Advertisement

Find answers, ask questions, and connect with our community around the world.

  • Federal Prosecutors open investigation in Trump inaugural committee spending

    Posted by btomba_77 on December 13, 2018 at 3:06 pm

     [link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-inauguration-spending-under-criminal-investigation-by-federal-prosecutors-11544736455]The Wall Street Journal 

    [/link]

    Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether President Trumps 2017 inaugural committee misspent some of the [link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-inaugural-committee-spent-nearly-107-million-on-events-1518722022?mod=article_inline]record $107 million it raised from donations[/link], people familiar with the matter said.

    The criminal probe by the Manhattan U.S. attorneys office, which is in its early stages, also is examining whether some of the committees top donors gave money in exchange for access to the incoming Trump administration, policy concessions or to influence official administration positions, some of the people said.

    Giving money in exchange for political favors could run afoul of federal corruption laws. Diverting funds from the organization, which was registered as a nonprofit, could also violate federal law.

    The investigation represents another potential legal threat to people who are or were in Mr. Trumps orbit. Their business dealings and activities during and since the campaign have led to a number of indictments and guilty pleas. Many of the presidents biggest campaign backers were involved in the inaugural fund.

    The investigation partly arises out of materials seized in the federal probe of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohens business dealings, according to people familiar with the matter.

    In April raids of Mr. Cohens home, office and hotel room, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents obtained a recorded conversation between Mr. Cohen and Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former adviser to Melania Trump, who worked on the inaugural events. In the recording, Ms. Wolkoff expressed concern about how the inaugural committee was spending money, according to a person familiar with the Cohen investigation.

    [/QUOTE]

    btomba_77 replied 1 year, 8 months ago 8 Members · 45 Replies
  • 45 Replies
  • kaldridgewv2211

    Member
    December 13, 2018 at 5:39 pm

    Interesting because at the beginning of the campaign there was already questions about where the money went. So they finally pulled the trigger to investigate.

    • btomba_77

      Member
      December 13, 2018 at 5:45 pm

      Quote from DICOM_Dan

      Interesting because at the beginning of the campaign there was already questions about where the money went. So they finally pulled the trigger to investigate.

      Look like the Cohen raid gave them enough evidence to go ahead.

      • btomba_77

        Member
        December 13, 2018 at 6:03 pm

        Well, if past is prelude then Trump must be deeply involved…

        [link=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/421339-white-house-distances-trump-from-inaugural-committee-amid-new]https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis…ittee-amid-new[/link]

        [i]White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders distanced [link=https://thehill.com/people/donald-trump]President Trump[/link] from his inauguration committee Friday amid reports that it is being investigated by federal prosecutors.

        “That doesn’t have anything to do with the president or the first lady,” Sanders told reporters, [link=https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/politics/trump-inauguration-spending-investigation/index.html]according to CNN[/link].[/i]
         
        [i]____[/i]
         
        Every time Huck San goes out of her way to say that it has nothing to do with Trump it turns out to have everything to do with Trump.

        • kaldridgewv2211

          Member
          December 13, 2018 at 6:52 pm

          So they’re saying FBI raid turned up a Cohen tape of him and Melanias assistant who said something like she was worried about how the money was being spent

          Melania looking at some troubles ahead?

          • kaldridgewv2211

            Member
            December 13, 2018 at 7:29 pm

            So the further details on that look like the Melania friend/assistant setup a shell company that got paid $26million for event planning.

          • 19462008

            Member
            December 13, 2018 at 7:41 pm

            Quote from DICOM_Dan

            So they’re saying FBI raid turned up a Cohen tape of him and Melanias assistant who said something like she was worried about how the money was being spent

            Melania looking at some troubles ahead?

