Legal expert drops the hammer on Jim Jordan’s ‘clown show’ in New York

Jim Jordan on Monday announced plans to hold hearings in New York next week with the apparent intent of highlighting crime in the city where former President Donald Trump is facing 34 felony counts related to allegedly covering up hush money payments to Stormy Daniels.

Jordan, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee and so-called “weaponization of government” subcommittee, signaled plans to target Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, who is leading the former president’s prosecution.

“Alvin Bragg’s radical pro-crime, anti-victim policies have led to an increase in violent crime in New York City," Jordan tweeted.

“Next week, the Judiciary Committee will examine these policies during a field hearing in Manhattan.”

IN OTHER NEWS: Arizona House expels Republican election denier over baseless conspiracy theories

The strategy is likely to backfire, according to at least one legal expert.

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Dennis Aftergut writes in The Bulwark that by assailing New York authorities, the far-right congressman from Ohio is practically writing talking points for his political opponents, noting the persistent effort by Republicans to label Democrats with the “defund the police tag” that’s contradicted by Trump’s calls to defund the FBI.

Perhaps more importantly, Jordan’s maneuver shows that he’s constrained entirely by pro-Trump constituents in a heavily gerrymandered district.

“This lack of accountability frees Jordan to follow Trump’s lead, which—and here’s that silver lining—will likely only continue to put off swing voters and accelerate the national party’s slide down the tubes in 2024,” Aftergut writes.

RELATED: Alvin Bragg using 'very rare' maneuver to try to invalidate Jim Jordan's subpoena: CNN legal analyst

Jordan has signaled plans to use the New York field hearing to show that Bragg is selectively prosecuting Trump and neglecting other crimes.

He said the committee will hear “from ‘victims’ of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s policies.”

“In other words," Aftergut writes, "Let’s exploit a few victims of crime for political gain."

“America, prepare for Jordan’s shameless partisan attacks on the discretion that all prosecutors deploy in deciding which crimes they can prove and which they can’t.”

Aftergut notes that although the circumstances of crime victims aren’t yet known publicly, any honest prosecutor would acknowledge that “There are boatloads of cases where the cops can’t find the perpetrator, or where the witnesses or the documents just aren’t there to make a winnable case.”

“In some cases, you just don’t have that confidence, and you can’t proceed” with a winnable case, Aftergut writes.

“But in bringing the case of People of the State of New York v. Trump, Bragg obviously did.”