The filing to dismiss the case does not describe the terms of the arrangement, simply calling it a settlement agreement. “[A]ll parties have agreed that the … appeals should be dismissed,” it says.
While Dye characterized the development as the district attorney’s office having withdrawn its appeal of the district court’s decision, a spokesperson for Bragg described it as a “successful” effort to wrest a concession from the committee: the presence of Bragg’s general counsel during the Pomerantz interview. Bragg’s office called it an “agreement that protects the District Attorney’s privileges and interests.”
House deposition rules typically prohibit government counsel from participating, but committees routinely sidestep those rules to reach agreements with otherwise reluctant current and former government officials. In recent years, lawmakers have permitted lawyers for various federal agencies to appear in order to assert any privileges.
The House Judiciary Committee issued the subpoena to Pomerantz in the wake of Bragg filing criminal charges against Trump late last month. Bragg then sued Jordan and the Judiciary panel, seeking a court order preventing the House from enforcing the subpoena.
The Judiciary committee claimed it wants to study the potential effects that the threat of a future prosecution could have on a president while he is in office. Bragg’s office argued, however, that the House had no legitimate legislative purpose in issuing the subpoena and instead intends to examine the district attorney’s internal deliberations regarding the Trump indictment.
A federal judge rejected Bragg’s position. “The subpoena was issued with a ‘valid legislative purpose’ in connection with the ‘broad’ and ‘indispensable’ congressional power to ‘conduct investigations,’” U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil wrote.
[ad_2]
#Bragg #drops #bid #block #Trump #investigator #testifying #Congress
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
The lawsuit echoes legal arguments advanced in 2016 and 2017 in another subpoena fight on a hot-button issue. At the time, New York’s attorney general, Democrat Eric Schneiderman, was investigating whether Exxon Mobil misled investors about the risks of climate change. A GOP-controlled House panel accused Schneiderman of having a political agenda and served subpoenas seeking documents from the probe. Bragg was a senior official in Schneiderman’s office, as was Leslie Dubeck, who was then counsel to the attorney general and is now Bragg’s general counsel.
Congressional interference with state and local prosecutors is unusual and raises delicate questions about the balance of power between Congress and the states. So Schneiderman’s office resisted.
Dubeck was the architect of Schneiderman’s approach. She led the attorney general’s refusal to comply, and she prepared to either sue the House committee or defend the attorney general’s office if the committee took the matter to court. The panel’s investigation, she wrote at the time, “oversteps the boundaries imposed by federalism” and violates New York’s sovereignty.
The conflict ultimately fizzled when the subpoenas lapsed, but Bragg and Dubeck have now revived the strategy.
“They know the cards that the House Republicans have to play in this situation,” Eric Soufer, who was a spokesman for Schneiderman during the Exxon case, said of Bragg and Dubeck.
Bragg’s lawsuit replicates many of the arguments that Dubeck made in the Exxon matter. The lawsuit says the Pomerantz subpoena violates “basic principles of federalism and common sense” and accuses the House GOP of infringing on Bragg’s authority and New York’s sovereign interests.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, declined on Tuesday to issue an immediate order blocking the subpoena, and she scheduled an initial hearing for next Wednesday.
The House GOP’s probe of Bragg’s investigation is led by Jordan (R-Ohio), Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Administration Chair Bryan Steil (R-Wis.). The Pomerantz subpoena is the first one they have issued.
Though Bragg’s colleagues have said the first-term Democrat doesn’t have much of a taste for political warfare, his effort to combat the House inquiry received a warm reception from those interested in seeing the district attorney defend the institution.
“The office should not capitulate to people with special interests,” said Joan Vollero, who handled communications and intergovernmental affairs for Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr. “I think, ironically, the House Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are playing the same game of politics that they’ve accused the office of playing.”
Congressional Republicans have criticized Bragg’s investigation of the former president as evidence of his political bias, arguing that the district attorney’s pursuit of Trump stands in contrast to his liberal-leaning criminal justice policies for minor offenses. In advance of Trump’s indictment, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy warned that charges against the former president would be “an outrageous abuse of power by a radical DA who lets violent criminals walk as he pursues political vengeance against President Trump.”
Another irony in the case is that Bragg is borrowing some of the same arguments that Trump himself often used to resist congressional subpoenas when he was president. Trump frequently argued that Democrats’ probes into his finances were meant to harass him for political gain rather than promote a legitimate legislative purpose.
Bragg is now taking a similar position about the House GOP inquiry. His lawsuit repeatedly cites a Supreme Court decision in a Trump subpoena fight, Trump v. Mazars, which suggested that congressional subpoenas against another branch of government can violate the separation of powers if they have an improper purpose.
