by Mitch Kokai
Senior Political Analyst, John Locke Foundation
Caroline Downey of National Review Online reports on the latest questionable actions from Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney prosecuting former President Donald Trump.
Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg on Tuesday sued the House Judiciary Committee and chairman Jim Jordan in an attempt to stop them from subpoenaing a lawyer involved in the progressive prosecutor’s probe of former president Trump.
Last week, Jordan summoned for Mark Pomerantz, a former senior attorney in Bragg’s office, to testify on Capitol Hill following public statements he made pressuring his old boss to prosecute Trump. The subpoena came two days after Bragg unsealed an indictment revealing that Trump had been charged with 34 felonies stemming from falsified business records related to hush-money payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels prior to the 2016 presidential election.
“Congress has a specific and manifestly important interest in preventing politically motivated prosecutions of current and former Presidents by elected state and local prosecutors, particularly in jurisdictions — like New York County — where the prosecutor is popularly elected and trial-level judges lack life tenure,” Jordan wrote in a Thursday letter.
After spending three years working on the Trump investigation, Pomerantz acrimoniously left the office because of Bragg’s earlier hesitancy to prosecute the former president.
“Chairman Jordan’s demands, including his subpoena to Mr. Pomerantz, seek highly sensitive and confidential local prosecutorial information that belongs to the Office of the District Attorney and the People of New York,” reads Bragg’s lawsuit, obtained by CNN. “Basic principles of federalism and common sense, as well as binding Supreme Court precedent, forbid Congress from demanding it.”
Bragg accused Jordan and the committee of launching an “intimidation, retaliation, and obstruction” campaign against a state prosecution process in violation of federalism. The subpoena, the lawsuit said, was an “unprecedently brazen and unconstitutional attack by members of Congress.”