Our problems remain epistemological.

Friday, February 25, 2022

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Trump Probe



The story that is being reported in The NY Times, Politico, and elsewhere is that Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan District Attorney, and his two subordinate prosecutors, Pomerantz and Dunne, see the facts differently. According to reports in the mainstream media, Pomerantz and Dunne want the grand jury proceedings to continue, and that they remain ready to make representations before a judge that the life of the current grand jury should be extended. According to this view, the stick-in-the-mud is Bragg. Because he thinks the legal case is weak, he is for allowing the grand jury proceedings and investigation to terminate. Hence, the resignations by the frontline prosecutors.


The problem with that story is that there are no statements in the record from Bragg, Pomerantz, or Dunne. The media’s sources are all confidential and off-the-record, and naturally, such sources (if they exist all all) often have their own agendas.


Here is another possibility.


Pomerantz and Dunne know they have, at best, a weak case. Perhaps, they have no case at all. They are consummate legal professionals and are wholly unwilling to make knowingly false representations before the judge—who has oversight over the grand jury and who has lawful authority to extend the grand jury’s term. If so, why the resignations? Perhaps because Bragg has told them: “Do whatever is necessary to extend the life of the grand jury, and swear out whatever certification you must before the judge—Do it or you are fired.” So, instead of being fired, Pomerantz and Dunne resigned.


Pomerantz and Dunne are bound by ethics rules in regard to grand jury testimony secrecy. But, apparently, someone is talking to the media. This is how we will know who wants the grand jury probe terminated and who wants its life extended. If Bragg shops around for new prosecutors and they decide to restart the investigatory process before a newly impanelled grand jury, then that likely means that Bragg wants—and has always wanted—the investigations to go forward. Otherwise, it was Bragg who was for closing the investigation down.

Which theory is more likely? 


Seth Barrett Tillman, The Manhattan District Attorney’s Trump Probe,’ New Reform Club (Feb. 25, 2022, 8:54 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-manhattan-district-attorneys-trump.html>;



Matthew Noto said...

Another possibility: the investigation by State Attorney General Letitia James is still ongoing, and she has aspirations to run for governor.

These two lawyers were told to step aside so she could take point on whatever case they have, or, at the very least, extend the illusion of any case (if none exists) through Election Day.

Just spitballin'.

Pete said...

My money says the left will go with either, Trump got to them or, they were secretly Trump supporters the whole time.

iowan2 said...

Why did the two prosecutors resign? I thought Bragg said he had room for them in his department. IF, Bragg was the trigger man, these two would still be there, or would have spent a couple of weeks on the clock, boxing up the case, and getting paid, and quietly resigning and drifting quietly into the night. That's the way professionals treat each other.

The noisy public resignations point to the idea they are in fact protecting their reputations, for when the truth finally emerges, by nothing coming of these investigations.

Nothing coming out, because the public narrative about playing with asset valuations, triggers no criminal or civil legal actions. How much is a Golf Coarse worth? What is the value of a 50 story office building in Manhattan? Nobody has clue until a seller and buyer come together. So valuation for the purpose of securing financing, is between the asset owner, and lender. Again, two adversarial parties arriving at an agreed to value.

Xmas said...

I think it will end up that the tax valuations were coming from property tax valuations which are determined by a property tax board. Also, they'll find the loan valuations were coming from bank evaluators. Sure, the Trump tax lawyers may have argued down tax valuations and the finance team may have argue up loan valuations, but that is likely not illegal since the final determination was done by the other party. People don't get dinged for unpaid property taxes when their home sells for more than the property tax evaluation and you don't get money back when it sells for less.