearing over the last week by our colleagues as they've eagerly anticipated your arrival here.

They've been saying that there's some kind of First Amendment defense that Donald Trump would have had to the crimes you indicted him for.

Is there a valid First Amendment defense to defrauding the public?

Is there a valid First Amendment defense to disrupting a federal proceeding?

Is there a valid First Amendment defense to violating the voting rights of the people and cheating the public out of a fair election?

The First Amendment is something we took seriously in our investigation, but the First Amendment does not protect speech that facilitates a crime.

speech that is used to facilitate a crime, a fraud crime in particular, is not protected under the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court precedent on that is clear.

This is an issue that we litigated before the district court, and the district court ruled, as I just stated, that it is not in fact protected.

And the case law is perfectly clear on this, right?

All frauds are perpetrated by speech.

Right?

Yes.

All conspiracies are perpetrated by speech.