A former Manhattan prosecutor has revealed that the District Attorney's office once considered filing racketeering charges against former President Donald Trump. 

Mark Pomerantz, who resigned in protest last year after DA Alvin Bragg decided not to seek an indictment against Trump, detailed his case against the former president's alleged corrupt business practices in his upcoming book, People vs. Donald Trump. 

According to excerpts given to the New York Times and The Daily Beast, Pomerantz said his colleagues dug into all of Trump's businesses, including his real estate empire, for-profit university and his family's charitable foundation. 

'In my career as a lawyer, I had encountered only one other person who touched all of these bases: John Gotti, the head of the Gambino organized crime family,' Pomerantz wrote.

He added that in order to refute claims that Trump wasn't lying because he 'believed his own "hype,''' prosecutors would have to 'show, and stress, that Donald Trump was not legally insane.' 

Pomerantz said that as the DA's office reviewed the case against the former president, they 'discussed whether Trump had been spewing bulls*** for so many years about so many things that he could no longer process the difference between bullshit and reality.' 

The attorney said he asked his colleagues: 'Was Donald Trump suffering from some sort of mental condition that made it impossible for him to distinguish between fact and fiction?'  

And in comparing Trump to the infamous mafia boss, Pomerantz wrote that the former president 'demanded absolute loyalty and would go after anyone who crossed him.' 

He also claimed that Trump 'seemed always to stay one step ahead of the law.'

The characterization was met with outrage from Trump's legal team, with attorney Joe Tacopina threatening legal action against the former prosecutor if he publishes the book. 

Tacopina told the Times that 'injecting the name John Gotti into this seems like just another desperate attempt by Pomerantz to sell books.' 

While the book reiterates the allegations that Trump had fraudulently inflated his assets while conducting business in New York City, it mainly focuses on the turbulent journey Pomerantz went through to build the case that was ultimately never pursued while he was in the DA's office. 

While working under former DA Cyrus Vance Jr., Pomerantz had stepped out of retirement to lead the investigation.

Pomerantz noted that there were clear risks in pursuing money laundering charges against Trump.

Instead, Pomerantz wrote that New York's racketeering statute involving corruption 'was an ideal vehicle for prosecuting Donald Trump and the Trump Organization.'

Although Vance was allegedly behind the new strategy, Pomerantz claimed the rest of the team was 'unenthusiastic' and that support waned when Vance was preparing to step down. 

Pomerantz said he soon became a 'raving lunatic' about getting the Manhattan DA's office to work together with the state DA's office, led by Letitia James, who he said was 'way ahead' in building a case similar against Trump. 

By early 2022, Pomerantz admitted that the case was not a sure thing, putting their chances of success at roughly 70 percent, the Times reports. 

Bragg ultimately decided not to pursue the case, and defended his decision ahead of the new book's publishing. 

'After closely reviewing all the evidence from Mr. Pomerantz's investigation, I came to the same conclusion as several senior prosecutors involved in the case, and also those I brought on: More work was needed,' he said in a statement. 

'Our skilled and professional legal team continues to follow the facts of this case wherever they may lead, without fear or favor. Mr. Pomerantz decided to quit a year ago and sign a book deal,' he added. 

Despite not seeking charges against Trump back then, Bragg has since 'jumpstarted' a legal probe into Donald Trump over hush-money payments made to a porn star who claims she had a one-night stand with the ex-president.

Alvin Bragg is said to be probing whether the illegal $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, made shortly before the 2016 presidential election, could be tied to Trump.

The renewed push comes after Donald Trump's company was fined $1.6 million last week for scheming to defraud tax authorities for 15 years by giving executives perks such as cars, rent-free apartments and private school tuition fees. 

A New York state judge handed down the maximum financial penalty on Friday after jurors in Manhattan found two Trump Organization affiliates guilty of 17 criminal charges including fraud last month.

Trump was not on trial and denied any knowledge of his executives evading taxes illegally.

In the Stormy Daniels' case, the DA's Office had earlier been investigating the claims but attention drifted towards the former president's companies. 

Now that a successful judgment has been delivered, the Office is now refocusing once again on Daniels.

She claims to have had a one night stand with Trump at a Lake Tahoe golf tournament in 2016, shortly after Trump's third wife Melania gave birth to the couple's son Barron. Trump denies he had sex with the actress.  

Since the trial into the Trump Organization, subpoenas have once again started to be sent out, reports the New York Times.

Although the information being sought is unknown, it is a suggestion that the inquiry into Trump is once again gaining momentum. 

The case in the Manhattan DA's office also comes as State District Attorney Letita James moves forward with her case against Trump and his companies. 

James, a Democrat who campaigned with promises to take on Trump and his businesses, filed a $250million suit alleging that he had misled banks and lenders about his assets.

In a video of deposition for the case, Trump could be seen invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination 400 times. 

'This whole thing is very unfair,' Trump said in the deposition over the summer. 'Anyone in my position not taking the Fifth Amendment would be a fool, an absolute fool.

'I respectfully decline to answer the questions under the rights and privileges afforded to every citizen under the United States Constitution,' he added, claiming it was on the advice of his counsel.

'This will be my answer to any further questions.'