Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Republicans say Jack Smith's team improperly obtained members of Congress's phone records and texts and used nondisclosure orders to hide it. Smith and Democrats say the toll records were approved and lawful; Smith says the texts came from White House phones. Member counts differ.
BackgroundWhat does the Fourth Amendment protect?What was Arctic Frost?
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
On September 29, 2026, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled "Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters," with former special counsel Jack Smith as its only witness. Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and other Republicans said that Smith's team, in the FBI's ExplainerArctic FrostArctic Frost is the FBI's name for an investigation opened in April 2022 into efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Special counsel Jack Smith took it over that November. Republicans in Congress have challenged how it collected records, including members' phone records.What was Arctic Frost? investigation and its own election case, obtained members of Congress's phone toll records and text messages, used nondisclosure orders to keep members from learning of it, and breached the Speech or Debate Clause. Smith said the toll records were non-content records obtained after he directed his staff to consult the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, and that the nondisclosure orders were consistent with the law and Justice Department policy at the time. Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-IL) called the attacks on Smith "petty, personal, and political." The sides and the documents give different counts of the members affected. The dispute is whether the collection of members' phone records and messages was proper.
Background: Terms in this case
Read the full background
This case asks whether members of Congress's phone records and text messages were properly obtained in the FBI's Arctic Frost investigation and in Jack Smith's special counsel investigation. It covers four connected steps that the two sides argue about separately: grand jury subpoenas to phone carriers for members' call-detail (toll) records; court orders that barred the carriers from telling the members (nondisclosure orders); whether the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, which protects members' legislative acts, bars that collection; and text messages between White House staff and members that the special counsel's team obtained from the National Archives. It does not decide whether the prosecutions of Donald Trump were justified, whether the April 2022 opening of Arctic Frost was proper, whether Smith or any prosecutor gave false testimony, or any other matter raised at the September 29, 2026 hearing (opens in a new tab). Each statement is classified against the case question.
The Senate Judiciary Committee majority's Arctic Frost page (opens in a new tab) says the FBI officially opened Arctic Frost on April 13, 2022, after Attorney General Merrick Garland, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and FBI Director Christopher Wray signed off on April 4, and that Garland appointed Smith special counsel on November 18, 2022. That page is the committee majority's account.
Toll records list the numbers on a call, its time and its length, not what was said. Verizon told Sen. Chuck Grassley (opens in a new tab) on October 24, 2025 that it received a federal grand jury subpoena dated May 25, 2023 from a lawyer in the special counsel's office. The subpoena listed 12 telephone numbers, asked for subscriber information and call detail records for January 4 through 7, 2021, did not seek call content, and carried a nondisclosure order signed by a federal district court judge. Verizon said it produced records for all but one number on June 6, 2023. An FBI document dated September 27, 2023 (opens in a new tab), which Grassley released on October 6, 2025 (opens in a new tab), lists preliminary toll analysis of limited toll records for nine named members of Congress. Grassley's release describes them as eight Republican senators and one House member. AT&T's general counsel testified (opens in a new tab) on February 10, 2026 that AT&T produced records in response to two January 2023 subpoenas for a sitting member without knowing the accounts were a member's, and that its lawyers asked the special counsel's office about the Speech or Debate Clause on a May 2023 subpoena for two other members' accounts, after which the office did not respond or pursue the subpoena and no records were produced.
The counts differ by source and by what is counted. Grassley's October 2025 release said the FBI obtained toll data on eight senators and one House member. A November 20, 2025 letter (opens in a new tab) from Grassley, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said three Verizon subpoenas were issued for the records of at least 11 senators. On February 10, 2026 Grassley said (opens in a new tab) that at least 10 of at least 84 subpoenas to Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile sought toll records for 20 current or former Republican members. On March 24, 2026 he released records (opens in a new tab), some dated January 2023, that include a list naming 14 members for whom Smith's team wanted toll data. The September 23, 2026 interim staff report (opens in a new tab) by Republican staff of the House Judiciary Committee says the Justice Department seized the phone records of at least 17 Republican members between April 2022 and May 2023, including at least three, Reps. Jordan, Chip Roy and Scott Fitzgerald, before Smith was appointed. At the hearing (opens in a new tab), Grassley said the government sought toll records from at least four members before Smith and that Smith sought those of 16; Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) described about 44 subpoenas for the toll records of at least 20 Republican members, and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) said 44 subpoenas reached at least 19. Separately, a Justice Department letter of July 2026 (opens in a new tab) lists 44 current and former members, including four Democrats, whose texts with White House personnel the special counsel's team obtained from the National Archives on August 21, 2023; those texts came from White House phones, not from carriers. Grassley's October 2025 release of 197 subpoenas (opens in a new tab) to 34 individuals and 163 businesses says they requested records related to at least 430 named Republican individuals and entities.
Smith told the committee that he directed his staff to consult the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section before the toll-record subpoenas, that the section approved them, and that he approved them. A May 17, 2023 email from a section lawyer, reproduced in the Justice Department's July 2026 letter (opens in a new tab), said "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." The nondisclosure orders were court orders. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts wrote on December 1, 2025 (opens in a new tab) that the applications typically identify accounts only by a phone number, so they "would not reveal whether a particular phone number belonged to a member of Congress," and that Justice Department policy then did not require saying so; the department changed its manual in September 2024 to require it. At the hearing Smith agreed that his office "did not say who the subpoenas were for" when it sought the orders.
The only court ruling we found on the Speech or Debate Clause in this investigation concerned a search of Rep. Scott Perry's phone, not toll records. In a September 2023 opinion (opens in a new tab), the D.C. Circuit rejected both Perry's rule that informal fact-finding messages are always privileged and the district court's rule that they never are, and sent his messages with executive branch officials back for message-by-message review, but held that his messages with other members about the 2020 election certification vote were "quintessential legislative acts" entitled to the privilege. As of September 29, 2026, we did not locate a court ruling holding the toll-record subpoenas or the nondisclosure orders unlawful, a completed Justice Department inspector general review of Arctic Frost, or a public statement from Chief Judge James Boasberg, who signed nondisclosure orders in the matter, about them. Roll Call wrote on September 28 (opens in a new tab) that "No court has found wrongdoing on the part of Smith or any of the prosecutors as part of the probes themselves." The inspector general's December 2024 report (opens in a new tab) covered leak investigations opened in 2017, in which the department obtained non-content records of two Democratic members and 43 congressional staffers.
On the Speech or Debate question, the report by Republican staff of the House Judiciary Committee argues that toll records of a member's calls are protected even when a carrier holds them. Smith's attorneys wrote on October 21, 2025 (opens in a new tab) that the subpoena was "entirely proper, lawful, and consistent with established Department of Justice policy." In a July 22, 2026 letter (opens in a new tab) they wrote that the clause "was not implicated" by review of texts on White House officials' phones. At a February 10, 2026 subcommittee hearing, former prosecutor Dan Schwager called (opens in a new tab) the clause's application to subpoenas for non-content records of a witness "unclear and debatable," and former prosecutor Michael Romano said (opens in a new tab) there was "nothing remotely scandalous or controversial about the collection of toll records." Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) told Smith at the hearing (opens in a new tab) that the Justice Department in the first Trump administration also obtained members' toll records and nondisclosure orders.
Congress has responded. A November 2025 funding law let senators sue for $500,000 per violation if their data was obtained without required notice; most of the affected senators said they would not seek damages (opens in a new tab), and the provision was repealed in appropriations bills signed in early February 2026 (opens in a new tab). Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) said (opens in a new tab) the House passed his NDO Fairness Act, which would require notification of a subpoena after 90 days, unanimously on August 31, 2026; Sens. Lee and Chris Coons (D-DE) told the hearing (opens in a new tab) they sponsor a Senate version.
In his written statement (opens in a new tab), Smith said he would "not be silenced by the continued threats of prosecution from the President or others." On July 22, 2026, Jordan referred Smith to the Justice Department (opens in a new tab) over his December 17, 2025 deposition answers about records of members; Smith's lawyers said the answers were truthful, and the department said it would investigate all evidence of criminal conduct (opens in a new tab). On the evening of the hearing, Sen. Josh Hawley told Fox News's Sean Hannity that Smith "should be charged" and "lied to Congress," citing Smith's House deposition answer about members' text messages; that statement is recorded in this case's statements. Whether Smith's testimony was false is a separate dispute, and this case does not decide it. That dispute is outside this case's question.
A separate exchange at the hearing, in which Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) asked Smith about a February 3, 2024 basketball game, appears in the timeline only (C-SPAN clip (opens in a new tab)). Smith's account of the game rests on his own testimony.
People in this case
Jack SmithDirectly involved
Chuck GrassleyDirectly involved
Dick DurbinDirectly involved
Josh HawleyDirectly involved
Timeline
26 timeline entries on this page. Dates: April 13, 2022 to October 23, 2026
April 2022
FBI opens Arctic Frost
Incident
The Senate Judiciary Committee majority's Arctic Frost page says the FBI officially opened Arctic Frost on April 13, 2022, after Attorney General Merrick Garland, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and FBI Director Christopher Wray gave formal sign-off on April 4. This case does not address whether the opening was proper.
[01]Senate Committee on the Judiciary
The Senate Judiciary Committee majority's page on Arctic Frost. It presents the Republican majority's account and links to its releases, letters and document productions.
Arctic Frost | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary · Senate Committee on the JudiciaryTimeline entries for April 4, 2022, April 13, 2022 and November 18, 2022, and the list of press releases and document releases
May 2022
Prosecutors subpoena toll records for Rep. Jim Jordan and two other House members
Incident
According to the interim report by Republican staff of the House Judiciary Committee, prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia issued a grand jury subpoena on May 1, 2022 for Rep. Jim Jordan's phone records from January 1, 2020 to April 25, 2022, and later that month subpoenaed toll records for Reps. Chip Roy and Scott Fitzgerald. The report says the Public Integrity Section noted "litigation risk" but approved the request for Jordan's records, and that a nondisclosure order accompanied his subpoena. These requests came before Smith's appointment.
[02]House Committee on the Judiciary
The House Judiciary Committee's interim staff report, released under Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH). It argues that toll-record subpoenas and nondisclosure orders in Arctic Frost and Smith's investigation were unconstitutional and quotes from prosecutors' interviews, Smith's deposition and hearing testimony, and Justice Department emails.
How Jack Smith and the Biden-Harris Department of Justice Disregarded the Separation of Powers to Spy on Their Political Opposition (Interim Staff Report) · House Committee on the JudiciaryExecutive summary, pages 1-5; Section I, pages 7-41; Section II, pages 42-53; index of exhibits, pages 55-56
January 2023
Smith's team subpoenas records for Speaker McCarthy, Sen. Lee and Rep. Gohmert
Incident
After Garland appointed Smith special counsel on November 18, 2022, his team briefed Garland on January 13, 2023 about proposed toll-record subpoenas for members, according to the report by Republican staff of the House Judiciary Committee, and on January 23 issued grand jury subpoenas for the phone records of Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Sen. Mike Lee and Rep. Louie Gohmert. AT&T later said it produced records in response to two January 2023 subpoenas for a sitting member without knowing the accounts were a member's. Records Grassley released on March 24, 2026, some dated January 2023, include a list naming 14 members for whom the team wanted toll data and a statement that members "likely have a valid Speech or Debate privilege immunizing them from compelled testimony."
[02]House Committee on the Judiciary
The House Judiciary Committee's interim staff report, released under Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH). It argues that toll-record subpoenas and nondisclosure orders in Arctic Frost and Smith's investigation were unconstitutional and quotes from prosecutors' interviews, Smith's deposition and hearing testimony, and Justice Department emails.
How Jack Smith and the Biden-Harris Department of Justice Disregarded the Separation of Powers to Spy on Their Political Opposition (Interim Staff Report) · House Committee on the JudiciaryExecutive summary, pages 1-5; Section I, pages 7-41; Section II, pages 42-53; index of exhibits, pages 55-56[03]Senate Committee on the Judiciary
The committee majority's release of Grassley's prepared opening statement at the March 24, 2026 subcommittee hearing, describing records dated January 2023 that name 14 members of Congress.
Grassley Releases New Arctic Frost Records, Raising Additional Questions about Jack Smith’s Conduct and Candor · Senate Committee on the JudiciaryPrepared opening statement, paragraphs on the list of 14 members and the Speech or Debate quotation[04]Testimony of David R. McAtee II, Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel, AT&T Inc., before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, February 10, 2026
AT&T's written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law about the subpoenas it received from the special counsel's office in 2022 and 2023.
Testimony of David R. McAtee II, Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel, AT&T Inc., before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, February 10, 2026Pages 2-3, section on the special counsel grand jury subpoenas[01]Senate Committee on the Judiciary
The Senate Judiciary Committee majority's page on Arctic Frost. It presents the Republican majority's account and links to its releases, letters and document productions.
Arctic Frost | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary · Senate Committee on the JudiciaryTimeline entries for April 4, 2022, April 13, 2022 and November 18, 2022, and the list of press releases and document releases
May 2023
Verizon receives a special counsel subpoena for 12 phone numbers
Incident
On May 17, 2023 the Public Integrity Section approved the special counsel team's request to obtain toll records for several members while noting "litigation risk," according to a Justice Department letter, and Smith approved a list of subpoenas that day, according to the report by Republican staff of the House Judiciary Committee. Verizon told Grassley that a special counsel lawyer sent it a grand jury subpoena dated May 25, 2023 listing 12 numbers, seeking subscriber information and call detail records for January 4 through 7, 2021, with a nondisclosure order signed by a federal district court judge. Verizon produced records for all but one number on June 6, 2023.
[05]Verizon
Verizon's letter to Grassley describing the May 25, 2023 grand jury subpoena from the special counsel's office, its date range, the nondisclosure order and the records Verizon produced.
Verizon to Sen. Chuck Grassley, October 24, 2025 (toll records) · VerizonPages 1-4[06]United States Department of Justice
The Justice Department's Office of Legislative Affairs letter answering a May 8, 2026 request from Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson. It describes the filter team, the National Archives production of White House text messages on August 21, 2023, and lists 44 current and former members whose texts with White House personnel the special counsel's team obtained.
U.S. Department of Justice (Assistant Attorney General Patrick D. Davis) to Sen. Chuck Grassley, July 2026 (Arctic Frost filter team) · United States Department of JusticePages 1-4, including the list of 44 current and former members of Congress[02]House Committee on the Judiciary
The House Judiciary Committee's interim staff report, released under Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH). It argues that toll-record subpoenas and nondisclosure orders in Arctic Frost and Smith's investigation were unconstitutional and quotes from prosecutors' interviews, Smith's deposition and hearing testimony, and Justice Department emails.
How Jack Smith and the Biden-Harris Department of Justice Disregarded the Separation of Powers to Spy on Their Political Opposition (Interim Staff Report) · House Committee on the JudiciaryExecutive summary, pages 1-5; Section I, pages 7-41; Section II, pages 42-53; index of exhibits, pages 55-56
August 2023
National Archives sends White House text messages to the special counsel's team
Incident
The Justice Department told Congress in July 2026 that the National Archives' general counsel emailed Smith's team 54 spreadsheets of White House custodians' text messages on August 21, 2023, that a senior lawyer on the team told colleagues at 12:45 p.m. he had already downloaded them, and that the team apparently bypassed the filter team. The department's list of members whose texts with White House personnel were obtained has 44 names. Smith's lawyers say the records were not required to go through filter review and that the Speech or Debate Clause was not implicated.
[06]United States Department of Justice
The Justice Department's Office of Legislative Affairs letter answering a May 8, 2026 request from Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson. It describes the filter team, the National Archives production of White House text messages on August 21, 2023, and lists 44 current and former members whose texts with White House personnel the special counsel's team obtained.
U.S. Department of Justice (Assistant Attorney General Patrick D. Davis) to Sen. Chuck Grassley, July 2026 (Arctic Frost filter team) · United States Department of JusticePages 1-4, including the list of 44 current and former members of Congress[07]Lanny A. Breuer and Peter Koski to Jim Jordan and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, July 22, 2026
Smith's attorneys' reply to Jordan's referral. It also states Smith's position that the filter team did not need to review the National Archives records and that the Speech or Debate Clause was not implicated by them.
September 2023
D.C. Circuit rules on Speech or Debate claims about Rep. Scott Perry's phone
In a sealed matter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held on September 5, 2023 (opinion reissued September 13) that neither Rep. Scott Perry's rule that informal fact-finding messages are always privileged nor the district court's rule that they never are was correct, so his messages with executive branch officials must be reviewed one by one for Speech or Debate protection; it held that his communications with other members about the 2020 election certification vote were "quintessential legislative acts" entitled to the privilege. The case concerned a search warrant for the contents of Perry's phone, seized in August 2022 before Smith's appointment. It did not address toll-record subpoenas.
[08]In re: Sealed Case, No. 23-3001 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 5, 2023, reissued Sept. 13, 2023)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's opinion on Rep. Scott Perry's claim that the Speech or Debate Clause barred review of messages on his phone, which the FBI seized under a search warrant in August 2022. It does not address toll-record subpoenas.
