GOP House Members issued a befitting response to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg with a letter that was sent to his office during the previous weekend on Saturday.
That letter was based on the controversy surrounding the possible indictment and imprisonment of former President Donald Trump.
The letter began:
“Our Committees are conducting oversight of your reported effort to indict a former President of the United States and current declared candidate for that office. On March 20, 2023, we wrote to you requesting that you voluntarily cooperate with our oversight by providing relevant documents and testimony. We received a reply letter sent on your behalf dated March 23, 2023, which set forth several purported reasons for why you could not cooperate with our investigation.”
The letter added as it called out DA Bragg for politicizing the investigation against Trump:
“Notably, your reply letter did not dispute the central allegations at issue—that you, under political pressure from left-wing activists and former prosecutors in your office, are reportedly planning to use an alleged federal campaign finance violation, previously declined by federal prosecutors, as a vehicle to extend the statute of limitations on an otherwise misdemeanor offense and indict for the first time in history a former President of the United States. Moreover, you are apparently attempting to upgrade a misdemeanor charge to a felony using an untested legal theory at the same time when you are simultaneously downgrading felony charges to misdemeanors in a majority of other cases in your jurisdiction.”
The letter continued:
“Contrary to the central argument set forth in your letter, this matter does not simply involve local or state interests. Rather, the potential criminal indictment of a former President of the United States by an elected local prosecutor of the opposing political party (and who will face the prospect of re-election) implicates substantial federal interests, particularly in a jurisdiction where trial-level judges also are popularly elected. If state or local prosecutors are able to engage in politically motivated prosecutions of Presidents of the United States (former or current) for personal acts, this could have a profound impact on how Presidents choose to exercise their powers while in office.”
While explaining the rights of the President, the letter also noted:
“For example, a President could choose to avoid taking action he believes to be in the national interest because it would negatively impact New York City for fear that he would be subject to a retaliatory prosecution in New York City. Likewise, because the federal government has a compelling interest in protecting the physical safety of former or current Presidents, any decision to prosecute a former or current President raises difficult questions concerning how to vindicate that interest in the context of a state or local criminal justice system. For these reasons and others, we believe that we now must consider whether Congress should take legislative action to protect former and/or current Presidents from politically motivated prosecutions by state and local officials, and if so, how those protections should be structured. Critically, due to your own actions, you are now in possession of information critical to this inquiry.”
The House GOP lawmakers then charged Manhattan D.A. for making “unconvincing” statements that are “insufficient” to propose violation charges against Donald Trump.
Moreover, the committee claims that its management of the District Attorney’s possible accusation of a previous U.S. president is compatible with its constitutional authorities.
According to a report by the New York Post, On last Saturday, Manhattan D.A’s office was seen mad at congressional staffers, and forcing them to “stop calling us with this bulls–t.”
