Special Counsel Jack Smith is currently being thoroughly examined with a fine tooth comb by the House Judiciary Committee, who has raised questions about Smith for quite some time now.
The committee alleges that inappropriate tactics have been used by both Smith and his team to secure a conviction against the former president.
Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan, who leads the Judiciary Committee, recently issued a letter to Smith demanding evidence related to allegations by one of his senior prosecutors “allegedly improperly pressured Stanley Woodward, a lawyer representing a defendant indicted by you.”
The accusations stem from an incident in which Jay Bratt met with Woodward—the lawyer representing Walt Nauta, one of the defendants in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case.
It was allegedly implied that cooperation with Smith’s team would result in more favorable treatment from the incoming Biden administration when it came time for Woodward to be considered as a candidate for judgeship.
According to Jordan’s letter, after Woodward declined to cooperate, Bratt further attempted to induce Nauta into cooperating by filing motions calling into question conflicts of interest within Mr. Woodward’s representation of other witnesses potentially called in trial concerning Mar-a-Lago documents.
It remains unclear how this will impact Trump’s case going forward however, what is certain is that if these allegations are true then there could be serious implications concerning any testimony given by those involved.
Furthermore, if such tactics were used it could cast doubt on credibility regarding not only jurors but voters as well since this trial is taking place in Florida—Trump territory.
Does this recent news suggest more sinister motives behind special counsel Jack Smith’s pursuit?
Is justice being served fairly or are underhanded pressure tactics being used instead?
