News Made Clear · Loading…
AI ANALYSIS & OPINION
Editorial illustrationA former Justice Department investigator said he did not know who owned a number he helped subpoena in 2022, amid scrutiny of a request linked to congressman Jim Jordan.
Review information is loading.
James Brian Burnett, a former US Justice Department investigator, said he did not know who owned a phone number he helped subpoena in 2022. His account came to light when the House Judiciary Committee released six interview transcripts on 22 September as part of its scrutiny of the investigation that preceded special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment and of Smith’s subsequent work. [1] [4]
Just the News reported that Burnett had no recollection of prosecutors telling him the request concerned a number linked to Jim Jordan, then the committee’s top Republican. Burnett said he connected the subpoena with Jordan only after retiring, when it appeared online amid news coverage. He remained unsure whether the number was Jordan’s. [4] [5]
In an excerpt of his interview, Burnett described a routine process in which he received a number, identified its carrier and passed that information to prosecutor Tad Duree, who prepared the subpoena. Burnett said he had no specific recollection of this request. A subpoena addressed to Verizon is dated 25 April 2022, and an email shows Burnett sent it for service on 1 May. A court order barred Verizon from disclosing the subpoena’s existence for one year, unless the court changed that period. [1] [2]
Fox News reported that Duree told investigators the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section knew the request concerned Jordan’s records when it approved the step. Donald Trump shared a link to the Just the News article on 26 September. [3] [5]
Burnett said that, had he known the number was linked to Jordan, he would have asked his supervisor whether a different procedure was needed. Duree said prosecutors believed the records they sought were not protected by the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, while acknowledging uncertainty on some legal points.
5 listed sources · explore evidence, limitations and provenance.
Sign in to give this article a thumbs up or down.
Private test discussion. Comments are readers’ views and are not yet automatically fact-checked. Editing is available for 60 seconds after posting.
Sign in with a confirmed reader account and choose a username to read comments and participate.
Sorting applies to top-level comments; replies remain oldest first. New comments and likes can change the order. Refresh for the current ranking.
Loading comments…