Manhattan DA Agrees to Testify Before Congress

( – Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) charged and ultimately convicted Donald Trump using an untested legal theory that involved reinterpreting and presenting misdemeanor charges in a novel way so his office could prosecute them as felonies. Bragg’s office recently agreed to a request from House Republicans to testify before Congress about its prosecution of the former president.

On June 7, Bragg’s general counsel, Leslie B. Dubeck, sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) in response to one he sent to the Manhattan district attorney on May 31, the day after a New York jury convicted Trump.

Jordan’s letter requested Bragg’s appearance before the House Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government (SSWG) no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 7, the date of Dubeck’s response letter. The correspondence said the hearing would focus on actions taken by local and state prosecutors “to engage politically motivated prosecutions of federal officials.”

The letter explained the SSWG would pay particular attention to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office’s (DANY’s) “recent political prosecution of President Donald Trump.”

Dubeck’s response letter confirmed that the DANY was “committed” to voluntarily cooperating with Jordan’s request. It added that the office’s cooperation included making Bragg available to provide testimony “at an agreed-upon date.”

Dubeck also indicated the DA was willing to consider allowing the assistant district attorney who spearheaded the Trump prosecution to testify before the SSWG. However, she stated that would only happen after the DANY’s Office had an opportunity to evaluate the “propriety of allowing” a prosecutor to “testify publicly about an active prosecution.”

Along those lines, Dubeck advised Jordan that court proceedings in People v. Trump were “currently scheduled to continue through July 11” [the date set by the court for Trump’s sentencing hearing]. She added that providing public testimony before that date “would be potentially detrimental” to efforts to protect the “fair administration of justice” in the hush money case.

Dubeck concluded her letter by requesting an opportunity for the DANY’s Office to speak to the SSWG committee “to better understand” the purpose and scope of the panel’s hearing and to “identify a new hearing date.”

Copyright 2024,