Manhattan DA Bragg Wins Delay of GOP Questioning in New York’s Trump Case

Bob Van Voris, Patricia Hurtado and Billy House
·5 min read
194
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.

(Bloomberg) -- A federal appeals court granted a temporary hold on congressional questioning of a former top prosecutor about the New York criminal case against Donald Trump, hours before the session was to begin.

Most Read from Bloomberg

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg asked the court to halt the questioning of Mark Pomerantz, originally scheduled for Thursday morning.

He made his request after US District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, ruled Wednesday against his bid to block a subpoena from the US House Judiciary Committee, led by Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican. Pomerantz, a former Manhattan prosecutor, wrote a book about the investigation of the former president.

The emergency stay was granted by Beth Robinson, appointed in 2021 by President Joe Biden. A three-judge panel of appeals court judges will hear the case.

Read Bragg’s lawsuit here

Vyskocil said both sides had motives to engage in “political dogfights” and sharply criticized Bragg’s lawsuit, saying it was “nothing short of a public relations tirade against former president and current presidential candidate Donald Trump.”

‘Valid Legislative Purpose’

“The sole question before the court at this time is whether Bragg has a legal basis to quash a congressional subpoena that was issued with a valid legislative purpose,” Vyskocil said Wednesday in her written opinion, less than two hours after a hearing. “He does not.”

Bragg sued April 11 to block the subpoena, calling the Republican-led probe a “brazen and unconstitutional attack” on a local prosecution. Jordan’s legal team said it was legitimate and claimed in court papers that Bragg is seeking to “impede a congressional inquiry.”

Vyskocil’s decision “shows that Congress has the ability to conduct oversight and issue subpoenas to people like Mark Pomerantz, and we look forward to his deposition before the Judiciary Committee,” said Russell Dye, a spokesman for Jordan, on Wednesday. The committee was planning to conduct a closed-door deposition of Pomerantz on Thursday at 10 a.m., Dye said.

During the hearing, the judge asked pointed questions focused on whether the committee had a proper purpose in issuing the subpoena and whether Pomerantz had already revealed information about the Trump investigation, at one point holding up a copy of the lawyer’s book, “People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account.

‘Totally Unprecedented’

“Does this book not disclose deliberation information?” the judge asked Theodore Boutrous Jr., a lawyer representing Bragg in the hearing.

After Boutrous complained Jordan’s subpoena was “totally unprecedented,” the judge interrupted him. “I understand, but it’s also unprecedented for a local district attorney to indict a former president,” she said.

In her ruling, the judge said Bragg’s argument that Pomerantz’s disclosures didn’t waive any legal privileges held by his office is belied by his “inaction in response to Pomerantz’s known plan” to publish the book.

Jordan and many other congressional Republicans publicly defended Trump when he was indicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, after hush money payments were made to conceal an alleged affair in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. Trump pleaded not guilty in the first arraignment of a former president. He denies the affair.

Not Just Trump

The House committee is “looking into politically motivated prosecutions of former presidents,” Matthew Berry, a lawyer for the Judiciary Committee, told the judge. “The issue is about more than one person. They’re talking about prosecutions of the current president when he leaves office.”

Berry said Pomerantz’s book was a best-seller and that the author had appeared on TV shows to discuss it and the investigation of Trump he spearheaded before resigning in February 2022. Berry said Pomerantz had waived any arguments that the material was privileged and part of Bragg’s criminal investigation of Trump.

In a letter to the appeals court, Berry said Bragg “is seeking an ‘extraordinary remedy’ by asking this court to enjoin a duly issued congressional subpoena.” Far from harming Bragg, he argued, “unduly delaying Mr. Pomerantz’s deposition will severely burden the ability of the committee to carry out its investigation in a timely manner.”

Pomerantz, who is named as a party in the suit, has said he supports Bragg in seeking to block the subpoena. His attorney, Ted Wells, was silent during the court argument.

Bragg’s general counsel, Leslie Dubeck, detailed for the court the irreparable harm she said the DA’s investigation would suffer if former Pomerantz has to answer questions from the committee. She said the office had “taken steps” to ensure that Pomerantz would “keep our office’s confidences” regarding their investigation of Trump.

Sharp Questioning

“Have you read this book?” Vyskocil asked incredulously.

“Yes,” Dubeck answered.

“Did he keep your confidences?” the judge asked.

When Vyskocil asked Dubeck if Jordan’s committee had “valid legislative purposes” to question Pomerantz and investigate how $5,000 of federal forfeiture funds had been spent, Dubeck answered, “I don’t think this case should be a case study.”

Support for Bragg

Two groups, including former members of Congress, prosecutors, government attorneys and scholars — some of them Republicans — supported Bragg in their own court filings. They said Congress lacks authority to interfere with an ongoing state criminal probe.

But Vyskocil ruled that the subpoena was issued with a valid legislative purpose and that Bragg had failed to show his office would suffer “irreparable injury” without an order blocking the Pomerantz deposition.

Pomerantz quit Bragg’s team last year after vigorously advocating for Trump’s prosecution. Jordan wrote in a letter accompanying the subpoena that Pomerantz contributed to “political pressure” when he resigned in frustration over what he said was Bragg’s reluctance to move forward with charges at the time.

The case is Bragg v. Jordan, 23-cv-03032, US District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

(Adds Berry’s letter to the appeals court in fourth section.)

Most Read from Bloomberg Businessweek

©2023 Bloomberg L.P.