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\u2019s investigation as \u201cpolitical theater\u201d in his opening statement.
Pomerantz, who investigated Trump at the Manhattan District Attorney\u2019s Office, said he was appearing before the committee \u201cas required\u201d because \u201cI respect the rule of law,\u201d before issuing a sharp rebuke of the panel\u2019s probe and disclosing his intent to plead the Fifth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWhat I do not respect is the use of the Committee\u2019s subpoena power to compel me to participate in an act of political theater,\u201d Pomerantz\u2019s statement reads. \u201cThis 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 \u2018oversight.\u2019\u201d
\u201cFortunately, I do not have to cooperate with the cynical histrionics that this deposition represents,\u201d it later adds. \u201cAlthough 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.\u201d
Rep. Darrell Issa\u2002(R-Calif.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, told reporters during Friday\u2019s deposition that Pomerantz answered no questions up to that point, calling him an \u201cobstructing witness.\u201d
\u201cI\u2019ve never had a more obstructive and less cooperative witness in my over 20 years in Congress,\u201d he said.
\u201cThe 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,\u201d he added, later saying \u201che has answered no substantive questions whatsoever, and clearly appears unwilling to answer any questions even about previous statements he\u2019s made.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), however, said Pomerantz shouldn\u2019t have had to appear at all.
\u201cToday\u2019s deposition simply underscored that House Republicans\u2019 investigation into Donald Trump\u2019s\u2002criminal prosecution by a local district attorney\u2019s office has no nexus to Congress\u2019s 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,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He said he was \u201csurprised\u201d at some of Pomerantz\u2019s answers, \u201cbut committee rules don\u2019t allow us to get into details.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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\u2019s reluctance to try to indict Trump. In his resignation letter, which was published by The New York Times, Pomerantz said he thought Trump was \u201cguilty of numerous felony violations,\u201d and called the disinclination to charge the former president \u201cmisguided and completely contrary to the public interest.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A trio of House GOP chairman \u2014 including Jordan \u2014 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\u2019s investigation has a \u201ctransparent campaign to intimidate and attack\u201d the district attorney\u2019s work. A judge later ruled that Pomerantz would have to appear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In his opening statement, Pomerantz wrote \u201cWe are gathered here because Donald Trump\u2019s 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.\u201d
Pomerantz told lawmakers in his opening statement that he was instructed by the Manhattan District Attorney\u2019s Office that he would maintain their \u201cclaims of privilege and confidentiality in order to protect the integrity of the pending prosecution and continuing investigation of Donald Trump.\u201d
\u201cI intend to honor the District Attorney\u2019s request, and I will not answer questions to which the District Attorney objects,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even though he has written and spoken about the investigation in the past, Pomerantz said, \u201cthe circumstances have changed\u201d because Trump has been charged.
\u201cWith 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,\u201d he said. \u201cThis 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.\u201d
\u201cThe 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,\u201d he continued. \u201cThat\u2019s how our system works. Those who claim that they respect the rule of law should wait for the courts to do their work.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pomerantz also outlined to lawmakers why he was invoking his Fifth Amendment rights: before his book was published, the Manhattan District Attorney\u2019s 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 \u201cexposed me to criminal liability,\u201d he told lawmakers.
\u201cWhile 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,\u201d he said.
Pomerantz also wrote that \u201cthe 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\u2019s guarantee of freedom of speech.\u201d
\u201cFor all these reasons, I will not be answering questions that relate to my work in the DA\u2019s office, my book, or public statements I have made in the past,\u201d his opening statement reads. \u201cIt 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.\u201d
\u201cAs 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,\u201d he added.
Issa told reporters Friday \u201cwe respect someone\u2019s Fifth Amendment rights, but it\u2019s very clear that this witness came with a clear intention of obstructing us.\u201d
\u201cWhen his opening statement becomes public, I think we\u2019ll make it clear that he has disdain for this body and has no intention of answering any of our questions,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n