Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona just introduced two bills to take on Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg now that DA Bragg has indicted former president Donald Trump over 34 counts of falsifying business records. Those bills, the Accountability for Lawless Violence In Our Neighborhoods Act, or “ALVIN Act,” and the No Federal Funds for Political Prosecutions Act.
The Alvin Act would, if passed, both prohibit DA Bragg’s office from receiving federal funding and require that he and his office repay any funds received after Jan. 1, 2022. The No Federal Funds for Political Prosecutions Act would, as Fox News Digital reports, “block any state or local law enforcement agency from using resources seized through asset forfeiture to prosecute a president, vice president or a candidate for president in a criminal case.”
In a statement on the bill, Rep. Biggs said: “District Attorney Alvin Bragg ran on a campaign pledge to indict President Trump. Bragg took the unprecedented action of converting alleged minor business misdemeanors to 34 individual felonies in an attempt to put President Trump behind bars and humiliate him and his supporters.”
Continuing, he then said, “This weaponized prosecutor’s office has spent thousands of federal taxpayer dollars to subsidize this political indictment and is demanding millions more in federal grants. It’s disturbing to see District Attorney Bragg waste federal resources for political purposes rather than addressing the serious crime in his city.”
Ending, he said, “As a member of the House Judiciary and Oversight & Accountability Committees, and with an almost insurmountable national debt that exceeds $31 trillion, the nation simply cannot afford to support Mr. Bragg’s politicization of the criminal justice system.”
Rep. Jim Jordan has tried to hit back at DA Bragg’s office as well. He recently sent a letter to Matthew Colangelo, the Senior Counsel to New York County District Attorney’s Office, in which he requested testimony and documents to help the House Judiciary Committee investigate DA Bragg. In the letter, he said:
“The Committee on the Judiciary is conducting oversight of the New York County District Attorney’s unprecedented indictment of a former President of the United States and current declared candidate for that office. According to news reports, District Attorney Alvin Bragg hired you in December 2022 to ‘jump-start’ his office’s investigation of President Trump, reportedly due to your ‘history of taking on Donald J. Trump and his family business.’ You had previously served in senior positions in the U.S. Department of Justice and the New York Attorney General’s Office, both of which had competing investigations related to President Trump. Given your history of working for law-enforcement entities that are pursuing President Trump and the public reporting surrounding your decision to work for the New York County District Attorney’s Office, we request your cooperation with our oversight in your personal capacity.
“The Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has a ‘broad and indispensable power to conduct oversight, which ‘encompasses inquiries into the administration of existing laws, studies of proposed laws, and surveys in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling Congress to remedy them.’ Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct oversight of criminal justice matters to inform potential legislation. Congress has a specific and manifestly important interest in preventing politically motivated prosecutions of current and former Presidents by elected state and local prosecutors, particularly in jurisdictions—like New York County—where the prosecutor is popularly elected and trial-level judges lack life tenure. Among other things, if state or local prosecutors are able to engage in politically motivated prosecutions of Presidents of the United States (current or former) for personal acts, this could have a profound impact on how Presidents choose to exercise their powers while in office. For example, a President could choose to avoid taking action he believes to be in the national interest because it would negatively impact New York City for fear that he would be subject to a retaliatory prosecution in New York City.
“You are uniquely situated to provide information that is relevant and necessary to inform the Committee’s oversight and potential legislative reforms. Your recent employment has largely been focused on investigations surrounding President Trump. At the New York Attorney General’s Office, you ran investigations into President Trump, leading ‘a wave of state litigation against Trump administration policies.’ You then moved to a high-level position in the Biden Department of Justice, serving for a time as the Acting Associate Attorney General, before District Attorney Bragg ‘beefed up [his] office’ by hiring you to fill the void left by the departure of disgruntled attorneys Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne. Pomerantz left the Office—very publicly—because its investigation into President Trump was not proceeding fast enough for his liking. His public resignation reportedly left District Attorney Bragg ‘deeply stung,’ and caused him to issue an ‘unusual’ public statement ’emphasizing that the investigation into Trump and his business was far from over.’ The circumstances and chain of events that led to your hiring by the New York County District Attorney’s Office could therefore shed substantial light on the underlying motives for that Office’s investigation into and indictment of President Trump.”
"*" indicates required fields