At a House Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC) sparred with Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) over Fry's Promptly Ending Political Prosecutions and Executive Retaliation Act of 2025, and his claims about Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: https://x.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/forbes/
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: https://x.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/forbes/
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Thank you, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 1789, the promptly ending Political Prosecutions and Executive
00:05Retaliation Act of 2025, would place a check on radical left-wing prosecutors, or really
00:11any prosecutor's ability to bring politically motivated criminal cases before judges and
00:15juries that may be biased. The last few years have brought about outrageous and unprecedented
00:20moves from rogue prosecutors to target one of our nation's top leaders for their own
00:25political gain. For the first time in American history, a former president was indicted
00:30and faced with criminal charges. After President Trump announced his 2024 presidential campaign,
00:36he was indicted not just once, twice, or three times, but four. And two of these indictments
00:41have come from rogue district attorneys looking to build up their profile, as this committee
00:45has explored last Congress, and make a name for themselves on the national stage. In April
00:492023, Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg announced a 34-count felony indictment against President
00:56Trump in the New York State Supreme Court. Instead of prosecuting real crime in New York,
01:00as we've witnessed in this committee that they continue to face, D.A. Alvin Bragg made
01:05President Trump the focal point of his campaign. And then again in August of 2023, Fulton County
01:11D.A. Fannie Willis brought about a 41-count indictment against 19 defendants, including
01:17President Trump in the Fulton County Superior Court. Willis even told the news outlets,
01:21quote, we've been working for two and a half years, we're ready to go. End quote. They
01:27could have brought charges years earlier, but decided to do it as soon as President
01:30Trump announced his reelection campaign. These politically motivated district attorneys did
01:35everything they could to keep Donald Trump out of the White House. And well, we all know
01:38that it backfired as the American people gave President Trump a resounding mandate to restore
01:43our country's greatness. The American people saw the political persecution led by the Biden-Harris
01:47Justice Department's two-tier justice system that extended to Democrat local and state
01:52offices. These were bogus indictments and our rule of law must be protected. The president
01:57is the leader of the free world. The level here is not the same. A small town prosecutor
02:02coming in and attacking our commander in chief is laughable. We don't do this in America.
02:06We never have. And we can't continue to allow America to turn into a country where candidates
02:10running for office are prosecuted out of purely political reasons. These prosecutors
02:15have weaponized our justice system against its political opponents. And it is Congress's
02:20duty to respond, which is why I've introduced this bill and a similar bill from last Congress,
02:25which would give both current and former presidents and vice presidents the ability, not a mandate,
02:30but the ability to remove their civil or criminal cases against them from a state court to a
02:35federal district court. The new bill also expands the eligibility to remove cases
02:41also to current and former U.S. officers who are acting within the scope of their official duties
02:47or apparent legal authority related to their office. The bill also codifies the immunity
02:52recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court for official acts carried out by federal officials. The federal
02:57interests implicated by civil actions or criminal prosecutions brought against current or former
03:02presidents and vice presidents are pretty overwhelming. Federal court is the appropriate
03:07forum to adjudicate cases with such a strong federal nexus. Federal judges, as an example,
03:13enjoy life tenure that is largely free from outside interference in their decisions.
03:18By contrast, state court judges are readily subjected to political influences, as many of
03:26them are often elected or directly appointed or serve shorter terms. In federal court,
03:32the jury pool is often drawn from a larger and more diverse district. The rules of jury selection
03:38are much more robust than in state court. This helps to ensure that the political biases
03:43of one locality do not improperly influence the jury and its decisions. So we must ensure that
03:48state courts are not weaponized against current or former presidents, vice presidents, or U.S.
03:53officers. This is common sense. We can and should act to provide this option of a fair
03:59playing field for legal proceedings for all presidents, vice presidents, U.S. officers,
04:03former and current. I urge support. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
04:08The gentleman yields back. We now recognize the ranking member for his opening statement.