            Huh? a first lady possibly involved in a crime? This sound soooooo familiar! 
            [ul][*]20% of our Uranium Sold to our Enemy[*]Accepted very large Donations from the Russians to her Campaign[*]Top secret emails on a personal server – subpoena to bring forth… no show. evaded. blew the legal request off.[*]Scrubs all info from it. No one can’t find it.  [*]A federal crime committed but nothing happened.[*]Melania will no doubt play from the best liar in the world. [/ul]

            • Unknown Member

              Deleted User
              December 13, 2018 at 7:45 pm

              Did Jesus teach you blame the Clintons for everything

              • btomba_77

                Member
                December 13, 2018 at 8:09 pm

                [img]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/63/71/2f/63712f3070591d9dec334f1c0d6af69b.jpg[/img]

              • Unknown Member

                Deleted User
                December 13, 2018 at 8:29 pm

                I think it’s more likely that Jesus taught you to forgive
                every politician prior to Trump.  The far left democrats like you
                and all the progressive radiologists here like to fantasize about the
                pre-Trump days when no politician ever lied or violated campaign contribution laws.
                 
                A federal grand jury in North Carolina indicted [b]Edwards[/b] in 2011 on six felony charges of violating multiple federal [b]campaign[/b] contribution laws to cover up an extramarital affair to which he admitted, following his 2008 [b]campaign[/b].  Edwards somehow was found innocent.
                 
                President Barack Obamas 2008 campaign was fined $375,000 by the Federal Election Commission for campaign reporting violations one of the largest fees ever levied against a presidential campaign, POLITICO has learned.  Fine. No jail time. No impeachment.
                 
                Jesus didn’t teach anyone to blame the Clintons for everything.  Jesus does know that Mr. Clinton was impeached and that Mr. Clinton was a violent rapist.
                 
                Yes we know that Mr. Clinton is no longer president.  We know that it’s the politics of now.  Let’s ignore every indiscretions pre-Trump.  Let’s ignore the unemployment rate and rising wages.  Let’s pretend that Trump is the first womanizer in elected politics.  Let’s ignore the taxpayer funded hush fund for congressmen who have had to pay off 
                the Stormy Daniels of yesterday.  I guess you think that is money well spent?
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 

                • Unknown Member

                  Deleted User
                  December 14, 2018 at 4:17 am

                  If you make a clerical error or honest mistake during a campaign you pay a fine

                  If you make an attempt to hide a cash payment to payoff a poem star…. its a crime

                  • Unknown Member

                    Deleted User
                    December 14, 2018 at 4:19 am

                    Big big big difference between making clerical errors and disguising payments to cover up transgressions

                    The trump apologists are sick peoples

                  • Unknown Member

                    Deleted User
                    December 14, 2018 at 4:19 am

                    Big big big difference between making clerical errors and disguising payments to cover up transgressions

                    The trump apologists are sick peoples

                    • kaldridgewv2211

                      Member
                      December 14, 2018 at 1:07 pm

                      Not sure how Melania as FLOTUS is being compared to alleged scandals of HRC while she was secretary no of state(not FLOTUS). I do love the gave our uranium idea. Uranium One a Canadian company. Also had interagency approval.

                    • yao.bw39_792

                      Member
                      December 14, 2018 at 1:14 pm

                       
                      Sorry can’t cut and paste.
                      Rawstory has article on inaugural funds being funneled into trumps pockets by overcharging it for Trump Hotel services.

                • kayla.meyer_144

                  Member
                  December 14, 2018 at 1:31 pm

                  And your conspiratorial arguments have what to do with anything?
                   
                  What’s next? Clintons murdered several people and never got charged so obviously…
                   
                  Re. Edwards, as if this is somehow pertinent to Trump’s corruption.
                   
                   

                  On June 3, 2011, Edwards was indicted by a [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_grand_jury]federal grand jury[/link] in North Carolina on six felony charges, including four counts of collecting illegal campaign contributions, one count of conspiracy, and one count of making false statements.
                   
                  On May 31, 2012, Edwards was found not guilty on Count 3, illegal use of campaign funding (contributions from [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Lambert_Mellon]Rachel “Bunny” Mellon[/link]), while mistrials were declared on all other counts against him.

                   
                  As for Obama’s case, please explain your argument and rationale. From your Politico article:
                   
                   

                  $375,000 is a huge fine, said Republican election lawyer Jason Torchinsky. It may one of their top five- or 10-largest fines. 
                  But he added, Theyre also the first billion-dollar presidential campaign. Proportionally, its not out of line.
                   
                  But for context, failed Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole set a record for FEC fines on his 1996 campaign when he paid $100,000 two years later.
                   
