Manhattan DA’s Case Against Trump Fell Apart Because It Was Rushed, Lacked Evidence
“What I’m hearing is you have great concerns.”
We recently noted that the Manhattan DA’s case against Trump’s business was crumbling after two prosecutors resigned. Now it’s becoming more clear what happened here.
Too many people didn’t believe the case was solid from the beginning.
The New York Times reports:
How the Manhattan D.A.’s Investigation Into Donald Trump Unraveled
On a late January afternoon, two senior prosecutors stood before the new Manhattan district attorney, hoping to persuade him to criminally charge the former president of the United States.
The prosecutors, Mark F. Pomerantz and Carey R. Dunne, detailed their strategy for proving that Donald J. Trump knew his annual financial statements were works of fiction. Time was running out: The grand jury hearing evidence against Mr. Trump was set to expire in the spring. They needed the district attorney, Alvin Bragg, to decide whether to seek charges.
But Mr. Bragg and his senior aides, masked and gathered around a conference table on the eighth floor of the district attorney’s office in Lower Manhattan, had serious doubts. They hammered Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne about whether they could show that Mr. Trump had intended to break the law by inflating the value of his assets in the annual statements, a necessary element to prove the case.
The questioning was so intense that as the meeting ended, Mr. Dunne, exasperated, used a lawyerly expression that normally refers to a judge’s fiery questioning:
“Wow, this was a really hot bench,” Mr. Dunne said, according to people with knowledge of the meeting. “What I’m hearing is you have great concerns.”
The two prosecutors who resigned recently were not the only ones to do so. The Times report continues:
Mr. Bragg was not the only one to question the strength of the case, the interviews show. Late last year, three career prosecutors in the district attorney’s office opted to leave the investigation, uncomfortable with the speed at which it was proceeding and with what they maintained were gaps in the evidence. The tension spilled into the new administration, with some career prosecutors raising concerns directly to the new district attorney’s team.
The full NY Times report is here.
The Daily Mail points out that the case felt “rushed” to some and prosecutors were also struggling because Trump doesn’t like to use email:
…Bragg – sworn into office on January 1 – halted the case because his own team couldn’t convince him that Trump had inflated the value of his assets to gain more favorable loan terms on purpose, according to The New York Times.
He was unconvinced that the probe could prove Trump had a criminal intent when doing so, with the president repeatedly denying claims of wrongdoing.
A key issue is thought to have been Trump’s dislike of email. The former president is known to prefer meeting contacts in person, or calling them up, making it far harder to identify any paper trail of alleged criminality…
The probe was kicked-off by Bragg’s predecessor Cyrus Vance, who is said to have pushed for the probe to be rapidly-advanced in the final days of his time in office.
But that behavior is said to have spooked Bragg, who felt a rushed case had more chance of failing. Separate controversies about Bragg’s plans to avoid sending suspected petty criminals to jail, and a spate of violent crimes in New York, are further said to have taken his eye off the Trump case, leading to its failure.
This was nothing more than impeachment 3.0, and too many people involved knew it.
Democrats and the media are obsessed with disqualifying Trump from another run for office. At the end of the day, this case had nothing.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
How Lavrenity Beria of them.
“Fell apart” presumes they had a case.
Given the kangaroo courts police are facing in blue states and the judges just let it go, this one must have been absolutely atrocious.
So, how does Trump get his reputation back? It seems the investigation was successful in blowing enough smoke that the left will never admit wrong doing. But it is good to kniow Manhattan finally has a DA who knows the law.
It’s not as if he didn’t do what they accused him of. Of course he did, and there’s no real dispute about that. And it’s not as if it wasn’t technically a crime. The problem for the prosecutors is that literally everyone does it, and if you explain it to a jury they would all think to themselves that if they had a chance they would do it too. Chances are that at least one of the prosecutors has done it, and perhaps also the judge. And the prosecution would have to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt not only that he did it, but that he did it with the intention of breaking the law. All he has to say is that it’s such a completely normal thing to do that he never even thought about whether it’s legal.
Error no, that’s pure nonsense. The idea that ordinary folk would get away with that kind of behaviour is bs of the highest order. If you can afford the lawyers you can do the crime. That’s how the US works in many respects.
Ordinary people do routinely get away with this behaviour. Literally all the time. It’s accepted both in the industry and by prosecutors as completely normal and accepted, and nobody bothers bringing charges unless they’re on a vendetta.
Don’t be daft Milhouse, claiming a valuation of property on one hand is lower then raising that to acquire loans is absolutely not normal behaviour. I’d like to see how exactly you are going to prove that claim. Nor would that justify the behaviour since it’s still criminal. It would be like saying that mugging someone is fine because it’s commonplace.
Even if what you say is true, that doesn’t change the facts around the case. The valuations weren’t just slightly different they were many orders of magnitude different. Indeed some of the valuations not only changed the values but the areas being valued, again by significant amounts.
@gospace
You don’t need to have an equivalent house in terms of area only in terms of things like quality, local amenities and local value. Besides which we aren’t talking about rural locations we are talking about things like office space in NYC are you seriously trying to tell me that there wasn’t a meaningful supply of comparables!?
“claiming a valuation of property on one hand is lower then raising that to acquire loans is absolutely not normal behaviour. I’d like to see how exactly you are going to prove that claim.”
Open up any NAPA/Kelley Blue Book, which have been providing two sets of figures for precisely this reason for just about a century now.
@henry bowman
That’s a problematic argument. The fact that valuations can be formed from different criteria and therefore give different results isn’t the issue. If a defined methodology is used to arrive at a figure then you can criticise that by that’s quite different from inventing a set of number in order to deflate or inflate a price. Like for example pretending the area being valued is vastly different say trump towers 30,000sqft Vs 11000 sqft.
That’s not a mistake that’s fraud.
As there was in the case of Shalom Mordechai Rubashkin, who was initially denied bail because a federal judge bought the DIJ’s argument that being a Jew automatically made him a flight risk, and whose sentencing memo took note of other crimes (eg immigration fraud) that were part of the same indictment , but without noting that those charges had been dropped for absence of evidence.
