House Republicans, Manhattan DA end fight over Trump inquiry

Then chair the Yeah. Yeah. Earlier this afternoon, Donald Trump was arraigned on *** New York Supreme Court indictment returned by *** Manhattan grand jury on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. The defendant repeatedly made false statements on New York Business Records. He also caused others to make false statements. The defendant claimed that he was paying Michael Cohen for legal services performed in 2017. This simply was not true. Why did Donald Trump repeatedly make these false statements? The evidence will show that he did so to cover up crimes relating to the 2016 election. Donald Trump executives at the publishing company, American Media Incorporated, Mr Cohen and others agreed in 2015 to *** catch and kill scheme that is *** scheme to buy and suppress negative information to help Mr Trump's chance of winning the election less than two weeks before the presidential election, Michael Cohen wired $130,000 to stormy Daniels lawyer that payment was to hide damaging information from the voting public. The conduct I just described and that which was charged by the grand jury is felony, criminal conduct in New York State, as this office has done time and time again, we today uphold our solemn responsibility to ensure that everyone stands equal before the law. No amount of money and no amount of power changes that enduring American principle. Uh Sorry.

Related video above: Manhattan DA lays out case against TrumpHouse Republicans and the Manhattan district attorney's office reached an agreement Friday to end a legal dispute over a House Judiciary Committee inquiry into former President Donald Trump's historic indictment.Under the agreement, committee members will be able to question former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz under oath next month in Washington, resolving a lawsuit in which District Attorney Alvin Bragg had sought to block Pomerantz from testifying.Among the committee's concessions, Pomerantz will be accompanied by a lawyer from Bragg's office, which is not typically allowed in Congressional depositions.Bragg’s office and the Judiciary Committee reached the agreement after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay Thursday that temporarily halted enforcement of a House subpoena that had called for Pomerantz to testify.The appeals court had been scheduled to hear oral arguments in the dispute on Tuesday.Bragg's office said the agreement, delaying Pomerantz's testimony until May 12, preserves the district attorney's “privileges and interests” in his ongoing Trump prosecution.“Our successful stay of this subpoena blocked the immediate deposition and afforded us the time necessary to coordinate with the House Judiciary Committee on an agreement that protects the District Attorney’s privileges and interests,” Bragg’s office said in a statement.“We are pleased with this resolution, which ensures any questioning of our former employee will take place in the presence of our General Counsel on a reasonable, agreed upon timeframe. We are gratified that the Second Circuit’s ruling provided us with the opportunity to successfully resolve this dispute,” Bragg’s office said.Bragg had appealed to the 2nd Circuit after a lower court judge ruled Wednesday that there was no legal basis to block the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena and that Pomerantz’s deposition must go forward as scheduled.Under the agreement, Bragg withdrew his appeal.Russell Dye, a spokesperson for committee chair Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, said in a statement, “Mr. Pomerantz’s deposition will go forward on May 12, and we look forward to his appearance.”Pomerantz once oversaw the yearslong Trump investigation but left the job after clashing with Bragg over the direction of the case. He recently wrote a book about his work pursuing Trump and discussed the investigation in interviews on “60 Minutes” and other shows.Bragg, a Democrat, sued Jordan and the Judiciary Committee last week seeking to block the subpoena. His lawyer, Theodore Boutrous, argued that seeking Pomerantz’s testimony was part of a “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” Bragg and that Congress was “invading a state” to investigate a local prosecutor when it had no authority to do so.Boutrous said House Republicans’ interest in Bragg amounted to Congress “jumping in and haranguing the D.A. while the prosecution is ongoing.”The Judiciary Committee started scrutinizing Bragg’s investigation of the former president in the weeks that preceded his indictment. Jordan sent letters seeking interviews with Bragg and documents before subpoenaing Pomerantz. U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, said in her ruling Wednesday that she would handle any legal fights that may arise from other subpoenas in the committee’s investigation of Bragg.A committee lawyer, Matthew Berry, said at that hearing that Congress has legitimate legislative reasons for wanting to question Pomerantz and examine Bragg’s prosecution of Trump, citing the office’s use of $5,000 in federal funds to pay for Trump-related investigations.Congress is also considering legislation, offered by Republicans in the wake of Trump’s indictment, to change how criminal cases against former presidents unfold, Berry said. One bill would prohibit prosecutors from using federal funds to investigate presidents, and another would require any criminal cases involving a former president be resolved in federal court instead of at the state level.House Republicans, Berry said, want to protect the sovereignty and autonomy of the presidency, envisioning a scenario where the commander-in-chief could feel obligated to make certain decisions to avoid having local prosecutors in politically unfavorable jurisdictions charge them with crimes after they leave office.For those reasons, Berry argued, Congress is immune from judicial intervention, citing the speech and debate clause of the U.S. Constitution.Pomerantz could refuse to answer certain questions, citing legal privilege and ethical obligations, and Jordan would rule on those assertions on a case-by-case basis, Berry said, but he shouldn’t be exempt from showing up. If Jordan were to overrule Pomerantz and he still refused to answer, he could then face a criminal referral to the Justice Department for contempt of Congress, but that wouldn’t happen immediately, Berry said.Trump was indicted last month on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush-money payments made during the 2016 campaign to bury allegations of extramarital sexual encounters. He has denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty.

