Rep. Jordan Files Response To Bragg’s Motion Amid Probe Into Trump Indictment

Authored by Gary Bai and Mimi Nguyen Ly via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The House Judiciary Committee and its chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), on April 17 filed a response to a motion filed by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

The filing comes amid a legal clash between Bragg and Jordan on whether Congress has the authority to investigate Bragg’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump.

It began when Bragg sued to halt a congressional subpoena from Jordan that sought the testimony of Mark Pomerantz, a former Manhattan prosecutor who led an investigation into Trump’s finances.

In the 35-page filing (pdf), attorneys for the House Judiciary Committee and Jordan argued that Bragg’s lawsuit to quash Jordan’s subpoena violates the Speech or Debate Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

The attorneys asserted that Jordan’s subpoena serves a valid legislative purpose and is therefore protected from any interference from the courts under the clause.

They also argued that Congress is within its authority to “examine whether former Presidents are being subject to politically motivated state investigations and prosecutions due to the policies they advanced as President, and, if so, what legislative remedies may be appropriate.”

Pomerantz, who had pushed for an indictment against Trump after having led a probe into the former president’s finances, left the Manhattan district attorney’s office in February 2022 because Bragg initially decided not to pursue a criminal case against Trump. Pomerantz later released a memoir about the case.

After that, Bragg convened a New York grand jury that ultimately indicted Trump in late March for 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, to which the former president has pleaded not guilty.

On April 6, following a weeks-long probe into Bragg’s office before Trump’s indictment on March 30, Jordan subpoenaed (pdf) Pomerantz to seek testimony from the former prosecutor as part of the House Judiciary Committee’s oversight of Bragg’s “unprecedented indictment” of a former U.S. president.

In response, Bragg filed a federal lawsuit on April 11 (pdf) seeking to nullify Jordan’s subpoena, which included an emergency request for a temporary restraining order on Jordan and an injunction to block the subpoena’s enforcement. But on the same day, the court declined to enter Bragg’s emergency request into the record because of a lack of documentation and ordered a hearing on the matter. An initial hearing in the case is scheduled in the Southern District Court of New York for April 19.

GOP Lawmakers Refute Bragg’s Allegation of ‘Threat to Federalism’

Bragg, in his April 11 complaint (pdf), characterized the subpoena of Pomerantz as an “unprecedently [sic] brazen and unconstitutional attack” on Bragg’s prosecution and investigation of Trump.

“That campaign is a direct threat to federalism and the sovereign interests of the State of New York,” Bragg said in the complaint.

He also said that Jordan has “no power under the Constitution to oversee state and local criminal matters” and that he has “no legitimate legislative purpose” for issuing the subpoena.

Read more here…