Doesn’t Look Good for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg – Watch
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is shaking in his boots. He is desperately trying to stop the House investigation into the political nature of his prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
Bragg filed a suit against the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH). He is arguing the investigation was a “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” his case against former President Donald Trump.
The Manhattan district attorney is trying to get a temporary restraining order to block the subpoena that the Committee issued to Mark Pomerantz, a former assistant district attorney in Bragg’s office who oversaw the investigation into Trump.
Bragg also tried to block the Committee from getting “confidential documents and testimony from the district attorney himself as well as his current and former employees and officials.”
And he is trying to do all he can not to comply, claiming he was taking action “in response to an unprecedently [sic] brazen and unconstitutional attack by members of Congress on an ongoing New York State criminal prosecution and investigation of former President Donald J. Trump.”
Unfortunately for Bragg, the judge did not agree with his arguments.
U.S. District Court Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, denied the requests from Alvin Bragg. The judge noted that Bragg didn’t even provide documents he should have to support his cause, including that “subpoena purportedly served on Mr. Pomerantz” as well as the “Declaration of Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr..”
Mike Davis, founder and president of the pro-Trump Article III Project, told Breitbart News that Bragg’s lawsuit against Jordan is “laughably frivolous.”
“Soros-funded Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s lawsuit against House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan is laughably frivolous, as evidenced by the fact Bragg couldn’t even win a temporary restraining order. Harvard Law should demand that Bragg return his law degree,” Davis said.
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) April 12, 2023
First, they indict a president for no crime.
Then, they sue to block congressional oversight when we ask questions about the federal funds they say they used to do it.
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) April 11, 2023
