Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Contentious Hearing On The Arctic Frost Probe

[0:00] Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution to order. Today's hearing topic is on Arctic Frost, [0:06] conspiracy and coordination against President Trump and the American right. I'll make a [0:10] opening statement and then ranking member Senator Welsh and then Senator Grassley has some comments [0:18] and then ranking member Durbin as well. Today the Senate Judiciary Committee needs to examine [0:24] Operation Arctic Frost and the broader campaign of lawfare against President Trump, his allies, [0:30] his lawyers, Republican organizations, members of Congress and the American right. This hearing is [0:37] not about re-litigating the 2020 election and it's not about saying anyone is above the law and it's [0:43] not about asking for special treatment for any political figure. It's about something more basic [0:48] and far more dangerous. Whether the coercive powers of the federal government were used as a political [0:54] weapon against the opposition. In this country, law enforcement is supposed to investigate crimes. [0:59] It's not supposed to investigate political movements. It's not supposed to map the opposition. It's not [1:06] supposed to use subpoenas, search warrants, non-disclosure orders, telecom records, bank records, [1:12] device searches and secrecy tools to build a profile of one side of American politics. But that is what [1:20] the evidence increasingly suggests happened here. The Biden administration was not just investigating a [1:26] crime. They were seeking to dismantle a political movement. The American people deserve to know what [1:32] Arctic Frost really was. Arctic Frost and the effort to take down the American right was broader, darker, [1:39] and far more dangerous than anything we've seen in modern political history. The Biden administration [1:45] launched a whole-of-government effort to identify, intimidate, bankrupt, and jail the people and [1:53] institutions that made up President Trump's political world. It looks like a dragnut, a fishing expedition. [2:00] It reached President Trump. It reached his lawyers. It reached former officials. It reached Republican [2:06] organizations. It reached conservative institutions. It reached communications records. It reached members [2:12] of Congress. It reached people and groups whose real offense appears to have been associating with [2:18] President Trump and the American right. And today, as part of this hearing, we're releasing new documents [2:24] that make this even more clear. One set of documents shows Jack Smith's prosecutors discussing how to get [2:32] around speech and debate protections as they considered how to obtain information involving Republican [2:38] members of Congress. These are not abstract constitutional questions. The speech and debate clause exists [2:44] to protect the independence of the legislative branch from executive intimidation. Yet, here we have [2:52] prosecutors looking at Republican members and asking, in effect, how close they can get. In those messages, [3:00] prosecutors discussed cloud data, phone records, notice, and whether they could, quote, get the cloud, [3:06] not notify, and do the search without consulting the member, end quote. That should alarm every member of [3:12] this body, regardless of party, and also the American people. Another set of documents shows [3:18] communications between the Biden White House and Fannie Willis' team in Georgia. Those records show [3:24] Fulton County prosecutors reaching out to the White House counsel's office as they sought to interview [3:29] former executive office of the president officials and the White House facilitating the executive [3:37] privilege process. And in one remarkable email, a Biden White House official reacts to the [3:43] Fannie Willis by saying, Fannie Willis is an icon. I can't help but to stand. Let me say [3:51] that again. The Biden White House was gushing over Fannie Willis being an icon. That is the language of [3:59] political fandom. I wonder if the Biden officials found her embezzlement scheme iconic. I wonder if they [4:07] stand Fannie's removal and disqualification from the Georgia election case without any criminal conviction. [4:12] So when we talk about coordination, we're not speaking in hypotheticals. We're talking about [4:18] documents the committee is releasing today. We're talking about records. We're talking about the [4:24] machinery of government turned in one direction. Look at the timeline. The Biden White House helped [4:30] facilitate access to President Trump and Vice President Pence's government phones. White House [4:36] Deputy Counsel Jonathan Su personally assisted the FBI in obtaining access to those phones as Arctic frost [4:42] was heating up. When the investigation expanded, it merged with the DOJ inspector general's work. [4:48] It swept in lawyers, former officials, devices, email accounts, iCloud accounts, the political [4:53] organizations. It became the foundation for Jack Smith's case. At the same time, Fannie Willis's office [5:00] in Georgia was pursuing its own prosecution. Her team coordinated with the Biden White House on [5:06] executive privilege issues. Willis's lover and taxpayer-funded outside counsel, Nathan Wade, [5:12] billed Fulton County for an interview with D.C. White House on November 18, 2022, the same day [5:24] Jack Smith was appointed special counsel. Then, within weeks of Jack Smith's appointment and the [5:30] White House contact with Wade, Matthew Colangelo, who was the number three top official in the Biden [5:36] Justice Department, went to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, where Alvin Bragg brought [5:43] a case against President Trump, and it was revived. Federal investigators, a special counsel, the [5:50] Biden White House, Fannie Willis in Georgia, Alvin Bragg in New York, Matthew Colangelo deployed [5:55] from DOJ to Manhattan. Jonathan Su helping facilitate access to Trump world records. Jack Smith [6:03] prosecutors discussing how to work around speech or debate protections. Luckily, the American people [6:10] were wise enough to see this for what it was, a coordinated campaign of lawfare against President [6:15] Trump and the American right. They tried to bankrupt President Trump. They tried to de-platform [6:21] and de-legitimize him. They tried to imprison him. They tried to throw him off the ballot. And after years [6:27] of demonizing him, there were two assassination attempts against him. The American people sat in the jury [6:33] box and rendered their own verdict on November 2024. It was an acquittal. But the effort to get Trump was not [6:42] simply an investigation of alleged conduct. It was an effort to map a movement. And that's what makes Arctic [6:50] Frost so dangerous. The Democrats knew they wouldn't get a criminal conviction on Turning Point USA, Republican [6:56] Attorneys General Association, and America First Legal. But convictions weren't the point. The process was the [7:03] punishment. The subpoena was the punishment. The search warrant was the punishment. The non-disclosure [7:09] order was the punishment. The legal bill was the punishment. The professional threat was the punishment. [7:15] The years of uncertainty were the punishment. The ideological capture state bar going after [7:21] your ability to practice in the legal profession was the punishment. The government does not have to [7:27] convict you to ruin you. It can drag you through years of legal process, force you to hire lawyers, [7:33] threaten your livelihood, expose your associations, and send a warning to everyone around you, [7:39] represent the wrong client, work on the wrong case, donate to the wrong organization, serve the wrong [7:46] president, and you're next. This is not equal justice under the law. That is political discipline [7:54] by legal process. And to be clear, this hearing is not about saying anyone is above the law. But law [7:59] enforcement is supposed to investigate crimes. It is not supposed to investigate political identities. [8:05] It is not supposed to treat opposition lawyers, donors, staff, advocates, elected officials, [8:11] and institutions as a target set. A campaign can do opposition research. A party can build a political [8:19] file. But when the FBI and the Department of Justice do it with subpoenas, gag orders, device searches, [8:26] telecom records, bank records, and secrecy tools, that isn't politics. That's state power. And when state [8:34] power is aimed at one political movement, it becomes political surveillance by legal process. A republic [8:41] cannot survive legal attrition against the opposition. That is not the rule of law. That is regime [8:50] protection. So today, this committee will ask basic questions. Who authorized this? How far did it go? [8:58] Why were these records sought? Why were there secrecy orders used? Why were prosecutors discussing ways [9:05] around speech or debate protections? Why was the Biden White House communicating with Fannie Willis's [9:11] team? What was Nathan Wade doing at the White House the same day Jack Smith was appointed? Why did senior [9:18] Biden DOJ officials end up helping lead the Manhattan case? And what must Congress do to ensure that this [9:26] never happens again? That argument is not only wrong, it's dangerous. There is a fundamental difference between [9:35] weaponizing the government and holding the weaponizers accountable. Weaponizing government [9:42] means using subpoenas, search warrants, secrecy orders, prosecutions, and federal power to punish your [9:48] political opponents. Holding the weaponizers accountable means exposing that abuse, demanding answers, [9:54] and restoring the rule of law. Weaponizing government means turning law enforcement into a political weapon. [10:01] Oversight means Congress doing its constitutional duty to make sure that that weapon is never aimed [10:07] at the American people again. That is why this hearing matters. Because if the government can [10:13] secretly map, burden, and punish the political opposition, then political opposition in America [10:19] is tolerated only until it becomes effective. And if Congress cannot investigate that, then oversight is [10:28] dead. Accountability is dead. And the weaponizers win. And we will not let that happen. [10:34] Senator Welch. Senator Welch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [10:38] Mr. Chairman, this will never happen again if we never have a president who, after he loses the electoral [10:45] college vote and the popular vote, calls for people to come to Congress, to come to the Capitol in an [10:51] effort to use violence to overthrow the election by the American people. The question here that you laid out [11:00] is that the President's vote recites normal investigatory steps that are taken. The effort by the President [11:09] since January 6th is to rewrite history. I was in the House chamber that day. I was about 20 feet from where [11:16] 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 [11:24] Representatives and, quote, hang Nancy Pelosi. At the time, I couldn't believe it was happening, that it could happen in [11:31] America, because in America, we have always enjoyed the benefit of the peaceful transfer of power. The truth here is that this [11:42] insurrection occurred as a result of President Trump, who incited it, even though he had privately [11:49] acknowledged that he lost the election, painful as it was for him to say. Roughly a week after the election, he said, [11:56] can you believe I lost to this effing guy? But later on during his January 6th speech at the Ellipse, after to the people he [12:05] invited to come to Washington, Trump told the audience, we must stop the steal. We're going to walk down [12:14] Pennsylvania. We're going to the Capitol. Trump knew he had lost, but he wanted to incite and he did incite an [12:21] insurrection anyway. And that's what happened. Following that speech, more than 2,000 people illegally breached the [12:29] Capitol after their attack. At least 140 officers were physically injured defending our Capitol from a [12:37] violent mob. Five officers died in the aftermath. It's my colleague's view that the officers who [12:46] defended the Capitol and the prosecutors who sought accountability for those actions and for the folks [12:53] who incited those actions are the ones that should be prosecuted, not the mobsters who attacked it. [13:01] Some of my colleagues still refuse to accept that Arctic Frost was a legitimate investigation [13:07] following the illegal insurrection that occurred when the mob attacked the Capitol on January 6th. [13:15] This very committee has heard the testimony of countless Trump nominees who still can't admit that [13:23] President Biden won the 2020 election. Quote, he was certified. They won't acknowledge what the American [13:30] people decided. It's an effort, a continuing effort by President Trump to rewrite the history of January 6th. [13:39] Today, the majority has called Mr. Clark as a witness. My Republican colleagues want to discuss [13:44] the weaponization of the Justice Department, and so do I. And I can't think of a more apt witness than Mr. [13:51] Clark. He pushed the DOJ to falsely, falsely, tell states that the department had significant concerns [14:01] about what voter fraud in the 2020 elections. That was an absolute lie, absolute lie. And President [14:09] Trump's own attorney general, Bill Barr, had already publicly stated what those at the department knew. [14:17] There was no evidence of voter fraud that would have changed the results of the 2020 election. [14:25] Republican political appointees at the department threatened to resign [14:28] in mass if Mr. Clark's false allegations were acted upon. And Mr. Clark, you did this in an attempt [14:37] to influence state-level election certification and to advocate for fraudulent electors to be brought [14:44] in to declare that President Trump was the winner of the 2020 election. This is a corrupt effort. It was [14:52] a corrupt effort to overturn the election. And it's why Mr. Clark was indicted in Georgia on two felony [14:58] charges and why the DC bar concluded that he should be disbarred. Let me say this clearly. Let me say [15:06] it slowly. And let me say it directly. President Trump has since January 6th pursued an all-out effort [15:16] to discontinue his dispute that he lost that election. Just last week, the Department of Justice requested a [15:24] federal appeals court to dismiss the seditious conspiracy charges against members of the Proud Boys [15:31] and Oath Keepers. These people are far-right extremists. They were convicted by a jury of their [15:37] peers of orchestrating violent plots to stop the peaceful transfer of power. A federal judge described [15:45] Oath Keeper founder, Stuart Rhodes, who received an 18-year sentence as, quote, an ongoing threat in peril [15:51] to this country and to democracy. Enrico Tarrio, founder of the Proud Boys, had a terrorism enhancement [15:58] applied to a sentence by a conservative federal judge appointed by President Trump. Mr. Chairman, [16:05] at the heart of today's hearing is the question of whether a prosecutor can seek information from [16:12] people, including members of Congress, who have information that is, in fact, relevant to the [16:18] commission of a crime. This is not an investigation of members of Congress. Members of Congress who [16:23] have information about a crime can be called to provide to the prosecutors what information they have. [16:32] My Republican colleagues, many of them, have claimed they were illegally wiretapped as a part of Mr. [16:37] Smith's investigation. This is untrue. There were subpoenas for toll records. That's not wiretapping. [16:46] It's phone metadata, which includes the time, the duration, and the phone numbers of an outgoing call. [16:52] Collecting this information is all in the normal course of a criminal investigation. When a case [16:58] involves evidence from members of Congress, of course, concerns about the separation of powers in [17:03] the speech and debate clause are very important. But it's not a violation of these constitutional [17:09] protections to seek information to prosecute a case, especially one when there was a mob attack on our [17:16] nation's capital. The legislators who were involved in this investigation argued that the decision to [17:23] target them was rooted in animosity to President Trump. That is not, that is absolutely not true. [17:30] A federal grand jury made up of our fellow citizens, they indicted President Trump because crimes were [17:37] committed, not because prosecutors or judges were out to get them. Mr. Chairman, let's have a public hearing [17:45] with Jack Smith testifying. He can come in and answer our questions and explain what he did and he can [17:52] be challenged. That happened in the House. Anything other than that, in my view, is an effort to obscure [17:59] what's really at stake for the American people. The insurrection on January 6th was an effort to take [18:06] away their right to decide who their leaders are and have it be decided by violence. I yield back. [18:12] Thank you, ranking member. I look forward to Jack Smith being before this committee. [18:19] Senator Grassley had some prepared remarks and, as you know, had planned to attend today, but he's [18:26] taking care of a medical issue. He'll be back in the Senate ASAP. He's asked that I introduce his [18:31] opening statement into the record and the reference records. Without objection, that will be done. [18:37] I'd also like to read a few excerpts from his opening to highlight for the committee. Chairman Grassley's [18:43] opening says that he'll be making a making public new records today, which he received in large part [18:49] from whistleblowers. Those records, quote, detail Operation Rampart 12, which was a preliminary [18:57] investigation opened by the FBI Washington field office into at least representatives Lauren Boebert, [19:05] Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, and Mo Brooks. Rampart 12 appears to be a predecessor case to Arctic Frost [19:13] and was opened on January 22nd, 2021. The investigation was based on allegations that Boebert and Gosar led [19:23] reconnaissance tours in advance of January 6th. But what you'll find in the available records is that the [19:30] evidence to support the investigation didn't exist. Even so, JP Cooney personally concurred with opening [19:37] the investigation, even though his text messages told a different tale, end quote. Chairman Grassley's [19:44] statement also notes that he's obtained via whistleblowers a May 2021 document edited by anti-Trump [19:51] agent Tebow. That document shows the FBI didn't have evidence to advance the case, yet Rampart 12 [19:58] wasn't closed until January of 2022. Chairman Grassley's statement also says, quote, this committee's [20:05] investigative work is necessary because during the entire Biden administration, my Democrat colleagues [20:11] didn't lift a finger to investigate this political rot, end quote. And lastly, quote, just imagine holding [20:17] a Jack Smith hearing without the records we've since obtained like my Democrat colleagues have wanted [20:23] to do all along and may even try to feebly argue today, end quote. Chairman Grassley couldn't agree more. [20:30] Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, I might note that I called Senator Grassley yesterday. Sounds good. [20:37] Anxious to return and we had a good conversation. I wish him the best. Mr. Chairman, earlier this month, [20:43] President Trump fired Attorney General Bondi for failing to successfully prosecute his political enemies. [20:51] She's been replaced by Todd Blanche, who in his first weeks as acting attorney general is bending [20:57] over backwards to please his former client. To take one example, as Senator Welch has noted, [21:04] last week the Justice Department moved to vacate the seditious conspiracy convictions of members of [21:11] Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, extremist groups, for their role in planning the January 6th insurrection. [21:19] Last Friday, the Atlantic magazine published a bombshell article with devastating new details [21:25] confirming what this committee most of us already know. FBI Director Cash Patel is dangerously [21:32] unqualified to lead the world's preeminent law enforcement agency, making us all less safe. [21:39] Yet the Republican majority on this committee is conducting no oversight on the issues I've just mentioned. [21:45] Instead, we are here today, yet again, for another hearing on Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation. [21:52] Wouldn't it be great if we could get Jack Smith finally, before this committee, put him under oath and [21:56] ask these questions? I asked that of the Chairman months ago, because Smith is prepared to testify, [22:03] under oath, and answer the questions. But for some reason, the majority in this committee [22:08] doesn't want that opportunity. These hearings have been a waste of committee resources from the beginning. [22:14] Today, a new low. Instead of hearing from Mr. Smith, who investigated President Trump's [22:20] failed efforts to overturn the 2020 election, we'll hear from Jeffrey Clark, who played a key role in [22:27] these efforts. Mr. Clark, an environmental lawyer who was the Acting Assistant Attorney General for DOJ's [22:34] Civil Division at the end of 2020, became President Trump's biggest ally within the Department of Justice, [22:41] seeking to advance the baseless claims of election fraud, despite having no role in enforcing election [22:49] or criminal laws or any legal background in any other topic other than noted. Mr. Clark is bubbling over [23:00] with conspiracies. He has an idea, a theory, that the Chinese were hacking smart thermostats in the United [23:09] States. Another theory he has, the CIA was working with Italian contractor to use military satellites to [23:18] change votes in America. Another conspiracy theory, he even wanted to help Trump declare a national emergency [23:24] under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Mr. Clark also sought to coerce Acting Attorney General Rosen into [23:33] sending a letter to every swing state falsely claiming that the Department of Justice had, quote, [23:39] taken notice, close quote, of irregularities, close quote, and recommended that state legislatures should [23:45] convene in special session to reconsider their already certified election results. We are extremely [23:53] fortunate in America that Mr. Clark's conspiracy theories and efforts failed, and it was due in no small [24:00] part to a more senior, the more senior Trump appointees in office taking their oaths of office [24:06] seriously. The Acting Attorney General and Acting Deputy Attorney General provide Mr. Clark with detailed [24:13] information at the time, including a classified briefing to demonstrate that his conspiracy theories [24:20] were baseless. Nonetheless, Mr. Clark continued to claim the 2020 election had been stolen. He privately met [24:28] with President Trump to advocate for an unlawful plan to pressure swing state legislatures to reconvene and [24:35] overturn the already certified election results. When Acting Attorney General Rosen made clear that [24:41] Department of Justice would not engage in any of these election subversion tactics, Mr. Clark revealed that [24:47] he had convinced President Trump to name him personally as Attorney General if Rosen would not relent. This [24:53] culminated in an Oval Office showdown where President Trump only backed down from his plan to name Clark his [25:00] Acting Attorney General when he was informed that his entire appointed leadership at the Department of [25:07] Justice would resign in protest if he did it. Mr. Clark's plan was so far beyond the pale that President Trump's [25:15] then White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, called