Jack Smith told a federal court that the Mar-a-Lago documents investigation was prompted by a “criminal referral” from the National Archives.
Newly released records now show the National Archives inspector general described that same communication very differently.
According to the records obtained by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, the February 2022 message was a referral to the Justice Department for “assessment and guidance” — specifically not a criminal referral for prosecution.
The wording goes straight to the origin story Smith used to defend one of the most consequential prosecutions ever brought against a former president.
The records landed as Smith faced fresh scrutiny on Capitol Hill over the reach of his investigations:
The Senate Judiciary Committee says the paper trail begins with a February 9, 2022 email from the National Archives and Records Administration’s Office of Inspector General. NARA had received boxes from Mar-a-Lago containing classified records and asked the Justice Department what to do next.
A January 2023 NARA inspector-general case report later classified that communication as an “-R,” meaning a referral to DOJ for assessment and guidance. The report expressly distinguished that category from a criminal referral for prosecution, which it said is used for criminal investigations.
Internal NARA communications released with the report also say the FBI initially viewed the matter as a “spillage” issue with little likelihood of criminal prosecution.
Smith’s court filing told a more dramatic story. It said NARA’s January 2022 discovery and a “criminal referral from NARA in February 2022” prompted the classified-documents investigation.
The newly released record does not erase the documents dispute or decide every legal question in the case. It does, however, contradict the label Smith’s team chose when it explained how the federal machinery began moving against President Trump.
The Daily Caller reviewed the release and reported that the inspector general’s office regarded its message as non-criminal. The outlet also highlighted the FBI’s early “spillage” assessment and the gap between those internal descriptions and Smith’s later court filing.
The reporting traces the sequence from NARA’s receipt of the 15 boxes in January 2022 to its inspector general’s request for DOJ guidance the following month. It then compares that record with the language Smith’s prosecutors used after the criminal case was already underway.
The distinction is especially important because the criminal-referral description did not appear in a campaign speech or television interview. It appeared in a federal filing used to answer President Trump’s challenge to the investigation.
The case later ended without a trial on the documents charges. The new records leave Congress with a narrower but unavoidable question: why did Smith’s office tell the court that NARA made a criminal referral when NARA’s own inspector-general file said it did not?
That gap deserves a straight answer.
The same oversight effort has uncovered how far Smith’s separate Arctic Frost investigation reached into the private information of ordinary Americans. Committee Republicans say investigators collected thousands of donor checks tied to President Trump and Trump-aligned groups.
Grassley’s committee posted the scale of that collection after Smith’s testimony:
Those checks contained more than names and political preferences. They carried signatures, addresses, routing numbers and bank-account information belonging to Americans whose apparent connection to the investigation was making a political donation.
At the hearing, Smith acknowledged that his office acquired financial information but defended the subpoenas as part of a criminal investigation. Grassley responded that his whistleblower records showed the dragnet captured small-dollar donors in every state represented on the committee.
The official hearing record says Smith’s office obtained at least 4,782 donor checks, while investigators also swept up message content involving members of Congress and communications connected to journalists. Grassley accused the operation of ignoring constitutional and internal guardrails; Smith defended his former team and said he remained proud of its work.
That dispute will continue. The documentary record, however, cannot be dismissed as partisan rhetoric.
One internal record says the NARA contact was not a criminal referral. Smith’s filing called it one.
One early FBI assessment reportedly saw a low-probability “spillage” matter. The Biden Justice Department ultimately turned it into a raid on Mar-a-Lago and a federal prosecution of President Trump.
And one investigation aimed at alleged election interference reached into the private banking information of thousands of Republican donors.
House Judiciary Republicans summarized the wider record this way:
Smith has insisted that evidence and law — not politics — drove his decisions. That defense makes precision more important, not less.
If prosecutors describe a non-criminal request for guidance as a criminal referral in court, Congress should find out who chose that language, what they knew at the time and whether the judge received the full picture.
The American people were told that every extraordinary step against President Trump rested on spotless procedure and unimpeachable judgment.
The records keep telling a messier story.
The post New Records Just Blew A Hole In Jack Smith’s Story About The Mar-a-Lago Case appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.
Continue reading...
[H/T 100PercentFedUp]
