As 2023 got underway, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan wrote to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, demanding information about, among other things, the criminal investigation into Donald Trump. The Ohio Republican’s request was not well received.
As regular readers know, Main Justice sent a polite and professional response, explaining that federal law enforcement “stands ready” to work with congressional investigators, while also making clear that the Justice Department has a longstanding policy against divulging private information on ongoing investigations — and it wasn’t about to start making exceptions because some conspiracy theorists in Congress want to run interference for a former president.
Late last week, it was hard not to have a sense of deja vu. Politico reported:
The Justice Department largely rejected House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan’s request for information related to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation involving former President Donald Trump.
For those who might want a refresher, NBC News reported a couple of weeks ago that Jordan, who makes no secret of his unyielding allegiance to Trump, asked the Justice Department to turn over internal documents laying out the scope of the criminal investigation into the former president’s classified documents scandal.
The far-right Judiciary Committee chairman told the attorney general that he and his panel want “an unredacted copy of the memorandum outlining the scope of Mr. Smith’s probes regarding President Trump and any supporting documentation related to his appointment as special counsel.” Jordan gave Garland a June 20 due date.
Evidently, the Justice Department was able to get back to the congressman a little early.
To be sure, Main Justice was willing to give Jordan some information. As Politico’s report noted, Friday’s response explained that “approximately 26 Special Agents … worked either full or part-time on Special Counsel Smith’s investigations in some capacity during that timeframe.” It’s never been altogether clear why Jordan wanted this information — it appears to have something to do with Jordan’s conspiracy theories about the FBI — but regardless of the motivation, it’s a detail he now knows.
What’s more, the Justice Department provided Jordan with the former orders appointing the ongoing special counsel investigations, outlining the scope of the probes.
But the Trump loyalist sought far more than this — and at least for now, he’s not getting it.
The Justice Department’s correspondence from Friday, echoing a similar lesson the DOJ tried to teach Jordan in January, explained that the congressman had requested “non-public information about an ongoing criminal investigation,” which it obviously couldn’t share.
It was an unavoidable conclusion. As we discussed a couple of weeks ago, it seemed implausible that federal prosecutors would open their files in an ongoing investigation to a criminal suspect’s sycophantic ally. Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte added, “Protecting the confidentiality of non-public information regarding investigations and prosecutions preserves the American people’s confidence in the evenhanded administration of justice by guarding against the appearance of political pressure or other improper attempts to influence Department decisions.” Of course, by all appearances, preserving the public’s confidence in the evenhanded administration of justice isn’t Jordan’s principal goal. What’s less clear is what the House Judiciary Committee chairman will do now. Will Jordan issue subpoenas? Should we expect contempt proceedings? Will impeachment talk soon follow? Yes, those possibilities might seem absurd given the circumstances, but they’re about as outlandish as the strategy the GOP lawmaker has pursued for months, so it’s best to set expectations accordingly. This post revises our related earlier coverage.
Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans' War on the Recent Past."
Latest Post
Recommended