In re: Sealed Case, No. 23-3001 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 5, 2023, reissued Sept. 13, 2023)Pages 2-4, summary of the holding
October 2025
Grassley releases FBI document on toll analysis for eight senators and a House member
Source release
Sen. Chuck Grassley released an FBI document dated September 27, 2023 saying an FBI special agent conducted preliminary toll analysis of limited toll records for Mike Kelly, Lindsey Graham, Bill Hagerty, Josh Hawley, Dan Sullivan, Tommy Tuberville, Ron Johnson, Cynthia Lummis and Marsha Blackburn. Grassley's release describes them as eight Republican senators and one House member, says the data covered January 4 through 7, 2021 and did not include call content, and quotes Grassley saying Arctic Frost and related conduct was "arguably worse than Watergate."
[09]Federal Bureau of Investigation
A redacted FBI Washington Field Office document that Grassley released on October 6, 2025. It says an FBI special agent conducted preliminary toll analysis of limited toll records for nine named members of Congress.
FBI Electronic Communication, "CAST Assistance," September 27, 2023 (released by Sen. Chuck Grassley) · Federal Bureau of InvestigationPage 1, list of members whose limited toll records were analyzed[10]Senate Committee on the Judiciary
The Senate Judiciary Committee majority's release of the FBI document and Grassley's statement. It gives the committee's count of the senators and House member involved and the January 4 through 7, 2021 period.
Biden FBI Spied on Eight Republican Senators as Part of Arctic Frost Investigation, Grassley Oversight Reveals · Senate Committee on the JudiciaryFull releaseSmith's lawyers answer Grassley on the toll-record subpoena
Reaction
Smith's attorneys Lanny Breuer and Peter Koski wrote Grassley that the grand jury subpoena for the toll records of eight senators and one House member was "entirely proper, lawful, and consistent with established Department of Justice policy." They wrote that toll records contain routing information and not content, that the collection was limited to January 4 through 7, 2021, and that Smith sought Public Integrity Section authorization first. They also wrote that there was no support for FBI Director Kash Patel's assertion that Smith hid the toll-record information.
[11]Lanny A. Breuer and Peter Koski to Sen. Chuck Grassley, October 21, 2025 (Investigation of Jack Smith)
Letter from Smith's attorneys responding to Grassley and other senators about the grand jury subpoena for toll records of eight senators and one House member. It also answers statements by FBI Director Kash Patel.
Verizon and AT&T tell Grassley what subpoenas they received
Source release
Verizon told Grassley it received a May 25, 2023 special counsel grand jury subpoena for 12 numbers and produced records for all but one. AT&T told Grassley that a May 2023 subpoena covering accounts of two other members was not pursued after AT&T raised questions about its legal basis, and that it had produced no records to the special counsel for any member. AT&T's general counsel later testified that AT&T had produced records in response to two January 2023 subpoenas for a sitting member.
[05]Verizon
Verizon's letter to Grassley describing the May 25, 2023 grand jury subpoena from the special counsel's office, its date range, the nondisclosure order and the records Verizon produced.
Verizon to Sen. Chuck Grassley, October 24, 2025 (toll records) · VerizonPages 1-4[12]AT&T to Sen. Chuck Grassley, October 24, 2025 (toll records)
AT&T's letter to Grassley about special counsel subpoenas. AT&T later told the committee it had produced records in response to two January 2023 subpoenas for a sitting member, as its general counsel described in February 2026 testimony.
[04]Testimony of David R. McAtee II, Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel, AT&T Inc., before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, February 10, 2026
AT&T's written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law about the subpoenas it received from the special counsel's office in 2022 and 2023.
Testimony of David R. McAtee II, Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel, AT&T Inc., before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, February 10, 2026Pages 2-3, section on the special counsel grand jury subpoenasGrassley releases 197 subpoenas requesting records on more than 430 Republican individuals and entities
Source release
On October 29, 2025, Grassley released 197 subpoenas, sent to 34 individuals and 163 businesses, that he said requested records related to at least 430 named Republican individuals and entities.
[13]Senate Committee on the Judiciary
The committee majority's release of 197 subpoenas, sent to 34 individuals and 163 businesses, that it says requested records related to at least 430 named Republican individuals and entities.
NEW: Jack Smith Subpoenaed Records for Over 400 Republican Targets As Part of Arctic Frost · Senate Committee on the JudiciaryFull release
November 2025
Funding law lets senators sue over data taken without notice; most affected senators say they will not
CBS News reported that a provision of the law ending the government shutdown let senators sue the United States for $500,000 per violation if their data was obtained without required notice, retroactive to 2022. Sens. Bill Hagerty, Marsha Blackburn, Ron Johnson, Josh Hawley and Dan Sullivan said they would not seek damages, while Sen. Lindsey Graham, who died in July 2026, said he would pursue remedies in court. The provision was repealed in appropriations bills signed in early February 2026.
[14]CBS News
CBS News report on the November 2025 funding-law provision that let senators sue for $500,000 if their data was obtained without required notice, and on senators' statements about whether they would sue.
Most GOP senators whose phone records were searched won't seek damages under new law · CBS NewsParagraphs on the $500,000 provision and senators' responses[15]Albuquerque Journal: US Senate payout provision repealed
Albuquerque Journal report, posted on the website of Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), that Congress repealed the funding-law measure letting senators sue for $500,000 over subpoenaed phone records, in appropriations bills President Donald Trump signed on the Tuesday before publication.
Albuquerque Journal: US Senate payout provision repealedFull article, as posted on Sen. Martin Heinrich's website[16]CBS News
CBS News report on Sen. Lindsey Graham's death on a Saturday evening in July 2026. It also identifies Darline as his younger sister.
Sen. Lindsey Graham dies at 71 from aortic dissection, according to medical examiner's preliminary findings · CBS NewsArticle, first paragraph and biography section (sister Darline)
February 2026
Senate subcommittee hears from phone carriers and former prosecutors
The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law held the first of Grassley's Arctic Frost hearings. Grassley said Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile received at least 84 Arctic Frost or Smith subpoenas, at least 10 of which sought toll records for 20 current or former Republican members. Carrier executives described the subpoenas they received. Former prosecutors Michael Romano and Dan Schwager said toll records and nondisclosure orders are routine or common investigative steps, and Schwager called the Speech or Debate question "unclear and debatable." Durbin and Democrats called for Smith to testify.
[17]Senate Committee on the Judiciary
The committee majority's release of Grassley's prepared opening statement at the February 10, 2026 subcommittee hearing, including his count of subpoenas to Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile.
Grassley Demands Answers from Telecom Companies Who Turned Congressional Phone Records Over to Jack Smith · Senate Committee on the JudiciaryPrepared opening statement, paragraphs on the 84 subpoenas and the 20 members[18]Verizon
Verizon's written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law about the special counsel subpoenas it received and the changes it has made in handling requests involving members of Congress.
[04]Testimony of David R. McAtee II, Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel, AT&T Inc., before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, February 10, 2026
AT&T's written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law about the subpoenas it received from the special counsel's office in 2022 and 2023.
Testimony of David R. McAtee II, Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel, AT&T Inc., before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, February 10, 2026Pages 2-3, section on the special counsel grand jury subpoenas[19]Statement of Michael J. Romano, Former Deputy Chief, Capitol Siege Section, before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, February 10, 2026
Written testimony by Michael Romano, a former deputy chief of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia's Capitol Siege Section, on toll records and nondisclosure orders in criminal investigations.
Statement of Michael J. Romano, Former Deputy Chief, Capitol Siege Section, before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, February 10, 2026Page 1, paragraphs on toll records and nondisclosure orders[20]Statement of Dan Schwager before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, February 10, 2026
Written testimony by Dan Schwager, a former state and federal corruption prosecutor who worked in the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, on toll records, nondisclosure orders and the Speech or Debate Clause.
[21]Senate Committee on the Judiciary
The committee Democrats' release of excerpts from Durbin's opening statement at the February 10, 2026 subcommittee hearing. The wording of his delivered remarks differs slightly from the excerpts.
Durbin Delivers Opening Statement During Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing On Arctic Frost · Senate Committee on the JudiciaryKey Quotes section
June 2026
Wittes and Feinberg examine the investigation's methods
Source release
In a Lawfare Daily episode, Benjamin Wittes and Michael Feinberg discuss the FBI's investigative techniques and whether congressional criticisms hold up against the released records and applicable policies.
[22]Lawfare Daily: Excavating Arctic Frost
Benjamin Wittes and Michael Feinberg examine the investigation's methods and objections raised by congressional critics.
Lawfare Daily: Excavating Arctic FrostFull Lawfare Daily discussion and transcript
July 2026
Justice Department tells Congress Smith's team obtained texts involving 44 members
Source release
In a letter to Grassley, Assistant Attorney General Patrick Davis said Smith's investigative team apparently bypassed the filter team and directly accessed White House phone text messages from the National Archives, including texts between White House personnel and 44 current and former senators and representatives. Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson released the letter on July 14, 2026. The department's list includes four Democrats: Sen. Cory Booker and Reps. Adam Smith, Josh Gottheimer and Karen Bass.
[06]United States Department of Justice
The Justice Department's Office of Legislative Affairs letter answering a May 8, 2026 request from Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson. It describes the filter team, the National Archives production of White House text messages on August 21, 2023, and lists 44 current and former members whose texts with White House personnel the special counsel's team obtained.
U.S. Department of Justice (Assistant Attorney General Patrick D. Davis) to Sen. Chuck Grassley, July 2026 (Arctic Frost filter team) · United States Department of JusticePages 1-4, including the list of 44 current and former members of Congress[23]Senate Committee on the Judiciary
The Senate Judiciary Committee majority's release of the Justice Department letter, with statements by Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and the list of members.
NEWS: Jack Smith’s Investigative Team Secretly Obtained Text Messages from 44 Members of Congress Amid Trump Probe · Senate Committee on the JudiciaryFull release, including the list of 44 membersJordan refers Smith to the Justice Department; Smith's lawyers reply
Claim
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan wrote Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche that Smith "seemingly made willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact" in his December 17, 2025 deposition, citing his answers that he sought only toll records of members and Justice Department documents showing his team obtained the texts of 44 members from the National Archives. Smith's lawyers replied the same day that his answers were truthful and that the referral rests on "because of what he did not say." The Justice Department confirmed receipt and said it "will investigate all evidence of criminal conduct." Whether Smith made false statements is not the question of this case.
[24]House Committee on the Judiciary
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan's letter asking the Justice Department to investigate whether Smith made false statements in his December 17, 2025 deposition about records of members of Congress.
Jim Jordan to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, July 22, 2026 (referral of Jack Smith) · House Committee on the JudiciaryPages 1-6[07]Lanny A. Breuer and Peter Koski to Jim Jordan and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, July 22, 2026
Smith's attorneys' reply to Jordan's referral. It also states Smith's position that the filter team did not need to review the National Archives records and that the Speech or Debate Clause was not implicated by them.
[25]NBC News
NBC News report on Jordan's July 22, 2026 referral, the Justice Department's statement that it will investigate all evidence of criminal conduct, and the responses of Smith's lawyers and Rep. Jamie Raskin.
Rep. Jim Jordan formally asks DOJ to prosecute Jack Smith over congressional testimony · NBC NewsParagraphs on the Justice Department's confirmation of receipt and Smith's lawyers' response[26]PBS NewsHour
Associated Press report, published by PBS News, on Jordan's July 22, 2026 referral of Smith and the responses of Smith's lawyers, Rep. Jamie Raskin and the Justice Department.
Rep. Jim Jordan refers Jack Smith for possible prosecution, saying he have have misled on Trump probe · PBS NewsHourParagraphs on the December 2025 exchange and the Justice Department statement
August 2026
House passes a bill limiting nondisclosure orders after the Smith records dispute
The House passes H.R. 6048 under suspension of the rules. The bill would generally limit nondisclosure orders to 90 days, allow justified extensions and require notice after an order expires. Fitzgerald and Raskin invoke the Smith investigation while disagreeing about its propriety.
[27]House debates and passes the NDO Fairness Act
Fitzgerald and Raskin support limits on secrecy orders but disagree about the propriety of Smith's congressional-record subpoenas. The House passes the bill; this source does not establish enactment.
House debates and passes the NDO Fairness ActCongressional Record H5266-H5268, Fitzgerald and Raskin remarks and final passage
September 2026
Senate Judiciary Committee hears from Smith on the records of members
Smith was the only witness at the committee's September 29, 2026 hearing. His written statement said the special counsel's office "followed Justice Department policies, observed legal requirements, and took actions based on the facts and the law." Grassley said the government sought toll records from at least four members before Smith and that Smith sought those of 16. Smith told Durbin that his office consulted the Public Integrity Section before obtaining non-content toll records. Cruz and Hawley pressed him on the nondisclosure orders, and he agreed his office did not tell the court who the subpoenas were for. Sen. Darline Graham (R-SC) told him his office had secured a subpoena for the phone records of her brother, Sen. Lindsey Graham, who died in July 2026; Smith replied that Lindsey Graham was not a target of the investigation. Sens. Katie Britt and Mike Lee each cited 44 subpoenas for members' toll records. Coons and Whitehouse said Smith's requests matched Justice Department policy at the time and the practice of the first Trump administration, and Coons cited the Justice Department inspector general's 2024 report. Durbin called the attacks on Smith "petty, personal, and political."
[28]Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. In his opening remarks Chairman Chuck Grassley gave the committee majority's account of the toll records, the text messages and the nondisclosure orders.
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciaryChairman Grassley's opening remarks, about 0:31:39 to 0:37:05 on the archived video timeline (toll-record passages at 0:31:44-0:32:26 and 0:36:42-0:37:05)[29]Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Durbin asked Smith what involvement his office had with information from members of Congress, and Smith described the toll records his office obtained.
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Dick Durbin's questions and Jack Smith's answers on toll records and wiretaps, about 1:10:40 to 1:18:15 on the archived video timeline[30]Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Sen. Katie Britt gave figures for the subpoenas and members she said were affected and asked Smith about the reasons stated in the nondisclosure orders.
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Katie Britt's question about subpoenas for members' toll records and nondisclosure orders, about 2:15:40 to 2:16:30 on the archived video timeline[31]Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Sen. Mike Lee gave figures for the subpoenas and asked Smith whether his office told the judge the subpoenas were for members of Congress, and Smith answered.
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Mike Lee's questions about subpoenas, the Public Integrity Section and the judge who signed the orders, about 2:37:30 to 2:39:15 on the archived video timeline[32]Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Sen. Ted Cruz read language from a nondisclosure order, asked Smith about a federal statute on Senate communication records, and Smith explained why his office sought the orders.
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Ted Cruz's questions and Smith's answers on nondisclosure orders and 2 U.S.C. section 6628, about 3:17:00 to 3:20:15 on the archived video timeline[33]Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Sen. Josh Hawley questioned Smith about the Speech or Debate Clause, the nondisclosure orders and the court, and Smith answered.
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Josh Hawley's questions and Smith's answers, about 4:18:40 to 4:21:10, and Smith's closing response at about 4:26:06 to 4:26:25 on the archived video timeline[34]Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Coons used the end of his time to ask Smith about nondisclosure orders and to describe legislation he sponsors with Sen. Mike Lee.
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Chris Coons's questions on nondisclosure orders, about 1:41:00 to 1:43:10 on the archived video timeline[35]Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse compared Smith's toll-record subpoenas and nondisclosure orders with the Justice Department's practice in the first Trump administration.
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Sheldon Whitehouse's questions on toll records, wiretaps, text messages and nondisclosure orders, about 4:04:52 to 4:12:26 on the archived video timeline[36]Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Smith's written statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, posted on the committee's hearing page. It describes his approach as special counsel in general terms; his remarks on the toll records and text messages came in answers to senators' questions.
Statement of Jack Smith, Former Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, September 29, 2026 · Senate Committee on the JudiciaryPages 1-2, paragraphs on Justice Department policy and on threats of prosecution[37]Dick Durbin
Sen. Dick Durbin's office's release of excerpts from his opening statement at the September 29, 2026 hearing, including his statement that there was nothing untoward about the investigation.
Durbin Delivers Opening Statement During Judiciary Committee Hearing With Former Special Counsel Jack Smith · Dick DurbinKey Quotes section[38]United States Department of Justice
The Justice Department inspector general's December 2024 report on leak investigations opened in 2017. It found the department obtained non-content records of two Democratic members of Congress and 43 congressional staffers, and it addresses nondisclosure orders. It is not a review of Arctic Frost or Smith's investigation.
A Review of the Department of Justice's Issuance of Compulsory Process to Obtain Records of Members of Congress, Congressional Staffers, and Members of the News Media (Report 25-010) · United States Department of JusticeChapter One, pages 1-6; Chapter Two, pages 40-49[39]Roll Call
Roll Call's preview of the September 29, 2026 hearing. It reports that no court has found wrongdoing by Smith or his prosecutors in the probes themselves.
Senators gear up for Judiciary clash with Jack Smith · Roll CallParagraph beginning "No court has found wrongdoing"[40]Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Source excerpt
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters. Witness: Jack Smith, Former Special Counsel, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
The Senate Judiciary Committee's own hearing page, confirming the hearing's title, date, time, room, and witness.
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters · Senate Committee on the JudiciaryCommittee hearing page for the September 29, 2026, 9:00 a.m. hearing, Hart Senate Office Building Room 216[41]Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Sen. Darline Graham (R-SC) said Smith's office had secured a subpoena for the phone records of her brother, Sen. Lindsey Graham, and questioned the nondisclosure order; Smith answered that Lindsey Graham was not a target of the investigation.
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Darline Graham's remarks and questions to Smith, about 3:35:46 to 3:43:21 on the archived video timeline[16]CBS News
CBS News report on Sen. Lindsey Graham's death on a Saturday evening in July 2026. It also identifies Darline as his younger sister.
Sen. Lindsey Graham dies at 71 from aortic dissection, according to medical examiner's preliminary findings · CBS NewsArticle, first paragraph and biography section (sister Darline)Schmitt asks Smith about a Warriors-Hawks game in Atlanta
Claim
Sen. Eric Schmitt asked Smith, "Did you go to an NBA game between the Golden State Warriors and the Atlanta Hawks on February 3rd, 2024?" Smith said "No," said he had no recollection of it and said, "I definitely did not go to a Hawks game." Schmitt displayed a poster of text messages he described as coming from Smith's team and said, "I think you've already perjured yourself." The game question does not bear on the records of members of Congress.
[42]C-SPAN
Source excerpt
Did you go to an NBA game between the Golden State Warriors and the Atlanta Hawks on February 3rd, 2024? ... I definitely did not go to a Hawks game. I'm sure of that. ... It was Maryland playing Iowa, I think, February of 2024. ... I think that people should have their facts straight before they accuse someone of being a dirtbag and not get the teams wrong. ... You had the teams wrong, sir.
C-SPAN video clip of the September 29, 2026 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing at which Jack Smith testified. The clip covers Sen. Eric Schmitt's questions about Smith's attendance at a February 3, 2024 basketball game, Smith's denial and later clarification, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar's real-time correction. DI reviewed the audio directly to verify the exact wording of this exchange rather than relying on news paraphrase.
Sen. Klobuchar Clashes with Sen. Schmitt After He Mistakenly Claims Jack Smith Attended NBA Game in Atlanta · C-SPANClip runtime 0:00-7:11. Sen. Schmitt's opening question and the text-message poster exchange run from 0:00-1:35. Jack Smith's Maryland-Iowa clarification and Sen. Klobuchar's on-the-record correction run from approximately 5:20-7:11.Smith recalls a Maryland game where Caitlin Clark played; Klobuchar says the teams were wrong; Schmitt says it is up to a prosecutor
Reaction
When Sen. Amy Klobuchar asked that Smith be allowed to see the poster, Smith said that, if it referred to the correct game, he recalled going to a University of Maryland basketball game where Caitlin Clark was playing around that time, and that the date could be checked. Klobuchar said people should have their facts straight before accusing someone of being a dirtbag and not get the teams wrong. Schmitt responded, "I stand by that statement," without saying which statement. At the end of her questioning time, Klobuchar said Iowa had played Maryland on February 3, 2024, and that for a senator to have false information and imply, based on a confusion about the name of a team, that Smith was involved in events in Georgia, and then call him a dirtbag, "is something that deserves an apology." Asked outside the hearing room whether he still thought Smith had perjured himself, Schmitt told NBC News it would be "up to a prosecutor to determine." Both games were played on February 3, 2024: ESPN lists Iowa's 93-85 win at Maryland, and Basketball-Reference lists the Hawks' 141-134 overtime win over the Warriors in Atlanta. The only evidence we found that Smith attended a game that day is his own hedged testimony.
[42]C-SPAN
Source excerpt
Did you go to an NBA game between the Golden State Warriors and the Atlanta Hawks on February 3rd, 2024? ... I definitely did not go to a Hawks game. I'm sure of that. ... It was Maryland playing Iowa, I think, February of 2024. ... I think that people should have their facts straight before they accuse someone of being a dirtbag and not get the teams wrong. ... You had the teams wrong, sir.
C-SPAN video clip of the September 29, 2026 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing at which Jack Smith testified. The clip covers Sen. Eric Schmitt's questions about Smith's attendance at a February 3, 2024 basketball game, Smith's denial and later clarification, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar's real-time correction. DI reviewed the audio directly to verify the exact wording of this exchange rather than relying on news paraphrase.
Sen. Klobuchar Clashes with Sen. Schmitt After He Mistakenly Claims Jack Smith Attended NBA Game in Atlanta · C-SPANClip runtime 0:00-7:11. Sen. Schmitt's opening question and the text-message poster exchange run from 0:00-1:35. Jack Smith's Maryland-Iowa clarification and Sen. Klobuchar's on-the-record correction run from approximately 5:20-7:11.[43]NBC News
Source excerpt
We’ll find out. That’s going to be up to a prosecutor to determine. My job here today was to ask questions and get answers.
NBC News live blog entry reporting Schmitt's questions to Smith about the February 3, 2024 game, Klobuchar's closing remarks about the Iowa-Maryland game, and Schmitt's comments to NBC News outside the hearing room.
Live updates: Jack Smith defends Trump investigations amid grilling from GOP senators · NBC NewsLive blog entry on Sen. Eric Schmitt's exchange with Jack Smith, Sen. Amy Klobuchar's closing remarks and Schmitt's comments outside the hearing room[44]Iowa 93-85 Maryland (Feb 3, 2024) Final Score - ESPN
ESPN game page for the Iowa-Maryland women's basketball game played February 3, 2024 at the Xfinity Center in College Park, Maryland.
Iowa 93-85 Maryland (Feb 3, 2024) Final Score - ESPNGame page: final score, venue and player statistics[45]Golden State Warriors at Atlanta Hawks Box Score, February 3, 2024
Basketball-Reference box score for the Warriors-Hawks NBA game played February 3, 2024 at State Farm Arena in Atlanta.
Golden State Warriors at Atlanta Hawks Box Score, February 3, 2024Box score: date, arena and final scoreHagerty files a bar complaint against Smith over the nondisclosure order
Incident
Sen. Bill Hagerty asked the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee to investigate Jack Smith and pursue disbarment, saying Smith obtained the nondisclosure order on the Verizon subpoena for senators' call records without telling the court the records belonged to members of Congress.
[46]Bill Hagerty
Source excerpt
Mr. Smith violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by seeking and obtaining a nondisclosure order from a federal district court without advising the court of critical facts and law. The impact of his lack of candor was a violation of federal law, and an invasion of the very constitutional privileges that ensure a fully free legislative process.
Post by Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) at 11:05 a.m. ET on September 30, 2026, attaching his four-page complaint to R. Culver Schmid, chairman of the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. The complaint says the special counsel's subpoena to Verizon sought Hagerty's non-content call records, that a nondisclosure order kept him from learning of it in time to move to quash, and that Smith's motion for that order did not tell Chief Judge James Boasberg the records belonged to members of Congress or cite the Speech or Debate Clause or 2 U.S.C. 6628. It asks the board to investigate and pursue disbarment. The post reads in part, "Next up, @Verizon."
Hagerty: "I filed a bar complaint against Jack Smith this morning" · Bill HagertyPost text and the four attached page images of Hagerty's September 30, 2026 letter to the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee; quoted passage is the letter's opening paragraph on page 1Blackburn files lawsuit over Arctic Frost phone records
Reaction
On September 30, Sen. Marsha Blackburn said she filed a lawsuit against former special counsel Jack Smith over the subpoena of her cell phone toll records during the Arctic Frost investigation. Her office said the complaint asks a federal court to declare Smith's appointment unlawful and seeks one dollar in nominal damages. The lawsuit is a new legal response to the collection of Blackburn's records; it does not resolve whether the subpoenas or nondisclosure orders were lawful.
[47]Blackburn files lawsuit over Arctic Frost phone records
Source excerpt
This lawsuit is solely about holding Mr. Smith accountable and ensuring that our nation's justice system can never again be weaponized against the American people.
Blackburn's office says she filed a lawsuit against former special counsel Jack Smith over the subpoena of her cell phone toll records during the Arctic Frost investigation. The office says the complaint seeks a declaration that Smith's appointment was unlawful and one dollar in nominal damages. The filing does not decide whether the subpoenas or nondisclosure orders were lawful.
Blackburn files lawsuit over Arctic Frost phone recordsLines 101-108 and 118-124.
October 2026
Grassley replies to Democrats' complaint about committee records
Reaction
In an October 8 letter to Durbin and committee members, Grassley disputes the October 7 records-access complaint. He says whistleblower concerns limit some disclosures and proposes a staff meeting to review records. The committee published his reply October 9.
[48]Grassley replies to Senate Judiciary Democrats about Jack Smith evidence
Grassley addresses Durbin and committee members in a letter dated October 8. The committee published the letter on October 9. His legal judgments are assertions in the letter.
Grassley replies to Senate Judiciary Democrats about Jack Smith evidencePage 1, paragraph beginning Contrary to your misguided statement; page 2, opening paragraph on phone data; pages 3-4, access to records.[49]Senate Judiciary Democrats request committee records and an apology to Jack Smith
The letter alleges violations of Senate records-access rules and criticizes accusations made during the September 29 hearing. Its assertions are the signers' position.
Senate Judiciary Democrats request committee records and an apology to Jack SmithPages 1-2, opening request for an apology and discussion of Schmitt's basketball-game accusation; page 3, signatures.Committee releases prosecutors' Speech or Debate memoranda
Source release
The Senate Judiciary majority releases January 2023 memoranda and emails about the Scott Perry litigation. The records describe the office's arguments about Rayburn, privilege review and records held by Google and Apple.
[50]Special Counsel Speech or Debate litigation memoranda and emails
The released records describe the office's legal arguments and privilege-review procedures in the Scott Perry litigation.
Special Counsel Speech or Debate litigation memoranda and emailsJanuary 8, 2023 memorandum from John M. Pellettieri and related emails[01]Senate Committee on the Judiciary
The Senate Judiciary Committee majority's page on Arctic Frost. It presents the Republican majority's account and links to its releases, letters and document productions.
Arctic Frost | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary · Senate Committee on the JudiciaryTimeline entries for April 4, 2022, April 13, 2022 and November 18, 2022, and the list of press releases and document releasesBlackburn's counsel discuss the lawsuit and report judicial recusals
Reaction
On Unwritten Law, John Vecchione and Caitlin Moyna explain Blackburn's constitutional claims and requested relief. They also report that all four district judges in the Middle District of Tennessee have recused themselves from the suit.
[51]Jack Smith, Secret Subpoenas, and Senator Blackburn's Phone Records
Blackburn's lawyers discuss their allegations and report that all four district judges in the Middle District of Tennessee have recused themselves.
Jack Smith, Secret Subpoenas, and Senator Blackburn's Phone RecordsUnwritten Law episode 144, counsel's account of the suit and recusalsGrassley issues an update on the scope of subpoena returns
Source release
Grassley says newly reviewed returns include information concerning at least 639,000 donors, supporters and voters. His memorandum alleges that the collection exceeded the investigation's purpose, adding a broader records dispute to the congressional-phone-record controversy.
[52]Grassley investigative update on Arctic Frost and the Special Counsel's Office
Grassley describes newly reviewed subpoena returns and alleges collection beyond the investigation's proper scope.
Grassley investigative update on Arctic Frost and the Special Counsel's OfficeOctober 14 memorandum, New Information sectionGrassley discusses congressional and donor records with Jennings
Reaction
In an interview released by his office, Grassley alleges that the investigation sought to map Republican political activity. He discusses congressional communications and newly reviewed donor and supporter records.
[53]Grassley discusses Arctic Frost oversight with Scott Jennings
Grassley repeats his objections to the investigation's scope, including collection of congressional and donor information.
Grassley discusses Arctic Frost oversight with Scott JenningsInterview excerpts at 00:58 and 03:00; linked full video
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
Sen. Chuck Grassley said that Jack Smith sought the toll records of 16 members of Congress, that the government sought toll records from at least four members before Smith, and that Smith's team also obtained the content of member communications, breaching the Speech or Debate Clause.
Sources (2)
- Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciaryChairman Grassley's opening remarks, about 0:31:39 to 0:37:05 on the archived video timeline (toll-record passages at 0:31:44-0:32:26 and 0:36:42-0:37:05)
- Grassley Opens Senate Judiciary Oversight Hearing on Arctic Frost and Jack Smith’s Abuse of Authority · Senate Committee on the JudiciaryPrepared opening statement, paragraphs on toll records, Speech or Debate, Non-Disclosure Orders and the 44 Members
Disputed claim
House Committee on the Judiciary
The interim report by Republican staff of the House Judiciary Committee said that subpoenas for the phone records of over a dozen Republican members of Congress were unconstitutional, that they violated the Speech or Debate Clause, and that gag orders kept the members from challenging them.
Sources (1)
- How Jack Smith and the Biden-Harris Department of Justice Disregarded the Separation of Powers to Spy on Their Political Opposition (Interim Staff Report) · House Committee on the JudiciaryExecutive summary, pages 1-5; Section I, pages 7-41; Section II, pages 42-53; index of exhibits, pages 55-56
Disputed claim
Jack Smith said that the toll records his office obtained from telephone companies were non-content records, that the Public Integrity Section approved the subpoenas, and that the nondisclosure orders were consistent with the law and Justice Department policy at the time.
Sources (2)
- Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Dick Durbin's questions and Jack Smith's answers on toll records and wiretaps, about 1:10:40 to 1:18:15 on the archived video timeline
- Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Ted Cruz's questions and Smith's answers on nondisclosure orders and 2 U.S.C. section 6628, about 3:17:00 to 3:20:15 on the archived video timeline
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
36 responses. First 6 shown initially. Newest first.
Chuck GrassleySenate Judiciary Committee chairmanDirectly involvedBefore this statement
Grassley replies to the October 7 complaint about committee records and defends his oversight work.
"the major embarrassment of the hearing was Democrats falling over themselves defending unlawful and unconstitutional actions by Jack Smith."
CondemnedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Grassley calls Smith's actions unlawful and unconstitutional and criticizes secretly obtaining committee members' phone data. Those judgments are Grassley's assertions.
After the statement
He identifies the phone-data collection among investigative actions he criticizes and disputes Democrats' records-access complaint.
Grassley replies to Senate Judiciary Democrats about Jack Smith evidencePage 1, paragraph beginning Contrary to your misguided statement; page 2, opening paragraph on phone data; pages 3-4, access to records.Why this label?
Grassley condemns Smith's investigative conduct. The next page connects his criticism to the collection of members' phone data.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
L. Margaret HarkerNCLA senior litigation counsel representing Marsha Blackburn Before this statement
Lars Larson asks about the purpose and legal basis of Blackburn's lawsuit.
"She filed it against Jack Smith in his personal capacity to seek accountability, not money"
CondemnedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Harker says Smith abused his authority and backs Blackburn's bid to hold him personally accountable.
After the statement
Harker is counsel for Blackburn. Her claims about Smith's appointment and investigative acts are advocacy, not a judgment in this lawsuit.
Margaret Harker discusses Blackburn's phone-records lawsuit1:02-2:38 and 3:11-3:55Why this label?
Harker criticizes Smith's exercise of authority and supports holding him accountable. This is opposition to the conduct at issue, not a defense of it.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Mark ChenowethPresident of the New Civil Liberties Alliance and counsel for Blackburn Before this statement
Just the News interviews him about Blackburn's challenge to the records collection.
"I think that it's intolerable behavior"
CondemnedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Chenoweth condemns what he describes as deliberate concealment from the judge in obtaining a nondisclosure order.
After the statement
The alleged concealment is contested advocacy. The interview date is unspecified; September 30 is the publication date.
Mark Chenoweth criticizes the Smith investigation's nondisclosureFinal Blackburn and Chenoweth paragraphsWhy this label?
The reference point is the investigators' collection of congressional communications records. Chenoweth condemns what he describes as deliberate concealment from the judge in obtaining a nondisclosure order.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Margot ClevelandNCLA attorney Before this statement
Discussing internal legal advice.
"They were wrong"
CondemnedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Cleveland argues that Smith knowingly disregarded legislative privilege because he expected little risk of litigation.
After the statement
She supports Blackburn's lawsuit.
NCLA statements supporting Blackburn's legal challengeIndividually attributed statements by Blackburn, Harker, Moyna, Cleveland and Chenoweth.Why this label?
She condemns proceeding despite privilege concerns.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Mark ChenowethNCLA president and chief legal officer Before this statement
Announcing NCLA's representation.
"ends did not justify the means"
CondemnedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Chenoweth argues that investigative aims could not justify Smith's methods or appointment.
After the statement
He rejects those methods.
NCLA statements supporting Blackburn's legal challengeIndividually attributed statements by Blackburn, Harker, Moyna, Cleveland and Chenoweth.Why this label?
He rejects the justification for the investigation.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Marsha BlackburnU.S. senator from TennesseeBefore this statement
Announcing her lawsuit.
"worst abuses of government power"
CondemnedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Blackburn denounces Smith's collection of her records and seeks accountability through her lawsuit.
After the statement
She seeks accountability.
NCLA statements supporting Blackburn's legal challengeIndividually attributed statements by Blackburn, Harker, Moyna, Cleveland and Chenoweth.Why this label?
