Prosecutor in Trump documents case takes Fifth Amendment
A prosecutor taking the Fifth? (Not the stuff in bottles).
Jay Bratt was a key prosecutor on Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team, who charged President Trump with illegal possession of government documents. At the time, there was a lot of controversy over whether the case was meritorious or a political witch hunt. Bratt resigned from the Department of Justice (DOJ) in January of 2025 — shortly before Trump assumed office.
One of the issues is whether Smith had been illegally appointed – as Trump lawyers contended and what Florida U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon determined when she dismissed the case. There are also questions as to whether Smith’s team abused his authority in pursuing the case — and why they did not pursue the case against President Biden for illegally possessing top secret government documents in his garage in Delaware. (Oh yeah! The prosecutor in that case declared Biden to be too old and mentally unfit to stand trial.)
These are all fair questions, no matter what one thinks of Trump or even his culpability in the documents case. At the time, I opined that the documents case was the strongest of the various court cases involving Trump.
In an attempt to clear up some of those question Bratt was subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee. He would be in a good position to explain the motivation and the actions taken during that investigation. His testimony could clear the DOJ of any prosecutorial abuse or wrongdoing.
But Bratt has decided not to tell what he knows. His lawyers have advised the Committee that Bratt will plead the Fifth Amendment – exercising his constitutional right against self-incrimination.
He is admitting that what he may be forced to say under oath MAY incriminate him. He still has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but he is literally saying that he could be subjected to criminal prosecution. His testimony may be self-incriminating in his and his lawyer’s opinions. And who would know better if what Bratt knows is potentially incriminating than Bratt himself? He is the expert on the subject.
In an effort to justify his reliance on the Fifth Amendment, Bratt and his attorneys have come up with some very creative reasons. Essentially, Bratt fears that the Trump administration is willing to “weaponize the machinery of government against perceived adversaries”, according to a spokesperson.
Peter Carr of Justice Connection – a group composed of anti-Trump DOJ alums founded in January of 2025 — said:
“This administration and its proxies have made no effort to hide their willingness to weaponize the machinery of government against those they perceive as political enemies.” That should alarm every American who believes in the rule of law. In light of these undeniable and deeply troubling circumstances, Mr. Bratt had no choice but to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights.”
Even if the Trump folks are out to get Bratt, he must be worried that there is something to get. And contrary to Carr’s statement, Bratt did have a choice. He could have testified truthfully. Oh! That is the problem.
Drawing on my own long memory, I could not come up with any other time a prosecutor has taken the Fifth Amendment involving a case where they served as a lead prosecutor. And neither could Google nor AI.
Putting aside the feeble excuse, this is – or should be – a major story. But like anything that could be seen as beneficial to Trump, it is ignored (censored?) by the left-leaning media. But I cannot help but wonder what REALLY caused Bratt to take the Fifth. What does he know that he does not want to tell? Hmmm?
So, there ‘tis.
So, there ‘tis the law and how do you like it?
Turnabout is fair play.
How many times has Trump pled the fifth? Close to 450 times in less than 4 hours in the NY business fraud case where convicted on multiple felonies. Fifteen times in one ten minute tirade. Eric tried it 500 times during his last deposition. During divorce proceedings with Ivana Trump: Trump reportedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right nearly 100 times during his divorce proceedings against Ivana Trump in 1990, according to Wayne Barrett’s boo. Don Jr, Ivanka too, meaning the whole family pleads the fifth a lot. It’s estimated that Trump used the fifth thousands of times, a record only matched by the times he stated: “I do not recall.”
The author states: ” But I cannot help but wonder what REALLY caused Bratt to take the Fifth. What does he know that he does not want to tell? Hmmm?” Hmmmmm indeed. Not to mention the dangling cases Trump has skirted by people anointing him as King. He’s guilty in the Georgia case, so what are we waiting for? And the Federal Cases that got swept under the rug: “he must be worried that there is something to get.” Hmmmmm indeed.
And we scandalized Clinton for lying about a blow job.
This guy is selling America, monarchizing the Presidency. Four new resorts/golf courses in Muslim lands worth billions. New Muslim based cyrpto worth billions. You can BUY dinner with the President IF you give him some cash. Buy his merch. He even offered the new Syrian President a Tower in Damascus, doing much business on his recent State tour.
The best cons are the ones that are open and in your face, in front of your eyes. Apparently that makes it OK as Speaker Johnson has admitted, on the record, in public, that Trump is doing. And Johnson actually said, if you see it, it’s OK……
Now, about that free plane……
Dunger has a problem with the 5th amendment which the commiecrats have worn out. Poor guy. So republicans should ignore the constitutional rights just because leftist assholes want them too? You people are pathetic.
Meth: I spell my name: danger, and I have not a clue what you are talking about. You are just making stuff up now. A real fairy tale, but consider the source.
Again, no proof, no evidence, just spew.
“At the time, I opined that the documents case was the strongest of the various court cases involving Trump.”
Anyone who’s ever held an actual clearance knows what Patel wrote about classified documents in his book is correct. The President is the head of the National Command Authority and such documents are declassified the second he says they are. The fact that the declassifying paperwork doesn’t catch up to that declaration is meaningless. The documents are still declassified.
Ergo, the case wasn’t the “strongest.’
The same cannot be said of Biden as not only had he possessed them without the authority to do so, he broke the law in having them and, worse, broke it again by providing them to people who never had the clearance nor need to know.
There it tis. Larrys’ NEVER been cleared.
As for Jay Bratt: Simple. Give him transactional immunity. That not only clears him of any 5th Amendment issues, but leads you up the food chain. If he continues to refuse to testify, well, then, he is in contempt and gets carted off to jail if there’s any justice.
As for Dunger. He’s just another ignorant who drinks the KoolAid and not worthy of response.
