The investigation into former President Donald Trump and his financial statements "unraveled" after a disagreement flared between two veteran prosecutors and the Manhattan district attorney, The New York Times reported Saturday.
According to the report, two veteran prosecutors, Mark F. Pomerantz and Carey R. Dunne tried to present a convincing argument to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg ahead of the expiration for the grand jury to hear evidence Trump knew his financial statements were misleading.
But Bragg, who would be needed to seek charges against Trump, doubted the two lawyers could provide strong evidence Trump had "intentionally set out to break the law by inflating the value of his assets in the annual statements," which would be key in presenting a strong argument in the case.
What precipitated from meeting between Bragg and the two attorneys was a suspension in the investigation, as well as the resignation from the two prosecutors last month.
Although Bragg has maintained the three-year investigation into Trump is ongoing, one of the heaviest legal threats Trump faced, for now, seems to be over. However, other, less severe allegations from an inquiry might still come.
Bragg's decision might have been influenced by prosecutors with the former district attorney's administration, who had raised concern to Bragg the prior investigations against Trump had shown gaps in evidence.
Additionally, following the meeting with Pomerantz and Dunne, Bragg began to draw concerns of his own that showing Trump's intent — "a requirement for proving that he criminally falsified his business records" — would prove to be a challenge. Bragg also seems to draw concern for relying on Michael D. Cohen, a former Trump attorney, as a key witness, as it would prove risky in presenting a strong case.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.