Grassley rejects Democrats’ apology demand as Jack Smith records fight widens

The Democrats identified text messages concerning Smith’s attendance at a basketball game and notes from an Aug. 17, 2024, call with the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section. They said Republican Sens. Eric Schmitt and Josh Hawley used material from those records while questioning Smith.

Durbin’s argument is that Senate rules entitle committee minority members and staff to review committee records. Democrats say the records were withheld in violation of that requirement. Grassley contests their account of how his office handled access, so the dispute over compliance remains a claim by one side and a denial by the other.

Grassley said his staff gave Democrats hundreds of pages before the hearing and shared more records afterward. He said some additional material could not yet be circulated because of concerns involving whistleblowers, and that staff were working to arrange access. On Friday, Oct. 9, he criticized Democrats for defending Smith rather than joining his oversight effort. Grassley’s response rejected the apology demand and pressed Democrats to support the inquiry.

The disagreement is not simply about whether documents exist. It concerns which records each side could inspect, when they could see them and how the committee can handle sensitive material. Grassley’s stated concern about whistleblowers may warrant safeguards; those safeguards should not become a substitute for minority members being able to examine evidence used in the committee’s work.

That is a question of institutional power. As chair, Grassley directs the committee’s scrutiny, while Democrats’ ability to challenge its evidence depends in part on access to the underlying records. A public hearing can put allegations in front of viewers, but members need a meaningful opportunity to test the material behind them if the process is to be more than a partisan presentation.

What does the basketball dispute show?

The sharpest example came when Schmitt questioned whether Smith had attended an Atlanta Hawks game in Atlanta on Feb. 3, 2024, and accused him of perjury. Smith said he did not recall going to Atlanta as special counsel and recalled attending an Iowa women’s basketball game in Maryland that day.

The exchange put two different accounts of the game in the hearing record: Schmitt’s Atlanta Hawks reference and Smith’s recollection of an Iowa game in Maryland. Democrats pointed to that discrepancy in asking Grassley to apologize. It gives reason to scrutinize the specific accusation, but it does not by itself resolve the separate questions about Smith’s investigative conduct.

That distinction matters. Perjury is a serious accusation, and senators should be careful not to present an uncertain or mistaken premise as proof that a witness lied. But an apparent problem with one line of questioning does not establish that every concern about Smith’s work is unfounded.

The same standard should apply in both directions. Democrats’ complaint about records access does not settle whether Smith’s investigative choices were proper. Grassley’s continuing inquiry, in turn, cannot transform allegations about those choices into findings simply by repeating them in a hearing.

What should congressional oversight examine?

Grassley says he has made nearly 2,200 pages related to the Arctic Frost investigation and Smith’s special counsel operation public since January 2025. He also says Smith has not turned over more than 800 pages of emails Grassley requested. Those figures are Grassley’s account of his document effort and request; they do not, on their own, explain what the records establish.

Democrats should not use a dispute over committee procedure to sidestep evidence about Smith’s conduct. The strongest case for Grassley’s inquiry is that scrutiny of a special counsel should be based on records and should not be dismissed as partisan simply because Democrats object to the process. Whistleblower concerns can also justify careful handling of sensitive information.

The strongest case for the Democrats’ demand is that members cannot effectively assess material they have not been allowed to review, especially when it is used to challenge a witness in public. A large page count is not a substitute for explaining what evidence supports a particular claim, and a witness’s testimony should be judged on a record lawmakers can examine.

The committee can pursue both obligations. Grassley’s staff should turn the promised access into a clear process that protects whistleblowers while allowing minority members to inspect the records used in the inquiry. As the committee evaluates Smith’s decisions, it should distinguish documented conduct from senators’ allegations and make clear what evidence supports each conclusion.

An apology would address Democrats’ objection to the hearing and the accusations made there; it would not answer questions about Smith’s work. An investigation of Smith likewise does not resolve whether committee records were shared fairly. The test for Grassley is whether the additional access his office says it is arranging gives Democrats a real chance to assess the evidence behind the committee’s scrutiny.