House Democrats Chide Republicans for ‘Politically Interfering’ in Manhattan DA’s Trump Probe

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Callif.) arrives before the fifth day of the Senate Impeachment trials for former President Donald Trump on Capitol Hill on Feb. 13, 2021, in Washington. (Photo by Stefani Reynolds - Pool/Getty Images)

House Democrats criticized their colleagues across the aisle on March 23 over what they suggested was “political interference” in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation of former President Donald Trump.

Earlier this week, amid rumors that Bragg was seeking an indictment, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), House Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), and House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) sent the district attorney a letter demanding answers about what they called an “unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority.”

“I was astonished, actually, when I saw the letter from the three committee chairs to Mr. Bragg, essentially calling on him to violate grand jury secrecy laws in New York, which, of course, is a felony. He rightly declined to do that,” Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, told reporters at the Democrats’ weekly press conference at the Capitol.

“My call was for those three to withdraw the letter immediately, hopefully recognizing the mistake that they had made, but that’s too much to ask, I suppose,” he said. “But I think it’s important to let the process play out.”

Fellow Democrat Rep. Ted Lieu of California echoed that sentiment, charging that the Republicans were making assumptions with “no basis, no evidence.”

“What’s particularly disturbing with regard to what some Republican legislators are saying—we don’t even know if there are going to be charges,” Lieu said. “We don’t know what those charges are going to look like, and we don’t know what the grand jury evidence is.”

The Letter

In their letter, the Republican congressmen asserted that Bragg’s investigation of Trump was politically motivated, noting that the Justice Department had also examined the case and chosen not to pursue charges.

“Your decision to pursue such a politically 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,” the lawmakers wrote.

Bragg’s probe of the former president revolves around a $130,000 “hush money” payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels—whose legal name is Steffanie Clifford—by Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen. Speculation has been widespread that the case is built on the “untested” legal theory that Trump should have classified the reimbursement to Cohen as a campaign expense, given that it was weeks before the 2016 presidential election.

However, new evidence surfaced this week in the form of a 2018 letter from Cohen’s former attorney to the Federal Election Commission, which indicated that Trump never reimbursed Cohen for the payment and that the payment “does not constitute a campaign contribution or expenditure.”

Despite that bombshell revelation, Lieu also accused Republicans on Thursday of remaining “silent” during Cohen’s 2018 criminal conviction for, among other crimes, “causing an unlawful campaign contribution,” and advocated for a “wait and see approach” on Trump.

“Let’s wait to see if there are going to be charges,” he said. “Let’s wait to see what the charges are, let’s see what the evidence is, and we should let law enforcement do their jobs without political interference.”

District Attorney’s Response

The Democrats’ remarks coincided with the Thursday response from Bragg’s office to the congressmen’s request for testimony, which Manhattan District Attorney’s Office General Counsel Leslie Dubeck described as “unconstitutional” and an “unlawful incursion into New York’s sovereignty.”

“The letter’s allegation that the DA’s Office is pursuing a prosecution for political purposes is unfounded, and regardless, the proper forum for such a challenge is the Courts of New York, which are equipped to consider and review such objections,” Dubeck wrote. “In addition, review by the U.S. Supreme Court would be available to the extent any criminal case raises federal issues. That is the mechanism afforded to every defendant in a criminal case. Congress has no role to play in that review, especially as to a pending state criminal proceeding.”

Asserting that Bragg’s conduct had been consistent with his oath of office, she added: “The District Attorney pledged that the DA’s Office would ‘publicly state the conclusion of our investigation—whether we conclude our work without bringing charges, or move forward with an indictment.’ He stands by that pledge. And if charges are brought at the conclusion, it will be because the rule of law and faithful execution of the District Attorney’s duty require it.”