BRAGG TO JORDAN: "DROP DEAD!"

BRAGG TO JORDAN ET AL DROP DEAD

Last Monday, Trump Toadies Jungle Gym Jordan, best known for looking the other way as Assistant Wrestling Coach at Ohio State while head team physician Richard Strauss sexually molested the athletes whose welfare Jordan waas responsible for; James Comer, well-known for driving his girlfriend to get an abortion after beating her up; and Bryan Steil, graduate of the Paul Ryan School of How Government Doesn’t Work, the three masquerading respectively as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Oversight and Accountability Committee, and the Committee on House Administration, taking orders from Dear Leader after he “truthed” as his Twitter knockoff “Truth Social” that New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg “BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE CRIME OF ‘INTERFERENCE IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION,”wrote to Bragg and demanded that he appear before them to explain why he was making a “politically influenced” prosecution of Dear Leader.

This is the same Dear Leader who has been in a progressive meltdown since telling the world last Saturday that he was going to be arrested this past Tuesday for his payment of hush money to Stormy Daniels.

Dear Leader has posted the following gems since:

“District Attorney Bragg is a danger to our Country and should be removed immediately, along with Radical Lunatic Bombthrower Jack Smith, who is harassing and intimidating innocent people at levels not seen before, “Get Trump” Letitia James, the worst Attorney General in the United States, and Atlanta D.A. Fani Willis, who is trying to make PERFECT phone calls into a plot to destroy America, but reigns over the most violent Crime Scene in America, and does nothing about it!”

And

“Isn’t it terrible that D.A. Bragg refuses to do the right thing and “call it a day?” He would rather indict an innocent man and create years of hatred, chaos, and turmoil, than give him his well deserved “freedom.” The whole Country sees what is going on, and they’re not going to take it anymore. They’ve had enough! There was no Error made, No Misdemeanor, No Crime and, above all, NO CASE. They spied on my campaign, Rigged the Election, falsely Impeached, cheated and lied. They are HUMAN SCUM!”

And

“HOW DO YOU INDICT A PERSON WHO HAS’NT DONE ANYTHING WRONG, AND YOU KNOW THAT PERSON HAS’NT DONE ANYTHING WRONG???”

Today, Leslie Dubeck, General Counsel to D.A. Bragg’s office, responded to Gym and the gang with a letter that demonstrates how one can use many words on a five-page single-spaced letter to politely say “FUCK YOU!”

“The District Attorney of New York County is investigating allegations that Donald Trump engaged in violations of ew York State penal law. The investigation is one of thousands conducted by the Office of the District Attorney in its long history of pursuing justice and protecting New Yorkers. The investigation has been conducted consistently with the District Attorney's oath to faithfully execute the laws of the State of ew York. 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.

“Your letter dated March 20, 2023 (the "Letter"), in contrast, is an unprecedented inquiry into a pending local prosecution. 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.

“In New York, the District Attorney is a constitutional officer charged with "the responsibility to conduct all prosecutions for crimes and offenses cognizable by the courts of the county in which he serves." People v Di Falco, 44 .Y.2d 482, 486 (1978); see also Matter of Haggerry v. Flimefein, 89 N.Y.2d 431, 436 (1997); Matter of Schumer v. Holtzman, 60 .Y.2d 46, 52 (1983).

“These are quintessential police powers belonging to the State, and your letter treads into territory very clearly reserved to the states. It suggests that Congress's investigation is being "conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to 'punish' those investigated," and is, therefore, "indefensible." Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957).

“The Letter seeks non-public information about a pending criminal investigation, which is confidential under state law. CPL§ 190.25(4)(a) ("Grand jury proceedings are secret"); Penal Law § 215.70 (prosecutor's disclosure of grand jury evidence is a felon y unless "in the proper discharge of his official duties or upon written order of the court"); Sanchez v. Ciry of New York, 201 A.D.2d 325, 326 (1st Dept. 1994) (witness statements to the District ttorney's Office protected by the public interest privilege); Public Officers Law § 87(2)(e) (shielding materials "compiled for law enforcement purposes" from public disclosure where disclosure would "interfere with law enforcement investigations" or "disclose confidential information relating to a criminal investigation").