                  At the time, the 2008 campaign was record breaking, with over 3 million grass-roots donors, Obama campaign spokewoman Katie Hogan said. The very few outstanding questions about the $750 million that was raised have now all been resolved.
                   
                  But independent experts, including former FEC commissioner Michael Toner, said after the audit was released that the infractions were relatively minor, given the scope of the campaign.

                   
                  You might recall, Bob Dole did not go to prison for this either.
                   

                  • btomba_77

                    Member
                    December 14, 2018 at 1:47 pm

                    Trumps Inauguration Paid Trumps Company[/h1]  
                    When it came out this year that President Trumps inaugural committee raised and spent unprecedented amounts, people wondered where all that money went, [link=https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-trumps-inauguration-paid-trumps-company-with-ivanka-in-the-middle]ProPublica[/link] reports.
                     
                     
                    It turns out one beneficiary was Trump himself.
                     
                    The inauguration paid the Trump Organization for rooms, meals and event space at the companys Washington hotel During the planning, Ivanka Trump, the president-elects eldest daughter and a senior executive with the Trump Organization, was involved in negotiating the price the hotel charged the 58th Presidential Inaugural Committee for venue rentals.

                     

                • kayla.meyer_144

                  Member
                  December 14, 2018 at 1:49 pm

                  As for Obama impeachment, a magical rabbit out of your hat. Congress was controlled by Republicans, if there was any case at all they were looking for a reason to impeach Obama & found nothing, zero, zilch, nada.

                  • Unknown Member

                    Deleted User
                    December 14, 2018 at 8:16 pm

                    Ok, done trying to debate with idiots.
                    At this point it is crystal clear that a vote for
                    a democrat is a vote against prosperity.
                    The idiot leftists here hope and pray for
                    the failure of our great country. I hope you get
                    your wish. The low IQ radiologists here clearly
                    don’t understand the principles that this country
                    wad built on. We don’t want to be Europe.

                    • tdetlie_105

                      Member
                      December 14, 2018 at 10:01 pm

                      Quote from IR_CONSULT

                      Ok, done trying to debate with idiots.
                      At this point it is crystal clear that a vote for
                      a democrat is a vote against prosperity.
                      The idiot leftists here hope and pray for
                      the failure of our great country. I hope you get
                      your wish. The low IQ radiologists here clearly
                      don’t understand the principles that this country
                      wad built on. We don’t want to be Europe.

                       
                      You can’t debate politics if you’re on opposite sites of the spectrum.  It’s like Yankee fans debating with Red-sox fans, Israeli’s debating with Palestinians etc.  Each see the world through a certain rigid prism which is based more on emotion than intellect, therefore debating does little except create more animosity. This is why this forum is essentially a dead echo chamber. 

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      December 15, 2018 at 5:03 am

                      Maybe if ideas were discussed instead of non sequiturs thrown about. Where oh where is the intellect being presented jd? Insinuations that the system is rigged using examples like Edwards not being convicted by a jury or a Obama not being impeached because you & IR see identical issues with Cohen without showing any facts at all?

                      Yes, the Right is making empty & specious arguments emotionally. You cant complain about betting with an empty hand when your bluffs dont work & you lose the bet.

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      December 15, 2018 at 5:14 am

                      Jd, you want to see the intellectual heft of the Rights arguments? Simply read the story of the closing of the Weekly Standard & you have your answer.

                      Any intellectual arguments tend to be anti-Trumpet & therefore are opposed by the Trumpets who generally rely on you alternate facts to make your cases.

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      December 15, 2018 at 6:55 am

                      Quote from jd4540

                      Quote from IR_CONSULT

                      Ok, done trying to debate with idiots.
                      At this point it is crystal clear that a vote for
                      a democrat is a vote against prosperity.
                      The idiot leftists here hope and pray for
                      the failure of our great country. I hope you get
                      your wish. The low IQ radiologists here clearly
                      don’t understand the principles that this country
                      wad built on. We don’t want to be Europe.

                      You can’t debate politics if you’re on opposite sites of the spectrum.  It’s like Yankee fans debating with Red-sox fans, Israeli’s debating with Palestinians etc.  Each see the world through a certain rigid prism which is based more on emotion than intellect, therefore debating does little except create more animosity. This is why this forum is essentially a dead echo chamber. 

