Trump Appointed Federal Judge Denies Manhattan DA’s Request To Block ‘Gym’ Jordan’s Subpoena

by

Another Trump appointed Republican activist judge is out of control. Congress has no jurisdiction over a state elected prosecutor. None. This violates federalism and state sovereignty. There also is no legitimate purpose to Coup Plotter co-conspirator “Gym” Jordan’s attempt to intimidate the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, and to unlawfully interfere in a state prosecution of his co-conspirator, Defendant Donald Trump. “Gym” Jordan is transparently engaging in obstruction of justice, an accessory aiding and abetting Trump’s obstruction of justice, and this Trump appointed judge knows it.

CNN reports Federal judge denies Manhattan DA’s request to block House GOP subpoena of ex-prosecutor:

A federal judge on Wednesday denied a request by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office for a temporary restraining order to stop a House Judiciary Committee subpoena of former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz.

District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil said Pomerantz must appear for a deposition.

“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,” Vyskocil wrote after hearing arguments in court on the matter earlier in the day.

Bragg’s office had indicated it would likely ask the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay if Vyskocil sided with the committee, but did not have an immediate comment.

Lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee and Bragg’s office squared off over whether the GOP-led committee has a right to subpoena a former Manhattan prosecutor on the DA’s investigation that led to the recent indictment of former President Donald Trump.

“There’s politics going on on both sides, let’s be honest about that,” Vyskocil said during the hearing.

But the judge, who was appointed to the bench by Trump and confirmed by the Senate in 2019, said she views her task narrowly as determining whether there is valid legislative purpose for the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena of Pomerantz.

“I’m talking about the subpoena. That’s what’s in front of me, not all the political rhetoric that’s been flying back and forth that’s all color, it’s all theater but it’s not what’s in front of me,” the judge said.

Out of the gate, Vyskocil questioned an attorney representing the Manhattan district attorney’s office on their arguments that Rep. Jim Jordan and the Judiciary Committee do not have a legislative purpose in subpoenaing Pomerantz.

Lawyers for Bragg’s office conceded that the use of federal funding is a valid legislative purpose but argued $5,000 in federal funds were used in the Trump Organization tax fraud case that ended in a conviction in December, not the indictment of the former president himself.

“The cases tell me, if I find a valid legislative purpose, I am not allowed to look at the motivations on either side,” Vyskocil said. “It’s not my place under all the case law to tell them what and how they ought to conduct their inquiry.”

An attorney for the Judiciary Committee said it intends to investigate what they believe is a politically motivated prosecution of Trump by Bragg’s office. [This is not a proper purpose.]

Just to be clear, prosecutorial deliberations and attorney work product are privileged, and are not discoverable.

“We are looking into whether or not there is a problem with politically motivated prosecutions of former presidents and whether the motivated prosecutions of former presidents is using federal funds,” attorney Matthew Berry said.

Berry said the political motivations of Bragg’s prosecution are relevant “because it makes the case for federal action stronger.”

Vyskocil challenged, “Doesn’t it politicize it on your side as well?”

Vyskocil also questioned whether Pomerantz’s recently published book about the investigation into Trump waives the DA’s office right to confidentiality over information already published in the book. An attorney for Bragg’s office argued that the former prosecutor ignored cautions from his former employer before publishing the book, so the district attorney’s office should not be penalized.

“No, I think there are things contained in there that should not have been published and that exposed Mr. Pomerantz to criminal liability under the city charter,” attorney Leslie Dubeck said. “He has not waived our privileges and confidences because they were unauthorized disclosures.”

Should Vyskocil side with the Judiciary Committee and allow the subpoena to go forward, its attorney described what the deposition in Washington, DC, might look like for the former prosecutor.

“Mr. Pomerantz is free to assert privilege if he shows up tomorrow with respect to particular questions, then the committee can ask questions to elicit the basis of privilege and they can adjudicate them on a question-by-question basis,” the committee attorney said.

Committee Chairman Jordan would ultimately be the decider of whether to allow Pomerantz to assert his privilege, the attorney acknowledged. [And we all know how this will go.]

Bragg’s suit against Jordan

Bragg, a Democrat, sued Jordan, last week to block the subpoena to a former prosecutor, alleging the lawmakers are engaged in a “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” the DA’s office.

Bragg is seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to block this subpoena and any future subpoenas to him or other current or former prosecutors.

The lawsuit followed weeks of heated exchanges between Jordan and Bragg leading up to and following the indictment of Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records that was allegedly done to coverup a hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to stop her from going public about an alleged affair a decade earlier. Trump has denied the affair and pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The clash between federal and state powers began in March when Jordan asked Bragg’s office for documents and communications after news organizations reported that Bragg’s office was moving closer to seeking to indict Trump. Jordan called it an “unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority.” Bragg’s office has alleged that a Trump attorney worked behind the scenes to enlist help from allies in Congress and called Jordan’s inquiry into the ongoing criminal investigation an unconstitutional and “unprecedented inquiry into a local prosecution.”

Bragg’s lawsuit describes Jordan’s efforts as “a direct threat to federalism and the sovereign interests of the State of New York.”

Lawyers for Jordan and the committee said they are immune from the civil lawsuit under the Speech and Debate clause of the US Constitution that protects lawmakers from being sued for actions stemming from their legislative actions. They have also argued the subpoena is valid because they are seeking the information to potentially craft legislation that would protect a president from politically motivated state and local prosecutions and allow them to move criminal actions to federal courts.

In a proposed response filed with the court, Bragg argues that constitutional immunity assumes the actions are part of legitimate legislative activity, which he argues the subpoena isn’t.

“Speech or Debate immunity is not license for Congress to disregard the very separation of powers the clause aims to secure,” he wrote.

Pomerantz is a defendant in the matter for technical reasons. Pomerantz wrote a book about the investigation after he resigned.

Pomerantz has joined Bragg in asking the judge to block the subpoena for his testimony, saying he was not involved in the decision to seek an indictment of Trump since he resigned more than a year before the indictment was returned.

Vyskocil’s prior Trump-related case

Before Vyskocil was confirmed as a US district court judge, she was appointed as a federal bankruptcy judge in 2016 by the Judicial Council of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Prior to that, Vyskocil was a litigator who worked primarily on insurance cases over a 33-year career at New York law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. She attended Dominican College of Blauvelt and received her law degree from St. John’s University.

The judge had a notable ruling in September 2020 when she dismissed a defamation lawsuit that former Playboy model Karen McDougal brought against Fox News alleging she was defamed by host Tucker Carlson when he suggested she extorted Trump when she obtained a $150,000 payment from American Media, the publisher of the National Enquirer, for her life story, which included allegations of a long affair with Trump. AMI never published an article and said McDougal was paid to write health and fitness columns.

The judge ruled, “The context in which the offending statements were made here make it abundantly clear that Mr. Carlson was not accusing Ms. McDougal of actually committing a crime. As a result, his statements are not actionable.”

“But there can be no doubt that Mr. Carlson did so as hyperbole to promote debate on a matter of public concern,” the judge wrote.

Prosecutors did not charge Trump with crimes related to the AMI deal to buy and bury McDougal’s story, but they included it in a statement of facts accompanying the indictment as part of a “catch and kill scheme” to suppress negative stories before the 2016 presidential election.