it, quote, a murder-suicide pact. Acting Deputy Attorney General [25:22] Richard Donahue called it, quote, excuse me, batshit crazy. After an eight-month investigation by my staff, [25:30] we released a 394-page report on this sordid episode titled Subverting Justice. Mr. Clark's actions [25:39] were not just a stain on the Department of Justice but on the legal profession as a whole. As a result, [25:45] I submitted a complaint against Mr. Clark along with the report and supporting materials to the D.C. [25:51] Barr disciplinary counsel. I ask unanimous consent to include this complaint in the record. Last year, the D.C. [25:58] Board of Professional Responsibility recommended that Mr. Clark be disbarred, a decision that he has appealed. [26:05] Mr. Clark's lies and coercive efforts to induce unlawful conduct, among other things, were egregious. It is insulting to this [26:13] committee that we have been brought here as a witness not to answer for grave miskind but to continue to push President Trump's [26:19] big lie that the 2020 election was stolen. It is bad enough to watch the pathetic conduct of the parade of [26:28] Trump nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench come before this committee and embarrass [26:34] themselves by testimony under oath. They have obviously been warned that any deviation from the [26:40] president's big lie could be politically, personally fatal. And so they sit before this committee and the cameras [26:48] and refuse to answer probing questions like who won the appropriate vote in the 2020 presidential election. [26:55] Nominees with distinguished education and training look foolish as they carefully avoid speaking the truth [27:03] to carefully avoid bruising the colossal ego in the White House. And now this Jeffrey Clark, the architect [27:11] of the big lie strategy, front and center, the star witness of majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I yield. [27:18] Thank you. I will introduce the majority witnesses and then Senator Welch will introduce the minority witness. [27:24] Mr. Clark, Mr. Jeff Clark is the vice president of litigation at the Oversight Project. Mr. Clark has [27:30] extensive experience in government service and private practice. He most recently served President [27:35] Trump at the White House as acting administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the [27:41] Office of Management and Budget. In the past, he's also served as Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and [27:47] Natural Resources Division and the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. His [27:52] credentials extend well beyond these three high ranking political appointments. In addition to his [27:57] government service, Mr. Clark was a big law partner in Washington DC and occupied important national [28:03] leadership posts, not just in the conservative legal organizations, but also held an elected office [28:09] at the American Bar Association. Dr. Dan Epstein is Vice President at America First Legal and an Associate [28:17] Professor of Law at St. Thomas University in Miami, Florida. Previously, he advised startups on regulatory [28:22] matters as director at a private equity firm. His federal service includes serving as a special assistant [28:31] to the Senior Associate Counsel to the President and as counsel to the House of Representatives Committee on [28:37] oversight and government reform. Earlier in his career, Mr. Epstein founded and ran Cause of Action, [28:43] a public interest law firm where he represented clients in government investigations and litigated [28:49] regulatory, constitutional, political, and public law matters. He holds a PhD from George Washington [28:54] University in political economy, a JD from Emory University School of Law, and a BA from Kenyon College. [29:01] Thank you. Daniel Schwager of Council at Verde Verde and Ogletree PLLC was previously Chief Counsel of [29:12] American Oversight 2022 to 2023, and before was General Counsel to the Secretary of the Senate 2016 to 2022, [29:23] including on January 6th. And from 2013 to 2013, he was Chief Counsel and Staff Director to the House [29:34] Ethics Committee, which for a time I served on that, Mr. Chairman. And he served as counsel with the Senate [29:40] Ethics Committee from 2009 to 2011. And he served as a trial attorney in the Public Integrity Section [29:48] from 2003 to 2009, and was served as an assistant attorney, a district attorney in Manhattan, [29:57] working in the official corruption unit from 1998 to 2003. He holds a JD from NYU School of Law, [30:05] and BA in Ethical Theory from Bates College. Welcome. Okay, it's customary in this committee that [30:12] the witnesses were sworn in before their testimony. If you please rise and raise your right hand. Do you [30:18] swear that the testimony you're about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, [30:22] and nothing but the truth? So help you God. Thank you. Okay, have a seat. We'll get started [30:28] with the witness testimony. Mr. Epstein, the floor is yours. Good morning, Chairman Schmidt, [30:35] Ranking Member Welch, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on the Constitution. President [30:41] Donald Trump overcame the most vindictive weaponization of the justice system against an [30:46] American leader in our nation's history. Partisan operatives sought to destroy him through a [30:50] coordinated campaign of lawfare that began long before 2020 and reached its peak under the Biden [30:57] administration. This subcommittee confronts the undeniable evidence of that assault laid bare in [31:03] the whistleblower documents, letters, and productions released by Chairman Grassley. These records expose [31:10] Operation Arctic Frost, the Biden FBI's internal code name, for its sweeping dragnet targeting the entire [31:16] Republican political apparatus and the America First movement. This committee's documents review [31:22] a biased FBI election interference investigation that involved handpicked partisan agents to carry [31:29] out a political agenda. Attorney General Garland, Deputy Attorney General Monaco, and FBI Director Wray [31:37] personally signed off on this inquiry on April 4th, 2022. This became the foundation for special counsel [31:44] Jack Smith's election interference indictment of President Trump on August 1st, 2023. Smith issued at least [31:52] 197 grand jury subpoenas, ensnaring more than 400 Republican organizations, individuals, and lawmakers, [32:00] including America First Legal itself, an organization that did not even exist on January 6th, 2021. The [32:08] subpoenas invaded donor lists, financial records, communications with Congress and the media, and more. [32:13] Most outrageously, the Biden FBI secretly obtained the personal cell phone records of eight Republican U.S. [32:19] senators and one representative without the legally required notice to Congress. They seized former [32:25] President Trump's and Vice President Pence's government cell phones and conducted a nationwide [32:29] sweep of interviews. This committee's oversight has forced these facts into the open. The records are [32:36] clear. Arctic Frost was explicitly designed to investigate the entire Republican political apparatus. [32:42] The Biden administration's investigation of President Trump's records was no less egregious. The [32:47] Mar-a-Lago raid on August 8th, 2022 was itself built on unlawful referrals. The National Archives' own [32:55] former general counsel acknowledged that, quote, the PRA has no explicit provision on how to address [33:01] concerns about suspected removal or destruction of presidential records, end quote. The archivist is [33:07] not a law enforcement officer authorized to make criminal referrals. And former archivist David Ferraro, [33:13] who openly stated his concern about, quote, what's going to happen in 2024, end quote, was at all [33:21] relevant times biased against the president. NARA's referral of President Trump's record keeping [33:26] practices to the FBI lacked legal authority. Neither President Obama, former Vice President Biden, [33:32] nor President Carter was subjected to a raid of their personal residences, despite retaining records. [33:38] Before the special counsel case, courts were instructed to defer to negotiations between [33:43] presidents and NARA. The Garland DOJ flipped that settled practice solely to target President Trump. [33:51] Internal emails from line agents questioned the, quote, predication, end quote, for the search and [33:56] concluded, quote, I no longer believe we have real PC probable cause, end quote. These are not Republican [34:02] talking points. These are the words of career FBI agents who witnessed an entire enterprise of malicious [34:08] prosecution, not legitimate law enforcement. Judge Eileen Cannon's dismissal of the prosecution on July 15, [34:16] 2024 confirmed as much. The special counsel's appointment violated the appointments clause. [34:22] His office was funded through an improper appropriation and no constitutional basis existed [34:28] for the search or the subsequent indictment. America First Legal's relentless FOIA litigation has been [34:33] indispensable to proving this conspiracy. AFL's investigation found that Manhattan District Attorney's [34:39] Office identified, quote, 36 responsive records, end quote, in response to our FOIA request for [34:46] communications with the Biden DOJ mentioning Donald Trump. AFL's FOIA work has also exposed the ties [34:53] between Matthew Colangelo, who descended from the third highest position in Biden's DOJ to, quote, [34:58] jumpstart, end quote, Bragg's prosecution, and the broader White House lawfare strategy. [35:04] These disclosures combined with the Arctic Frost documents prove coordination between the federal [35:09] government and state prosecutors against a presidential candidate in clear violation of [35:14] federal election law. Reforms are possible. Special counsel appointments must require Senate confirmation. [35:20] FBI investigative powers targeting political figures must be constrained by meaningful internal [35:25] controls. State courts must never again be permitted to baselessly interfere with the election of [35:30] federal officials over subject matter that Congress has assigned exclusive jurisdiction to federal [35:35] authorities. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Schwager. Thank you, Chairman Schmidt, Ranking Member Welch, [35:43] Ranking Member Durbin, and I wish Chairman Grassley a speedy recovery. I've been asked to testify today [35:49] regarding the role of predication and examination of evidence in judging investigations, including politically [35:55] sensitive investigations, based on my experience and perspectives as a former corruption prosecutor at [36:00] the state and federal level. I am not speaking on behalf of my current or any former employer. [36:05] Today, I hope to share my perspective regarding the principles and common tools of nonpartisan [36:10] investigations applicable to public corruption and any other complex matter, and the role of a [36:15] nonpartisan review of evidence in determining or overseeing the path of an investigation, including its [36:21] witnesses and subpoena recipients. I've also been a fierce nonpartisan defender of the prerogatives [36:27] of the legislative branch and the protection it needs from a potentially abusive and retributive executive [36:33] branch. My entire legal career, however, has been rooted in the same concern for ethics and integrity in [36:39] government and countering corruption and abuses of power. These have always been nonpartisan concerns at [36:45] their core. I've worked for and with both Republicans and Democrats of great integrity and ethical compass. [36:52] In private practice, I have represented both Republican and Democratic members of Congress [36:57] and staff with equal conviction and commitment. I have also investigated, prosecuted, seen prosecuted, [37:03] and defended public officials on both sides of the aisle who have been accused of breaching the public [37:08] trust. An investigation of misconduct, corruption, or fraud looks roughly the same, no matter who the [37:15] target or witnesses are. Unfortunately, political attacks on those nonpartisan investigations [37:20] often look and sound roughly the same as well. I have been accused of being a tool of the right [37:26] and a tool of the left, once even in the same case. Throughout my career as a corruption prosecutor, [37:32] I also learned the valuable tool we used to call luds and tolls. Many investigations began with subpoenas [37:38] of non-content phone records of both subjects of investigations and sometimes known associates, both within [37:44] and without suspicion, where potentially relevant. Those records were scoured for patterns, timelines, [37:50] and missing connections relevant to the investigation. And then additional subpoenas were sought for the [37:56] records of those phone numbers within those patterns to understand, test, or expand on the original records. [38:03] In complex matters, by the time all subscriber information had been subpoenaed, it was not unusual for [38:09] non-content subscriber identification of hundreds of related phone numbers and people to have been [38:14] subpoenaed. The only thing that determined whose records were subpoenaed was the fact that their relevance [38:20] had already come up in the investigation in some way, neither necessarily good nor bad. I've even seen such [38:27] records lead to the complete exoneration of a high-ranking FBI official who was framed by an informant. [38:34] It was usually the case that subpoenas were issued before the subjects of investigation knew of either the [38:39] existence, the scope, or the direction of the investigation. The risk of those being revealed [38:45] to the subject because our subpoenas became publicly known was usually obvious. For that reason, where [38:51] non-disclosure orders were appropriate to prevent public knowledge of the investigative steps, they were [38:57] regularly sought. To be clear, all searches for and seizures of information by the government implicate [39:04] constitutional rights of regular people. The Constitution and Congress authorize them anyway, [39:11] when reasonable, to balance those rights against the need to effectively combat crime, including [39:17] fraud and corruption. What is important when judging an investigation, however, is to examine all the [39:23] available evidence and the reasonable predication for such investigation or actions. In the matter at [39:28] issue in this hearing, the publicly available evidence demonstrates a well-predicated and thorough [39:34] investigation of an alleged scheme to fraudulently overturn an American election and the use of violence [39:41] towards those fraudulent ends. Of course, when the legislative branch is involved in investigation, [39:47] common investigative steps can implicate additional important constitutional concerns. The speech or debate [39:53] clause is a wise insight of our founders, explicitly included in the Constitution to temper the risk of an [39:59] abusive or retributive president. However, the executive and legislative branches have disagreed in and out of [40:05] court for years about speech or debate, with only limited and sometimes contradictory guidelines from [40:11] the lower courts and less by the Supreme Court. But a reasonable disagreement does not equal improper [40:18] conduct. In summary, no person or investigation is perfect, but based on my training and experience, [40:24] I believe the thorough investigation at issue here, which was called for after January 6th by courageous senators of [40:31] both parties was well-predicated and followed the policies in place at the time in the Department of Justice [40:37] to avoid infringing on anyone's constitutional rights. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak [40:42] with you today, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you. Mr. Clark. Mr. Chairman, [40:56] ranking members and members of the subcommittee, I look forward to rebutting the falsehoods and [41:02] distortions I heard today, but I do want to deliver my opening statement. Arctic Frost was not a routine [41:08] investigation. It was a sweeping multi-agency operation targeting hundreds of Americans issuing nearly 200 [41:15] subpoenas, seizing communications at the highest levels of the government, pointing a criminal case [41:21] dagger at President Trump that was all designed to destroy the populist Republican Party. I was in its crosshairs. [41:28] Let me be clear. This testimony is not about my support for Republicans. It is about whether the [41:33] machinery of government was used in a way that would alarm every American, regardless of party, [41:39] and it was. First, what was Arctic Frost? It was an investigation launched in 2022 under circumstances [41:45] that flatly violated FBI protocol and all ethical standards, allowing a politically biased agent to open [41:53] his own case. That's not adequate predication. From there, it expanded dramatically, reaching into six [41:59] states, targeting roughly 420 individuals and entities, even sweeping in the phone records of [42:06] sitting United States senators. This was not a narrow law enforcement operation to keep Americans safe. [42:12] It was a political dragnet. Second, my experience. I expressed internal views within the Department of [42:19] Justice about the 2020 election through proper channels in privileged settings as part of my [42:25] official duties as a lawyer and consistent with my Rule 2.1 obligations in D.C. For that, I became [42:32] the subject of biased New York Times leaks, overlapping investigations, an Inspector General probe later [42:39] merged into Arctic Frost, a bar referral, a congressional investigation, a federal investigation, and a failed [42:45] state prosecution. These were not isolated. They overlapped, they reinforced one another, and they [42:50] imposed immense personal and professional costs. At one point, my home was raided. My family's devices [42:57] were seized. My daughter, who was 12 years old at the time, 12 years old, came to me nearly in tears [43:04] after she learned about the raid and said that her personal diary, was that read by the agent's dad? [43:10] You don't want to have to explain that to your 12-year-old. I received death threats. One caught [43:17] from a caller claiming to be from New Jersey invited me to go to the Pine Barrens, where he said he would [43:22] dismember me and then send the pieces in buckets to my fatherless family. We reported this to the FBI, [43:30] and we never heard back. That is the insane hyper-partisan atmosphere that Arctic Frost stoked. Third, [43:38] the pattern, the same conduct. All internal privileged DOJ communications, in my case, [43:45] were simultaneously probed by multiple bodies. On five fronts, the same facts, the same target, [43:51] all me, all designed to impose tectonic pressure that would try to make me say something and lie [43:57] about President Trump, which I refused to do. I stood strong. Documents already in the public record [44:03] and that I've attached to my more extensive written testimony show direct coordination, [44:08] such as information sharing, multi-state meetings with state prosecutors, overlapping witnesses, [44:15] clever attempted evasions of important legal privileges, and miraculous purported coincidences, [44:21] like the Office of Inspector General and the FBI raiding my house one day, June 22nd, and then the very [44:27] next day, magically, the January 6th committee had a hearing targeted at me. I wonder how that happened. [44:34] Fourth, the implications of the fruit plucked from this poisonous tree from FBI agent Tebow. If an [44:42] investigation is launched improperly, then what follows is tainted. If internal watchdog materials are [44:49] merged into criminal probes, as happened here with the OIG investigation that morphed into Arctic Frost, [44:56] you've violated what the Inspector General's office is designed to do. And now it's conflicted. And now [45:01] it cannot look at DOJ's own conduct in that investigation. Fifth, the broader context. Arctic [45:09] Frost did not occur in isolation. It fits within a pattern of Biden auto pen wielders suspending [45:15] investigative, I'm sorry, expanding investigative powers against political opponents using lower [45:21] thresholds, broader definitions of threat, and increasing coordination across institutions. [45:28] Even the religious rights of Americans were no barrier to the Biden DOJ and FBI. They weaponized [45:35] against Catholic Latin mass goers, calling them potential violent extremists. They've weaponized [45:41] against conscientious abortion protesters who were pro-life. It didn't matter to them. The leftist [45:46] orthodoxy had to be kowtowed to. This committee has to ask the question, where are the limits [45:54] and what should they be? And I think you need to expose on the record all of the Arctic Frost [46:00] documents, as Senator Grassley has been doing, as Chair Grassley has been doing, [46:04] so that the American people understand the multi-state, you know, multi-agency, [46:10] agency, all of government, as Chair Schmidt indicated, that was weaponized against President [46:16] Biden and any of his allies. Thank you. Thank you, the witnesses. I'll start off. Mr. Clark, [46:23] I want to ask you, you've been, you referenced the, you being targeted not just by Arctic Frost, but [46:29] in Fulton County, multiple proceedings. In the, in that proceeding in Fulton County specifically, [46:36] you and your lawyers sought documents, communications, including Nathan Wade's billing entries for his [46:43] conference with White House counsel, the interview with DC White House, but Judge McAfee placed certain [46:49] materials reviewed in camera under seal. Why are those, because you explained to the committee, [46:54] why are those sealed communications so important? Well, thank you for that question. Look, we don't know [47:01] what's in the communications until we see them. You know, we obviously called for them. We think we have a [47:05] right to show them. And we think part of the correspondence showed that the Justice Department [47:11] did not give what's called TUI authorizations to Fannie Willis so that she could put witnesses from [47:18] the Justice Department in front of the grand jury. And we posed the obvious question of, if she can't [47:24] produce any witnesses from the Justice Department against me, then how could she possibly proceed with [47:29] their case? We think the judge erred in not recognizing that that was a serious Brady issue, [47:35] but he decided after he looked at the documents to put them under seal. I think this this body, [47:42] and I think the Justice Department could get access to those materials. And kind of zooming out then [47:48] beyond just what you endured through all of this, you've described Arctic Frost as part of a coordinated [47:56] effort, not just to simply punish individuals, but destroy the infrastructure around President Trump [48:03] and a movement, really. Explain what that what you mean by that. Sure. Maybe it's easiest actually to [48:10] start with the weaponization of the bar complaint process, which some call part of lawfare, others call [48:16] barfare now. The 65 project was created by David Brock, who is a super leftist Democrat activist, [48:25] and he specifically admitted in a scoop story he gave to Axios with Jonathan Swan, who's now at the New York Times, [48:31] that his whole purpose was to make conservative lawyers, lawyers adjacent or who represented President Trump, [48:38] toxic in their legal communities, so that they could not get jobs and so that their reputations would be destroyed, [48:45] so that no one else would represent the conservative movement. That's a complete act of destruction aimed at our [48:52] adversary system. We can't have a system in which