                      One final note, I assume neither of you watch or listen to panels discuss issues, panels made up of opposite viewpoint representatives say on NPR or  PBS, etc. You know the ones that are not “echo chambers,” where each side, whether 2 sides or multiple sides represent their viewpoints equally without shouting & invective. I usually see or read them on so-called “liberal” media sites. I do recall Firing Line with Buckley that occasionally got hostile but Buckley’s guests were still able to strongly present their arguments as did Buckley.
                       
                      Again, back to the Weekly Standard, closing down opposing viewpoints has been almost the exclusive territory of the Right for years now. Shutting down debates and contrary opinions has been a long practice by the Right. Recall “Epistemic Closure,” a nom de guerre given to the issue of shutting down arguments and those making the arguments that went against the right-wing’s echo chamber positions by Right wing participants. Like Julian Sanchez at the time. This was wayyy back in 2010. 
                       
                      [link=http://www.juliansanchez.com/2010/03/26/frum-cocktail-parties-and-the-threat-of-doubt/]http://www.juliansanchez….d-the-threat-of-doubt/[/link]
                      [b] [/b]

                      [b]One of the more striking features of the contemporary conservative movement is the extent to which it has been moving toward epistemic closure. Reality is defined by a multimedia array of interconnected and cross promoting conservative blogs, radio programs, magazines, and of course, Fox News. Whatever conflicts with that reality can be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the liberal media, and is therefore ipso facto not to be trusted. (How do you know theyre liberal? Well, they disagree with the conservative media!)[/b]  This epistemic closure can be a source of solidarity and energy, but it also renders the conservative media ecosystem fragile. Think of the complete panic Chinas rulers feel about any breaks in their Internet firewall: The more successfully external sources of information have been excluded to date, the more unpredictable the effects of a breach become. Internal criticism is then especially problematic, because it threatens the hermetic seal. Its not just that any particular criticism might have to be taken seriously coming from a fellow conservative. Rather, its that anything that breaks down the tacit equivalence between critic of conservatives and wicked liberal smear artist undermines the effectiveness of the entire information filter.  If disagreement is not in itself evidence of malign intent or moral degeneracy, people start feeling an obligation to engage it sincerelymaybe even when it comes from the New York Times. [b]And there is nothing more potentially fatal to the momentum of an insurgency fueled by anger than a conversation[/b].
                       
                      [b]To prevent breach, the internal dissident needs to be resituated in the enemy camp.[/b]

                      [b][/b]
                       
                      [link=http://themoderatevoice.com/conservative-reality-or-not/]http://themoderatevoice.c…vative-reality-or-not/[/link]
                       

                      Predictably, conservatives dont like being compared to Communist Chinese. But in that one brief passage. Mr. Sanchez has crystallized one of the major problems with modern conservatism; what I term its [link=http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2009/09/29/silence-equals-assent-why-pointing-out-conservative-lunacy-must-be-done/]negative feedback loop[/link] of information exchange. Epistemic closure, by any other name, is an echo chamber effect; a disease that afflicts both sides but that, for some reason, is especially virulent on the right. 
                       
                      But Sanchez goes beyond the obvious to posit the notion that the very reality inhabited by the right is a Matrix-like construct, created out of the resentments and false assumptions made by conservatives about the world around them. 

                       
                       
                       
                       

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      December 15, 2018 at 7:17 am

                      You got me on a roll. This from Jim Manzi regarding the closure of discussion on the Right. Manzi was demonized by the Right for his rational arguments and criticism of closing the mind against counter arguments by the Right.
                       
