Chairman Jordan can be called against himself
His patently unconstitutional investigation of the Manhattan DA and grand jury exemplifies weaponization of the federal government for ulterior motives at its worst
Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH) is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Jordan is also chairman of the United States House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.
Congressional committees are not empowered to serve as defense counsel in criminal prosecutions. Indeed, the Constitution’s authors implacably opposed congressional involvement in law enforcement. It prohibits the legislative infliction of punishment in Article I, section 9, clause 3. Moreover, separation of powers precludes congressional interference in law enforcement. James Madison, father of the Constitution, observed in Federalist 47 quoting Montesquieu, "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body, there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner.”
The United States Supreme Court underscored in Younger v. Harris (1971), the independence of state systems of criminal justice from federal interference as part of “Our Federalism.” Under Article VI of the Constitution, state officers are every bit as obligated to enforce and defend the Constitution as are their federal counterparts.
Notwithstanding this unambiguous constitutional landscape, chairman Jordan is attempting to become former President Donald Trump’s defense counsel to defeat the 34 felony count indictment voted by a Manhattan grand jury against Trump for falsely representing hush money payments to short-lived mistresses as legal fees with the intent to conceal violation of federal or state laws, i.e., influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election by paying for secrecy of politically embarrassing information.
Chairman Jordan has subpoenaed Mark Pomerantz, a former Special Assistant District Attorney who participated in an investigation of Mr. Trump and his businesses. The purpose is to extract privileged information incriminating Trump to deliver on a silver platter to Trump himself like House Speaker Kevin McCarthy did in volunteering 41,000 hours of video recorded by the Capitol’s security cameras to Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, a Trump sycophant. It is virtually certain that Jordan is coordinating his pro-Trump investigation of the Manhattan DA with Trump himself or his alter egos. The congressman will hide behind the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause to conceal his slavishness to Trump.
The United States Supreme Court underscored in Watkins v. United States (1957), that the congressional power to investigate requires a showing of a legitimate legislative purpose.
Chairman Jordan belatedly characterized the allegedly legitimate legislative purpose for the Pomeranz subpoena as the consideration of legislation that would shield current or former presidents from state or local prosecutions. But Mr. Trump is not a sitting president. He is a private citizen. He has no title of nobility. His prosecution pivots on actions taken as a private citizen, not as POTUS. Further, the federal government is constitutionally powerless to immunize any private citizen from state or local law enforcement as part of “Our Federalism.” Even POTUS’s pardon power is confined to “offenses against the United States” in Article 2, section 2, clause 1. State offenses of the type Trump confronts are outside POTUS’s pardon universe.
Just as states are prohibited from questioning federal law enforcement officials in executing federal duties, In re Neagle (1890), the United States Congress is prohibited from interfering with state law enforcement officials in executing state duties. To the extent the United States Constitution limits state law enforcement, protecting that federal interest is consigned exclusively to the United States Supreme Court in reviewing state court judgments. It is not a legislative function. Moreover, Chairman Jordan cannot point to any evidence that New York state judges are unwilling or unable to enforce federal constitutional rights.
Charles Tiefer, former acting general counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives, testified to Congress in 2016: “[T]here hasn’t been a subpoena enforcement against a state attorney general in 200 years…and there’s an excellent reason. State Attorneys General have their own sovereign state authority. They are frequently elected. They have their own base, their own electoral base, their own mission, and their mission is to pursue things that Congress can’t.”
Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg has sued Jordan in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the constitutionality of the Pomerantz subpoena. Federal District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, has set a hearing on Bragg’s motion for a temporary restraining order for April 19, 2023.
If Judge Vyskocil declines to sanction Chairman Jordan for his sub-frivolous unconstitutional subpoena, then his lawless mischief will be repeated against Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney Fani Willis when a Georgia grand jury in the near future indicts Mr. Trump for 2020 presidential electoral fraud in violation of state law, including exhorting and threatening secretary of state Brad Raffensperger on tape to find an additional 11,700 votes to enable Trump to claim victory.
Chairman Jim Jordan is a joke, like having bank robber Willie Sutton serve as Comptroller of the Currency.