{"id":6816,"date":"2025-11-13T18:41:17","date_gmt":"2025-11-13T18:41:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/patel-investigation-into-trump-and-gop-lawmakers\/"},"modified":"2025-11-13T18:41:17","modified_gmt":"2025-11-13T18:41:17","slug":"patel-investigation-into-trump-and-gop-lawmakers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/?p=6816","title":{"rendered":"Patel: Investigation Into Trump and GOP Lawmakers"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Patel:<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The probe treated the effort by Trump\u2019s allies to submit alternate electors to Congress during the 2020 election certification as a potential criminal conspiracy \u2014 despite similar actions in two prior instances of U.S. history not resulting in prosecution, Just the News reported.<\/p>\n

According to the newly released materials, the FBI memo that launched the investigation in spring 2022 \u2014 around the same time Trump announced his bid for the presidency \u2014 relied heavily on interview clips from CNN as primary evidence \u201csuggesting\u201d Trump\u2019s involvement in the alleged conspiracy, the outlet added.<\/p>\n

Arctic Frost investigation was legally flawed and reflected the same politicization and investigative overreach seen in the 2016 Russia collusion probe, code-named \u201cCrossfire Hurricane.\u201d<\/p>\n

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 \u201cCrossfire Hurricane.\u201d<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\u201cSure looks that way. \u2026 and it looks like this was just the same old weaponization, same old political focus, focus on politics, going after your political enemies,\u201d Jordan said during a wide-ranging interview on the Just the News, No Noise TV show.<\/p>\n

\u201cSame mindset that said we\u2019re going to put the dossier in the intelligence community assessment, even though we know the dossier is garbage, we know there\u2019s no underlying intelligence support,\u201d he continued.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat 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\u2014same mindset. So yeah, that\u2019s what it sure looks like,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The inquiry centered on efforts by Republican officials in several states to submit alternate slates of electors ahead of Congress\u2019s certification of the 2020 presidential election on January 6, 2021.<\/p>\n

The probe was later transferred from the FBI to Smith\u2019s office, which issued subpoenas to hundreds of Trump allies.<\/p>\n

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on Wednesday released 197 subpoenas that Smith and his Justice Department team issued \u201cas part of the indiscriminate election case against President Trump,\u201d identifying more than 400 Republican groups and individuals whose information was sought.<\/p>\n

Separately, the House Judiciary Committee disclosed that more than 160 Republicans \u2014 including many closely tied to Trump \u2014 were flagged for possible investigation under the Arctic Frost operation.<\/p>\n

The opening electronic communication (EC) that launched what became a broad investigation into Trump associates was written and approved in April 2022 under the title \u201cRequests Opening of New Investigation \u2013 Arctic Frost.\u201d<\/p>\n

The probe, designated as a \u201cSensitive Investigative Matter\u201d (SIM), was authorized by then\u2013Assistant Special Agent in Charge Timothy Thibault \u2014 who later left the FBI after his anti-Trump social media posts came to light \u2014 along with other senior bureau officials, including Steve D\u2019Antuono, then the Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI\u2019s Washington Field Office, and Paul Abbate, who was serving as the FBI\u2019s Deputy Director at the time<\/p>\n

Jim Jordan\u2019s \u201cBorn in the USA\u201d Bill Could Redefine Who\u2019s Allowed to Run the Country \u2014 Supporters Say It\u2019s About Patriotism. Critics Say It\u2019s About Power.In a bold new proposal that\u2019s already shaking political circles, Rep. Jim Jordan is calling for a constitutional shift: Only those born on U.S. soil would be eligible for America\u2019s highest offices \u2014 including Congress and the presidency. The bill has sparked fierce reactions. Some call it a necessary stand for national sovereignty. Others fear it opens the door to a more exclusionary politics. But one thing\u2019s clear: Jordan just took the debate over identity, loyalty, and leadership to a whole new level. Could this rewrite the rules of democracy \u2014 or just the headlines?<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jim Jordan\u2019s \u201cBorn American Act\u201d Sparks National Debate Over Eligibility, Identity, and American Values<\/strong><\/p>\n

WASHINGTON, D.C. \u2014 In a move that has electrified political discourse, Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) introduced the \u201cBorn American Act,\u201d a bill that would dramatically tighten eligibility for the nation\u2019s highest offices. Under the proposal, only individuals born on U.S. soil to at least one American citizen parent would qualify for the presidency, vice presidency, or seats in Congress. Naturalized citizens, even those with decades of public service, would be barred.<\/p>\n

At a press conference on Capitol Hill, Jordan framed the measure as a safeguard of national heritage. \u201cOur leaders should have roots that run deep into the soil of this country,\u201d he declared. \u201cThey should understand\u2014not just intellectually, but instinctively\u2014what it means to live and breathe American freedom.\u201d The congressman emphasized that the bill is not intended as exclusion, but as a measure to preserve the founding spirit and ensure leaders are grounded in the nation\u2019s culture and constitutional traditions.<\/p>\n

However, legal experts and civil rights advocates were quick to challenge the proposal. Constitutional scholar Professor Linda Chavez of Georgetown University noted that while Congress has authority over eligibility for its own seats, changing presidential qualifications would require a constitutional amendment\u2014an arduous process requiring ratification by three-fourths of the states. \u201cIn its current form, the bill has no path forward for the presidency,\u201d Chavez said. \u201cIts political symbolism, though, will resonate.\u201d<\/p>\n

The backlash was immediate and forceful. Civil rights groups denounced the measure as discriminatory and anti-immigrant, while Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), himself the son of Mexican immigrants, called it \u201ca betrayal of everything this nation stands for.\u201d Padilla continued, \u201cWe are a country built by immigrants, defended by immigrants, and renewed by immigrants. To suggest only those born here can lead is not patriotism\u2014it\u2019s fear.\u201d The American Civil Liberties Union echoed the sentiment, labeling the bill \u201ca dangerous and unconstitutional attempt to create two classes of citizenship.\u201d<\/p>\n

Political analysts suggest the bill is as much performative as practical. Dr. Nathan Klein of the Brookings Institution described it as \u201cperformative nationalism.\u201d \u201cJordan knows it won\u2019t pass in this Congress,\u201d Klein said. \u201cThe point is to frame the debate, to force Democrats to take a position that can be portrayed politically as weak on immigration or soft on American identity.\u201d<\/p>\n

Jordan\u2019s rhetoric underscored this narrative. Linking national pride, citizenship, and heritage, he argued, \u201cWe\u2019re losing sight of who we are. This bill is a reminder that being an American is more than paperwork\u2014it\u2019s heritage, it\u2019s sacrifice, it\u2019s home.\u201d<\/p>\n

The timing of the announcement adds complexity. The U.S. now has over 45 million foreign-born residents\u2014the highest in history\u2014with many naturalized citizens serving in the military, holding public office, and contributing significantly to the economy. Critics warn that the bill could deepen existing divisions in an already polarized political climate. \u201cThis is not just about eligibility,\u201d said Maria Gomez, director of the National Coalition for Immigrant Rights. \u201cIt\u2019s about who counts as fully American.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even historians weighed in. \u201cIf Alexander Hamilton were alive today,\u201d one scholar quipped, \u201che\u2019d be disqualified under this bill.\u201d Others noted that the conversation raises enduring questions about American identity, loyalty, and belonging\u2014topics that have persisted since the nation\u2019s founding.<\/p>\n

Jordan\u2019s proposal has ignited partisan debate and intense media scrutiny. Supporters frame it as a protective measure for the nation\u2019s constitutional heritage, while detractors see it as a symbolic message designed to energize the Republican base. Social media platforms erupted with commentary, memes, and debates dissecting both the policy and the cultural implications.<\/p>\n

Despite the attention, the bill\u2019s path forward appears limited. Democrats control the Senate, and any legislation is likely to face a presidential veto. Yet the symbolic impact may ripple through the 2026 election cycle, influencing campaign messaging, voter mobilization, and the framing of debates around immigration and citizenship.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6815,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6816","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-breaking-news"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t