Jim Jordan slaps AG Garland with subpoena over alleged DOJ surveillance of Congress

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan levied a subpoena against Attorney General Merrick Garland Tuesday over revelations federal prosecutors’ seized a congressional staffer’s email and phone records.

Last October, Google informed the former Chief Investigative Counsel for Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Ia.) that the DOJ had subpoenaed the internet conglomerate in 2017 for that staffer’s email and phone records.

When the subpoena was produced in 2017, Grassley had been the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and had been examining the DOJ’s conduct surrounding the Steele Dossier.

The Steele Dossier was a controversial and unverified opposition research document against former President Donald Trump compiled by a former British spy that circulated the intelligence community.

Upon the revelation of the 2017 subpoena, Jordan’s team concluded the DOJ “likely also sought” communications and other records from numerous congressional staffers across party lines.

He cited media reports to back up his accusations that the DOJ’s spying went beyond that former Grassley chief investigator.

“The committee also has concerns that aspects of the department’s investigation may have been a pretext to justify piercing the Legislative Branch’s deliberative process and improperly access data from members and staff involved in conducting oversight of the Department,” Jordan (R-Ohio) wrote in a letter to Garland.

Jordan is demanding information about the department’s apparent efforts to “surveil members of Congress and congressional staff.”

The Ohio Republican stressed that the DOJ may been obtaining records of staffers who were participating in its oversight.

Shortly after the October revelation, Republicans sent a letter to the DOJ demanding information about how it deploys “subpoenas to obtain private communications of Legislative Branch employees,” Jordan explained.

The DOJ then laid out a timeline and explained changes to its policies for investigations that revolve around congressional staff.

“If the Department’s representation is accurate, it indicates that the Executive Branch used
its immense law-enforcement authority to gather and search the private communications of
multiple Legislative Branch employees who were conducting Constitutional oversight of the
Department’s investigative actions—actions that were later found to be unlawful,” Jordan said.

But despite the department’s response, Jordan said that the DOJ “has not complied in full with our request.”

He teased that his panel may contemplate “legislative proposals to reform” to compel the DOJ to give “appropriate notice” when it engages in such action involving members of Congress or a staffer.

The Post contacted a DOJ spokesperson for comment.