I asked because the NY case focused on falsified NY business records. Any tax evasion charges would be brought by the CI under the IRS. To my knowledge the CI wasn’t involved. It doesn’t surprise me that the expenses were misreported on tax returns btw. I just asked the question as I hadn’t followed the tax angle.
Maybe not for the original misdemeanors, but furtherance of another crime that changed them to a felony could have included both the FEC and IRS? They were given the right to look at his tax records. That had to be for something. Vance got his tax records early in the case, and then Bragg looked at them heavily, when he took over the case iirc. I don't think the furtherance of another crime statute in NY necessarily must be a NY crime. It could be a federal crime as well.
Prostitution as an entertainment business expense? Do the have a legal Red Light district in NY now?
Or Bob Menedez, right? He's probably going to jail by the end of the year. And Hunter Biden is also on trial right now for... ahem... "filling out a form incorrectly".
or hrc, jb, mgt team of the Mueller report, Nancy Pelosi, Adam shiff, chuckle shimmer,..
I don't believe this was prostitution.
Prostitution come in the flavor of future favors in the form of influence and/or introductions, in my mind. 🤷♀️
Would you like me to name all of the contemptuous Republicans in the public eye? Because we'd be here all day.
8 years later and you still can't shut up about emails of a candidate who didn't even win and isn't in politics anymore. Maybe we should be prosecuting Mitt Romney for animal cruelty. Lol
these are all federal crimes the were ignored, yet a rep makes a book keeping error ...
My understanding of the evidence (and the defense) was that Cohen was over paid to allow him to file a lawful return at no cost to him. The IRS, like this prosecutor, looked at the allegations and made the decision to not go forward.
You are giving them way too much credit. They looked at it and said they weren't willing to stake their careers without a lockdown case. Maybe they didn't have the evidence that has now been obtained.
More likely they were hesitant to bring a case to trial on a legal theory which has never been used to prosecute anyone. As such, I assumed they realized any prosecution of such a theory would appear political motivated. In the end the timing of the prosecution certainly didn’t help the optics.
Because there has NEVER been a case like this. But you can tell me if I am wrong about that.
You don’t think politicians have ever committed misdemeanors before in efforts to conceal information which they believe might reflect negatively on them politically ?
Nancy Pelosi wrote legislation that favored unions and minimum wage; her companies were exempt.
Do you think they had their lawyer take out a 400k loan, slowly pay them 15k a month to book it as a "legal retainer," and then stop paying him? GTFOH
The only part of this statement which is illegal on its face might be the misclassifcation of the payment. Which is a misdemeanor. Again…the fact pattern doesn’t really matter. A politician was guilty of several misdemeanors in an attempt to hide an act which he believed might hurt his political career. The State of NY decided to parlay those into felony charges. If you have another instance where this has been done prior please post.
They didn't just decide to turn it into a felony, they followed NY law.
Politicians do all kinds of vile things. I already mentioned that.
Again…show me one other case where this legal theory has been prosecuted as a felony in NY. I would tend to give NY the benefit of the doubt but after the civil trial for over valuation of an asset on a performing loan it is fairly obvious NY is filing legal actions based on politics. I’ve been representing banks for over 30 years and I’ve never heard of such a thing.
If we held our Presidents to a higher standard we would have different nominees this time around. One second thought I may agree with you
. The problem is not holding an elected official to a certain standard. The problem is the opposing party using lawfare against a politician and ignoring the legal issues associated with their people. If you want to apply a “higher standard” then I’m fine with said standard. However, partisans can’t be the ones to set and apply that standard. Good luck with that.I'll show you a NY law firm who used to be prosecuting attorneys for Manhattan county, who warn their clients against doing this on their web page. If it doesn't come up on the right page then click on FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS: on the right side of this page under Practice Areas. I'm assuming that felonies aren't as uncommon as some might think. Look under FBR: Definition and Elements and you'll find what I quoted above.
Convictions and/or Charges for felonies since 2010 in NY. Here are 8.If we held our Presidents to a higher standard we would have different nominees this time around. One second thought I may agree with you
I haven’t subscribed to Lexus Nexus in years. I don’t have the need to research case law often in dealing with real estate and banking. When I do I call in a favor.
Unlawful means in that he had to commit a misdemeanor by misreporting the business expense in order to cover up the affair with the porn actress. That is a simple circular argument, there was nothing to prove. He committed the misdemeanor to cover up the fact that he was buying the article to cover up the incident so that it would not get reported to the public. If he did not commit the misdemeanor then he might not have been elected, thus he committed the misdemeanor in order to ensure that he got elected. He defrauded the voters by covering up the payment to Stormy Daniels for the rights to the article, which was the misdemeanor that then became a felony.
The irony is he had no chance of winning the state of NY. Didn’t matter whether the story broke or not. Presidents having an extra marital affair matters little in the mind of voters these days. I thought he made a mistake in not claiming he hid the affair for the sake of his marriage ala Bill Clinton. In any event, as I said above I’m not aware of any prior felony prosecution of a misdemeanor where no loss was suffered by any party. Much like his civil prosecution. Which again concerns me more than the criminal. The state sued a businessman for allegedly overstating the value of collateral used on a performing loan. I assume NY went through all his business dealings until they found something they thought they could use at trial? Care to argue this wasn’t political ?
The penalty is what I saw as being out of line, in the civil prosecution. He had egregiously (likely done it more extremely, and more frequently than 95% of the others who had committed the same offense) done that over the years. I was fine with him getting busted on that, but I don't think it was proper the penalty he received for his first conviction on this offense. And on the criminal offense, regardless of whether it affected the NY vote, he did it to cover it up to the other states. So what, that's his problem.
NY sued a businessman for misstating collateral where no one lost a single penny. No loan went into default. In fact, the lender supported the valuations and stated they would make the loans again. Such a lawsuit is largely unprecedented. Moreover, the suit was brought by an AG who promised to “take down” an individual of a rival political party as part of her campaign. Once she took office she went through a political rivals business records until she found something she thought she could take to court Surely you can see the dangerous precedent being set here.
So what?