From an optics perspective, Soufer said, it is wise of Bragg to counterpunch. “If you let them politicize it the way they want to,” he said, “you’re going to lose in the court of public opinion.”
Both sides are launching increasingly aggressive public appeals. On Monday, Jordan’s committee is planning to hold a “field hearing” in Manhattan on Bragg’s “pro-crime, anti-victim policies.” A spokeswoman for Bragg has called the event “a political stunt” and has highlighted crime statistics showing a decline in murders, shootings, burglaries and robberies.
[ad_2]
#Bragg #Jordan #familiar #legal #strategy #emerges
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
The new litigation was filed in federal district court in Manhattan and assigned to Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee. It stems from the first subpoena issued in a sweeping House GOP investigation into Bragg’s office. Republicans launched their probe, led by Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Administration Chair Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), while rallying to Trump’s side ahead of his indictment.
Vyskocil replied to Bragg’s lawsuit Tuesday afternoon, indicating that she would not grant his motion for a temporary restraining order. Instead, she ordered Bragg to serve the lawsuit on Jordan by 9 p.m. Tuesday and for Jordan and the committee to respond to the filing by April 17. Vyskocil said she would hold a hearing on April 19.
Meanwhile, Jordan and members of his committee will take their defense of Trump to a new height by heading to New York on Monday, ramping up their public pressure campaign against Bragg. And the Ohioan quickly took to Twitter to push back on Bragg’s suit.
“First, they indict a president for no crime,” Jordan wrote. “Then, they sue to block congressional oversight when we ask questions about the federal funds they say they used to do it.”
The three GOP lawmakers have also been quietly preparing for a potential court battle. They warned in a March response to Bragg’s office that they believed any subpoena would survive a “three-prong test” previously laid out by the Supreme Court that is meant to “determine the legal sufficiency of a congressional subpoena.”
Pomerantz told Jordan and the Judiciary Committee on March 27 that he would not testify voluntarily, citing an instruction he received from Bragg’s office earlier in the month. That instruction came in a letter, dated March 25, in which Bragg’s general counsel, Leslie Dubeck, told Pomerantz that the Judiciary Committee subpoena raised “concerns about federalism, state sovereignty, the limits on congressional power, and the purpose and legality” of the probe.
The battle over Pomerantz could also portend a more prolonged fight between House Republicans and Bragg’s office. Jordan sent a letter on Friday to Matthew Colangelo, senior counsel to the New York County District Attorney’s Office, requesting closed-door testimony. (He took a similar step with Pomerantz before issuing his subpoena.)
And Jordan hasn’t ruled out subpoenaing Bragg himself. Judiciary panel staffers were already laying some of the groundwork for that step, but their timeline is in limbo amid a volley of letters back-and-forth with Bragg’s office. Responses from the DA’s office have not ruled out cooperating and instead pushed for more details on what the three GOP lawmakers would want to discuss as part of any sitdown interview.
Pomerantz began working on investigations into Trump under former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. and continued after Bragg took office in December 2021. However, Pomerantz and a colleague abruptly resigned about two months later, with reports quickly emerging that Bragg had balked at launching the wide-scale tax-and-insurance fraud prosecution of Trump that Pomerantz favored.
Two months ago, Pomerantz released a book accusing Bragg of abandoning a winnable criminal case against Trump. Just before the book was published, Bragg sent the author and the book’s publisher, Simon & Schuster, a letter urging a delay and warning that Pomerantz had a duty to clear any manuscript about his work in advance with Bragg’s office.
The book was published as scheduled, and Pomerantz insisted he’d abided by his duties. “I am confident that all of my actions with respect to the Trump investigation, including the writing of my forthcoming book, are consistent with my legal and ethical obligations,” he said in a statement at the time.
Bragg never sued to block Pomerantz’s book or interviews he granted in connection with its release. However, the district attorney’s new lawsuit does seek orders forbidding the former prosecutor from complying with the House subpoena. It’s unclear whether the DA will ask the judge for a broader order that limits Pomerantz’s ability to discuss his interactions in the office.
Bragg also used his lawsuit to swing back at Trump’s attacks on him, noting that they led to threats to his office.
“Mr. Trump in particular has threatened New York officials with violent and racist vitriol,” Bragg’s filing states. “These statements have had a powerful effect. District Attorney Bragg has received multiple death threats. In one instance, he received a package containing suspicious white powder with a note making a specific death threat against him.”
Bragg’s lawsuit features a chronology of Jordan and the House Judiciary Committee’s public statements attacking the DA and bashing the investigation of Trump, which he says betrays the political nature of the GOP investigation. He contends that those Republican statements are evidence that the committee lacks a “legitimate legislative purpose” for probing his office — and is instead using it to punish a political adversary engaged in a criminal investigation.
To bolster that position, Bragg cites the Supreme Court’s decision in another Trump-related matter: Democrats’ yearslong effort to get the former president’s financial records from his accounting firm, Mazars USA. In its opinion, the court endorsed Congress’ sweeping power to investigate matters it plans to legislate, but acknowledged some limits on that power.
“The purported legislative purposes Chairman Jordan has invoked to support the subpoena are unsupported, speculative, specious, and/or unconstitutional. The subpoena is more broad than reasonably necessary to support any claimed congressional objective,” Bragg’s office contends.
But courts have long been wary of policing Congress’ investigative power, and even more loath to delve into the mindset of individual lawmakers who are pursuing politically explosive investigations. However, Bragg’s lawsuit may tie up Congress’ ability to garner testimony and information related to the Trump probe while it plays out in court.
Erica Orden contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
#Bragg #sues #House #Republicans #campaign #harassment #Trump #probe
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
As part of that scheme, Bragg said, Trump and others made three different payments to people who claimed to have negative information about the former president that Trump and his allies worried would hurt his chances at winning the 2016 presidential election. One of those three people was Stormy Daniels, Bragg said, the porn star who claimed she had an affair with Trump — and whom Cohen has admitted to making a $130,000 hush money payment to, claiming he did so at Trump’s behest.
“Why did Donald Trump repeatedly make these false statements? The evidence will show that he did so to cover up crimes relating to the 2016 election,” Bragg said.
In a statement released just after Trump’s arraignment earlier Tuesday, Bragg said that “Manhattan is home to the country’s most significant business market. We cannot allow New York businesses to manipulate their records to cover up criminal conduct. As the Statement of Facts describes, the trail of money and lies exposes a pattern that, the People allege, violates one of New York’s basic and fundamental business laws. As this office has done time and time again, we today uphold our solemn responsibility to ensure that everyone stands equal before the law.”
The former president repeatedly attacked Bragg in posts on Truth Social in the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s arraignment, calling him “racist,” an “animal.” Trump was criticized for a post — which has since been deleted — that showed a photo of him holding a baseball bat next to a photo of Bragg, with a warning that his indictment could cause “potential death & destruction” around the country. Trump later denied knowingly posting the photo.
The press conference was one of the first times Bragg spoke publicly about the case, though his office had previously addressed it in a letter to some House Republicans after they demanded Bragg release information related to the indictment.
“Like any other defendant, Mr. Trump is entitled to challenge these charges in court and avail himself of all processes and protections that New York State’s robust criminal procedure affords. What neither Mr. Trump nor Congress may do is interfere with the ordinary course of proceedings in New York State,” Bragg’s office wrote in a letter to Judiciary, Oversight and Administration Chairs Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), James Comer (R-Ky.) and Bryan Steil (R-Wis.).
“We urge you to refrain from these inflammatory accusations, withdraw your demand for information, and let the criminal justice process proceed without unlawful political interference,” the letter said.
[ad_2]
#normalize #criminal #conduct #Bragg #addresses #media #Trump #arraignment
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
The letter was sent a day after Bragg’s office acknowledged that they had issued the first-ever indictment of a former president. Officials have also indicated they are working with Trump’s lawyers to negotiate his surrender. Though the timing of both his surrender and arraignment hasn’t been finalized, they are tentatively planned for Tuesday, according to a person familiar with the matter.
It’s uncharted territory for the legal system, the government and the country, which has never seen the indictment and prosecution of a former president. Though the precise evidence against Trump remains unknown, the case appears centered on hush money payments to a porn actress, Stormy Daniels, in 2016 to silence her allegations of a sexual relationship during Trump’s first presidential bid.
The indictment, which remains under seal, prompted a torrent of attacks from Trump’s allies, many of whom denounced it as a political witch hunt. While Trump himself has called for protests in the streets — and on Friday, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) echoed that call — most House Republicans have instead vowed to train a microscope on the Democratic district attorney, requesting information and documents about the probe.
Bragg’s office used the letter to the lawmakers, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO, to respond to those allegations of political bias.
“Like any other defendant, Mr. Trump is entitled to challenge these charges in court and avail himself of all processes and protections that New York State’s robust criminal procedure affords. What neither Mr. Trump nor Congress may do is interfere with the ordinary course of proceedings in New York State,” the letter reads.
State judge Juan Merchan is expected to preside over the arraignment and may ultimately be called upon to preside over the criminal proceedings, according to a person familiar with the process.
Bragg’s office also used the letter to plead with Capitol Hill Republicans to encourage calm, accusing them of engaging in “unlawful political interference” in the same breath.
“We urge you to refrain from these inflammatory accusations, withdraw your demand for information, and let the criminal justice process proceed without unlawful political interference,” Dubeck wrote in the letter to Judiciary, Oversight and Administration Chairs Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), James Comer (R-Ky.) and Bryan Steil (R-Wis.).
“As Committee Chairmen, you could use the stature of your office to denounce these attacks and urge respect for the fairness of our justice system and for the work of the impartial grand jury,” she continued. “Instead, you and many of your colleagues have chosen to collaborate with Mr. Trump’s efforts to vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors and trial judges and made unfounded allegations that the Office’s investigation, conducted via an independent grand jury of average citizens serving New York State, is politically motivated.”
Trump dialed up his rhetoric Friday, taking aim this time at Merchan, the judge he anticipates would be presiding over his case.
“The Judge ‘assigned’ to my Witch Hunt Case … HATES ME,” Trump posted on social media, complaining about Merchan’s handling of the separate proceedings brought by the district attorney’s office against the Trump Organization, which Trump said Merchan treated “viciously.”
Bragg’s office suggested that the House GOP inquiries appeared to be functioning more as interference for Trump than as legitimate congressional oversight, a concern Dubeck said was “heightened” by some of the committee members’ own statements about their goals.
She cited Greene’s statement that “Republicans in Congress MUST subpoena these communists and END this!” as well as Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s (R-Fla.) call to scrutinize lawmakers who are “being silent on what is currently happening to Trump.”
From a legal standpoint, individual lawmakers’ comments and motives aren’t typically given weight when a congressional committee takes actions. Trump routinely pointed to the comments of individual committee members’ plans to make use of his tax returns in his failed efforts to block Congress’ effort to obtain them.
Greene called for Trump supporters to gather Tuesday in New York, indicating she would be there herself. “We MUST protest the unconstitutional WITCH HUNT!” she tweeted. Her tweet was a departure from her reaction a day after Trump first suggested that he could be arrested, when she told reporters on the sidelines of the House GOP retreat that she would not be going to New York.
As of Friday, though, there were no indications of significant street protests or organized activities centered on the courthouse. Bragg arrived at around 7:30 a.m., amid signs of significantly heightened security, with little other movement aside from a large media presence.
In her letter, Dubeck also provided some details about the federal funding Bragg’s office has used in connection with Trump-related matters — money that House Republicans have suggested could now be under threat because of the indictment. Additionally, House Republicans received a second document on Friday detailing federal grant money the office has obtained.
None of that federal grant funding, she noted, has been used in the current investigation. She said the office has spent approximately $5,000 of federal funds — funds that the district attorney’s office helped recover during forfeiture actions — on expenses related to the investigation of Trump or the Trump organization.
“These expenses were incurred between October 2019 and August 2021,” Dubeck noted, adding that most were used to support Bragg’s predecessor’s successful defense of its probe of the Trump organization before the Supreme Court.
A spokesperson for Jordan didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter from Bragg’s office. Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y) said at an event on Friday that Republicans should “cease their intervention in an ongoing prosecution in a local prosecutor’s office.”
But House Republicans have already started laying some groundwork for a potential subpoena of the Manhattan district attorney, a move they haven’t publicly ruled out. They also appeared to make the case in their second letter to Bragg that they believe a subpoena would survive a legal challenge.
Comer, who noted that he hasn’t spoken with Trump recently, called the indictment a “political stunt” but said he needed more information before Republicans decided where to go next.
“I think before the next step we’ll have to see what, in fact, these charges were and then go from there,” Comer said in an interview on Friday.
Dubeck, in her letter, urged them to reach a “negotiated resolution … before taking the unprecedented and unconstitutional step of serving a subpoena on a district attorney for information related to an ongoing state criminal prosecution.”
Wesley Parnell contributed to this story.
[ad_2]
#Unlawful #political #interference #Bragg #defends #Trump #indictment #GOP #attacks
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
In his email, Alvin Bragg didn’t identify Donald Trump by name, referring only to the “public comments surrounding an ongoing investigation by this office.” | Brandon Bell/Getty Images
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg offered a private retort to Donald Trump’s message Saturday urging supporters to protest his expected indictment, telling office employees in an email that “we do not tolerate attempts to intimidate our office or threaten the rule of law in New York,” according to a copy obtained by POLITICO.
“Our law enforcement partners will ensure that any specific or credible threats against the office will be fully investigated and that the proper safeguards are in place so all 1,600 of us have a secure work environment,” Bragg wrote, adding that the office has been coordinating with the New York Police Department and Office of Court Administration, the administrative arm of the court system in New York.
Bragg added that “as with all of our investigations, we will continue to apply the law evenly and fairly, and speak publicly only when appropriate.” In his email, Bragg didn’t identify Trump by name, referring only to the “public comments surrounding an ongoing investigation by this office.”
[ad_2]
#Manhattan #Bragg #privately #warns #intimidation #Trump #calls #protest
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
