The new disclosure contradicts earlier denials that Smith obtained the record. AT&T had indicated to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley that the company had not shared any of the former speaker’s phone records.
However, a letter from AT&T to Grassley now indicates that McCarthy’s records were given to Jack Smith after a separate demand that did not identify him as the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. The FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division tied the demand to a “significant case notification.” AT&T admitted that it had processed the separate request and turned over the records. It emphasized that the subpoena “sought records for a personal cellular phone number” and that it did not in “any way indicate that the information sought related to a member of Congress.”
McCarthy responded to the news by warning that “if corrupt justice will do it to the speaker, they’ll do it to anyone.”
He is right. Indeed, in an equally chilling acknowledgment, the company noted that the number of these demands is so high that it rarely exercises much scrutiny or review unless the government flags their position or status:
“AT&T’s Global Legal Demand Center receives hundreds of thousands of legal demands each year, and unlike the May 2023 subpoena discussed in our October 24 response, the subpoena we produced today did not seek records from a campaign account. Rather, as confirmed from press accounts, the subpoena sought records for a personal cellular phone number. It also did not in any way indicate that the information sought related to a member of Congress.
As a result, the subpoena processing center had no reason to believe that the phone number was associated with a member of Congress, and AT&T did not make further inquiries to the Special Counsel and produced the information as required by the subpoena.”
Goldman’s dismissal of any concerns over such records being exposed is hardly surprising. However, the media has shown only muted or passing concern about the implications of Smith’s intrusion into legislative communications.
The sweeping and reckless demand by Smith is a signature of his career. He has shown a sense of impunity in how he conducts investigations, an abandon that has led to major losses such as the unanimous overturning of his conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell by the United States Supreme Court.
These records are not the trivial matters portrayed by Democratic members. That is why Smith and others seek them. They reveal who called members, when they called, and how long each call lasted. They reveal contact information on a wide array of people seeking assistance or giving information to Congress.
To acquire such information on the man second in line for the presidency is particularly outrageous. It could expose embarrassing or personal information on a member of the opposing party and someone who might ultimately exercise authority over the Justice Department.
The lack of outrage from Democrats and the media shows how ideology now blinds many to their institutional and professional interests. As someone who has worked closely with members and represented the House in court, I always assumed that such information would be confidential. I am certain that the members operated under that same assumption. That has now been shattered, and all the many Democratic members and pundits can muster is a shrug and a smile.