Is Trump about to be indicted in NY?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,253
467
126
I guess if you can't find anything illegal, keep harassing your political opponents with civil suits.
[Like Trump isn't used to civil suits.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump#Lawsuits_1973%E2%80%931999) Man has been abusing the courts for decades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and ch33zw1z

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
8,955
6,326
136
[Like Trump isn't used to civil suits.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump#Lawsuits_1973%E2%80%931999) Man has been abusing the courts for decades.
Brandonbull doesn't actually care about whether or not Trump has committed crimes. He's one of those hyper-partisan types that treats politics as a game his side has to "win," irrespective of whether or not it's good for the country.

Yes, many on this forum would much rather have Democrats running the US than Republicans, but few if any of us want that to be at any cost. Unfortunately, we can't say the same for BB.
 

Uhtrinity

Platinum Member
Dec 21, 2003
2,241
190
106
[Like Trump isn't used to civil suits.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump#Lawsuits_1973%E2%80%931999) Man has been abusing the courts for decades.
But he usually tries to settle. They aren't taking a settlement this time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
77,065
33,903
136
But he usually tries to settle. They aren't taking a settlement this time.
Yes. This is one of the reasons I have long thought he will end up being indicted. James’s political incentives are for her to take Trump to court and win or to extract a very, very harsh settlement. Same with Georgia - if they have a case to make they have every reason to do it.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
18,865
3,748
126
Definition for indictment is an accusation so they are practically synonymous
No they're not. An indictment is being charged with a crime. A lawsuit is a civil matter, there is no chance of going to jail.
The more I think about it, the less sense it makes. Why isn't the state tax authority handling this? Why isn't the whole thing being dumped on the IRS? They have a criminal investigation unit, they should be on this like fly's on a turd. The DA listed quite an assortment of crimes, why the hell isn't there an indictment?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,499
5,063
126
No they're not. An indictment is being charged with a crime. A lawsuit is a civil matter, there is no chance of going to jail.
The more I think about it, the less sense it makes. Why isn't the state tax authority handling this? Why isn't the whole thing being dumped on the IRS? They have a criminal investigation unit, they should be on this like fly's on a turd. The DA listed quite an assortment of crimes, why the hell isn't there an indictment?
Wow! All I see is the Toaster Boy for becoming financially fucked.
 

bononos

Diamond Member
Aug 21, 2011
3,793
99
91
No they're not. An indictment is being charged with a crime. A lawsuit is a civil matter, there is no chance of going to jail.
The more I think about it, the less sense it makes. Why isn't the state tax authority handling this? Why isn't the whole thing being dumped on the IRS? They have a criminal investigation unit, they should be on this like fly's on a turd. The DA listed quite an assortment of crimes, why the hell isn't there an indictment?
One advantage of James's civil suit is that Trump can't plead the 5th without "looking bad" so he and his lawyers have to give testimony and be further mired into deeper investigations, I think the idea is that James's office can pass on their work to other depts/agencies for possible criminal indictments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and hal2kilo

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
8,919
4,667
136
No they're not. An indictment is being charged with a crime. A lawsuit is a civil matter, there is no chance of going to jail.
The more I think about it, the less sense it makes. Why isn't the state tax authority handling this? Why isn't the whole thing being dumped on the IRS? They have a criminal investigation unit, they should be on this like fly's on a turd. The DA listed quite an assortment of crimes, why the hell isn't there an indictment?
Maybe use actual news sources vs whatever it is you use to get information.

Earlier in the year
The Manhattan criminal investigation has not resulted in charges.. Early this year, the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, instructed prosecutors to halt their effort to seek to indict Mr. Trump after he and some of his aides developed concerns about proving a criminal case. Such cases require a higher burden of proof than a civil case like the one Ms. James has filed.
There was a very public fallout as Bragg, about a month into the Job as DA decided to be debbie downer on the criminal case
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/nyregion/mark-pomerantz-resignation-letter.html

The former Manhattan district attorney Cy Vance, who had been deeply involved in the case, had “directed the team to present evidence to a grand jury and to seek an indictment of Mr Trump and other defendants as soon as reasonably possible”, Pomerantz reportedly wrote, but Bragg, who was sworn in this January, reviewed the case and did not agree.

Now why didn't James bring up criminal charges?
Her office, which lacks authority to file criminal charges in this case, referred the findings to federal prosecutors in Manhattan.


There.
Spelled it out in crayon for you
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

Lezunto

Senior member
Oct 24, 2020
896
754
96
But there's NO criminal charges that have been filed. This is what is so surprising about some.

Because a news writer mentions the POSSIBILITY of criminal charges in the future, in their heads some posters translate that into that criminal charges are part of any lawsuit.

They are not.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
18,865
3,748
126
Maybe use actual news sources vs whatever it is you use to get information.

Earlier in the year

There was a very public fallout as Bragg, about a month into the Job as DA decided to be debbie downer on the criminal case
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/nyregion/mark-pomerantz-resignation-letter.html



Now why didn't James bring up criminal charges?



There.
Spelled it out in crayon for you
And I was aware of all of that. So let me give you the simple version. The attorney general of NY has spent several years investigating Trump and can't produce enough evidence to charge him with a crime. We can go through any number of gyrations and pointed fingers and it will always end up at the same place. She can't produce a criminal case against Trump. That's the bottom line, it's the only statement that matters, the one the AG hasn't uttered, and the one you refuse to consider.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,072
126
But there's NO criminal charges that have been filed. This is what is so surprising about some.

Because a news writer mentions the POSSIBILITY of criminal charges in the future, in their heads some posters translate that into that criminal charges are part of any lawsuit.

They are not.
It's kind of been spelled out in multiple reports of how he works. He specifically does things in a manner that leaves little trace, and it doesn't matter what is thrown at him he just denies it, and constantly changes the story and people actually trying to follow law don't have the flexibility to keep up with it. Then he backs it with lawyers who tie it up in court.

The interesting thing about right now is him being president actually upped his risk because most everything he does/says during that time is to be documented. With all the new things being looked at all at once, he may implode getting his lies mixed up. With this much happening and this many people scrutinizing his actions if he doesn't get convicted of something....I don't know what to say, the system is seriously broken, or we all need to learn from him how to be that greasy.

This is an intricate game of cat and mouse and the number of cats is increasing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and Pohemi

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
59,499
7,717
126
But there's NO criminal charges that have been filed. This is what is so surprising about some.

Because a news writer mentions the POSSIBILITY of criminal charges in the future, in their heads some posters translate that into that criminal charges are part of any lawsuit.

They are not.
Part of the civil suit? Nope...but COULD POSSIBLY lead to criminal charges? Maybe.


(but don't hold your breath... Teflon Don is teflon.)
 

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
8,742
2,728
136
And I was aware of all of that. So let me give you the simple version. The attorney general of NY has spent several years investigating Trump and can't produce enough evidence to charge him with a crime. We can go through any number of gyrations and pointed fingers and it will always end up at the same place. She can't produce a criminal case against Trump. That's the bottom line, it's the only statement that matters, the one the AG hasn't uttered, and the one you refuse to consider.
Apparently you're not aware that the NY AG lacks the power to do so statutorily ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
7,169
2,833
136
The more I think about it, the less sense it makes.

Why isn't the state tax authority handling this?

Why isn't the whole thing being dumped on the IRS?
No it actually makes perfect sense.

1. Cuomo &
2. Statute of Limitations.

New York State Tax Law generally places a three-year statute of limitations on our right to assert additional tax due (generally, three years after your return was filed).

So he was never gonna be indicted in any way while his buddy Cuomo was there and its too late now (at least in New York).
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
77,065
33,903
136
And I was aware of all of that. So let me give you the simple version. The attorney general of NY has spent several years investigating Trump and can't produce enough evidence to charge him with a crime. We can go through any number of gyrations and pointed fingers and it will always end up at the same place. She can't produce a criminal case against Trump. That's the bottom line, it's the only statement that matters, the one the AG hasn't uttered, and the one you refuse to consider.
You may want to consider the fact that it’s not within her powers to charge him with these crimes. It sure seems like she thinks she’s produced a criminal case against Trump though as she’s referred him to agencies who can charge him.

Presumably this new knowledge radically alters your opinion of her findings?
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
18,865
3,748
126
You may want to consider the fact that it’s not within her powers to charge him with these crimes. It sure seems like she thinks she’s produced a criminal case against Trump though as she’s referred him to agencies who can charge him.

Presumably this new knowledge radically alters your opinion of her findings?
What findings? We have accusations, and a statement that the information is being passed on to those that can take action, and the announcement of a lawsuit. It's a civil matter that's going to drag out forever because that's the safest course of action for Trump.
I would be surprised to discover that Trump hadn't played games with property values, I think it's a given. At the same time, I'm convinced that the AG is engaging in a fair bit of grandstanding for political points. She was elected on a "get Trump" platform, and had to deliver something before she's up for re-election. Even the announcement that she couldn't find a crime to charge him with was dressed up as a victory. She even tossed in "the art of the steal", because nothing is as convincing as a good slogan that's also a play on Trumps own words.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: hal2kilo and Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
77,065
33,903
136
What findings? We have accusations, and a statement that the information is being passed on to those that can take action, and the announcement of a lawsuit. It's a civil matter that's going to drag out forever because that's the safest course of action for Trump.
I would be surprised to discover that Trump hadn't played games with property values, I think it's a given. At the same time, I'm convinced that the AG is engaging in a fair bit of grandstanding for political points. She was elected on a "get Trump" platform, and had to deliver something before she's up for re-election. Even the announcement that she couldn't find a crime to charge him with was dressed up as a victory. She even tossed in "the art of the steal", because nothing is as convincing as a good slogan that's also a play on Trumps own words.
I mean you can read her filing which lays out her findings extensively. The amount of fraud she uncovered really is staggering in its scope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54 and Pohemi

Steltek

Platinum Member
Mar 29, 2001
2,938
672
136
No it actually makes perfect sense.

1. Cuomo &
2. Statute of Limitations.

New York State Tax Law generally places a three-year statute of limitations on our right to assert additional tax due (generally, three years after your return was filed).

So he was never gonna be indicted in any way while his buddy Cuomo was there and its too late now (at least in New York).
Statutes of Limitations related to taxes always have exceptions for issues of fraud and/or similar fault. And, NY is no exception here:

Statute of limitations:

"New York State Tax Law generally places a three-year statute of limitations on our right to assert additional tax due (generally, three years after your return was filed).

However, a six-year statute of limitations applies to assert additional tax due when there is an abusive tax avoidance transaction, or, when a taxpayer omits 25% or more of their income from the return. A taxpayer and the department may agree in writing to extend the statute of limitations before it expires.

The statute of limitations to assert additional tax does not apply, however, for any period during which a taxpayer failed to file a return, failed to report the changes made by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to a federal tax return (federal changes), or filed a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade tax. For income, estate, and corporation tax purposes, a taxpayer is generally required to report a federal change to New York State within 90 days after the final determination of the change, correction, renegotiation, or disallowance."



The issue here is that someone actually has to have the balls to charge him with a crime. It seems obvious Trump was decreasing and increasing the valuations on his properties like you or I change our socks.

When it comes to the rich and powerful people, most AGs are simply political cowards. They aren't there to protect anyone, but rather to make headlines to set themselves up for an even more cushy job in the future. They are all for going against people with limited means to fight back, but they also know know the super rich and powerful will have more manpower and usually far more and better attorneys to throw at them. For them, fighting a Donald Trump or Elon Musk is a zero sum game they want no part of.
 
Last edited:

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
18,865
3,748
126
I mean you can read her filing which lays out her findings extensively. The amount of fraud she uncovered really is staggering in its scope.
Pay wall. But I'll accept your word that there was extensive fraud claimed. So my question is simple, why weren't criminal charges filled? Answer, because she couldn't find actionable evidence. There is no other explanation.
As far as inflating the value of his property to obtain loans, that's between him and the bank. I find it hard to believe that they would just ask him what his buildings were worth. Seems like someone would take a look at that before handing over a hundred million dollars. Maybe check Zillow or realtor dot com.
On the tax side of it, I simply don't know how that's handled in NY. My guess is they have a tax assessor that establishes the value of a property, though there may be some method by which an unscrupulous person can game that system. If that's illegal (and it should be) Trump needs to answer for it.
Trump has been recently audited by the IRS (unless he was lying about it), and they apparently found nothing worthy of criminal charges. I have no idea how in-depth that audit was, or if it included all of his various businesses. Perhaps they simply weren't looking at whatever the AG found.

My opinion stands. This was a dog and pony show by an AG who's worried about her job because she foolishly promised to take down Trump and can't find a crime to charge him with. If she can manage to cast enough shade on Trump, it might even get her re-elected. Trump hate is a valuable commodity in the world of politics.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
77,065
33,903
136
Pay wall. But I'll accept your word that there was extensive fraud claimed. So my question is simple, why weren't criminal charges filled?

Answer, because she couldn't find actionable evidence. There is no other explanation.
There is the obvious explanation I already mentioned. James lacks the authority to file criminal charges here. What is the confusion?

As far as inflating the value of his property to obtain loans, that's between him and the bank.
No, it isn’t. Bank fraud is both a civil and criminal violation of NYS law. If you rob a bank is that just between you and the bank?

I find it hard to believe that they would just ask him what his buildings were worth. Seems like someone would take a look at that before handing over a hundred million dollars. Maybe check Zillow or realtor dot com.
What the banks did or did not do is not relevant as to whether or not Trump violated the law.

On the tax side of it, I simply don't know how that's handled in NY. My guess is they have a tax assessor that establishes the value of a property, though there may be some method by which an unscrupulous person can game that system. If that's illegal (and it should be) Trump needs to answer for it.
Trump has been recently audited by the IRS (unless he was lying about it), and they apparently found nothing worthy of criminal charges. I have no idea how in-depth that audit was, or if it included all of his various businesses. Perhaps they simply weren't looking at whatever the AG found.
We have no idea what they found, but we do have strong evidence of massive tax fraud by Trump in the past that was missed by the IRS.

My opinion stands. This was a dog and pony show by an AG who's worried about her job because she foolishly promised to take down Trump and can't find a crime to charge him with. If she can manage to cast enough shade on Trump, it might even get her re-elected. Trump hate is a valuable commodity in the world of politics.
So your opinion was based on her not filing charges, you were then informed she literally can’t file charges, and then say your opinion stands.

Does that seem logical to you?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY