block a subpoena for a former top prosecutors testimony that that part rescuer mark pomerantz resigned last year. they re also asking the judge to find any future subpoenas for brag or any current or former prosecutors. to be invalid. the reason, they say, is that this congressional inquiry is unconstitutional, saying that congress the federal body doesn t have place to intervene or ask questions about a local or state prosecution, which is the issue in this case . they also say there is no valid legislative purpose, and in addition, they argue that because this is involves a grand jury, there are secrecy laws here and that congress is not entitled to that information in the lawsuit they write in some congress lacks any valid legislative purpose to engage in a few three ranging campaign of harassment in retaliation for the district attorney s investigation and prosecution of mr trump under the laws of new york. this lawsuit also ties the house republicans to trump s verbal attacks on t
questions about how effective she would be as a prosecution witness. and yet d a brag karen is slamming house republicans for a quote, unprecedented campaign of harassment and intimidation here in this after house judiciary chairman as we noted that jim jordans subpoenaed mark pomerantz, pomerantz publicly resigned in 2022 after d a brag did not take up this case at the time against donald trump. now jordan s representative jordan s is arguing that that resignation somehow shamed brown. tag into finally taking it up this time around. how big of an argument do you think how winning of an argument is that for republicans? i don t think it is at all. i mean, mark alvin bragg has said he didn t choose not to bring the case. he just didn t want to bring it at that moment that mark pomerantz thought it was ready. he wanted to continue to develop the case and investigate the case and mark pomerantz than left and wrote a book and the judgment of someone who would write a book about a
judge because it s an obvious ground for appeal. what do you think? well to be clear. he already has overseen trump case right? and so it s not like he s a kind of random judge who has a problem. the trump organization exactly, but, you know, i don t think it s um we don t want to fall into the trap. of basically trying to undermine the participants in the case, because that is the defense s roll right, and that s what trump wants. so he s going to point out things about the judge is going to point out things about d a brag, pointing out people members of people s family. all of this is to distract from real evidence that may be coming out in the next couple of days. records possibly audio. there s a lot that is going to happen. never mind the e jean carroll case. which is a sort of defamation slash possible sexual harassment case that could come to fruition in may. so while i want to talk about the $35, it just feels
really good options, lay the all out. the defense is entitled, t make motions, and you neve know what a judge is going t do, that s the reason why yo lay out your strongest ones. and here, there are just too many options that i m sure whe the defense looked at this they were actually thinkin this is more than we sort of bargained for. catherine, let me just as you to expand on what andrew has said there especially his point about how you don t necessarily have t charge the crime that brough this up to a felony, you jus have to show that there was an intent to commit that crime, whether or not it was in fac it was committed, whether or not it is in fact charged. again, for those of us who are not lawyers, that can be a little bit hard to wrap your head around. if there is an intent to commi a crime, or an effort to commi a crime, why isn t that charge behavior yeah, well, as da brag just said, you know, we did not charge it because our lawyer don t require us to do it. the statute r
have it kind of taint all th other ones but if you have like fou really good options, lay the all out. the defense is entitled, t make motions, and you neve know what a judge is going t do, that s the reason why yo lay out your strongest ones. and here, there are just too many options that i m sure whe the defense looked at this they were actually thinkin this is more than we sort of bargained for. catherine, let me just as you to expand on what andrew has said there especially his point about how you don t necessarily have t charge the crime that brough this up to a felony, you jus have to show that there was an intent to commit that crime, whether or not it was in fac it was committed, whether or not it is in fact charged. again, for those of us who are not lawyers, that can be a little bit hard to wrap your head around. if there is an intent to commi a crime, or an effort to commi a crime, why isn t that charge behavior yeah, well, as da brag just said, you know, we did not char