Actually, even the dissenters agreed that Trump was subject to the law, so it was unanimous, 9-0, that "The president is not above the law."
Nice that NY will have the tax fraud indictment waiting for him qt 12:01pm on January 20, 2021. Maybe we can lead him and his spawn (co-conspirators) away from the inauguration in cuffs. Tax fraud in…
Actually, even the dissenters agreed that Trump was subject to the law, so it was unanimous, 9-0, that "The president is not above the law."
Nice that NY will have the tax fraud indictment waiting for him qt 12:01pm on January 20, 2021. Maybe we can lead him and his spawn (co-conspirators) away from the inauguration in cuffs. Tax fraud in NY is 20 years. And nobody can pardon him, since it's state law.
If Trump is subject to the law, but Congress can’t issue subpoenas to Trump for the purpose of law enforcement, and the Attorney General is a craven lackey, then who can hold Trump accountable for breaking the law? Taken together, these findings are meaningless, they create a Catch 22.
I'm trying to read all I can find about Cyrus Vance Jr. and I had forgotten that the case against Ivanka and Don Jr. and their building in Soho was dropped. I came across some other questionable stories as well. can you explain what happened with those cases or point me in the direction for clarification please?
In the decision written by John Roberts it is clearly stated that the dissenters were in agreement with the majority on this specific point....therefore 9-0 that Trump isn't above the law. The dissent concerned other aspects of the decision.
Okay, I confess that 24 hours ago, I anxiously awaited the SCOTUS decision on trump’s financial records, was relieved (and pleasantly surprised by the Creek decision), and then had to start my work day, as I do again now. I only read the first page of Trump v. Vance. Could someone summarize the other aspects of Thomas and Alito’s dissent?
SDNY is only prosecuting him (as far as is known publicly) for paying off porn stars, which is a campaign finance violation. The tax fraud which NYT reported on goes back to the late 1990s. SDNY has only sought tax returns and financial data for 8 years, 2008 to 2016, I think. So no tax fraud (unless that is confidential).
I hear you but I feel more than confident that they will be prosecuting Trump et al for all criminality they turn up going back for years. Once they have the returns they can move on new crimes and there will be many. Cy Vance loathes Donald Trump for all kinds of reasons we will never know about.
There is more to it and it might have been that, based purely on points of law, he couldn't make a case. Or he put the case on hold until he could make it. There are many of those cases idling. We do not know yet.
I do appreciate the back and forth. We both want the same thing - Trump held accountable. Given the extensive reporting of the past few years, it’s clear that: Trump has stiffed partners, contractors, customers and suppliers, many times; Trump has committed bank fraud to the tune of $$ billions; Trump has used real estate transactions to launder money for various oligarchs; and Trump has committed tax fraud to the tune of at least a half billion $$ (we only know what’s been reported by NYT about the machinations around his father’s estate, there’s likely more). That Trump is in the White House instead of prison is an indictment of NY District Attorneys. If they had gone after white collar criminals the way they do poor criminals, you and I wouldn’t be having this conversation. Heather would be working on her class notes, instead of running this blog. And Trump would be wearing a different kind of orange. Forgive me if I have little faith in Vance or any of the NY DAs.
Trump’s been a criminal for 40 years, yet they’re just prosecuting him now? I’d love to believe he will pay for all his crimes, but I’m not optimistic. How soon before Barr fires Vance?
You've pointed to an extremely left leaning reference -- populated by some not so great writers -- so if I were inclined I would look a lot deeper and wider before taking what one less than credible site as my source. I've been in NYC a long time. I am skeptical of that sort of journalism because I have my own sources and I don't take anything on its face unless there is more to support it. That and I am a moderate: when I wrote extensively on Kamala Harris some folks who were selling her as not living up to her 'progressive' creds found out things were more complicated than what they were spreading as God's indisputable truth. I wager that is true here too.
1. Trump fired Bharara. Barr fired Berman. Both were considered threats to Trump. They could have fired Vance, and they didn’t.
2. Vance dropped a case against Ivanka and Jared, although there was considerable evidence of guilt. Jared's attorney then ran a fundraiser for Vance’s re-election.
3. Vance has been prosecutor for a dozen years, and never brought a case against Trump.
The evidence says Vance is no threat to Trump. It does not seem likely that Vance is about to announce multiple investigations/prosecutions of Trump. This one he is pursuing, for campaign finance violations, is likely to follow the precedent of John Edwards’ very similar case - charges dropped.
Actually, even the dissenters agreed that Trump was subject to the law, so it was unanimous, 9-0, that "The president is not above the law."
Nice that NY will have the tax fraud indictment waiting for him qt 12:01pm on January 20, 2021. Maybe we can lead him and his spawn (co-conspirators) away from the inauguration in cuffs. Tax fraud in NY is 20 years. And nobody can pardon him, since it's state law.
If Trump is subject to the law, but Congress can’t issue subpoenas to Trump for the purpose of law enforcement, and the Attorney General is a craven lackey, then who can hold Trump accountable for breaking the law? Taken together, these findings are meaningless, they create a Catch 22.
The State of New York will hold Trump accountable for breaking the law.
People need to vote wisely in the future because obviously our votes can have drastic consequences.
I'm trying to read all I can find about Cyrus Vance Jr. and I had forgotten that the case against Ivanka and Don Jr. and their building in Soho was dropped. I came across some other questionable stories as well. can you explain what happened with those cases or point me in the direction for clarification please?
Thanks
Can you explain how the dissenters agreed that trump was subject to the law, but nevertheless dissented?
In the decision written by John Roberts it is clearly stated that the dissenters were in agreement with the majority on this specific point....therefore 9-0 that Trump isn't above the law. The dissent concerned other aspects of the decision.
Okay, I confess that 24 hours ago, I anxiously awaited the SCOTUS decision on trump’s financial records, was relieved (and pleasantly surprised by the Creek decision), and then had to start my work day, as I do again now. I only read the first page of Trump v. Vance. Could someone summarize the other aspects of Thomas and Alito’s dissent?
This event would generate the crowd size he so desperately years for at last.
SDNY is only prosecuting him (as far as is known publicly) for paying off porn stars, which is a campaign finance violation. The tax fraud which NYT reported on goes back to the late 1990s. SDNY has only sought tax returns and financial data for 8 years, 2008 to 2016, I think. So no tax fraud (unless that is confidential).
I hear you but I feel more than confident that they will be prosecuting Trump et al for all criminality they turn up going back for years. Once they have the returns they can move on new crimes and there will be many. Cy Vance loathes Donald Trump for all kinds of reasons we will never know about.
Yes, I agree. However I am still trying to figure out why Vance dropped the case against Ivanka and Don Jr... I've read about his 'reason' but I think there have been a couple other questionable incidents?https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-ivanka-trump-and-donald-trump-jr-avoided-a-criminal-indictment
There is more to it and it might have been that, based purely on points of law, he couldn't make a case. Or he put the case on hold until he could make it. There are many of those cases idling. We do not know yet.
I do appreciate the back and forth. We both want the same thing - Trump held accountable. Given the extensive reporting of the past few years, it’s clear that: Trump has stiffed partners, contractors, customers and suppliers, many times; Trump has committed bank fraud to the tune of $$ billions; Trump has used real estate transactions to launder money for various oligarchs; and Trump has committed tax fraud to the tune of at least a half billion $$ (we only know what’s been reported by NYT about the machinations around his father’s estate, there’s likely more). That Trump is in the White House instead of prison is an indictment of NY District Attorneys. If they had gone after white collar criminals the way they do poor criminals, you and I wouldn’t be having this conversation. Heather would be working on her class notes, instead of running this blog. And Trump would be wearing a different kind of orange. Forgive me if I have little faith in Vance or any of the NY DAs.
Trump’s been a criminal for 40 years, yet they’re just prosecuting him now? I’d love to believe he will pay for all his crimes, but I’m not optimistic. How soon before Barr fires Vance?
You've pointed to an extremely left leaning reference -- populated by some not so great writers -- so if I were inclined I would look a lot deeper and wider before taking what one less than credible site as my source. I've been in NYC a long time. I am skeptical of that sort of journalism because I have my own sources and I don't take anything on its face unless there is more to support it. That and I am a moderate: when I wrote extensively on Kamala Harris some folks who were selling her as not living up to her 'progressive' creds found out things were more complicated than what they were spreading as God's indisputable truth. I wager that is true here too.
Consider:
1. Trump fired Bharara. Barr fired Berman. Both were considered threats to Trump. They could have fired Vance, and they didn’t.
2. Vance dropped a case against Ivanka and Jared, although there was considerable evidence of guilt. Jared's attorney then ran a fundraiser for Vance’s re-election.
3. Vance has been prosecutor for a dozen years, and never brought a case against Trump.
The evidence says Vance is no threat to Trump. It does not seem likely that Vance is about to announce multiple investigations/prosecutions of Trump. This one he is pursuing, for campaign finance violations, is likely to follow the precedent of John Edwards’ very similar case - charges dropped.
Time will tell.
If he could he already would have. And we have no idea what Vance has had idling for years.
Maybe Vance is a Trump ally? https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/04/29/the-people-vs-cy-vance