Former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz, who quit the Manhattan DA’s office last year in a huff over how the newly elected District Attorney Alvin Bragg was conducting the Trump criminal investigation, has written a tell-all book.
A timeline will lay out the progress of the investigation and offer a context for the Pomerantz-Bragg saga:
August 2019: Manhattan D.A. Cyrus Vance kicked off the Trump criminal investigation when he subpoenaed the Trump Organization and Trump’s accounting firm, demanding eight years of Mr. Trump’s personal and corporate tax returns.
September 2019: Trump sued to keep his tax returns secret.
July 7, 2020 and February 2021: Vance’s case went to the U.S. Supreme Court where, both times, he scored victories: In July, the Court held that Trump does not have an absolute right to block the release of his tax returns and in February, blocked his final bid to protect his returns.
February 22, 2021: Trump’s tax returns were turned over to Vance’s office.
May 28, 2021: Mark Pomeranz was recruited to work on the investigation, specifically to “help scrutinize financial dealing” at Trump’s company.
July 1, 2021: Vance indicted The Trump Organization, the Trump Payroll Organization, and Trump Org CFO Allan Weisselberg in what prosecutors called “a sweeping and audacious” tax fraud scheme.
Fall 2021: NY Investigators issued new subpoenas for information about Trump’s properties.
November 2021: The Manhattan DA’s office convened a grand jury to hear evidence.
January 1, 2022: Alvin Bragg took office as the new DA.
February 2022: New York prosecutors were unable to persuade any Trump Organization executives to cooperate and turn on Mr. Trump.
I interrupt this timeline to bring you lessons from The Godfather
This is from The Godfather, pages 41-42:
That Sunday morning, Don Corleone [the Godfather] gave explicit instructions on what should be done to the two young men who had beaten the daughter of Amerigo Bonasera. But he had given these orders in private to Tom Hagen [the Consigliere.] Later in the day Hagen had, also in private without witnesses, instructed Clemenza. In turn Clemenza had told Paulie Gatto to execute the commission.”
The advantage of giving orders in private without witnesses is explained:
Each link of the chain would have to turn traitor for the Don to be involved and though it had never yet happened, there was always the possibility. The cure for that possibility was also known. Only one link in the chain had to disappear.
Prosecuting Trump becomes difficult if people just under him, the top-level Trump Organization executives who spent a lifetime getting rich while helping Trump cheat, are willing to take the fall for him. Imagine the Chief Financial Officer telling the jury, “Most of this stuff Trump didn’t even know about, and the stuff he did know about, I had assured him that it was legal, and because I am an accountant, he believed me.”
A jury might convict despite such testimony, but given the extraordinarily high standards in a criminal trial—to convict, the jury must find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt—it seems just as likely that a jury would acquit Trump and convict Weisselberg.
When stories came out that Allen Weisselberg was refusing to flip on Trump, my guess was that Weisselberg figured that he and his family had lived a life of luxury so he owed it to Trump to go to prison for him.
Okay, back to the timeline.
February 23, 2022, Mark Pomerantz resigned from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office in a huff. According to headlines and reporting “Prosecutors in Trump probe quit after new DA [Bragg] seems to abandon the plan to seek an indictment of the former president.”
One person familiar with the situation (most likely Pomerantz leaking to the press) said Bragg “took weeks to read memos Dunne and Pomerantz had prepared and didn’t meet with them for some time, even though the grand jury’s term was set to expire this spring. When they did meet, Bragg didn’t seem keenly interested.”
In other words, Bragg was portrayed as slow-moving and lazy, taking weeks to read memos, disinterested, and seemingly unaware of deadlines.
Alvin Bragg confirmed that Pomerantz and Dunne resigned, but he would not comment. He also said the criminal probe was “ongoing.”
Left-Leaning Social Media had a Meltdown
I am including screenshots to show you the level of engagement these responses received:
The idea was that the case was a slam dunk and Bragg was too timid to move forward.
I felt skeptical. My response: “I don’t know much about Bragg, but I know prosecutors tend not to get cold feet when the case is a slam dunk.” My conclusion at the time was that most likely, there was a difference of opinion about the strength of the case and the best way to move forward.
Notice how much less engagement a response like mine gets from rage-inducing headlines (under 400 “likes” as opposed to more than 5,000. There. I got that off my chest.)
The plot thickened when senior officials in the DA’s office came to believe Pomerantz had selectively and misleadingly leaked information to the press, including his resignation letter, in order to damage Bragg. (Leaking stuff to the press during an ongoing investigation is a firing offense. Leaking stuff to the press after leaving a DA’s office where the person was privy to details about an investigation is potentially damaging to the investigation and unethical.)
