Jim Jordan's Crusade Against Alvin Bragg Could Come Back to Bite Him

Efforts by Republican committee leaders to investigate Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on Donald Trump's behalf could legally lead nowhere due to state and federal sovereignty, multiple legal experts told Newsweek.

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer and House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil sent a letter to Bragg on Monday "demanding communications, documents and testimony relating to Bragg's unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority and the potential indictment of former President Donald Trump."

The four-page correspondence warned Bragg about engaging "in an unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority" should he pursue legal avenues in relation to Trump's alleged $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. The Republican leaders of GOP-led majorities cited Trump's status as a former president and now a current candidate running again for office.

The trio also heavily criticized the case's star witness Michael Cohen, who they deemed a "disgrace" for pleading guilty to the same crime Trump is being investigated for by Bragg. Trump has denied both the payment to Daniels, as well as the affair.

"Congress' power to investigate and issue subpoenas and so on is limited to matters that involve a valid legislative purpose," Jim Townsend, director of the Levin Center at Wayne State University Law School, told Newsweek via phone. "That's the key term, meaning that it has to be related to and a furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress."

Republicans' framing in their letter to Bragg alludes to funding and "congressional scrutiny about how public safety funds appropriated by Congress are implemented by local law-enforcement agencies."

Townsend referred to the trio's brief mentions of legislative purpose and their suggestion of being legitimate scrutiny, saying that it may sound like a legislative purpose in theory. However, he said century-old law dictates that Congress doesn't have authority to involve itself in criminal prosecutions.

Robert Sanders, assistant professor of national security at the University of New Haven, called it a "funky situation" and referenced the 10th Amendment due to the federal government and the state of New York being separate sovereigns.

"If the 10th Amendment will bar Jordan from doing something and overcoming the sovereignty of New York to do its executive privilege functions, I.e. investigate crimes within jurisdiction, Jordan needs to go pound sand," Sanders told Newsweek via phone. "But if the 10th Amendment's not a shield, or if there's something else he can latch himself onto...he can try to jump in there."

There's also the question of political motivation, Sanders added, referencing Republicans' attempts to show nefarious actions by Bragg and his office towards Trump.

"Or," Sanders said, "no political agenda exists and there's a determination that potential violations [were made] by a former president in a country where everyone is being governed by rule of law."

Former federal Prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek via phone that "there's not a whole lot Jordan can do." Congress does have subpoena power, which could be Republicans' next step in trying to make Bragg testify.

"But there's no way a prosecutor is talking about a pending case or pending investigation under any circumstance," Rahmani said. "It's just not going to happen."

If Bragg refused to comply in that scenario, the GOP could hold him in contempt, though Rahmani said the Department of Justice would likely never act on that kind of contempt. A similar situation occurred with Steve Bannon.

"There's really no way to stop investigation, but what can [Republicans] do with the results of it?" Sanders said.

'Opened a political Pandora's box'

Questions also remain on what a subpoena issued to Bragg would mean in the larger picture in terms of setting precedent for future presidents and majority members of Congress.

"When you're a prosecutor, the last thing you want is to get involved in the political process," Rahmani said. "Your job is to basically follow the law and the facts of the law. Over the years it's becoming more and more political...Now it's dependent on who's in the White House and who's the attorney general; they have very different computations of the law and that's not really how it's supposed to be."

That kind of legal recourse could be detrimental, he added.

"We may have opened a political Pandora's box," he said. "If Trump wins, are Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden all going to be prosecuted? Is that the type of country we want to live in? Third-world countries want to prosecute their political opponents. I'm concerned that there's gonna be retaliation if the Republicans win the presidency."

Townsend analogized the current situation to a hypothetical one involving a former Democratic president being investigated in a strong red state.

"Regardless of which party is involved or which side parties are on, the core issues are still whether the actions of congress are violating separating of powers—which is essentially what could be happening," Townsend said, echoing Rahmani's concerns about undermined prosecutions in other countries.