Rubashkin is a very good example. The charge he was ultimately convicted of was bank fraud, and technically his business practices did amount to that, but the bank was well aware of what he was doing and had no problem with it. As in Trump’s case, it was normal business practice. So long as he kept up with his payments, the bank didn’t care about technical misstatements in the paperwork. And he was keeping up with his payment, and keeping the bank happy, until the federal raid, on the basis of allegations subsequently dropped, destroyed his business and his ability to pay the bank. Then the prosecutor deliberately destroyed the business’s value, so that the amount it fetched on sale would not be enough to repay the bank loan, so that the amount he remained owing would be enough to send him to prison for decades. And then outright lied to the court, denying having done that, despite many potential buyers confirming that it was true and that they’d dropped their bids because of the prosecutor’s actions.
“… Then the prosecutor deliberately destroyed the business’s value, so that the amount it fetched on sale would not be enough to repay the bank loan, so that the amount he remained owing would be enough to send him to prison for decades. …
Damned fat fingers – Continuing:
So of course it was Trump who was a fascist….
I’ve now bought 4 houses and sold 3. I can guarantee it’s done routinely. Valuations are guesswork. For our current house there were no comparables. 3,000 sq ft in a rural town on 8.5 acres. the closest 3,000 sq ft house sold in the previous year was 35 miles away on a quarter acre lot. Sold for over twice what our house was listed for…. We paid $90,000 for the house. From city-data.com: Estimated median house or condo value in 2019: $80,504 (it was $54,600 in 2000) We bought in 1998. Getting a valuation for the mortgage was an exercise in creative writing. Sent the floor plan to our insurance company- and the replacement cost was estimated at $250,000 back then.
THIS.
Evaluating what real estate is actually worth is often the equivalent of Roman clerics examining chicken entrails. Even govt estimates for property tax evaluations are notoriously different from what real-world value is – and that’s by a supposedly neutral 3rd party.
Annnd real-world value igoes up and down based on the property market and the local and national economy independent of any real-world improvements or depreciation of the property in question.
Trump – as a real estate developer – routinely used his existing properties to finance loans for new properties. That’s what a RED DOES. For any property in question there’s a range of reasonable estimates of its worth – and a bank is totally free to NOT approve a loan if the collateral in question is (In Their Humble Opinion) unreasonably high. And the loan applicant is under no legal obligation to lowball their worth estimates.
This case was always a stretch – and if the Clinton Crime Family can buy property at sweetheart low prices only to quickly flip it for huge profits (and they have) without criminal charges this much murkier scenario is – as I said – a stretch.
@bobm
With respect tell that to Mazars, it’s highly unusual for a corporate account to ditch a client.
The problem you have isn’t just that the valuations were spurious and trust me they were. The data used to form the valuations were complete fabrications. Things like areas were significantly changed, and for example things that would affect property prices were changed. One example being the Aberdeen gold course, the valuation was based on 2500 luxury homes being built even though only 1500 homes has planning permission. That’s one example of many.
Your comment regarding banks doesn’t make sense either since they rely on the information given. That’s kinda the point if they have been deceived and the basis upon which they issued the loan is not just poor information but made up then that’s fraud.
We will see how Letitia James’s investigation goes. Looking forward to the depositions. Trump org hasn’t exactly got a good reputation, there are a string of civil cases showing a pattern of behaviour with respect to fraud and the Trump organisation
“With respect tell that to Mazars, it’s highly unusual for a corporate account to ditch a client.”
Horseshit of the purest ray serene. When any business sees that one customer costs them more in lost business, threats to employees over their future prospects, etc., they’ll ditch that customer in a heartbeat.
@SDN
Trump org was Mazars biggest client besides which Mazars statement was something along the lines of ‘given the publicised information we can no longer stand by our accounts statements of the last decade’
That’s a matter of public record
This is why there are lawyers who have built a very nice niche practice in challenging the assessed value of real estate, and others who challenge the IRS valuation of various tangible and intangible property.
Indeed. We own a 3500 SF stone victorian in a modest central NY “city”. Most recent attempt to refinance netted an alleged appraisal of just $165K. We bought the place 7 years ago for $140K, sunk over $75K in renovations, and it was appraised at $225K just a few years ago. Insurance claims replacement cost would be $560K.
Real estate as a business is a complete scam. It makes car sales look squeaky clean in comparison
@deadrody
You are trying to compare two different things. Market value is totally different from reinstatement value. On the former it’s an appraisal on what the market will pay for the property on the later it’s a valuation on what it would cost to rebuild the property. They are two different things.
If I were you I’d get someone independent to argue the reinstatement costing, sounds inflated to me
I’ve gotten home loans, refi, and equity loans on multiple properties over the last 20+ years. The bank never just takes my word for it, there is always some “professional” that does the valuation. Even given that the number reported for tax purposes and loans is different, I sure that the neither the bank nor taxing authority called the Donald on the phone and asked him for a number.
@eagle1
Of course they didn’t rely on a phone call however they may have relied on the underlining facts provided for example the sqft of a property, the number of properties, etc etc. The reports I’ve read indicated that Deutsch bank did carry out its own appraisals sometimes reducing values by 70% but the bank being a bank was greedy so who knows how much due diligence was carried out. At the end of the day these entities should be able to assume the material facts are correct and that just wasn’t the case in many instances.
no, he didn’t
Yes there absolutely is a dispute amd where is YOUR proof to say such a slanderous thing?
There is mountains of evidence. Just look at the basic facts of the case. Some details here
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/how-much-were-trump-organization-property-values-overstated-by-a-lot-ny-ag-says/3502263/%3famp
The NY AG is a Leftist hack, many times over. And if there was evidence of any kind, they’d indict.
@sdn
That’s your biased view. As I’ve already stated multiple times criminal indictment requires a high threshold of evidence . That doesn’t change the basic facts looking pretty damning. If you can’t acknowledge the issue which is tying Trump directly to the decisions as opposed to looking at the basic facts like changing areas for valuations in the order of 19000sqft then you really need help.
You’re looking at google for facts on trump? 🤣🤣
@meatmann50
You do realize Google is a search engine and not a source right?
No, gonzo, there is no dispute that he did the things alleged. Cite one person with any knowledge of the situation who disputes it.
