Key Jack Smith Prosecutor UNDER FIRE from Congress

A key Jack Smith prosecutor called Jay Bratt is under fire from Congress after Rep. Jim Jordan demanded he appear for an interview and answer questions related to his political prosecution of President Trump in the classified documents case.


In this report:

The latest development in the ongoing saga involving former President Donald Trump has brought a key figure in the investigation, prosecutor Jay Bratt, into the spotlight. Jay Bratt, part of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team, is facing intense scrutiny from Congress over allegations of improper actions and unethical conduct.

Controversial Actions and Ethical Concerns

Concerns about Jay Bratt’s actions have been raised by several parties, most notably by Steven D’Antuono, former Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office. D’Antuono has highlighted several unusual aspects of the investigation into Trump’s handling of classified documents. One significant issue is why the Miami field office, which had jurisdiction over the location, did not conduct the search of Trump’s home. Instead, the DC field office handled it, raising questions about the decision-making process.

D’Antuono’s concerns also extend to the handling of the search itself. The search started as a voluntary request, escalated to a subpoena threat, and finally culminated in an actual subpoena. This sequence of events has led to speculation about the motivations behind the investigation.

Unprecedented Raid and Its Implications

The raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence on August 8th marked an unprecedented move, never before seen in the history of former presidents or vice presidents. Despite previous instances where other high-ranking officials, including Joe Biden, retained classified documents after leaving office, none faced a similar search.

The Judiciary Committee’s investigation revealed that the raid departed from standard practices. The FBI did not seek Trump’s consent for the search and proceeded without waiting for his attorney to be present, treating the former president in a manner more akin to a common criminal.

Congressional Oversight and Jay Bratt’s Role

Jim Jordan, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has taken a firm stance, demanding accountability from Jay Bratt. Jordan’s letter to Bratt outlines the committee’s right to conduct oversight and expresses deep concerns over the prosecutorial conduct observed. Specifically, Bratt’s direct involvement in the case, rather than assigning a US attorney, has raised eyebrows.

Jordan’s letter emphasizes that Bratt’s actions and decisions need thorough examination, especially in light of allegations that Bratt improperly pressured defense attorney Stanley Woodward. Woodward, representing Walt Nauta, claimed that Bratt threatened his potential judgeship unless he convinced his client to flip on Trump. This accusation, if true, represents a severe breach of legal ethics.

Improper Coordination and Allegations of Bias

Adding fuel to the fire are reports of Bratt’s meetings with Biden White House officials before Trump’s indictment. These meetings, occurring in September and November 2021 and again in March 2023, suggest a possible improper coordination between Bratt and the Biden administration. The timing and frequency of these meetings have led to allegations of bias and questions about the impartiality of the investigation.

Further compounding the issue, Bratt is accused of manipulating evidence in the classified documents case. In a May 3rd court filing, Bratt admitted that some evidence was altered or manipulated after being seized by the FBI. This admission has sparked outrage and calls for an investigation into the handling of the evidence.

Calls for Accountability

The Judiciary Committee’s letter to Bratt demands comprehensive documentation and communication records related to the raid on Trump’s residence, meetings with White House officials, and interactions with defense attorneys. The committee has requested Bratt to make himself available for a transcribed interview to address these concerns directly.

This move by Congress represents a significant step in holding those in power accountable. By focusing on Bratt individually, rather than the broader Department of Justice or Special Counsel Jack Smith, the committee aims to get to the heart of the alleged misconduct.

The Road Ahead

As the investigation progresses, the spotlight on Jay Bratt will continue to intensify. The Judiciary Committee’s pursuit of transparency and accountability is crucial in ensuring that justice is served impartially. The coming weeks will be critical in determining the outcome of these allegations and their impact on the broader investigation into Donald Trump.


Jim Jordan Letter RE Florida Interview Prosecutor by Robert Gouveia on Scribd

Join my Locals community for exclusive content at!

Get my Daily Mind Map and Show Notes

Where should I send them?
In case you missed it:

Prefer To Listen?

Check Out the Audio-Only Podcast
Follow Robert on Social Media
Follow Robert on Social Media

Get my Daily Mind Map and Show Notes

Where should I send them?