FBI looking at Manhattan DA's office over "over potential undue influence" in Ivanka & Don Jr cases

[Miles Archer]

FBI agents are probing the Manhattan district attorney’s office over its handling of high-profile cases that were dropped once lawyers for the well-connected subjects made donations, the Daily News has learned.

Investigators have been quietly seeking information in recent months about decision-making by DA Cy Vance Jr. and his staff, sources with knowledge of the undertaking said.

Vance’s office cleared daughter Ivanka Trump and son Donald Trump Jr., who were being looked at for allegedly defrauding Trump SoHo investors and would-be buyers by lying about the number of condos that had been sold.

In 2012, Vance met with an attorney for the pair, Marc Kasowitz, who had previously given him $25,000. An additional $32,000 was donated after the office declined to prosecute Ivanka and Trump Jr.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-fbi-probes-manhattan-da-office-20181002-story.html

[nycbos]

1. In the 2017 NYC elections Vance ran unopposed.

I wrote in someone for this reason.

[Me.]

2. I Did Too

They should also investigate him for the Strauss-Kahn case and how his office bungled part of the Weinstein case.

[Cicada]

3. They didn't bungle Weinstein, weird law prohibited prosecution

The decision on Weinstein was made by the long time female head of sex prosecutions. The cops wired the woman but gave her bad advice on what to say. They should have talked to prosecutors first. Apparently the law makes it legal to grope a woman’s breasts for job related reasons and Weinstein and the woman were talking about her being nude in roles, talking about her breasts being good for that work. He then feels her breasts. That’s the alleged offense. The long time female prosecutor concluded Weinstein would beat the charge, that he would say I checked her breasts out to confirm their work related value. And that he would win in a motion to dismiss. Vance didn’t make that decision, the 25 year veteran female prosecutor made that decision, presented it to Vance and Vance said ok. That’s what I read somewhere.

[Me.]

4. A Different Point Of View

“Cy Vance seems to extend grace to high-profile would-be defendants without fear or favor toward either political party. For the reasonable man and woman on the street, that’s the takeaway from back-to-back bombshells implicating the Manhattan district attorney, who determined, following two separate investigations, that no prosecutions should be brought against Harvey Weinstein for sexual assault or Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. for fraud. In both cases, there were suspicious political contributions to Vance.”

“But suggesting that the insuperable hurdle was the law in this context is misleading. It may be true that New York law requires Vance’s team of prosecutors to prove that Weinstein touched Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, the model who made the incriminating tape in 2015, “for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire,” and that Vance may have felt that that element of the crime wasn’t there. But if Law & Order: SVU and the workings of overzealous district attorneys have taught us anything, it’s that these public servants don’t just build a case out of one piece of proof. The tape was damning enough, but there’s also Battilana Gutierrez’s testimony, and other prosecutorial tactics might have uncovered other evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to build a solid case against Weinstein. For any prosecutor, where there’s a will there’s a way.”

“In the end, Vance’s choice to go easy on Weinstein may have been less about favoring him, and more about fearing going up a against a deep-pocketed defendant in what could have been the biggest sex-crime prosecution of his career. Harvard law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen astutely pointed out that, early in his tenure as Manhattan’s district attorney, Vance badly botched the case against Frenchman Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the International Monetary Fund leader who stood accused of sexually assaulting a hotel maid. There, as in the Weinstein case, a conviction may have turned on the credibility of the victim — which may explain why Vance arguably erred on the side of self-preservation and avoiding embarrassment than seeking justice.

Even with a smoking-gun tape staring him in the face, the prospect of yet another botched case in the headlines may have been simply too daunting for Vance.”

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/10/why-the-manhattan-da-let-harvey-weinstein-walk.html?gtm=bottom

[Cicada]

5. None of those factors explain why the veteran female prosecutor said no go

As I understood it the decision was made after an extensive two week review by a veteran female prosecutor, the head of that department. Why blame Vance for her decision? Why not blame her?

And it would be costly, time consuming, with a relatively low probability of a win even if 51%. A prosecutor does have limited resources. Why not take the resources of a Weinstein prosecution and get ten other convictions instead, convictions that otherwise would have been dropped for lack of resources?

[Me.]

6. Because He Has The Say So On Everything

when prosecutors wanted to go forward with the Tumps he said no and his involvement in the Strauss -Kahn case is/was a disgrace. Nothing goes forward in his office without his saying it does. And as for Weinstein...I can't even believe the questioning of why this should go forward. And this case does nothing to stop other cases, the only thing that does is when women get pushed aside by those who should be protecting and defending them. It took the European authorities to set the Strauss-Kahn right when they arrested him for running a prostitution ring.

[Cicada]

7. This case does nothing to stop other cases?

If the office had twice the money and twice the prosecutors the number of convictions would be unchanged? I agree with most of what you said but I disagree that resources deployed on a big case don’t reduce efforts elsewhere.

[Me.]

8. The City Council Added Millions To The Budget in June

though I honestly think prosecuting the big cases is not a hindrance to doing the same for smaller cases, especially as so far they've been passing on those big cases.