Update:
After DA Bragg and Mark Pomerantz appealed the decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted at a temporary stay to Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's decision, The New York Times reported on Thursday morning.
Original:
It hasn't exactly been a banner week for Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. On Monday, witnesses called by the the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government made Bragg and his Democratic allies in Congress look like fools when discussing violent crime in the city. And on Wednesday night, the lawsuit that Bragg had filed earlier this month in an attempt to prevent Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who chairs the committee, from subpoenaing Mark Pomerantz, who previously worked for the DA, went up in flames. This is after Trump-appointed Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil had already rejected the motion for a temporary retraining order (TRO) on April 11, the same day that Bragg filed.
Rep. Jordan is looking to use Congress' oversight authority to look into what is almost certainly Bragg's political targeting of former and potentially President Donald Trump with the 34 felony charges he recently brought against him, despite how he could have brought misdemeanor charges. As a former employee who reportedly resigned in protest when he thought Bragg wouldn't indict Trump, who even wrote a book, the committee thinks Pomerantz may have some worthwhile information to share.
"Bragg's 50-page complaint full of many personal gripes about criticism for his failures to uphold law and order while engaging in a political prosecution of Trump comes after Rep. Jordan and Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer demanded information and testimony from Bragg and his office on March 20," Spencer also wrote in his reporting of the lawsuit at the time.
Recommended
"The subpoena was issued with a 'valid legislative purpose' in connection with the 'broad' and 'indispensable' congressional power to 'conduct investigations.' It is not the role of the federal judiciary to dictate what legislation Congress may consider or how it should conduct its deliberations in that connection. Mr. Pomerantz must appear for the congressional deposition. No one is above the law," Judge Vyskocil wrote in her order, including one of the left's favorite phrases, though they sure do seem to have a hard time applying that to themselves.
As Nick Arama at our sister site of RedState highlighted in his superbly helpful explainer, Judge Vyskocil was particularly irate about the political nature of Bragg'ssuit. It was so political, in fact, that it didn't even get into the legal issue at hand.
At one point, the judge wrote:
The first 35 pages of the Complaint have little to do with the subpoena at issue and are nothing short of a public relations tirade against former President and current presidential candidate Donald Trump. The same is true of the vast majority of the exhibits accompanying the Boutrous Declaration. Of note, the Complaint acknowledges that DANY used federal forfeiture funds in investigating President Trump and/or the Trump Organization… At heart, the Complaint simply includes two requests for declaratory and injunctive relief directed at the congressional inquiry. The reality is that, as framed, this action is merely a motion to quash a subpoena dressed up as a lawsuit.
The motion for a temporary restraining order was filed without notice to Defendants and before Defendants even were served with the Complaint... In this Court, Local Civil Rule 6.1(d) dictates that any party seeking an ex parte order must submit an “affidavit of good and sufficient reasons why a procedure other than by notice of motion is necessary, and stating whether a previous application for similar relief has been made.” No such affidavit was submitted here...
She went on to later write that "By bringing this action, Bragg is engaging in precisely the type of political theater he claims to fear."
Our friends at Twitchy also highlighted reporting from Law & Crime which touched upon how "Judge Vyskocil interrupted Bragg’s attorney Theodore Boutrous repeatedly throughout the hourlong hearing, accusing him of playing politics." The judge also aptly pointed out that "there’s politics going on here on both sides here. Let’s be honest about that."
Fox News' CB Cotton also highlighted Judge Vyskocil's full docket text.
"In our federalist system, elected state and federal actors sometimes engage in political dogfights. Bragg complains of political interference in the local DANY case, but Bragg does not operate outside of the political arena," the judge wrote.
After stating what the political "agenda" of either Bragg or Jordan, though she does sum up both sides pretty succinctly, she went on to explain what is indeed the court's role. "The sole question before the Court at this time is whether Bragg has a legal basis to quash a congressional subpoena that was issued with a valid legislative purpose. He does not," she explained.
UPDATE: @ManhattanDA’s request for a restraining order is denied by judge. Pomerantz must now testify before the House Judiciary Committee. Full docket text from Trump-appointed Federal Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil below @FoxNews https://t.co/Qw70mIthhW pic.twitter.com/ASKWkKR7zi
— CB Cotton (@CB_Cotton) April 19, 2023
Cotton also tweeted a statement from Bragg that "We respectfully disagree with the District Court's decision and are seeking a stay pending appeal." That motion for a stay was denied. It would appear that Bragg is not done losing.
Bragg has been nothing but shameless in his political crusade out to get Trump, now a presidential candidate once more for 2024. Bragg tried to do the same with his ridiculous lawsuit, only this time he was actually held accountable for it.
Mike Davis of The Article III Project who is also a former law clerk, noted over Twitter some particularly damning aspects for Bragg. The DA very much overplayed in his hand, and he paid dearly for it.
As Davis explains, Bragg could have merely objected to the subpoena, which would have left Jordan with the options to file a criminal contempt referral to the Department of Justice (DOJ), though we all know how that would have gone. Or, the House could have voted for civil contempt, though that could have dragged the process out if it didn't pass, with Jordan being forced file a civil lawsuit.
The court also has retained jurisdiction over related matters, leading Davis to suggest Jordan should subpoena Matthew Colangelo, who was named senior counsel to the DA last December.
Unsurprisingly, @GeorgeSoros-funded @ManhattanDA @AlvinBraggNYC lost (badly) in his (laughable) legal attempt to stop @JudiciaryGOP Chairman @Jim_Jordan's investigation into Bragg's use of federal funds to interfere in the 2024 presidential election.
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) April 20, 2023
Bragg could've simply… pic.twitter.com/PPg6TwFqV6
Judge Vyskocil's docket text was particularly clear in that latter regard. "This Court will retain jurisdiction over this dispute and any ancillary claims arising out of the inquiry by the Committee relating to the use of federal funds in a manner that may influence the 2024 presidential election. In other words, Bragg may not file successive proceedings under a different index number if and when the Committee in fact issues another subpoena that he finds objectionable or if there are issues with respect to the Pomerantz deposition."
The House Judiciary GOP Twitter account tweeted out a statement from Russell Dye, the spokesperson for Chairman Jordan. "Today’s decision shows that Congress has the ability to conduct oversight and issue subpoenas to people like Mark Pomeranz, and we look forward to his deposition before the Judiciary Committee," said Dye. Jordan's account also retweeted the statement.
House Judiciary Committee Statement on 𝐵𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑔 𝑣. 𝐽𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑎𝑛. pic.twitter.com/Ikp6HTq2rZ
— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) April 19, 2023
"Pomerantz," who must now indeed appear for a deposition, has been trending on Twitter late on Wednesday night and into Thursday morning.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member