The House Judiciary Committee, led by Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), has requested an interview with a top attorney working on special counsel Jack Smith’s Mar-a-Lago case. This move marks an escalation in the Committee’s investigation into individuals involved in the prosecution of former President Trump.
In a letter addressed to Jay Bratt on Thursday, the prosecutor was accused of implying impropriety by attending meetings at the White House.
Related posts
The GOP has long suggested that there was potential coordination between the Biden administration and those involved in the prosecution of Trump, although there is no evidence to support this claim. The inquiry seeks to investigate this assertion and determine whether it has any merit.
In his letter, Jordan focuses on three White House meetings that Bratt attended since the beginning of the Biden administration. He asserts that these meetings create, at the very least, a perception of improper coordination.
In 2021, two incidents occurred prior to the National Archives notifying the Justice Department about the difficulties it was encountering in retrieving records from Trump’s tenure. This referral was made much later, in February 2022.
In March 2023, Bratt had his third meeting at the White House, which was related to the Mar-a-Lago probe. According to The Washington Post, during the meeting, the attorney spoke with a career White House staffer who had worked under both the Trump and Biden administrations. Their discussion centered around the moving of boxes.
Government workers being interviewed by prosecutors at their offices is a fairly common practice.
Jordan has been focused on this matter for a long time. He had previously asked Attorney General Merrick Garland and White House chief of staff Jeff Zients about the meeting.
Last December, Jordan requested Smith’s team to provide the majority of the records related to the prosecution of Trump. This was a part of his request to the special counsel.
In a letter addressed directly to Bratt on Thursday, Jordan expressed his concern over the lack of response from others, prompting him to request Bratt’s voluntary cooperation with their Constitutional oversight.
The letter did not elicit any response from the Justice Department (DOJ).
On Tuesday, Garland criticized the Republicans for their consistent attacks on the DOJ, stating that they have been threatening to defund the special counsel investigation. Additionally, he pointed out that the career agents and prosecutors have been targeted simply for performing their duties. This is part of a long list of attacks on the DOJ by the Republicans, according to Garland.
Jordan isn’t only concentrating on Bratt’s meetings, but also on a statement made by Stanley Woodward, who is representing Walt Nauta, Trump’s co-defendant in the case.
In the court filings submitted by Woodward, it was mentioned that during the meeting with Bratt, the prosecutor brought up the fact that he had been considered for a judge appointment. However, Bratt argued that he was only highlighting Woodward’s role in a commission responsible for handling judicial nominations.
Woodward recounted that Mr. Bratt stated something along the lines of not wanting to ruin anything, in response to the matter.
According to Bratt from the special counsel’s office, Woodward’s involvement with the Judicial Nomination Commission is what he was highlighting, and not the meeting itself. It is worth noting that Woodward was nominated for a position on the commission but was not yet a board member, which caused some confusion between the two lawyers.
According to court filings from Smith’s team, Bratt informed Woodward about his awareness of Woodward’s good reputation as a professional courtesy during their meeting. The intention was solely to acknowledge and respect Woodward’s standing and nothing more.
The prosecutors who attended the meeting have confirmed that Bratt’s remarks were purely professional, and there was no indication of any quid pro quo or threat. While the confusion surrounding the incident needs to be set aside, it is evident that Bratt’s comments did not contain any elements of coercion.
During a court hearing in Florida last month, Woodward brought up the meeting as part of his argument to have Nauta’s charges dismissed due to prosecutorial misconduct. However, a member of Smith’s team dismissed the argument as “garbage.”
In contrast to the DOJ’s claim of impartiality, Jordan contends that based on the revelations of defense lawyers and unsealed documents, there is evidence of a pattern of unethical behavior and improper actions that go against the Department’s obligation to uphold justice fairly. As Jordan puts it, “you have engaged in a series of improper actions and unethical conduct that violate the Department’s duty to impartial justice.”
In a letter addressed to the Office of the Special Counsel, Representative Jordan expressed his concerns regarding the abusive tactics being used and the Department’s lack of commitment to impartial justice. The course of conduct being followed has raised serious concerns and needs to be addressed.
Jordan has been taking a series of actions following Trump’s guilty verdict in a New York case. The case was regarding his concealment of hush money payments made to an adult film star before the 2016 election. This letter is just one of those actions.
Jordan is advocating for a hold on funding for the FBI and restricting the federal funds granted to local prosecutors. Additionally, he has endorsed criminal referrals that accuse members of the Biden family of providing false information to Congress.