04:12Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. So the legislation before us today would amend the law
04:17so that a president or vice president or even a former president or vice president
04:22can remove any state, civil, or criminal prosecution when that case is brought,
04:28quote, for or relating to any act while in office. Okay, any act, whether it's public,
04:36private, official, unofficial, within the core functions office, within the outer perimeter,
04:41or having nothing to do with the office at all. For any act while in office or where the state
04:46court's consideration of the claimant's charge may interfere with, hinder, burden, or delay the
04:52execution of the duties of the president or vice president. In other words, every conceivable case
04:58will be removable. So look what we're talking about. And I hope my Republican friends will
05:03listen as well as the Democratic members. We're talking about destroying state criminal jurisdictional
05:11authority and power over federal officials. That's really what this bill is about because
05:17it's saying that the president or vice president or former president or VP can never be prosecuted
05:23because of course it could conceivably hinder the execution of their office. Of course it's any act
05:29while in office. So what we're talking about is should a president or vice president ever or
05:36former ever be able to be charged with a state crime including assault, rape, murder, fraud,
05:45you name it. And they're basically saying no, that that has always got to go to the friendlier terrain
05:51of a federal court. So let's remind ourselves of what the genesis of all this is. On May 30th of
05:57last year, Donald Trump was convicted in New York state court of 34 felony counts for falsifying
06:03business records to hide his hush money payments to women who had he'd had an affair with. When he
06:09tried to have the case removed to federal court, the judge found that, quote, hush money payments
06:15were private unofficial acts outside the bounds of executive authority and thus not subject to the
06:24constitutional removal requirements. It had nothing to do with his office and the defense was not a
06:32federal defense. It was just a conventional alibi defense that you would find in the normal course
06:40of things in a state court. Trump also has charges pending against him in Georgia's state court
06:45after Trump called the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, famously asking him to just
06:50find me 11,780 votes. He was charged with election subversion and racketeering under Georgia law.
06:58He withdrew his application to remove his case to federal court after his co-defendant, our former
07:03colleague Mark Meadows, was found not to have met the quite low threshold to move his case to federal
07:09court and that the actions outlined in the indictment were not taken as part of Meadows'
07:14role as a federal official. In other words, there was no federal defense available making this a
07:22federal question. Last time this bill appeared at a markup, candidate Trump was just starting
07:28his campaign. He'd not yet been convicted of those 34 felony counts. His co-defendants had not pled
07:34guilty. In 2023, this was simply a bill to get the cases against him out of state court and into the
07:40federal system where Trump and his lawyers could try to shop for the judges they wanted. Today's
07:45bill looks very different because House Republicans have a new goal. They want to make sure Trump is
07:50not held to the same standards as anybody else, in essence, that he's above the law. My colleague's
07:57solution to Trump's personal legal problems, which were created by him, is not to make him all but
08:04untouchable in the American judicial system. This bill would require a federal court to dismiss
08:10any case against the president or vice president or former president or VP that becomes subject to
08:17removal, and that's any case in the state court system. The 2025 version of this bill is an
08:24autocratic Christmas tree designed to ensure that nobody in Trump's orbit, from Trump and J.D. Vance
08:30to Elon Musk and Mark Meadows, is held accountable in state court. That is completely incompatible
08:37with the idea that none of us is above the law. It's an assault on states' rights. It's an assault
08:43on federalism. It's incompatible with the Constitution, and it does not do justice to
08:49the hard-fought principle that nobody in America is above the law. I oppose this bill. I encourage
08:56my colleagues to do the same, and I will yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the ranking
09:02member for his opening statement. The chair now recognizes the gentlemen from South Carolina for
09:08the purposes of offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
09:14I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment in the nature of
09:18a substitute to H.R. 1789 offered by Mr. Fry of South Carolina. Without objection, the amendment
09:23in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the
09:27purpose of the amendment. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina to explain his
09:31amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds the year to the title of the bill. It's not intended
09:37in any way to alter the substance of the bill. I yield back. Who seeks recognition?
09:49Strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
09:56We'll take the strike the last word first, if that's possible. The gentleman from Tennessee
10:01is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We discussed this bill yesterday in what we are hearing,
10:05and it made me think of critical race theory. Critical race theory is about
10:14educational, scientific, historical knowledge of the past, which some people think is disturbing
10:20because it disturbs them to think that we had slavery in this country, that we had Jim Crow
10:25for about 80 years, that we didn't allow blacks to vote forever unless they could count all the
10:29peas in a jar. We got a critical race theory. We didn't like the idea that we killed so many
10:36Native American Indians, and it was almost a genocide. We want to get rid of that, too.
10:40This is critical law theory. The Republicans don't want people, and Donald Trump doesn't want people
10:45to know that he was a convicted felon, and he wants to find any way in the world to end that.
