Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. Were Close to Being Charged With Felony Fraud

[Belsnickel]

New York prosecutors were preparing a case. Then the D.A. overruled his staff after a visit from a top donor: Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz.

https://www.propublica.org/article/ivanka-donald-trump-jr-close-to-being-charged-felony-fraud

Quote:In the spring of 2012, Donald Trump’s two eldest children, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr., found themselves in a precarious legal position. For two years, prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office had been building a criminal case against them for misleading prospective buyers of units in the Trump SoHo, a hotel and condo development that was failing to sell. Despite the best efforts of the siblings’ defense team, the case had not gone away. An indictment seemed like a real possibility. The evidence included emails from the Trumps making clear that they were aware they were using inflated figures about how well the condos were selling to lure buyers.

In one email, according to four people who have seen it, the Trumps discussed how to coordinate false information they had given to prospective buyers. In another, according to a person who read the emails, they worried that a reporter might be onto them. In yet another, Donald Jr. spoke reassuringly to a broker who was concerned about the false statements, saying that nobody would ever find out, because only people on the email chain or in the Trump Organization knew about the deception, according to a person who saw the email.

There was “no doubt” that the Trump children “approved, knew of, agreed to, and intentionally inflated the numbers to make more sales,” one person who saw the emails told us. “They knew it was wrong.”

In 2010, when the Major Economic Crimes Bureau of the D.A.’s office opened an investigation of the siblings, the Trump Organization had hired several top New York criminal defense lawyers to represent Donald Jr. and Ivanka. These attorneys had met with prosecutors in the bureau several times. They conceded that their clients had made exaggerated claims, but argued that the overstatements didn’t amount to criminal misconduct. Still, the case dragged on. In a meeting with the defense team, Donald Trump, Sr., expressed frustration that the investigation had not been closed. Soon after, his longtime personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz entered the case.

Kasowitz, who by then had been the elder Donald Trump’s attorney for a decade, is primarily a civil litigator with little experience in criminal matters. But in 2012, Kasowitz donated $25,000 to the reelection campaign of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., making Kasowitz one of Vance’s largest donors. Kasowitz decided to bypass the lower level prosecutors and went directly to Vance to ask that the investigation be dropped.

On May 16, 2012, Kasowitz visited Vance’s office at One Hogan Place in downtown Manhattan — a faded edifice made famous by the television show, “Law & Order.” Dan Alonso, the chief assistant district attorney, and Adam Kaufmann, the chief of the investigative division, were also at the meeting, but no one from the Major Economic Crimes Bureau attended. Kasowitz did not introduce any new arguments or facts during his session. He simply repeated the arguments that the other defense lawyers had been making for months.

Ultimately, Vance overruled his own prosecutors. Three months after the meeting, he told them to drop the case. Kasowitz subsequently boasted to colleagues about representing the Trump children, according to two people. He said that the case was “really dangerous,” one person said, and that it was “amazing I got them off.” (Kasowitz denied making such a statement.)

Vance defended his decision. “I did not at the time believe beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime had been committed,” he told us. “I had to make a call and I made the call, and I think I made the right call.”

Just before the 2012 meeting, Vance’s campaign had returned Kasowitz’s $25,000 contribution, in keeping with what Vance describes as standard practice when a donor has a case before his office. Kasowitz “had no influence and his contributions had no influence whatsoever on my decision-making in the case,” Vance said.

But less than six months after the D.A.’s office dropped the case, Kasowitz made an even larger donation to Vance’s campaign, and helped raise more from others — eventually, a total of more than $50,000. After being asked about these donations as part of the reporting for this article — more than four years after the fact — Vance said he now plans to give back Kasowitz’s second contribution, too. “I don’t want the money to be a millstone around anybody’s neck, including the office’s,” he said.

There is more in the article. Take the Trump name out of this and this is still one of the big things wrong with our society. Enough money and you can get away with just about anything.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-04-2017, 10:30 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: New York prosecutors were preparing a case. Then the D.A. overruled his staff after a visit from a top donor: Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz.

https://www.propublica.org/article/ivanka-donald-trump-jr-close-to-being-charged-felony-fraud


There is more in the article. Take the Trump name out of this and this is still one of the big things wrong with our society. Enough money and you can get away with just about anything.

Honestly I still don't understand why people voted for this brand in office. We all knew the Trump brand was shady as hell.

[*Nately120*]

(10-04-2017, 10:37 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Honestly I still don't understand why people voted for this brand in office. We all knew the Trump brand was shady as hell.

I understand why this country voted for Trump.  It's all to clear...but that's life.  The only thing that can sink him would be if he came out as being gay.  Everything else just makes him better in the eyes of his fan club.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-04-2017, 10:37 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Honestly I still don't understand why people voted for this brand in office. We all knew the Trump brand was shady as hell.

Because the other option was the Clinton brand. Who we all knew was shady as hell in public office.

Dems messed up by not running Sanders. They were just afraid to go total socialism as a party and if Sanders was the nominee it would have set the party on that path.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-04-2017, 11:05 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Because the other option was the Clinton brand.   Who we all knew was shady as hell in public office.  

Dems messed up by not running Sanders.   They were just afraid to go total socialism as a party and if Sanders was the nominee it would have set the party on that path.

The one thing we can agree on is the dems could've put just about anybody on the ticket other than Hillary and could've won.  Personally though I think that there are a lot of angry white people out there that felt disfranchised because of our last president.   So they voted for the most obnoxious old white guy they could find.  That dude has been a disaster.  IF he makes it to another term, I don't see him winning one.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-04-2017, 11:16 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: The one thing we can agree on is the dems could've put just about anybody on the ticket other than Hillary and could've won.  Personally though I think that there are a lot of angry white people out there that felt disfranchised because of our last president.   So they voted for the most obnoxious old white guy they could find.  That dude has been a disaster.  IF he makes it to another term, I don't see him winning one.

Trump won because he hits back at leftists. If we wanted an actually conservative we would have selected Ted Cruz, actually all the nonsense from Kaisich these days on trump is funny considering he basically ensures Trump was the nominee. Rubio dropped out and supported Cruz and had Kaisich did the same or just dropped out then Trump wouldn't even be in there today . It would be president Cruz.

We had 8 years of the president being afraid to use the phrase Islamic terrorism and basically not enforcing the immigration laws. He sued the state of Arizona because they wanted to enforce their border and were sued because the Feds handle the immigration and borders. That's why these sanctuary states should pump the breaks because obama administration laid the ground work to end their sanctuary status.

None of this has anything to do with race. I am sure that matters to a small handful of people on both sides but the majority that elected trump voted for obama and bill Clinton.

[Dill]

(10-04-2017, 11:16 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: The one thing we can agree on is the dems could've put just about anybody on the ticket other than Hillary and could've won.  Personally though I think that there are a lot of angry white people out there that felt disfranchised because of our last president.   So they voted for the most obnoxious old white guy they could find.  That dude has been a disaster.  IF he makes it to another term, I don't see him winning one.

If the Democrats had run anyone but a competent, experienced woman they'd have won.

[*michaelsean*]

I'm always less mad at the people who offer the bribe than I am at the people who accept the bribe. I mean if someone tells me I can get out of a felony charge for $25,000 and I have it, I'm taking it.

[Dill]

(10-04-2017, 11:27 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We had 8 years of the president being afraid to use the phrase Islamic terrorism and basically not enforcing the immigration laws.  He sued the state of Arizona because they wanted to enforce their border and were sued because the Feds handle the immigration and borders.    That's why these sanctuary states should pump the breaks because obama administration laid the ground work to end their sanctuary status.  

None of this has anything to do with race.    I am sure that matters to a small handful of people on both sides but the majority that elected trump voted for obama and bill Clinton.

How do you explain this?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexnowrasteh/2012/07/30/president-obama-deporter-in-chief/#45e2a45d514c


What is the source of your polling data on Trump voters?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-04-2017, 11:27 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Trump won because he hits back at leftists.   If we wanted an actually conservative we would have selected Ted Cruz, actually all the nonsense from Kaisich these days on trump is funny considering he basically ensures Trump was the nominee.   Rubio dropped out and supported Cruz and had Kaisich did the same or just dropped out then Trump wouldn't even be in there today .  It would be president Cruz.  