                      [link=https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/liberty-and-tyranny-and-epistemic-closure-jim-manzi/]https://www.nationalrevie…mic-closure-jim-manzi/[/link]
                       

                      Jonah notes [link=http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/the-conservative-mind-circa-2010]Ross Douthat[/link]s very interesting post, in which Ross had this to say:
                      [blockquote]Conservative domestic policy would be in better shape if conservative magazines and conservative columnists were more willing to call out Republican politicians (and, to a lesser extent, conservative entertainers) for offering bromides instead of substance, and for pandering instead of grappling with real policy questions.
                      [/blockquote]  
                      I started to read Mark Levins massive bestseller [link=http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Tyranny-Conservative-Mark-Levin/dp/1416562850]Liberty and Tyranny[/link] a number of months ago as debate swirled around it. I wasnt expecting a PhD thesis (and in fact had hoped to write a post supporting the book as a well-reasoned case for certain principles that upset academics just because it didnt employ a bunch of pseudo-intellectual tropes). But when I waded into the first couple of chapters, I found that  while I had a lot of sympathy for many of its basic points  it seemed to all but ignore the most obvious counter-arguments that could be raised to any of its assertions. This sounds to me like a pretty good plain English meaning of epistemic closure. The problem with this, of course, is that unwillingness to confront the strongest evidence or arguments contrary to our own beliefs normally means we fail to learn quickly, and therefore persist in correctable error.
                       
                      It was awful. It was so bad that it was like the proverbial clock that chimes 13 times  not only is it obviously wrong, but it is so wrong that it leads you to question every other piece of information it has ever provided.
                      Levin argues that human-caused global warming is nothing to worry about, and merely an excuse for the Enviro-Statists (capitalization in the original) to seize more power. It reads like a bunch of pasted-together quotes and stories based on some quick Google searches by somebody who knows very little about the topic, and cant be bothered to learn. After pages devoted to talking about prior global cooling fears, and some ridiculous or cynical comments by advocates for emissions restrictions (and one quote from Richard Lindzen, a very serious climate scientist who disputes the estimated magnitude of the greenhouse effect, but not its existence), he gets to the key question on page 184 (eBook edition):
                      [blockquote][D]oes carbon dioxide actually affect temperature levels?
                      [/blockquote] Levin does not attempt to answer this question by making a fundamental argument that proceeds from evidence available for common inspection through a defined line of logic to a scientific view. Instead, he argues from authority by citing experts who believe that the answer to this question is pretty much no. Who are they? An associate professor of astrophysics, a geologist, and an astronaut.

                       
                       

                • btomba_77

                  Member
                  December 15, 2018 at 5:21 am

                  Quote from IR_CONSULT

                  A federal grand jury in North Carolina indicted [b]Edwards[/b] in 2011 on six felony charges of violating multiple federal [b]campaign[/b] contribution laws to cover up an extramarital affair to which he admitted, following his 2008 [b]campaign[/b].  Edwards somehow was found innocent.

                   
                  [url=https://abovethelaw.com/2018/12/stop-comparing-donald-trumps-campaign-finance-fraud-with-john-edwardss-case/]Stop Comparing Donald Trumps Campaign Finance Fraud With John Edwardss Case. The agreements today should forever end this stupid connection between Donald Trump’s alleged crimes and John Edwards’s acquittal.[/url]
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   

                  The cases of John Edwards paying off his mistress and Donald Trump paying off his mistresses are easily distinguishable. Lets roll through the three highlights:
                   
                   
                  1. TRUMPS CO-CONSPIRATORS ADMIT TO THE FRAUDULENT CONSPIRACY
                   
                  John Edwardss main defense was that he didnt know he was using campaign money when he paid off Hunter. He argued that he did not know that the serendipitous donation Young testified to was campaign money. I find that argument to be bollocks, but Trump cannot credibly make the same claim. Thats in part because of the OTHER co-conspirator who kind of rolled on Trump today.
                   
                   
                  2. THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER WAS PART OF THE HUSH MONEY SCHEME
                   
                  People like to throw around the term plausible deniability like it inculcates wrongdoers who are smart enough to not keep notes about their criminal enterprises. But we shouldnt read plausible out of the phrase. Trump can, of course, deny that he had any knowledge of what AMI was doing on his behalf, but NOBODY is required to believe him. If Cohen says that they paid off McDougal and AMI says that they paid off McDougal and everybody agrees that they did it to influence the election, and Trump was aware that there was a Karen McDougal running around with stories to tell, then Trump saying I didnt know they were trying to influence the election is not an argument that passes the smell test.
                  John Edwards didnt have this problem. Edwardss defense did not rest on him not knowing who Reille Hunter was, or not knowing that people were trying to keep her quiet. Edwards was not asking people to disregard common freaking sense.
                  Instead, Edwardss lawyers positioned the former candidate in a completely different position than lackeys are advocating we view Donald Trump.
                   
