WATCH: Jim Jordan Grills Merrick Garland About Jack Smith, Accuses Special Counsel of Tampering With Evidence in Fiesty Clash
A House Judiciary Committee hearing featuring testimony on Attorney General Merrick Garland took place on Tuesday, and he vowed not to be pushed around during his questioning. That didn’t stop Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) from trying, and he had some questions about Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Jordan had a line of questioning about the choice of Smith to oversee two federal cases against former President Donald Trump — one concerning the alleged mishandling of classified documents and one concerning his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Both cases resulted in several indictments. Jordan wanted to know why Smith was chosen:
Jordan: Why did you pick… This is probably the most high-profile special counsel investigation, maybe in American history. You’re going to be investigating a former president, a candidate for president and leading in all the polls. And you pick Jack Smith. Most important selection maybe ever made from the attorney general. When you comes to a special counsel, I want to know why you could have picked.
Garland: Well, I’m–
Jordan: Former AGs, deputy AGs, U.S. attorneys, you got all kinds of lawyers in this town, but you pick Jack Smith.
Garland: All the people you just mentioned were political would be political appointees. I appointed somebody who is not a political appointee, somebody who is an independent, nonpartisan with a record of career experience as a prosecutor. That seemed to me the perfect resume for making that kind of–
Jordan: He was a guy, the guy worked, you had to bring him back from Europe. You worked at the ICC, worked at the World Court. He was the best pick for the most high profile investigation ever?
Garland: He was independent, he was nonpartisan. He had never held a political office. He was never appointed in a political office. He had a–
Jordan: Was he your first choice?
Garland: Long career as a career–
Jordan: Was he your first choice?
Garland: I’m not going to go into the question of how I–
Jordan: Did you know him before you picked him?
Garland: I did not.
Jordan: You ever worked with him?
Garland: I did not.
Jordan: Did you meet with him prior to announcing his selection and tell him what was going on?
Garland: Of course I did.
Jordan: What happened in that meeting?
Garland: I met with him. I asked him if he would be willing to do this. We talked about my understandings of the role of this office, which are on the public record. That’s all.
Jordan: Did he ask for the job?
Garland: [Laughs] This is not a job I don’t think anybody asks for.
Later in the questioning, Jordan asked if Smith tampered with evidence following the FBI raid on Mar-A-Lago:
Jordan: Do you regret picking him?
Garland: No, I do not regret picking him.
Jordan: Well, prosecutors aren’t supposed to tamper with evidence, and it looks like that’s what he did. He changed the sequence of the documents that he seized from Mar-A-Lago.
Garland: I’m sorry, that’s a false characterization, but that is ongoing–
Jordan: Here’s what he said to the court, Mr. Attorney General: “There are some boxes where the order of items within the box is not the same as in the associated scans.” I mean, he said it. I didn’t say it. He told the court that.
Garland: Now you’re asking me to comment on a discovery dispute that’s ongoing in a court. I don’t know the facts of it, and I’m not going to comment in it.
Jordan: This is from Jack Smith filing with the court. He admitted to the court that they tampered with the evidence. He mishandled the very documents he’s charging President Trump with mishandling. And I’m just asking, do you regret picking this guy as the special counsel and the most important special counsel investigation, probably in American history?
Garland: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear not hear the words “tamper” in the statement that Mr. Smith filed. He did not use those words.
Garland added later: “I don’t know whether your description of the facts are true or not true. And I’m not going to intrude in a decision in a district court.”
Watch the video above via C-SPAN 3.
