CNN: Ex-prosecutor who investigated Trump says he committed crimes

Former Special Assistant District Attorney Mark Pomerantz released a book saying former President Donald Trump broke the law but wasn’t charged by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. Bragg has since criticized Pomerantz’ book and conclusions. Former President Trump has not been charged criminally and has denied previously that he broke the law.
#CNN #News

Transcript

A fight between prosecutors over whether or not to charge fo President Donald Trump with financial crimes is spilling into public view, all because of a new book from a former Manhattan prosecut who was working on the case. That former assistant district

attorney is Mark Pomerantz, an expert on White-Collar Crime with a ton of experience prosecuting and defending organi crime cases. Pomerantz says that if prosecuto were looking at similar evidence against anyone other than the former president, charges would have been brought in a, quote, flat second.

He also compares Trump to John Gotti, the head of the Gambino organized crime family. The book is a searing criticism of Manhattan’s current D.A. Alvin Bragg’s decision not to bring charges last year, a decision that Pomerantz resigned over one this month.

But Bragg says the quote, Mr. Pomerantz is plain wasn’t ready for takeoff. And that it’s appalling that he insulted the skill and professionalism of our prosecutors from Rich’s book about his time in the investigat the people versus Donald Trump,

Account is out now, and he joins Good morning, sir. Good morning. Thank you for having me. It is a riveting read and it’s a really important read for everyone to understand what you saw what and what didn’t happen. What I find interesting

is that you didn’t used to talk to journalists. You’re known for saying, I don’t leak right now. You’re out here with wanting to tell the world this story. Why did you write this? Well, I wrote the book because i important story to tell.

However one feels about Donald T He is one of the central public figures of our time. And if, as I came to believe and as others came to believe he committed crimes, there was a substantial case to be brought and he needed to be held account

for those crimes. That’s an important issue. And I thought it was important t the to tell the story. You know, Mark, there were several prongs to our investigation that largel on the overvaluation of a number of key properties to get favorable bank loans.

But also your investigation incl those hush money payments you call the failure to move forward on those fronts a failure of justice. Why? Well, I thought it was a failure of justice because measured by the standard that prosecutors typically apply when they’re deciding whether

to bring criminal cases Donald Trump was guilty. We concluded that he was guilty. Every single member of the prosecution team thought that his guilt was estab I actually went around the room if anybody thought that he was i and there were no dissenting voi

When we had our meetings about t So we thought he was guilty. We thought we had evidence that was legally sufficient to e his guilt beyond a reasonable do We thought we had a reasonable p of winning the case of persuadin You can never be certain.

And this case was not a slam dun There were aggravating circumsta So I and others, including the f district attorney, Cy Vance, thought it was appropriate to go with the prosecution. Even you yourself had told Cy Vance, I believe. And now, look, we’ve got about a 70% chan

Of convincing a jury on this stu So not not a slam dunk but it was you recount in the book December 13th 2021 when Cy Vance the former Manhattan D.A., authorized you to move forward here with criminal charges. My question to you is twofold.

Why didn’t he do what I understa Bragg was coming in, but Cy Vance could have done thi Why do you believe Bragg didn’t? Sure. With regard to the timing, as I talk about in the book, we were working flat out when we got toward the end of 20

And the end of Cy Vance, his ten we simply couldn’t get it done and done professionally. And well before the end of the y I am sure he would have liked to the job finished during his term but we thought it was more appro do it right and get it right

And not to have the timing contr by a decision of the calendar in terms of when one term began and one t with respect to the different de that was made by the incoming district attorne I can’t speak in detail about wh went through his mind.

I can surmise from what happened at the time and st that he’s made since, that he had misgivings about the strength of the case and what I take from it is that in these circumstances, when the stakes are so high, it’s it’s human nature

To look for an overwhelming case a case where everything suggests that a jury must find the defendant guilty, that it’s a slam dunk. And that’s not the standard we a in the great run. Of criminal cases. One can argue that it’s a standa that should be applied

to a former president. But my judgment, as I explained in the book, was princes and paupers, presidents and anybody else should be held to the same stand and that you shouldn’t be lookin for a superabundance of evidence beyond proof, beyond a reasonabl

When you make the decision about going forward You talk about the argument of going slowly and methodically getting all your ducks in a row before you do something that’s never been done before. R No president’s ever been indicte for criminal conduct. Let’s talk about what’s happenin

now, because in your book, you say that this decision by Br and the team was a legal equival of a plane crash. But the principal cause was pilo But now what we’ve learned from reporting is that Bragg has been presenting e to a grand jury

related to these hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. Do you still feel that way? Is this still a legal plane cras or do you see him doing now, at least in part, what you wanted to do then? Look, I hope the investigation goes fo

I hope that it results in a pros because I think the evidence was I don’t know that the facts have changed at all. Perhaps we’ll see over time. But if the district attorney makes the decision to go forward that’s a decision that I would w

I believe it’s warranted by the And I wish him well in that ende This is not a personal issue or It’s a disagreement about prosecution policy. Just this one final question. Andrew Weissman, who, you know, served as lead prosecu for four, Bob Mueller,

Actually called Bragg’s decision a courageous and not one that would be politically benefi to him, his decision not to move forward when you wan The District Attorney’s Association of New York has a pretty harsh response to your book, Mark. They say that a former prosecuto

speaking out during an ongoing criminal investigation is unfortunate and unprecedented They say that you’ve upended the norms and the ethics of prosecutorial conduct. And I wonder if you are sure rig there was a fight over this, whether you should be even out t

saying these things, given the ongoing investigation. Are you sure this won’t at all interfere with the ongoing inves and grand jury right now? Yeah, look, I wrote the book in because I believe there should be a prosecution that Donald Trump did commit cri

For which he should be held acco The last thing I wanted to do or was get in the way of an investi or a prosecution. And I’m confident I didn’t do th The investigation, the prosecuti if it comes, will be decided based on the law and the facts.

And nothing I wrote in the book changes either the law or the facts that will be available to the prosecution to prove its If it if the case goes forward. But since you haven’t been in th for one year or just finally,

how do you know that? How do you know that those things haven’t changed and that it’s not enough hearing Well, I know that the facts that I des the book were not secrets that were being shared for the first time. The facts surrounding the hush m

the facts surrounding the financial statem are facts that were in the publi On the financial statement front Those facts were summarized in a complaint that the New York state attorney general filed and summarized in over 200 pages the details of the case on the hush money side.

The facts have been public for literally years. Michael Cohen wrote about it in Stormy Daniels wrote a book. The federal government brought the case agai Michael Cohen. The information was out there for everyone to see. And my discussing it in the book

and expressing my views and my conclusions does not get in the way of any case that might be brought.

source