Trump facing charges after 3yr investigation into wealth by NY AG.

[Social Media]

 

[sqwakvfr]

Not a Trump supporter or loyalist but when the Attorney General files a lawsuit and not indicts it means the evidence is not strong.  I believe many on CNN and MSNBC said Trump will be in handcuffs and do the “perp” walk for years.  When will this magical moment occur? 

[Social Media]

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, sqwakvfr said:

Not a Trump supporter or loyalist but when the Attorney General files a lawsuit and not indicts it means the evidence is not strong.  I believe many on CNN and MSNBC said Trump will be in handcuffs and do the “perp” walk for years.  When will this magical moment occur? 

A perp walk?

Probably never. They'll spare him that for political reasons.

Prison? 

Probably never. Same reasons including the need for secret service protrection. Incarceration at Mar Lago instead.

Felony Indictments?

Definitely. More likely after the midterms.

Felony convictions?

Probably but it only takes one trumpist juror to hang.

 

This civil case in the news doesn't involve "the" AG, but rather the New York AG.

 

[Jingthing]

This case will most likely succeed and it's very notable that it not only goes after Donald Trump but also his grifter children. This has the real potential of killing the Trump business empire. It's beyond the financial fines. What banks, etc. are going to want to deal with these characters?

[sqwakvfr]

35 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

A perp walk?

Probably never. They'll spare him that for political reasons.

Prison? 

Probably never. Same reasons including the need for secret service protrection. Incarceration at Mar Lago instead.

Felony Indictments?

Definitely. More likely after the midterms.

Felony convictions?

Probably but it only takes one trumpist juror to hang.

 

This civil case in the news doesn't involve "the" AG, but rather the New York AG.

 

Just repeating what the”talking heads have been saying since 2016.  The New York AG is an AG.  Obviously Letitia James is not Merrick Garland.  The Secret Service becomes irrelevant if anyone under their protection gets indicted or arrested.  Then the US Marshall Service or Justice Department Agents will take cover.  The Search Warrant served at Mar A Lago(the correct spelling) was violation of NISPOM(accessing, handling and storing classified documents).  This would come under the jurisdiction of Merrick Garland if it becomes a criminal matter.  Not all NISPOM violations are crimes.  

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Just repeating what the”talking heads have been saying since 2016.  The New York AG is an AG.  Obviously Letitia James is not Merrick Garland.  The Secret Service becomes irrelevant if anyone under their protection gets indicted or arrested.  Then the US Marshall Service or Justice Department Agents will take cover.  The Search Warrant served at Mar A Lago(the correct spelling) was violation of NISPOM(accessing, handling and storing classified documents).  This would come under the jurisdiction of Merrick Garland if it becomes a criminal matter.  Not all NISPOM violations are crimes.  

Crimes were obviously committed by Trump at Mar Lago with the documents. I am not a court of law but anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that already. 

 

My understanding is that as an ex president secret service protection is still required for life. A president has never been locked up. Where did you hear that a convicted president loses his right to secret service protection?

 

Yes this topic is specifically about the New York case regarding his persistent business corruption, which yet again, anyone with an ounce of common sense already knows that he's guilty.

[sqwakvfr]

35 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Crimes were obviously committed by Trump at Mar Lago with the documents. I am not a court of law but anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that already. 

 

My understanding is that as an ex president secret service protection is still required for life. A president has never been locked up. Where did you hear that a convicted president loses his right to secret service protection?

 

Yes this topic is specifically about the New York case regarding his persistent business corruption, which yet again, anyone with an ounce of common sense already knows that he's guilty.

I never said a convicted President would lose Secret Service protection.  If Donald Trump gets convicted of a crime and is sent to prison then how would a Secret Service detail protect him?  Secret Service agents do not work inside of prisons.  If Donald Trump becomes a parolee then possibly the Secret Service could provide protection but Parolees come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections.  

 

The most recent case of mishandling classified information by a prominent person is  David Patraeus. He allowed his mistress access to classified information when he was CIA Director.  in the end he plead guilty to a Misdemeanor and paid a fine.  The critical issue for Donald Trump in terms of NISPOM is did he allow access to  classified information to a foreign national.  This is when the possibility of espionage comes into play.  

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

I never said a convicted President would lose Secret Service protection.  If Donald Trump gets convicted of a crime and is sent to prison then how would a Secret Service detail protect him?  Secret Service agents do not work inside of prisons.  If Donald Trump becomes a parolee then possibly the Secret Service could provide protection but Parolees come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections.  

 

The most recent case of mishandling classified information by a prominent person is  David Patraeus. He allowed his mistress access to classified information when he was CIA Director.  in the end he plead guilty to a Misdemeanor and paid a fine.  The critical issue for Donald Trump in terms of NISPOM is did he allow access to  classified information to a foreign national.  This is when the possibility of espionage comes into play.  

What Trump faces is much more serious even if they can't prove damage. It sounds like you haven't really followed this case closely. Also the documents are just a part of the potential charges against trump regarding the insurrection and election crimes as in Georgia. At this point there is zero doubt he will be indicted on at least one felony crime, likely multiple. 

 

As far as the secret service thing, yes, that's the point. Secret service can't operate in prison and if convicted that will be a big part of the reason why they can't send him to prison. 

[ThailandRyan]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

What Trump faces is much more serious even if they can't prove damage. It sounds like you haven't really followed this case closely. Also the documents are just a part of the potential charges against trump regarding the insurrection and election crimes as in Georgia. At this point there is zero doubt he will be indicted on at least one felony crime, likely multiple. 

 

As far as the secret service thing, yes, that's the point. Secret service can't operate in prison and if convicted that will be a big part of the reason why they can't send him to prison. 

Club Fed, house arrest, and still living a FPOTUS lifestyle supported by the Government....

[simple1]

1 hour ago, ThailandRyan said:

Club Fed, house arrest, and still living a FPOTUS lifestyle supported by the Government....

NY AG has also passed on content to Fed Agencies to review for criminal prosecution. It is claimed NY AG is seeking $250million in fines, if case is successful would also disbar trump and children from holding executive businees role in NY State for a number of years. Don't know if a guilty finding would impact out of State and international Trump Org businesses - at a minimum more expensive cost of money. One would expect that finally will involve Fed Agencies for matters such as money laundering and public exposure of his dealings with mafia organisations. e.g.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/16/trump-mafia-connections-blocked-bid-to-open-sydney-casino-30-years-ago.html

[bamnutsak]

In their depositions for this case, Donald Trump pleaded the fifth over four-hundred times. And, evidently in hopes of gaining his father's aproval (at long last?), Eric took the fifth some five hundred times. Eric, we're often told was "running the company" during Trump's presidency.

 

Taking the fifth in a civil case can be used as an indication of guilt.

 

Maybe Jared can kick in some of that Saudi billions to help cover Ivanka's share of the financial penalty.

 

In his own words...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMyh7ko9L2g

 

Tough couple of days for Trump, legally. Gets slapped by the special master, gets slapped by the 11th Circuit, gets slapped by NYS AG.

 

 

 

 

[sqwakvfr]

22 hours ago, Jingthing said:

What Trump faces is much more serious even if they can't prove damage. It sounds like you haven't really followed this case closely. Also the documents are just a part of the potential charges against trump regarding the insurrection and election crimes as in Georgia. At this point there is zero doubt he will be indicted on at least one felony crime, likely multiple. 

 

As far as the secret service thing, yes, that's the point. Secret service can't operate in prison and if convicted that will be a big part of the reason why they can't send him to prison. 

So all this is about indicting Donald Trump for Insurrection and election Crimes?  Just one question?  What more evidence does Merrick Garland need?  In essence he directly ordered the storming of the Capital?  Then indict him, go to trial and see what the jury says.  Of course no one really knows what any jury will do. I learned this lesson in 1995.  My former agency thought we had a certain retired football star convicted.  That is until 12 people thought otherwise.  It looks like the saga of “get Trump” will be a long running reality show.  

[Jingthing]

33 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

So all this is about indicting Donald Trump for Insurrection and election Crimes?  Just one question?  What more evidence does Merrick Garland need?  In essence he directly ordered the storming of the Capital?  Then indict him, go to trial and see what the jury says.  Of course no one really knows what any jury will do. I learned this lesson in 1995.  My former agency thought we had a certain retired football star convicted.  That is until 12 people thought otherwise.  It looks like the saga of “get Trump” will be a long running reality show.  

Your post is all over the place but yes of course convicting with jury trials is unpredictable. It just takes one juror to stop that as I know full well as I hung a jury myself. Garland is careful and clearly understands that indicting a former president will be historic. The cases need to be perfect. In general (there are MANY potential charges) a particularly difficult challenge is to prove criminal INTENT beyond that crimes were done. The New York case will be much easier to prove being a civil case. However, there will be referrals to criminal charges emerging from this civil case. The Atlanta case also nothng to do with Garland is proceeding towards indictment as well. There are more. He will be indicted on at least one felony charge coming from any of these places, most likely more, but again you are correct indictment isn't conviction.

[Jingthing]

18 hours ago, simple1 said:

NY AG has also passed on content to Fed Agencies to review for criminal prosecution. It is claimed NY AG is seeking $250million in fines, if case is successful would also disbar trump and children from holding executive businees role in NY State for a number of years. Don't know if a guilty finding would impact out of State and international Trump Org businesses - at a minimum more expensive cost of money. One would expect that finally will involve Fed Agencies for matters such as money laundering and public exposure of his dealings with mafia organisations. e.g.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/16/trump-mafia-connections-blocked-bid-to-open-sydney-casino-30-years-ago.html

I think most likely the Trump Organization is now a dead organization walking. This is devastating to that family crime operation. I wouldn't worry about Ivanka ever starving though. 

[Jingthing]

Stick a fork in him, he's done?

Well, hopefully. 

But in any case Trumpism is far from dead. 

The republican man in waiting DeSantis is a Trumpist in waiting.

Ron DeSantis: more Trumpist than Trump (and perhaps the next president of the United States) (thecanadian.news)

 

Trump is 'done' and 'I'm not sure he's going to escape jail': presidential historian - Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism

Quote

 

A history professor who has predicted every presidential election correctly since 1984 said that he believes former President Donald Trump is "done" in politics and may not escape jail time after he was sued in New York for alleged real estate fraud.

American University history professor Allan Lichtman told The Irish Times that Trump cannot win another election because of his legal burdens.

“He's done,” Lichtman said. “He’s got too many burdens, too much baggage to be able to run again even presuming he escapes jail, he escapes bankruptcy. I’m not sure he’s going to escape jail.”

 

 

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

I think most likely the Trump Organization is now a dead organization walking. This is devastating to that family crime operation. I wouldn't worry about Ivanka ever starving though. 

Given the blatant extensive corruption over many years by Turmp Organisation executives it is "interesting" that so far none of the financial services / real estate industry enablers have been charged. Perhaps when moves are made by Federal authorities we will finally get some insight how Trump Org got way will their malfeasence over the years.

 

Unless trump Org executives are setenced to jail time I really doubt any of them will face any meaningful penalties - they all would have millions in personal wealth.

[sqwakvfr]

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Your post is all over the place but yes of course convicting with jury trials is unpredictable. It just takes one juror to stop that as I know full well as I hung a jury myself. Garland is careful and clearly understands that indicting a former president will be historic. The cases need to be perfect. In general (there are MANY potential charges) a particularly difficult challenge is to prove criminal INTENT beyond that crimes were done. The New York case will be much easier to prove being a civil case. However, there will be referrals to criminal charges emerging from this civil case. The Atlanta case also nothng to do with Garland is proceeding towards indictment as well. There are more. He will be indicted on at least one felony charge coming from any of these places, most likely more, but again you are correct indictment isn't conviction.

I am not the one who is “all over the place:.  In essence Trump has been investigated since 2016.  6 years of investigations and committees and where are we?  

[Jingthing]

22 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

I am not the one who is “all over the place:.  In essence Trump has been investigated since 2016.  6 years of investigations and committees and where are we?  

He couldn't be indicted while in office.

January.6 and the Atlantic find me the votes thing happened at the end of his term. 

The documents thing happened after his term.

Where are we?

I'm not going to own making you aware of all of that.

We can all watch any indictments and convictions happen as they occur.

If you're suggesting that there is nothing to indict about you are welcome to that opinion. Cheers.

 

[sqwakvfr]

7 hours ago, Jingthing said:

He couldn't be indicted while in office.

January.6 and the Atlantic find me the votes thing happened at the end of his term. 

The documents thing happened after his term.

Where are we?

I'm not going to own making you aware of all of that.

We can all watch any indictments and convictions happen as they occur.

If you're suggesting that there is nothing to indict about you are welcome to that opinion. Cheers.

 

He has been out of office for almost 18 months.  Like I said before I am not a Trump Guy(never liked him).  But because I was in Law Enforcement I believe in the rule of evidence.  Like Jerry Maguire said "show me the money" then "show me the evidence". It almost seems like the concept of "throw the book at the suspect and see what charges stick". Yes, sometimes cops do this.  What did Robert Mueller find?  If indeed Donld Trump committed crimes before and while in office then he should have been arrested and/or indicted on January 22, 2021.  

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, sqwakvfr said:

He has been out of office for almost 18 months.  Like I said before I am not a Trump Guy(never liked him).  But because I was in Law Enforcement I believe in the rule of evidence.  Like Jerry Maguire said "show me the money" then "show me the evidence". It almost seems like the concept of "throw the book at the suspect and see what charges stick". Yes, sometimes cops do this.  What did Robert Mueller find?  If indeed Donld Trump committed crimes before and while in office then he should have been arrested and/or indicted on January 22, 2021.  

The indictments are coming and they will be proven or not.

I find your arguments absurd and lacking appreciation of the special situation of a deeply criminal ex president.who has dodged consequences all his life with corruption and clever legal tactics only on offer to the rich. The Mueller investigation as well as the two impeachments weren't criminal investigations. Now he is subject to.actual criminal investigations. You say you aren't a trump guy and readers are expected to believe that.  This is getting tiresome. JUST WAIT. 

 

Agree to disagree  End of.

[sqwakvfr]

13 hours ago, Jingthing said:

The indictments are coming and they will be proven or not.

I find your arguments absurd and lacking appreciation of the special situation of a deeply criminal ex president.who has dodged consequences all his life with corruption and clever legal tactics only on offer to the rich. The Mueller investigation as well as the two impeachments weren't criminal investigations. Now he is subject to.actual criminal investigations. You say you aren't a trump guy and readers are expected to believe that.  This is getting tiresome. JUST WAIT. 

 

Agree to disagree  End of.

Robert Mueller was appointed as a Special Counsel and he was not pursuing a criminal investigation? Then what was he doing?  

[metisdead]

Some posts with news headlines have been removed as there were no supporting links provided to the sources of information. 

[Social Media]

 

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, sqwakvfr said:

Robert Mueller was appointed as a Special Counsel and he was not pursuing a criminal investigation? Then what was he doing?  

Fair question.

He couldn't have indicted him as he was president at the time 

 

"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Mueller

 

https://www.commoncause.org/resource/read-the-mueller-report/

[sqwakvfr]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Fair question.

He couldn't have indicted him as he was president at the time 

 

"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Mueller

 

https://www.commoncause.org/resource/read-the-mueller-report/

Then he should have been impeached. Oh they tried that.  Back to square one and it is now 2022.  Then why is Trump still not indicted after leaving loffice almost two years ago?  As for Mueller:  “he punted”.  

[Jingthing]

41 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Then he should have been impeached. Oh they tried that.  Back to square one and it is now 2022.  Then why is Trump still not indicted after leaving loffice almost two years ago?  As for Mueller:  “he punted”.  

