House GOP Sent A Letter To The NY AG Preparing To Indict President Trump

The tactic of intentional and endless defamation of Trump through a drip-drip-drip of allegations was part of a plan, written in black and white, way back in 2017. Look up ‘Media Matters War Plan 2017’ by Clinton flunkie David Brock, and the whole document is there in black and white.

Many aspects of that ‘war plan’ have been executed to the letter since then. Among those plans was the attempt to destroy Trump through the courts with the double-whammy of reputational damage and legal fees.

The latest attempt to take down Trump centers on a case the feds had already looked into and dismissed as irrelevant. With news that a New York AG is on the verge of indicting a presidential candidate over a misdemeanor — in the middle of a Primary race — is absolutely unprecedented.

Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?

Yes

No

Submit Vote

House Admin sent a letter to that AG, with some pointed questions about what, exactly, is going on.

🚨🚨🚨
House Admin Chairman @RepBryanSteil, Judiciary Chairman @Jim_Jordan , and House Oversight Chairman @RepJamesComer sent a letter to Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg demanding communications, documents & testimony relating to Bragg's unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority. pic.twitter.com/jW3RklvHWu

— House Admin. Committee GOP (@HouseAdmin) March 20, 2023

Here is what that letter said:

Dear Mr. Bragg:

You are reportedly about to engage in an unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority; the indictment of a former President of the United States and currently declared candidate for that office. This indictment comes after years of your office searching for a basis — any basis — on which to bring charges, ultimately settling on a novel legal theory untested anywhere in the country and one that federal authorities declined ot pursue. If these reports are accurate, your actions will erode confidence in the evenhanded application of justice and unalterably interfere in the course of the 2024 presidential election. In light of the serious consequences of your actions, we expect that you will testify about what plainly appears to be a politically motivated prosecutorial decision.

The New York County District Attorney’s Office has been investigating President Trump since at least 2018, looking for some legal theory on which to bring charges. The facts surrounding the impending indictment have been known for years. Michael Cohen, President Trump’s disgraced former lawyer, pleaded guilty over four years ago to charges based on the same facts at issue in the impending indictment. By July 2019, however, federal prosecutors determined that no additional people would be charged alongside Cohen. Now, in the words of one legal scholar, you are attempting to shoehorn the same case with identical facts into a new prosecution, resurrecting a so-called zombie case against President Trump. Even the Washington Post quoted legal experts as calling your actions unusual because prosecutors have repeatedly examined the long-established details but decided not to pursue charges.

The legal theory underlying your reported prosecution appears to be tenuous and untested. Bringing charges for falsifying business records is ordinarily a misdemeanor subject to a two-year statute of limitations, which would have expired long ago. State law, however, allows a district attorney to ‘elevate nominal misdemeanor conduct’ to a felony charge if he ‘intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.’ Such a showing would extend the statute of limitations to five years — which would likely expire soon and thus explains your rush to indictment. The only potential speculated crime that could be alleged here would be a violation of campaign finance law, according to one scholar, a charge that the Justice Department has already declined to bring.

In addition to the novel and untested legal theory, your star witness for this prosecution has a serious credibility problem — a problem that you have reportedly recognizaed. This case relies heavily on the testimony of Michael Cohen, a convicted perjurer with a demonstrable prejudice against President Trump. Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress in 2018. In 2019, when he testified before Democrats on the House Oversight Committee to aid their fruitless investigation into President Trump, Cohen lied again — six times. Cohen has been vocal about his deeply personal animus toward President Trump. Under these circumstances, there is no scenario in which Cohen could fairly be considered an unbiased and credible witness.

The inference from the totality of these facts is that your impending indictment is motivated by political calculations. In January 2022, soon after you took office, you expressed doubts about President Trump’s case and suspended the investigation. This decision caused two of your top investigators, Carey Dunne and Mark Pomerantz, to resign in protest and publicly denounce your work. Pomerantz, in particular, heavily criticized you for declining to bring charges at that time, and ‘Dunne and others’ are now ‘weighing ways’ to bar President Trump from holding future office. Pomerantz has published a book in the past month excoriating you for not aggressively prosecuting President Trump. The Washington Post reported that you were ‘deeply stung’ by this criticism.

The facts of this matter have not changed since 2018 and no new witnesses have emerged. The Justice Department examined the facts in 2019 and opted not to pursue further prosecutions at that time. Even still, according to reporting, the investigation ‘gained some momentum this year’ and your office ‘convened a new grand jury in January to evaluate teh issue’. The only intervening factor, it appears, was President Trump’s announcement that he would be a candidate for President in 2024.

Your decision ot pursue such a political 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. In addition, your apparent decision to pursue criminal charges where federal authorities declined to do so requires oversight to inform potential legislative reforms about the delineation of prosecutorial authority between federal and local officials. Finally, because the curcumstances of this matter stem, in part, from Special Councel Mueller’s investigation, Congress may consider legislative reforms to the authorities of special councils and their relationships with other prosecuting entities.

Accordingly, to advance our oversight, please produce the following documents and information for the period January 1, 2017, to the present:

1. All documents and communications between or among the New York Country District Attorney’s Office and the U.S. Department of Justice, its component entities, or other federal law enforcement agencies referring to your office’s investigation of President Donald Trump.

2. All documents and communications sent or received by former employees Carey Dunne and Mark Pomerantz referring or relating to President Donald Trump; and

3. All documents and communications referring or relating to the New York Country District Attorney Office’s receipt and use of federal funds.

In addition, your testimony is necessary to advance our oversight and to inform potential legislative reforms. We therefore ask that you testify in a transcribed interveiw about these matters as soon as possible. Plese provide this information and contact Committee staff to schedule your transcribed interview as soon as possible, but no later than 10:00 am on March 23, 2023.

Pursuant to Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over criminal justice matters in the United States. The Committee on House Administration has jurisdiction over matters concerning federal elections. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability may examine ‘any matter’ at any time.

If you have any questions…
(&c, &c)