                   
                  3. JOHN EDWARDS ADMITTED TO BEING A HORRIBLE HUMAN
                   
                  The only way out for Trump is down. Like, figuratively on his knees, begging for forgiveness. Trump has yet to ADMIT to having these affairs with these women. The argument, last seen emanating from sentient canker sore [link=https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-what-crimes-did-president-trump-commit-in-the-michael-cohen-case]Tucker Carlson[/link], that Trump was extorted by Daniels and McDougal, plays into the hands of Trumps (eventual) prosecutors.
                   
                  And if it ever gets in front of an impartial jury (which it wont, also because we dont have a machine which allows up to go back to in time and abduct people with no opinions on President Trump), Trumps repeated lies about the core affairs are whats going to sink him.
                   
                   
                   
                  Edwards played his hand in a focused manner to get out of the specific charges of campaign finance violations. Trump is playing his hand randomly to I dont know, sell more hats? There has been no sound or even consistent legal strategy to deal with any of the allegations that have beset Trump for two years, and I dont think hell come up with one any time soon.
                   
                   
                  The two situations have almost nothing to do with each other anymore. John Edwards was a failed presidential candidate arguing a specific legal technicality to keep himself out of jail. Trump is a successful presidential candidate under investigation by seemingly every law enforcement agency in the country who isnt in jail already because the Secret Service works for him. The legal danger the two men were in is not comparable.
                   
                  The John Edwards defense cannot save Trump now.
                   

                   
                  So … does it mean that Trump is likely guilty of a felony? Yes.
                   
                  Does it mean that he is likely to be removed from office because of it? No. We’ve seen this story before.  Bill Clinton was guilty of perjury and it was enough to convict him in the Senate.
                   
                  Does it mean that SDNY might indict/attempt to indict Trump either now when he is in office or after he leaves office? Maybe.  Stay tuned.
                   
                  Does it mean a jury is 100% likely to convict Trump for a felony if it were to ever go to court? No. Trump has a defense in this case.  I don’t personally buy it, but he could rally a fair defense.

  • btomba_77

    Member
    August 31, 2020 at 11:25 am

    Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former friend and adviser to Melania Trump, told ABC Newsshe is working with multiple prosecutors on investigations into potential financial crimes committed in connection with President Trumps inauguration.

    Said Wolkoff: Im working with three different prosecutors, and its taken over my life.

    • kayla.meyer_144

      Member
      August 31, 2020 at 11:31 am

      Yes, looking like Melania too is a $3 bill and with a sour fake smile.

      • ruszja

        Member
        August 31, 2020 at 12:04 pm

        I am glad they got to the bottom of this and had all those people hauled off to jail.

      • kaldridgewv2211

        Member
        August 31, 2020 at 2:01 pm

        Quote from Frumious

        Yes, looking like Melania too is a $3 bill and with a sour fake smile.

        don’t forget she’s getting paid by places like Getty images for photos.  She was making 6 figures off of that.  She’s their to bilk the system for whatever she can too.

        • btomba_77

          Member
          September 14, 2020 at 6:56 am

          [b]Should Trump Be Prosecuted If He Loses?[/b][/h1]  
          [link=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/donald-trump-criminal-prosecution.html]Jonathan Chait[/link]: Bidens position on this problem is easy enough: He will leave it up to the prosecutors. But what will the prosecutors do? The prospect of fitting the orange man for an orange jumpsuit, delicious as it may seem for MSNBC viewers (or readers of this magazine), would create new problems of its own. To begin with, it would be essential that any prosecution of Trump not only be fair and free of any political interference but be seen as fair. A prosecution that appears vindictive would serve only to confirm the politicization of the law that Trump has done so much to advance. Prosecutors in New York and the Justice Department can make every effort to apply the law neutrally, not singling out Trump for punishment, but it will be difficult to avoid the impression of banana-republicanism formed by the sequence of a Trump criminal trial following an election defeat especially when his supporters have been primed to fight witch hunts for years. Want to lock up the Lock her up! guy? Good luck avoiding the appearance of turnabout, however legally legitimate the process.
           
          An incoming Biden administration is going to need a peaceful transition not least because the federal government will probably be either distributing or in the final stages of approving vaccines and treatments for a pandemic that has killed nearly 200,000 Americans and is crippling the economy. Biden will require months of some form of broad social cooperation with measures like mask wearing and vaccine uptake, all of which could easily and legally be sabotaged by a cornered Trump.

           

          • kayla.meyer_144

            Member
            September 14, 2020 at 7:13 am

            Time for that later, is too big a distraction now. Democratic voters aren’t like Republican voters taking molehill or made up issues like “Lock her up!” for using non-government emails or BENGHAZI!!!
             
            First win the election.

            • kaldridgewv2211

              Member
              September 14, 2020 at 6:01 pm

              In the instance DJT goes away and we have Joe, I think Trump has to skate on federal charges. Biden shouldnt be like Trump. Besides state governments like NY can probably have a field day.

  • btomba_77

    Member
    December 2, 2020 at 5:00 pm

    Ivanka Trump was deposed Tuesday by the DC attorney general’s office as part of its lawsuit alleging misuse of inauguration funds, according to a new court filing.
     
     
     
     
    (Fake News! Why aren’t they investigating Sleepy Joe!!)

  • btomba_77

    Member
    December 4, 2020 at 11:55 am

    [link=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/528784-dc-attorney-general-ivanka-trump-highly-misleading-on-lawsuit][b]DC attorney general: Ivanka Trump ‘highly misleading’ on lawsuit deposition[/b]

    [/link]
    Washington, D.C., Attorney General [link=https://thehill.com/person/karl-racine]Karl Racine[/link] said on Thursday that [link=https://thehill.com/people/ivana-ivanka-trump]Ivanka Trump[/link]’s public comments regarding her deposition in an investigation into her father’s inauguration was highly misleading.” 

    Racine said that he did not agree with Trump’s public comments on the matter. 
     
    With all due respect to Ivanka Trump, what she put out today was highly misleading, and at best, part of the story.”
     

  • btomba_77

    Member
    December 4, 2020 at 1:13 pm

    “……the committee paid $175,000 for the space in Trump Hotel … for the Presidential Prayer Breakfast, it cost just $5,000 for the same space.

    $175,000 charged to the inauguration committee, $5,000 charged for another not-for-profit. Doesnt sound like a fair market rate to me.”

  • btomba_77

    Member
    February 24, 2021 at 12:57 pm

    [b]Don Jr. Deposed In Inaugural Funds Lawsuit[/b][/h1]  
    Donald Trump Jr. was deposed as part of the Washington, DC, attorney generals lawsuit alleging the misuse of Trump inaugural funds, [link=https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/24/politics/donald-trump-jr-deposition/index.html]CNN[/link] reports.

     

  • btomba_77

    Member
    June 28, 2021 at 11:50 am

    [h1]Documents Show Ivanka Trump Didnt Testify Accurately[/h1]  
    [link=https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/06/documents-show-ivanka-trump-didnt-testify-accurately-in-inauguration-scandal-case/]Mother Jones[/link]: During a December 1 deposition in which she swore to tell the truth Ivanka Trump, the eldest daughter of Donald Trump who was an executive at the Trump Organization before becoming a White House adviser to her father, was asked if she had any involvement in the process of planning the inauguration. She replied, I really didnt have an involvement.
     
    Ivanka testified that if her opinion was solicited regarding an inauguration event, she would give feedback to my father or to anyone who asked my perspective or opinion. And that was as far as her participation went. But this wasnt accurate, according to the documents, which indicate she was part of the decision-making for various aspects of the inauguration, including even the menus for events. One email chain shows that Ivanka Trump was directly involved in the planning of at least one proposed event for the inauguration.
     

    • btomba_77

      Member
      July 20, 2021 at 11:46 am

      [link=https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/20/thomas-barrack-chairman-of-trump-2017-inaugural-fund-arrested-on-federal-charge.html?__source=sharebar]https://www.cnbc.com/2021…html?__source=sharebar[/link]|twitter&par=sharebar

      [b]Trump Inaugural Chair Thomas Barrack arrested on federal charge

      [/b]

      Thomas Barrack, who served as chairman of the 2017 inaugural fund for then-President Donald Trump, has been arrested on federal charges, several law enforcement officials told NBC News on Tuesday.
       
