Oh, So That's Who Helped With Kamala's Debate Prep
Wait, That's Who Introduced Kamala to Her Husband?
Four Big Debate Lies From Kamala Harris...and the Moderator Too
Confirmed: The Haitian Invaders Are Eating Geese in Ohio
Voter Reactions to the ABC News Debate Were Not Good...for Kamala
The Debate About the Debate
Johnson Pushes Back Vote on Stopgap Funding Plan Amid GOP Opposition
Trump Won the Debate
Chip Roy Makes the Crucial Case for the SAVE Act in Hearing on...
One Country Is Taking a Stand to Stop Illegal Immigration. Here's How Its...
Illegal Alien Living on Martha's Vineyard Was Just Arrested. Here’s Why.
Democrats and Media Are Trying to Pull Off a Three-Pronged Lie About Kamala...
Debunking Kamala's Biggest Lies That the ABC News Moderators Let Slide
Kamala Harris Picked a Particularly Disgraceful Time to Bring up January 6 at...
Eco-Groups' Post-Debate Silence Shows Kamala Harris Is Lying on Energy
Tipsheet

Read Jim Jordan's Response to Fulton County DA Fani Willis

AP Photo/John Bazemore, File

After claiming that House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) was "interfering" in her prosecution of former President Donald Trump, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis received a response from the chairman — and he's not backing down.

Advertisement

If Willis thought she could shame Jordan into abandoning his probe of the Fulton County District Attorney's office for what she alleged was "flagrantly at odds with the Constitution," Jordan disabused her of such a notion.

"Your letter reinforces the Committee’s concern that your prosecutorial conduct is geared more toward advancing a political cause and your own notoriety than toward promoting the fair and just administration of the law," Jordan's response states. "Congress in general, and this Committee in particular, have a strong legislative interest in ensuring that popularly elected local prosecutors do not misuse their law-enforcement authority to target federal officials for political reasons," the Judiciary chairman reminded. "We can only conclude from your hostile response to the Committee’s oversight that you are actively and aggressively engaged in such a scheme."

Jordan's message continues by providing a a helpful primer on the Constitutional and legal authorities on which Jordan's probe rests:

Contrary to the arguments in your letter, this matter does not only implicate local or state interests. Rather, the indictment of a former President of the United States and other former senior federal officials by an elected local prosecutor of the opposing political party, who will face the prospect of re-election, implicates substantial federal interests. If state or local prosecutors can engage in politically motivated prosecutions of senior federal officers for acts they performed while in federal office, this could have a profound impact on how federal officers choose to exercise their powers. Indeed, as the full report from your Special Purpose Grand Jury demonstrates, you contemplated an even more extensive intrusion into federal interests, targeting U.S. Senators—including the current Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee—for actions they undertook in their official capacities.

Many of the baseless assertions raised in your September 7 letter have already been considered and rejected in federal court earlier this year. Federal court precedent, up to and including the Supreme Court, is clear that Congress may conduct oversight of matters, like this one, on which legislation may be had and that your reasons for noncompliance with the Committee’s requests have no merit. We trust the information in this letter helps you to understand the relevant Constitutional and legal authorities.

Advertisement

Jordan then refutes the claims Willis made in her nine-page letter one by one: the Judiciary Committee has the constitutional authority to conduct oversight of your apparently politically motivated prosecution; Willis' reliance upon Mazars to reject the committee's oversight is misplaced; the committee is authorized to conduct this inquiry; the inquiry is on a matter on which legislation could be had; Jordan's requests are pertinent to the inquiry; the committee's inquiry does not intrude on federalism because Congress is exercising its core authority to legislate; the committee's inquiry does not usurp executive powers; and the committee requires additional information to advance its oversight.

Unsatisfied with Willis' response to their previous request for information from her office, Jordan reiterated that the Judiciary Committee is "examining whether legislative reforms are necessary to insulate former and current Presidents from politically motivated prosecutions by state and local officials, and whether the Department of Justice coordinated with your office on your indictments."

Renewing the requests from his August 24 letter, Jordan again asked that Willis "comply in full as soon as possible, but no later than October 11, 2023. As an accommodation to you, we are willing to prioritize the production of documents and communications reflecting the coordination between your office and the Department of Justice," Jordan added.

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement