Rep. Tom Tiffany vs. Jack Smith: You’re Called “The Gold Standard,” Many Of Your Cases Have Been Overturned Or Ended In Mistrials
Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI), during his questioning of former special counsel Jack Smith, noted the contrast between Smith being hailed as “the gold standard” and the number of his high-profile cases that have resulted in mistrials or were unanimously overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
REP. TOM TIFFANY (R-WI): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 2010, Mr. Smith, did you work for President Obama’s Department of Justice? FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH: Yes. In 2010, I was the chief of the Public Integrity Section. TIFFANY: During that time, did you have any contact or connection with Lois Lerner, with the Obama IRS? SMITH: Yes. I was new to the Public Integrity Section. I was the chief. I was trying to learn about issues I had not been at. TIFFANY: Did you attempt to work with Lois Lerner and the IRS to investigate non-profits? SMITH: What I did was I asked for a meeting with the IRS about non-profits. So the simple answer is yes. Well, I didn’t ask to work with Ms. Lerner. They sent Ms. Lerner. That’s the person who came to this meeting. I met her once. TIFFANY: And they went after Second Amendment groups, correct? If you remember correctly, that’s what was the offshoot of it, that Second Amendment groups that tried to gain non-profit status, they were slow-rolled through the IRS. Do you recall that? SMITH: Separate from this, there was an investigation of that, that I was a part of Public Integrity. TIFFANY: You prosecuted Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. This was asked earlier. You prosecuted him, I was a part of the prosecution, yes. That decision ended up being unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court, correct? That is correct, sir. Yeah, including Justice Ginsburg joined in on that opinion, correct? SMITH: I believe that’s correct. TIFFANY: Yeah. You also prosecuted John Edwards and Bob Menendez, and those both ended in mistrials. Is that right? SMITH: The John Edwards case did. The Menendez case, I had left the Public Integrity section by the time that case was tried. TIFFANY: So, Mr. Chairman, what we heard from the other side here is that this gentleman is the gold standard for prosecution here in the United States. So, think about it. We had a witch hunt done by the IRS going after Second Amendment groups, unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court, prosecuted two prominent political figures, and they ended up as mistrials. That’s a gold standard here in America? I would just say this, Mr. Chairman. If Mr. Smith ever works for the Department of Justice again, I would recommend a remedial course on the First Amendment to the Constitution. Before I yield the rest of my time, Mr. Smith, I just have one other question. Is there any historical precedent for an alternate slate of electors to be sent to Congress? Has that ever happened before? [Speaker 2] That had happened. Not anything similar to this situation, but you’re correct. I think it was Hawaii in, I want to say, the 1960 election. TIFFANY: So, it has happened before that there was an alternate slate of electors that was sent to Congress, which does the electoral count, correct? SMITH: There was a prior time that an electoral slate was sent where there was litigation and recounts going on. TIFFANY: Actually, there’s twice that it happened, Mr. Chairman. It happened in 1876 and 1960 that these alternate electors happened. I’d like to ask unanimous consent to introduce the 1960 Hawaii case.
