Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley says his panel this year will call on former special counsel Jack Smith to testify about Arctic Frost, the code name for the 2022-23 investigation into efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 election.
And the Iowa Republican welcomes more prosecutions involving Arctic Frost, including the House moving forward with the potential impeachment of U.S. District Chief Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee who approved gag orders for subpoenas in the probe.
Mr. Grassley said Arctic Frost represents the perfect example of the political weaponization of the government.
“The attempt was to make sure not only was President Trump never president again, but he would be ruined economically, socially and politically and he would end up in prison,” he said during an interview for The Washington Times’ “The Sitdown with Alex Swoyer” podcast.
In Arctic Frost, Mr. Smith subpoenaed more than 400 conservative individuals and entities linked to President Trump’s challenge of the 2020 election results.
Swept up in the collection of private data and communications were phone records of senators and members of Congress, which Mr. Grassley contends violates the Speech and Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
That portion of the Constitution protects lawmakers from litigation — including criminal prosecution — as they carry out their official duties.
Chief Judge Boasberg, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, signed off on some of the subpoenas and prevented lawmakers from being notified that their phone records were being surveilled.
“It is just an abuse of a special counsel. It is ignorance on the part of the judge that participated in it. It is just total denial of constitutional rights,” Mr. Grassley said.
“The most troubling thing is how sweeping this investigation was and they issued subpoenas to 400 different Republican entities and individuals and by a Judge Boasberg that should have known better,” he said. “I would expect that prosecution be done for these injustices.”
He said some measure of accountability will be achieved when Mr. Smith testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the end of the year.
More accountability, he said, could come in impeachment proceedings against Chief Judge Boasberg. Rep. Brandon Gill, Texas Republican, introduced in November a resolution to impeach the judge for abuse of power.
“I usually reserve judgment as a juror in the Senate sitting as a jury. I think I should wait until the evidence is presented to me to say if I would vote for impeachment or not vote for impeachment, but I am not questioning the House doing what they are doing,” Mr. Grassley said. “I think they ought to do their job and I think there are reasons why they ought to at least consider Boasberg.”
With more than 45 years in the Senate, Mr. Grassley, 92, is the longest-serving current member of the upper chamber. He has staunchly defended whistleblowers by seeking to regain jobs, security clearances or back pay for many of them through settlements.
One recent move, in his defense of roughly a dozen former FBI agents who blew the whistle on government abuse, drew fire from House Democrats. They accused Mr. Grassley and his staff of helping negotiate “illegitimate settlements based solely on political loyalty to the President and baseless claims of ’weaponization.’”
But Mr. Grassley told The Times that whistleblowers help him properly conduct oversight as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
“I am a protector of whistleblowers. That doesn’t mean everybody that comes to me, I am going to believe, but we investigate and I find that almost all of them have a worthy cause,” he said. “I bet I get 85 or 90% of my ideas for oversight from whistleblowers.”
