U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil is presiding.
The parties are noting the appearances for the court.
Up first and arguing to invalidate the subpoena is Ted Boutrous, who says the subpoena has "grave" separation of powers issues.
Judge Vyskocil questions Boutrous sharply from the out the gate, interrupting Bragg's attorney routinely on various issue.
She asks why overseeing the use of federal money isn't a valid legislative act.
She also asks about how Pomerantz's book isn't a waiver.
After Boutrous says that Rep. Jordan's probe is trying to "intimidate" the DA's office, the judge snaps: "That's your interpretation of it."
Judge: "There's politics going on here on both sides here. Let's be honest about that."
Boutrous says he doesn't concede that.
The judge then calls much of the complaint irrelevant to the subpoena issue.
I can't emphasize enough: This is what lawyers call a hot bench.
Manhattan DA Bragg's attorney is getting a very tough reception.
Boutrous hammers home the Trump v. Mazars precedent by SCOTUS, which created the test for showing a congressional subpoena serves a legislative purpose.
Then, a Democratic-controlled committee sought Trump's tax information.
Now, the shoe's on the other foot and the GOP-controlled committee wants to use this precedent to fight the subpoena.
Brutal questioning on Pomerantz's book.
Judge: Have you read this book?
Other Bragg lawyer: Yes.
Judge: Does it preserve your confidences?
No, she answers.
Judge: "If I find a valid legislative purpose, I am not allowed to look at the motivations on either side."
Boutrous says the landscape changed after Trump v. Mazars, after which judges now have to look at the evidence.
Up now: Jordan's lawyer Matthew Berry.
The judge asks Berry whether the committee needs its "adjectives" of "politically motivated" to make their case.
"Doesn't it politicize it on your side, as well?" she asks.
Jordan claims that his committee is considering legislation to guard against political prosecution by local prosecutors.
The judge asks Berry why he needs testimony if one such bill is in play.
Q: If you already introduced the bill, why do you need testimony?
The judge recites the court's holding in Mazars to Jordan's lawyer.
"Do you intend to respect the invocation of privilege if this deposition were to go forward?" she asked.
Berry says the chair will decide on a case-by-case basis whether the sustain privilege objections.
Note: Bragg's attorneys had an extremely tough reception.
Jordan's lawyer, whose arguments are ongoing, isn't having an easy reception, either. But it's certainly less stinging.
The judge notes, not in these words, that Pomerantz is stuck between a rock and a hard place.
If he answers the questions, he faces possible liability from the DA, and if not, the wrath of Congress.
The judge tells Berry: "You have to admit, it is somewhat unusual" for Congress to conduct oversight on a local prosecutor.
Berry accuses Bragg's legal team of "rhetoric and hyperbole" in this particular case.
This is just about the subpoena to Pomerantz, he says.
Boutrous says it's "totally unprecedented" for Congress to go after local prosecutors.
The judge counters it's also unprecedented for a prosecutor to charge a former president.
"They say that they're doing it because the indictment raises, in their mind," concerns, she says.
Judge skewers Bragg's legal team for filing what she called an unauthorized reply brief.
She says she'll wrap up the hearing and issue a ruling as promptly as she can.
Then, she invites Berry back to take his final three minutes.
Both sides got grilled, but the DA's attorneys can't be too happy about how that went.
Trump's lawyers filed a motion to vacate his 34 felony convictions and dismiss his New York indictment.
In the wake of SCOTUS's immunity ruling, they argue that certain testimony and evidence shouldn't have been introduced at trial, like the categories shown here.
DA Bragg's deadline to respond to Trump's arguments is July 24.
A few thoughts on this:
Trump's lawyers are not just challenging his convictions, based on the alleged use of "official-acts evidence."
Since prosecutors brought some of this evidence to the grand jury, they want his indictment thrown out too.
Trump's lawyers agree that he isn't immune from prosecution in his N.Y. case, but they argued before trial that prosecutors shouldn't be allowed to use evidence tied to his official acts.
On Friday, Trump's lawyer argued that ex-AG Bill Barr only appointed Senate-confirmed US Attorneys as special counsel.
Jack Smith just contradicted that in a supplemental briefing showing three of Barr's special counsel picks from 1991 and 1992.
In the same briefing, Smith provided a list of statutes that appear to use "officials" to include inferior officers who don't require the advice and consent of the Senate.
It's quite long, and it rebuts Team Trump's claim that "officials" means something else.
Judge Cannon invited prosecutors to file this brief backing up their arguments defending the special counsel's constitutional authority at the end of Friday's proceedings.
After a Manhattan judge delivers his instructions, a jury of Trump's peers will begin a historic process: deliberations to determine whether to convict a former U.S. president of felonies.
As always, I will be reporting live from the courtroom. 🧵
Trump has entered the courtroom, followed by his entourage.
The daily photography session has begun.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who has appeared only occasionally, is not in the courtroom this morning.
"All rise."
The jury is entering, and some appear more dressed up than usual — ready to work.
Justice Merchan tells them that he will now instruct them on the law.
Before lunch, Justice Merchan dressed down Trump's lawyer for his "outrageous" comment about prosecutors trying to put his client in prison.
He'll instruct the jury that potential punishment should factor into decision.
Separate thread. 🧵
Before the prosecution's summation begins, Assistant DA Susan Hoffinger note there's another reason that Blanche also should have been on notice earlier.
The judge precluded the defense from discussing potential punishment in a pre-trial ruling. nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/pre…
Blanche has no objection to the curative instruction that prosecutors drafted.
I'm connecting the two threads, for defense and prosecution summations, here.