August 18, 2022: Weisselberg pleaded guilty but it still appeared he would not implicate the Trump family.
December 6, 2022: The Trump Organization was found guilty on all counts of criminal tax fraud.
January 10, 2023: Weisselberg was sentenced to 5 months in Rikers (a notoriously horrible place). The reduced sentence was because he pleaded guilty as part of a deal.
Read about Rikers here. If you want to read more, Google “violence at Rikers.” One observer said Rikers resembles a “slave ship.”
January 13, 2023: Bragg tells CNN that his office’s investigation is continuing.
January 18, 2023: The media reported that Bragg appeared to have “changed his mind” about investigating Trump, which assumes that he had previously made up his mind not to investigate Trump, an assumption which came from Pomerantz.
In January there were rumors that Bragg was going after the Trump-Michael Cohen-Stormy Daniels hush money payoff scheme and that he was again looking at Weisselberg.
Question: After 5 months at Rikers, will Weisselberg feel differently about pleading guilty and taking the fall for Trump?
January 30, 2023: We learned that Bragg’s office was presenting the Trump case to a grand jury.
February 6, 2023: Mark Pomerantz published an insider’s “tell all” book called People vs. Donald Trump slamming Bragg’s office. In other words, after quitting, he not only leaked stuff to the press, he ran off to get a book deal. (Don’t worry. I didn’t buy his book.)
Here is the description on Amazon:
People vs. Donald Trump is a fascinating inside account of the attempt to prosecute former president Donald Trump, written by one of the lawyers who worked on the case and resigned in protest when Manhattan’s district attorney refused to act.
Bragg responded by saying, “I bring hard cases when they are ready.”
For example, Pomerantz’s resignation letter stated that Vance had directed the DA’s office to seek an indictment, but Bragg decided to effectively drop the case. In fact, Pomerantz’s book (and this interview with Ari Melber) contradict this narrative. It’s also unlikely that Vance would issue a directive to his successor.
Moreover, as late as December 9, 2021, Pomerantz and Dunne changed their theory of the case from “scheme to defraud” to “falsification of business records” because such a charge would not require proof of financial loss.
Pro tip: If you are changing the theory of the case in December, you are not yet ready to indict in January.
If you can stomach listening to Pomerantz talk, you can watch Ari Melber take him apart here. Among the notable moments was Pomerantz basically admitting that part of his motive in wanting to indict was that Trump had been calling him names. Melber said, “So this is personal?” (Pro tip: Indictments are not supposed to be personal.)
There are two kinds of prosecutors. (I suppose there are also two kinds of defense lawyers: Those who divide prosecutors into two kinds and those who don’t 😂)
(1) The careful meticulous prosecutor builds a strong case and makes sure that he or she is bringing indictments for the right reasons.
(2) The emotional, impulsive, “I’m a tough guy” prosecutor who cannot be reasoned with and who equates meticulous care with weakness. This kind of prosecutor tends to engage in all-or-nothing thinking, speak in platitudes about justice*, and rely on emotional appeals.
*I started to tell a story about a prosecutor I dealt with who kept giving me platitudes with words like “justice” and “pay the price,” but maybe another time.
(Unfortunately, in a click-driven media environment, the second type is often invited to be TV commentators.)
Several Black civil rights leaders felt offended by what they saw as racial undertones in Pomerantz’s attack on Bragg. They pointed out that throughout his book, Pomerantz implied that Bragg was disengaged, lazy, and not qualified, thereby describing Bragg with “tired racial tropes to undermine and disparage” the first elected Black Manhattan District Attorney.
They also pointed to an email that Pomerantz wrote to Bragg essentially telling Bragg, “You need to respect our judgment.” (In other words, You need to respect me.) Bragg was a highly experienced prosecutor, elected by the voters, and in charge of the office. These leaders suggest that Pomerantz would not have used such a tone with any of Bragg’s predecessors.
Will Alvin Bragg bring charges? I don’t know and neither does anyone else. Bragg and those close to him probably have a good sense of whether an indictment will come out of this, but they’re not telling.
We will just have to wait and see.
The lesson: Don’t believe leaks about ongoing criminal investigations.
If you’re new to my blog, and you feel inclined to leave an angry or cynical comment, I suggest reading this page first.
As so many have said, thank you for this clear summary and analysis. My adventures on Twitter were worth it to find some great folks to follow, including you. Glad you’re on Mastodon now.
Hi Teri,
Thanks for your promotion of fact based clear thinking.
So many of us (myself included) feel frustrated at the seeming impotence of justice. It can make us pop off emotionally at our officials and seemingly endorce lynch mobs. Your posts help remind me of who we aspire to be.
What do you think needs improvement in our justice system?
