Democratic DA Alvin Bragg sues House Judiciary Committee and Rep. Jim Jordan to keep anti-Trump critic from testifying

Manhattan's Democratic District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the House Judiciary Committee and its chair, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), claiming that their apparent efforts to shed a light on possible improprieties or partisan malice on his part amount to an "unprecedently [sic] brazen and unconstitutional attack."

The committee announced Monday that it would hold a field hearing in Manhattan on April 17, near Bragg's office, to examine, in part, how Bragg's "pro-crime, anti-victim policies have led to an increase in violent crime and a dangerous community for New York City residents."

According to the New York Post, the committee will address how Bragg, who boosted misdemeanor charges to felonies in his criminal case against former President Donald Trump, had conversely downgraded 52% of felony cases to misdemeanors since taking office in 2022.

In addition to reviewing the federal funding Bragg's office has received, the committee also wants former Special Assistant District Attorney Mark Pomerantz to testify in a deposition on April 20, having subpoenaed him to that end.

While defensive about his approach to crime in New York City, Bragg appears especially desperate to prevent Pomerantz from testifying.

The Soros-linked attorney's lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that "Jordan's demands, including his subpoena to Mr. Pomerantz, seek highly sensitive and confidential local prosecutorial information that belongs to the Office of the District Attorney and the People of New York. Basic principles of federalism and common sense, as well as binding Supreme Court precedent, forbid Congress from demanding it."

The suit further alleges that Pomerantz's compelled testimony "could prejudice Mr. Trump's right to a fair trial and prompt due process concerns."

In addition to rejecting Republican claims that his indictment of former President Donald Trump was political in nature and that he used federal funds in the process, Bragg underscored that "Congress lacks any enumerated power entitling it to 'conduct oversight' into a single state prosecution in which a local grand jury has voted to bring criminal charges."

"Rather than allowing the criminal process to proceed in the ordinary course, Chairman Jordan and the Committee are participating in a campaign of intimidation, retaliation, and obstruction."

Jordan appeared Tuesday evening on Fox News, saying, "They are obstructing our investigation, Brett. We have a constitutional duty to get to the facts, particularly when you have a district attorney interfering with the most important election we have, which is the election of the commander in chief, the president of the United States."

Contrary to Bragg's suggestion that this is not a matter of concern for federal lawmakers and Congress, Jordan said, "Alvin Bragg used federal funds to indict a former president for no crime and then when we ask questions about it, when we want to investigate, he takes us to court."

Jordan reiterated on Twitter: "First, they indict a president for no crime. Then, they sue to block congressional oversight when we ask questions about the federal funds they say they used to do it."

The House Judiciary tweeted, "Why’s Alvin Bragg scared of congressional oversight? Really makes you wonder.."

The Hill reported that U.S District Court Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil responded swiftly to Bragg's suit, declining to immediately block Jordan's subpoena, but requiring the committee to respond in court by April 17.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!