Former Prosecutor Against Trump Takes the Fifth in Deposition Before GOP Committee

L: Mark F. Pomerantz at a press confernce in New York City, on March 12, 2008. (Chris Hondros/Getty Images) R: Then-President Donald Trump speaks to media from the White House South Lawn in Washington, on Aug. 7, 2019. Charlotte Cuthbertson/The Epoch Times

Mark Pomerantz, a former Manhattan prosecutor who led an investigation into former President Donald Trump’s finances, invoked his Fifth Amendment rights during his deposition before the House Judiciary Committee on May 12.

The GOP-led committee is conducting oversight of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s “unprecedented indictment” of a former U.S. president.

In March, Trump became the first former U.S. president to be criminally charged; he pleaded not guilty in April to all 34 felony counts (pdf) of falsifying business records in the case brought by Bragg.

As part of the House Judiciary Committee’s oversight, Pomerantz was subpoenaed to provide testimony. While Bragg sued in an attempt to block the congressional subpoena, a judge denied his request.

In Pomerantz’s opening statement on May 12, he called the GOP-led committee’s investigation “political theater.” He said he was appearing to testify “as required” because he respects the rule of law.

“What I do not respect is the use of the Committee’s subpoena power to compel me to participate in an act of political theater,” he said in the statement. “This deposition is for show. I do not believe for a moment that I am here to assist a genuine effort to enact legislation or conduct legislative ‘oversight.’”

“Although the rule of law compels me to be here, it does not require that I play a substantive role in your theatrical production. Under the law, I can decline to answer your questions for several reasons.”

Subpoenaed to Testify

Pomerantz had pushed for an indictment against Trump after having led a probe into the former president’s hush money payments that took place before the 2016 election.

The former prosecutor left the Manhattan district attorney’s office in February 2022 because he disagreed with Bragg’s initial decision not to pursue a criminal case against Trump. Pomerantz later released a memoir about the case.

Three House GOP committee chairmen, including Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), mounted an investigation into Bragg’s office in March, at a time when Trump had suggested he'd be arrested soon, although before the felony charges were announced.

Pomerantz in his opening statement said he was instructed by Bragg’s office to maintain its “claims of privilege and confidentiality in order to protect the integrity of the pending prosecution and continuing investigation of Donald Trump.”

“I intend to honor the District Attorney’s request, and I will not answer questions to which the District Attorney objects,” Pomerantz said.

‘Circumstances Have Changed’

He also said he invoked the Fifth Amendment because even though he had written and spoken about his own investigation into Trump, formal charges are now pending against Trump, which means “the circumstances have changed.”

“With formal charges now pending, the rule of law is best served if the merits of the case against Mr. Trump are litigated before the court that is hearing that case. This is neither the time nor the place for me to answer questions about the investigation or the pending indictment over the objection of the prosecutors,” he said.

“The charges against Mr. Trump should be heard and decided by a judge and a jury before politicians second-guess their merits or the decision to bring them. That’s how our system works. Those who claim that they respect the rule of law should wait for the courts to do their work.”

Possible Criminal Liability

Pomerantz also said that Bragg’s office, shortly before the publication of Pomerantz’s book, had warned him that he could face criminal liability if, among other things, he “disclosed grand jury material or violated a provision of the New York City Charter dealing with the misuse of confidential information.”

He said a lawyer from Bragg’s office told him on April 19 that his book exposed him to criminal liability, even though Pomerantz is “certain” that he “broke no laws.”

He said that under the Fifth Amendment, he’s not required to answer questions if the answers might be used against him in a criminal prosecution, and that the amendment “is a protection for all citizens, including those who have done nothing wrong.”

He also said he’s permitted under the rule of law to refuse to answer questions that “are not pertinent to a legitimate legislative action or that seek information that is protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.”

“There may be other privileges, such as attorney-client privilege or the work product privilege, that are available for me with respect to [not answering] certain questions,” Pomerantz added.

“For all these reasons, I will not be answering questions that relate to my work in the DA’s office, my book, or public statements I have made in the past,” he wrote.

‘No Substantive’ Answers

Pomerantz’s deposition lasted five hours.

“I’ve never had a more obstructive and less cooperative witness in my over 20 years in Congress," Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who is on the House Judiciary Committee, told reporters on May 12.

Issa said Pomerantz “simply appeared” and seemed to have taken the Fifth on “every single question,” and “answered no substantive questions whatsoever.” He also “clearly appears unwilling to answer any questions even about previous statements he’s made,” Issa said.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) speaks at the U.S. Capitol on Nov. 15, 2022. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

“We respect someone’s Fifth Amendment rights, but it’s very clear that this witness came with a clear intention of obstructing us,” he told reporters. “When his opening statement becomes public, I think we’ll make it clear that he has disdain for this body and has no intention of answering any of our questions.”

Jordan, upon leaving the meeting room after the deposition, told reporters that he was “surprised at some of the answers,” but didn’t provide further details because of committee rules.

Pomerantz’s attorney, Ted Wells, told reporters that Pomerantz’s opening statement made it “very clear as to what happened.”

Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) said that Pomerantz shouldn’t have been forced to appear before the panel.

“Today’s deposition simply underscored that House Republicans’ investigation into Donald Trump’s criminal prosecution by a local district attorney’s office has no nexus to Congress’s jurisdiction and is simply an effort to abuse the official authority of Congress to undermine the rule of law, interfere in an ongoing prosecution of a private citizen, and harass and badger a public official carrying out his official duties,” he said in a statement to media outlets.