Badlands Media - Badlands Media Special Coverage: 4/21/26 - Arctic Frost, Clark Testimony & DOJ Lawfare

Episode Date: April 21, 2026

The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution convenes to examine Operation Arctic Frost, the Biden-era FBI investigation that Republicans argue was a politically motivated dragnet targeting the entire Republican political apparatus. Jeffrey Clark testifies about his home raid, Georgia indictment, years of bar proceedings, and millions in legal fees stemming from writing an internal DOJ memo. Witnesses debate whether Jack Smith's appointment as special counsel was even constitutional. Democrats push back hard, arguing the investigation was legitimately predicated on January 6 and demanding Jack Smith testify under oath. Senator Hawley pivots to sound the alarm on coordinated left-wing attacks against Supreme Court independence. A hearing with all the drama of a courtroom, none of the resolution.

The Badlands, one of the Badlands, explain those Badlands. That's a hell of a name. It's finally here, our second annual mega sale. This sale only comes around once a year, so take advantage of the best offers ever while you can. For example, save 50% on our Geese Dream bed sheets as low as 2998. And for the first time ever on TV, My Pillow Mattresses and My Pillow Mattress Stoppers as low as 99.9. 98 and you save 50% on our Luxpeer six piece tall sets regular 6998 now only 3998 and our best selling standard my pillows regular 49998 on sale for 1798 way not t 98 so go to my pillow dot com or call the number on your screen use this promo code to take advantage of our second annual mega sale but wait there's more to make the mega sale you know been more special. When you order right now, your order's going to ship absolutely free.

In a quiet town at where beards grow wild and lips dare to crack without permission, one woman has suffered. Hi, I'm Margie, and I'm J.Trey's mother. But the world would come to know her by another name. Madame Margie, the moistureless. Jay came home with a lip-on. It's called Soft Disclosure. With one miraculous application, her power awakened. Within one day, my lips were healed.

It was miraculous. But salvation came at a cost. Or in the shadowed lands known only as bad lands. You boys that bad lands are so handsome. She saw potential. You're covering up your beautiful faces. And she made her demand. Shave them all off.

Or base the consequences. Beard oil will not save you now. And you'll look so much better. This summer, moisturized. wisely and guard your beard because Madam Margie, the moistureless, is always watching. Campaign of lawfare against President Trump, his allies, his lawyers, Republican organizations, members of Congress, and the American right. This hearing is not about relitigating the 2020 election, and it's not about saying anyone is above the law, and it's not about asking for

special treatment for any political figure. It's about something more basic and far more dangerous, whether the coercive powers of the federal government were used as a political weapon against the opposition. In this country, law enforcement is supposed to investigate crimes. It's not supposed to investigate political movements. It's not supposed to map the opposition. It's not supposed to use subpoenas, search warrants, non-disclosure orders, telecom records, bank records, device searches, and secrecy tools to build a profile of one side of American politics. But that is what the evidence increasingly suggests happened here. The Biden administration was not just investigating a crime.

They were seeking to dismantle a political movement. The American people deserve to know what Arctic Frost really was. Arctic Frost, and the effort to take down the American right, was broader, darker, and far more dangerous than anything we've seen in modern political history. The Biden administration launched a whole of government effort to identify, intimidate, bankrupt, and jail the people and institutions that made up President Trump's political world. It looks like a drag nut, a fishing expedition. It reached President Trump. It reached his lawyers.

It reached former officials. It reached Republican organizations. It reached conservative institutions. It reached communications records. It reached members of Congress. It reached people and groups whose real offense appears to have been associating with President Trump and the American right. And today, as part of this hearing, we're releasing new documents that make this even more clear. One set of documents shows Jack Smith's prosecutors discussing how to get around speech and debate protections as they considered how to obtain information involving Republican members of Congress.

These are not abstract constitutional questions. The speech and debate clause exists to protect the independence of the legislative branch from executive intimidation. Yet here we have prosecutors looking at Republican members and asking in effect how close they can get. In those messages, prosecutors discussed cloud data, phone records, notice, and whether they could, quote, get the cloud not notify and do the search without. consulting the member, end quote. That should alarm every member of this body, regardless of party, and also the American people. Another set of documents shows communications between the Biden White House and Fannie Willis's team in Georgia. Those records show Fulton County prosecutors reaching out to the White House counsel's office as they sought to interview former executive,

former executive office of the president officials, and the White House facilitating the executive privilege process. And in one remarkable email, a Biden White House official reacts to Fony Willis by saying Fannie Willis is an icon. I can't help but to stand. Let me say that again. The Biden White House was gushing over Fonnie Willis being an icon. That is the language of political fandom.

I wonder if the Biden officials found her embezzlement scheme iconic. I wonder if they stand Fani's removal and disqualification from the Georgia election case without any criminal conviction. So when we talk about coordination, we're not speaking in hypotheticals. We're talking about documents the committee is releasing today. We're talking about records. We're talking about the machinery of government turned in one direction. Look at the timeline. The Biden White House helped facilitate access to President Trump and Vice President Pence's government phones.

White House Deputy Council Jonathan Sue personally assisted the FBI in obtaining access to those phones as Arctic Frost was heating up. When the investigation expanded, it merged with the DOJ Inspector General's work. It swept in lawyers, former officials, devices, email accounts, ICloud accounts, the political organizations. It became the foundation for Jack Smith's case. At the same time, Fannie Willis's office in Georgia was pursuing its own prosecution. her team coordinated with the Biden White House on executive privilege issues. Willis's lover and taxpayer-funded outside counsel Nathan Wade billed Fulton County for an interview with D.C. White House,

quote, interview with D.C. White House, end quote, on November 18, 2022, the same day, Jack Smith was appointed special counsel. Then, within weeks of Jack Smith's appointment, and the White House contact with Wade, Matthew Colangelo. who was the number three top official in the Biden Justice Department went to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, where Alvin Bragg brought a case against President Trump, and it was revived. Federal investigators, a special counsel, the Biden White House, Fannie Willis and Georgia, Alvin Bragg in New York, Matthew Colangelo deployed from DOJ to Manhattan. Jonathan Sue, helping facilitate access to Trump World Records, Jack Smith prosecutors, discussing how to work around speech or debate protections.

Luckily, the American people were wise enough to see this for what it was. They coordinated campaign of lawfare against President Trump and the American right. They tried to bankrupt President Trump. They tried to de-platform and delegitimize him. They tried to imprison him. They tried to throw him off the ballot. and after years of demonizing them, there were two assassination attempts against him. The American people sat in the jury box and rendered their own verdict on November

2024. It wasn't acquittal. But the effort to get Trump was not simply an investigation of alleged conduct. It was an effort to map a movement. And that's what makes Arctic Frost so dangerous. Democrats knew they wouldn't get a criminal conviction on Turning Point USA. Republican Attorneys General Association, and America First Legal,

but convictions weren't the point. The process was the punishment. The subpoena was the punishment. The search warrant was the punishment. The non-disclosure order was the punishment. The legal bill was the punishment. The professional threat was the punishment. The years of uncertainty were the punishment.

The ideological capture state bar going after your ability to practice in the legal profession was the punishment. the government does not have to convict you to ruin you. It can drag you through years of legal process, force you to hire lawyers, threaten your livelihood, expose your associations, and send a warning to everyone around you. Represent the wrong client, work on the wrong case, donate to the wrong organization, serve the wrong president, and you're next. This is not equal justice under the law. That is political discipline by legal process. And to be clear, this hearing is not about saying anyone is above the law, but law enforcement

is supposed to investigate crimes. It is not supposed to investigate political identities. It is not supposed to treat opposition lawyers, donors, staff, advocates, elected officials and institutions as a target set. A campaign can do opposition research. A party can build a political file. But when the FBI and the Department of Justice do it with subpoenas, gag orders, device searches, telecom records, bank records, and secrecy tools.

That is in politics. That's state power. And when state power is aimed at one political movement, it becomes political surveillance by legal process. A republic cannot survive legal attrition against the opposition. That is not the rule of law. That is regime protection. So today, this committee will ask basic questions. Who authorized this?

How far did it go? Why were these records sought? Why were their secrecy orders used? Why were prosecutors discussing ways around speech or debate protections? Why was the Biden White House communicating with Fannie Willis' team? What was Nathan Wade doing at the White House

the same day Jack Smith was appointed? Why did senior Biden DOJ officials end up helping lead the Manhattan case? And what must Congress do to ensure that this never happens again. That argument is not only wrong, it's dangerous. There is a fundamental difference between weaponizing the government and holding the weaponizers accountable.

Weaponizing government means using subpoenas, search warrants, secrecy orders, prosecutions, and federal power to punish your political opponents. Holding the weaponizers accountable means exposing that abuse, demanding answers in restoring the rule of law. Weaponizing government means turning law enforcement into a political weapon. Oversight means Congress doing its constitutional duty to make sure that that weapon is never aimed at the American people again. That is why this hearing matters. Because if the government can secretly map, burden, and punish the political opposition,

then political opposition in America is tolerated only in terms of the government. until it becomes effective. And if Congress cannot investigate that, then oversight is dead. Accountability is dead. And the weaponizers win. And we will not let that happen. Senator Welsh. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, this will never happen again. If we never have a president who, after he loses the electoral college vote in the popular vote, calls for people to come to Congress, to come to the Capitol in an effort to use violence, to overthrow the election by the American people. The question here that you laid out recites normal investigatory steps that are taken. The effort by the president since January 6th is to rewrite history. I was in the House chamber that day. I was about 20 feet from where the shot was fired.

I was there when the mob was breaking the glass on the doors in an effort to invade the House of Representatives and quote, hang Nancy Pelosi. At the time, I couldn't believe it was happening, that it could happen in America, because in America, we have always enjoyed the benefit of the peaceful transfer of power. The truth here is that this insurrection occurred as a result of President Trump, who incited it, even though he had privately acknowledged that he lost the election, painful as it was for him to say. Roughly a week after the election, he said, can you believe I lost to this effing guy? But later on, during his January 6th speech at the ellipse, to the people he invited to come to Washington, Trump told the audience,

we must stop the steel. We're going to walk down Pennsylvania. We're going to the capital. Trump knew had lost, but he wanted to incite, and he did incite an insurrection anyway. And that's what happened. Following that speech, more than 2,000 people illegally breached the Capitol after their attack. At least 140 officers were physically injured defending our Capitol from a violent mob. Five officers died in the aftermath. It's my colleague's view that the officers, the officers who defended the Capitol, and the prosecutors who sought accountability for those actions and for the folks who incited those actions are the ones that should be prosecuted, not the mobsters who attacked it. Some of my colleagues still refused to accept that Arctic Frost was a legitimate investigation

following the illegal insurrection that occurred when the mob attacked the Capitol on January 6th. This very committee has heard the testimony of countless Trump nominees who still can't admit that President Biden won the 2020 election. Quote, he was certified. They won't acknowledge what the American people decided. It's an effort, a continuing effort by President Trump to rewrite the history of January 6th. Today, the majority is called Mr. Clark as a witness. my Republican colleagues went to discuss the weaponization of the Justice Department, and so do I.

And I can't think of a more apt witness than Mr. Clark. He pushed the DOJ to falsely, falsely tell states that the department had significant concerns about voter fraud in the 2020 elections. That was an absolute lie, absolute lie. and President Trump's own Attorney General, Bill Barr, had already publicly stated what those at the department knew, there was no evidence of voter fraud that would have changed the results of the 2020 election. Republican political appointees at the department threatened to resign en masse if Mr. Clark's false allegations were acted upon. And Mr. Clark, you did this in an attempt. to influence state level election certification

and to advocate for fraudulent electors to be brought in to declare that President Trump was the winner of the 2020 election. This is a corrupt effort. It was a corrupt effort to overturn the election. And it's why Mr. Clark was indicted in Georgia on two felony charges and why the DC bar concluded that he should be disbarred.

Let me say this clearly, let me say it slowly, and let me say it slowly, and let me say it directly. President Trump has since January 6th pursued an all-out effort to continue his dispute that he lost that election. Just last week, the Department of Justice

requested a federal appeals court to dismiss the seditious conspiracy charges against members of the proud boys and oathkeepers. These people are far right extremists. They were convicted by a jury of their peers of orchestrating violent plots to stop the peaceful transfer of power. A federal judge described oathkeeper founder Stuart Rhodes, who received an 18-year sentence as, quote, an ongoing threat in peril to this country and to democracy. Enrique Otario, founder of the proud boys, had a terrorism

enhancement applied to a sentence by a conservative federal judge appointed by President Trump. Mr. Chairman, at the heart of today's hearing is the question of whether a prosecutor can seek information from people, including members of Congress, who have information that is in fact relevant to the commission of a crime. This is not an investigation of members of Congress. Members of Congress who have information about a crime can be called to provide to the prosecutors what information they have. My Republican colleagues, many of them have claimed they were illegally wiretapped as a part of Mr. Smith's investigation. This is untrue.

There were subpoenas for toll records. That's not wiretapping. It's phone metadata, which includes the time, the duration, and the phone numbers of an outgoing call. Collecting this information is all in the normal course of a criminal investigation. When a case involves evidence from members of Congress, of course, concerns about the separation of powers in the speech and debate clause are very important, but it's not a violation of these constitutional protections to seek information to prosecute a case, especially when there was a mob attack on our nation's capitals. The legislators who were involved in this investigation argue that the decision to target them was rooted in animosity to President Trump. That is absolutely not true. A federal grand jury made up of our fellow citizens,

they indicted President Trump because crimes were committed, not because prosecutors or judges were out to get them. Mr. Chairman, let's have a public hearing with Jack Smith testifying. He can come in and answer our questions and explain what he did, and he can be challenged. That happened in the House. anything other than that, in my view, is an effort to obscure what's really at stake for the American people. The insurrection on January 6th was an effort to take away their right to decide who their leaders are

and have it be decided by violence. I yield back. Thank you, ranking member. I look forward to Jack Smith being before this committee. Senator Grassley had some prepared remarks and as you know, he's planned to attend today, but he's taking care of a medical issue. He'll be back in the Senate. ASAP, he's asked that I introduced his opening statement into the record and the reference records without objection that will be done. I'd also like to read a few excerpts from his opening to highlight for the committee. Chairman Grassley's opening says that he'll be making a making public new records today, which he received in large part from whistleblowers.

Those records, quote, detail Operation Rampart 12, which was a preliminary investigation opened by the FBI Washington Field Office into at least representatives Lauren Bobert, Paul Gosar, 80 Biggs, and Mo Brooks. Rampart 12 appears to be a predecessor. case to Arctic Frost and was opened on January 20, January 22nd, 2021. The investigation was based on allegations that Bobert and Gosar led reconnaissance tours in advance of January 6th. But what you'll find in the available records is that the evidence to support the investigation didn't exist. Even so, J.P. Cooney personally concurred with opening the investigation, even though his text messages told,

a different tale, end quote. Chairman Grassley's statement also notes that he's obtained via whistleblowers, a May 2021 document edited by anti-Trump agent Tebow. That document shows the FBI didn't have evidence to advance the case, yet Rampart 12 wasn't closed until January of 2022. Chairman Grassley's statement also says, quote, this committee's investigative work is necessary because during the entire Biden administration, my Democrat colleagues didn't lift a finger to investigate this political rot, end quote. And lastly, quote, just imagine

holding a Jack Smith hearing without the records we've since obtained like my Democrat colleagues have wanted to do all along and may even try to feebly argue today, end quote. Chairman Grassley couldn't agree more. Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, I might note that I called Senator Grassley yesterday. Sounds good. Anxious to return and we had a good conversation. I wish him the best. Mr. Chairman, earlier this month, President Trump fired Attorney General Bondi for failing to successfully prosecute his political enemies. She's been replaced by Todd Blanche, who in his first weeks as acting Attorney General is bending over backwards to please his former client. To take one example, as Senator Welch has noted, last week the Justice Department moved to vacate the seditious conspiracy convictions of members of Presidents of President Welch has noted. Last week, the Justice Department moved to vacate the seditious conspiracy convictions of members of

proud boys and oath keepers extremist groups for their role in planning the January 6th insurrection. Last Friday, the Atlantic Magazine published a bombshell article with devastating new details confirming what this committee most of us already know. FBI director Cash Patel is dangerously unqualified to lead the world's preeminent law enforcement agency, making us all less safe. yet the Republican majority on this committee is conducting no oversight on the issues I've just mentioned. Instead, we're here today, yet again for another hearing on special counsel, Jack Smith's investigation. Wouldn't it be great if we could get Jack Smith finally before this committee put him under oath and ask these questions?

I asked that of the chairman months ago because Smith is prepared to testify under oath and answer the questions. But for some reason, the majority in this committee doesn't want to. want that opportunity. These hearings have been a waste of committee resources from the beginning. Today, a new low. Instead of hearing from Mr. Smith, who investigated President Trump's failed efforts to overturn the 2020 election, we'll hear from Jeffrey Clark, who played a key role in these efforts. Mr. Clark, an environmental lawyer, who was the acting assistant attorney general for DOJ's civil division at the end of 2020, became President Trump's biggest ally

within the Department of Justice seeking to advance the baseless claims of election fraud, despite having no role in enforcing election or criminal laws or any legal background in any other topic other than noted. Mr. Clark is bubbling over with conspiracies. He has an idea, a theory, that the Chinese were hacking smart thermostats in the United States. Another theory he has, the CIA was working with Italian contractor to use military satellites to

change votes in America. Another conspiracy theory, he even wanted to help Trump declare a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Mr. Clark also sought to coerce acting Attorney General Rosen into sending a letter to every swing state falsely claiming that the Department of Justice had, quote, taken notice, close quote, of irregularities, close quote, and recommended that state legislature should convene in special session to reconsider their already certified election results. We are extremely fortunate in America that Mr. Clark's conspiracy theories and efforts failed,

and it was due in no small part to a more senior, the more senior Trump appointees in office, taking their oaths of office seriously. The acting Attorney General and Acting Deputy Attorney General provide Mr. Clark with detailed information at the time, including a classified briefing to demonstrate that his conspiracy theories were baseless. Nonetheless, Mr. Clark continued to claim the 2020 election had been stolen. He privately met with President Trump to advocate for an unlawful plan to pressure swing state legislature to reconvene and overturn the already certified election results. When acting Attorney General Rosen made clear that Department of Justice would not engage in any of

these elections subversion tactics, Mr. Clark revealed that he had convinced President Trump to name him personally as Attorney General if Rosen would not relent. This culminated in an Oval Office showdown where President Trump only backed down from his plan to name Clark as acting attorney general when he was informed that his entire appointed leadership at the Department of Justice would resign in protest if he did it. Mr. Clark's plan was so far beyond the pale that President Trump's then White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, called it, quote, a murder-suicide pact. Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donahue called it, quote, excuse me, that shit crazy.

After an eight-month investigation by my staff, we released a 394-page report on this started episode titled Subverting Justice. Mr. Clark's actions were not just to stay on the Department of Justice, but on the legal profession as a whole. As a result, I submitted a complaint against Mr. Clark, along with the report and supporting materials to the D.C. Bar Disciplinary Council. I ask unanimous consent to include this complaint in the record. Last year, the D.C. Board of Professional Responsibility recommend that Mr. Clark be disbarred, a decision that he he has appealed. Mr. Clark's lies in coercive efforts to induce unlawful conduct, among other things, were egregious. It is insulting to this committee that we have been brought here as a witness,

not to answer for grave Ms. Khan, but to continue to push President Trump's big lie that the 2020 election was stolen. It is bad enough to watch the pathetic conduct of the parade of Trump nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench come before this committee and embarrasses. themselves by testimony under oath. They have obviously been warned that any deviation from the president's big lie could be politically, personally fatal. And so they sit before this committee and the cameras and refuse to answer probing questions like who won the popular vote in the 2020 presidential election. Nominees with distinguished education and training look foolish as they carefully avoid speaking the truth to carefully avoid.

bruising the colossal ego in the White House and now this Jeffrey Clark the architect of the big lie strategy front and center the star witness of the majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee. How you? Thank you. I will introduce the majority witnesses and then Senator Welsh will introduce the minority witness. Mr. Clark, Mr. Jeff Clark is the vice president of litigation at the Oversight Project. Mr. Clark has extensive experience in government service and private practice. He most recently served President Trump at the White House as acting administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget. In the past,

he's also served as Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division and the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. His credentials extend well beyond these three high-ranking political appointments. In addition to his government service, Mr. Clark was a big law partner in Washington, D.C., and occupied. important national leadership posts, not just in the conservative legal organizations, but also held an elected office at the American Bar Association. Dr. Dan Epstein is vice president at America First Legal and an associate professor of law at St. Thomas University in Miami, Florida.

Previously, he advised startups on regulatory matters as director at a private equity firm. His federal service includes serving as a special assistant to the senior Associate Counsel to the President and as counsel to the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Earlier in his career, Mr. Epstein founded and ran Cause of Action, a public interest law firm where he represented clients in government investigations and litigated regulatory, constitutional, political and public law matters. He holds a Ph.D. from George Washington University and Political Economy, a JD from Emmer University School of Law and a BA from Kenyon College. Thank you. Daniel Schwager of counsel at Verdi and Ogletree PLLC was previously Chief Counsel of American Oversight, 2022 to 2023, and before it was general counsel to the Secretary of the Senate, 2016 to 2022, including on January 6th. And from 2013 to 2011 to 2013, he was chief counsel and staffed.

to the House Ethics Committee, which for a time I served on that, Mr. Chairman, and served as counsel with the Senate Ethics Committee from 2009 to 2011. He served as a trial attorney in the public integrity section from 2003 to 2009 and was served as an assistant attorney, a district attorney in Manhattan, working in the official corruption unit from 1998 to 2003. holds the JD from NYU School of Law, MBA, and Ethical Theory from Bates College. Welcome. Okay, is customary in this committee that the witness is just worn in before their testimony, if you please rise and raise your right hand?

Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth will help you God? Thank you. Okay, have a seat. We'll get started with the witness testimony. Mr. Epstein, the floor is yours. Good morning. Chairman Schmidt, ranking member Welch, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

President Donald Trump overcame the most vindictive weaponization of the justice system against an American leader in our nation's history. Partisan operative sought to destroy him through a coordinated campaign of lawfare that began long before 2020 and reached its peak under the Biden administration. This subcommittee confronts the undeniable evidence of that assault laid bare in the whistleblower documents letters in productions released by Chairman Grassley. These records expose Operation Arctic Frost, the Biden FBI's internal code name for its sweeping dragnet targeting the entire Republican political apparatus in the America First

Movement. This committee's documents reveal a biased FBI election interference investigation that involved handpicked partisan agents to carry out a political agenda. General Garland, Deputy Attorney General Monaco, and FBI Director Ray personally signed off on this inquiry on April 4, 2022. This became the foundation for Special Counsel Jack Smith's election interference indictment of President Trump on August 1, 2023. Smith issued at least 197 grand jury subpoenas in snaring more than 400 Republican organizations,

individuals, and lawmakers, including America for legal itself, an organization that did not even exist on January 6, 2021. The subpoenas invaded donor lists, financial records, communications with Congress and the media, and more. Most outrageously, the Biden FBI secretly obtained the personal cell phone records of eight Republican U.S. senators and one representative without the legally required notice to Congress. They seized former President Trump's and Vice President Pence's government cell phones and conducted a nationwide sweep of interviews. This committee's oversight has forced these facts into the open.

The records are clear. Arctic Frost was explicitly designed to investigate the entire Republican political apparatus. The Biden administration's investigation of President Trump's records was no less egregious. The Marlago rate on August 8, 2022, was itself built on unlawful referrals. The National Archives' own former general counsel acknowledged that, quote, the PRA has no explicit provision on how to address concerns about suspected removal or destruction of presidential records, end quote. The archivist is not a law enforcement officer authorized to make criminal referrals, and former archivist David Ferreiro, who openly stated his concern about, quote,

what's going to happen in 2024, end quote, was it all relevant times biased against the president? NARA's referral of President Trump's recordkeeping practices to the FBI lacked legal authority. Neither President Obama, former Vice President Biden, nor President Carter, was subjected to a raid of their personal residences, despite retaining records. Before the special counsel case, courts were instructed to deferred in negotiations between presidents and NARA. The Garland DOJ flipped that settled practice solely to target President Trump. Internal emails from line agents questioned the, quote, predication, end quote, for the search and concluded, quote, I no longer believe we have real PC probable cause." These are not Republican talking points.

These are the words of career FBI agents who witnessed an entire enterprise of malicious prosecution, not legitimate law enforcement. Judge Eileen Cannon's dismissal of the prosecution on July 15, 2024, confirmed as much. The special counsel's appointment violated the appointments clause. His office was funded through an improper appropriation and no constitutional basis existed for the search or the subsequent indictment. America First Legal's relentless FOIA litigation has been indispensable to proving this conspiracy. AFL's investigation found that Manhattan District Attorney's Office identified, quote,

36 responsive records, end quote, in response to our FOIA request for communications with the Biden DOJ mentioning Donald Trump. AFL's FOIA work has also exposed the ties between Matthew Colangelo, who descended from the third highest position in Biden's DOJ to, quote, jumpstart, end quote, Bragg's prosecution and the broader White House lawfare strategy. These disclosures combined with the Arctic Frost documents prove coordination between the federal government and state prosecutors against a presidential candidate in clear violation of federal election law. Reforms are possible. Special counsel appointments must require Senate confirmation. FBI investigative powers targeting political figures must be constrained by

meaningful internal controls. State courts must never again be permitted to baselessly interfere with the election of federal officials over subject matter that Congress has assigned exclusive jurisdiction to federal authorities. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Schweger. Thank you, Chairman Schmidt, Ranking Member Welch, Ranking Member Durbin, and I wish Chairman Grassley is speedy recovery. I've been asked to testify today regarding the role of predication and examination

of evidence in judging investigations. including politically sensitive investigations, based on my experience and perspectives as a former corruption prosecutor at the state and federal level. I am not speaking on behalf of my current or any former employer. Today, I hope to share my perspective regarding the principles and common tools

of nonpartisan investigations applicable to public corruption and any other complex matter and the role of a nonpartisan review of evidence in determining or overseeing the path of an investigation, including its witnesses and subpoena recipients. I've also been a, fierce nonpartisan defender of the prerogatives of the legislative branch and the protection it needs from a potentially abusive and retributive executive branch. My entire legal career,

however, has been rooted in the same concern for ethics and integrity and government and countering corruption and abuses of power. These have always been nonpartisan concerns at their core. I've worked for and with both Republicans and Democrats of great integrity and ethical compass. In private practice I have represented both Republican and Democratic members of Congress and staff with equal conviction and commitment. I have also investigated, prosecuted, seen prosecuted, and defended public officials on both sides of the aisle who have been accused of breaching the public trust. An investigation of misconduct, corruption, or fraud looks roughly the same, no matter who the target or witnesses are. Unfortunately, political attacks on those nonpartisan

investigations often look and sound roughly the same as well. I have been accused of being a tool of the right and a tool of the left, once even in the same case. Throughout my career as a corruption prosecutor, I also learned the valuable tool we used to call luds and tolls. Many investigations began with subpoenas of non-content phone records of both subjects of investigations and sometimes known associates, both within and without suspicion, where potentially relevant. Those records were scoured for patterns, timelines, and missing connections relevant to the investigation, and then additional subpoenas were sought for the records of those phone numbers within those patterns to understand, test, or expand on the original records. In complex matters by the time all subscriber information had been subpoenaed, it was not unusual for non-content subscriber identification of hundreds of related phone numbers and people to have been subpoenaed.

The only thing that determined whose records were subpoenaed was the fact that their relevance had already come up in the investigation in some way. neither necessarily good nor bad. I've even seen such records lead to the complete exoneration of a high-ranking FBI official who was framed by an informant. It was usually the case that subpoenas were issued before the subjects of investigation knew of either the existence, the scope, or the direction of the investigation. The risk of those being revealed to the subject because our subpoenas became publicly known was usually obvious. For that reason, where non-disclosure orders were appropriate to prevent public knowledge of the investigative steps, they were regularly sought. To be clear, all searches for and seizures of information by the government implicate constitutional

rights of regular people. The Constitution and Congress authorize them anyway, when reasonable, to balance those rights against the need to effectively combat crime, including fraud and corruption. What is important when judging an investigation, however, is to examine all the the available evidence and the reasonable predication for such investigation or actions. In the matter at issue in this hearing, the publicly available evidence demonstrates a well predicated and thorough investigation of an alleged scheme to fraudulently overturn an American election and the use of violence towards those fraudulent ends. Of course, when the legislative branch is involved in investigation, common investigative steps can implicate additional,

important constitutional concerns. The speech or debate clause is a wise insight of our founders, explicitly included in the Constitution to temper the risk of an abusive or retributive president. However, the executive and legislative branches have disagreed in and out of court for years about speech or debate, with only limited and sometimes contradictory guidelines from the lower courts and less by the Supreme Court. But a reasonable disagreement does not equal improper conduct. In summary, no person or investigation is perfect, but based on my training and experience, I believe the thorough investigation at issue here, which was called for after January 6th by courageous senators of both parties, was well predicated and followed the policies in place

at the time in the Department of Justice to avoid infringing on anyone's constitutional rights. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak with you today, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you. Mr. Clark, Ms. Clark, me, microphone. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, ranking members and members of the subcommittee, I look forward to rebutting the falsehoods and distortions I heard today, but I do want to deliver my opening statement. Arctic Frost was not a routine investigation. It was a sweeping multi-agency operation targeting hundreds of Americans issuing nearly 200 subpoenas, seizing communications at the highest levels of the government, pointing a criminal case dagger at President Trump,

that was all designed to destroy the populist Republican Party. I was in its crosshairs. Let me be clear. This testimony is not about my support for Republicans. It is about whether the machinery of government was used in a way that would alarm every American regardless of party, and it was. First, what was Arctic Frost?

It was an investigation launched in 2022 under circumstances that flatly violated FBI protocol in all ethical standards, allowing a politically biased agent to open his own case. That's not adequate predication. From there, it expanded dramatically, reaching into six states, targeting roughly 420 individuals and entities, even sweeping in the phone records of sitting United States senators. This was not a narrow law enforcement operation to keep American safe. It was a political drag net. Second, my experience. I expressed internal views within the

Department of Justice about the 2020 election through proper channels. in privilege settings as part of my official duties as a lawyer and consistent with my Rule 2.1 obligations in D.C. For that, I became subject of biased New York Times leaks, overlapping investigations, an inspector general probe, later merged into Arctic Frost, a bar referral, a congressional investigation, a federal investigation, and a failed state prosecution. These were not isolated. They overlapped, they reinforced one another, and they imposed immense personal and professional costs. At one point, my home was raided. My family's devices were seized. My daughter, who was 12 years old at the time, 12 years old, came to me nearly in tears after she learned about the raid

and said that her personal diary. Was that read by the agent's dad? You don't want to have to explain that to your 12-year-old. I received death threats. One caught from a caller claiming to be from New Jersey invited me to go to the pine barons where he said he would dismember me and then send the pieces in buckets to my fatherless family. We reported this to the FBI and we never heard back. That is the insane hyperpartisan atmosphere that Arctic Frost stoked. Third, the pattern, the same conduct, all internal privileged DOJ communications in my case were simultaneously probed by multiple bodies. On five fronts, It's the same facts, the same target, all me, all designed to impose tectonic pressure that would

try to make me say something and lie about President Trump, which I refuse to do. I stood strong. Documents already in the public record and that I've attached to my more extensive written testimony show direct coordination such as information sharing, multi-state meetings with state prosecutors, overlapping witnesses, clever attempted evasions of important legal privileges, and And miraculous purported coincidences like the Office of Inspector General and the FBI raiding my house one day, June 22nd. And then the very next day, magically, the January 6th committee had a hearing targeted

at me. I wonder how that happened. Fourth, the implications of the fruit plucked from this poisonous tree from FBI agent Tebow. If an investigation is launched improperly, then what follows is tainted. If internal watchdog materials are merged into criminal probes, as happened here with the OIG investigation that morphed into Arctic Frost, you've violated what the Inspector General's office is designed to do. And now it's conflicted, and now it cannot look at DOJ's own conduct in that investigation. Fifth, the broader context.

Arctic Frost did not occur in isolation. It fits within a pattern of Biden-autopen wielders, suspending investigations. expanding investigative powers against political opponents using lower thresholds, broader definitions of threat, and increasing coordination across institution. Even the religious rights of Americans were no barrier to the Biden, DOJ, and FBI. They weaponized against Catholic Latin mass goers, calling them potential violent extremists. They weaponized against conscientious abortion protesters who were pro-life. It didn't matter to them.

The leftist orthodoxy had to be calteled to. This committee has to ask the question. Where are the limits and what should they be? And I think you need to expose on the record all of the Arctic Frost documents, as Senator Grassley has been doing, as Chair Grassley has been doing, so that the American people understand the multi-state, you know, multi-agency, all of government, as Chair Schmidt indicated, that was weaponized against President Biden

and any of his allies. Thank you. Thank you, the witnesses. I'll start off. Mr. Clark, I want to ask you, you've been referenced the, you being targeted not just by Arctic Frost, but in Fulton County, multiple proceedings. In that proceeding in Fulton County specifically, you and your lawyers sought documents,

communications, including Nathan Wade's billing entries for his conference with White House counsel, interview with D.C. White House, but Judge McAfee placed certain materials reviewed in camera under seal. Why are those, you explained to the committee, why are those sealed communications so important? Well, thank you for that question. Look, we don't know what's in the communications until we see them. You know, we obviously called for them. We think we have a right to show them. And we think part of the correspondence showed that the Justice Department did not give what's called Tui authorizations to Fannie Willis so that she could put witnesses from the Justice Department in front of the grand jury. And we posed the obvious question of if she can't

produce any witnesses from the Justice Department against me, then how could she possibly proceed with her case? We think the judge erred in not recognizing that that was a serious Brady issue, but he decided after he looked at the documents to put them under seal, I think this this body, and I think the Justice Department could get access to those materials. And kind of zooming out then, beyond just what you endured through all of this, you've described Arctic Frost as part of a coordinated effort, not just to simply punish individuals, but destroy the infrastructure around President Trump and a movement, really.

Explain what you mean by that. Sure. Maybe it's easiest actually to start with the, weaponization of the bar complaint process, which some call part of lawfare, others call bar fare now. The 65 project was created by David Brock, who is a super leftist Democrat activist, and he specifically admitted in a scoop story he gave to Axios with Jonathan Swan, who's now at the New York Times, that his whole purpose was to make conservative lawyers, lawyers adjacent or who represented President Trump, toxic in their legal communities,

so that they could not get jobs and so that their reputations would be destroyed so that no one else would represent the conservative movement. That's a complete act of destruction aimed at our adversary system. We can't have a system in which only one party can have election lawyers. David Boyes and Professor Lawrence Tribe in Bush v. Gore in 2000, they faced no ethical consequences, but somehow if you're a Republican lawyer, if you're a John Eastman or Rudy Giuliani or you're a me, you are treated to an entirely different standard and it's designed to try to shame.

Dr. Epstein, I want to ask you, you've reviewed the documents. And this is just a myriad. This is a web, right? You've got DOJ, you've got DOJ, I, our OIG, NARA, Jack Smith, the Biden White House, Fulton County, Manhattan. You've got all these actors. Does this look like some isolated law enforcement effort? Does this look like a coordinated attempt to take down a chief political rival in anybody that had any support for them?

No, I think you're absolutely right. This was clearly not something where the starting philosophy was, let's go through a very orderly process. I mean, the fact that the National Archives was consulting with the White House Counsel's Office on how to get documents, to the FBI and debating whether they should go through the clear path of communicating with the president's counsel and getting consent or to concoct statutes in a way that allowed them to not do that. The fact that you had coordination between Bragg's office and the Department of Justice, which when the House of Representatives asked that question to the attorney general, he denied it, but the existence of responsive records that clearly indicates that there were communications.

I think this raises the significant risk that this was not a sober investigative process. It was very much tainted by political interests. And you also raised the possibility that this just wasn't a bad judgment or even just political bias, but that this was potentially unlawful conduct, correct? Could a conspiracy against rights be one of those kind of charges under federal wall that under Section 21, absolutely. And, you know, I think this committee has done very good work on investigating that. I think, as you pointed out, the process is the punishment.

And when you have very aggressive bureaucrats who want to coordinate with prosecutors in a way that doesn't follow the process, doesn't follow fair procedures, that raises the significant risk of conspiracy against rights. Senator Welch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Epstein, who won the 2020 election? You know, that's a political question. Obviously, in the Constitution, the determination of who won is delegated to the electors and is a vote in the House.

I would also point out that throughout American history, there have been contestations of who won. I'm asking specifically who won the 2020. 20 election, and I'm taking your non-answer to be consistent with everyone else who came in. I'm not a pollster, but I will tell you this, that I'm not asking you about a pollster. I'm asking who win the election. Biden was elected president. Okay.

Did he win? He won under the constitutional mechanisms we have to determine who's the president. Was there a violent attack by people who did not believe that he won the election and it was stolen on the Capitol on January 6th? I think that's in the record. I'm asking you for a yes or no on that. Based off the publicly available evidence that appears to be what occurred. Appears to be. Did you ever see any? I was not there.

Did you watch any TV of mobs climbing the Capitol? I read papers. I didn't watch. Okay. All right. I actually don't know what I admire your skepticism. Mr. Clark, who won the 2020 election? Joe Biden received the necessary number of electoral college votes, and then in joint session, Congress certified those results.

All right. So you were promoting efforts to raise questions about the electors and states, despite the fact that Attorney General Barr said there was no evidence to indicate fraud on any level that would come close to resulting in it was a reversal of the election. Is that correct? Senator Welch, with all due respect, lawyers disagree with each other. That may be news to you, but we frequently... I understand. And you disagree with Attorney General Barr. Yes. And Attorney General Barr actually supported me in my bar proceeding. So he can disagree with me

about one issue and agree with me about others. Let's stay on the question. I'm glad you're good friends with the Attorney General Barr. You said you followed procedures at the Justice Department. Attorney General Rosen enacting Deputy AG said that you contacted the president without informing them that you were going to do that. The president contacted me, and under Article 2, which is the ultimate procedure, Senator, the president can contact any member of the executive branch. And you did not report that to your superior. I did speak to Jeff Rosen about that on the Saturday after it happened. All right.

And the president, as you know, was fishing around for somebody who would be willing to take his bogus case. And you did. So thank you for that. Case was not bogus. You disagree with Attorney General Barr? Yes. All right. The claim here, Mr. Schwager, is that this is a bogus.

By the way, were crimes committed on January 6 by the mob who attacked the Capitol? There were crimes that were committed by some members of the people who protested that day. Do you believe that it was a crime for people to attack officers and hit them with, hit them, pulled their helmets off to attack them with sticks and mace and bear spray? Police officers should not be assaulted. That is criminal. I would say that I don't believe that anyone in D.C. with a 94% jury pool got a fair trial.

And that's why President Trump rightly pardoned them. 94%? Yes. Are you saying the people of D.C. have no capacity to make a determination based on the evidence about criminal conduct that may have been committed? I think they can when we're not talking about something that's politically hypercharged and something that the media tries to drum in as a narrative. But when politics are at stake, I don't think so.

What are you thinking about the attacks on these officers who were standing between the mob and Nancy Pelosi or Vice President Pence and stood their ground and did their job? And there was evidence that was presented in court and people who committed those crimes were convicted. And you're saying they were rightly pardoned because it was a bogus trial? If you don't get due process, that is one. one of the mechanisms in the Constitution to ensure that people get justice, Senator Pay. Mr. I, Mr. Schwager, just the premise here is that it was a bogus investigation. And all of the things that are part of a normal investigation, subpoenas, making links, having a wide investigatory outreach, is there anything different about this investigation

and what would be a thorough investigation of any other crime once there is a predicate for pursuing an investigation. Well, I think the alleged crime is historic in nature. However, the tools used in the investigation are common to complex matters. Thank you. I yield back. I noticed he did not opine about the novel legal theory. Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to the three of you. We appreciate that you all are here. You know, Mr. Chairman, at our last Arctic Frost hearing, the Democrats on the committee brought forward a witness that said he was perfectly fine with a weaponization that took place in Arctic Frost and through Jack Smith. In fact, he claimed that politics did not exist under the Biden FBI. His story. His

term was that politics were absent there. And as I noted at that time, and I'll say again this morning, that was a laughable claim. Everyone knows that Jack Smith leveraged the FBI and the DOJ to go on a years-long crusade against President Trump, members of Congress, and hundreds of conservative organizations and individuals. And I include Mr. Epstein and Mr. Clark in this group that was targeted as so was I and some of our colleagues. So Mr. Clark and Mr. Epstein. I'll start with Mr. Epstein.

I want to hear from each of you on this as you were impacted by Arctic Frost. And do you think that politics was absent from the Biden FBI or was politics practice? Mr. Epstein first. There's no question that politics was very much involved there. And I could speak to my own organization, America First Legal. We didn't even exist on January 6th and our records were subpoenaed. Mr. Clark? It was absolutely political, Senator Blackburn.

