House Republicans Are Taking Major Action To Block ‘Targeted Injustice’ By Rogue Prosecutors Like Alvin Bragg

The unprecedented criminal indictment of Donald J. Trump, the 45th president of the United States and a major political candidate for the White House in 2024, by a local Manhattan District Attorney on, in the words of Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, “the most stretched case I’ve ever seen” has symbolized for many the extent of and the hubris of lawfare against conservatives. The case against Mr. Trump has become a rallying cry for reforming the system to prevent such blatantly “targeted injustice” in the form of political prosecution.

In response to such demands, House Republicans are reportedly putting the final touches on legislative proposals to be introduced next week that would seek to restrict such activity against former presidents, according to Just The News. Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, told the news outlet that such legislation was being headed by Representative Russell Fry (R-SC). The bill, in the words of Representative Jordan, “says if you have someone, a local DA, going to take on a former president and a current candidate and they go indict them, then that case automatically gets bumped to federal court, not some local or state court.” In effect, the bill gives presidential candidates (as well as ex-presidents) an option to change the venue of the trial.

The forthcoming bill by Mr. Fry will be called the No More Political Prosecutions Act. Mr. Fry announced his general intentions for the bill was to “prevent politically motivated prosecutors from wielding unwarranted power and targeting our nation’s top leaders for their own personal gain.”

I'm proud to introduce the No More Political Prosecutions Act to prevent politically motivated prosecutors from wielding unwarranted power and targeting our nation's top leaders for their own personal gain.

Read more at @BreitbartNews here👇🏼https://t.co/cG0aSBM6ZN

— Congressman Russell Fry (@RepRussellFry) April 11, 2023

His office also released a statement that detailed that “Presidents and Vice Presidents are among the most visible politicians in the United States government — making them a target for rogue prosecutors looking to build up their profile and make a name for themselves on the political stage. Because of that threat, it’s important for Presidents and Vice Presidents to have the option to move their case to a federal court — where judges are confirmed by the U.S. Senate, serve in their role for life, and don’t need to win an election to keep their position.”

WATCH: President Trump Vows to Go After Soros-Funded District Attorneys to Restore America’s Justice System

Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ) is also introducing legislation on a similar topic. The measure, the No Federal Funds for Political Prosecutions Act, would defund the Manhattan District Attorney’s office over its political prosecution of the former president and require the office to repay the federal funds it already took.

Speaking about the constitutionality of indicting Mr. Trump, Robert Barnes, a civil rights attorney, tweeted that “Constitution forbids indictment, trial or punishment of a President because if it didn’t, any local prosecutor could usurp Presidential power. The Presidency cannot be at the extortionate whim of a kidnapping threat from a county DA. Thus, #TrumpIndictment is unconstitutional. ”

Constitution forbids indictment, trial or punishment of a President because if it didn't, any local prosecutor could usurp Presidential power. The Presidency cannot be at the extortionate whim of a kidnapping threat from a county DA. Thus, #TrumpIndictment is unconstitutional.

— Robert Barnes (@barnes_law) April 13, 2023

While the Constitution certainly speaks about such actions in the context of a sitting president in lieu of impeachment and conviction, Mr. Barnes highlights in his tweet at the very least why the president is afforded certain legal immunities by long-standing tradition. If a politically motivated local prosecutor can take down a duly elected chief executive or at least try to blackmail a sitting president that he or she might do so then this effectively hijacks democracy and risks nullifying voter sovereignty.

At the same time, the sitting president ought not to be above the reach of the law and that is what the impeachment and conviction process is ultimately about. Further, a previous sitting president like Ulysses S. Grant (R) was reportedly arrested for speeding on his horse-drawn carriage in 1872. However, in that case, if it ever happened (the incident happened in 1872 but was first reported to the press in 1908), there was an actual law broken and no hint of political prosecution over it.

A former president has no such formal protections, however. Roving political prosecutions whether of former presidents, political candidates, or anyone ought to be stamped out as best and as constitutionally conforming as possible.