Fani Willis, indictment, Trump
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis speaks at a press conference at the Fulton County Government Center in Atlanta on Aug. 14, 2023, following the indictment in an election interference case against former President Donald Trump and others. Photo credit: © Arvin Temkar/The Atlanta Journal-Constitution via ZUMA Press Wire

In a nine-page letter, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis sharply rebuked Rep. Jim Jordan’s efforts to interject himself in Donald Trump’s case.

Listen To This Story
Voiced by Amazon Polly

In a letter that is as scathing as it is funny, Fulton County Prosecutor Fani Willis on Thursday batted away Rep. Jim Jordan’s (R-OH) attempt to interfere in Donald Trump’s upcoming coup trial in Georgia.

Last month, the House Judiciary Committee chairman sent a sweeping request for documents to Willis in his latest attempt to harass anybody who is trying to hold the former president to account.

Now, maybe Jordan wishes that he had not.

In a nine-page letter, Willis sharply rebuked the lawmaker’s efforts to interject himself in the case.

“[Your letter’s] obvious purpose is to obstruct a Georgia criminal proceeding and to advance outrageous partisan misrepresentations,” she wrote. “As I make clear below, there is no justification in the Constitution for Congress to interfere with a state criminal matter, as you attempt to do.”

The Fulton County prosecutor, who has charged Trump and 18 co-defendants with a conspiracy to overturn the results of Georgia’s 2020 presidential election, then proceeded to dismantle every one of the claims that Jordan made in his records request.

Noting that the lawmaker “seeks the revelation of non-public and privileged information concerning my office’s investigation and prosecution of a specific case,” Willis offers a couple of quick lessons in civics.

“Your public statements and your letter itself make clear that you lack any legitimate legislative purpose for that inquiry: your job description as a legislator does not include criminal law enforcement, nor does it include supervising a specific criminal trial because you believe that doing so will promote your partisan political objectives,” she wrote.

While noting that “settled constitutional law clearly permits me to ignore your unjustified and illegal intrusion into an open state criminal prosecution,” she said she would still reply to parts of his letter.

For example, in response to Jordan’s criticism of how long it took the prosecutor to put together the case, Willis pointed out that the reluctance of witnesses, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), to testify delayed proceedings. She noted that the senator, another Trump ally, fought a subpoena all the way to the Supreme Court, which took eight months.

The prosecutor also rejected the assertion that the former president should be treated differently just because he is once again running for office.

“An announcement of a candidacy for elected office, whether President of the United States, Congress, or state or local office, is not and cannot be a bar to criminal investigation or prosecution,” Willis stated. “Any notion to the contrary is offensive to our democracy and to the fundamental principle that all people are equal before the law.”

However, she also offered a useful tip that, if he had followed it, would have spared Trump from facing yet another prosecution.

“Those who wish to avoid felony charges in Fulton County, Georgia — including violations of Georgia RICO law — should not commit felonies in Fulton County, Georgia,” she wrote.

Willis not only offered some useful suggestions for Trump but also for Jordan himself.

“Your letter makes clear that you lack a basic understanding of the law, its practice, and the ethical obligations of attorneys generally and prosecutors specifically,” she wrote. “For a more thorough understanding of Georgia’s RICO statute, its application and similar laws in other states, I encourage you to read ‘RICO State-by-State.’ As a non-member of the bar, you can purchase a copy for two hundred forty-nine dollars [$249].”


Comments are closed.