Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is reportedly refusing to fully comply with congressional investigators who’ve been inquiring about his attempts to indict former President Donald Trump.
When one House Judiciary Committee staffer tried calling his office around noon on Wednesday, the woman who picked up promptly hung up on them, according to a tipster who spoke with the New York Post.
When the staffer reportedly called back and identified themself, another woman told them to get lost.
“Your committee has no jurisdiction over us. You’re wrong. Stop calling us with this bulls–t,” the woman allegedly said.
The Post’s source was taken aback by the women’s behavior.
“I don’t think I’ve ever seen any government entity respond to Congress in that manner. It’s quite embarrassing, but I don’t think anyone is surprised based on how partisan that office has become,” the unnamed tipster said.
The following day, Bragg finally responded to the House Judiciary Committee, but certainly not in a nice way.
Instead, he had his general counsel, Leslie Dubeck, send a scathing note to committee chair Rep. Jim Jordan slamming him and the rest of the committee for wanting to know more about the investigation into Trump.
Referencing a letter Jordan had written to Bragg days earlier demanding that the Manhattan DA testify to Congress, Dubeck called it an “unprecedented (sic) inquiry into a pending local prosecution.”
House Admin Chairman @RepBryanSteil, Judiciary Chairman @Jim_Jordan , and House Oversight Chairman @RepJamesComer sent a letter to Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg demanding communications, documents & testimony relating to Bragg’s unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority. pic.twitter.com/jW3RklvHWu
— House Admin. Committee GOP (@HouseAdmin) March 20, 2023
“The Letter only came after Donald Trump created a false expectation that he would be arrested the next day and his lawyers reportedly urged you to intervene. Neither fact is a legitimate basis for congressional inquiry,” the note reads.
She continued by citing four reasons why Jordan’s request for testimony and documents is somehow, someway illegitimate:
- The committee is seeking “non-public information about a pending criminal investigation, which is confidential under state law.”
- The committee’s requests are an “unlawful incursion into New York’s sovereignty” under the 10th Amendment, which is reportedly designed to prevent Congress from interfering in state-level matters.
- Congress is “not the appropriate branch to review pending criminal matters” because Congress is neither “a law enforcement or trial agency.”
- And finally, requests for info regarding the use of federal funding are “an insufficient basis to justify these unconstitutional requests.”
Though weirdly enough, Dubeck did ultimately agree to “submit a letter describing” the office’s “use of federal funds.”
“The Letter indicates that its requests may be related to a review of federal public safety funds. But the Letter does not suggest any way in which either the District Attorney’s testimony about his prosecutorial decisions or the documents and communications of former Assistant District Attorneys on a pending criminal investigation would shed light on that review,” her note to Jordan reads.
“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,” it continues.
Also weirdly enough, despite Bragg’s office hanging up on a Judiciary Committee staffer, Dubeck called for a meeting between both entities.
“[T]he District Attorney is obliged by the federal and state constitutions to protect the independence of state law enforcement functions from federal interference. The DA’s Office therefore requests an opportunity to meet and confer with committee staff to
better understand what information the DA’s Office can provide that relates to a legitimate legislative interest and can be shared consistent with the District Attorney’s constitutional obligations,” the note reads.
Jordan responded to some of the letter’s contents during an appearance the following day on Charlie Kirk’s show.
He specifically zeroed in on Bragg’s allegation that the Judiciary Committee had been pressured by Trump into investigating his own investigation into the former president.
“The DOJ chose not to take this case after the Mueller investigation. The previous district attorney wasn’t going to take the case. But more importantly, and most importantly, Alvin Bragg wasn’t going to take the case …. until President Trump announced he was running for president,” he said, turning the tables on Bragg.
Jim Jordan on Alvin Bragg’s response to his March 20th letter demanding answers on possible Trump indictment:
“Alvin Bragg wasn’t going to take this case…until President Trump announced he was running for President.” pic.twitter.com/J1YQDdSER8
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) March 23, 2023
That said, Dubeck’s letter did achieve one goal.
“The response [her note on behalf of Bragg] was enough to forestall a planned GOP subpoena for Bragg, which had been prepared to go Thursday should the prosecutor have blown off the committee entirely,” according to the Post.
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- Nearly 10,000 pics from Hunter’s laptop hit the web: If Americans ‘want to know what their first family is like’ - June 1, 2023
- Harris Faulkner suggests Fox News is ‘going to have to change’ over New York DEI requirements - June 1, 2023
- 21 GOP-led states back Florida family’s lawsuit against school for covertly transitioning daughter - June 1, 2023
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.