Home committee chairmen double down on Manhattan DA oversight efforts | CNN Politics

Washington
CNN
 — 

The chairmen of three Home committees despatched a letter Saturday to the Manhattan district lawyer main the probe into Donald Trump, doubling down on their efforts to intervene within the hush cash investigation forward of doable legal prices in opposition to the previous president.

The letter from the chairmen of the Home Judiciary, Oversight and Administration committees to Manhattan District Lawyer Alvin Bragg pushed again on his case in opposition to showing for a transcribed interview with their panels and argued that they now really feel compelled to think about whether or not Congress ought to take legislative motion on three separate points “to guard former and/or present Presidents from politically motivated prosecutions by state and native officers.”

The letter – written by Republicans Jim Jordan, James Comer and Bryan Steil – comes after they initially referred to as on Bragg earlier this week to testify earlier than their committees and criticized his investigation into Trump as an “unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority.”

Bragg is investigating Trump’s alleged position in a scheme to pay adult-film star Stormy Daniels earlier than the 2016 presidential election to maintain silent about an alleged affair with Trump a decade earlier. Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels.

Bragg’s basic counsel had initially responded on Thursday, telling the Home committee leaders that they lacked a “reputable foundation for congressional inquiry” and noting that their requests for data “solely got here after Donald Trump created a false expectation that he can be arrested the following day and his attorneys reportedly urged you to intervene.”

The chairmen claimed in Saturday’s letter that Bragg had not disputed “the central allegations at difficulty” — that his workplace is below “political stress from left-wing activists and former prosecutors” and is “planning to make use of an alleged federal marketing campaign finance violation, beforehand declined by federal prosecutors, as a automobile to increase the statute of limitations on an in any other case misdemeanor offense and indict for the primary time in historical past a former President of the USA.”

They argued that the potential legal indictment of a former president and 2024 presidential candidate “implicates substantial federal pursuits, notably in a jurisdiction the place trial-level judges are also popularly elected.”

Bragg responded to the chairmen’s letter Saturday night on Twitter, writing, “We consider instances in our jurisdiction primarily based on the info, the legislation, and the proof. It’s not acceptable for Congress to intrude with pending native investigations. This unprecedented inquiry by federal elected officers into an ongoing matter serves solely to hinder, disrupt and undermine the reputable work of our devoted prosecutors. As at all times, we’ll proceed to comply with the info and be guided by the rule of legislation in the whole lot we do.”

Going additional than they’ve earlier than, Jordan, Comer and Steil wrote within the letter that they might select to think about three areas of laws, together with broadening “the preemption provision within the Federal Election Marketing campaign Act,” including that such a measure might “have the impact of higher delineating the prosecutorial authorities of federal and native officers on this space and blocking the selective or politicized enforcement by state and native prosecutors of marketing campaign finance restrictions pertaining to federal elections.”

The second piece of laws they might contemplate regards tying federal funds to improved metrics for public security funds — a measure they are saying can be prompted by allegations that the Manhattan DA is utilizing public security funds for his investigation into Trump.

Additionally they could contemplate a measure overhauling the authorities of particular counsels and higher delineating their relationships with different prosecuting entities, they mentioned, arguing that the circumstances of the Trump investigation “stem, partly, from Particular Counsel Mueller’s investigation.”

This story has been up to date with a response from Manhattan District Lawyer Alvin Bragg.