Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee to answer questions about his “hush money” case against President Trump.
Breaking Digest previously reported that House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan “invited” Bragg to testify before the subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government on June 13.
Jordan also invited Matthew Colangelo, a top prosecutor under Bragg and former Justice Department official appointed by Biden, to testify before the Weaponization Committee on June 13, following Trump’s guilty verdict. Colangelo has a history of left-wing activism.
Although Bragg agreed to testify, he wants set the time and date that the meeting occurs.
BREAKING: Alvin Bragg Agrees to Testify in Congress, But Only After Trump Is Sentenced https://t.co/0ywLRoqWkm
— Kenny G (@Texas4Trump_24) June 8, 2024
Politico reported:
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg signaled Friday that he is willing to testify about his prosecution of former President Donald Trump — but not next week as House Republicans proposed.
Leslie Dubeck, Bragg’s general counsel, sent a letter on Friday to House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, saying that the DA’s office is “committed to voluntary cooperation” after the Ohio Republican requested Bragg testify on June 13. Jordan wants Bragg to appear in front of his subcommittee investigating GOP claims of “weaponization” against conservatives within the government.
“That cooperation includes making the District Attorney available to provide testimony on behalf of the Office at an agreed-upon date,” Dubeck wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO.
But Dubeck rebuffed Jordan’s request for Bragg to testify on June 13, saying that there are “various scheduling conflicts” and that the trial court proceedings are currently scheduled to continue through July 11, when Trump is scheduled to be sentenced. Testifying publicly next week, she added, “would be potentially detrimental” to a “fair administration of justice” in the case. Trump has also vowed to appeal his conviction on 34 felonies in the hush money case.
Jordan had said before Friday’s letter that he was willing to subpoena Bragg if he refused to testify. He also, in a brief interview earlier this week, questioned why Bragg would need to wait until after Trump’s sentencing to testify.
The testimony request for Bragg and Matthew Colangelo, who helped prosecute Trump, is the latest step in a months-long House GOP investigation into Bragg’s office. It’s also one prong of a larger effort by Republicans to use their thin majority to look into Trump’s prosecutors.
Russell Dye, a spokesperson for Jordan, said on Friday that when it comes to what’s next “everything is on the table”.
Here is a copy of the letter via Politico:
By email
The Honorable Jim Jordan Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary
Dear Chairman Jordan:
This responds to your letters dated May 31, 2024, inviting representatives of the New York County District Attorney’s Office to testify before the House Judiciary Committee Select Subcommittee in a public hearing about the work of this Office. This Office is committed to voluntary cooperation. That cooperation includes making the District Attorney available to provide testimony on behalf of the Office at an agreed-upon date, and evaluating the propriety of allowing an Assistant District Attorney to testify publicly about an active prosecution to which he is assigned. However, the proposed date that the Subcommittee selected without consulting the Office presents various scheduling conflicts. In addition, the Committee’s invitation has not made clear the scope of the proposed testimony; and trial court proceedings in People v. Trump are currently scheduled to continue through July 11, 2024. The trial court and reviewing appellate courts have issued numerous orders for the purpose of protecting the fair administration of justice in People v. Trump, and to participate in a public hearing at this time would be potentially detrimental to those efforts.
The District Attorney’s Office therefore requests an opportunity to engage with Committee staff to identify a new hearing date, and to better understand the scope and purpose of the proposed hearing. As with the prior inquiries from this Committee, we look forward to discussing with committee staff how the Office may be able to accommodate the Committee’s invitation while also protecting the integrity of an ongoing criminal prosecution and New York’s sovereign interests.
Respectfully Submitted,
Leslie B. Dubeck
General Counsel
