New York State Investigations of Trump and Related

[tek]

I bet he had to sneak into the Tower.

IK, R?

I'd think he'd have to be smuggled in a (very) large canvas laundry bag..

[Kendra]

Do we know if Weisselberg is coming in to work?

Edit, fix stupid auto correct :/

[Kendra]

Erin Burnett/CNN says she's going to have Weisselberg's ex DIL on her show today. On air now PDT, 30 minutes left in the hour.

[Kendra]

Allen Weisselberg's hands were ALL over the Presidential Inauguration Committee's (PIC) $107 Million Dollars.They made ME the cover girl for Trump's grift. Don, Jr. doesn't seem to know anyone or anything. See below what Rick Gates had to say about Weisselberg
@MichaelCohen212

[Kendra]

Here’s something you do not want to miss…Appearing together tonight at 6pm on
@MSNBC

@TheBeatWithAri

@AriMelber
will be
@SWinstonWolkoff
#JenniferWeisselberg and yours truly,
@MichaelCohen212
. So much to discuss.

[SuzieC]

Watched. Nothing much new. The 3 panelists all agreed that Trump would throw Weisselberg under the bus in a heartbeat, and that all the Trump org criminals would flip on each other. I think all the panelists had more to say but Ari Melber talks too damn much.

[p0rtia]

Melber is the new Chris Matthews. Only even more in love with himself. He used to be quite good. Now he treats the tv camera as a mirror in front of which he must non-stop preen.

[Kendra]

Watched. Nothing much new. The 3 panelists all agreed that Trump would throw Weisselberg under the bus in a hearbeat, and that all the Trump org criminals would flip on each other. I think all the panelists had more to say but Ari Melber talks too damn much.

Thanks. Internet kept cutting out so I missed big chunks. Melber isn't a favorite of mine either, but I do admit to enjoying seeing Cohen speak out, no matter whose show he's on.

[fierceredpanda]

Melber is the new Chris Matthews. Only even more in love with himself. He used to be quite good. Now he treats the tv camera as a mirror in front of which he must non-stop preen.

I agree with all of this except I would assert that Melber was never any better than he is now.

[filly]

The interview was a train wreck, IMHO. Jennifer talks a lot but if she has a train of thought, it was hard to follow. Cohen kept jumping in. Winston-Wolkoff didn't get to speak much, but she kept talking about the "Civil Case" which Melber never bothered to clarify. Put three New Yorkers on a Zoom call and see if you can get a story out.

I was guessing the "Civil Case" is the DC AG's case? I don't know because the highly paid Ari Melber didn't ask. He's horrible. It's obvious he hasn't tried many cases (if at all) because the transcript of that interview will be a mess.

Winston-Wolkoff did remind me, however: what ever happened to the investigation into the Presidential Inaugural Committee? Did Bill Barr kill that too?

[p0rtia]

The interview was a train wreck, IMHO. Jennifer talks a lot but if she has a train of thought, it was hard to follow. Cohen kept jumping in. Winston-Wolkoff didn't get to speak much, but she kept talking about the "Civil Case" which Melber never bothered to clarify. Put three New Yorkers on a Zoom call and see if you can get a story out.

I was guessing the "Civil Case" is the DC AG's case? I don't know because the highly paid Ari Melber didn't ask. He's horrible. It's obvious he hasn't tried many cases (if at all) because the transcript of that interview will be a mess.

Winston-Wolkoff did remind me, however: what ever happened to the investigation into the Presidential Inaugural Committee? Did Bill Barr kill that too?

I think that was one of the issues they were talking about (in that really disjointed way): the PIC.

[Dr. Ken]

Crossposted:

Prosecutor in Trump criminal probe convenes grand jury to hear evidence, weigh potential charges

Manhattan's district attorney has convened the grand jury that is expected to decide whether to indict former president Donald Trump, other executives at his company or the business itself should prosecutors present the panel with criminal charges, according to two people familiar with the development.

The panel was convened recently and will sit three days a week for six months. It is likely to hear several matters — not just the Trump case ­— during the duration of its term, which is longer than a traditional New York state grand-jury assignment, these people said. Like others, they spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. Generally, special grand juries such as this one are convened to participate in long-term matters rather than to hear evidence of crimes charged routinely.

The move indicates that District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr.’s investigation of the former president and his business has reached an advanced stage after more than two years. It suggests, too, that Vance believes he has found evidence of a crime — if not by Trump then by someone potentially close to him or by his company.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... KAbbrx9FEs

[SuzieC]

Six months? I think fierceredpanda warned us that the statute of limitations may expire soon.

However, I believe this is a first in American history.

[sugar magnolia]

Six months? I think fierceredpanda warned us that the statute of limitations may expire soon.

However, I believe this is a first in American history.

I think they can indict at any point during that six months, not that they have to wait six months to indict.

[AndyinPA]

[Editor Korir]

Six months? I think fierceredpanda warned us that the statute of limitations may expire soon.

However, I believe this is a first in American history.

I think they can indict at any point during that six months, not that they have to wait six months to indict.

Aren’t the statute of limitations for criminal tax felonies in NYS only 5years? Which would mean while CIVIL charges could be the end result for tax evasion/fraud from before 2016, it’s only tax evasion/fraud from 2016 to 2021 that can be prosecuted criminally? That’s a narrow window, since proving Trump knew of and participated in NYS tax felonies after Jan 20,2017 will be a heavy lift.

[Kendra]

[filly]

Nobody knows how long the grand jury has been sitting. "Recently" can mean within the last month.

Since the NYT got their hands on 20 years of tax returns, I've long suspected whatever schemes Trump & Co. had been employing would have been continued forward.

Also, too, this story was put out there today for a reason.

[Suranis]

You missed that the Grand Jury is not just to deal with Trump crap.

The panel was convened recently and will sit three days a week for six months. It is likely to hear several matters — not just the Trump case ­— during the duration of its term, which is longer than a traditional New York state grand-jury assignment, these people said.

So they will be dealing with lots of stuff during the 6 months.

[Editor Korir]

Nobody knows how long the grand jury has been sitting. "Recently" can mean within the last month.

Since the NYT got their hands on 20 years of tax returns, I've long suspected whatever schemes Trump & Co. had been employing would have been continued forward.

Also, too, this story was put out there today for a reason.

But if the tax schemes have been continued forward since Jan20, 2017 wouldn’t it be a practical impossibility to indict TFG for any crimes committed after 1/20/2017? And crimes from 2015 and earlier are outside the statute of limitations. So sure, the Trump Organization can be hit with charges covering the last 48 months, but TFG himself?

[filly]

Nobody knows how long the grand jury has been sitting. "Recently" can mean within the last month.

Since the NYT got their hands on 20 years of tax returns, I've long suspected whatever schemes Trump & Co. had been employing would have been continued forward.

Also, too, this story was put out there today for a reason.

But if the tax schemes have been continued forward since Jan20, 2017 wouldn’t it be a practical impossibility to indict TFG for any crimes committed after 1/20/2017? And crimes from 2015 and earlier are outside the statute of limitations. So sure, the Trump Organization can be hit with charges covering the last 48 months, but TFG himself?

Why do you think it would be a "practical impossibility?"

[much ado]

Nobody knows how long the grand jury has been sitting. "Recently" can mean within the last month.

Since the NYT got their hands on 20 years of tax returns, I've long suspected whatever schemes Trump & Co. had been employing would have been continued forward.

Also, too, this story was put out there today for a reason.

But if the tax schemes have been continued forward since Jan20, 2017 wouldn’t it be a practical impossibility to indict TFG for any crimes committed after 1/20/2017? And crimes from 2015 and earlier are outside the statute of limitations. So sure, the Trump Organization can be hit with charges covering the last 48 months, but TFG himself?

IANAL, but hasn't Trump claimed in legal filings that he was immune to prosecution while in office, which argues that the statute of limitations should be tolled during his time in office?

Is there a lawyer in the audience?

[filly]

You missed that the Grand Jury is not just to deal with Trump crap.

The panel was convened recently and will sit three days a week for six months. It is likely to hear several matters — not just the Trump case ­— during the duration of its term, which is longer than a traditional New York state grand-jury assignment, these people said.

So they will be dealing with lots of stuff during the 6 months.

Who's "you?"

[Suranis]

Who's "you?"

Well, I would explain but I really need to floss my teeth and brush my hair and fold my clothes oh goodness is that the time well lovely talking to you lovely weather kiss kiss...

[fierceredpanda]

Nobody knows how long the grand jury has been sitting. "Recently" can mean within the last month.

Since the NYT got their hands on 20 years of tax returns, I've long suspected whatever schemes Trump & Co. had been employing would have been continued forward.

Also, too, this story was put out there today for a reason.

But if the tax schemes have been continued forward since Jan20, 2017 wouldn’t it be a practical impossibility to indict TFG for any crimes committed after 1/20/2017? And crimes from 2015 and earlier are outside the statute of limitations. So sure, the Trump Organization can be hit with charges covering the last 48 months, but TFG himself?

IANAL, but hasn't Trump claimed in legal filings that he was immune to prosecution while in office, which argues that the statute of limitations should be tolled during his time in office?

Is there a lawyer in the audience?

Yes, I am a lawyer.

He has claimed absolute immunity, but no court has found that such absolute immunity actually exists. Of course the NY prosecutors can and - I anticipate - will argue that the statute of limitations should be tolled while the President is in office. I might even subscribe to that argument. But, again, no court has ever made such a ruling, which would very likely be appealed, possibly all the way up to SCOTUS, touching - as it does - on the Executive Powers language of the US Constitution. The only "authority" we really have on the issue of presidential prosecutions isn't actually authoritative at all; just a couple of OLC memoranda declaring the Department of Justice's view that POTUS should not be prosecuted while in office by federal authorities because of the inherent Article I problem of the Executive Branch literally prosecuting itself, not to mention the concerns about distracting the Commander in Chief from his duties, etc. No court has ever fully subscribed to that view. None of this stuff has ever really been tested before a court. It's all what we call "issues of first impression." In short, it's a recipe for lots of appeals and lots of procedural gobbledygook.

Here's another issue to get your head spinning: The DOJ takes the view (in the OLC memos) that even a sealed indictment of the President that is kept under seal and only unsealed once he or she leaves office is verboten. Now I have absolutely no doubt that the Department of Justice would cite that view as a persuasive (read: non-binding) authority for quashing a state court indictment of the sitting President, as well as the distraction concerns and the very real worry that rogue state prosecutors could bring meritless charges to harass a president with whom they disagreed. These arguments were all made during the Mazars litigation for the Manhattan DA's office to get Trump's financial records. But here's the catch: It is entirely feasible (though by no means likely) that courts could rule that POTUS is absolutely immune from state prosecutions during his or her time in office while also ruling that, no, the pertinent statute of limitations is not tolled during that time. While I, and a lot of other lawyers, would strongly object to such a decision on the basis that it formally places the President above the law, a court might reason that it was simply balancing the need to protect the office of the Presidency with the desire to treat the President like any other citizen with regard to the rationale for statutes of limitation, namely the transience of memory and the spoliation of evidence.

This is an issue that could keep law professors arguing for days over what a court could or should do. No one really knows anything, except that it's basically guaranteed to be a great big mess. My reason for sounding the "hurry up and indict if you're going to" trumpet earlier is that I think New York's argument for tolling the statute gets weaker with every day that passes, because the burden is going to be on them to show that they moved as fast as possible under the circumstances.