House Democrats Chide Republicans for ‘Politically Interfering’ in Manhattan DA’s Trump Probe

On March 23, House Democrats criticized one another across the hall for what they called” political intervention” in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation into former President Donald Trump.

In response to rumors that Bragg was requesting an indictment earlier this month, members of the House Judiciary Committee, House Oversight and Accountability, James Comer, and Bryan Steil, R. Wis., wrote to the district attorney to ask for clarification on what they referred to as an” unprecedented misuse of prosecutorial jurisdiction.”

” I was definitely shocked when I saw the text from the three committee seats to Mr. Bragg, generally calling on him to break New York’s grand jury privacy laws, which is of course a felony.” Rep. Glenn Ivey( D – Md ) correctly declined to do that. At the Democrats’ regular press conference at the Capitol, a member of the House Judiciary Committee spoke with writers.

” That’s too much to ask, I suppose ,” he said.” My request was for those three to withdraw the notice instantly, the realizing the error they had made. However, I believe it is crucial to leave the system alone.

That sentiment was echoed by fellow Democrat Rep. Ted Lieu of California, who claimed that the Republicans were making assumptions without” no ground, no testimony.”

We don’t even know if there will be prices, which is especially troubling in light of what some Republican legislators are saying, according to Lieu. ” We have no idea how those cost will be presented, nor do we have any idea of the grand jury’s testimony.”

The Letter

The Justice Department had already looked into the matter and decided not to press charges, according to the Republican representatives who claimed in their email that Bragg’s analysis of Trump was motivated by politics.

The lawmakers wrote that” your decision to pursue such a politically motivated prosecution— while adopting progressive criminal justice policies that allow career” criminals” to ] run the streets” of Manhattan — requires congressional scrutiny about how public safety funds appropriated by Congress are implemented by local law-enforcement agencies.”

The subject of Bragg’s investigation into the former president is a$ 130, 000″ quiet money” payment made to Stormy Daniels, an adult film star whose real name is Steffanie Clifford, by former Trump particular attorney Michael Cohen. Given that it was days before the 2016 presidential election, there is a lot of speculation that the case is predicated on the” unknown” constitutional theory that Trump should have categorized Cohen’s insurance as an election purchase.

A 2018 text from Cohen’s to counsel to the Federal Election Commission, however, which stated that Trump never reimbursed Cohen for the payment and that it” does not constitute a campaign contribution or sweet ,” provided fresh proof this year.

Lieu also charged Republicans on Thursday with remaining” silent” during Cohen’s 2018 criminal conviction for, among other crimes,” causing an unlawful campaign contribution ,” and he called for a” wait and see approach” to Trump.

He said,” Let’s wait to see if there are going to be charges.” ” Come wait to see what the charges are, what we see of the testimony, and we should allow law enforcement carry out their duties without interfering with politics.”

Response from the District Attorney

The Democrats’ comments were made at the same time as Bragg’s office on Thursday responded to a congressional evidence request from the district attorney general of Manhattan, Leslie Dubeck, calling it” illegal” and” an unlawful incursion into New York.”

The Courts of New York, which are equipped to carry and review for objections, are the appropriate platform for such a challenge, according to Dubeck,” despite the letter’s allegation that the DA Office is pursuing an investigation for political purposes.” To the extent that any criminal case raises national problems, survey by the U.S. Supreme Court would also be available. That is the procedure provided to each accused in a legal way. Congress has no business participating in that survey, particularly in light of an ongoing state criminal investigation.

She continued,” The District Attorney pledged that the DA’s Office would publicly state the conclusion of our investigation— whether we conclude our work without bringing charges, or move forward with an indictment ,” assuring Bragg that his behavior had been consistent with his oath of office. He keeps his word on that commitment. And if accusations are made at the conclusion, it will be as a result of the District Attorney’s responsibilities being faithfully carried out and the rule of law.