soundforbjt
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2002
- 17,787
- 6,035
- 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.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 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.
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.But he usually tries to settle. They aren't taking a settlement this time.
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.Definition for indictment is an accusation so they are practically synonymous
I’ve said it all along she is the least screwed up and appropriately distanced herself. She is smart enough to know she can live a wonderful life with what she has no reason to swindle more.It's a good day to be Tiffany Trump.
Wow! All I see is the Toaster Boy for becoming financially fucked.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.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?
I saw an interview on MSNBC, I can't remember the person, but she/he said that was the baseline amount.$250 Million? That would cover 14.4% of second avenue phase 2 which is $1.734 BIllion.
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?
There was a very public fallout as Bragg, about a month into the Job as DA decided to be debbie downer on the criminal caseThe 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.
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.
Her office, which lacks authority to file criminal charges in this case, referred the findings to federal prosecutors in Manhattan.
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.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
Trump committed ‘numerous’ felonies, said resigning New York prosecutor – report
New York Times obtains letter by Mark Pomerantz condemning new district attorney’s decision not to prosecute ex-presidentwww.theguardian.com
Now why didn't James bring up criminal charges?
N.Y. Attorney General Accuses Trump of ‘Staggering’ Fraud in Lawsuit (Published 2022)
The New York attorney general, Letitia James, is seeking to bar the Trump family from ever operating in the state again.www.nytimes.comNew York Attorney General Letitia James says Trump committed crimes, asks federal prosecutors and IRS to investigate
James announced a civil lawsuit accusing Trump, his adult children, his business and others of submitting years of fraudulent financial statements.www.cnbc.com
There.
Spelled it out in crayon for you
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.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.
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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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.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?
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.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.
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).
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.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.
Read the lawsuit (Published 2022)
In a lawsuit filed on Sept. 21, the New York attorney general, Letitia James, accused Donald J. Trump and three of his children of fraudulently overvaluing his assets by billions of dollars.www.nytimes.com
Trump hate is a valuable commodity in the world of politics.
There is the obvious explanation I already mentioned. James lacks the authority to file criminal charges here. What is the confusion?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.
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?As far as inflating the value of his property to obtain loans, that's between him and the bank.
What the banks did or did not do is not relevant as to whether or not Trump violated the law.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.
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.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.
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.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.