Skip to content Skip to footer

Manhattan DA Sues Trump Loyalist Jim Jordan to Stop Interference in Indictment

Rep. Jim Jordan’s actions are “brazen and unconstitutional attacks” against Alvin Bragg, the lawsuit contends.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg speaks during a press conference following the arraignment of former President Donald Trump on April 4, 2023, in New York City.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has filed a lawsuit against House Judiciary chair Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), accusing the federal lawmaker of engaging in a “brazen and unconstitutional attack” against the New York prosecutor through his attempts to investigate the inquiry and indictment of former President Donald Trump.

Beginning in the middle of last month, prior to Trump even being charged by Bragg, Jordan, who is an ardent Trump loyalist, “began a transparent campaign to intimidate and attack District Attorney Bragg,” which included demands for testimony from him and other current and former employees of the district attorney’s office, the lawsuit claims.

“Basic principles of federalism and common sense, as well as binding Supreme Court precedent, forbid Congress from demanding” the types of documents and testimony Jordan is trying to compel others to give him, the suit adds.

Jordan has claimed that his investigation into Bragg’s work is solely for oversight reasons, but many have questioned that claim, given how often the lawmaker and other Judiciary Committee Republicans have criticized any inquiry into Trump. Bragg’s motion seeks to forbid Jordan and other Republican Trump loyalists in Congress from enforcing subpoenas they’ve issued, including toward Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor in the district attorney’s office who resigned last year when it appeared Bragg might be slowing down or even dropping efforts to indict the former president.

Jordan appeared to be undeterred by the lawsuit on Twitter. “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,” Jordan wrote in a tweet.

Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business records related to his attempts to cover up extramarital affairs with at least two women, former Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult film actor Stormy Daniels. Both women were paid large sums of cash by intermediaries on behalf of the former president who later reimbursed them.

Bragg claims Trump covered up the affairs in ways to avoid being charged with other crimes, though, in the official indictment issued by Bragg earlier this month, those crimes aren’t listed. In public statements, Bragg, who has noted that state law doesn’t require him to list the other crimes, has suggested that such crimes could include conspiracy to promote a candidate by unlawful means and making false statements to tax authorities, among others.

Legal experts have weighed in on Bragg’s lawsuit, noting that, contrary to Jordan’s insinuation, the case has merit.

Legal analyst Karen Friedman Agnifilo noted that in his suit against Jordan, Bragg included strong evidence of intimidation efforts, including tweets from Jordan and the Judiciary Committee that seemed more political than anything having to do with legitimate congressional work.

“He’s really made, I think, an excellent case that this is an effort to intimidate him into not prosecuting, versus legitimate legislative oversight,” Agnifilo said on CNN Tuesday.

And although Congress can make broad subpoena requests that do not get overturned (so long as a legitimate connection to oversight work is cited), the points Bragg brings up in the lawsuit seeking to block Jordan are equally legitimate, said Eric Columbus, a former Department of Justice official who served under Obama.

“Bragg raises a constitutional counterpoint [to Jordan’s subpoenas]: federalism concerns,” Columbus tweeted. “In light of this courts might apply greater scrutiny to the subpoena.”

Bragg’s actions also suggest he’s willing to challenge Jordan’s congressional actions against him in appellate courts, including all the way to the Supreme Court.

“Bragg is ready to take his lawsuit against Jordan and the Judiciary Committee all the way up,” said Los Angeles Times senior legal columnist Harry Litman, noting that the Manhattan District Attorney has enlisted a lawyer with experience arguing before the Supreme Court.

We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.

As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.

Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.

As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.

At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.

Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.

You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.