Lee says the Public Integrity Section warned of "litigation risks due to these constitutional privileges"

Mike LeeU.S. senator from Utah and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee; co-sponsor with Sen. Chris Coons of the NDO Fairness Act

Condemned

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)

Watch this clip on its own page

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."

“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.”

Original video

Watch the original video (opens in a new tab)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 timeline

Case updates

Following the fight over members' phone records in Arctic Frost?

Get an email if Blackburn's lawsuit or Hagerty's bar complaint produces a ruling, if the Senate acts on subpoena-notice rules, or if Smith responds.

Important updates only. Free. Confirm your email to start. Unsubscribe anytime. How we handle your email.

The Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C., photographed from across a street on a clear day.
Credit: Architect of the Capitol

Where this statement fits

Were members of Congress's phone records and text messages properly obtained in the Arctic Frost and Jack Smith investigations?

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 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.

Read the full case

Source and context

Original video

Oversight of Jack Smith's Abuse of Authority and the Targeting of Republicans and Related Matters (hearing video) (opens in a new tab) · 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 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.

Archived copy (opens in a new tab)

Watch the clip from this source at the top of the page.

Before the quotation

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.

After the quotation

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.

How this statement is classified

Condemned

The label describes this statement's response within the context above.

Why 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.

Recorded on
Published here

More from this case

Read the full case

Share or embed this statement

Quote card: Mike Lee, Lee says the Public Integrity Section warned of "litigation risks due to these constitutional privileges"Download image (PNG)

The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.

Cite this record

Publisher
The Dispute Index
Title
Lee says the Public Integrity Section warned of "litigation risks due to these constitutional privileges"
First published
Last updated
Permalink
https://disputeindex.com/events/3348-in-his-questioning-of-smith-sen-mike-lee

Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.

The Dispute Index. "Lee says the Public Integrity Section warned of "litigation risks due to these constitutional privileges"". First published: 2026-09-29. Last updated: 2026-09-29. https://disputeindex.com/events/3348-in-his-questioning-of-smith-sen-mike-lee