Prosecutors Were Scared Of Prosecuting Donald Trump And Losing

( The district attorney in Manhattan was hesitant to indict former President Donald Trump, simply because he was worried that he would eventually not be successful in the case.

A person who once served as a prosecutor on the team of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg made those claims recently. On a recent podcast episode of “The Cutting Edge,” Mark Pomerantz, who in February stepped down from his role with the Manhattan DA’s office, said that the evidence revolving around whether Trump or the Trump Organization actually committed any crimes was complicated.

At the same time, the DA’s office has good reason to believe that Trump and his companies did indeed mislead some financial institutions so they could procure certain loans.

As Pomerantz explained about Bragg on the podcast:

“He and the new team were focused on the risk that we could lose the case. The devil was really in the details, and the details couldn’t be explained in kind of short form … Ultimately, the DA — the incoming DA — and the team were not comfortable going forward.”

Pomerantz resigned from his position at the DA’s office as part of a protest after Bragg said he had doubts about ultimately pursuing a criminal case against the former president. He resigned along with Carey Dunne.

He wrote a resignation letter that contended that Trump was “guilty of numerous felony violations.”

Bragg has only been in his position since the start of the year, after taking over for Cyrus Vance.

As Pomerantz explained of the situation:

“I believe that Donald Trump, in fact, was guilty and, second, that there was sufficient evidence as a matter of law to have sustained a guilty verdict if we went forward. I was utterly convinced that if the defendant had not been Donald Trump or the putative defendant, if it had been Joe Blow from Kokomo, we would have indicted without a big debate.”

In other words, he’s saying that the DA’s office only didn’t pursue criminal charges against Trump because he was the former president — and not because they didn’t believe he committed a crime.

In 2019, Vance started his investigation, waging an intense battle in court in the process to obtain copies of the former president’s tax returns. Once they did that, Pomerantz said members of the DA’s teams were convinced they had sufficient evidence to indict Trump.

At the same time, they knew doing so would be tricky — and proving the crimes in court would be challenging — only because the actions Trump took didn’t always fit neatly into what the parameters would be for certain crimes.

As he explained:

“The view of the investigative team was that Trump had committed crimes, and I don’t think there were dissents from that view. The problem was fitting his conduct within the pigeonholes of the New York penal law. It was very easy to do that under federal law, but, of course, we weren’t sitting as federal prosecutors.”