Former President Donald Trump
Jonathan Ernst | Reuters
A former special prosecutor of New York who dropped out of the crime investigation of the former President Donald Trump after his boss denied the charges at the time saying that if Trump “was Joe Blow from Kokomo, we would prosecute without major argument.”
Mark Pomerantz, former special counsel for the District of Manhattan, said: “I believe Donald Trump is, in fact, guilty and, second, there is sufficient evidence under the law to uphold a conviction. guilty if we continue. Law officer, in a new interview.
“My point is to let people believe that the criminal justice system can’t hold people accountable if those people have great financial and political influence,” Pomerantz said.
He added: “The rule of law is supposed to apply to both the rich and the poor, the vulnerable, to the powerful.
Pomerantz commented on the podcast, “Why is Donald Trump not criminally prosecuted in New York? What happened and why? “ by Professor John Coffee Jr. chaired by Columbia University Law School.
Judge Jed Rakoff of Manhattan Federal Court participated in the interview.
The interview, released Thursday, is Pomerantz’s first since he and Carey Dunne, a second prosecutor he has led the Trump crime investigation, resigned resigned from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office in February. at the discretion of DA Alvin Bragg Jr. not to seek a grand jury indictment on Trump at the moment.
“You know, I’m a big believer in the idea that it’s a government of the law and not of men, and that means the rule of law is for everyone,” Pomerantz said.
“And I am absolutely convinced that if the defendant is not Donald Trump or the hypothetical defendant, if it is Joe Blow from Kokomo, we will prosecute without major argument,” he said.
Pomerantz added: “You don’t give fake financial statements to banks to get loans without risking prosecution.
The DA’s office is known to be investigating Trump and his company, the Trump Organization, for possible crimes related to suspected conduct of reporting different valuations for the same real estate. property, depending on the circumstances, in order to maximize financial benefits in the form of reduced taxes, lower insurance premiums and loan values.
Office of the New York State Attorney General Letitia James conducting a civil investigation of the Trump Organization for similar issues.
“We anticipate the possibility of giving testimony that those loans will not be made, except that Donald Trump has given the banks personal financial statements and attests to the nature of the loans,” Pomerantz said in the interview. their accuracy.
Trump and his lawyers have denied wrongdoing by him and the company.
Trump’s attorney, Ronald Fischetti, did not immediately respond Thursday to a request for comment. But Fischetti previously told CNBC that he was “surprised” and “disappointed” by similar comments that have been made public from Pomerantz, a former law partner of his.
Bragg’s office, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment, has said that the investigation is ongoing.
The investigation into Trump began under DA Cyrus Vance Jr.
In January 2021, Vance joined Pomerantz, who at the time had retired from practicing private law, to work on the probe. Pomerantz is the former director of the criminal division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, the federal prosecutor’s office in Manhattan.
“I thought to myself, ‘What could be more thrilling, more interesting, more complicated than this investigation of a former president who has millions of supporters and also millions of haters? ” “Pomerantz said in the podcast interview.
“I also thought the investigation could use some focus and maybe I could make a difference. So I agreed to participate and then started working,” he said.
Last year, Vance’s office obtained a 15 count indictment against the Trump Organization and its chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, on charges related to an alleged conspiracy to unlawfully evade taxes to compensate the chief financial officer and executives. company since 2005. That criminal case is pending and the defendants have pleaded not guilty.
Bragg in January succeeded Vance, who declined to run for re-election in 2021.
More than a month later, Pomerantz and Dunne resigned after Bragg halted their investigation, advising them that he was suspicious of pointing out Trump.
“We were not informed that the case would be closed,” Pomerantz said on the podcast. “We have been informed that the investigation will continue. And what we have been explicitly told is that an indictment will not be accepted regarding the current state of the case.
“Now, inevitably, which leads to the question, what will change? Is there a reasonable chance that things will change?” Pomerantz said. “And there is no reasonable expectation that the facts will change in any major way in the near future.
“I think the case should be continued, and I don’t want to continue passively as part of an effort that I don’t understand or believe will lead to a different outcome in the future,” he said.
Pomerantz wrote Bragg a scathing resignation letter, which was made public in March.
In it, the lawyer said that he and his team had no doubt that Trump “committed a crime” and that he feared Bragg’s decision not to prosecute at the time “means Mr. all about his crimes.”
“People are accused of that, I venture to say, every day of the week somewhere in the United States,” Pomerantz said in the podcast interview, referring to the use of fabricated financial statements.
“I think it is necessary to press the case to vindicate the provisions of the law,” he said. “Everyone can quantify the risk of loss differently. You know, could we have lost the lawsuit? Of course, we could have lost the lawsuit. But I deeply believe that sometimes good is good. It’s better to bring a case and risk losing it than to not. bring the case at all.”
Pomerantz said he was “very disappointed” after he resigned over allegations that Bragg “must have been corrupt” in deciding not to prosecute Trump.
“It’s ridiculous,” Pomerantz said.
“But the fact that you have someone questioning the district attorney’s integrity for making the decision he made reflects the fact that it was a decision that, in my view, has made everyone people lose faith in the universal applicability of the rule of law.”
