The Manhattan District Attorney’s attempt to block a former prosecutor from testifying in Congress about Donald Trump’s prosecution efforts failed on Wednesday, and a judge ruled that Mark Pomerantz could be summoned to testify.
Pomerantz worked on the Trump investigation for years but left the job after falling out with Alvin Bragg, the district attorney, over who should lead the case.
He recently wrote a book about his work in tracking Trump and has discussed the investigation in interviews on 60 Minutes and other shows.
Jim Jordan, the staunchly pro-Trump chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is investigating what he claims was a politically motivated and unlawful prosecution of Trump.
Jordan asked for Pomerantz’s testimony, but Bragg sued to block it.
Mark Pomerantz, a former Manhattan district attorney, has been investigating Trump for years but left his job after falling out with Alvin Bragg
Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan District Attorney, had tried to prevent Pomerantz from testifying before Jordan’s committee
Bragg’s attorney, Theodore Boutrous, argued that seeking Pomerantz’s testimony was part of a “transparent campaign to intimidate and assault” by Bragg and that Congress was “invading a state” to investigate a local prosecutor, even though he was authorized to do so not authorized.
Bragg was outvoted on Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Bragg’s request for a preliminary injunction, finding that Jordan had a valid legislative purpose to issue the subpoena to Pomerantz.
“It is not the role of the federal judiciary to dictate what legislation Congress may consider or how it should conduct its deliberations in connection therewith,” Vyskocil wrote in a 25-page statement.
“Mr. Pomerantz is due to appear before Congress for testimony. Nobody is above the law.’
Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, ruled two hours after a hearing in which she showered questions on attorneys on both sides, urging them to analyze thorny issues of sovereignty, separation of powers and congressional oversight arising from the historic indictment result.
The judge acknowledged the “political dogfights” surrounding the case, saying in her ruling that she “does not support either side’s agenda.”
She encouraged both sides to talk to each other and “reach an amicable compromise” on how Pomerantz’s removal will go.
Jordan plans to interview him in Washington on Thursday morning.
“Today’s decision demonstrates Congress’ ability to oversee and issue subpoenas for individuals like Mark Pomerantz, and we look forward to his testimony before the Judiciary Committee,” said Jordan spokesman Russell Dye.
Jim Jordan, the Trump ally who now chairs the House Judiciary Committee, is investigating the prosecution of Donald Trump
The Judiciary Committee began investigating Bragg’s investigation into 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 decision, Vyskocil said she would handle any litigation that may arise from other subpoenas in the committee’s investigation against Bragg.
Counsel for the committee, Matthew Berry, countered that Congress had legitimate legislative grounds to question Pomerantz and want to investigate Bragg’s indictment of Trump, citing the bureau’s use of $5,000 of federal funds to conduct investigations related to to pay Trump.
Congress is also considering legislation that would be offered by Republicans after Trump’s impeachment to change how criminal procedures against former presidents are developed, Berry said.
One bill would ban prosecutors from using federal funds to investigate presidents, and another would require all criminal cases involving a former president to be resolved in federal court rather than at the state level.
Pomerantz declined to comment as he walked out of the hearing with a stack of papers containing his book, People vs. Donald Trump.
His attorney, Ted Wells, said he would accompany Pomerantz if forced to testify.
Neither Pomerantz nor his attorneys spoke during the hearing.
But in a court filing, he echoed Bragg’s position, claiming he shouldn’t be questioned by the committee.
Berry, the committee’s attorney, argued that Pomerantz had already shared much information with the public about his work on the Trump investigation and that the Judiciary Committee had the right to question him about that as well.
“I don’t think it’s rational or reasonable behavior for the House Judiciary Committee to put anything below 60 minutes,” Berry argued.
Pomerantz can refuse to answer certain questions, citing legal privilege and ethical obligations, and Jordan would rule on those claims on a case-by-case basis, Berry said, but he shouldn’t be exempted from appearing.
If Jordan overrules Pomerantz 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 felonies 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 to an indictment last week.