In a strongly worded, nine-page response letter, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis accused Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) of interfering with her case against former President Donald Trump and 18 co-defendants, which alleges that their challenge of the 2020 election results constituted a “racketeering criminal enterprise.”
“Your attempt to interfere with and obstruction [sic] this office’s prosecution of state criminal cases is unconstitutional,” she wrote. “As you know, Chariman [sic] Jordan, the congressional power of inquiry ‘is not unlimited.’”
“Your letter offends each and every one of these settled principles. Its obvious purpose is to obstruct a Georgia criminal proceeding and to advance outrageous partisan misrepresentations,” she wrote.
Ms. Willis argued that a House investigation would violate state sovereignty.
“The demands in your letter—and your efforts at intruding upon the State of Georgia’s criminal authority—violate constitutional principles of federalism,” she wrote, describing his actions as “flagrantly at odds with the Constitution.”
She made the argument that the defendants were charged “under state law with committing state crimes”—an argument that’s now being challenged with five of the defendants, including President Trump, attempting to remove their cases to federal court.
Investigation Letter
Mr. Jordan began his Aug. 24 letter by questioning whether Ms. Willis’s prosecution was politically motivated, pointing out that she opened a fundraising website right before the indictment and that local officials have publicly made statements about their dislike of President Trump, who’s campaigning to be the GOP nominee in the 2024 presidential election.He then raised a concern about Ms. Willis’s overstepping her jurisdiction.
“Congress has long been sensitive to the threat that such state prosecutions can pose to the operations of federal government,” Mr. Jordan wrote, pointing to the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which puts federal law before state laws and courts.
The indictment names several federal officials, including President Trump, former Justice Department (DOJ) official Jeffrey Clark, and former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.
It also names several alternate electors, an election official, several of the then-president’s lawyers, and potential witnesses who challenged the 2020 election results in the case.
The federal officers have filed notices of removal, arguing immunity to state prosecution under the Supremacy Clause. Alternate electors David Shafer and Shawn Still have also filed notices of removal, arguing that if not considered federal officers, they would have been acting under the direction of federal officers, which in legal precedent has allowed for the same immunity.
Mr. Jordan justified the investigation by writing that the federal government “has substantial interest in the welfare of former Presidents,” who, by law, are entitled to continued Secret Service protection and other privileges outside of office.
Mr. Jordan also pointed out Ms. Willis’s office uses federal funding and that there were questions as to whether she and special counsel Jack Smith, who’s prosecuting a similar case in federal court, have collaborated.
DA Response
Ms. Willis refuted Mr. Jordan’s concerns and said he lacked “any legitimate legislative purpose” for his letter or investigation.She said his probe into her criminal case was outside of his “job description” and that he was investigating to promote his “partisan political objectives.”
Ms. Willis also dismissed all arguments separating federal and state jurisdictions.
“It is time that you deal with some basic realities,” she wrote, arguing that the case has been properly conducted, using a special purpose grand jury first, and then a separate grand jury that returned the 41-count indictment.
“Face this reality, Chairman Jordan: the select group of defendants who you fret over in my jurisdiction are like every other defendant, entitled to no worse or better treatment than any other American citizen.”
Ms. Willis’s letter didn’t reference the supremacy clause. She described President Trump as a political candidate who isn’t entitled to special treatment, without addressing his status as a former president of the United States.
“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,’” she wrote. “As a non-member of the bar, you can purchase a copy for two hundred forty-nine dollar [sic].”
Ms. Willis also addressed the federal funding, arguing that DOJ grants have been used to fund community programs.
“If you and your colleagues follow through on your threats to deny this office federal funds, please be aware that you will be deciding to allow serial rapists to go unprosecuted, hate crimes to be unaddressed, and to cancel programs for at-risk children,” she wrote, describing any legal action to defund her office as “vengeful.”
Ms. Willis ended the letter with a page of recommendations for congressional action, including funding victim–witness advocate programs and programs to support at-risk youth, and attached 10 of the threats her office has received as an example of the bullying she said she wouldn’t cave to.
