The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[malchior]

I find it interesting they keep calling it an investigation into the Trump *organization*. I still have no belief it'll get to Trump himself. Though I'd be overjoyed.

[LordMortis]

I find it interesting they keep calling it an investigation into the Trump *organization*. I still have no belief it'll get to Trump himself. Though I'd be overjoyed.

He's made a storied career in having everyone else take the fall both for his malfeasance and his incompetence.

[Carpet_pissr]

I'm pretty sure nothing short of Bob Woodward-level tapes for Trump and the 1/6 investigation are going to be needed in order to move the needle on either. Actual phone recordings of Trump (and others) doing crimes or admitting to knowing they were doing crimes.

(though your link is funny)

Agree, I think it's going to have to be ridiculously, overtly obvious and big.

[Holman]

News this afternoon is that Manhattan D.A. Cy Vance has convened a special (i.e long-term) grand jury to decide whether Trump and others in the Trump org will be indicted for various (presumably financial) crimes.

Manhattan's district attorney has convened the grand jury that is expected to decide whether to indict former president Donald Trump, other executives at his company or the business itself should prosecutors present the panel with criminal charges, according to two people familiar with the development.

The panel was convened recently and will sit three days a week for six months. It is likely to hear several matters — not just the Trump case ­— during the duration of its term, which is longer than a traditional New York state grand-jury assignment, these people said. Like others, they spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. Generally, special grand juries such as this one are convened to participate in long-term matters rather than to hear evidence of crimes charged routinely.

[El Guapo]

I'm pretty sure nothing short of Bob Woodward-level tapes for Trump and the 1/6 investigation are going to be needed in order to move the needle on either. Actual phone recordings of Trump (and others) doing crimes or admitting to knowing they were doing crimes.

(though your link is funny)

Agree, I think it's going to have to be ridiculously, overtly obvious and big.

Man, if only Trump was known for committing big, ridiculous, overt crimes.

[Octavious]

Trump getting convicted of a crime might be the only thing that saves our asses.

[Blackhawk]

Trump getting convicted of a crime might be the only thing that saves our asses.

Trump getting convicted of a crime will make us feel better about losing the country.

Trump was a symptom and a figurehead. He wasn't the disease, he was the itchy, crusty sore. Get rid him and the disease will remain. And as long as the disease remains, there will always be another Trump.

[malchior]

I'm pretty sure nothing short of Bob Woodward-level tapes for Trump and the 1/6 investigation are going to be needed in order to move the needle on either. Actual phone recordings of Trump (and others) doing crimes or admitting to knowing they were doing crimes.

(though your link is funny)

Agree, I think it's going to have to be ridiculously, overtly obvious and big.

Man, if only Trump was known for committing big, ridiculous, overt crimes.

Yeah if only there was one set of crimes that the DOJ has a report with evidence of the crime...and is currently fighting a case over to continue to lie to us about why they aren't charging Trump for obstruction.

News this afternoon is that Manhattan D.A. Cy Vance has convened a special (i.e long-term) grand jury to decide whether Trump and others in the Trump org will be indicted for various (presumably financial) crimes.

I more than welcome charges though I still don't think it'll happen. Even so that they constitute conduct prior to his election will be less than satisfying. Even now he is trying to position this as political warfare. There is no winning with the man. Our country is just too sick and broken.

[LordMortis]

Trump getting convicted of a crime might be the only thing that saves our asses.

Trump getting convicted of a crime will make us feel better about losing the country.

Trump was a symptom and a figurehead. He wasn't the disease, he was the itchy, crusty sore. Get rid him and the disease will remain. And as long as the disease remains, there will always be another Trump.

There's a line to take his place. One does wonder what it takes to take the top dog spot, though.

[malchior]

Trump getting convicted of a crime might be the only thing that saves our asses.

Trump getting convicted of a crime will make us feel better about losing the country.

Trump was a symptom and a figurehead. He wasn't the disease, he was the itchy, crusty sore. Get rid him and the disease will remain. And as long as the disease remains, there will always be another Trump.

There's a line to take his place. One does wonder what it takes to take the top dog spot, though.

