Patel: Probe Into Trump, GOP Lawmakers Over Jan. 6 Weak On Evidence pssss
Patel: Probe Into Trump, GOP Lawmakers Over Jan. 6 Weak On Evidence
The FBI memo that initiated the Biden-era Arctic Frost investigation into President Donald Trump and hundreds of his allies over their activities related to January 6 lacked substantial evidence and clear legal justification, according to several former prosecutors and FBI agents who reviewed the newly released document and identified multiple deficiencies.
The investigation, code-named Arctic Frost, was initially led by an FBI supervisor who had expressed anti-Trump sentiments and was later taken over by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
The probe treated the effort by Trump’s allies to submit alternate electors to Congress during the 2020 election certification as a potential criminal conspiracy — despite similar actions in two prior instances of U.S. history not resulting in prosecution, Just the News reported.
According to the newly released materials, the FBI memo that launched the investigation in spring 2022 — around the same time Trump announced his bid for the presidency — relied heavily on interview clips from CNN as primary evidence “suggesting” Trump’s involvement in the alleged conspiracy, the outlet added.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan said Wednesday that he believes the FBI memo authorizing the Arctic Frost investigation was legally flawed and reflected the same politicization and investigative overreach seen in the 2016 Russia collusion probe, code-named “Crossfire Hurricane.”
Jordan obtained the document from current FBI Director Kash Patel and told Just the News that both investigations targeted Trump based on weak evidence and partisan motives before ultimately being discredited.
“Sure looks that way. … and it looks like this was just the same old weaponization, same old political focus, focus on politics, going after your political enemies,” Jordan said during a wide-ranging interview on the Just the News, No Noise TV show.
“Same mindset that said we’re going to put the dossier in the intelligence community assessment, even though we know the dossier is garbage, we know there’s no underlying intelligence support,” he continued.
“That same mindset that was there in 2016 is the mindset we see now in 2022 with Arctic Frost, and then as it transformed into Jack Smith, special counsel, later in 2022—same mindset. So yeah, that’s what it sure looks like,” he added
Smith has denied any wrongdoing and said he intends to present his side of the story. Jordan has invited Smith to testify before the committee, warning that he will issue a subpoena if Smith declines to appear voluntarily.
Documents released in recent weeks by Patel indicate that the Arctic Frost investigation was approved at the highest levels of the Biden administration, including by Attorney General Merrick Garland, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, and FBI Director Christopher Wray, with assistance from a lawyer in the White House.
The inquiry centered on efforts by Republican officials in several states to submit alternate slates of electors ahead of Congress’s certification of the 2020 presidential election on January 6, 2021.
The probe was later transferred from the FBI to Smith’s office, which issued subpoenas to hundreds of Trump allies.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on Wednesday released 197 subpoenas that Smith and his Justice Department team issued “as part of the indiscriminate election case against President Trump,” identifying more than 400 Republican groups and individuals whose information was sought.
Separately, the House Judiciary Committee disclosed that more than 160 Republicans — including many closely tied to Trump — were flagged for possible investigation under the Arctic Frost operation.
The opening electronic communication (EC) that launched what became a broad investigation into Trump associates was written and approved in April 2022 under the title “Requests Opening of New Investigation – Arctic Frost.”
The probe, designated as a “Sensitive Investigative Matter” (SIM), was authorized by then–Assistant Special Agent in Charge Timothy Thibault — who later left the FBI after his anti-Trump social media posts came to light — along with other senior bureau officials, including Steve D’Antuono, then the Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, and Paul Abbate, who was serving as the FBI’s Deputy Director at the time.
Trump Asks Supreme Court To Overturn E. Jean Carroll Verdict
Former President Donald Trump has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a civil verdict that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll. The case, which has attracted nationwide attention, centers on questions of presidential accountability and evidentiary standards in politically sensitive trials. Carroll, a journalist and former television host, alleged that Trump assaulted her in a Manhattan department store dressing room in the 1990s and defamed her when he denied the accusation decades later. In 2023, a Manhattan jury awarded Carroll $5 million, finding Trump legally responsible for battery and defamation. An appeals court upheld the verdict in late 2024, prompting Trump’s legal team to ask the Supreme Court to review the case.
Trump’s attorneys, led by St. Louis lawyer Justin D. Smith, have described Carroll’s claims as a “politically motivated hoax,” arguing there was no physical or DNA evidence, eyewitnesses, or police report to support her account. Civil rights attorney Areva Martin, meanwhile, praised Carroll’s persistence, writing on X that Carroll “did what millions of survivors are told is impossible—she took on one of the most powerful men in the world and won.” The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will hear Trump’s appeal. If the justices decline to take up the case, the lower court’s verdict and financial penalties will remain in effect.
Carroll has also reflected on the outcome of the first civil trial, saying she believes Trump might have influenced at least one juror had he testified. Speaking in a livestream discussion, she noted that several jurors were from Trump-leaning upstate New York counties. “If he had come to court … I think he could have convinced one juror,” Carroll said, adding that such a scenario might have resulted in a hung jury rather than a verdict against him
