Jordan wrote: “If the Department’s representation is correct, it indicates that Executive Branch officials used their immense law enforcement authority to search and gather the private communications from multiple Legislative Branch staff who were performing Constitutional oversight on the Department’s investigative activities–actions which were later found illegal.”

Jim Jordan, R.-Ohio Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, issued a subpoena on Tuesday to Attorney General Merrick G. Garland, demanding that he give information about DOJ spying on employees in Congress.

Just the News reported in October that the DOJ had seized the phone and email records of current and former congressional staffers while conducting leak investigations. It was only after five years that the government informed the public about the communications seizure. At least 12 members of Congress, from both parties, and/or staff were among those whose records had been seized.

In the same month, Republicans in Congress demanded an explanation from the DOJ. Jordan acknowledged in the subpoena he issued on Tuesday that the DOJ responded to his request but not satisfactorily.

Jordan wrote: “In its letter, the Department claimed that the legal procedure used – which reportedly sought both Republican and Democrat staff in the House and Senate – was related to an investigation ‘into unauthorized disclosures of classified information in a nationwide media publication’.”

According to reports, the investigation was centered around FISA warrants that were obtained by Justice Department against former Trump campaign associate Carter Page. The FISA warrant for Mr. Page was subject to vigorous Congressional oversight, and vigorous debate within Congress,” he added. The Justice Department Office of Inspector General determined later that the Department had abused its FISA authorities to spy on Mr. Page and the Department acknowledged that there was “insufficient predication” for the warrant.

He continued, “If the Department’s representations are accurate, they indicate that the Executive Branch has used its vast law-enforcement powers to gather and search private communications of several Legislative Branch staff who were performing Constitutional oversight on the Department’s investigative activities–actions which were later found illegal.” We cannot determine independently if the Department was trying to reduce the separation of powers sensitivities or if it sought information by other means first before resorting legal process.

Jordan concluded that “the Committee has also concerns about aspects of the Department’s investigation being a pretext for justifying piercing Legislative Branch’s deliberative processes and improperly obtaining data from Members and Staff involved in conducting supervision of the Department.”