This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney who assembled a 34-count case against President Trump that top legal experts have described as nothing but a political attack, now wants to make sure no one interferes with his claims.
Bragg's case essentially is based on claims of misdemeanor bookkeeping problems for which the statute of limitations has expired. But he claims they're felonies, and still can be prosecuted because they somehow contributed to the furtherance of other crimes, which he has not specified.
Now he's responding to members of Congress who have promised to investigate the political maneuver, and already have subpoenaed a former member of Bragg's staff who quit in a spat because charges against Trump weren't filed quickly enough.
That deputy, Mark Pomerantz, did what analysts have concluded was highly unethical – he published a book about his claims against Trump, outlining what he thought should happen.
The Washington Examiner said Bragg has filed a lawsuit against Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, claiming that Jordan's promise of a congressional investigation is "interference" in Bragg's case that got its start in claims of hush money being paid to Stormy Daniels over an affair that both Trump and Daniels deny happened.
Bragg claimed in his state court action that Jordan was committing an "unprecedentedly brazen and unconstitutional attack by members of Congress."
"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."
Specifically, Bragg is trying to block the subpoena for Pomerantz.
He was investigating Trump in Bragg's office but quit in a disagreement with Bragg.
Bragg claims, "Chairman 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."
Jordan, and others in Congress, have been reviewing Bragg's office's action following the indictment that many experts, both conservative and liberal, say is a political stunt that is the latest in a long line of Democrat attacks on Trump.
Bragg, in fact, campaigned for office on his agenda of trying to get Trump.
The House Judiciary said, "Why’s Alvin Bragg scared of congressional oversight? Really makes you wonder."
Jordan already has explained his committee has jurisdiction to review actions because of the federal funds being used, and the allegations made in the indictment during a federal election.
Trump has said Bragg's scheme is nothing more than election interference.
Fox News reports Bragg, a Democrat and longtime critic of Trump, wants the judge to cancel the subpoenas that Jordan has – or might – issue.
For Bragg's part, he has refused to answer any questions from Congress.
WND reported that Pomerantz repeatedly had urged Bragg to charge Trump with something.
But Bragg's determination at the time was there was no case, and so Pomerantz left the office and, in a move that critics say violated a major ethics boundary for prosecutors, wrote a book about how Trump needed to be charged.
Bragg ultimately caved, assembling a grand jury indictment. Pomerantz was subpoenaed when he refused to cooperate with Congress.
At the time, Jordan wrote, "We received a reply letter dated March 27, 2023, stating that, at the instruction of the New York County District Attorney's Office, you would not cooperate with our oversight. The New York County District Attorney's unprecedented prosecutorial conduct requires oversight to inform the consideration of potential legislative reforms that would if enacted, insulate current and former presidents from such politically motivated state and local prosecutions."
Trump has called Bragg's work a "witch hunt," following a long list of Democrat "witch hunts" launched against him, starting with the now-debunked "Russiagate" claims made against him during the 2016 campaign.
Federal prosecutors and lawyers with the Federal Election Commission already have reviewed the claims made by Bragg and found no case against Trump.