U.S. Senator Katie Britt Demands Answers on Arctic Frost Probe in Senate Judiciary Hearing

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Katie Britt (R-Ala.) attended a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing to discuss the Biden Administration Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Arctic Frost investigation, which was ultimately taken over by former Special Counsel Jack Smith and involved - among many other disturbing actions - secret subpoenas for the personal phone records of 14 members of Congress, including 11 Senators. Senator Britt and her colleagues have requested that several telecommunications companies involved release all records relating to the probe, and the Senate Judiciary Committee has continued to hold hearings examining the scope of Arctic Frost and some of the abuses that occurred over the course of the investigation. Senator Britt questioned witness Daniel Z. Epstein, Associate Professor of Law at St. Thomas University College of Law and Vice President of America First Legal.

Senator Britt slammed the Arctic Frost probe targeting hundreds of Republican groups and individuals, saying, "Whether it be by an FBI agent who repeatedly engaged in political partisanship and violated the FBI's no self-approval rule, its mass targeting of nearly [400] Republican groups … or, of course, the decision to subpoena the phone call records of multiple members of Congress, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee-beyond that, I have concerns about evidence suggesting coordination between the Biden Administration and clearly partisan prosecutors in Manhattan or Fulton County, Georgia, in pursuit of Trump-related investigations. We even have people that campaigned on taking him down …

"All in all, it paints a picture of criminal investigations that evolved into [an] indiscriminate dragnet and targeted and harassed hundreds of entities, individuals, members of Congress that were all on the political right. It's highly concerning with respect to the law, the separation of powers, and Americans' faith in a system that depends on the blind administration of justice. I'm glad this committee has engaged in public oversight to learn more about what occurred, and the steps that can be taken to prevent this from happening moving forward."

The Senator highlighted Jack Smith's legally questionable use of nondisclosure orders (NDOs) to accompany subpoenas of phone records, including those of Republican senators: "There has been a lot of discussion regarding Jack Smith. We've heard it here today and his team's use of nondisclosure orders throughout the course of the Arctic Frost investigation. This includes when such orders were sought and granted to accompany subpoenas related to the toll records of multiple members of this body. Many have argued those NDOs likely violated existing federal law that prohibits the use of NDOs on subpoenas involving Senate devices. The fact that at least one telecom provider, AT&T, refused to comply with that subpoena, and the Smith team didn't push back, is evidence that they probably knew that their requests were illegal in the first place."

Senator Britt continued, saying, "One of the principal concerns that, you know, people have brought up with the Arctic Frost investigation and related state level investigations is they tried to criminalize conduct that wasn't actually illegal … But yet we saw time and time again Mr. Smith focus on that and try to make that conduct illegal. No American wants to live in a world where you say, show me the man and I will show you the crime.

"So, outside of conducting public oversight and the things that you have mentioned to ensure public accountability, what steps do you think that we can take or should consider to make sure that we don't fall into that same trap in the same way that some of those individuals involved with Arctic Frost and related investigations appeared to?" she asked Professor Epstein.

Professor Epstein responded, saying, "I think one thing is to make clear as a statutory matter that the way in which Jack Smith was appointed was invalid and to specify as much as possible into statutes what appropriate appointments look like. I also think that, you know, when I think about the Bragg prosecution and Judge Merchan, that was a case where they were interpreting federal election law, which is totally inappropriate for them … And I think that there are multiple opportunities for clear statutes about primary jurisdiction to prevent the states from going on roving political investigations that they don't have jurisdiction for."

You can watch the Senator's full remarks here.

###