Jack Smith Obtained the Emails of Hundreds of Republicans and Conservative-Leaning Journalists; Claims He Had to Subpoena the Entire Conservative Movement to Decide If Everyone Should Be Indicted for January 6th

As Julie Kelly and others point out: There is no crime of "blocking the peaceful transfer of power," but this expansive and legally undefined mission justifies, Jack Smith says, subpoenaeing the checks made out to Republican office-holders and mass-spying on conservative media.

Special Counsel Jack Smith's sweeping investigation into President Donald Trump included the financial data of everyday supporters across 50 states who gave as little as $1 to the president and allied groups, new documents reveal.

Smith's team obtained at least 4,782 checks from everyday Americans making mainly small-dollar donations. Smith's sweep -- though ostensibly focused on the events of Jan. 6, 2020 -- hoovered up checks from September 2019 to August 2023.
The video player is currently playing an ad.

The Biden administration wielded the country's most powerful law enforcement tools to spy on Republicans with little concern for whether it violated the Constitution, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley said.

Grassley released the documents as part of an ongoing probe into the investigation the FBI codenamed "Arctic Frost" that formally began in April 2022 into a 2020 fake elector scheme. Arctic Frost and two other FBI investigations -- one relating to January 6 codenamed "Project Coconut" and one related to Mar-a-Lago documents codenamed "Project Cranberry" -- mired Trump's return to the White House and ensnared hundreds of conservative individuals and entities.

Smith testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday, where Grassley pressed Smith on the apparent overreach.

"Did you obtain possession of donor data, to include financial information, yes or no?" he asked.

After a pause, Smith said, "our investigation was focused on investigating matters under my mandate including whether any person or entity violated the law with attempts to block the peaceful transfers of power."

"Let me ask the question again. Did your special counsel operation obtain possession of donor data, to include financial information, yes or no?" Grassley pressed.

"Yes we acquired financial information. As I sit here right now I cannot recite to you every subpoena we issued. I can tell you why we issued subpoenas," Smith said. "It was to conduct a criminal investigation into one of the most serious crimes in our nation's history. I had a duty to collect facts."

"You answered yes ... The list includes checks from constituents in every state of every single member of this committee, both Republicans and Democrats," Grassley replied. "Every member on this committee ought to be outraged for what happened to their constituents. Which one of my Democratic colleagues will join me in that outrage?"

Smith did not include any reference to this data in his public report, Grassley pointed out.

He also pawed through the emails of hundreds of journalists.

By the way, he seems to have used as his predicate for the subpoena the partisan head of the National Archives, who shrieked that Trump wouldn't give back his documents.

People are pointing out that the National Archives does not have the power to initiate a criminal investigation. It's not like a referral from Congress. It's just a partisan bureaucrat demanding that Trump Respecc My Authoritah.

Previous congressional disclosures showed investigators obtained records involving members of Congress. The latest records reveal the production also included communications between government officials and journalists working for some of the country's largest news organizations.

The communications appeared in records produced by the National Archives in response to a subpoena seeking material associated with 87 White House phones from Trump's first administration, according to a spokesperson for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, citing whistleblower disclosures made to the chairman.

"What will the partisan media say about this disgraceful government overreach? This wasn't a normal prosecution by any means," Grassley challenged in comments to Fox News Digital on Tuesday, as critics have highlighted the lack of concern or coverage given to Smith's probe by legacy media.

One organization identified Tuesday as having been swept up in the probe was the Media Research Center. Its president, David Bozell, announced in 2025 that "not one single broadcast network aired one solitary second" about Smith's alleged spying on conservative organizations and senators following a tranche of public disclosures.

Fox News is among the organizations whose journalists appear in the records, along with CNN, CBS News -- including its newsmagazine "60 Minutes" -- NBC News and CNBC.

The records also include communications involving journalists from the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Bloomberg, Los Angeles Times, New York Magazine, Reuters, the Associated Press and NPR, as well as The Federalist and Washington Times.

GOP Senators say he's a partisan hatchet-man.

He says no, I'm just a straight-shooter who begged Merrick Garland to let me prosecute Trump.

He denies that last part -- or rather, he "cannot recall" asking Merrick Garland for the job of Biden's Lawfare Attack Dog.

Former special counsel Jack Smith's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday laid bare lingering divides over President Donald Trump's efforts to challenge the 2020 presidential election and the Biden administration's investigation of him.

...

To be sure, Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, made a handful of revelations, including about Smith's securing of communications between the media and government sources. He also highlighted Smith's subpoena of roughly 5,000 checks from small-donor contributors to Republicans.

...

After the hearing, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., told the "John Solomon Reports" podcast that she believed Smith's investigation was politically motivated, calling it a "witch hunt."

"It wasn't about law and order. It was about political retribution and making people pay, making them suffer, building this file, and it is going to be imperative that Jack Smith be held to account for what he did, because we never ever want this to happen to another American," she said.

During the hearing, Grassley pointed to Smith's investigative activities and pressed him on the basis for securing certain information.

"[Y]ou obtained at least 4,782 donor checks. Many of those checks were $5 to $10," Grassley said. "The list includes checks from constituents in every state of every single member of this committee, both Republicans and Democrats. It included 42 checks from Iowans who dared to donate money to Republicans. No matter what you say, there is no legitimate basis for what you did."

