Crime

Preet Bharara Reads Tea Leaves, Sees Criminal Charges In Donald Trump's Future

Hint: hiring a Paul Weiss attorney was a big deal.

By  
on

Preet Bharara (Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)

Listen, before we dig too deep into this one, let’s get some stuff straight: Preet Bharara, former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, doesn’t have inside intel on any of the criminal investigations into former president Donald Trump. But he’s a former (federal) prosecutor from Manhattan, so he has some pretty good perspective, particularly for what’s happening with the Manhattan District Attorney’s investigation.

In an interview with Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick, Bharara points to some “signaling” going on by Cy Vance’s office that he says bodes poorly for Trump. And, high on that list of signs that things are getting serious, is hiring Paul Weiss attorney Mark Pomerantz (he’s currently on leave from the Biglaw firm while he’s working with the Manhattan DA’s office).

Here’s what Bharara said about the, erm, signals Vance is throwing out there:

I don’t know because I’ve not been in the grand jury, I’ve not interviewed the witnesses. Cy Vance doesn’t call me up and tell me stuff, but there is some signaling going on. Cy Vance is not running for reelection. Vance is, as they say, a lame duck. As a lame duck, he’s done certain things, including hiring an outside forensic accounting firm, which is not super unusual but it’s not that common. He’s done something else that is less common, which is hire an outside lawyer, Mark Pomerantz, who’s a very distinguished, well-respected lawyer in New York. I’m not going to put too much weight on it, but it seems like the kind of move you make when you believe that there’s going to be a charge or there’s a good likelihood of a charge, because it’s a pretty public thing to do. It also risks alienating people in your own office. It’s just a gut feeling that I have that taking these actions indicates to me that that office believes there’s a decent likelihood of a charge, and so that’s the one I’d be watching.

It doesn’t sound farfetched to think, “Well, when it suited him, Donald Trump inflated the value of his holdings. Otherwise he understated the value of his holdings.” Both of which can incriminate him criminally and subject him to exposure. That all sounds like it makes sense. There’s also the reporting that Michael Cohen, his former lawyer who was prosecuted by SDNY, has met with prosecutors and investigators with the DA’s office like a gazillion times.

All of those things, again, they’re not dispositive, but they all indicate to me that it’s a very serious undertaking. They’re taking it very seriously. They’re spending a lot of resources on it, and you don’t do that if it’s a long shot, I don’t think.

Of course, there’s still a lot that can happen and it’s far from a guarantee… but it sure is nice to think about.

Sponsored

headshotKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Sponsored

Topics

, , , , ,