>>177060, >>177061, >>177062, >>177063, >>177064, >>177065, >>177066, >>177067, >>177068, >>177069, >>177070, >>177071, >>177072, >>177073, >>177074, >>177075, >>177076, >>177077, >>177078, >>177079, >>177080, >>177081, >>177082, >>177083, >>177084, >>177085, >>177086, >>177087, >>177088, >>177089, >>177090, >>177091, >>177092, >>177093, >>177094, >>177095, >>177096, >>177097, >>177098, >>177099, >>177100, >>177101, >>177102, >>177103, >>177104, >>177105, >>177106, >>177107, >>177108, >>177109, >>177110, >>177111
....
Brandon Gill:Your own analysis says that you knew there was a risk you were violating the speech or debate clause. I have it right here. This is an email from John Keller at Public Integrity Section to your team.
As you are aware, quote, as you are aware, there is some litigation risk regarding whether compelled disclosure of toll records of a member's legislative cause 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?
Jack Smith: Sir, with respect to the item you just put up on the screen, the last sentence states....
Brandon Gill: Oh, we're going to get to the last sentence.
Jack Smith: Okay.
Brandon Gill: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?
Jack Smith: To be clear, this statement is not from my office.
Brandon Gill: This is your justification for those subpoenas and NDOs that you ordered. This was part of your analysis. It's a cursory analysis. I think it's worth noting.
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 NDOs. Nobody's going to sue about it, sue this.
So who cares? We're going to do it anyways.
I mean, you walked all over the Constitution throughout this entire process, spying on members of Congress, and you know it. It's absolutely disgraceful.