House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan has sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding documents, communications, and information related to the superseding indictment filed by special counsel Jack Smith against former President Donald Trump on August 27. Jordan’s letter also inquires whether Garland personally approved the indictment.
Jordan’s letter, obtained by the Daily Caller, highlights that on July 1, the Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding presidential immunity, which he claims set the limits of presidential immunity and criticized Special Counsel Jack Smith for allegedly violating this constitutional principle in his prosecution of Trump.
On August 27, Smith filed a superseding indictment, which Jordan argues was an attempt to address the constitutional flaws in the initial indictment. Jordan suggests that this action may have violated longstanding Department of Justice (DOJ) policies meant to protect democratic processes.
Jordan emphasized that the DOJ, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, has traditionally adhered to a “60-day rule” that discourages federal prosecutors from returning indictments against a candidate for office within 60 days of an election. Although not a formal rule, it is widely accepted as a critical measure to safeguard the electoral process.
Jordan also noted that some senior DOJ officials have suggested extending this period to 90 days to minimize any potential impact on elections.
The letter further states that the superseding indictment was filed just 10 days before early voting began in some states, which Jordan claims could impact the election, especially after the Supreme Court’s opinion raised questions about Smith’s ability to prosecute the initial indictment.
Given the timing of the indictment, Jordan argued that “it is therefore difficult to believe that the superseding indictment was filed now for any other purpose other than to affect the outcome of the election.”
Jordan outlined two possible scenarios: either Garland approved the superseding indictment, knowing it violated established DOJ policy, or Smith acted without Garland’s approval. “In other words, either you are personally weaponizing the Department of Justice against President Trump or Special Counsel Smith is continuing his unconstitutional prosecution against President Trump—but either does not reflect well upon you or your commitment to the rule of law in the United States,” Jordan wrote.
Jordan’s letter demands several pieces of information, including documents and communications between the DOJ and Smith’s office regarding the superseding indictment, clarification on whether Garland personally approved it, and whether Garland considered the DOJ’s policy against prosecutorial actions close to an election. Jordan has requested that all documents be provided to the committee no later than September 13.