Who gives a flying fuck what that toothless, buttery cracker thinks? I'll take Bragg's legal education and RESULTS (17 OUT OF 17 BUTT FUCKS ON TRUMP.ORG) over a swamp raised, crawfish eating racist any day of the week. Get ready to take "Dastardly" Democratic Dong DEEP in yer dirt chute, DUMBO, Bragg today, bitch slapped Jungle Jim with that pesky little "3 times murder rate" as in NYC, you stupid prick.:
Jim Jordan gets HUMILIATED by New York prosecutor charging Trump
Manhattan District Attorney gives Jim Jordan NIGHTMARE news 
518,017 views Apr 12, 2023
The Legal Breakdown episode 49: @GlennKirschner2 joins to discuss Alvin Bragg's lawsuit against Jim Jordan.
Who gives a flying fuck what that toothless, buttery cracker thinks? I'll take Bragg's legal education and RESULTS (17 OUT OF 17 BUTT FUCKS ON TRUMP.ORG) over a swamp raised, crawfish eating racist any day of the week. Get ready to take "Dastardly" Democratic Dong DEEP in yer dirt chute, DUMBO, Bragg today, bitch slapped Jungle Jim with that pesky little "3 times murder rate" as in NYC, you stupid prick.:
Jim Jordan gets HUMILIATED by New York prosecutor charging Trump
How about this toothless buttery cracker ?
ICYMI
: 
Legal Reporter on MSNBC Casts Doubt About Bragg’s Lawsuit Against Jim Jordan: ‘Uphill Battle’
Politico's Josh Gerstein argued that Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg faces an "uphill battle" in his lawsuit against House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan.
www.mediaite.com
Lol DuHbitch is just slinging is fake shit basement dwelling podcast that has buttfucked him and spins lies even more.How about this toothless buttery cracker ?
ICYMI
Legal Reporter on MSNBC Casts Doubt About Bragg’s Lawsuit Against Jim Jordan: ‘Uphill Battle’
Politico's Josh Gerstein argued that Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg faces an "uphill battle" in his lawsuit against House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan.
Looks like Fat Alvin had as much luck with the judge as you did you low life delinquent
: 
Appeals court temporarily blocks GOP deposition of former Trump prosecutor
The Manhattan district attorney's office said it will seek a stay pending appeal.
abcnews.go.com
Who’s wiping jizz off their face now ?
:The subpoena seeking testimony from Pomerantz is the first to be issued by the Republican-controlled committee. Bragg has sued the GOP chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, over the congressional probe, calling it a "transparent campaign to intimidate and attack" the office.
What was that you were saying about humiliation 0-114 ?
:The judge mocked the DA's 50-page suit in her ruling, saying, "The first 35 pages of the Complaint have little to do with the subpoena at issue and are nothing short of a public relations tirade against former President and current presidential candidate Donald Trump.
This isn't even SLIGHTLY humiliating, you fat, blubbery, funky, lying welching tub of goo: I am in COMPLETE agreement with the premise in the following article that I posted about 10 days ago, this is gonna blow up in Jungle "Gym" Jagoff Jordan's face, just as ALL of his little "hearings" have that he has run (including his recent little "field trip" to NYC, lol) since being made head of various Witch Hunt committees. He's against the guy who just got through cramming 17 diloes up Blubber Boy's Bulbous Butt, and is in the process of cramming TWICE as many up in this case, so, you RUN with that, DUMBO, lol:What was that you were saying about humiliation 0-114 ?
The judge mocked the DA's 50-page suit in her ruling, saying, "The first 35 pages of the Complaint have little to do with the subpoena at issue and are nothing short of a public relations tirade against former President and current presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Jim Jordan Just Made The Biggest Mistake Of His Career
575,351 views Apr 9, 2023 Farron Balanced
No one has ever accused Jim Jordan of being smart. Jordan's latest efforts to defend Trump are about to blow up in his face, as he has now issued a subpoena to Mark Pomerantz to come and testify about the Trump investigation in Manhattan. Pomerantz is the prosecutor who famously resigned from Bragg's team because Bragg wouldn't prosecute Trump for financial fraud, so bringing him into Congress is only going to reveal MORE potential crimes from Trump. This might be the dumbest political move Jordan has ever made, as Farron Cousins explains.
*This transcript was auto-generated. Please excuse any typos. No one has ever accused House judiciary chair, uh, chairman Jim Jordan of being smart and based on his latest subpoena, no one will ever accuse Jim Jordan of being smart. See, Jim Jordan has realized, as I've said, uh, this past week, that he can't go after, uh, Alvin Bragg up in Manhattan. You know, he's has, has no federal dollars. He's not a federal employee. So there's nothing Jim Jordan can do to make that guy come and testify. Even if he subpoenas him, he can challenge it in court and Bragg's gonna win. But Jim Jordan, aha. He thinks he's smart. He's like, well, what if I get somebody that doesn't work for you? Alvin Bragg, what if I find somebody who used to work for you but doesn't anymore and is out there doing a media tour? Then they'll have to come and testify. So, aha, I got you. And I'm sending a subpoena, which Jim Jordan did late last week to Mark Pomerance, the former prosecutor who famously resigned from Alvin Bragg's team last year because he was so frustrated that Bragg was not moving forward with indictments against Donald Trump for financial crimes. So yes, doesn't that seem like the smartest person for Jim Jordan to bring in to Congress to testify about what happened at that office? Mark Pomerance, as I said, he is got a new book out, so he is doing his media tour. And Jim Jordan, when issuing the subpoena, uh, mentioned the media and he said, as a result, you have no basis to decline to testify about matters before the committee that you have already discussed in your book and or on a primetime television program with an audience in the millions, including on the basis of any purported duty of cons, confidentiality, or privilege interest. He also said, based on your unique role as a special assistant district attorney leading the investigation into President Trump's finances, your uniquely situated to provide information that is relevant and necessary to inform the committee's oversight and potential legislative reforms. You're picking a fight with a man who recently admitted that he and former Manhattan DA Sivan actually had written out indictments against Donald Trump and you, Jim Jordan, loyal Trump supporter, think it's a smart idea to bring this man into Congress and have him testify under oath about those crimes that Donald Trump allegedly committed in New York and was almost indicted for. Why is that smart? Can anybody, anyone out there at all explain to me why this makes sense? Like, Jim, are You trying to convince the public that Donald Trump is a horrible criminal that should be locked behind bars forever? Because that's what Pomerance is going to say. Like Pomerance is not going to say the things that you think he is like, oh, the office is dysfunctional. Uh, sometimes we don't wear pants. Like, I don't know what you want him to say, but I can promise you whatever it is you want him to say, he ain't gonna say it. And instead he's gonna say some pretty horrible and damning things about your guy Trump. And that's gonna be in the congressional record at that point. So I hope even though you in the letter like you can't refuse this subpoena subpoena, I don't think Pomerance wants to refuse it. I think he knows like, Hey, this is gonna be a good way to sell books. Hey, this is gonna be my chance to tell the story to the world. Hey, this is gonna be my chance to maybe pressure brag to go forward with the other criminal charges that we know he needs to do. It doesn't matter what Pomerance wants to say, or whatever his reasoning is, I can promise you this is going to blow up in Jim Jordan's face and will be viewed as the biggest mistake of his political career.
This isn't even SLIGHTLY humiliating, you fat, blubbery, funky, lying welching tub of goo: I am in COMPLETE agreement with the premise in the following article that I posted about 10 days ago, this is gonna blow up in Jungle "Gym" Jagoff Jordan's face, just as ALL of his little "hearings" have that he has run (including his recent little "field trip" to NYC, lol) since being made head of various Witch Hunt committees. He's against the guy who just got through cramming 17 diloes up Blubber Boy's Bulbous Butt, and is in the process of cramming TWICE as many up in this case, so, you RUN with that, DUMBO, lol:
Jim Jordan Just Made The Biggest Mistake Of His Career
575,351 views Apr 9, 2023 Farron Balanced
No one has ever accused Jim Jordan of being smart. Jordan's latest efforts to defend Trump are about to blow up in his face, as he has now issued a subpoena to Mark Pomerantz to come and testify about the Trump investigation in Manhattan. Pomerantz is the prosecutor who famously resigned from Bragg's team because Bragg wouldn't prosecute Trump for financial fraud, so bringing him into Congress is only going to reveal MORE potential crimes from Trump. This might be the dumbest political move Jordan has ever made, as Farron Cousins explains.
*This transcript was auto-generated. Please excuse any typos. No one has ever accused House judiciary chair, uh, chairman Jim Jordan of being smart and based on his latest subpoena, no one will ever accuse Jim Jordan of being smart. See, Jim Jordan has realized, as I've said, uh, this past week, that he can't go after, uh, Alvin Bragg up in Manhattan. You know, he's has, has no federal dollars. He's not a federal employee. So there's nothing Jim Jordan can do to make that guy come and testify. Even if he subpoenas him, he can challenge it in court and Bragg's gonna win. But Jim Jordan, aha. He thinks he's smart. He's like, well, what if I get somebody that doesn't work for you? Alvin Bragg, what if I find somebody who used to work for you but doesn't anymore and is out there doing a media tour? Then they'll have to come and testify. So, aha, I got you. And I'm sending a subpoena, which Jim Jordan did late last week to Mark Pomerance, the former prosecutor who famously resigned from Alvin Bragg's team last year because he was so frustrated that Bragg was not moving forward with indictments against Donald Trump for financial crimes. So yes, doesn't that seem like the smartest person for Jim Jordan to bring in to Congress to testify about what happened at that office? Mark Pomerance, as I said, he is got a new book out, so he is doing his media tour. And Jim Jordan, when issuing the subpoena, uh, mentioned the media and he said, as a result, you have no basis to decline to testify about matters before the committee that you have already discussed in your book and or on a primetime television program with an audience in the millions, including on the basis of any purported duty of cons, confidentiality, or privilege interest. He also said, based on your unique role as a special assistant district attorney leading the investigation into President Trump's finances, your uniquely situated to provide information that is relevant and necessary to inform the committee's oversight and potential legislative reforms. You're picking a fight with a man who recently admitted that he and former Manhattan DA Sivan actually had written out indictments against Donald Trump and you, Jim Jordan, loyal Trump supporter, think it's a smart idea to bring this man into Congress and have him testify under oath about those crimes that Donald Trump allegedly committed in New York and was almost indicted for. Why is that smart? Can anybody, anyone out there at all explain to me why this makes sense? Like, Jim, are You trying to convince the public that Donald Trump is a horrible criminal that should be locked behind bars forever? Because that's what Pomerance is going to say. Like Pomerance is not going to say the things that you think he is like, oh, the office is dysfunctional. Uh, sometimes we don't wear pants. Like, I don't know what you want him to say, but I can promise you whatever it is you want him to say, he ain't gonna say it. And instead he's gonna say some pretty horrible and damning things about your guy Trump. And that's gonna be in the congressional record at that point. So I hope even though you in the letter like you can't refuse this subpoena subpoena, I don't think Pomerance wants to refuse it. I think he knows like, Hey, this is gonna be a good way to sell books. Hey, this is gonna be my chance to tell the story to the world. Hey, this is gonna be my chance to maybe pressure brag to go forward with the other criminal charges that we know he needs to do. It doesn't matter what Pomerance wants to say, or whatever his reasoning is, I can promise you this is going to blow up in Jim Jordan's face and will be viewed as the biggest mistake of his political career.
Bend over and take it in that wrinkled 71 year old ass you lowlife delinquent . ?
Fat Alvin was MOCKED . Just like you in Henderson courts .
The judge mocked the DA's 50-page suit in her ruling, saying, "The first 35 pages of the Complaint have little to do with the subpoena at issue and are nothing short of a public relations tirade against former President and current presidential candidate Donald Trump.
The fact that that slut judge was nominated by Blubber Boy tells us all we need to know, and, in any event, as I already SAID, you semi-illiterate cocksucker, this is gonna blow up in Jungle Gym's face, just as SURE as YOU are a fat, welching scumbag who is backing a non lawyer moron who has flopped in EVERY SINGLE HEARING HE HAS HELD, against a guy with 17 dildoes crammed up Blubber Boy's BUTT hole, lol.Bend over and take it in that wrinkled 71 year old ass you lowlife delinquent . ?
Fat Alvin was MOCKED . Just like you in Henderson courts .
The judge mocked the DA's 50-page suit in her ruling, saying, "The first 35 pages of the Complaint have little to do with the subpoena at issue and are nothing short of a public relations tirade against former President and current presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Rep. Goldman slams Jim Jordan's hearing: ‘They want to attack prosecutors with antisemitic tropes’
293,593 views Apr 17, 2023 #msnbc #republicans #jimjordan
Jim Jordan held a House Judiciary Committee hearing on New York City crime in New York City, yet his district has a higher murder rate. Rep. Dan Goldman and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee join Joy Reid to discuss.
Lol, the following refers to Jagoff Jim as a 'lil BITCH, just like YOU, DUMBO:Bend over and take it in that wrinkled 71 year old ass you lowlife delinquent . ?
Fat Alvin was MOCKED . Just like you in Henderson courts .
The judge mocked the DA's 50-page suit in her ruling, saying, "The first 35 pages of the Complaint have little to do with the subpoena at issue and are nothing short of a public relations tirade against former President and current presidential candidate Donald Trump.
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com
BRIAN TYLER COHEN - ON JIM JORDAN BEING A LITTLE B.I.T.C.H ? 3 24 23 ? ?
And, speaking of 'lil BITCHES, BRAINLESS BLUBBER BOY IS RANTING AGAIN?Trump's DERANGED new posts show COMPLETE Desperation
81,024 views Apr 19, 2023
Donald Trump made a series of deranged posts recently and also faced incoming fire from his potential opponent Ron DeSantis in the form of a new Super PAC ad. MeidasTouch contributor Boston Brian reports.
The fact that that slut judge was nominated by Blubber Boy tells us all we need to know, and, in any event, as I already SAID, you semi-illiterate cocksucker, this is gonna blow up in Jungle Gym's face, just as SURE as YOU are a fat, welching scumbag who is backing a non lawyer moron who has flopped in EVERY SINGLE HEARING HE HAS HELD, against a guy with 17 dildoes crammed up Blubber Boy's BUTT hole, lol.
Rep. Goldman slams Jim Jordan's hearing: ‘They want to attack prosecutors with antisemitic tropes’
293,593 views Apr 17, 2023 #msnbc #republicans #jimjordan
Jim Jordan held a House Judiciary Committee hearing on New York City crime in New York City, yet his district has a higher murder rate. Rep. Dan Goldman and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee join Joy Reid to discuss.
Just like Judge Dawson . This woman rammed it home and broke it off on Levi Strauss Goldman right in Fat Alvin’s backyard .
You still stick on the plantation you low life delinquent ?
:Lol. This poor ignorant fool. Still posting the podcasts of basement dwellers thinking it’s real facts. Can bump abandoned threads all day where these have buttfucled him but yet keeps on slingingJust like Judge Dawson . This woman rammed it home and broke it off on Levi Strauss Goldman right in Fat Alvin’s backyard .
You still stick on the plantation you low life delinquent ?
it’s hilarious he keeps posting these fake spin the truth fools.
but thats our 0-114 buttfucked ???
the definition of insane
ANUUDER ABANDONED THREAD
Uhhhh, you and Nazi Steve wanna take your respective peckers outta each other's mouth and issue a "comment" on the following, Double Dipshits? You two Jagoffs may have been guilty of premature...celebration, as well as something ELSE premature inside of each other's pie hole:Just like Judge Dawson . This woman rammed it home and broke it off on Levi Strauss Goldman right in Fat Alvin’s backyard .
You still stick on the plantation you low life delinquent ?
Appeals court halts House interview with ex-Trump prosecutor
https://www.yahoo.com/news/appeals-court-halts-house-interview-134159499.html
MICHAEL R. SISAK and LARRY NEUMEISTER
Thu, April 20, 2023 at 6:41 AM PDT
NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court has temporarily blocked House Republicans from questioning a former Manhattan prosecutor about the criminal case against ex-President Donald Trump, the latest twist in a legal battle between Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office and the House Judiciary Committee.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay late Wednesday, hours after a lower court judge ruled there was no legal basis to block the Judiciary Committee's subpoena to former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz. Committee chair Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, had sought to question him Thursday.
In issuing the stay, Judge Beth Robinson noted that her order “reflects no judgment regarding the merits" of the case. A three-judge panel will ultimately weigh whether to uphold or overturn the lower-court’s decision. Robinson, a Biden appointee, set an aggressive briefing schedule, ordering Bragg's office to file court papers detailing its appeal by Friday and for the Judiciary Committee to submit its response by Saturday.
Bragg's office appealed to the 2nd Circuit hours after U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil rejected his request for a temporary restraining order, ruling Wednesday that Jordan had a valid legislative purpose in issuing the subpoena.
- ADVERTISEMENT -
“It is not the role of the federal judiciary to dictate what legislation Congress may consider or how it should conduct its deliberations in that connection,” Vyskocil wrote in a 25-page opinion. “Mr. Pomerantz must appear for the congressional deposition. No one is above the law.”
Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, ruled after peppering lawyers on both sides with questions, asking them to parse thorny issues of sovereignty, separation of powers and Congressional oversight arising from Trump's historic indictment.
Acknowledging the “political dogfights” surrounding the case, the judge said in her ruling that she “does not endorse either side’s agenda.” She encouraged both sides to speak and “reach a mutually agreeable compromise” on how Pomerantz's deposition would proceed.
Jordan’s spokesperson, Russell Dye, lauded Vyskocil’s ruling, saying it showed that “Congress has the ability to conduct oversight and issue subpoenas to people like Mark Pomerantz.”
Bragg's office appealed, first asking Vyskocil to issue a stay — which she rejected — before finding success with the appeals court.
Pomerantz once oversaw the yearslong Trump investigation but left the job after clashing with Bragg over the direction of the case. He recently wrote a book about his work pursuing Trump and discussed the investigation in interviews on “60 Minutes” and other shows.
Bragg, a Democrat, sued Jordan and the Judiciary Committee last week seeking to block the subpoena. His lawyer, Theodore Boutrous, argued that seeking Pomerantz’s testimony was part of a “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” Bragg and that Congress was “invading a state” to investigate a local prosecutor when it had no authority to do so.
Boutrous said House Republicans’ interest in Bragg amounted to Congress “jumping in and haranguing the D.A. while the prosecution is ongoing.”
The Judiciary Committee started scrutinizing Bragg’s investigation of the former president in the weeks that preceded his indictment. Jordan sent letters seeking interviews with Bragg and documents before subpoenaing Pomerantz. In her ruling, Vyskocil said she would handle any legal fights that may arise from other subpoenas in the committee’s investigation of Bragg.
A committee lawyer, Matthew Berry, countered that Congress has legitimate legislative reasons for wanting to question Pomerantz and examine Bragg's prosecution of Trump, citing the office's use of $5,000 in federal funds to pay for Trump-related investigations.
Congress is also considering legislation, offered by Republicans in the wake of Trump's indictment, to change how criminal cases against former presidents unfold, Berry said. One bill would prohibit prosecutors from using federal funds to investigate presidents, and another would require any criminal cases involving a former president be resolved in federal court instead of at the state level.
House Republicans, Berry said, want to protect the sovereignty and autonomy of the presidency, envisioning a scenario where the commander in chief could feel obligated to make certain decisions to avoid having local prosecutors in politically unfavorable jurisdictions charge them with crimes after they leave office.
For those reasons, Berry argued, Congress is immune from judicial intervention, citing the speech and debate clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Vyskocil presided over the hearing in a Manhattan courtroom that offered sweeping, high-level views of the New York City skyline that Trump helped shape as a real estate developer, the courthouse where he was arraigned April 3, and the federal building where Jordan continued his war on Bragg by convening a hearing Monday on the prosecutor’s handing of violent crime.
Pomerantz declined comment as he walked out of the hearing holding a stack of papers with his book, “People vs. Donald Trump,” on top. Neither Pomerantz nor his lawyers spoke during the hearing. But in a court filing, he aligned himself with Bragg's position and maintained he should not be questioned by the committee.
Berry, the committee lawyer, argued that Pomerantz has already shared lots of information with the public about his work on the Trump investigation and the Judiciary Committee has the right to question him about it, too.
“I don’t think this is either rational or reasonable behavior that somehow the House Judiciary Committee ranks below ’60 Minutes,'" Berry argued.
Pomerantz could refuse to answer certain questions, citing legal privilege and ethical obligations, and Jordan would rule on those assertions on a case-by-case basis, Berry said, but he shouldn't be exempt from showing up. If Jordan were to overrule Pomerantz and he still refused to answer, he could then face a criminal referral to the Justice Department for contempt of Congress, but that wouldn't happen immediately, Berry said.
Trump was indicted last month on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush-money payments made during the 2016 campaign to bury allegations of extramarital sexual encounters. He has denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty.
From your own article you brain dead delinquent .Uhhhh, you and Nazi Steve wanna take your respective peckers outta each other's mouth and issue a "comment" on the following, Double Dipshits? You two Jagoffs may have been guilty of premature...celebration, as well as something ELSE premature inside of each other's pie hole:
Appeals court halts House interview with ex-Trump prosecutor
https://www.yahoo.com/news/appeals-court-halts-house-interview-134159499.html
MICHAEL R. SISAK and LARRY NEUMEISTER
Thu, April 20, 2023 at 6:41 AM PDT
NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court has temporarily blocked House Republicans from questioning a former Manhattan prosecutor about the criminal case against ex-President Donald Trump, the latest twist in a legal battle between Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office and the House Judiciary Committee.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay late Wednesday, hours after a lower court judge ruled there was no legal basis to block the Judiciary Committee's subpoena to former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz. Committee chair Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, had sought to question him Thursday.
In issuing the stay, Judge Beth Robinson noted that her order “reflects no judgment regarding the merits" of the case. A three-judge panel will ultimately weigh whether to uphold or overturn the lower-court’s decision. Robinson, a Biden appointee, set an aggressive briefing schedule, ordering Bragg's office to file court papers detailing its appeal by Friday and for the Judiciary Committee to submit its response by Saturday.
Bragg's office appealed to the 2nd Circuit hours after U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil rejected his request for a temporary restraining order, ruling Wednesday that Jordan had a valid legislative purpose in issuing the subpoena.
- ADVERTISEMENT -
“It is not the role of the federal judiciary to dictate what legislation Congress may consider or how it should conduct its deliberations in that connection,” Vyskocil wrote in a 25-page opinion. “Mr. Pomerantz must appear for the congressional deposition. No one is above the law.”
Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, ruled after peppering lawyers on both sides with questions, asking them to parse thorny issues of sovereignty, separation of powers and Congressional oversight arising from Trump's historic indictment.
Acknowledging the “political dogfights” surrounding the case, the judge said in her ruling that she “does not endorse either side’s agenda.” She encouraged both sides to speak and “reach a mutually agreeable compromise” on how Pomerantz's deposition would proceed.
Jordan’s spokesperson, Russell Dye, lauded Vyskocil’s ruling, saying it showed that “Congress has the ability to conduct oversight and issue subpoenas to people like Mark Pomerantz.”
Bragg's office appealed, first asking Vyskocil to issue a stay — which she rejected — before finding success with the appeals court.
Pomerantz once oversaw the yearslong Trump investigation but left the job after clashing with Bragg over the direction of the case. He recently wrote a book about his work pursuing Trump and discussed the investigation in interviews on “60 Minutes” and other shows.
Bragg, a Democrat, sued Jordan and the Judiciary Committee last week seeking to block the subpoena. His lawyer, Theodore Boutrous, argued that seeking Pomerantz’s testimony was part of a “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” Bragg and that Congress was “invading a state” to investigate a local prosecutor when it had no authority to do so.
Boutrous said House Republicans’ interest in Bragg amounted to Congress “jumping in and haranguing the D.A. while the prosecution is ongoing.”
The Judiciary Committee started scrutinizing Bragg’s investigation of the former president in the weeks that preceded his indictment. Jordan sent letters seeking interviews with Bragg and documents before subpoenaing Pomerantz. In her ruling, Vyskocil said she would handle any legal fights that may arise from other subpoenas in the committee’s investigation of Bragg.
A committee lawyer, Matthew Berry, countered that Congress has legitimate legislative reasons for wanting to question Pomerantz and examine Bragg's prosecution of Trump, citing the office's use of $5,000 in federal funds to pay for Trump-related investigations.
Congress is also considering legislation, offered by Republicans in the wake of Trump's indictment, to change how criminal cases against former presidents unfold, Berry said. One bill would prohibit prosecutors from using federal funds to investigate presidents, and another would require any criminal cases involving a former president be resolved in federal court instead of at the state level.
House Republicans, Berry said, want to protect the sovereignty and autonomy of the presidency, envisioning a scenario where the commander in chief could feel obligated to make certain decisions to avoid having local prosecutors in politically unfavorable jurisdictions charge them with crimes after they leave office.
For those reasons, Berry argued, Congress is immune from judicial intervention, citing the speech and debate clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Vyskocil presided over the hearing in a Manhattan courtroom that offered sweeping, high-level views of the New York City skyline that Trump helped shape as a real estate developer, the courthouse where he was arraigned April 3, and the federal building where Jordan continued his war on Bragg by convening a hearing Monday on the prosecutor’s handing of violent crime.
Pomerantz declined comment as he walked out of the hearing holding a stack of papers with his book, “People vs. Donald Trump,” on top. Neither Pomerantz nor his lawyers spoke during the hearing. But in a court filing, he aligned himself with Bragg's position and maintained he should not be questioned by the committee.
Berry, the committee lawyer, argued that Pomerantz has already shared lots of information with the public about his work on the Trump investigation and the Judiciary Committee has the right to question him about it, too.
“I don’t think this is either rational or reasonable behavior that somehow the House Judiciary Committee ranks below ’60 Minutes,'" Berry argued.
Pomerantz could refuse to answer certain questions, citing legal privilege and ethical obligations, and Jordan would rule on those assertions on a case-by-case basis, Berry said, but he shouldn't be exempt from showing up. If Jordan were to overrule Pomerantz and he still refused to answer, he could then face a criminal referral to the Justice Department for contempt of Congress, but that wouldn't happen immediately, Berry said.
Trump was indicted last month on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush-money payments made during the 2016 campaign to bury allegations of extramarital sexual encounters. He has denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty.
In issuing the stay, Judge Beth Robinson noted that her order “reflects no judgment regarding the merits" of the case. A three-judge panel will ultimately weigh whether to uphold or overturn the lower-court’s decision.
You fucking retard, Jagoff Jordan filed a motion, the tRump twat allowed it. Bragg appealed THAT order to the Court of Appeals, and THEY overturned that twat, that's what "The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay late Wednesday, hours after a lower court judge ruled there was no legal basis to block the Judiciary Committee's subpoena to former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz. Committee chair Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, had sought to question him Thursday" in my own article" refers to.
Do you understand now???? JESUS, you're fucking stupid!!!!
You fucking retard, Jagoff Jordan filed a motion, the tRump twat allowed it. Bragg appealed THAT order to the Court of Appeals, and THEY overturned that twat, that's what "The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay late Wednesday, hours after a lower court judge ruled there was no legal basis to block the Judiciary Committee's subpoena to former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz. Committee chair Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, had sought to question him Thursday" in my own article" refers to.
Do you understand now???? JESUS, you're fucking stupid!!!!
They didn’t overturn anything you senile old prick .
An administrative stay is not a ruling on the merits. It’s a way of a judge or judge’s putting an emergency situation on hold temporarily, until briefing on a full motion for a stay can be held.
Ordered by this twat
Judge Beth Robinson, a new activist Biden judge on the Second Circuit (and former Hillary Clinton delegate to the DNC).
And if it’s overturned by the appeals court Jordan should take it to the Supreme Court where Trump cock slapped you by tilting it conservative for decades .
Don't play stupid-oh, what am I saying, you're LENBO the DUMBO, you ARE stupid. The tRumpian Twat Vyskocil tried to rule to give Jagoff Jordan what he wanted (which, I repeat, is a stupid move on his part), and you can "dress it up" anyway that you want to, but Judge Robinson, who is higher than Vyskocil, CUNT slapped her and said, not so fast, bitch. It's not a question of IF the appeals will rule against him, but WHEN, and, as far as appealing to SCOTUS, you're so fucking stupid that you are apparently unaware that 1) even THOSE corrupt scum have ruled AGAINST Blubber Boy in SEVERAL motions and appeals in the last year or so, and, pursuant to that, he didn't even bother to take his last two BUTT fucking appeals losses up to them, presumably because he finally read the handwriting on the wall.
Enjoy those THIRTY-FOUR FELONY CHARGES being slowly crammed up Blubber Boy's butt, not to mention, the all-but-assured RAPE TRIAL LOSS, DUMBO.
Oh, LOOK, even MORE evidence that you don't know wtf you're talking about, you brainless, blubbery, welching scumbag:
BREAKING: Court of Appeals Issues IMPORTANT ORDER In Manhattan DA Case against Jim Jordan
66K views 39 minutes ago
66,673 views Apr 20, 2023
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Order pausing or staying the subpoena issued by Republican Jim Jordan where Jordan is trying to interfere with the Manhattan District Attorney’s criminal case against Donald Trump. MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports.