Related video above: Manhattan DA lays out case against Trump

House Republicans and the Manhattan district attorney's office reached an agreement Friday to end a legal dispute over a House Judiciary Committee inquiry into former President Donald Trump's historic indictment.

Under the agreement, committee members will be able to question former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz under oath next month in Washington, resolving a lawsuit in which District Attorney Alvin Bragg had sought to block Pomerantz from testifying.

Among the committee's concessions, Pomerantz will be accompanied by a lawyer from Bragg's office, which is not typically allowed in Congressional depositions.

Bragg’s office and the Judiciary Committee reached the agreement after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that temporarily halted enforcement of a House subpoena that had called for Pomerantz to testify.

The appeals court had been scheduled to hear oral arguments in the dispute on Tuesday.

Bragg's office said the agreement, delaying Pomerantz's testimony until May 12, preserves the district attorney's “privileges and interests” in his ongoing Trump prosecution.

“Our successful stay of this subpoena blocked the immediate deposition and afforded us the time necessary to coordinate with the House Judiciary Committee on an agreement that protects the District Attorney’s privileges and interests,” Bragg’s office said in a statement.

“We are pleased with this resolution, which ensures any questioning of our former employee will take place in the presence of our General Counsel on a reasonable, agreed upon timeframe. We are gratified that the Second Circuit’s ruling provided us with the opportunity to successfully resolve this dispute,” Bragg’s office said.

Bragg had appealed to the 2nd Circuit after a lower court judge ruled Wednesday that there was no legal basis to block the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena and that Pomerantz’s deposition must go forward as scheduled.

Under the agreement, Bragg withdrew his appeal.

Russell Dye, a spokesperson for committee chair Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, said in a statement, “Mr. Pomerantz’s deposition will go forward on May 12, and we look forward to his appearance.”

Pomerantz once oversaw the yearslong Trump investigation but left the job after clashing with Bragg over the direction of the case. He recently wrote a book about his work pursuing Trump and discussed the investigation in interviews on “60 Minutes” and other shows.

Bragg, a Democrat, sued Jordan and the Judiciary Committee last week seeking to block the subpoena. His lawyer, Theodore Boutrous, argued that seeking Pomerantz’s testimony was part of a “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” Bragg and that Congress was “invading a state” to investigate a local prosecutor when it had no authority to do so.

Boutrous said House Republicans’ interest in Bragg amounted to Congress “jumping in and haranguing the D.A. while the prosecution is ongoing.”

The Judiciary Committee started scrutinizing Bragg’s investigation of the former president in the weeks that preceded his indictment. Jordan sent letters seeking interviews with Bragg and documents before subpoenaing Pomerantz. U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, said in her ruling Wednesday that she would handle any legal fights that may arise from other subpoenas in the committee’s investigation of Bragg.

A committee lawyer, Matthew Berry, said at that hearing that Congress has legitimate legislative reasons for wanting to question Pomerantz and examine Bragg’s prosecution of Trump, citing the office’s use of $5,000 in federal funds to pay for Trump-related investigations.

Congress is also considering legislation, offered by Republicans in the wake of Trump’s indictment, to change how criminal cases against former presidents unfold, Berry said. One bill would prohibit prosecutors from using federal funds to investigate presidents, and another would require any criminal cases involving a former president be resolved in federal court instead of at the state level.

House Republicans, Berry said, want to protect the sovereignty and autonomy of the presidency, envisioning a scenario where the commander-in-chief could feel obligated to make certain decisions to avoid having local prosecutors in politically unfavorable jurisdictions charge them with crimes after they leave office.

For those reasons, Berry argued, Congress is immune from judicial intervention, citing the speech and debate clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Pomerantz could refuse to answer certain questions, citing legal privilege and ethical obligations, and Jordan would rule on those assertions on a case-by-case basis, Berry said, but he shouldn’t be exempt from showing up. If Jordan were to overrule Pomerantz and he still refused to answer, he could then face a criminal referral to the Justice Department for contempt of Congress, but that wouldn’t happen immediately, Berry said.

Trump was indicted last month on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush-money payments made during the 2016 campaign to bury allegations of extramarital sexual encounters. He has denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty.

��vlog