The House Judiciary Committee has leveled serious accusations against a former U.S. Department of Justice prosecutor, claiming he obstructed an investigation. This came in the form of a criminal referral addressed to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi.

At the center of the allegations is Thomas Windom, who once served as a deputy to former special counsel Jack Smith. The referral accuses Windom of violating a federal law designed to prevent “corrupt” obstruction of congressional investigations. The law in question is detailed here, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the integrity of congressional oversight.

The referral states, “Congress cannot perform its oversight function if witnesses who appear before its committees corruptly refuse to provide information that the law requires them to furnish.” It underscores that any obstruction of a committee investigation threatens Congress’s fundamental constitutional oversight responsibilities.

This hefty 193-page document, complete with exhibits, was dispatched to Bondi by House Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Jim Jordan on Wednesday.

The call to prosecute Windom follows a prolonged inquiry by congressional Republicans into Jack Smith’s repeatedly thwarted investigations concerning President Donald Trump. Windom, before joining Smith, held the position of assistant U.S. attorney in Maryland and later became a senior assistant special counsel during investigations involving the 45th and 47th president.

In the referral letter, Rep. Jordan highlights its origins by referencing the House’s subpoena authority, particularly in relation to scrutinizing “the programs and operations of DOJ during the Biden-Harris Administration and, as relevant here, the Office of Special Counsel Jack Smith.”

In April, the committee asked Windom to sit down for a transcribed interview regarding his “role as a prosecutor” on Smith’s team as well as various other “related matters,” according to the letter.

“The letter provided a non-exhaustive list of examples of alleged misconduct by the Special Counsel’s Office that the Committee sought to examine in greater detail,” the letter reads. “The Committee’s request did not limit the scope of the information sought or condition Windom’s testimony on his obtaining authorization from DOJ. Nonetheless, DOJ did authorize Windom’s testimony prior to his transcribed interview.”

After some back and forth between the witness, the committee, and the DOJ regarding the breadth and scope of the questioning, Windom sat down for an interview on June 12, according to the letter. During these pre-deposition discussions, DOJ “did authorize Windom’s testimony,” the letter says.

But Windom was not forthcoming enough, Jordan alleges.

“Rather than raise concerns or seek clarification about the nature and scope of DOJ’s authorization and/or the Committee’s inquiry in the hope of resolving them prior to his initial testimony, Windom declined to answer multiple questions during this transcribed interview on the inaccurate basis that DOJ had not authorized testimony about those topics,” the letter goes on. “For example, Windom invoked an absurd and indefensible interpretation of DOJ’s authorization by refusing to testify about communications with FBI officials in part on the grounds that FBI officials are not ‘DOJ officials.’”

The specific exchange cited at length by Jordan concerns onetime FBI Washington, D.C., field office head Steven D’Antuono, who has since retired. In 2022, the FBI and DOJ were reportedly at loggerheads over what to do about the National Archives documents retained by Trump — with DOJ pushing for an aggressive stance and the FBI advising a more cautious route.

“I was worried about it increasing distrust in us,” D’Antuono told NBC News in September 2024.

When asked about discussions with D’Antuono, Windom demurred and his attorney supported this move, according to the transcript.

“FBI agents are not Department of Justice officials, as I understand the term,” Windom’s attorney says.

To which the congressional investigator replies: “That’s ridiculous. FBI is a part of the Department of Justice.”

Jordan rubbishes the position taken by Windom and his counsel over the D’Antuono matter – and other alleged instances of stonewalling.

“This position is nonsensical because the FBI is a component of the Department of Justice and the Department specifically informed Windom’s attorney that the Committee would inquire about communications with FBI officials,” the referral letter continues. “Windom also refused to provide certain details, including names and information about the other prosecutors he worked with during the investigations into President Trump, citing lack of specific Department authorization.”

Later during the first deposition, Windom’s attorney cited a rule which provides exceptions related to “grand jury materials” to avoid answering the question posed about D’Antuono.

Windom appeared again before the committee, for a follow-up deposition on Sept. 30, the letter notes. That later subpoena notified Smith’s former prosecutor that the DOJ had authorized him to give “unrestricted testimony” on various subjects, according to the letter. This time around, however, the tension was palpable.

“Windom declined to answer nearly every single one of the Committee’s questions, citing various and shifting justifications,” the letter goes on. “Specifically, Windom’s counsel began the deposition by asserting numerous blanket objections to the Committee’s ability to depose Windom, including an unspecified First Amendment privilege, attorney-client privilege, a misguided belief that the Committee had no legitimate legislative purpose for the inquiry, and his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.”

Now, Jordan wants Bondi to look into Windom’s behavior.

“Windom corruptly obstructed the Committee’s duly authorized inquiry by withholding information from the Committee during his deposition using improperly invoked privileges, ill-defined and inapplicable justifications, and repeated invocation of the same blanket set of objections,” the referral continues.

Jordan goes on to point out that the “referral does not result from a good-faith disagreement between the Committee and Windom” about the grand jury exception during the first deposition — but says his refusal to answer most questions outright during the second deposition is what prompted the referral.

“Windom’s repeated invocation of the broad objections laid out by his counsel, which included the Fifth Amendment in response to questions where it could not reasonably apply, demonstrates his apparent purpose of corruptly obstructing the Committee’s investigation by improperly withholding information,” the referral letter goes on. “All individuals have an obligation to comply with a duly authorized congressional inquiry. Windom, a former public servant, is no different.”