only one party can have election lawyers. David Boies [48:58] and Professor Lawrence Tribe and Bush v. Gore in 2000, they faced no ethical consequences, but somehow [49:04] if you're a Republican lawyer, if you're a John Eastman or Rudy Giuliani or you're a me, you are [49:11] treated to an entirely different standard and it's designed to try to shame. [49:14] Dr. Epstein, I want to ask you, you've reviewed the documents and this is just a myriad, this is a web, [49:24] right? You've got DOJ, you've got DOJ, OIG, NARA, Jack Smith, the Biden White House, Fulton County, [49:33] Manhattan, you've got all these actors. Does this look like some isolated law enforcement effort? Does this [49:41] look like a coordinated attempt to take down a chief political rival and anybody that had any support [49:46] for him? No, I think you're absolutely right. This was clearly not something where the starting [49:53] philosophy was let's go through a very orderly process. I mean, the fact that the National Archives [50:01] was consulting with the White House Counsel's Office on how to get documents to the FBI and debating [50:08] whether they should go through the clear path of communicating with the president's counsel and [50:15] getting consent or to concoct statutes in a way that allowed them to not do that. The fact that you [50:22] had coordination between Bragg's office and the Department of Justice, which when the House of [50:28] Representatives asked that question to the Attorney General, he denied it. But the existence of responsive [50:33] records clearly indicates that there were communications. I think this raises the significant [50:39] risk that this was not a sober investigative process. It was very much tainted by political [50:46] interests. And you also raised the possibility that this just wasn't a bad judgment or even just political [50:52] bias, but that this was potentially unlawful conduct, correct? Yeah. Could a conspiracy against [50:58] rights be one of those kind of charges under federal law that could be brought under Section 241? Absolutely. [51:04] And, you know, I think this committee has done very good work on investigating that. I think, as you pointed [51:11] out, the process is the punishment. And when you have very aggressive bureaucrats who want to coordinate with [51:20] prosecutors in a way that doesn't follow the process, doesn't follow fair procedures, that raises the [51:27] significant risk of conspiracy against rights. Senator Welch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Professor Epstein, who won [51:36] the 2020 election? You know, that's a political question. Obviously, in the Constitution, the determination [51:46] of who won is delegated to the electors and is a vote in the House. I would also point out that throughout [51:54] American history, there have been contestations of who won. I'm asking specifically who won the 2020 [52:03] election, and I'm taking your non-answer to be consistent with everyone else who came in. [52:10] I'm not a pollster, but I will tell you this. I'm not asking you about a pollster. I'm asking who won the [52:17] election. Biden was elected president. Okay. Did he win? He won under the constitutional mechanisms we [52:30] have to determine who's the president. Was there a violent attack by people who did not believe that [52:36] he won the election and it was stolen on the Capitol on January 6th? I think that's in the record. [52:42] I'm asking you for a yes or no on that. Based off the publicly available evidence, that appears to be [52:49] what occurred. Appears to be. Did you ever see any? I was not there. Did you watch any TV of mobs [52:55] climbing the Capitol? I read papers. I didn't watch the television. Okay. All right. Actually, [53:01] don't own a television. Well, I admire your skepticism. Mr. Clark, who won the 2020 election? [53:08] Joe Biden received the necessary number of electoral college votes, and then in joint session, [53:14] Congress certified those results. All right. So you were promoting efforts to raise questions about [53:24] the electors and states, despite the fact that Attorney General Barr said there was no evidence [53:31] to indicate fraud on any level that would come close to resulting in a reversal of the election. [53:38] Is that correct? Senator Welch, with all due respect, [53:43] lawyers disagree with each other. That may be news to you, but we frequently do. [53:47] I'm just, I understand. And you disagree with Attorney General Barr. [53:51] Yes. And Attorney General Barr actually supported me in my bar proceeding. So he can disagree with [53:57] me about one issue and agree with me about others. Let's stay on the question asked. I'm glad you're [54:02] good friends with Attorney General Barr. You said you followed procedures at the Justice Department. [54:07] Attorney General Rosen, enacting Deputy AG, said that you contacted the President without informing them [54:17] that you were going to do that. The President contacted me. And under Article 2, which is the [54:23] ultimate procedure, Senator, the President could contact any member of the Executive Branch. And you did not [54:29] report that to your superiors. I did speak to Jeff Rosen about that on the Saturday after it happened. [54:34] All right. And the President, as you know, was fishing around for somebody who would be [54:38] willing to take his bogus case. And you did. So thank you for that. The case was not bogus. [54:45] You disagree with Attorney General Barr? Yes. [54:48] All right. The claim here, Mr. Schwager, is that this is a bogus. By the way, were crimes committed [54:56] on January 6th by the mob who attacked the Capitol? There were crimes that were committed [55:01] by some members of the people who protested that day. Yes. Do you believe that it was a crime for [55:08] people to attack officers and hit them with with hit them, pulled their helmets off to attack them [55:17] with sticks and mace and bear spray? Police officers should not be assaulted. That is criminal. [55:24] I would say that I don't believe that anyone in D.C. with a 94 percent jury pool got a fair trial. [55:31] And that's why President Trump rightly pardoned them. 94 percent? Yes. Are you saying the people [55:38] of D.C. have no capacity to make a determination based on the evidence about criminal conduct that [55:44] may have been committed? I think they can when we're not talking about something that's politically [55:49] hypercharged and something that the media tries to drum in as a narrative. But when politics are at stake, [55:55] I don't think so. What are you thinking about the attacks on these officers [56:06] who were standing between the mob and Nancy Pelosi or Vice President Pence and stood their ground and [56:14] did their job? And there was evidence that was presented in court and people who committed those [56:21] crimes were convicted. And you're saying they should be they were rightly pardoned because it was a bogus [56:26] trial? If you don't get due process, that is one of the mechanisms in the Constitution to ensure [56:33] that people get justice, Senator. Mr. Mr. Schwager, just the premise here is that it was a bogus [56:42] investigation. And all of the things that are part of a normal investigation, subpoenas, making links, [56:50] having a wide investigatory outreach. Is there anything different about this investigation [57:00] and what would be a thorough investigation of any other crime once there is a predicate for pursuing [57:06] an investigation? Well, I think the alleged crime is historic in nature. However, the tools used in the [57:13] investigation are common to complex matters. Thank you. I yield back. I noticed he did not [57:20] opine about the novel legal theory. Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome to [57:27] the three of you. We appreciate that you all are here. You know, Mr. Chairman, at our last Arctic Frost [57:34] hearing, the Democrats on the committee brought forward a witness that said he was perfectly fine [57:42] with the weaponization that took place in Arctic Frost and through Jack Smith. In fact, he claimed that [57:51] politics did not exist under the Biden FBI. His term was that politics were absent there. And as I noted [58:03] at that time, and I'll say again this morning, that was a laughable claim. Everyone knows that Jack Smith [58:13] leveraged the FBI and the DOJ to go on a years-long crusade against President Trump, [58:21] members of Congress, and hundreds of conservative organizations and individuals. And I include [58:30] Mr. Epstein and Mr. Clark in this group that was targeted, as so was I and some of our colleagues. So, [58:43] Mr. Clark and Mr. Epstein, I'll start with Mr. Epstein. I want to hear from each of you on this. [58:51] As you were impacted by Arctic Frost. And do you think that politics was absent from the Biden [59:02] FBI or was politics practice? Mr. Epstein first. There's no question that politics was very much [59:14] involved there. And I could speak to my own organization, America First Legal. We didn't [59:18] even exist on January 6th, and our records were subpoenaed. Mr. Clark? It was absolutely political, [59:28] Senator Blackburn. I would start with the fact that the agent who opened his own case in violation of [59:35] FBI protocol, Tim Tebow, was actually effectively disciplined by the special counsel for violating the [59:43] Hatch Act, which is an indication of the fact that he was getting into political matters. Also, [59:48] the entire name of the operation, Arctic Frost, indicates that it was political. Why? And it was [59:54] changed to that name? Because it's a type of orange. If the people who were running this investigation, [1:00:01] so-called, were not political, if they were more brazen, they would have called it Orange Man Bad. [1:00:08] It's right in the name of Arctic Frost. It's an indication of the fact that it was a politicized effort [1:00:14] to destroy President Trump. Mr. Epstein, I want to talk about a component of Arctic Frost, [1:00:22] which I think has kind of gotten lost. And that is the fact that this case ultimately came about [1:00:30] because of an unlawfully appointed special counsel. Specifically, we know Jack Smith was not appointed [1:00:39] pursuant to any explicit statutory authority as Ken Starr, John Durham, and other special counsels [1:00:49] were appointed. In fact, in then Attorney General Garland's appointment order naming Smith as a special [1:00:56] counsel, none of the statutes that Garland cited authorized such an appointment. Nor was Jack Smith [1:01:04] nominated and confirmed with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, as is required [1:01:10] by the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Now, in a recent amicus brief before the 11th Circuit, [1:01:18] America First Legal made that very argument. Without either of those authorities being satisfied, [1:01:25] it is clear that Jack Smith did not serve as special counsel lawfully. Is that correct? And I'd like your [1:01:33] opinion. That's absolutely correct, Senator. The closest statute that Attorney General Garland [1:01:41] could have relied upon is 28 U.S.C. 515A. But that only gets triggered if Congress has some specific [1:01:49] statute authorizing the appointment of the special counsel, which it didn't. I would also note the [1:01:55] Independent Counsel Act had expired. The other sources that Garland relied upon referenced specifically [1:02:03] the FBI. So there was no clear statutory authority to appoint someone from the outside as being an [1:02:12] inferior officer of the United States. His appointment was as a hornbook matter of constitutional law [1:02:18] unauthorized. And when I talk to Tennesseans, one of the things they mention regularly is they want to [1:02:26] see people held to account. So that Jack Smith and his team will be held responsible for what they did. And [1:02:38] they're disappointed nothing has happened so far. I appreciate the fact my time has expired. I appreciate [1:02:47] the fact