Wed Mar 29, 2023, 10:16 PM
gldstwmn (4,575 posts)
Manhattan DA Insiders Worry the Trump Hush Money Case Is Weak Sauce
The indictment that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is currently seeking against former President Donald Trump—over his payment to silence a porn star about their sexual affair—is based on a crime that was so flimsy it was never viewed as a standalone criminal case, according to three attorneys who have worked on that investigation.
These insiders spoke to The Daily Beast on the condition of anonymity, because they are not authorized to discuss the ongoing criminal investigation. (snip) His decision to bring back what has been deemed the “zombie” case surprised several insiders who have been briefed on the various iterations of the Stormy Daniels case over the years. (snip) “The hush money case had no exact state charge. It should have been the feds,” said a second person who spoke to The Daily Beast. https://www.thedailybeast.com/manhattan-district-attorney-insiders-worry-the-trump-stormy-daniels-alvin-bragg-hush-money-case-is-weak-sauce?source=twitter&via=desktop
|
24 replies, 1784 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
gldstwmn | Mar 2023 | OP |
gab13by13 | Mar 2023 | #1 | |
gldstwmn | Mar 2023 | #7 | |
Scrivener7 | Mar 2023 | #10 | |
gldstwmn | Mar 2023 | #19 | |
Jarqui | Mar 2023 | #2 | |
tblue37 | Mar 2023 | #4 | |
Jarqui | Mar 2023 | #6 | |
gldstwmn | Mar 2023 | #8 | |
Scrivener7 | Mar 2023 | #9 | |
Jarqui | Mar 2023 | #12 | |
Scrivener7 | Mar 2023 | #13 | |
Jarqui | Mar 2023 | #14 | |
Jarqui | Mar 2023 | #17 | |
Jarqui | Mar 2023 | #18 | |
Scrivener7 | Apr 2023 | #20 | |
Jarqui | Apr 2023 | #21 | |
Scrivener7 | Apr 2023 | #22 | |
Jarqui | Apr 2023 | #23 | |
Scrivener7 | Apr 2023 | #24 | |
tulipsandroses | Mar 2023 | #3 | |
ZonkerHarris | Mar 2023 | #5 | |
Scrivener7 | Mar 2023 | #11 | |
emulatorloo | Mar 2023 | #15 | |
BlackSkimmer | Mar 2023 | #16 |
Response to gldstwmn (Original post)
Wed Mar 29, 2023, 10:30 PM
gab13by13 (18,106 posts)
1. I say BS,
First of all there are more possible charges than paying off a porn start and hiding it. There are, campaign finance crime, and tax fraud that make the payment a felony.
Second, breaking news, Allen Weisselberg just fired his Trump attorneys. If, and if is a big word, Weisselberg fired his attorneys because he is flipping on Trump, like Cohen did, that makes Bragg's case rock solid. Maybe this was the delay, charge Weisselberg with more crimes unless he cooperates. Weisselberg firing his Trump attorneys didn't come from anonymous sources. |
Response to gab13by13 (Reply #1)
Thu Mar 30, 2023, 12:08 AM
gldstwmn (4,575 posts)
7. No one is certain what is going on
Response to gab13by13 (Reply #1)
Thu Mar 30, 2023, 09:14 AM
Scrivener7 (49,331 posts)
10. A rare case where we disagree. This whole thing about the lawyer is being wildly
misread.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-the-trump-org-suddenly-fired-its-jailed-money-man-allen-weisselbergs-lawyer Gravante, his old lawyer, was considered not friendly to the Trump Org and was advocating for his client, Weisselberg, without concern for the Trump Org's benefit. But the Trump Org was paying Gravante's bill. It was the Trump Org, not Weisselberg himself, who fired Gravante. The new lawyer, presumably, is more aligned with the Trump Org interests, so it now becomes much LESS likely that Weisselberg will flip. |
Response to Scrivener7 (Reply #10)
Thu Mar 30, 2023, 03:02 PM
gldstwmn (4,575 posts)
19. Ugh. That is not good news.
Response to gldstwmn (Original post)
Wed Mar 29, 2023, 10:55 PM
Jarqui (9,728 posts)
2. I'm not convinced that is the whole story at all
First of all, it has been documented that AG Barr squashed many of the efforts to investigate Trump at SDNY. They fired Berman. Nothing was coming out of there while Trump was President. Who here thinks Trump would feel it was too illegal to scuttle or sabotage their evidence while his folks were in charge?
