26 posts from Tuesday, March 3, 2026

- And Melania, you're now engaged. Congratulations. - Thank you. - That's very exciting. (audience applauds) That's all I got you, is that little tiny thing right there on your finger? (audience laughs) Look at the size of that. That's just, I can, how many carrots is that? - I don't know, I never think about it. - You don't think about carrots? - No, I don't think about that. - I bet you do. I bet you know exactly how many carrots it is. - I do, actually. - See. - Yeah, I thought it was good, but anyway, so, next question. - And where did you two meet? - We met in New York. - Mm-hmm. - It was Fashion Week, and it was party, big party, so we met there. - And now he comes over and says what? - You came over and he said, "What did you say?" I think he said-- - He said, "Give me your number immediately." I want your phone number. It's very crude, but sometimes it works. - It's just that easy? - It's very direct. - I want your phone number? - No, no, it's very direct. And you either get slapped, or you get the number. In her case, I didn't get slapped. I didn't get the number. I worked on it for about a month, and then finally I was able to find-- - Really? - Yes. - Where she lived and everything. - As a person, as a man, what's the best thing about him? - He's a man I love. - And what's the worst thing about him? - I hate the worst thing. - How are you doing, First Lady? - Oh, look at you. Is this the greatest First Lady? People love our First Lady, right? Look at the elegantest First Lady of the year. - I want to also thank my beautiful wife, Melania, First Lady. (audience applauds) - Happy Mother's Day, everyone. (audience applauds) - I would like to thank my husband, America's director. (audience applauds) Donald Trump. ♪ We once I was 20 years old ♪ ♪ Soon we'll be 30 years old ♪ ♪ That my songs have been sold ♪ ♪ We've traveled around the world and we're still roaming ♪ ♪ Soon we'll be 30 years old ♪ ♪ I'm still learning about life ♪ ♪ My woman brought children for me ♪ ♪ So I can sing them all my songs ♪ ♪ And I can tell them stories ♪ ♪ Most of my boys are with me ♪ ♪ Some are still out seeking glory ♪ ♪ And some I had to leave behind my brother ♪ - First Lady, you know the First Lady of the year. (audience applauds) Everybody knows, this is, as you know, Navy One, by the way, for the day. Only for the day. But one day, Navy One, like Air Force One, this is Navy One. Thank you, thank you, everybody. Thank you, Toby. ♪ It was a big, big world ♪ ♪ But we thought we were bigger ♪ ♪ Pushing each other to the limits ♪ ♪ We were learning quicker ♪ ♪ By 11, smoking herb and drinking, burning liquor ♪ ♪ Never rich, so we were out to make that steady figure ♪ ♪ Once I was 11 years old ♪ ♪ My daddy told me ♪ ♪ Go get yourself a wife or you will be lonely ♪ ♪ Once I was 11 years old ♪ ♪ I always had that dream like my daddy before me ♪ ♪ So I started writing songs ♪ ♪ I started writing stories ♪ ♪ Something about that glory ♪ ♪ Just always seemed to pull me ♪ ♪ 'Cause only those I really love ♪ ♪ Will ever really know me ♪ ♪ Once I was 12 years old ♪ ♪ My story got told ♪ ♪ Before the morning sun went light from snow ♪

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Many days after Kevin McCarthy was sworn in as speaker, did you subpoena his records? I don't recall, but those two things had nothing to do with it. It was 16 days after becoming the highest-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives. You subpoenaed his toll records. Do you agree that that might reasonably be considered a violation of the speech or debate clause? I do not, and I want to be clear that the toll records— We were collecting months' worth of phone data on the Republican Speaker of the House, the leader of the opposition, right after he got sworn in as speaker, all around the time of a major vote. That sounds like a flagrant violation of the speech or debate clause to me, and I think most people agree with me. And Speaker McCarthy had no recourse, did he, because you issued a non-disclosure order ensuring that neither he nor any of the American people knew about these subpoenas. Is that right? The toll record, the non-content toll record subpoenas, we did secure non-disclosure orders for those subpoenas. You did, and let me ask you, Mr. Smith, at the time you secured those non-disclosure orders, was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk? The non-disclosure order was based on concerns about— Was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk? He was not. He was not. Then why did your non-disclosure order refer to him as a flight risk? It says right here, "The court finds reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in flight from prosecution." Sir, when securing a non-disclosure order, the risks don't have to be associated with the— Do you think the Speaker of the House is a flight risk? Did he finish answering the question? No, this is not your time. This is my time. You think the Speaker of the House