Jim Jordan Slams DOJ Over Controversial Trump-Related Disclosure

Department of Justice building with American flag.

Jim Jordan strongly condemned the DOJ for making public an assassin’s chilling letter targeting former President Donald Trump—but what will be the fallout?

At a Glance

Jim Jordan criticized the DOJ for releasing Ryan Wesley Routh’s letter with a $150,000 bounty on Trump.
Jordan expressed concerns that the letter’s publication could inspire copycat crimes.
Former AG William Barr suggested the letter should have been redacted.
The House Judiciary Committee launches an investigation into the DOJ’s actions.

Jim Jordan Criticizes DOJ’s Handling of Assassin’s Letter

A significant controversy erupted as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan sharply criticized the Department of Justice for releasing a letter from Ryan Wesley Routh. Routh, who allegedly tried to assassinate former President Donald Trump, authored a letter offering a $150,000 bounty on Trump’s head. Jordan argued that making such a letter public might inspire similar heinous acts.

Jim Jordan sent an official letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, demanding an explanation and citing the DOJ’s usual stance of withholding such incendiary content. Jordan emphasized the need for the DOJ to reconsider its policies, suggesting that the decision risks endangering public safety.

The DOJ disclosed Routh’s note as part of a public court filing related to a motion to keep Routh in pretrial detention. This note, addressed “To the World,” urged others to “finish the job” and mentioned Routh’s attempt to end Trump’s life. Moreover, the note claimed Routh had placed it in a box at an acquaintance’s home several weeks before his arrest. Such a public release of this letter was met with stern opposition.

Concerns Over Inspiring Further Attacks

Jim Jordan voiced grave concerns that making this letter public could inspire copycat attacks, putting further lives at risk. The Judiciary Committee shared similar worries, pointing out that the DOJ has mostly avoided releasing details of manifestos associated with high-profile crimes. The sudden transparency in this situation appears contradictory to their stated policies.

Former Attorney General William Barr also criticized the DOJ’s actions, suggesting a redaction of sensitive details should have been considered to prevent encouraging other potential assailants. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene took it a step further, accusing the DOJ of essentially putting a bounty on Trump’s head through this publication.

“The Department’s decision to broadcast the attempted assassin’s bounty on President Trump—at the same time that the Department is aggressively and unconstitutionally prosecuting President Trump raises significant concern that the Department could cause additional harm to occur,” Jordan wrote.

Jim Jordan took further steps to press the DOJ on their reasoning. He demanded all relevant communications and documents about the decision. This is part of the Committee’s broader probe into whether political bias affects DOJ actions, especially concerning high-profile individuals like Trump.

Protests and Legal Actions

Routh was apprehended at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, armed with a loaded SKS-style rifle. While Routh did not fire at Secret Service agents, he was quickly subdued and taken into custody following a brief chase. Prosecutors initially charged Routh with illegal gun possession and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number.

The indictment of Routh encompassed charges including attempted assassination of a political figure, assaulting a federal officer, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The case now sits under the oversight of Judge Aileen Cannon, who Trump appointed, adding another layer of complexity to the proceedings.

Attorney General Garland has pledged to thoroughly investigate the matter and ensure accountability. His administration noted the nation has experienced two assassination attempts against Trump within a span of three months, emphasizing the gravity of the situation. Trump’s criticism of the DOJ, accusing it of giving Routh “a slap on the wrist,” further heightens the tensions surrounding this issue.

This controversy demonstrates the precarious balancing act of transparency and security, particularly concerning high-profile targets like former President Trump. Jordan and the House Republicans’ investigation into the DOJ’s decision illuminates broader issues of political bias and potentially compromised safety protocols.

The ongoing developments will undoubtedly shape the future handling of sensitive information within the justice system, highlighting the essential need for prudence and responsibility in protecting national figures and public safety.