The Manhattan district attorney’s attempt to bar a former district attorney from testifying in Congress about efforts to prosecute Donald Trump failed Wednesday, with a judge ruling that Mark Pomerantz could be called to testify.
Pomerantz worked for years on the Trump investigation, but left the job after a clash with District Attorney Alvin Bragg over the lead on the case.
He recently wrote a book about his work to pursue Trump and discussed the investigation in interviews on 60 Minutes and other shows.
Jim Jordan, the staunchly pro-Trump head of the House Judiciary Committee, is investigating what he says is a politically motivated and unlawful prosecution of Trump.
Jordan sought Pomerantz’s testimony, but Bragg sued to block it.
Mark Pomerantz, a former Manhattan prosecutor, spent years investigating Trump, but left his job after falling out with Alvin Bragg
Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg had tried to prevent Pomerantz from testifying before the Jordan commission
Bragg’s attorney, Theodore Boutrous, argued that the search for Pomerantz’s testimony was part of a “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack Bragg” and that Congress “invaded a state” to imprison a local prosecutor. investigations when it was not authorized to do so.
On Wednesday, Bragg was outvoted.
U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil rejected Bragg’s request for a temporary restraining order, arguing that Jordan had a valid legislative purpose in issuing the summons Unpleasant Pomerantz.
“It is not the role of the federal judiciary to dictate what legislation Congress may consider or how it should conduct its deliberations on it,” Vyskocil wrote in a 25-page op-ed.
“Mr. Pomerantz must appear for the congressional statement. No one is above the law.’
Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, ruled two hours after a hearing in which she bombarded lawyers on both sides with questions asking them to dissect thorny issues of sovereignty, separation of powers and congressional oversight arising from the landmark indictment.
The judge acknowledged the “political dogfights” surrounding the case and said in her ruling that she “does not endorse either party’s agenda.”
She encouraged both sides to speak up and “reach a mutually acceptable compromise” on how Pomerantz’s impeachment will proceed.
Jordan tries to question him Thursday morning in Washington.
“Today’s decision shows that Congress has the ability to oversee and issue subpoenas to the likes of Mark Pomerantz, and we look forward to his testimony before the Judiciary Committee,” Jordan spokesman Russell Dye said.
Jim Jordan, the Trump ally who now chairs the House Judiciary Committee, is investigating the prosecution of Donald Trump
The Judiciary Committee began scrutinizing Bragg’s investigation of the former president in the weeks leading up to his indictment.
Jordan sent letters seeking interviews with Bragg and documents before subpoenaing Pomerantz.
In her ruling, Vyskocil said she would handle any legal battles that could arise from other subpoenas in the commission’s investigation into Bragg.
A committee attorney, Matthew Berry, countered that Congress has legitimate legislative reasons for wanting to question Pomerantz and investigate Bragg’s prosecution of Trump, citing the agency’s use of $5,000 in federal funds to conduct Trump-related investigations. pay.
Congress is also considering legislation, brought by Republicans in the wake of Trump’s indictment, to change the way criminal cases against former presidents proceed, Berry said.
One bill would prohibit prosecutors from using federal funds to investigate presidents, and another would require criminal cases involving a former president to be resolved in federal court rather than at the state level.
Pomerantz declined comment as he left the hearing with a stack of papers containing his book “People vs. Donald Trump’ on top.
His attorney, Ted Wells, said he would accompany Pomerantz if he had to testify.
Neither Pomerantz nor his lawyers spoke at the hearing.
But in a lawsuit, he joined Bragg’s position, claiming that he should not be questioned by the commission.
Berry, the committee’s attorney, argued that Pomerantz has already shared much information with the public about his work on the Trump investigation and that the Judiciary Committee has the right to question him on that as well.
“I don’t think this is rational or reasonable behavior for the House Judiciary Committee to score under 60 minutes in any way,” Berry argued.
Pomerantz can refuse to answer certain questions, citing legal privilege and ethical obligations, and Jordan would decide those claims on a case-by-case basis, Berry said, but he shouldn’t be exempt from appearing.
If Jordan pushes Pomerantz aside and he still refuses to answer, he could face a criminal referral to the Justice Department for contempt of Congress, but that wouldn’t happen immediately, Berry said.
Trump was charged last month with 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments made during the 2016 campaign to bury allegations of extramarital sexual encounters.
He has denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty at an arraignment last week.