Mar-a-Lago special prosecutor takes the fifth at ‘weaponized' House committee
The former special counsel prosecutor Jay Bratt asserted his fifth amendment right not to answer questions during a Wednesday deposition before a Republican-led House committee looking for evidence of politicization in the prosecutions of Donald Trump, a spokesman said.
Bratt, who led the federal criminal case over Donald Trump's alleged mishandling of classified documents as a top deputy to the former special counsel Jack Smith, was invited to testify by the House judiciary committee, which is chaired by the Ohio Republican Jim Jordan, a prominent defender of the president.
'This administration and its proxies have made no effort to hide their willingness to weaponize the machinery of government against those they perceive as political enemies. That should alarm every American who believes in the rule of law,' said Peter Carr, a spokesman for Justice Connection, a network of former justice department staff working to protect our former colleagues and the rule of law.
'In light of these undeniable and deeply troubling circumstances, Mr Bratt had no choice but to invoke his fifth amendment rights.'
The appearance by Bratt, who declined to comment, was the first known instance of a special counsel prosecutor being hauled before the judiciary committee since Trump took office vowing revenge and personally directing the firings of more than a dozen prosecutors who worked for Smith within days of his inauguration.
Republicans on the judiciary committee have long believed that the special counsel cases stemmed from political animus against Trump at the justice department. Jordan declined to comment, as did a spokesman for the committee.
Smith charged Trump in two cases: in Florida, for mishandling classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago club and defying a subpoena commanding their return; and in Washington, for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Justice department policy does not allow the prosecution of sitting presidents, and Smith dropped both indictments after Trump won re-election last November.
The federal judge Aileen Cannon had in July of last year dismissed the classified documents case, after ruling that Smith had been unlawfully appointed because he was acting at the justice department with the powers of a 'principal officer', which requires confirmation by the Senate. Smith filed an appeal of the decision, which was unresolved at the time of Trump's election victory in November.
Top justice department officials have made clear that they plan to investigate prosecutors who brought charges against Trump during his four years out of office. Two years ago, after Trump was indicted in Georgia on charges related to tampering with its 2020 election result, the now-attorney general, Pam Bondi, said that justice department prosecutors 'will be prosecuted, the bad ones. The investigators will be investigated.'
Trump recently appointed Ed Martin, who temporarily served as the top federal prosecutor in Washington DC, to lead the department's weaponization working group, which has been tasked with investigating Smith as well as the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, and the Atlanta-area prosecutor Fani Willis, both of whom indicted Trump on state charges.
'There are some really bad actors, some people that did some really bad things to the American people. And if they can be charged, we'll charge them. But if they can't be charged, we will name them … And in a culture that respects shame, they should be people … that are shamed,' Martin said at a Tuesday press conference.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
33 minutes ago
- The Independent
Middle East situation ‘perilous', says Lammy amid calls for more talks
The situation in the Middle East is 'perilous', the Foreign Secretary said as he urged Iran to negotiate with the US. David Lammy flew from Washington to Geneva on Friday to meet Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi alongside his French and German counterparts as the UK continued to press for a diplomatic solution to the Middle East crisis. The talks followed US President Donald Trump's announcement that he would delay a decision on joining Israeli strikes against Iran for up to two weeks. Speaking after the meeting, Mr Lammy told reporters: 'It is still clear to me, as President Trump indicated yesterday, that there is a window of within two weeks where we can see a diplomatic solution.' Urging Iran to 'take that off ramp' and talk to the Americans, he said: 'We have a window of time. This is perilous and deadly serious.' He added that the US and Europe were pushing for Iran to agree to zero enrichment of uranium as a 'starting point' for negotiations. But Mr Araghchi said Iran would not negotiate with the US as long as Israel continued to carry out airstrikes against the country, and insisted his country's nuclear programme was entirely peaceful. Both sides continued to exchange fire on Friday, with Iranian missiles targeting the city of Haifa while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tel Aviv's military operation would continue 'for as long as it takes'. Meanwhile, the UK Government has announced it will use charter flights to evacuate Britons stranded in Israel once the country's airspace reopens. Mr Lammy said work is under way to provide the flights 'based on levels of demand' from UK citizens who want to leave the region. The move follows criticism of the Foreign Office's initial response, which saw family members of embassy staff evacuated while UK citizens were not advised to leave and told to follow local guidance. The Government said the move to temporarily withdraw family members had been a 'precautionary measure'. On Friday, the Foreign Office announced that UK staff had also been evacuated from Iran, with the embassy continuing to operate remotely. But the Government continues to advise British nationals in the region to follow local advice, rather than urging them to leave. The US evacuated 79 staff and families from the embassy in Israel on Friday local time, according to the Associated Press. Mr Trump told reporters his national intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard was 'wrong' when she told lawmakers in March that US intelligence officials did not believe Iran had been building a nuclear weapon. The president also suggested it would be 'very hard to stop' Israeli strikes on Iran to negotiate a ceasefire.
Daily Mail
35 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Tragic video 20-year-old Texas woman sent boyfriend shortly before going missing on jet ski
A woman sent a heartbreaking video to her boyfriend before she went missing from a Texas lake. Ashley Gil, 20, was pulled from the waters of Lake Houston on Thursday after she fell into the water while riding a jet ski with two others. She had sent a video of herself earlier that day riding the recreational watercraft while wearing a life jacket to her boyfriend, Jason Campos Rodriquez. Tragically, cops said, when she fell in the water she was not wearing a life jacket. Speaking with ABC13, Rodriquez said: 'My motive here is understanding everything that happened. '[I] kind of right away, right away got a sense something's not right.' He claims a man fishing near Gil said the group she was with had no urgency to find her. Recalling what the man told him, he said: 'To be honest with you, they didn't even pay attention. 'They didn't even know when they lost her, where they lost her, they looked like they didn't even care.' Rodriquez told KHOU that Gil was 'careful and cautious', with her death leaving him puzzled. 'When you see someone that has so much potential, leave this world. This is just sad in and of itself, and it's hard to you know accept that she's not here anymore', he said. He had been out of town for work when he received the horrifying news about her disappearance and death. The recovery of her body was confirmed by the Office of Commissioner Rodney Ellis on Thursday. A statement said: 'I am deeply saddened to learn that the young woman who went missing on Lake Houston hear Alexander Deussen Park has been found deceased.' It continued: 'My heart goes out to her family, her loved ones, and everyone affected by this tragic loss.' Houston Police had said earlier this week that there were three people on the jet ski when Gil fell into the water and didn't come back up to the surface. They said that they don't believe she was wearing a life jacket at the time, despite the video sent to Rodriquez. Alexander Deussen Park was closed on Wednesday as search crews looked for Gil,it reopened on Thursday. Her family have since launched a fundraiser to help with funeral costs, it has raised over $6,500 as of Friday. In a post to the fundraiser, her family said: 'It is with heavy hearts that we share the tragic loss of my beloved sister, Ashley Gil, who passed away after a heartbreaking accident on the lake. 'Ashley fell from a jet ski and, despite all efforts, she did not survive. Ashley was a bright light in the lives of so many, full of love, laughter, and kindness. 'She had an incredible spirit that touched everyone around her. Her absence leaves a deep void in the hearts of our family, friends, and all who knew her.' It added: 'We are starting this GoFundMe to support our family, especially our mother, during this incredibly difficult time. 'The funds raised will help cover funeral expenses and any additional costs we may face as we grieve and begin to heal. 'If you are able to give, any amount—no matter how small—will mean the world to her loved ones. 'And if you aren't able to donate, please consider sharing this campaign and keeping Ashley's family in your thoughts and prayers.'
Telegraph
41 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump attack on Left-wing bias on TV sparks ‘constitutional crisis'
Elon Musk may have stepped aside, but Donald Trump still has a Doge problem. The US president's plan to run a scythe through up to $425bn (£316bn) of government spending could be gutted or even vetoed in the Senate, where just a few rebel Republicans could scupper the cuts. But Trump and Russell Vought, his budget tsar, have hatched a scheme, called a 'pocket rescission', that might keep the Doge (department of government efficiency) dream on track. And it could even shift the constitutional balance of power between president and Congress towards a testy Trump. It's a high-risk, high-stakes strategy. The outcome will determine whether the Doge spending reductions can go ahead, helping to pay for Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax cuts without blowing out the budget and rattling the bond markets. But the unprecedented procedure takes the White House and Capitol Hill into uncharted legal waters. So it is likely to end up in the courts – joining a raft of litigation that will either reinforce the institutional checks on the president's power or unleash him. 'It's a challenge to Congress,' says Sarah Binder, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution and George Washington University. 'I don't like to throw around the term 'constitutional crisis', but it's not a great position for lawmakers and institutions.' Under the constitution, Congress has the so-called power of the purse, meaning that lawmakers, not the president, are the final arbiter of what the government spends or does not spend. If the president wants to cut funding or programmes that Congress has already authorised, his only option is to launch a rescission procedure – a formal request for the cuts, which both houses of Congress must approve. The rescission process was introduced in a law called the Impoundment Control Act, which had the overall aim of making it hard for Richard Nixon, the then-president, and his successors from delaying or withholding funds once Congress had green-lighted them. Rescission has seldom been used. Ronald Reagan used it to secure $15.2bn of spending cuts as president in the early 1980s, but later in the decade, Congress tended to ignore or refuse his rescission messages. Trump tried it on with a $15bn-plus request in his first term, but was stymied in the Senate. The Democrats then got control of Congress in the midterms and pushed back another $27bn salvo. Now Trump is trying again. The initial proposal – Vought says it will be 'the first of many' – is to scuttle $9.4bn of spending on public broadcasters and international aid programmes. This rescission was flagged back in March but formally put to Congress only this month. In an executive order early last month, Trump said he wanted to terminate all public funding of National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which accounts for about $1bn of this first rescission package. 'Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to tax-paying citizens,' Trump said. 'Today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.' The White House has until July 18 to persuade Congress. The rescission scraped through the House of Representatives by 214 votes to 212, but the Senate is the real test. If just four Republicans in the 100-seat upper house swap sides, the spending stays in place. It's not looking promising for Trump. Several Republicans have already voiced concern about at least some of the cuts. The dissenters include Senator Susan Collins, who chairs an influential Senate finance committee that will consider the cuts at a session on June 25. There could be fireworks. Vought will appear before the committee and, in recent weeks, he has started airing the possibility of bypassing Congress altogether through an untested and almost unknown variant of rescission: the so-called pocket rescission. 'It's a provision that has been rarely used, but it is there,' Vought told CNN. 'And we intend to use all of these tools.' The trick with the pocket rescission is to make the request to Congress right before the end of the fiscal year, which runs to Sept 30. The White House reckons that the Impoundment Control Act's wording creates a loophole: if Congress does not act on the request before Sept 30, then even if the window is well short of 45 days the spending approval will lapse automatically on that date. The case for pocket rescissions was made recently by Wade Miller, of the Center for Renewing America (CRA), a Right-wing think tank. 'A rescission is a viable tool for carrying out the broader political mandate to curb unnecessary spending,' he wrote in a briefing paper. 'If the executive branch decides to use this process, the deployment of a rescission with fewer than 45 days remaining in the fiscal year is a statutorily and constitutionally valid strategy.' The CRA was set up by Vought himself, after he served as director of the Office of Management and Budget in the final six months of Trump's first term. He returned to the White House with the president this January, in the same role. But other Washington think tanks trenchantly oppose the CRA's position. 'Calling it a pocket rescission implies that it's like an actual functional tool under the law, in a way that it's actually not. It is a strategy that the person who is running the Office of Management and Budget has articulated to evade the law,' says Cerin Lindgrensavage, a lawyer at Protect Democracy. She says the whole purpose of the Impoundment Control Act was to stop any presidential ploy to skirt its strictures. 'One of the reasons why they might want to do this is because they're afraid they don't have the votes to actually make the cuts the legal way.' Binder, from Brookings, says that the Act doesn't explicitly deal with what happens if a president makes the request right before the end of the fiscal year. 'There's certainly room here for an aggressive Office of Management and Budget and an aggressive administration to try to stretch – others might say manipulate – the silence in the budget law,' she says. 'But the logic of the matter suggests that pocket rescissions are not legal under the Act and I would imagine there's a strong argument that they are unconstitutional under Congress's power of the purse.' Binder suspects Vought is looking to get a test case into the courts. Given there could be a constitutional principle at stake, it could go all the way to the Supreme Court, where a majority of judges are Republican appointees. In the meantime, litigants could get restraining orders or injunctions to prevent the Doge cuts. But they can't necessarily get the White House to respect these. The stage is set for a constitutional showdown. The question is whether Trump and Vought will really pull the trigger. And then, whether the weapon will actually work.
