Can NY re-open the case against Ivanka and Don Jr?

[edhopper]

Surely the statute of limitations hasn't expired on their fraud.

[unblock]

1. Well now that the bribe has been returned, it only make sense

[Cicada]

2. Mr Vance seems to be clean to me

I think Mueller honestly concluded prosecution was not warranted against Hillary. I see no good reason to think Vance was crooked in his decision not to prosecute Don Jr and Ivanka. I did not find any prior suspicions about Vance being corrupt. Maybe he deserves the benefit of doubt given the lack of prior problems.

[unblock]

3. i don't know one way or the other about vance

but i do know more about donnie's criminal organization and i strongly suspect that that lawyer's contribution was made in the expectation of something in return.

this is consistent with donnie's statements basically bragging about owning public officials.


don't know what you're talking about re mueller/hillary...?

[Cicada]

5. I meant Comey, not Mueller. Obviously Trump lawyer meant to corrupt.

If Vance were corrupt he would not have returned the first contribution before the meeting. And there is no realistic chance he will ever be voted out of office so campaign contributions mean little to him.

[jrthin]

4. He ruled against ALL the prosecutors in his office

who felt they had enough evidence to indict.

[Cicada]

7. There are hundreds of prosecutors in his office

Maybe two were involved in this case. And we do not know if any felt an indictment was justified. We only know they had not closed the case. What you suggest is that Vance is corrupt. Why would a corrupt person return the bribe before meeting with the Trump lawyer? And he had won re-election with 91% of the vote. He has really no need for any specific campaign contribution so I doubt he acted corruptly for the $25,000. A sitting Manhattan District Attorney last lost a re-election race in 1915. There is no good reason to view Vance as corrupt.

[jrthin]

9. According to NPR, all the prosecutors working on this particular case,

He over ruled. And I could be wrong, but he returned the "contribution" 4yrs later.

[Cicada]

10. Prosecutors had not proposed prosecution

I think Vance overruled their desire to keep the case open, to “drag it on.” I have seen nothing to indicate any attorney proposed that they prosecute. In 2012 before Vance met with the Trump lawyer he returned his $25,000 contribution. Later, six months after Vance’s decision to close this case, the Trump lawyer gave a new campaign contribution of $50,000. Recently, in response to press coverage of this matter, Vance returned that $50,000 also. Were Vance acting for money he would not have returned the $25,000 before the meeting with the Trump lawyer. And again Vance really has no need for these sums since with them or without them his chance of being voted out of office is very close to zero.

There has never been a hint that Vance is crooked in any way. Were he motivated by money he could join a private law firm and make 20 times his current income. When a private attorney he did extensive work for indigent clients. He was endorsed by Robert Kennedy Jr, Caroline Kennedy, Scheck and Neufield of the innocence Project etc. His father was Secretary of State for the most honest President ever, Jimmy Carter.

We should not smear him without evidence.

[demmiblue]

6. DA Who Dropped Fraud Case Against Trump Kids Did Opposite With Immigrant Family

...

Abacus was a small family-owned bank, a mainstay of the Chinatown neighborhood, that had self-reported the discrepancy that led to the prosecution. In exact contrast to the broader financial crisis dynamic, it made home loans to people who made their payments. The alleged victim, Fannie Mae, did not experience a penny of loss. Abacus was ultimately found not guilty, in a major embarrassment to Vance's office.

The absurdity of the Abacus case was that Vance could have walked in just about any direction in lower Manhattan and run into a viable mortgage fraud prosecution involving a much bigger actor. Virtually all of the country's biggest banks have since settled, in many cases for billions, for behavior far worse than anything Abacus was even alleged to have done.

But Vance picked Abacus for prosecution, seemingly because it was small and easily pushed around, rather than take on the behemoths in lower Manhattan.

The case was a metaphor for the criminal justice system as a whole, which consistently avoided treating fraudsters at big banks as criminals. The more typical resolution involved back-room settlements in which money changed hands but no executives did time or got a record.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-on-da-who-dropped-fraud-case-against-ivanka-and-don-jr-w507338

[Cicada]

8. Prosecution of Abacus Bank was appropriate

The bank falsified loan documents. 8 people plead guilty. The owners said they did not know what was going on and jurors believed them. So prosecution of the bank owners was reasonable.

The failure to prosecute big banks was universal. I guess you are saying Vance and President Obama are crooks in that failure. I find it hard to believe Obama is a crook however. Maybe there are reasons why fines are better than criminal prosecutions. I do not know what went through President Obama’s mind in his decision. And maybe prosecution of the big banks is better handled by the feds than the Manhattan DA.