Jordan Announces Investigation Into Special Counsel’s Intimidation ‘Tactics’
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) has announced that he will be initiating a probe into Special Counsel Jack Smith — who is currently overseeing two prosecutions of former President Donald Trump — over his alleged intimidation tactics.
Jordan made the announcement on Thursday, noting that he made the decision to investigate the special counsel after he learned about an incident where Smith’s office allegedly tried to bribe an attorney representing one of the defendants in Trump’s classified documents case.
According to a post from the House Judiciary Committee on X, formerly known as Twitter, Smith’s office “improperly pressured Stanley Woodward, a lawyer representing a defendant indicted by Smith.”
Woodward is currently representing Walt Nauta, a Navy veteran who served as Trump’s butler in the White House and has continued to work for the former president since he left office. Nauta has pleaded not guilty and has thus far refused to cooperate with the prosecution.
Jay Bratt, who works for Smith, “implied that the Biden Administration would look more favorably on Mr. Woodward’s candidacy for a judgeship” if he coerced his client into cooperating with the prosecution, according to the committee.
Jordan confirmed this in a statement about the investigation.
“Last year, Jay Bratt—one of your senior prosecutors and top aides—allegedly improperly pressured Stanley Woodward, a lawyer representing a defendant indicted by you, by implying 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,” the statement read.
The Judiciary Committee chairman went on to argue that the “attempt to inappropriately coerce Mr. Woodward” has brought up “serious concerns” about the special counsel’s use of intimidation tactics and “the Department’s commitment to its mission to uphold the rule of law and ensure impartial justice.”
Jordan then noted that when Woodward arrived at a meeting with Bratt, “Mr. Bratt threatened him that Mr. Nauta should cooperate ‘because he had given potentially conflicting testimony that could result in a false statement.’ Mr. Bratt commented that he did not take Mr. Woodward as a ‘Trump guy’ and indicated that he was confident that Mr. Woodward ‘would do the right thing.’”
“Mr. Bratt referenced Mr. Woodward’s pending application for a judgeship on the D.C. superior court, implying that the Biden Administration would perceive Mr. Woodward’s application more favorably if Mr. Nauta was a cooperating witness for the Special Counsel against President Trump,” the statement continued.
After the meeting concluded, Bratt filed a motion claiming a conflict of interest — claiming that Woodward representing Nauta and other witnesses was inappropriate because the witnesses have interests that could potentially compete with each other. Woodward previously represented Yuscil Taveras, the Mar-a-Lago IT worker charged in the classified documents case who suspiciously “flipped” on Trump after the Department of Justice (DOJ) convinced him to change lawyers — giving him a new attorney from the federal public defender’s office.
Jordan also pointed out that Bratt had only filed the motion after Woodward chose to cut off any further contact with the DOJ unless his client is charged or given an immunity deal.
The Judiciary Committee chairman has demanded that Smith and his office turn over any and all documents related to their communications with Woodward — along with any internal communications about Woodward and anything relevant to his judgeship application.
This is not the first time that Bratt’s name has come up in a controversy surrounding Smith’s office — as it was revealed last month that Bratt and an FBI agent secretly met with a member of the White House counsel’s office just before Trump was indicted in the classified documents case, according to White House visitor logs obtained by the New York Post.
