Cruz says the nondisclosure orders were "explicitly contrary to federal statute" and "explicitly contrary to the federal constitution"
U.S. senator from Texas, questioning Smith at the Senate Judiciary hearing
“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.”
Source and context
Original video
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.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
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.
After the quotation
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.
How this statement is classified
Case context: Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why 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.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Jack Smith
Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full case“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.”Read statement
“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.”Read statement
“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.”Read statement