OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan released recommendations for appropriations this week, which include a proposal to “defund politicized prosecutions.”
This proposal specifically aims at the prosecutors handling the cases against former President Donald Trump. The prosecutors targeted by this effort are Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Last week, Jordan requested that Bragg and prosecutor Matthew Colangelo testify about what he has referred to as a “kangaroo court” that led to Trump’s unprecedented criminal conviction. Jordan’s office stated that he is also suggesting measures to “rein in abusive federal law enforcement agencies,” including zeroing out Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office and ending what he views as a political witch hunt.
In a letter to House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, Jordan said the House Judiciary Committee has “conducted oversight of the troubling rise in politicized prosecutions and the use of abusive ‘lawfare’ tactics to target political opponents.”
Jordan said “rogue prosecutors” have abused “the rules of professional conduct and their duty to do justice in service of politicized ends.”
“He recommended that the Appropriations Committee adopt language to eliminate federal funding for state prosecutors or state attorneys general involved in such activity and ‘to zero out federal funding for federal prosecutors engaged in such abuse,'” Axios reported.
Legal experts say Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump will have “reversible problems” if it is appealed following last week’s guilty verdict on all 34 counts.
The former president and presumptive 2024 GOP nominee was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.
Trump pleaded not guilty, but 12 jurors found him guilty on all counts.
Sentencing is scheduled for July 11, four days before the Republican National Convention. Each count carries a maximum prison sentence of four years.
In total, Trump faces a maximum sentence of 136 years behind bars. But some legal experts say the trial is “a target-rich environment for appeal,” which Trump is expected to pursue.
“I believe that the case will be reversed eventually, either in the state or federal systems,” Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law attorney and Fox News contributor, told the network hours after Trump’s conviction.
“However, this was the worst expectation for a trial in Manhattan,” he said. “I had hoped that the jurors might redeem the integrity of a system used for political purposes.”
“The trial is a target-rich environment for appeal. However, that appeal will stretch beyond the election. In the meantime, Democrats and President Biden can add ‘convicted felon’ to the political mantra,” he said.
John Malcolm, a former federal prosecutor, emphasized to Fox News Digital that he firmly believes the jury’s verdict demonstrates their conviction based on the testimony of Trump’s ex-lawyer, Michael Cohen.
Despite Trump’s defense labeling Cohen as a “GLOAT” or “greatest liar of all time,” the jury’s decision speaks volumes.
“The jury ended up believing Michael Cohen, which is something I have a hard time conceiving since Michael Cohen has lied every time he has been under oath in the past and admitted that he hates Donald Trump, blaming him for all his problems, stole from him, and will profit from this conviction,” Malcolm said.
Fox News added: “Prosecutors needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, a former porn star, in the lead-up to the 2016 election – to silence her about an alleged affair with Trump in 2006. They were ultimately successful. Trump has denied the affair throughout the trial.”
Gregory Germain, a law professor at Syracuse University College of Law, observed that it was “a risky strategy for Trump to focus on Michael Cohen’s credibility rather than focusing on the convoluted legal basis for the claims.”
