Letita Jamews indicted for fraud

[NotreDame]

But her wrong while she did her own wrong is rather ironic, don' you think? She was blinded by the beam in her own eye.

Ironic? No. A travesty? Yes. Much more is expected of our national leader and leader in the international community. I expected the President to act Presidential as opposed to lowering the esteem of the office to what a state official has done.

 

[Aldebaran]

Ironic? No. A travesty? Yes. Much more is expected of our national leader and leader in the international community. I expected the President to act Presidential as opposed to lowering the esteem of the office to what a state official has done.

State officials aren't above the law. If they were, then what should we expect of local officials?

 

[rambot]

1. What's it called again when a government attacks its political opponents?

2. You guys talk like she's guilty already.


So yet again....no innocence until proven foe the right.

 

[rambot]

State officials aren't above the law. If they were, then what should we expect of local officials?

Presidents aren't supposed to be above the law in America either but that's just another way this supreme court has ruined the American experiment.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Why not? Are political candidates not protected by the first amendment, same as everyone else?


True...but she believed he was, and said so. Again, freedom of speech. Now, it's entirely possible she had evidence of his guilt back then, so we cannot say for sure how much she knew about his financial shenanigans at that point, but regardless...she was running to prosecute criminals, and she promised to get someone she believed was a criminal. Even if she'd been incorrect on that assessment (she wasn't), she still had every right to voice her opinion.

They absolutely are! However Trump was deemed a criminal and guilty by her BEFORE there was even a trial! Saying you want to prosecute criminals while running for office is one thing, but singling out Trump is quite another. Might be freedom of speech but If I were Trump I would have sued her for slander, liable or defamation...and she should be running around saying people are guilty and they have not even had a trial!

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

1. What's it called again when a government attacks its political opponents?

2. You guys talk like she's guilty already.

She did the exact same thing to Trump...

 

[rjs330]

But her wrong doesn’t absolve Trump of prosecution by revenge, vindictiveness, and possibly lawfare. Your look away from Trump’s malfeasance to Letitia’s is a common distraction technique which doesn’t address the impropriety of Trump’s conduct.

No, it doesn't make Trump innocent. It alao doesn't make her innocent either. And she should face the same things she prosecuted him for.

If a prosecutor prosecuted someone for bank robbery, while being involved in robbing banks it doesn't mean they shouldn't be prosecuted themselves.

Its not revenge. Its called justice. Its no distraction since Trump has already been through it. Now its her turn. Justice is required since it was what she demanded.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Justice Department indicts Letitia James after pressure from Trump​

A federal grand jury in Virginia has indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James on one count of bank fraud and one count of making false statement to a financial institution

AG James was indicted for falsifying financial documents. If found guilty, she should be prosecuted and punished according to the law. Although it may appear hypocritical, AG James has indicted President Trump on similar grounds: falsification of financial documents and secured 34 felony convictions.

Previously, MAGA supporters regarded President Trump’s indictment and conviction as unfounded and characterized the proceedings as a "kangaroo court." However, they now consider Attorney General James's committing similar crime to be severe and assert that it should be addressed according to the law.

 

[rjs330]

1. What's it called again when a government attacks its political opponents?

2. You guys talk like she's guilty already.


So yet again....no innocence until proven foe the right.

Gee I dont recall you saying this when Trump.was under attack by his political opponents. Rhe left on this board was very accusatory about him being guilty before any trials.

It's called hypocrisy.

Now I dont know if she's guilty or not. A Grand Jury indictment is not evidence of guilt. Not everyone who indicted is actually found guilty.

But whats good for rhe goose. Justice should be blind and if you are doing things that are wrong, then you should face the music. Just because you go after a president, it doesn't make you immune to prosecution for your own wrong doing.

 

[A2SG]

They absolutely are! However Trump was deemed a criminal and guilty by her BEFORE there was even a trial!

Yeah. So? She was running for prosecutor, that's what prosecutors do. Her job was to provide evidence to prove guilt in court, and that's exactly what she did.

Saying you want to prosecute criminals while running for office is one thing, but singling out Trump is quite another. Might be freedom of speech but If I were Trump I would have sued her for slander, liable or defamation...and she should be running around saying people are guilty and they have not even had a trial!

Except that truth is an absolute defense for slander, and she proved his guilt with a preponderance of evidence.

-- A2SG, which is probably why he never tried to do that.....

 

[rjs330]

AG James was indicted for falsifying financial documents. If found guilty, she should be prosecuted and punished according to the law. Although it may appear hypocritical, AG James has indicted President Trump on similar grounds: falsification of financial documents and secured 34 felony convictions.

Previously, MAGA supporters regarded President Trump’s indictment and conviction as unfounded and characterized the proceedings as a "kangaroo court." However, they now consider Attorney General James's committing similar crime to be severe and assert that it should be addressed according to the law.

