Jim Jordan Subpoenas Attorney General Merrick Garland

House Republicans continue to crack down on the Biden administration. On Tuesday, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) issued a subpoena for Attorney General Merrick Garland for more information on how the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been spying on members of Congress and staff, from both parties.

The Committee wrote to Garland requesting more information on October 31, and while an answer was received on November 8, Jordan's letter indicates that that was inadequate, as it "provided no update on the status of the Department’s response to our October 31 letter." The Committee reached out again on November 28 about announced policy changes made on November 7, and received an answer on December 4 regarding the October 31 letter.

Again, that response was still inadequate, as it included only two documents, already made publicly available.

The Washington Examiner provides more context as well:

Jordan initially contacted Garland about the matter in October after Jason Foster, a lawyer for the whistleblower advocacy group Empower Oversight, revealed that Google had recently notified him that the DOJ had subpoenaed it in 2017 for subscriber information associated with telephone numbers of his family members, as well as details about with whom the subscribers were communicating."
Foster, who worked for Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) at the time the DOJ sought his data about private messages, was among the numerous staffers who had the DOJ seize their data in 2017 as part of the department's investigation into media leaks about Trump campaign aide Carter Page. The DOJ's efforts to gather the private data of some congressional aides came to light in 2021, but Foster did not learn he was among those aides until October.

In its letter to the Committee, the Department represented that the legal process used— which reportedly sought the private communications of both Republican and Democrat employees in both the House and the Senate—were related to one investigation “into the unauthorized disclosure of classified information in a national media publication.” According to news reports, this investigation centered on FISA warrants obtained by the Justice Department on former Trump campaign associate Carter Page. At the time, the FISA warrant on Mr. Page was the subject of robust Congressional oversight and vigorous debate in Congress. The Justice Department Office of Inspector General later determined that the Department abused its FISA authority to surveil Mr. Page, and the Department admitted there was “insufficient predication” for the warrant.
If the Department’s representation is accurate, it indicates that the Executive Branch used its immense law enforcement authority to gather and search the private communications of multiple Legislative Branch employees who were conducting Constitutional oversight of the Department’s investigative actions—actions that were later found to be unlawful. Because the Department has not complied in full with our requests, we cannot independently determine whether the Department sought to alleviate the heightened separation-of-powers sensitivities involved or whether the Department first sought the information through other means before resorting to legal process. The Committee also has concerns that aspects of the Department's investigation may have been a pretext to justify piercing the Legislative Branch’s deliberative process and improperly access data from Members and staff involved in conducting oversight of the Department.

As if that's not concerning enough, Jordan notes the Committee's concern that this could also just be "a pretext," and that the DOJ is looking to "improperly access data" from members and staff, including those who dare to conduct oversight. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the Congress' role in conducting oversight.

Not only has the DOJ engaged in unlawful activities, but the Department has now also failed to comply with requests for more unformation about such an abuse.

Beyond Jordan's demands for more information, there may be more of a response coming out of this, as his letter mentions potential legislative ramifications. "The Committee may also consider legislative proposals to reform how often the Department may request an extension on a non-disclosure order without providing a compelling justification for the continued secrecy," the letter mentions towatds its conclusion.

Garland, who has until January 19 to comply, isn't the only member of the Biden administration that Jordan has sought information from in such a way. The chairman also subpoenaed Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas earlier this month.

🚨 #BREAKING: @Jim_Jordan subpoenas AG Garland for Information on the DOJ's Attempts to Spy on Congress pic.twitter.com/3Mmnzenn3G
— House Judiciary GOP 🎄 (@JudiciaryGOP) December 19, 2023