If Bragg's case was dead after Costello testified, why bring Pecker back two days ago for rebuttal of Costello? Bragg wouldn't have bothered if the Stormy case was dead. Two days ago, the Stormy case was not dead. For another reason: they allegedly determined Trump CFO Weisselberg lied to them since he was sentenced. They can go back at Weisselberg to flip him and appear to have been pressuring him as documented in a NYT article of Feb 2nd, 2023 (just after the Grand Jury reconvened for Stormy's case). Trump copmplained about them pressuring Weisselberg in March. Weisselberg can shore up Cohen's testimony big time. He signed some of those checks and did the bookkeeping. If Weisselberg gets caught lying, he goes to prison for a long time. For another reason, the way they're talking about the case in the article in the top post isn't the only way it can be looked at: https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/trump-write-hush-money-payments-article-1.3980656 To elevate the misdemeanor to a felony, instead of a FEC felony violation, they could get him on a state felony for tax evasion so they wouldn't need to make the precedent of trying to lift a state misdemeanor with a federal felony. If Trump expensed those Stormy payments, he might be liable for the state taxes he saved with those expenses. If it is more than $3,000 in taxes as it is likely to be with Stormy's and McDougals payments, that's a NY State felony. So Stormy's misdemeanor might be lifted to a felony with a state tax felony. The article in the top post did not mention that. As well, who would want to rely on a federal conviction of Trump? Next time the GOP steal the White House, Trump will be pardoned. And if they flipped Weisselberg, they've got AG Letitia James criminal referrals for insurance and bank fraud they can go after him for. I suspect that same Grand Jury met on those last Thursday and are meeting again this Thursday - they're not meeting on the Stormy case tomorrow but they're still meeting. There was a bunch of evidence against Trump pulled together after Bragg took office. They criminally convicted Weisselberg & Trump org. They got Trump's tax returns. NY AG Letitia James filed her civil claims for $250 mil with the assistance of Bragg's office. And then AG James made her IRS and criminal referrals. All that had little to nothing to do with Stormy. It is more than merely plausible Bragg has been able to piece together a felony there that Stormy's expenses tie to. Again, Bragg's career is on the line as is the safety of his family and co-workers. With all the above going on, it is very premature to count him out. In fact, in light of the above, it seem foolish to dismiss his efforts. |
Response to Jarqui (Reply #2)
Wed Mar 29, 2023, 11:42 PM
tblue37 (61,998 posts)
4. What about money laundering?
Response to tblue37 (Reply #4)
Thu Mar 30, 2023, 12:08 AM
Jarqui (9,728 posts)
6. Certainly a significant possibility
They have a large menu of financial crimes they can consider.
Read AG Letitia James complaint for civil damages and ask yourself as you go along "I wonder what state criminal law that violated?" AG James made criminal referrals in Sept 2022. Media seems to generally ignore them. They had all the paper in Manafort's cases. They needed someone to witness and testify. They flipped Gates. Game over. They've got a massive amount of paper on Trump's financial crimes now. They needed someone beyond Cohen - an accounting person. Getting Weisselberg is big. You watch. The whole tone against Trump is going to shift seismically. No more jokes about Stormy case being nothing. FOX News is already underway dumping him. Trump's only chance to survive now becomes winning the Oval office before he gets convicted. The bitch for the GOP is they can't help him in NY State - they can't dangle a pardon or have a GOP legislature free him. So if they don't nominate him, he'll run as an independent and neither will win. If they do nominate him, no way he can win as all the cases close in on him. Flipping Stormy's payoff from a misdemeanor to a felony wouldn't have put him in jail that long in the worst case. Getting him with Weisselberg financial crimes could put him in the slammer for the rest of his life. We still have a long way to go. But I think this is very big news. |
Response to Jarqui (Reply #2)
Thu Mar 30, 2023, 12:10 AM
gldstwmn (4,575 posts)
8. Great post. Thanks for this.
Response to Jarqui (Reply #2)
Thu Mar 30, 2023, 09:11 AM
Scrivener7 (49,331 posts)
9. Weisselberg just became harder to flip with the new lawyer.
The old lawyer was advocating for him and not the Trump Org, though the company was paying him. That's why he was fired.