We had 8 years of the president being afraid to use the phrase Islamic terrorism and basically not enforcing the immigration laws.  He sued the state of Arizona because they wanted to enforce their border and were sued because the Feds handle the immigration and borders.    That's why these sanctuary states should pump the breaks because obama administration laid the ground work to end their sanctuary status.  

None of this has anything to do with race.    I am sure that matters to a small handful of people on both sides but the majority that elected trump voted for obama and bill Clinton.

Trump won because his opponent was Hillary.  She's had a long time to build strong opposition to her.  And after electing our first black President the opposition swung back with an alt-right. Nothing more.  I don't see Trump getting re-elected.  I think that a lot of people that voted 3rd party or write in, because they didn't like their options are going to vote for anybody but Trump.

[Yojimbo]

(10-04-2017, 11:50 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Trump won because his opponent was Hillary.  She's had a long time to build strong opposition to her.  And after electing our first black President the opposition swung back with an alt-right. Nothing more.  I don't see Trump getting re-elected.  I think that a lot of people that voted 3rd party or write in, because they didn't like their options are going to vote for anybody but Trump.

Until the Democrats decide to run another pro-war, pro-Wall Street candidate because they still refuse to believe that voters don’t like those two things.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-04-2017, 11:56 AM)Yojimbo Wrote: Until the Democrats decide to run another pro-war, pro-Wall Street candidate because they still refuse to believe that voters don’t like those two things.

Huh?

[*michaelsean*]

(10-04-2017, 12:02 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Huh?

I think he's saying that there was a lot about Hillary that liberals didn't like, and that people aren't going to come rushing back if they run a similar version.

[Yojimbo]

(10-04-2017, 12:20 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I think he's saying that there was a lot about Hillary that liberals didn't like, and that people aren't going to come rushing back if they run a similar version.

Bingo. Another Hillary clone will lead to people still voting 3rd party or just not voting at all. Which will get Trump re-elected.

[*bfine32*]

From the article:

Vance defended his decision. “I did not at the time believe beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime had been committed,” he told us. “I had to make a call and I made the call, and I think I made the right call.”


#So

[BmorePat87]

(10-04-2017, 01:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: From the article:

Vance defended his decision. “I did not at the time believe beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime had been committed,” he told us. “I had to make a call and I made the call, and I think I made the right call.”


#So

Probable cause, not reasonable doubt, is the criteria for charging people, right?

Sounds like a flimsy defense, but then again, I'm not a DA. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2017, 01:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: From the article:

Vance defended his decision. “I did not at the time believe beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime had been committed,” he told us. “I had to make a call and I made the call, and I think I made the right call.”


#So

Subtext: I have to say this, otherwise I can be indicted for accepting bribes and making a mockery of our justice system.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-04-2017, 01:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Probable cause, not reasonable doubt, is the criteria for charging people, right?

Sounds like a flimsy defense, but then again, I'm not a DA. 

Probable cause for an arrest, but the prosecution has to believe they can get a guilty verdict.  I don't think it reaches the level of reasonable doubt though.

[BmorePat87]

(10-04-2017, 01:36 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Probable cause for an arrest, but the prosecution has to believe they can get a guilty verdict.  I don't think it reaches the level of reasonable doubt though.

It'll fall somewhere between probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt, but at the very least you need probable cause. I have trouble believing a DA limits himself to the extent that he suggested in his defense. The state of New York allows defendants to have a grand jury for all felony charges, so the prosecution would have at least tested the waters with a grand jury if they honestly believed there was a case (which the article and 2 years of legal back and forth suggests). 

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-04-2017, 12:20 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I think he's saying that there was a lot about Hillary that liberals didn't like, and that people aren't going to come rushing back if they run a similar version.

Ok I get that, and agree somewhat.  However, I think that many voters thought that Hillary was going to win regardless and voted 3rd party or write in a form of protest if you will.  Bottom line I think a lot of people that didn't vote for Hillary are regretting not voting for their party's nominee.  We could debate all day on who is worse Trump or Clinton, and I agree I don't like either option.  I guess I just see Trump as the worse option.