House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) announced Thursday that the Committee is investigating one of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s top prosecutors for alleged “abusive tactics” employed in the Trump Mar-a-Lago classified documents probe.
[RELATED: House Judiciary Launches Probe into Fulton County DA’s ‘Politically Motivated’ Trump Indictment]
In a Thursday letter to Special Counsel Jack Smith, Rep. Jordan alleges that Jay Bratt, a senior prosecutor in Smith’s office, improperly pressured an attorney for one of the defendants in the documents probe, longtime Trump aide Walt Nauta.
Bratt allegedly told Nauta’s attorney, Stanley Woodward, “that the Administration would look more favorably on Mr. Woodward’s candidacy for a judgeship if Mr. Woodward’s client cooperated with the Office of the Special Counsel.”
“This attempt to inappropriately coerce Mr. Woodward raises serious concerns about the abusive tactics of the Office of the Special Counsel and the [Justice] Department’s commitment to its mission to uphold the rule of law and ensure impartial justice,” Jordan wrote in his letter.
Former President Donald Trump currently faces 40 criminal counts for allegedly mishandling classified documents kept at his Florida resort, and for a conspiracy to obstruct the National Archives from retrieving those documents.
The federal indictment, brought in July in the Southern District of Florida, also targets Nauta, who faces 8 criminal counts for obstruction of justice and making false statements.
Nauta is alleged to have helped Trump move boxes containing classified documents at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago estate and then lying about it to federal investigators.
Jordan writes in his letter to Smith that in November 2022, just three months after the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago to recover the documents, Bratt summoned Woodward to a meeting at the Justice Department’s headquarters for “an urgent matter that they were reluctant to discuss over the phone.”
When Woodward arrived, Jordan writes, Bratt allegedly threatened him by saying Nauta should cooperate “because he had given potentially conflicting testimony that could result in a false statement.”
Bratt reportedly commented that he did not take Woodward as a “Trump guy,” and indicated that he was confident Woodward “would do the right thing,” going on to mention the attorney’s pending application for a judgeship on the Washington, D.C. superior court.
After Woodward refused to give in to Bratt’s alleged coercion tactics, Bratt filed a motion in Nauta’s case attacking Woodward’s representation over an alleged conflict of interest.
Bratt alleged that 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” was a conflict of interest, and to avoid the potential conflict advised the court to “procure independent counsel” to be present at Nauta’s hearing.
Woodward stated in a reply brief that Bratt’s motion was 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 Department’s mission is to ensure impartial justice by upholding the rule of law,
requiring all Department employees—including Mr. Bratt—to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct,” Jordan wrote.
“Mr. Bratt’s attempt to bully Mr. Nauta in cooperating, first by extorting his attorney and then by alleging a conflict of interest that precludes his attorney from the case, seriously calls into question your team and your ability to remain impartial and uphold the Department’s mission,” he added.
The Judiciary Committee is requesting that Jack Smith provide them with all documents and communications related to the Woodward and Bratt meeting, documents concerning discussions of Woodward’s representation, and documents related to Woodward’s judgeship application.
Read Rep. Jim Jordan’s letter to Special Counsel Jack Smith below:
