Former Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance in 2018 launched an investigation into former President Trump’s financial practices, specifically whether he lied about the value of his assets to help him obtain loans. But when Alvin Bragg took over for Vance earlier this year, he decided to not pursue charges, prompting the resignation of Mark Pomeranz and Carey Dunne, two prosecutors who had been working on the case.
The New York Times on Wednesday published Pomeranz’s resignation letter, in which he states a belief that Trump is “guilty of numerous felony violations.”
“His financial statements were false, and he has a long history of fabricating information relating to his personal finances and lying about his assets to banks, the national media, counterparties, and many others, including the American people,” Pomeranz writes in the letter, which he submitted to Bragg in February. “The team that has been investigating Mr. Trump harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes — he did.”
The long-running case had been gaining momentum before Bragg’s arrival, with Vance convening a special grand jury last November. Vance seemed to be ready to indict Trump before he left office, but when Bragg took over he clashed with prosecutors over whether they could prove Trump knowingly inflated the value of his company’s assets.
Pomeranz laid all of this out in his resignation letter, writing that Vance “concluded that the facts warranted prosecution, and he directed the team to present evidence to a grand jury and to seek an indictment of Mr. Trump and other defendants as soon as reasonably possible.” Vance’s office had already charged Trump Organization executive Allen Weisselberg, as well as the company itself, with a bevy of financial crimes, including federal tax fraud, falsifying business records, grand larceny, and scheme conspiracy.
“I believe that your decision not to prosecute Donald Trump now, and on the existing record, is misguided and completely contrary to the public interest,” Pomeranz wrote. “I therefore cannot continue in my current position.”
Pomeranz may have been convinced the office had enough evidence to nail Trump, but Bragg’s concern about proving the former president had first-hand knowledge of fraud is a legitimate one. “There is a BIG difference between *knowing* somebody committed crimes and *proving* those crimes in court,” Daniel Goldman, the lead counsel for the effort to impeach Trump who briefly entered the race for New York attorney general last year, tweeted on Thursday, noting that it would have been in Bragg’s political interest to indict the former president. “I am certain that [Bragg’s] decision was solely about the evidence — and nothing else — as every case should be.”
Pomeranz, a veteran prosecutor who came out of retirement to work on the case against Trump, saw things a little differently. “I have worked too hard as a lawyer, and for too long, now to become a passive participant in what I believe to be a grave failure of justice,” he wrote.