Yes, and yes.
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
That's wishful thinking, squared.
Trump is a seriously serious threat to the Democrats, and they know it. The only option they have at this point is to keep pounding the sand of propaganda and lies. Otherwise, with all these various and sundry walls that have been closing in on him for 5 years, they'd have him by now. If he's not a threat there's no reason to continue being obsessed with him, or continue putting out into the public the idea that he's a criminal.
But they need people to belive he is. They've seen how gullible the left is already. Fifty percent of Democrats right now believe that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election. That's some serious gullible. It's also some seriously good propaganda, because it worked. Same with the Fine People Hoax, and all the other hoaxes too numerous to mention here. A certain percentage will believe some of all of them. That's all they need.
Look at Matt Gaetz. He's a threat, too. Nearly every day there's a new story about what he might have done. Not what he did, not what crimes he committed, not even an accuser or a victim of a crime, but what he might have done. The seeds are repetitively planted, and that's enough.
I'm tellin'q ya, whenever you see a story that's a little too on the nose, one that makes your leg tingle, don't believe it for a second.
They want to be able to say Trump, the leader of the entire Republican Party, is under criminal investigation during the midterm campaign season and election, in a desperate hope that will prevent them from losing 40 or 50 seats in the House and losing the Senate.
You seem quite certain about what the Democrats think and what their motives are regarding Trump. I claim no such insight. You are not wrong about the seeming eagerness the press has to accuse Gaetz of crimes. While there are certain facts that merit reporting, they have gone well beyond those in ways unfair to Gaetz. If more comes out in the future, that is the time to report those developments then. Not before.
Regarding the New York Attorney General's move to expand her investigation to include a criminal component, and to team up with the Manhattan DA to work together on their respective investigations, that is a real development. It was officially announced by her office. It was not a leak. It is a fact that the state AG is conducting a criminal investigation of the Trump Organization.
I'll leave it to you to judge the motives behind the investigation. I'm taking it at face value; that is, an investigation is underway to determine if certain crimes have been committed, and if sufficient evidence exists to charge people with those crimes.
On another point, I read Trump's response with interest. He is correct in pointing out that investigations have been going on for a long time. He leaves out the fact that these investigations were significantly delayed by the delaying actions he was able to use when he was president. Those protections are his no more, which is why we now see the pace of these investigations accelerating.
It's also worth noting that Trump lost his bid to keep his tax and financial info out of the investigator hands. The Supreme Court ruled against him on that several months ago and the investigators now have the info they sought.
Supreme Court rules against Trump. NY AG announces criminal probe. Authorities in Georgia announced criminal probe regarding election interference ... so ,yes the investigations are increasing in number and speed, and the walls are closing in. I'm not following leaks to determine this. I'm following the official announcements of the offices concerned.
People who acted violently or did property damage should be charged accordingly. What about the people that were let in by police voluntarily and didn't commit those acts or who were just protesting outside the building? Do you think they should still be held in jail 4 months later?How will the Trumpamanics defend this?
People are people, and motivations in political matters are almost always utterly predictable.
The NY AG office, like most other state AG offices and the US DOJ, do not publicly announce criminal investigations. They announce indictments, but not investigations. There are many reasons they don't do that, but chief among them are to avoid prejudicial views of the public and potential jurors, and to avoid the legal and civil liability of publicly smearing someone that hasn't been charged with anything.
That's not how criminal investigations are supposed to work, though. They are literally investigating Trump to see if they can get him on a crime. The way it's supposed to work is you investigate the crime and see where the evidence takes you. That's prosecuting crime. Investigating the individual to find a crime is persecution.
Is not the exact way it is working in this case? It started with an investigation into hush money payments. Investigators needed access to financial and tax records to look into that. Those records were received after the Supreme Court said they could have them. Another path of inquiry was opened when Trump's attorney Cohen was charged with certain crimes and flipped on Trump. Cohen flat-out said Trump committed tax, insurance and bank fraud, and he provided investigators with documents and tapes; thereby providing evidence that lead investigators in certain directions.
One of the documents Cohen provided was a check signed by Trump himself and his accountant Weissenberg, which brought Weissenberg under investigator scrutiny. He is now subject of a criminal investigation, just as Cohen was before Cohen flipped on Trump. Another one of Trump's attorneys is also the subject of a criminal probe; Giuliani. It remains to be seen if Weissenberg and/or Giuliani will flip but it cannot be ruled out. And even if they do not flip, the three criminal investigations have plenty of material with which to proceed.
Trump is in a new legal place for him. These are criminal probes, not civil. He cannot harass his foes with countersuits. This is not about him being sued by investigators, it's about him being charged.
The investigators are unmoved by his mean Tweets (or other forms of negative criticism). He is unable to settle these matters by expressing that desire and writing a check. He no longer has the powers and protections of the presidency to shield him from investigator activity, grand jury activity and charges if any come to be leveled. For now, at least, it seems Trump can't even find a high-powered attorney to represent him.
No. Not even close. They're fishing for a crime, not investigating a crime.
Hush money payments for alleged sexual affairs. That's not a crime. The alleged affairs are not a crime. Paying people to be quiet about embarrassing but legal activities is not a crime.
Yeah, they need 13 years of tax returns and banking records to investigate 2 payments made to a porn star and a Playboy model, the complete details of which were already part of the court record in the Michael Cohen trial, a case that the FBI and the New York DA closed at the conclusion of those proceedings.
No, what they're doing now is fishing for possible crimes. Typical of his the MSN is reporting it, I quote from NPR:
Literally pouring over tax returns and other documents looking for something they can charge Trump or his organization with.
Failing to properly report the transactions is a crime.
You and I, and those speculating in the media are all operating under the same disadvantage in discussing this. Investigators are not obligated to publicly disclose their actions or the reasons behind them while investigations are underway; and grand jury proceedings are secret. While much is being said, the facts become known only after documents are made public in court or official announcements are made.
The U.S. Supreme Court (including a conservative majority and three Trump-appointed justices) ordered that Trumps tax returns be turned over to investigators after Trump argued with competent attorneys in several courts they should not be. The courts do not grant tax return access for fishing expeditions. Judges do not issue search warrants without cause.
Spin it as you wish. There's more to this than political motivation.
There is no need for a fishing expedition when the big fish are jumping into the boat and bringing evidence with them.
One of Trump's top and closest attorneys (Cohen) flipped on Trump and provided a trove of evidence. Trump's top accountant (Wiessenberg) has already shown a willingness to flip on Trump by providing Trump-unfavorable testimony. He has also shown a willingness to provide evidence in exchange for immunity in the Donald J. Trump Foundation case. While there is talk in the press about Wiessengerg's loyalty to Trump, it appears it goes only so far. This may prove significant as the investigations proceed and charges, if any, are filed.
One of Trump's top and closest attorneys (Cohen) flipped on Trump and provided a trove of evidence. Trump's top accountant (Wiessenberg) has already shown a willingness to flip on Trump by providing Trump-unfavorable testimony. He has also shown a willingness to provide evidence in exchange for immunity in the Donald J. Trump Foundation case. While there is talk in the press about Wiessengerg's loyalty to Trump, it appears it goes only so far. This may prove significant as the investigations proceed and charges, if any, are filed.
No its not. The only scenario in which paying money for confidentiality for a legal act would be if the Federal Election Commission deemed the payments to be unreported campaign contributions. But the FEC determined that the payments were normal and regular and would have happened whether or not Trump had run for office. A decision, I might add, which caused the WaPo to be just spittin' bubbles mad in a May 7th, 2021 article.
I have the distinct advantage of being able to set aside my biases and look at this from practical probabilities and basic human motivations and predictable actions. I can distinguish what is most likely from from I want to be most likely.
Both the Manhattan DA and the NY AG have plainly stated prejudices against Donald Trump, and have stated quite plainly they will do whatever they have to in order to charge him or his organization or someone within the organization with a crime. They don't know what crime that might be yet, but by golly and by gum they're gonna find one.
Because most businesses break anywhere from 1 to 8 laws per week just during the normal course of business, most not even knowing they're breaking any laws, it's not that hard to find something, either a direct breaking of the law or something that can be twisted or interpreted to be breaking the law.
Once the midterm campaign season gets in full swing, that's when they'll find something to announce.
It reminds me of another recent criminal accusation with political motivations that was utterly predictable. In fact, I predicted it. When Judge Roy Moore was running for senate, after decades of political campaigns, elections and public service, he suddenly found himself charged with one then five counts of having sex with a minor. The charges and publicity damaged him enough that he lost the election. The day after the election was certified, the very next day mind you, all charges were dropped. Utterly predictable.
Investigators are obligated by legal ethics not to even disclose that investigations are happening at all. The only reason to disclose the existence of a criminal investigation is to create or affirm a political narrative.
Oh, rest assured, if they have anything substantial, it'll get leaked. It always leaks.
Courts grant tax return access for fishing expeditions all the time. Under federal law, if they're is reasonable cause to belive, based on information believed to be reliable, that a criminal act may have been committed, and there is reasonable cause to believe the tax return or returns may be relevant to tie commission of a crime or may be evidence to support the commission of a crime, the court will grant access.
26 US Code § 6103
"Your honor, the Trump Organization moves a lot of money around the world. So much so that we reasonably believe the company is engaged in money laundering, and we need a bunch of tax returns to confirm that."
Sounds ridiculous, but that's pretty much how it went.
True enough, judges don't issue warrants without cause. And while the cause is supposed to be legit, that doesn't mean it is. (See Court, FISA)
When you have a DA and an AG who both state they plan on going after Trump, even before any investigation has commenced, before any crime has been articulated, that's either a personal or a political motivation.
You say there's more to this than political motivation. Like what? It can't be legal or criminal justice, as they telegraphed their intentions long before the legal angle came into play.
Also if that hush money was written off as a business expense it would be illegal. Nobody has said that, but im just adding things up in my head as to why they want his tax returns so badly.
Also the democrats who believe that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election are about as crazy as the Qanon morons who believe Joe Biden is a pedophile.
Insanity is at an all time epidemic in our country.....
Also the democrats who believe that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election are about as crazy as the Qanon morons who believe Joe Biden is a pedophile.
Insanity is at an all time epidemic in our country.....
You're making my point. You are stating the scenario in which the payment rises to a crime. With the benefit of hindsight, we now know charges were not filed against Trump. However, Cohen plead guilty to the crimes.
"in 2016, [Cohen] 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. COHEN pled guilty today before U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III." (Source)
So, yes. It is a crime.
One thing that comes to mind is Cohen's public statements that the Trump Organization falsely reported property values for the purposes of misleading the IRS, insurance companies and banks. That's called fraud and a statement like that coming from someone highly placed in the Trump Organization would likely attract the attention of investigators.
You mentioned money laundering above. I'm not willing to go that far as nothing verifiable has surfaced to support such an accusation, let alone a charge. But the Cohen statement is public and something that can be found to be true or false.
Another thing that comes to mind is the tape made public of Trump calling GA officials regarding the 2020 election. Some say that rose to the level of criminal activity and investigators seem to agree as they have launched a criminal probe into the matter.
Not under New York state law. The state of NY has no jurisdiction in Federal Election Commission laws.
And Trump wasn't merely not charged, he wasn't charged because the FEC explicitly stated the payments were not criminal and broke no election laws. You can keep saying it was a crime if you like, but the very people who decides if it is or is not say it's not.
Also, I'm not sure why you keep relying on the rock solid veracity of Michael Cohen's statements, considering he ease sentenced to prison for, among several things, lying to Congress and to federal investigators.
If you listen to the full, unedited call, you get a very different context, and conclusions that are wide open to interpretation. It's not nearly as cut and dry as, as you call them, "some people" believe.
And the investigators who launched the probe is Fulton County DA Fannie Willis, a Democrat and vehemently anti Trump. But even she is equivocating on the likelihood of filing charges, much less having a successful prosecution.
But I'm sure that her announcing the investigation publicly, same as all other very public attempts to get Trump on something, anything at all, has no political motivations whatsoever.
But I do ask you one more time, when you say there's more to this than political motivation, since it can't be legal or criminal, as they telegraphed their intentions long before the legal angle came into play, what is it?
You're talking about Trump. I'm talking about the reporting crime for which Cohen was convicted. People don't get convicted for non-crimes. They get convicted for crimes. You stated above that failing to properly report the hush money transaction was not a crime. It clearly was a crime, one for which Cohen was convicted.
While it's true prosecutors did not prosecute Trump for the crime, they did prosecute Cohen. I did not say Trump was guilty of this crime. I said the transaction itself was a crime.
Who says I'm relying on the rock solid veracity of Michael Cohen's statements? Not me.
You are correct. Cohen's ethics are questionable and his actions are self-serving. As a witness in front of a jury, his credibility can certainly be questioned by the defense. But that does not mean he cannot provide valuable evidence of value to investigators that could very well pass muster with a jury. Cohen was a Trump Organization insider who worked directly with Trump for years. That matters.
I have zero sympathy for Trump's claims that legal actions against him are politically motivated. His 2016 campaign included "lock her up." He did not call for a fair investigation. He did not say if he was elected he would see to it she got her day in court. He assumed her guilt and motivated millions to chant "lock her up." Trump has formally made the "politically motivated" case numerous times and the courts have rejected it numerous times.
Yes, the NY AG campaigned on a platform of going after Trump. But she still has to abide by the law. She cannot get search warrants where proper cause does not exist. She cannot exceed the limits the law places on law enforcement.
The "more" I meant was the facts that have come to light that seem to me sufficient to prompt investigations. The fact that someone telegraphs his her intention as a candidate for the AG office to go after what she believes to be illegal activity does not in itself transform that suspected illegal activity into something that cannot be investigated, charged and prosecuted if the illegal activity is actually there.
Last edited:
Yes, they do. People get charged and convicted of non crimes. Primarily Trump associates and supporters. The level of naivety in not recognizing this fact is astounding.
Let me clarify. What I meant to say was people don't get convicted of non-crimes. In cases where they are convicted, the charge precedes the conviction.
Thinking on this further, after reading your comment, yes, there are cases where innocent people are wrongly charged and wrongly convicted. The Innocence Project has helped reverse a number of those. I'm a little disappointed in myself in not acknowledging this before you saw the need to mention it. I know it to be true. When I wrote what I did, I did not think it through.
Regarding Trump supporters, please elaborate. Have you examples to share? I'm especially interested in your assertion that Trump supporters get convicted of non-crimes. How is that even possible? Robbing a bank is a crime. Mowing your lawn is not a crime. People who rob banks often get convicted of bank robbery. I know of no one ever convicted in a court of law of lawn mowing.
The crime/non-crime distinction surfaced in the discussion above about the nature of a particular financial transaction. I'm not sure it has any relevance beyond that discussion which we've pretty much concluded, I think.
Last edited: