Posted on 09/22/2022 6:09:23 PM PDT by Kevin in California
New York’s attorney general says her three-year investigation of former President Donald Trump uncovered potential crimes in the way he ran his real estate empire, including allegations of bank and insurance fraud. So why isn’t Trump being prosecuted? Attorney General Letitia James didn’t seek to slap handcuffs on the Republican this week, as some of his critics hoped. Instead, she announced a civil lawsuit seeking $250 million and his permanent banishment from doing business in the state. Like many things involving the law and Trump, the reasons James, a Democrat, opted for a lawsuit rather than a prosecution are complicated. For one, even if she did want to prosecute Trump, she doesn’t have jurisdiction under state law to bring a criminal case against him or any of the lawsuit's other defendants, including the Trump Organization and his three eldest children, Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric Trump. In New York, the state attorney general’s office is only allowed to prosecute a limited range of offenses on its own, like bid rigging and payroll violations. Otherwise, the office must partner with a county district attorney on a prosecution — as James' office did with the Manhattan district attorney's office in a case against Trump's longtime finance chief — or obtain what’s known as a criminal referral from the governor or a state agency that has jurisdiction over the alleged wrongdoing.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Actually, the “document case” is a nothing burger. The left will stop at nothing to destroy Trump, including bogus accusations about classified documents. You’re doing your part to help them by pretending Trump did anything wrong.
I hope she falls off a subway platform.
She litigates because she’s got nothing to indict.
The good news is, she’s quickly running out of offenses to charge.
Actually I thought so too. I copied it from a guy on twitter, have to give him the credit. He is McKennzo @that_denver
You can’t take a deep breath without it being a potential crime.
Great list of guilty Dems not in cuffs....
We used to spout off “why isn’t Hillary in an orange outfit yet” and joke about it. But she was guilty since the Rose Law firm then Benghazi (which still does make a difference) and the security data on laptops shared with Weiner at home with her and Huma while he awaited final phases of his child crimes charges and went to prison.
Where is that great meme of Hillary and Huma looking forlorn behind bars?
The case she's making is that when Trump applied for loans he put up certain properties as a form of collateral to demonstrate he had sufficient assets to repay the loan in exchange for getting favorable interest.
She's saying he overstated those values and so he committed fraud. Of course all the loans were paid off on time. All of them. The banks have no beef. In fact nobody was harmed. But Orange man bad.
Guilty until proven innocent if you’re of the wrong political stripe. If you’re one of “them” all crimes are ignored until the media (rarely) picks up the story. - then no bail release and down the memory hole it goes. See “Paul Pelosi”.
You nailed it, Kevin.
A three year investigation involving 23 Trump properties, but the civil lawsuit cannot name even one victim!
On Hannity two nights ago, Trump also pointed out that every investigated loan had been paid back in full and on time.
About half of the Associated Press article is devoted to explaining why it was unnecessary or inappropriate to file criminal charges.
These people NEVER give up.
Well … that’s because they found no actual “crimes” committed by DJT. See?
Why haven’t Bill and Hillary been gwillowteened for all their crimes against the US?
“What diggerence, at this point, does it make?
Difference.
Fat fingers.
We are Nicaragua.
Who says we aren’t ruled by Marxism in this country now.
The wording of the records laws under which Trump is being investigated probably leaves considerable wiggle room in regards to sentencing and prosecution. He could be in “violation” of the laws but since no president has ever faced prosecution for these laws, I think a lot of judges may think it’s too murky to bother with sentencing.
It all depends on how what side of their beds that SCOTUS Republicans woke up that day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.