Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, publicly disclosed last week 197 subpoenas issued by Smith’s legal team as part of the Trump investigation code-named “Arctic Frost.”
The subpoenas were reportedly directed to 34 individuals and 163 businesses (total 197) and sought records and communications relating to more than 430 individuals/entities, mostly Republicans, the Judiciary Committee found.
“Arctic Frost was the vehicle by which partisan FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors could improperly investigate the entire Republican political apparatus. Contrary to what (Jack) Smith has said publicly, this was clearly a fishing expedition. If this happened to the Democrats, they’d be as rightly outraged as we are,” said Grassley, an Iowa Republican.
Once appointed by Merrick Garland, the attorney general during the Biden administration, the stated intention of Smith’s job was to independently investigate whether Donald Trump or others unlawfully interfered with the peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 election and whether classified documents were mishandled at Mar-a-Lago.
It was said the investigation would also consider allegations that Trump sought to obstruct certification of the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6, 2021.
A special counsel is charged with upholding neutrality within the Department of Justice to ensure prosecutorial independence in politically sensitive cases.
There’s a time-honored process to any such investigation. In this instance, there was no political balance among the higher-ups who approved various levels of the investigation, ex-FBI agent Jonathan Gilliam, after studying email related to Smith’s investigation, said on Washington Watch Friday.
A special prosecution case advances slowly. There would be a “preliminary” phase. If reasonable suspicion remains the case might advance to a “limited” phase. If evidence of criminal activity was found it might then advance to full investigation, Gilliam said.
Approval from up the chain of command is required at each level. For Smith’s case against Trump “all the different people on the approval list for the full case read like a who’s who of who hates Trump and the FBI,” he told show host Jody Hice.
Not much evidence
Beyond the lineup of Trump opponents, the evidence produced by Smith’s team was remarkably thin, Gilliam said.
“They were just presenting statements made on news shows and information that was put out by CNN about those news shows about Steve Bannon and others. They would use that as their evidence to further go into it and say, ‘W
e have evidence that crimes have been committed.’ They had no actual evidence to start a case.”
The subpoenas, which were provided to Grassley through legally protected whistleblower disclosures, were sent to 34 individuals and 163 businesses. These 197 subpoenas requested testimony, communications and records related to at least 430 named Republican individuals and entities.
Some of the records Smith subpoenaed from banks, individuals and businesses included:
- Communications with media companies such as CBS, Fox News, Fox Business, Newsmax, Sinclair and others.
- Communications with “any member, employee or agent of the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government.”
- Communications with White House advisors, such as Stephen Miller, Dan Scavino, Jared Kushner, Lara Trump and others.
- Statistical data and analysis relating to donors and fundraising efforts.
- Broad financial data relating to conservative individuals and entities.
Two major phone carriers responded differently when present subpoenas for information: Verizon complied, AT&T did not, Fox News reported.
Among Republicans targeted are Sens. Marsha Blackburn, Josh Hawley, Lindsey Graham, Bill Hagerty, Dan Sullivan, Tommy Tuberville, Ron Johnson, Cynthia Lummis and Ted Cruz.
This raises constitutional concerns as lawmakers are afforded immunity from investigations by the speech and debate clause.
Grassley didn’t spend a lot of time hammering Democrats in his press conference.
“We’re making these records public in the interest of transparency and so that the American people can draw their own conclusions,” he said.
The key question: Was this a properly limited criminal investigation into alleged obstruction by Trump, including Jan 6-related wrongdoing, or did it turn into a generalized probe of the Republican political infrastructure?
The answer has big implications for trust in law enforcement, separation of powers, and how politically sensitive investigations are run.
Republicans are demanding full production of all telecom/federal records related to the subpoenas and the investigation.
Congressional hearings are likely to follow. Grassley says they need all facts first before Smith testifies.
There’s also the potential for investigations into individual conduct (of FBI/DOJ agents, or Smith’s team) and whether internal policies were followed.
Cruz has called Arctic Frost “Joe Biden’s Watergate.”
Not exactly like Watergate
In this case, it’s not so much stealing documents and audio clips through wiretaps but about taking statements available from the public domain – from social media or televised interviews on news programs -- and misapplying them.
Investigators were trying to make something from nothing, Gilliam said.
“The people who are out to use lawfare then can go and make public statements that something is wrong or that there's criminal behavior. Then the media would report that, and then they can turn around and use that as evidence. That's what's occurring.”
There’s the fundamental difference between Watergate and Jack Smith’s investigation.
“They don't even have to break into something like in Watergate. They can just create the evidence through media and soundbites. That’s what occurred here,” Gilliam said.
