
<p>A prosecutor taking the Fifth? ; (Not the stuff in bottles).</p>



<p>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 &#8212; shortly before Trump assumed office.</p>



<p>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 &#8212; 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.) ;</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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. ;</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>Peter Carr of Justice Connection – a group composed of anti-Trump DOJ alums founded in January of 2025 &#8212; said:</p>



<p><em>“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.”</em></p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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?</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

Prosecutor in Trump documents case takes Fifth Amendment