Even without any facts at all, I can confidently say that he did it, simply because he’s in the real estate business, and he’d be a complete idiot not to do it. It would be leaving money on the table for no purpose. Since he’s not an idiot, of course he did it.
Nor, as far as I know, does anyone dispute that technically it’s illegal. But in practice it is not, because everyone does it and the law doesn’t hassle anyone over it unless someone’s running a vendetta. See “desuetude”.
Nothing fell apart because there was nothing to begin with! If trump had done anything illegal, they would hang him by his short hairs!! Trump is the most investigated man ever!!!! And they can’t find anything!! 🤣🤣
He will be president again🤣🤣
I’ve already highlighted a number of facts that make your claim of ‘nothing to begin with’ rather spurious.
When you say they didn’t find anything that’s a gross misunderstanding of what’s actually happened. The Mueller report for example absolutely found evidence but due to DoJ policy didn’t recommend to indict. Additionally Trump org has already been convicted of civil fraud. The basic facts of the case speak for themselves no amount of wishful thinking can change that,
Nah Trump wont run, he is only using the indication of running to get more donations to pay for Trump Towers. You want to fund a pretend billionaire grifter go ahead.
No you spout talking points which are riddled with both context issues and error of fact.
Nonsense. The Mueller investigation found NOTHING. Half their report was about “obstruction” for an investigation that was never obstructed. You’re a hack. The only DOJ policy that applied was not prosecuting “thought crimes”
@taurus
Can you name any errors? You seem rather prone to claiming errors or mistakes without making any references to any.
@deadrody69
Righhhht so the multiple convictions were make believe and factual around russian interference was merely a piece of story telling for no purpose at all. There are numerous examples of obstruction with sound evidential basis. This is laid out in detail in the Mueller report. Maybe you should read it before commenting.
Fatkins is just another marxist liar. Nothing, not one thing he has to say is based on factual evidence. He just makes up horseshit.
Donald Trump is the most investigated man in history. Literally tens of millions of dollars have been spent, taxpayer dollars, looking for evidence to fit some dreamed up crime.
They can’t even pin a late library book on Trump. Look up squeaky clean in the dictionary and it says “Donald J. Trump”.
He doesn’t and honestly he doesn’t need to.
Lets be real here.
Trump’s reputation ( name or whatever) is not damaged to anyone who sees this for what it really is.
Trump’s reputation (et al) is hopelessly irreparable to those who despise him and have no problem with the merciless and justice-less attacks he has endured so no amount of “reason” is going to convince them otherwise.
Then there is the law of unintended consequences.
Using reverse logic, Donald J. Trump MUST be one of the most honest, intelligent, professional and ethical businessmen ever to get into the field. With all the investigations, numbers of people seething to destroy him ( up to and including even deliberately fabricating evidence and allegations against him)- it is inconceivable to any critical thinking mind that if there was any “dirt” there at all, they would not have found it and used it by now.
What does it say about a man’s ethics when the enemy cannot even make fabricated lies stick against him?
Trumps reputation is in the gutter.
No accountant
Commercial credit in the gutter
Reliant on a limited number of banks who prior to Mazars announcement were not exactly happy with Trump
Multiple businesses losing money
Known to be a total liar.
Convicted of Civil fraud several times
The public record would be enough to convict him hence why there are long detailed analysis’s of a potential case based on the public record alone.
https://www.justsecurity.org/80308/united-states-v-donald-trump-model-prosecution-memo/
With respect to dirt – there has been plenty of it but Republican’s make endless excuses for him.
The idea that Trump has anything other than a negative rep is pretty laughable.
Golly Gee Fatman, you don’t get any facts right do you?
I like the lefties like you who come over and try to impersonate reasonable intelligence while strategically poisoning the well- so easy to spot and even easier to dismiss.
Lets reason a bit and expose some more of your leftist dogma.
If Trump was all that bad stuff, why is he still in the position he is in? Still rich? Not already in prison? the left standing in absolute terror of the mention of his name second only of Satan’s fear of Jesus? Why cant all these “honest politicians” and “honest prosecutors” seem to “get him”?
So either he is factually innocent OR the other side is inept and incompetent.
You can also conclude that Trump ( assuming he is all the criminal stuff) is so brilliant that all these “smart, ethical, well financed and highly trained professionals” cant seem to lay even a light glove on him?
Go back to your copy/pasta of leftist talking points or go back to Politico for a recharge.
Haha 🤣 that’s hilarious why do bad people get away with things that’s your argument. Welcome to the real world. Your logic is daft.
It’s noticeable that you havent even mentioned the source and it’s detailed analysis of the Trump legal situation on that one particular case
Dealing with your points in turn. It’s unprecedented to indict a sitting president who has many sycophantic supporters who carry his banner out of self interest and despite the evidence.
Is he rich, he likes to claim he is but most of that is in the form of loans. He is no way near as successful as he like to pretend.
With respect no one fears Trump he is a moron and has proven to be so numerous times. The issue is law and order, it doesn’t matter what position you are or how powerful you should be held to account for your crimes and it’s a stain on the national character to allow such an obviously criminal to escape justice.
When you say lay a glove hate to point it out but he has already been convicted in civil cases of fraud. The failure of prosecutors to indict him is itself an indictment of the American justice system. His tactic , which has largely been successful, is to delay proceedings as far as possible.
So are you actually going to address the legal merits of any of the cases or obfuscate further with irrelevant points about the inherently flawed nature of American justice.
Another liberal fantasy. Wishing it’s a crime is not the same thing as proving it’s a crime,
THIS.
Evaluating what real estate is actually worth is often the equivalent of Roman clerics examining chicken entrails. Even govt estimates for property tax evaluations are notoriously different from what real-world value is – and that’s by a supposedly neutral 3rd party.
Annnd real-world value igoes up and down based on the property market and the local and national economy independent of any real-world improvements or depreciation of the property in question.
Trump – as a real estate developer – routinely used his existing properties to finance loans for new properties. That’s what a RED DOES. For any property in question there’s a range of reasonable estimates of its worth – and a bank is totally free to NOT approve a loan if the collateral in question is (In Their Humble Opinion) unreasonably high. And the loan applicant is under no legal obligation to lowball their worth estimates.
