And I think ā€˜scathingā€™ is an accurate and non-hyperbolic headline for once:

A charitable explanation of your correspondence is that you are ignorant of the United States and Georgia Constitutions and codes. A more troubling explanation is that you are abusing your authority as Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to attempt to obstruct and interfere with a Georgia criminal prosecution. See O.C.G.A. Ā§ 16-10-24. Indeed, you confessed to this motivation on Mark Levinā€™s September 10, 2023, show: when discussing one of my officeā€™s active prosecutions. you boasted, ā€œWeā€™re trying to get all the answers, but weā€™re trying to stop this stuff as wellā€ (emphasis added). While you may enjoy immunity under the United States Constitutionā€™s Speech or Debate Clause, that does not make your behavior any less offensive to the rule of law.

As the person chosen by the citizens of Fulton County to be their District Attorney, I serve them, and my team and I are exceptionally busy. We have already written a letterā€”which I have attached again for your referenceā€“explaining why the legal positions you advance are meritless. Nothing youā€™ve said in your latest letter changes that fact. As I have explained, your requests implicate significant. well recognized confidentiality interests related to an ongoing criminal matter, as well as serious constitutional concerns regarding federalism and separation of powers.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    14ā€¢1 year ago

    While you may enjoy immunity under the United States Constitutionā€™s Speech or Debate Clause, that does not make your behavior any less offensive to the rule of law.

    In other words, ā€œthe ONLY reason I havenā€™t indicted your ass for obstruction is that youā€™ll spend months on appeals all the way to SCOTUS trying to claim your obstruction is part of your duties in Congress, and you arenā€™t worth my time right now, bitch.ā€

    Iā€™d actually like to see her bring the charge and let judges bend themselves into pretzels trying to rationalize how a Congress memberā€™s incessant interference with a state case qualifies under the speech and debate clauseā€™s protection.