I would start with the fact that the agent who opened his own case in violation of FBI protocol, Tim Tebow, was actually effectively disciplined by the special counsel for violating the Hatch Act, which is an indication of the fact that he was getting into political matters. Also, the entire name of the operation, Arctic Frost, indicates that it was political. Why? And it was changed to that name? because it's a type of orange. If the people who are running this investigation so-called were not political, if they were more brazen, they would have called it Orange Man Bad.

It's right in the name of Arctic Frost. It's an indication of the fact that it was a politicized effort to destroy President Trump. Mr. Epstein, I want to talk about a component of Arctic Frost, which I think has kind of gotten lost. And that is the fact that this case ultimately came about because of an unlawfully appointed special counsel. Specifically, we know Jack Smith was not appointed pursuant to any explicit statutory authority as Ken Starr, John Durham, and other special counsels were appointed. In fact, in then Attorney General Garland's appointment order, naming Smith as the special counsel, none of the statutes that Garland cited authorized such an appointment,

nor was Jack Smith nominated and confirmed with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, as is required by the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Now, in a recent amicus brief before the 11th Circuit, America First Legal, made that very argument. without either of those authorities being satisfied, it is clear that Jack Smith did not serve as special counsel lawfully. Is that correct? And I'd like your opinion. That's absolutely correct, Senator. The closest statute that Attorney General Garland could have relied upon is 28 U.S.C. 515A, but that only gets triggered if Congress has some specific statute authorizing the appointment of the special counsel, which it didn't.

I'd also note the Independent Counsel Act had expired. The other sources that Garland relied upon referenced specifically the FBI. So there was no clear statutory authority to appoint someone from the outside as being a inferior officer of the United States. His appointment was as a hornbook matter of constitutional law unauthorized. And when I talk to Tennesseans, one of the things they mention regularly is they want to see people held to account so that Jack Smith and his team will be held responsible for what they did. And they're disappointed. Nothing has happened so far.

I appreciate the fact, my time has expired. I appreciate the fact that the two of you are here. and I will submit a question for writing in writing to you to comment about the importance of accountability when we see the weaponization of these agencies. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Senator Durbin. All these questions and all these charges about Jack Smith, where's Jack Smith? Months ago, he said to the chairman of the committee, bring him here, put him under oath, ask these questions directly.

Not ready. We're not going to do it. Well, I think tells the whole story. I believe we should be here and should tell his version of the story under oath. Mr. Clark, the White House visitor law only appear to record appointments with you on December 22, 2020, and January 3, 2021. But we know you had more conversations with President Trump between those dates because Deputy Attorney General Donahue reprimanded you on January 2, 2021 for continuing to violate Department of Justice White House contact. policy. Mr. Clark, what was your primary form of communication with President Trump during this time period? Senator, I'm not going to answer questions about my communications with the president while I was

in the executive branch. That's privileged. You can't even tell us that you had a conversation. You've already volunteered that. The public information that's come out about that in terms of what was in the January 6th report is one example. I won't dispute that, but I'm not going to tell you, exactly when I talk to him, how I talk to him. These are all privileged matters. There was a conversation where President Trump indicated he would appoint you acting Attorney General in person or not. Again, Senator, you're asking about matters that are privileged. It's interesting, Mr. Clark, you've avoided answering key questions by consistently invoking the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination while under oath. However, like nearly 1600 January 6th

insurrectionists and other election deniers, you are now received an inappropriate but equally legally valid presidential pardon for your conduct. And now you have no basis to invoke the privilege. So can you explain to us why you won't even tell us whether you met with the president during this period? Well, I didn't invoke that privilege here, Senator. I will invoke four privileges, executive privilege, law enforcement privilege, deliberative process privilege, and attorney-client privilege. And all of those I fully maintain. interesting story. President of the United States asked him to take over the Department of Justice, apparently. All of this is a matter of record that's been disclosed. And even when he's been

pardoned by President Trump, he won't tell us whether he met with him or spoke to him. Mr. Clark, let me ask you a question. Did you ever meet directly or correspond with White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, or any other senior official in a White House executive office of the president? I similarly think that that's privileged. I believe, uh, firmly. as a legal matter, that that is also covered by the same four privileges I just invoked. So we have Jack Smith prepared to testify under oath and answer the questions. They don't want to see him. They want to bring us, Mr. Clark.

Let's talk about Jack Smith. I ask the questions you get to answer them if you wish. In your notes from your briefing with then Director of National Intelligence Radcliffe, he indicated you should reach out to Cash Patel, who'd work for Radcliffe to find a, quote, trustworthy FBI agent in your efforts. Did you reach out to Patel and if so, what help did he provide you? I do want to say something about Jack Smith because the single most salient fact in regard to me of Jack Smith is that he referred to me initially in the indictment against Trump as unindicted co-conspirator

number four. And after the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States, he issued, he got a superseding indictment and it dropped all reference to me. And the D.C. Bar similarly should have immediately dropped his case. If only we could get him under oath to ask a question like that. Well, it sounds like that's coming, Senator. Yeah. In any event, in terms of, I did not speak to current director Patel in his former office.

I did speak to DNI head Radcliffe. Did you make any contact with the FBI, as he suggested? There was no time to do that before the meeting on January 3rd that you referred to. When I spoke to him, it was January 2nd. Let's talk about another one of your interesting conspiracy theories that Rudy Giuliani was peddling, that Italian IT contractors worked with the FBI to use military satellites to manipulate American voting machines. Attorney General Rosen declined these meetings. Did you ever meet with Rudy Giuliani during this period?

No, I did not. And in fact, that's an interesting story because Cassidy Hutchinson said that I was regularly going over to the White House to meet with Rudy Giuliani. Rudy Giuliani, and I didn't meet him until January of 2025. We pointed out that she confused me with Justin Clark, who was engaged in campaign matters, and then magically that story disappeared from Politico, which was otherwise trying to push it. So, no, I was not coordinating with Rudy Giuliani. I didn't meet him in 2020 or 21. I just knew about him from the news.

Did you ever make a public statement that this Italian IT contractor conspiracy theory needed to be investigated? I did not, to my knowledge or my memory. And in fact, I investigated it after, several years after, and I don't believe that that is a valid theory. Thank goodness. I yield. Thank you.

This has been a lot of discussion about Jack Smith. I'd like to enter into the record an op-ed from the Wall Street Journal that says, of the Arctic Frost documents that, quote, the facts continue to roll out about Jack Smith, and those facts are getting uglier, end quote, without objection. Senator Britt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your leadership on this. both as an attorney general and now here in the Senate. I also want to thank Chair Grassley for his work on

oversight of this issue amongst a number of issues, but really working to expose some of the most troublesome aspects of the Arctic Frost investigation. Whether it be by an FBI agent who repeatedly engaged in political partisanship and violated the FBI's no self-approval rule, it's mass targeting of nearly 100 Republican groups, including Turning Point USA, the Republican Attorneys General Association, the America First Policy Institute, and the Republican National Committee, 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 prosecute.

in Manhattan or Fulton County, Georgia in pursuit of Trump-related investigations. We even have people that campaigned on taking him down. I mean, it's absolutely ridiculous. All in all, it paints a picture of criminal investigations that evolved into indiscriminate drag net 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.

Mr. Epstein, I have a question for you. There have 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 like likely violated existing federal law and prohibited the use of NDOs on subpoenas involving Senate devices. The fact that at least one telecon 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

request were illegal in the first place. What is your view on that issue and are there additional steps that we need to take to reform existing law or create new ones to better protect all Americans from NDOs being used in a politicized or an improper manner? Yeah, thank you, Senator. I mean, clearly as a matter of law, there needs to be consultation with Senate, the Senate, before phone providers provide any of those records. Obviously, that's rooted in speech or debate, which has direct constitutional text. You can't force senators to speak, members of the House to speak without their consent. I would also say that as another statutory matter under Title IV, USC 2118,

congressional records are preserved and transferred in Congress's discretion to the National Archives. If there was interest in getting that kind of information, the more constitutionally appropriate mechanism would have been for the Smith team to get as many relevant records from the archives. If they're not preserved by, or if they're not transferred rather by the Senate, again, that revolves back to speech or debate and whether the Senate consents to those things and whether the telecom providers have received that consent. Well, Mr. Epstein, follow up on that, one of the principal concerns that, you know, people have brought up with Arctic Frost investigation and related state-level investigations

as they tried to criminalize conduct that wasn't actually illegal. It is not illegal for someone to say that there may be fraud present. It is not illegal to question, you know, what happened and how. how it happened and try to figure out a pathway moving forward. 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. Yeah, 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 Mershon, that was a case where they were interpreting federal election law, which is totally inappropriate for them. And primary jurisdiction is something that I teach

in administrative law clearly laid with the FEC. 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. But again, there's also the power of oversight. There's still questions that Congress can ask, and it can ask these states. It could ask these prosecutorial officers.

