Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has stated he will only testify about Donald Trump’s prosecution after the former president’s July sentencing, sparking controversy.
This decision follows House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan's request for Bragg to testify before the July sentencing.
According to The Post Millenial, Alvin Bragg signaled his intent to cooperate regarding his office’s prosecution of Donald Trump but maintained this would occur post-sentencing. Bragg’s general counsel, Leslie Dubeck, articulated this position in a letter to Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan.
Jordan had previously asked Bragg to appear before the Weaponization of Government subcommittee on June 13, a date Bragg's office contested. Dubeck’s letter emphasized that Bragg’s office aims for “voluntary cooperation” but views the pre-sentencing testimony as misaligned with justice procedures.
Trump was found guilty in late May of 34 felony counts related to falsified business records. Bragg’s office indicates that his testimony would be more fitting after court proceedings conclude on July 11, 2024.
The letter from Dubeck, shared by Politico, also mentioned that Bragg's office is considering whether an Assistant District Attorney might publically discuss the active prosecution. However, scheduling conflicts made the June 13 date problematic.
Chairman Jim Jordan has been critical of Bragg's timing, questioning why Bragg insists on waiting until after Trump's sentencing. Jordan has even suggested the possibility of issuing a subpoena to ensure Bragg’s early testimony.
In addition to Bragg, Jordan has reached out to Matthew Colangelo, a former senior official in President Biden’s Department of Justice and now a prosecutor in the Trump case. Bragg halted his involvement in the Trump investigation concerning the Stormy Daniels case before Colangelo’s hiring in December 2022.
Dubeck stressed that the June 13 date was not coordinated with their office and presented scheduling conflicts. The invitation lacked clarity regarding the scope of Bragg’s proposed testimony, complicating matters further.
Dubeck’s letter argued that participating in a public hearing could harm the fair administration of justice. Bragg’s office remains firm on not compromising ongoing legal procedures by adhering to the Committee’s original timeline.
Jordan continues to push for an earlier testimony, arguing that the political implications of Bragg’s prosecution of Trump demand immediate scrutiny. In a letter dated May 31, Jordan described Bragg’s directives as politically charged, specifically focusing on the prosecution of Donald Trump.
The conflicting views between Bragg and Jordan underscore a broader debate over prosecutorial timing and the intersection of law and politics. As of now, Bragg stands by his decision to delay testimony until after the July sentencing.
Manhattan DA Bragg will defer his public testimony concerning the Trump case until after sentencing on July 11. Bragg maintains that early testimony could undermine judicial fairness. Jim Jordan continues to criticize this stance, questioning its necessity and political motivation, and has threatened to subpoena Bragg if necessary.
