The Rule Was a Piece of Paper
Federal prosecutors read the private text messages of 44 members of Congress. The Justice Department had a rule against it. Three years later, nothing has happened to anyone.
Say the federal government decides to investigate you. Prosecutors want your text messages, and rather than ask you for them, they go to your phone company, which has no particular reason to fight on your behalf. So they get everything, and everything is a problem, because somewhere in that pile are the messages you sent your lawyer. Those are privileged, meaning the government is not allowed to read them, and that protection is older than the country and is most of what makes having a lawyer worth anything at all.
Here is the trouble. Nobody can pull your lawyer’s messages out of the pile without reading the pile. So the Justice Department invented a workaround, and it is called a filter team. A separate group of government lawyers, walled off from the ones building the case against you, reads everything first. They pull out what is privileged, hand the rest to the investigators, and the investigators never see the part they were not supposed to see. The filter team is the only thing standing between a prosecutor and your private conversations, and it is worth being clear about what it is made of. It is not a law. No judge orders it. Congress never passed it. It is an internal Justice Department policy that the Justice Department wrote for itself, and it works exactly as long as the people covered by it decide to use it.
On August 21, 2023, the National Archives delivered a batch of text messages to the office of Special Counsel Jack Smith. A filter team had been set up for that delivery. The protocol said nothing reached the investigators without a filter attorney signing off first.
Within half an hour, one of Smith’s senior lawyers, Thomas Windom, had downloaded the messages. Within an hour, the rest of the investigative team had downloaded them too and started reading. Nobody signed off on anything, because nobody waited.
---
Some ground first, because this has been running for four years and most of it happened in rooms nobody was watching.
In April 2022 the FBI opened an investigation into the alternate slate of electors that Donald Trump’s allies assembled after the 2020 election, and gave it the codename Arctic Frost. That November, Attorney General Merrick Garland handed it and the related election work to a special counsel named Jack Smith, along with a second investigation into the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. A special counsel is what the Justice Department reaches for when it has to investigate someone the Attorney General cannot be seen investigating, which was the situation exactly, because Trump was a private citizen at that point and a declared candidate for president within days. The department hires a prosecutor at arm’s length and tells the country the arm is long enough. Smith indicted Trump in both cases. Both cases died after the 2024 election, one because the Justice Department holds that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted, the other because a judge ruled Smith’s appointment invalid from the start. Nothing was ever tested at a trial.
Which leaves the question of how Congress ended up in the pile, and the answer is a doorway most people do not know exists.
Under federal records law, the messages sent on White House phones do not belong to the people who sent them. They are presidential records, which means they belong to the public and they end up at the National Archives. So in June 2023, Smith’s office did not have to subpoena Mark Meadows or Kellyanne Conway for their texts. It subpoenaed the government’s own librarian for records the government already owned, covering every message on phones associated with Trump, Meadows, Dan Scavino, Ivanka Trump, Stephen Miller, Peter Navarro, John Ratcliffe, Kash Patel, Rudy Giuliani, Conway, and Mike Pence, from October 2020 through the day Trump left office. That request was entirely lawful. It was also a door that swings far wider than the room it appears to open, because a conversation has two ends. The people on the other end of those threads never sent anything to the Archives and never got a say in whether the Archives handed it over. Forty-four of them were members of the House and Senate.
---
Assistant Attorney General Patrick Davis laid this out in a letter to Senator Chuck Grassley last week. Smith’s investigative team bypassed the filter team and went straight into the messages, Davis wrote, and the FBI then worked out which senators and representatives had sent or received them.
Two protections were sitting in that pile. Attorney-client privilege was one, the same one from the example above. The other was the Speech or Debate Clause, which is a line in the Constitution saying members of Congress cannot be prosecuted over their legislative work. It sounds like a perk and it is not one. It is there because a legislature whose private deliberations can be read by the prosecutors it is supposed to oversee has stopped being a check on anything.
I have spent most of my working life inside systems where a protective protocol is the only thing standing between a routine procedure and a serious problem. The protocols are good. People who thought hard about the failure they were preventing wrote them, and they work every single time somebody runs them. That is also the entire extent of their power. No protocol enforces itself, and the moment of enforcement is always a person deciding whether to wait.
Thirty minutes is not a close call made under pressure. It does not mean the protocol got weighed against the urgency of the case and came up short. It means the protocol was not a factor.
---
The courts saw this coming, which is what makes it worse.
In 2019 the Fourth Circuit said that filter teams operating without a judge watching them are an impermissible delegation of judicial functions to the executive branch. Translated, that means deciding what is privileged is a judge’s job, and letting the prosecutor’s own department decide it instead hands the executive branch a power the Constitution parked with the courts. The Sixth Circuit had gone at it earlier and harder, pointing out the obvious conflict: a filter attorney has an interest in protecting privilege and a competing interest in the government winning, and, in the court’s own phrasing, human nature being what it is, occasionally some of them will make mistakes or violate their ethical obligations. Defense lawyers say the blunter version, that the practice lets prosecutors be the sole judge of whether they are allowed to read something. In the prosecution of former Goldman Sachs banker Roger Ng, the government handled privileged material badly enough to blow up the trial, and the lawyers involved called it a total institutional failure.
Notice how every one of those fixes arrived. A defendant with a lawyer, a live case, and a judge filed a motion, and a court did something. That is the only enforcement the filter system has ever had, and it explains precisely where the 44 members of Congress now stand. Smith’s cases are gone and they went without a verdict. There is no defendant, no judge, and no motion to suppress evidence, which is the request to throw out material the government obtained improperly. You cannot throw out evidence in a trial that is never going to happen. The guardrail was voluntary on the way in, and the remedy on the way out ran exclusively through a prosecution that no longer exists.
