FROM CINDERELLA TO WHAT THE HELLA: Sen. Kennedy’s War on the Jack Smith Subpoenas

WASHINGTON D.C. — The air in the Senate Judiciary Committee room was thick with the scent of old wood and new scandals. Senator John Kennedy, leaning back with his trademark blend of folksy charm and lethal legal precision, cleared his throat. His voice, rasping slightly from a cold but loses none of its gravelly authority, cut through the quiet:

“We’ve crossed the river from Cinderella to what the hella, Mr. Chairman.”

The hearing, convened to investigate the reach of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s probe into the phone records of United States Senators, had just reached its flashpoint. At the heart of the storm was a simple, terrifying question of constitutional law: Can the Executive Branch secretly seize the private communications of the Legislative Branch without a judge—or a phone company—ever raising an eyebrow?

.

.

.

Part I: The Hypothetical That Wasn’t

Senator Kennedy began his interrogation with a “hypothetical” that everyone in the room knew was a documented reality. He directed his gaze toward the expert panel, specifically Professor Luther, focusing on the actions of Federal District Court Judge James “Jeb” Boasberg and Special Counsel Jack Smith.

“Suppose the Attorney General appoints a special counsel to investigate criminal conduct,” Kennedy began, his eyes narrowing. “And the special counsel goes to a federal district judge and says, ‘I want to subpoena these people’s phone records.’ If that list includes sitting United States senators, does the special counsel have a legal or moral obligation to tell the judge they’re members of the US Senate?”

The answer from Professor Luther was a resounding “Yes,” citing 2 USC 6628. But the revelation that followed was more disturbing: Jack Smith had allegedly relied on a Department of Justice (DOJ) policy to justify not informing the judge of the senators’ identities.

“DOJ policy does not supplant federal law,” Luther countered.

Kennedy pounced. “Should the federal judge in my hypothetical hold some sort of hearing as to why the special counsel alleges these people, including sitting United States senators, would commit a federal crime of destroying evidence?”

The implication was clear: Jack Smith had allegedly bypassed standard judicial scrutiny by suggesting that informing the senators of the subpoenas would lead to “witness tampering” or “evidence destruction”—a claim Kennedy found preposterous when applied to high-ranking constitutional officers.

Part II: “A Special Kind of Stupidity”

Kennedy’s fire then shifted from the prosecutors to the giants of the telecommunications industry. He brought up a name that most Americans had never heard of: Vaneetha Narayanan, the Executive Vice President and General Counsel at Verizon.

“Did you know she made 6.44 million last year?” Kennedy asked the witness. “I am now aware,” Luther replied.

Kennedy’s point was sharp: If a lawyer is paid over $6 million a year, they are paid to be “as smart as Professor Vladic.” They are paid to recognize a list of United States Senators when it crosses their desk.

“Wouldn’t you expect someone this smart to say, ‘Whoa, Mr. Special Counsel, are any of these people sitting United States senators?’” Kennedy’s voice rose in pitch. “If they just sat there like a bump on a log and said, ‘Okay, sure. Anything you want. Here’s the records,’ without filing a motion to quash… wouldn’t that be gross negligence? Wouldn’t that incur liability for Verizon and others who demonstrated this special kind of stupidity?“

The room was silent as Kennedy painted a picture of corporate compliance that ignored the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution—the very shield meant to protect legislators from executive intimidation.

Part III: The AT&T Defiance

The drama reached a crescendo when Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) interjected to provide a startling contrast to Verizon’s compliance.

“Senator Kennedy’s hypothetical is not a hypothetical,” Cruz stated. “While Verizon did willingly comply with handing over the phone records of multiple senators… AT&T did not.“

Cruz revealed that Jack Smith had attempted to subpoena his own phone records through AT&T. However, unlike their competitors, AT&T’s legal counsel fought back. They concluded that handing over a Senator’s records would be a direct violation of the Constitution.

“And you know what Jack Smith and the Department of Justice did?” Cruz asked rhetorically. “Nothing. They didn’t even go to court to try to enforce the subpoena because they knew it was unlawful. They were engaged in a partisan fishing expedition.”

The revelation established a devastating double standard:

Verizon: Handed over the records of sitting senators without a fight and without notifying the targets.

AT&T: Refused the order, forcing the DOJ to back down because the legal ground was too thin to stand on.

Part IV: The “Cinderella” Narrative Collapses

For Senator Kennedy, the issue wasn’t just about privacy; it was about the fundamental respect between co-equal branches of government. He expressed disbelief that a federal judge would sign a non-disclosure order—preventing senators from knowing their records were being seized—without a shred of evidence that those senators were a flight risk or a threat to evidence.

“If it’s too hard for a federal judge to know the law, he can resign,” Kennedy barked.

He concluded with a formal request that sent shivers through the K-Street corridor: He demanded that the CEOs and General Counsels of every major telecommunications company be brought before the committee “in front of God and country” to explain their actions.

“We need to know why they did what they did—or what they did not do,” Kennedy insisted.

Analysis: A Constitutional Crisis in the Making

The hearing highlights a growing fracture in the American legal system. The Speech and Debate Clause (Article I, Section 6) is designed to ensure that the President cannot use the power of the FBI or DOJ to harass or spy on political opponents in Congress.

By using “gag orders” and secret subpoenas directed at third-party service providers (Verizon, Google, Apple), the Executive Branch has found a “backdoor” into the private lives of legislators. If a judge signs off on these orders without verification, the check-and-balance system effectively evaporates.

Key Legal Takeaways:

The Disclosure Violation: Under 2 USC 6628, there is a clear statutory argument that the DOJ must disclose when it targets legislative records.

Corporate Liability: Kennedy is setting the stage for potential malpractice or gross negligence lawsuits against tech giants who fail to protect privileged legislative communications.

The Judicial Duty: The hearing suggests that “gross negligence” by a judge—failing to inquire if a target is a protected official—could be grounds for judicial misconduct or even impeachment.

Conclusion: The January 27th Showdown

The battle is far from over. As the hearing adjourned, it was revealed that the CEOs of the major telcos are scheduled to appear before the subcommittee on January 27th, 2026.

Senator Kennedy’s “Cinderella” era of quiet cooperation is officially over. The “What the Hella” era—marked by subpoenas for the subpoena-senders and a rigorous defense of legislative privilege—has begun. For Jack Smith and the DOJ, the road through the Senate Judiciary Committee has just become significantly more treacherous.

“Senators should be given respect,” Kennedy’s words echoed as he left the room. “And if they won’t give it, we’ll take it.”