U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the chief of the House Judiciary Committee, is demanding testimony from ex-special counsel Jack Smith.
Smith needs to respond to questions about how his team “sought to silence President Trump by restricting his public statements about the case.”
How Smith orchestrated an “unnecessary and abusive raid of his residence.”
How Smith “attempted to improperly pressure defense counsel with the promise of political patronage.”
And how Smith “manipulated key evidence.”
That’s according to letter from Jordan to Smith, in which he requires Smith’s testimony “after several members of his special counsel team failed to fully cooperate with the committee’s investigation of the Biden-Harris Justice Department’s weaponization of the rule of law.”
Smith, although his cases against Trump failed, did succeed in his plan to undermine “the integrity of the criminal justice system,” Jordan said.
Jordan wrote, “To date, the committee has conducted transcribed interviews and depositions of several individuals detailed to your office, including Jay Bratt, J.P. Cooney, and Thomas Windom. In addition, the committee has obtained internal Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) documents that show the FBI, with the likely involvement of prosecutors that were later assigned to your team, surveilled Representative Scott Perry prior to seizing his cell phone in a stunning breach of constitutional separation of powers. Your abusive surveillance of sitting Members of Congress did not stop there. Earlier this week, the FBI, at the direction of Director Kash Patel, released an alarming document showing that your team requested and obtained private phone records for at least eight Senators and one Representative during an investigation known as ‘Arctic Frost.’ These documents reinforce the conclusion that your office conducted politically motivated investigations.”
He explained, “Although the Committee has learned new information from these interviews, several members of your Special Counsel team failed to fully cooperate with the Committee’s inquiry. For example, during a transcribed interview with the Committee, former Senior Assistant Special Counsel Thomas Windom relied on an overbroad and unreasonable interpretation of grand jury secrecy protections to refuse to answer the Committee’s questions on important topics. After the Committee subpoenaed Windom to compel his testimony, he invoked various ill-defined privileges and objections, including the Fifth Amendment, to refuse to answer approximately 70 questions. According to Windom’s counsel, ‘the foundation of [Windom’s] decision to decline to answer is his constitutional right to silence embodied in the Fifth Amendment.’ For instance, Windom refused to answer ‘how many other members of Congress were investigated as part of the Arctic Frost investigation and Jack Smith investigation’ and if there are records of additional ‘Members of Congress that were swept up by a legal process’ pursuant to this investigation.”
The member of Congress explained, “As the special counsel, Smith was ultimately responsible for the prosecutorial misconduct and constitutional abuses of his office.”
Jordan noted another problem was Jay Bratt, who advised Smith, who “invoked the Fifth Amendment approximately 75 times during his interview with the Committee. He refused to answer key questions necessary for the Committee’s oversight, including whether the purpose of the classified documents investigation was to affect the outcome of the 2024 presidential election, whether the raid on Mar-a-Lago was intended to capture political intelligence, who he met with during his three visits to the Biden-Harris White House, and why he pressured defense counsel using the promise of political patronage.”
Jordan now wants from Smith details about his appointment, details about Smith’s interactions and meetings with the Biden-Harris administration, and details about all of the investigations, decisions, and “tactics.”
