Rep. Darrell Issa, a member of the House Judiciary Committee from California, expressed his concerns on Thursday regarding the “carpet-bombing indictment” brought forth by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in Georgia. Issa criticized the indictment, stating that it raises multiple issues, particularly its potential interference with the upcoming 2024 election.
During an appearance on “The Record with Greta Van Susteren” on Newsmax, Issa likened the indictment to a “carpet-bombing” strategy, emphasizing the sheer volume of charges and the inclusion of 13 counts against former President Donald Trump. Issa emphasized that while multiple individuals are facing indictment, the focus is primarily on the former president. He underscored that constitutional norms and historical precedent dictate that presidential actions should be subject to impeachment.
Issa criticized Willis’s allegations, noting that they pertain to acts that occurred up until the day Trump left office, which he argues are federal in nature and should be addressed through appropriate legal channels. He questioned the legitimacy of targeting the former president for actions that are beyond the jurisdiction of state law.
The central concern for the House Judiciary Committee’s investigation is the perceived interference with a presidential election. Issa contended that any form of political interference undermines the goal of conducting free and fair elections. He raised the question of whether it would be prudent to delay the trials until after the presidential election to prevent any potential harm to the democratic process.
Issa expressed frustration at the tendency for people to take sides in the case based on their personal feelings toward Trump, which he believes has led some to abandon the principles outlined in the Constitution. He emphasized the importance of adhering to established rules and legal norms.
While acknowledging the possibility of merit in investigating the mishandling of classified documents after Trump left office, Issa emphasized the need to approach such matters with care and within the bounds of legal precedents. He raised the question of whether charging a president for actions taken while in office aligns with the Supreme Court’s interpretation. Issa concluded by suggesting that state officials in New York and Georgia are attempting to interfere with the election process by deviating from precedent and charging a president in state court.