      The charges against Barrack, which apparently are not connected to the inauguration-related fund, are expected to be unsealed soon.
       
      Barrack is a longtime friend of Trumps.

      [/QUOTE]
       

      • btomba_77

        Member
        July 22, 2021 at 4:55 am

        Looks like Barrack is in some real trouble.
         
        Burners phones provided by the UAE and lying to investigators.
         
        It doesn’t look like a full on espionage charge, but it’s not just a ticky tack failure to declare lobbying charge either.
         
         
        He’s being charged for acting as a foreign agent.
         
         

        • kaldridgewv2211

          Member
          July 22, 2021 at 8:35 am

          You would think this would also mean trouble for the UAE.  But who am I kidding.  They have the oil.

  • btomba_77

    Member
    July 24, 2021 at 3:26 am

    [b]Tom Barrack Strikes a $250 Million Bail Deal[/b][/h1]  
    A federal magistrate judge on Friday ordered Tom Barrack, a longtime associate of former President Donald Trump who was indicted earlier this week on charges of illegal foreign lobbying, released from jail pending trial, freeing him on a bail package that includes a $250 million bond secured by $5 million in cash, [link=https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/23/politics/tom-barrack-bail-hearing/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+CNN+-+Politics%29]CNN[/link] reports.

     

    • btomba_77

      Member
      February 16, 2022 at 4:30 am

      [h1][b]Trump Organization reinstated as defendant in DC AG’s case against Trump’s inaugural committee[/b][/h1]  
      A Washington, DC, court reinstated the Trump Organization as a defendant in a lawsuit the DC attorney general brought against former President Donald Trumps 2017 inaugural committee, [link=https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/15/politics/trump-organization-reinstated-inaugural-committee-lawsuit/index.html]CNN[/link] reports.

      In the case, DC Attorney General Karl Racine is accusing Trump’s 2017 Presidential Inaugural Committee [link=https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/22/politics/dc-attorney-general-sues-presidential-inaugural-committee/index.html]of misusing non-profit funds[/link] to pay for event space at the Trump Hotel and in other transactions. Racine also alleges the committee paid a debt owed by the Trump Organization.

      {DC Superior Court Judge Yvonne} Williams said in a Monday opinion that the judge who had previously ruled [link=https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/08/politics/trump-inaugural-committee-lawsuit-washington/index.html]in favor of dismissing the case[/link] against the Trump Organization had erred. The previous dismissal decision, which had been issued in November by Judge Jose Lopez, had been based on Racine’s failure to depose two associates of Donald Trump Jr., Gentry Beach and Lindsay Santoro. But, Williams acknowledged on Monday, Racine’s request for additional discovery that covered those two associates had not been ruled on yet.
       

      • btomba_77

        Member
        September 19, 2022 at 4:25 am

        [link=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-allys-trial-foreign-agent-charges-start-with-jury-selection-2022-09-19/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=twitter]https://www.reuters.com/w…amp;utm_source=twitter[/link]

        [h1]Tom Barrack’s trial on foreign agent charges to start with jury selection today[/h1]
        The trial is expected to focus on allegations that UAE officials gave Barrack input about what to say in television interviews, what then-candidate Trump should say in a 2016 energy policy speech, and who should be appointed ambassador to Abu Dhabi.

        Prosecutors have said Barrack, Grimes and Al Malik never told the U.S. attorney general they were acting as UAE agents as required under federal law.
        Barrack’s lawyers have said the U.S. State Department, and Trump himself, knew of his contacts with Middle East officials, showing that Barrack did not intend to be a foreign agent.
         

        • ruszja

          Member
          September 19, 2022 at 6:02 am

          Did anybody actually get convicted for the underlying allegation of malfeasance with the inauguration funds ?

          • btomba_77

            Member
            September 19, 2022 at 11:21 am

            Quote from fw

            Did anybody actually get convicted for the underlying allegation of malfeasance with the inauguration funds ?

            nope
             
             
            trump settled with the DC AG in August with no admission of guilt.