House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan's (R-OH) attempt to force Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to justify his investigation of Donald Trump is a sign that he has no idea what his job is or the limits that constrain him from meddling in affairs that are none of his business.
That is the assertion of Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, who called out the Ohio Republican for his attempts to run interference for the former president who is the subject of multiple investigations.
As it stands now, Trump is reportedly on the verge of being indicted in Manhattan, while he is also the subject of a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice, a Fulton County, Georgia grand jury, and another lawsuit from New York Attorney General Leitia James.
With all of them looming, Rubin suggested Jordan needs to be put on notice that his attempts at meddling are not only not part of his job, but possibly illegal.
RELATED: Jim Jordan's dream of running interference for Donald Trump crushed by Jen Psaki
"MAGA Republicans, devoid of policy solutions and addicted to performance politics, act as if their House majority invests them with the power to rove the landscape to spot MAGA victims, skewer their enemies and defend their political allies," Rubin wrote. "Congress is not a supercharged prosecutorial supervisor. In our system of separation of powers, the duty to investigate and prosecute rests with the executive branch, either at the state or federal level."
With that in mind, she accused Jordan and his GOP congressional allies of trying to "politicize prosecutions and turn prosecutors into lackeys of right-wing legislatures," adding that his machinations are "a dangerous trend that strikes at the heart of the impartial administration of justice and the rule of law."
"Jordan’s attempted power grab not only violates the separation of legislative and executive power, but also runs roughshod over the 10th Amendment, which Republicans invoke at the drop of the hat to shield states from federal regulation and interferences. Jordan’s letter is a blatant violation of New York sovereignty (and the interests of Manhattan voters who elected Bragg)," she lectured before adding, "If Bragg oversteps his authority, New York courts and juries will protect the interest of defendants, be they the former president or not. And if his priorities don’t address the concerns of the voters who sent him there, they can vote him out."
You can read more here.
