According to a former member of Alvin Bragg’s staff, the district attorney in Manhattan was reluctant to indict former President Donald Trump out of concern that he would lose the case, according to The Washington Examiner.
Mark Pomerantz, who left the district attorney’s office in February, the evidence suggesting Trump or his company had engaged in criminal activity was very convoluted, but investigators have cause to believe Trump had deceived banks to obtain loans.
”He and the new team were focused on the risk that we could lose the case,” Pomerantz said, per the Daily Beast. “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 and Carey Dunne left the Manhattan District Attorney’s office in protest at Bragg’s statement that he had second thoughts about bringing charges against Trump. Pomerantz claimed Trump was “guilty of several felony crimes” in his resignation letter. At the beginning of the year, Bragg took over as Manhattan’s district attorney from Cyrus Vance.
“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,” Pomerantz explained, the outlet reported.
“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.”
Vance launched the probe in 2019 and engaged in a protracted legal struggle to get Trump’s tax returns. Pomerantz claimed that in the end, he and his team were certain they had enough evidence to indict Trump, but they were also aware that proving their case in court would be challenging because some of Trump’s acts did not always neatly match the definitions of specific crimes.
“The view of the investigative team was that Trump had committed crimes, and I don’t think there were dissents from that view,” Pomerantz contended, according to the outlet.
“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.”