IN-DEPTH: Why a New York Judge Is Siding With Jim Jordan in Alvin Bragg Lawsuit

IN-DEPTH: Why a New York Judge Is Siding With Jim Jordan in Alvin Bragg Lawsuit
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (L) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan. Illustration by The Epoch Times/Getty Images
Janice Hisle
Updated:

By publishing a book about the investigation of former President Donald Trump, an ex-prosecutor created a predicament for himself—and for the man pressing the historic criminal case against Trump, District Attorney (DA) Alvin Bragg.

A New York federal judge repeatedly cites the book written by Mark Pomerantz, who formerly worked on a probe into Trump’s finances in the Manhattan DA’s office, when she ruled that Pomerantz should be compelled to answer a congressional inquiry into Trump’s prosecution.

U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil wrote that Bragg appears unlikely to succeed “on the merits” of his arguments against Pomerantz’s subpoena. At Bragg’s request, an appeals court has put the subpoena on hold temporarily.

In her April 19 decision, Vyskocil listed 18 points from Pomerantz’s book, examples of publicly disclosed information that most often would remain under wraps while a case is pending. Thus, Pomerantz has already revealed information of the type that Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and his House Judiciary Committee want to explore, the judge said.

Pomerantz’s Predicament

Vyskocil concluded that the House Judiciary Committee has a “valid legislative purpose” for questioning Pomerantz, despite protestations from both Pomerantz and Bragg.

Pomerantz complained that the subpoena will put him in an “untenable position,” forcing him to choose between ethical and legal consequences.

File photo of Mark Pomerantz at a New York news conference in 2008. (Chris Hondros/Getty Images)
File photo of Mark Pomerantz at a New York news conference in 2008. Chris Hondros/Getty Images
But the judge said, “Pomerantz is in this situation because he decided to inject himself in the public debate” when he authored People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account.

The tell-all book was released in February, a year after Pomerantz left the Manhattan DA’s office in disgust over Bragg’s decision not to pursue a Trump indictment then.

From 2021 to 2022, Pomerantz had worked pro bono—without payment—as a special assistant DA investigating the Trump case. Most of that work was done under Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr.; Pomerantz left in February 2022, a month after Bragg took office.

Since then, Bragg said his office developed more information that made the case against Trump ripe for prosecution.

‘Political Theater’

Critics have raised concerns the move is political, coming just months after Trump declared he was running to become the Republican Party’s nominee for the 2024 presidential election.

In his attempt to block Pomerantz’s subpoena, Bragg argued that subjecting Pomerantz to the congressional inquiry would reveal information that should be confidential.

“The court rejects the premise that the committee’s investigation will interfere” with Bragg’s case against Trump, Vyskocil wrote, noting Pomerantz’s status as “a private citizen and public commentator” and is no longer in his role as a special prosecutor.

The judge wrote, “Bragg cannot seriously claim that any information already published in Pomerantz’s book and discussed on prime-time television in front of millions of people is protected from disclosure.”

In further objecting to the subpoena, Bragg argued that there was no other case in which Congress attempted to subpoena a state prosecutor to “extract information about an ongoing state prosecution.” However, the judge pointed out, “There also is no prior case in which a former President of the United States has been criminally charged in a state trial court.”

As a result, it appears that “both parties swim in untested waters,” Vyskocil wrote.

The judge said she was “unmoved” by Bragg’s expressed concern of “injecting partisan passions into a forum where they do not belong.”

By fighting the Pomerantz subpoena,  “Bragg is engaging in precisely the type of political theater he claims to fear,” she said.

Judge Cites Book

She said Pomerantz’s observations about the Trump case included: The central facts of the case “did not amount to much in legal terms.”

Other sections of the book note that creating false business records is a misdemeanor and that no felony crime appeared to be “in play,” the judge said. Pomerantz’s book says no New York court had ever tested a case that elevated a misdemeanor to a felony by alleging that the misdemeanor was committed to cover up a federal crime.

Yet Trump was indeed charged with 34 felony counts of falsification of business records. The former president has pleaded not guilty.

Michael Cohen, ex-lawyer for Donald Trump, leaves federal court after his sentencing in New York on Dec. 12, 2018. (Craig Ruttle/AP Photo)
Michael Cohen, ex-lawyer for Donald Trump, leaves federal court after his sentencing in New York on Dec. 12, 2018. Craig Ruttle/AP Photo

He is accused of covering up an election-influencing “hush-money payment” to an adult film actress. Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, had agreed to keep quiet about her allegations of a 2006 affair with Trump after his lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid her $130,000 just before the November 2016 election.

