(NewsNation) — Two letters that surfaced within the past day are adding yet another layer to the Manhattan district attorney’s investigation into former President Donald Trump and a hush money payment that was made on his behalf.
No indictment has been handed down, despite claims from Trump that he would be arrested Tuesday. While ultimately being untrue, the announcement put the case into the center of political universe.
Now, Rep. Jim Jordan and other Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee are demanding Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg provide the committee with information and testimony. In a Monday letter to Bragg, the committee called the case a “politically motivated prosecution.”
The committee has now asked the same from two former Manhattan prosecutors, Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne, who reportedly left the DA’s office, citing Bragg’s reluctance to prosecute. Jordan sent letters to Pomerantz and Dunne on Wednesday asking them to testify.
Writing back to the committee, Bragg’s office called Jordan’s letter an “unprecedented inquiry into a pending local prosecution.”
“The letter only came after Donald Trump created a false expectation that he would be arrested the next day and his lawyers reportedly urged you to intervene,” Bragg said.
Rep. Tom Tiffany of the Judiciary committee told NewsNation’s Marni Hughes on Thursday he believes Bragg needs to explain himself.
“He’s saying we’re inserting ourselves into New York’s sovereignty; well he’s inserting himself into a national political race, and the presidential race on top of it,” Tiffany said. “Come and answer the questions, Mr. Bragg.
It is still unclear if any more witnesses must testify after the jury last heard from Robert Costello, who was brought in to discredit Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen. It was Cohen who made a $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016 in a bid to buy her silence about an alleged affair she had with Trump.
Cohen says he was reimbursed by Trump and later pleaded guilty to campaign finance crimes.
“Grand juries generally do what the prosecutor asks them to do, but we don’t know yet if the prosecutor has formally presented the charges,” said John C. Coffee Jr., a professor at Columbia Law School. “Once they formally present the charges, the grand jury votes on it. If the vote is the requisite affirmative vote, then they’ll probably take this indictment in a sealed form and present it to the judge.”
The second letter that surfaced Wednesday night is one from 2018 involving Cohen that could potentially alter the hush money payment investigation.
The document, authored by Cohen’s lawyer, states Cohen was not reimbursed the $130,000 payment from the Trump Organization. The document contradicts Cohen’s congressional testimony in 2019, when he stated he met with Trump multiple times to discuss the payments and provided Congress with several checks he received in return.
Bragg is not commenting on the open investigation and what role the newly released letter may play in it. So it’s unknown what weight the grand jury puts on the letter, especially compared to Michael Cohen’s testimony later that former President Trump is the one who repaid him the hush money.
“Looking at the letter and then comparing it to the facts that Michael Cohen agreed to and stipulated to during his change of plea, I do not think that that Feb. 8, 2018 letter is going to present a problem for District Attorney Bragg in the prosecution of his case,” said David Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor.