Bob M. You make a good point, but I still believe that the docs case was the strongest involving Trump. Most of the other case were political and the result of prosecutorial bias and abuse. But, i do agree that the case against Biden was stronger. He purloined the documents when he was only a Senator with no power to declassify. But we know how and why he got off. And as far as the Bratt situation, immunity is an option if they can see a path to higher ups. They would assess that before granting immunity.
BobM says I am ignorant, and drinking of the liberal Kool Aid. He says I am not worthy of response, as he responds? I say he can’t respond to the Danger of the truth. BobM talks about “ever held an actual clearance,” and the “National Command Authority.” It’s a term not found in the Constitution and was not used after 2002 except by BobM, who calls me ignorant. Well, the “ignorant’ one notes that the term National Command Authority” was a made-up term coined by the DoD for military orders first appearing in 1960. At minimum it includes the Pres and the SoD. After 2002, unlike BobM, all documents were explicit to the President, SoD, or both. I think BobM has outlived his National Command Authority term and definition. In more modern times, we are just specific instead.
Fact is Blob, you know that all Presidents must have a process for declassification. And they do. They all do. There is a traditional process they all follow or modify slightly to follow. Just like taking notes at a meeting and reading them at the next meeting. Otherwise, as in the case of the Trump so-called process, no one knows what the fuck is going on and what the fuck the status is of anything until they ask Trump. For most Presidents, within their declassification process, is the subprocess for handling declassifications that come “on the fly,” as they do from time to time. And I guarantee the important part of the process is informing the “librarian” to document and security status changes. Trump is just attempting to cover his ass and until it comes to court, we can bitch at each other all we want. So, he utters the rule of his immaculate declassification, but he never told anyone he did it, or he even had the documents. But, for all Presidents before Trump, there was a process, there has been a process, and the Trump process is a more laissez-faire approach where it is what he says it is whenever he said happened whether he told anyone else or not.
One more point, Bloop, unlike Trump who had to declassify many documents because he couldn’t stop himself from whipping them out to impress people, most Presidents rarely declassify. Think about it: would you want that responsibility without completing the massive research as to the facts proving the reason to declassify, without confirming with all relevant stakeholders who might offer a different view for sign-off, you know, normal change control processes and controls that no President normally would waste their time on. They would delegate that task. The “on the fly” declassifications, except for Trump, are probably found more often. Because the President is doing business, real time, and time is of the essence.
Boob: the Biden document case was a very different case from Trump’s obstruction. Biden discovered it, returned them immediately, allowed for further investigation, and the case is apples n oranges different from the Trump case where he stole them, hid them, tried to keep them even. And when called on it, would not return them all causing the Mara Largo raid. In almost ever other case, Obama, Pence, McConnell, whatever, they just return the documents and that’s the end of it. Trump physically went out of his way to obstruct people from getting the documents back.
FYI: I like the your transactional immunity gambit, but remember, the guy pleading the fifth has to accept it. There is no mandate.
And I spell my name: danger, Blob, Boob, Boop, or whatever your name is. And you can’t handle the truth. Show me where I got it wrong or needs clarification. Come on Bob. Give er a whirl. After all, you say I am an idiot. Should not be hard for you to prove it.
The beauty of America is ours is a democracy where the people rule, not any one man. We, as a nation, disdain the trappings of governmental power; the uniforms and gold trappings of third world petty dictators. We thought we left all that behind in our revolution against the monarchy.
BobM seems to like a nation where one-man-rule is the divine mandate. Dorothy Donny 2 Dolls just has to click his high heels three times and that which is classified is not. BobM is right; there is no law, there is no Constitutional process and therefore the President can declassify with any or no process. And while that’s the law, that’s not a process; that’s a divine mandate. That’s a tree falling in the forest and making no noise if I tell you that it made no noise. Ridiculous. But not in the Constitution, and no law, all there is, is a traditional process that Trump 86’d. And Bob likes it.
Patel’s claim is that the President declassifies documents whenever he says they are. He can take top secret classifieds and put them anywhere he likes whenever he likes as long as he likes. This is true for Trump and when asked politely to return, he obstructs.
Yet, there is also a traditional process for declassification that every President has followed, albeit perhaps with a process tweak or two to fit the times and the person. For Trump, that was to toss the entire process and make his up on the fly and that process was no process.
Before Trump, the traditional process held that the declassifications are always documented and told to the “librarian” so they can track it correctly in the archives. Trump, as far as we know, does none of that. Bob M. leaves out the fact that no one heard the President say there were declassified. There is no documentation saying they are declassified. That’s one of the pitfalls of the Trump un-process needed to be hashed out in court as a legitimate legal way to declassify. As far as the “librarian” is concerned, they are still classified. Is that a legal problem?
When probed on declassification and asked if Patel heard the President declassify the documents, Patel took the fifth and as Horist says, that says it all. Hmmmmm indeed! What could that possibly mean? We know what the author, what Trump thinks the fifth means. Can only get closer to that truth in court. I think that would have made the case interesting. While there is no process, does Trump’s not telling anyone violate even a no-process, process? If anything, the court case would have assured no future President attempts this stupid shit.
But, for BoobM, ergo, if the case was not strong, why all the pleading of the fifth like Patel? The author says it’s the strongest case. I disagree. If innocent, if you own the SCOTUS, if the judge was your pick, why duck the court case? I would think you would want your day in court to formally 86 this case. If you really thought, as Trump thought, that it’s a nothing burger, why not prove it in court? Perhaps because Bob, unlike your limited thoughts, Trump realizes this case was about much more than just classification levels and process. But, on the process, while normally there is a process, usually traditional and handed down from administration to administration, even across party lines, go figure, Trump’s process was no process, just ask him how he feels about it today. And don’t tell the archives what he said.