This week, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan proposed appropriations recommendations that include a call to “cut funding for politically motivated prosecutions.”
The proposal is directed at prosecutors involved in cases against former President Donald Trump, specifically targeting Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Last week, Jordan requested that Bragg and prosecutor Matthew Colangelo testify about what he has referred to as a “kangaroo court” that led to Trump’s unprecedented criminal conviction.
Jordan’s office stated that he is also suggesting measures to “rein in abusive federal law enforcement agencies,” including zeroing out Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office and ending what he views as a political witch hunt.
In a letter to House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, Jordan said the House Judiciary Committee has “conducted oversight of the troubling rise in politicized prosecutions and the use of abusive ‘lawfare’ tactics to target political opponents.”
Jordan said “rogue prosecutors” have abused “the rules of professional conduct and their duty to do justice in service of politicized ends.”
“He recommended that the Appropriations Committee adopt language to eliminate federal funding for state prosecutors or state attorneys general involved in such activity and ‘to zero out federal funding for federal prosecutors engaged in such abuse,’” Axios reported.
Legal analysts believe that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of Trump could face significant legal challenges if it is appealed, following the recent guilty verdict on all 34 charges.
The former president and likely 2024 Republican nominee was accused of falsifying business records in the first degree.
Despite pleading not guilty, Trump was found guilty on all counts by a jury of 12. Sentencing is set for July 11, just four days before the Republican National Convention, with each count carrying a maximum prison term of four years.
In total, Trump faces a maximum sentence of 136 years behind bars. But some legal experts say the trial is “a target-rich environment for appeal,” which Trump is expected to pursue.
“I believe that the case will be reversed eventually, either in the state or federal systems,” Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law attorney and Fox News contributor, told the network hours after Trump’s conviction.
“However, this was the worst expectation for a trial in Manhattan,” he said. “I had hoped that the jurors might redeem the integrity of a system used for political purposes.”
“The trial is a target-rich environment for appeal. However, that appeal will stretch beyond the election. In the meantime, Democrats and President Biden can add ‘convicted felon’ to the political mantra,” he said.
John Malcolm, a former federal prosecutor, stressed to Fox News Digital that he is confident that the jury’s verdict reflects their conviction rooted in the testimony of Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen. Despite Trump’s defense dismissing Cohen as a “GLOAT” or “greatest liar of all time,” the jury’s decision is highly significant.
“The jury ended up believing Michael Cohen, which is something I have a hard time conceiving since Michael Cohen has lied every time he has been under oath in the past and admitted that he hates Donald Trump, blaming him for all his problems, stole from him, and will profit from this conviction,” Malcolm said.
Fox News added: “Prosecutors needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, a former porn star, in the lead-up to the 2016 election – to silence her about an alleged affair with Trump in 2006.
They were ultimately successful. Trump has denied the affair throughout the trial.”
Gregory Germain, a law professor at Syracuse University College of Law, observed that it was “a risky strategy for Trump to focus on Michael Cohen’s credibility rather than focusing on the convoluted legal basis for the claims.”
1 Comment
Typical. On top of sending troops to illegal and undeclared wars all over the globe, the government thinks enlisted people are their livestock. And they wonder why they need to resort to a mandatory draft.