Vyskocil said Pomerantz’s book declares: “Paying hush money is not a crime under New York State law, even if the payment was made to help an electoral candidate.”

But, under Bragg’s theory of the case, Trump committed crimes by concealing his alleged “reimbursements” of Cohen’s payment, which was an “illegal campaign contribution,” according to a statement of facts Bragg filed.

Payments Legal?

A former head of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) recently told The Epoch Times that he believes it would be illegal for Trump to have used campaign funds for the Clifford payment.

Candidates are barred from using campaign funds for any expense that benefits them personally and politically; the Clifford payment arguably falls into that category, Bradley Smith, former FEC chair, said.

In February 2017, the month after Trump became president, he wrote the first in a series of monthly checks to Cohen. Writing each of those checks, along with their corresponding invoices and ledger entries, is alleged to be a criminal act in Trump’s indictment.

Pomerantz raised concerns about Trump being accused of election-related offenses after his inauguration, Vyskocil said, and he revealed that prosecutors harbored “credibility” concerns about basing much of their case on Cohen, who had admitted to lying to Congress.

Further, she said Pomerantz opined that prosecutors would be running “a big risk” that such a case against Trump would be dismissed before it reached a jury.

In his book, Pomerantz conceded that the Trump case belonged under the purview of the U.S. Department of Justice, not the New York DA; Pomerantz also said federal prosecutors wouldn’t have had to “torture” or “massage” statutory language to score an indictment of Trump.

The DOJ declined to prosecute Trump, and the FEC took no action regarding the Cohen-Clifford matter.

‘Public Relations Tirade’

But on March 30, a grand jury indicted Trump; that same day, information leaked into media reports, Vyskocil pointed out, noting that grand jury secrecy was already “compromised before an indictment was announced.”
Former president Donald Trump (3rd R) appears in court at the Manhattan Criminal Court in New York on April 4, 2023. (Steven Hirsch/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
Former president Donald Trump (3rd R) appears in court at the Manhattan Criminal Court in New York on April 4, 2023. Steven Hirsch/POOL/AFP via Getty Images
On April 4, Bragg announced Trump’s indictment.
Two days later, the Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to Pomerantz to appear before the committee on April 20.

On April 11, a week after Trump appeared in court and pleaded not guilty to the charges, Bragg filed a 50-page complaint against Jordan, his committee, and Pomerantz.

“The first 35 pages ... are nothing short of a public relations tirade against former President and current presidential candidate Donald Trump,” Vyskocil wrote. “As framed, this action is merely a motion to quash a subpoena dressed up as a lawsuit.”

Pomerantz joined Bragg in opposing the subpoena.

‘Political Dogfights’

Vyskocil talked about her role in refereeing the dispute.

“In our federalist system, elected state and federal actors sometimes engage in political dogfights,” she said.

The judge said that while presumably operating in good faith, both sides face political realities.

As New York County’s elected prosecutor, Bragg has some constituents who “wish to see Bragg wield the force of law against the former president and a current candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.”

On the other side, Jordan “has initiated a political response to what he and some of his constituents view as a manifest abuse of power and nakedly political prosecution.”

Vyskocil said the stakes are high because the case “could potentially influence the outcome of the 2024 presidential election.”

“The Court does not endorse either side’s agenda,” said the judge, a Trump appointee whom the Senate confirmed in 2019. “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. He does not.”

Vyskocil encouraged the parties to “reach a mutually agreeable compromise regarding how the deposition of Mr. Pomerantz will proceed.”

Instead, Bragg wrote in an April 19 court filing that he intends to appeal Vyskocil’s decision to a higher court. He requested in the filing that the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals put the House subpoena to Pomerantz on hold in the meantime.
The appeals court on April 19 granted Bragg’s request and temporarily froze the deadline of the congressional subpoena to Pomerantz. It allowed Pomerantz to delay his testimony until the appeals court decides whether the lower court’s decision should be reversed.

Instead, Bragg challenged Vyskocil’s decision to a higher court.

The next action in the case will come after both sides file briefs; the last one is due April 22 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. A three-judge panel is to consider whether to take any further action about the disputed Pomerantz subpoena.

Gary Bai and The Associated Press contributed to this story.
Janice Hisle
Janice Hisle
Reporter
Janice Hisle reports on former President Donald Trump's campaign for the 2024 general election ballot and related issues. Before joining The Epoch Times, she worked for more than two decades as a reporter for newspapers in Ohio and authored several books. She is a graduate of Kent State University's journalism program. You can reach Janice at: [email protected]
twitter
truth
Related Topics