May 5, 2023 --

LPR Imagines how at least part of the deposition might go.

Illustrating Why the Second Circuit Court of Appeals Must Uphold the Bragg/Pomerantz Subpoena as Pursuant to a Legitimate Legislative Purpose.

How the House Judiciary Committee deposition of the anti-Trump zealot Mark Pomerntz, age 71, could unfold, in pertinent part:

Q. Counselor, does government have a legitimate purpose in providing protection to former presidents.

A. I suppose so.

Q. And would that responsibility be that of the federal government, or the state where the former president resides.

A. Probably the federal government.

Q. Indeed, the federal government has , by statute, recognized its responsibility for the well-being of former presidents. Counselor, are you aware of the Former Presidents Protection Act?

A. Never had occasion to refer to it.

Q. This is the federal law that provides Secret Service protection for former presidents. Can you understand how, in view of the indictment of former president Trump, that law might well need amending?

A. Haven't the slightest idea what you are getting at.

Q. Counselor, you are on record as calling for the indictment of President Trump.

A. So.

Q. And in your book urging such indictment, you compare the former president to a convicted felon you once prosecuted, John Gotti

A. What of it?

Q. Mr. Gotti was convicted of crimes and went to prison - where he died, isn't that so?

A. Again, what of it?

Q. In view of your unfavorable comparison of the former president to John Gotti, isn't
it fair to conclude that you want to see the former president behind bars, too.

A. That's your conclusion.

Q. But can you say, now, how the New York state prosecution of the former president intrudes ob federal law: to wit, the Former Presidents Protection Act, and how hearings conducted by the House Judiciary Committee are quire relevant to the national interest in seeing to the well-being of former presidents. Remember, that in answering this question, you are under oath.

A. I am not qualified to answer that question. I have not had the occasion to peruse the statute to which you refer..

Q. Wouldn't it be fair of me to conclude, therefore, that in calling for the indictment of Mr. Trump, and thereby implying the conviction and imprisonment of a former president, you gave no thought how your personal feelings against Mr. Trump ran up against federal law --- which obviously the Congress is the only government body authorized to change pursuant to its law-making power?

Mr. Pomerantz, you have no need to answer that question. That's all the input the House Judiciary Committee needs from you. -- at this time. This deposition is over.