House Judiciary Republican staff report says investigators "unconstitutionally subpoenaed phone records for over a dozen Republican Members of Congress"
Interim staff report by Republican staff of the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
“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.”
Source and context
Original text
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.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
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.
After the quotation
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 this statement is classified
Responding 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.
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why 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.
- 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