After securing the recent conviction of former President Donald Trump in a New York courtroom, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg appears to be bending to the will of Democrats who do not want him disclosing too much about the highly controversial case.

Indicative of Bragg's reticence to spill the beans on the targeting of Trump is a Friday statement from his office declining the invitation to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on June 13, the date selected by panel chair Jim Jordan (R-OH), as Fox News reports.

Date declined

As The Hill reported late last month, almost immediately after Trump was found guilty in the Stormy Daniels hush money case, Jordan indicated his intention to call Bragg before the Judiciary panel to answer questions about how the prosecution was conducted.

Jordan took to X to declare plans to bring both Bragg and Manhattan prosecutor Matthew Colangelo before the committee to answer questions about what he called “the unprecedented political prosecution of President Trump.”

Bragg had previously sidestepped efforts from Jordan to bring him in for testimony, but it appears that he may be somewhat more willing to cooperate now that the Trump case has concluded -- just not on the day chosen by Jordan.

Leslie Dubeck, general counsel in the Manhattan D.A.'s office, sent a letter to Jordan on Friday stating that Bragg has “scheduling conflicts” that would prevent his appearance in D.C. on the 13^th, but she noted that a future appearance may be possible.

“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,” Dubeck wrote.

Other concerns lodged

Calendar concerns were not the only obstacle cited by Dubeck in her letter, as she also took aim at Jordan for what she described as vague parameters for Bragg's potential appearance.

The Judiciary Committte chariman “has not made clear the scope of the proposed testimony,” Dubeck's letter lamented.

Bragg's general counsel also pointed to Trump's upcoming sentencing, currently set for July 11 and the potential involvement of appellate courts in the case.

Dubeck asserted that “to participate in a public hearing at this time would be potentially detrimental to those efforts.”

What comes next?

Clearly frustrated by the situation, Jordan spokesperson Stefanie Farrell expressed,” Everything is on the table as to what is next” regarding the demand for Bragg's participation.

Furthermore, Jordan has indicated his plans to propose an appropriations measure designed to “defund the lawfare activities” of prosecutors -- at both state and federal levels -- who are leading what he referred to as “politically sensitive investigations.”

Whether Bragg will ultimately work with Jordan's committee to find a mutually acceptable date for testimony or continue to bow to the demands of Democrats interested in stonewalling any probe of what took place in New York, only time will tell.