If he dropped dead there'd be a fight to be sure and there might be 'bonus' opportunities to cleave the base. But those opportunities exist to some extent now. Unfortunately, the Democrats fragile coalition management needs means they often fail to capitalize on those opportunities.

[malchior]

Also to bring everyone back to reality on Trump. The forces that have Republicans whispering about their safety apply to the people who'd need to flip on Trump. Also they have evidence it completely isn't worth it. Cohen flipped, the United States hung him out to dry, and despite a direct admission of a crime at the direction of the boss they let Trump skip away.

[LawBeefaroni]

Well, or they'd need indisputable evidence of such a conversation. Considering the caliber of people in the inner circle, it's highly likely that such evidence exists somewhere.

[El Guapo]

Well, or they'd need indisputable evidence of such a conversation. Considering the caliber of people in the inner circle, it's highly likely that such evidence exists somewhere.

It seems like Trump is fastidious about not using e-mail and not writing questionable things down, though. Though some idiot may well have.

Anyway, if Trump is getting charged with anything, I would expect it to be some financial crime that's fairly cut and dry. Obstruction of justice / abuse of power / treason are too qualitative and too political in nature to be suitable. Financial crimes are also ones where there would likely be more documentation (since Trump would need some paperwork and third parties would have their own paperwork).

[Jaymann]

If I only had a nickel for every time I have read: "There is no way Florida Man can get out of this one!" If nothing else these constant legal threats serve to continually plague FM.

[LawBeefaroni]

Well, or they'd need indisputable evidence of such a conversation. Considering the caliber of people in the inner circle, it's highly likely that such evidence exists somewhere.

It seems like Trump is fastidious about not using e-mail and not writing questionable things down, though. Though some idiot may well have.

Anyway, if Trump is getting charged with anything, I would expect it to be some financial crime that's fairly cut and dry. Obstruction of justice / abuse of power / treason are too qualitative and too political in nature to be suitable. Financial crimes are also ones where there would likely be more documentation (since Trump would need some paperwork and third parties would have their own paperwork).

Deutsche Bank has the goods. Dems are negotiating with Trump on what they get. Because, yeah, that's how you treat someone who attempted a coup and the criminal bank that funded him.

Former President Donald Trump and Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives said on Monday they are near an agreement to resolve disputes concerning congressional subpoenas of his financial records from Deutsche Bank AG.

In a filing in federal court in Manhattan, lawyers for Trump and the Democrats said they believed they were "close to an agreement" in talks concerning the scope of the subpoenas and a process for resolving privacy concerns. They asked a judge for another 30 days to continue talks.

Meanwhile, shredders continue to brrrrr.

[LordMortis]

To say nothing of accidental electronic mishaps that seem to show that their backup and recovery methods are insufficient.

[Skinypupy]

Deutsche Bank has the goods. Dems are negotiating with Trump on what they get. Because, yeah, that's how you treat someone who attempted a coup and the criminal bank that funded him.

Have they tried asking "pretty please, with sprinkles on top?" I've heard that works best.

The ineptitude with which the Dems are approaching this is depressing...and completely unsurprising.

[malchior]

Deutsche Bank has the goods. Dems are negotiating with Trump on what they get. Because, yeah, that's how you treat someone who attempted a coup and the criminal bank that funded him.

Have they tried asking "pretty please, with sprinkles on top?" I've heard that works best.

The ineptitude with which the Dems are approaching this is depressing...and completely unsurprising.

What's crazy is you have a bunch of institutionalists saying, "Be patient. Justice is coming." Yeah we've heard this tune for years. I'll hold my breath. If it does great, but right now I'm just going to keep preparing for a less just, less safe, and much more openly corrupt future.

[Carpet_pissr]

I'm pretty sure nothing short of Bob Woodward-level tapes for Trump and the 1/6 investigation are going to be needed in order to move the needle on either. Actual phone recordings of Trump (and others) doing crimes or admitting to knowing they were doing crimes.

(though your link is funny)

Agree, I think it's going to have to be ridiculously, overtly obvious and big.

Man, if only Trump was known for committing big, ridiculous, overt crimes.

