The House GOP inquiry was motivated by Trump creating a false expectation of imminent arrest, claims the Manhattan district attorney’s office
A New York grand jury probes a $130,000 alleged payment of hush money to Stormy Daniels in exchange for publicity publicity about an affair with the former president
It is even more fraught because of Trump’s candidacy for the White House race in 2024, and his campaign’s continued persecution due to investigations into his conduct after the last election. He is also promising a presidency of “retribution” against his foes if he wins the Oval Office again.
Bragg’s office is investigating Trump over a $130,000 payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, made just before the 2016 election in order to quiet her allegations of an affair between the two. Trump has denied the affair. A New York grand jury is investigating whether Trump falsified his records of the hush money payment in order to cover up a violation of campaign finance laws.
The new majority of the House has been demanding testimony from the district attorney of Manhattan about the alleged payment of hush money to an adult film star before the election. It looks like there is a deliberate attempt to influence the grand jury.
Costello was expected to offer evidence that contradicts testimony provided by Cohen, who admitted to paying $130,000 to Daniels to stop her from going public about an alleged affair with the former president. Trump has denied the affair.
Bragg Didn’t Take His Country Back: Protecting the Public Interests of the New York Attorney General Against the Hush Money Payment
The ex-president’s tactics were to intimidate prosecutors, mobilize his supporters and force top GOP officials to support him. The ex-president’s call for a protest to take his country back struck an ominous tone since he showed on January 6, 2021, that he was willing to insemitch violence to further his interests.
It may harm the campaign of Donald Trump for a second White House term. Chris Christie said last Sunday. It’s not a help.” Or, as National Review editor-in-chief Rich Lowry has suggested, it may have the opposite effect, serving to “rally more Republicans” to Trump’s side.
For a lifetime, Trump has been in the public eye and his ability to drive the media narrative is nothing new. Republican leaders argue that prosecutors in New York can’t press charges for faking business data because it’s on very shaky ground.
But Bragg’s spokesperson insisted: “We will not be intimidated by attempts to undermine the justice process, nor will we let baseless accusations deter us from fairly applying the law.” The spoke person said that the Republican claims that Bragg ignored violent crime in New York because he wanted to prosecute Trump were false.
Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Sunday called it “the weakest case out there.” The California Republican, who has instructed GOP-led committees to investigate whether the Manhattan DA used federal funds to probe the hush money payment, said at a news conference that he had already spoken to Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan – who is investigating “the weaponization” of the government against political opponents – about looking into that question.
The Story of Donald Trump, Mike Pence, and the Case for a Charged Inciting Violation Against Trump in the New York City District Attorney’s Office
But the speaker also said people should not protest over what may or not happen and insisted that Trump didn’t want that either. “If this is to happen we want calmness out there … no violence or harm to anyone else,” McCarthy said.
The real question is whether mainstream Republicans can make light of the Manhattan district attorney’s office while still being honest with themselves and the former president. A few weeks ago his one-time Vice President, Mike Pence, called the potential charges a “Politically charged prosecution” even as he criticized the actions of Trump in inciting violence.
The Bragg investigation was building a lot of sympathy for the former president, according to New Hampshire Republican Gov. Chris Sununu. He added: “I (had) coffee this morning with some folks, and none of them were big Trump supporters, but they all said they felt like he was being attacked.”
A key principle of an indictment would be the idea that everyone, even a former President, is equal under the law. But any prosecution would also have to rebut arguments that Trump was being targeted simply because of who he is and was therefore not getting fair treatment. McCarthy attempted to move the debate over the case onto the other side in an exchange with CNN.
There is an issue of whether the political division and trauma of putting Trump on trial would be in the wider national interest, at least in a fairly constrained case that seems to hold fewer lasting constitutional implications than those connected to the January 6 investigations. History may dislike failed prosecutions.
The fact that the Daniels case dates back to an election that is now more than six years old, even as the nation faces another White House campaign, could also raise questions for the public, especially given the uncertainty about the case for anyone outside the small bubble of the investigation. Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union” on Sunday that “nobody in our nation is or should be above the law.” But he also said: “I would hope that, if they brought charges, that they have a strong case, because this is … unprecedented. There are risks involved.
Kelly implied that the role of presidents and ex-presidents in national life is being redefined by Trump, who burst onto the scene with an upstart presidential campaign. He again may be about to leap to the center, in the most contentious of ways, of the national psyche and political debate.
The Indictment of the Ex-President of the New York DA, Kevin McCarthy, During a GOP Causal Retreat
The chair of the Judiciary Committee, a House Oversight Committee chair, and a House Administration Committee Chair sent Bragg a letter demanding documents, communications and testimony related to his investigation of the former.
