Jim Jordan Proposes ‘Defunding’ Trump Prosecutors


OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan put out recommendations for appropriations this week that include “defunding politicized prosecutions.”

The effort targets the prosecutors in charge of the cases against former President Donald Trump, according to Fox News. These prosecutors include Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Jordan requested last week that Bragg and prosecutor Matthew Colangelo provide testimony regarding what he has called a “kangaroo court” that resulted in Trump’s unprecedented criminal conviction.

Jordan’s office said in a statement that he also proposes “reining in abusive federal law enforcement agencies, including zeroing out Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office 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, 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 that has been 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 clearly 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 obviously 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 – in an effort 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 terribly risky strategy for Trump to focus on Michael Cohen’s credibility rather than focusing on the convoluted legal basis for the claims.”

“It’s not clear to me what they expected the jury to believe – that Michael Cohen paid $125,000 of his own money to Stormy Daniels without Trump’s knowledge and promise of reimbursement? They did not present an alternative theory that makes any sense, so of course they believed Cohen,” Germain told the outlet.

He went on to claim that “a much better argument” most likely would have been “that the records could not have been falsified to defraud the voters in the 2016 election because the records were falsified in 2017 after the election was over, and the records were not public or known by the public.”

“I don’t know how well the legal issues were preserved for appeal or why they didn’t focus on the legal issues. It may be that the judge wouldn’t let the defense make those points. But there are many issues for appeal,” he added.


Test your skills with this Quiz!

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Most Popular

To Top