House Republicans, Manhattan district attorney’s office reach deal over Trump inquiry

House Republicans and the Manhattan district attorney’s office reached an agreement on Friday to end a legal dispute over the House judiciary committee’s investigation into the historic impeachment of former US president Donald Trump.

Under the agreement, committee members will be able to question former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz under oath next month in Washington, ending a lawsuit in which District Attorney Alvin Bragg sought to block Pomerantz from testifying.

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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 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 success in this subpoena prevented immediate depositions and gave us the time we needed to coordinate with the House judiciary committee on an agreement that protects the district attorney’s privileges and interests,” Bragg’s office said in a statement.

“We are pleased with this resolution, which guarantees that any questions from our former employees will take place in the presence of our general counsel in a reasonable, agreed-upon time frame. We are gratified that the ruling of the Second Circuit gives us the opportunity to successfully resolve this dispute.”

Bragg has appealed to the Second 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, spokesman for committee chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican, said in a statement, “The deposition of Mr. Pomerantz will continue on May 12, and we hope to see.”

Pomerantz once oversaw the years-long Trump investigation but left the job after clashing with Bragg over the direction of the case. He recently wrote a book about his work impeaching Trump and discussed the investigation in interviews 60 minutes and share more.

‘Campaign to intimidate and attack’

Bragg, a Democrat, sued Jordan and the judiciary committee last week to block the subpoena. His attorney, Theodore Boutrous, argued that seeking Pomerantz’s testimony was part of a “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” Bragg 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 amounts to Congress “jumping and haranguing the DA while the prosecution is active.”

Trump was indicted last month on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to cash payments he made during the 2016 election campaign to bury allegations of extramarital sex. He has denied wrongdoing and has pleaded not guilty.

A judicial committee began looking into Bragg’s investigation into the former president in the week before the indictment. Jordan sent a letter requesting an interview with Bragg and documents before calling Pomerantz. U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, said in her ruling Wednesday that she would handle the legal fight that could arise from other subpoenas in the Bragg committee’s investigation.

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, Berry said, want to protect the sovereignty and autonomy of the presidency, envisioning a scenario where the commander-in-chief may feel the obligation to make certain decisions so as not to have local prosecutors in politically unfavorable jurisdictions accusing them of 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.