Sen. Chuck Grassley has released a batch of documents that detail interactions between former special counsel Jack Smith's team and two federal judges in Washington, D.C., during investigations that led to criminal charges against Donald Trump. Fox News reported that the materials, released ahead of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing titled "Arctic Frost: A Modern Watergate," included briefing notes describing contact between Smith's prosecutors and federal judges Beryl Howell and James Boasberg.
The documents have ignited accusations from conservative critics who say Smith's team crossed lines that prosecutors are expected to respect. A representative for Smith declined to comment on the newly released documents, and the judges involved have not publicly responded.
According to the briefing notes as reported by Fox News, Smith's team referenced meetings with Judge Howell and described her as supportive of their legal strategy. That strategy included what the notes called an "omnibus" approach to litigation involving executive privilege, the legal doctrine that shields certain presidential communications from disclosure. The documents also referenced a planned meeting with Judge Boasberg around the time he was set to become chief judge.
Separately, the notes outlined a January 2023 meeting between Smith's team and Attorney General Merrick Garland, shortly after Smith's appointment as special counsel. Fox News reported the notes discussed ongoing legal strategies at that meeting, including efforts to challenge executive privilege claims involving several former Trump officials.
The documents also noted coordination between Smith's team and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which was described as responsive during the investigation. Smith's team referenced complex legal issues involving executive privilege and the constitutional separation of powers.
At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz described Smith's investigation as a major scandal. Cruz claimed the probe involved sweeping data collection, including phone records of Republican individuals and organizations. No supporting documentation for that specific claim has been publicly identified.
Trump has repeatedly called the investigations a "witch hunt." Fox News reported that many Republicans have criticized the investigations as politically motivated. Smith's investigations led to criminal charges against Trump related to the 2020 election and the handling of classified documents.
Not everyone who reviewed the documents saw a smoking gun. Defense attorney Bill Shipley said the documents largely reflected routine updates to the attorney general and standard court procedures. Shipley pointed to the administrative role of chief judges in handling grand jury matters, meaning their involvement is sometimes a function of logistics rather than case strategy.
That distinction matters. Chief judges in the federal system oversee certain administrative functions related to grand juries. Contact between prosecutors and a chief judge about grand jury logistics is not, by itself, evidence of coordination on litigation strategy. The question is whether the interactions described in these briefing notes stayed within those boundaries or crossed into substantive case collaboration.
The briefing notes, as described by Fox News, are summaries rather than transcripts. The exact nature of the interactions between Smith's prosecutors and the two judges has not been established through direct quotations from the underlying documents. Investigators will need to determine what was actually discussed in these meetings, whether any communication touched on the merits of pending or anticipated cases, and whether the contacts complied with applicable rules governing ex parte communication, meaning contact between a party and a judge that occurs outside the presence of the opposing side.
Authorities have not publicly confirmed whether any formal inquiry into the propriety of these interactions is underway. The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing may produce additional disclosures, but no date for further proceedings has been publicly announced.
Smith has defended his work in prior testimony, stating his actions followed Department of Justice policies and were conducted in a nonpartisan manner. That claim now sits alongside briefing notes that, at minimum, show his team was tracking its relationship with sitting federal judges closely enough to document it in writing. Whether that documentation reflects proper diligence or something more troubling is exactly the kind of question that congressional oversight exists to answer.
