House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) continues to look to get to the bottom of prosecutions against former and potentially future President Donald Trump. On Thursday, he sent a letter to Jay Bratt, the lead prosecutor in the Mar-a-Lago case, demanding an interview. As The Hill pointed out in covering the letter, it's "the latest escalation of its probes into those prosecuting former President Trump."
As the piece also framed it:
A Thursday letter to Jay Bratt accused the prosecutor of raising the specter of impropriety by taking meetings at the White House.
The inquiry gets at the heart of a favored but unsubstantiated GOP claim: that there may have been coordination between the Biden White House and those working on Trump’s prosecution.
While this letter is about the Mar-a-Lago case, it's nevertheless noteworthy that another case against Trump--where he was just last Thursday found "guilty" of 34 felony charges in the hush money "trial"--one of the prosecutors involved was Matthew Colangeo, who had been the number three at President Joe Biden's Department of Justice (DOJ). The judge involved, Acting Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, also has serious conflicts of interests.
Victor Davis Hanson, in a column published with Townhall, just recently examined "The Myth That Biden Had Nothing to Do With the Prosecutions of Trump."
Last August, Katie also highlighted how an April 2022 piece from The New York Times was gaining more interest as it revealed that Biden "has said privately that he wanted [Attorney General Merrick] Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6," speaking of yet another case against Trump.
Bringing this back to Jordan's letter, to further investigate any impropriety is also the very reason why the chairman is looking to have Bratt come before the Committee.
"As indicated by defense lawyers and unsealed documents, you have engaged in a series of improper actions and unethical conduct that violate the Department’s duty to impartial justice. We have raised these concerns with the Department of Justice, Special Counsel Jack Smith, and the Office of Professional Responsibility to no avail. Accordingly, we are compelled to write to you directly to request your voluntary cooperation with our Constitutional oversight," the letter to Bratt begins in part.
Recommended
The letter also references the August 8, 2022 FBI raid on Trump's home at Mar-a-Lago, emphasizing Bratt's role as well. "As the then-lead prosecutor, you were responsible for the unprecedented and unusual features associated with the raid on President Trump’s home," the letter reads.
Then comes to the part of the letter on improper White House Meetings:
According to other reports, you also met with Biden White House officials numerous times before the Special Counsel’s Office indicted President Trump. In September 2021, you reportedly met with an advisor to the White House Chief of Staff. In November 2021, you again went to the White House to meet with Administration officials. Finally, on March 31, 2023, only nine weeks prior to Special Counsel Smith’s indictment of President Trump, you met with the White House Counsel’s Office Deputy Chief of Staff Caroline Saba for a “case-related interview.” The timing and circumstances of these meetings raises, at the least, a perception of improper coordination between you and the Biden White House to investigate and prosecute President Trump.
That isn't the only sense of impropriety, though, as how prosecutors botched dealing with a co-defendant, Walt Nauta, and then attempted to retaliate against him for filing an ethics complaint:
In addition, Stanley Woodward, a lawyer representing Walt Nauta, a co-defendant in your classified documents case against President Trump, accused you of improperly pressuring him by implying that the Biden Administration would look more favorably on Mr. Woodward’s candidacy for a judgeship if his client cooperated with the Office of the Special Counsel.10According to Mr. Woodward, you advised him that you “wouldn’t want [him] to do anything to mess that up,” in reference to Mr. Woodward’s judgeship application, and your desire to turn his client into a government cooperator.
It also seems that you attempted to retaliate against Mr. Woodward for disclosing your unethical conduct. On August 2, 2023, you filed a motion in Mr. Nauta’s case raising alleged conflicts of interests presented by Mr. Woodward’s representation of two other witnesses “who could be called to testify at a trial in the case involving classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.” You further suggested that the court should “procure independent counsel” to be present at the hearing “to advise Mr. Woodward’s clients regarding the potential conflicts.” Mr. Woodward’s reply brief stated that your intimidation threats were merely “an attempt to diminish the Court’s authority over the proceedings in this case and to undermine attorney-client relationships without any basis specific to the facts of such representation.” The federal judge overseeing the prosecution was so concerned about these allegations that she “twice ordered the parties, on her own, to explore and report to her on possible prosecutorial misconduct.”
There's still more problems to be discussed, as Jordan's letter also reminds how it was recently admitted last month that some of the classified documents obtained from Trump's residence were manipulated or altered, as covered by Just the News. "Your apparent manipulation of material evidence has led some legal experts to conclude that this conduct is tantamount to 'witness tampering,'" Jordan's letter points out, citing Harvard Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz.
Most recently, Special Counsel Jack Smith sought a gag order late last month after Trump dared to send out fundraising emails upon learning that the FBI was authorized to use "deadly force" in the raid. Smith's team waited until the Friday before the Memorial Day holiday weekend to do so, and did not properly confer with defense attorneys. Judge Aileen Cannon denied such a request.
"Legal experts have observed that the Special Counsel’s proposed gag order is 'unconstitutional,' and that President Trump’s comments about the FBI’s raid on Mar-a-Lago are 'protected speech [and] Smith knows that,'" Jordan's letter read on that note, citing Andy McCarthy in National Review.
In addition to being asked to schedule his interview by June 20, Bratt is being asked for the following documents:
1. All documents and communications referring or relating to meetings between FBI and Justice Department officials sent to or received by you prior to the execution of the search warrant on President Trump’s private residence;
2. All documents and communications between or among yourself, employees of theDepartment of Justice, and employees of the Executive Office of the President fromJanuary 2021 to the present, related to the investigation and prosecution of PresidentTrump, including, but not limited to, email communications and notes taken during your meetings with White House officials;
3. All documents and communications between or among you, the Office of theAttorney General, or the Office of the Deputy Attorney General referring or relating to Mr. Woodward and his representation of individuals involved in the matters pertaining to the Special Counsel’s investigation and prosecution;
4. All documents and communications sent to or received by you referring or relating to your May 24, 2024, motion to modify President Trump’s conditions of release, including, but not limited to, all drafts of the motion and communications between employees of the Office of Special Counsel Jack Smith discussing the motion and timing of its filing;
5. All documents and communications between or among you and the Office of Professional Responsibility about your course of improper conduct and unethical actions as an employee of the Office of Special Counsel Jack Smith.
With all of these issues to be addressed, it doesn't merely seem to be about "unsubstantiated claim[s]" about impropriety, but rather there's plenty of questions that need answering.
#NEWS: @Jim_Jordan demands interview with top prosecutor on Trump Mar-a-Lago case.
— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) June 6, 2024
Excerpts: pic.twitter.com/tmWTIMfUhA
Last Wednesday, as we covered in an exclusive, Jordan also sent a letter to Garland about the Mar-a-Lago raid, which also sought documents and communications relating to Bratt. The letter contained a threat of subpoena.
Garland also just recently came before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, though he was less than forthcoming and there's plenty alarming questions that came up.
.@townhallcom obtained a letter from @JudiciaryGOP’s @Jim_Jordan reiterating his demand for answers from AG Garland about that Mar-a-Lago raid on August 8, 2022. Almost 2 years later, the raid is back in the news! Check out my latest. https://t.co/DORSDGb7md pic.twitter.com/3h4ORzUsSW
— Rebecca Downs🇺🇸🟦🇮🇱 (@RebeccaRoseGold) May 29, 2024
Join the conversation as a VIP Member