File Photo of Alvin Bragg.
According to “The Associated Press,” Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg agreed on Friday to testify before what is expected to be a hostile, Republican-controlled congressional subcommittee. However, this testimony will likely take place only after Trump is sentenced in July. The House Judiciary Committee chairman, U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, had written to Bragg in late May following Trump’s conviction. Jordan accused Bragg of conducting a “political prosecution” and requested his testimony at a hearing scheduled for June 13.
In a reply letter, Leslie Dubeck, general counsel for the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, stated that the prosecutor’s office was “committed to voluntary cooperation.” This cooperation includes making Bragg, a Democrat, available to testify “at an agreed-upon date.” However, Dubeck’s letter also indicated that the date chosen by Jordan presented “various scheduling conflicts.”
Former President Donald Trump. Credit: Getty Images.
The letter emphasized that the prosecution of Trump is not yet concluded. Trump, convicted of falsifying business records to conceal hush money payments to a porn actor during the 2016 presidential campaign, is set to be sentenced on July 11. Prior to the sentencing, prosecutors will present recommendations to the judge regarding the punishment Trump should receive.
Dubeck’s letter highlighted that numerous court orders have been issued by the trial court and reviewing appellate courts to ensure the fair administration of justice in the case of People v. Trump. Participating in a public hearing at this juncture could potentially undermine those efforts. Therefore, Bragg’s office requested an opportunity to discuss an alternative date with the subcommittee and to obtain more information about “the scope and purpose of the proposed hearing.”
In addition to requesting Bragg’s testimony, Jordan has also sought testimony from Matthew Colangelo, one of the lead prosecutors in the Trump case. While Bragg’s office did not categorically rule out this possibility, the letter mentioned that it would “evaluate the propriety” of permitting an assistant district attorney to testify publicly about an active prosecution.
Jordan, who has been vocally critical of what he describes as the “weaponization of the federal government,” has suggested withholding federal funding from any entity that attempts to prosecute a former president. His committee had previously succeeded in securing a deposition from Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor who worked on Trump’s case, despite initial objections from Bragg’s office. However, this deposition did not yield significant information, as Pomerantz declined to answer many questions, citing the potential risk of criminal prosecution for disclosing secret grand jury testimony.
The context of these developments lies in the broader political and legal battles that have surrounded Trump since he left office. The former president has faced multiple investigations and legal challenges, with this New York case being one of the most high-profile. The case revolves around allegations that Trump and his organization falsified business records to cover up payments made to porn actor Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. Daniels has claimed that she had an affair with Trump, which he has denied. The payments were allegedly made to buy her silence and thus influence the outcome of the election.
The conviction of Trump on these charges has significant implications. Not only does it mark an unprecedented moment in U.S. history, but it also raises questions about the legal and political consequences for a former president found guilty of felony crimes. The sentencing, scheduled for July 11, will be closely watched as prosecutors make their recommendations on the appropriate punishment for Trump.