The new lawyer, presumably, is more willing to throw Weisselberg under the bus for the benefit of the Trump Org. And while you make good points about other cases, this one doesn't seem to have a lot to it. |
Response to Scrivener7 (Reply #9)
Thu Mar 30, 2023, 10:06 AM
Jarqui (9,728 posts)
12. To me, that smells like Trump's spin.
It was contradicted in the article:
“Mr. Weisselberg’s decision to change lawyers was entirely his own, a decision which I understand Mr. Weisselberg made in consultation with his family after the conclusion of the trial.” I cannot find (doesn't mean there are not any) cases where Clayman & Rosenberg represented Trump. Clayman comment on Cohen's place being raided. They defended AG Sniderman who faced sex assault charges. Sniderman sued Trump University. I haven't found a relationship between Trump and Clayman & Rosenberg. As I mentioned in a recent post: as Weisselberg is completing his prison time after pleading guilty to 15 crimes, regardless of who is paying, why does Weisselberg still need a white collar criminal defense lawyer? So he's still under pressure with criminal liability. Is Weisselberg not in some danger like Epstein? That might be part or all of the reason why he's in a contagious disease section of Rikers. So he wants to rely on a Trump paid lawyer to not reveal his location when he gets out of prison? If he does, he's pretty stupid. He has to see a pattern - nearly everyone under Trump is winding up with criminal convictions and he could wind up like Epstein. |
Response to Jarqui (Reply #12)
Thu Mar 30, 2023, 10:14 AM
Scrivener7 (49,331 posts)
13. Lol! And I actually think THIS is trump spin. Daily Beast says sources are saying
Eric Trump fired Gravante, not Weisselberg.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-the-trump-org-suddenly-fired-its-jailed-money-man-allen-weisselbergs-lawyer Whether he wants to rely on a Trump paid lawyer or not, that is what he has been doing all along, and continues to do. Gravante was paid by the company (though they found him "not trumpy enough" ) and the new lawyer is being paid by the company too. But, as with most of this stuff, there's no way to say which of us is right. This case is very squirrel-ly, though. |
Response to Scrivener7 (Reply #13)
Thu Mar 30, 2023, 10:24 AM
Jarqui (9,728 posts)
14. Weisselberg is in danger
He could destroy Trump and put him in prison for the rest of his life.
They've got some real criminal insurance fraud goods on Weisselberg according to some pretty good prosecutors: Link to tweet That's been known since last September - when the articles allege Weisselberg changed lawyers. Again, why does Weisselberg still need a lawyer after serving time in prison? The above tweet explains and there's more behind it in AG James statement of claim and her criminal referrals. Like Weisselberg found out last time, it doesn't matter who paid for his lawyers, he still wound up in jail. They have reasonable grounds to send him away to prison for a lot longer according to the tweet - and that is only one of many crimes AG James highlighted. From that, Weisselberg and his family are going to bet their future and his life on Trump and a lawyer Trump pays? In the wake of all the other felony convictions and Epstein, Weisselberg would know better than anyone how foolish that is. |
Response to Scrivener7 (Reply #13)
Thu Mar 30, 2023, 12:11 PM
Jarqui (9,728 posts)
17. Here's the indictment he plead guilty to:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/20982370/indictment-final-unsigned.pdf
Here's AG James claim https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/tto_complaint.pdf Beyond Zurich insurance, just a quick scan of AG James claim reveals other areas of criminal concern for Weisselberg: Paragraph 56-57 56. Similarly, the engagement letters specifically obligated the Trump Organization to Paragraph 61 61. As noted, Mr. Trump or the Trustees would prepare valuations and data for the Paragraph 212: 212. What is more, during the course of the 2019 valuation of Trump Tower, Mr. paragraph 320 320. For the years 2017 to 2021, the Trump Organization purported to use the All look like they're within the statute of limitations for a NY felony. Insurance Fraud, bank fraud and tax crimes. No wonder he needs a criminal lawyer. And therefore, he's very susceptible to being flipped. Trump has some significant liability too ... if they can flip Weisselberg .. |
