Was special counsel Jack Smith’s method of looking into former President Donald Trump unethical? The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is now requesting an explanation after hearing this assertion from one of the case’s attorneys.
Jim Jordan, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and an Ohio Republican, wrote to Smith on Thursday. He is asking for proof of claims that one of his top prosecutors improperly pressured Stanley Woodward, the attorney for a defendant Smith had indicted.
The alleged violation was brought up during a discussion between Jay Bratt and Woodward, who is the attorney for Walt Nauta, one of the defendants in the Mar-a-Lago classified materials case. Bratt allegedly put pressure on Woodward during the meeting by implying that the Administration would be more supportive of Mr. Woodward’s judicial candidacy if his client cooperated with the Office of the Special Counsel.
Smith has until September 21 to turn in the materials Jordan has asked for in connection with the accusations.
“In November 2022, when your prosecutors were trying to secure the cooperation of Walt Nauta—who is alleged to have ‘move[d] boxes of documents’ at Mar-a-Lago—prosecutors, including Mr. Bratt, summoned Mr. Woodward to a meeting at the Department’s headquarters for ‘an urgent matter that they were reluctant to discuss over the phone,’” Jordan stated in the letter that Just the News was able to get.
“When Mr. Woodward arrived, 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,’” the letter continued.
According to reports, Bratt implied that Mr. Nauta’s cooperation as a witness for the Special Counsel’s investigation into President Trump would affect how the Biden Administration views Mr. Woodward’s application for a position as a judge on the D.C. Circuit. higher court.
Woodward cut off contact with the Justice Department, saying that any further conversations would only take place if Nauta was charged or given immunity.
Jordan’s letter claims that Smith’s office continued after that.
REVEALED: The 3 reasons you should NEVER use Vegetable Oils…
“After Mr. Woodward declined to give in to Mr. Bratt’s intimidation and coercion, Mr. Bratt once again sought to induce Mr. Nauta’s cooperation by attacking Mr. Woodward’s representation. On August 2, 2023, Mr. Bratt filed a motion in Mr. Nauta’s case raising alleged conflicts of interests presented by Mr. 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,’” the letter read.
“He further suggested that the court should ‘procure independent counsel’ to be present at the hearing ‘to advise Mr. Woodward’s clients regarding the potential conflicts.’ Mr. Woodward’s reply brief stated that Mr. Bratt’s intimidation threats were 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.’”
Welcome to Jay Bratt.
Bratt is a respected assistant and one of Jack Smith’s top attorneys.
He is accused of applying inappropriate pressure to Stanley Woodward, a defense attorney who was defending a defendant Smith had indicted.
How?
This has enormous importance, which cannot be understated. According to Just the News, Yuscil Taveras, an IT specialist hired by Mar-a-Lago, had previously had Woodward represent him in legal matters.
After speaking with a public defender, Taveras took the vital choice to assist the police. According to The Hill, this savvy decision not only prevented him from being charged with perjury but also led to the addition of extra charges to Trump’s indictment.
We politely ask Smith’s office for information on three separate topics relating to Woodward.
First: “All documents and communications referring or relating to any appointment, meeting, or other visit by Mr. Woodward to the Justice Department, including the Office of the Special Counsel, concerning the representation of Mr. Nauta.”
Second: “All documents and communications between or among the Office of the Special Counsel, the Office of the Attorney General, or the Office of the Deputy Attorney General referring or relating to Mr. Woodward and his representation of individuals involved in the matters before you.”
Finally: “All documents and communications referring or relating to Mr. Woodward’s application to fill a vacancy on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.”
Although the effects of this are still unknown, they might have a substantial impact on Taveras’ evidence against the former president by casting doubt on it because of possible coercion.
However, if there is even the slightest suggestion of manipulation in relation to a certain aspect of the case, it could have an impact on the entire course of action. It is significant to note that Florida, a state known for backing Donald Trump, is the location of this case.
On the basis of the indictment’s stated evidence alone, legal experts have issued warnings regarding the case involving the classified papers. However, Smith will face severe difficulties in winning the public’s and the jury’s faith if it becomes out that his special counsel team used force to coerce compliance.
