OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Jack Smith Obtained Journalists’ Communications in Trump Probe

4 sources · updated 2026-09-30
Left 0% Center 0% Right 100%
0 left · 0 center · 2 right

What happened

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley released whistleblower disclosures stating that former Special Counsel Jack Smith's office obtained at least 4,782 personal checks from donors to Donald Trump and allied groups, covering donations from September 2019 to August 2023. The checks, acquired by subpoena, included bank account and routing numbers, signatures, and home addresses of donors in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, including small-dollar amounts as low as $1 to $5. At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Grassley asked Smith whether his team obtained donor financial data; Smith said they acquired financial information as part of a criminal investigation into attempts to block the peaceful transfer of power. Grassley also said a June 2, 2023 subpoena to the National Archives for text messages from 87 phones used in Trump's first White House produced records involving members of Congress and journalists from more than a dozen news organizations. According to Grassley, the donor data was not mentioned in Smith's public report, and the Justice Department and FBI still hold those records.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 6 articles

5 of 5 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 5 of 5
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Sen. Chuck Grassley, Jack Smith, Senate Judiciary Committee and Chuck Grassley
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 3 of 5
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: OIG case report, FBI messages, whistleblower disclosures, subpoena
Credits another outlet 0 of 5
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 5
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 29, 13:28 UTC by Daily Caller, naming its source. First document in the first report, from Daily Caller (OIG case report).
Not counted 1
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
ONE-SIDED THIS WEEK. Only right-leaning outlets have covered this story in the last two days; The Hill reported it on 2026-09-29.
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage has not reported this story at all, so a reader of that side would miss that Jack Smith's investigators took possession of personal checks and banking data from ordinary Trump donors. Right-leaning coverage, led by Daily Caller, puts the haul at 4,782 checks. Grassley said none of that donor data appeared in Smith's public report. He also said the Justice Department still holds the donors' home addresses and routing numbers. Smith said his team "acquired financial information" as part of a criminal investigation. Right-leaning coverage splits its emphasis. The donor checks lead Daily Caller, while journalist communications from White House phones lead Breitbart. What legal basis required collecting bank routing numbers and signatures from donors whose gifts were never cited in Smith's public report?
Bottom line

Left-leaning readers have no account of Grassley's claim that Justice still holds routing numbers from 4,782 seized Trump-donor checks.

The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Smith's team acquired at least 4,782 checks from mainly small-dollar Trump donors numberin Daily Caller, The Federalist · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The checks cover donations dated from September 2019 to August 2023 contextin Daily Caller, The Federalist · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The subpoenas targeted Americans across all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico numberin The Federalist · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Some of the seized checks were for as little as $1 numberin Daily Caller · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Grassley told Smith there was no legitimate basis for obtaining the donor data official statementin The Federalist · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Right View
Daily Caller, The Federalist, and Breitbart reported Grassley's disclosures as showing that Smith's probes collected banking information on thousands of ordinary Trump donors nationwide. They highlighted Smith's confirmation that his office acquired financial information, Grassley's claim that the checks were omitted from Smith's public report, and related assertions that investigators obtained records from 87 White House phones, toll records of 16 members of Congress, and communications involving journalists at outlets including Fox News, CNN, The Washington Post, NPR, and The Federalist. Coverage framed the collection as overreach and a double standard, citing Grassley's contrast with the FBI's handling of Clinton Foundation donor allegations. The Federalist additionally described a chilling effect on political speech and compared the episode to IRS targeting of Tea Party groups and other donor-disclosure disputes.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is substantive: it involves named actors, a specific figure of 4,782 checks, a stated date range, a public hearing exchange, and materials Grassley released from whistleblower disclosures. Established is that Smith, under Grassley's questioning, said his office acquired financial information, and that Grassley has described thousands of donor checks and White House phone records obtained by subpoena. Not independently established here are whether collecting small-dollar checks was necessary to the investigation, what privilege-filtering procedures were used, whether DOJ and the FBI still hold the data in the form described, and Grassley's comparison to Clinton-related inquiries. No left-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for the underlying documents and subpoenas, a detailed response from Smith or the Justice Department on the legal basis and scope of the financial collection, and any independent accounting of how journalist and congressional communications were handled.

4 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.