The Briefing Room
General Category => Trump Legal Investigations => Topic started by: Elderberry on April 12, 2023, 12:45:30 am
-
Washington Examiner by Jack Birle 4/11/2023
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's restraining order against Jim Jordan declined by judge, will go to hearing
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's request for a restraining order against Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) was declined by a judge on Tuesday. The judge ordered Bragg to send the material to Jordan by 9 p.m. Wednesday so the court could have a hearing on the situation on April 19.
Bragg requested the order in an attempt to block Jordan from interfering in the Stormy Daniels hush money case that former President Donald Trump was charged in last week. Jordan has subpoenaed an investigator previously involved in the case.
The lawsuit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Tuesday. The hearing to determine whether the restraining order against Jordan takes effect is scheduled for April 19 at 2 p.m. in Courtroom 18C of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse.
Jordan and other House Republicans have been conducting an investigation into Bragg's office and have sent requests and subpoenas for documents and testimony from people connected to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. The investigation was sparked by the indictment of Trump last month by a Manhattan grand jury.
The Ohio Republican reacted to the lawsuit in a tweet, saying Bragg was blocking congressional oversight of federal funds used to investigate Trump.
More: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/manhattan-da-alvin-bragg-suing-jim-jordan-trump-case (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/manhattan-da-alvin-bragg-suing-jim-jordan-trump-case)
-
Not a great sign for Bragg, although it doesn't mean he can't ultimately prevail.
-
The judge ordered Bragg to send the material to Jordan by 9 p.m. Wednesday so the court could have a hearing on the situation on April 19.
Oh wow......and in Manhattan..sure didn't expect this...
-
Good.
-
(READ) Judge quickly denies request by Trump prosecutor Bragg for restraining order against Rep. Jordan
DATED: APRIL 12, 2023 BY SHARYL ATTKISSON
h/t Epoch Times
A federal judge has rejected the request by New York prosecutor Alvin Bragg for a restraining order against Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).
In a 50-page lawsuit, Manhattan District Attorney Bragg, had said that Jordan and other Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee were guilty of “an unprecedentedly brazen and unconstitutional attack” of his investigation into Donald Trump.
Bragg recently spearheaded a controversial indictment of the former president. Jordan has been seeking testimony from Bragg as part of an investigation into whether the prosecutor used federal funds in a politically motivated attack on Trump. Bragg says he considered that inappropriate interference and sought the restraining order.
Read the Judge's order below.
https://sharylattkisson.com/2023/04/read-judge-quickly-denies-request-by-trump-prosecutor-bragg-for-restraining-order-against-rep-jordan/
-
Oh wow......and in Manhattan..sure didn't expect this...
I kind of did. What Bragg was trying to pull off was something more akin to legal-ese Fort Sumpter.
-
Today's reporting on Bragg v. Jim Jordan argument: https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/1648748412039225349
-
https://www.innercitypress.com/sdny83cvyskocilbraggvjordanicp041923.html (https://www.innercitypress.com/sdny83cvyskocilbraggvjordanicp041923.html)
------
On April 19, the argument took place. Inner City Press live tweeted it, thread here:
OK - now Bragg v. Jim Jordan argument - Bragg wants to enjoin House subpoenas, incl of frmr ADA Pomerantz.
All rise!
Judge Vyskocil: Appearances, please. Matthew Berry representing Jim Jordan... Todd Tatelman, for Congressional defendants...
Bragg's lawyer: This court should enjoin this subpoena on Federalism grounds, would harm the State of NY and the DA
Bragg's lawyer Boutrous: We have Congress seeking to supersede both DA Bragg and Judge Marchan --
Judge Vyskovil: How? Boutrous: They are trying to conduct oversight. Judge Vyskocil: He's speaking generically. He lists 3 legislative purposes for the subpoena
Judge Vyskocil: They want to know if Federal funds are being used. Boutrous: We've already given that information. Judge Vyskocil: Then it will be a short deposition. Hasn't there been a waiver of privilege, in the book? Boutrous: Ms. Dubeck will address that.
Boutrous: This is to intimidate DA Bragg. They said, We're going to hold him accountable. Judge Vyskocil: Shouldn't I try to not read minds on either side here? If there's a valid legislative purpose, that's the end of the inquiry, right? Boutrous: It's improper
Judge Vyskocil: Let's go back to the book. Boutrous: I knew you'd ask me about it... The Mazars decision really changed things. It didn't get enough play -- Judge Vyskocil: There's politics going on on both sides here, right? Boutrous: I don't concede that
Boutros: The ALVIN Act, I think it's an insulting name- Judge Vyskocil: I can't and won't look at the possible Constitutionality of an act they would pass. Your opening brief didn't address the Speech and Debate Clause.
Judge Vyskocil: What's before me is the subpoena, not all the political invective that's been flying back and forth. That's just color.
Ms. Dubeck, how has the privilege not been waived in the book? Dubeck: It's the privilege of my office, not Mr. Pomerantz Judge Vyskocil: Have you read the book? Dubeck: Yes. Judge Vyskocil: Do you think it violated privileges?
