CaliToday (26/11/2025): The battle over the legal warfare waged against Donald Trump has reached a boiling point. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan has officially referred Thomas Windom, a former senior aide to Special Counsel Jack Smith, to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.
In a letter sent directly to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Jordan accused Windom of engaging in a calculated campaign to "sabotage" Congress’s constitutional oversight duties regarding the 2020 election interference probe.
1. The Charge: "Deliberate Stonewalling"
This referral marks Jordan’s most aggressive move yet to hold the previous administration's legal apparatus accountable.
The conflict stems from a deposition following a September 30 subpoena. According to Jordan, Windom’s behavior during the interview went beyond standard legal caution and entered the realm of criminal obstruction.
"Congress cannot perform its oversight function if witnesses deliberately refuse to provide information required by law," Jordan wrote in the referral.
Jordan contends that Windom, unlike other witnesses, refused to answer fundamental questions despite having the necessary clearance to do so.
2. The Silent Witness
Transcripts from the deposition reveal a tense standoff. Windom reportedly refused to answer key questions regarding:
Collusion with the Jan 6 Committee: Potential back-channel communications between Jack Smith’s office and the now-defunct House Select Committee.
Surveillance of Congress: The controversial seizure of Rep. Scott Perry’s phone records.
Targeting Lawmakers: Whether the Special Counsel’s office opened investigations into other sitting members of Congress.
While Windom repeatedly hid behind claims that "the DOJ has not authorized me to answer," Jordan’s office pointed out a glaring inconsistency: JP Cooney, another prosecutor in a similar position, answered many of the same questions without issue.
3. "I Refuse to Answer"
The obstruction, according to the committee, reached absurd levels. Windom reportedly invoked the Fifth Amendment and Grand Jury secrecy rules to avoid answering questions that had nothing to do with sensitive case files.
In one stunning exchange, Windom refused to answer basic biographical questions, such as:
Where he is currently employed.
Whether he is still a practicing attorney.
His standard response throughout the grilling was: "I refuse to answer for the reasons stated by my counsel."
4. The "Catch-22" Defense
Windom’s legal team has argued that their client was placed in an "impossible dilemma"—caught between DOJ confidentiality rules and a Congressional subpoena.
Jordan has flatly rejected this defense. He argues that the Department of Justice had already waived privilege on many of the topics raised, meaning Windom’s silence was a personal choice to protect the inner workings of Jack Smith’s operation, rather than a legal necessity.
5. The Bigger Picture: Hunting Jack Smith
This criminal referral is the opening salvo in a wider war. The Judiciary Committee is systematically dismantling the investigation led by Jack Smith, operating on the theory that the Special Counsel’s office coordinated politically to damage Donald Trump before the election.
Jordan has made it clear that Windom is just the first domino. The Chairman has already demanded that Jack Smith himself testify before Congress.
With a new administration in the White House and Pam Bondi leading the DOJ, this referral carries weight that it would not have had under Merrick Garland. It signals that the era of "unchecked prosecutorial power" is over, and the investigation into the investigators has truly begun.
Source: New York Post / Congressional Records
CaliToday.Net