10:51He wants to say, I didn't do anything wrong. I'm perfect. I'm the greatest guy in the world.
10:57Everything happens with me. He got convicted on 34 counts, felonies by juries, that every single
11:04juror said guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty. Donald Trump is guilty, and no matter what
11:10you do with this law, he's guilty, and history will record it as such. But what you're trying
11:14to do is do his work to have critical law theory and to erase what is a fact in federal courts.
11:20The state court did it in Georgia because, yeah, that's where he called the governor and said,
11:25just find me 10,734 votes. I want to change Georgia's election. I want you to cheat in
11:31Georgia and get me some votes so I can have the votes to become president. That's a Georgia case.
11:36He was interfering with Georgia's state election and Georgia state law to get Georgia's electoral
11:42votes. Should have been in state court, but no, Donald Trump doesn't want anybody to think he did
11:46anything wrong, so he wants to remove it to a federal court and maybe get it into a court
11:51judge like Eileen Cannon that'll go, yes, Mr. Trump, what do you want? That's what they want.
11:55They want judges who have no guts, who have no respect for their oath of office, like Eileen
12:00Cannon, who embarrassed us with putting off the classified documents case and who was repudiated
12:10by the court of appeals. They found her actions to be sophomoric at best. These bills are absurd,
12:17and for us to be doing them shows us to be supplicants. We take an oath to support the
12:21Constitution. Yeah, we can change laws, but this isn't about, this is about critical law theory,
12:28critical law theory. No, Donald Trump did nothing wrong. Donald Trump, in fact,
12:32should have been on the Supreme Court because he's smarter than everybody. He knows the law
12:37and never would violate it because he knows it better than any of us. Well, BS. I yield back my
12:43time. Will you yield? I yield to Mr. Goldman. I thank the gentleman. I just, I have a question
12:55for my colleague, Mr. Fry. If this is removed, if a state case is removed to federal court,
13:02what law applies? Well, it's the state law, but the process is under federal jurisdiction. So we
13:09already do this for ambassadors, for members of Congress. That's how the current law exists as it
13:15stands. And so this would extend those same, the same federal statute to former members, or excuse
13:23me, former presidents and vice presidents, obviously. Right. I mean, I think the law
13:29would still apply. The same federal question doctrine still applies. This is, this bill is
13:36very clearly designed not to actually correct a problem, but to simply defend Donald Trump and
13:48perpetuate the absolute whitewashing that the Republicans have doubled, tripled, quadrupled
13:57down on in fealty to Donald Trump, that somehow these were political prosecutions and investigations.
14:07And the only evidence of that is that the defendant said it. That's all you have. You have
14:16no actual evidence of any politicization or weaponization. If you look, sir, I reclaim my time.
14:25If, if you look at the actual indictments, if you look at the Mar-a-Lago search warrant,
14:35there is not an objective judge, prosecutor, or anyone else who understands criminal law who would
14:44say there's not enough evidence to charge or to go forward with the search warrant. And all you
14:51are doing is trying to create a monarchy for Donald Trump. And that's what you have been doing
15:00by yielding all of your power to him for the last six weeks.
15:04The gentleman's time has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina.
15:08Let me just write the last word.
15:09The gentleman's recognized for five minutes.
15:10Thank you. I was going to respond. You said that this was not, Mr. Goldman, this was not
15:14politically motivated, but we know that to be the case. In fact, you live in the jurisdiction
15:18of Alvin Bragg. You campaigned with Alvin Bragg, who campaigned on going after Donald Trump.
15:24False. He didn't, he never campaigned on going after Donald Trump.
15:26To say that this was not politically motivated is not based in reality. This absolutely was.
15:33There was coordination with the Biden DOJ. That was both in the Georgia case and the New York
15:38case. And so to say that it wasn't and that we're just making it up really kind of goes against the
15:44overwhelming evidence to suggest that that's exactly what they were doing to begin with.
15:48Will the gentleman yield for a question?
15:49With that, I yield back to the chair.
15:51Would the gentleman yield for a question?
15:54To me.
15:54To you, Mr. Chairman, of course.
15:58So many questions, so little time.
16:01So there were a few things said, and I want to understand so that everyone understands.
16:07Currently, a federal judge whose a similar event occurs would be removed to federal court.
16:14Is that correct?
16:14Correct.
16:16And if there's ever been a friendly venue, it would be for a federal judge in a federal court.
16:20And yet that's been the law for a long time, right?
16:22Correct.
16:23And currently, if it were you or any of the gentlemen on the other side,
16:29it could be removed to federal court in many cases.
16:32Correct. And again, it's not a mandate. It's an option that you could remove.
16:35And so it is up to the defendant in a civil or criminal case to take that option to remove.
16:42And for those who haven't practiced in federal court,
16:45it is not uncommon for federal judges to be overseeing cases that include state causes.
16:52Would the gentleman yield?
16:53For sure.
16:54Okay. So there's nothing unusual here. It applies to other federal offices.
17:01Just one second. We're extending it only to the president.
17:06Let me go through a couple of pieces of history, though, if I could, and ask you questions.
17:12President Obama ordered and struck an American citizen on foreign soil and killed him.
17:20You remember that?
17:21Yes, Mr. Chairman.
17:22Okay. Terrorist, but he wasn't currently shooting at us or anything like that.
17:27He was tried, I guess, in the international court, but we didn't recognize that.
17:32Nobody picked a state where this terrorist was from and tried to prosecute the president.
17:40But if they did, without this law, isn't it conceivable that it wouldn't be removed to
17:46federal court and you could have a venue that somehow would think they could try the president
17:51for his official acts?
17:53That's exactly right.
17:54And the gentleman was referring, I think the ranking member was referring to
17:59this idea of dismissal. Is there anything here that dismisses cases that is not consistent
18:05with the U.S. Constitution based on or with the decision of the Supreme Court?
18:09No, I think that goes beyond the bounds of the legislation. This is just a removal mechanism.
18:14This isn't a removal and dismissal mechanism.
18:16Okay. Now, not having been in district court all over the country,
18:22would this case be removed in the jurisdiction in which the state occurs? In other words,
18:28if it's in Georgia, would there still be a Georgia federal court hearing?
18:31And it wouldn't be removed somehow to Nova Scotia, right? Or Greenland.
18:35Correct, Mr. Chairman. Well, unless they're the 51st state.
18:37Okay. So just for people that haven't served on a lot of juries,
18:43the pool of federal juries in Georgia is the same pool, whether it's state or federal, correct?
18:49Correct.
18:50So the same individuals would try. The only question is,
18:53do the ladies and gentlemen on one side of the aisle don't trust federal judges,
18:57but they trust local judges who run for office versus federal judges?
19:02Right. Correct. And have all the potential for political influence based on donations,
19:06based on political party and the like.
19:09Okay. So really all you're doing is removing it from the political process to an apolitical process
19:14and keeping it in the same geographic area that the case is brought,
19:18but removing it to federal court.
19:20Correct. And as an accomplished lawyer yourself, Mr. Chairman, you know that
19:26the jury selection in a federal system, the defendant or the plaintiff know much more
19:33about the potential jurors, potential biases, the potential to obviously strike those jurors.
19:39Do you want a fair and impartial jury? You know much more about those jurors in a federal system
19:44because the system is much more structured than in a state court. State court, you show up in the
19:49jury pools there and you're oftentimes trying to use your best judgment on who would be a fair
19:55juror. And so this again gives the former president, the former vice president, the option
20:01to remove if they so choose.
20:03And isn't the former vice president still limited to this provision of the interference? In other
20:08words, it's not, it's not everything. It's, it's based on, on acts related that could,
20:15a former vice president, acts relating to any act well in office. So it's, it's not, it's not for
20:21life on former presidents, right? It's just for, for those, for the acts well in office.
20:27Correct.
20:28I thank you. And thank you for yielding.
20:30Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20:30Who else sees recognition in the ranking?
20:34You wanted to hit him?
20:35I think everybody's gone. Are you, at some point I would like to move to strike the last word,
20:39but I defer to the ranking.
20:41At a deference to the ranking member of the full committee,
20:43I recognize him for the strike the last word.
