- The Manhattan DA sued GOP Rep. Jim Jordan, the House Judiciary Committee, and a special prosecutor who used to work for the DA’s office.
- The suit accuses Jordan of carrying out a “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” DA Alvin Bragg.
- It seeks to block GOP subpoenas related to the DA’s Trump investigation as well as a subpoena to the ex-prosecutor, Mark Pomerantz.
Thanks for signing up!
Access your favorite topics in a personalized feed while you’re on the go.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed a lawsuit Tuesday against Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, the House Judiciary Committee, and a special prosecutor who previously worked for Bragg’s office.
In the 50-page lawsuit, Bragg accused Jordan of launching an “unprecedentedly brazen and unconstitutional attack” on the DA’s office while it’s in the middle of an ongoing investigation and criminal prosecution against former President Donald Trump.
Bragg is seeking to block GOP subpoenas related to his investigation, as well as a subpoena to a former prosecutor, Mark Pomerantz, who resigned last year following Bragg’s decision not to bring a separate criminal case against Trump over his business practices.
Tuesday’s lawsuit accused Jordan of carrying out a “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack District Attorney Bragg, making demands for confidential documents and testimony from the District Attorney himself as well as his current and former employees and officials.”
He was referring to a March 20 letter from Jordan and GOP Reps. James Comer and Bryan Steil — prominent Trump allies and the three chairmen of the powerful House Judiciary, Oversight, and Administration committees, respectively — for documents and testimony from the Manhattan DA. Their letter called Bragg’s investigation “an unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority.”
“In light of the serious consequences of your actions, we expect that you will testify about what plainly appears to be a politically motivated prosecutorial decision,” the lawmakers said in the letter.
Insider reached out to spokespeople for Jordan and Pomerantz for comment.
“Chairman Jordan’s subpoena is an unconstitutional attempt to undermine an ongoing New York felony criminal prosecution and investigation,” the DA’s office said in a statement. “As our complaint details, this is an unprecedented, illegitimate interference by Congress that lacks any legal merit and defies basic principles of federalism. The Manhattan D.A.’s Office focuses on the law and the evidence, not political gamesmanship or threats. We look forward to presenting our case in court to enjoin enforcement of the subpoena.”
Jordan also responded to the lawsuit in a tweet, writing “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.”
The DA argued in Tuesday’s lawsuit that Congress does not have the power to infringe on state criminal prosecutions. “Nor does Congress have the power to serve subpoenas ‘for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to punish those investigated,'” the suit said.
The lawsuit comes after Bragg’s office indicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in connection to a $130,000 hush-money payment to the adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
Trump was arraigned at a downtown Manhattan criminal court last week, where he pleaded not guilty to the charges and his lawyers pledged to fight the case.
One Trump attorney, Todd Blanche, called the indictment “boilerplate,” and another Trump lawyer, Joe Tacopina, criticized Bragg’s office for omitting key details from the indictment that would justify upgrading the charges against him from misdemeanors to felonies.
Diana Florence, a 30-year veteran of the DA’s office and Bragg’s one-time political rival, told Insider, however, that Bragg was “100 percent right” to leave those details out because he wasn’t required to do so by law. She added that the DA will eventually name them “down the road,” when he presents a so-called “bill of particulars” to the defense.
Legal experts told Insider that Trump’s team will likely launch a three-pronged defense strategy aimed at highlighting those omissions; attacking the credibility of Trump’s one-time lawyer, Michael Cohen, as a key prosecution witness; and accusing Bragg of bringing a selective and politically motivated case.
Trump’s lawyers are largely expected to try to get the case dismissed, but experts told Insider it will almost certainly survive motions to dismiss and end up going to a trial.
Laura Italiano contributed reporting.