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.
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.
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.
“The subpoena threatens the sovereign powers of the States, confidence in the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, and the integrity of an ongoing criminal prosecution,” attorneys for Bragg argued. They said the congressional subpoena to Pomerantz “marks the first time in our nation’s history that Congress has used its compulsory process to interfere with an ongoing state criminal case.”
Lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee disagreed with Bragg’s assertions.
Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), who is also the vice chairman of the House Republican Conference, told The Epoch Times that the House Judiciary Committee has an interest in probing Bragg’s case to make sure federal tax dollars are being spent appropriately.
“Our jurisdiction is limited largely to the use of federal funding,” Johnson told The Epoch Times on April 17. “We do have the power of the purse in the house—and at the end of the day, we'll be proposing legislative reforms that are meaningful and probably looking at some of the expenditure of these funds.
“If some of that funding has been misspent or misapplied, then we have a responsibility as stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars to track that down and make sure that it’s not. Bragg’s office has admitted that they’ve at least used some federal funding, for example, on the pursuit of Donald Trump, and so that’s of interest to us.”
Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) echoed Johnson’s view. He told The Epoch Times the House Judiciary Committee didn’t violate any principles of federalism in issuing Pomerantz a subpoena.
Attorneys for Jordan and the House Judiciary Committee noted on April 17 that the committee started investigating Bragg’s office after “concluding that the prospect of a politically motivated prosecution of a former President could give rise to issues of substantial federal concern.”
They said that the federal government “also has a substantial interest in the welfare of former Presidents.”
Pomerantz is named as a defendant in Bragg’s lawsuit “so that he may continue to abide by the Office’s instruction without facing a risk of contempt proceedings,” a spokesperson for the Manhattan district attorney’s office told news outlets. The spokesperson also noted that Pomerantz previously indicated he would follow the Manhattan District Attorney’s (DA’s) office’s instruction “not to provide the committee with information or materials relating to his work in the DA’s Office.”
In seeking the court to halt the congressional subpoena, Pomerantz wrote: “Absent some relief from this Court, I will find myself in an impossible position.
“If I refuse to provide information to the Committee, I risk being held in contempt of Congress and referred to the Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution. If, on the other hand, I defy the District Attorney’s instructions and answer questions, I face possible legal or ethical consequences, including criminal prosecution.”
