House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan on Wednesday demanded answers from a former New York special assistant district attorney who led a probe to scour “every facet” of former President Donald Trump’s finances.
Bragg is reportedly planning to indict Trump over “hush money” paid during the 2016 election to adult entertainment actress Stormy Daniels to hide allegations of an affair. Trump denies the alleged affair.
Jordan’s letter to Pomerantz comes three days after he accused Bragg, a Democrat, of abusing his prosecutorial authority in what he called a politically motivated prosecution of the leading candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2024.
Expanding the scope of the House Republicans probe, Jordan has summoned Pomerantz to testify during a transcribed interview “as soon as possible,” and hand over documents and communications. Jordan noted the former prosecutor’s role as an unpaid “special assistant district attorney” who led an investigation scouring Trump’s finances “looking for some legal theory on which to bring charges.”
According to the letter, a matter of interest for the House Judiciary Committee is whether Pomerantz shamed Bragg into resurrecting a dead case on the basis of a “tenuous and untested legal theory.”
In summoning Pomerantz, Jordan cited what he described as efforts by Pomerantz to shame Bragg over the district attorney’s initial reluctance to move forward with charges. He noted that Pomerantz wrote a “scathing” resignation letter, which was leaked and widely reported, and wrote a subsequent book published this month “excoriating” Bragg.
“Based on your unique role in this matter, and your subsequent public statements prejudicing the impartiality of any prosecution, we request your cooperation with our oversight of this politically motivated prosecutorial decision,” Jordan wrote.
‘Shame’ Campaign
Jordan argued that the facts at the center of Bragg’s investigation had been known since 2018 and that not even the Department of Justice chose to prosecute after examining them in 2019.With the investigation producing no new witnesses and no new facts since 2018, Jordan described Bragg’s renewed probe as a “zombie” case, prompted apparently by Trump’s decision to run in 2024.
Jordan also raised concerns in his letter about the credibility of the star witness, Michael Cohen, who he described as “Trump’s disgraced former lawyer” and a convicted perjurer.
Noting Bragg’s initial doubts, Jordan emphasized Pomerantz’s efforts to pressure Bragg via a shame campaign. This included penning “a scathing resignation letter in which you baselessly accused President Trump of ‘numerous felony violations,’ and asserted it would be ‘a grave failure of justice’ if Bragg did not pursue charges.”
“You urged Bragg to hold President Trump ‘fully accountable for his crimes,’ asserting that Bragg’s decision will doom any future ‘prospects for prosecution,’” Jordan continued. “Your resignation letter found its way into the New York Times, word-for-word, and your criticisms of Bragg’s investigation were widely reported by news outlets.”
Pomerantz also “published a book excoriating Bragg for not aggressively prosecuting President Trump, laying bare the office’s internal deliberations about the investigation and your personal animus toward President Trump,” Jordan added.
Jordan argued that Pomerantz’s actions both as a special prosecutor and since leaving the District Attorney’s office cast serious doubt on the administration of fair and impartial justice in this matter.
“It now appears that your efforts to shame Bragg have worked as he is reportedly resurrecting a so-called ‘zombie’ case against President Trump using a tenuous and untested legal theory,” Jordan wrote. “Even the Washington Post quoted ‘legal experts’ as calling Bragg’s actions ’unusual‘ because ’prosecutors have repeatedly examined the long-established details but decided not to pursue charges.'”
Jordan gave Pomerantz until March 27 to respond.
