This week, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has been inundated with terrible news.

Wednesday, a federal judge denied Bragg’s request to prevent a former prosecutor in his office from testifying about the criminal case against former President Donald Trump before the House Judiciary Committee.

“The committee and its chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), had subpoenaed ex-assistant district attorney Mark Pomerantz to give testimony about the DA’s investigation into Trump, 76, that culminated in the former president’s indictment in March. Bragg filed suit against Jordan and the Judiciary Committee, claiming the subpoena was an overreach by the GOP-led House and an attempt to influence a state criminal proceeding,” the New York Post reported. “But Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil found the subpoena was issued with a valid legislative purpose and that it was not the federal judiciary’s role to dictate how Congress operates.”

“Mr. Pomerantz must appear for the congressional deposition. No one is above the law,” Judge Vyskocil wrote in an opinion issued after a Manhattan federal court hearing.

During the hearing, Judge Vyskocil also retorted to Bragg’s counsel Theodore Boutrous, declaring, “There’s politics going on here on both sides. Let’s be honest about that.”

A Manhattan grand jury indicted Trump on 34 criminal counts of falsifying business documents related to adult film actress Stormy Daniels earlier this month.

Trump allegedly sent Daniels a payment prior to the 2016 election in order to silence Daniels about their affair in 2006. Trump pled not guilty to the 34 counts against him.

Several legal experts have argued since the indictment that Bragg’s case is exceedingly weak.

“The question to ask yourself in a case like this [is], ‘Would a case like this be brought against anybody else, whether he or she be president, former president or a regular citizen?’ The answer is… no,” Former Whitewater deputy counsel Sol Wisenberg said.

“You can debate all day long whether or not… Trump should be indicted related to the records at Mar-a-Lago, whether or not he should be indicted with respect to Jan. 6 incitement of lawless activity… Those are real crimes if they occurred, and he committed them,” he said. “This is preposterous.”

Nonetheless, Bragg’s case against Trump is so flimsy that even liberal media outlets are pointing it out.

Ian Millhiser, a senior correspondent at Vox, wrote: “There is something painfully anticlimactic about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment of former President Trump. It concerns not Trump’s efforts to overthrow the duly elected government of the United States, but his alleged effort to cover up a possible extramarital affair with a porn star. And there’s a very real risk that this indictment will end in an even bigger anticlimax. It is unclear that the felony statute that Trump is accused of violating actually applies to him.”

Mark Stern, a journalist for the liberal publication Slate, penned an article titled “The Trump Indictment Is Not the Slam-Dunk Case Democrats Wanted.”

John Bolton, who served as national security adviser during the Trump administration and has since come out against Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign, appeared on CNN and criticized the charges filed against his former boss, former President Trump, stating that the indictment was “even weaker than I feared it would be.”

More on this story via Conservative Brief:

“Speaking as someone who very strongly does not want Donald Trump to get the Republican presidential nomination, I’m extraordinarily distressed by this document,” Bolton said on CNN. “I think this is even weaker than I feared it would be.” CONTINUE READING…