# Post ts_116163653947545766

- Post ID: `ts_116163653947545766`
- Platform: Truth Social
- Posted: 2026-03-03T05:44:52.313Z (UTC)
- Deleted: no
- Repost: no
- Canonical URL: https://trump.fm/post/ts_116163653947545766
- Analysis page: https://trump.fm/post/ts_116163653947545766/analysis

## Post text

_No text of its own. The post is its media, below._

## What the media says

**Video transcript** (4:46), transcribed automatically, so names and numbers may be wrong. Speakers aren't identified, so a voice in it may not be his:

> 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.

## Media

- video: https://static-assets-1.truthsocial.com/tmtg:prime-ts-assets/media_attachments/files/116/163/640/437/251/586/original/9ed733860235ecdb.mp4

## Engagement

- Likes: 11,664
- Reposts: 2,771
- Replies: 359
- Views: unknown
- Metrics collected: 2026-03-04T01:30:44.648Z (UTC)

# Analysis

_Machine-generated by trump.fm on 2026-09-09T11:48:29.521Z (UTC): a model's reading of this post, not his words. Its psychological terms describe the language, not a clinical assessment of him._

## Summary

This is a media-only repost with no words from the subject: a congressional hearing clip in which Jack Smith is questioned about secret, non-disclosed toll-record subpoenas on then-Speaker McCarthy and several senators, and about a court filing that misleadingly cited McCarthy as a 'flight risk.' All quoted content belongs to the hearing's questioner and to Smith, not the subject, so no fact-check claims are attributed to him and no stylistic inferences are drawn.

The analyzable behavior is selection: amplifying footage that damages Jack Smith's credibility functions as reputational rehabilitation-by-proxy, since Smith separately served as special counsel in the subject's own federal prosecutions. This fits a longstanding persecution/weaponization narrative in which DOJ actors are cast as secretive and rule-bending, reinforcing a contamination-sequence narrative (once-legitimate institution → corrupted) with the subject and allies positioned as victims.

Authorship attribution rests solely on timing (~00:44 a.m. Eastern), within the subject's documented late-night posting pattern, but confidence is capped at low given the total absence of textual evidence and the plausibility of staff-driven clip amplification. No danger indicators, dehumanizing language, or violent imagery appear in the amplified content, and defenses (projection, splitting) are inferred from curatorial choice alone rather than direct statement — this analysis is thin by design given the format.

## Analysis: Truth Social video repost, 2026-03-03T05:44:52Z (no original text)

**Content basis.** The post carries no words from the subject — only an attached video with a transcript of a congressional hearing exchange between a Republican questioner and former Special Counsel Jack Smith, concerning secretly obtained, non-disclosed toll-record subpoenas on then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy and nine senators/a representative, and a court filing that misleadingly labeled McCarthy a "flight risk." All propositional content in the transcript belongs to the hearing participants, not to the subject. Per instructions, no stylometric, grammatical, or rhetorical-style inferences are drawn from the transcript, and no fact-check entries are generated from claims made by the questioner or Smith — those are third-party assertions, not the subject's.

**The analyzable act is selection.** Choosing to amplify this specific clip — which paints Jack Smith as secretive, evasive, and willing to use dubious legal grounds to conceal surveillance of Republican officials from the public — serves an evident self-referential function: Smith was also the special counsel who prosecuted the subject in two federal cases. Surfacing footage that discredits Smith's candor and legal judgment functions as reputational rehabilitation-by-proxy, reinforcing a persecution/weaponization narrative (DOJ-as-corrupted-institution) that recurs across the subject's documented history, independent of any words attached here.

**Authorship.** No stylometric evidence exists for a media-only post. Local time is derived from timing alone: 05:44:52 UTC on 2026-03-03 converts to approximately 00:44 ET (EST, pre-DST), consistent with the subject's well-documented late-night/early-morning posting pattern (e.g., the Feb 25 overnight 60+ post frenzy, the 2:30 a.m. Iran-war video days earlier). This is circumstantial only — confidence is capped at low, and the inference concerns who selected/queued the clip, not who wrote anything, since nothing was written.

**Clinical/defense framing.** The selection is consistent with a paranoid schema (institutions are secretly working against Republicans/self) and splitting (Smith as duplicitous villain vs. implied righteous questioner), but this is inferred from curatorial choice alone, with no direct first-person statement to anchor a stronger clinical read. No grandiosity, rage, or danger indicators are present in the material itself — the clip's content is procedural/legal, not violent or dehumanizing.

**Narrative identity.** Fits the subject's established "victim of a weaponized DOJ" narrative arc, casting Jack Smith's prosecutorial conduct (both toward McCarthy in this clip and, by clear implication, toward the subject in his own indictments) as illegitimate and secretive — an order-attacker framing directed at what is portrayed as a corrupted institution rather than legitimate authority.

No danger indicators, no gaslighting language, no eliminationist rhetoric present in the amplified content.

## Authorship Analysis

**Uncertain** (score: 55%)

### Indicators

- No written text accompanies the post, so no stylometric evidence exists for either authentic or aide authorship
- Posting time converts to ~00:44 ET (pre-DST Eastern), within the subject's well-documented late-night/early-morning authentic posting window
- Consistent with recent pattern of overnight posting frenzies and a 2:30 a.m. video post days earlier in the same period
- Media-only reposts of hearing clips are also a common low-effort staff/rapid-response amplification format, which timing alone cannot rule out

## Psychological Profile

### Traits

**Big Five:**
- Extraversion: 0%
- Agreeableness: 0%
- Conscientiousness: 0%
- Neuroticism: 30%
- Openness: 0%

Strongest facet: suspiciousness (inferred from content selection only)

**Motives:**
- Agency: 50%
- Communion: 10%

Primary drive: validation

### Narrative

- **Role:** implicit victim-by-proxy of a weaponized DOJ
- **Arc:** contamination
- **Contrasting:** Jack Smith / DOJ special counsel apparatus

### State

**Vulnerable State**

**Trigger:** Supply Seeking (Selection of content discrediting Jack Smith, the special counsel who prosecuted the subject)

Sentiment: -0.25

### Clinical

**Malignant Narcissism:**
- Narcissistic: 20%
- Antisocial: 10%
- Paranoid: 40%
- Sadism: 5%

**Defense Mechanisms:**
- projection (immature)
- splitting (immature)

**Cognitive Complexity:**
- Complexity: 0%

## Tags

- media-only-post (100%)
- dojweaponization-narrative (70%)
- jack-smith (80%)
- third-party-amplification (90%)

## That day

_From trump.fm's machine-generated digest of the day, not his words._

**He declared Iran's air force, navy and leadership "gone" at dawn, then spent the evening insuring Gulf shipping against them**

Trump spent the day narrating his own war, and posted 26 times around it. He was up past midnight and back online before sunrise, first sharing congressional hearing clips that attacked the prosecutor who once indicted him, then declaring by breakfast that Iran's air force, navy and leadership were "gone" and that when Tehran asked to talk he'd said "Too Late!" A Wall Street Journal story questioning American munitions stocks drew the day's only real flash of anger — he called it "wrong, and a disgrace," insisted U.S. weapons supplies were "unlimited," and an hour later reposted his own earlier version of the same boast. By evening the tone had gone administrative: insurance for Gulf shipping, an evacuation hotline for Americans in the Middle East, a Montana endorsement, a warning to banks — measures that quietly undercut the morning's claim that Iran's military no longer existed. He signed off with a photo of a New York Post letters page calling him the greatest foreign-policy president in history, cropped so that the word "pushback" in the headline and a letter about three dead service members fell outside the frame.

Full digest for 2026-03-03: https://trump.fm/date/2026-03-03/analysis

## Citation

- APA: Trump, D. J. (2026, March 3).  [Social media post]. Truth Social. trump.fm. https://trump.fm/post/ts_116163653947545766
- MLA: Trump, Donald J. "" Truth Social, 3 Mar. 2026. trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/ts_116163653947545766. Accessed 9 Oct. 2026.
- Chicago: Donald J. Trump, "," Truth Social, March 3, 2026, archived at trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/ts_116163653947545766.

## For agents

- Site overview: https://trump.fm/llms.txt
- API specification: https://trump.fm/openapi.json
- MCP server: https://trump.fm/mcp (search and fetch tools, no auth)
- This post as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/posts/ts_116163653947545766
- Analysis as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/analysis/ts_116163653947545766
- All citation formats: https://trump.fm/api/cite/ts_116163653947545766
- Same day: https://trump.fm/date/2026-03-03
- The record alone, without the analysis: https://trump.fm/post/ts_116163653947545766.md?analysis=false

_Markdown view of a trump.fm page. Post, analysis, date, feed, contradictions, search and about pages answer in markdown at their URL with `.md` appended (`/index.md` for the home page), or when sent `Accept: text/markdown`._