that the two of you are here. And I will submit a question for writing, in writing, to you to [1:02:55] comment about the importance of accountability when we see the weaponization of these agencies. Thank [1:03:02] you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Senator Durbin. All these questions and all these charges about [1:03:07] Jack Smith. Where's Jack Smith? Months ago, he said to the chairman of the committee, bring him here, [1:03:13] put him under oath, ask these questions directly. Not ready. We're not going to do it. Well, I think [1:03:18] tells the whole story. I believe we should be here and should tell his version of the story under oath. [1:03:23] Mr. Clark, the White House visitor log only appeared to record appointments with you on December 22nd, [1:03:30] 2020 and January 3rd, 2021. But we know you had more conversations with President Trump between [1:03:37] those dates because Deputy Attorney General Donohue reprimanded you on January 2nd, 2021 for [1:03:44] continuing to violate Department of Justice White House context policy. Mr. Clark, what was your primary [1:03:50] form of communication with President Trump during this time period? Senator, I'm not going to answer [1:03:55] questions about my communications with the president while I was in the executive branch. That's privileged. [1:04:01] You can't even tell us that you had a conversation? You've already volunteered that. [1:04:05] The public information that's come out about that in terms of what was in the January 6th report is one [1:04:13] example. I won't dispute that. But I'm not going to tell you exactly when I talk to him, how I talk to [1:04:19] him. These are all privileged matters. It was a conversation where President Trump indicated he would [1:04:25] appoint you acting attorney general in person or not. Again, Senator, you're asking about matters that [1:04:31] are privileged. It's interesting, Mr. Clark, you've avoided answering key questions by consistently invoking the [1:04:36] Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination while under oath. However, like nearly 1600 January 6th [1:04:43] insurrectionists and other election deniers, you are now received an inappropriate but equally legally [1:04:49] valid presidential pardon for your conduct. And now you have no basis to invoke the privilege. So can you [1:04:56] explain to us why you won't even tell us whether you met with the president during this period? Well, I didn't [1:05:00] invoke that privilege here, Senator. I will invoke four privileges. Executive privilege, law enforcement [1:05:07] privilege, deliberative process privilege, and attorney-client privilege. And all of those I fully maintain. [1:05:13] Interesting story. The president of the United States asked him to take over the Department of Justice, [1:05:18] apparently. All of this is a matter of record that's been disclosed. And even when he's been pardoned by [1:05:24] President Trump, he won't tell us whether he met with him or spoke to him. Mr. Clark, let me ask you a [1:05:30] question. Did you ever meet directly or correspond with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows or any [1:05:36] other senior official in a White House Executive Office of the President? I similarly think that [1:05:40] that's privileged. I believe firmly as a legal matter that that is also covered by the same four [1:05:46] privileges I just invoked. So we have Jack Smith prepared to testify under oath and answer the questions. [1:05:51] They don't want to see him. They want to bring us Mr. Clark. Let's talk about Jack Smith. I ask the [1:05:56] questions you get to answer them if you wish. In your notes from your briefing with then director [1:06:01] of national intelligence Ratcliffe, he indicated you you should reach out to Cash Patel, who'd worked [1:06:07] for Ratcliffe, to find a, quote, trustworthy FBI agent in your efforts. Did you reach out to Patel, [1:06:14] and if so, what help did he provide you? I do want to say something about Jack Smith, [1:06:18] because the single most salient fact in regard to me of Jack Smith is that he referred to me initially [1:06:24] in the indictment against Trump as unindicted co-conspirator number four, and after the [1:06:28] Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States, he issued, he got a superseding indictment, [1:06:34] and it dropped all reference to me. And the DC bar similarly should have immediately dropped his case. [1:06:39] If only we could get him under oath to ask a question like that. Well, it sounds like that's [1:06:43] coming, Senator. Yeah. In any event, in terms of- After we have- I did not speak to current [1:06:49] Director Patel in his former office. I did speak to DNI head Ratcliffe. Did you make any contact with [1:06:57] the FBI, as he suggested? There was no time to do that before the meeting on January 3rd that you [1:07:03] referred to. Let's talk- When I spoke to him, it was January 2nd. Let's talk about another one of your [1:07:08] interesting conspiracy theories that Rudy Giuliani was peddling, that Italian IT contractors [1:07:15] worked with the FBI to use military satellites to manipulate American voting machines. [1:07:23] Attorney General Rosen declined these meetings. Did you ever meet with Rudy Giuliani during this [1:07:27] period? No, I did not. And in fact, that's an interesting story because Cassidy Hutchinson said [1:07:33] that I was regularly going over to the White House to meet with Rudy Giuliani, and I didn't meet him [1:07:38] until January of 2025. We pointed out that she confused me with Justin Clark, who was engaged in [1:07:44] campaign matters, and then magically that story disappeared from Politico, which was otherwise [1:07:49] trying to push it. So no, I was not coordinating with Rudy Giuliani. I didn't meet him in 2020 or [1:07:55] 2021. I just knew about him from the news. Did you ever make a public statement that this [1:08:01] Italian IT contractor conspiracy theory needed to be investigated? I did not, to my knowledge or my [1:08:08] memory. And in fact, I investigated it after, several years after, and I don't believe that that is a valid [1:08:13] theory. Thank goodness. I yield. Thank you. Um, there's been a lot of discussion about Jack Smith. [1:08:20] I'd like to enter into the record an op-ed from the Wall Street Journal that says of the Arctic [1:08:23] Frost documents that, quote, the facts continue to roll out about Jack Smith and those facts are [1:08:27] getting uglier, end quote, without objection. Senator Britt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate [1:08:33] your leadership on this issue, both as an attorney general and now here in the Senate. I also want to [1:08:37] thank Chair Grassley for his work on oversight of this issue amongst a number of issues, but really working to [1:08:44] expose some of the most trouble, troublesome aspects of the Arctic Frost investigation. Whether [1:08:50] it be by an FBI agent who repeatedly engaged in political partisanship and violated the FBI's no [1:08:59] self-approval rule, it's mass targeting of nearly 100 Republican groups, including Turning Point USA, [1:09:08] the Republican Attorneys General Association, the America First Policy Institute, and the Republican National [1:09:13] Committee. Or, of course, the decision to subpoena the phone call records of multiple members of Congress, [1:09:21] including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Beyond that, I have concerns about evidence suggesting [1:09:27] coordination between the Biden administration and clearly partisan prosecutors in Manhattan or Fulton [1:09:35] County, Georgia in pursuit of Trump-related investigations. We even have people that campaigned on taking [1:09:43] him down. I mean, it's absolutely ridiculous. All in all, it paints a picture of criminal investigations [1:09:51] that evolved into indiscriminate dragnet and targeted and harassed hundreds of entities, individuals, [1:09:59] members of Congress that were all on the political right. It's highly concerning with respect to the law, [1:10:04] the separation of powers, and Americans' faith in a system that depends on the blind administration of [1:10:11] justice. I'm glad this committee has engaged in public oversight to learn more about what occurred [1:10:16] and the steps that can be taken to prevent this from happening moving forward. Mr. Epstein, I have a [1:10:21] question for you. There had been a lot of discussion regarding Jack Smith. We've heard it here today, [1:10:28] and his team's use of non-disclosure orders throughout the course of the Arctic Frost investigation. [1:10:33] This includes when such orders were sought and granted to accompany subpoenas related to [1:10:39] the toll records of multiple members of this body. Many have argued those NDOs likely violated existing [1:10:48] federal law and prohibited the use of NDOs on subpoenas involving Senate devices. The fact that at least [1:10:55] one telecom provider, AT&T, refused to comply with that subpoena and the Smith team didn't push back [1:11:03] is evidence that they probably knew that their requests were illegal in the first place. What is [1:11:09] your view on that issue, and are there additional steps that we need to take to reform existing law [1:11:14] or create new ones to better protect all Americans from NDOs being used in a politicized or an improper [1:11:22] manner? Yeah, thank you, Senator. I mean, clearly as a matter of law, there needs to be consultation [1:11:28] with the Senate before phone providers provide any of those records. Obviously, that's rooted in speech [1:11:36] or debate, which has direct constitutional text. You can't force senators to speak or members of the House [1:11:46] to speak without their consent. I would also say that as another statutory matter under Title IV USC 2118, [1:11:57] congressional records are preserved and transferred in Congress's discretion to the National Archives. [1:12:03] If there was interest in getting that kind of information, the more constitutionally appropriate [1:12:08] mechanism would have been for the Smith team to get as many relevant records from the Archives. [1:12:13] If they're not preserved by, or if they're not transferred rather, by the Senate, again, that revolves [1:12:21] back to speech or debate and whether the Senate consents to those things and whether the telecom providers [1:12:27] have received that consent. Well, Mr. Epstein, follow up on that. One of the principal concerns that, [1:12:34] you know, people have brought up with Arctic Frost investigation and related state-level investigations, [1:12:41] is they tried to criminalize conduct that wasn't actually illegal. It is not illegal for someone [1:12:46] to say that there may be fraud present. It is not illegal to question, you know, what happened and [1:12:55] how it happened and try to figure out a pathway moving forward. But yet, we saw time and time again, [1:13:03] Mr. Smith focus on that and try to make that conduct illegal. [1:13:08] Mr. Smith focus on that, you know, I think it's not illegal, but no American wants to live in a world [1:13:10] where you say, show me the man and I will show you the crime. So, outside of conducting public [1:13:17] oversight and the things that you have mentioned to ensure public accountability, what steps do you [1:13:21] think that we can take or should consider to make sure that we don't fall into that same trap in the [1:13:27] same way that some of those individuals involved with Arctic Frost and related investigations appear to? [1:13:33] Mr. Yeah, I think one thing is to make clear as a statutory matter that the way in which Jack [1:13:40] Smith was appointed was invalid and to specify as much as possible into statutes what appropriate [1:13:49] appointments look like. I also think that, you know, when I think about the Bragg prosecution and Judge [1:13:57] Marshawn, that was a case where they were interpreting federal election law, which is totally [1:14:04] inappropriate for them. And primary jurisdiction, something that I teach in administrative law, clearly [1:14:11] laid with the FEC. And I think that there are multiple opportunities for clear statutes about primary [1:14:19] jurisdiction to prevent the states from going on roving political investigations that they don't have [1:14:25] jurisdiction for. But again, there's also the power of oversight. There are still questions that [1:14:31] Congress can ask, and it can ask these states. It could ask these prosecutorial offices. If a group like [1:14:38] America First Legal can use FOIA to get documents, certainly the Congress can conduct oversight. [1:14:46] Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Senator Whitehouse. [1:14:49] Thanks very much. Mr. Clark, are you aware that the FBI executed a search warrant with respect to the [1:15:05] Fulton County election records and seized a considerable number of records? I'm aware from the news, yes. [1:15:14] Did you have any contact with any person within the Department of Justice or the FBI relevant to that [1:15:25] search warrant application or that search? No. During that time period, [1:15:29] if I'm remembering correctly, I was at OMB. No one reached out to you? No one reached out to me. [1:15:37] How about the witnesses that were in the search warrant application? Did any of them have any contact [1:15:47] with you related to that search warrant application or that search? I don't know who the witnesses are, [1:15:53] but to my knowledge, no. Let's go back to your Georgia letter when you were in the Department of Justice. [1:16:09] As I understand it, you had been in the Environment Natural Resources Division, which has no authority [1:16:15] over elections. You had been Acting Chief of the Civil Division as people cleared out at the end of the [1:16:22] Trump Administration, again with no role in elections. Incorrect. And as best I can tell, [1:16:29] you had no prior experience in elections law. Is that correct? Also incorrect. So both things are [1:16:36] incorrect. I ran the two divisions, the Environment Division and the Civil Division, total of 1400 lawyers [1:16:42] simultaneously, and the Civil Division did have several election cases. There are two major sets of them. [1:16:48] Were you directly involved in any of those cases? Yes. There's one in particular I will tell you about. [1:16:55] Well, that's okay. I'm asking the questions here, so let me continue. When you wrote that letter, who [1:17:02] in the Civil Division did you contact with respect to its contents? That is something that would be law [1:17:10] enforcement privileged inside the Justice Department. No, it's not. It absolutely is, Senator. What lawyers I [1:17:18] consulted and what they said and what I said to them, all of that is something. No, what lawyers you [1:17:24] consulted may be what you said, but certainly what lawyers you consulted. I'm entitled to know if you [1:17:29] bothered to consult a single lawyer in the Civil Rights Division before you did that. But I'll turn to [1:17:34] a different question. Who from outside the Civil Rights Division or outside of the Department of Justice [1:17:40] gave you advice about that letter? In terms of that letter, again, anything related to how that letter was [1:17:46] formulated is law enforcement privileged? That just ain't so. And let me ask that the record include [1:17:54] the Board of Professional Responsibility opinions with respect to throwing out Mr. Clark's claims, [1:18:03] false claims of privilege. So let's just say that somebody from outside the Department put you up to [1:18:19] writing that letter and told you what they wanted in it. What privilege would that require? Well, there, [1:18:27] Senator, hopefully I can help you by assuring you that there was no one from outside the Department [1:18:31] who put me up to writing a letter. I'm quite capable of writing a letter, thinking about it, and making my own [1:18:37] legal decisions. No one contributed text to you. No one contributed ideas to you. No entity or person [1:18:47] ask you to do this? Again, these kinds of things would be part of privilege. No, they wouldn't. [1:18:54] They would. You're just wrong about that. Well, you can say that, Senator, but I disagree with you. [1:18:58] And I know you've asserted privileges before and you've been wrong. You assert privilege willy nilly [1:19:04] with no real basis for it. So, by the way, it's not even conceded that those privileges matter in [1:19:13] Congress. In fact, Chairman Grassley has repeatedly said that there are a number of privileges, and I [1:19:19] think many of us agree with him, that something don't pertain to congressional investigations [1:19:24] because of the separation of powers. So what we're asking about here is whether you were put up to this [1:19:30] by outside entities, whether those outside entities helped get you the meeting in the Oval Office with [1:19:38] Representative Perry, who was behind that? And who was behind finding you a dark money funded landing [1:19:44] pad once the Department of Justice tenure was over and you were picked up by a dark money funded advocacy [1:19:53] group? Those are legitimate questions. I intend to pursue them. My time has expired. Thank you, [1:19:58] Senator. Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling this hearing on [1:20:05] this so-called investigation, which is an absolute mockery of the term. All the investigation was, [1:20:13] was an attempt to browbeat ordinary citizens out of their constitutional rights and expressions of [1:20:18] their constitutional right, including, of course, the First Amendment. It was an attempt to spy on [1:20:22] members of Congress, including myself, who had our phones tapped. It's an absolute outrage that I hope will [1:20:28] never happen again in American history. But I want to talk about another outrage today, if I could, that is [1:20:31] very much in process, and that is the attempt by the American left to destroy the independence [1:20:36] of the United States Supreme Court. We've had out of this court, just in the last few days, another [1:20:42] series of leaks. I'm holding up here a page, a printout, this time the private papers of the justices. [1:20:48] You might remember just a few years ago, somebody leaked an unpublished internal draft opinion for the [1:20:54] first time in the history of the Supreme Court. Leaked it in an attempt to derail, it was the Dobbs decision, [1:20:59] in an attempt to derail an opinion of the court. Now we have from the justices personal private papers [1:21:06] that by law belonged to them. We have multiple leaks from February, from January of 2016 leaked to [1:21:15] the press. Why? For the sin of the court's supposed failure to address the global climate crisis. [1:21:22] That's right, ladies and gentlemen. That's what the New York Times tells us. The court has not [1:21:26] managed the global climate crisis properly, and therefore, whomever it is at the Supreme Court who [1:21:32] wants to destroy the independence of that body is now leaking the justices' own private papers. [1:21:37] This is part of a coordinated attack on this institution that has gone on now for years. [1:21:43] And the point of it is to destroy the independence of the Supreme Court, to browbeat that court into [1:21:50] doing what the left in this country wants, and to hold up a clear threat to the court that if they don't, [1:21:56] they will be packed with new justices, they will be personally threatened, their papers will be leaked, [1:22:02] their security will be threatened, and in short, the left will do everything they can to destroy the [1:22:06] court as an institution. I've worked at that court, I have litigated that court as a private lawyer, [1:22:13] and as the attorney general of the state of Missouri. And I can tell you what is happening now [1:22:17] is absolutely a coordinated effort to destroy the court, and it has been years in the making. [1:22:25] Years in the making. It goes all the way back to when President Obama stood in the well of the [1:22:32] House of Representatives at the podium there, and to the face of the justices, [1:22:36] browbeat and criticized them personally for a decision he didn't like. I've heard a lot of fussing [1:22:42] from the other side of the aisle, they don't like how President Trump is critical of the court. [1:22:45] Really? I don't remember a word when Barack Obama stood and looked at the justices and personally [1:22:51] attacked them at a State of the Union address, but that was just the nearest beginning. [1:22:58] We have had since then an assassination attempt on the life of a justice, Brett Kavanaugh. We have had the [1:23:04] current minority leader of the Senate go to the floor, to the steps rather, of the Supreme Court, [1:23:09] Chuck Schumer, go to the steps of the court and threaten the justices by name, [1:23:13] by name. We've had a coordinated leak from within the court meant to derail the Dobbs opinion and [1:23:20] to destroy it. We have had dark money groups, left-wing dark money groups, funding illegal protests [1:23:26] at the justices' homes after an assassination attempt on the justices that the Biden Justice [1:23:33] Department and FBI refused to stop despite the fact they were illegal. For months, these illegal protests [1:23:40] meant, meant to threaten the security of the justices went on. Months and months and months, [1:23:47] and the Biden Justice Department couldn't lift a finger. And I don't remember hardly a peek from the [1:23:54] other side of the aisle. Oh no, this is a deliberate attempt to tell the court, do what we want you to do [1:24:00] or we will destroy you. And this is just the latest attempt. I don't know what's going to be left. I mean, [1:24:06] if the justices' private papers can be leaked, you know, I'll give the Times credit. They're at least [1:24:10] honest. They say they talked to at least, in addition to getting the private papers, [1:24:13] 10 different individuals who were formerly employed at the court who were familiar with [1:24:19] deliberations over pivotal emergency orders and spoke on condition of anonymity. Why? Because, [1:24:24] and I quote, confidentiality was a condition of their employment. In other words, multiple people [1:24:30] from within the court who were delighted to violate their own employment agreements in order to put the [1:24:36] private deliberations of the justices into view with the sole purpose of trying to destroy this [1:24:42] institution's independence. I happen to believe in our system of government. I believe the three [1:24:47] branches were designed for a reason. I believe the independence of the Supreme Court is vital. And if [1:24:53] I believe, I believe if you don't like decisions of that court, and there are plenty I disagree with, [1:24:57] plenty from Citizens United to many, many more, but you do not address those differences of opinion by [1:25:04] trying to destroy the institutional legitimacy and independence of the court. And that is exactly [1:25:09] what the American left is trying to do in a coordinated fashion. And I'll end with this, [1:25:14] Mr. Chairman. We need to follow the money. Those protests at the justices' home that were designed to [1:25:19] threaten their safety were funded by somebody. They were funded. I want to know who funded them. I want [1:25:27] to know where the money from this pressure campaign, this multi-year pressure campaign is coming from. [1:25:33] We need to have hearings in this committee to unveil the sources of this funding, of this campaign, [1:25:40] and of this attempt to undermine our system of government. It is a clear and present danger [1:25:45] to the operation of our constitution. Mr. Chairman, I yield. [1:25:49] Senator Hawley, I'd like to enter into the record an article on the Hill on Arctic [1:25:53] Frost documents that says, quote, documents released by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley [1:25:57] describe investigative actions by the Biden area Department of Justice and FBI that were not merely aggressive, [1:26:03] but aggressively partisan and focus and sweeping in scope. It is increasingly clear that this was an [1:26:08] overreach of monumental proportions and consequence using law enforcement authority in a manner that [1:26:13] transformed the justice system into a political weapon. That is the very definition of lawfare, [1:26:18] end quote. Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me join several of my colleagues in [1:26:26] recognizing the obvious. If the objective here from the subcommuter, the committee as a whole, [1:26:32] was to get down to anything, we'd have Jack Smith before us to testify and to answer questions. [1:26:39] So I can't help but recognize this hearing for what it truly is, just another opportunity for people [1:26:46] who want to refuse to come to grips with the fact that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election to air out [1:26:53] their grievances and spread the big lie conspiracy. It's pretty rich for us to be even having this debate [1:27:02] focused on, quote, conspiracy and coordination. That's part of the title of this hearing when the [1:27:09] president himself and with the help of his enablers are leading a coordinated effort to undermine [1:27:16] the sanctity and validity of our upcoming elections. That's what we should be talking about, colleagues. [1:27:24] For years, President Trump and his allies have been raging about our elections. [1:27:29] He even said during the 2016 Iowa caucuses that they were rigged when Senator Cruz beat him. [1:27:39] Trump has been trying to undermine confidence in our system of voting, attacking elections [1:27:45] officials who don't agree or go along with him, even exploiting his power to have the FBI seize [1:27:51] ballots in the state of Georgia. And when his first effort to, quote, take over elections, his words, [1:27:59] not mine, the executive order on day one of the second term, that effort failed in the courts. [1:28:08] His friends here on Capitol Hill have tried to help him do it with this so-called Save America Act, [1:28:15] to save him and his party from the consequences at the ballot this November. But after weeks and weeks [1:28:24] of debate where Democrats expose how outrageous this bill is and how many barriers it would create for [1:28:32] Americans not only to be able to register to vote, but to stay registered to vote and to actually cast [1:28:37] their ballot, thankfully that bill seems to be put on ice. Good riddance. Because Congress shouldn't be [1:28:47] working to restrict access to the ballot for eligible Americans. We should be striving to expand access to [1:28:54] the ballot for eligible Americans. We have a president whose newest executive order is attempting to [1:29:03] force states to rely on a federal list of, quote, eligible voters created by the Department of Homeland [1:29:11] Security with no history or background on this. And he wants to hand over authority for absentee and [1:29:19] mail voting to the Trump administration. And if states don't comply with all his demand and the Postal [1:29:26] Service apparently won't deliver voters absentee ballots. Talk about the weaponization of government. [1:29:36] The president is trying to order the Postal Service to not deliver lawful ballots from eligible voters. [1:29:43] Now that's profoundly un-American. And I have no doubt it's also illegal and unconstitutional and will face that [1:29:52] proper fate in a court of law. But in response, I'm introducing a bill, the Absentee and Mail Voter Protection Act, [1:29:59] to stop this executive order to nullify it and any similar action in its tracks the same way we [1:30:06] stopped the Save America Act. But if you really want to be doing something about conspiracies and [1:30:13] coordination, Mr. Chairman, then we ought to be focusing our time and attention on the endless campaign by the [1:30:19] president designed to undermine public confidence in our elections and our fundamental right to vote. [1:30:29] Now turning to another critical topic that this subcommittee could be investigating instead of [1:30:35] the repeated election denials. The Migration Policy Institute recently estimated 15,000 people [1:30:42] have been deported to countries of which they are not nationals under agreements that this administration [1:30:49] has entered. These agreements have no transparency, including what incentives this administration is [1:30:55] promising or what pressure they're using to get countries to take people who are not their nationals, [1:31:02] but victims of Trump's mass deportation agenda. Now, the worst part is these people in removal [1:31:09] proceedings often don't have proper notice or an opportunity to challenge their removal to these [1:31:15] countries. That's not my assessment. That's the recent finding of a federal judge who also criticized so-called [1:31:23] safety assurances provided by these countries in their agreements with the United States. Question [1:31:30] for Mr. Schwager. Do you believe that this is the best use of this subcommittee's time or should we [1:31:38] instead be more focused on the day-to-day constitutional violations that we're seeing from this administration? [1:31:46] Senator, I defer to the wise discretion of the Senate committee and far be it for me to tell you what to [1:31:51] what to do. That's a great answer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. Senator Cruz. [1:31:59] Thank you to the wise chairman. Mr. Chairman, in the last hearing, [1:32:05] we proved that Arctic Frost was no rogue operation. It was authorized at the highest level of the Biden [1:32:11] Justice Department. And today we're asking the next question. Who coordinated it? Who profited from it? [1:32:19] And who paid the price? Professor Epstein, on April 4th, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland, [1:32:29] Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and FBI Director Christopher Wray personally signed off [1:32:35] on opening Arctic Frost. Their signatures on a document authorizing a federal investigation [1:32:45] into virtually the entirety of the opposing political party. Are you familiar with that? [1:32:51] Yes, Senator. The operatives in Watergate hid their names. They were embarrassed to be part of [1:32:59] weaponizing government. Here, the top leadership of the Department of Justice flaunted their abuse of [1:33:08] power. Mr. Epstein, when power at the top gives permission, allies below move quickly. That's how [1:33:18] Washington works, isn't it? I think so, Senator. Yes. And Arctic Frost quickly grew beyond the Department [1:33:28] of Justice. Are you familiar with the names Tim Heafy, Jack Smith and Thomas Windham? Some of those names, [1:33:36] yes. Certainly Jack Smith. Heafy led the January 6th committee investigation of President Trump. [1:33:44] Smith prosecuted him as special counsel and Windham was Smith's senior deputy. Does that sound right? [1:33:50] Yes. And all three coordinated with Fannie Willis, the Fulton County District Attorney who brought the [1:33:57] Georgia RICO case against President Trump, sharing witnesses, sharing documents, helping to prepare her [1:34:04] witness interviews. Is that right? Yes. And when it was all over, these three men [1:34:12] founded a law firm together. Is that right? It appears so. Washington has a lot of revolving [1:34:19] doors, but this one spun from prosecution to profit. But you need not take my word for it. [1:34:27] Follow the money. Nathan Wade, Fannie Willis' special prosecutor and her romantic partner, billed Georgia [1:34:36] taxpayers $20,000 for six federal coordination meetings in 2022 alone, two with the White House, [1:34:48] three with the January 6th committee, one on that same day that Jack Smith was appointed special counsel. [1:34:56] This was a coordinated, organized operation by the Biden White House, the Biden Justice Department, [1:35:03] and the Democrat Party to try to destroy their political opposition because they were terrified [1:35:10] that the voters would do what they did, which is in November 2024, reelect President Donald Trump. [1:35:16] And this was the single greatest assault on democracy our nation has ever seen. [1:35:22] Our Democrat friends are not shy about saying they're defending democracy, [1:35:28] except when it comes to actually letting people vote. And there, [1:35:32] they're willing to use all political power to stop people from voting. [1:35:37] You know, Nathan Wade, under oath, he was asked about every one of those meetings. [1:35:46] Wade said, I don't remember. Anyone have a guess for how many times? 58 times. [1:35:55] Wade's answer about those meetings was, I don't remember. I don't remember. I don't remember. [1:36:01] Mr. Epstein, when a prosecutor can't remember something 58 times, what does that tell you? [1:36:05] I think the inference is, is that he's not telling the truth. [1:36:10] I think that is a very fair inference. In your judgment, should the architects of this scheme [1:36:16] face criminal prosecution? [1:36:17] I certainly think there is a number of bases to investigate the activities that occurred. [1:36:26] And what bases come to mind? [1:36:29] I think the way in which there was ignoring the proper constitutional appointment of Jack Smith, [1:36:38] the evidence of potential bias amongst some FBI agents in the Washington Field Office, [1:36:45] the ways in which there was coordination with the White House Counsel's Office, [1:36:49] in ways that I think was inconsistent with the proper interpretation of the Presidential Records Act, [1:36:56] and gave no ability for, at the time, former President Trump to assert constitutional privileges. [1:37:03] The way in which the record shows that the National Archivist was clearly biased, [1:37:07] and made referrals to the FBI that were likely unauthorized, doing it through his Inspector General. [1:37:13] And I think the evidence that this committee has shown shows that there was unfortunate coordination [1:37:21] as a, uh, for partisan motivation. And these documents shock the conscience. [1:37:28] Weaponizing the Department of Justice for partisan ends to subvert democracy and try and steal an election. [1:37:35] Finally, Mr. Clark, you're here today because you have faced this subversion of justice, [1:37:45] not as a statistic, but as a target. You were a partner at Kirkland and Ellis, [1:37:51] spent nearly 30 years as a lawyer. Is that right? [1:37:53] That's correct. [1:37:54] Your role in the events at issue, you drafted a memo raising election concerns. That memo was never [1:38:01] sent. It was never enacted. DOJ leadership rejected it. Is that right? [1:38:05] That's correct. [1:38:06] And the results were stunning. In response to your writing a memo, there was a pre-dawn raid on your [1:38:13] home with 12 agents who ransacked your home for three and a half hours. Is that right? [1:38:18] That's also correct. And they took computers that had nothing to do with my legal work. [1:38:22] Georgia indictment, arrest, booking. Is all that correct? [1:38:26] Yes. [1:38:26] Three years of concurrent bar proceedings, federal scrutiny and litigation, [1:38:31] hundreds of thousands in legal fees. Is that right? [1:38:33] Millions in legal fees, five going on six years of legal proceedings in the bar. [1:38:38] And last July, D.C. recommended your disbarment, your 29-year law license potentially gone, [1:38:45] for writing a memo in the Department of Justice. Is that right? [1:38:49] Yes. For writing a privileged memo that was leaked by my political opponents. [1:38:53] Every Democrat involved in this process should be ashamed of the weaponization [1:38:59] and the persecution that is occurring. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:39:02] Thank you, Senator. And I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony today. [1:39:05] Written questions for the record can be submitted until Tuesday, April 28th at 5 p.m. [1:39:10] We asked the witnesses to submit their responses within two weeks, so by Tuesday, May 5th.