I think you are missing the point. Yes many do believe James was involved in political prosecution. In fact she all but admitted it. And the case still is ongoing through appeals.

Its not that people think James crime is severe, this is about equality and fairness. Whats good for the goose. James prosecuted Trump for mortgage stuff, so its only just and right for her to be prosecuted for mortgage stuff.

If you aee going to prosecute people for robbery, well, you shouldnt be involved in robbery yourself. And if you are then you should face the same justice system you put everyone else through. Its what is fair and just.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Had it been the other way around and Trump was being indicted,democrats wouldn't think it would be frivolous then.

You are 10% right.

This highlights a major issue in America today: when President Trump was indicted, Democrats praised the justice system while MAGA supporters called it a nuisance and unfounded. Now, with a similar indictment against AG. James, Democrats are calling it unfounded and MAGA sees it as justice.

Even more concerning is that supporters on both sides openly exhibit bias and hypocrisy without expressing any remorse for their behavior in public.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I think you are missing the point. Yes many do believe James was involved in political prosecution. In fact she all but admitted it. And the case still is ongoing through appeals.

Its not that people think James crime is severe, this is about equality and fairness. Whats good for the goose. James prosecuted Trump for mortgage stuff, so its only just and right for her to be prosecuted for mortgage stuff.

If you aee going to prosecute people for robbery, well, you shouldnt be involved in robbery yourself. And if you are then you should face the same justice system you put everyone else through. Its what is fair and just.

This is not about political persecution. If she falsified financial documents, she should be held accountable. It's ironic that MAGA calls for justice over AG James's alleged crimes while they elected someone convicted of 34 felonies for similar financial document falsification.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Yeah. So? She was running for prosecutor, that's what prosecutors do. Her job was to provide evidence to prove guilt in court, and that's exactly what she did.

At the least it was inappropriate. She was running for public office. Prosecutors run on saying specific people are guilty before they are even arrested? Not a good look for a person running for public office. Trump was INNOCENT until proven guilty at the time she said that.

 

[camille70]

AG James was indicted for falsifying financial documents. If found guilty, she should be prosecuted and punished according to the law. Although it may appear hypocritical, AG James has indicted President Trump on similar grounds: falsification of financial documents and secured 34 felony convictions.

Previously, MAGA supporters regarded President Trump’s indictment and conviction as unfounded and characterized the proceedings as a "kangaroo court." However, they now consider Attorney General James's committing similar crime to be severe and assert that it should be addressed according to the law.

It's not remotely the same. He over valued his property by billions for the purpose of using it for collateral for larger loans and better loan rates but undervalued the same properties to pay lower taxes. It didn't just happen once, it was a pattern of deception.


She is accused of applying as a primary residence for a more favorable rate but we already know in advance they have a paper with a checked box to that effect but other paperwork including written correspondence from her stating that is not the case. One prosecutor already declined to bring charges because its not a strong case and appears to be paperwork error. If she were trying to deceive, all the paperwork would have matched and she wouldn't have clarified that it's not her primary residence.

Once the other evidence is presented she will walk, but this is designed to inconvenience her and cost her time and money and attempt to damage her reputation.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Had it been the other way around and Trump was being indicted, democrats wouldn't think it would be frivolous then.

QFT -

 

[NotreDame]

No, it doesn't make Trump innocent. It alao doesn't make her innocent either. And she should face the same things she prosecuted him for.

If a prosecutor prosecuted someone for bank robbery, while being involved in robbing banks it doesn't mean they shouldn't be prosecuted themselves.

Its not revenge. Its called justice. Its no distraction since Trump has already been through it. Now its her turn. Justice is required since it was what she demanded.

It is revenge if A.) prosecution is demanded without regard for the paucity of evidence of guilt and B.) there is a paucity of evidence of guilt. ***it has been reported Bondi expressed to Trump the lack of evidence in Letitia’s case to merit prosecution and Trump told her no less than what he faced and he was prosecuted anyway and hence, so should Letitia.***

At some point, the evidence will be disclosed in this case, facilitating a more informed determination whether this is a revenge prosecution.

However, it is a inauspicious sign regarding the evidence when experienced prosecutors either didn’t have evidence Letitia committed a crime or insufficient evidence to merit prosecution as the evidence, being so anemic as to render perhaps very unlikely of obtaining a guilty verdict at trial.

 

[JSRG]

This is not about political persecution. If she falsified financial documents, she should be held accountable. It's ironic that MAGA calls for justice over AG James's alleged crimes while they elected someone convicted of 34 felonies for similar financial document falsification.

You're mixing things up a bit. The "34 felonies" (really should have been one felony but they used creative methods to bump it up to 34, likely to make it look like a bigger accomplishment) wasn't the financial documents case, and it wasn't brought by Letetia James. The "34 felonies" were about violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act regarding Trump allegedly paying off Stormy Daniels to avoid hurting his election campaign back in 2016, and it was brought by Alvin Bragg.

That case had serious issues with it, as explained here (or if someone is going to complain it's from a conservative (Andrew McCarthy), see a similar but more neutral examination by Vox--not a source favorable to Trump!--here), but Bragg benefited from who appears to have been a biased judge (Merchen) and--it should be noted--Trump himself. (Regrettably, both articles are behind paywalls now--the Vox one wasn't before--though the first one at least can be read without subscription if you haven't read two other articles this month) Despite exorciating Merchen as biased and aiding Bragg, Andrew McCarthy still says "Team Trump has presented one of the most ill-conceived, self-destructive defenses I have ever seen in decades of trying and analyzing criminal cases." The issue, as explained in the articles, is that Trump opted not to use a number of defenses that likely would have helped him in the trial, but probably would have hurt him politically. I'm not quite as familiar with the Letetia James case against him but that one looks to be questionable also, and if nothing else the actual fine given to Trump was absolutely outrageous.

Now, I'm not "MAGA", so perhaps I don't count towards what you're saying, but from my understanding of the cases, my opinion is that the prosecutions by James and Bragg were blatant lawfare, and ironically probably helped Trump win re-election because (1) the various problems with them would have engendered sympathy for Trump as victim of lawfare, and (2) due to that perception, the other cases against Trump that didn't make it to court would get mentally lumped in with those lawfare cases even though they were much more credible. However, it also looks to me like the case against James--and Comey--are also lawfare, at least based on what we the public know, and probably of even lower validity than the cases against Trump. McCarthy, who again was harshly critical of Bragg above, has also written a bunch on how little sense the Comey indictment makes by the information we currently know. I'm not as familiar with the case against Latetia James, but that one looks questionable to me also. It could be that they do have some amazing evidence against them, but based on various signs (e.g. a Trump loyalist who's never prosecuted a case before is apparently in charge of these) they look to be weak cases based on vengeful prosecution.

 

[camille70]

You're mixing things up a bit. The "34 felonies" (really should have been one felony but they used creative methods to bump it up to 34, likely to make it look like a bigger accomplishment) wasn't the financial documents case, and it wasn't brought by Letetia James. The "34 felonies" were about violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act regarding Trump allegedly paying off Stormy Daniels to avoid hurting his election campaign back in 2016, and it was brought by Alvin Bragg.

That case had serious issues with it, as explained here (or if someone is going to complain it's from a conservative (Andrew McCarthy), see a similar but more neutral examination by Vox--not a source favorable to Trump!--here), but Bragg benefited from who appears to have been a biased judge (Merchen) and--it should be noted--Trump himself. (Regrettably, both articles are behind paywalls now--the Vox one wasn't before--though the first one at least can be read without subscription if you haven't read two other articles this month) Despite exorciating Merchen as biased and aiding Bragg, Andrew McCarthy still says "Team Trump has presented one of the most ill-conceived, self-destructive defenses I have ever seen in decades of trying and analyzing criminal cases." The issue, as explained in the articles, is that Trump opted not to use a number of defenses that likely would have helped him in the trial, but probably would have hurt him politically. I'm not quite as familiar with the Letetia James case against him but that one looks to be questionable also, and if nothing else the actual fine given to Trump was absolutely outrageous.

Now, I'm not "MAGA", so perhaps I don't count towards what you're saying, but from my understanding of the cases, my opinion is that the prosecutions by James and Bragg were blatant lawfare, and ironically probably helped Trump win re-election because (1) the various problems with them would have engendered sympathy for Trump as victim of lawfare, and (2) due to that perception, the other cases against Trump that didn't make it to court would get mentally lumped in with those lawfare cases even though they were much more credible. However, it also looks to me like the case against James--and Comey--are also lawfare, at least based on what we the public know, and probably of even lower validity than the cases against Trump. McCarthy, who again was harshly critical of Bragg above, has also written a bunch on how little sense the Comey indictment makes by the information we currently know. I'm not as familiar with the case against Latetia James, but that one looks questionable to me also. It could be that they do have some amazing evidence against them, but based on various signs (e.g. a Trump loyalist who's never prosecuted a case before is apparently in charge of these) they look to be weak cases based on vengeful prosecution.

The felonies were for falsifying records to influence the election, hiding payments to Stormy Daniels as payments to Micheal Cohen for legal fees. He falsified invoices, checks and ledger entries and the felonies were for each time he did so, 11-12 times each category.

IMO it was a waste of money. Unfaithful in little, unfaithful in much only applied to Bill Clinton. The evangelicals he was worried about didn't seem to be bothered by his alleged adultery, but he couldn't have known that at the time.

Regardless it was found to be illegal and he was convicted for it.

 

[Yttrium]

Hmm. She was indicted by a grand jury. Doesn't matter if the charges were politically motivated. The charges stuck. We need a trial. Let's get going!