Trump case facts too well known for book to threaten prosecution: Pomerantz - Rachel Maddow (3 videos)

[Rhiannon12866]

Former NYDA prosecutor Mark Pomerantz addresses concerns that his new book, "People vs. Donald Trump," provides insights into the potential prosecution of Donald Trump that could be helpful to Trump's defense, pointing out the sheer volume of facts about Trump's conduct already in the public sphere and also thoroughly documented in New York Attorney General Tish James' civil lawsuit. - Aired on 02/06/2023.




Trump 'ball of wax' racketeering case too big for local NY prosecutor resources: Pomerantz - Rachel Maddow - MSNBC

Former NYDA prosecutor Mark Pomerantz talks with Rachel Maddow about his team's consideration of an "enterprise corruption" charge against Donald Trump but determined such a comprehensive effort to be beyond the scope of the resources of the New York District Attorney's office. - Aired on 02/06/2023.




Trump case 'cried out for federal investigation': Pomerantz - Rachel Maddow - MSNBC

Former NYDA prosecutor Mark Pomerantz talks with Rachel Maddow about his surprise at not seeing more evidence that federal prosecutors are investigation Donald Trump's financials, particularly after extensive New York Times reporting on Trump's taxes. - Aired on 02/06/2023.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. Andrew Weisman-An insider's critical view of an investigation of Donald Trump

I watched the Sixty Minutes article and watched Rachel tonight on this new book on the NYC DA investigation. I agree with Andrew Weisman that this book is a bad idea and may hurt prosecution of TFG. One key issue that was not addressed tonight or on Sixty Minutes was the issue of mens rea or culpable mental state. The weakness of the case outlined tonight is proving that TFG knew that these statements were false and that TFG was not relying on the expert opinion of third parties. The evidence outlined showed that TFG and the trump organization made misleading statements but did not address how you proved TFG's intent to deceive.

It was not a clear case against TFG and DA Bragg may have been right to delay and instead rely on the NY AG case on the civil fraud issues because the taking of the 5th by TFG can be used to established culpable mental state for a civil jury.

Link to tweet

In his telling, the prosecutors come across as fainthearted, lacking “energy” and “enthusiasm,” and “relentlessly negative.” The team was faced with a possible first-of-its-kind prosecution of a former president, and, Pomerantz writes, the prosecutors were perhaps “a bit fearful about bringing charges against Trump,” given his well-known penchant for public retaliation. “They seemed to me,” Pomerantz observes, “to be exactly the kind of traditional, ‘let’s do things the way we have always done them’ prosecutors that kept the district attorney’s office from being resourceful and successful in white-collar cases.” Pomerantz reveals that Vance had “privately complained many times to me … about the slow-moving and ‘gun shy’ culture in the office.” Pomerantz believed the office needed a chief of staff, “a drill sergeant,” as he puts it, to “keep the team moving.” But out of the hundreds of assistant district attorneys, he argues, “there was no suitable candidate from within the office.”

Pomerantz is unfailingly polite about Vance. But if his criticisms generally about the work of the office are accurate, then the state of the long-running investigation is on Vance, not on Bragg, who was on the job for less than two months before Pomerantz resigned. Yet Bragg is scathingly faulted for not promptly greenlighting charges against Trump, charges that many had said were not ready for prime time. Indeed, in December 2021, Pomerantz and Vance brought in a “brain trust” of five outside appellate and former trial prosecutors to assess the case. That “summit meeting” occurred when Bragg was the district attorney-elect, but inexplicably no one from his transition team was invited. And the meeting did not yield a consensus that the case was strong and ready to be brought, with various participants raising serious legal and factual concerns. It is difficult to know exactly what transpired, as Pomerantz appears to fudge on the degree of consensus by saying the outside group “seemed” to agree and the “sense of the group” seemed clear. But there was no statement acknowledging an agreement that the case was solid and ready to be charged. And Pomerantz’s senior colleague walked away from the meeting saying the conversation “‘left him on the fence’ about charging Trump.”.....

But Pomerantz changes tone in a thoughtful late chapter and contemplates the issues that confronted Bragg and Vance. He lucidly describes the conundrum faced by them and the other prosecutors contemplating criminal charges against Trump. Why, he asks, had he and Vance and others been convinced that criminal charges should be brought, “while other serious and experienced lawyers had reached the opposite conclusion?” The answer focuses on the standard to be applied in bringing charges against a former president of the United States. Some have the view that if you shoot for the king, you best not miss, and that an acquittal would rend the fabric of the country, perhaps irreparably. Pomerantz eloquently lays out the counterargument: that a president should be held to at least the same standard as anyone else and that the rule of law demands it, even if a conviction is far from certain.