She rejects the collection and secrecy.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Show fewer responses
Caitlin M. MoynaNCLA senior litigation counsel Before this statement
Discussing nondisclosure orders.
"Smith’s office ignored that too."
CondemnedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Moyna argues that Smith's secrecy disregarded statutory safeguards for senators' records.
After the statement
She invokes Senate safeguards.
NCLA statements supporting Blackburn's legal challengeIndividually attributed statements by Blackburn, Harker, Moyna, Cleveland and Chenoweth.Why this label?
She condemns secrecy surrounding the collection.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
L. Margaret HarkerNCLA senior litigation counsel Before this statement
Speaking as counsel.
"a grave abuse of power"
CondemnedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Harker argues that Smith's authority and seizure of Blackburn's records breached constitutional limits.
After the statement
She demands accountability.
NCLA statements supporting Blackburn's legal challengeIndividually attributed statements by Blackburn, Harker, Moyna, Cleveland and Chenoweth.Why this label?
She condemns the collection as unconstitutional.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Bill HagertyU.S. senator from Tennessee, in a complaint to the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of TennesseeBefore this statement
Hagerty posted on X that morning, "I filed a bar complaint against Jack Smith this morning. He's a blatantly partisan actor and his prosecutorial misconduct damaged our constitutional order. He should never be able to practice law again." The quoted passage opens the attached letter, which identifies Smith by his Tennessee bar number.
"Mr. Smith violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by seeking and obtaining a nondisclosure order from a federal district court without advising the court of critical facts and law. The impact of his lack of candor was a violation of federal law, and an invasion of the very constitutional privileges that ensure a fully free legislative process."
CondemnedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Sen. Bill Hagerty filed a complaint with Tennessee's Board of Professional Responsibility saying Jack Smith obtained a nondisclosure order for a Verizon subpoena of Hagerty's and other senators' call records without telling the court the records belonged to members of Congress or citing the Speech or Debate Clause or a federal law on Senate data. He wrote that the order kept him from moving to quash the subpoena and asked the board to pursue disbarment.
After the statement
The letter says Smith's subpoena to Verizon sought non-content records of Hagerty's calls and those of other senators, and that the accompanying nondisclosure order forbade Verizon from telling anyone, "myself included." It says Chief Judge James Boasberg's order did not mention the Speech or Debate Clause, 2 U.S.C. 6628 or that the records pertained to members of Congress, and asks the board to pursue "the most serious remedy possible—disbarment."
Hagerty: "I filed a bar complaint against Jack Smith this morning" · Bill HagertyPost text and the four attached page images of Hagerty's September 30, 2026 letter to the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee; quoted passage is the letter's opening paragraph on page 1Why this label?
Relative to whether members' phone records were properly obtained, Hagerty says Smith's nondisclosure order was obtained without disclosing critical facts and law, violated federal law and invaded constitutional legislative privileges. That rejects how the records were obtained, so we labeled it Condemned.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Adam SchiffU.S. senator from California and member of the Senate Judiciary CommitteeBefore this statement
Schiff's turn followed Sen. Darline Graham's. He began by telling Smith he was sorry Smith had been attacked during the hearing and by saying that none of his Republican colleagues had contested the events of January 6, 2021.
"for all of the outrage of my colleagues over your requesting toll records because Rudy Giuliani and other co-conspirators were calling some of the members of this body ... the Barr Justice Department sought toll records from members of Congress. Not a peep from my colleagues about that ... That apparently was okay. That apparently doesn't violate speech and debate. ... My colleagues talked about the stress on members of having their toll records requested as witnesses, not even targets."
Defended or excusedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
In his remarks to Smith, Sen. Adam Schiff said that despite his Republican colleagues' outrage over Smith requesting toll records because Rudy Giuliani and other co-conspirators were calling some members of Congress, the Barr Justice Department also sought toll records from members of Congress, which he said involved Democrats' records, with "not a peep" from those colleagues. He said that apparently did not violate the Speech or Debate Clause, and said members' toll records were requested as witnesses, not targets.
After the statement
Schiff went on to say Republicans had also been silent when the Justice Department sought to indict two senators and four House members over a video about illegal orders, and then discussed the evidence of January 6 and the second volume of Smith's report. Later, after Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse made a similar comparison, Chairman Grassley entered into the record a November 2, 2023 letter to the Justice Department inspector general about subpoenas of congressional staff records in 2017, and said Republicans did raise concerns about the Justice Department obtaining records from congressional staff of both parties.
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Adam Schiff's remarks to Smith, about 3:44:50 to 3:45:24 and 3:53:32 to 3:53:41 on the archived video timelineWhy this label?
The case asks whether the collection of members' phone records and messages was proper. Schiff said the outrage over the toll-record requests was not matched when an earlier Justice Department sought Democratic members' toll records, and said members were witnesses rather than targets. That defends the collection as consistent with past practice, so we labeled it Defended or excused.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Katie BrittU.S. senator from Alabama and member of the Senate Judiciary CommitteeBefore this statement
Britt began by asking Smith about the FBI's opening of Arctic Frost in April 2022 and about FBI agent Timothy Thibault, whom she said the Office of Special Counsel found had violated the Hatch Act. She then turned to the subpoenas for members' toll records and to the nondisclosure orders that came with them.
"It's been widely reported that you and your team issued some 44 subpoenas related to the tolling records of at least 20 Republican members of Congress, including at least eight U.S. senators, including at least four members of this committee ... it appears the actual reason for the NDOs was to avoid giving those members the opportunity to challenge the subpoenas pursuant to the protection that they enjoyed under the Constitution's speech and debate clause. ... Your team took actions to directly undermine the separation of powers at the heart of the Constitution."
CondemnedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
In her questioning of Smith, Sen. Katie Britt said it had been widely reported that his team issued some 44 subpoenas for the toll records of at least 20 Republican members of Congress, including at least eight senators, and asked whether he believed there were reasonable grounds to think those senators would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. Smith answered no. Britt said the records Chairman Grassley released suggest the actual reason for the nondisclosure orders was to keep members from challenging the subpoenas under the Speech or Debate Clause, and that Smith's team took actions that undermined the separation of powers.
After the statement
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) gave Smith part of his own time to respond to Britt. Smith said the nondisclosure orders "were not predicated on the idea that members of Congress or members of this committee would commit acts of obstruction," but on "a real concern that Donald Trump and his associates would do that because they had done it and they did it again."
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Katie Britt's questions to Smith on subpoenas, nondisclosure orders and the separation of powers, about 2:15:33 to 2:18:26 on the archived video timelineWhy this label?
The case asks whether the collection of members' phone records and messages was proper. Britt said the released records suggest the nondisclosure orders were meant to keep members from challenging the subpoenas under the Speech or Debate Clause, and that the team's actions undermined the separation of powers. That rejects the subpoenas and the nondisclosure orders as improper, so we labeled it Condemned.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Mike LeeU.S. senator from Utah and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee; co-sponsor with Sen. Chris Coons of the NDO Fairness ActBefore this statement
The House Judiciary Committee's Republican staff report lists Lee among the members whose toll records were subpoenaed. Lee first asked Smith whether he sought only toll records for members of Congress. Smith answered that the toll-record subpoenas were what he had discussed, that a search warrant was executed on Rep. Scott Perry's phone before he became special counsel, and that his office requested White House phone records from the National Archives. Lee then asked about preservation requests sent to Apple.
"the Department of Justice's own Public Integrity Section, it did give you explicit warnings that going after the phone records of members of the legislative branch carried what they referred to as litigation risks due to these constitutional privileges. ... you never actually told Chief Judge Boasberg that you were targeting 19 members of a coordinate branch of government, the legislative branch. ... There should be an articulated basis for secrecy when you're asking for a gag order. ... in a way that arguably makes what Richard Nixon did in Watergate look like a Sunday picnic."
CondemnedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
In his questioning of Smith, Sen. Mike Lee said the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section had warned that going after members' phone records carried litigation risks because of constitutional privileges, and that Smith never told Chief Judge James Boasberg that he was "targeting 19 members of a coordinate branch of government." Smith replied that Boasberg signed the nondisclosure orders, not the subpoenas, and that under department policy his office did not tell the judge whose toll records were sought. Lee said he and Sen. Chris Coons have a bipartisan NDO Fairness Act, that "There should be an articulated basis for secrecy when you're asking for a gag order," and that Smith's conduct "arguably makes what Richard Nixon did in Watergate look like a Sunday picnic."
After the statement
Asked whether toll records include geolocation data, Smith said his understanding of what was most relevant to his office was "the to and from and duration." Lee then cited Supreme Court Fourth Amendment precedents on geolocation data and ended his time. Chairman Grassley then entered into the record preservation requests to Apple and Google for members' records.
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Mike Lee's questions to Smith on toll records, the Public Integrity Section and nondisclosure orders, about 2:36:32 to 2:39:30 and 2:41:43 to 2:43:03 on the archived video timelineWhy this label?
The case asks whether the collection of members' phone records and messages was proper. Lee said the Public Integrity Section had warned of litigation risks, that Smith "never actually told Chief Judge Boasberg that you were targeting 19 members of a coordinate branch of government," and that the conduct "arguably makes what Richard Nixon did in Watergate look like a Sunday picnic." That rejects the collection as improper, so we labeled it Condemned.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
John KennedyU.S. senator from Louisiana and member of the Senate Judiciary CommitteeBefore this statement
Kennedy's questions began with Smith's background and whether Smith had sought the special counsel post. Kennedy then asked whether Smith sought the phone records of senators, and Smith answered, "We sought the toll records, non-content records." Asked whether he knew that violated the Speech or Debate Clause, Smith answered, "That is incorrect. We sought to comply with that."
"Well, then you had to know it violated the speech and debate clause. In fact, when you went to Judge Boasberg, you didn't even tell him you were seeking the phone records of members of Congress, did you? Because you knew he wouldn't agree. He would say, hey, counselor, anybody who knows a law book from a J. Crew catalog knows that this violates the Constitution."
CondemnedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
In his questioning of Smith, Sen. John Kennedy told Smith he had to know that seeking the phone records of senators violated the Speech or Debate Clause. He asked whether Smith told Chief Judge James Boasberg that the records were those of members of Congress, and suggested Smith did not because he knew the judge would not agree.
After the statement
Smith answered, "We sought nondisclosure orders from the court," and, pressed on whether he told the judge, "In seeking nondisclosure orders, we did not disclose." Kennedy then told Smith, "You make me want to throw up in my mouth." Durbin objected that the witness should be allowed to complete a sentence, and Kennedy asked the chair to instruct Smith not to filibuster.
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. John Kennedy's questions to Smith on senators' phone records and nondisclosure orders, about 1:29:13 to 1:31:07 on the archived video timelineWhy this label?
The case asks whether the collection of members' phone records and messages was proper. Kennedy told Smith he had to know that seeking the records violated the Speech or Debate Clause and suggested Smith withheld from the judge that the records were members'. That rejects the collection as improper, so we labeled it Condemned.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sheldon WhitehouseU.S. senator from Rhode Island and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee; former U.S. attorneyBefore this statement
Whitehouse opened his time by saying he had served four years as a United States attorney and had worked on public corruption investigations.
"reflects a lack of familiarity with standard Department of Justice procedures. ... Because before you obtained toll records of members of Congress, the Department of Justice under President Trump, in his first administration, obtained toll records of members of Congress."
Defended or excusedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
In his questioning of Smith, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse said some of what had taken place at the hearing reflected a lack of familiarity with standard Justice Department procedures, and said the Justice Department in the first Trump administration also obtained toll records of members of Congress before Smith did. Smith agreed that his office obtained nondisclosure orders and said he understood the earlier investigation had done the same.
After the statement
Whitehouse asked Smith to explain the difference between a wiretap and a toll record. Smith said toll records show who a call was from, who it was to and its duration, not its content, and agreed that his office had subpoenaed Republicans' toll records where the earlier investigation had subpoenaed Democrats'.
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Sheldon Whitehouse's questions to Smith on toll records, about 4:04:07 to 4:09:20 on the archived video timelineWhy this label?
The case asks whether the collection of members' phone records and messages was proper. Whitehouse said some of what had taken place at the hearing reflected unfamiliarity with standard Justice Department procedures and compared the collection with the first Trump administration's own acquisition of members' toll records. That defends the collection as ordinary practice, so we labeled it Defended or excused.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Darline GrahamU.S. senator from South Carolina and younger sister of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham, who died in July 2026Before this statement
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), who was presiding, called on Graham after saying he would soon have to leave. She said Smith's investigation had reached into the Senate through the subpoena for her brother's records.
"In May 2023, your office secured a subpoena for the phone records of my brother, Lindsey. ... Lindsey was kept in the dark, as were several senators you targeted. ... How the hell was Lindsey going to tamper with evidence he didn't even have in his possession?"
CondemnedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Sen. Darline Graham (R-SC) told Smith that his office secured a subpoena in May 2023 for the phone records of her brother, Sen. Lindsey Graham, and that her brother was kept in the dark. She asked how he could have tampered with evidence that Verizon, not he, held.
After the statement
Smith replied that her brother "was a patriotic public servant," was not a target of the investigation and likely would have been a witness in the case. Asked why the order said disclosure could lead to tampering with evidence, Smith said disclosure "could result in Donald Trump attempting to intimidate witnesses as he had before and after," and that his office had "an ample basis for that."
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Darline Graham's remarks and questions to Smith, about 3:35:46 to 3:43:21 on the archived video timelineSen. Lindsey Graham dies at 71 from aortic dissection, according to medical examiner's preliminary findings · CBS NewsArticle, first paragraph and biography section (sister Darline)Why this label?
The case asks whether the collection of members' phone records and messages was proper. Graham criticized the subpoena for her brother's records and the nondisclosure order that kept him unaware of it, asking how he could have tampered with evidence held by Verizon. That rejects the collection as improper, so we labeled it Condemned.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Chris CoonsU.S. senator from Delaware and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee; sponsor with Sen. Mike Lee of the NDO Fairness ActBefore this statement
Coons turned to nondisclosure orders in the last two minutes of his questioning, after asking Smith about the treatment of prosecutors and agents who worked for him. He asked Smith to walk him through how the office obtained nondisclosure orders for members' toll records.
"These types of NDO requests are fairly typical in DOJ investigations, and your NDO requests were fully compliant with the Department of Justice policy at the time. ... I believe the government bar, the current bar for granting NDOs may be too low and that government requests for secrecy are too often granted. My NDO Fairness Act with Senator Mike Lee would ensure NDOs are only issued in circumstances requiring secrecy in a way that would better protect all Americans, including members of Congress. ... I'm not suggesting you've done anything wrong. I'm just suggesting that if I have colleagues who were enraged by your legal and appropriate and timely pursuit of NDOs, there's something we can and should do about it."
Mixed or conditionalCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Sen. Chris Coons asked Smith whether his nondisclosure requests were fairly typical and fully compliant with Justice Department policy at the time; Smith said yes. Coons said the government's bar for granting nondisclosure orders may be too low, described his NDO Fairness Act with Sen. Mike Lee, and said that colleagues enraged by Smith's pursuit of the orders, which he called legal and appropriate and timely, could do something about it.
After the statement
Coons said the NDO Fairness Act had already passed the House by voice vote. Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), the bill's House sponsor, said the House passed it unanimously on August 31, 2026.
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Chris Coons's questions on nondisclosure orders, about 1:41:00 to 1:43:10 on the archived video timelineRep. Fitzgerald's NDO Fairness Act Passes House of Representatives · Scott FitzgeraldFull releaseWhy this label?
Coons said Smith's orders were compliant with Justice Department policy and that he was not suggesting Smith had done anything wrong, while saying the standard for granting such orders is too low and proposing legislation. Because it defends the orders under existing policy and criticizes the policy itself, we labeled it Mixed or conditional.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Cory BookerU.S. senator from New Jersey and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, listed by the Justice Department among members whose texts with White House personnel were obtainedDirectly involvedBefore this statement
Booker was reacting to Smith's testimony that the investigation relied principally on Republican witnesses.
"And they're trying to say this is partisanship. My records were swept up. My text messages were part of it. Karen Bass's text messages were a part of it."
Challenged the characterizationCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
During his questioning of Smith, Sen. Cory Booker said Republicans were trying to say the investigation was partisan, and said his own records and text messages, and those of Karen Bass, were also swept up.
After the statement
Booker asked Smith what had happened to the career prosecutors and FBI agents who worked on the cases. Smith said they had been fired unlawfully and publicly vilified. The Justice Department's July 2026 letter lists Booker among the 44 current and former members whose texts with White House personnel Smith's team obtained.
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Cory Booker's remarks to Smith, about 3:29:56 to 3:30:45 on the archived video timelineU.S. Department of Justice (Assistant Attorney General Patrick D. Davis) to Sen. Chuck Grassley, July 2026 (Arctic Frost filter team) · United States Department of JusticePages 1-4, including the list of 44 current and former members of CongressJack Smith defends handling of Trump probes at heated Senate hearing · CBS NewsLive updates for 9:22 AM, 10:11 AM, 10:39 AM, 12:41 PM and 12:52 PMWhy this label?
The case asks whether the collection of members' records was proper. Booker did not address the Speech or Debate or nondisclosure-order arguments. He disputed the idea that the collection was partisan by saying his own records and text messages, and Karen Bass's, were also included. That challenges a characterization without addressing the collection's legality, so we labeled it Challenged the characterization.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Jack SmithFormer special counsel, testifying under oath before the Senate Judiciary CommitteeDirectly involvedBefore this statement
Cruz had asked whether Smith had evidence that 20 percent of the Republicans in the Senate would destroy evidence or intimidate witnesses, citing the reasons stated in a nondisclosure order, and asked whether Smith knew of 2 U.S.C. section 6628. Later, Hawley asked whether Smith's office hid from the court that it was seeking members' records.
"We do not have to wait for someone to be injured, for an investigation to be obstructed. We had strong reason to believe that Donald Trump would obstruct our investigation, given the obstruction alleged in the Florida indictment, given the attempts to intimidate witnesses in the election case, given the threats that were later made to witnesses in the election case. ... We sought to follow department policy and the law at all times. ... We submitted these nondisclosure orders consistent with the law and department policy. ... We did not say who the subpoenas were for when we sought a nondisclosure order. That part is correct."
Defended or excusedResponding to: Jack Smith said that the toll records his office obtained from telephone companies were non-content records, that the Public Integrity Section approved the subpoenas, and that the nondisclosure orders were consistent with the law and Justice Department policy at the time.
Full statement and sources
Answering Sens. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, Smith said his office sought nondisclosure orders because it had strong reason to believe Donald Trump would obstruct the investigation, citing the obstruction alleged in the Florida indictment and threats to witnesses, and that the orders were consistent with the law and department policy. He agreed that his office did not tell the court who the subpoenas were for when it sought the orders.
After the statement
Smith said he did not recall discussing section 6628 when the office sought the orders. Later, when Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) gave him time to respond to questions from Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL), Smith said the orders were not predicated on members of Congress or members of the committee committing acts of obstruction but on concern that Donald Trump and his associates would, and said Trump had suggested that a witness, Gen. Mark Milley, should be put to death. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts wrote that the Justice Department changed its manual in September 2024 to require prosecutors to tell the court when an order would delay notice to a member of Congress.
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Ted Cruz's questions and Smith's answers on nondisclosure orders and 2 U.S.C. section 6628, about 3:17:00 to 3:20:15 on the archived video timelineOversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Josh Hawley's questions and Smith's answers, about 4:18:40 to 4:21:10, and Smith's closing response at about 4:26:06 to 4:26:25 on the archived video timelineOversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Richard Blumenthal's opening questions, in which he gives Smith time to respond to Sen. Katie Britt, about 2:20:12 to 2:21:15 on the archived video timelineAdministrative Office of the U.S. Courts to Sen. Chuck Grassley, December 1, 2025 (nondisclosure orders) · Administrative Office of the U.S. CourtsPages 1-3Why this label?
Smith defended the nondisclosure orders as consistent with the law and Justice Department policy and as needed because of the risk of obstruction by Trump, while agreeing that his office did not identify the subpoenas' subjects to the court. That defends the orders as proper, so we labeled it Defended or excused.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
- Jack SmithFormer special counsel, testifying under oath before the Senate Judiciary CommitteeDirectly involved
Before this statement
Durbin asked Smith to explain what involvement he had with information from members of Congress, saying there was appropriate concern among members about their phone conversations, text messages and records. Smith answered first on toll records. Later, Schmitt asked whether Smith's office sought the contents of members of Congress's emails or text messages.
"First, with respect to toll records. Toll records are non-content records. They show who a call was to, who a call was from, and the length of that call. My office did secure toll records from third parties, third party telephone companies in the course of our investigation that were records for members of Congress. Before we did that, we consulted with the Public Integrity Section regarding whether those toll records subpoenas were appropriate. I approved those records and those records were materially relevant to our investigation. ... The records that we're talking about are non-content records. The toll records are non-content records that we sought to corroborate evidence we had and also to assist us in questioning witnesses about these events, among other things. ... We sought toll record subpoenas that did not contain the content of calls. I am also aware that we sought White House phones for individuals who are relevant to our investigation, government phones in which they had no expectation of privacy."
Defended or excusedResponding to: Jack Smith said that the toll records his office obtained from telephone companies were non-content records, that the Public Integrity Section approved the subpoenas, and that the nondisclosure orders were consistent with the law and Justice Department policy at the time.
Full statement and sources
Answering Sen. Dick Durbin at the hearing, Smith said toll records show who a call was to, who it was from and how long it lasted, not its content; that his office obtained toll records of members of Congress from telephone companies; that it consulted the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section first; and that he approved the records as materially relevant. Asked about wiretaps, he said his office initiated none. Answering Sen. Eric Schmitt, he said the office sought toll-record subpoenas that did not contain call content and also sought White House phones, which he described as government phones in which the users had no expectation of privacy.
After the statement
Smith went on to say the records corroborated evidence that Donald Trump and his co-conspirators were seeking to exploit the violence of January 6, 2021 to delay the certification, and that they helped show how many phones were used to make calls. Asked how agents identified which phone numbers belonged to which senators, he said he did not have an answer. Asked whether he sought members' contents by other means, he said he could not address every subpoena and pointed to a search warrant for Rep. Scott Perry's phone that he said came before he was special counsel.
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Dick Durbin's questions and Jack Smith's answers on toll records and wiretaps, about 1:10:40 to 1:18:15 on the archived video timelineOversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Eric Schmitt's question about members' emails and text messages and Smith's answer, about 1:52:56 to 1:54:09 on the archived video timelineWhy this label?
Smith said his office obtained members' toll records after consulting the Public Integrity Section, that he approved them, that they were non-content records relevant to the investigation, and that the White House phones were government phones. That defends the collection as proper, so we labeled it Defended or excused.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Ted CruzU.S. senator from Texas, questioning Smith at the Senate Judiciary hearingBefore this statement
Cruz said he believed the judge who signed the orders should be impeached. He asked Smith whether he had evidence that 20 percent of the Republicans in the Senate would destroy evidence or intimidate witnesses, citing language in a nondisclosure order, and Smith said his office had strong reason to believe Donald Trump would obstruct the investigation. Cruz then asked whether Smith knew of 2 U.S.C. section 6628; Smith said he did, did not recall discussing it at the time and did not recall it being part of the application.
"So instead, you gave the judge an order that was contrary to federal law, and you got the judge to sign order after order after order that was contrary to federal law. ... It was explicitly contrary to federal statute. It was explicitly contrary to the federal constitution."
CondemnedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Sen. Ted Cruz asked Smith about 2 U.S.C. section 6628, which Cruz said protects Senate communication records, and said Smith gave a judge an order contrary to federal law and got the judge to sign such orders repeatedly. When Smith said his office's work securing the subpoenas and nondisclosure orders was consistent with the law, Cruz said the orders were explicitly contrary to federal statute and to the federal constitution.
After the statement
Cruz also said AT&T had declined to hand over his phone records because doing so would violate the Speech or Debate Clause and that the special counsel's team did not go to court to enforce the subpoena; Smith said he did not believe that was what happened. Asked about regrets, Smith said he regretted that the people he worked with had been unfairly fired and vilified.
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Ted Cruz's questions and Smith's answers on nondisclosure orders and 2 U.S.C. section 6628, about 3:17:00 to 3:20:15 on the archived video timelineWhy this label?
Cruz said the nondisclosure orders Smith's office obtained were contrary to a federal statute and to the Constitution. That rejects the nondisclosure orders as improper, so we labeled it Condemned.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Josh HawleyU.S. senator from Missouri, questioning Smith at the Senate Judiciary hearingDirectly involvedBefore this statement
Hawley questioned Smith near the end of the hearing. He said Smith had briefed the Attorney General that members likely have a valid Speech or Debate privilege against compelled testimony, and cited a January 8, 2023 memo to Smith from his own office titled Speech or Debate Litigation Summary. Smith replied that he understood there are constitutional protections and that his office followed the Constitution.
"The only problem was the Constitution protects members of Congress' work product and their phone records. And you knew that was the case, didn't you? ... You went to the phone companies, and you hid the fact from the court that you were seeking the records of members of Congress, didn't you? You didn't tell the court you were seeking subpoenas from the phone companies for members of Congress, did you? You hid that from the court. Isn't that correct? ... My phone was one of them that you got."
CondemnedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Questioning Smith at the hearing, Sen. Josh Hawley said the Constitution protects members' work product and phone records and that Smith knew it, and that Smith's office went to the phone companies and hid from the court that it was seeking the records of members of Congress. He said his own phone was one of those obtained.
After the statement
Smith answered, "We did not say who the subpoenas were for when we sought a nondisclosure order. That part is correct." Hawley then said Smith had lied to the House about obtaining members' text messages; Smith said he answered every question truthfully and, in closing, that the National Archives records were a request for White House phones. Whether Smith gave false testimony is outside this case's question.
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Josh Hawley's questions and Smith's answers, about 4:18:40 to 4:21:10, and Smith's closing response at about 4:26:06 to 4:26:25 on the archived video timelineWhy this label?
Hawley said the Constitution protects members' phone records, that Smith knew it, that Smith hid from the court that the records were members', and that his own phone was among them. That rejects the collection and the way the nondisclosure orders were obtained as improper, so we labeled it Condemned.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
- Chuck GrassleyChairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in his opening statement as prepared for the hearingDirectly involved
Before this statement
Grassley opened the committee's September 29, 2026 hearing with Smith as its only witness. Before reaching the toll records, his statement gave the committee majority's account of how Arctic Frost opened in April 2022 and passed to Smith in November 2022.
"Before Jack Smith, the government sought toll records from at least four Members of Congress. Jack Smith sought the toll records of 16 Members of Congress and also obtained the content of Member communications, breaching Speech or Debate. ... Accordingly, Jack Smith’s secretive efforts obtained Member toll records and, ultimately, content. Then, he sought Non-Disclosure Orders to hide his effort from Members, while also apparently failing to apprise the court of the targets."
CondemnedResponding to: Sen. Chuck Grassley said that Jack Smith sought the toll records of 16 members of Congress, that the government sought toll records from at least four members before Smith, and that Smith's team also obtained the content of member communications, breaching the Speech or Debate Clause.
Full statement and sources
In his opening statement as prepared for the September 29 hearing, Chairman Chuck Grassley said the government sought toll records from at least four members of Congress before Smith, that Smith sought the toll records of 16 members and also obtained the content of member communications, breaching Speech or Debate, and that Smith sought nondisclosure orders to hide the effort from members while apparently failing to tell the court who the targets were.
After the statement
The statement went on to say Smith subpoenaed 87 Trump White House phones, knowing they would include communications with members, 44 members in all, and that he failed to filter out Speech or Debate privileged information. Grassley delivered the toll-record figures at the hearing in nearly the same words.
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciaryChairman Grassley's opening remarks, about 0:31:39 to 0:37:05 on the archived video timeline (toll-record passages at 0:31:44-0:32:26 and 0:36:42-0:37:05)Grassley Opens Senate Judiciary Oversight Hearing on Arctic Frost and Jack Smith’s Abuse of Authority · Senate Committee on the JudiciaryPrepared opening statement, paragraphs on toll records, Speech or Debate, Non-Disclosure Orders and the 44 MembersWhy this label?
The case asks whether the collection of members' phone records and messages was proper. Grassley said Smith sought the toll records of 16 members, obtained the content of member communications in breach of Speech or Debate, and sought nondisclosure orders to hide the effort from members. That rejects the collection as improper and unconstitutional, so we labeled it Condemned.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
- Josh HawleyU.S. senator from Missouri and Senate Judiciary Committee member, in an interview on Fox News's HannityDirectly involved
Before this statement
Hannity asked, "Can he be charged? Will he be charged?" after Smith's Senate Judiciary hearing. Hawley answered, "He should be charged, Sean. There's no doubt about it."
"He should be charged. He lied to Congress. He lied to the House."
CondemnedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Sen. Josh Hawley told Fox News's Sean Hannity that Jack Smith should be charged and lied to Congress, saying a House deposition had asked Smith whether he obtained members' text messages and he said no.
After the statement
Hawley said the House had Smith under oath in a deposition a few months earlier and asked him "point blank" whether he obtained the text messages of members of Congress, that Smith said no, and that he read the answer back to Smith at the hearing. He said Smith had in fact obtained 44 members' text messages two years earlier while trying to get everything related to Donald Trump.
Hawley on Hannity: "He should be charged. He lied to Congress."0:00 to 0:34 clip of Sen. Josh Hawley answering Sean Hannity on Fox News, from "Can he be charged? Will he be charged?" to "trying to get his hands on everything related to Donald Trump."Why this label?
Relative to how members' phone records and texts were obtained, Hawley says Smith should be charged and lied to Congress about obtaining members' text messages. That rejects the conduct as improper and accuses Smith of dishonesty about it, so we labeled it Condemned.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
House Committee on the JudiciaryInterim staff report by Republican staff of the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)Directly involvedBefore this statement
The report came six days before the Senate hearing. It says the committee sent 66 letters and subpoenas, received over 38,883 pages of documents and conducted six transcribed interviews and three depositions of the federal prosecutors involved.
"investigators unconstitutionally subpoenaed phone records for over a dozen Republican Members of Congress and obtained gag orders to prevent the Members from knowing that the Biden-Harris Administration had obtained these records. ... In doing so, the Biden-Harris Administration violated the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, a core provision that protects the official actions and communications of Members of Congress and immunizes them from prosecution for legislative acts."
CondemnedResponding to: The interim report by Republican staff of the House Judiciary Committee said that subpoenas for the phone records of over a dozen Republican members of Congress were unconstitutional, that they violated the Speech or Debate Clause, and that gag orders kept the members from challenging them.
Full statement and sources
The interim report by Republican staff of the House Judiciary Committee, released September 23, 2026 under Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), said investigators in Arctic Frost and the special counsel investigation unconstitutionally subpoenaed phone records for over a dozen Republican members and obtained gag orders to keep the members from knowing, and that this violated the Speech or Debate Clause. It says the Justice Department seized the phone records of at least 17 Republican members between April 2022 and May 2023.
After the statement
The report says the Public Integrity Section flagged "litigation risk" but approved the toll-record subpoenas, that Smith's team told Attorney General Merrick Garland in a January 2023 briefing that members likely have a valid Speech or Debate privilege against compelled testimony, and that Smith approved a list of May 2023 toll-record subpoenas one day after his deputies drew it up.
How Jack Smith and the Biden-Harris Department of Justice Disregarded the Separation of Powers to Spy on Their Political Opposition (Interim Staff Report) · House Committee on the JudiciaryExecutive summary, pages 1-5; Section I, pages 7-41; Section II, pages 42-53; index of exhibits, pages 55-56Why this label?
The report, written by the committee's Republican staff, calls the subpoenas unconstitutional, says they violated the Speech or Debate Clause and says the gag orders kept members from knowing about them. That rejects the collection as improper, so we labeled it Condemned.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Scott FitzgeraldU.S. representative from Wisconsin, speaking on the House floorBefore this statement
Fitzgerald says Smith obtained orders preventing carriers from notifying members of Congress for nearly two years.
"Regardless of your politics, this should alarm every sitting Member of Congress. The NDO Fairness Act of 2025 would stop this abuse, which has allowed the circumvention of the Fourth Amendment protections in favor of convenience."
CondemnedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Fitzgerald argues that keeping lawmakers unaware of the collection of their phone records circumvented constitutional protections. He urges passage of the NDO Fairness Act to limit secrecy orders and require a stated justification.
After the statement
He describes proposed limits on secrecy orders and urges House passage of the bipartisan bill.
House debates and passes the NDO Fairness ActCongressional Record H5266-H5268, Fitzgerald and Raskin remarks and final passageWhy this label?
The case concerns the propriety of obtaining congressional phone records and withholding notice. Fitzgerald expressly criticizes Smith's use of secrecy orders as an abuse.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Jamie RaskinU.S. representative from Maryland, speaking on the House floorBefore this statement
Raskin supports statutory limits on indefinite secrecy orders and explains why temporary nondisclosure can be necessary to protect investigations.
"As part of his investigation into that attack, Special Counsel Smith asked a Federal grand jury to subpoena the phone companies for the records associated with individual Members of Congress known to have been in contact with the White House over a 4-day period running from around January 6, 2021. The subpoena sought call records, the kind of information that is on your phone bill, not the content of any calls or text messages, but a record of who called who when. He also asked a Federal judge to issue an NDO for those subpoenas. He did so after receiving permission to do so from the Public Integrity Section and in full compliance with both existing law and DOJ policy."
Defended or excusedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Raskin says the phone-record subpoenas and secrecy orders complied with existing law and Justice Department policy. He supports the NDO Fairness Act as a privacy reform for everyone and criticizes a separate senators-only damages remedy.
After the statement
He calls the subpoenas lawful and the nondisclosure justified, then criticizes the separate remedy that had allowed senators to seek damages.
House debates and passes the NDO Fairness ActCongressional Record H5266-H5268, Fitzgerald and Raskin remarks and final passageWhy this label?
The case concerns whether Smith properly obtained congressional records. Raskin defends the subpoenas and secrecy orders under existing rules, while supporting prospective limits on secrecy.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Michael FeinbergFormer FBI assistant special agent in charge and Lawfare writer Before this statement
He distinguishes call metadata from the content of communications.
"From the point of view of an investigator or experienced prosecutor, reviewing toll records is not a particularly invasive technique."
Defended or excusedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Feinberg argues that toll records are a routine investigative tool and that the legislators' roles in the events under investigation made the requests relevant.
After the statement
He argues that released records do not demonstrate improper methods and criticizes the presentation of those records by congressional opponents.
The Paranoid Style in American Oversight, Part II | LawfareDiscussion of congressional toll records and investigative relevanceWhy this label?
Relative to obtaining congressional phone records in Arctic Frost, Feinberg defends the requests as routine, relevant investigative work.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Meaghan MobbsNational-security commentator and former Army officerBefore this statement
Her column discusses congressional communications records, nondisclosure orders and the broader investigation.
"It is increasingly clear this was an overreach of monumental proportions and consequence, using law enforcement authority in a manner that transformed the justice system into a political weapon."
CondemnedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Mobbs argues that the investigation exceeded appropriate limits and threatened constitutional protections. She calls for lawful oversight of possible misuse of authority.
After the statement
She says accountability should be based on principle rather than party.
What every American needs to know about Jack Smith's Arctic Frost investigationDiscussion of congressional communications records and constitutional limitsWhy this label?
Relative to the collection of political and congressional communications records, Mobbs expressly condemns the scope and purpose she attributes to the investigation.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Michael J. RomanoFormer federal prosecutor testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee Before this statement
Romano testified about the use of toll-record subpoenas and nondisclosure orders.
"This collection of toll records was not weaponization."
Defended or excusedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Romano says the toll-record subpoenas and nondisclosure orders were appropriate investigative tools. He argues that Smith's office followed Justice Department policy and did not use the records to harm the senators.
After the statement
He argued that these were legitimate investigative tools consistent with department policy.
Statement of Michael J. Romano, Former Deputy Chief, Capitol Siege Section, before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, February 10, 2026Page 1, paragraphs on toll records and nondisclosure ordersWhy this label?
He justifies the investigative conduct at the center of the case.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Dan SchwagerAttorney and former congressional ethics counsel Before this statement
Schwager testified on investigative methods and congressional privilege.
"regular and thorough investigative steps are not political actions themselves"
Defended or excusedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Schwager defends toll-record subpoenas as routine investigative tools and rejects treating a legal disagreement as proof of misconduct. He also calls for serious attention to legislators' Speech or Debate protections.
After the statement
He rejected equating a legal disagreement with misconduct and also discussed future safeguards.
Why this label?
He defends the collection methods while recognizing legislators' privilege concerns.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
- Marsha BlackburnU.S. senator from Tennessee and chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, one of the senators she said had phone records subpoenaed
Before this statement
Blackburn, who chairs the subcommittee, opened a hearing that she said was the first in a series examining Arctic Frost, with testimony from executives of AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon about how their companies responded to Smith's subpoenas.
"Five members of this committee, Senators Graham, Lee, Cruz, Hawley, and I, had our phone records subpoenaed by Jack Smith, in addition to several other senators and members of the House. ... He also made sure that we didn't find out about this deep invasion of our privacy, ensuring that an Obama appointee, Judge James Boasberg, signed non-disclosure orders that were attached to the subpoenas and had no basis in fact. ... concluded essentially that while there was some litigation risk related to the Speech and Debate Clause, they could go ahead with the subpoenas regardless because the affected members of Congress would never find out about this invasion of privacy and violation of constitutional rights. ... This was the worst weaponization of government in American history"
CondemnedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
At the opening of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on February 10, 2026, Sen. Marsha Blackburn said that five members of the Judiciary Committee, Senators Lindsey Graham, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley and herself, and several other senators and House members had their phone records subpoenaed by Smith. She said the nondisclosure orders signed by Judge James Boasberg had no basis in fact, and that Smith's team consulted the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section and concluded the subpoenas could go ahead despite litigation risk under the Speech or Debate Clause because members would never find out. She called the matter "the worst weaponization of government in American history."
After the statement
After Blackburn's opening remarks, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) gave his own opening statement, and Blackburn then questioned the carriers' executives, including Verizon's Chris Miller, about their handling of members' records.
Arctic Frost Accountability: Oversight of Telecommunications Carriers' Responses to Jack Smith's Witch Hunt (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Marsha Blackburn's opening remarks, about 0:16:26 to 0:20:14 on the archived video timelineVIDEO: Blackburn Presses Phone Company Executives on Complicity in Jack Smith's Witch Hunt Against Conservatives · Marsha BlackburnFirst excerpt section, "Blackburn Calls Arctic Frost 'Worst Weaponization of Government in American History'"Why this label?
The case asks whether the collection of members' phone records and messages was proper. Blackburn said the subpoenas covered committee members' phone records, that the nondisclosure orders had no basis in fact, and that the team went ahead despite Speech or Debate risk because members would not find out. That rejects the collection as improper, so we labeled it Condemned.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
VerizonCompany testimony by Chris Miller, senior vice president and general counsel of Verizon Consumer Group, to a Senate Judiciary subcommitteeBefore this statement
Miller's written testimony said Verizon received a federal grand jury subpoena from the special counsel's office for 12 telephone numbers, seeking subscriber information and call detail records for January 4 through 7, 2021. The subpoena listed only numbers, and a judge issued a nondisclosure order.
"We were compelled to provide this information under law, and we complied. No matter who is the target of a subpoena Verizon cannot ignore a valid legal demand. But our processes could have been better suited to meet what was a new and unique set of circumstances for us, and for other companies."
Mixed or conditionalCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Verizon's general counsel for its consumer group, Chris Miller, told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on February 10, 2026 that Verizon was compelled by law to provide the information in response to special counsel subpoenas and complied, that it cannot ignore a valid legal demand, and that its processes could have been better suited to what he called a new and unique set of circumstances. He described new steps, including notifying members and challenging nondisclosure orders in court.
After the statement
Miller said Verizon now brings requests involving members to senior leadership, verifies with law enforcement that it intends to seek a member's number, and will notify the member and challenge any nondisclosure order that prevents notice. AT&T's general counsel told the same hearing that AT&T's lawyers asked the special counsel's office about the Speech or Debate Clause on a May 2023 subpoena for two members' accounts and the office did not respond or pursue it.
Testimony of David R. McAtee II, Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel, AT&T Inc., before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, February 10, 2026Pages 2-3, section on the special counsel grand jury subpoenasVerizon to Sen. Chuck Grassley, October 24, 2025 (toll records) · VerizonPages 1-4Why this label?
Verizon said it complied with what it treated as a valid legal demand and could not ignore one, while acknowledging its processes could have been better and adopting new steps to notify members. It takes no position on whether the subpoenas or the nondisclosure orders were proper. Because it neither condemns nor defends the collection and combines compliance with an admission about its own process, we labeled it Mixed or conditional.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Dick DurbinU.S. senator from Illinois and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary CommitteeDirectly involvedBefore this statement
Durbin spoke at the first of the Republican-led committee's Arctic Frost hearings, held by the Privacy, Technology, and the Law Subcommittee with witnesses from AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon. Smith was not a witness. Durbin said he had written to Chairman Grassley asking that Smith testify under oath in public.
"For reasons that aren't clear to me at all, we're here today to discuss Jack Smith's role in a legal procedure, a procedure created by Congress and regularly deployed by federal prosecutors to collect the toll records of people President Trump contacted in his efforts to overturn the election of 2020. ... Special Counsel Jack Smith investigated this criminal effort by President Trump to overturn the election. So it's not surprising that Mr. Smith subpoenaed the call records of those the President tried to enlist in his conspiracy. To the extent the committee has questions about this, it should be former Special Counsel Smith testifying as a witness today before this committee, not three telecom companies who responded to legally issued subpoenas."
Defended or excusedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
At a February 10, 2026 Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing with telephone company executives, Sen. Dick Durbin said the hearing concerned a legal procedure, created by Congress and regularly deployed by federal prosecutors, to collect the toll records of people Donald Trump contacted in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and that it was not surprising Smith subpoenaed the call records of those Trump tried to enlist. He said Smith, not the phone companies, should be the witness.
After the statement
Durbin then quoted Smith's House testimony about the subpoenas for Republican senators' call records: "I did not choose those members. President Trump did." Grassley, in his opening remarks, said Smith's team obtained non-disclosure orders so members could not intervene.
Arctic Frost Accountability: Oversight of Telecommunications Carriers' Responses to Jack Smith's Witch Hunt (hearing video) · Senate Committee on the JudiciarySen. Dick Durbin's opening remarks, about 0:20:33 to 0:24:00 on the archived video timelineDurbin Delivers Opening Statement During Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing On Arctic Frost · Senate Committee on the JudiciaryKey Quotes sectionGrassley Demands Answers from Telecom Companies Who Turned Congressional Phone Records Over to Jack Smith · Senate Committee on the JudiciaryPrepared opening statement, paragraphs on the 84 subpoenas and the 20 membersWhy this label?
Durbin described the toll-record subpoenas as a routine legal procedure used against people Trump tried to enlist, not as improper conduct. That defends the collection as proper, so we labeled it Defended or excused.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
- Jamie RaskinU.S. representative from Maryland and Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee
Before this statement
Earlier in the opening statement, Raskin said that as rioters attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021, Trump and his team called members of Congress urging them to delay certification of the election. Just before this passage he told Smith he had followed every applicable law, ethics rule and Justice Department regulation.
"My colleagues have complained about the Special Counsel’s review of toll records, which are phone records like a phone bill showing only the timing and duration of calls and containing no content, no substance whatsoever from the calls. But those records were lawfully subpoenaed because Donald Trump made those Members of Congress relevant to the investigation. It was Trump who chose to call them to advance his criminal scheme."
Defended or excusedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
In his opening statement at the House Judiciary Committee's January 22, 2026 hearing with Smith, Rep. Jamie Raskin said Republicans had complained about the special counsel's review of toll records, which he described as phone records showing only the timing and duration of calls and no content. He said the records were lawfully subpoenaed because Donald Trump made those members of Congress relevant to the investigation by choosing to call them to advance what Raskin called a criminal scheme.
After the statement
Raskin added that Smith had testified that toll records for Democratic senators would have been obtained had Trump called them, and closed the passage by saying, "I trust our colleagues get the point, because America certainly gets the point."
Ranking Member Raskin's Opening Statement at Hearing with Special Counsel Jack Smith · House Committee on the JudiciaryOpening statement, paragraph beginning "My colleagues have complained about the Special Counsel's review of toll records"Why this label?
The case asks whether the collection of members' phone records and messages was proper. Raskin said the toll records were lawfully subpoenaed because Trump made those members relevant to the investigation. That defends the collection as proper, so we labeled it Defended or excused.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Administrative Office of the U.S. CourtsDirector of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, in a letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley (identical letters went to Rep. Jim Jordan and Sen. Ron Johnson)Before this statement
The November 20, 2025 letter from Grassley, Johnson and Jordan to Chief Judge Boasberg asked whether the special counsel's office told the court it sought records for sitting members of Congress and whether the court considered 2 U.S.C. section 6628. It said 19 of 45 nondisclosure orders on Verizon and AT&T subpoenas, including those for members' records, were signed by Boasberg, and asked for answers by December 4.
"As set forth in my previous letter of November 12, 2025, it would encroach upon the separation of powers and the independence of the Judiciary for judges to be required to explain their deliberative processes in reaching judicial decisions. ... Applications for NDOs typically do not attach the related subpoena; rather they identify the subject accounts only by a signifier — e.g., a phone number. As a result, NDO applications would not reveal whether a particular phone number belonged to a member of Congress."
Explicitly stayed outCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
Robert J. Conrad Jr., director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, replied on December 1, 2025 to a November 20 letter that asked Chief Judge James Boasberg to explain his nondisclosure orders. Conrad wrote that judges should not be required to explain their deliberative processes and that the matters remained under seal, and described general practice: applications typically identify accounts only by phone number, so they would not reveal whether a number belonged to a member of Congress.
After the statement
The Administrative Office's letter cited the Justice Department inspector general's December 2024 report, which found that department policy then did not require nondisclosure applications to say the records were a member's, and noted the department changed its manual in September 2024. As of September 29, 2026, we could not locate a public statement from Boasberg about the orders.
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to Sen. Chuck Grassley, December 1, 2025 (nondisclosure orders) · Administrative Office of the U.S. CourtsPages 1-3Why this label?
The Administrative Office did not say whether the orders were proper. It declined, on separation-of-powers grounds, to have judges explain their decisions, and supplied information about typical practice instead. Because the source records it expressly declining to address the judge's reasoning, we labeled it Explicitly stayed out.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Kash PatelDirector of the FBI, in an interview on Fox NewsBefore this statement
The first remark came as Patel answered Hannity's question about FBI results; the second answered Hannity's question about Jack Smith and senators' phone records. The interview aired the day after Grassley released an FBI document dated September 27, 2023 that lists preliminary toll analysis of limited toll records for nine members of Congress. Hannity asked Patel about the agents involved, and Patel said he had fired the agents and "blew up" the public corruption squad at the Washington Field Office.
"you don't force them to politicize law enforcement and lie to federal courts to attack your political opponents and get secret search warrants and go spy on members of Congress ... They took this information where they subpoenaed eight sitting United States senators, put it in a lockbox, put that lockbox in a vault, and then put that vault in a cyber place where no one can see or search these files. ... We found this information to expose the politicization by Jack Smith and the prior Department of Justice."
CondemnedCase context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Full statement and sources
In a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity, FBI Director Kash Patel said that prior Justice Department and FBI leadership subpoenaed eight sitting senators, put the information in a lockbox, put the lockbox in a vault and put the vault in a place where no one could see or search the files. He said the FBI found the information to expose the politicization by Jack Smith and the prior Justice Department. Earlier in the interview he said FBI agents do their job when they are not forced to politicize law enforcement, lie to federal courts, get secret search warrants and spy on members of Congress.
After the statement
Patel said accountability was coming and that the FBI was just warming up. Smith's attorneys wrote Grassley on October 21, 2025 that there was no support for Patel's assertion that Smith hid the toll-record information, and that the subpoena was "entirely proper, lawful, and consistent with established Department of Justice policy." On March 24, 2026 Grassley released two Smith subpoenas for Patel's own toll records, with the nondisclosure orders that kept them secret.
Patel: 'We're just warming up' in investigation of alleged tracking of GOP senators · Fox NewsFBI Director Kash Patel's answer to Sean Hannity's question about Jack Smith and senators' phone records, about 2:49 to 4:40 of the videoFBI Electronic Communication, "CAST Assistance," September 27, 2023 (released by Sen. Chuck Grassley) · Federal Bureau of InvestigationPage 1, list of members whose limited toll records were analyzedGrassley Releases New Arctic Frost Records, Raising Additional Questions about Jack Smith’s Conduct and Candor · Senate Committee on the JudiciaryPrepared opening statement, paragraphs on the list of 14 members and the Speech or Debate quotationPatel: 'We're just warming up' in investigation of alleged tracking of GOP senators · Fox NewsFBI Director Kash Patel's answer to Sean Hannity's question about FBI results, about 0:58 to 1:07 of the videoWhy this label?
Patel described the records of eight sitting senators as gathered and then hidden by prior leadership, and said the FBI found them "to expose the politicization by Jack Smith and the prior Department of Justice." He also said agents should not be forced to "go spy on members of Congress." That criticizes the collection as improper and politicized, so we labeled it Condemned.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(79)
Original video
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video)
Relevant passage: Full hearing, from Chairman Grassley's opening at about 0:21:40 to adjournment at about 4:27:00 on the archived video timeline
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the full September 29, 2026 hearing, which ran about four hours with Jack Smith as the only witness. The senators' questions on toll records, text messages and nondisclosure orders are spread across the hearing.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
House debates and passes the NDO Fairness Act
Relevant passage: Congressional Record H5266-H5268, Fitzgerald and Raskin remarks and final passage
About this source
Fitzgerald and Raskin support limits on secrecy orders but disagree about the propriety of Smith's congressional-record subpoenas. The House passes the bill; this source does not establish enactment.
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Grassley investigative update on Arctic Frost and the Special Counsel's Office
Relevant passage: October 14 memorandum, New Information section
About this source
Grassley describes newly reviewed subpoena returns and alleges collection beyond the investigation's proper scope.
- Author
- Chuck Grassley
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Special Counsel Speech or Debate litigation memoranda and emails
Relevant passage: January 8, 2023 memorandum from John M. Pellettieri and related emails
About this source
The released records describe the office's legal arguments and privilege-review procedures in the Scott Perry litigation.
- Author
- John M. Pellettieri and Special Counsel's Office colleagues
- Published
- Accessed
Interview
Grassley discusses Arctic Frost oversight with Scott Jennings
Relevant passage: Interview excerpts at 00:58 and 03:00; linked full video
About this source
Grassley repeats his objections to the investigation's scope, including collection of congressional and donor information.
- Author
- Chuck Grassley; interviewed by Scott Jennings
- Published
- Accessed
Interview
Jack Smith, Secret Subpoenas, and Senator Blackburn's Phone Records
Relevant passage: Unwritten Law episode 144, counsel's account of the suit and recusals
About this source
Blackburn's lawyers discuss their allegations and report that all four district judges in the Middle District of Tennessee have recused themselves.
- Author
- John Vecchione and Caitlin Moyna
- Published
- Accessed
Interview
Lawfare Daily: Excavating Arctic Frost
Relevant passage: Full Lawfare Daily discussion and transcript
About this source
Benjamin Wittes and Michael Feinberg examine the investigation's methods and objections raised by congressional critics.
- Author
- Benjamin Wittes and Michael Feinberg
- Published
- Accessed
Analysis
What every American needs to know about Jack Smith's Arctic Frost investigation
Relevant passage: Discussion of congressional communications records and constitutional limits
About this source
Mobbs criticizes the investigation's scope and calls for oversight grounded in principle rather than party.
- Author
- Meaghan Mobbs
- Published
- Accessed
Analysis
The Paranoid Style in American Oversight, Part II | Lawfare
Relevant passage: Discussion of congressional toll records and investigative relevance
About this source
Feinberg defends the toll-record requests and argues that public documents do not show improper investigative methods.
- Author
- Michael Feinberg
- Published
- Accessed
Interview
Mark Chenoweth criticizes the Smith investigation's nondisclosure
Relevant passage: Final Blackburn and Chenoweth paragraphs
About this source
Just the News reports its own interview with Chenoweth about Blackburn's suit. The interview date is not specified.
- Published
- Accessed
Interview
Margaret Harker discusses Blackburn's phone-records lawsuit
Relevant passage: 1:02-2:38 and 3:11-3:55
About this source
The complete Lars Larson interview covers the challenge to Smith's authority and the request for personal accountability. Harker's legal conclusions are advocacy.
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Grassley replies to Senate Judiciary Democrats about Jack Smith evidence
Relevant passage: Page 1, paragraph beginning Contrary to your misguided statement; page 2, opening paragraph on phone data; pages 3-4, access to records.
About this source
Grassley addresses Durbin and committee members in a letter dated October 8. The committee published the letter on October 9. His legal judgments are assertions in the letter.
- Author
- Chuck Grassley
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Senate Judiciary Democrats request committee records and an apology to Jack Smith
Relevant passage: Pages 1-2, opening request for an apology and discussion of Schmitt's basketball-game accusation; page 3, signatures.
About this source
The letter alleges violations of Senate records-access rules and criticizes accusations made during the September 29 hearing. Its assertions are the signers' position.
- Author
- Richard J. Durbin and nine Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Blackburn files lawsuit over Arctic Frost phone records
Relevant passage: Lines 101-108 and 118-124.
Excerpt
"This lawsuit is solely about holding Mr. Smith accountable and ensuring that our nation's justice system can never again be weaponized against the American people."
About this source
Blackburn's office says she filed a lawsuit against former special counsel Jack Smith over the subpoena of her cell phone toll records during the Arctic Frost investigation. The office says the complaint seeks a declaration that Smith's appointment was unlawful and one dollar in nominal damages. The filing does not decide whether the subpoenas or nondisclosure orders were lawful.
- Author
- Marsha Blackburn
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
NCLA statements supporting Blackburn's legal challenge
Relevant passage: Individually attributed statements by Blackburn, Harker, Moyna, Cleveland and Chenoweth.
About this source
Blackburn and her attorneys state their objections to the collection of her records.
- Author
- Marsha Blackburn; L. Margaret Harker; Caitlin M. Moyna; Margot Cleveland; Mark Chenoweth
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
Hagerty: "I filed a bar complaint against Jack Smith this morning"
Excerpt
"Mr. Smith violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by seeking and obtaining a nondisclosure order from a federal district court without advising the court of critical facts and law. The impact of his lack of candor was a violation of federal law, and an invasion of the very constitutional privileges that ensure a fully free legislative process."
About this source
Post by Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) at 11:05 a.m. ET on September 30, 2026, attaching his four-page complaint to R. Culver Schmid, chairman of the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. The complaint says the special counsel's subpoena to Verizon sought Hagerty's non-content call records, that a nondisclosure order kept him from learning of it in time to move to quash, and that Smith's motion for that order did not tell Chief Judge James Boasberg the records belonged to members of Congress or cite the Speech or Debate Clause or 2 U.S.C. 6628. It asks the board to investigate and pursue disbarment. The post reads in part, "Next up, @Verizon."
- Author
- Sen. Bill Hagerty
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
Hawley on Hannity: "He should be charged. He lied to Congress."
Sen. Josh Hawley tells Sean Hannity that Jack Smith should be charged, on Fox News's "Hannity," Sept. 29, 2026.
DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: Fox News (posted on X by @Acyn). Excerpt used for news reporting and commentary
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: 0:00 to 0:34 clip of Sen. Josh Hawley answering Sean Hannity on Fox News, from "Can he be charged? Will he be charged?" to "trying to get his hands on everything related to Donald Trump.")
Excerpt
"He should be charged. He lied to Congress. He lied to the House."
About this source
Clip posted by aggregator Acyn at 9:46 PM ET on September 29, 2026, of Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) answering Fox News host Sean Hannity on the evening of Jack Smith's Senate Judiciary hearing. The Fox News chyron identifies Hawley and the program, Hannity. Hannity's question asks whether Smith can and will be charged. Hawley says Smith should be charged and that Smith lied to Congress, citing a House deposition and the hearing testimony. DI transcribed the clip from its audio.
- Author
- Acyn
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Ranking Member Raskin's Opening Statement at Hearing with Special Counsel Jack Smith
Relevant passage: Opening statement, paragraph beginning "My colleagues have complained about the Special Counsel's review of toll records"
About this source
House Judiciary Committee Democrats' text of Ranking Member Jamie Raskin's opening remarks at the committee's January 22, 2026 hearing with Jack Smith. In one paragraph Raskin addresses Republican complaints about the toll records of members of Congress.
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
VIDEO: Blackburn Presses Phone Company Executives on Complicity in Jack Smith's Witch Hunt Against Conservatives
Relevant passage: First excerpt section, "Blackburn Calls Arctic Frost 'Worst Weaponization of Government in American History'"
About this source
Sen. Marsha Blackburn's office released abridged excerpts of her opening remarks at the February 10, 2026 Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Arctic Frost. The excerpts leave out some passages with ellipses, so the hearing video is the full record of her words.
- Published
- Accessed
Original video
Arctic Frost Accountability: Oversight of Telecommunications Carriers' Responses to Jack Smith's Witch Hunt (hearing video)
Sen. Marsha Blackburn's opening remarks at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Feb. 10, 2026 hearing on phone carriers' responses to Jack Smith's subpoenas.
Excerpt from 16:23 to 20:16 of the committee's archived hearing video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Sen. Marsha Blackburn's opening remarks, about 0:16:26 to 0:20:14 on the archived video timeline)
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the February 10, 2026 subcommittee hearing. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, who chaired the subcommittee, said five members of the Judiciary Committee had their phone records subpoenaed and criticized the nondisclosure orders.
- Published
- Accessed
Original video
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video)
Sen. Adam Schiff's remarks to former special counsel Jack Smith at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Sept. 29, 2026 hearing.
Excerpt from 3:44:47 to 3:54:57 of the committee's archived hearing video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Sen. Adam Schiff's remarks to Smith, about 3:44:50 to 3:45:24 and 3:53:32 to 3:53:41 on the archived video timeline)
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Sen. Adam Schiff said Republican senators had not objected when an earlier Justice Department sought members' toll records, and said members' toll records were requested as witnesses, not targets.
- Published
- Accessed
Original video
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video)
Sen. Katie Britt's questions to former special counsel Jack Smith on subpoenas, nondisclosure orders and the separation of powers, at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Sept. 29, 2026 hearing.
Excerpt from 2:15:30 to 2:18:28 of the committee's archived hearing video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Sen. Katie Britt's questions to Smith on subpoenas, nondisclosure orders and the separation of powers, about 2:15:33 to 2:18:26 on the archived video timeline)
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Sen. Katie Britt gave figures for the subpoenas, asked whether Smith believed senators would have tampered with evidence, and described what she said was the actual reason for the nondisclosure orders.
- Published
- Accessed
Original video
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video)
Sen. Mike Lee's questions to former special counsel Jack Smith on toll records, the Public Integrity Section and nondisclosure orders, at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Sept. 29, 2026 hearing.
Excerpt from 2:36:29 to 2:43:05 of the committee's archived hearing video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Sen. Mike Lee's questions to Smith on toll records, the Public Integrity Section and nondisclosure orders, about 2:36:32 to 2:39:30 and 2:41:43 to 2:43:03 on the archived video timeline)
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Sen. Mike Lee asked Smith about the Public Integrity Section's warnings, the nondisclosure orders and what Smith's office told Chief Judge James Boasberg, and described the NDO Fairness Act.
- Published
- Accessed
Original video
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video)
Sen. John Kennedy's questions to former special counsel Jack Smith on senators' phone records and nondisclosure orders, at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Sept. 29, 2026 hearing.
Excerpt from 1:29:10 to 1:31:09 of the committee's archived hearing video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Sen. John Kennedy's questions to Smith on senators' phone records and nondisclosure orders, about 1:29:13 to 1:31:07 on the archived video timeline)
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Sen. John Kennedy asked Smith whether he sought senators' phone records, whether he knew that violated the Speech or Debate Clause, and whether he told the judge the records were members'.
- Published
- Accessed
Interview
Patel: 'We're just warming up' in investigation of alleged tracking of GOP senators
FBI Director Kash Patel answers a question about FBI crime-fighting results on Fox News's "Hannity," Oct. 7, 2025.
Excerpt from 0:20 to 1:19 of the Fox News video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: Fox News. Excerpt used for news reporting and commentary
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: FBI Director Kash Patel's answer to Sean Hannity's question about FBI results, about 0:58 to 1:07 of the video)
About this source
Fox News video of Patel's interview with Sean Hannity. Early in the interview, answering a question about FBI results, Patel said agents do their job when they are not forced to politicize law enforcement, lie to federal courts, get secret search warrants and spy on members of Congress.
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Sen. Lindsey Graham dies at 71 from aortic dissection, according to medical examiner's preliminary findings
Relevant passage: Article, first paragraph and biography section (sister Darline)
About this source
CBS News report on Sen. Lindsey Graham's death on a Saturday evening in July 2026. It also identifies Darline as his younger sister.
- Published
- Accessed
Original video
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse's questions to former special counsel Jack Smith on toll records, at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Sept. 29, 2026 hearing.
Excerpt from 4:04:04 to 4:09:22 of the committee's archived hearing video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse's questions to Smith on toll records, about 4:04:07 to 4:09:20 on the archived video timeline)
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) compared Smith's toll-record subpoenas and nondisclosure orders with those of the Justice Department in the first Trump administration.
- Published
- Accessed
Original video
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video)
Sen. Darline Graham's remarks and questions to former special counsel Jack Smith at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Sept. 29, 2026 hearing.
Excerpt from 3:35:43 to 3:43:23 of the committee's archived hearing video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Sen. Darline Graham's remarks and questions to Smith, about 3:35:46 to 3:43:21 on the archived video timeline)
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Sen. Darline Graham (R-SC) said Smith's office had secured a subpoena for the phone records of her brother, Sen. Lindsey Graham, and questioned the nondisclosure order; Smith answered that Lindsey Graham was not a target of the investigation.
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Albuquerque Journal: US Senate payout provision repealed
Relevant passage: Full article, as posted on Sen. Martin Heinrich's website
About this source
Albuquerque Journal report, posted on the website of Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), that Congress repealed the funding-law measure letting senators sue for $500,000 over subpoenaed phone records, in appropriations bills President Donald Trump signed on the Tuesday before publication.
- Author
- Cathy Cook
- Published
- Accessed
Original video
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video)
Sen. Richard Blumenthal gives former special counsel Jack Smith time to respond to Sen. Katie Britt, at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Sept. 29, 2026 hearing.
Excerpt from 2:20:09 to 2:21:17 of the committee's archived hearing video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Sen. Richard Blumenthal's opening questions, in which he gives Smith time to respond to Sen. Katie Britt, about 2:20:12 to 2:21:15 on the archived video timeline)
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Sen. Richard Blumenthal gave Smith part of his time to respond to Sen. Katie Britt's questions, and Smith explained why his office sought the nondisclosure orders.
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Most GOP senators whose phone records were searched won't seek damages under new law
Relevant passage: Paragraphs on the $500,000 provision and senators' responses
About this source
CBS News report on the November 2025 funding-law provision that let senators sue for $500,000 if their data was obtained without required notice, and on senators' statements about whether they would sue.
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Rep. Jim Jordan refers Jack Smith for possible prosecution, saying he have have misled on Trump probe
Relevant passage: Paragraphs on the December 2025 exchange and the Justice Department statement
About this source
Associated Press report, published by PBS News, on Jordan's July 22, 2026 referral of Smith and the responses of Smith's lawyers, Rep. Jamie Raskin and the Justice Department.
- Author
- Eric Tucker, Associated Press
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Rep. Jim Jordan formally asks DOJ to prosecute Jack Smith over congressional testimony
Relevant passage: Paragraphs on the Justice Department's confirmation of receipt and Smith's lawyers' response
About this source
NBC News report on Jordan's July 22, 2026 referral, the Justice Department's statement that it will investigate all evidence of criminal conduct, and the responses of Smith's lawyers and Rep. Jamie Raskin.
- Author
- Kyla Guilfoil
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Jack Smith defends handling of Trump probes at heated Senate hearing
Relevant passage: Live updates for 9:22 AM, 10:11 AM, 10:39 AM, 12:41 PM and 12:52 PM
About this source
CBS News live coverage of the September 29, 2026 hearing, including Smith's answers to Durbin and Cruz and his testimony that the strongest witnesses in the election case were Republicans.
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Senators gear up for Judiciary clash with Jack Smith
Relevant passage: Paragraph beginning "No court has found wrongdoing"
About this source
Roll Call's preview of the September 29, 2026 hearing. It reports that no court has found wrongdoing by Smith or his prosecutors in the probes themselves.
- Author
- Michael Macagnone
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Rep. Fitzgerald's NDO Fairness Act Passes House of Representatives
Relevant passage: Full release
About this source
Rep. Scott Fitzgerald's (R-WI) release saying the House passed his NDO Fairness Act unanimously on August 31, 2026. It links the bill to Smith's use of nondisclosure orders for members' phone records.
- Author
- Scott Fitzgerald
- Published
- Accessed
Interview
Patel: 'We're just warming up' in investigation of alleged tracking of GOP senators
FBI Director Kash Patel answers a question about Jack Smith and the phone records of Republican senators on Fox News's "Hannity," Oct. 7, 2025.
Excerpt from 2:49 to 4:41 of the Fox News video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: Fox News. Excerpt used for news reporting and commentary
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: FBI Director Kash Patel's answer to Sean Hannity's question about Jack Smith and senators' phone records, about 2:49 to 4:40 of the video)
About this source
Fox News video of FBI Director Kash Patel's interview with host Sean Hannity, posted October 7, 2025. Patel answered a question about the FBI's handling of records on eight senators.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Statement of Michael J. Romano, Former Deputy Chief, Capitol Siege Section, before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, February 10, 2026
Relevant passage: Page 1, paragraphs on toll records and nondisclosure orders
About this source
Written testimony by Michael Romano, a former deputy chief of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia's Capitol Siege Section, on toll records and nondisclosure orders in criminal investigations.
- Author
- Michael J. Romano
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Statement of Dan Schwager before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, February 10, 2026
Relevant passage: Pages 4-5
About this source
Written testimony by Dan Schwager, a former state and federal corruption prosecutor who worked in the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, on toll records, nondisclosure orders and the Speech or Debate Clause.
- Author
- Dan Schwager
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Testimony of David R. McAtee II, Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel, AT&T Inc., before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, February 10, 2026
Relevant passage: Pages 2-3, section on the special counsel grand jury subpoenas
About this source
AT&T's written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law about the subpoenas it received from the special counsel's office in 2022 and 2023.
- Author
- David R. McAtee II
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Testimony of Chris Miller, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Verizon Consumer, before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, February 10, 2026
Relevant passage: Pages 1-3
About this source
Verizon's written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law about the special counsel subpoenas it received and the changes it has made in handling requests involving members of Congress.
- Author
- Chris Miller
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
NEW: Jack Smith Subpoenaed Records for Over 400 Republican Targets As Part of Arctic Frost
Relevant passage: Full release
About this source
The committee majority's release of 197 subpoenas, sent to 34 individuals and 163 businesses, that it says requested records related to at least 430 named Republican individuals and entities.
- Author
- Chuck Grassley
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Grassley Releases New Arctic Frost Records, Raising Additional Questions about Jack Smith’s Conduct and Candor
Relevant passage: Prepared opening statement, paragraphs on the list of 14 members and the Speech or Debate quotation
About this source
The committee majority's release of Grassley's prepared opening statement at the March 24, 2026 subcommittee hearing, describing records dated January 2023 that name 14 members of Congress.
- Author
- Chuck Grassley
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Grassley Demands Answers from Telecom Companies Who Turned Congressional Phone Records Over to Jack Smith
Relevant passage: Prepared opening statement, paragraphs on the 84 subpoenas and the 20 members
About this source
The committee majority's release of Grassley's prepared opening statement at the February 10, 2026 subcommittee hearing, including his count of subpoenas to Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile.
- Author
- Chuck Grassley
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
A Review of the Department of Justice's Issuance of Compulsory Process to Obtain Records of Members of Congress, Congressional Staffers, and Members of the News Media (Report 25-010)
Relevant passage: Chapter One, pages 1-6; Chapter Two, pages 40-49
About this source
The Justice Department inspector general's December 2024 report on leak investigations opened in 2017. It found the department obtained non-content records of two Democratic members of Congress and 43 congressional staffers, and it addresses nondisclosure orders. It is not a review of Arctic Frost or Smith's investigation.
- Author
- Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
In re: Sealed Case, No. 23-3001 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 5, 2023, reissued Sept. 13, 2023)
Relevant passage: Pages 2-4, summary of the holding
About this source
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's opinion on Rep. Scott Perry's claim that the Speech or Debate Clause barred review of messages on his phone, which the FBI seized under a search warrant in August 2022. It does not address toll-record subpoenas.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Lanny A. Breuer and Peter Koski to Jim Jordan and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, July 22, 2026
Relevant passage: Pages 1-3
About this source
Smith's attorneys' reply to Jordan's referral. It also states Smith's position that the filter team did not need to review the National Archives records and that the Speech or Debate Clause was not implicated by them.
- Author
- Lanny A. Breuer and Peter Koski
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Jim Jordan to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, July 22, 2026 (referral of Jack Smith)
Relevant passage: Pages 1-6
About this source
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan's letter asking the Justice Department to investigate whether Smith made false statements in his December 17, 2025 deposition about records of members of Congress.
- Author
- Jim Jordan
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
NEWS: Jack Smith’s Investigative Team Secretly Obtained Text Messages from 44 Members of Congress Amid Trump Probe
Relevant passage: Full release, including the list of 44 members
About this source
The Senate Judiciary Committee majority's release of the Justice Department letter, with statements by Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and the list of members.
- Author
- Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
U.S. Department of Justice (Assistant Attorney General Patrick D. Davis) to Sen. Chuck Grassley, July 2026 (Arctic Frost filter team)
Relevant passage: Pages 1-4, including the list of 44 current and former members of Congress
About this source
The Justice Department's Office of Legislative Affairs letter answering a May 8, 2026 request from Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson. It describes the filter team, the National Archives production of White House text messages on August 21, 2023, and lists 44 current and former members whose texts with White House personnel the special counsel's team obtained.
- Author
- Patrick D. Davis
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to Sen. Chuck Grassley, December 1, 2025 (nondisclosure orders)
Relevant passage: Pages 1-3
About this source
The federal judiciary's administrative office replied to the November 20, 2025 letter. Identical letters went to Rep. Jim Jordan and Sen. Ron Johnson, and Sen. Dick Durbin was copied.
- Author
- Robert J. Conrad, Jr.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Grassley, Johnson and Jordan to Chief Judge James E. Boasberg, November 20, 2025 (nondisclosure orders)
Relevant passage: Pages 1-3
About this source
Letter from Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson and Rep. Jim Jordan asking the chief judge of the D.C. federal district court eight questions about the nondisclosure orders he signed in Arctic Frost and special counsel subpoenas.
- Author
- Chuck Grassley, Ron Johnson and Jim Jordan
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Lanny A. Breuer and Peter Koski to Sen. Chuck Grassley, October 21, 2025 (Investigation of Jack Smith)
Relevant passage: Pages 1-4
About this source
Letter from Smith's attorneys responding to Grassley and other senators about the grand jury subpoena for toll records of eight senators and one House member. It also answers statements by FBI Director Kash Patel.
- Author
- Lanny A. Breuer and Peter Koski
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
AT&T to Sen. Chuck Grassley, October 24, 2025 (toll records)
Relevant passage: Page 1
About this source
AT&T's letter to Grassley about special counsel subpoenas. AT&T later told the committee it had produced records in response to two January 2023 subpoenas for a sitting member, as its general counsel described in February 2026 testimony.
- Author
- David Chorzempa
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Verizon to Sen. Chuck Grassley, October 24, 2025 (toll records)
Relevant passage: Pages 1-4
About this source
Verizon's letter to Grassley describing the May 25, 2023 grand jury subpoena from the special counsel's office, its date range, the nondisclosure order and the records Verizon produced.
- Author
- Robert S. Fisher
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Biden FBI Spied on Eight Republican Senators as Part of Arctic Frost Investigation, Grassley Oversight Reveals
Relevant passage: Full release
About this source
The Senate Judiciary Committee majority's release of the FBI document and Grassley's statement. It gives the committee's count of the senators and House member involved and the January 4 through 7, 2021 period.
- Author
- Chuck Grassley
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
FBI Electronic Communication, "CAST Assistance," September 27, 2023 (released by Sen. Chuck Grassley)
Relevant passage: Page 1, list of members whose limited toll records were analyzed
About this source
A redacted FBI Washington Field Office document that Grassley released on October 6, 2025. It says an FBI special agent conducted preliminary toll analysis of limited toll records for nine named members of Congress.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
How Jack Smith and the Biden-Harris Department of Justice Disregarded the Separation of Powers to Spy on Their Political Opposition (Interim Staff Report)
Relevant passage: Executive summary, pages 1-5; Section I, pages 7-41; Section II, pages 42-53; index of exhibits, pages 55-56
About this source
The House Judiciary Committee's interim staff report, released under Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH). It argues that toll-record subpoenas and nondisclosure orders in Arctic Frost and Smith's investigation were unconstitutional and quotes from prosecutors' interviews, Smith's deposition and hearing testimony, and Justice Department emails.
- Author
- House Committee on the Judiciary
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Arctic Frost | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Relevant passage: Timeline entries for April 4, 2022, April 13, 2022 and November 18, 2022, and the list of press releases and document releases
About this source
The Senate Judiciary Committee majority's page on Arctic Frost. It presents the Republican majority's account and links to its releases, letters and document productions.
- Accessed
Official statement
Durbin Delivers Opening Statement During Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing On Arctic Frost
Relevant passage: Key Quotes section
About this source
The committee Democrats' release of excerpts from Durbin's opening statement at the February 10, 2026 subcommittee hearing. The wording of his delivered remarks differs slightly from the excerpts.
- Author
- Dick Durbin
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Durbin Delivers Opening Statement During Judiciary Committee Hearing With Former Special Counsel Jack Smith
Relevant passage: Key Quotes section
About this source
Sen. Dick Durbin's office's release of excerpts from his opening statement at the September 29, 2026 hearing, including his statement that there was nothing untoward about the investigation.
- Author
- Dick Durbin
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Grassley Opens Senate Judiciary Oversight Hearing on Arctic Frost and Jack Smith’s Abuse of Authority
Relevant passage: Prepared opening statement, paragraphs on toll records, Speech or Debate, Non-Disclosure Orders and the 44 Members
About this source
The committee majority's posting of Chairman Grassley's prepared opening statement for the September 29, 2026 hearing. The wording of his delivered remarks differs slightly in places.
- Author
- Chuck Grassley
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Statement of Jack Smith, Former Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, September 29, 2026
Relevant passage: Pages 1-2, paragraphs on Justice Department policy and on threats of prosecution
About this source
Smith's written statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, posted on the committee's hearing page. It describes his approach as special counsel in general terms; his remarks on the toll records and text messages came in answers to senators' questions.
- Author
- Jack Smith
- Published
- Accessed
Original video
Arctic Frost Accountability: Oversight of Telecommunications Carriers' Responses to Jack Smith's Witch Hunt (hearing video)
Sen. Dick Durbin's opening remarks at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Feb. 10, 2026 hearing on phone carriers' responses to Jack Smith's subpoenas.
Excerpt from 20:30 to 24:02 of the committee's archived hearing video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Sen. Dick Durbin's opening remarks, about 0:20:33 to 0:24:00 on the archived video timeline)
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the February 10, 2026 subcommittee hearing with representatives of AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon and two former prosecutors. Durbin, the committee's ranking member, spoke before Chairman Grassley.
- Published
- Accessed
Original video
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video)
Sen. Josh Hawley's questions and former special counsel Jack Smith's answers, through Smith's closing response, at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Sept. 29, 2026 hearing.
Excerpt from 4:18:37 to 4:26:27 of the committee's archived hearing video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Sen. Josh Hawley's questions and Smith's answers, about 4:18:40 to 4:21:10, and Smith's closing response at about 4:26:06 to 4:26:25 on the archived video timeline)
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Sen. Josh Hawley questioned Smith about the Speech or Debate Clause, the nondisclosure orders and the court, and Smith answered.
- Published
- Accessed
Original video
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse's questions on toll records, wiretaps, text messages and nondisclosure orders, at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Sept. 29, 2026 hearing with former special counsel Jack Smith.
Excerpt from 4:04:49 to 4:12:28 of the committee's archived hearing video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse's questions on toll records, wiretaps, text messages and nondisclosure orders, about 4:04:52 to 4:12:26 on the archived video timeline)
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse compared Smith's toll-record subpoenas and nondisclosure orders with the Justice Department's practice in the first Trump administration.
- Published
- Accessed
Original video
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video)
Sen. Cory Booker's remarks to former special counsel Jack Smith at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Sept. 29, 2026 hearing.
Excerpt from 3:29:53 to 3:30:47 of the committee's archived hearing video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Sen. Cory Booker's remarks to Smith, about 3:29:56 to 3:30:45 on the archived video timeline)
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Sen. Cory Booker responded to Republican claims that the investigation was partisan and said his own records and text messages were among those obtained.
- Published
- Accessed
Original video
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video)
Sen. Ted Cruz's questions and former special counsel Jack Smith's answers on nondisclosure orders, at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Sept. 29, 2026 hearing.
Excerpt from 3:16:57 to 3:20:17 of the committee's archived hearing video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Sen. Ted Cruz's questions and Smith's answers on nondisclosure orders and 2 U.S.C. section 6628, about 3:17:00 to 3:20:15 on the archived video timeline)
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Sen. Ted Cruz read language from a nondisclosure order, asked Smith about a federal statute on Senate communication records, and Smith explained why his office sought the orders.
- Published
- Accessed
Original video
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video)
Sen. Mike Lee's questions about subpoenas, the Public Integrity Section and the judge who signed the orders, at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Sept. 29, 2026 hearing with former special counsel Jack Smith.
Excerpt from 2:37:27 to 2:39:17 of the committee's archived hearing video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Sen. Mike Lee's questions about subpoenas, the Public Integrity Section and the judge who signed the orders, about 2:37:30 to 2:39:15 on the archived video timeline)
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Sen. Mike Lee gave figures for the subpoenas and asked Smith whether his office told the judge the subpoenas were for members of Congress, and Smith answered.
- Published
- Accessed
Original video
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video)
Sen. Katie Britt's question about subpoenas for members' toll records and nondisclosure orders, at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Sept. 29, 2026 hearing with former special counsel Jack Smith.
Excerpt from 2:15:37 to 2:16:32 of the committee's archived hearing video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Sen. Katie Britt's question about subpoenas for members' toll records and nondisclosure orders, about 2:15:40 to 2:16:30 on the archived video timeline)
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Sen. Katie Britt gave figures for the subpoenas and members she said were affected and asked Smith about the reasons stated in the nondisclosure orders.
- Published
- Accessed
Original video
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video)
Sen. Chris Coons's questions on nondisclosure orders, at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Sept. 29, 2026 hearing with former special counsel Jack Smith.
Excerpt from 1:40:57 to 1:43:12 of the committee's archived hearing video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Sen. Chris Coons's questions on nondisclosure orders, about 1:41:00 to 1:43:10 on the archived video timeline)
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Coons used the end of his time to ask Smith about nondisclosure orders and to describe legislation he sponsors with Sen. Mike Lee.
- Published
- Accessed
Original video
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video)
Sen. Eric Schmitt's question about members' emails and text messages and former special counsel Jack Smith's answer, at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Sept. 29, 2026 hearing.
Excerpt from 1:52:53 to 1:54:11 of the committee's archived hearing video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Sen. Eric Schmitt's question about members' emails and text messages and Smith's answer, about 1:52:56 to 1:54:09 on the archived video timeline)
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Schmitt asked whether Smith's office sought the contents of members of Congress's emails or text messages, and Smith answered about toll records and White House phones.
- Published
- Accessed
Original video
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video)
Sen. Dick Durbin's questions and former special counsel Jack Smith's answers on toll records and wiretaps, at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Sept. 29, 2026 hearing.
Excerpt from 1:10:37 to 1:18:17 of the committee's archived hearing video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Sen. Dick Durbin's questions and Jack Smith's answers on toll records and wiretaps, about 1:10:40 to 1:18:15 on the archived video timeline)
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. Durbin asked Smith what involvement his office had with information from members of Congress, and Smith described the toll records his office obtained.
- Published
- Accessed
Original video
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video)
Chairman Chuck Grassley's opening remarks at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Sept. 29, 2026 hearing with former special counsel Jack Smith.
Excerpt from 31:36 to 37:25 of the committee's archived hearing video. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Chairman Grassley's opening remarks, about 0:31:39 to 0:37:05 on the archived video timeline (toll-record passages at 0:31:44-0:32:26 and 0:36:42-0:37:05))
About this source
Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the September 29, 2026 hearing. In his opening remarks Chairman Chuck Grassley gave the committee majority's account of the toll records, the text messages and the nondisclosure orders.
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Golden State Warriors at Atlanta Hawks Box Score, February 3, 2024
Relevant passage: Box score: date, arena and final score
About this source
Basketball-Reference box score for the Warriors-Hawks NBA game played February 3, 2024 at State Farm Arena in Atlanta.
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Iowa 93-85 Maryland (Feb 3, 2024) Final Score - ESPN
Relevant passage: Game page: final score, venue and player statistics
About this source
ESPN game page for the Iowa-Maryland women's basketball game played February 3, 2024 at the Xfinity Center in College Park, Maryland.
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Live updates: Jack Smith defends Trump investigations amid grilling from GOP senators
Relevant passage: Live blog entry on Sen. Eric Schmitt's exchange with Jack Smith, Sen. Amy Klobuchar's closing remarks and Schmitt's comments outside the hearing room
Excerpt
"We’ll find out. That’s going to be up to a prosecutor to determine. My job here today was to ask questions and get answers."
About this source
NBC News live blog entry reporting Schmitt's questions to Smith about the February 3, 2024 game, Klobuchar's closing remarks about the Iowa-Maryland game, and Schmitt's comments to NBC News outside the hearing room.
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters
Relevant passage: Committee hearing page for the September 29, 2026, 9:00 a.m. hearing, Hart Senate Office Building Room 216
Excerpt
"Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters. Witness: Jack Smith, Former Special Counsel, Department of Justice, Washington, DC."
About this source
The Senate Judiciary Committee's own hearing page, confirming the hearing's title, date, time, room, and witness.
- Published
- Accessed
Original video
Sen. Klobuchar Clashes with Sen. Schmitt After He Mistakenly Claims Jack Smith Attended NBA Game in Atlanta
Sen. Eric Schmitt asks former special counsel Jack Smith about an NBA game in Atlanta, Smith answers, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar responds, at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Sept. 29, 2026 hearing.
Excerpt from about 1:50:45 to 1:57:57 of the Senate Judiciary Committee's archived video of the hearing. The C-SPAN recording cited for this source shows the same exchange. DI added its logo in the corner.
Video: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Public domain (U.S. government work) (opens in a new tab)
Watch the full original video (opens in a new tab) (relevant passage: Clip runtime 0:00-7:11. Sen. Schmitt's opening question and the text-message poster exchange run from 0:00-1:35. Jack Smith's Maryland-Iowa clarification and Sen. Klobuchar's on-the-record correction run from approximately 5:20-7:11.)
Excerpt
"Did you go to an NBA game between the Golden State Warriors and the Atlanta Hawks on February 3rd, 2024? ... I definitely did not go to a Hawks game. I'm sure of that. ... It was Maryland playing Iowa, I think, February of 2024. ... I think that people should have their facts straight before they accuse someone of being a dirtbag and not get the teams wrong. ... You had the teams wrong, sir."
About this source
C-SPAN video clip of the September 29, 2026 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing at which Jack Smith testified. The clip covers Sen. Eric Schmitt's questions about Smith's attendance at a February 3, 2024 basketball game, Smith's denial and later clarification, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar's real-time correction. DI reviewed the audio directly to verify the exact wording of this exchange rather than relying on news paraphrase.
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/were-members-of-congresss-phone-records-and-texts-properly-obtained-in-arctic-frost
The Dispute Index. "Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?". First published: 2026-09-29. Last updated: 2026-10-10. https://disputeindex.com/cases/were-members-of-congresss-phone-records-and-texts-properly-obtained-in-arctic-frost