Best regards,
Kevin
The law still falls too heavily on vulnerable communities. Poverty is often confused with child neglect. Mental illness should be treated in hospitals. We imprison too many people. A lot of states don’t do enough to prove good representation for people who cannot afford to pay (the public defenders I worked with in California were excellent, but not all states are like California.)
Things have improved as women and members of minority communities have moved into law enforcement and prosecution.
Most states elect their prosecutors, so local elections are crucial to make sure we get good prosecutors.
Procedures are good: California offers everyone convicted the right to appeal, including a court-appointed appellate lawyer (that is what I did for more than 12 years). Everyone should have that right. Lots of people resented me because they thought I was filing appeals and thus creating delays for unworthy people. My clients were often women and members of vulnerable communities, so you can see why I bristle when people want to get rid of procedures for people THEY don’t like.
Thanks for asking. I may put your question and my answer into my next blog post.
Thank you for the time you take to share this with us. I always feel calmer and better informed after I read your posts.
IMO “slam dunk” equals black and white thinking. Within reasonable parameters, prosecutors should be willing to indict less than perfect cases. Jesse Eisenberg makes this case in The Chickenshit Club. There has to be a balance between prosecutorial misconduct and being aggressive. In the revolving door of DC, to many prosecutors want an undefeated record.
I can tell you didn’t read that page first.
Most criminal investigations proceed without the target, let alone the general public, being informed until the probable cause has been established, an advantage to the prosecution. There’s nothing in Bragg’s record to question his integrity whereas Pomerantz has given us negative information about his. We should keep busy if necessary & let this legal process go forward.
Hi Teri,
This has nothing to do with the ongoing Trump investigations but is as equally important to me. Where’s JJ? Is he ok?
So many people asked about JJ! The truth: He needs a bath and I didn’t want to take a picture of him looking totally motley.
The proper term is “totally muttley”
Terri, great stuff. You said “watch Ari Melber take him apart here.” I did and it is a great interview and Ari had some great points. But, I thought Pomerantz did a good job defending himself as well. He seems dedicated and sincere with real concerns about D J T ducking the bullet AGAIN, concerns I share. I have no idea how much harm he did with his timing of his book. It seems his passion drove him. At least he has stimulated some good discussions.
I don’t doubt his integrity or that he is right about Trump needing to be prosecuted.
He was also careful this time. Unlike last year, he was careful with the racist undertones.
However, to my ears, he talked in exactly the kind of platitudes I dealt with in my post on rage-inducing simplifications (I have it pinned). I listened thinking, “He spews this nonsense and I have to deal with people repeating cliches.”
I read you post in rage. Lots of that going around for sure. I did see some of his faults in his previous interviews. Thanks again.
I just listened to Harry Litman’s answer to the first question here. That is pretty much what this novice was thinking on this subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9t_tdsE_QQ
One thing that I have appreciated about all of these cases these past few years is how tedious some of this stuff is and how much of a detail person you need to be to prosecute especially big fish. Also how even though the everyone has the same rights on paper, those with power and money can exploit the system to their advantage.
You missed the point.
Read this: https://terikanefield.com/all-new-doj-investigation-faqs/
and this: https://terikanefield.com/frequently-asserted-rage-inducing-simplifications/
and then read the blog post again.
Where is J.J.?
Next week he’ll be back !!
I’ll add my comment to the other laudatory notes above. Teri you are a national treasure. Thank you
From the start of your blog post I was thinking how interesting it was that the minute the black man took office the two prosecutors immediately were criticizing him. Also, ongoing investigations are not conducted out on the sidewalk where all passersby can lean in and see what is happening. It is a good thing Pomerantz and Dunne are no longer in the office. Were it me, I would not trust them to prosecute any case.
That’s why I laid out the timeline, which for me, really helps me understand what is happening.
Given the nature of the news cycle, we get caught up in the moment without any sense of time. To quote Timothy Snyder, “democracy requires some sense of time beyond our immediate outrage.” We can’t participate as citizens if we have no sense of time and progression.
Democracy requires “some sense of time” might be better expressed: Democracy requires a deep sense of patience and trust that even in the short term when things don’t look like they are going particularly well, if the essential values (and rules derived therefrom, as Prosecutor Bragg shows every intention of following) of democracy are honored then things will work out in the long run. In our culture of immediate gratification, it’s hard to maintain the long view, and of course, democracy in the real world is nothing so clean and pure as it is in the ideal. We have to remember here that we are dealing with a system run by humans not angels.
I agree — except that I don’t like the word “trust” because too often people characterize what I am saying as “trust the system.”
The only thing I trust is that democracy and rule of law are better than the alternatives, but I don’t trust rule of law to work out the way I think it should.
