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

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Alvin Bragg, the district attorney for Manhattan, submitted a motion, and Jim Jordan( R-Ohio ) responded on April 17.

The filing comes in the midst of a legal dispute between Jordan and Bragg over whether Congress has the power to look into the former president Donald Trump’s’s case.

It all started when Bragg filed a lawsuit to stop Jordan’s’s legislative lawsuit, which called for Mark Pomerantz, the former Manhattan prosecutor who was in charge of the Trump financial audit, to testify.

Attorneys for Jordan and the House Judiciary Committee claimed in the 35-page filing( pdf ) that Jordan’s’s subpoena was being challenged by Bragg in violation of the U.S. Speech or Debate Clause. S. a charter.

According to the lawyers, Jordan’s’s lawsuit has a legitimate legislative reason and is therefore shielded from court interference under the clause.

Additionally, they argued that Congress has the right to” learn whether former President are subject to politically motivated say investigations and prosecutions due to the policies they advanced as President, and, if so, what legislative measures may be right.” ”

In February 2022, Pomerantz left the Manhattan district attorney’s’s office because Bragg had initially decided not to file a criminal complaint against Trump. Pomerantz had pushed for an indictment against the former president after leading an investigation into his finances. Later, Pomerantz published a narrative about the incident.

Following that, Bragg called a grand jury in New York, which eventually found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business information in late March.

Jordan subpoenaed( pdf ) Pomerantz on April 6 to ask for testimony from the former prosecutor as part of the House Judiciary Committee’s’s oversight of Bragg, a former U.S. official who had been the subject of an in-depth investigation into his office before Trump was indicted on March 30. S. Mr. President

In response, Bragg filed a federal lawsuit on April 11( pdf ) requesting the nullification of Jordan’s’s subpoena, which included an injunction to prevent Jordan from enforcing it and an emergency request for temporary restraining order on Jordan. However, the jury ordered a reading on the situation the same day and declined to enter Bragg’s’s emergency request into the record due to lacked supporting documentation. The Southern District Court of New York has set aside an earlier reading in the case for April 19.

Legislators from the GOP refute Bragg’s’s claim of” Threat to Federalism.”

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

According to Bragg in the objection,” that campaign poses a clear threat to democracy and the royal interests of the State of New York.”

Additionally, he claimed that Jordan’s’s lawsuit is being issued for” no legitimate legislative reason” and that the Constitution forbids him from overseeing state and local criminal matters.

Attorneys for Bragg argued that the summons” threats the royal powers of the States, courage in the privacy of grand judge proceedings, and the dignity of an ongoing legal prosecution.” They claimed that Pomerantz’s’s legislative subpoena” marks the first time in the history of our country that Congress has used its mandatory process to tamper with an continued state criminal case.” ”

Attorneys claimed that the congressional subpoena” exceeds Congress’ authority” and” obstructs New York’s’s sovereign right to enforce its criminal law” in a memorandum of law( pdf ) submitted on April 11 in support of Bragg. “”

Members of the House Judiciary Committee disagreed with Bragg’s’s claims.

Rep. R-La Mike Johnson The House Judiciary Committee has a stake in looking into Bragg’s’s way to ensure that national tax dollars are being used properly, according to( who is also the evil chairman of the House Republican Conference ) who told The Epoch Times.

Originally, Bragg’s’s work claimed that some federal funding had been used to look into Trump or the Trump Organization.

Johnson stated to The Epoch Times on April 17 that” our control is mostly limited to the use of federal financing.” ” We do have the authority to spend money in the house ,” and at the end of the day, we’ll’ll be suggesting meaningful legislative changes and likely considering some of how these funds will be used.

” As managers of the taxpayers’ money, we have a duty to monitor that down and ensure that it isn’t misused or misappropriated if any of that revenue has been. We find it interesting that Bragg’s’s work has acknowledged using at least some federal funding, for instance, to pursue Donald Trump. “”

Rep. R-N Jeff Van Drew J.. ( echoed Johnson’s’s opinion. He assured The Epoch Times that Pomerantz’s’s subpoena was issued by the House Judiciary Committee in accordance with all democracy beliefs.