Your post accurately describes that article. I read the book it’s based on, and the details in the book might distract from the facts of this case and it will all be from the divided DA’s side, not a typical made-up Trump distraction. I’m using your post as a jumping off point, so writing the below for everyone…
Before Bragg, the DA was Vance. To help the understaffed DA’s team/bring in new perspectives, in Feb 2021 he brought on a former federal prosecutor - Pomerantz - the guy who wrote the book. Had to be sworn in as an ADA, but really just a consultant.
The styles between the State (conservative charging) and former-Feds (creative charging) are very different. There was friction. Prior to Vance leaving, they had considered and did not charge the Stormy Daniels case (referred to as the “zombie case” as they kept discussing it and always deciding not to charge it). They spent a long time investigating everything Trump. It appeared they would ultimately charge the broad racketeering case (a creative charge), but nothing was formalized before Vance left and Bragg came on. When Bragg came on, he decided not to bring the racketeering charges and to not charge Trump and made that public. In Feb 2022, Pomerantz and the lead investigator (a “Vance” guy) resigned in protest of that decision and explained their reasoning via emails. Pomerantz then wrote a book explaining why this was so wrong. When the book was released (Feb 2023)/or when it was known what was going to be in it (2022) - Bragg revived the Zombie case and charged Trump with that.
The book reads, word for word, emails/letters written to Vance, to Bragg, etc about the what’s and the whys. Kind of feels in poor taste, but I imagine this will all be used to cry witch hunt (ie, Bragg was pressured into bringing the zombie case charges after it had been declined many times and after he decided to not charge anything).
I’ll add, I read that book awhile back and going off memory for all of this but just wanted to give a flavor of what’s out there from a former ADA that worked on this case…happy to be corrected on any over-simplifications or errors. Again, the above is just the books point of view. And I don’t think Pomerantz version is how all this actually went down. But you do have the airing of dirty laundry for all to see.
I KNOW this isn’t the correct thread to post this, but there are so many different Trump is in legal peril threads now, and I don’t see one for the NY hush money/2016 election interference trial. Seems like this one will be the first criminal trial to tee up.
In my value system, bribing someone to give up their free speech rights should be a serious crime. If it was, Trump would be guilty many times over due to his requiring employees to sign non-disclosure agreements. But in today’s United States, such bribery, outside the campaign financing context, is allowed.
As to whether he is guilty as charged, I will likely respect the jury verdict.
Most politicians, who are jury trial defendants, are convicted, but politico acquittals are also common. After four Trump felony trial verdicts, if it gets that far, there will be a lot to discuss.
Claims have been made that Trump engages in witness tampering, but he has never been convicted of that, or any other crime. What can I say now except that I will likely respect the jury verdicts regardless of how they go?
Prosecutors seek Trump gag order in NY hush money criminal case - 26 Feb 24.
NEW YORK, Feb 26 (Reuters) - Prosecutors have asked a judge for a gag order to restrict Donald Trump from making public comments about witnesses or exposing the identities of jurors in the former president’s New York trial involving hush money paid to a porn star, court filings made public on Monday showed.
The requests by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office noted Trump’s “longstanding history of attacking witnesses, investigators, prosecutors, judges and others involved in legal proceedings against him.”
Trump lawyers - free speech, election interference, blah blah.
Trump - He has denied any such relationship. The usual never met her. In Spite of the canceled check and recordings of him authorizing the payment.
This will be a criminal trial about the fraud related to the notorious hush money payments to hide the mushroom penis.
Not surprisingly, the defense team wants to suppress testimony by Stormy Stephanie Clifford and Michael Cohen and bar prosecution from saying that the alleged payments were about election influencing.
The prosecution, meanwhile, wants a court order to enjoin Individual-ONE from engaging in stochastic terrorism (publicly disparaging witnesses and probably court staff).