Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed a federal lawsuit against Republican Rep. Jim Jordan over the congressman’s “unprecedentedly brazen and unconstitutional attack” on his historic investigation and prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
“Congress has no power to supervise state criminal prosecutions,” Bragg’s attorney Ted Boutrous wrote in a 50-page complaint. “Nor does Congress have the power to serve subpoenas ‘for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to punish those investigated.'”
[...]
Jordan has tried to become a thorn in Bragg’s side at the moment his investigation appeared primed to produce the first indictment of a former U.S. president. His GOP-led committee sent multiple letters to Bragg seeking information about the grand jury investigation, which is typically confidential. Jordan then escalated that effort by issuing a subpoena to Mark Pomerantz, who was one of Bragg’s top deputies before noisily resigning in protest when the DA appeared unwilling to charge Trump.
[...]
Filed in the Southern District of New York, Bragg’s lawsuit names Jordan, the Judiciary Committee and Pomerantz as defendants.
[...]
The lawsuit seeks to block Pomerantz’s compliance with the subpoena and declare it unenforceable. Bragg also seeks a ruling blocking any future subpoena Jordan issues against his current or former staffers as invalid.
[...]
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee and a former member of the Federalist Society.
Law and Crime
Well, that's not good.
She declined to issue a temporary restraining order immediately, but she set a quick schedule for adjudication.
So...
The Second Circuit temporarily blocked the deposition of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s former deputy Mark Pomerantz, mere hours before he was slated to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday morning.
The administrative stay preserves the status quo as the appellate court decides whether House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan’s questioning of Pomerantz is constitutionally permissible.
[...]
Pomerantz argues that the subpoena puts him in a bind. If he answers lawmakers’ questions, he could face civil or criminal liability for violating New York grand jury secrecy. He could also faces serious repercussions if he thumbs his nose at Congress.
[...]
Ever since reports emerged that a Manhattan grand jury appeared primed to indict Trump, the former president’s staunchest loyalists in the House of Representatives sought to undermine Bragg. Jordan sent multiple letters seeking information about the grand jury probe even before Bragg brought charges. The Judiciary Committee’s campaign only has escalated since that time. The GOP-controlled body held an unusual “field hearing” earlier this week in lower Manhattan’s Javits Federal Building, a short walk from the DA’s office. The topic of the hearing purportedly had nothing to do with the Trump prosecution but New York City’s crime record since Bragg took office.
Law and Crime
And that seems like simple and true harassment.
The judge sided with Jordan in a scathing ruling sending up a slogan of many of the former president’s critics: “No one is above the law.”
“The subpoena was issued with a ‘valid legislative purpose’ in connection with the ‘broad’ and ‘indispensable’ congressional power to ‘conduct investigations,’” Vyskocil wrote. “It is not the role of the federal judiciary to dictate what legislation Congress may consider or how it should conduct its deliberations in that connection.”
[...]
“The district court’s view of Congress’s subpoena authority would upend that status quo and open the floodgates: any former or current prosecutors involved in any investigation or prosecution of any criminal matter would be at risk of being summoned to explain themselves before a congressional committee if they prosecute violations of state law in cases disfavored by Members of Congress[," countered the DA’s appellate attorney Steven Wu.]
[...]
Jordan must respond to Bragg’s emergency motion by Friday, and the DA can file a response by Saturday. A hearing date has not yet been set.
To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment