USA: Trump Investigation: Mark Pomerantz’s Resignation Letter – published by The New York Times

The former prosecutor who investigated Donald J. Trump believed that the former president was “guilty of numerous felony violations.” 

Mark Pomerantz

March 23, 2022 – Letter- published by The New York Times

The following is the full text of the resignation letter by Mark Pomerantz, who had investigated former President Donald J. Trump, but left after the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, halted an effort to seek an indictment.

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.             

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 

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Clyde Duncan  On 03/24/2022 at 10:13 am

  • Clyde Duncan  On 03/24/2022 at 11:01 am

  • brandli62  On 03/24/2022 at 11:44 am

    What the heck is making Alvin Bragg, the new DA of the Southern District of Manhattan, so hesitant in prosecuting Trump? Has he been paid off?

  • Clyde Duncan  On 03/24/2022 at 2:20 pm

    A president of the USA or former president of the USA will be criminally charged and convicted after your royal highness in the UK – dat’s what I believe.

  • Clyde Duncan  On 03/24/2022 at 2:28 pm

    Opinion: Donald Trump’s Disloyalty May Finally Come Back To Bite Him

    By Jennifer Rubin | The Washington Post

    DEFEATED FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP IS NOTORIOUS FOR TURNING ON ALLIES IF THEY FAIL TO SHOW SUFFICIENT LOYALTY. When his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, properly recused himself from the Russia investigation, Trump berated him until he resigned. Even Supreme Court justices whom he appointed felt his wrath when they did not produce his desired outcome.
    And who can forget all the people Trump claimed he barely knew when they ended up in trouble or criticized him?

    BUT DISLOYALTY CAN COME BACK TO BITE YOU. On Wednesday, Trump yanked his endorsement from staunch supporter Rep. Mo Brooks for a Senate seat in Alabama, faulting Brooks for not wanting to dwell on the 2020 race. Brooks struck back with a damning written statement.

    “The only legal way America can prevent 2020’s election debacle is for patriotic Americans to focus on and win the 2022 and 2024 elections so that we have the power to enact laws that give us honest and accurate elections,” Brooks wrote.

    “President Trump asked me to rescind the 2020 elections, immediately remove Joe Biden from the White House, immediately put President Trump back in the White House, and hold a new special election for the presidency.” Twisting the knife, he added, “As a lawyer, I’ve repeatedly advised President Trump that Jan. 6 was the final election contest verdict and neither the U.S. Constitution nor the U.S. Code permit what President Trump asks. PERIOD.” — Oops!

    This account, if true, is invaluable to the Jan. 6 committee and to any criminal investigation given the difficulty in proving Trump’s “criminal intent”. If Trump asked Brooks to rescind the election, as Brooks alleged, and if Trump understood from Brooks that there was no legitimate way to overturn the election, Trump’s risk of being charged with obstruction of an official proceeding – i.e., the electoral-vote-counting session – attempting to defraud the United States or seditious conspiracy increases dramatically.


    Brooks turned down a request from the committee last year for phone records, but he didn’t rule out testifying. His campaign spokesman previously released a statement that, “if Congressman Brooks is asked to testify, the testimony must be in public, not in secret and not denying the American people their right to hear the entirety of testimony by any and all witnesses.” He might now be more willing to cooperate with the committee. And he might have plenty to tell.

    The Post previously reported, “A review of Brooks’ speeches, tweets and media appearances as well as affidavits and other court filings reveal his central part in mobilizing the effort to overturn Joe Biden’s victory by repeatedly claiming that the election was stolen and then becoming the first member of Congress to declare he would challenge the electoral college results.” He publicly claimed to have “led the charge.” Whatever testimony he could give about conversations he had with Trump or senior aides in the events leading up to Jan. 6, 2021, or on the day of the armed insurrection would be invaluable.

    One might be skeptical of the veracity of a claim from a congressman who eagerly spread the “big lie” of a stolen election. But the benefit of the Jan. 6 committee’s exhaustive investigation is that any testimony he gives can be corroborated by scores of documents and other witnesses’ testimony. Brooks’ testimony might simply put an exclamation on the account of Trump’s treachery and betrayal of his oath.


    Recall that the Justice Department previously refused to defend him in a civil lawsuit linking him to the Jan. 6 insurrection, arguing that he was not acting in any official capacity when he spoke at a rally outside the White House preceding the violence. While Brooks was dismissed from that lawsuit, the potential for criminal investigation remains if there is sufficient evidence tying him to the coup attempt and the armed insurrection on Jan. 6. Thus, giving him immunity in exchange for direct testimony about Trump’s state of mind might be an attractive deal.

    Trump might come to regret pulling the rug out from under Brooks. Sometimes you want to keep friends close — and potentially dangerous witnesses closer.

  • wally n  On 03/24/2022 at 2:53 pm

    big guy punches back….look out….hurting coming..he always WINS!
    It’s a who’s who of names behind SpyGate
    “The Plaintiff, Donald J. Trump, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby serves his suit against the Defendants, Hillary R. Clinton, HFACC, Inc., the Democratic National Committee, DNC Services Corporation, Perkins Coie, LLC, Michael Sussmann, Marc Elias, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Halliday Dolan, Jr., Jake Sullivan, John Podesta, Robert E. Mook,Phillipe Reines, Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Peter Fritsch, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Orbis Business Intelligence, Ltd., Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko, Neustar, Inc., Rodney Joffe, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith, & Andrew McCabe…”

    Don’t you think it is funny. crooked/dirty hunter nada, dixzzy joe nada
    but it is all coming down soon, go get popcorn.

    • Brother Man  On 03/25/2022 at 12:09 am

      The brother Alvin Bragg is a coward! Why won’t he prosecute the grifter Donald Trump in the face of a mountain if criminal evidence?

      Is he afraid of racist repercussions? The fact remains that no man is above the law. My, not even a former occupant of the OO.

      If Alvin Bragg wouldn’t do his job, then he should do as Mike Pomerantz and resign!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: