A New York judge refused to block Republican subpoenas seeking information from Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg about his unprecedented criminal case against Donald Trump.
It's a blow to Bragg's efforts to quash congressional oversight of the "hush money" case, which is widely seen as a politically motivated hit job.
Bragg has played the victim, alleging in a lawsuit Tuesday that Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are the ones leading an "unprecedently brazen and unconstitutional attack."
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York was not convinced by Bragg's request for a restraining order, and instead set a hearing date next week to address the issue.
Bragg has been going back and forth with Republican Jim Jordan (Oh.) since the news of Trump's unprecedented indictment began circulating in March. Jordan shared his reaction to Bragg's latest explosion of self-righteous fury over Twitter.
"First, they indict a president for no crime. Then, they sue to block congressional oversight when we ask questions about the federal funds they say they used to do it, he said.
Last week, Bragg complained of "harassment" when Republicans subpoenaed Mark Pomerantz, an anti-Trump former prosecutor who resigned from Bragg's office over his previous reluctance to pursue the case against Trump.
Pomerantz wrote an entire book about the case, in which he expressed open disdain for Trump and bragged about being "at the center of what might become one of the most consequential criminal cases ever brought."
Bragg filed a lawsuit Tuesday asking a judge to block Republicans from issuing any subpoena to Pomerantz, Bragg or anyone tied to the case. Republicans have "no power to supervise state criminal prosecution," Bragg said.
Trump pled not guilty last week to 34 felony counts for "falsifying business records." Bragg took the unusual step of upgrading what would normally be misdemeanor charges by alleging that Trump concealed another crime, but Bragg has refused to say what that crime is.
Yet, Bragg accuses Jordan of leading a "transparent campaign to intimidate and attack" with his demands for information.
"Basic principles of federalism and common sense, as well as binding Supreme Court precedent, forbid Congress from demanding it," he said.
Bragg's invocation of "federalism" is deeply ironic: Bragg has accused Trump of violating federal election law, which even liberal "legal experts" say Bragg has no jurisdiction to prosecute.
Bragg is grasping at straws to cover up the obvious: this case is a shameful witch hunt.