Revealed: "Troubling" details of how Trump probe broke down and led to resignation of prosecutors | Salon.com
By: Jessica Corbett (Salon)
So, not much of a case huh?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
"The New York Times" on Saturday published a detailed account of what led two prosecutors involved with the Manhattan district attorney's investigation into former President Donald Trump's business practices to abruptly resign last month—a "seismic development" that some experts had called "troubling."
The probe was launched under the former district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., who did not seek reelection. When prosecutors Carey Dunne and Mark Pomerantz resigned, the newspaper reported that it was because the new DA, Alvin Bragg, had concerns about moving forward with the case.
Following up on their initial reporting, a trio at the "Times" provided an "account of the investigation's unraveling, drawn from interviews with more than a dozen people knowledgeable about the events," which "pulls back a curtain on one of the most consequential prosecutorial decisions in U.S. history," given that Trump would be the first president to be criminally charged.
Ben Protess, William K. Rashbaum, and Jonah E. Bromwich laid out major developments in the probe and at the office from Vance's final days to the resignations—including a December 9 meeting of the former DA's "brain trust," the public relations "firestorm" Bragg faced over criminal justice reforms and high-profile shootings, and intense discussions between the new district attorney and the two prosecutors in January and February.
As Protess, Rashbaum, and Bromwich reported:
Mr. Bragg was not the only one to question the strength of the case, the interviews show. Late last year, three career prosecutors in the district attorney's office opted to leave the investigation, uncomfortable with the speed at which it was proceeding and with what they maintained were gaps in the evidence. The tension spilled into the new administration, with some career prosecutors raising concerns directly to the new district attorney's team.
Mr. Bragg, whose office is conducting the investigation along with lawyers working for New York's attorney general, Letitia James, had not taken issue with Mr. Dunne and Mr. Pomerantz presenting evidence to the grand jury in his first days as district attorney. But as the weeks passed, he developed concerns about the challenge of showing Mr. Trump's intent—a requirement for proving that he criminally falsified his business records—and about the risks of relying on the former president's onetime fixer, Michael D. Cohen, as a key witness.
The prosecutors quit the day after the new district attorney told them that "he did not want to continue the grand jury presentation" and was not prepared to authorize charges against Trump, according to thereport, which noted that "Mr. Dunne and Mr. Pomerantz also bristled at how Mr. Bragg had handled the investigation at times."
While Pomerantz and Dunne declined to comment, Danielle Filson, a spokesperson for Bragg, said that "this is an active investigation and there is a strong team in place working on it." She added that the probe is being led by Susan Hoffinger, the executive assistant district attorney in charge of the office's Investigation Division.
Responding to the new report, former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti tweeted that "this is a remarkable article that gives us an inside look into the Manhattan DA's deliberations regarding whether to charge Trump. If you believe prosecutors should indict Trump, it's worth reading. We rarely get a window into prosecution decisions."
According to Mariotti, it is not possible to tell from the Times' reporting "whether the current Manhattan DA is making the right call. We don't know the evidence his team has, and ultimately they could develop evidence that convinces them to file charges."
"I wouldn't be surprised if other prosecutors agonize over charging Trump. Not because they believe he's above the law, but because of issues with the evidence they have," he added. "If you're convinced that other prosecutors are doing nothing, they might be doing what this one did."
Tags
Who is online
443 visitors
Damn. Fire up the next non-we-got-him-this-time nothing burger. LMAO
This has nothing to do with Jan 6th investigation!
Duh.............It has to do with his business dealings and the NY investigation. Who said it did?
This is just another one for the graveyard in Gotchaville.
Good luck with that. I join William Barr in hoping you take him out of the GOP Presidential primary. Make a Martyr of him and pave the way for Ron DeSantis.
You haven't much time though, there is a midterm election coming and soon those you kept off the committee will be holding their own investigation.
Ron (I have to approve everything you wear) DeSantis?
Donald trump has been a crook his entire adult life.
He has escaped because a) white collar crime is rarely prosecuted and b) no prosecutor wants to be the first to bring a criminal case against an ex president of the United States. It has never happened.
The idea that these things prove he is innocent is absurd.
So you feel all criminal investigations should cease if a plea bargain is possible?
It's what you said.
