Jordan launches probe into Smith deputy on Jan. 6 case

House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is launching an investigation into special counsel Jack Smith’s deputy on the Jan. 6 prosecution, asking the Justice Department (DOJ) to turn over all its files related to any internal review of J.P. Cooney.

The letter to the DOJ is yet another escalation of Jordan’s probes into those investigating former President Trump and comes the day after the powerful chair demanded information from the daughter of the New York judge who oversaw Trump’s hush money case.

The request to the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), obtained by The Hill, mirrors a similar effort requesting information from the office on the lead prosecutor on the Mar-a-Lago prosecution.

A spokesperson for Smith declined to comment.

The launch of a new investigative angle from Jordan comes after the Justice Department’s office of inspector general released a report reviewing the sentencing of Trump ally Roger Stone after a whistleblower alleged potential improper political influence in reining back their suggested sentence. Stone was later pardoned by Trump.

Cooney, then the fraud and public corruption section (FPC) chief, was among those involved in prosecuting Stone, who was convicted of obstructing a congressional investigation into Trump, as well as making false statements and witness tampering. 

The watchdog’s report primarily focused on former Attorney General Bill Barr, concluding that there had been no improper political pressure on prosecutors, even after an internal dispute over how aggressive they should be in Stone’s sentencing recommendation.

But Cooney and other prosecutors also feature in the review, with the report stressing their concerns about politicization were “not unreasonable,” even as it determines Cooney’s sharing of those feelings with subordinates was “not well considered.”

Jordan zeroes in on Cooney’s conversations with prosecutors on the case, accusing him of offering an “unsubstantiated conspiracy theory” about quibbling over the sentencing.

“It is imperative that the Department operates with a high level of professionalism and integrity in all its prosecutions. The role of a prosecutor is to seek justice, not to advance unsupported and politically motivated conspiracy theories,” Jordan wrote.

According to the report, the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia was already engaged in “extensive discussions” about Stone’s sentence when interim U.S. attorney Timothy Shea engaged Barr in a conversation about the matter, and they determined that a sentence below the federal guidelines range would be appropriate.

However, Shea later authorized the filing of the prosecutors’ memo recommending a sentence “consistent with” the guidelines range. The DOJ inspector general investigation produced evidence that when Barr learned the memo was inconsistent with what he and Shea previously discussed, he “immediately” suggested it needed to be “fixed” — hours before Trump blasted the original recommendation as “very horrible and unfair” on social media.

Prosecutors use a complex formula for determining what sentence to recommend to the court, one that takes into account a number of factors about the defendant and the crimes committed.

While the report cleared Barr of wrongdoing, it likewise found that the whistleblower who ignited the investigation “was not unreasonable” for believing they had been pressured to revise the sentencing memo for political reasons.

The whistleblower, Aaron Zelinsky, had discussed his concerns with Cooney, who appeared to share them.

“Based on his experience in other matters, Stone’s relationship with then President Trump, and the recent appointment of Shea, who the FPC Chief understood by reputation to be ‘a good friend of the Attorney General,’ the FPC Chief believed ‘that this was not going to be an internal U.S. Attorney’s Office decision,’ and he worried about political motivations affecting the ultimate sentencing recommendation,” the report states, referring to Cooney by an abbreviation for his then job title.

Cooney’s attorney took issue with the report, noting it could chill internal discussions over whether there was any impropriety from DOJ leaders.

“The FPC Chief’s counsel stated that the FPC Chief’s statements were not entirely speculative but instead were informed by his experience as a prosecutor in public corruption cases, his role as ‘guardian’ of the Fraud and Public Corruption Section’s sentencing policy, and the circumstances of Stone’s relationship to the President and Barr’s appointment of Shea as Interim U.S. Attorney. The FPC Chief’s counsel also stated that our conclusion about the FPC Chief’s speculative statements would inappropriately chill future Department discussions and expressions of concern about the improper politicization of sensitive cases,” the report stated.

The report then reiterates, “we do not find that these concerns were unreasonable given the information known to them at the time.”

Cooney, a career prosecutor, has worked on a number of high-profile cases in addition to those of Trump and Stone, including the 2015 prosecution of Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.).

Jordan’s letter asks for a briefing from the OPR in addition to documents.

“In light of serious allegations of professional misconduct levied against another one of Mr. Smith’s team of attorneys, we again write to ask what steps the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is taking to examine these facts and uphold the Department’s commitment to fair and impartial justice,” Jordan wrote.