That left oversight, and oversight ran into its own version of the same problem. In a deposition last December, Smith was asked whether the records he requested from members of Congress included the content of text messages, and he answered no.
Read that question again, because the question is doing the work. It asks about records requested from the members and their phone carriers. Those were toll records, meaning the log of who called whom, when, for how long, and roughly from where, with no content attached. The question does not ask about the Archives material, which Smith’s office already had, and which held the content of those same conversations captured from the other side. Across 255 pages, Smith never mentioned that his investigators had it. The committee never asked, because the committee did not know it existed.
His answer appears to have been true. Several members have called it perjury and the transcript does not support the charge, and that matters more than it looks, because the truthful answer did more damage than a lie would have. A lie can be caught. A witness answering exactly what he was asked, in front of a committee that cannot ask better because nobody told it what to ask, produces a hearing that generates a transcript and no information. So the protocol failed inside the Justice Department, and then the machinery built to catch protocol failures failed too, for a completely different reason, and issued a document certifying that nothing had gone wrong.
---
This release comes from a Republican-led committee, and Grassley and Ron Johnson have framed it as a grotesque example of Biden-era weaponization, which is the framing that gets a story onto television. The underlying facts are not theirs. They come from a Justice Department letter. Congressman Jamie Raskin has argued that subpoenas for phone records, along with the orders that keep the target from being told about them, are routine in grand jury investigations at every level of American law enforcement, and on the toll records he is right. The part nobody defends is narrower and worse than the political version of it. No one has argued that bypassing the filter team was proper. The department’s own letter says it happened. Grassley’s line about Democrats getting swept up too is also true, and it is carrying more weight in his statement than the roster supports, since that roster runs heavily Republican with a handful of Democrats on it, among them Cory Booker, Josh Gottheimer, and Karen Bass.
Those few Democratic names are not a rebuttal to the argument. They are the argument. The filter protocol does not know anybody’s party. It did not fail to protect Republicans because the investigators were partisan. It failed to protect anyone in that pile because nobody ran it, and Booker’s messages sat in the same download as Josh Hawley’s for exactly the same reason.
---
Which is why what happened before Arctic Frost deserves more attention than it is getting.
In 2017 and 2018 the first Trump administration went hunting for whoever was leaking classified material about the Russia investigation to the press, and it went at the problem through Congress. Prosecutors subpoenaed Apple and other providers for the communications records of two House members, Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, along with 43 congressional staffers, and attached gag orders so the companies could not tell anyone it had happened. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz reviewed all of it and published his findings on December 10, 2024.
Those subpoenas produced metadata, the logs of who talked to whom and when, and not the content of anything. Smith’s team read the actual messages. Horowitz also found no evidence of retaliatory or political motivation by the career prosecutors who issued the subpoenas, and the staffers caught in the net broke down at 21 Democrats, 20 Republicans, and two in nonpartisan jobs. Whatever this was, it was not the other team running the same play worse.
What Horowitz found instead is the part that should stop you. There was no policy. The department had nothing on the books governing when prosecutors could reach into congressional records, which left those decisions sitting with line prosecutors, made almost entirely without senior supervision or anyone above them being notified. Dozens of congressional staffers, in the report’s own words, became part of the subject pool in a federal criminal investigation for doing nothing more than performing constitutionally authorized oversight of the executive branch. Horowitz wrote that this risks chilling the ability of Congress to oversee the executive branch, he recommended safeguards, and the department wrote some new policy. The fix for a missing rule was a rule of exactly the same kind as the one Smith’s team walked past three years later.
One of those 43 staffers was Kash Patel, then working for the House Intelligence Committee, now Director of the FBI. When Smith’s collection of Republican phone records surfaced last October, Patel called it proof the records had been seized for political purposes. Swalwell, standing on the other side of the same machine, asked Republicans why not one of them had objected when it was his records. Both men are right about their own case. Neither has said the plain thing about the general one, which is that the machinery reached them both, under opposite administrations, with nobody’s permission, and it is still sitting there.
---
Which brings us to what Congress did once it found out.
During the shutdown negotiations last November, Senate Majority Leader John Thune secured a provision letting senators sue the Justice Department over searches of their phone records, with damages starting at $500,000 per violation and reaching back to 2022. The same package required the department and the FBI to notify the Senate when a lawmaker comes under investigation. Of the eight Republican senators whose records were actually subpoenaed, only Lindsey Graham said he would use it. Josh Hawley distanced himself from it, and Speaker Mike Johnson promised a vote to repeal it.
Look at what that provision does and does not do. It does not require a warrant before the government reaches into a legislator’s communications. It attaches no penalty to bypassing a filter team. It gives notice to nobody outside the Senate, and it does not touch the machinery at all. What it does is convert a structural failure into a claim for money, available to one hundred people, paired with advance warning for the same hundred. The Speech or Debate Clause exists to protect the institution so it can stand up to executive pressure. The remedy Congress wrote for itself protects the incumbents.
The rule standing between the Justice Department and Chuck Grassley’s private messages is the same rule standing between the Justice Department and yours, which is to say it is not standing between anything and anything. It is a piece of paper describing what ought to happen. It held for years because the people it covered chose to run it, and on one afternoon in August 2023 a few of them chose not to, and the whole consequence of that choice, three years on, is a hearing Grassley says he intends to hold sometime in the coming months.
Whoever holds that machinery next inherits a filter protocol now publicly demonstrated to be optional, with no penalty attached and no defendant left alive to challenge it. They will have their own list. The list is always somebody, and the only question the record answers is whether anyone will be waiting on the filter attorney’s sign-off when the next delivery lands.