House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is asking a top lawyer in special counsel Jack Smith’s Mar-a-Lago case to interview with the panel, the latest escalation of his investigations into those who sue former President Trump.
A letter sent Thursday to Jay Bratt accused the prosecutor of raising the specter of impropriety by holding meetings at the White House.
The investigation gets to the heart of a favorable but unsubstantiated GOP claim: that there may have been coordination between the Biden White House and those working on Trump’s prosecution.
Jordan’s letter addresses three White House meetings that Bratt has held since the start of the Biden administration and which, he said, “raise, at the very least, a perception of inadequate coordination.”
Two, however, were in 2021, before the National Archives alerted the Justice Department about problems it was experiencing in recovering records from Trump’s time in office, a move that only occurred in February 2022.
Bratt’s third White House meeting, in March 2023, was related to the Mar-a-Lago investigation, with The Washington Post previously reporting that the lawyer met with a career White House official who worked in the Trump and Biden administrations to discuss moving boxes.
It is not uncommon for prosecutors to interview public officials in their offices.
However, the issue has been a long-time focus for Jordan, who previously asked Attorney General Merrick Garland and White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients about the meeting.
And it was also part of a request Jordan made to Smith’s team last December, asking the special counsel to turn over most of his records about his prosecutions to Trump.
Thursday’s letter is addressed directly to Bratt, with Jordan writing that the lack of response from others left him “obliged to write directly to you to request your voluntary cooperation with our constitutional oversight.”
The Justice Department declined to comment on the letter.
But Garland on Tuesday accused Republicans of “a long series of attacks” on the DOJ, including threats to defund the special counsel investigation, while “career agents and prosecutors were singled out just for doing their jobs.”
Jordan is focused not only on Bratt’s meetings but also on a complaint from Stanley Woodward, a lawyer representing Trump’s co-defendant in the case, Walt Nauta.
Court documents filed by Woodward said that during a meeting with Bratt, the prosecutor noted that he had been mentioned for a possible judgeship. Bratt would later respond that he was simply noting Woodward’s involvement with a commission that handles judicial nominations.
“Sir. Bratt followed up with words to the effect of ‘I wouldn’t want to do anything to screw this up,'” Woodward relayed.
The special counsel’s office disputed Woodward’s summary of the meeting, with Bratt saying he was simply noting Woodward’s involvement with the Judicial Nominating Commission. Woodward was nominated to join the commission, but was not yet part of the board, creating a moment of confusion between the two lawyers.
“Bratt mentioned this to Woodward at the beginning of the meeting solely as a matter of professional courtesy and solely to indicate to Woodward that he understood that Woodward should have a good reputation. Nothing further was planned,” Smith’s team wrote in court documents.
“Putting aside the details of this mess, the prosecutors who participated in the meeting made it clear that Bratt’s comments contained no threat or suggestion of any quid pro quo and that the exchange was purely professional.”
Woodward raised the issue of the Florida court meeting last month in a broader argument seeking to dismiss Nauta’s charges due to prosecutorial misconduct. A member of Smith’s team called this a “garbage argument.”
Jordan, however, argues that “as indicated by defense attorneys and unsealed documents, you have engaged in a series of improper actions and unethical conduct that violate the Department’s duty to impartial justice.”
The letter asks Bratt to turn over a series of documents and communications about his meetings at the White House, as well as any communications regarding Woodward.
The letter, on the other hand, criticizes Bratt for his handling of the Trump case, including that Mar-a-Lago was searched for the documents and that prosecutors asked Judge Aileen Cannon to clarify Trump’s false statement of that the FBI was authorized to “take me out.” it was a violation of his release conditions.
“His conduct continues to raise serious concerns about the abusive tactics of the Office of Special Counsel and the Department’s commitment to impartial justice,” Jordan wrote.
The letter is part of a series of actions Jordan took following Trump’s guilty verdict in a New York case relating to the concealment of secret payments made to an adult film star before the 2016 election.
Jordan called for withholding funding for the FBI, as well as limited federal funds allocated to local prosecutors. He also signed criminal referrals accusing members of the Biden family of lying to Congress.
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