So far, I have seen nothing to indicate that Fani Willis, Alvin Bragg, Merrick Garland, or Jack Smith screwing up these prosecutions.
I had no trust in the Trump DOJ, though
Patience, yes.
Thanks for keeping the pot at simmering. Your voice of reason is most reassuring. Where’s JJ.
I’ll remember to take a picture this week 🙂
Thank you, once again, Teri. You have validated some of my own feelings, especially the early dog whistle smearing of Bragg. You really bring the Light. In the best possible way. PS.Extra bonusYou coming right to my mailbox is helping me to detox from Twitter!
You should join Mastodon. All you see are posts from the people you follow.
I took a timeout from Twitter. When I checked back in, it appears to have the Followers option so you get to bypass the crazies. I could be mistaken, but that’s what it seems to be.
Will comment on this shortly.
Thanks Terri for a sane account of this unfolding story. 400 likes from conscious, reasonable people is better than 5000 likes from some crazies on both sides of our political spectrum. Sending you continued success.
Thanks for explaining the complexity of this situation. There’s more to this than meets the eye.
I’ll admit I was disappointed when I heard that Bragg wasn’t going to pursue the case, but after reading your blog and also seeing Michael Cohen interviewed about his testimony last week at the DA’s office, I understand better now the nuance of the facts.
Thank you so much for your guidance. I look forward to your emails every Sunday.
Thank you Teri.
Voice of reason in the swirling insanity of today’s media circus always!~! 🙂
Very much appreciated!~!
Thank you Teri! I always look forward to your posts. You always place principles over personalities! I can read your blog and come away with new understanding and not high blood pressure!
Excellent post, though we still need some JJ content.
While I also have no intention of buying Pomeranz’s book, I watched Melber’s interview, and yes, Pomeranz sounds like your “type 2” prosecutor – cocky, overconfident without knowing the whole story, and using a personal grievance as motivation. You and Melber agree that a prosecution cannot be personal. It has to be based on the evidence. Trump’s operational mode has always been that of a mob boss, so in addition to things he’s admitted in public, the prosecution would need his Consigliere (or some other witness who was in the room) to flip as you’ve noted all along, and acting as a mob boss, there’s little doubt that threats to Trump’s inner circle have likely been made in some fashion. Perhaps that was part of the motivation for Weisselberg’s sentence – as you noted. After spending some time in the hell that is Riker’s Island, cooperating in a later prosecution may be more attractive than bowing to the threats he may have received from Trump’s henchmen and taking the fall again. And if he flips, it’s over for Trump. But yes, the waiting is hard.
When Pomerantz was hired, the media painted the event as if a big gun was brought in, very experienced in the kind of corruption going on at TrumpCo. Sad to realize he’s got a big ego that can’t see he’s hurt himself with this book. Delineating the two kinds of prosecutors helps those of us on the outside see these superheroes in a clearer light. I admit being initially disappointed in Bragg, but as time has worn on, steady and largely silent is looking better and better. Fanni Willis is another class act.
Thanks for this, Teri. I was curious about the propriety of releasing a book related to an active case. Kinda surprising since all we had heard was glowing things about Pomerantz. I sure hope this doesn’t jeopardize the case.
Thank you for your meticulous research and honest reporting. Very much appreciate your approach.
Thank you so much, for all that you do.
This post begins with an excerpt from the Godfather describing how he’d order a hit and then suggests that’s how Trump ordered financial crimes. So far, so good. Then it proposes that Weisselberg took the fall for Trump out of gratitude. I think there’s a more likely possibility: fear for his own or his family’s safety. Imagine what would happen to a guy planning to testify in court against Don Corleone!
Now that is a plausible scenario I would think but then again I’m just a lay person.
Excellent summation! I really appreciate your well-reasoned thoughts on this. I haven’t seen the Ari Melber interview but will watch it now
Your explanation here is really valuable. It’s easy to get caught up in outrage – hard to take the time to understand nuance and complexity.
What? Another (stellar, by the way) post without the pup photo? Aside from your thorough and brilliant posts, the pup photos are the only other thing keeping me sane and grounded.
Thanks, Teri, for making sense of the whole Bragg business. I watched Ari Melber carve up Pomerantz but without the kind of backstory you provide, you don’t know “who’s on first.” Over and over again, I keep coming back to your blog for even-handedness and straight, bias-free explication. Cheers!
Thank you for another clear, calm, coherent account.
I have seen contractors assume they know everything when they don’t, to destructive effect when they huff off and leak things they don’t even understand.
Pom may have a good paralegal, but apparently doesn’t have a lawyerly temperament. Or a sense of his own liability.