Congress Has Every Right to Subpoena Bragg
Alvin Bragg replied to Kevin McCarthy’s inquiry concerning this political prosecution of Trump with an impertinent letter. In that letter, Bragg defends state’s rights with a zeal that would make John C. Calhoun proud—proud of the zeal, not the intellectual content. One can only imagine the vituperation Calhoun would unleash upon Bragg.
In the letter, Bragg argues that this prosecution is a state matter that does not concern Congress. He then accuses Congress of making up an excuse to interfere in the prosecution because their rationale, investigating whether to shield presidents from prosecution for campaign finance violations, wasn’t mentioned in the initial letter—and that Congress Constitutionally has no such authority. Of course, the Constitutionality of legislation is itself something a Congressional investigation might be trying to determine, so it is not a valid reason to refuse testimony.
Of course, Congress is not obligated to provide its rationale for an investigation in their initial letter; indeed, as long as a justification can be found, they are not obliged to present one. However, the fact that Bragg is using Federal campaign law to charge Trump with a felony opens the door to a Congressional investigation in several ways:
1) Bragg is using federal campaign finance law to justify charging Trump with a felony. The fact that campaign finance legislation is being used in a way Congress never anticipated might inspire Congress to repeal or alter that law. When Bragg decided to hybridize a state crime with a federal crime, he made this a federal matter.
2) There are jurisdictional issues at play that directly affect the federal courts, which Congress establishes. “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Congress establishes the courts, and a state court’s claim that it can determine someone’s guilt concerning a federal statute merits a Congressional investigation. It is in Congress’s power to determine the jurisdiction of federal counts, which implies understanding any attempt on the part of state courts to violate that jurisdiction.
3) The initial justification, that they want to consider legislation that might shield office holders from political prosecution is, in fact, valid. Even if Bragg is correct, that such legislation would be unconstitutional, Congress is allowed to investigate the constitutionality of laws. More importantly, there might be a means by which Congress could achieve this, that Bragg has not considered. He cannot refuse to testify simply because he cannot think of a means by which this end can be achieved. The limits of Bragg’s mind are not the limits of Congress’s authority.
4) Congress has the exclusive power to legislate on matters of copyrights and patents. And purchasing the exclusive rights to Stormy Daniels story inherently involves matters of copyright. Bragg’s theory of the crime involves the issue of whether or not a copyright constitutes a “thing of value” vis a vis federal campaign finance law. This aspect of the case also opens the door to Congressional investigation.
Kevin McCarthy is completely right to subpoena Alvin Bragg regarding this matter. Bragg’s refusal to testify ought to result in a his being held in contempt of Congress.