...

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., often known for his boisterous and folksy commentary in Senate hearings, pointedly told Smith that "[y]ou make me want to throw up in my mouth" after Smith insisted he acted in a non-partisan manner.

Kennedy's line of questioning had addressed the role of Attorney General Merrick Garland in the probe.

...

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, primarily dealt with Smith's appointment and reasons for ending the case. He specifically highlighted the concerns about partisanship that stemmed from the Biden administration investigating an active political opponent.

"Are you aware of whether this has ever happened before in the 250-year history of the United States of America, where an incumbent president, attorney general, appoints a special counsel to investigate his or her political opponent. Has that ever happened before?" he asked.

Smith could not identify a comparable instance.

...

Despite that claim to follow DOJ policy, yesterday Just the News reported that Smith -- contrary to DOJ policy -- kept evidence on Trump after the cases were shut down. Normally, DOJ rules require the disposal or return of seized evidence once a criminal case is closed or dismissed, provided the evidence is no longer needed for official purposes.

Early in the afternoon, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., took the most aggressive line of questioning, pressing Smith on his decision to pursue lawmakers' phone records. But he also outright accused Smith of waging a political investigation intended to stop Trump from returning to the White House.

"Mr. Smith, I have to start by saying I think that maybe I underestimated you. I underestimated, in particular, your comedic talent," Hawley said. "I've been watching this whole hearing. I've watched everything you said. I noticed that you began by saying, 'I have no partisan loyalty,' and you repeated over and over and over, there's nothing in your investigation about politics. That's hilarious."

Echoing the Republicans' party line, Hawley said "In fact, your investigation was all about politics from day one. Your investigation, so-called, your prosecution, so-called, was nothing other than an attempt to interfere politically in a presidential election in the United States of America."

Julie Kelly claims that Jack Smith was actually considering indicting the entirety of the conservative movement:

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 @julie_kelly2

6h

As I have said repeatedly--and Jack Smith confirmed here--Arctic Frost would have made the Jan 6 investigation look like a cakewalk.

Smith was preparing to indict hundreds of GOP lawmakers, WH officials, MAGA-associated groups, influencers, and the president himself (again)--and perhaps even media organizations--under Arctic Frost.

There is no federal crime related to "blocking the peaceful transfer of power"--which by the way, Jack Smith, happens on January 20, not January 6.

But Smith and his team undoubtedly were collecting evidence to bring more conspiracy and obstruction charges against these individuals and groups.

But by the end of 2023, Smith ran up against two potential SCOTUS roadblocks: the presidential immunity question out of the J6 case in Washington AND the Fischer decision related to the lawful use of the 1512(c)2 obstruction statute in Jan 6 cases.

The latter decision, issued in June 2024, handed a blow to Smith's effort to criminalize free speech and political activity. SCOTUS held that the post-Enron corporate fraud statute required some evidence of document tampering/destruction. That's not, however, how the Biden DOJ applied the statute in 300+ cases--so those charges/convictions were systematically tossed.

So, Smith essentially lost the ability to use 1512--which represented 2 of 4 counts in his J6 indictment against Trump and would not have survived a Fischer-like challenge before SCOTUS again--in potential Arctic Frost prosecutions.

Even though Smith probably believed the "fake electors" certificates would have met the documents threshold. (Doubtful)

But he likely planned to use the conspiracy against rights charge he brought against Trump to these targets.

Kelly rejects the idea that Smith was invading conservatives' emails and financial records to "spy on" them.

No, she says: He was gathering evidence for a mass-indictment.

Lawmakers and WH officials and journalists were not being "spied on" or even considered potential witnesses.

They were under investigation by this scumbag, his henchmen in special counsel office, and his puppet masters in the Biden DOJ and White House.

Don't lose sight of this--and what the country avoided with Trump's win in 2024.

Kyle Becker
@kylenabecker

This may be the most uncomfortable moment in the entire Jack Smith hearing.

It's when Sen. Kennedy confronted him about an accusation that Smith had actually asked Garland for the job of Special Counsel.

Hoo boy. Watch Smith squirm as he tries to answer the question.

KENNEDY: You asked General Garland to appoint you special counsel, didn't you?

SMITH (looks down and scribbles): I don't think that's accurate. He made the decision to appoint me.

KENNEDY: In fact, you had people call General Garland to lobby him to appoint you, didn't you?

SMITH (looks down and scribbles some more): I don't recall anything like that.

KENNEDY: You really wanted to be special counsel, didn't you?

SMITH: I accepted the position as special counsel because I had spent 30 years as a nonpartisan prosecutor. I had investigated every sort of criminal case you could possibly imagine, and I thought I was qualified to do the job.

I knew that I would do it independently, and I would conduct it the same way whether it were Republican or a Democrat.

if Smith wanted to be Special Counsel and had lobbied for that position, it throws all of his partisan activities in a whole new light.

As it stands, this looks horrible.

Notice he keeps avoiding answering the question. Or rather, his only answer is "I don't recall."

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 04:30 PM

| Access Comments