A former assistant district attorney may be forced to testify before a congressional committee about his old boss, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg — but not quite yet.
On Wednesday evening, a Manhattan federal judge rejected Bragg’s request to stay a subpoena for Mark Pomerantz, a former employee of Bragg’s office, to testify before the House judiciary committee on Thursday.
But Bragg’s office immediately appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit froze the proceedings with an administrative stay.
It’s the latest development in an increasingly fractious battle between Bragg and Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, an ally of former President Donald Trump who originally set the flurry of legal action in motion by filing a subpoena to force Pomerantz to appear before his committee.
Pomerantz, a holdover from the administration of former Manhattan DA Cy Vance, was investigating Trump and resigned early in Bragg’s tenure, saying the newly elected prosecutor was not moving aggressively enough. After refusing to testify voluntarily, he was subpoenaed by Jordan’s committee due to his “unique role as a special district attorney leading the investigation into Trump’s finances,” according to a letter that Jordan wrote to accompany the legal document.
Bragg filed a motion to block the subpoena earlier this month. Pomerantz filed a response in support of the temporary restraining order, urging the court to grant it.
But on Wednesday, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the Southern District of New York denied Bragg’s attempt to keep Pomerantz from going before the House Judiciary Committee.
“Mr. Pomerantz must appear for the congressional deposition. No one is above the law,” she wrote in a 25-page document detailing the decision.
She wrote further that the subpoena was issued with a “valid legislative purpose,” and argues against Bragg’s claim that Pomerantz could compromise sensitive information about the investigation into the former president since he has already published a widely read book about on the subject.
Pomerantz’s book, “People vs. Donald Trump, an Inside Account,” hit shelves in February and was “discussed on prime-time television in front of millions of people,” Vyskocil added. “If that information ever was protected from disclosure as attorney work product, the protection has been waived by DANY.”
Russell Dye, a spokesperson for Jordan, said in a statement that the lower court’s decision “shows that Congress has the ability to conduct oversight and issue subpoenas to people like Mark Pomerantz, and we look forward to his deposition before the judiciary committee.”
Bragg's office did not respond to a request for comment.
Bragg’s prosecution of Trump has drawn fire from Republicans like Jordan, who on Twitter accused Bragg of indicting a president for no crime. Bragg’s counterattack was to sue Jordan saying he is interfering with a criminal prosecution and engaging in a “campaign to intimidate and attack” him.
Jordan is accusing Bragg of prosecuting Trump for political reasons. He recently conducted a field hearing in Manhattan, just a stone’s throw from Bragg’s office, where he accused Bragg of being soft on crime and pandering to left-wing activists.
In her decision, Vyskocil acknowledged that “elected state and federal actors sometimes engage in political dogfights,” with both sides going after the outcome that will satisfy their constituents.
“The court does not endorse either side’s agenda,” she wrote. “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.”
