Senate Republicans say documents showing investigators accessed private messages belonging to 44 lawmakers conflict with Jack Smith’s congressional testimony that requested telephone records did not include message content.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Newly released records showing that former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigative team accessed private text messages belonging to more than 40 members of Congress are prompting Republican senators to question whether Smith gave false testimony when he appeared before lawmakers last year.
The documents indicate that investigators examined message content from 44 lawmakers during Smith’s inquiry into President Donald Trump’s challenge to the 2020 election results, according to a follow-up report by Just the News.
That disclosure appears to conflict with Smith’s response during his December congressional appearance, when he was asked whether telephone records sought by his office included the substance of lawmakers’ text messages.
“Did you request that the toll records from the members of Congress include the content of text messages,” a congressional investigator asked.
“No,” Smith answered.
The newly released material shows that Smith’s team nevertheless obtained access to private texts from 44 individual lawmakers, according to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee also said investigators apparently bypassed the Justice Department’s established Filter Team, which is ordinarily responsible for identifying and separating communications protected by constitutional, attorney-client or other legal privileges.
“Communications from Members of Congress pertaining to their official legislative duties are protected from criminal prosecution under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause,” the committee said in a press release. “Bypassing a Filter Team evades consideration of additional privileges, such as attorney-client privilege.”
The Speech or Debate Clause in Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution protects lawmakers from being questioned elsewhere about legitimate legislative acts. The protection is intended to prevent the executive and judicial branches from using criminal or civil proceedings to interfere with congressional duties.
Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee now say the Justice Department should determine whether Smith knowingly misrepresented the scope of his team’s actions.
Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully make materially false statements in matters within the jurisdiction of Congress or the federal government. A violation can carry a prison sentence of up to five years.
“Under 18 USC § 1001, knowingly making false statements to Congress is a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison,” Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., said in a social media statement. “It looks like that’s exactly what Jack Smith did.”
Schmitt called for criminal scrutiny again Wednesday.
“Jack Smith should be subject to prosecution for lying to Congress,” Schmitt said.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., offered a similar assessment after reviewing the disclosures.
“Looks like perjury,” Hawley wrote on X.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche addressed the issue Wednesday during a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing. When Hawley asked whether Smith’s prior congressional statements should be investigated, Blanche indicated that the department could examine the matter.
“We take testimony in front of this body very seriously, yes,” Blanche said.
The new controversy centers on the scope and methods of Smith’s investigation into Trump, Republican lawmakers, political organizations and others connected to the effort to challenge the 2020 presidential election results and the events of Jan. 6, 2021.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, previously disclosed records showing that Smith’s office issued nearly 200 subpoenas through the investigation linked to the FBI operation code-named Arctic Frost.
Those demands reportedly sought information involving more than 400 Republican individuals and organizations, including more than 160 Republicans with close political or professional connections to Trump.
Smith was appointed special counsel in November 2022 by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland. He was assigned to lead two criminal investigations involving Trump: one focused on the handling of classified documents and another examining alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Trump was indicted in both matters. The cases were later dropped after he won the 2024 presidential election, and Smith subsequently resigned.
Arctic Frost was one of four successive federal investigations involving Trump and his associates from the summer of 2016 through January 2025. The other inquiries carried the code names Crossfire Hurricane, Round River and Plasmic Echo, according to an earlier Just the News report.
The first congressional release of FBI records related to lawmakers’ telephone data came in 2025. Those declassified documents showed that records connected to eight Republican senators and one Republican House member had been collected during the investigation surrounding Jan. 6.
Grassley said the FBI “sought and obtained data about the senators’ phone use” in 2023 as investigators examined Trump’s conduct surrounding the Capitol riot.
Attorneys representing Smith have defended the acquisition of lawmakers’ phone records, arguing that the investigative steps were lawful.
Grassley has characterized the broader Arctic Frost operation as a major abuse of federal law enforcement authority.
“Based on the evidence to-date, Arctic Frost and related weaponization by federal law enforcement under Biden was arguably worse than Watergate,” Grassley said in a statement released last October.
“What I’ve uncovered today is disturbing and outrageous political conduct by the Biden FBI,” he continued. “The FBI’s actions were an unconstitutional breach, and [then-] Attorney General Bondi and Director Patel need to hold accountable those involved in this serious wrongdoing.”
Smith has also faced scrutiny over the degree of involvement by senior Justice Department and FBI officials in authorizing and overseeing Arctic Frost.
Grassley released documents last October showing that Garland, then-Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and then-FBI Director Christopher Wray approved the opening of the investigation into Trump’s conduct related to Jan. 6.
Trump and other Republicans have repeatedly accused Smith, the Justice Department and the FBI of attempting to influence the 2024 election by pursuing indictments, trials and potential convictions before voters went to the polls.
The FBI searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida in August 2022 under authorization from Garland. Three months later, Garland appointed Smith to oversee the classified documents and election-related investigations.
Documents released by Grassley in September showed that Arctic Frost also examined numerous Republican officials and organizations.
A January 2023 FBI document identified investigative “targets” that included Donald J. Trump for President Inc., Turning Point USA, the Republican Attorneys General Association, the America First Policy Institute, the Save America PAC and the Conservative Partnership Institute, along with additional Republican-aligned groups and individuals.
The latest disclosures have shifted congressional attention from whether investigators obtained lawmakers’ telephone metadata to whether they also viewed the contents of constitutionally protected communications despite Smith’s testimony.
The central question is now whether Smith’s answer accurately reflected the records formally requested by his office, whether investigators obtained message content through another process or whether his testimony failed to disclose the full scope of what his team accessed.
Republican senators say the apparent contradiction warrants a Justice Department investigation. No criminal determination has been announced, and the newly released records alone do not establish that Smith knowingly made a false statement.
The documents, however, have intensified congressional scrutiny of Arctic Frost, the handling of privileged communications and the extent to which federal investigators examined the activities of sitting lawmakers during a politically sensitive investigation.
Original article
Comments