The three chairmen said that a possible indictment was an abuse of prosecutorial authority, and that federal authorities did not pursue the novel legal theory that was used in the case.
They said that if Bragg indicts Trump, his actions would interfere in the presidential election and erode confidence in the justice system.
They said they expect him to appear as soon possible before Congress but did not set a date for a hearing. They gave Bragg a deadline of Thursday to respond to them to set up a possible appearance.
House Republicans are huddling at their annual retreat in Orlando, Fla., and the former president, who is running for the GOP nomination in 2024, is dominating the conversation.
Kevin McCarthy, Speaker of the House, said on Monday that it was okay for the ex- president’s allies to publicly lambast a prosecutor as he conducts his work. The California Republican believed that House committees had the right to ask questions.
“One of the reasons we won races in New York is based upon this DA of not protecting the citizens of New York, and now he’s spending his time on this,” McCarthy said. “And the statute of limitations are gone.” He added about an indictment: “This will not hold up in court, if this is what he wants to do.”
Bragg’s probe of the corruption of the prosecutor: a reaction from a grassroots perspective on the alleged misconduct of a non-government official
Questions about Trump continued to be front and center when House Republicans tried to showcase their legislative agenda in the majority.
At a bilingual press conference with Hispanic Republicans Monday morning, the first question was about Bragg’s probe. Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla., used the same refrain most GOP lawmakers have used, telling reporters, “It certainly smells like it’s political.”
The tactic the GOP uses is the same as the one the Biden administration, Bragg and any other investigators used to advance a partisan political end.
The chairmen claimed in Saturday’s letter that Bragg had not disputed “the central allegations at issue” — that his office is under “political pressure from left-wing activists and former prosecutors” and is “planning to use an alleged federal campaign finance violation, previously declined by federal prosecutors, as a vehicle to extend the statute of limitations on an otherwise misdemeanor offense and indict for the first time in history a former President of the United States.”
Trump’s calls for protests, meanwhile, have authorities on edge in New York, where security cameras and barricades have been erected, and in Washington amid painful flashbacks to his incitement of violence to further his personal and political ends on January 6, 2021.
“I don’t know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star to secure silence over some type of alleged affair,” DeSantis told a news conference Monday, while stressing that he sees the prosecutor’s potential charges as an example of “pursuing a political agenda and weaponizing the office.” Conservative stalwart Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, who has already endorsed DeSantis despite him not even having officially announced yet, offered a similar version of this strategy on a radio show.
“I do get concerned when I look out there, and I see justice not being equal to others, especially in the history of where we are,” he said. “And the tough part is with a local DA playing in presidential politics, if that starts right there, don’t you think it’ll happen across the country?”
What Happened to Michael Cohen’s Investigation of the 2016 New York Counting Charges? CNN’s Cordero Talk to Wolflitzer
But the use of government power to advance political ends appears to mirror exactly the behavior Republicans, in their new subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government, are accusing the FBI, the Justice Department and other government agencies of.
The general counsel for the district attorney sent a letter to GOP lawmakers earlier this week that said their request for information was not a valid basis for congressional inquiry.
Republicans, along with every other American, do not know what the evidence is against Trump other than media accounts and a previous case involving his ex-lawyer, who was previously sent to jail for tax fraud.
CNN reported on Monday that prosecutors in Atlanta are weighing charges related to the Trump campaign’s election-stealing efforts in the state.
What has changed in the New York case? On Monday, CNN legal analyst Carrie Cordero talked to Wolflitzer in theSituation Room. “The facts of this case, going on almost seven years now, are really stale. What has changed more recently in the past year or so in New York has gotten to this point, that is the big question I have for New York.
This narrative is complicated and could be difficult to sell in a highly political case, but it is also possible to convince a jury.
“I’ve listened to Michael Cohen stand in front of the courthouse and say things that are directly contrary to what he said to us,” Costello said after an appearance that led some experts to question whether his testimony could influence any grand jury vote on a possible indictment.
The idea that a case would be made solely on Cohen’s word, without considerable corroborating evidence, seems unlikely. The rest of the country doesn’t comprehend much about this grave matter.
Trump is not going to win the nomination: a tale of two sides of one coin, but neither party wants to go. Aphosis of the Manhattan district attorney
That is not, however, quelling the storm that has accompanied Trump’s return to political center stage, which could reach hurricane strength in the days ahead.
Editor’s Note: Patrick T. Brown is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank and advocacy group based in Washington, DC. He is also a former senior policy adviser to Congress’ Joint Economic Committee. You can follow him on a social networking site. His views are not those of the piece. CNN has more opinion on it.
