Federal Judge Rules Against Alvin Bragg, Hands Jim Jordan a Big Win
A federal judge has rejected efforts by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to block a former prosecutor in his office from testifying before the House Judiciary Committee.
In her ruling April 19, U.S. District Court Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil said former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz “must appear for the congressional deposition. No one is above the law.”
The committee, chaired by Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, had said the subpoena was issued to determine whether federal funds were used in the investigation of former President Donald Trump, according to the New York Post.
As a result of Bragg’s investigation, Trump is facing 34 criminal counts for allegedly falsifying business records.
Bragg’s office said it would appeal Vyskocil’s ruling but lost a round when she refused Bragg’s request for a stay on her order while the appeal takes place, according to CNN.
Pomerantz had been a special assistant district attorney who resigned in 2022, citing Bragg’s refusal to prosecute Trump. He later wrote a book about the experience, according to ABC News.
A spokesman for Jordan hailed the Trump-appointed judge’s ruling.
“Today’s decision shows that Congress has the ability to conduct oversight and issue subpoenas to people like Mark Pomeranz, and we look forward to his deposition before the Judiciary Committee,” Russell Dye said, according to ABC News.
Vyskocil said her ruling was not an endorsement of either side in what she referred to as a political tussle.
“In our federalist system, elected state and federal actors sometimes engage in political dogfights,” the judge wrote. “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 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. Mr. Pomerantz must appear for the congressional deposition. No one is above the law,” Vyskocil wrote.
“Bragg’s throw-everything-at-the-wall approach to privilege is unpersuasive,” she said, rejecting the DA’s claim that sensitive information would be exposed.
She said Bragg started the political ball rolling by filing his lawsuit.
“The Court is further unmoved by Bragg’s purported concern at the prospect of ‘inject[ing] partisan passions’ into a forum where they do not belong. By bringing this action, Bragg is engaging in precisely the type of political theater he claims to fear,” Vyskocil wrote.
“Jordan and the Committee have identified several valid legislative purposes underlying the subpoena,” she said, adding, “There can be no doubt that Congress may permissibly investigate the use of federal funds, particularly where the result of the investigation might prompt Congress to pass legislation changing how such funds are appropriated or may be spent.”
Vyskocil noted that the case is replete with political motivations.
“Bragg complains of political interference in the local DANY [District Attorney of New York] case, but Bragg does not operate outside of the political arena,” she wrote. “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 judge said.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