This case was always a stretch – and if the Clinton Crime Family can buy property at sweetheart low prices only to quickly flip it for huge profits (and they have) without criminal charges this much murkier scenario is – as I said – a stretch.
Most real estate developers think their properties are worth more on their balance sheet mainly because they they are proud of their asset gathering acumen and they like yhe big numbers to inflate their net worth. However, no bank in the US is allowed to lend money on a piece of real estate based solely on a balance sheet. Third party commercial appraisers are hired by the banks to do the appraisal and not only that the appraisal has to be reviewed and are typically peer reviewed as well.
The odd thing is that this is super-leftist Al Bragg, friend of criminals, our equivalent of SF’s Boudin and LA’s Gascon. You’d think he’d be all gung ho to prosecute Trump, even if it did fail in the end.
Because the issue was a criminal conviction, there is lots of evidence but the view of some is it didn’t reach the required standard. That’s quite different to it being some kind of fantasy, which seems to be the implication the article is trying to make. That’s just nonsense, it’s fair enough to say ok it’s not beyond reasonable doubt but quite unreasonable to say Trump’s operation didn’t stink. Just about every facet of what we know suggests criminal wrong doing but it lacked a credible witness to tie the case together.
Why do you think Bragg is a friend of criminals?
Having seen no evidence provided, I can only assume that Trump is innocent.
At least this one was dropped before it went to trial. Maybe someone told the DAs that they can’t do in court what was done at his impeachment last year: fabricate evidence and blatantly lie.
With respect there is absolutely tonnes of evidence, the issue is whether it reaches the required threshold. Hence why there is a civil lawsuit as well which is proceeding just fine.
Fat,
It seems you know basically less than nothing about most things you rail against.
Are you here as a disinformation spreader or what exactly?
With respect Taurus if you had a point you’d have made it. The very fact you seem unable to address points at all in any level of detail seems tome to indicate your lack of an argument. Perhaps I’m wrong, I look forward to receiving a response of substance.
tons of evidence you say but no prosecutor can make anything stick?
Doesn’t speak very highly of those prosecutors does it?
You have never investigated a crime or built an actual case have you?
@taurus
I’m not seeing a point, mere and hominem isn’t going to cut it
There is zero evidence of any crime committed by Trump. The only evidence in this thread is that fatkins lacks brains.
Are you nuts?! What kind of person does it take to even ask that question?
With respect I’m unfamiliar with the accusation. It’s a simple question perhaps you can enlighten me?
How can you be aware of who Bragg is without being aware of the pro-crime policies he campaigned on and has implemented since taking office? Or of the crime wave this has encouraged.
Oh FFS really. That’s what you think is being a friend to criminals means that’s laughable. You do realise that traditional American justice system is a complete failure right. There is a historical relationship between the efficacy of the criminal justice system and the level of punishment that society delivers. The harsher the punishment the less effective the policing is. With reference to what Bragg is actually doing he is merely making the common sense decision not to criminalise low level offences. Given the vast data on how this criminalises people and actually causes crime it’s a sensible move. Don’t bother trying to claim there is a surge in crime, that’s a multi factorial problem which has no causation with respect to Bragg’s policies. We know this is the case given the crime surge has occurred prior to Bragg becoming DA. It doesn’t logically follow that it ties in with Bragg’s very recent reforms.
The most effective thing wrt crime is certainty of punishment. This DA said he’d not pursue “low-level” crime. That crime is then encouraged. See broken window policing used during Guliani. Very effective.
Your argument, not so much.
Next you’ll be denying that Boudin and Gascon are friends of criminals, and actively trying to promote crime!
Again I’m not really familiar with these two characters. You seem to think that being honest and saying I don’t know the answer to something automatically entails support for them. That’s a pretty silly thing to say.
I identified them above, at the start of this thread. Like Bragg, they are Soros-elected DAs who deliberately promote crime because they are ideologically pro-criminal. You can easily look them up.
You mean trying something different from the same old failed policies . How innovative of you
The evidentiary standard in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt. If you can’t gather the evidence to prove the elements of the crime then you don’t have a crime. You have a theory that lacks supporting evidence. Prosecutors are supposed to be concerned with ‘doing justice’ not just gaining convictions.
Here Bragg seems to have done the right thing by closing it down and IMO, if that’s all they had it shouldn’t have been filed. Our system isn’t supposed to be used for politically motivated smear campaigns where the process is part of the punishment.
I’ve already acknowledged that for a criminal conviction there appears to be an issue with the evidence not reaching the required threshold. What I’m calling out is the false premise that the investigation is somehow wrong. The facts on the face are pretty damning, it’s pretty obvious to anyone that at the very least the Trump organisation has seriously misinformed multiple authorities and organisations of the true value of various properties and not just in a marginal way. To describe a legitimate investigation into fraud as a political smear campaign doesn’t really bear scrutiny given what we know about the fraudulent behaviour of Trump et all based on past convictions. You do realise that it’s got a history of civil lawsuit cases involving fraud that run against the company right?
If these prosecutors didn’t have enough evidence to convince their boss, Bragg a highly partisan actor, that they could secure a conviction that tells me it was hot garbage.
Everyone is still, for now, entitled to their opinions. Civil and criminal evidentiary standards are very far apart in establishing the minimum threshold burden of proof. My advice is that we oppose folks being indicted by partisan prosecutors who conduct a series of leaks, allegations and innuendo through filings and to media in order to damage the reputation of anyone when the prosecution can’t meet their evidentiary burden.
Trump would have to have a reputation to damage. He has already been convicted in civil cases of fraud. Besides the facts of the case speak for themselves. Are you seriously telling me that changing the sq ft of a property by 19000sqft is an innocent mistake? That’s just ludicrous, and not the only ‘mistake’ btw
Are you nuts or insane?
Asking for a friend
Maybe both, there is a difference
I’m telling you that attempting to sustain a criminal case requires a high evidentiary threshold to be met. It doesn’t matter what the subject of the investigation may or may not have done previously, each set of allegations and the supporting evidence is viewed on it’s own. A prior civil or administrative ruling or judgement has even less bearing.
