Allegedly Trump being investigated for Wire Fraud

[SimplyMe]

The Washington Post is reporting that the Special Prosecutor is investigating former President Donald Trump for Wire Fraud, specifically his fundraising of $200,000 based on claims of election fraud. The Special Prosecutor is subpoenaing private correspondence of those helping the former President to raise the money by publicly claiming there was election interference. If Pres. Trump knew the claims were untrue then that does meet the legal definition of wire fraud.

I'm curious what people think about the possibility of these charges -- particularly if the facts end up to be true -- would you view it as a political prosecution or a valid prosecution of fraud, and why do you view it that way?

 

[Fantine]

In one sense, all of America is victimized by politicians who refuse to accept honest election results and resort to media circuses and even insurrections to subvert our constitutional democracy.

But on the other hand, the duped donors are victims as well, being fleeced to massage the egos of individuals who are big "L" losers not only in the polls but also in their character.

An investigation and prosecution on the one hand is just because people are being defrauded and victimized (even if they don't realize it.) On the other hand, our government is imperiled by candidates who refuse to accept loss and follow the rules.

 

[Occams Barber]

The Washington Post is reporting that the Special Prosecutor is investigating former President Donald Trump for Wire Fraud, specifically his fundraising of $200,000 based on claims of election fraud. The Special Prosecutor is subpoenaing private correspondence of those helping the former President to raise the money by publicly claiming there was election interference. If Pres. Trump knew the claims were untrue then that does meet the legal definition of wire fraud.

I'm curious what people think about the possibility of these charges -- particularly if the facts end up to be true -- would you view it as a political prosecution or a valid prosecution of fraud, and why do you view it that way?

It could be both.

The prosecutor may be motivated by politics, but this doesn't mean that the prosecution isn't also legally (or even ethically) valid.

OB

 

[disciple Clint]

The Washington Post is reporting that the Special Prosecutor is investigating former President Donald Trump for Wire Fraud, specifically his fundraising of $200,000 based on claims of election fraud. The Special Prosecutor is subpoenaing private correspondence of those helping the former President to raise the money by publicly claiming there was election interference. If Pres. Trump knew the claims were untrue then that does meet the legal definition of wire fraud.

I'm curious what people think about the possibility of these charges -- particularly if the facts end up to be true -- would you view it as a political prosecution or a valid prosecution of fraud, and why do you view it that way?

If Trump actually committed a crime he should be held accountable, I doubt that there is sufficient evidence to establish intention or guilt. BUT some of those who dislike Trump will immediately insist that he is guilty regardless of any facts because that is what they want to believe, they are simply unable to maintain any degree of fairness. There can be little doubt that Trump has been a political victim and it seems that the investigations, allegations, and defamation will continue as long as Trump remains a threat to the inhabitants of the swamp.

 

[Pommer]

If Trump actually committed a crime he should be held accountable, I doubt that there is sufficient evidence to establish intention or guilt. BUT some of those who dislike Trump will immediately insist that he is guilty regardless of any facts because that is what they want to believe, they are simply unable to maintain any degree of fairness. There can be little doubt that Trump has been a political victim and it seems that the investigations, allegations, and defamation will continue as long as Trump remains a threat to the inhabitants of the swamp.

He claimed election fraud happened which is why Joe Biden is in the White House and not DJT (season Two) and raised money off of that series of lies. Why is that “okay”?

 

[A2SG]

If Trump actually committed a crime he should be held accountable, I doubt that there is sufficient evidence to establish intention or guilt. BUT some of those who dislike Trump will immediately insist that he is guilty regardless of any facts because that is what they want to believe, they are simply unable to maintain any degree of fairness. There can be little doubt that Trump has been a political victim and it seems that the investigations, allegations, and defamation will continue as long as Trump remains a threat to the inhabitants of the swamp.

AND some of those who like Trump will immediately insist that he is innocent regardless of any facts because that is what they want to believe, they are simply unable to maintain any degree of fairness.

-- A2SG, door swings both ways.....

 

[HTacianas]

The Washington Post is reporting that the Special Prosecutor is investigating former President Donald Trump for Wire Fraud, specifically his fundraising of $200,000 based on claims of election fraud. The Special Prosecutor is subpoenaing private correspondence of those helping the former President to raise the money by publicly claiming there was election interference. If Pres. Trump knew the claims were untrue then that does meet the legal definition of wire fraud.

I'm curious what people think about the possibility of these charges -- particularly if the facts end up to be true -- would you view it as a political prosecution or a valid prosecution of fraud, and why do you view it that way?

It is already a political prosecution. The proof of that is the lack of prosecution for others who have done the same thing. In one case, a person claims election fraud and is then prosecuted for it. In another case, a person claims election fraud and is then invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention.

 

[disciple Clint]

He claimed election fraud happened which is why Joe Biden is in the White House and not DJT (season Two) and raised money off of that series of lies. Why is that “okay”?

