Weisselberg Indicted

[Nostra]

poor kids breaking windows to get into people's shit is usually more important because the people getting broken into are usually just as poor. Plus the chance for violence is exponentially higher in these situations compared to white collar crime.

If it’s a violent crime, it’s no longer a broken windows issue.

You’re rationalizing ignoring hundreds of thousands of dollars of fraud because of you want to focus on hundreds of dollars theft.

It’s pathetic the lengths you go through to protect the rich. We can’t prosecute them because their crime sent SMALL enough.

It’s not an either or, Clown.

Leftist rioters and looters need to be charged too. You want to give them a pass, Clown.

 

[hadit]

Sure, but when the arm twisting starts and deals are offered in exchange for dirt on TRUMP!, all those legitimate crimes suddenly become "meh, no big deal".

Such as?

When the punishment for serious tax evasion goes from 15 years in prison and a million dollar plus fine to 6 months and time served if you tell us stuff about TRUMP!. That just means the goal was TRUMP! all along, not investigating and charging because a crime was committed.

Is that happening or is it just something that you’re making up?

Doesn’t everyone get leniency for cooperating?

Cooperating for what? That's the question. If by "cooperating" you mean "help us get TRUMP!", it's politics. If by "cooperating" you mean, "Help us get all the tax irregularities cleared up and we don't care if TRUMP! is involved or not", it's not politics.

I'll leave it up to the reader to figure out which one is most likely in play.

Cooperating for revealing information on other crimes. Everyone gets better deals for cooperating.

There was no cooperation. In fact, Trump’s attorneys made Vance go to the Supreme Court twice to have their legal subpoenas acted on.

And I didn't say there was cooperation. Why should he cooperate in his own prosecution? The point remains, this is a pattern the prosecution uses when they want to go after someone. Find something they can pin on an associate and use the carrot and stick to get him to talk. It's political because, instead of starting from knowledge of a crime occurring and trying to find out who did what, they start from a desire to destroy someone and try to find things they can pin on him. My guess is this whole thing would wrap up in a hurry if TRUMP! just stated that he has no desire to run in '24.

If they had cooperated, including complying with subpoenas and amending returns, it might not have even gone to criminal proceedings.

Why cooperate? Leniency.

It might not have gotten to that point, but if it's political, it almost certainly would.

Why not cooperate? If the case against you is weak, make them prove it.

Why cooperate? Because the punishment would be FAR less. Thing is, people like Trump don’t seem to ever think they are wrong.

It's a gamble for sure, but if you believe the case against you is weak, forcing them to prove it is a good strategy. Leniency is offered to make prosecuting the case easier, not because the prosecution has the warm and fuzzies for the defendant. IOW, forcing them to prove their case might make it go away, cooperating doesn't, it just gets you a lighter sentence.

 

[Nostra]

Which means of course that the real goal here is to get TRUMP!, which in turn means this is a political prosecution.

The biggest problem with calling it a political prosecution is that there is a very real and legitimate crime alleged here.

Lots of Republicans like to claim political prosecution, but they forget to mention that they actually committed legitimate crimes.

claiming with out any evidence that Trump was involved and that he did the same for his kids proves it is political.

Good reporting has unearthed plenty of dodgy behavior with Trump’s taxes. It’s not without evidence to say that Ivanka is bizarrely paid for consulting work by the same company she is an executive of.

Reporting by leftist clown who have not seen his taxes, Clown

 

[colfax_m]

It's a gamble for sure, but if you believe the case against you is weak, forcing them to prove it is a good strategy. Leniency is offered to make prosecuting the case easier, not because the prosecution has the warm and fuzzies for the defendant.

Leniency is offered for people who cooperate to encourage cooperation. It also shows contrition.

If you’re wondering why it seems like the prosecutor is coming down hard on them, now you have an answer that has nothing to do with politics.

 

[colfax_m]

ah more like pushed propaganda. Vance fought all the way to the SCOTUS to get his tax returns...got a crack team of experts to review them, and then didn't get anything to indict him on.

You realize the investigation is ongoing, right?

Vance went all the way to SCOTUS to fight a president who claimed he was above the law. A worthy effort.

 

[struth]

ah more like pushed propaganda. Vance fought all the way to the SCOTUS to get his tax returns...got a crack team of experts to review them, and then didn't get anything to indict him on.

You realize the investigation is ongoing, right?

Vance went all the way to SCOTUS to fight a president who claimed he was above the law. A worthy effort.

He didn't claim he was above the law, everyday citizens right against subpeanas all the time. He was exercising his right to go to Court to redress an issue.

hahah yeah yeah...on going, on going, on going....years now...Vance is done, hence why he isn't even coming back to run for office. His white whale ended up all over his face.

Best he got, a executive didn't claim the value of a company car on his income taxes....he spent more then he even alleges the man didn't pay in taxes over 15 years! hahah

 

[colfax_m]

He didn't claim he was above the law, everyday citizens right against subpeanas all the time. He was exercising his right to go to Court to redress an issue.

His argument before the court was that as president he is above the law.

You shoulda read the briefs.

Best he got SO FAR was an executive who took home $1.7 million without paying taxes on any of it. Reducing it to a car shows either ignorance or dishonesty.

 

[struth]

He didn't claim he was above the law, everyday citizens right against subpeanas all the time. He was exercising his right to go to Court to redress an issue.

His argument before the court was that as president he is above the law.

You shoulda read the briefs.

Best he got SO FAR was an executive who took home $1.7 million without paying taxes on any of it. Reducing it to a car shows either ignorance or dishonesty.

I did read the briefs....he used the same argument outlined by the Obama admin, and prior admins before him in regards to a State issued sub. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf

$1.7 over 15 years, most of which is alleged to be owed to the Feds, the vast majority of it, and the Feds are like...we don't care...this is a non-issue.

 

[colfax_m]

He didn't claim he was above the law, everyday citizens right against subpeanas all the time. He was exercising his right to go to Court to redress an issue.

His argument before the court was that as president he is above the law.

You shoulda read the briefs.

Best he got SO FAR was an executive who took home $1.7 million without paying taxes on any of it. Reducing it to a car shows either ignorance or dishonesty.

I did read the briefs....he used the same argument outlined by the Obama admin, and prior admins before him in regards to a State issued sub. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf

$1.7 over 15 years, most of which is alleged to be owed to the Feds, the vast majority of it, and the Feds are like...we don't care...this is a non-issue.

He claimed absolute immunity from state criminal investigation. That is not something any other administration has argued.

He thought he was above the law.

 

[martybegan]

He didn't claim he was above the law, everyday citizens right against subpeanas all the time. He was exercising his right to go to Court to redress an issue.

His argument before the court was that as president he is above the law.

You shoulda read the briefs.

Best he got SO FAR was an executive who took home $1.7 million without paying taxes on any of it. Reducing it to a car shows either ignorance or dishonesty.

His argument was that WHILE President only the House and Senate have the power to indict, try and convict him.

Not "above the law", but according to the law.

 

[martybegan]

He didn't claim he was above the law, everyday citizens right against subpeanas all the time. He was exercising his right to go to Court to redress an issue.

His argument before the court was that as president he is above the law.

You shoulda read the briefs.

Best he got SO FAR was an executive who took home $1.7 million without paying taxes on any of it. Reducing it to a car shows either ignorance or dishonesty.

I did read the briefs....he used the same argument outlined by the Obama admin, and prior admins before him in regards to a State issued sub. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf

$1.7 over 15 years, most of which is alleged to be owed to the Feds, the vast majority of it, and the Feds are like...we don't care...this is a non-issue.

He claimed absolute immunity from state criminal investigation. That is not something any other administration has argued.

He thought he was above the law.

Only while he was President, and only due to the fact the Constitution places the onus for prosecuting anything on a President onto congress.

No other administration had to deal with the level of hate shown to his.

 

[colfax_m]

His argument was that WHILE President only the House and Senate have the power to indict, try and convict him.

The fact that he was fighting a subpoena and not an indictment should tell you that your excuse is false.

 

[martybegan]

His argument was that WHILE President only the House and Senate have the power to indict, try and convict him.

The fact that he was fighting a subpoena and not an indictment should tell you that your excuse is false.

Fine, add subpoena to the list, it's still only congress that has the power under our Constitution.

Anyone else has to wait until congress kicks the person out using the indictment process.

 

[colfax_m]

No other administration had to deal with the level of hate shown to his.

Nixon was always complaining about people out to get him too and as we all know he was so innocent.

Your back must hurt from carrying Trump’s water.

 

[colfax_m]

Fine, add subpoena to the list, it's still only congress that has the power under our Constitution.

The power to subpoena the president?

Nope. That’s a lie. Trump has filled your brain with delusional lies.

 

[martybegan]

No other administration had to deal with the level of hate shown to his.

Nixon was always complaining about people out to get him too and as we all know he was so innocent.

Your back must hurt from carrying Trump’s water.

Going to Nixon? Really?

 

[martybegan]

Fine, add subpoena to the list, it's still only congress that has the power under our Constitution.

The power to subpoena the president?

Nope. That’s a lie. Trump has filled your brain with delusional lies.

If States could subpoena the president at will the system would choke on itself. Federal is superior to State, and at the fed level the President can only be removed or even summoned by congress.

 

[struth]

He didn't claim he was above the law, everyday citizens right against subpeanas all the time. He was exercising his right to go to Court to redress an issue.

His argument before the court was that as president he is above the law.

You shoulda read the briefs.

Best he got SO FAR was an executive who took home $1.7 million without paying taxes on any of it. Reducing it to a car shows either ignorance or dishonesty.

I did read the briefs....he used the same argument outlined by the Obama admin, and prior admins before him in regards to a State issued sub. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf

$1.7 over 15 years, most of which is alleged to be owed to the Feds, the vast majority of it, and the Feds are like...we don't care...this is a non-issue.

He claimed absolute immunity from state criminal investigation. That is not something any other administration has argued.

He thought he was above the law.

while in office...which is not a unique argument...if you read the briefs, or the opinion of the SCOTUS, you'd know that because you'd see all the cites. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-635/130827/20200203173916735_19-635tsacUnitedStates.pdf

If he thought he was above the law, he wouldn't of followed the Court's order. He made an argument just like any other person has a right to do, and made a similar argument that prior Presidents have made.

 

[colfax_m]

If States could subpoena the president at will the system would choke on itself. Federal is superior to State, and at the fed level the President can only be removed or even summoned by congress

They can subpoena the president.

Hell, a damn office staffer could subpoena the president in a civil suit for sexual harassment.

You’re delusional. A subpoena does not remove a president, dumbass. Your argument doesn’t even make sense.

 

[colfax_m]

If he thought he was above the law, he wouldn't of followed the Court's order. He made an argument just like any other person has a right to do, and made a similar argument that prior Presidents have made

His argument was that he was above the law.

If you think Obama made a similar argument, cite the case.