Response to Scrivener7 (Reply #13)
Thu Mar 30, 2023, 02:07 PM
Jarqui (9,728 posts)
18. Potentially, an interesting point about that made here:
Link to tweet Lisa Rubin@lawofruby 15h There would be major ethical/conflict of interest issues raised against the lawyer and Trump org if the lawyer's services were taken away from Weisselberg at the whim of Trump org without the approval of Weisselberg. It is possible they had a weird contract to allow such a thing (not sure the contract could be upheld) but pretty unlikely. When you can afford to pay a $2 mil tax repayment like Weisselberg did, you can afford your own lawyer. I'd say that is another part of the Daily Beast story that smells. |
Response to Jarqui (Reply #18)
Sun Apr 2, 2023, 02:17 PM
Scrivener7 (49,331 posts)
20. A bit more information about who fired whom and what the new lawyer is there to do:
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-trump-org-swapped-allen-weisselberg-lawyer-20230330-6rkce6kxybcnhk6tydpcfrvoim-story.html
Gravante encouraged Weisselberg to listen to what the prosecutors had to say. That's why he was fired. |
Response to Scrivener7 (Reply #13)
Sun Apr 2, 2023, 07:47 PM
Jarqui (9,728 posts)
21. That's a very Trump-like statement, Know why?
It is illegal and unethical.
A third party cannot fire an individual's lawyer without that individual's consent - so it is the individual who is making the firing decision or Trump is breaking the law or doing something unethical. What a shock that would be [/sarcasm] Andrew Weissmann, who Laurence Tribe described as having the finest prosecutorial mind he'd encountered, wrote up the Zurich insurance fraud problem Weisselberg has - regardless of who his lawyer is. If you're in prison - everyone knows where you are and you can't go anywhere. Is that really a good time to flip on Trump? He could get Epsteined. "Until I and my family are in a witness protection program, I won't say anything". One possibility: Bragg turned down this case 15 months ago. Something changed. Weisselberg flipping could explain it but they're keeping it quiet until Trump is indicted or Weisselberg is in a safe situation. If TRump knew he was flying in to a racketeering charge with Weisselberg testifying, would he fly to NY so easily? Who knows? |
Response to Jarqui (Reply #21)
Scrivener7 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Scrivener7 (Reply #22)
Sun Apr 2, 2023, 08:19 PM
Jarqui (9,728 posts)
23. Sorry. You misunderstood.
I'm calling Eric's statement Trump-like (like his father). Not your post.
It was a stupid thing For Eric to claim a) because it is potentially illegal unless Weisselberg wanted it to happen b) because they have to be concerned about witness tampering or obstruction (which Trump does like eating big macs) I have trouble imagining tampering or obstruction not being one of the 34 counts on Tuesday |
Response to gldstwmn (Original post)
Wed Mar 29, 2023, 11:36 PM
tulipsandroses (4,904 posts)
3. Not buying it. This sounds like trump spin
Nobody would have their panties in a bunch at this point, had it not be for chump declaring he was going to be arrested. He got to set that narrative.
|
Response to gldstwmn (Original post)
Wed Mar 29, 2023, 11:58 PM
ZonkerHarris (23,418 posts)
5. propaganda story
Response to gldstwmn (Original post)
Thu Mar 30, 2023, 09:21 AM
Scrivener7 (49,331 posts)
11. I believe this. It is consistent with the decades-long history of prosecuting tfg in NYC.
A lot of kabuki, no real consequences.
|
Response to gldstwmn (Original post)
Thu Mar 30, 2023, 11:44 AM
emulatorloo (43,293 posts)
15. 'Insiders' - This story does not pass the smell test. I think Weisselberg
is flipping on Trump and will possibly testify to Bragg’s grand jury.
No wonder Trump insiders are trying to do damage control. |
Response to gldstwmn (Original post)
Thu Mar 30, 2023, 12:01 PM
BlackSkimmer (51,308 posts)
16. And now the grand jury is taking a month off?
Lol.
Not surprised here. |