‘This Is Bad’: Progressive Legal Expert
Calls Bragg Lawsuit Against Jim
Jordan ‘More Destructive Than
Dumb Hearings’ Story by Isaac Schorr • 2h ago
Georgetown Law professor Josh Chafetz is sounding the alarm on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s lawsuit against House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), insisting that a ruling in Bragg’s favor would be “destructive.”
‘ThisIs Bad’: Progressive Legal Expert Calls Bragg Lawsuit Against Jim Jordan ‘More Destructive Than Dumb Hearings’© Provided by Mediaite
Bragg filed his lawsuit against Jordan on Tuesday, alleging that Jordan was engaged in a “brazen and unconstitutional attack” on his office’s work on its ongoing prosecution of former president Donald Trump. Jordan has issued a subpoena of Mark Pomerantz, an attorney who resigned from Bragg’s team last year after the DA initially decided not to pursue charges against Trump. Pomerantz went on to write a book about the case against Trump.
While Bragg is arguing that the subpoena is an “abuse of power” and part of a larger “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” Bragg, Chafetz believes that the greater danger would stem from the success of Bragg’s lawsuit.
“This is bad, and I hope the court throws it out quickly,” opined Chafetz. “Jordan’s investigation is dumb, but congressional committees have the right to do dumb things, and running to the courts to try to get them to stop is more destructive than dumb hearings.”
Later, Chafetz compared Bragg’s argument to those of past court rulings that President Richard Nixon did not have to submit to requests for information from Congress during the Watergate scandal.
“The idea that Congress must never be allowed to interfere in a sacred criminal investigation is the same reason that courts gave for telling Nixon that he didn’t have to turn material over to the Senate Watergate Committee,” said Chafetz.
On Thursday morning, Politico senior legal affairs correspondent Josh Gerstein suggested that Chafetz would likely get his wish, asserting that Bragg faced an “uphill battle” to stop Pomerantz from testifying.
“Given that Pomeranz wrote the book, it’s hard for him to sort of take the position that ‘I can’t say one word to you now, I need to zip my lip because of this current prosecution that’s going on,'” argued Gerstein.
‘ThisIs Bad’: Progressive Legal Expert Calls Bragg Lawsuit Against Jim Jordan ‘More Destructive Than Dumb Hearings’© Provided by Mediaite
Bragg filed his lawsuit against Jordan on Tuesday, alleging that Jordan was engaged in a “brazen and unconstitutional attack” on his office’s work on its ongoing prosecution of former president Donald Trump. Jordan has issued a subpoena of Mark Pomerantz, an attorney who resigned from Bragg’s team last year after the DA initially decided not to pursue charges against Trump. Pomerantz went on to write a book about the case against Trump.
While Bragg is arguing that the subpoena is an “abuse of power” and part of a larger “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” Bragg, Chafetz believes that the greater danger would stem from the success of Bragg’s lawsuit.
“This is bad, and I hope the court throws it out quickly,” opined Chafetz. “Jordan’s investigation is dumb, but congressional committees have the right to do dumb things, and running to the courts to try to get them to stop is more destructive than dumb hearings.”
Later, Chafetz compared Bragg’s argument to those of past court rulings that President Richard Nixon did not have to submit to requests for information from Congress during the Watergate scandal.
“The idea that Congress must never be allowed to interfere in a sacred criminal investigation is the same reason that courts gave for telling Nixon that he didn’t have to turn material over to the Senate Watergate Committee,” said Chafetz.
On Thursday morning, Politico senior legal affairs correspondent Josh Gerstein suggested that Chafetz would likely get his wish, asserting that Bragg faced an “uphill battle” to stop Pomerantz from testifying.
“Given that Pomeranz wrote the book, it’s hard for him to sort of take the position that ‘I can’t say one word to you now, I need to zip my lip because of this current prosecution that’s going on,'” argued Gerstein.
No comments:
Post a Comment