Manhattan attorney who investigated
Donald Trump
and his organization's business
dealings is speaking out.
Frustrated.
The former president
was not indicted in that case.
Now, in his new book,
the former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz
says the evidence he had access
to would have
easily resulted in charges
against anyone else.
Take the exact same conduct
and make it not about Donald Trump
and not about a former president
of the United States.
With the case have been indicted.
It would have been indicted
in a flat second.
Bring in CNN's
Chris Cornell,
who's tracking this investigation Carol.
That's pretty strong words
from the prosecutor, Mr.
Palmer, as a former prosecutor.
What critical points did
he make in this interview?
Yeah, so this was his
first television interview
since he resigned in protest last year
after the incoming D.A.,
Alvin Bragg, stopped him from pursuing
an indictment
against the former president.
Now, in this interview,
Pomeranz also says
that refusing
to move forward with those charges
was a grave failure of justice.
He said he believed that they had bits
and pieces of evidence
that would tie Trump
to these alleged crimes.
Now, he was he did not.
That was not a universal view
within the DA's office.
Several prosecutors
resigned from the team
because they thought they were moving
too far ahead.
And, you know, sources told us last year
and in addition, other experienced
career prosecutors on that team
also thought that they didn't
have enough evidence to prove
that Trump
had criminal intent
in the preparation
of these financial statements.
And now some of these bits
and pieces of evidence
have come out
in the New York attorney
general's civil lawsuit
against the former president
and his family members.
You know, in that
she alleged that they had engaged
in a decade long fraud
by manipulating the value of many assets
on the company's financial statements.
And that Trumps
have denied any wrongdoing.
But you know that Bragg has said that
he believes those career prosecutors
he thought more work needed to be done.
And he said that Pomerantz
his plane was not ready for takeoff.
Now, the former president's
attorney has said that POMERANTZ
the statements are a desperate attempt
to sell this book.
And one thing
that Bragg and Trump agree on
is that no one wanted this book
published, John.
The prosecutor certainly doesn't want it
published in the Middle
of an ongoing investigation.
Carol is grateful
for the important reporting.
Let's get some perspective.
CNN legal
national security analyst
Carrie Cordero is back with us.
And let's listen
because in the 60 Minutes interview,
Bill Whitaker asked a key question
How strong is the evidence
tying this to Donald Trump?
So what
ties Donald Trump directly to this?
You know, couldn't
he say, my accountant said
it's worth this, I signed it.
There were
many bits and pieces of evidence
on which we could rely
in making that case.
It's an interesting choice
of words, many bits and pieces.
Normally in the case,
you hear prosecutors
say the evidence was overwhelming
or it was a slam dunk. Bits and pieces.
You bring it.
Do you bring a case against anyone
but or especially the former president,
if you have bits and pieces. Yeah.
Normally, prosecutors
would not get too excited
about bringing a case based on bits
and pieces.
What they want to be able to do
is bring an indictment
based on a case that they are
have a large amount of evidence
that they feel can convince a jury.
And it's really not ethically responsible
to bring a case
unless they have confidence
that they can actually win it.
And there's a real irony here as well.
Presumably, this case is still ongoing
in some way in New York.
And the fact that a prosecutor
who has knowledge and access
to what the evidence was
is now publishing a book
and presumably profiting off of
that inside information
for an ongoing case,
not a case that is over,
has been disposed
of, was prosecuted in the past.
And, you know,
prosecutors write about the cases
that I did way back when.
This is very different.
This is something that's ongoing.
So I think there's a real
sort of ethical issue there as well.
And to that ethical issue
is that obviously,
if there were a non-disclosure agreement
or something in a contract, it would be
could not publish the book.
Obviously, there's nothing there.
Well, judgment call.
He was able to do it.
It's a judgment call.
And so so that's what's happened.
But look, prosecutors disagree about the
the weight of a case all the time.
Ultimately, in this situation,
it's the DA's call.
You know, just on the federal side,
Justice Department attorneys can disagree
about whether a case
should be brought or not.
The attorney general's call in this case,
the DA made a decision.
That's the DA's job.
I bet the book is going to sell.
We'll see how the investigation
goes from there.
So that prosecutor Mark
Pomerantz resigned in protest a year ago
when his office didn't
move to indict Trump.
But here is what the Manhattan D.A.
Alvin Bragg, told CNN.
About those accusations.
He says after closely reviewing
all of the evidence from Mr.
Palmer and his investigation.
I came to the same conclusion as several
senior prosecutors involved in the case.
And also those I brought on.
More work was needed, put another way.
Mr.
Pomerantz,
his plane wasn't ready for takeoff
Here to discuss
all of this is CNN
legal analyst and former federal
prosecutor Eliot Williams.
Eliot,
this is obviously a person
who is selling a book.
But on the substance of the
of the allegations
here, is there a difference of opinion here
just to prosecutors
differing on how to proceed
Or is Pomerantz right
that Trump got special consideration
because he's a former president?
I think he touched right on it.
Abby by saying
there's a difference of opinion.
And you see this
all the time
looking at workplaces around the country,
but particularly prosecutor's
offices around the country.
Now, look, let's be clear.
Mark Pomerantz in this book
makes an incredibly compelling case
for charging
former President Trump with a crime.
But there's a few problems
that get glossed over,
frankly, in this
in the in the 60 Minutes interview.
Number one,
So much of this attention
focus is on Alvin Bragg,
the current district attorney.
But they don't really
you don't really talk about Cyrus
Vance, the former district attorney
who have the case going back to 2019.
So if there was such a groundswell
of support for charging it,
why didn't they do it back then.
You know there's a lot of blame
to go around here
and to a really important
point here is that if you read the book
there wasn't clear consensus
I believe in the office
as to whether to charge.
Now certainly
Pomerantz and one of his colleagues felt
very strongly
that charges should have proceeded.
But there were others in the office
who didn't.
And so,
you know, I don't think it's just a difference
to people's opinion.
I think it was a complicated decision
that this office was grappling with
and that, you know,
one of the very senior
and frankly,
very accomplished attorneys
just doesn't agree
with the decision to make.
Yeah.
I mean,
it does seem like the bar,
in order to obtain a conviction
of a former president,
certainly needs to be ironclad evidence.
But the current Manhattan D.A.
at the moment
seems to be much more focused
and interested in
Trump's alleged
role in these hush money
payments
that were made to stop Stormy
Daniels Now,
I guess the question is,
could that just be an easier case
to prove? And if it is, why?
Yes and no.
I think
to some
extent, it's an easier case to prove
because you have more witnesses.
Number one,
you have Stormy Daniels herself
who would likely come forward to testify.
Number two,
you have Michael Cohen,
Trump's lawyer and former fixer
The challenge of Michael Cohen
is he's already got a perjury conviction.
And it's sort of a
for lack of a better term, dirty witness.
I think he'd get beaten up.
Now, what you do have in the Stormy
Daniels case is a number of checks
that were signed,
these hush money payments,
I believe, frankly, even with
I believe what the former president's
signature himself,
that you have some
evidence tying him to the actual crime
that might have been more complicated
and a vast real estate valuation scheme.
But it's just hard to know
if none of us had seen
sort of the case
files that
both of all these prosecutors have.
But it's hard to know
exactly why one cases
seem to be moving forward and one isn't.
Yeah, it's a fascinating dispute
playing out in public here.
Not very typical
to see something like that happen.
Elliott Williams, thank you.