OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
A federal judge has rejected Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s request to block a former prosecutor in his office from testifying before the House Judiciary Committee about the criminal case against former President Donald Trump.
“The committee and its chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), had subpoenaed ex-assistant district attorney Mark Pomerantz to give testimony about the DA’s investigation into Trump, 76, that culminated in the former president’s indictment in March. Bragg filed suit against Jordan and the Judiciary Committee, claiming the subpoena was an overreach by the GOP-led House and an attempt to influence a state criminal proceeding,” the New York Post reported. “But Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil found the subpoena was issued with a valid legislative purpose and that it was not the role of the federal judiciary to dictate how Congress operates.”
“Mr. Pomerantz must appear for the congressional deposition. No one is above the law,” Judge Vyskocil wrote in an opinion issued after a Manhattan federal court hearing.
Pomerantz is scheduled to appear for the deposition Thursday morning — unless Bragg’s office secures a delay from a federal appeals court.
You the man @Jim_Jordan 🇺🇸💪
Federal judge shoots down Alvin Bragg's bid to stop Rep. Jim Jordan's subpoena https://t.co/DX1HgXUc8b via @nypost
— Anthony (@Antman0528) April 19, 2023
Earlier this month, Bragg sued Jordan 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.
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) April 12, 2023
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) April 12, 2023
“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.
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.
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) April 12, 2023
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.
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.”
