DA Alvin Bragg and Rep. Jim Jordan (Photos via AP Photo/Eduardo Munoz Alvarez and Alex Edelman/Getty Images)
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed a federal lawsuit against Republican Rep. Jim Jordan over the congressman's "unprecedentedly brazen and unconstitutional attack" on his historic investigation and prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
"Congress has no power to supervise state criminal prosecutions," Bragg's attorney Ted Boutrous wrote in a 50-page complaint. "Nor does Congress have the power to serve subpoenas 'for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to punish those investigated.'"
"Yet that is precisely what Chairman Jordan is trying to do," the complaint continues.
A staunch Trump loyalist heading the House Judiciary Committee, Jordan has tried to become a thorn in Bragg's side at the moment his investigation appeared primed to produce the first indictment of a former U.S. president. His GOP-led committee sent multiple letters to Bragg seeking information about the grand jury investigation, which is typically confidential. Jordan then escalated that effort by issuing a subpoena to Mark Pomerantz, who was one of Bragg's top deputies before noisily resigning in protest when the DA appeared unwilling to charge Trump.
After the indictment was unsealed, Jordan used that opening to argue that Pomerantz couldn't plausibly argue privilege over an investigation he spoke about in his tell-all book "People v. Trump" and in television interviews about his tenure in the district attorney's office.
Filed in the Southern District of New York, Bragg's lawsuit names Jordan, the Judiciary Committee and Pomerantz as defendants. The federal courthouse is a short walk across the street from Bragg's office.
The lawsuit seeks to block Pomerantz's compliance with the subpoena and declare it unenforceable. Bragg also seeks a ruling blocking any future subpoena Jordan issues against his current or former staffers as invalid.
Quoting Jordan calling Trump's indictment "outrageous," Bragg's attorney Ted Boutrous argues in a legal brief that the congressman would let the process play out at a trial if he believed the charges were so deficient.
"Like every other criminal defendant, Mr. Trump will have the opportunity to confront the state's evidence and argue his innocence to the jury. And the District Attorney will have the burden of proving his charges by the most rigorous standard known to the law—beyond a reasonable doubt," Boutrous wrote. "A public trial, conducted with the robust procedural protections our Constitution and New York law afford, provides the ultimate safeguard against what Mr. Jordan derides as a 'politically motivated' prosecution."
"That process alone, and not a congressional cross-examination of a former local prosecutor, will determine whether the charges will result in a conviction," Boutrous added.
Though he represents a district in Ohio, Rep. Jordan plans to go to New York City next week for a "field hearing" on Bragg, mostly focusing on critiques of the DA's progressive policies. Jordan depicted Manhattan as besieged by rising crime, but Bragg noted that the statistics show otherwise.
"In D.A. Bragg's first year in office, New York City has had one of the lowest murder rates of major cities in the United States (5.2) — nearly three times lower than Columbus, Ohio (15.4)," the DA's spokesperson said on Monday, favorably comparing the Big Apple's crime rates to Dayton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Toledo and Akron.
Shortly after the filing of the lawsuit, Jordan responded on Twitter.
"First, they indict a president for no crime," the congressman asserted. "Then, they sue to block congressional oversight when we ask questions about the federal funds they say they used to do it."
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.
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) April 11, 2023
Bragg's office says, in fact, that no federal funds went toward the investigation that produced Trump's indictment, but it acknowledges that a small fraction of the money went toward other litigation that preceded it.
"No expenses incurred relating to this matter have been paid from funds that the Office receives through federal grant programs," the DA's general counsel Leslie B. Dubeck wrote.
The Manhattan DA's office says it participated in three grant programs: the Stop Violence Against Women Act Program, for which it receives $50,000 a year; the Victim and Witness Assistance Grant Program, for which it receives $583,111.04 annually during its current grant period; and the Justice Assistance Grant, for which it received $204,730 for a period between Oct. 1, 2020, to Sept. 30, 2024. By contrast, the DA says that roughly $5,000 was spent on expenses incurred relating to the investigation of Donald J. Trump or the Trump Organization between October 2019 and August 2021, according to a letter from the DA's office. That time frame pre-dated Bragg's tenure, and those expenditures mostly went toward the Supreme Court wrangling of Bragg's predecessor, Cyrus Vance, that gave him access to Trump's taxes.
When that case was heard, the Supreme Court also considered a different case in which the House Judiciary Committee — then under Democratic control — sought documents from Trump's law firm Mazars. The decision in that case produced a four-part test in considering separation of powers issues.
Former federal prosecutor Mitchell Epner notes that Bragg now argues that Jordan fails the Mazars test.
"Ironically, the most important precedent on this matter is the Trump v. Mazars Supreme Court decision, which enforced the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena against Mazars for then-President Trump's tax information (and other documents)," Epner noted.
As for Bragg's contention that Jordan's subpoena fails the test, Epner added: "We will see."
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee and a former member of the Federalist Society. She declined to issue a temporary restraining order immediately, but she set a quick schedule for adjudication. A hearing has been slated for April 19.
Read the complaint here.
Follow Law&Crime:
