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.
The halls of the Senate Judiciary Committee are usually places of decorum — calculated questions, measured answers, and the kind of political theater that feels rehearsed. But when former FBI Director
The hearing, which was intended to revisit the FBI’s handling of politically charged investigations, quickly turned into one of the most blistering interrogations in recent memory. Senator Kennedy, famous for his blend of Southern wit and razor-sharp cross-examination, came ready to deliver a message — and a warning.
From the first question, Kennedy made it clear he wasn’t there to exchange pleasantries. He went straight to the heart of his grievance: that Comey’s leadership had irreparably damaged the reputation of America’s premier law enforcement agency.
“You did more to undermine the FBI’s reputation than any person in modern history,” Kennedy charged, his Louisiana drawl underscoring every syllable. “You didn’t just make mistakes, Mr. Comey — you politicized the badge.”
Comey, composed but visibly tense, defended his record as one of necessity and integrity, arguing that his decisions during the 2016 election were made “under extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances.” But Kennedy wasn’t having it.
“Sir,” the Senator pressed, “you didn’t just lose public trust. You torched it.”
The exchange marked the culmination of years of political and public resentment over the FBI’s handling of both the
Kennedy’s questions weren’t random. They followed a precise and pointed logic — each one designed to frame Comey not as a victim of circumstance, but as the architect of the FBI’s perceived decline.
1. The Reputation Question
Kennedy argued that Comey’s public announcements and press conferences during the Clinton investigation — particularly his decision to publicly rebuke Clinton while declining to pursue charges — “blurred the line between law enforcement and politics.”
2. The Russia Probe Origins
Kennedy accused Comey of opening the Trump-Russia investigation without sufficient evidence and in a manner that “invited political chaos.”
“You didn’t just open a file,” Kennedy said. “You opened a wound that still hasn’t healed.”
3. Accountability and Legacy
In perhaps the hearing’s most dramatic moment, Kennedy issued a warning to the FBI’s current leadership.
“The politicization of the FBI started with James Comey,” he declared. “And if this body doesn’t learn from that, it’ll happen again.”
For his part, Comey stood by the decisions that have defined — and haunted — his public service career. He insisted that his actions were driven by duty, not politics.
“I tried to do the right thing, even when the right thing was hard,” Comey said. “I would rather have people angry at me than believe the FBI acted dishonestly.”
He described the 2016 election period as “a perfect storm” where he faced “no good options, only less bad ones.” But Kennedy quickly countered that explanation as a “cop-out dressed in moral language.”
The exchange between Kennedy and Comey was more than a political skirmish — it was a symbolic showdown over trust, accountability, and the line between public duty and political influence
For Kennedy and his allies, Comey represents what happens when unelected officials use their discretion to influence democratic outcomes. For Comey’s defenders, he remains a scapegoat — a man who made impossible choices in a polarized era.
Political analysts have noted that the viral clip of the exchange struck a nerve not because it revealed new facts, but because it distilled a larger frustration shared across party lines: a loss of faith in institutions once viewed as untouchable.
Within hours of the hearing, clips of Kennedy’s questioning were circulating online, drawing millions of views. Hashtags like #KennedyVsComey and #FBIHearing trended across platforms as users weighed in.
Supporters of Kennedy hailed his performance as “a long-overdue reckoning.”
Critics accused him of turning a serious oversight hearing into political theater.
Journalists described the hearing as “part accountability session, part show trial.”
Yet even detractors acknowledged one thing: Kennedy’s blunt, unfiltered delivery cut through the usual Washington varnish.
His questioning was not built on complex policy jargon or legal nuance. It was built on plain, almost brutal English — the kind that lands like a gavel. It’s a style that resonates deeply with voters who feel alienated by bureaucratic doublespeak.
At its core, the confrontation raised an uncomfortable question about America’s political landscape:
Was this oversight — or performance?
Was Senator Kennedy conducting the kind of hard-nosed accountability the Senate is meant to uphold, or was this another act in Washington’s never-ending cycle of televised outrage?
For some observers, it was both.
On one hand, Kennedy’s interrogation spotlighted real issues — internal bias, procedural inconsistencies, and a loss of public confidence in federal institutions. On the other, it played out like a political drama designed to dominate headlines rather than produce policy change.
Regardless of where one stands on the Comey legacy, this hearing will likely be remembered as one of the most volatile moments in recent congressional history. It underscored the erosion of trust between politicians, law enforcement, and the public — a divide that may take decades to bridge.
Comey left the chamber looking composed but weary. Kennedy left having cemented his reputation as one of the Senate’s most unpredictable questioners — half statesman, half showman.
As one political analyst put it after the hearing:
“It wasn’t just a Senate hearing. It was a referendum on how America defines truth — and who gets to tell it.”