The comments by Bragg, a former federal attorney general and assistant attorney general in New York, are intended to put an end to speculation that he has closed the long-running investigation, six weeks after prosecutors left and Trump’s lawyers declared him guilty. Bragg said he wanted the public to understand that he was not discussing the “meat” of the investigation, but said that when it was over he would inform the public of his conclusion – whether it was an indictment or an indictment. Bragg would not set a timetable for the case, saying the inquiries were not “linear”. “When I was in the Attorney General’s Office as the Deputy Attorney General overseeing the entire office, I led the team that led to the successful trial of the former president and the Trump Foundation. the events and we will go where they take us and that is what we do every day in the office “, said Bragg. He also said he would not leave “any stone unturned” in Trump’s investigation. The first three months of Bragg’s term were marred by rising crime in New York, a “First Day” note that contrasted him with the New York Police Department and the resignation of veteran prosecutors leading the Trump investigation: Mark Pomerants and Carey Dunne. In late February, they resigned after Bragg said he would not authorize them to seek criminal prosecution from the special court at the time, CNN reported. In his resignation letter, which was reviewed by CNN, Pomerantz said he believed Trump was guilty of many crimes and that Bragg’s decision not to prosecute at the time was “wrong” and a “serious failure of justice.” . “I thought your decision not to prosecute Donald Trump now, and based on the available evidence, is wrong and completely against the public interest,” Pomerandz added. Pomerantz also said the bureau had “enough evidence to prove Mr. Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt … I also do not believe that suspending the investigation pending future developments will lead to a stronger case or dispel your reluctance to make accusations. ” He added: “I and others believe that your decision not to prosecute now will condemn the future prospects that Mr. Trump will be prosecuted for the criminal behavior we are investigating.” Bragg declined to give further details about Pomeranc’s decision. “I would not assume I would talk about anyone else,” Bragg said. “But for me I thought there were more roads, more work to be done, more things we could watch. This is what our team that is in place every day does.” Separately Thursday, New York Attorney General Letitia James asked a state court on Thursday to convict Trump of civil contempt for allegedly failing to comply with a court order to hand over certain documents for her investigation.
Inheritance research from previous DA
Pomerantz, who was half-retired, was hired by former prosecutor Cyrus Vance for his experience in complex financial investigations. Last summer, Vance filed charges against Trump and his chief financial officer, Allen Weiselberg, alleging they were involved in a 15-year tax fraud scheme. The company and Weisselberg have pleaded not guilty. Vance had authorized the group’s lawyers to present evidence to the grand jury late last year, but did not file a lawsuit. Those close to Vance say he wanted to leave the decision to Bragg. Others say the decision was an attempt to prevent Bragg from bringing the case to office early. The special jury is due to close in April, though it could be extended or a new grand jury could sit down to hear evidence. Bragg did not say whether the lack of an internal partner hindered the investigation. “I have made cases with partners and cases without partners. Complex cases can unfold in any way,” he said. “I see the investigations in general and the evidence in the trial specifically as a whole. What we are doing now is investigating to get this whole and then at this point we can make decisions.” Since the end of last year, at least three career prosecutors have called for a halt to the investigation, which by the autumn had reduced its focus to the accuracy of Trump’s financial statements provided to lenders, insurers and others. Concerned that the investigation was progressing too fast, with no clear evidence to support possible allegations, said people familiar with the investigation. Prosecutors faced many obstacles in their investigation, most notably having an accomplice, a key secret, who could testify that Trump knew the financial statements contained false information. In addition to proving that Trump had criminal intent, some of the prosecutors also believed that there were problems with the financial statements themselves, which included reservations that they had not been audited and did not necessarily follow US accounting rules. In addition, none of the lenders lost money on loans to Trump, these people said. And many of them conducted their own review and risk assessment. This story has been updated with additional comments by Bragg.
