"If you believe prosecutors should indict Trump, it's worth reading"
The New York Times on Saturday published a detailed account of what led two prosecutors involved in the Manhattan district attorney's investigation into former President Donald Trump's business practices led to his abrupt resignation last month—a "seismic development" that some experts described as "troubling." " said.
The investigation was launched under former district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., who did not seek re-election. When prosecutors Kerry Dunne and Mark Pomerantz resigned, the newspaper reported that it was because the new DA, Alvin Bragg, was concerned about moving forward with the case.
After their initial reporting, a trio in the Times "compiled an account of the investigation's revelations, interviewed by more than a dozen people knowledgeable about the events," that "brings back a curtain on one of the most consequential prosecution decisions." draws "in American history," noting that Trump would be the first president to be criminally charged.
Ben Proteus, William K. Rashbaum, and Jonah E. Bromwich lay in the investigation and key developments from Vance's final days in office to his resignation—including a December 9 meeting of the former DA's "brain trust," public relations. Firestorm" Bragg. Criminal justice reforms and high-profile shootings, and in January and February, faced intense discussions between the new district attorney and two prosecutors.
As Proteus, Rushbaum and Bromwich pointed out:
The interview shows that Mr Bragg was not the only one to question the strength of the case. Late last year, three career prosecutors in the district attorney's office opted to drop the investigation, given the pace at which it was progressing and what they maintained were gaps in the evidence. Tensions flared in the new administration, with some career prosecutors directing concerns directly to the new district attorney's team.
Mr Bragg, whose office is investigating with attorneys working for New York's attorney general, Letitia James, accompanied Mr Dunne and Mr Pomerantz in his first days as district attorney with evidence presenting evidence to the grand jury. No issue was raised. But as the weeks went by, he developed concerns about the challenge of showing Mr. Trump's intent - the need to prove he criminally falsified his business record - and the former president's lifelong fixer, Michael D. About the risks of trusting Cohen, as a key witness.
Prosecutors left the day after the new district attorney told him "he didn't want to continue with the grand jury presentation" and was unwilling to authorize charges against Trump, according to the report, which said "Mr. Dunne and Mr. Pomerantz also emphasized how Mr. Bragg handled the investigation at times."
While Pomerantz and Dunne declined to comment, Bragg's spokeswoman Danielle Filson said "this is an active investigation and there is a strong team working on it." He said the investigation is being led by Susan Hoffinger, executive assistant district attorney for the Office of Investigative Division.
Responding to the new report, former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti tweeted that "This is a remarkable article that gives us an inside look at the Manhattan DA's deliberations with regard to accusing Trump. If you believe prosecutors should impeach Trump, it's worth reading. We rarely get a window into prosecution decisions."
2/ It’s obvious from the article that the Manhattan DA does not have “slam dunk” evidence of Trump’s intent and that any charges brought would be challenging to prove.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) March 5, 2022
The lengths that the Manhattan DA’s office has gone to carefully consider these charges is admirable.
According to Mariotti, it's not possible to tell from the Times' reporting that "whether the current Manhattan DA is making the right call. We don't know if his team has the evidence, and they may eventually develop evidence that will allow them to file charges." to assure."
"I wouldn't be surprised if other prosecutors bothered accusing Trump. Not because they believe he is above the law, but because of the issues with the evidence he has," he said. "If you are convinced that the other prosecutors are not doing anything, they may be doing what he did."