is worth noting that all o this, is taking place on the very same day, that alle weisselberg, the former chie financial officer of the trump organization, was released fro rikers, after serving roughl four months for his role on decade long tax fraud scheme it still weisselberg, appear to remain lawyer to loyal to mr. trump, but he s the kind o witness, that if flipped for the prosecution, could secur once and for all accountability for donal trump. and that is accountability with a capital a joining us now is catherin christian, a former specia assistant va, in the manhattan d.a. s office. catherine, thanks so much fo being here my pleasure so, first let s talk abou what s happening with th testimony, the subpoena of mar pomerantz. well, chairman jordan had a big victory today. it s been appealed the judge wrote a very biting, 25-page decision denying, d.a. bragg s motion t
find out what did the ea s office - what the d.a. s office did hav on donald trump and hi potentially fraudulent busines dealings because again, that informatio could presumably be useful to group of people who might want to mounted offense, if mr. trump is indicted in a broader fraud case so the accountability road sho continues, and so does the unaccountability road show apparently now mr. bragg s office, sued mr. jordan to block him from enforcing the subpoena to mark pomerantz. but today, district judge mary this goes, hold denied mr. bragg s request for preliminary injunction quote, the subpoena was issued with a valid legislative purpose, in connection with th fraud and indispensabl congressional power to conduct investigations mr. pomerantz must appear, for the congressional deposition no one is above the law. the a bragg s office has now filed notice, that he is appealing that decision, and i
call, let me give you a little bit of a legal side, and the factual side legally, you have for congress the law is generally ver heavily skewed in favor of congressional power, and being able to issue subpoenas if the legislation that could be ha on the subject that s a very low standard because congress has generally very broad power however, the reason that it is a complicated, tough issue, an a close call, is what da bragg is saying here, those concerns what do you have to do with th local prosecution? number two, you re seeking privileged information about what is going on three, you re interfering with an ongoing criminal case, in other words, even if you hav some concern that congress could be entitled to information, why do you need i now? can you not wait for it if you re going to try and balanc these things
it is alvin bragg who s goin to look like a cooler, calmer, more fair prosecutor, i think, than mark pomerantz. interesting that you have jordan responding to brad lawsuit, his own filing, claiming that bragg s lawsui should be dismissed because it violates the debate clause at this point, the audience is experts on this subject, in th debate clause. does it apply here there is a case law in th speech and debate clause which does apply here. the problem is we have thi unusual context because yo have congress trying to ge information from another sovereign. it really can t be the cas that any single time tha congress issues a subpoena they get to say no matter ho outlandish this subpoena is, each debate clause means tha it has to be enforced. i do think that it applies, bu it s not the answer. this is one where you can really look at the laws, and you know exactly how the judge is going to rule the facts are somewhat on th