While all eyes are on how the Colorado Supreme Court has gone after not just former and potentially future President Donald Trump but the voters by kicking him off of the ballot, other forms of weaponization against Trump still remain. The office of Special Counsel Jack Smith is still engaging in what House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance Chairman Andy Biggs (R-AZ) call the "unprecedented investigation and prosecution" of Trump, as they also point out he's "President [Joe] Biden’s chief opponent in the upcoming presidential election." On Thursday, Jordan and Biggs sent a letter demanding information from Smith, also indicating they're even willing to consider a subpoena.
As the letter mentions, they wrote to Attorney General Merrick Garland in June about his office's use of the FBI related to Smith's appointment. Jordan also wrote to Smith directly on September 7 about allegations of prosecutorial misconduct from his top aide, Jay Bratt, when it comes to how he "had improperly pressured an attorney representing a defendant whom [Smith] indicted," in this case attorney, Stanley Woodward, about a client of his, Walt Nauta. The lawmakers note in their Thursday letter that "[t]o date, both you and the Department have failed to respond sufficiently to the Committee’s requests."
The lawmakers don't hold back from letting Smith know just how they feel about this weaponization of the Department of Justice (DOJ). In addition to writing early on about "an unprecedented investigation and prosecution of President Biden’s chief opponent in the upcoming presidential election," Jordan and Biggs devote entire paragraphs to laying out such concerns. Emphasis is added:
Based on publicly available information, the Committee has significant concerns about your commitment to evenhanded justice. You have a record of attempting to criminalize political discourse, as evidenced by your reported interest in how the Justice Department could prosecute conservative tax-exempt groups engaging in constitutionally protected political speech. Your staff appointments for the Office of Special Counsel also lead to concern about your commitment to fairness and justice. For example, one senior attorney in your office reportedly once pushed for an investigation into a conservative figure so adamantly that Department leaders worried that the attorney “could expose the department to accusations that it had politicized the probe.” The bullying tactics of Mr. Bratt, as we have detailed in our September 7 letter, only reinforce the perception that you and your staff are more interested in winning the case than in doing justice.
To compound our existing concerns about the actions of our office, we recently learned that you had compelled from Twitter voluminous amounts of private information—including core political speech—of millions of Americans, without an apparent specialized nexus to criminal activity. Accordingly, the Committee is conducting oversight in order to inform potential legislative reforms, including possible reforms regarding politically motivated prosecutions of current and former Presidents by federal prosecutors and disclosure requirements for Special Counsels and their staff...
As Jordan and Biggs remind in their letter, Smith is not merely going after Trump in an unprecedented way, but it was revealed last month that the special counsel is looking to target users over X, then known as Twitter, who had interacted with Trump. Such criteria means the targeting of millions of Americans. Lawmakers are thus considering reforms, which is why oversight is so crucial in this instance.
The answers to several questions, as well as a response to the letters from June 1, June 6, and September 7 are due by January 4, otherwise Smith could be hit by a subpoena. "If you do not produce documents responsive to these requests, the Committee may resort to compulsory process," the letter warns.
As the lawmakers demand:
1. All documents and communications between or among the Office of Special Counsel, the Office of the Attorney General, or the Office of the Deputy Attorney General referring or relating to the investigation and prosecution of President Donald Trump;
2. All documents and communications sufficient to identify the universe of current and former Office of Special Counsel staff members, including but not limited to the following information:
a. Salaries for each Office of Special Counsel member of staff;
b. Travel costs incurred and trips taken by each Office of Special Counsel member of staff as it relates to the investigation and prosecution of President Trump; and
c. The organizational structure of the Office of Special Counsel.
3. All documents and communications referring or relating to the hiring and selection of current and former Office of Special Counsel staff members, including but not limited to the following information:
a. Job postings or solicitations;
b. Hiring criteria or prospective employees’ evaluations;
c. Communications between the Office of Special Counsel and prospective employees; and
4. All documents and communications referring or relating to the “Warrant by Telephone or Other Reliable Electronic Means,” filed In the Matter of the Search of Information That Is Stored at Premises Controlled by Twitter Inc., Identified in Attachment A, Case No. 23-SC-31 (D.D.C. 2023).
Just earlier this week, Jordan subpoenaed Garland over information regarding how the DOJ was spying on members of Congress and staff, from both parties.
👀 #NEWS: @Jim_Jordan & @RepAndyBiggsAZ to Jack Smith:
— House Judiciary GOP 🎄 (@JudiciaryGOP) December 21, 2023
“If the Department of Justice continues stonewalling the investigation, the Committee may be forced to resort compulsory process.” pic.twitter.com/VPBbrhDeMe