I. Merrick Garland Update
II. Alvin Bragg and the Trump Org Financial Prosecution
If you missed the news, two of the New York prosecutors involved in the investigation into financial corruption in the Trump Org have resigned. One, Mark Pomerantz, made his resignation letter public. The bottom line: It’s frustrating and disappointing.
(This is the Manhattan case, distinct from the DOJ investigation into the January 6 insurrection.)
You can read the letter of resignation here.
Taking the letter at its word, what we know is that there is a difference of opinion between prosecutors over whether the evidence is sufficient to secure a conviction. The elected DA, Bragg, doesn’t want to bring charges. Two of the prosecutors then resigned in protest.
Remember that the Trump Org and Weisselberg have been indicted and face trial. It was notable that D.A. Vance indicted the Trump Organization and Alan Weisselberg, the Chief Financial Officer, without also indicting Trump, which indicated that the evidence against Trump was shakier.
Here’s what I learned from the Godfather: it’s hard to get the Don if the Consigliere won’t flip, and if the Don buffers himself and never puts anything in writing and gives all orders with only one trusted witness, and that witness is willing to take the fall, it can be hard to get the Don.
Pomerantz states that Bragg “reached the decision not to go forward with the grand jury presentation and not to seek criminal charges at this time.”
Pomerantz accepts that Bragg made his decision “sincerely” and in good faith–but Pomerantz says that Bragg reached the wrong decision:
Pomerantz tells us that Bragg “raised issues to the legal and factual sufficiency of our case and the likelihood that prosecution would succeed. . .”
(Remember, prosecutors generally indict when they believe the evidence is sufficient to secure a conviction, which requires that each element of the crime be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.)
Pomerantz disagrees with Bragg. He thinks there is enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and he believes the prosecution would prevail.
Pomerantz admits that “no case is perfect” but thinks the risks in bringing this particular case are worth it. He also believes that the public is owed this trial “even if a conviction is not certain.” He points out that Trump has “long history” of lying about his finances, and that the team “harbors no doubt” that he committed crimes.
(History helps prove a case)
It seems to me that the issue is how solid the evidence is if Weisselberg is willing to take the fall and refuses to point the finger. (Even pointing the finger can be problematic if the only witness has a history of lying and cheating.)
I was struck by this:
Defendants don’t have to cooperate. If you are accused of a crime you can sit back and say “Prove it.” There isn’t a fifth amendment right to hide documents, but it’s unlikely that documents can point to Trump’s guilt. They can point to a crime. But not to who did it.
Now I’ll tell you the story of Trump’s father. This history is well known and well documented and illustrative. A few sources:
Trump’s grandfather left Germany to avoid military service, went West, and learned that “mining the miners” was more lucrative than mining for gold. He settled in Queens with enough money to buy a choice piece of real estate and a premonition that Queens would grow rapidly (it did.) He died before he could create his real estate empire. Trump’s father got rich when he learned how to cheat. He became a builder, and partnered with some of New York’s most powerful crime families. Through his mob connections, he purchased building supplies at bargain prices. He also paid laborers below minimum wage. Through his mob connections, he had access to the city bureaucrats and the most lucrative contracts. Returning World War II soldiers were eligible for home loans under the new GI bill. This created a need for single-family homes. Fred Trump took advantage of FHA loans, which allowed builders to recoup part of their expenses.
Fred set up shell equipment companies. He rented himself equipment at inflated prices and billed the government for tacked-on expenses that he never incurred. When he submitted costs for reimbursement, he added a 5% architect’s fee, even though there was no architect. He submitted falsely high estimates, did the work for millions less, and pocketed the difference.
Fred was hauled before the Senate probe into public corruption. Guess what? He escaped punishment because there were no specific laws against what he did. (Now there are. After that laws were passed closing the loopholes.)
But he thought himself clever for figuring out how to cheat. (Cheating isn’t a crime. You have to break a law that is on the books to be charged. That’s a Constitutional protection.)
Back to the New York Trump financial case. Someone asked me this:
The resigning prosecutors are not upset that they weren’t given more time to seek evidence. They’re not saying, “If we can just look at a few more papers we can get more.” They think that charges should be brought now and Bragg disagrees. I don’t know what they’ve got and I don’t know whether more would help, but speaking hypothetically, sometimes you’ve got all you can really get.
I haven’t seen the evidence. As a general rule, I personally tend to think the evidence is weaker than the prosecutor thinks, but that’s because I’ve always been on the defense side 😉
Prosecutor: This case is airtight!
Teri: Oh yeah? (*pounds the table*)
In this case, though, it’s hard to believe there isn’t enough evidence to convict Trump. That’s why I wonder if Weisselberg is willing to take the fall. If Weisselberg is willing to issue a statement saying, “I did it. It’s all my fault,” you can see the problem. The prosecution would have to prove that Weisselberg is lying.
Between this and the AG case, Trump’s business and financial empire could come toppling down. Once the idea of that would have thrilled me. Now I tend to think he’ll always find suckers (or crooks) to hand him millions of dollars.
Financial documents show there was fraud. That’s why the Trump Org and Weisselberg have been indicted. But financial documents don’t say who was responsible for the fraud. That’s what is at issue here. Common sense tells us that of course, Trump knew.
That’s why this outcome is so disappointing and frustrating.
Correct. The idea is that if more evidence materializes, the case will move forward again. But the writers of the letter don’t seem to think anymore is forthcoming that will change the calculus. My guess is Weisselberg is shielding Trump.
If we’ve heard the last of it, Bragg should make an announcement.