Pomerantz makes a compelling argument on the standard to be used in deciding whether to bring such consequential charges, but one wonders if this book risks undermining the very noble end he seeks. The DA’s investigation of Trump is widely reported to be active, and if charges are brought, this book is certainly going to be used in countless ways by the defense, including to claim selective prosecution, to try to change venues and to undermine government witnesses. If the book improperly hurts an eventual Trump prosecution, one wonders if having this account, at this time, will have been worth it.

The Stormy Daniels case makes sense in that there is a paper trail including checks signed by TFG. It appears that additional witnesses may have been lined up from the National Enquirer.

I want TFG to go to jail but the NY AG civil case will serve the purpose of exposing TFG's fraud and the Georgia or Mara-A-Lago document cases are easier to get convictions. TFG taking the 5th can be used in the NY AG civil case to prove culpability and the required mens rea.

[Rhiannon12866]

2. Wow! Thanks so much for sharing this! Andrew Weissmann is the best!

Seems like he's on every show these days to explain exactly what's going on...

[NJCher]

3. I was impressed with Pomerantz

Were you?

His book has been criticized by people saying it gives away too much to trump’s lawyers but he was able to credibly answer to that. He also said that material had previously been published.

The criticism assumes trump’s lawyers would be savvy enough to take advantage, which to date they have not.

I read his wiki bio and wow. What a career. This man has been there and done that all over the place. We are incredibly fortunate to have a person of his intelligence and ability on our side.

I am glad he wrote this because it so spells it out to these gutless prosecutors.

[Rhiannon12866]

4. Oh, I completely agree with you, he came off as not just believable, but smart and impressive

And Rachel was the one to interview him, she asked the right questions and gave him the time to prove his points. He certainly knows the legal system, both state and federal, and I also agree that the caliber of lawyers that TFG's using now keep getting themselves in a bind because they're listening to him rather than following the law.

[brush]

5. The old hesitance to charge a president still...

governs too many prosecutors. Pomerantz is right in arguing that presidents should be treated like every other citizen as no one should be above the law.

I just don't get the fear. trump is no dictator who can have enemies shot, or jail them. You'd think at least one will be courageous enough (Fani Willie, can you hear me)?

[Rhiannon12866]

6. Fani Willis has the courage to move forward, she's the one who's most determined

And I don't get it, either, not to mention that TFG is now a private citizen - who attempted to over the government of the U.S.!

[2naSalit]

7. Interestingly...

On The Last Word, following TRMS, Lawrence was upset and thinks that the book jeopardizes the case against -45. Weissman was in agreement with him on that point.

[Rhiannon12866]

8. Yet he didn't bring it up with Rachel during the "hand off"

They are usually in agreement about everything.

[2naSalit]

9. I think it was...

To avoid such a conversation during the hand-off, knowing what Rachel just presented.

[Rhiannon12866]

10. Oh, I'm sure it was, that conversation could have taken up the Lawrence's entire show

But you know how they are, have always had a mutual admiration society. I'm wondering if Lawrence will bring it up privately.

[2naSalit]

11. I suspect they do discuss things...

In private at times. One thing I know about Lawrence, he's a stickler for good manners.

[Rhiannon12866]

12. You're right, and they're friends. He would hardly want to disagree with her on air.

And she regularly does a stellar job, tackles and presents stories that no one else does - like the "fake electors" scandal! That was her story! I really wish she was still on every night.

[2naSalit]

13. Tha good part in all of...

The difference in the two hosts is that they have a difference and present it but not in an antagonistic way.

[Rhiannon12866]

14. And Rachel really is brilliant so Lawrence's admiration is not misplaced

She explains even the most complicated issues so clearly that her viewers can understand. And even those she disagrees with have come on her show since they know that she'll be fair and accurate. When she introduces a guest, she usually asks to make sure she got whatever they're discussing exactly right.

[NJCher]

19. I'll bet he didn't have a chance to

really understand what Pomerantz had to say. That's because in the hour before a show,it is sheet chaos and they rarely have a chance to watch their colleague's show in any depth.

Let's see if he voices a similar opinion in the future, after he's had a chance to watch the show.

[GGoss]

15. Thank You For This !!!

[Rhiannon12866]

16. You're more than welcome!

This was likely the most newsworthy interview of the night and it took me awhile to get the segments in the right order.

[GGoss]

17. I Was Just Starting To Look, And Then Found Your Work

Much appreciated.

[Rhiannon12866]

18. I was disappointed that they didn't include Rachel's introduction, which she refers to

But I was glad that they included the entire interview since we'll likely be hearing about all he had to say on the news.

[Delphinus]

20. Thank you

Just put it on hold at the library.