NEW YORK (AP) – Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg agreed Friday to let Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee question former prosecutors about the criminal case against former President Donald Trump.
Under the agreement, committee members will be able to question Mark Pomerantz under oath next month in Washington. The deal settled a lawsuit in which District Attorney Alvin Bragg sought to block Pomerantz from testifying, ending a legal dispute that escalated to a federal appeals court just weeks after Trump’s historic indictment.
Among the committee’s concessions, Pomerantz will be accompanied by a lawyer from Bragg’s office, which is not normally allowed in Congressional depositions.
Bragg’s office and the Judiciary Committee reached the agreement after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay Thursday that temporarily halted enforcement of a House subpoena requiring Pomerantz to testify.
The appeals court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the dispute on Tuesday.
Bragg’s office said the agreement, delaying Pomerantz’s testimony until May 12, preserves the district attorney’s “privileges and interests” during the ongoing prosecution of Trump.
“Our successful stay of this subpoena blocked the direct deposition and gave us the necessary time to coordinate with the House Judiciary Committee on an agreement that protects the privileges and interests of the District Attorney,” Bragg’s office said in a statement.
“We are pleased with this resolution, which ensures that the questions of our former employees will be heard in the presence of our General Counsel in a reasonable, agreed upon timeframe. We are grateful that the decision of the Second Circuit gives us the opportunity to resolve this dispute,” said Bragg’s office.
Bragg has appealed to the 2nd Circuit after a lower court judge ruled Wednesday that there was no legal basis to block the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena and that Pomerantz’s deposition should go forward as scheduled.
Pursuant to the agreement, Bragg withdrew his appeal.
Russell Dye, a spokesman for committee chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, said in a statement, “Mr. Pomerantz’s deposition will go forward on May 12, and we look forward to his appearance.
Pomerantz had overseen the Trump investigation for several years but left the job after clashing with Bragg over the direction of the case. He recently wrote a book about his work investigating Trump and discussed the investigation in interviews on “60 Minutes” and other shows.
Bragg, a Democrat, sued Jordan and the Judiciary Committee last week to block the subpoena. His attorney, Theodore Boutrous, said seeking Pomerantz’s testimony was part of Bragg’s “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” and that Congress was “invading the state” to investigate local prosecutors when they had no authority to do so.
Boutrous said House Republicans’ interest in Bragg being in Congress “jumps in and interferes with the DA as the prosecution continues.”
The Judiciary Committee began reviewing Bragg’s investigation into the former president in the weeks before the indictment. Jordan sent a letter requesting an interview with Bragg and documents before calling Pomerantz. US District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, said in her decision Wednesday that she would handle any legal disputes that may arise from other subpoenas in the committee’s investigation of Bragg.
The committee’s attorney, Matthew Berry, said Congress had legitimate legislative reasons for wanting to question Pomerantz and review Bragg’s prosecution of Trump, citing the use of $5,000 in federal funds to pay for the Trump-related investigation.
Congress is also considering legislation, offered by Republicans after Trump’s indictment, to change how criminal cases against former presidents are opened, Berry said. One bill would prohibit prosecutors from using federal funds to investigate the president, and another would require criminal cases involving former presidents to be settled in federal court rather than at the state level.
House Republicans, like Sindhunata, want to protect the sovereignty and autonomy of the presidency, envisioning a scenario where the commander in chief can feel the obligation to make certain decisions so as not to have local prosecutors in politically unfavorable jurisdictions charging them with crimes after they leave office.
For that reason, Berry said, Congress is immune from judicial interference, citing the U.S. Constitution’s speech and debate clause.
Pomerantz can refuse to answer certain questions, citing privilege and ethical obligations, and Jordan will rule on those claims on a case-by-case basis, Berry said, but he should not be excused from appearing. If Jordan were to beat Pomerantz and he still refused to answer, he could then face criminal referral to the Justice Department for contempt of Congress, but that would not happen immediately, Berry said.
Trump was indicted last month on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to cash payments he made during the 2016 campaign to bury allegations of extramarital sex. He has denied wrongdoing and has pleaded not guilty.