is a flight risk? Do you think he's going to hop on a plane and leave the country? No, what I was trying to explain is with respect to a non-disclosure order, the risks aren't necessarily associated with the subscriber to the phone. There are risks to the investigation. I think that you were using—this was clearly in reference to Speaker McCarthy, and you were using clearly false information to secure a non-disclosure order to hide from Speaker McCarthy and from the American people the fact that you were spying on his toll records. But I've got more, so let's move on. In May of 2023, you also issued subpoenas for toll records of nine U.S. Senators and an additional representative. Is that right? In May of 2023, we did issue— You did, and there were non-disclosure orders in conjunction with those subpoenas as well, right? That's correct, consistent with Department policy and the law. So again, nobody would know what you were doing. The Senators would, and the Representatives would, and the American people wouldn't know what you were doing. Is that right? The toll records that we secured and the non-disclosure orders were consistent with policy and consistent with— And you knew, whenever you were doing that, that there was a risk you were violating the speech or debate clause. Is that right? The toll record subpoenas that we secured were with the concurrence of the public— Your own analysis says that you knew there was a risk you were violating the speech or debate clause. I have it right here. It's an email from John Keller at public integrity section to your team. As you are aware, there is some litigation risk regarding whether compelled disclosure of toll records of a member's legislative calls violates the speech or debate clause in the D.C. Circuit. That's from your own analysis right there. So you did know, didn't you? So with respect to the item you just put up on the screen, the last sentence states— We're going to get to the last sentence. We're going to get to the last sentence. And you cite case law in here, quote, "The bar on compelled disclosure is absolute." Is that right? Or do you think that you didn't have to abide by that precedent? To be clear, this is not—this statement is not from my office. This is the statement of public— This is your justification for those subpoenas and NDO's that you ordered. This was part of your analysis. It's a cursory analysis. I think it's worth noting. But let's get to that last sentence then. Quote, "Given my understanding of the low likelihood that any of the members listed below would be charged, the litigation risk should be minimal here." In other words, you're using a novel legal theory, which you knew was novel, has never been tested by any court. You're not charging any of these members. Nobody's going to know about it because you issued NDO's. Nobody's going to sue about it, so sue this. So who cares? We're going to do it anyways. You walked all over the Constitution throughout this entire process, buying our members of Congress, and you know it. - It's absolutely disgraceful. - The time.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

- Let me ask you this, am I on this list? Did you target my records and subpoena my phone toll records? - My understanding is your records were subpoenaed by prosecutors before I became special counsel. - Well, the staff would put this up on the screen. Thankful for the great staff who discovered the email where I learned for the first time a few weeks ago that my phone records were indeed targeted. We called AT&T and we've learned that they were given to the Department of Justice as this email indicates because I had been in communication with Scott Perry, one of my colleagues here in Congress, who literally had his phone taken from him in front of his family. And of course, we've already talked about in this document, it talks about you could be in violation of the privilege by even obtaining and possessing this information if the member objected to the disclosure. This happened four years ago in May of 2022 and I couldn't object because I didn't know. I didn't know until about three weeks ago. My question here is, was there any limits to your investigation or the investigation that preceded you, Mr. Smith? Because as egregious as a violation of separation of powers this is, as an egregious and abusive power it is, it's far more concerning you are clearly targeting American citizens for merely being conservative or supporting the president. We've got memos that we've already been talking about in this hearing from April, 2022 that preceded you that established and opened the investigations, one of which has Attorney General Merrick Garland's signature on it. And the focus was the electors. Now that was six months before you were appointed. You testified earlier, you met and interviewed Merrick Garland and Deputy AG Lisa Monaco. And you briefed the AG and deputy multiple times. Did you brief them on the electors and the prosecution of their supposed crimes? - I'm sorry, sir. - Did you brief them on the electors and their supposed crimes? - I don't recall specific conversations, but I'm sure that in the course of briefing them, I-- - It wasn't that the purpose of the entire investigation as it was set out? 'Cause putting aside that in 1960, we've already talked about my friend, Mr. Tiffany, that Hawaii put forward an alternate slate of electors, the investigation pivoted to President Trump and frankly anybody who knew him. Do you know who Cleta Mitchell is? - Yes, I do. - She's an election lawyer that was involved in filing an election contest on behalf of President Trump in Georgia in December of 2020. A 64-page complaint with over 1100 pages of exhibits, witness affidavits and expert witness reports, documenting thousands of votes cast in violation of Georgia law, but which were nevertheless included in the vote totals. Now, notwithstanding the disposition of the cases that was filed, is that a criminal act? Filing an election contest on behalf of a candidate for office, a client? Is that a criminal act, yes or no? - No, in fact, we-- - So why did you deem it appropriate to monitor Cleta Mitchell's long distance phone records in 2023, two and a half years after the election context was filed and after the presidential electors were certified? What about Jen Ellis? What about Sidney Powell? What about Bill Sepien? What crime did you suspect had been committed by them that would warrant monitoring their phone records two and a half years after the 2020 election was certified? - With respect to Sidney Powell, she is one of the co-conspirators alleged in the indictment. I don't know what you mean by monitoring, sir, if you're talking about-- - Well, there were some 400-plus Republican conservative groups and leaders who were targeted by your investigation. Their financial records were obtained, records of the RNC, the Trump campaign, Cleta Mitchell, the Conservative Partnership Institute, the American First League Policy Institute, NRCC, NRSC, PACs, conservative groups, people all across the country, citizens, 'cause we hear a lot about members of Congress. And we should because of separation of powers and the egregious abuse of power. But what we're not talking about enough, in my opinion, are the American citizens that have been targeted. 'Cause frankly, are there any limits to the power of a special prosecutor or special counsel? So much so in your abuse of power that in the summer of 2024, the indictment involving classified documents was dismissed after determining your appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, but you continue to sign your name on court filings until the time you resigned from office in January of 2025. A federal judge has recently stated a prosecutor who continues to sign his name in court filings after a disqualification order should face disciplinary action or disbarment. I yield back.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Now there are many, many reasons to end the Iranian regime, take out their nuclear capability, take out their missile building, their terror financing, their entire military. But at the end of the day, I believe President Trump's epic fury is about restoring civilized value and civilized behavior in the Middle East. My friend Conrad Black, writing in The New York Sun, puts it this way. Let me quote, "The world's foremost terrorism-sponsoring state is about to cease to exist, and the war on terror that was unofficially launched on September 11, 2001, in the ashes of the World Trade Center, will substantially be won." Well done. And this is no forever war, as Trump critics keep complaining, but the scale and scope of geopolitical change, because of Mr. Trump's courage, is almost intellectually immeasurable, while all the Gulf states are behind him, and even the large European nations reluctantly supporting. We have heard nary a peep from China or Russia. They're the big losers in America's epic fury. China will lose its cheap, heavily priced, discounted oil. Russia will lose its Iranian-made drones. Both countries will have lost all of their Middle East influence. Meanwhile, a very similar story of Sino-Russian lost influence is occurring in South America, with Mr. Trump's path-breaking move in Venezuela. And after watching the use of America's military might, I would think China will surely be thinking twice or maybe five times more about invading Taiwan. Finally, President Trump issued a very clear message to the people of Iran that a historic moment of freedom is there, if they can seize it. Take a listen, please. Finally, to the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force. Now is the time to seize control of your destiny and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach. This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass. Yes, yes, indeed. The battle is always about freedom and liberty for mankind. There is nothing more important. Bravo, President Trump.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.