Prosecutor Insists Trump Guilty of Felony in Resignation Letter

Mark Pomerantz

Pomerantz’ letter to recently elected District Attorney for New York County, Alvin Bragg.

Dear Alvin:

I write to tender my resignation as a Special Assistant District Attorney and to explain my reasons for resigning.

As you know from our recent conversations and presentations, I believe that Donald Trump is guilty of numerous felony violations of the Penal Law in connection with the preparation and use of his annual Statements of Financial Condition. 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. The team that has been investigating Mr. Trump harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes — he did.

Mark Pomerantz in his resignation letter

In late 2021, then-District Attorney Cyrus Vance directed a thorough review of the facts and law relating to Mr. Trump’s financial statements. Mr. Vance had been intimately involved in our investigation, attending grand jury presentations, sitting in on certain witness interviews, and receiving regular reports about the progress of the investigation. He 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.

This work was underway when you took office as District Attorney. You have devoted significant time and energy to understanding the evidence we have accumulated with respect to the Trump financial statements, as well as the applicable law. You have reached the decision not to go forward with the grand jury presentation and not to seek criminal charges at the present time. The investigation has been suspended indefinitely. Of course, that is your decision to make. I do not question your authority to make it, and I accept that you have made it sincerely. However, a decision made in good faith may nevertheless be wrong. 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. I therefore cannot continue in my current position.

In my view, the public interest warrants the criminal prosecution of Mr. Trump, and such a prosecution should be brought without any further delay. Because of the complexity of the facts, the refusal of Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization to cooperate with our investigation, and their affirmative steps to frustrate our ability to follow the facts, this investigation has already consumed a great deal of time. As to Mr. Trump, the great bulk of the evidence relates to his management of the Trump Organization before he became President of the United States. These facts are already dated, and our ability to establish what happened may erode with the further passage of time. Many of the salient facts have been made public in proceedings brought by the Office of the Attorney General, and the public has rightly inquired about the pace of our investigation. Most importantly, the further passage of time will raise additional questions about the failure to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his criminal conduct.

To the extent you have raised issues as to the legal and factual sufficiency of our case and the likelihood that a prosecution would succeed, I and others have advised you that we have evidence sufficient to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and we believe that the prosecution would prevail if charges were brought and the matter were tried to an impartial jury. No case is perfect. Whatever the risks 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. As I have suggested to you, respect for the rule of law, and the need to reinforce the bedrock proposition that “no man is above the law,” require that this prosecution be brought even if a conviction is not certain.

I also do not believe that suspending the investigation pending future developments will lead to a stronger case or dispel your reluctance to bring charges. No events are likely to occur that will alter the nature of the case or dramatically change the quality or quantity of the evidence available to the prosecution. 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. On the contrary, 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.

I fear that your decision means that Mr. Trump will not be held fully accountable for his crimes. 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. I therefore resign from my position as a Special Assistant District Attorney, effective immediately.


Mark F. Pomerantz

Trump Rescinds Brooks Endorsement in Alabama Senate Race

Rep. Mo Brooks w/Donald Trump

(Statement from former president, Donald J. Trump on ‘Save America’ letterhead)

Mo Brooks of Alabama made a horrible mistake recently when he went “woke” and
stated, referring to the 2020 Presidential Election Scam, “Put that behind you, put
that behind you” despite the fact that the Election was rife with fraud and
irregularities. If we forget, the Radical Left Democrats will continue to Cheat and Steal
Elections. Just look at what is happening in Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania,
Georgia, and elsewhere, but tremendous progress has been made that will help us in
2022 and 2024. The 2020 Election was rigged, and we can’t let them get away with it.

When I endorsed Mo Brooks, he took a 44-point lead and was unstoppable. He then
hired a new campaign staff who “brilliantly” convinced him to “stop talking about the
2020 Election.” He listened to them. Then, according to the polls, Mo’s 44-point lead
totally evaporated all based on his “2020” statement made at our massive rally in
Cullman, Alabama. When I heard his statement, I said, “Mo, you just blew the Election,
and there’s nothing you can do about it.” Very sad but, since he decided to go in
another direction, so have I, and I am hereby withdrawing my Endorsement of Mo
Brooks for the Senate. I don’t think the great people of Alabama will disagree with me.
Election Fraud must be captured and stopped, or we won’t have a Country anymore. I
will be making a new Endorsement in the near future!


Of course, as any who follows this election knows, Brooks was going to lose this election, anyway. Trump will now take credit for endorsing whoever appears to be the likely winner and insist Brooks would have won with his support. In fact, polling completed shortly before Trump withdrew his endorsement showed Brooks in a distant third place behind Katie Britt and Mike Durant. Brooks wasn’t going to win with Trump’s endorsement, and he certainly isn’t going to win without it.

Another Republican discarded when they no longer served the needs of their fearless leader. Hopefully Mo can enjoy some time down in Alabama reminiscing with his friend, Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions III, the former Attorney General who met a similar fate.

When will they learn?

All You Need to Know for March 19, 2022

From Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy’s ‘Reliable Sources’ on Friday, March 18:

–During an English-language interview on RT  (formerly Russia Today or Rossiya Segodnya) on Friday, “Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov praised Fox News as alone among ‘Western media’ in trying to represent some alternative points of view…”

You’ve Got to Be Kidding Me!

Matt Gaetz

Rep. Matt Gaetz, the Florida Republican who is currently the subject of a Justice Department investigation into whether he had sex with a 17-year-old girl and transported her across state lines in violation of sex trafficking laws, is considering a run for president in 2024.

Yahoo News

Congress’s Contempt Power


Article II of the Articles of Impeachment approved by the House of Representatives against Donald John Trump includes the following:

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. In his conduct of the office of President of the United States — and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed — Donald J. Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its “sole Power of Impeachment”…

Impeachment of Donald John Trump, President of the United States

With Mick Mulvaney, President Trump’s acting chief of staff, and John Bolton, the president’s former national security advisor — and likely several more, including Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney — apparently possessing documents and knowledge of the allegations which led to the impeachment of the president, it seems reasonable that Congress would consider a subpoena for their testimony.

A May 12, 2017 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), Congress’s Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas: Law, History, Practice, and Procedure, provides that:

Congress’s contempt power is the means by which Congress responds to certain acts that in its view obstruct the legislative process. Contempt may be used either to coerce compliance, to punish the contemnor, and/or to remove the obstruction.

However, as usual, things aren’t always as simple as they might otherwise seem. Further from the CRS report:

A number of obstacles face Congress in any attempt to enforce a subpoena issued against an executive branch official. Although the courts have reaffirmed Congress’s constitutional authority to issue and enforce subpoenas, efforts to punish an executive branch official for non-compliance with a subpoena through criminal contempt will likely prove unavailing in many, if not most, circumstances. Where the official refuses to disclose information pursuant to the President’s decision that such information is protected under executive privilege, past practice suggests that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will not pursue a prosecution for criminal contempt.

So, there you have it. Attorney General Bill Barr, who is in charge of the Department of Justice, would be the person to determine whether a criminal contempt charge would be prosecuted. I think we all know how that would turn out.