OK you can say that if you like, now the question is, can anyone get a judge or jury to believe it?

 

[disciple Clint]

AND some of those who like Trump will immediately insist that he is innocent regardless of any facts because that is what they want to believe, they are simply unable to maintain any degree of fairness.

-- A2SG, door swings both ways.....

No not because they want to believe he is innocent but because we are citizens of a nation where people are assumed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty, that is a fundamental of our nation and our legal system, too bad they no longer teach civics in high school.

 

[A2SG]

No not because they want to believe he is innocent but because we are citizens of a nation where people are assumed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty, that is a fundamental of our nation and our legal system, too bad they no longer teach civics in high school.

I don't think anyone is doubting that the presumption of innocence applies. I just think there's a faction out there who believe Trump has never done anything wrong, and that no charges brought against him have any validity. They believe all accusations against Trump are fraudulent, without exception.

For some, he is their messiah.

-- A2SG, and anyone who speaks ill of him will feel their wrath......

 

[disciple Clint]

I don't think anyone is doubting that the presumption of innocence applies. I just think there's a faction out there who believe Trump has never done anything wrong, and that no charges brought against him have any validity. They believe all accusations against Trump are fraudulent, without exception.

For some, he is their messiah.

-- A2SG, and anyone who speaks ill of him will feel their wrath......

Well if and when Trump gets convicted of a crime you might have a point but over the last 6 years in spite of the very best efforts of the inhabitants of the swamp he remains innocent.

 

[A2SG]

Well if and when Trump gets convicted of a crime you might have a point but over the last 6 years in spite of the very best efforts of the inhabitants of the swamp he remains innocent.

My point remains regardless. Trump, or at least the organization he heads, has been found guilty of fraud, and still some maintain he's never done anything wrong, ever.

It goes beyond mere presumption of innocence.

-- A2SG, there are some who would still vote for him even if he killed someone on Fifth Avenue.....

 

[Yttrium]

Trump knew the claims were untrue then that does meet the legal definition of wire fraud.

I think it's very likely that Trump believed his claims. Demonstrating that he knew they were untrue would be very difficult, if possible at all.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It is already a political prosecution. The proof of that is the lack of prosecution for others who have done the same thing. In one case, a person claims election fraud and is then prosecuted for it. In another case, a person claims election fraud and is then invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention.

Vague whataboutism is the best kind of argument...

 

[essentialsaltes]

specifically his fundraising of $200,000 based on claims of election fraud.

The amount needs three more zeroes: $200 million

One of the details that came out some time ago, but possibly also relevant to a determination of fraud is the "Election Defense Fund". Donors presumably thought their money was going specifically to the legal fight over the election, when in fact there was no such fund, and the money went into Trump's PAC.

And this from OP article: Prosecutors also sought information about an “Election Defense Fund” — cited in some fundraising emails that asked for donor money to challenge the election — and any documents about whether such a fund existed or whether there were plans for such a fund. Trump advisers told the Jan. 6 committee that references to the fund in pitches was a marketing tactic and no such segregated fund ever existed.

 

[SimplyMe]

I think it's very likely that Trump believed his claims. Demonstrating that he knew they were untrue would be very difficult, if possible at all.

Which would appear to be why they are subpoenaing correspondence (such as text messages) of those that Trump was using to advise him, at the time. It's been reported that his high level advisors in the White House were telling him there was no evidence to support Trump's claims. We also have information from the Dominion v Fox News trial, where Giuliani and Sydney Powell knew there was no evidence to support the claims they were making -- and admitted it when off camera -- despite what they were claiming on camera. It will be interesting to see what is found.

Also, as pointed out in the previous post, the fraud claims may also extend from the fact he fund raised on investigating the election and fighting the results but never planned to use the money to fight the election claims.

 

[SimplyMe]

It is already a political prosecution. The proof of that is the lack of prosecution for others who have done the same thing. In one case, a person claims election fraud and is then prosecuted for it. In another case, a person claims election fraud and is then invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention.

Who else has launched a fund raising campaign based on their "stolen election" claims. You can claim some Democrats claimed their election was stolen, I'm sure you'd claim Hillary did, but she never had a fund raising campaign for her claims.

 

[BPPLEE]

He claimed election fraud happened which is why Joe Biden is in the White House and not DJT (season Two) and raised money off of that series of lies. Why is that “okay”?

I can claim that I am God and raise money off of that lie and it’s not a crime

 

[Hans Blaster]

I can claim that I am God and raise money off of that lie and it’s not a crime

I'm pretty sure that when you do that the "donors" get to claim the "gift" as a tax deduction. [See sections 501(c)(3) and 501(d) of the US Tax Code.]

 

[DaisyDay]

I can claim that I am God and raise money off of that lie and it’s not a crime

If you raise that money on the basis that you will build a temple to yourself as God but instead simply pocket the money then that is fraud and a crime.

It is the claim of what the money would be used for that is fraudulent, not so much that the underlying claim is a knowing lie.