Alvin Bragg Agrees to Testify Before Congress About Trump Case – The New York Times
Trump Hush-Money Trial
Advertisement
Supported by
The Manhattan district attorney suggested to a Republican congressman that he would testify only after former President Donald J. Trump is sentenced in July.
Ben Protess and
Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney who prosecuted former President Donald J. Trump, agreed on Friday to testify before Congress as Republicans seek to discredit Mr. Trump’s conviction. But Mr. Bragg suggested his testimony would need to wait until after Mr. Trump is sentenced next month.
Mr. Bragg, who had previously resisted congressional involvement in the case, indicated his willingness to testify in a letter to Representative Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who leads the House Judiciary Committee. Mr. Bragg’s office said the district attorney wanted to speak first with House Republicans to “better understand the scope and purpose of the proposed hearing.”
After Mr. Trump’s May 30 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, Mr. Jordan called for a hearing on June 13 that he said would examine what he called politically motivated prosecutions of federal officials by state and local prosecutors, “in particular the recent political prosecution of President Donald Trump by the Manhattan district attorney’s office.”
In addition to Mr. Bragg’s testimony, Mr. Jordan, who also leads a subcommittee investigating what Republicans call the “weaponization of government,” is seeking the testimony of one of the prosecutors, Matthew Colangelo, who helped lead the case against Mr. Trump.
“This office is committed to voluntary cooperation,” Leslie B. Dubeck, the Manhattan district attorney’s general counsel, wrote to Mr. Jordan on Friday. “That cooperation includes making the district attorney available to provide testimony on behalf of the office at an agreed-upon date.”
Ms. Dubeck’s letter also said the office would be “evaluating the propriety” of allowing Mr. Colangelo to testify publicly about the investigation. But the June date Mr. Jordan had set, she wrote, presented scheduling conflicts.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Advertisement