My wife thinks the Trump business fraud charges that everyone's harping on DA Bragg about...

[brooklynite]

...would have been extremely hard to prove. Property values are a variable thing. You would need to prove KNOWLEDGE of the variation and INTENT to deceive on Trump's part (as opposed to decisions made by accountants or underlings.

(That's my wife, the former Federal prosecutor)

[elleng]

1. Similarly difficult to prove: perjury.

[BlackSkimmer]

2. Nothing is going to happen to him in terms of liability for criminal acts.

Nothing. I’d put money on it.

Actually, I have money on it with a friend.

[ZonkerHarris]

15. You will win.

[BlackSkimmer]

18. I feel certain of it.

I’d love to lose that money, but…

[Hoyt]

3. Agree with her. Hard to prove or not, about 30% of population wants him indicted even if

he's sure to walk, unconvicted and laughing his ass off. trump will just say he hired those people to handle things, but they failed him. We'd all laugh, but probably not a jury.

But if we can't get trump, how about ruining Alvin Bragg's life. That seems almost as good to some.

[brooklynite]

5. Bragg doesn't have anything to worry about...

...coming from blogosphere rants. He'll sink or swim based on voiter perceptions on crime and policing.

[Dorian Gray]

37. Agree

and so far.... those perceptions ain't great. I know he's just started, but.... womp womp.

[choie]

43. he's a goner

for a couple of reasons, including his cowardice.

[JohnSJ]

4. The prosecutors who were actually working on the case and familiar with it disagree, and I trust

their assessment over someone who hasn’t seen the evidence or is part of the case

but Bragg himself is saying the investigation is still proceeding

Are you saying he isn’t being honest about that?

[brooklynite]

7. I don't remember the ex-prosecutors say they had enough evidence to indict...

...or convict. Their complaint was that they couldn't continue the investigation. I'll trust the judgement of the elected DEMOCRATIC District Attorney.

[JohnSJ]

8. Did you read the resignation letter from The NY Times by one of the prosecutors?

[brooklynite]

14. Yes I did.

They said their BELIEF was that Trump was guilty. That's not the same thing as believing you have enough evidence to win a conviction.

[JohnSJ]

17. That is your opinion. Have you seen the evidence they had and why a grand jury was called? Bragg

said the investigation was still open. Are you saying Vance wasted two years for nothing?

[brooklynite]

19. Everything in this blog is "opinion"

The only fact is that nobody involved has stated there was sufficient evidence for a conviction.

[JohnSJ]

20. In this tread, yes. Not everything on DU.

[brooklynite]

21. Point me to the facts posted here that support a conviction.

[JohnSJ]

24. You made a general comment that everything in "this blog an opinion", and I corrected you.

Everything in this thread, but not everything on DU

There is a difference

[Cha]

31. Thank You.

💙💛

[dpibel]

22. Maybe you stopped reading too early

"To the extent you have raised issues as to the legal and factual sufficiency of our case and the likelihood that a prosecution would succeed, I and others have advised you that we have evidence sufficient to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and we believe that the prosecution would prevail if charges were brought and the matter were tried to an impartial jury."

https://archive.ph/nI85H#selection-467.0-467.385

That's not even a qualified assertion: "we have evidence sufficient." Not "we believe." "We have."

Other than that you are, as usual, spot on.

Just to anticipate your next dodge: Yes, Pomerantz "believed" that the prosecution would prevail. But that is not what you were talking about. You were talking about believing evidence exists.

[Hoyt]

11. Two prosecutors, older than me, didn't like young, new guy (we'll hope it's not more) disagreeing

with them.

Bragg was elected DA. He's responsible for the entire DA Office and looking at big picture, in which trump is pretty small.

[JohnSJ]

13. Then why did the DA say the case is still open? Why was a grand jury called?

[Hoyt]

16. Because it is. If a witness walks in with a video of trump beating up his CFO and accountant to

force them to file false property tax forms, he might reopen it.

[empedocles]

23. Why was the grand jury 'expired'?

[brooklynite]

25. Grand Juries, by policy, have an expiration date.

Nothing stops the DA or AG from establishing a new one.

[JohnSJ]

26. Perhaps Bragg was not being completely honest when he said the investigation against trump's real

estate dealings was continuing?

[brooklynite]

33. Perhaps Bragg was continuing the investigation but wasn't prepared to prosecute....

...with the evidence available?

[JohnSJ]

39. Then he shouldn't of marginalized the prosecutors who knew everything about the case, and

effectively pushed them out

[hlthe2b]

35. Especially given those TWO FEDERAL PROSECUTORS actually know the evidence.

What a ridiculous thing for the OP to say... (albeit I am not surprised); You know, I know medicine, but I'm not going to second guess someone who has actually examined a patient, reviewed the lab data, and any imaging scans based on nothing more than a subjective summary from the media, my professional rumor mill, or someone else equally uninformed.

