Manhattan District Attorney Stops Jim Jordan From Subverting Justice For Trump


The office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has provided a comprehensive rebuttal to a request from Republicans leading three key committees in the House for information related to Bragg’s potential criminal case against Trump.

The group of Republicans includes Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), who is currently leading panels including the House Judiciary Committee. Also signed onto the requests have been Reps. James Comer (Ky.) and Bryan Steil (Wisc.), and among what they’ve sought have been all communications and associated documentary records involving Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne and related to the ex-president. Pomerantz and Dunne are formerly top officials on the local district attorney’s team who worked on its probe into Trump before departing amid evident frustration with hesitation from Bragg to actually pursue criminal charges implicating the ex-president. The Republicans also sought testimony.

The new letter providing a response from Bragg, which was signed by Leslie Dubeck, a general counsel for the district attorney’s office, shared concerns including maintaining the separation of powers established between state and federal authorities specifically for matters of criminal justice. The missive also raised concerns about Congressional Republicans trying to use their legislative powers to intervene in law enforcement matters more generally, thereby venturing outside the bounds of what’s been established as the role Congressional probes can take.

Notably, these are some of the very same concerns that faced the House committee that investigated the Capitol riot, against which Trump and allies of his repeatedly sought to raise wide-ranging arguments. Hypocrisy, much?

“Your letter dated March 20, 2023 (the “Letter”), in contrast, is an [unprecedented] inquiry into a pending local prosecution,” the letter from Bragg’s office said. “The Letter only came after Donald Trump created a false expectation that he would be arrested the next day and his lawyers reportedly urged you to intervene. Neither fact is a legitimate basis for congressional inquiry… your letter treads into territory very clearly reserved to the states… The Letter seeks non-public information about a pending criminal investigation, which is confidential under state law.”

There are a variety of possibly serious ramifications should protected information from an ongoing criminal investigation be disclosed, including broadly jeopardizing the methods used for the probe and even perhaps allowing prospective targets a heads-up, besides potentials like nefarious interests targeting witnesses.

The reply additionally noted how the federal Justice Department has also established a precedent against giving private information from ongoing investigations to outside interests, including members of Congress, and a precedent of secrecy has been wielded against Democrats and Republicans across Congress alike. It’s not a partisan thing. Even still, the letter from the district attorney’s office raised the prospect of a meeting with committee staff to understand what might be able to be provided. Read it here.