I suspect I'm thinking much bigger, and more obvious than you are thinking.

[El Guapo]

Well, or they'd need indisputable evidence of such a conversation. Considering the caliber of people in the inner circle, it's highly likely that such evidence exists somewhere.

It seems like Trump is fastidious about not using e-mail and not writing questionable things down, though. Though some idiot may well have.

Anyway, if Trump is getting charged with anything, I would expect it to be some financial crime that's fairly cut and dry. Obstruction of justice / abuse of power / treason are too qualitative and too political in nature to be suitable. Financial crimes are also ones where there would likely be more documentation (since Trump would need some paperwork and third parties would have their own paperwork).

Deutsche Bank has the goods. Dems are negotiating with Trump on what they get. Because, yeah, that's how you treat someone who attempted a coup and the criminal bank that funded him.

Former President Donald Trump and Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives said on Monday they are near an agreement to resolve disputes concerning congressional subpoenas of his financial records from Deutsche Bank AG.

In a filing in federal court in Manhattan, lawyers for Trump and the Democrats said they believed they were "close to an agreement" in talks concerning the scope of the subpoenas and a process for resolving privacy concerns. They asked a judge for another 30 days to continue talks.

Meanwhile, shredders continue to brrrrr.

Well, herein lies the problem:

Last July, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Trump's claim that as president he possessed an absolute right to block the release of its records. But the justices said that while Congress had the power to seek evidence from the president, a lower appeals court failed to adequately consider whether the demands by lawmakers were overbroad or too intrusive.

That gives Trump leverage, because if Trump litigated this to the full, by the time Democrats got documents it's entirely possible that they'd have already lost their majority. Especially given the conservative judiciary. Whether Democrats are pushing hard enough given that...hard to say, though I wish I had more confidence.

Of course, if DB is willing to shred stuff, then they've already shredded whatever it is years ago.

[Kraken]

Well, or they'd need indisputable evidence of such a conversation. Considering the caliber of people in the inner circle, it's highly likely that such evidence exists somewhere.

It seems like Trump is fastidious about not using e-mail and not writing questionable things down, though. Though some idiot may well have.

Anyway, if Trump is getting charged with anything, I would expect it to be some financial crime that's fairly cut and dry. Obstruction of justice / abuse of power / treason are too qualitative and too political in nature to be suitable. Financial crimes are also ones where there would likely be more documentation (since Trump would need some paperwork and third parties would have their own paperwork).

Remember that they got Al Capone for tax evasion, and misstating property values to avoid taxes is one of the trump organization's crimes under investigation.

[Jaymann]

Well, or they'd need indisputable evidence of such a conversation. Considering the caliber of people in the inner circle, it's highly likely that such evidence exists somewhere.

It seems like Trump is fastidious about not using e-mail and not writing questionable things down, though. Though some idiot may well have.

Anyway, if Trump is getting charged with anything, I would expect it to be some financial crime that's fairly cut and dry. Obstruction of justice / abuse of power / treason are too qualitative and too political in nature to be suitable. Financial crimes are also ones where there would likely be more documentation (since Trump would need some paperwork and third parties would have their own paperwork).

Remember that they got Al Capone for tax evasion, and misstating property values to avoid taxes is one of the trump organization's crimes under investigation.

Although Capone didn't have 40% of the country in his back pocket. He probably never got above 25%.

[malchior]

Well, or they'd need indisputable evidence of such a conversation. Considering the caliber of people in the inner circle, it's highly likely that such evidence exists somewhere.

It seems like Trump is fastidious about not using e-mail and not writing questionable things down, though. Though some idiot may well have.

Anyway, if Trump is getting charged with anything, I would expect it to be some financial crime that's fairly cut and dry. Obstruction of justice / abuse of power / treason are too qualitative and too political in nature to be suitable. Financial crimes are also ones where there would likely be more documentation (since Trump would need some paperwork and third parties would have their own paperwork).

Remember that they got Al Capone for tax evasion, and misstating property values to avoid taxes is one of the trump organization's crimes under investigation.

Although Capone didn't have 40% of the country in his back pocket. He probably never got above 25%.

