'Particularly repugnant': Former prosecutor accuses Jim Jordan of obstruction of justice
Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner walked through the recent battle between Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH).
In response to a congressional subpoena, Bragg launched a lawsuit against Jordan for interfering with law enforcement, but Kirschner describes a much more serious issue with Jordan's actions
Jordan plans to take the committee to New York to host a Republican-led hearing attacking Bragg for the crime rate in New York City.
Responding to headlines that Jordan is "taking his fight to NYC," Kirschner said he would have written that Jordan is "taking his obstruction to NYC."
IN OTHER NEWS: Special counsel probes Trump over fundraising off false election fraud claims: report
He cited an editorial from Dennis Aftergut in the Bulwark, saying, "since February, he has hosted hearings that have flopped harder than a distracted trapeze artist. As Francis Wilkinson wrote in the Nation yesterday, Jordan doesn’t 'seem able to manufacture a political hit for a new era.'"
Aftergut goes to explain that this jaunt is taxpayer-funded, meaning the political stunt is being paid for by everyday Americans who must send in their taxes by Monday.
"As a former career prosecutor who worked with countless victims," Kirschner explained, "I find this particularly repugnant Jim Jordan using victims as props for political gain and what if this lawsuit that Alvin Bragg just filed to stop Jim Jordan from obstructing defendant Donald Trump's prosecution."
After doing some research into the judge who was assigned the case, Kirschner explained it was Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil. She's a Trump-appointed judge who dismissed the defamation suit from Karen McDougal against Tucker Carlson. McDougal alleged in her lawsuit that Tucker Carlson defamed her when he said that she personally extorted Trump for the hush money.
The judge claimed that Tucker Carlson's "statements are rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate, and as such, are not actionable as defamation." The judge continued that the "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.'"
The lawsuit resulted in a slew of headlines quoting the judge saying that no one can believe anything Carlson says.
Kirschner asked the judge, "Do you think the Fox News viewers believe him?"
He pledged to keep an eye on the story, but regardless of what is decided in the case before Vyskocil, it'll likely be appealed.
See the commentary below or at the link here.
Leave a Comment
Related Post