NYC DA Alvin Bragg allowed ‘political motivations’ to ‘infect’ Trump prosecution, case has ‘clear partisan aim’: House Judiciary Committee

The report, titled "An Anatomy of Political Prosecution: The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office Vendetta Against President Donald J Trump," said that Bragg’s office "has weaponized the criminal justice system, scouring every aspect of President Trump’s personal life and business affairs, going back decades, in the hopes of finding some legal basis—however far-fetched, novel, or convoluted—to bring charges against him."

"When one legal theory would not pan out, instead of discontinuing its politically motivated investigation, the DANY simply pivoted to a new theory, constantly searching for a crime—any crime—to prosecute President Trump."

"The DANY has been investigating President Trump since at least 2018, searching for any legal theory on which to bring charges," the report stated. "These charges are normally misdemeanors subject to a two-year statute of limitations, but Bragg used a novel and untested legal theory—previously declined by federal prosecutors—to bootstrap the misdemeanor allegations as a felony, which extended the statute of limitations to five years, by alleging that records were falsified to conceal a second crime."

During the trial this week, prosecutors revealed that the alleged "second crime" was a violation of a New York law called "conspiracy to promote or prevent election," according to Fox News.

"The facts at the center of Bragg’s political prosecution have not changed since 2018 and no new witnesses emerged between then and the date on which Bragg filed the indictment," the report states. "The Justice Department examined the facts in 2019 and chose not to prosecute the case."

Despite the DOJ’s ruling, Bragg "convened a new grand jury in January [2023] to evaluate the issue.

"Bragg ultimately settled on a novel legal theory untested anywhere in the country and one that federal authorities declined to pursue to resurrect the matter," the report states.

The committee report stated that despite no new witnesses emerging, "the only intervening factor, it appears, was President Trump’s announcement that he would be a candidate for President in 2024."

The report later added, "Bragg’s decision to pursue criminal charges against a former president and current declared candidate for that office required the Committee to consider potential legislative reforms to insulate current and former Presidents from such politically motivated state and local prosecutions."

The report noted that the Committee sought testimony from former Manhattan DA prosecutor Mark Pomerantz, who was "uniquely situated to inform the Committee’s oversight and potential legislative reforms" with Pomerantz serving in a "unique role as a special assistant district attorney leading the investigation into President Trump."

Despite attempts from Pomerantz and Bragg to attempt to block his testimony, Pomerantz sat for a deposition.

While Pomerantz refused "to answer even the most basic of questions," his book "paint[s] a startling picture of prosecutorial abuse."

"Pomerantz’s own words show how the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, populated with partisans who openly bragged about their desire to get President Trump, used its immense power in the persecution of a person, not a crime."

Bragg, after a "public pressure campaign" by Pomerantz, revived the "zombie" business records case against Trump, the report stated.

His move to revive the case, "after essentially abandoning the DANY’s previous Trump investigations at the beginning of his tenure," raised "considerable suspicion as to whether political pressure played a role in his decision."

The committee wrote that "as a popularly elected prosecutor, Bragg needed a political win by the end of his first year in office to enhance his public standing," and that "during his race for District Attorney, Bragg made big promises to go after President Trump."