He was impeached twice. 

Impeachments even when convicted have no criminal penalties. 

Your argument seems to be that just because he wasn't indicted YET means indictments aren't coming or if they're coming  won't be legitimate  Its an absurd Fox News style of argument.

 

Again.

 

JUST WAIT.

[sqwakvfr]

56 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

He was impeached twice. 

Impeachments even when convicted have no criminal penalties. 

Your argument seems to be that just because he wasn't indicted YET means indictments aren't coming or if they're coming  won't be legitimate  Its an absurd Fox News style of argument.

 

Again.

 

JUST WAIT.

You would be wrong on your ASSumption.  I do not watch Fox News(really not a news channel).  

1) If Donald Trump had been impeached then he could have been removed from office and indicted on criminal charges.  I thought that was the purpose of impeaching him?

2) I do not have a crystal ball and do not know what is coming or not.  

3) I was a police officer in a past life and this I know for sure:  If it takes this long and this many attempts to find criminal charges to stick against one person then it will be difficult to get a conviction in a court of law.  Those who oppose Donald Trump(the list is long) in essence “shot their load way early and way too often”.  Everything from Russian Collusion, Hookers in Moscow, Putin’s Pawn, income tax evasion, obtaining loans fraudulently, stealing from his own charity, inciting the Jan 6 Riots, etc, etc, and so far no charges?  I am amazed that Donald Trump has not faced criminal charges yet.  

 

 

[Jingthing]

32 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

You would be wrong on your ASSumption.  I do not watch Fox News(really not a news channel).  

1) If Donald Trump had been impeached then he could have been removed from office and indicted on criminal charges.  I thought that was the purpose of impeaching him?

2) I do not have a crystal ball and do not know what is coming or not.  

3) I was a police officer in a past life and this I know for sure:  If it takes this long and this many attempts to find criminal charges to stick against one person then it will be difficult to get a conviction in a court of law.  Those who oppose Donald Trump(the list is long) in essence “shot their load way early and way too often”.  Everything from Russian Collusion, Hookers in Moscow, Putin’s Pawn, income tax evasion, obtaining loans fraudulently, stealing from his own charity, inciting the Jan 6 Riots, etc, etc, and so far no charges?  I am amazed that Donald Trump has not faced criminal charges yet.  

 

 

Again the absurd arguments which I've already rebutted!

He's an ex president!

Not a normal defendent!

I won't bother repeating what I've posted before but I will add this.

I didn't say you watched Fox News so I am not wrong.

Your defenses sound Fox News style. That's all.

You don’t understand impeachment. Perhaps you're not American.

Impeachment is a political process not a criminal one.

Criminal code charges are not part of it.

The result of Impeachment plus conviction is removal from office.  It takes an extra step to bar from future office.

Trump was impeached twice  FACT. 100 percent.

The only president ever to be impeached twice.

He was not convicted twice. Unfortunately. 

If he had been convicted there would have been no criminal consequences  FACT.

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, sqwakvfr said:

You would be wrong on your ASSumption.  I do not watch Fox News(really not a news channel).  

1) If Donald Trump had been impeached then he could have been removed from office and indicted on criminal charges.  I thought that was the purpose of impeaching him?

2) I do not have a crystal ball and do not know what is coming or not.  

3) I was a police officer in a past life and this I know for sure:  If it takes this long and this many attempts to find criminal charges to stick against one person then it will be difficult to get a conviction in a court of law.  Those who oppose Donald Trump(the list is long) in essence “shot their load way early and way too often”.  Everything from Russian Collusion, Hookers in Moscow, Putin’s Pawn, income tax evasion, obtaining loans fraudulently, stealing from his own charity, inciting the Jan 6 Riots, etc, etc, and so far no charges?  I am amazed that Donald Trump has not faced criminal charges yet. 

It took seven years from the time charges were filed in the Trump University scam and a final settlement, and that was a much more obvious and simple fraud.  Financial crimes take a long time to resolve.