Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg Sues Rep. Jim Jordan for Interfering with Investigation, Prosecution of Donald Trump


By Paloma Sifuentes & Leslie Acevedo 

ALBANY, NY – Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg sued Ohio Republican Jim Jordan over the House of Representatives’ probe of former U.S.  President Donald J. Trump, who has been criminally indicted per a 50-page complaint this past week.

The Bragg suit names as defendants Jordan, the House Judiciary Committee, and Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor in Bragg’s DA office.

Trump, who has repeatedly denied the charges against him, was arraigned last week and pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree in an alleged hush money “scheme” to influence the 2016 election, said Manhattan DA Bragg.

Bragg is the first Black District Attorney in Manhattan and said he inherited “years-long investigations into the financial activities of Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization.”

During his investigation into Trump’s organization, “District Attorney Bragg’s Office secured the trial conviction of the two Trump entities and a guilty plea from Mr. (Allen) Weisselberg for, among other crimes, defrauding New York State and New York City tax authorities,” according to the suit.

During DA Bragg’s investigation “the news media reported on a grand jury investigation into allegations against Mr. Trump and the possibility that Mr. Trump might be criminally charged. In response, Mr. Trump and his supporters in Congress launched efforts to attack the District Attorney’s integrity, intimidate his Office, and mount ‘an aggressive response’ to preempt potential criminal charges,” the Bragg suit stated.

One of these efforts, the suit contends, was that “Chairman of three Congressional committees sent a letter to District Attorney Bragg purporting to launch an investigation into his ‘decision to pursue such a politically motivated prosecution.’ They accused Bragg of ‘unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority,’ demanding that he give testimony and hand over documents from his findings.”

Manhattan DA Bragg notes, “Congress has no power to supervise state criminal prosecution,” and accuses Jordan and his committee of engaging in “a campaign of intimidation, retaliation and obstruction.”

However, Chairman Jordan responded to Bragg’s comment in a letter, claiming the inquiry is proper because (1) the Committees “are authorized to conduct such an inquiry,” (2) “the inquiry is on a matter on which legislation could be had,” and (3) “the requests are pertinent to the committees’ inquiry.”

Manhattan DA Bragg said, “The Constitution with[held] from Congress a plenary police power,” adding the charges filed against Trump were approved by citizens of New York, and Trump is entitled to challenge these charges in court.

Trump and Ohio Republican Jordan have threatened the plaintiff calling him “SOROS BACKED ANIMAL…CARRYING OUT THE PLANS OF THE RADICAL LEFT LUNATICS,” Bragg cited in his complaint.

Manhattan DA Bragg noted he has received death threats (including one Wednesday with a “suspicious” powder), and said, “In the aftermath, the District Attorney’s Office received more than 1,000 calls and emails from individuals claiming to be Mr. Trump’s supporters, many of which were threatening and racially charged.”

Manhattan DA Bragg notes Ohio Republican Jordan, along with other members of Congress, “have made no secret that the purpose of the Committee’s inquiry is to “conduct oversight” and undertake an “examination of the facts” supporting the indictment.

Trump has said “[t]he criminal is the District Attorney because he illegally leaked massive amounts of grand jury information, for which he should be prosecuted or at a minimum, he should resign” and “I have a Trump hating judge, with a Trump hating wife and family, whose daughter worked for Kamala Harris and now receives money from the Biden-Harris campaign and a lot of it.”

Bragg insists, “Members of Congress are not free to invade New York’s sovereign authority for their or Mr. Trump’s political aims,” and compelling Pomerantz to provide testimony is unprecedented.

DA Bragg states, “The demands for documents and testimony that Chairman Jordan has made on Bragg and current and former District Attorney’s Office employees or officials also improperly seek privileged and confidential material.”

Pomerantz was a Special Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan’s District Attorney’s Office. From 2021 to 2022 his role “assisted with the Office’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s personal and business finances,” said the DA, who said he is suing Pomerantz so that he “cannot release any information or material of what he found during his work in the District Attorney’s office relating to Donald J Trump.”

According to Bragg, “The subpoena issued to Mr. Pomerantz is just the first of many the Chairman is planning to send to current and former District Attorney’s Office employees and officials to wreak havoc on their prosecutorial activities pursuant to New York law…the subpoena served on Mr. Pomerantz is invalid, unenforceable, unconstitutional, and ultra vires because it has no legitimate legislative purpose.”

The DA suit adds, “Mr. Trump is free to avail himself to any and all criminal procedure processes available to him, while Republic Jordan is not free to deploy Congress limited subpoena.”

Manhattan DA Bragg added, “Congress lacks any valid legislative purpose to engage in a free-ranging campaign of harassment in retaliation for the District Attorney’s investigation and prosecution of Mr. Trump under the laws of New York.”

About The Author

Paloma Sifuentes is a Senior at California State University, Long Beach majoring in Criminal Justice. She plans on attending law school after she graduates with her bachelors degree in the spring of 2023. She is very passionate about Criminal Law and intends on working as an associates attorney in a law firm after law school.

Related posts


    1. David Greenwald

      The standard for an injunction is a showing that the action has a reasonable likelihood of success and also a showing that the moving party would suffer irreparable harm by allowing the status quo to remain in place. It is fairly routine for the judge to order a hearing with full discovery before changing the status quo.

      1. Keith Olsen

        Josh Gerstein, senior legal affairs contributor forPolitico cast doubt over the merits of Manhattan District AttorneyAlvin Bragg’slawsuit against House Judiciary Committee ChairmanJim Jordan(R-OH) on MSNBC’sMorning JoeWednesday morning, suggesting Bragg faces an “uphill battle” to receive the relief he’s seeking.


Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for