Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte Response

U.S.
Department of Justice
Office of Legislative Affairs
Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, DC 20530
The Honorable Jim Jordan

Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Jordan:
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. 1 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.
1
Letter from Hon. Jim Jordan, Chairman, U.S. H. Comm. on the Judiciary to Hon. Merrick B. Garland, Att’y Gen.
(Apr. 30, 2024) (emphasis added).
2
Specifically, our search included the Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and
Office of the Associate Attorney General.
Page 2
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). 3 In response to these
requests, SDNY produced records to both parties, including the defense. 4 The documents were
produced to the former President’s attorneys under a protective order imposed by the trial court. 5
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.
3
See, e.g., People v. Trump, Slip Op. at 3 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 23, 2024) (“this Court found, to begin, that there was
no coordinated, joint investigation being conducted by the New York County District Attorney’s Office and USAO-
SDNY. This Court further held that the People did not violate their discovery obligations pursuant to Criminal
Procedure Law Section . . ., USAO-SDNY is not under the People’s direction or control, and . . . the People used
diligent, good faith efforts to ascertain the existence of materials and information . . . and to cause such material or
information to be made available for discovery where it exists . . . .”); see also Aff. of Christopher Conroy in Supp.
of People’s Opp. to Def.’s Mot. Re. Discovery of USAO-SDNY Documents ¶¶ 7-21 (“Conroy Affirmation”),
People v. Trump, No. 71543-23, (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 20, 2024) (describing requests for information by District of
Attorney’s Office to SDNY); id. ¶¶ 28-43 (describing subpoena by defendant to SDNY); id. ¶ 6 (“At no point during
DANY’s investigation of this matter did DANY and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New
York (‘USAO’) form a joint investigation.”).
4
See generally Conroy Affirmation.
5
These exchanges have been documented in detail on the public record. For example, the public record shows that
in March 2024, SDNY produced more than 100,000 pages in response to the former President’s requests, which
were then provided to the former President’s attorneys by the District Attorney’s Office. See Conroy Affirmation ¶
39.
Page 3
We hope you find this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if
we may provide additional assistance regarding this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Digitally signed
CARLOS byURIARTE
CARLOS
URIARTE Date: 2024.06.10

23:34:39 -04'00'
Carlos Felipe Uriarte
Assistant Attorney General
Enclosures
cc:
The Honorable Jerrod Nadler

Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte Response

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte Response

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.S.

Office of Legislative Affairs

Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, DC 20530

The Honorable Jim Jordan

Dear Chairman Jordan:

The self-justifying “perception” asserted by the Committee is completely baseless, but

Our extraordinary efforts to respond to your speculation should put it to rest.

URIARTE Date: 2024.06.10

The Honorable Jerrod Nadler

You might also like