Some prosecutors work for justice. Others toil for a result.
Which camp do you suppose crybaby counsellor Mark Pomerantz falls into?
The New York Times published the resignation letter of Pomerantz, who left the Manhattan district attorney’s office last month to much publicity in (surprise!) the New York Times, on Thursday.
“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,” Pomerantz wrote his boss, District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Pomerantz claimed the investigation he helped lead uncovered “evidence sufficient to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
But observers possess reasons to doubt Pomerantz’s ability to fairly assess the former president’s guilt or innocence.
Like so many of Trump’s antagonists, Pomerantz betrays a record of extreme partisanship. Pomerantz took a leave of absence from the Hillary Clinton–tied law firm Paul, Weiss, to toil on the case against Trump pro bono. He donated thousands of dollars to federal candidates, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Hakeem Jeffries, Andrew Cuomo, and Chuck Schumer, over the years. All of the candidates for federal office that he supported financially share one thing in common: the “D” that appears after their names.
The former president’s enemies judge the truth of stories based on how they make them feel rather than on whether they check out factually.
The decision to task the droolers and the shiny-eyed with investigations of anything and everything involving Donald Trump strikes as a poor one if the intent was to convict rather than attaint.
Pomerantz running an investigation with another partisan, Carey Dunne, initially under the direction of District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. — whose father served as Jimmy Carter’s secretary of state and his adoptive father served as the 1924 Democratic presidential nominee — seemed like a recipe for fever dreams rather than evidence fueling notions of guilt.
It recalls the 13 Angry Democrats (and no Republicans) on Robert Mueller’s team of attorneys hectoring Trump for the first few years of his presidency and the “intelligence dossier” actually compiled as an opposition research operation surreptitiously paid for in its entirety by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic Party. The susceptibility to project something onto nothing appears demonstrably greater among people with partisan axes to grind.
This phenomenon explains why Trump’s enemies repeatedly misconstrue their fantasy for objective reality. From the mountain of lies advanced in the Russian collusion hoax that media organs finally retract to the completely made-up story, relied upon in the post-presidential articles of impeachment, that Trump’s supporters bludgeoned a policeman to death during the Capitol Hill riot, the former president’s enemies judge the truth of stories based on how they make them feel rather than on whether they check out factually. The Hunter Biden laptop story, officially suppressed by Twitter, Facebook, and other information behemoths and belatedly affirmed by both Politico and the New York Times, comes as the most recent example of Trump’s antagonists sporting egg on their faces.
The Times, which made no such hoopla when three prosecutors skeptical of proposed charges against the former president left the DA’s office, reported about the two who left for opposing reasons on Thursday: “While Dunne and Pomerantz were confident that the office could demonstrate that the former president had intended to inflate the value of his golf clubs, hotels and office buildings, Bragg was not. He balked at pursuing an indictment against Trump, a decision that shut down Pomerantz’s and Dunne’s presentation of evidence to a grand jury and prompted their resignations.”
On the left end of the Democrat Party, Bragg, who went from Harlem to Harvard, brought legal action against Donald Trump on behalf of the state of New York in the past. He just harbored doubts about whether this particular investigation, focusing on the difficult-to-prove question of whether the former president knowingly falsified his wealth on financial statements, could pass muster with a jury of Trump’s rather than Pomerantz’s peers. (READ MORE: HillaryGate: Trump Was Right)
“The team that has been investigating Mr. Trump harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes — he did,” Pomerantz, playing prosecutor and judge, wrote in his resignation letter. For Pomerantz and zealots like him, Trump’s guilt had been established long before any investigation started.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.