Dubeck: Yes. And he has exposed himself to criminal liability under the City Charter. 2606 c - a misdemeanor, a former employee may not disclose
Dubeck: They haven't shown why the deposition has to happen tomorrow. They are trying to chill our office, over $5000 in Federal forfeiture funds.
Judge Vyskocil: You won't contest you spent it. Why isn't that a legislative purpose, to look into that? Dubeck: If the court were to limit the deposition to the use of Federal funds.... Judge Vyskocil: They have asserted other legislative purposes as well.
More at link.
-
CNN Breaking News
@cnnbrk
·
53m
Federal judge denies Manhattan district attorney's request to block a House GOP subpoena of former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz
https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1648799074311651329
-
https://www.innercitypress.com/sdny83cvyskocilbraggvjordanicp041923.html (https://www.innercitypress.com/sdny83cvyskocilbraggvjordanicp041923.html)
------
On April 19, the argument took place. Inner City Press live tweeted it, thread here:
OK - now Bragg v. Jim Jordan argument - Bragg wants to enjoin House subpoenas, incl of frmr ADA Pomerantz.
All rise!
Judge Vyskocil: Appearances, please. Matthew Berry representing Jim Jordan... Todd Tatelman, for Congressional defendants...
Bragg's lawyer: This court should enjoin this subpoena on Federalism grounds, would harm the State of NY and the DA
Bragg's lawyer Boutrous: We have Congress seeking to supersede both DA Bragg and Judge Marchan --
Judge Vyskovil: How? Boutrous: They are trying to conduct oversight. Judge Vyskocil: He's speaking generically. He lists 3 legislative purposes for the subpoena
Judge Vyskocil: They want to know if Federal funds are being used. Boutrous: We've already given that information. Judge Vyskocil: Then it will be a short deposition. Hasn't there been a waiver of privilege, in the book? Boutrous: Ms. Dubeck will address that.
Boutrous: This is to intimidate DA Bragg. They said, We're going to hold him accountable. Judge Vyskocil: Shouldn't I try to not read minds on either side here? If there's a valid legislative purpose, that's the end of the inquiry, right? Boutrous: It's improper
Judge Vyskocil: Let's go back to the book. Boutrous: I knew you'd ask me about it... The Mazars decision really changed things. It didn't get enough play -- Judge Vyskocil: There's politics going on on both sides here, right? Boutrous: I don't concede that
Boutros: The ALVIN Act, I think it's an insulting name- Judge Vyskocil: I can't and won't look at the possible Constitutionality of an act they would pass. Your opening brief didn't address the Speech and Debate Clause.
Judge Vyskocil: What's before me is the subpoena, not all the political invective that's been flying back and forth. That's just color.
Ms. Dubeck, how has the privilege not been waived in the book? Dubeck: It's the privilege of my office, not Mr. Pomerantz Judge Vyskocil: Have you read the book? Dubeck: Yes. Judge Vyskocil: Do you think it violated privileges?
Dubeck: Yes. And he has exposed himself to criminal liability under the City Charter. 2606 c - a misdemeanor, a former employee may not disclose
Dubeck: They haven't shown why the deposition has to happen tomorrow. They are trying to chill our office, over $5000 in Federal forfeiture funds.
Judge Vyskocil: You won't contest you spent it. Why isn't that a legislative purpose, to look into that? Dubeck: If the court were to limit the deposition to the use of Federal funds.... Judge Vyskocil: They have asserted other legislative purposes as well.
More at link.
:mauslaff: Judge playing with his cats-paw.
-
Can Bragg just not show up for the subpoena though? I thought Eric Holder did something like that and nothing happened (other than being held in Contempt of Congress)?
-
Can Bragg just not show up for the subpoena though? I thought Eric Holder did something like that and nothing happened (other than being held in Contempt of Congress)?
I don't believe the subpoenaed Bragg; I believe the subpoenaed someone who quit the DA's office last year.
-
I don't believe the subpoenaed Bragg; I believe the subpoenaed someone who quit the DA's office last year.
Yes, Pomerantz.
-
House Judiciary GOP
@JudiciaryGOP
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuRwQ4rWIAAhPVy?format=jpg&name=small)
8:12 PM · Apr 21, 2023
-
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
·
7m
Bragg has declared a curious victory in dropping his appeal after losing the challenge to the House subpoena before the trial court. https://foxnews.com/politics/manhattan-da-drops-appeal-federal-judge-rules-jim-jordan-subpoena-ex-prosecutor
The "victory" is that a lawyer from this office will be present in the interview of Pomerantz.
...His filing did not even request such a lawyer as proposed relief. Rather he was arguing that the subpoena was unconstitutional and unenforceable. He sought a permanent injunction of any interview. https://t.co/TvdLqwCPbo
...Pomerantz will present a target rich environment given his controversial theories and conduct in the case, including writing a book on prosecuting an individual who was still under investigation (against the wishes of his former office).