Since the Manhattan District Attorney decided to indict former President Trump, his record has come under scrutiny, as well as the maneuverings leading to that indictment.
He’s been desperately trying to avoid answering mounting questions.
Now a Federal judge just dealt Alvin Bragg a devastating loss.
U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil has denied Bragg’s request for a temporary restraining order and injunction after House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) issued a subpoena to former NYC prosecutor Mark Pomerantz last week.
Federal judge: Bragg has no legal basis to quash a Congressional subpoena
The judge said that Bragg does not have a legal basis to block the Congressional subpoena.
Vyskocil ruled that the subpoena was issued with a valid legislative purpose.
Her filing states:
In our federalist system, elected state and federal actors sometimes engage in political dogfights. Bragg complains of political interference in the local DANY case, but Bragg does not operate outside of the political arena. Bragg is presumptively acting in good faith. That said, he is an elected prosecutor in New York County with constituents, some of whom wish to see Bragg wield the force of law against the former President and a current candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Jordan, in turn, has initiated a political response to what he and some of his constituents view as a manifest abuse of power and nakedly political prosecution, funded (in part) with federal money, that has the potential to interfere with the exercise of presidential duties and with an upcoming federal election. The Court does not endorse either side’s agenda. The sole question before the Court at this time is whether Bragg has a legal basis to quash a congressional subpoena that was issued with a valid legislative purpose. He does not.
It was a devastating ruling and one in which Bragg immediately appealed and sought a stay of the decision.
Jordan seeks to question Pomerantz over his highly-public resignation from Bragg’s office in February 2022.
In his resignation letter, Pomerantz made clear that he thought Trump was “guilty of numerous felony violations” and that Bragg’s decision at the time to suspend a probe against Trump was “misguided.”
He later went on to publish a book, in which he strongly criticized Trump and discussed internal concerns people in the District Attorney’s office had about the Trump investigation.
Pomerantz did this to himself
Jordan wrote to Pomerantz, “You are uniquely situated to provide information that is relevant and necessary to inform the Committee’s oversight and potential legislative reforms.”
Even worse for Bragg, Vykocil wrote, “Pomerantz is in this situation because he decided to inject himself into the public debate by authoring a book that he has described as ‘appropriate and in the public interest.’”
Jordan wants to question Pomerantz as part of a broader probe into Bragg’s historic criminal case against Trump, which the GOP sees as a politically motivated and unjust application of the law.
Stay tuned to Blue State Blues for any updates to this ongoing story.
