This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/23/nyregion/bragg-trump-jordan-congress.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Prosecutor in Trump Hush-Money Case Fires Back at House Republicans Prosecutor in Trump Hush-Money Case Fires Back at House Republicans
(about 4 hours later)
The Manhattan district attorney on Thursday responded to House Republicans who have scrutinized his office’s criminal investigation into Donald J. Trump, pushing back forcefully against what the office called an inappropriate attempt by Congress to impede a local prosecution. When Donald J. Trump declared over the weekend that the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, was about to have him arrested, he called for his supporters to “PROTEST.” Instead, it was Republican leaders who hurried to the former president’s defense.
The office of the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, was responding to a Monday letter demanding that he provide communications, documents and testimony about his investigation — an extraordinary request by three Republican committee chairmen to involve themselves in an inquiry that is expected to result in criminal charges against the former president. Among them were three powerful congressional Republicans who sent a letter demanding that Mr. Bragg provide them with communications, documents and testimony about his inquiry, which is expected to result in criminal charges against Mr. Trump.
The response from the district attorney’s office, signed by its general counsel, Leslie Dubeck, called the request from the chairmen “an unprecedented inquiry into a pending local prosecution.” On Thursday, Mr. Bragg pushed back forcefully against that demand, which his office called an inappropriate attempt by Congress to impede a local prosecution.
Prosecutors are typically barred from sharing information about an active investigation with third parties, and Ms. Dubeck noted in her letter that such information was “confidential under state law.” “The letter’s requests are an unlawful incursion into New York’s sovereignty,” the district attorney’s general counsel, Leslie Dubeck, said. Prosecutors are typically barred from sharing information about an active investigation with third parties, and Ms. Dubeck noted in her letter that such information was “confidential under state law.”
“The letter’s requests are an unlawful incursion into New York’s sovereignty,” she wrote. Mr. Bragg’s office is investigating the role Mr. Trump played in a hush-money payment to a porn star, and there have been several signals that the prosecutors are nearing an indictment. Still, the exact timing remains unknown.
Mr. Bragg’s office is investigating the role Mr. Trump played in a hush-money payment to a porn star and there have been several signals that the prosecutors are nearing an indictment. Still, the exact timing remains unknown. But Mr. Trump’s prediction of his own arrest — which proved inaccurate — and the rapid Republican response come at a time of sharp political tensions and threaten to further weaken public trust in the rule of law. It was once rare for elected officials to comment on independent inquiries for fear of seeming to influence them improperly. But Mr. Trump’s willingness to wade in has led his party to embrace his method: tarring investigations as political while simultaneously politicizing those investigations.
Though the special grand jury hearing evidence about Mr. Trump meets on Thursdays, it typically does not hear evidence about the Trump case that day, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. Special grand juries, which unlike regular grand juries sit for months at a time and hear complex cases, routinely consider several cases simultaneously. While in the White House, Mr. Trump slammed the inquiry led by the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III as politically biased, even as his attorney general, William P. Barr, challenged a federal case related to the hush-money payment that Mr. Bragg is now investigating. Mr. Trump also trespassed on the Justice Department’s independence and fired both the F.B.I. director and his first attorney general because he viewed them as insufficiently loyal.
Republicans’ rush to align themselves with the former president, who on Saturday inaccurately predicted his imminent arrest and called on his supporters to protest Mr. Bragg’s inquiry, is playing out at a time of heightened political tension and threatens to further weaken public trust in the rule of law. Now that Mr. Trump is out of office, his power over the Republican Party is encouraging similar interference — this time into an investigation of a potential state crime by a local prosecutor operating under New York law.
While it was once rare for elected officials to comment on independent inquiries, for fear of seeming to influence them improperly, Mr. Trump’s willingness to wade in has led his party to embrace his method: tarring investigations as political while simultaneously politicizing those investigations.
While in office, Mr. Trump lashed out at investigations, most notably the inquiry led by the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, as politically biased, even as his attorney general, William P. Barr, challenged a federal case related to the hush-money payment that Mr. Bragg is now investigating. While president, Mr. Trump also trespassed on the Justice Department’s independence and fired both the F.B.I. director and his first attorney general because he viewed them as insufficient loyal.
Now, out of office, Mr. Trump is using his power over the Republican Party to encourage similar interference — this time into an investigation into a state crime by a local prosecutor operating under New York law.
Representative Glenn Ivey, a Democrat from Maryland and former prosecutor, said that he had been “astonished” to see the letter to Mr. Bragg, “essentially calling on him to violate grand jury secrecy laws in New York.” The letter was sent by Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio of the Judiciary Committee, James R. Comer of Kentucky of the Oversight and Accountability Committee and Bryan Steil of Wisconsin of the Administration Committee.Representative Glenn Ivey, a Democrat from Maryland and former prosecutor, said that he had been “astonished” to see the letter to Mr. Bragg, “essentially calling on him to violate grand jury secrecy laws in New York.” The letter was sent by Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio of the Judiciary Committee, James R. Comer of Kentucky of the Oversight and Accountability Committee and Bryan Steil of Wisconsin of the Administration Committee.
“My call was for those three to withdraw the letter immediately, hopefully recognizing the mistake that they had made, but that’s too much to ask I suppose,” Mr. Ivey said.“My call was for those three to withdraw the letter immediately, hopefully recognizing the mistake that they had made, but that’s too much to ask I suppose,” Mr. Ivey said.
Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, an ally of the district attorney, said that Mr. Jordan was “out of control” and was “trying to put his thumb on the scale for his friend Donald Trump.” Mr. Nadler expressed appreciation for Mr. Bragg’s response to the letter. Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, an ally of the district attorney, said that Mr. Jordan was “out of control” and was “trying to put his thumb on the scale for his friend Donald Trump.” Mr. Nadler expressed appreciation for Mr. Bragg’s response.
Republicans were summoned to the former president’s side this week, following a Saturday post from Mr. Trump inaccurately predicting that he would be arrested Tuesday and calling on his supporters to protest in charged language reminiscent of his social media posts in the weeks before the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The events that led to the chairmen’s letter began with the Saturday post from Mr. Trump, which, along with saying he would be arrested Tuesday, called on his supporters to protest in charged language reminiscent of his social media posts in the weeks before the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
On Saturday, following Mr. Trump’s post, the speaker of the House, Representative Kevin McCarthy, called for investigations into whether federal funds were being used for “politically motivated prosecutions,” an act clearly intended as a threat to Mr. Bragg. Republicans quickly responded. The speaker of the House, Representative Kevin McCarthy, called for investigations into whether federal funds were being used for “politically motivated prosecutions,” a thinly veiled threat to Mr. Bragg. The former president’s closest competitor in the 2024 Republican primary, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, said Mr. Bragg was “weaponizing” his office.
The letter from House Republicans, Ms. Dubeck wrote, “only came after Donald Trump created a false expectation that he would be arrested the next day and his lawyers reportedly urged you to intervene.” She added, “Neither fact is a legitimate basis for congressional inquiry.” In her letter, Ms. Dubeck, the district attorney’s general counsel, wrote that the committee chairmen’s letter was seemingly prompted by two events: Mr. Trump’s post and one of his lawyers having urged Congress to intervene, according to a New York Times report. “Neither fact is a legitimate basis for congressional inquiry,” she said.
Her letter requested a meeting with the Republican committee members to understand whether their committees had “any legitimate legislative purpose in the requested materials that could be accommodated.”Her letter requested a meeting with the Republican committee members to understand whether their committees had “any legitimate legislative purpose in the requested materials that could be accommodated.”
The letter came as Mr. Jordan was taking steps toward issuing subpoenas. Mr. Jordan’s top lawyer reached out to Mr. Bragg’s office Wednesday to ask who could receive a subpoena. The lawyer also claimed Mr. Bragg’s office had twice hung up the phone on an aide of Mr. Jordan’s who had called previously, according to a person familiar with the matter. The letter came as Mr. Jordan was taking steps toward issuing subpoenas. Mr. Jordan’s top lawyer reached out to Mr. Bragg’s office Wednesday to ask who could receive a subpoena. The lawyer also claimed someone in Mr. Bragg’s office had twice hung up the phone on an aide of Mr. Jordan’s who had called previously, according to a person familiar with the matter.
A spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office declined to comment, other than to say that the office was assessing the credibility of the claim.A spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office declined to comment, other than to say that the office was assessing the credibility of the claim.
Mr. Jordan also sent letters Wednesday to the two former leaders of the investigation, Carey R. Dunne and Mark F. Pomerantz, demanding documents and testimony relating to Mr. Bragg’s case. Mr. Dunne and Mr. Pomerantz both resigned from their positions in the district attorney’s office in February 2022 after Mr. Bragg decided not to seek an indictment of Mr. Trump related to his business practices. Mr. Jordan also sent letters Wednesday to the two former leaders of the investigation, Carey R. Dunne and Mark F. Pomerantz, demanding documents and testimony relating to Mr. Bragg’s case. Mr. Dunne and Mr. Pomerantz both resigned from their positions in the district attorney’s office in February 2022 after Mr. Bragg decided not to seek a separate indictment of Mr. Trump related to his business practices.
Mr. Dunne, Ms. Dubeck’s predecessor as general counsel, declined to comment, as did Mr. Pomerantz.Mr. Dunne, Ms. Dubeck’s predecessor as general counsel, declined to comment, as did Mr. Pomerantz.
The nature of Mr. Dunne’s position could mean that almost all of his communications with other office staff members were protected by attorney-client privilege, which would prevent Mr. Bragg from turning them over to Congress. Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University’s law school and an expert in legal ethics, said that most of the material the congressmen were seeking was protected by either attorney client-privilege or another form of legal protection known as the attorney work product doctrine and called the demand an extraordinary overreach.
Mr. Trump, for his own part, used racist language to describe the district attorney on Thursday, referring to Mr. Bragg, who is Black, as an “animal” in a post on his social media platform. “In their breadth, the letters represent an unprecedented demand for information about traditionally secret government activity, the enforcement of criminal law,” he said.
The district attorney’s prosecutors have been presenting evidence to a grand jury since January, and there have been a number of signals that they will likely indict Mr. Trump soon. First, they told Mr. Trump’s lawyers that he could testify before the grand jury in his own defense last week, a right granted to people who are nearing indictment. (He declined.) They have also questioned nearly every witness involved in the hush-money payment to the porn star, Stormy Daniels, in front of the grand jury. Mr. Trump, for his own part, used racist language to describe the district attorney on Thursday, referring to Mr. Bragg, who is Black, as an “animal” in a post on his social media platform. Later in the day, he posted a link that included two juxtaposed images — one of him wielding a bat and the other of Mr. Bragg with a hand raised — suggestive of a physical attack on the district attorney.
None of the witnesses relevant to the hush-money matter have been seen going into the building where the jury sits on Thursdays. And what may appear to outside observers to be wild swings in the momentum of the investigation are likely the routine stop and start of the New York grand jury process. The district attorney’s prosecutors have been presenting evidence to a grand jury since January, and there have been a number of signals that they are likely to move for an indictment of Mr. Trump soon. First, they told Mr. Trump’s lawyers that he could testify before the grand jury in his own defense, a right granted to people who are nearing indictment. (He declined.) They have also questioned nearly every witness involved in the hush-money payment to the porn star, Stormy Daniels, in front of the grand jury.
But an indictment is not expected until next week at the earliest. The grand jury hearing evidence about Mr. Trump does not meet on Fridays.
William K. Rashbaum and Karoun Demirjian contributed reporting.William K. Rashbaum and Karoun Demirjian contributed reporting.