It also didn't help him that he was essentially a minority at the time.

[LawBeefaroni]

Well, herein lies the problem:

Last July, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Trump's claim that as president he possessed an absolute right to block the release of its records. But the justices said that while Congress had the power to seek evidence from the president, a lower appeals court failed to adequately consider whether the demands by lawmakers were overbroad or too intrusive.

That gives Trump leverage, because if Trump litigated this to the full, by the time Democrats got documents it's entirely possible that they'd have already lost their majority. Especially given the conservative judiciary. Whether Democrats are pushing hard enough given that...hard to say, though I wish I had more confidence.

He's not the president anymore. Are they arguing that his privilege is indefinite?

Of course, if DB is willing to shred stuff, then they've already shredded whatever it is years ago.

I was thinking metaphorically. Sure some literal shredding, but more unwinding positions, obfuscating money trails, etc. All require time to do properly.

[malchior]

Well, herein lies the problem:

Last July, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Trump's claim that as president he possessed an absolute right to block the release of its records. But the justices said that while Congress had the power to seek evidence from the president, a lower appeals court failed to adequately consider whether the demands by lawmakers were overbroad or too intrusive.

That gives Trump leverage, because if Trump litigated this to the full, by the time Democrats got documents it's entirely possible that they'd have already lost their majority. Especially given the conservative judiciary. Whether Democrats are pushing hard enough given that...hard to say, though I wish I had more confidence.

He's not the president anymore. Are they arguing that his privilege is indefinite?

Of course, if DB is willing to shred stuff, then they've already shredded whatever it is years ago.

I was thinking metaphorically. Sure some literal shredding, but more unwinding positions, obfuscating money trails, etc. All require time to do properly.

Time passed is time for retention policy timelines to be exceeded. Oh this was 8 years ago? Sorry those records were destroyed in accordance with our industry and compliance aligned storage/confidentiality practices.

[El Guapo]

Well, herein lies the problem:

Last July, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Trump's claim that as president he possessed an absolute right to block the release of its records. But the justices said that while Congress had the power to seek evidence from the president, a lower appeals court failed to adequately consider whether the demands by lawmakers were overbroad or too intrusive.

That gives Trump leverage, because if Trump litigated this to the full, by the time Democrats got documents it's entirely possible that they'd have already lost their majority. Especially given the conservative judiciary. Whether Democrats are pushing hard enough given that...hard to say, though I wish I had more confidence.

He's not the president anymore. Are they arguing that his privilege is indefinite?

Of course, if DB is willing to shred stuff, then they've already shredded whatever it is years ago.

I was thinking metaphorically. Sure some literal shredding, but more unwinding positions, obfuscating money trails, etc. All require time to do properly.

Time passed is time for retention policy timelines to be exceeded. Oh this was 8 years ago? Sorry those records were destroyed in accordance with our industry and compliance aligned storage/confidentiality practices.

Shredding records covered by a subpoena is a big no no, and ordinary course records retention policy is not a defense to that. Unless people at DB want to go to jail.

As for unwinding positions...this is not my area of expertise, and obviously I'm not privy to the investigation, but I would think the core issue would be records of past transactions and positions, not the current positions of Trump / DB. But I'm less sure about that.

[ImLawBoy]

Well, herein lies the problem:

Last July, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Trump's claim that as president he possessed an absolute right to block the release of its records. But the justices said that while Congress had the power to seek evidence from the president, a lower appeals court failed to adequately consider whether the demands by lawmakers were overbroad or too intrusive.

That gives Trump leverage, because if Trump litigated this to the full, by the time Democrats got documents it's entirely possible that they'd have already lost their majority. Especially given the conservative judiciary. Whether Democrats are pushing hard enough given that...hard to say, though I wish I had more confidence.

He's not the president anymore. Are they arguing that his privilege is indefinite?

Of course, if DB is willing to shred stuff, then they've already shredded whatever it is years ago.

I was thinking metaphorically. Sure some literal shredding, but more unwinding positions, obfuscating money trails, etc. All require time to do properly.

Time passed is time for retention policy timelines to be exceeded. Oh this was 8 years ago? Sorry those records were destroyed in accordance with our industry and compliance aligned storage/confidentiality practices.

If they don't have a legal hold on those docs, I question whether they'll be able to credibly claim the shredded in accordance with policy. Not that they might not shred it anyway and claim there was miscommunication and they're really sorry and they promise they'll never do it again, but proper records retention policies include a legal hold policy.

[malchior]

Well, herein lies the problem:

Last July, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Trump's claim that as president he possessed an absolute right to block the release of its records. But the justices said that while Congress had the power to seek evidence from the president, a lower appeals court failed to adequately consider whether the demands by lawmakers were overbroad or too intrusive.

That gives Trump leverage, because if Trump litigated this to the full, by the time Democrats got documents it's entirely possible that they'd have already lost their majority. Especially given the conservative judiciary. Whether Democrats are pushing hard enough given that...hard to say, though I wish I had more confidence.

He's not the president anymore. Are they arguing that his privilege is indefinite?

Of course, if DB is willing to shred stuff, then they've already shredded whatever it is years ago.

I was thinking metaphorically. Sure some literal shredding, but more unwinding positions, obfuscating money trails, etc. All require time to do properly.

Time passed is time for retention policy timelines to be exceeded. Oh this was 8 years ago? Sorry those records were destroyed in accordance with our industry and compliance aligned storage/confidentiality practices.

If they don't have a legal hold on those docs, I question whether they'll be able to credibly claim the shredded in accordance with policy. Not that they might not shred it anyway and claim there was miscommunication and they're really sorry and they promise they'll never do it again, but proper records retention policies include a legal hold policy.

Right. I haven't read enough but I assume there is some legal hold in place. Does it cover everything/everywhere within the maze of the bank? I dunno. Do we trust DB? We probably shouldn't. The good thing is they don't know what is or isn't relevant but if they know where problems are...they'll find a way to deal with it. I agree with the idea that they are pretty much a criminal bank. Who is honestly going to say we keep these guys completely unbent?

Shredding records covered by a subpoena is a big no no, and ordinary course records retention policy is not a defense to that. Unless people at DB want to go to jail.

20 years ago I might have believed this was true. Nowadays...I don't know. Maybe they'll get the next record fine and their shareholders will spank some scapegoat.

Edit: This might be too cynical. I've been inside these banks. I worked on major exchanges regulatory/supervision logging systems. They took supervision reasonably seriously. However, the discussion always was centered around fines/institutional reputation risk/etc. DB seemingly doesn't care about any of that.

[El Guapo]

Well, herein lies the problem:

Last July, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Trump's claim that as president he possessed an absolute right to block the release of its records. But the justices said that while Congress had the power to seek evidence from the president, a lower appeals court failed to adequately consider whether the demands by lawmakers were overbroad or too intrusive.

That gives Trump leverage, because if Trump litigated this to the full, by the time Democrats got documents it's entirely possible that they'd have already lost their majority. Especially given the conservative judiciary. Whether Democrats are pushing hard enough given that...hard to say, though I wish I had more confidence.

He's not the president anymore. Are they arguing that his privilege is indefinite?

Of course, if DB is willing to shred stuff, then they've already shredded whatever it is years ago.

I was thinking metaphorically. Sure some literal shredding, but more unwinding positions, obfuscating money trails, etc. All require time to do properly.

Time passed is time for retention policy timelines to be exceeded. Oh this was 8 years ago? Sorry those records were destroyed in accordance with our industry and compliance aligned storage/confidentiality practices.

If they don't have a legal hold on those docs, I question whether they'll be able to credibly claim the shredded in accordance with policy. Not that they might not shred it anyway and claim there was miscommunication and they're really sorry and they promise they'll never do it again, but proper records retention policies include a legal hold policy.

Right. I haven't read enough but I assume there is some legal hold in place. Does it cover everything/everywhere within the maze of the bank? I dunno. Do we trust DB? We probably shouldn't. The good thing is they don't know what is or isn't relevant but if they know where problems are...they'll find a way to deal with it. I agree with the idea that they are pretty much a criminal bank. Who is honestly going to say we keep these guys completely unbent?

Shredding records covered by a subpoena is a big no no, and ordinary course records retention policy is not a defense to that. Unless people at DB want to go to jail.

20 years ago I might have believed this was true. Nowadays...I don't know. Maybe they'll get the next record fine and their shareholders will spank some scapegoat.

There are always games that can be played. E.g., key records get 'lost', they say "oh, X employee thought [critical record] wasn't covered by the subpoena", etc. That's risky for DB, but absolutely can be done. My point is that if they're willing to do that, then they've already done that, and the extension isn't likely to matter much.

[malchior]

There are always games that can be played. E.g., key records get 'lost', they say "oh, X employee thought [critical record] wasn't covered by the subpoena", etc. That's risky for DB, but absolutely can be done. My point is that if they're willing to do that, then they've already done that, and the extension isn't likely to matter much.

Ah right. I totally agree.

[Smoove_B]

I think this goes here? At some point, everything is connected.

NBC News confirms: Two representatives of the Trump Organization tell NBC News they've been told to expect charges to be filed against the Trump Organization as soon as tomorrow afternoon

[Octavious]

Charging his organization will just be a fine and Trump calling it a witch hunt. Hard to get excited but maybe it will lead to something else? I doubt it.

[malchior]

I doubt it too. It'll get played up as a big victory but in the end that it'll just be some charges about taxes on bonus compensation. It feels like a very pulled punch. They have access to all sorts of financial information all around and we're supposed to believe this is the most dirt they found in Trump's organization?

[Octavious]

Exactly if this is all they found then this isn't going to impress anyone. This is just run of the mill crap many companies do that nobody is going to give two craps about. Super easy for anyone to spin this as a victory for Trump. Hell if it's the only thing that comes out it totally is.

[Unagi]

Wait, do we know what they found?
And do we have any reason to believe it’s the only thing they have found ?

[malchior]

Wait, do we know what they found?
And do we have any reason to believe it’s the only thing they have found ?

We only have rumors about what they will charge and if it is what the rumors indicate it is really weak sauce. Keep in mind many people have expected Vance to be weak on Trump. He has a history of pulling punches for the elite, rich, and powerful. (Almost like this should be a thread about elite unaccountability in light of the Cosby case).

[Octavious]

Ya right now we can only go on rumors of what the charges are, but sounds totally weak. If that's the only thing that ever comes out against Trump it will do more harm than good. So par for the course.

[El Guapo]

FWIW I have heard that any charge against the Trump Organization is essentially a death sentence for the organization. Basically all of their lenders will call in their loans, which they won't be able to pay, which will mean bankruptcy.

The other big question here is whether the charges against the Trump Organization president (Weisberg or Weiselberg or whatever his name is) will induce him to cooperate against Trump, especially since there's no immediate prospect of a pardon. *That* would be massive, because there's no substitute for a cooperator like that in terms of proving up a case against Trump. I don't mean to assume any competency or bravery on Vance's part, but it does make a lot of sense to start with charges against Weisberg and the Trump Organization, see if you can squeeze out any cooperation, and then assess your charges against Trump.

[malchior]

FWIW I have heard that any charge against the Trump Organization is essentially a death sentence for the organization. Basically all of their lenders will call in their loans, which they won't be able to pay, which will mean bankruptcy.

I heard that from a few sources with some pushback that it is overly simplistic. The obvious case being what lender wants to bankrupt the Trump organization and get pennies on the dollar. It however may lead to a crisis if they need more financing down the line though.

The other big question here is whether the charges against the Trump Organization president (Weisberg or Weiselberg or whatever his name is) will induce him to cooperate against Trump, especially since there's no immediate prospect of a pardon. *That* would be massive, because there's no substitute for a cooperator like that in terms of proving up a case against Trump. I don't mean to assume any competency or bravery on Vance's part, but it does make a lot of sense to start with charges against Weisberg and the Trump Organization, see if you can squeeze out any cooperation, and then assess your charges against Trump.

Everything I read indicated that Weiselberg said he isn't going to deal. We'll see if dropping the charges changes anything but you'd think that was the point of the Monday meeting.

[pr0ner]