Category: Jack smith
Jack Smith, Fani Willis Forced To Defend Trump Prosecutions In Simultaneous Testimonies
Two prosecutors who pursued cases against President Donald Trump doubled down on defending their efforts before lawmakers on Wednesday.
Judicial Watch sues DOJ for Jack Smith emails regarding his investigation into Donald Trump
From Just the News: The conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch announced Thursday that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Justice Department, seeking emails from former Special Counsel Jack Smith over his investigation into President Donald Trump. The lawsuit, which was filed last month but publicly announced Thursday, is seeking Smith’s emails with […]
The post Judicial Watch sues DOJ for Jack Smith emails regarding his investigation into Donald Trump appeared first on Judicial Watch.
Epstein Files Update!
Judicial Watch Sues DOJ for Epstein Records Subpoenaed by House Committee Judicial Watch Sues for Jack Smith’s Emails Targeting Donald Trump New Air Marshal Assistant Director has a Questionable Past Judicial Watch Sues DOJ for Epstein Records Subpoenaed by House Committee The U.S. Department of Justice is sitting on information about Jeffrey Epstein that […]
The post Epstein Files Update! appeared first on Judicial Watch.
SMITH SUBPOENAED! House Judiciary Subpoenas Jack Smith for Deposition
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan detonated a political firebomb Wednesday, slapping former special counsel Jack Smith with a subpoena and demanding that he sit for a closed-door deposition with the committee.
Watergate was amateur hour compared to Arctic Frost
The FBI’s Arctic Frost investigation is confirmation that the left sees conservatives as enemies of the state and is fully intent on treating them as such.
Arctic Frost began in April 2022, with the approval of Joe Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, along with Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and FBI Director Christopher Wray. In November 2022, newly appointed special counsel Jack Smith took over the probe. Smith declared he was focused on the allegations of mishandling classified documents, but Arctic Frost shows he was much more ambitious. He helped turn the investigation into an effort to convict Donald Trump and cripple the Republican Party.
The report indicts Smith for failing at lawfare, not for the lawfare itself.
It was revealed last month that by mid-2023, the FBI had tracked the phone calls of at least a dozen Republican senators. Worse still, with the imprimatur of Justices Beryl Howell and James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Smith issued 197 subpoenas targeting the communications and financial records of nine members of Congress and at least 430 Republican entities and individuals.
The organizations targeted were a “Who’s Who” of the American right, including Turning Point USA, the Republican Attorneys General Association, the Conservative Partnership Institute, and the Center for Renewing America.
Not content with active politicians, these subpoenas also went after advisers, consulting firms, and nonprofits. One subpoena targeted communications with media companies, including CBS, Fox News, and Newsmax. Normally, a telecommunications company should inform its clients and customers about subpoenas. But Howell and Boasberg also ordered nondisclosure orders on the dubious grounds that standard transparency might result in “the destruction of or tampering of evidence” — as if a U.S. senator could wipe his phone records or a 501(c)(3) could erase evidence of its bank accounts.
The scale and secrecy of Arctic Frost are staggering. It was a massive fishing expedition, hunting for any evidence of impropriety from surveilled conservatives that might be grounds for criminal charges. One can see the strategy, typical among zealous prosecutors: the threat of criminal charges might compel a lower- or mid-level figure to turn government witness rather than resist.
But Smith had an even grander plan. By collecting financial records, he was trying to establish financial ties between those subpoenaed and Trump. Had Smith secured a conviction against Trump, he could then have pivoted to prosecuting hundreds of individuals and entities under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. This would have led to asset freezes, seizures, and further investigations.
Smith laid out a road map for crushing conservative organizations that was supposed to be implemented throughout a prospective Biden second term or a Harris presidency.
Fortunately, voters foiled Smith’s efforts.
A false equivalence
The meager coverage of Arctic Frost thus far has compared the scandal to the revelations of Watergate. But the comparison doesn’t hold. Arctic Frost involved significantly more surveillance and more direct targeting of political enemies than the Senate Watergate hearings of 1973 and 1974 managed to expose.
Setting aside campaign finance matters and political pranks, the most serious crimes the hearings exposed pertained to the Nixon administration’s involvement with break-ins and domestic wiretapping.
In the summer of 1971, the White House formed a unit to investigate leaks. Called the “Plumbers,” this unit broke into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, who was the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers. Transferred over to the Committee to Re-elect the President at the end of the year, the unit then broke into the Democratic National Committee’s offices in the Watergate complex. The hearings exposed the burglars’ connection to CRP — and to the White House.
