GOP leaders slam Bragg for refusing to testify as they weigh law to ‘insulate’ Trump prosecution

Chairpersons of the Judiciary, Oversight and Administration Committees demand Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg comply with their request for testimony, accusing him of involvement in a “politically motivated prosecution” of former President Donald Trump.

In an eight-page letter, Judiciary’s Jim Jordan, Oversight’s James Comer and the administration’s Bryan Steil say they are now considering whether to introduce legislation that would prevent presidents from being prosecuted for ostensibly political purposes.

Bragg responded to the breaking news with a Twitter post reiterating his initial argument that “it is not appropriate for Congress to interfere with ongoing local investigations.”

Scroll down to read the letter in full

The demand for testimony came after Donald Trump said last weekend he would be arrested Tuesday in the Manhattan case related to his alleged $130,000 hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels (pictured right)

The letter first sent last week seeking Bragg’s testimony came after Trump said he expected to be arrested Tuesday in connection with the grand jury case for his alleged $130,000 hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels.

Trump was not arrested and no charges were issued last week — the grand jury did not even convene in connection with the case at hand.

Jordan, Comer and Steil claim they have the authority to oversee this matter because any discussions with Bragg, the chairpersons claim, could lead to potential legislation.

‘[T]The Judiciary Committee, as part of its broad authority to develop criminal justice legislation, should now consider whether to enact legislation that, if passed, would protect current and former presidents from such inappropriate state and local prosecutions,” the three wrote. presidents. in a Saturday letter to Bragg after he declined their request to testify and hand over material.

They added: “These legislative reforms may include, for example, broadening the existing legal right to have certain criminal cases removed from state court to federal court. Because your impending indictment against a former president is a matter of first impression, the committees need information from your office to inform our oversight.”

Bragg, in response to the letter, reiterated that “it is not appropriate for Congress to interfere with ongoing local investigations.”

“This unprecedented investigation by federal elected officials into an ongoing case only serves to hinder, disrupt and undermine the legitimate work of our dedicated prosecutors,” the Manhattan District Attorney tweeted. “As always, in everything we do, we will stick to the facts and be guided by the rule of law.”

Bragg responded to the eight-page letter with a quick Twitter statement, claiming that the request for testimony “serves only to obstruct, disrupt and undermine the legitimate work of our dedicated prosecutors.”

Bragg also issued a five-page reply to the first letter last week, alleging that their request for his testimony would interfere with ongoing law enforcement duties, violate state sovereignty and be an improper use of congressional power.

He offered to ‘meet and discuss’, to which the three chairmen responded insufficiently on Saturday.

“Your persuasive assertion that our constitutional oversight responsibilities will get in the way of law enforcement is misguided and unconvincing,” the trio of Republican lawmakers said.

“As a threshold issue, whether your office is, in fact, fairly enforcing the law or abusing the prosecutor’s discretion to participate in a politically motivated indictment of a former president is a serious matter that involves… significant federal interests ‘ they added.

The letter sent Saturday rejects Bragg’s claim that his testimony would prove Congress is improperly interfering in state and local affairs.

The House GOP also had its sights set on two former prosecutors who have resigned from the Manhattan district attorney’s office over the handling of his investigation into former President Trump.

Attorney Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne attempted to prosecute Trump in 2022 and resigned after Bragg rejected their legal theories.

Jordan’s letter last week, signed by Comer and Steil, said the two “resigned from the firm due to Bragg’s initial reluctance to move forward with the charges in 2022.”

“Bragg is now trying to ‘shoehorn’ the same case with identical facts into a new prosecution,” the Ohio judiciary’s presiding judge added.

“Based on your unique role in this case, we request your cooperation in our oversight of this prosecution decision.”

Jordan concluded, “The whole of these facts is that Bragg’s imminent indictment is dictated by political calculations.”

“The facts of this case have not changed since 2018 and no new witnesses have emerged,” the letter continues. The Ministry of Justice investigated the facts in 2019 and then chose not to prosecute further. Still, according to reports, the investigation “gained some momentum this year,” and Bragg’s office “convened a new grand jury in January to evaluate the matter.” The only intervening factor, it seems, was President Trump’s announcement that he would run for president in 2024.”

The House GOP is now targeting two former prosecutors who resigned from the Manhattan DA’s office over the handling of his investigation into former President Trump