House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is not about to back down in his pursuit of justice not only for the country but for former President Donald Trump.
On Thursday, Jordan (R-OH) issued a subpoena to a prosecutor who had resigned from the Manhattan district attorney’s office last year. The prosecutor had reportedly resigned due to the district attorney’s initial reluctance to pursue charges against former President Donald Trump.
The subpoena is seen as an escalation of the Republicans’ investigation into the district attorney’s indictment of Trump.
Breitbart News adds:
Jordan’s subpoena, reviewed by Breitbart News, directs Mark Pomerantz, who resigned from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office in February 2022, to appear before the committee for a deposition on April 20.
In a cover letter accompanying the subpoena, Jordan said his committee had legislative reasons to demand Pomerantz’s testimony.
Congress has a specific and manifestly important interest in preventing politically motivated prosecutions of current and former Presidents by elected state and local prosecutors, particularly in jurisdictions—like New York County—where the prosecutor is popularly elected and trial-level judges lack life tenure,” Jordan wrote.
Pomerantz, who was a special assistant assigned to the long-running Trump case, left the Manhattan district attorney’s office after Alvin Bragg took over. The circumstances of his departure became public when his resignation letter was published in The New York Times in March of last year.
In his resignation letter to Bragg, Pomerantz stated that he believed that Trump had committed several felony violations related to his financial statements, and he quit because he thought Bragg’s decision at the time to “indefinitely” suspend the investigation into Trump was “misguided.”
Jordan noted in the subpoena that Pomerantz’s resignation letter indicates he had already made a judgment about the investigation into Trump’s financial statements, indicating bias. Jordan also noted that Pomerantz’s criticisms of Bragg’s handling of the investigation seemed to prompt Bragg to publicly declare that the investigation was ongoing.
Afterwards, Pomerantz wrote a book titled “People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account,” in which he delved into internal concerns surrounding the investigation, including apprehensions about the credibility of Cohen, who had been convicted of a crime.
“You describe your eagerness to investigate President Trump, writing that you were ‘delighted’ to join an unpaid group of lawyers advising on the Trump investigations, and joking that salary negotiations had gone ‘great’ because you would have paid to join the investigation,” Jordan wrote of the book.
In addition, he criticized Pomerantz for making a frivolous comparison between Trump and John Gotti, a notorious mob boss from New York, and for labeling him as a “malignant narcissist.”
“The depth of your personal animosity towards him is apparent in your writing,” Jordan concluded.