Jordan launches investigation into Smith’s deputy in January 6 case

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is launching an investigation into special counsel Jack Smith’s deputy in the January 6 indictment, asking the Department of Justice (DOJ) to turn over all of its related files to any internal review by JP Cooney.

The letter to the DOJ is a further escalation in Jordan’s investigation into those investigating former President Trump and comes a day after the powerful president demanded information from the daughter of the New York judge who oversaw Trump’s silence case.

The request to the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), obtained by The Hill, mirrors a similar effort requesting information from the office about the lead prosecutor in the Mar-a-Lago case.

A spokesperson for Smith declined to comment.

The launch of a new Jordan investigation angle comes after the Justice Department inspector general’s office released a report reviewing the sentencing of Trump ally Roger Stone after a whistleblower alleged potential improper political influence to curb the sentence suggested. Stone was later pardoned by Trump.

Cooney, then head of the fraud and public corruption (FPC) section, was among those involved in the prosecution of Stone, who was convicted of obstructing a congressional investigation into Trump, as well as making false statements and witness tampering.

The watchdog’s report focused primarily on former Attorney General Bill Barr, concluding that there was no improper political pressure on prosecutors, even after an internal dispute over how aggressive they should be in recommending Stone’s sentence.

But Cooney and other prosecutors also appear in the review, with the report stressing that their concerns about politicization were “not unreasonable” while determining that Cooney’s sharing of those feelings with subordinates was “not well considered.”

Jordan focuses on Cooney’s conversations with prosecutors about the case, accusing him of offering an “unsubstantiated conspiracy theory” about discussing the sentence.

“It is imperative that the Department operates with a high level of professionalism and integrity in all its processes. A prosecutor’s role is to seek justice, not to promote unsupported, politically motivated conspiracy theories,” Jordan wrote.

According to the report, the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia was already engaged in “extensive discussions” about Stone’s sentence when Acting U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea engaged Barr in a conversation about the matter, and they determined that a sentence below the federal guideline range would be appropriate.

However, Shea later authorized the presentation of prosecutors’ memo recommending a sentence “consistent” with the scope of the guidelines. The DOJ inspector general’s investigation produced evidence that when Barr learned the memo was inconsistent with what he and Shea had previously discussed, he “immediately” suggested it needed to be “fixed” — hours before Trump criticized the original recommendation as ” very horrible and unfair.” on the social networks.

Prosecutors use a complex formula to determine what sentence to recommend to the court, a formula that takes into account a number of factors about the defendant and the crimes committed.

While the report cleared Barr of any wrongdoing, it also concluded that the whistleblower who initiated the investigation was “not unreasonable” in believing he had been pressured to revise the sentencing memorandum for political reasons.

The whistleblower, Aaron Zelinsky, discussed his concerns with Cooney, who appeared to share them.

“Based on his experience in other matters, Stone’s relationship with then-President Trump, and the recent appointment of Shea, who the FPC chief understood by reputation as ‘a good friend of the Attorney General,’ the FPC chief believed ‘that this was not an internal decision by the U.S. Attorney’s Office,’ and he was concerned about political motivations that would affect the final sentencing recommendation,” the report states, referring to Cooney by an abbreviation of his title at the time .

Cooney’s lawyer disagreed with the report, noting that it could chill internal discussions about whether there was any impropriety on the part of DOJ leaders.

“The FPC Chief’s lawyer stated that the FPC Chief’s statements were not entirely speculative, but rather based on his experience as a prosecutor in public corruption cases, his role as ‘guardian’ of the Fraud Section’s sentencing policy and Public Corruption and the circumstances of Stone’s relationship with the President and Barr’s appointment of Shea as Acting U.S. Attorney. The FPC Chief’s attorney also stated that our conclusion regarding the FPC Chief’s speculative statements would inappropriately chill future Department discussions and expressions of concern about the inappropriate politicization of sensitive cases,” the report stated.

The report then reiterates: “we do not consider these concerns to be irrational, given the information known to us at the time”.

Cooney, a career prosecutor, has worked on a number of high-profile cases in addition to those of Trump and Stone, including the 2015 prosecution of Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.).

Jordan’s letter asks for information from OPR, as well as documents.

“In light of the serious allegations of professional misconduct made against another member of Mr. Smith’s legal team, we write again to ask what steps the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is taking to examine these facts and uphold the commitment of the Department with fairness and impartial justice,” Jordan wrote.

This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story