I Went Toe to Toe With Jim Jordan in Congress. What a Circus!

Shan Wu is a former federal prosecutor who served as counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno

I wasn’t quite sure what to expect when I was invited to testify before the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. While I have prepared people to testify before Congress, it was the first time I was the one in the witness chair and I expected more stress. Prepping other people allows you the luxury of reacting and word-smithing answers but answering questions as a witness gives you no time to edit or get input before you have to answer. And, as a lawyer, I’m used to being the one asking the questions.

To get ready I reminded myself of what I would tell my own witnesses, which was that they knew the subject of their own testimony better than anyone else in the room, and that no amount of combative questioning could change that fact. My advice worked well for my preparation, but nothing could have prepared me for how transparently performative were Republicans in their questioning.

The subcommittee is part of the House Judiciary Committee and is chaired by Ohio Republican Jim Jordan, who also chairs the House Judiciary Committee. They’ve taken to flinging any criticism that can come to mind about the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s conviction of former President Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up his alleged sexual encounter with actor and director Stormy Daniels.

Alvin Bragg Claims Victory as Jim Jordan Seethes at YouTubeSHARP SHOOTER

Jose Pagliery, Katie Baker

Particularly notable is the fact they were holding the hearings even before the trial had concluded, in one instance taking testimony from a witness in that trial—Trump attorney Bob Costello—on a day off from the trial and even before Costello’s actual testimony in the trial a few days later. They also sought testimony from Alvin Bragg, who—appropriately—declined, given that sentencing has not occurred in the case, making it an ongoing criminal case.

The three Republican witnesses (I was the only witness for the Democratic minority) were all there to justify the variety of criticisms about the Bragg case. Jonathan Fahey, a former federal prosecutor, testified about what he called the problem of “progressive prosecutors” like Bragg who supposedly were unwilling to prosecute serious crimes. Fahey, who also was the chief of the Immigration Customs Enforcement under Trump for about two weeks before resigning, complained about Bragg being willing to bring a case against the former president while street crime ran rampant (fact check: New York crime has been declining during Bragg’s tenure).

John H. Wilson, a former New York State judge, was there to testify about his views that Judge Juan Merchan should have recused himself from hearing the case due to an appearance of impropriety arising from Merchan’s $15 dollar donation to the Biden campaign and Merchan’s daughter working for a Democratic communications firm.

Wilson conceded that Merchan had sought advice from a judicial ethics advisory board which saw no reason for Merchan to recuse but, nonetheless, Wilson believed he should recuse. Sitting next to Wilson, I was quite surprised when he testified that, as a judge, he had never presided over any felony trials. It seemed odd to me that the Republicans would have picked a witness with such limited judicial experience to criticize a judge with far more experience. The third witness was Professor Bradley Smith, a federal campaign finance expert, whom Trump’s defense team had planned to call in the trial but ultimately did not.

That choice not to call Smith—which the Republican questioners spun as the Trump team being denied the chance to call him—came after Judge Merchan ruled that while Smith could testify as an expert on general legal issues about campaign finance he could not give an opinion on whether Trump’s actions were illegal or not, since that was up to the jury. Merchan also ruled that Smith could not testify as a fact witness since he had no personal knowledge of the facts in the case.

Witness testimony began after opening statements by Jim Jordan and the Ranking Minority Member Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett (D), the delegate from the Virgin Islands, and—to my surprise—a Pledge of Allegiance. After being sworn in, the Republican witnesses went first, starting with Professor Smith, who was finally able to give his opinion about the case against Trump. After hearing it, I certainly understood why Judge Merchan restricted his testimony.

Among his opinions was the case theory was “laughable”—an opinion that clearly would have run afoul of an expert witness not being allowed to opine on the ultimate issue in criminal cases. It would be like bringing on a fingerprint expert to testify that the defendant definitely was the murderer. That’s not the role of experts. It’s the role of the jury.

When it was my turn the Republicans went at me first and I was struck by how leading and long-winded the questions were. I should say that the questions had long “wind-ups” to the actual question which the questioner used to pose their own opinions. It quickly became apparent that those were much more important than my answers—unless I were agreeing with them. For example, when I pushed back on Representative Dan Bishop’s attempt to get me to agree that Congress should be able to inquire into state criminal cases by saying they needed to wait for the case to conclude he either tried to talk over me or interrupt me.

But time was actually on my side here because each member had only five minutes and as the long-windups went on I watched the digital time ticking away on their efforts to get answers out of me that might help their point of view.

The Democratic questions were refreshingly substantive, including questions about Project 2025—the Heritage Foundation blueprint for the Trump administration. The questions from Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D. Florida) about the plans for surveillance of abortion statistics were great examples of the real weaponization that Trump has planned. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (D. Texas) gave me the only real surprise of the day when she asked me to name the three branches of government as part of her point that Congress should not be interfering with criminal prosecutions. When she agreed with my answers, I felt a little like I’d given the right answer in class.

But the questions that stuck out at me the most were the ones from Congressman Matt Gaetz (R. Florida) to the Republican witnesses. Gaetz wanted to make the point that convicting Trump under a theory that involved covering up the payments so as not to have them treated as campaign contributions meant that he, Gaetz, could start buying ties and charging them to his campaign.

Proclaiming that he hated wearing ties but since people told him that Congressmen were expected to wear ties he might buy his at Ross Dress for Less. Gaetz’s “question” was all about his theory that the Trump conviction actually would encourage misuse of campaign finance funds. Gaetz’s pleasure with himself was blatant as he grinned and snickered throughout. Chairman Jim Jordan appeared to enjoy Gaetz’s performance even more than Gaetz, continuously beaming and laughing during Gaetz’s questions.

It was the interaction of Gaetz and Jordan that made the biggest impression upon me. For in their frat-boy style joking I could sense that there was no real substance to their inquiries. Sure, they and their Republican colleagues did a bunch of speechifying in their questions critical of Trump’s conviction but that did not seem the real point at all. There in the splendor of the high ceilings and wood panels, the real point for them seemed to have fun and put on a show. But it’s a show that masks the real dangers of using the trappings of Congress to interfere with the administration of justice.

As Ranking Minority Member Plaskett stated, the real hearings should be about the threat of the plans set forth in Project 2025. Therein lies the real weaponization of our government for political gain.