new york –
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg agreed Friday to allow Republicans on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee to question former prosecutors in the criminal case against former President Donald Trump.
Under the agreement, committee members will be able to question Mark Pomeranz under oath in Washington next month. The deal settled a lawsuit in which Bragg sought to block Pomerantz’s testimony, ending a legal dispute that escalated to federal appeals courts just weeks after Trump’s historic indictment.
Mr. Pomerantz will be accompanied by lawyers from Mr. Bragg’s firm.
Bragg’s office and the Judiciary Committee reached a deal after the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction on Thursday, temporarily staying the enforcement of a House subpoena seeking Pomeranz’s testimony.
The Court of Appeals was scheduled to hear oral arguments in the dispute on Tuesday.
Bragg’s office said the agreement to delay Pomerantz’s testimony until May 12 would preserve the district attorney’s “privileges and interests” in the ongoing prosecution of Trump.
Bragg’s office said in a statement, “This effective suspension of the subpoena will prevent immediate depositions and the time needed to coordinate with the House Judiciary Committee on an agreement that protects the district attorney’s privileges and interests. was given,” he said.
“We are pleased with this resolution and will ensure that any questioning of the former employee will be conducted in the presence of our general counsel within a reasonable and agreed-upon timeframe. We are pleased to have been given the opportunity to succeed in this controversy,” Bragg’s office said.
Mr. Bragg said the Second Circuit after a lower court judge ruled on Wednesday that there was no legal basis to block the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena and that Mr. Pomerantz’s deposition must go ahead as scheduled. Appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Pursuant to the agreement, Bragg withdrew its appeal.
Russell Dye, a spokesperson for Chairman Jim Jordan, a Republican of Ohio, said in a statement, “Mr. I will,” he said.
Pomerantz once oversaw Trump’s long-running investigation, but quit his job after clashing with Bragg over the direction of the case. ‘ and other show interviews about the investigation.
Bragg, a Democrat, sued Jordan and the Judiciary Committee last week to block the subpoena. His attorney, Theodore Boutras, said the request for Pomerantz’s testimony was part of a “transparency campaign” to intimidate and attack Bragg when Congress did not have the authority to investigate the district attorney. He claimed he was “invading the state.”
Boutrous said House Republicans’ interest in Bragg amounted to Congress “plunging into the DA and bickering while the indictment was going on.”
In the weeks leading up to Bragg’s indictment, the Judiciary Commission began scrutinizing Bragg’s investigation of the former president. Jordan sent a letter asking for an interview and documents with Bragg before subpoenaing Pomerantz. In his investigation, he said he would handle legal battles that may arise from other subpoenas.
Commission attorney Matthew Berry said at that hearing that Congress had legitimate legislative reasons to question Pomerantz and want to investigate Bragg’s Trump indictment, and to pay for Trump-related investigations. citing the use of $5,000 in federal funds.
Congress is also considering a bill proposed by Republicans in the wake of Trump’s indictment that would change how criminal cases against the former president unfold, Berry said. One bill bans prosecutors from using federal funds to investigate the president, and another requires criminal cases involving former presidents to be resolved in federal court rather than at the state level.
House Republicans want to protect the sovereignty and autonomy of the presidency, Berry said, and the commander-in-chief was charged with crimes after local prosecutors in politically disadvantaged jurisdictions left them. We envision scenarios where you feel obligated to make certain decisions in order to avoid doing the office.
For these reasons, Berry argued that Congress was immune from judicial intervention, citing the speech and debate clause of the United States Constitution.
Pomerantz may refuse to answer certain questions, citing legal privilege and ethical obligation, and Jordan will rule those claims on a case-by-case basis, Berry said, but he Shouldn’t be excused from attending. If Jordan overrules Pomerantz’s sentencing and he still refuses to answer, he could face criminal charges with the Justice Department for contempt of Congress, but that’s not going to happen anytime soon. Berry said it won’t happen.
Trump was indicted last month with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments made during a campaign to cover up a 2016 extramarital sex allegation. denied and pleaded not guilty.