RELATED: Trump’s pardons expose the left’s vast lawfare machine
Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images
The administration also authorized warrantless wiretaps. From May 1969 until February 1971, in response to the disclosures of the secret bombing of Cambodia, the FBI ran a 21-month wiretap program to catch the leakers. This investigation eventually covered 13 government officials and four journalists. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover submitted the wiretapping authorizations, and Attorney General John Mitchell signed them.
As a matter of optics, it was the surveillance of the members of the media that provoked the scandal. Since they were critical of the Nixon administration, it looked like the administration was targeting its political enemies. As a criminal matter, the issues were less about the actions themselves, as it was at least arguable that they were legal on national security grounds. Instead, it was more about the cover-up. When these wiretaps came up in the hearings, Mitchell and others deceived investigators, opening themselves up to charges of obstruction of justice.
A troubling parallel
One aspect revealed during the Watergate hearings could be compared to Arctic Frost. The hearings exposed extensive domestic spying that preceded the Nixon administration. The tip of the iceberg was the proposed Huston Plan of June 1970, which became one of the most sensational pieces of evidence against the Nixon administration. Named for the White House assistant who drafted it, the Huston Plan proposed formalizing intelligence coordination and authorizing warrantless surveillance and break-ins.
Nixon implemented the plan but rescinded it only five days later on the advice of Hoover and Mitchell.
Who were those Americans who might have had their civil liberties affected? It was the radical left, then in the process of stoking urban riots, inciting violence, and blowing up government buildings. The plan was an attempt to formalize ongoing practices; it was not a novel proposal. After Nixon resigned, the Senate concluded in 1976 that “the Huston plan, as we now know, must be viewed as but one episode in a continuous effort by the intelligence agencies to secure the sanction of higher authority for expanded surveillance at home and abroad.”
For years, ignoring the statutes that prohibited domestic spying, the CIA surveilled over three dozen radicals. The military and the Secret Service kept dossiers on many more. The FBI operated COINTELPRO, its surveillance of and plan to infiltrate the radical left, without Mitchell’s knowledge. And as the Senate discovered, “even though the President revoked his approval of the Huston plan, the intelligence agencies paid no heed to the revocation.” This was all excessive, to say the least.
RELATED: Damning new docs reveal who’s on Biden admin’s ‘enemies list,’ expose extent of FBI’s Arctic Frost
Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
Watergate helped expose a far larger and longer surveillance operation against left-wing domestic terrorists. Comparing this to Arctic Frost suggests that the shoe is now on the other foot: the state regards right-wing groups as equivalent to domestic terrorists. Once, the national security state was abused to attack the left. Now, it’s abused to attack the right. This is hardly an encouraging comparison.
Lawfare for thee, not for me
There’s a third reason that the comparison to Watergate doesn’t hold. In the 1970s, abuses generated a reaction. The Huston Plan, for instance, was squashed by the head of the Department of Justice. Controversial surveillance plans wound down eventually. Wrongdoing was exposed, and the public was horrified, worsening the people’s growing mistrust of government. Lawmakers passed serious reforms to rein in intelligence agencies and defend Americans’ civil liberties.
Survey today’s landscape, and it doesn’t look like there will be any similar reaction. If you’re a conservative staffer, activist, contract worker, affiliate, donor, politician, or lawmaker, you’ve learned about the unabashed weaponization of the federal justice system against you without the presence of any crime. What’s even more disturbing is that this investigation went on for 32 months, longer than Mitchell’s wiretaps.
During that time, no senior official squashed the investigation, and no whistleblowers leapt to defend conservatives. There wasn’t a “Deep Throat” leaking wrongdoing, as there once was in Deputy Director of the FBI Mark Felt. There weren’t any scrupulous career bureaucrats or political appointees in the Justice Department or elsewhere ready to threaten mass resignations over a legally spurious program, as happened to George W. Bush in the spring of 2004.
No telecommunication company contested the subpoenas, as happened in early 2016 when Apple disputed that it had to help the government unlock the iPhone of one of the terrorists involved in the December 2015 San Bernardino shootings. Neither bureaucrats nor corporations are coming to the rescue of the civil liberties of conservatives.
Public opinion won’t help, either. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) has called for “Watergate-style hearings.” But they wouldn’t work. Watergate was a public-relations disaster for the presidency because it spoke to an American public that held its government to a moral standard of impartial activity. Television unified this audience while also stoking righteous fury over the government’s failure to meet that standard.
Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images
The hearings were effective only because they reached a public sensitive to infringements of civil liberties and hostile to the weaponization of the state against domestic targets. But 2025 is not 1975. Even if one could unite the American public to watch the same media event, televised hearings on Arctic Frost wouldn’t bring about a major shift in public opinion. In fact, many voters would likely approve of Arctic Frost’s operations.
For one part of the country, lawfare happens and it’s a good thing. Jack Smith’s lawfare does not embarrass or shame the left. If anything, he is criticized for insufficiently weaponizing the law.
To date, the largest exposé of his methods to reach the legacy media, published in the Washington Post, criticizes Smith for prosecuting Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents in Florida (where the alleged crime occurred) rather than in the District of Columbia. It’s an impressive investigative report, assembling aides and experts to showcase Smith’s mistake. Left unstated is the answer to the naïve question: If the offense was committed in Florida, why was it a mistake not to pursue the case in D.C.? Because that was the only district where Smith could guarantee a favorable judge and jury.
To the conservative mind, most Americans still believe that protecting civil liberties matters more than attacking one’s enemies.
The report indicts Smith for failing at lawfare, not for the lawfare itself. In this environment, where lawfare is already taken for granted as the optimal strategy to defeat the enemy, exposing the details of Arctic Frost is like publicizing the Schlieffen Plan’s failure in 1915 and expecting the Germans to be ashamed enough to withdraw. They already know it didn’t work.
Exposing the plan won’t change anything. The election of Jay “Two Bullets” Jones as Virginia’s attorney general is an indication not only of the presence of a fanatic at the head of Virginia’s law enforcement but also of what a good proportion of the Democratic electorate expects from the state’s most vital prosecutor. His task is to bring pain to his enemies.
The 1970s saw the abuses of the national security state generate a forceful public reaction. That turned out to be a rare moment. Instead of a pendulum swing, we have seen a ratchet effect. The national security state has acquired more weapons over the intervening decades, and the resistance to it has grown weaker. This has hit conservatives hardest, because many still imagine that our constitutional culture remains largely intact.
To the conservative mind, most Americans still believe that protecting civil liberties matters more than attacking one’s enemies. From that point of view, American politicians operate under electoral and self-imposed restraints that will impel them to take their opponents’ due process rights seriously or risk being shamed and losing elections. But these restraints are now ineffectual and hardly worth mentioning.
Unlike in the 1970s, there will be no cultural resolution to the problem of lawfare. The problem will only be solved by political means: using power to punish wrongdoers, deter future abuses, and deconstruct the weaponized national security state.
When you’re presumed to be an enemy of the state, the only important question is who will fight back on your behalf.
Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at The American Mind.
Biden FBI’s Arctic Frost surveillance of lawmakers could cost the government, thanks to ‘real teeth’ measure in funding bill
Republican lawmakers officially passed their funding bill to reopen the government on Monday night. In addition to getting the ball rolling on reopening the government, their bill sets the stage for possible retribution over the Biden FBI’s Arctic Frost operation.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) published damning documents last month regarding the Biden FBI’s Operation Arctic Frost, an investigation that ultimately morphed into former special counsel Jack Smith’s federal case against President Donald Trump regarding the 2020 election.
‘Arctic Frost was a grotesque abuse of power. It was Joe Biden’s Watergate.’
The documents revealed that the bureau not only subpoenaed records for over 400 Republican individuals and entities but secretly obtained the private phone records of numerous Republican lawmakers as part of what the Iowa senator called a “fishing expedition.”
According to the Grassley, those behind Arctic Frost “were spreading a wide net because they were looking for anything they could to hook on Trump, put Trump in prison, keep him from running for president, and things of that nature.”
The funding bill passed by the Senate this week contains a provision that would enable any senator whose phone records were “acquired, subpoenaed, searched, accessed or disclosed” without his or her knowledge to file a civil lawsuit against the government inside the next five years for at least $500,000 plus legal fees for each instance of a violation.
Senators would be able to take legal action if at the time their records were seized, they were a target of a criminal investigation; a federal judge issued an order authorizing a delay of notice to the senator in question; the government complied with the judge’s order; and the subpoena was faithfully executed.
RELATED: Republicans torch Obama judge over his role in Biden FBI’s ‘partisan vendetta,’ demand impeachment
Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images
The provision, which is retroactive to 2022, notes that “no officer, employee, or agent of the United States or of any Federal department or agency shall be entitled to assert any form of absolute or qualified immunity as a defense to liability” in relation to such violations.
“It’s designed to put real teeth into federal law that prohibits the executive branch from surveilling the Senate,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) — whose Senate office hard-line and cellphone records were reportedly targeted — told the Daily Caller. “Arctic Frost was a grotesque abuse of power. It was Joe Biden’s Watergate.”
“[It’s] a common-sense provision to ensure that no Department of Justice — Democrat or Republican — ever does that again,” added Cruz, who confirmed to Politico that Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) was “directly” responsible for the inclusion of the provision.
Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told the Daily Caller the provision serves to protect against “a weaponization of government against members of the Senate” and stressed that “senators are going to take responsible action, and that’s what we’ve done here.”
Democrat lawmakers complained about the measure.
“I’m shocked that a huge change in policy would be dropped into a bill at the last minute, and the first that most senators learn about it is in the press,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told the Caller. “This is one more way in which the bill that passed the Senate tonight is even worse for the American people.”
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) similarly clutched pearls over the provision, telling Politico, “I am furious that the Senate minority and majority leaders chose to airdrop this provision into this bill at the eleventh hour — with zero consultation or negotiation with the subcommittee that actually oversees this work.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
‘Unfit for the gavel’: House GOPs sound off on Judge Boasberg, stand with senators in calling for impeachment
House Republicans are ramping up the pressure on activist judges in the wake of the bombshell findings about Operation Arctic Frost.
The revelations concluded that former President Joe Biden’s FBI targeted conservative groups, private citizens, and even sitting senators. One recurring name in a thread of surveillance scandals is James Boasberg, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who greenlit the subpoenas that targeted Republicans.
‘It is clear that Judge Boasberg has abused his judicial authority for weaponized political purposes.’
In light of his involvement, a growing number of House Republicans are standing with outraged senators in calling for his impeachment.
“It is clear that Judge Boasberg has abused his judicial authority for weaponized political purposes,” Republican Rep. Marlin Stutzman of Indiana told Blaze News. “His unconstitutional blocking of President Trump from making America great again and involvement in Arctic Frost are reason enough to remove him from the bench. Impeachment hearings should begin immediately.”
RELATED: ‘Not. One. Story.’ Liberal news outlets’ silence regarding Biden’s ‘enemies list’ is deafening
Photo by DREW ANGERER/AFP via Getty Images
“A judge waging lawfare against elected senators of the United States and weaponizing their power for political gain should be impeached,” Republican Rep. Mark Harris of North Carolina told Blaze News. “Full stop.”
Republican Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas took matters into his own hands and introduced articles of impeachment against Boasberg to “hold him accountable for his attempt to undermine the will of the people.”
“Radical activist Judge James Boasberg continues to weaponize his judicial authority and target his political opponents,” Republican Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas told Blaze News. “Judge Boasberg facilitated the egregious Arctic Frost scandal where he equipped the Biden DOJ to spy on Republican senators. His lack of integrity makes him clearly unfit for the gavel.”
Republican Rep. Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma called Arctic Frost a “Watergate-level scandal,” saying the only way to restore faith in the legal system is to impeach activist judges like Boasberg.
“Under a directive from Special Counsel Jack Smith, the Biden DOJ spied on almost every major conservative group — including the Trump campaign and the RNC,” Brecheen told Blaze News. “This is a Watergate-level scandal for which accountability must be had. We must take all the steps available under law to pursue justice and restore the American people’s faith in our legal system. This starts with beginning the impeachment process for any corrupt judges involved in this scandal.”
RELATED: Damning new docs reveal who’s on Biden admin’s ‘enemies list,’ expose extent of FBI’s Arctic Frost
Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Gill’s fellow Texan Republican Rep. August Pfluger also railed against Boasberg’s involvement in the surveillance effort, calling for an investigation. Pfluger likewise joined Brecheen to urge Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate Jack Smith and “every single Biden-era DOJ bureaucrat” who partook in this scandal.
“Jack Smith’s ‘Arctic Frost’ investigation into President Trump, Republican lawmakers, and conservative groups has turned out to be exactly what we expected: an unconstitutional political witch hunt,” Republican Rep. August Pfluger of Texas told Blaze News. “The weaponization of our nation’s top law enforcement agency to target political opponents is unacceptable, especially in the United States.”
“These individuals must be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law — and we will ensure this kind of blatant corruption never happens again.”
The House has the sole authority to introduce articles of impeachment for a judge, and just a simple majority is needed to pass them. Republicans hold a slim majority in the House, 219-213.
Editor’s Note: This article was update to include a statement from Republican Rep. Josh Brecheen.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Boasberg’s Senate Spying Gag Order Violated Federal Law
Boasberg is one of many low-court judges who have shown themselves to be lawless political actors whose jurisprudence is hostile to a functioning republic.