“Like the Department of Justice, as a prosecutor exercising sovereign executive powers, the District Attorney has a constitutional obligation to "protect the government's ability to prosecute fully and fairly," to "independently and impartially uphold the rule of law," to "protect witnesses and law enforcement," to "avoid flight by those implicated in our investigations," and to "prevent additional crimes."

“Consistent with these constitutional obligations, the DA's Office is cognizant of DOJ's "longstanding" policy of not providing Congress with non-public information about investigations.

“With regard to pending federal investigations, "Congress seems generally to have been respectful of the need to protect material contained in open criminal investigative files. There is almost no precedent for Congress attempting to subpoena such material, and even fewer examples of the DO] actually producing such documents."

“The Letter's requests are an unlawful incursion into New York's sovereignty. Congress's investigative jurisdiction is derived from and limited by its power to legislate concerning federal matters. See, e.g., E astland v. U. S. Se-rvicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 503-05 (1975); Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 111-12 (1959); Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 195-96 (1880).

“The Constitution limits Congress's powers to those specifically enumerated; and the Tenth Amendment ensures that any unenumerated powers are reserved to the States. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 155-56 (1992). It is therefore generally understood that a Congressional committee may not "inquire into matters which are . . . reserved to the States." Charles \XI. Johnson, et al., House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and Procedures of the House at 254 (GPO 2017); see also Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187 ("The power of the Congress to conduct investigations ... comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government .... ") (emphasis added).

“Among the powers reserved to the states, "[p]erhaps the clearest example of traditional state authority is the punishment of local criminal activity." Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844, 858 (2014). Thus, federal interference with state law enforcement "is peculiarly inconsistent with our federal framework." Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611, 618 (1968); Invoking these principles of comity, eguity, and federalism, the Supreme Court held, in Younger v. Harris, that federal courts may not interfere in pending state criminal prosecutions absent extraordinary circumstances. 401 U.S. 37 (1971). This holding reflects a "continuance of the belief that the ational Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways."

“Against this history, it is clear that Congress cannot have any legitimate legislative task relating to the oversight of local prosecutors enforcing state law. To preserve the Constitution's federalist principles, the District Attorney is duty bound by his constitutional oath to New York's sovereign interest in the exercise of police powers reserved to the States under the Tenth Amendment.

“Congress is not the appropriate branch to review pending criminal matters. As the Supreme Court noted in Watkins, "Congress [is not] a law enforcement or trial agency. These are functions of the executive and judicial departments of government." 354 U.S. at 187. "[T]he power [of Congress] to investigate must not be confused with any of the powers of law enforcement; those powers are assigned under our Constitution to the Executive and the Judiciary." Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 161 (1955).

“If a grand jury brings charges against Donald Trump, the DA's Office will have an obligation, as in every case, to provide a significant amount of discovery from its files to the defendant so that he may prepare a defense. 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. 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. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-45.

“We trust that you appreciate the importance of our federal system, state law enforcement activities, and the critical need to maintain the integrity and independence of state criminal law enforcement from federal interference. While the DA's Office will not allow a Congressional investigation to impede the exercise of New York's sovereign police power, this Office will always treat a fellow government entity with due respect. Therefore, again, we request a meet and confer to understand whether the Committee has any legitimate legislative purpose in the requested materials that could be accommodated without impeding those sovereign interests.

We simply expect that our office also be treated "in a manner consistent with [New York's] status as a residuary sovereign and joint participant in the governance of the Nation." Aden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 748 (1999) (K.ennedy,J.).

I’ll bet attorneys love it when they get to write letters like this.

In other words, “Drop dead, you dumbfucks.”

You can support That’s Another Fine Mess with a paid subscription for only $7/month or $70/year, saving $14,

Comments are for paid subscribers.