mr. pomerantz tells us that in conjunction with the d.a. telling prosecutors in his office that they could go ahead with their plans to charge trump, mark pomerantz says they did, in fact, draw up draft charging languages -- excuse me, draft charging language for an potential charges against trump. so that's all new. we didn't know any of that. and, again, there is wild free-flowing lawyer rage, rage in lawyer circles about mark pomerantz having let us know rc that information at all. but, of course, i'm greedy.ti it just all makes me want to know more.l here is mark pomerantz. veteran new york lawyer, former federal prosecutor, formerly a o special assistant district os attorney in the new york d.a.'s office, working there specifically on the investigation of former president donald j. trump.do thank you for being here. >> thank you for inviting me, and i appreciate it.ou i appreciate the opportunity to talk to you. >> i don't think that i am creating more free-flowing rage about you by letting the hi audience know that there is a w lot of

mr. pomerantz tells us that in conjunction with the da, telling prosecutors in his office that they can go ahead with their plans to charge trump. mark pomerantz says they did in fact draw a draft charging languages. draft charging language. for potential charges against -- >> so that is all new. we don't know any of that. and again there is some wild free-flowing lawyer rage. rage and lawyer circles. about mike pomerantz having let us know that information at all. but of course, it just makes me want to know more. joining us now for his first live interview and it matches both publications night had been night is mark pomerantz. better in new york lawyer, former federal prosecutor, former special assistant attorney in the new york days office. working specifically on the investigation of former president, donald j trump. mr. pomerantz, thank you for being here. >> thank you for inviting me. i appreciate it. i appreciate the opportunity to talk to you. >> i don't think i am creating more free-flowing rage about you by letting the audience know there is a lot of it. but i have to ask, if an

mr. pomerantz is here on "the beat."or being here. >> thank you so much for having me. >> i cringe every time i hear the words heavy hitter and wonder if the term didn't originate with my girth, but -- >> well, i appreciate a little modesty, although the book in many ways is not modest and let's get right into one the points you make that a lot of people will identify with. you say, quote, some cases need to be brought even with the risk of loss to vindicate the rule of law. for people who have heard repeatedly about how trump is careful or hides evidence or is hard to charge, what do you mean when you say that in the context of what you thought was an indictable case against donald trump? >> what i meant was when there is an indictable case, when it's a public figure, particularly when it's a public figure who held the office that donald trump had and even more particularly when it's a public figure who has been under investigation a number of times, when the evidence is there and the case isn't brought that leads to an

mr. pomerantz: i think ambassador hill has outlined where things stand. there is no room for negotiation, as i talked about. russia has really exposed itself to no willingness to negotiate. for putin and zelenskyy losing is not an option. i do not think there is a strong push for negotiation. i think that would have to be a change in the battlefield. one side would clearly be losing and that would force them to negotiate. but until that time occurs i do not think there is a global consensus as to how this conflict can end. and who would actually negotiate an acceptable compromise for russia and ukraine? i do not see that in the cards at the present time. jill: dr. lennon, perhaps you can take this because you mentioned other countries in the region. this is from howard matheson. looking forward, are there things the governments of the baltic countries and meld over should be doing now in possible preparation in light of current events? i presume meaning if they could be invaded. dr. lennon: those of the countries taking it most seriously because they reco

mr. pomerantz's plane wasn't ready for takeoff.legal analyst and former federal prosecutor elliott williams. this is, obviously, a person who you selling a book, but on the substance of the allegations here, is there a difference of opinion here, just two prosecutors differing on how to proceed? or is pomerantz right that trump got special consideration because he's a former president? >> i think you touched right on it saying there's a difference of opinion. you see this all the time in workplaces around the country but prosecutor's offices around the country. let's be clear, mark pomerantz in this book makes a compelling case for charging former president trump with a crime. there's a few problems that get glossed over, frankly, in the 60 minutes interview. so much of this attention on alvin bragg the current district attorney, but doesn't talk about cyrus vance, the former district attorney who had the case going back to 2019. if there was such a groundswell of support for charging it, why didn't they do it back then? there's a

mr. pomerantz is doing and is this good? >> if i was pomerantz's boss i'd be pissed but that having been said, mark, look, mark is a smart guy and his comments in public have been, you know, i've looked at this and completely within the law to do this, i think that he has been very careful to thread the needle between what is grand jury material, the disclosure of which would be a crime and what information he has gained that is not grand jury material, for example, things that are public or things that were not pursuant to a grand jury testimony which could be the witnesses such as michael cohen or other witnesses would not be pursuant to a grand jury subpoena, documents which letitia james subpoenaed and made public so i think he'd probably thread that needle well. the other things to think about as pointed out in the american prosecuting attorneys of america organization who recently wrote a letter to d.a. bragg, you also have to consider the ethical rules to which an attorney and one barred in new york such as mark has to

mr. pomerantz left that team, alvin bragg said at that time, we are not intimidated.nformation. i think you always have to be thinking about whether your conduct could in any jeopardize the investigation. i'm not saying he cannot solve the story. i think it is damaging to tell the story now. i think if this case does get charged, when we hear about some of the details of this book coming out and their use of a distraction in the trial, the focus should be on donald trump and not the prosecution team. >> barbara mcquade, the peoples legal analyst. thank you very much. >> thanks, symone. >> half to the break, i will be joined by a panel of americans who all had different touches with the president or vice president this week to give their thoughts on president biden's message to them at the state of the union, about what they want to see in here, next. , next these are the upshaws. and this is their playground. there's a story in every piece of land, run with us on a john deere tractor and start telling yours. hi, i'm debra. i'm from colorado. i've been married to my hi

mr. pomerantz, a prominent litigator who has prosecuted and defended organized crime cases writes of trumpther person who touched all these bases. john gotti, the head of the gambino organized crime family. now, lucky for us mark pomerantz will be our guest on this set on tuesday. we can ask him all about what he is writing. we are only seeing snippets of it. putting the squeeze on the former trump organizations is where we begin today with some of our favorite reporters, barbara mcquade, a law professor the university of michigan, andrew weissman, former justice department prosecutor, former senior member of robert mueller's special counsel investigation, with me at the table tim o'brien, bloomberg opinion senior executive editor and host of bloomberg's crash course podcast. lucky for us, they are all msnbc contributors. let me show you former fbi director jim comey on trump aka the mob. >> how strange is it for you to sit here and compare the president to a mob boss? >> very strange. and i don't do it lightly. i am not trying to, by the way, suggest that president trump is out breaking l

mr. pomerantz has a long track record. is that fair to everyone involved? your analysis of what i think has some nuance to it here. >> so i have a lot of respect for mark. we did a sensitive criminal case together. so if he says there is smoke and fire here, i tend to believe -- now, you're absolutely right it's one side. we haven't heard the other side, but we haven't even seen all the details of this side, but it does seem he's outlining a case involving tax fraud, inflation, deflation of assets, insurance fraud, the stormy daniels payments and the fraud which might also be taxed, trump might have deducted it. and as well as racketeering, that trump had presided over a corrupt organization, the trump organization, and whether you look at the various tentacles of it, whether it's trump university or his for-profit real estate venture or his charitable foundation, all of them seemed to have very, very serious legal problems, ari, and ones that probably did emanate from the top. and so for that reason the reporting today suggests mark thought of this as more

mr. pomerantz has to say. but i'm also interested to see all this activity implicates federal crimes as well. i'm very interested to see what if anything is going on within the department of justice and particularly the irs. >> pete, you talk about people being frustrated. i actually think people are extraordinarily patient. because i think most people, at least my viewers, they read the stories about michael cohen being charged. a and the main character michael cohen is individual number one. he is described as an unindicted co-conspirator. so new york looked a the hush money already. why do you think sdny didn't do anything? >> that's hard to say. i've seen some reporting that sdny, that at some point in time they sat down and looked am some potential charges and recognized yes, when it came to trump, this sat the end of the trump's administration, that will there were potential charges there, but they seemed almost de minimis. their jump, their idea was if they were to bring these charges, it would be sort