Former Trump prosecutor mostly mother before Congress on details of Hush-Money investigation

WASHINGTON (AP) — A former prosecutor who once oversaw the investigation of former President Donald Trump declined to answer substantive questions in a closed-door statement Friday from the House Judiciary Committee, according to a Republican lawmaker at the meeting. The prosecutor and his boss said he was just following grand jury rules.

Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, left the meeting after about an hour and said Mark Pomerantz, the former prosecutor, repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment, which protects people from providing self-incriminating testimony.

Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in a plan to bury allegations of extramarital affairs that surfaced during his 2016 campaign for the White House. Republican lawmakers have denounced the investigation as “political persecution” and have launched an oversight investigation.

Pomerantz, in a written opening statement, called the committee’s investigation itself “an act of political theater.” He also explained that he was invoking the Fifth Amendment because the Manhattan district attorney’s office had previously warned him before he published a book about the investigation that he could face criminal liability if he disclosed grand jury material or violated a provision of the Charter of the City of New York dealing with the misuse of confidential information.

Pomerantz, who’s gone Office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg office after disagreements over the direction of the Trump investigation, was subpoenaed by the Republican-controlled House committee. The panel, chaired by the Republican representative. jim jordan, is probing how Bragg handled Trump’s landmark impeachment.

“This statement is for show,” Pomerantz also said in prepared remarks. “I don’t believe for a moment that I’m here to assist in a genuine effort to enact laws or conduct legislative ‘oversight’.”

Bragg had sued to stop Pomerantz’s subpoena from Jordan, but last month agreed to Pomerantz’s testimony after a delay and on the condition that attorneys for the prosecutor’s office be present. The committee has said it would have allowed the district attorney’s attorneys even without the agreement.

Pomerantz had argued in court documents that the subpoena left him in an “impossible position” and would potentially force him to violate his ethical obligations.

Issa, the Republican lawmaker, told reporters: “This is an obstructing witness who has no intention of answering any questions.”

republican representative matt gaetzAnother committee member also said lawmakers “were not getting a lot of responses.”

Jordan left the meeting room after a statement that lasted more than five hours, telling reporters he was “surprised by some of the responses” but declined to provide further details, citing committee rules.

Pomerantz’s attorney, Ted Wells, told reporters that his opening statement explaining why he would not answer questions made it “very clear what happened.”

Pomerantz can decline to answer certain questions that relate to legal privilege and ethical obligations, but Jordan could also rule on those assertions on a case-by-case basis. The Republican lawmaker said he would consult with lawyers and committee members about taking legal action against Pomerantz, including holding him in contempt of Congress.

A contempt of Congress charge would require a full committee vote before going to the Republican-majority House floor.

Pomerantz recently wrote a book about his work on the search for Trump and discussed the investigation in interviews on “60 Minutes” and other shows. But Issa said she wasn’t even answering questions about previous statements she’d made.

Issa suggested that the testimony fight would go back to the legal system, saying it would be “the court that decides when we challenge your failure to answer a question.”

Bragg’s office said in a statement: “Pursuant to the agreement we reached with the committee last month, the District Attorney’s Office is participating in today’s statement and affirming our rights to object to the disclosure of confidential information protected by the law”.