Advertisement
Trending

Southern District Of New York Quickly Smacks Down Bragg, No Restraining Order Against Jordan

Advertisement

OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.


Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has not had a ton to celebrate since he announced his case against former President Donald Trump and it landed like a dud, and now it got worse for him.

On Tuesday he sued Rep. Jim Jordan, the head of the House Judiciary Committee, to demand he stops “interfering” in a local prosecution. But as quick as he filed his lawsuit a judge for the Southern District of New York refused to even file a temporary restraining order, Mike Davis of The Federalist Society reported.

“Soros-funded Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s (frivolous) lawsuit against House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan is already off to a bad start for Bragg: The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York declined to even enter a temporary restraining order,” he said, showing a screenshot of the decision.

“Summary of Soros-funded Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s (frivolous) legal argument: Congress is interfering in Bragg’s misuse of federal funds and misuse of federal law to politically interfere in the next presidential election,” he said.

Advertisement

Bragg on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan after the Ohio Republican’s committee sent the prosecutor a subpoena demanding information regarding the office’s indictment of former President Donald Trump last week.

In his suit, Bragg alleged that Jordan and the committee are attempting to wage an intimidation campaign over the indictment.

The D.A. said he’s taking legal action “in response to an unprecedently brazen and unconstitutional attack by members of Congress on an ongoing New York State criminal prosecution and investigation of” Trump, Fox News reported.

Fox News noted further:

Bragg, a Democrat, is asking a judge to invalidate subpoenas that Jordan, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has or plans to issue as part of an investigation of Bragg’s handling of the Trump case.

In recent weeks, the Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena seeking testimony from a former prosecutor, Mark Pomerantz, who previously oversaw the Trump investigation. The committee has also sought documents and testimony about the case from Bragg and his office. Bragg has rejected those requests.

Earlier, reports said the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee plans to hold a field hearing on April 17 in New York City to look into how Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s policies have impacted the area and led to an increase in violent crime.

Advertisement

The field hearing, which is titled “Victims of Violent Crime in Manhattan,” will be held at the “Jacob Javits Federal Building just blocks from Bragg’s Lower Manhattan office and the courthouse where Trump, 76, was arraigned on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records last week,” the New York Post reported.

“The House Judiciary Committee will hear from ‘victims’ of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s policies during a hearing in New York next week — escalating a confrontation with the progressive prosecutor over his unprecedented criminal case against former President Donald Trump, The Post has learned. Republicans have slammed Bragg as being soft on conventional crime while embracing a novel legal theory to bring the first-ever criminal case against an ex-president,” the Post reported.

“We’ll be hosting this hearing next week from NYC. We’ll be hearing from victims who are suffering under DA Bragg’s pro-crime policies. If Bragg can spend resources indicting President [Donald] Trump, he should be able to address the soaring crime in NYC,” committee member Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona tweeted.

A plethora of legal experts have come forward since Trump’s indictment and argued that Bragg’s case is exceptionally weak.

“The question to ask yourself in a case like this [is], ‘Would a case like this be brought against anybody else, whether he or she be president, former president or a regular citizen?’ The answer is… no,” Former Whitewater deputy counsel Sol Wisenberg said.

“You can debate all day long whether or not… Trump should be indicted related to the records at Mar-a-Lago, whether or not he should be indicted with respect to Jan. 6 incitement of lawless activity… Those are real crimes if they occurred, and he committed them,” he said. “This is preposterous.”

Ian Millhiser, a senior correspondent at Vox, wrote: “There is something painfully anticlimactic about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment of former President Trump. It concerns not Trump’s efforts to overthrow the duly elected government of the United States, but his alleged effort to cover up a possible extramarital affair with a porn star. And there’s a very real risk that this indictment will end in an even bigger anticlimax. It is unclear that the felony statute that Trump is accused of violating actually applies to him.”

Mark Stern, a writer for the liberal outlet Slate, published a story titled, “The Trump Indictment Is Not the Slam-Dunk Case Democrats Wanted.”

Test your skills with this Quiz!