Home News House Republicans and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office reach agreement on Trump’s investigation

House Republicans and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office reach agreement on Trump’s investigation

by admin

House Republicans and the Manhattan attorney general’s office reached an agreement on Friday to end a legal dispute over a House Judiciary committee’s investigation into the former indictment of US President Donald Trump.

Under the agreement, committee members will be able to investigate under oath former Attorney General Mark Pomerantz next month in Washington, to resolve a case against Attorney General Alvin Bragg. He sought to prevent Pomerantz from testifying.

Among the committee’s concessions, Pomerantis will be accompanied by an attorney from the Prague office, which is not normally permitted in congressional depositions.

Bragg’s office and the Judiciary Committee reached an agreement after the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a stay of execution Thursday that temporarily halted execution of a subpoena calling Pomerantis to testify.

An appeals court was scheduled to hear oral arguments in the dispute on Tuesday.

hour | He explained the historical accusations and Trump’s policy plan:

He explained the historical accusations and Trump’s political plan

Shortly after Donald Trump was arrested and put on trial in New York, he made remarks at Mar-a-Lago, cursing those investigating him. Andrew Chang discusses what Mar-a-Lago’s speech says about his political future.

Bragg’s office said the agreement, which delays Pomerantis’ testimony until May 12, preserves the prosecutor’s “privileges and interests” in Trump’s ongoing trial.

“Our success in obtaining the subpoena prevented an immediate filing and gave us time to coordinate with the House Judiciary Committee on an agreement that protects the privileges and interests of the attorney general,” the attorney general said in a statement. Prague office in a statement.

“We are satisfied with this decision, which ensures that any cross-examination of our former employee will be conducted in the presence of our General Counsel within a reasonable, agreed-upon period of time. We are pleased that the Second Circuit’s decision gave us the opportunity to successfully resolve this dispute.

Bragg a fait appel auprès du 2e circuit après qu’un juge d’un tribunal inferieur a mercredi statué qu’il n’y avait aucune base legale pour bloquer l’assignment à comparaître du comité judiciaire et que la déposition de Pomerant devait se dérouler As expected.

Mark Pomerantz appears at a press conference in New York in March 2008. Pomerantz once oversaw a years-long investigation into Trump, but resigned from his post after a disagreement with Bragg over the direction of the case. (Chris Hondros/Getty Images)

Under the agreement, Bragg withdrew his appeal.

“Mr. Pomerantz’s testimony will continue May 12, and we look forward to his appearance,” Russell Day, a spokesman for committee chair Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, said in a statement.

Pomerantz previously oversaw a years-long investigation into Trump, but left the post after clashing with Bragg over the direction of the case. He recently wrote a book about his work on the Trump impeachment trial and discussed the investigation in interviews 60 minutes and other offers.

‘Campaign of intimidation and attack’

Bragg, a Democrat, sued Jordan and the Judiciary Committee last week to block the subpoena. His attorney, Theodore Boutros, argued that Pomerant’s continued testimony was part of a “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” Prague and that Congress was “invading a country” to investigate the attorney general because it did not have the authority to do so. .

Boutros said that the Republican House’s interest in Prague is due to the Congress “jumping to the Democratic Action Party and attempts to prosecute it are underway.”

Trump was indicted last month on 34 counts of falsifying trade documents related to silent payments during the 2016 campaign to bury allegations of extramarital sex. He denied any wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty.

The person makes gestures while speaking.
Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio was seen on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. Jordan sent letters requesting interviews with Bragg and documents before Pomerantis was summoned. (Manuel Balsi Cineta/The Associated Press)

The Judiciary Committee began reviewing Prague’s investigation into the former president in the weeks leading up to his indictment. Jordan sent letters requesting interviews with Bragg and documents before Pomerantis was summoned. U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Viskocil, a Trump appointee, said in her ruling Wednesday that she will deal with any legal battles that may arise from further subpoenas in the committee’s Prague investigation.

At that hearing, the committee’s attorney Matthew Perry said Congress had legitimate legislative reasons for wanting to question Pomerance and review Trump’s Prague trial, noting the office’s use of $5,000 in federal funds to pay for investigations involving Trump.

Perry said Congress is also considering legislation, introduced by Republicans after Trump’s indictment, to change the way criminal cases against former presidents proceed. One bill bars prosecutors from using federal funds to investigate presidents, and another bill requires that any criminal cases involving a former president be resolved in federal rather than state court.

hour | What Trump voters think of the indictment:

They voted for Trump. How do they feel about being accused?

Two staunch supporters of former US President Donald Trump say the 34-count indictment is a political witch hunt that won’t hurt his chances in another presidential race — and might even help him.

House Republicans want to protect the sovereignty and independence of the presidency, Perry said, envisioning a scenario in which the commander-in-chief feels compelled to make certain decisions to prevent local prosecutors in politically unfavorable jurisdictions from taking over. Accusing them of committing crimes after they committed them. leave. office.

For these reasons, Perry said, Congress is immune from judicial interference, citing the speech and debate clause of the US Constitution.

Perry said Pomerants may decline to answer certain questions, citing legal privilege and moral obligations, and Jordan will judge these claims on a case-by-case basis, but he should not be excused from attending. Perry said that if Jordan reverses Pomerant’s ruling and still refuses to respond, he could face a criminal referral to the Justice Department for contempt of Congress, but that would not happen immediately.

Related News

Leave a Comment