Former Trump prosecutor Mark Pomerantz invoked his Fifth Amendment rights during his deposition before the House Judiciary Committee on Friday, slamming the GOP-led panel’s investigation as “political theater” in his opening statement.
Pomerantz, who investigated Trump at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, said he was appearing before the committee “as required” because “I respect the rule of law,” before issuing a sharp rebuke of the panel’s probe and disclosing his intent to plead the Fifth.
“What I do not respect is the use of the Committee’s subpoena power to compel me to participate in an act of political theater,” Pomerantz’s statement reads. “This deposition is for show. I do not believe for a moment that I am here to assist a genuine effort to enact legislation or conduct legislative ‘oversight.’”
“Fortunately, I do not have to cooperate with the cynical histrionics that this deposition represents,” it later adds. “Although the rule of law compels me to be here, it does not require that I play a substantive role in your theatrical production. Under the law, I can decline to answer your questions for several reasons.”
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, told reporters during Friday’s deposition that Pomerantz answered no questions up to that point, calling him an “obstructing witness.”
“I’ve never had a more obstructive and less cooperative witness in my over 20 years in Congress,” he said.
“The witness has not cooperated in any way, shape or form, as simply appeared and, I would characterize as taking the Fifth on every single question,” he added, later saying “he has answered no substantive questions whatsoever, and clearly appears unwilling to answer any questions even about previous statements he’s made.”
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), however, said Pomerantz shouldn’t have had to appear at all.
“Today’s deposition simply underscored that House Republicans’ investigation into Donald Trump’s criminal prosecution by a local district attorney’s office has no nexus to Congress’s jurisdiction and is simply an effort to abuse the official authority of Congress to undermine the rule of law, interfere in an ongoing prosecution of a private citizen, and harass and badger a public official carrying out his official duties,” he said in a statement.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) subpoenaed Pomerantz last month for testimony pertaining to his work on the probe into hush money payments from former President Trump made in the leadup to the 2016 presidential election.
He said he was “surprised” at some of Pomerantz’s answers, “but committee rules don’t allow us to get into details.
A grand jury empaneled by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) indicted Trump in March on 34 criminal charges related to those payments. Trump pleaded not guilty.
Pomerantz resigned from the Trump investigation in February 2022 because he disagreed with Bragg’s reluctance to try to indict Trump. In his resignation letter, which was published by The New York Times, Pomerantz said he thought Trump was “guilty of numerous felony violations,” and called the disinclination to charge the former president “misguided and completely contrary to the public interest.”
A trio of House GOP chairman — including Jordan — launched an investigation into Bragg in March, before the historic charges were announced but after Trump predicted that he would be arrested.
Republicans have argued that the charges against Trump are politically motivated.
Bragg sued Jordan in April in an attempt to block Pomerantz from having to comply with his subpoena and testify. The lawsuit slammed Jordan’s investigation has a “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” the district attorney’s work. A judge later ruled that Pomerantz would have to appear.
In his opening statement, Pomerantz wrote “We are gathered here because Donald Trump’s supporters would like to use these proceedings to attempt to obstruct and undermine the criminal case pending against him, and to harass, intimidate, and discredit anyone who investigates or charges him.”
Pomerantz told lawmakers in his opening statement that he was instructed by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office that he would maintain their “claims of privilege and confidentiality in order to protect the integrity of the pending prosecution and continuing investigation of Donald Trump.”
“I intend to honor the District Attorney’s request, and I will not answer questions to which the District Attorney objects,” he added.
Even though he has written and spoken about the investigation in the past, Pomerantz said, “the circumstances have changed” because Trump has been charged.
“With formal charges now pending, the rule of law is best served if the merits of the case against Mr. Trump are litigated because the court that is hearing the case,” he said. “This is neither the time nor the place for me to answer questions about the investigation or the pending indictment over the objection of the prosecutors.”
“The charges against Mr. Trump should be heard and decided by a judge and a jury before politicians second-guess their merits or the decision to bring them,” he continued. “That’s how our system works. Those who claim that they respect the rule of law should wait for the courts to do their work.”
Pomerantz also outlined to lawmakers why he was invoking his Fifth Amendment rights: before his book was published, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office said he could face criminal liability if he disclosed grand jury material or violated confidentiality regulations. He was later told by a lawyer with the office that his book “exposed me to criminal liability,” he told lawmakers.
“While I am certain I broke no laws, I am not required to answer questions if my answers might be used against me in a criminal prosecution,” he said.
Pomerantz also wrote that “the rule of law permits me to refuse to answer questions that are not pertinent to a legitimate legislative function, or that seek information that is protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.”
“For all these reasons, I will not be answering questions that relate to my work in the DA’s office, my book, or public statements I have made in the past,” his opening statement reads. “It gives me no joy to invoke my legal rights, but I am glad that the law allows me not to cooperate with this performance of political theater.”
“As an American, I am privileged to have the legal rights that I answer today, and I am hopeful that I live in a country that will continue to respect them,” he added.
Issa told reporters Friday “we respect someone’s Fifth Amendment rights, but it’s very clear that this witness came with a clear intention of obstructing us.”
“When his opening statement becomes public, I think we’ll make it clear that he has disdain for this body and has no intention of answering any of our questions,” he added.
