The Department of Justice (DOJ) has conducted an internal investigation and, unsurprisingly, found no evidence of collusion between its officials, including Joe Biden‘s DOJ hatchet man Matthew Colangelo, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office.
The Gateway Pundit reported in April 2023 that Colangelo was the linchpin in the “get Trump” movement in New York, hired by Bragg’s office in December 2022 to spearhead politically motivated investigations against former President Donald Trump.
Bragg’s top prosecutor, Matthew Colangelo, was the Former Acting Associate Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice and is a lifelong left-wing activist.
Colangelo’s past is littered with partisan actions, from his role in indicting Americans for praying outside abortion clinics to his involvement in numerous witch-hunt investigations into President Trump.
According to the House Judiciary Committee, Colangelo has taken part in numerous witch hunt investigations into President Trump. Colangelo was hired to “jump start” Alvin Bragg’s unprecedented garbage indictment against Trump.
Colangelo, a former Biden DOJ official and senior attorney at the New York Attorney General’s Office, has previously taken part in multiple investigations into President Trump and was reportedly hired to “jump start” Bragg’s stalled investigation into President Trump.
— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) April 7, 2023
Attorney Mike Davis, along with Steve Bannon, exposed this apparent deep-state operation in the War Room, detailing how Colangelo, an Obama White House alum, was seemingly recruited to manufacture charges against President Trump.
WATCH:
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) launched an investigation in April 2024 into potential coordination between the Biden DOJ and DA Bragg’s politicized prosecution of President Trump. Jordan called out Colangelo for his role in this apparent abuse of prosecutorial authority.
Under Jordan’s leadership, the House Judiciary Committee has requested numerous documents and communications associated with Colangelo’s position in the DOJ and his involvement with DA Bragg’s office.
1. All documents and communications for the period of January 2021 to December 2022 between or among Mr. Colangelo and any employee, agent, or representative of the New York County District Attorney’s Office, the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office, the New York Attorney General’s Office, or the Department of Justice’s Special Counsel’s Office, referring or relating to:
a. President Donald J. Trump;
b. The Trump Organization; or
c. Any other entity owned, controlled by, or associated with President Donald J. Trump;2. All personnel files related to Mr. Colangelo’s hiring, employment, and termination at
the Department of Justice, including all documents and communications with the
Office of Presidential Personnel about Mr. Colangelo’s hiring;3. All documents and communications between or among the Justice Department and the New York County District Attorney’s Office referring or relating to the prosecution of President Donald J. Trump;
4. All documents and communications referring or relating to Michael Cohen’s conviction in United States v. Cohen, No. 18-cr-602 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), including any decisional or pre-decisional memoranda relating to the case; and
5. All documents and communications referring or relating to Michael Cohen’s conviction in United States v. Cohen, No. 18-cr-850 (S.D.N.Y. 2018).
Following the guilty verdict against Trump, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan called Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Joe Biden‘s DOJ hatchet man Matthew Colangelo to testify before the Weaponization Committee on June 13.
Despite this mounting evidence, the DOJ has decided to turn a blind eye. They’ve conducted what they call a “comprehensive search” for email communications between their leadership, including Colangelo, and the District Attorney’s office regarding any investigation or prosecution of President Trump. Of course, they found none.
Biden’s gestapo DOJ claimed that it did not supervise the work of the District Attorney’s office or approve its charging decisions. It also highlighted that it did not control the District Attorney just as much as the District Attorney did not control the Department.
Read their response to Jim Jordan’s letter:
This responds to your letter to the Department of Justice (Department), dated April 30, 2024, regarding a state criminal trial brought exclusively by the Manhattan District Attorney (District Attorney). This also responds to questions regarding that prosecution and jury verdict posed to the Attorney General during his appearance before the Committee on the Judiciary (Committee) on June 4, 2024.
The Committee has demanded information from the Department because of what you describe as a “perception that the Justice Department is” behind the District Attorney’s so-called “politicized prosecution” and a “perception that the Biden Justice Department is politicized and weaponized” to that end.
The Department does not generally make extensive efforts to rebut conspiratorial speculation, including to avoid the risk of lending it credibility. However, consistent with the Attorney General’s commitment to transparency, the Department has taken extraordinary steps to confirm what was already clear: there is no basis for these false claims.
The Department has conducted a comprehensive search for email communications since January 20, 2021, through the date of the verdict, between any officials in Department leadership, including all political appointees in those offices, and the District Attorney’s office regarding any investigation or prosecution of the former President.2 We found none. This is unsurprising.
The District Attorney’s office is a separate entity from the Department. The Department does not supervise the work of the District Attorney’s office, does not approve its charging decisions, and does not try its cases. The Department has no control over the District Attorney, just as the District Attorney has no control over the Department. The Committee knows this.
The Department’s search included the email account of Matthew Colangelo, a former Department official about whom the Committee has raised numerous unfounded questions. The Department did not identify any instances of Mr. Colangelo having email communications with the District Attorney’s office during his time at the Department. This is also unsurprising.
As a member of the Associate Attorney General’s Office, Mr. Colangelo’s job was to oversee the civil litigation components that report to the Associate’s Office, including the Civil Division, Antitrust Division, Civil Rights Division, and the Environment and Natural Resources Division. Mr. Colangelo departed the Department on December 2, 2022.
Department leadership did not dispatch Mr. Colangelo to the District Attorney’s office, and Department leadership was unaware of his work on the investigation and prosecution involving the former President until it was reported in the news.
The self-justifying “perception” asserted by the Committee is completely baseless, but the Committee continues to traffic it widely. As the Attorney General stated at his hearing, the conspiracy theory that the recent jury verdict in New York state court was somehow controlled by the Department is not only false, it is irresponsible.
Indeed, accusations of wrongdoing made without—and in fact contrary to—evidence undermine confidence in the justice system and have contributed to increased threats of violence and attacks on career law enforcement officials and prosecutors. Our extraordinary efforts to respond to your speculation should put it to rest.
Indeed, the Department’s actual role with respect to the District Attorney’s office regarding this matter is already a matter of public record. As court filings show, both the District Attorney’s office and the former President’s defense team made requests for documents from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY).
In response to these requests, SDNY produced records to both parties, including the defense. The documents were produced to the former President’s attorneys under a protective order imposed by the trial court. In any event, information-sharing between a U.S. Attorney’s Office and local prosecutors is standard and happens every day all over the country.
