In the wake of former President Donald Trump’s indictment earlier this month by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, Republicans in Congress are pushing bills that would punish state-based prosecutors who have already brought charges against Trump and protect the former president from facing similar charges in the future.
The bills are largely symbolic and have virtually no chance of becoming law, as the Senate is controlled by Democrats and President Joe Biden would likely veto the legislation if it ever reached his desk. Nevertheless, the proposals showcase the lengths Republicans are willing to go to demonstrate loyalty to the former president, who will likely be criminally charged for his efforts to usurp the 2020 presidential election.
The Accountability for Lawless Violence In our Neighborhoods Act — also known as the ALVIN Act — was introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Arizona), one of the fiercest Trump loyalists in the House. The bill’s title is a direct reference to Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan District Attorney who charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records relating to his attempts to cover up alleged extramarital affairs during the 2016 presidential campaign.
The bill would specifically ban Bragg’s office from receiving federal funding to investigate Trump, Biggs said in a statement, claiming that the Manhattan District Attorney “weaponized” his position by spending “thousands of federal taxpayer dollars to subsidize this political indictment and is demanding millions more in federal grants.”
In reality, federal funding that Bragg has received has gone toward other investigatory efforts in the city. While Bragg’s predecessor, Cy Vance, spent $5,000 in federal grants on the investigation into Trump, Bragg has said that he himself has not spent a dime of federal funds on the investigation into the former president.
Separate legislation, introduced by a different Republican lawmaker, seeks to protect Trump from other potential prosecutions, including a Fulton County, Georgia, inquiry that many legal experts feel has an even higher chance of resulting in a Trump conviction than the Manhattan District Attorney case.
In that case, Trump could be charged by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis over his attempts to coerce state officials to “find” him enough votes to overturn Biden’s victory in Georgia.
A bill from Rep. Russell Fry (R-South Carolina) would bar prosecutors like Willis from trying former presidents and vice presidents in state courts. Under the legislation, if a former president faces charges from state-based officials like Willis, the case would be litigated in a federal court.
The proposal is impractical, as it would require federal judges to familiarize themselves with state laws in order to understand the charges being read against former presidents. It’s also hypocritical, legal experts have pointed out.
“It does seem a little ironic coming from people who tout states’ rights and how state courts and state legislatures should be making even more decisions than they currently do,” David Rapallo, an associate professor at Georgetown University Law School, told HuffPost.
Such a law would likely result in friendlier trials against Trump, as he and Republicans appointed a flurry of judges during his tenure, naming close to 3 in 10 active federal judges (28 percent).
The bill has the backing of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the current chair of the House Judiciary Committee. “One of the pieces of legislation we expect to bring forward real quickly from our committee is legislation [that says] if you are going to do something like this, you at least have to remove that case to federal court,” Jordan told Fox News in reference to Fry’s bill.
Jordan is currently trying to investigate Bragg in retaliation for the charges he brought against Trump. In response, Bragg has filed a lawsuit against Jordan, arguing that a Judiciary Committee investigation into his indictments against Trump is a “brazen and unconstitutional attack” against him.
Bragg argued in his lawsuit that Jordan’s requests for documents and testimony are a “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” him, and that such a move violates the tenets of the American judicial system.
“Basic principles of federalism and common sense, as well as binding Supreme Court precedent, forbid Congress from demanding” the types of documents and testimony Jordan is trying to obtain, the lawsuit added.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.