House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan has raised serious concerns about the recent superseding indictment against former President Donald Trump, and on Friday, Jordan sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding documentation, communication records, and information regarding the indictment.

The indictment, filed by special counsel Jack Smith on August 27, has sparked controversy, particularly about whether Garland approved the action personally, and Jordan's letter argues that the indictment violates longstanding Department of Justice (DOJ) policies aimed at protecting the integrity of the electoral process, as the Post Millennial reports.

The indictment comes amid ongoing legal battles involving Trump, and its timing has raised questions. Jordan's concerns center on an unwritten rule often followed by federal prosecutors known as the "60-day rule."

This guideline suggests that indictments should not be brought within 60 days of an election to avoid influencing the electoral outcome. However, Jordan alleges that this policy may have been disregarded.

Supreme Court Rebuke and Timing of Indictment

Adding to the complexity, the Supreme Court recently issued an opinion on July 1 regarding presidential immunity, which Jordan interprets as a rebuke to Smith's initial indictment of Trump. Jordan claims that the timing of the superseding indictment, just ten days before early voting began in some states, is highly suspect. He questions whether the indictment was filed to fix constitutional defects in the initial charges, thereby violating the DOJ’s longstanding policies.

Jordan's letter highlights that, traditionally, federal prosecutors have avoided taking actions that might sway the outcome of elections, with some officials like Sally Yates and Loretta Lynch advocating for an even longer 90-day buffer before elections.

Concerns Over DOJ Policy Adherence

In his letter, Jordan expressed concern that the superseding indictment may have been filed with the intent of affecting the election. He pointed out that the timing of this legal action, following the Supreme Court’s opinion on presidential immunity, could be seen as an attempt to circumvent legal challenges and bolster the prosecution's case against Trump.

Jordan outlined two potential scenarios: either Garland approved the indictment, fully aware that it violated DOJ policy, or Smith acted independently without Garland's authorization. Either possibility, according to Jordan, raises significant questions about the impartiality of the DOJ and its commitment to upholding the rule of law.

Call for Transparency from the DOJ

The letter requested that Garland provide the House Judiciary Committee with all documents, communications, and information exchanged between the Department of Justice and Smith’s office related to the indictment. Jordan set a deadline of September 13 for the DOJ to comply with this request, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in the matter.

Jordan also underscored the importance of the '60-day rule,' describing it as critical to protecting the integrity of the electoral process. He argued that the wide acceptance of this rule reflects the DOJ's commitment to ensuring that legal actions do not unduly influence elections.

Potential Impact on 2024 Election

The timing of the indictment has led Jordan to speculate that it was filed with the primary purpose of impacting the upcoming 2024 presidential election.

He noted that the indictment’s proximity to the start of early voting in several states increases the likelihood that it will influence voters' perceptions and, ultimately, the election's outcome.

Jordan's letter emphasized that such an indictment so close to an election could be perceived as an attempt to interfere with the democratic process. He argued that this move undermines public confidence in the impartiality of the DOJ and its adherence to the principles of justice.

Jordan's Allegations Against the DOJ

In his letter, Jordan did not mince words, accusing Garland of potentially weaponizing the DOJ against Trump. He stated that if Garland did approve the indictment, it would reflect poorly on his commitment to upholding the rule of law. On the other hand, if Smith acted without Garland’s approval, it would suggest a breakdown in the oversight of special counsels.

Jordan's allegations have added fuel to the ongoing debate over the politicization of the DOJ and the potential consequences of legal actions taken against political figures during election seasons.

Conclusion: Jordan Seeks DOJ Accountability

Jim Jordan's inquiry into the DOJ's handling of the Trump indictment raises significant questions about the timing and motivation behind the legal action.

His demand for transparency and accountability from Attorney General Merrick Garland reflects concerns about the potential impact of the indictment on the 2024 presidential election.

As the September 13 deadline approaches, all eyes will be on the DOJ's response and the broader implications for the rule of law and the integrity of the electoral process.