Rep. Jordan Subpoenas Pomerantz in Trump Indictment Oversight

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, has subpoenaed former New York County Special Assistant District Attorney Mark Pomerantz for a deposition in a letter Thursday.

After Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg spurned House GOP requests for information on the indictment of former President Donald Trump, claiming lack of authority and an "incursion" into New York "sovereignty," the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee now seeks a deposition from Pomerantz.

"In light of your disregard of our earlier voluntary request, please find attached a subpoena compelling your appearance for a deposition," Jordan wrote in the Thursday letter to Pomerantz.

The Judiciary Committee is conducting oversight of the unprecedented indictment of Trump. Pomerantz was requested to appear voluntarily in a March 22 letter from three House GOP chairmen, and he responded March 27 that "at the instruction of the New York County District Attorney's Office, you would not cooperate with our oversight," according to the letter.

Trump denounced Pomerantz's ties to Bragg's investigation and his book "People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account," showing the efforts to find a crime to indict the Democrats' political opposition.

"This prosecutor named Mark Pomerantz wrote and published a book, saying all sorts of privileged things and has been very strongly reprimanded. He was reprimanded so strongly. I've never seen anything like it," Trump said in his Mar-a-Lago address Tuesday night.

"Even District Attorney Bragg was furious with him," Trump continued. "They were having a tremendous fight in the office because of it."

Jordan's letter details Pomerantz's anti-Trump animus and a concerted effort to get Trump from the book Trump condemned.

"You explain that this 'collective weight' of President Trump's conduct over the years 'left no doubt in [your] mind that [President] Trump deserved to be prosecuted,'" Jordan's letter read.

"In other words, as a special assistant district attorney, you seem, for reasons unrelated to the facts of this particular investigation, to have been searching for any basis on which to bring criminal charges.

"Although you claim that you were 'able to put aside [your] personal feelings about [President] Trump' during the investigation, the depth of your personal animosity towards him is apparent in your writing. You wrote of President Trump: 'I saw him as a malignant narcissist, and perhaps even a megalomaniac who posed a real danger to the country and the ideals that mattered to me. His behavior made me angry, sad, and even disgusted.'"

Jordan's letter also condemned Pomerantz's book for making a false equivalence of Trump investigations to that of infamous 9/11 terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.

"These perceptions appear to have colored your work as a special assistant district attorney to the point that you even resigned because the investigation into President Trump was not proceeding fast enough for your liking," Jordan wrote. "In your resignation letter, you prejudged the results of the District Attorney's investigation, writing that 'Donald Trump is guilty of numerous felony violations,' and vowing not to be a 'passive participant' to 'a grave failure of justice.'

"Your public resignation reportedly left District Attorney Bragg 'deeply stung,' and caused him to issue an 'unusual' public statement 'emphasizing that the investigation into Trump and his business was far from over.' Your book also contributed to the 'political pressure' on District Attorney Bragg to bring charges against former President Trump."

Jordan also rejected Pomerantz's claim to be immune to congressional oversight.

"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," Jordan wrote. "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.

"As a result, you have no basis to decline to testify about matters before the committee that you have already discussed in your book and/or on a prime-time television program with an audience in the millions, including on the basis of any purported duty of confidentiality or privilege interest."