Last week House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan subpoenaed former New York County Special District Attorney Mark Pomerantz. Pomerantz left the office not long after Bragg took over, allegedly because he was upset that Bragg wouldn’t prosecute Trump. The subpoena from Jordan was ostensibly for oversight of Bragg’s behavior. Here’s a bit of the letter to Pomerantz from Rep. Jordan.

…if state or local prosecutors are able to engage in politically motivated prosecutions of Presidents of the United States (current or former) for personal acts, this could have a profound impact on how Presidents choose to exercise their powers while in office. For example, a President could choose to avoid taking action he believes to be in the national interest because it would negatively impact New York City for fear that he would be subject to a retaliatory prosecution in New York City.

As a result, the New York County District Attorney’s unprecedented prosecutorial conduct requires oversight to inform the consideration of potential legislative reforms that would, if enacted, insulate current and former Presidents from such politically motivated state and local prosecutions. These potential legislative reforms may include, among other things, broadening the existing statutory right of removal of certain criminal cases from state court to federal court.

That’s the setup for why Jordan believes oversight is needed. The payoff is that he wants Pomerantz to testify about what he knows about the decision to prosecute Trump, something which was the focus of a book he recently published.

Based on your unique role as a special assistant district attorney leading the investigation into President Trump’s finances, you are uniquely situated to provide information that is relevant and necessary to inform the Committee’s oversight and potential legislative reforms. Although the New York County District Attorney’s Office has directed you not to cooperate with our oversight, you have already discussed many of the topics relevant to our oversight in a book you wrote and published in February 2023, as well as in several public interviews to promote your book…

Your book discloses various details about the New York County District Attorney’s Office’s investigation of President Trump, including internal deliberations about the investigation. Indeed, you discuss how members of the Office viewed the credibility of a key witness in the case, and you note their concerns about the case’s dim prospects.

Reading the full letter, I get the impression Jordan is looking to discredit the office where Pomerantz formerly worked and to suggest (not without reason) that he was a partisan crusading for Trump’s indictment.

Today, DA Alvin Bragg sued Jordan in an attempt to put a stop to the subpoena of Pomerantz as well as other subpoenas that might be coming next.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg sued Rep. Jim Jordan on Tuesday, an extraordinary move as he seeks to halt a House Judiciary Committee inquiry that the prosecutor contends is a “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” him over his indictment of former President Donald Trump.

Bragg, a Democrat, is asking a judge to invalidate subpoenas that Jordan, a Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, has or plans to issue as part of an investigation of Bragg’s handling of the case, the first criminal prosecution of a former U.S. president.

Here’s a bit of Bragg’s lawsuit:

In sum, Congress lacks any valid legislative purpose to engage in a free-ranging campaign of harassment in retaliation for the District Attorney’s investigation and prosecution of Mr. Trump under the laws of New York. That campaign is a direct threat to federalism and the sovereign interests of the State of New York. This Court should enjoin the subpoena and put an end to this constitutionally destructive fishing expedition. It should protect New York’s lawful pursuit of criminal justice and permit this State’s criminal justice system to function under the careful supervision of the New York Supreme Court free from unconstitutional congressional interference. This Court should grant judgment to District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr.

Rep. Jordan didn’t respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit but he did tweet this reaction.

First, they indict a president for no crime.

Then, they sue to block congressional oversight when we ask questions about the federal funds they say they used to do it.

— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) April 11, 2023

So I guess we’ll see where this goes. As Jazz wrote earlier, Rep. Jordan is also planning a field trip to New York City where he intends to hear from people who feel victimized by Bragg’s behavior in office. It’s fair to say there’s no love lost between these two.