Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has gone to court demanding the judiciary protect him from a congressional review of his case against President Trump.

Originally published by WND News Service. Used with permission.

But many legal analysts suggest that he’s fighting an uphill battle, and, in fact, has set himself up in opposition to Supreme Court precedent.

It is Just the News that assembled the comments about Bragg’s latest move in his war against Trump, a position he promoted even when he was campaigning for office.

Bragg’s case against Trump essentially is based on claims of misdemeanor bookkeeping problems for which the statute of limitations has expired. But Bragg claims they’re felonies, and still can be prosecuted, because they somehow contributed to the furtherance of other crimes, which he has not specified.

WND reported Bragg responded to oversight demands from Congress by suing members of the U.S. House.

The immediate issue is that Congress has subpoenaed a former Bragg deputy, Mark Pomerantz, who was so angered that Trump wasn’t charged a long time ago that he quit his job and then wrote a book outlining his demands that Trump be charged.

The Washington Examiner said Bragg has filed a lawsuit against Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, claiming that Jordan’s promise of a congressional investigation is “interference” in Bragg’s case that got its start in claims of hush money being paid to Stormy Daniels over an affair that both Trump and Daniels deny happened.

WND is now on Trump’s Truth Social! Follow us @WNDNews

Just the News reports Bragg’s “tit-for-tat” with Jordan now finds Bragg apparently on the wrong side of the argument, as he already has admitted spending $5,000 in federal money on the Trump investigation, which automatically gives Congress oversight authority.

Further, court rulings dating to the 1970s Pentagon Papers are on the side of Congress.

“When it comes to oversight investigation the principal of legitimate legislative purpose is supreme,” Jason Foster, the former chief investigative counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Just the News. “You heard this phrase during the Jan. 6 probe. You heard Liz Cheney saying it all the time: Our legislative purpose is this or that because Congress can investigate anything if it has a legitimate legislative purpose.”

Foster pointed out that argument is so strong the Supreme Court, in the Pentagon Papers case, affirmed the right of the late Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel to publish highly classified portions of the Pentagon Papers “laying out U.S. military failures in the Vietnam War as part of his work on infrastructure projects and to keep his legislative aides from having to testify before a federal grand jury investigating the leak.”

Jordan already has explained his legitimate legislative needs for investigating Bragg include potential legislation to protect sitting or former presidents from weaponized charges from local and state prosecutors.

Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett added, “Bragg’s lawsuit is without merit because Congress has broad oversight authority derived from its legislative vesting powers in Article 1 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reinforced this right and duty when it involves federal matters.”

He said not only is Bragg usurping federal authority, there’s evidence he’s acting based on politics in the case and is trying to interfere with a federal election.

Kamala Harris must resign. Do you agree?*
This poll subscribes you to our newsletter. Unsubscribe any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Disclaimer: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.