If a group like America First Legal can use FOIA to get documents, certainly the Congress can conduct oversight. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Senator White House. Thanks very much. Mr. Clark, could you, are you aware that the FBI executed a search warrant at with respect to the Fulton County election records and seized a considerable number of records? I'm aware from the news, yes.

Did you have any contact with any person within the Department of Justice or the FBI relevant to that search warrant application or that search? No, during that time period, if I'm remembering correctly, I was at OMB. No one reached out to you? No one reached out to me. How about the witnesses that were in the search warrant application? Did any of them have any contact with you related to that search warrant application or that search? I don't know who the witnesses are, but to my knowledge, no. Let's go back to your Georgia letter when you were in the Department of Justice.

As I understand it, you had been in the Environment Natural Resources Division. which has no authority over elections. You had been acting chief of the civil division as people cleared out at the end of the Trump administration, again with no role in elections. Incorrect. And as best I can tell, you had no prior experience in elections law.

Is that correct? Also incorrect. So both things are incorrect. I ran the two divisions, the Environment Division and the Civil Division, total of 1,400 lawyers simultaneously. the civil division did have several election cases. There are two major sets of them. Did you, and were you directly involved in any of those cases? Yes. There's one in particular I

will tell you about, which. Well, that's okay. I'm asking the questions here. So let me continue. When you wrote that letter, who in the civil division did you contact with respect to its contents? That is something that would be law enforcement privileged inside the Justice Department. No, it's not. It absolutely is, Senator. What lawyers I consulted and what they said and what I said to them, all of that is something that's... No, what lawyers you consulted? Maybe what you said, but certainly what lawyers you consulted. I'm entitled to know if you bothered to consult a single lawyer in the civil rights division before you did that. But I'll turn to a different question. Who from outside the civil rights division or outside of the Department of Justice gave you advice about that letter? In terms of that letter, again, anything related to how that letter was formulated is law enforcement privileged? That just ain't so. And let me ask that the record include the Board of Professional Responsibility opinions with respect to throwing out Mr. Clark's claims, false claims of privilege. So let's just say that somebody from outside the department put you up to writing that letter and told you what they wanted in it.

What privilege would that require? Well, there, Senator, hopefully I can help you by assuring you that there was no one from outside the department who put me up to writing a letter. I'm quite capable of writing a letter, thinking about it and making my own legal decisions. No one contributed text to you. No one contributed ideas to you. No entity or person asked you to do this. Again, these kinds of things would be part of privilege. No, they wouldn't. They were just wrong about that. Well, you can say that, Senator, but I disagree with you. And I know, but you've asserted privileges before and you've been wrong. You assert privilege willy-nilly with no real basis for it. So, by the way, it's not even conceded that those privileges matter in Congress. In fact, Chairman Grassley has repeatedly said that there are a number of privileges, and I think many of us agree with him, that we don't pertain to congressional investigations because of the separation of powers.

So what we're asking about here is whether you were put up to this by outside entities, whether those outside entities help get. you the meeting in the Oval Office with Representative Perry, who was behind that, and who was behind finding you a dark money-funded landing pad once the Department of Justice tenure was over, and you were picked up by a dark-money-funded advocacy group. Those are legitimate questions. I intend to pursue them. My time has expired. Thank you, Senator. Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling this hearing on this so-called investigation, which is an absolute mockery of the term, all the investigation was, was an attempt to browbeat ordinary citizens out of their constitutional rights and expressions

of their constitutional right, including, of course, the First Amendment. It was an attempt to spy on members of Congress, including myself who had our phones tapped. It's an absolute outrage that I hope will never happen again in American history. But I want to talk about another outrage today, if I could, that is very much in process. And that is the attempt by the American left to destroy the independence of the United States Supreme Court. We've had out of this court just in the last few days, another series of leaks. I'm holding up here a page, a printout. This time, the private papers of the justices.

You might remember just a few years ago somebody leaked an unpublished internal draft opinion for the first time in the history of the Supreme Court leaked it in an attempt to derail, it was the Dobbs decision, in an attempt to derail an opinion of the court. Now we have from the justices' personal private. papers that by law belong to them, we have multiple leaks from February, from January, and 2016 leaked to the press. Why? For the sin of the court's supposed failure to address the global climate crisis. That's right, ladies and gentlemen. That's what the New York Times tells us. The court has not managed the global climate crisis properly. And therefore, whomever it

is at the Supreme Court who wants to destroy the independence of that body is now leak. the justices own private papers. This is part of a coordinated attack on this institution that has gone on now for years. And the point of it is to destroy the independence of the Supreme Court to browbeat that court into doing what the left in this country wants and to hold up a clear threat to the court that if they don't, they will be packed with new justices, they will be personally threatened, their papers will be leaked, their security will be threatened, And in short, the left will do everything they can to destroy the court as an institution. I've worked at that court.

I have litigated that court as a private lawyer and as the attorney general of the state of Missouri. And I can tell you what is happening now is absolutely a coordinated effort to destroy the court. And it has been years in the making, years in the making. It goes all the way back to when President Obama stood in the well of the House of Representatives at the podium, there and to the face of the justices, browbeat and criticize them personally for a decision he didn't like. I've heard a lot of fussing from the other side of the aisle. They don't like how President Trump is critical of the court. Really? I don't remember a word when Barack Obama stood and looked at the justices and personally attacked them at a state of the union address.

But that was just the merest beginning. We have had since then an assassination attempt on the life of a justice, Brett Kavanaugh. We have had this. the current minority leader of the Senate, go to the floor, to the steps, rather, of the Supreme Court, Chuck Schumer, go to the steps of the court and threaten the justices by name, by name. We've had a coordinated leak from within the court meant to derail the Dobbs opinion and to destroy it. We have had dark money groups, left-wing dark money groups funding illegal protests at the justices' homes after an assassination attempt on the justices, that the Biden Justice Department, and FBI refused to stop, despite the fact they were illegal.

For months, these illegal protests meant, meant to threaten the security of the justices went on. Months and months and months. And the Biden Justice Department couldn't lift a finger. And I don't remember hardly a peep from the other side of the aisle. Oh, no, this is a deliberate attempt to tell the court, do what we want you to do or we will destroy you. and this is just the latest attempt. I don't know what's going to be left. I mean, if the Justice's private papers can be leaked,

I'll give the Times credit. They're at least honest. They say they talk to at least, in addition to getting the private papers, 10 different individuals who were formerly employed at the court, who were familiar with deliberations over pivotal emergency orders and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Why? Because, and I quote, confidentiality was a condition of their employment. In other words, multiple people from within the court who were delighted to violate their own employment agreements in order to put the private deliberations of the justices into view with the sole purpose of trying to destroy this institution's independence. I happen to believe in our system of government. I believe the three branches were designed for a reason.

I believe the independence of the Supreme Court is vital. And if I believe, I believe if you don't like decisions of that court, and there are plenty I disagree with, plenty from Citizens United to many, many more. But you do not address those differences of opinion by trying to destroy the institutional legitimacy and independence of the court. And that is exactly what the American left is trying to do in a coordinated fashion. And I'll end with this, Mr. Chairman. We need to follow the money. Those protests at the justice's home that were designed to threaten their safety were funded by somebody.

They were funded. I want to know who funded them. I want to know where the money from this pressure campaign, this multi-year pressure campaign is coming from. We need to have hearings in this committee to unveil the sources of this funding, of this campaign, and of this attempt to undermine our system of government. It is a clear and present danger to the operation of our Constitution, Mr. Chairman. I yield. Senator Hawley, I'd like to enter into the record, an article in the Hill on Arctic Cross documents that says,

quote, documents released by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley described investigative actions by the Biden area Department of Justice and FBI that were not merely aggressive, but aggressively partisan and focused in sweeping and scope. It is increasingly clear that this was an overreach of monumental proportions and consequence using law enforcement authority in a manner that transformed the justice system into a political weapon. That is the very definition of lawfare, end quote, Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me join several of my colleagues in recognizing the obvious. If the objective here from the subcommittee, the committee as a whole, was to get down to anything, we'd have Jack Smith before us to testify and to answer questions. So I can't help but recognize this hearing for what it truly is. Just another opportunity for people who want to refuse to come to grips with the fact that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, to add their grievances and spread the big light conspiracy.

