Donald Trump is guilty of numerous felony violations according
to a senior Manhattan prosecutor who investigated him.
Now, this prosecutor has since stepped down and
the New York Times obtained his resignation letter.
In that letter, we have a better sense of why he stepped down.
But more importantly, how he believes that there's enough evidence to
indict Donald Trump of certain financial crimes.
The prosecutor, Mark Pomerantz,
submitted his resignation last month after the Manhattan district attorney,
Alvin Bragg abruptly stopped pursuing an indictment of Donald Trump.
That was a story that we covered last month and it seemed super curious.
I was skeptical of what was taking place, but we do have a few more details on it.
So, he quit on the same day another prosecutor on the case decided to quit.
Carrie Dunn was that prosecutor's name.
According to the Times Pomeranz, February 23rd letter obtained by the New York Times
offers a personal account of his decision to resign.
And for the first time states explicitly his belief that the office could
have convicted the former president brags decision was quote,
contrary to the public interest end, quote Pomerantz wrote.
Now, in his letter, he also wrote this.
The team that has been investigating Mr.
Trump harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes he did.
And if you're wondering what the crimes are, what trump has been investigated for.
Well, you're about to understand by listening to his former personal lawyer,
Michael Cohen.
>> To your knowledge.
Did the president ever provide inflated assets to an insurance company?
>> Yes.
>> Who else knows that the president did this?
>> Alan Weissberg, Ron Lieberman and Matthew Calamari.
>> And where would the committee find more information on this?
Do you think, we need to review his financial statements and
his tax returns in order to compare them?
>> Yes, and you'll find it at the Trump work.
>> Mr. Cohen I wanna ask you about your assertion that the president may have
improperly devalued his assets to avoid paying taxes.
According to an August 24th August 21st 2016 report by the Washington post.
While the president claimed in financial disclosure forms that
Trump National Golf Club in Jupiter Florida, was worth more than 50 million.
He had reported otherwise to local tax authorities that the course
was worth quote no more than five million.
Mr. Cohen, do you know whether this specific report is accurate?
>> It's identical to what he did at Trump National Golf Club at briar cliff manner.
>> Do you know to your knowledge was the president interested in reducing his local
real estate bills, tax bills?
>> Yes.
>> And how did he do that?
>> What you do is you deflate the value of the asset and
then you put in a request to the tax department for a deduction.
>> So that testimony and remember this is Trump's former personal attorney,
he's testifying under oath and he's making it clear that Donald Trump,
committed financial crimes.
Any other ordinary person who commits fraud to obtain insurance or
to obtain a loan or anyone who commits fraud in evading taxes would go to prison.
They'd be prosecuted.
They'd go to prison they'd be charged.
If you were dealing with the same investigation that Trump is dealing with
right now and all of the details were similar, you would be indicted by now.
And so the question is, what's going on with District Attorney brag and
why is he backing off of this investigation?
Especially given the fact that two prominent prosecutors who have been
working on this case seem to think that there's enough evidence to indict him and
to pursue these criminal charges.
And Leticia James, by the way, is also pursuing this investigation, but
not in a criminal case in a civil case, which has a lower burden of proof, okay?
So when you're pursuing a criminal case, there is a higher burden of proof.
But Pomeranz argues, even with that higher burden of proof,
I think we have enough here to convict him.
Pomeranz and Dune planned to charge Trump with falsifying business records,
specifically his annual financial statements, a felony in New York state.
While Dune and Pomerantz were confidential or we're confident,
that the office would demonstrate that the former president had intended to inflate
the value of his golf clubs, hotels and office buildings, Bragg was not.
He balked at pursuing an indictment against Trump,
a decision that shut down Pomerantz is and
dunes presentation of evidence to a grand jury and prompted their resignations.
Why, I wanna know why?
Bragg has been very hush, hush about this.
So, you have to prosecutors who have resigned because of what Bragg has done.
And they kind of resigned in protest because,
they feel that they have the evidence necessary.
Bragg claims that his office is still investigating Trump.
And as a result, he can't comment on the case.
What a convenient excuse?
Bragg's predecessors, Cyrus Vance had decided in his final
days in office to move toward an indictment leaving Trump just
weeks away from likely criminal charges.
Bragg's decision seems for now at least to have removed one of the greatest legal
threats Trump has ever faced.
And again, the question is why, why?
Why did brag make this decision?
He's got the convenient excuse of the investigation is ongoing.
So I can't talk about it.
But I'm not buying it.
There needs to be [LAUGH] honestly an investigation to the investigation.
Because, look, we don't know what the truth is.
Alvin Bragg might be absolutely right.
Maybe the burden of proof is too high.
They don't have enough evidence to indict Trump.
Maybe that's true.
But, it doesn't seem to be the case based on what we're hearing from these
prosecutors.
And others by the way, are actually facing charges including Trump's
longtime Chief Financial Officer, Alan Weissberg,
who was also mentioned that Weisberg photo is just great.
[LAUGH] Who was just mentioned by Michael Cohen in the video that I
showed you earlier.
I wanna give you more from Pomeranz is resignation letter, he says,
no case is perfect.
Whatever the risk of bringing the case may be,
I am convinced that a failure to prosecute will pose much greater risks in
terms of public confidence in the fair administration of justice.
And he also acknowledged that Bragg quote, devoted significant time and energy to
understanding the evidence in the inquiry and had made his decision in good faith.
But he wrote a decision made in good faith may nevertheless be wrong.
So he's saying like, look, I don't want to ruin my relationship with Bragg.
I think he's doing this in good faith, but nonetheless, we should pursue it.
Listen, what I don't understand is, Why not pursue it and see what happens, right?
Like, okay, the burden of proof is pretty high because it's
a criminal case, but there seems to be evidence.
So, why not pursue the criminal case?
Why not do it?
If, Vance was planning on doing it.
Why is it that Bragg is unwilling to do it?
And, he also says there are always additional facts to be pursued.
But the investigative team, that has been working on this matter for
many months does not believe that it makes law enforcement sense to postpone
a prosecution in the hope that additional evidence will somehow emerge.
I and others believe, that your decision not to authorize prosecution
now will doom any future prospects that, Mr. Trump will be prosecuted for
the criminal conduct we have been investigating.
And Pomerantz also said in the letter that Trump's financial statements were false,
that he had lied about his assets to banks, the national media counter
parties and many others, including the American people.
I mean fraud is fraud, but we're talking
about Teflon Don who apparently gets away with pretty much everything.
And I wanna know, why is that the case in this context?
I want to know what's really driving Alvin Bragg's decision here to not pursue
the indictment.
And last year,
three career prosecutors in the District Attorney's Office opted to leave the team.
So we mentioned problem rants we've mentioned done.
By the end of the year, they had changed course and
planned to charge Trump with falsifying business records.
A similar case that essentially amounted to painting Trump as a liar and a thief.
Originally, they were planning on going forward with stronger charges and
for some reason decided not to do it.
Finally, Pomeranz says, respect for the rule of law and
the need to reinforce the bedrock proposition that no man is above the law
required that this prosecution be brought even if a conviction is not certain.
And I agree with him on that.
We don't know if he's gonna get convicted for sure, but
I would like to see them pursue the case.
And the fact that they're not pursuing the case really does give the impression that
certain people in this country are definitely above the law.
And we've seen that over and over again.
This is not new.
We've seen it with many white collar criminals.
We've seen it with all sorts of Wall Street executives.
It's just fascinating to me,
that we kept hearing about how Donald Trump was so different.
Donald trump, all those other crimes were terrible.
But Donald Trump he takes it to another level.
But when push comes to shove people in positions of power to hold him
accountable, always cower.
And, I think we deserve to know why.