Fulton County DA accuses Rep. Jordan of obstructing Trump case.
In a Strongly Worded Response, Fulton County District Attorney Accuses Rep. Jim Jordan of Interfering with Trump Case
In a strongly worded, nine-page response letter, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis accused Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) of interfering with her case against former President Donald Trump and 18 co-defendants, which alleges that their challenge of the 2020 election results constituted a “racketeering criminal enterprise.”
“Your attempt to interfere with and obstruction [sic] this office’s prosecution of state criminal cases is unconstitutional,” she wrote. “As you know, Chariman [sic] Jordan, the congressional power of inquiry ‘is not unlimited.'”
On Aug. 24, the same day President Trump turned himself in at the Fulton County Jail to be processed and released on $200,000 bond, Mr. Jordan, chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, sent a five-page letter to Ms. Willis informing her of an investigation.
Ms. Willis argued in response that investigations meant to ”punish” are indefensible, according to the letter, which was first obtained by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
“Your letter offends each and every one of these settled principles. Its obvious purpose is to obstruct a Georgia criminal proceeding and to advance outrageous partisan misrepresentations,” she wrote.
Ms. Willis argued that a House investigation would violate state sovereignty.
“The demands in your letter—and your efforts at intruding upon the State of Georgia’s criminal authority—violate constitutional principles of federalism,” she wrote, describing his actions as “flagrantly at odds with the Constitution.”
She made the argument that the defendants were charged “under state law with committing state crimes”—an argument that’s now being challenged with five of the defendants, including President Trump, attempting to remove their cases to federal court.
The congressman wasn’t available for a response by press time.
Investigation Letter
Mr. Jordan began his Aug. 24 letter by questioning whether Ms. Willis’s prosecution was politically motivated, pointing out that she opened a fundraising website right before the indictment and that local officials have publicly made statements about their dislike of President Trump, who’s campaigning to be the GOP nominee in the 2024 presidential election.
He then raised a concern about Ms. Willis’s overstepping her jurisdiction.
“Congress has long been sensitive to the threat that such state prosecutions can pose to the operations of federal government,” Mr. Jordan wrote, pointing to the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which puts federal law before state laws and courts.
The indictment names several federal officials, including President Trump, former Justice Department (DOJ) official Jeffrey Clark, and former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.
It also names several alternate electors, an election official, several of the then-president’s lawyers, and potential witnesses who challenged the 2020 election results in the case.
The federal officers have filed notices of removal, arguing immunity to state prosecution under the Supremacy Clause. Alternate electors David Shafer and Shawn Still have also filed notices of removal, arguing that if not considered federal officers, they would have been acting under the direction of federal officers, which in legal precedent has allowed for the same immunity.
Mr. Jordan justified the investigation by writing that the federal government “has substantial interest in the welfare of former Presidents,” who, by law, are entitled to continued Secret Service protection and other privileges outside of office.
“To the extent that Presidents fear that they may be subject to politically motivated prosecutions due to the policies they advanced as President, this could impact the policies they choose to pursue while in office,” he wrote, alluding to the “absolute immunity” a U.S. President has, as per a 1982 Supreme Court ruling.
Mr. Jordan also pointed out Ms. Willis’s office uses federal funding and that there were questions as to whether she and special counsel Jack Smith, who’s prosecuting a similar case in federal court, have collaborated.
He said the investigation may lead to legislative reforms to the federal office removal statute, immunities for federal officers, and possibly defunding Ms. Willis’s office through reforms to “permissible use of federal funds” and authorities of federal, local, and special counsel prosecutors.
DA Response
Ms. Willis refuted Mr. Jordan’s concerns and said he lacked “any legitimate legislative purpose” for his letter or investigation.
She said his probe into her criminal case was outside of his “job description” and that he was investigating to promote his “partisan political objectives.”
Ms. Willis also dismissed all arguments separating federal and state jurisdictions.
“It is time that you deal with some basic realities,” she wrote, arguing that the case has been properly conducted, using a special purpose grand jury first, and then a separate grand jury that returned the 41-count indictment.
“Fa
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...