A tense exchange unfolded during a House Judiciary Committee hearing as Representative Brandon Gill directly questioned Jack Smith regarding the acquisition of toll records. Gill immediately challenged Smith, asserting the use of “clearly false information” to obtain non-disclosure orders, effectively concealing the surveillance of a former Speaker’s toll records from both the Speaker and the public.
The questioning quickly escalated, with Gill revealing that Smith’s office had issued subpoenas for the toll records of nine U.S. Senators and another Representative in May of 2023. Crucially, these subpoenas were accompanied by non-disclosure orders, designed to keep the investigation hidden from those targeted and the wider American public.
Gill pressed Smith on the rationale behind these secretive actions, questioning whether the intent was to operate without scrutiny. Smith maintained that the actions were consistent with established policy, a claim Gill immediately challenged with internal documentation.
The core of Gill’s argument centered on a potential violation of the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution. He presented an email from within Smith’s own Public Integrity Section acknowledging “litigation risk” regarding the legality of compelling disclosure of toll records, specifically citing concerns within the D.C. Circuit.
Gill highlighted a stark admission within the document: “The bar on compelled disclosure is absolute.” He then questioned Smith’s adherence to this established legal precedent, forcing Smith to clarify that the statement originated from the Public Integrity Section, not his direct office.
The representative didn’t relent, focusing on a final, damning sentence from the internal analysis. It revealed a calculated assessment of minimal risk, stating the likelihood of charges against the targeted members was “low,” and therefore, the potential for legal challenge was also minimal.
Gill’s interpretation was scathing: Smith was employing an untested legal theory, pursuing surveillance without intent to prosecute, and relying on secrecy to avoid accountability. He accused Smith of deliberately circumventing constitutional protections, spying on members of Congress with full awareness of the potential overreach.
The hearing reached a crescendo as Gill delivered a forceful condemnation, characterizing Smith’s actions as a blatant disregard for the Constitution and a deeply “disgraceful” abuse of power. The exchange left a clear impression of a deliberate strategy to operate in the shadows, raising serious questions about the scope and legality of the investigation.
