A fight between prosecutors
over whether or not to charge fo
President Donald Trump
with financial crimes
is spilling into public view,
all because of a new book
from a former Manhattan prosecut
who was working on the case.
That former
assistant district
attorney is Mark Pomerantz,
an expert on White-Collar Crime
with a ton of experience
prosecuting and defending organi
crime cases.
Pomerantz says that if prosecuto
were looking at similar evidence
against anyone other
than the former president,
charges would have been brought
in a, quote, flat second.
He also compares
Trump to John Gotti,
the head of the Gambino
organized crime family.
The book is a searing criticism
of Manhattan's current D.A.
Alvin Bragg's decision
not to bring charges
last year,
a decision
that Pomerantz resigned over one
this month.
But Bragg says the quote, Mr.
Pomerantz is plain
wasn't ready for takeoff.
And that it's appalling
that he insulted
the skill and professionalism
of our prosecutors
from Rich's book
about his time in the investigat
the people versus Donald Trump,
account is out now, and he joins
Good morning, sir. Good morning.
Thank you for having me.
It is a riveting read
and it's a really important
read for everyone
to understand what you saw what
and what didn't happen.
What I find interesting
is that you didn't
used to talk to journalists.
You're known for saying,
I don't leak right now.
You're out here
with wanting to tell the world
this story.
Why did you write this?
Well, I wrote the book because i
important story to tell.
However one feels about Donald T
He is one of the central public
figures of our time.
And if, as I came to believe
and as others came to believe
he committed crimes,
there was a substantial case
to be brought
and he needed to be held account
for those crimes.
That's an important issue.
And I thought it was important t
the to tell the story.
You know, Mark,
there were several prongs
to our investigation that largel
on the overvaluation
of a number of key properties
to get favorable bank loans.
But also your investigation incl
those hush money payments
you call the failure
to move forward on those fronts
a failure of justice.
Why?
Well, I thought it was a failure
of justice
because measured by the standard
that prosecutors typically apply
when they're deciding whether
to bring criminal cases
Donald Trump
was guilty.
We concluded that he was guilty.
Every single member
of the prosecution team
thought that his guilt was estab
I actually went around the room
if anybody thought that he was i
and there were no dissenting voi
when we had our meetings about t
So we thought he was guilty.
We thought we had evidence
that was legally sufficient to e
his guilt beyond a reasonable do
We thought we had a reasonable p
of winning the case of persuadin
You can never be certain.
And this case was not a slam dun
There were aggravating circumsta
So I and others, including the f
district attorney, Cy Vance,
thought it was appropriate to go
with the prosecution.
Even you yourself
had told Cy Vance, I believe.
And now,
look, we've got about a 70% chan
of convincing a jury on this stu
So not not a slam dunk
but it was
you recount in the book
December 13th 2021 when Cy Vance
the former Manhattan D.A.,
authorized you
to move forward here
with criminal charges.
My question to you is twofold.
Why didn't he do what I understa
Bragg was coming in,
but Cy Vance could have done thi
Why do you believe Bragg didn't?
Sure.
With regard to the timing,
as I talk about in the book,
we were working flat out
when we got toward the end of 20
and the end of Cy Vance, his ten
we simply couldn't get it done
and done professionally.
And well before the end of the y
I am sure he would have liked to
the job finished during his term
but we thought it was more appro
do it right and get it right
and not to have the timing contr
by a decision of the calendar
in terms
of when one term began and one t
with respect to the different de
that was made
by the incoming district attorne
I can't speak in detail about wh
went through his mind.
I can surmise from
what happened at the time and st
that he's made since,
that he had misgivings
about the strength of the case
and what I take from it
is that in these circumstances,
when the stakes are so high,
it's it's
human nature
to look for an overwhelming case
a case where everything suggests
that a jury must find
the defendant guilty,
that it's a slam dunk.
And that's not the standard we a
in the great run.
Of criminal cases.
One can argue that it's a standa
that should be applied
to a former president.
But my judgment,
as I explained in the book, was
princes and paupers,
presidents and
anybody else
should be held to the same stand
and that you shouldn't be lookin
for a superabundance of evidence
beyond proof, beyond a reasonabl
When you make the decision
about going forward
You talk about the argument
of going slowly and methodically
getting all your ducks in a row
before you do something
that's never been done before. R
No president's ever been indicte
for criminal conduct.
Let's talk about what's happenin
now, because in your book,
you say that this decision by Br
and the team was a legal equival
of a plane crash.
But the principal cause was pilo
But now what we've learned from
reporting is
that Bragg has been presenting e
to a grand jury
related to these hush money
payments to Stormy Daniels.
Do you still feel that way?
Is this still a legal plane cras
or do you see him doing now,
at least in part,
what you wanted to do then?
Look,
I hope the investigation goes fo
I hope that it results in a pros
because I think the evidence was
I don't know that the facts
have changed at all.
Perhaps we'll see over time.
But if the district attorney
makes the decision to go forward
that's a decision that I would w
I believe it's warranted by the
And I wish him well in that ende
This is not a personal issue or
It's a disagreement
about prosecution policy.
Just this one final question.
Andrew Weissman, who,
you know, served as lead prosecu
for four, Bob Mueller,
actually called Bragg's decision
a courageous and not one
that would be politically benefi
to him, his decision
not to move forward when you wan
The District Attorney's
Association of New York
has a pretty harsh response
to your book, Mark.
They say that a former prosecuto
speaking out
during an ongoing
criminal investigation
is unfortunate and unprecedented
They say that you've upended
the norms and the ethics
of prosecutorial conduct.
And I wonder if you are sure rig
there was a fight over this,
whether you should be even out t
saying these things,
given the ongoing investigation.
Are you sure this won't at all
interfere with the ongoing inves
and grand jury right now?
Yeah, look, I wrote the book in
because I believe
there should be a prosecution
that Donald Trump did commit cri
for which he should be held acco
The last thing I wanted to do or
was get in the way of an investi
or a prosecution.
And I'm confident I didn't do th
The investigation, the prosecuti
if it comes,
will be decided
based on the law and the facts.
And nothing
I wrote
in the book changes
either the law or the facts
that will be available
to the prosecution to prove its
If it if the case goes forward.
But since you haven't been in th
for one year or just finally,
how do you know that?
How do you know that
those things haven't changed
and that it's not enough hearing
Well,
I know that the facts that I des
the book were not secrets
that were being shared
for the first time.
The facts surrounding the hush m
the facts
surrounding the financial statem
are facts that were in the publi
On the financial statement front
Those facts were summarized
in a complaint
that the New York state attorney
general filed
and summarized in over 200 pages
the details of the case
on the hush money side.
The facts have been public
for literally years.
Michael Cohen wrote about it in
Stormy Daniels wrote a book.
The federal
government brought the case agai
Michael Cohen.
The information was out there
for everyone to see.
And my discussing it in the book
and expressing my views
and my conclusions
does not get in the way of any
case that might be brought.