Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) has shed light on several unusual aspects of the raid on the ex-President’s residence at Mar-a-Lago, Florida, and events surrounding the bogus indictment.
Rep. Jordan pointed out that the department declined to indict former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her handling of classified information and similarly did not indict Biden for his mismanagement of classified materials.
Banana Republic. pic.twitter.com/WgHU1DFLAt
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) June 9, 2023
“The indictment creates, at the minimum, a serious appearance of a double standard and a miscarriage of justice—an impression that is only strengthened by allegations that a Biden Justice Department lawyer “inappropriately sought to pressure” a Trump-affiliated lawyer with the prospect of a judgeship,” Rep. Jordan wrote to Attorney General Garland.
He added, “Additional information recently obtained by the Committee about the Department’s execution of a search warrant on President Trump’s residence only reinforces our grave concerns that your reported actions are nothing more than a politically motivated prosecution.”
During an interview with the Judiciary Committee on June 7, 2023, just days before the reported indictment of Trump, former Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office (WFO), Steven D’Antuono, gave testimony raising concerns about the execution of the unprecedented raid on the Mar-a-Lago residence.
D’Antuono, a veteran FBI official, expressed frustration with the Department’s approach to the raid, pointing out several irregularities in the pursuit of the investigation against Trump.
These included the surprising decision to assign the WFO rather than the Miami Field Office to carry out the search, the omission of a U.S. Attorney’s Office from the case, a rushed push for the FBI to execute the search warrant without first seeking consent, and the unexplained attempt to exclude Trump’s attorney from the search process.
During his transcribed interview, Mr. D’Antuono detailed how he disagreed with the Justice Department’s approach to the raid and described several abnormalities about the Department’s actions in pursuing its investigation of President Trump:
1. The Miami Field Office did not conduct the search. Mr. D’Antuono testified that FBI headquarters made the decision to assign the execution of the search warrant to the Washington Field Office (WFO) despite the location of the search occurring in the territory of the FBI’s Miami Field Office. Mr. D’Antuono stated that he had “absolutely no idea” why this decision was made and questioned why the Miami Field Office was not taking the lead on this matter. Mr. D’Antuono stated that the FBI “learned a lot of stuff from [the] Crossfire Hurricane” investigation—notably “that the [FBI] Headquarters does not work the investigation, it is supposed to be the field offices working the investigations.” Mr. D’Antuono indicated that his “concern is that [the] DOJ was not following the same principles . . . .” In fact, as recently as May 2023, in response to the report of Special Counsel Durham, the FBI asserted that “investigations should be run out of the Field” and not from Washington, D.C.
2. The Department did not assign a U.S. Attorney’s Office to the matter. According to Mr. D’Antuono, it was unusual to not have a U.S. Attorney assigned to an investigative matter, especially a matter of this magnitude. He explained that he “didn’t understand why there wasn’t a US Attorney assigned” and “raised this concern a lot with” Department officials because this was out of the ordinary. Mr. D’Antuono indicated that he “never got a good answer” and was told that the National Security Division would be handling this matter—with Jay Bratt, who leads the Department’s counterintelligence division, as “the lead prosecutor on the case.” Mr. Bratt is the same Department lawyer who allegedly improperly pressured a lawyer representing an employee of President Trump. Mr. D’Antuono again noted his concern regarding lessons learned from Crossfire Hurricane, that the Justice Department was not following the principle that “Headquarters does not work the investigation . . . .”
3. The FBI did not first seek consent to effectuate the search. Mr. D’Antuono recounted a meeting between FBI and Department officials during which the Department assertively pushed for the FBI to promptly execute the search warrant. Based upon his over-20-year tenure at the FBI, Mr. D’Antuono testified that he believed that the FBI, prior to resorting to a search warrant, should have sought consent to search the premises. He testified that this outcome would have been “the best thing for all parties” involved—“[f]or the FBI, for former President Trump, and for the country . . . .” Mr. D’Antuono indicated a belief that either you or Director Christopher Wray made the decision to seek a search warrant, despite opposition from the line agents working this case in the WFO. Following that meeting, Mr. D’Antuono described how Justice Department counterintelligence official George Toscas—who also reportedly worked on the “Crossfire Hurricane and Clinton email investigations”—told him that FBI agents were ready to execute the warrant. Mr. D’Antuono pushed back on the Department for trying to unilaterally allocate FBI resources.
4. The FBI refused to wait for President Trump’s attorney to be present before executing the search. Mr. D’Antuono testified that the FBI sought to exclude President Trump’s attorney from the search, a move with which Mr. D’Antuono disagreed. Mr. D’Antuono believed that the FBI should have worked with the attorney to get consent to search the residence prior to seeking a warrant for the search. Mr. D’Antuono believes that “there was a good likelihood that [they] could have gotten consent…”
In a series of requests, the Judiciary Committee has now demanded documents pertaining to the FBI’s raid on Trump’s home, which the Department has previously declined to provide. Jordan’s committee has renewed their request for the DOJ to submit all documents related to meetings between FBI and Justice Department officials prior to the raid, and all communications regarding the execution of the search warrant.
The deadline for the DOJ to respond to the committee’s request is 5:00 p.m. on June 16, 2023.
The Committee on the Judiciary is responsible for overseeing the activities of the DOJ and the FBI according to Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. As of now, no official response has been received from Attorney General Garland’s office.
🚨 #BREAKING: @Jim_Jordan reveals new information on Trump raid and events surrounding indictment.
Link: https://t.co/lKoX5u6wWO pic.twitter.com/AsyzvvKGHx
— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) June 9, 2023
Credit: Source link
