Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has filed suit against Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) for seeking to subpoena a former associate involved in the case against Donald Trump. The prosecutor alleges that Jordan’s actions – in his role as chair of the House Judiciary Committee – are “unconstitutional” and an effort to undermine a municipal legal case.
Jordan is attempting to have a former associate in Bragg’s office, Mark Pomerantz, testify before Congress. Pomerantz quit the DA’s office over Bragg’s initial refusal to press the case against Trump, subsequently authoring a book called The People v. Donald Trump. But is Bragg’s assertion that the Republican lawmaker is involved in obstructing his indictment against the former president on solid legal ground?
Bragg and the Federal Angle
“Chairman Jordan claims he is seeking to conduct ‘oversight,’” the lawsuit reads. “But he has no power under the Constitution to oversee state and local criminal matters.” The suit argues that state authorities should be able to carry out prosecutions without the fear that Congress or other federal offices will interfere. It says that Trump is free to defend himself in New York courts, but that Jordan is not “free to unconstitutionally deploy Congress’s limited subpoena power for raw political retaliation, intimidation, or obstruction.”
“In sum, Congress lacks any valid legislative purpose to engage in a free-ranging campaign of harassment in retaliation for the District Attorney’s investigation and prosecution of Mr. Trump under the laws of New York,” Bragg writes. “That campaign is a direct threat to federalism and the sovereign interests of the State of New York. This Court should enjoin the subpoena and put an end to this constitutionally destructive fishing expedition.”
Jordan, however, argues that the prosecution of a former president is, indeed, a matter for Congress for a number of reasons. He posted on Twitter:
“First, they indict a president for no crime.
Then, they sue to block congressional oversight when we ask questions about the federal funds they say they used to do it.”
(Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
In fact, Jordan’s supporters have argued that not only has the DA office used federal funds, but that with the case hinging on a “federal election law nexus,” and the process and outcome directly impacting a federal election process and potential result, oversight is more than warranted.
“We have a constitutional duty to get to the facts, particularly when you have a district attorney interfering with the most important election we have, which is the election of the commander-in-chief; the president of the United States,” Jordan said on Fox News.
Demands Fall on Rocky Ground?
The suit asks for a federal court “to give emergency and permanent relief” in blocking the enforcement of the Pomerantz subpoena. However, late Tuesday, April 11, US District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil refused the request for emergency relief but did set a court date for April 19 – one day before Pomerantz is due to testify, signaling that she may be open to other lines of argument.
Due to the unprecedented nature of the charges against Trump and the unprecedented nature of the alleged crime, Bragg would be well-served by operating in a way that appears above suspicion. Suing to stop a former state employee speaking to the US Congress about a case that has national importance may or may not be the right thing to do, but to large swaths of the American public, such actions could suffer the taint of prosecutorial perfidy.
