D.A. Is Investigating Trump and His Company Over Fraud, Filing Suggests

[BlueTex]

No, it isn't. Fraud has a very specific definition and so far we have seen absolutely nothing that indicates fraud.

You have no idea what the grand jury has seen nor should you... As Vance eloquently put in the memorandum, neither you nor Trump is entitled to know what the grand jury is considering.

 

[apdst]

That doesn't matter. NY has tax laws too. If the payments were not reported correctly, it's felony tax fraud.

No, that's probably human error, unless fraud can be proven. People make mistakes on their tax returns all the time. Very, very few get charged with a crime.

 

[Atomic Kid]

The news is within this phrase: ".....a significantly broader inquiry than the prosecutors have acknowledged in the past...."

The words "protracted criminal conduct" would seem to indicate that they are looking at a number things other than issues just involving the 2016 campaign and election, and that this investigation is at a very advanced stage.

 

[BlueTex]

Because the LAST thing you want to do as president is give states carte blanche to investigate whatever they want about you for any reason at all. Doing that creates a chilling effect on the office and provides states with powers reserved to the federal legislature.

Clinton tried the BS and lost also... Your position is not supported by the law or precedence hence the smackdown at the supreme court.

 

[Lutherf]

You have no idea what the grand jury has seen nor should you... As Vance eloquently put in the memorandum, neither you nor Trump is entitled to know what the grand jury is considering.

And you, therefore, are also simply speculating about everything you're spouting. At least I'm basing my position on stuff that's public and verifiable.

 

[apdst]

You have no idea what the grand jury has seen nor should you... As Vance eloquently put in the memorandum, neither you nor Trump is entitled to know what the grand jury is considering.

Vance and the grand jury aren't excused from The Constitution. They can't just issue subpoenas w/o probable cause.

 

[BlueTex]

Let's repeal the 4th Amendment, then.

No need.. we have courts to determine the appropriateness of a subpoena... Trump is batting zero so far

 

[BlueTex]

Vance and the grand jury aren't excused from The Constitution. They can't just issue subpoenas w/o probable cause.

LMAO... And the constitution established the courts to determine that... so far Trump has lost in every court... You do realize a federal judge is signing off on this subpoena...

 

[apdst]

LMAO..... Correct, but they ROUTINELY subpoena evidence in order to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to indict.... That's kind of the whole point of a grand jury...

That isn't how grand juries work, either...lol.

They can't randomly subpoena private documents to check for a crime.

 

[BlueTex]

And you, therefore, are also simply speculating about everything you're spouting. At least I'm basing my position on stuff that's public and verifiable.

Mine is based on what was filed with the court...

 

[apdst]

LMAO... And the constitution established the courts to determine that... so far Trump has lost in every court... You do realize a federal judge is signing off on this subpoena...

There's no way, since it isn't a Federal grand jury. :lamo

 

[apdst]

No need.. we have courts to determine the appropriateness of a subpoena... Trump is batting zero so far

Oh really? So, do they have Trump's tax returns, yet? :lamo

 

[The AntiDonald]

No, it isn't. Fraud has a very specific definition and so far we have seen absolutely nothing that indicates fraud.

Right. So far we've seen nothing because Trump is trying to move heaven and earth to hide the information. And Cohen had more than just one check written by Trump. Some were written for 35K. And besides, Trump wouldn't pay his legal fees out of his personal trust.

I will agree there is a very slight chance I am wrong, and I will admit it. But not until someone else has had a chance to look into it all.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Because the LAST thing you want to do as president is give states carte blanche to investigate whatever they want about you for any reason at all. Doing that creates a chilling effect on the office and provides states with powers reserved to the federal legislature.

The federal legislature is trying as well to investigate Trump finances. He's fighting them as well. No man is above the law.

 

[BlueTex]

That isn't how grand juries work, either...lol.

They can't randomly subpoena private documents to check for a crime.

You clearly have no idea what grand juries can subpoena... The IRS and accounting firms comply with THOUSANDS of subpoenas every year.

 

[Lutherf]

Clinton tried the BS and lost also... Your position is not supported by the law or precedence hence the smackdown at the supreme court.

You might recall that after he was elected the investigation into the Clintons was turned over to a federal office instead of a state office.

There is no reason a state can't investigate a legitimate crime committed by a sitting president. What they MUST be prohibited from doing is launching an investigation for the sole purpose of finding a crime. For example, victim 1 accuses the president of rape. There is evidence of rape and the president was known to have been with the victim at the time the alleged crime was committed. Go ahead and investigate! That's plenty legitimate. Conversely, political opponent 1 suggests that the president lied on his tax return. The IRS audited the return and found no material defects. The state DA really has no cause to go back and start poking around to see if he can find something that the IRS didn't.

 

[apdst]

You clearly have no idea what grand juries can subpoena... The IRS and accounting firms comply with THOUSANDS of subpoenas every year.

I know that grand juries are bound by the 4th Amendment.

 

[The AntiDonald]

No, that's probably human error, unless fraud can be proven. People make mistakes on their tax returns all the time. Very, very few get charged with a crime.

You guys are so hypocritical. You keep saying that it all has to be proven, but at the same time think it's unfair for NY to investigate. You can't prove anything without an investigation.

 

[apdst]

The federal legislature is trying as well to investigate Trump finances. He's fighting them as well. No man is above the law.

Congress can't conduct those kinds of investigations. They aren't above the law, either.

 

[Rogue Valley]

It was part of Cohen's plea but was also in there for purely political reasons.

Grand juries don't indict people for "purely political reasons".

There is no case whatsoever to be made for campaign finance violations.

Michael Cohen criminal charge #8 - plead guilty...

"Caused $280,000 in payments to be made to silence two women who otherwise planned to speak publicly about their alleged affairs with a presidential candidate, thereby intending to influence the 2016 presidential election."

Campaign finance violations Trump is probably on the hook for....

• Causing American Media Inc. (AMI) to make and/or accepting (or causing his then lawyer Michael Cohen to accept) an unlawful corporate contribution related to Karen McDougal.
• Two instances of causing Donald J. Trump for President LLC’s failure to report contributions from AMI and Cohen related to McDougal and Clifford.
• Causing Donald J. Trump for President LLC to file false reports with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
• Making a false statement by failing to disclose liability to Cohen for the Clifford payment on his 2017 public financial disclosure form.
• Conspiracy to defraud the United States by undermining the lawful function of the FEC and/or violating federal campaign finance law related to “hush money” payments, false statements, and cover-ups of payments to Cohen made by the Trump Organization.

Hope Hicks could also be charged as a co-conspirator via 'coordination'.

 

[BlueTex]

There's no way, since it isn't a Federal grand jury. :lamo

Trump moved this to federal court when he sued to block the subpoena... The judges name is Victor Marrero, Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Try to keep up...

 

[The AntiDonald]

And you, therefore, are also simply speculating about everything you're spouting. At least I'm basing my position on stuff that's public and verifiable.

You just keep saying that. No one has yet been able to investigate. So surely there is nothing verifiable yet. That's what Trump is hiding.

 

[MTAtech]

Let's repeal the 4th Amendment, then.

I find it fascinating that Trump's cult will defend him against anything and everything. In this case, attempting to argue that he should be shielded from investigations into violations of criminal law -- bank and insurance fraud, to be exact. If Trump overstated loses to for an insurance claim or overstated asset value to get a bigger loan than he was entitled, he's committed a crime. Perhaps a member of his cult can explain why he should be above investigation in these serious matters?

The President of The United States is officially under criminal investigation for bank and insurance fraud. Let that sink in.

 

[The AntiDonald]

I find it fascinating that Trump's cult will defend him against anything and everything. In this case, attempting to argue that he should be shielded from investigations into violations of criminal law -- bank and insurance fraud, to be exact. If Trump overstated loses to for an insurance claim or overstated asset value to get a bigger loan than he was entitled, he's committed a crime. Perhaps a member of his cult can explain why he should be above investigation in these serious matters?

The President of The United States is officially under criminal investigation for bank and insurance fraud. Let that sink in.

They not only think he should be above investigating, they think he should get away with it all. Not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

 

[MTAtech]

Congress can't conduct those kinds of investigations. They aren't above the law, either.

You don't get to invent your own law. Fortunately, the Supreme Court does get to decide the law. In the matter at hand, the SCOTUS ruled that Congress DOES have the authority if there is a legislative purpose.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf

In Mazars, the District Court granted judgment for the House and
the D. C. Circuit affirmed, finding that the subpoena issued by the
Oversight Committee served a valid legislative purpose because the
requested information was relevant to reforming financial disclosure
requirements for Presidents and presidential candidates. In Deutsche
Bank, the District Court denied a preliminary injunction and the Second Circuit affirmed in substantial part, holding that the Intelligence
Committee properly issued its subpoena to Deutsche Bank as part of
an investigation into alleged foreign influence in the U. S. political process, which could inform legislation to strengthen national security
and combat foreign meddling. The court also concluded that the subpoenas issued by the Financial Services Committee to Deutsche Bank
and Capital One were adequately related to potential legislation on
money laundering, terrorist financing, and the global movement of illicit funds through the real estate market.
Held: The courts below did not take adequate account of the significant
separation of powers concerns implicated by congressional subpoenas
for the President’s information. Pp. 7–20.
(a) Historically, disputes over congressional demands for presidential documents have been resolved by the political branches through
negotiation and compromise without involving this Court. The Court
recognizes that this dispute is the first of its kind to reach the Court;
that such disputes can raise important issues concerning relations between the branches; that similar disputes recur on a regular basis, including in the context of deeply partisan controversy; and that Congress and the Executive have nonetheless managed for over two
centuries to resolve these disputes among themselves without Supreme Court guidance. Such longstanding practice “‘is a consideration
of great weight’ ” in cases concerning “the allocation of power between
[the] two elected branches of Government,” and it imposes on the Court
a duty of care to ensure that it does not needlessly disturb “the compromises and working arrangements” reached by those branches.
NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U. S. 513, 524–526 (quoting The Pocket
Veto Case, 279 U. S. 655, 689). Pp. 7–11.
(b) Each House of Congress has the power “to secure needed information” in order to legislate. McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U. S. 135,
161. This power is “indispensable” because, without information, Congress would be unable to legislate wisely or effectively. Watkins v.
United States, 354 U. S. 178, 215. Because this power is “justified
solely as an adjunct to the legislative process,” it is subject to several
limitations. Id., at 197.