Now you're trying to change what you said. Or are you saying an investigation is okay, even if you're only charging him for jay walking?
Not sure the color of the sky where you live is. THAT happens all the time. It costs money to defend yourself, even if innocent. There are thousands of cases where innocent people are convicted. Attorneys have been known to tell their client to accept a hand slap of a plea bargain to avoid months of courtroom testimony.
You know, you wouldn't have to constantly keep trying to explain what you were trying to say, over and over, if you would just phrase your statement clearly and concisely. It seems that half the time you are on this forum, you are having to try to explain what it is that you meant to say in the first place.
Basically, I think this case broke down because they were trying to squeeze one individual into testifying against Trump. We live in a time when the left wants to prosecute it's main opponent. I can't believe that with all the investigating of this man, they haven't found anything to convict him with, not even something as common as undervaluing holdings for the purpose of paying less taxes.
"Basically, I think this case broke down because they were trying to squeeze one individual into testifying against Trump. We live in a time when the left wants to prosecute it's main opponent. I can't believe that with all the investigating of this man, they haven't found anything to convict him with, not even something as common as undervaluing holdings for the purpose of paying less taxes."
Projection
Denial
You missed deflection.
So it's all up to the Jan 6th committee?
You are deflecting just fine.
So where are the charges against Trump? So many investigations and nothing to show for it.
Down to one last bullet in the chamber- the partisan Jan 6th committee that overstepped it's intended purpose a long time ago. Clock is ticking on them. Will they be able to manufacture enough evidence to get the most corrupt partisan DOJ ever to bring charges? Or will they be reminded that any defense will have a right to see all of the evidence- including that which the committee has ignored on purpose.
As bat shit crazy TDS Cheney put it so bluntly.
Bring that statement before a judge and see what happens. If she wasn't so crazed with TDS she might just realize she is giving any defense all the rope they need to hang the committee.
I can't stand Trump; but I will take him over all the bat shit crazy Democrats (excluding Manchin and Sinema who might not be Democrats for much longer anyways. A trade of Cheney and Kinzinger to the Democrats and Manchin and Sinema to the Republicans would be very welcome. Guaranteed Cheney and Kinzinger would be kicked out of the Democrat Party before the first vote came up.).
the two prosecutors quit, not because they believe he is innocent, but because they believe he is guilty and going to get away with it. and these two knew more about the case than anyone.
How would Donald Trump get away with anything?
You do understand that the two prosecutors that quit wanted to criminally charge Trump, dont you?
I'm sure of it.
"Mr. Bragg was not the only one to question the strength of the case, the interviews show. Late last year, three career prosecutors in the district attorney's office opted to leave the investigation, uncomfortable with the speed at which it was proceeding and with what they maintained were gaps in the evidence. The tension spilled into the new administration, with some career prosecutors raising concerns directly to the new district attorney's team.
"I wouldn't be surprised if other prosecutors agonize over charging Trump. Not because they believe he's above the law, but because of issues with the evidence they have," he added. "If you're convinced that other prosecutors are doing nothing, they might be doing what this one did."
Of course they did. What a stepping stone to bigger and better things. High profile case against a former PotUS
Only if you win. If you lose you can't get a job as a dog catcher.
Jump in the fricking lake. Im not going to do your thinking for you.
Michael Avenatti comes to mind LMAO
The two prosecutors quit because their boss let them know he was likely not going to approve an indictment of Trump. Does someone have to draw you a picture?
Prove it. It should be simple enough.
While you are at it prove they had enough evidence to convict.
Texan1211 is correct the prosecutor that got charges to stick on Trump would move to the front of the line of Democrat Party. He would be the instant front runner for them for POTUS. He could unite TDS sufferers everywhere!
And according to the article there are issues with the evidence. Which, really is not surprising given the track record of "investigations" into Trump. For some reason they just can't get the evidence to back up conspiracy theories.
He and a few others.
You don't have a valid argument
No, you never do.
What they knew was that the evidence to convict simply isn't there
I lurv steeplechase articles that clarify nothing ... @!@ ... Can I shoot the horse?
"I lurv steeplechase articles that clarify nothing ... @!@ ... Can I shoot the horse?"
That's all some have!
Sounds like every other "investigation" into Trump. Run off feelings and lacking evidence.