Meddling Toward Justice

The House GOP shouldn’t interfere in Alvin Bragg’s folly.

By
136
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg speaks at a press conference on January 13, 2023 in New York City. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Yesterday a fellow Dispatch-er posed a challenging question in the company Slack channel. Imagine that a rogue prosecutor bent the law in order to nab a bad guy, this person asked, apropos of nothing in particular. What role should Congress play in remedying that injustice?

I’m inclined to answer: None whatsoever—in the near term, at least. Especially if the rogue in question is a state prosecutor rather than a federal one.

The question was inspired, obviously, by the letter three House Republican committee chairmen sent to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg as he prepares to prosecute The Porn Star Payoff Heard ‘Round The World. Bragg’s office doesn’t receive much federal funding and what it does receive goes mostly toward supporting programs for crime victims, not toward local prosecutions. But somehow that was enough of a federal nexus for Reps. Jim Jordan, James Comer, and Bryan Steil to start making demands of the DA.

They want him to provide documents and communications between his office and arms of the federal government since 2017 related to the Stormygate investigation of Donald Trump. And they want him to testify before their committees to help “advance our oversight and to inform potential legislative reforms” pertaining to, among other things, how much leeway state prosecutors should have to bring charges in matters where federal prosecutors have declined to do so.

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
136
By
Comments (136)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Thanks for putting “libertarian” in scare quotes when describing Rand Paul. He’s not a libertarian.

    Collapse
  2. Mwupton

    There could be some loose justification for Congress to weigh in on this matter, but the calls for DeSantis to block a (theoretical, legal) extradition request is bat guano crazy. It's plainly unconstitutional and seriously damaging act against the rule of law.

    Once again, Trump (and his surrogates) like to demand plainly unlawful corrections to possibly corrupt acts. They doubt the election, so the country should suspend every election process already in place (constitutionally or by statute). They think the prosecution of Trump is politically motivated, so Congress should claim new powers over state courts and Governors deny extradition. Every "remedy" they propose is far worse than the underlying issue at question.

    Collapse
  3. Pundette

    This just has to stop. They investigate us. We investigate them. They arrest us. We arrest them. They prosecute us. We prosecute them. They impeach us. We impeach them. They hold hearings on us. We hold hearings on them. Enough already! Can we stop playing Dungeons and Dragons and think about the country for half a minute? Can we preserve this Republic? "A Republic, if you can keep it."

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    SandyG

    Excellent points about the House Rs hypocrisy in intervening in THIS prosecution and especially the extant checks on prosecutorial abuse of power built into the system. Given those checks, Desantis asserting Bragg is operating outside the rule is maddening. Desantis is undermining the rule of law while invoking it! (There's a name for that kind of rhetoric.) If Bragg is, then use the legal system to check him, not the political system. And certainly, as you pointed out, not before the indictment has been issued.

    But I have to question this claim you made: "This prosecution is political, after all . . .". I had to reread all the previous paragraphs to see where I missed the support for this conclusion. Is it because the defendant is the "former/future president with a fanatic following"?

    Prosecutorial decisions are supposed to be made based on the facts and the law without fear or favor, as they say. To say this prosecution is political makes it sound like it's NOT based on the above. Do you mean this prosecution HAS political implications?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      This isn’t a defense of Trump but the prosecution is political because Bragg’s motivation is in part his own reelection coming up (and Bragg is in a bit of hot water with some voters for declining to go after Trump about something else earlier and this hopefully resurrects his, that is Bragg’s, reputation). Also, it’s years old and relies on a novel legal theory. I don’t think Bragg has some kind of rock solid evidence that would merit a prosecution, but I could be wrong. I also strongly doubt he’s some kind of cold, rational, dispassionate “law without fear or favor” kind of guy. While I’m no Trump defender and I’d much prefer all prosecutors were cold and dispassionate and dispensed law without fear or favor, I’ve also listened to Advisory Opinions and David and Sarah don’t seem altogether convinced by this case.

      Collapse
    2. Drsterrett

      "Desantis is undermining the rule of law"

      How? Because he is offering his opinion on the largest news story in the country and you don't agree with it? Undermining the rule of law is taking action that is arbitrary and outside the scope of the law (like pulling funds earmarked for DOD to build a border wall or calling for supporters to march on Congress to undermine the results of an election or unilaterally cancelling student debt without a good faith basis in the law). DeSantis has done this too - i.e. targeting Disney or his ridiculous "big tech crack down" law.

      Judges and prosecutors are not above harsh criticism. I had no problem when Barack Obama criticised the Supreme Court. I have no problem with DeSantis doing the same for a prosecutor - that many think (including never-Trumpers and left wing commentators) is not making decisions "based on the facts and the law without fear or favor."

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        SandyG

        I knew undermining was the wrong word. I was trying to get at DeSantis' invoking the rule of law while making a political statement. If the DA is biased, there are, as Cataggio put it, extensive checks on prosecutorial abuse of power built into the system.

        You misunderstand me if you think I was saying prosecutors and judges shouldn't be criticized. And as for the many who think Bragg is not making a decision based on the facts and the law without fear or favor - how do they know that? What is the evidence? It's just an opinion.

        Collapse
  5. Ken Motamed

    I didn't think it was possible to generate sympathy for Alvin Bragg, but the three Trump stooges managed it.

    "If I’m right that Trump stands a good chance of acquittal or of getting the charges dropped, it’s in the GOP’s interest not to delegitimize that outcome by meddling with Bragg before it happens." A potential benefit of Bragg being strong-armed into dropping the case might be making the public more receptive of the more legitimate cases against Trump.

    Collapse
  6. James Morphew

    Mr. Catoggio goes a bit far in his speculations and accusations, but his point is right: Congress has no authority nor role in a NY prosecution, even if the prosecutor's claims are weak. That's what the courts are for. Yes, they may fail at their duty, but that has to be addressed through the standard remedies of appeal. And elected officials can be replaced by others at the next election if the public desires it.

    Our congressmen are about to appear, once again, impotent and silly.

    Collapse
  7. Dougrhon

    There is ZERO role for Congress in questioning Bragg. (Who I loathe and would remove from office were I the governor) If I were him I would consider resisting a subpoena on federalist grounds.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Kizedek

    “The prosecution would still be a terrible idea for prudential reasons, as the political nature of it will shake the public’s faith in the impartiality of the justice system.”

    Isn’t the opposite also true? The failure to prosecute Trump will shake the public’s faith in the impartiality of the justice system.

    At least, the failure to prosecute him for any of the many things he is being investigated for. And one failure to prosecute seems to make it less likely that others will go forward or succeed, according to some?

    The public’s faith is being shaken because it will be evident to the public, and to Trump, that his intimidation, delaying, and obstructing tactics have worked, again.

    Not only did he receive every ounce of due process to which he is entitled, but he was also treated with kid gloves and extra deference and patience (as he was allowed to file numerous frivolous motions, and refile them, etc.) …to fail to indict and prosecute him on top of all that would indeed shake the public’s faith in the impartiality of the justice system.

    A failure to prosecute would reinforce his own words, “I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it.”

    Collapse
    1. Ken Motamed

      You would be right if this weren't a politically motivated prosecution. This case would not have been brought against anyone else. To boot, Bragg is refusing to prosecute dangerous criminals. Further, Bragg's predecessor looked into the case and decided not to charge.

      Collapse
  9. Donnybrook

    I agree that the Manhattan prosecution is dubious, at least compared to the GA, J6 and Docs investigations. Yet Trump’s DOJ prosecuted and convicted Michael Cohen for some of the same crimes, which were committed on behalf of Trump.

    How can anyone (rightfully) support the Cohen campaign fraud convictions and also say Trump should not also face scrutiny for the same, related crime?

    Collapse
    1. Ken Motamed

      Obviously, the two cases have their differences.

      Collapse
  10. Kelly Windsor

    This

    “If you think Bragg is guilty of abusing his office for nakedly partisan purposes, precisely what are Jordan, Comer, and Steil guilty of?“

    is spot on.

    Collapse
Load More