From the Pomerantz resignation letter - much could be quoted, but this seems key -
To the extent you have raised issues as to the legal and factual sufficiency of our case and the likelihood that a prosecution would succeed, I and others have advised you that we have evidence sufficient to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and we believe that the prosecution would prevail if charges were brought and the matter were tried to an impartial jury. No case is perfect. Whatever the risks of bringing the case may be, I am convinced that a failure to prosecute will pose much greater risks in terms of public confidence in the fair administration of justice. As I have suggested to you, respect for the rule of law, and the need to reinforce the bedrock proposition that “no man is above the law,” require that this prosecution be brought even if a conviction is not certain.
How did this overly timid Alvin gain the office that requires sound judgment? And guts to go with evidence and see how the trial turns out?
How did this person gain the position of being in a place where he could so clearly show his gutlessness?
Trump should have been prosecuted, as the letter says, in order for people to believe in the people holding the responsibility, the soundness of the process and the basic fairness of the system.
It was a failure of discretion to be more than an over-cautious careerist.
Scared of losing? Then don't take the job!
.....................................................
For readers wanting background and NYT's analytical vision of things, this link.
However, the text of the letter is the full story. (Yet NYT publishes many words beyond that.)
It is a credit to that outlet that they also cleanly in parallel published the text of the letter, which beyond doubt speaks for itself.
The letter resonates.
........................................................
It is interesting that buried in the tail of the NYT analysis, but included in the above letter quote, arguably the heart of things:
Addressing an apparent belief in Mr. Bragg’s office that they might lose at trial, Mr. Pomerantz wrote, “Respect for the rule of law, and the need to reinforce the bedrock proposition that ‘no man is above the law,’ require that this prosecution be brought even if a conviction is not certain.”
The suggestion seems to be Bragg believed Trump was guilty, but that his career could not suffer losing the case. Never has it been reported Bragg ever said he thought Trump was innocent of crime. It was the case could be lost.
If you are a lawyer taking any case to trial, winning or losing are always possible.That is the nature of being a lawyer.
If you can't stand the heat, Harry Truman said, get out of the kitchen.
