Kash Patel, Now Suing Magazine for Defamation Over Drinking Allegations, Was Target of Jack Smith’s Criminal Probes Into Trump

The uproar over anonymous reports of excessive drinking by Director Kash Patel of the FBI and Mr. Patel’s defamation suit against the Atlantic for $250 million put into sharp relief the reality that Mr. Patel has long been under investigation — as part of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s criminal investigation into President Trump.A tranche of documents released last month by Senator Charles Grassley disclosed that Mr. Smith sought more than two years’ worth of phone records from Mr. Patel as part of his criminal probe into Mr. Trump and January 6. A pair of subpoenas show that Mr. Smith sought Mr. Patel’s phone records from Verizon for the period between October 2020 and February 2023.Mr. Patel announced the existence of the subpoenas in February, calling them “outrageous and deeply alarming.” Mr. Patel worked in Mr. Trump’s first administration from 2019 through January 2021, meaning that the subpoenas covered some of the period when he was a federal employee. Mr. Patel served Mr. Trump as Deputy Assistant to the President on the National Security Council and later as Chief of Staff to the Acting Secretary of Defense.Mr. Smith’s “Operation Arctic Frost” was a sprawling investigation that surveilled 14 Republican lawmakers, including eight senators who were allies of the president. Mr. Smith also poured over data from some 92 Republican linked individuals and groups — including Mr. Patel. The only person charged, though, was Mr. Trump, who was accused of four crimes in respect of the 2020 election. Special counsel Jack Smith speaks to the media about an indictment of former President Trump, Aug. 1, 2023, at Washington. AP/J. Scott ApplewhiteThat case was dismissed when he won reelection in 2024. The subpoenas issued to Mr. Patel could also relate to the other criminal case Mr. Smith brought against Mr. Trump — for the storage of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Mr. Smith accused Mr. Trump of dozens of violations of the 1917 Espionage Act, but Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case when she concluded that Mr. Smith was unlawfully appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland.In 2022 Mr. Patel declared that Mr. Trump had declassified all of the secret documents that were found at Mar-a-Lago. Mr. Smith claims that the trove included a prospective battle map of Iran and one record so secret that only six people, the president included, were authorized to view it. Mr. Trump’s attorneys — including the current attorney general, Todd Blanche — did not adopt that argument in court, though it could have emerged at trial. The documents sought by Mr. Smith against Mr. Patel are what are known as “toll records,” meaning that they capture metadata — who Mr. Patel communicated with, and when those communications occurred — but not the content of the phone calls themselves. Mr. Smith also sought and secured one year gag orders appended to those subpoenas. Those orders barred Verizon from alerting Mr. Patel that he was being surveilled.Courts are empowered to approve such gag orders when there is “reasonable grounds to believe that disclosure will result in flight from prosecution, destruction of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses and serious jeopardy to the investigation.”Many of the subpoenas and the gag orders were approved by the District of Columbia’s chief federal trial judge, James Boasberg. Mr. Trump and Judge Boasberg have had an acrimonious relationship ever since the jurist ruled against the administration over its use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport to El Salvador Venezuelan migrants who were accused of belonging to the Tren de Aragua gang. Mr. Trump called for Judge Boasberg’s impeachment, a declaration that prompted Chief Justice Roberts to issue a statement declaring that “for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.” Last week a panel of the District of Columbia Circuit, by a two to one vote, vindicated the Trump Administration and quashed the contempt initiative.The full extent of the investigation into Mr. Patel is not known. Reuters reports that “in addition to phone, online user names, and text messages, Smith and his team sought mailing and email addresses, billing and IP addresses and bank account information.” Mr. Smith testified to Congress that his team “followed Justice Department policies, observed legal requirements and took actions based on the facts and the law.”Further details of Mr. Smith’s investigation of Mr. Patel could be embedded in the special counsel’s final report on the Mar-a-Lago case. Judge Cannon has “permanently” enjoined its release, but that ruling could be overturned by the 11th United States Appeals Court.

Kash Patel, Now Suing Magazine for Defamation Over Drinking Allegations, Was Target of Jack Smith’s Criminal Probes Into Trump

More from the New York Sun

‘Schmigadoon!’ Gleefully Sends Up Broadway Classics, but Soon Runs Out of Gas

Can GOP Conservatives Block Elizabeth Warren?

Banking, Blockading, and the Final Iranian Financial Squeeze

Judge Spares Suspect in Bizarre Plot To Kidnap a North Korean Diplomat From Extradition to Spain

Angry Anti-Trump Journalists Urge White House Correspondents Group To ‘Demonstrate Opposition’ to Trump at Dinner

House Republicans Demand Answers Over Mysterious Deaths, Disappearances of High-Level American Scientists

UN Peacekeeping: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Exclusive: Trump Mounts New Push To Move Appeal of Stormy Daniels Case to Less Hostile Federal Court