Jim Jordan Flusters Merrick Garland With Relentless Grilling On Jack Smith’s Appoinment
On Tuesday, Attorney General Merrick Garland faced a tough crowd as he testified before the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee. The atmosphere was charged, with Republican lawmakers not holding back their questioning during the committee’s oversight hearing.
The session comes on the heels of a significant move by a pair of Republican-led House committees. They recently voted to push forward contempt proceedings against Garland, sparked by his refusal to release audio recordings of President Joe Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur.
Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) made headlines when he pressed Garland about his decision to appoint Jack Smith as special counsel in former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case, particularly given Smith’s past roles. “There are probably other people who you would describe as independent, longtime career prosecutors. Why did you pick this? asked Jordan. “And probably the most high profile special counsel investigation, maybe in American history, you’re going to be investigating a former president, a candidate for president and leading in all the polls, and you pick Jack Smith?”
“All the people you just mentioned were political, would be political appointees,” Garland said, defending his choice. “I appointed somebody who was not a political appointee, somebody who was independent, nonpartisan, with a record of career experience as a prosecutor. That seemed to me the perfect resume for making that kind of decision.”
However, Jordan was not satisfied and delved deeper, questioning the impartiality of Smith’s past prosecutions and bringing up his interactions with key figures involved in past IRS controversies. “Did the fact that he was interested in going after the very people who were targeted by the IRS about a decade ago, did that have any influence on your selection?” Jordan asked, presenting an email excerpt that suggested a keen interest from Smith in prosecuting cases related to nonprofit misuse for evading campaign finance laws.
Despite Jordan’s persistent questions, Garland affirmed his choice, denying any regrets about appointing Smith. He claimed that he was unaware of the specific concerns raised by Jordan prior to the appointment and dismissed the accusation of evidence tampering as a mischaracterization.
Smith’s appointment as special counsel by Attorney General Garland signaled a pivotal moment in the ongoing investigations that touched on former President Donald Trump. Before taking on this role, Smith had a career both as a war crimes prosecutor at The Hague and as a leader in the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice. His background was particularly relevant given the complexities and high stakes of the investigations he’s tasked with—one involving the potential mishandling of classified documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence, and another connected to the events surrounding January 6th.
At the time, the move by Garland was widely seen as an effort to shield the Department of Justice from accusations of partisanship. Smith’s role as special counsel was intended to grant him a degree of autonomy from the Justice Department, enabling a more investigative process.
In May, drama in Congress escalated when the House Judiciary and Oversight committees passed a report recommending a contempt of Congress resolution against Garland. The recommendation came after Garland failed to comply with a congressional subpoena, setting the stage for a full House vote on whether to officially hold him in contempt. Garland affirmed the department’s commitment “to uphold the rule of law” and declared that neither he nor the department would be “intimidated” by what he described as “unprecedented” attacks against the DOJ.