20:45Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just going to follow up on your line of questioning and then
20:48we can go to Mr. Goldman. If the gentleman from South Carolina, if he could come back,
20:52if maybe someone could get him to, I would love to pursue the questioning, but here's where I'm
20:58going with this while they're getting him, Mr. Chairman. I think you asked exactly the right
21:01question. You were saying all this is, is a removal provision, right? But it's not just
21:08a removal provision. It's a removal and dismissal provision. If you look at, if you look at E on
21:15page five of the bill, it says in any action subject to removal under paragraph five, which
21:21is current president or vice president or six, which is former of section 1442, a such case
21:27shall be dismissed unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, establishing that the
21:33continued pendency of the state claim or charge would not in any way interfere, hinder, burden,
21:41or delay the execution of the duties of the president or vice president. And what I'd like
21:44to ask the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina is, can he imagine any case where a
21:50president or vice president or formers would lose that in saying this is going to hinder or burden
21:56delay my execution of duties who wants to be in a criminal prosecution of any kind?
22:01So it's a guaranteed removal and dismissal because it must be dismissed. It shall be dismissed
22:07unless you can prove it's not going to affect their life in any way. The gentleman, you by all
22:12means. Um, I, I would agree that if you took it out of context, just looking at it here, but the
22:18context, I hope we all agree, this is a Supreme court ruling. We're codifying what the court has
22:23already said. And as to a former member, which the president was when charges were brought,
22:31the standard would by definition be different because he wasn't executing his activities
22:35during those four years. So the actual dismissal of those cases reclaim my time for a second.
22:40If that's true, then why should the logic of this apply to him at all? Why should it apply
22:45to former officials in any case? Because the removal would apply, but not the, uh, the,
22:52the basis to dismiss that's where the two, you know, as the gentleman probably knows,
22:57currently prime minister Netanyahu spends three days a week in court because they have no such
23:03law in Israel, uh, at a time in which he's defending his country in a, in a war we're
23:10seeking to make sure that we minimize to the greatest extent possible 50 plus places, states
23:17in which people could bring cases against the current president. And if they bring it against
23:21a former president for Axwell in office, limited to Axwell in office, uh, that it'd simply be
23:27removed to federal court. But I think we, the Supreme court decision on dismissal is very
23:32different for a former president because they don't meet that standard of hindering his execution
23:36of his job. Okay. Well, just to reclaim my time there, if, um, we're talking about a former
23:43official, it shouldn't apply at all because they're no longer in office. Um, and, um,
23:49in the New York case, Trump claimed that it interfered with his presidential duties,
23:55nonetheless. Um, but, um, but look, I would say this, this is a, this shows spectacular disrespect
24:03for state courts, state constitutions, state prosecutors and state law. I mean, I'm really
24:09shocked that this is even something we're considering to obliterate state criminal
24:15jurisdiction over crimes that exist within their state. And if they're, uh, you know,
24:21in some ways, uh, the manufactured or invented the state systems are just as capable of vanquishing,
24:29uh, the fantasy prosecutions as a federal court is and much better at interpreting and enforcing
24:36state law than a federal court would be. And yet, yes, I would. I just wanted to clarify,
24:43one of the gentlemen on the other side said that the state judges are elected.
24:49Some are, many are appointed just like federal judges.
24:53That's absolutely right. And so, I mean, this does reflect a basic, uh, structural trampling
25:00of state court and state legal systems. But I think that the really sneaky provision is this
25:06dismissal one, because the overwhelming presumption is that it will be dismissed the
25:10moment you get it into federal court, unless you can somehow prove that this will not in any way
25:17affect, uh, the performance of the duties of, uh, you know, the, of the president or vice president.
25:23And if they're no longer president or vice president, why are they getting the benefit of
25:27this in any way at all? So I, I do agree with, uh, Mr. Goldman, that this seems like a very
25:33political bill that's just meant to, um, you know, curry favor with, or perhaps
25:40soothe the hurt feelings of Donald Trump. He was in those situations because of actions he did.
25:45He was the one who said, just find me 11,780 votes. Nobody else made him do that. He made
25:51his staff go ahead and call Secretary of State Raffensperger. He was in trouble in New York
25:56because of the hush money payments he made. And then he cooked the books in New York.
26:00That was his decision. I mean, let's show some, uh, civic self-respect here and acknowledge that
26:05people are responsible for their own actions. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
26:09I thank the gentleman. Who else?
26:10I move to strike the last word.
26:15The gentleman's recognized for five minutes.
26:17Thank you. I, I want to just pick up on what the ranking member was saying and, uh, a couple of
26:23things. First of all, this is not simply codifying a Supreme Court decision, nor is this removal for
26:36a federal court to consider a state law claim. And I would point my colleagues to page four,
26:45uh, section B1 for determination of immunity saying the nature elements or any other aspect
26:55of the charge or claim made by or under authority of state law. Basically, any state law claim is
27:03immune. So it's not interpreting state law in just simply in a federal court. If you want to bring a
27:10bill that simply clarifies that the rule for judges and members of Congress should be the same
27:18for federal, uh, official, the president and the vice president, we can discuss that. This is
27:25nowhere close to that. This is going even further than the Supreme Court case, because it also
27:33addresses civil cases, not just criminal cases. And it also expands the immunity, um, to, to,
27:44through both dismissal as the ranking member pointed out, and there are other references to
27:48dismissal, but beyond what the Supreme Court says, but even more importantly, it goes so much further
27:56than what you're representing. And I, I would just urge my colleagues not to continually overreach
28:04in fealty to Donald Trump. We are happy to discuss thoughtful, reasonable, uh, legislation that
28:13preserves the rights of a president and a vice president. Why are former presidents and vice
28:19presidents even included in this? Will the gentleman yield? Yes. I've got one theory about
28:25that, but I would love to be illuminated by someone on the other side of the aisle. But,
28:29uh, Donald Trump in the New York case was saying that even though he was no longer president,
28:34the, the fact that he had to stand trial interfered with the fact that he was running for
28:39office again and was involved in other political activities. So I think they put in former presidents
28:45and vice presidents in the event that they wanted to be running for some other office. Right. And
28:49of course, if you expand that to its logical conclusion, every one of us is always running.
28:56Always running. So if the argument is, Oh, well, you can't charge a elected official or former
29:03elected official because they're running for office. Donald Trump very clearly announced his
29:11campaign extremely early and previewed the fact that he was doing it so that he could argue that
29:19these investigations against him were interfering with this. This was a defense that he created.
29:25And then everyone on the other side of the aisle bought into it. But I do want to just
29:29answer my colleague from South Carolina on the New York case, which I would point out.
29:38There was no assertion or allegation that the special counsel's two cases
29:46were there was any evidence of politicization. He did not mention the Georgia case. So let's just
29:52focus on the New York case. Alvin Bragg never campaigned on getting Donald Trump. Never said,
29:59I am going to get Donald Trump. I am going to go after Donald Trump. Never. If you have a quote of
30:05his, please, I urge you to bring it to me. Never happened. False. Secondly, I don't know what
30:13coordination between DOJ and the Manhattan DA's office you are talking about. But I can tell you
30:20that as a federal prosecutor for 10 years, I coordinated. I spoke to state prosecutors all
30:27the time. We shared evidence all the time. That's how prosecutions work. Sometimes you will charge
30:35it in state court. Sometimes you will charge it in federal court. But I don't even know what
30:41allegations you are talking about. I haven't seen any evidence, any actual support other than the
30:47fact that a former DOJ official joined the prosecution team in the Manhattan district
30:52attorney's office. I don't understand how that is the DOJ coordinating. He is no longer with the
30:59Department of Justice. But you keep making these allegations and you have no support.
31:05And it's as if you say it enough times, it just becomes true. But if you say it enough times,
31:12that doesn't mean there is any evidence to support what you are saying and your allegations
31:17are baseless that any of those prosecutions was politicized. And I yield back.
31:23I now recognize myself. I asked that pages, I'm sorry, that an excerpt from page 24 of an actual
31:36hearing, perhaps you weren't there in New York. But the quote is, let's talk about what's waiting
31:44for the new DA, the docket. We know there's a Trump investigation. Okay, so here is the
31:51reference that came out of it. On March 17, 2021, Bragg indicated that if elected as district
31:58attorney, he quote, will hold Trump accountable. Just a few days later, on March 23, 2021,
32:07he again boasted that he had sued the Trump administration over 100 times. In June of 2021,
32:16Bragg doubled down stating that the important work that separate from any that the DA office
32:26may be looking at now, in other words, Bragg assumed office with seemingly one goal to
32:33prosecute President Trump. Will the gentleman yield? I will in a moment.
32:38To say that this wasn't a determination, that he didn't cobble together misdemeanors to create
32:45a felony, that he didn't invent something that, quite frankly, had never been done before,
32:52that he didn't work around a statute of limitations, is laughable. Having said that,
32:59I'm going to, because the gentleman asked me to yield time for a question, I'm going to just
33:04ask one question. All we're doing is modifying federal law. Federal law in the state above that,
33:11because he kept quoting from 28 U.S.C. 1442, it applies to any officer of the courts of the
33:21United States or related to the act under the color of the office or performance of the duties.
33:26For any officer of either House of Congress or related to any act in the discharge of his
33:33official duties in the order of the House, would the gentleman suggest that we strike both of those?
33:39Would the gentleman take away his own ability to remove or the judge's ability to remove?
33:46Because all we're doing is adding other federal officers and ultimately covering what I think is
33:54a branch not covered by this 28 U.S.C. 1442. Would the gentleman respond, please?
34:00Yes. And as I mentioned to you, if that were simply all this was doing, I would be happy to
34:05discuss this in good faith. Would the gentleman agree that adding the decision of the Supreme
34:11Court, and he did reference the basis for on page four for the basis of immunity, and reading it
34:21carefully, I think the gentleman will find that what it actually does is that it states that for
34:27purpose of determining the immunity, you will not look at the nature of the charge. And the gentleman
34:32did say, what about murder? Well, the question for it would be, was it official act? And I cited
34:39President Obama's murder, ordered execution of American citizen without a trial or a grand jury
34:46or any other indictment for actions. The fact is, a state court could have brought charges for that.
34:53In this case, it would have been removed. The court would have decided that, in fact,
34:58the commander in chief made that determination and he had immunity. I'm not disagreeing with
35:04the court. What I'm saying here, and Mr. Frye's bill clearly says is, it's to be considered in
35:11federal court. And the purpose, the immunity question is not a question that is automatically
35:17dismissed. Is the gentleman going to respond? Yes, I will. Consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.
35:23I'll defer to Mr. Nadler. Thank you. What President Obama did was an official act.
35:30If what President Trump was convicted for was not an official act,
35:38if anyone at this table, in this committee room rather, violated the state law by committing
35:45murder or by theft or by fraud, he'd be tried in the state court. I agree with the gentleman
35:53that the allegations were not an official act. However, you'll notice in this Mr. Frye's
36:00legislation, the removal has to be for an official act to be removed for a former president or vice
36:08president. Not for the president. No, no, not for the current president, but for a former president.
36:14In other words, the discussion about what President Trump wanted removed during his campaign,
36:20under this, it doesn't change the removal during that period in which he was a former president.
36:27He would have, under this bill, as a former president, the local prosecution would have
36:34been removable. Under current law, it is not removable, nor should it be.
36:39A violation of state law should be prosecuted at the state level. I think we just disagree on that.
36:46Who else seeks recognition? I think I've already spoken. Yeah. Mr. Johnson.
36:53Thank you. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Thank you to the gentleman from Georgia.
36:58Mr. Issa, the Constitution applies to state courts as well as federal courts.
37:04The Supreme Court's opinion applies as to official acts in state court, just as it would in federal
37:13court. I don't understand what your concern is about the application of the Constitution
37:23when that also applies to state court. I would just say, Mr. Issa, in response to the quotes
37:31that you read, saying that I sued Donald Trump previously is not saying that I am going to
37:41indict him. In fact, the investigation that was at the time alive was not the charge
37:55that was ultimately brought. In fact, Mr. Bragg refused to bring the criminal case that was
38:04under investigation. The line prosecutor who was investigating that case
38:11resigned in protest over the fact that Mr. Bragg did not charge President Trump with that
38:21investigation. Those quotes that you're talking about in the ongoing investigation that is
38:26referenced there was ultimately not brought by Mr. Bragg. You can have complaints about
38:34what the actual charges were. I think there are reasonable arguments to debate about the
38:43discretion. It certainly was found by a jury to be a conviction. The president will have his
38:52appellate rights. He may appeal it. If your allegations about converting a misdemeanor into
39:00a felony and statute of limitations and all that stuff are true, then a court would agree with you.
39:07We already have the proper system to be able to deal with that. I think on both scores,
39:16you're missing the mark here. Again, if you want to go back just to say presidents and vice
39:20presidents, 1442 should also apply, let's discuss that. But that's not what this bill does.