@gonzotx
Have you got anything of substance to say?
@commochief
I’ve already acknowledged the evidentiary burden.
Actually fraud cases aren’t necessarily viewed in isolation. Where there is a pattern of behaviour for example multiple instances of civil fraud convictions this can be viewed as evidence of a criminal enterprise. It relates to mafia laws if I recall correctly.
Also with respect this isn’t just about criminal proceedings but the view of Trump himself. It seems to me that your standard for viewing Trump appears to be oh no criminal conviction therefore he is clean as a whistle is a silly standard to have. Especially in light of the rights tendency to view every single fault of any lefty as being a terrible thing. Seems to me that the right as a whole give a free pass to trump no matter the evidence yet when it comes to anyone else it doesn’t matter how weak the evidence is it’s lock her up. It’s a pretty abhorrent double standard.
Well yeah, ‘no criminal conviction means clean as whistle’ is close enough to the proper standard; innocent until proven guilty.
Now do I think big time real estate developers cut corners? Sure all of them do. Do I think people with $100 + million loans juggle the books? Absolutely, as does the Bank underwriting that loan.
No one I know of has stated that DJT is a paragon of virtue. That’s an entirely different matter than proven criminal activity. Considering just how rabidly his large number of detractors seek to find the elusive piece to prove him guilty of something, of anything…. if there was something to find it would already have been found.
@commochief
The trouble is DT is the opposite of a paragon of virtue, he is the swampiest man to have entered politics in history.
I’m not clear that all real estate developers are anyway near as bad as Trump.
Do you really defend a man who’s grift includes using campaign funds to rent thousands of sqft of empty space in his own properties? Who practically lies with every breath? Who has attempted to defraud the United States by pretending there was a stolen election? Tho tried claiming Hilary Clinton was a criminal on the basis of ‘her emails’ then went and did exactly the same thing only worse given they found files marked top secret in his property! That was his god damn campaign slogan ‘lock her up’ . Stop defending the man , honestly it’s a really bad look given the facts.
Fatkins,
Now you are getting closer to the heart of the matter by bringing in HRC and her foibles. Those of us on the populist right, Tea Party, MAGA call us what you will, are no longer playing the game under d/prog, neo Marxist, leftist Calvin ball rules.
The tired rhetoric and ad hominem attacks don’t work anymore. The overuse of racist, hitler, misogynist, nazi, greedy capitalist have caused them to lose their sting. The worn out appeals to do x or pass y legislation in order to ‘save’ the children, environment, schools no longer have any power.
Most of us on the populist right would be willing to return to the previous era where there were some legitimate standards of conduct for personal, professional and political life and stiff consequences for violating them. However, until the d/prog unilaterally clean their own house of those who have previously escaped under your Calvin ball rules we will not allow your insincere name calling and faux outrage to impact our choices.
The ball is in the court of the d/prog. When they act to pull the mote from their own eye, we will be willing to discuss a return to the previous rules of a bygone era that would be equally enforced by courts, equally publicised by media and whose violations would be met with equal outrage by all responsible people.
@commochief
You do realize that the left detest HClinton right? Just not on the basis of Trumps made up rubbish.
If you think that Clinton is as bad as Trump you really are deluded. Clinton was in bed with corporate interests, was self interested and had no real interest in genuine change. What she wasn’t was a fraudster who removed top secret documents post presidency whilst claiming election fraud whilst simultaneously carrying out election fraud!
The ball is in everyone’s court to call out corruption, including from your own side. Its called honesty. Here is a list for you (its not exhaustive by any stretch)
Nancy Pelosi – corrupt
Hilary Clinton – self interested, possibly corrupt
Manchin – self interested and corrupt
Sinema p- self interested and corrupt
Biden – cronyism
Chris Collins – insider trader conviction
Duncan hunter – Misuse of campaign funds, convicted
MGT – utterly lazy, pointless and white nationalist idiot. What kind of idiot doesn’t realize they are at a far right convention grifter – culture war fighter purely to get campaign donations
Boebert – idiot, grifter – culture war fighter purely to get campaign donations
Cawthorn – similar to above ill give hi some credit at least unlike the previous two he has actually attempted to have a legislative impact.
Jeff Denham – tax hole loops which he profited from
Trump – the list would be too long
Matt Gaetz – Sex trafficking and under age sex
the list goes on and on
Faux outrage – the entire existence of the right is built on fake outrage, Republicans no longer have policies but grievances. That’s reflected in Trumps campaign, completely lacking in policy but full of grievances.
It would be nice for a change for people to call out all grifters rather than just the other side. It might surprise you but the actual left (not corporate democrats) detest corporate democrats as much as republicans.
Fatkins,
The populist left has far more in common with the populist right than they do with crony capitalists and would be Oligarchs like HRC.
IMO, what kept the populist left pulling the election lever for Clinton and Biden was blind hatred of DJT, incessant agitprop on the part of traditional media and social media and intervention by the leftist Oligarchs in tech to prevent Biden’s dirty laundry from seeing the light of day. That’s excluding the zuckbuck and other election shenanigans.
I am happy you identified d/prog politicians and other prominent d/prog that dont meet your ethical standard. Now all you need to do is deploy the same energy, effort and resources against them that the progressive left used v DJT.
You guys go first and root out the corrupt players on the left. Once complete then you can ask the populist right to do the same. Until then we on the populist right will take our victories where we find them and continue to ignore the faux outrage from the left who refuse to demonstrate their new found conviction by first cleaning their own house.
We don’t trust you. The left can regain that only through unilateral action not rehashing the same tired rhetoric of ‘isms’, ists’, the environment and the children.
By the way, you’ve several times said that Trump has been convicted in civil cases. How can that be? By definition, one can only be convicted of a crime. In a civil case one can only be found liable or not liable.
Huh? Trump is a con man, a narcissist, a boor and an ignoramus. That’s about it. Clinton is a career criminal. Aside from a bunch of minor charges about this and that, and her habitual lying, including under oath, her entire career has been built on taking bribes. First for her husband, and then for herself. Not just once or twice, but continually. That’s what the Rose Law Firm fuss was about; she was using the firm to launder her husband’s bribes, just like a good housewife launders her husband’s underwear.
Let’s just consider one example, Cattlegate, because it’s so blatant there’s no legitimate explanation possible, and also because it’s so old that the Clintons barely bothered denying it, since when it was first raised it was already too late to prosecute them.
@commochief
Not sure the populist left is very popular 😂 never the less it’s good that some consensus is occurring. Given that DT is the swampiest of swamp creatures I’m not really sure I can let you of too lightly in that regard but yes it would be a bonus to get rid of grifters like Pelosi so no argument their.
@milhouse
“By the way, you’ve several times said that Trump has been convicted in civil cases. How can that be? By definition, one can only be convicted of a crime. In a civil case one can only be found liable or not liable.”
A distinction without a difference
“Huh? Trump is a con man, a narcissist, a boor and an ignoramus. That’s about it.”
Sorry that doesn’t fly, Trumps entire career has been about defrauding people, and now that record included attempting to defraud the United States by the actions he took with respect to the 2020 election. That’s a whole new level of wrong.
With respect to Clinton, I’m not defending her however its sometimes difficult to tell real crime from false with the litany of nonsense that’s spewed from the right. For clarity I’m happy to label her corrupt.
Its slightly odd that you say Clinton is a liar, I wouldn’t disagree but Trump has taken that to a whole new level. Practically everything he says has been a lie, the lie counter was off the charts.
Let me point out a fine detail chief many civilians ( who have never worked in the criminal justice system) don’t get clear and it causes no end of confusion and hurt feelings at times.
(Its also the same lie the left brings out when its needed to claim there’s no evidence of election fraud or whatever they need at the time)
Also, this is specifically for a criminal case ( civil has a few different and lower requirements so is beyond the scope of this post)
The standard of the COURT ( as required for a conviction) is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt” in terms of a finding of guilt.
That s NOT the standard to BRING a case to litigation. That “standard” is actually “more likely than not”. That’s not even directed toward individual guilt but to establish a crime actually happened. The rest is up to the trier of fact.
Prosecutors routinely charge on hunches, circumstantial evidence, no evidence (Duke case, Rittenhouse and millions of others) and if they have nothing but desire they call a Grand Jury to get their ham sandwich with a true bill on the side.
That’s like the big lie with the election. There’s MORE THAN ENOUGH “evidence” to warrant both official investigations and bring charges ( standard of more likely than not)
The left wants you to believe and accept that you must literally have the smoking gun, DNA and a clear video before a charge can even see a courtroom- nothing is further from the actual truth.
With respect to election fraud there is bugger all evidence. This has been reviewed by multiple court cases, the DoJ, National Cyber Security (I forget the proper name), Trumps own campaign (yes they had a memo saying basically ‘nope no election fraud’, multiple states and yet what evidence has been corroborated well in support of Trumps case only a few cases of republican voters have been convicted of fraud.. Although there is significant evidence of election fraud with regard to Jan 6th electoral votes. That should be interesting to see how that plays out.
True enough for charging or indicting. I was attempting to differentiate between what a prosecutor can do v what they should do if they are serving their duty to justice; not bring charges they are unlikely to secure a conviction for and here ending the process when it becomes clear they can’t meet the evidentiary burden for trial.
I totally understand your point and agree that people unfamiliar with the process may not understand the nuances. I come from a LE family, Dad was a DA and defense Attorney and made me go to law school so I have a better than layman’s understanding but certainty not any firsthand experience in the CJ system.
Accidentally voted up instead of down. It is difficult to believe that the final question was asked in good faith.
Which question? How exactly are you forming your opinion of whether a question has been asked in good faith or not?
I think that was in reference to your question “Why do you think Bragg is a friend of criminals?” It’s difficult to believe that was asked in good faith.
@milhouse
Ah fair enough, I’ve now answered that question after your clarification
He didn’t lie. As for swampy, there’s no one swampier than the Clintons & the Biden’s.
I think if you did a compare and contrast you’d find different, However I’m not a fan of Clinton or Biden so the point is moot.
They accomplish what they set out to do. That’s the plant doubt in peoples minds.
I disagreed. People know 2 prosecutors quit raider than be forced to go forward with “the lie”… that’s what people will remember
The reporting on the resignations made it sound like these 2 prosecutors resigned because they were being asked to push a case they didn’t want to. Now we find out that they were actually very gung-ho about the case, but resigned because the DA didn’t feel there was a case. Even though this was in the LI article, I think you still have the initial idea in mind.
Neither this article nor the previous one manages to mention when this clown car first left its garage. My tinfoil hat suggests it was probably something like five years ago…? Yeah, that would sure make it one “rushed” prosecution.
Like the one I pray that Hillary has someday over her outstanding count of espionage.
Fatkins, four points…..
1) Any bank that approves 100 million dollar loans basing their approval entirely on the applicant’s application is a bank that needs to fire their employees.
2) If Trumps applications had clear cut lies (as you state) this would be a slam dunk. They wouldn’t be quitting instead of prosecuting.
3) just today a Trump interview where he blamed Putin’s adventurism on him self not being President is being touted as praise for Putin’s crimes by NeverTrump Inc press and democrats. In recent polling 1/3rd of registered Dems agree with that (admitedly selfabsorbed) idea. Dems. Neither Trump nor that 1/3rd of Dems APPROVE of Putin killing Ukrainians – they just believe Putin saw a weakness on our part (Cough – Biden – cough) and jumped on it.
4) That “history of civil cases” is something brought up again and again – in internet posts – but in actual courts of law he’s again and again been upheld. He’s a RED. He hires and contracts out construction firms with time-sensitive contracts and penalties for failure to meet contract terms. He’s a bastard like that – but it’s not criminal conduct – as you’ve agreed with by your admission that they are CIVIL cases. Fraud would be a criminal matter. So logically calling this “fraud” is a bridge too far.
1) These are professional entities with professional accountants etc. A number of banks already won’t deal with the Trump organisation but for whatever reason banks like Deutsch bank have built a relationship with Trump. That’s probably meant that they charge higher interest rates.
