Jordan Says Manhattan DA Lawsuit Won’t Stop House Investigation Of Bragg

OPINION:  This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion

Earlier this week, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan informed Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that Republican investigations into him would not be slowed down by Bragg’s lawsuit.

The Ohio Republican attacked Bragg for his “pro-crime, anti-victim policies” in New York during an interview on Fox News. Additionally, Jordan accused the DA of overstepping his authority in filing a lawsuit against him, accusing him of indicting Trump for “no crime!”

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday, Bragg demanded Jordan stop interfering with the local prosecution. Mike Davis of The Federalist Society reported that a judge would not even issue a temporary restraining order as soon as he filed his lawsuit.

“Soros-funded Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s (frivolous) lawsuit against House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan is already off to a bad start for Bragg: The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York declined to even enter a temporary restraining order,” he wrote, posting a screen grab of the court document.

“Summary of Soros-funded Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s (frivolous) legal argument: Congress is interfering in Bragg’s misuse of federal funds and misuse of federal law to politically interfere in the next presidential election,” he added.

As a result of a subpoena sent to the prosecutor by the Ohio Republican’s House Judiciary Committee last week requesting information about the office’s indictment of former President Donald Trump, Bragg filed a lawsuit against Jordan on Tuesday.

The indictment, Bragg said, was the result of an intimidation campaign by Jordan and the committee.

As reported by Fox News, the D.A. has announced legal action “in response to an unprecedently brazen and unconstitutional attack by members of Congress on an ongoing New York State criminal prosecution and investigation of” Trump, Fox News reported.

In addition, Fox News pointed out:

Bragg, a Democrat, is asking a judge to invalidate subpoenas that Jordan, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has or plans to issue as part of an investigation of Bragg’s handling of the Trump case.

In recent weeks, the Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena seeking testimony from a former prosecutor, Mark Pomerantz, who previously oversaw the Trump investigation. The committee has also sought documents and testimony about the case from Bragg and his office. Bragg has rejected those requests.

It was reported earlier this week that the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee plans to hold a field hearing in New York City on April 17 in order to examine how Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s policies have adversely affected the area and exacerbated violent crime.

Taking place at the Jacob Javits Federal Building, which is near Bragg’s Lower Manhattan office and the courthouse where Trump was arraigned last week for falsifying business records on 34 felony counts, the field hearing is entitled “Victims of Violent Crime in Manhattan.”

“The House Judiciary Committee will hear from ‘victims’ of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s policies during a hearing in New York next week — escalating a confrontation with the progressive prosecutor over his unprecedented criminal case against former President Donald Trump, The Post has learned. Republicans have slammed Bragg as being soft on conventional crime while embracing a novel legal theory to bring the first-ever criminal case against an ex-president,” according to the Post.

“We’ll be hosting this hearing next week from NYC. We’ll be hearing from victims who are suffering under DA Bragg’s pro-crime policies. If Bragg can spend resources indicting President [Donald] Trump, he should be able to address the soaring crime in NYC,” Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs wrote on Twitter.

In the wake of Trump’s indictment, many legal experts have contended that Bragg’s case is extraordinarily weak.

“The question to ask yourself in a case like this [is], ‘Would a case like this be brought against anybody else, whether he or she be president, former president or a regular citizen?’ The answer is… no,” Sol Wisenberg, a former Whitewater deputy counsel stated.

“You can debate all day long whether or not… Trump should be indicted related to the records at Mar-a-Lago, whether or not he should be indicted with respect to Jan. 6 incitement of lawless activity… Those are real crimes if they occurred, and he committed them,” he added. “This is preposterous.”

“Ian Millhiser, a senior correspondent at Vox, wrote: “There is something painfully anticlimactic about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment of former President Trump. It concerns not Trump’s efforts to overthrow the duly elected government of the United States, but his alleged effort to cover up a possible extramarital affair with a porn star. And there’s a very real risk that this indictment will end in an even bigger anticlimax. It is unclear that the felony statute that Trump is accused of violating actually applies to him,” Conservative Brief reported.

Mark Stern, a writer for the liberal outlet Slate, published a story titled, “The Trump Indictment Is Not the Slam-Dunk Case Democrats Wanted.”

A video of Bragg on former president Donald Trump has resurfaced approximately two years after it was posted.

In a radio interview with Ebro Darden on HOT 97 in January 2021, while Bragg was running for the Manhattan district attorney election, Bragg boasts about having helped “sued the Trump administration more than 100 times,” stating that “rich, old white men” need to be prosecuted, and stating that he had seen the lawlessness Trump could commit.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.






Send this to a friend