“We sure are,” House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) replied Sunday when Mark Levin asked him if he’s “going to work with the Justice Department to get to the bottom of all this lawfare crap?”
In the latest episode of “Life, Liberty & Levin,” Chairman Jordan listed several instances of the Biden Administration’s lawfare waged against Donald Trump and his associates – including one in which a DOJ attorney appears to have threatened a defendant’s lawyer in Trump’s classified documents case.
“We think the American people saw it for what it was,” Jordan began, voicing “all kinds of concerns” with the dubious lawfare cases waged by anti-Trump prosecutors:
“It was politically driven, whether it was Alvin Bragg in New York, Fani Willis or Nathan Wade in Georgia, or Jack Smith with his ridiculous case here in D.C. The one that Judge Cannon said was baloney, that he was not even appointed in a proper way consistent with our constitution with that case in Florida.
“So, we’re going to look back at (Special Counsel) David Weiss, because there are all kinds of concerns there. Remember, David Weiss had that sweetheart deal for Hunter Biden and the court said, ‘No, you can’t do this.’ And we had two whistleblowers come forward and tell us all the games they played in the course of that investigation. So, we are going to look at that.”
“With (former DOJ Special Counsel) Jack Smith, I think one issue in particular” demands scrutiny, Chairman Jordan explained:
“Remember when one of the lawyers for Jack Smith, Jay Bratt, asked one of the lawyers representing a defendant, it was Stanley Woodward who was the council representing defendant Walt Nauta in the classified documents case.
“They're having a meeting and Jay Bratt says to the defendant’s lawyer: ‘We didn’t know you were a Trump guy; we thought you were interested in this judge position.’
“This sort of veiled – well, frankly, not so veiled – threat to a guy who is representing a defendant being charged by the special counsel: this is how ridiculous and political Jack Smith’s whole case was.”
“And never forget Jack Smith's history,” Jordan added:
“He was involved, he was looking for ways to go after the - you have 10, 12, 14 years ago, when the whole tax the IRS was going after Tea Party Patriots – he was looking for ways to prosecute those people being abused by their government and targeted by the government.”
‘Then, you have this judge,” Jordan said, addressing the overtly anti-Trump antics of Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan in Trump’s so-called “hush money” trial, which involved an alleged federal offense tried in a local court.
Here, Jordan said, the remedy is to pass legislation to enable federal officials being charged by “rogue state prosecutors” waging political lawfare to have their cases heard in federal court:
“The other thing we can also do, Mark, is we can look at legislation. One bill that we are going to push, we passed it out of the committee last year, we’re to change it a little bit and pass it again, hopefully get it through and into law. But, it says, if you are one of these rogue state prosecutors going after federal officials, the federal official can say ‘I am going to move that case to federal court,’ so you’re not being a jury in Manhattan who is going after President Trump and it's all political.
“So, we think that should apply for the president, for the vice president, for senators, for congressman – because we know that this lawfare game can get played in these liberal jurisdictions with some rogue prosecutor. So, we think that's a good legislative remedy to help address this lawfare, as well.”
“Well, it is, because the U.S. Supreme Court should’ve stepped in” when it was petitioned to do so, Constitutional Scholar Levin noted, explaining that, sooner or later, the High Court is going to have to address the issue:
“Four justices wanted to step in. But, (Justices) Roberts and Barrett threw it away. And, that is a big problem that still needs to be remedied.”