And with legal evidence, I'd think most former Federal prosecutors would know better than to second guess-- sans any clue about what evidence they had.

[choie]

44. Yup - One can almost predict

the ops and responses from some on this board. I'd have been shocked at reading anything else.

[jaysunb]

6. I somewhat agree with you Mrs....up to a point

But a jury of common folks can upend the best legal explanations and defense.

As LBJ famously said, " I don't know if it's true or not but I want to hear him deny it "
😆

[brooklynite]

9. Yes a jury CAN do something unexpected...but do you want to take the risk?

Trump is indicted. Liberals cheer.
Trump is acquitted. Conservatives cheer.
Trump and conservative media endlessly rehash the statement that he was acquitted after a Democratic hit job. Conservatives keep cheering.
Is that what people want?

[jaysunb]

29. No, but I think a more open public examination is warranted.

Although we saw him tried twice, I still think the further he is away from power it would make a huge difference in the fringe cults fervor.

[PoliticAverse]

10. Property values are a subjective thing, until a sale is actually made.

You can also shop for appraisals and take the one you want if you want to have some paper justification.

If within the same week you claimed a property was worth 200 million to a bank, and 100 million to the tax authorities you might have a hard time defending that.

[former9thward]

40. Tax authorities make their own evaluation of property.

They don't take the owner's word for it. No tax authority has ever asked me how much a home I owned was worth to determine my taxes on it.

Banks make their own appraisals when giving out a loan. They don't take the owner's word for it. No bank has ever asked me how much a properly was worth if I was trying to get a loan on it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

42. I have always seen that as a problem, that everyone wants their appraised value

to be lower than their market value. So where do you draw the line? Like you said if it's double? When is it illegal? After all, our goal is to get that MF in jail

I remember hearing on NPR, one time, an expose about his Westchester property. Was that they were investigating the appraiser because the key to it was whether or not FG coerced them into overvaluing his property.

All that said I think Trump knows what is illegal like going to jail illegal versus what is illegal meaning just pays more money. Which is perfectly capable of scraping up I imagine.

And all THAT said you've got two seasoned prosecutors saying there's plenty of evidence of trump criminally. And there should be indictments.

Trump is super deviously smart at toeing the line...or someone is being paid off or someone's too scared to indict.

[Marius25]

12. Trump will never face criminal charges.

There is no one willing to go after him, and he finds ways to delay or end the investigation even if people try.

[Chainfire]

27. Impossible to prove if never brought to court.

[lame54]

28. So, no one ever has been convicted of this?...

'Cause Trump leaves bread crumbs and entire loaves everywhere

[dsc]

30. I love how only these laws have this standard

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/how-much-were-trump-organization-property-values-overstated-by-a-lot-ny-ag-says/3502263/

The same category used for even Springs was used for Trump's triplex apartment, which was given a value of $127 million. Valuations done on the Manhattan apartment since 2012 were done based off the claim that the property was 30,000 square feet. In reality, James said, the property was 11,000 square feet — and Trump signed documents in 2012 confirming that number, the attorney general claims.

Financial statesments from 2015 and 2016 still made the claim that the triplex was the much larger size, and valued it at $327 million. But in testimony given to the attorney general's office, Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg said that the apartment's value was overstated by "give or take" $200 million.

When Trump bought the Aberdeen, Scotland, property in 2006, it was valued at $12.6 million — but was valued at $161 million just five years later, the investigation found. That valuation was found not to be professionally determined, but rather based on an email prepared to send to Forbes magazine for a quote.

In 2014, a financial statement by the Trump Organization valued the property at nearly $436 million, basing that off the right to build 2,500 luxury homes on it. But the company had approval to build under 1,500 holiday apartments and golf villas only, James said.

Neither of the above are good faith mistakes. YOu can't simultaniously think that an apartment is 30,000 square feet and 10,000 square feet.

[Hoyt]

32. trump will just say, "I didn't make the mistake, I should have watched the CFO closer."

[dsc]

34. In the case of the apartment size he signed both documents

if the AG is correctly quoted in the article.

[Hoyt]

36. Won't make a difference. He'll probably claim it wasn't his signature and even if it was, they

put it in front of him and he signed it, being too stupid to know what any of that means. Who can argue with that.

I think we are looking for a simple "got you," when there really isn't one.

[brush]

38. Watch this for a trump crime that is a slam dunk.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017732313

[greenjar_01]

41. Good grief

[rownesheck]

45. It would probably be easy to prove

if the person wasn't wealthy, powerful and/or was slightly darker in skin tone.

[Emile]

46. +1 Spot On!

[brooklynite]

47. Please elaborate

Are you alleging that the AFRICAN AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC District Attorney, in additional to everything else he's accused of, is racially biased?