Alvin Bragg’s attempt to block House inquiry into his political prosecution of Donald Trump denied by judge

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ruled that she has no standing to block the subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee, writing that it has legitimate legislative purposes for the inquiry.

The Judiciary Committee led by Rep. Jim Jordan is conducting its investigation in support of possible legislation that would "insulate current and former Presidents from such politically motivated state and local prosecutions."

Vyskocil wrote in her decision Wednesday, "The sole question before the Court at this time is whether Bragg has a legal basis to quash a congressional subpoena that was issued with a valid legislative purpose. He does not.”

The judge continued, "In our federalist system, elected state and federal actors sometimes engage in political dogfights."

"Bragg complains of political interference in the local DANY (District Attorney of New York) case, but Bragg does not operate outside of the political arena."

Vyskocil stated, "Jordan, in turn, has initiated a political response to what he and some of his constituents view as a manifest abuse of power and nakedly political prosecution, funded (in part) with federal money, that has the potential to interfere with the exercise of presidential duties and with an upcoming federal election."

She added, "The Court does not endorse either side's agenda."

The question remains if former Manhattan prosecutor Mark Pomerantz, who wrote a memoir about his time leading up to the Trump investigation, gave up the privileges that protect him from divulging information about the investigation.

Bragg accused Jordan and the committee in the lawsuit of using a subpoena of Pomerantz to interfere in the investigation and prosecution of Trump.

During a hearing on Wednesday at the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Vyskocil asked Theodore Boutrous Jr., an attorney for Bragg, "How does this book, which is chock full of what Mr. Pomerantz calls 'insider information,' not constitute a waiver of privilege?”

Leslie Dubeck, another attorney for Bragg, argued that the district attorney believes Pomerantz had no right to waive the privilege on his own. "That privilege belongs to my office, not to Mr. Pomerantz. I think there are things in there that should not have been published and that expose Mr. Pomerantz to potential criminal liability.”

In January, Bragg's office referred the Pomerantz case to New York City's Department of Investigation, to look into if publishing the memoir violated the law.

At Wednesday's hearing, Boutrous argued the subpoena raised "serious federalism issues," as well as concerns about separation of powers stating, "It is totally unprecedented for a congressional committee to go after a local district attorney."

Vyskocil responded, "It is also unprecedented for a local district attorney to bring an indictment of a former president."

It remains unclear if Pomerantz will comply with a subpoena demanding his appearance before the Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

Following the judge’s ruling, a spokesperson for Bragg told CBS, "We respectfully disagree with the District Court's decision and are seeking a stay pending appeal."