It's pretty rich for us to be even having this debate focused on, quote, conspiracy and coordination. That's part of the title of this hearing, when the president himself and with the help of his enablers are leading a coordinated effort to undermine the sanctity and validity of our upcoming elections. That's what we should be talking. about colleagues. For years, President Trump and his allies have been raging about our elections.

He even said during the 2016 Iowa caucuses that they were rigged when Senator Cruz beat him. Trump has been trying to undermine confidence in our system of voting, attacking elections officials who don't agree or go along with them, even exploiting his power to have the FBIC's ballots in the state's ballot in the state. ballots in the state of Georgia. And when his first effort to, quote, take over elections, his words, not mine, via executive order on day one of the second term, that effort failed in the courts. His friends here on Capitol Hill have tried to help him do it with this so-called Save America

Act to save him and his party from the consequences at the ballot this not. November. But after weeks and weeks of debate where Democrats expose how outrageous this bill is and how many barriers it would create for Americans, not only to be able to register to vote, but to stay registered to vote and to actually cast their ballot, thankfully that bill seems to be put on ice. Good riddance. Because Congress shouldn't be working to restrict access to the ballot for eligible Americans, we should be striving to expand access to the ballot for eligible Americans. We have a president whose newest executive order is attempting to force states to rely on a federal list of, quote, eligible voters created by the Department of Homeland Security with no history or

background on this. And he wants to hand over authority for absentee and mail voting. To the Trump administration, and if states don't comply with all his demand, and the Postal Service apparently won't deliver voters' absentee ballots. Talk about the weaponization of government. The president is trying to order the Postal Service to not deliver lawful ballots from eligible voters. Now, that's profoundly un-American, and I have no doubt it's also illegal and unconstitutional and will face that proper fate in a court of law. But in response, I'm introducing a bill,

the Absentee and Mail Voter Protection Act, to stop this executive order to nullify it and any similar action in its tracks, the same way we stopped the Save America Act. But if you really want to be doing something about conspiracies and coordination, Mr. Chairman, then we ought to be focusing our time and attention

on the endless campaign by the president, designed to undermine public confidence in our elections and our fundamental right to vote. Now, turn into another critical topic that this subcommittee could be investigating instead of the repeated election denials. The Migration Policy Institute recently estimated 15,000 people have been deported to countries of which they are not nationals under agreements that this administration has entered. These agreements have no transparency, including what incentives this administration is promising or what pressure they're using to get countries to take people who are not their nationals, but victims of Trump's mass deportation agenda. Now, the worst part is these people in removal proceedings often don't have proper notice or an opportunity to challenge their removal to these countries. That's not my assessment. that's the recent finding of a federal judge who also criticized so-called safety assurances provided by these countries in their agreements with the United States.

Question for Mr. Twager. Do you believe that this is the best use of this subcommittee's time or should instead be more focused on the day-to-day constitutional violations that we're seeing from this administration? Senator, I defer to the wise discretion of the Senate committee and far be it for me to tell you what to do. That's a great answer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. Senator Cruz. Thank you to the wise chairman.

Mr. Chairman, in the last hearing, we proved that Arctic Frost was no rogue operation. It was authorized at the highest level of the Biden Justice Department. And today we're asking the next question. Who coordinated it, who profited from it, and who paid the price. Professor Epstein, on April 4th, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, and FBI Director Christopher Ray, personally signed off on opening Arctic Frost. Their signatures. On a document, authorizing a federal investigation into virtually the entirety of the opposing political party. Are you familiar with that?

Yes, Senator. The operatives in Watergate hid their names. They were embarrassed to be part of weaponizing government. Here, the top leadership of the Department of Justice flaunted their abuse of power. Mr. Epstein, when power at the top gives permission, allies below move quickly. That's how Washington works, isn't it?

I think so, Senator, yes. And Arctic Frost quickly grew beyond the Department of Justice. Are you familiar with the names Tim Heafi, Jack Smith, and Thomas Windham? Some of those names, yes, certainly Jack Smith. Heafi led the January 6th Committee investigation of President Trump. Smith prosecuted him as special counsel, and Wyndham was Smith's senior deputy. Does that sound right? Yes.

And all three coordinated with Fannie Willis, the Fulton County District Attorney who brought the Georgia RICO case against President Trump, sharing witnesses, sharing documents, helping to prepare her witness interviews. Is that right? Yes. And when it was all over, these three men founded a law firm together. Is that right? It appears so. Washington has a lot of revolving doors, but this one spun from prosecution. to profit. But you need not take my word for it. Follow the money. Nathan Wade, Fannie Willis's special prosecutor and her romantic partner, bill Georgia taxpayers $20,000 for six federal coordination meetings in 2022 alone. Two, with the White House. Three with the January 6th committee, he won on that same day that Jack Smith was appointed special counsel. This was a coordinated,

organized operation by the Biden White House, the Biden Justice Department, and the Democrat party to try to destroy their political opposition because they were terrified that the voters would do what they did, which is in November 2024, reelect President Donald Trump. And this was the single greatest assault on democracy, our nation, has ever seen. Our Democrat friends are not shy about saying they're defending democracy, except when it comes to actually letting people vote. And there, they're willing to use all political power to stop people from voting. You know, Nathan Wade, under oath, he was asked about every one of those meetings. Wade said, I don't remember. Anyone have a guess for how many times?

58 times. Wade's answer about those meetings was, I don't remember. I don't remember. I don't remember. Mr. Epstein, when a prosecutor can't remember something 58 times, what does that tell you? I think the inference is that he's not telling the truth. I think that is a very fair inference. And your judgment should the architects of this scheme face criminal prosecution?

I certainly think there is a number of bases to investigate the activities that occurred. And what bases come to mind? I think the way in which there was ignoring the proper constitutional appointment of Jack Smith, the evidence of potential bias amongst some FBI agents in the Washington Field Office, the ways in which there was coordination with the White House Counsel's office in ways that I think was inconsistent with the proper interpretation of the Presidential Records Act and gave no ability for at the time former President Trump to assert constitutional privileges, the way in which the record shows that the National Archivist was clearly biased and made referrals to the FBI that were likely unauthorized doing it through his inspector general. I think the evidence that this committee has shown shows that there was unfortunate coordination as a – for partisan motivation, and these documents shocked the conscience. MR. Weaponizing the Department of Justice for partisan ends to subvert democracy

and try and steal an election. Finally, Mr. Clark, you're here today because you have faced this subversion of justice, not as a statistic, but as a target. You were a partner, Kirkland, and Ellis, spent nearly 30 years as a lawyer. Is that right? That's correct. Your role in the events at issue, you drafted a memo raising election concerns. That memo was never sent. It was never enacted. DOJ leadership rejected it. Is that right? That's correct. And the results were stunning. In response to your writing a memo, there was a pre-dawn raid on your home with 12 agents who ran ransacked your home for three and a half hours. Is that right? That's also correct. And they took computers that had nothing to do with my legal work. Georgia indictment, arrest, booking. Is all that

correct? Yes. Three years of concurrent bar proceedings, federal scrutiny and litigation, hundreds of thousands of legal fees. Is that right? Millions in legal fees, five, going on six years of legal proceedings in the bar. And last July, D.C. recommended your disbarment. your 29-year law license potentially gone for writing a memo in the Department of Justice. Is that right? Yes, for writing a privileged memo that was leaked by my political opponents. Every Democrat involved in this process should be ashamed of the weaponization and the persecution that is occurring. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator. I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony today. Written questions for the record can be submitted until Tuesday, April 28th at 5 p.m. We ask the witnesses to submit their responses within two weeks, so by Tuesday, May 5th at 5 p.m. Thank you again for your testimony. We appreciate it. This hearing is adjourned. Your body doesn't need more synthetic fixes.

It needs real plant medicine. Wild herbs are packed with minerals, adaptogens, and healing compounds your body actually recognizes and can use, supporting energy, immunity, and balance from the inside out. At Tamarack Garden, our supplements bring these. overlooked weeds and wildflowers back into your daily routine. Don't just manage symptoms. Support your body and eat your weeds.