2) the standard of proof is such that they need to ensure that intent is proven from the very top. The burden of proof is very high. On face value sure they look guilty but is it beyond reasonable doubt? We know that Trump doesn’t like emails and there isn’t a star witness to tie the evidence together. Fraud trials are notoriously complex and that makes it tough for juries. I personally think there is enough evidence and likewise the two prosecutors who quit think so two but what matters is Bragg and he isn’t buying it for whatever reason.
3) Trump has a history of praising dictators including the self describes love letters to the N Korean dictator. Whilst their is a degree of interpretation with respect to Trump’s comments he has hardly been critical of Putin. It’s difficult to give the benefit of the doubt given his history.
4) civil cases are held in courts of law never the less I’ve already acknowledged the distinction. Actually civil case fraud is a thing and he has been found guilty of it on a number of previous occasions. It’s also the case that a pattern of behaviour is present. This isn’t about sharp practises this is about lies in order that he can enrich himself. Even granting only the civil standard it’s pretty clear that the man is utterly corrupt and self serving
Fatkins,
We’re not going to agree on T. being “utterly corrupt”. The first time he ran I would have agreed with you – a rich RED juicing properties in NY, NJ, and NYC? How can he NOT be corrupt (I though) making money doing that dealing with the local politicians and unions to get things done? I figured that race was between a corrupt businessman and a corrupt politician so didn’t vote for either.
However, after all the fake accusations (if anyone was in bed with the Russians and/or Ukrainians it was the clintons and bidens) and hysteria I decided to wait for actual indictments that passed the smell test. Still waiting, let alone for convictions. Seriously, given the spaghetti code that is US Law I’ve read the average citizen is guilty of a dozen unintended felonies over his lifetime – and proctologists go nothing on all the local (partisan) DA’s running flags up judicial flagpoles to prove OrangeManBad.
As to the whole OrangeManBad luvvvves him some dictators thing – it’s called diplomacy. The original President Roosevelt nailed it “say ‘nice doggie’, speak softly and carry a big stick”.
During T’s tenure he spoke softly but he managed to calm down the Korean Idiot and it’s not a coincidence that Putin invaded Ukraine only before and after T. Was inocfice – not during.
About “praising dictators” also – if you’re looking to negotiate a deal with someone, especially someone who is likely to have an oversized ego like a dictator head of state, is it better to praise them or insult them? Which one provides the most positive outcome? What’s that phrase about catching more flies with honey?
Well that’s a valid point, I would point out that with respect to actual results I’m not clear that Trump achieved very much. You could argue that Jared Kushner did a good job in the middle eat, and I think some credit is deserved in that respect by extension to Trump. With respect to N Korea and Russia not so much.
Well with respect a lot of that that stuff you refer to turned out to be true. The reason there hasn’t been an indictment is simple no prosecutor wants to be the first to indict a president. DoJ policy is not to indict. One of the principle reasons the Mueller report didn’t recommend recommend indictment is because of that policy. You do realise people went to prison as a result of the Mueller investigation right? Trump has already got a history of convictions of civil fraud.
With respect to foreign policy. That’s laughable , he ended up being a proxy achieving those dictators goals. For example Putin wanted to weaken NATO and that’s exactly what trump was doing. The idea that Putin didn’t invade because of Trump’s supposed strength is laughable the man’s a draft dodging coward, he doesn’t have a brave bone in his body.
Fatkins –
“No prosecutor wants to do indict a president?”
Really? You believe that?
I don’t.
Yes, several people did go to prison because of the mueller investigation. What’s always glossed over with/by that statement is that not a ONE for the actual stated reason for the investigation. No one was indicted for collusion – since it never happened. Several people were indicted for unrelated reasons such as personal financial dealings and “perjury” – the most famous of which required them to ignore their own investigator’s belief that no intentional perjury was committed – AND illegally alter official documents after the fact to prosecute. Again none of which pointed to T. being a Russian agent or illegally benefitting from Russian moneys. And all the persons prosecuted were given offered outs if they would flip on T. and provide testimony against him. One was badgered into pleading guilty after they’d drained his life’s savings by the threat that they’d look until they found something on his son – that’s some Beria level shit there.
And claiming T. MUST be guilty of treason because he’s (supposedly) guilty of civil fraud is like arguing he must be guilty because he’s guilty of speeding and running red lights. Not logically sound, not related and not relevant either.
They whole “T. Wanted to weaken NATO” claim? Spurious. He wanted Germany (and others) to contribute their already agreed on levels of support to nato instead of shortchanging it like they’d done for decades. That’s the OPPOSITE of “weakening nato” unless you’re suffering from TDS. He wanted nato members not to build a pipeline that would make them dependent on Russia’s good will every winter so their citizens didn’t freeze. Not to mention not enrich Putin’s coffers so he had the MEANS to pay to invade his neighbors.
As for T. Being a “draft dodging coward” – yeahhh, I’d prefer a veteran myself – and one who didn’t finangle his way out of combat via touting embarrassing minor injuries into medals (cough – Kerry – cough) but if not wanting to volunteer to fight is an election disqualification ima assuming you haven’t voted for many candidates at all.
Seriously prez doesn’t need to be a war hero. And T. may (or may not) possess bodily courage – but he was the first prez to have the cahuones (sp?) to move our embassy to Jerusalem after decades of broken promises to do so. Showing up the naysayers who predicted the ME going up in flames – in fact HIS (tough) diplomacy facilitated historical peace treaties between Israel and multiple previous intractable hostile neighbors.
To sum up T. (While certainly not perfect) DID achieve some notable things – as opposed to Joe (gas NEEDS to be more expensive) Biden – and did NOT commit treason. Arguably those who broke laws to start up spurious investigations and leaked defamatory fairy tales did.
@Bobm
Collusion – https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-reports-findings-on-collusion/
Sure no convictions but such a sweeping statement is unjustified as per the link above
With respect to the convictions, I’m not clear that the parties were entirely innocent that said the American Justice system is very much geared towards the rich. Its nice for those on the right to finally acknowledge the deep seated problems with it.
“And claiming T. MUST be guilty of treason because he’s (supposedly) guilty of civil fraud is like arguing he must be guilty because he’s guilty of speeding and running red lights. Not logically sound, not related and not relevant either.”
I never said that he must be guilty due to the civil fraud convictions what I said was the basic facts of the case strongly indicate this and part of the picture is a pattern of behavior in relation to fraud.
With respect to NATO, Trump continued to threaten to leave the alliance even after gaining some concessions from places like Germany nor was he exactly a willing partner or ally in any of the discussions that took place. He was adversarial to allies and smitten by enemies. There is plenty of examples of speech from Trump throwing allies under the bus. Not did he actually engage with allies to make any meaningful progress rather he went for point scoring. So much for the art of the deal.
My comment with respect to Trump was in relation to his supposed strength. That’s doesn’t seem to follow given what we know about the man.
With respect to the middle east, that’s fair although a lot of the leg work was carried out by Jared Kushner
I’m curious as to what you think Trumps notable achievements were? Obviously i have a quite a different perspective. With respect to Biden I’m not really a fan of him either, some of the things the right say are complete bs mind but that’s a question of degree,
I’m also curious as to what you think of classified documents turning up at the Trump residency?
Oh missed your first question.
Sure I do its never happened before. The scrutiny over indicting a president would be immense. A much greater level would be applied than any ordinary citizen. Let’s be honest justice in America is as much about who you are and what you can afford.
What country are you from, Fatman? Based on your writing, it is not the U.S.
Ye gads, that JustSecurity site has the most pitiful excuse for unsubstantiated accusations masquerading as facts, and real facts quietly swept under the rug.
WindyHill, based on his writing style, vocabulary, and various other clues, I assume he’s in the UK.
American born, but travel a lot for work. UK for many years ( I guess most of my education was in the UK) currently in Berlin but that’s only that’s only temporary before travelling back to the US. Rarely in one place for long
@georgfellis
With respect it’s got a tonne of facts from the public record. I’m not really seeing a substantive response to the content or the merits.
“What country are you from, Fatman?”
fatso is a marxist. It matters little where it’s from. It is paid to do what it is doing. It’s the job. Everything fatso says is a lie. Everything, including where it is from and where it is. All lies all the time.
Poor proggies, they STILL can’t get the taste of Trump’s nuts out of their mouths.
Can I get an extra side of blubber?
Seriously, Ahab, hasn’t the Great White Whale exited months ago?
So using Zillow for you home’s value would be a felony?
Does anyone here know how property is valued? It is valued by an Appraiser! Which btw is hired by the bank, not the owner of the property! It’s a third party who appraises the value of said property!! If the value of trumps property was inflated it’s not trump that did the inflating! I know people here commenting with trump derangement syndrome wish it were different but it’s not!! We don’t take truth over facts🤣🤣🤣
Sure but the client is the Trump organization and the valuations were manipulated. It wasn’t just a case of making a number up it was a case of manipulating the basic facts informing many of the appraisals. For example by claiming a certain sqftage which would then change significantly like 19000 sqft significant or the number of houses on a plot etc etc.
You are a liar.
Did any of the banks contact the DoJ and said Trump attempted to defraud by overstating property values? Then how does a federal prosecutor’s opinion on property value supersede the owner or the bank.
Banks do not rely on the owner’s assessment of value. At the end of the day the bank will hire a third party assessor to protect their interests. And if the assessor differs with the owner’s valuation, it is not make it a crime. Taking in charitable donations for Haiti earthquake victims and funneling less than 2 cents to the dollar towards that effort and pocketing the difference… well, that is a crime.
Did T. Do your second para – or were you referring to a different person? You weren’t specific on that – I’d appreciate a link either way.
I do remember the Trumpster touting “HIS charitable donations” as “X”amount when “X” was the total he bundled and not his individual contribution. And, no, it wasn’t on his taxes – Fatkins may believe that (D) DA’s have some imaginary set of standards where they’ll investigate an (ex) prez but not prosecute – because they have extra funds lying around to investigate crimes they’ll never prosecute – and that THAT is the only reason why T. Is not in prison ——— but if he thinks the IRS would look the other way he’s gone past TDS. Way past. The famous quote about Terminator tenacity applies to them.
With respect to the IRS a big issue is the statute of limitations, there isn’t the time for a long winded criminal investigation which would require a lot of political will. Besides which its being investigated by NY so why would they, that seems like duplication to me.
Umm .. exactly what “long winded criminal investigation” would be required? If T. claimed tax benefits for “X” charitable donations and included others bundled donations on HIS tax form there’s a one day look see to find out. The IRS has had access to T’s filings and he’s such a sizable business I recall reading they’ve already audited him every year since before he rancor office. I know the NYC DA (and others) have tried to get court orders to get copies but do you really believe such a bald-faced “mistake” would survive several audits? Especially when congress critters have asked the IRS to look into just this question?
The IRS does miss stuff – for example The Bill&Hill Show “forgot” to declare their profit from that shady retirement development they somehow got equity in without having to provide either time, money, or expertise (The Bidens apparently don’t just plagerise speaches). When Bill ran there was still mainstream l press willing to publicize (D) misbehavior and they hurriedly filed a few amended filings.
As for SoL the IRS allows you to amend filings (and possibly get money back) for up to three years. I found that out when I moved back to my hometown and lived with my mom for a bit. My dad passed when I was 13. She luckily asked me to check her return and I realized she had been filing as single instead of head of household – despite having at least one child living with her since forger and her paying the majority of house bills. I had her refile for the last three and it saved her a thousand from that and $300+ going forward.
On the flip side the IRS can get money owed THEM for up to TEN years – so your the tax SoL saved T’s @ss assumption lacks – reality I’m afraid.
They would need more than just the filings they would need to prove intent which is the big issue. It’s not enough to say it looks bad it’s got to be beyond reasonable doubt.
Fatkins, the IRS doesn’t need intent to collect its money. Or even to level fines.
The decision to pursue this case in the first place looks to me like a pure abuse of power persecution play by the prosecutors who pushed it. Their goal was strictly political, and not intended to benefit the public, just their own party.
To me, such misuse of public powers and finances should be punished via a criminal lawsuit and permanent disbarment.
Wait…what was that last part?
Oh, yeah. Lack of evidence of wrongdoing can be a problem in a “criminal case”.