Since he announced his case against former President Donald Trump and it flopped, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has not had much to celebrate, and now his situation has gotten worse.
Tuesday, he filed a lawsuit against Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, demanding he cease “interfering” in a local prosecution. Mike Davis of The Federalist Society reported that a judge for the Southern District of New York refused to even file a temporary restraining order as quickly as he filed his petition.
“Soros-funded Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s (frivolous) lawsuit against House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan is already off to a bad start for Bragg: The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York declined to even enter a temporary restraining order,” he said, showing a screenshot of the decision.
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) April 12, 2023
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) April 12, 2023
“Summary of Soros-funded Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s (frivolous) legal argument: Congress is interfering in Bragg’s misuse of federal funds and misuse of federal law to politically interfere in the next presidential election,” he said.
Summary of Soros-funded Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's (frivolous) legal argument:
Congress is interfering in Bragg's misuse of federal funds and misuse of federal law to politically interfere in the next presidential election.
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) April 12, 2023
Bragg filed a lawsuit against House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan on Tuesday, after the Ohio Republican’s committee issued a subpoena to the prosecutor demanding information regarding the office’s indictment of former President Donald Trump last week.
In his lawsuit, Bragg claimed that Jordan and the committee are conducting an intimidation campaign in response to the indictment.
The D.A. said he’s taking legal action “in response to an unprecedently brazen and unconstitutional attack by members of Congress on an ongoing New York State criminal prosecution and investigation of” Trump, Fox News reported.
Fox News noted additionally:
Bragg, a Democrat, is requesting that a judge invalidate subpoenas that Jordan, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has issued or intends to issue as part of an investigation into Bragg’s handling of the Trump case.
In recent weeks, the Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena for Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor who oversaw the Trump investigation, to testify. The committee has also requested relevant documents and testimony from Bragg and his office. Bragg has denied these demands.
Earlier reports indicated that the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee will hold a field hearing on April 17 in New York City to investigate how the policies of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg have affected the area and contributed to an increase in violent crime.
The field hearing, which is titled “Victims of Violent Crime in Manhattan,” will be held at the “Jacob Javits Federal Building just blocks from Bragg’s Lower Manhattan office and the courthouse where Trump, 76, was arraigned on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records last week,” the New York Post reported.
“The House Judiciary Committee will hear from ‘victims’ of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s policies during a hearing in New York next week — escalating a confrontation with the progressive prosecutor over his unprecedented criminal case against former President Donald Trump, The Post has learned. Republicans have slammed Bragg as being soft on conventional crime while embracing a novel legal theory to bring the first-ever criminal case against an ex-president,” the Post reported.
“We’ll be hosting this hearing next week from NYC. We’ll be hearing from victims who are suffering under DA Bragg’s pro-crime policies. If Bragg can spend resources indicting President [Donald] Trump, he should be able to address the soaring crime in NYC,” committee member Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona tweeted.
Since Trump’s indictment, a multitude of legal experts have argued that Bragg’s case is exceptionally feeble.
More on this story via Conservative Brief:
“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.CONTINUE READING…
