Currently, it is only a formal letter invitation and not a subpoena, but House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) has required Jay Bratt, a senior prosecutor on special counsel Jack Smith’s team in the secret Mar-a-Lago documents case against former President Donald Trump, to produce documents and appear before the committee for a transcribed interview.
How The Hill works frames it:
In a letter to Jay Bratt on Thursday, the prosecutor was accused of raising suspicions of improper conduct by attending meetings at the White House.
The investigation goes to the heart of a popular but unproven Republican claim: that there may have been collusion between the Biden White House and those working to prosecute Trump.
(Given the repeated results of these “aided by unsubstantiated Republican claims” statements, you will forgive my skepticism of The Hill’s skepticism.)
#NEWS: @Jim_Jordan demands interview with top prosecutor in Trump Mar-a-Lago case.
Excerpts: pic.twitter.com/tmWTIMfUhA
– Republican House Judiciary Committee 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) June 6, 2024
As in his recent letters to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his top prosecutor in the forged business records case, Matthew Colangelo (on loan from the Justice Department?), Jordan laid out the basis of his demands in detail.
READ MORE:
Dear Alvin Bragg, Jim Jordan and the Special Committee on Weapons Technology would like to have a word with you
Below you will find some of the key points from the five-page letter:
As an advisor to Special Counsel Jack Smith, you were closely involved in the investigation and prosecution of President Trump. As stated by defense attorneys and unsealed documents, you have engaged in a number of inappropriate actions and unethical conduct that violate the Department’s duty to administer 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. As a result, we are compelled to write to you directly and ask for your voluntary cooperation with our constitutional oversight.
On August 8, 2022, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conducted an unprecedented raid on President Trump’s private residence at Mar-a-Lago. Although numerous presidents and vice presidents, including then-Vice President Biden, have left the White House with documents marked classified, no Justice Department lawyer or law enforcement official had ever before ordered a search of the home of a former president or vice president. Information available to the Committee suggests that this raid deviated from the Department’s usual practice. Former Assistant Director of the FBI’s Washington Field Office Steven D’Antuono told the Committee in a transcribed interview last year that he had sedate reservations about the Department’s raid and observed several unusual aspects of the Department’s handling of the case. In particular, D’Antuono was concerned that (1) the FBI’s Miami field office did not conduct the search of the President’s home, which by policy and practice has jurisdiction over Mar-a-Lago; (2) the Department did not assign a U.S. Attorney to investigate, but appointed you as “lead prosecutor in this case”; (3) the FBI never asked President Trump for his consent to search his home; and (4) the FBI did not wait for President Trump’s counsel to be present before searching the President’s home. As lead prosecutor at the time, you were responsible for the unprecedented and unusual circumstances surrounding the raid on President Trump’s home.
Other reports indicate that you also met with Biden White House officials on multiple occasions before the Office of Special Counsel brought charges against President Trump. In September 2021, you reportedly met with an adviser to the White House Chief of Staff. In November 2021, you traveled to the White House again to meet with administration officials. Finally, on March 31, 2023, just nine weeks before Special Counsel Smith impeached President Trump, you met with White House Office of Counsel Deputy Chief of Staff Caroline Saba for a “case-related interview.” The timing and circumstances of these meetings create, at a minimum, the impression of inappropriate coordination between you and the Biden White House to investigate and prosecute President Trump.
In addition, Stanley Woodward, an attorney representing Walt Nauta, a co-defendant in your classified documents case against President Trump, accused you of improperly pressuring him by suggesting that the Biden administration would look more favorably on Mr. Woodward’s candidacy for judgeship if his client cooperated with the special counsel’s office. According to Mr. Woodward, you told him that you “would not want [him] anything to screw this up,” in reference to Mr. Woodward’s bid for judgeship and your desire to make his client a government employee.
The letter goes on to discuss apparent retaliation against Woodward in the case, the recent admission that some of the evidence was altered or tampered with after the FBI seized it at Mar-a-Lago, and the request for a news blackout against Trump without first properly consulting with his lawyers. All of this does not reflect well on Bratt or the prosecution.
READ MORE:
Judge Aileen Cannon is concerned and disappointed with Jack Smith’s handling of sealed materials
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team confirms tampering with evidence and admits misleading the court
WHOA: Judge postpones Trump’s classified documents case indefinitely because Justice Department mishandled evidence
Jordan’s letter ends by requesting a wide range of documents related to the case against Trump, including communications between Bratt, the Justice Department and the White House, communications and drafts of the motion to modify the terms of Trump’s release, and communications with the Office of Professional Responsibility.
In addition, the letter asks Bratt to contact committee staff by June 20 to schedule an interview. The interview may take place at some point, but I would not advise anyone to rely on it.
RELATED:
NEW: Disclosed documents in Trump Mar-a-Lago case further reveal how ridiculous the raid was