Republican primary voters can either support the former president against whom they are loathing or they can opt for a safer, more scandal-free option when the presidential campaigning begins in earnest.
The biggest political impact may be in creating a tightrope that will be difficult for Trump’s challengers and other Republicans in the future to walk.
On the legal question itself, many Republicans will go on the record as calling it the politicized decision of an overzealous prosecutor. Some will be tempted to vote for Trump because they argue that the party should unify against the so-called deep state and the media. The strategies of the Republicans will be to convince them of the fact that the Republicans will come for you if they can support Trump.
The ancient Greeks had a word for this kind of rhetorical move — apophasis, or, the art of bringing up a subject in a debate by claiming not to be bringing it up. There is a textbook example of the strategy when Republicans offer a response with implicit criticism of Trump and explicit criticism of the Manhattan District Attorney.
It is at risk of being too clever. DeSantis’ quip infuriated the usual MAGA online crowd, including the former president himself. Without laying out subtle criticisms of Trump, focusing their ire on the legal adventures of Manhattan district attorney would make it harder for Republicans to run or support other candidates.
Successful candidates and parties need to have a compelling story around their campaign. Without a case to be made for why the GOP should not vote for Trump, the narrative of the party will center on him and his supporters. It is at risk of letting Trump claim the nomination if the response focuses solely on the sins of prosecutors in New York.
After disappointing midterms in 2018 and 2022, and a lost presidential reelection bid in 2020, Republicans have hopefully learned the downside of putting all their eggs in the MAGA basket. Future general election wins are at risk if Trump is sole figurehead of GOP politics. Republicans will be quick to punish candidates who throw Trump under the bus.
Deputy District Attorney Jordan’s Response to the New York District Attorney’s Office Request for Documents and Testimony as a Precedent Investigation into a pending Local Prosecution
The New York District Attorney’s office called Republican requests for documents and testimony a “precedent inquiry” into a pending local prosecution.
She added that, “regardless, the proper forum for such a challenge is the Courts of New York, which are equipped to consider and review such objections.”
She wanted the committees to meet and talk with Bragg’s office about the purpose of the House, as well as whether it could turn over records without compromising New York’s interests.
When asked about his response to the letter from the general counsel of the Manhattan district attorney, Jordan said they were reviewing it. Jordan repeated his answer when asked if he would subpoena Bragg.
Comer told CNN the “Judiciary [committee] is the one that’s taking the lead on this” when asked about the Manhattan DA office’s response to the initial request from Congress.
The congressional request came after Donald Trump created a false expectation that he would be taken into custody the next day and his lawyers urged you to intercede, according to Dubeck. Neither fact is a legitimate basis for congressional inquiry.”
She said the 10th Amendment gave the federal government less power over local law enforcement than an executive branch entity.
Pointing to laws protecting grand jury secrecy, she said that the House Republicans were seeking “non-public information about a pending criminal investigation, which is confidential under state law,” and therefore, she argued, complying with the committees’ request would interfere with law enforcement.
Dubeck also scoffed at the Republicans’ claims that they needed testimony from Bragg and the requested documents as part of a congressional review of federal public safety funds.
The Letter doesn’t suggest that the testimony of the District Attorney or the documents and communications of former Assistant District Attorneys would shed light on the review.
But, she added, “nonetheless, to assist Congress in understanding the ways in which the DA’s Office has used federal funds, we are preparing and will submit a letter describing its use of federal funds.”
The General Counsel for the District Attorney of New York County wrote that the office would not allow a Congressional investigation to impede the exercise of New York’s police power.
The letter from the chairmen of the House Judiciary, Oversight and Administration committees to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg pushed back on his case against appearing for a transcribed interview with their panels and argued that they now feel compelled to consider whether Congress should take legislative action on three separate issues “to protect former and/or current Presidents from politically motivated prosecutions by state and local officials.”
Going further than they have before — Jordan, Comer and Steil wrote that they may choose to consider three areas of legislation, including broadening “the preemption provision in the Federal Election Campaign Act,” adding that such a measure could “have the effect of better delineating the prosecutorial authorities of federal and local officials in this area and blocking the selective or politicized enforcement by state and local prosecutors of campaign finance restrictions pertaining to federal elections.”
The second piece of legislation they may consider regards tying federal funds to improved metrics for public safety funds — a measure they say would be prompted by allegations that the Manhattan DA is using public safety funds for his investigation into Trump.
They also may consider a measure overhauling the authorities of special counsels and better delineating their relationships with other prosecuting entities, they said, arguing that the circumstances of the Trump investigation “stem, in part, from Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation.”
