Bragg lawsuit shreds Jordan's 'constantly shifting' justifications in intimidation campaign

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg sued in federal court on Tuesday to block Rep. Jim Jordan from using his position as chair of the House Judiciary Committee to undermine and interfere in Bragg’s prosecution of Donald Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records. But saying Bragg sued does not get to the level of fury and outrage—all of it justified—tightly contained in the legal language of the court filing.

In the very first sentence, Bragg describes Jordan’s effort as an “unprecedently brazen and unconstitutional attack by members of Congress on an ongoing New York State criminal prosecution.”

The lawsuit seeks most immediately to block Jordan’s subpoena to Mark Pomerantz, a former special assistant district attorney who left the district attorney’s office over what he said was Bragg’s unwillingness to pursue charges against Trump. Jordan has called Pomerantz to testify on April 20, and the filing argues that Jordan has used a series of “baseless pretext[s] for hauling Mr. Pomerantz to Washington for a retaliatory political circus designed to undermine the rule of law and New York’s police power.” But Bragg is also seeking a declaratory judgment against any future subpoenas from Jordan to Bragg or any other current or former member of his office to testify about this investigation and prosecution.

RELATED STORY: Manhattan DA sues Rep. Jim Jordan over 'unprecedently brazen' Trump indictment inquiry