Althouse: "Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. Were Close to Being Charged With Felony Fraud."

October 4, 2017

"Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. Were Close to Being Charged With Felony Fraud."

In 2012, "New York prosecutors were preparing a case. Then the D.A. overruled his staff after a visit from a top donor: Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz."

58 comments:

Oso Negro said...: Normal behavior of real-estate promoters and rich people. Startling. Lucky for us, we have a press that is well-rested after eight years in Sultan Obama's harem, and prepared to uncover every potential misdeed of every Trump ever.; 10/4/17, 7:30 AM
rhhardin said...: Protection for the defendants is much less when there's no trial.; 10/4/17, 7:34 AM
readering said...: She was 24 years old. Her Dad had no business giving her that level of unsupervised responsibility.; 10/4/17, 7:42 AM
AllenS said...: OMG! The DA met with Trumps attorney. Can you even....; 10/4/17, 7:43 AM
Mike makes right said...: It's only fair to look at everything in Trump's or his family's past after the press's tireless efforts to untangle the Obama's real estate deals involving Tony Rezko. Also Michelle's outstanding efforts at the U of C Hospital Foundation that led to a 200% salary increase upon her husband being elected senator (after getting his opponent's divorce records unsealed). Finally, after all the work bringing that to light, the press has found the energy to dig into things. Hallelujah!; 10/4/17, 7:50 AM
sykes.1 said...: Can the press also look into the many Clinton murders?; 10/4/17, 7:51 AM
Ralph L said...: Don't attorneys visit prosecutors all the time, or have I watched too much L&O?; 10/4/17, 7:52 AM
rehajm said...: ..but no cigar, eh Hill?; 10/4/17, 7:57 AM
Jess said...: "Sources" is a convenient word to use, when trying to turn conjecture into fact. It adds a sense of credibility, and those supposedly being prevented from doing their job will never publicly denounce the reports. Doing so will make them appear as leakers, and destroy the trust required in effective law enforcement.; 10/4/17, 7:59 AM
Bill, Republic of Texas said...: What a BS story. I love all the weasel words. An indictment was possible. We were thinking off sitting a grand jury. I believed in the case but I hadn't decided to how to resolve it.

The only thing fishy is the meeting between Trump's lawyer and the elected prosecutor. But even that was months before the decision to drop the case.; 10/4/17, 8:07 AM
MayBee said...: It's only fair to look at everything in Trump's or his family's past after the press's tireless efforts to untangle the Obama's real estate deals involving Tony Rezko. Also Michelle's outstanding efforts at the U of C Hospital Foundation that led to a 200% salary increase upon her husband being elected senator (after getting his opponent's divorce records unsealed). Finally, after all the work bringing that to light, the press has found the energy to dig into things. Hallelujah!

Hahahahah it's true! Obama's close advisor (and mortgage helper) WAS charged with felony fraud. And found guilty! But nobody cared about Obama and Rezko!
(and Michelle, Valerie, and Axelrod were all patient dumping but that never got brought up during Obama's tenure- even though he was trying to remake the healthcare system!); 10/4/17, 8:11 AM
traditionalguy said...: Threatening a Criminal prosecution to get what the Buyer's wanted from a Seller in a Contract dispute is totally unethical under Bar Association rules.. The Buyers and the DA were both pretending the DA came up with this accusation and started a criminal investigation sua sponte, which is a deliberate fiction. But in the real nature of this situation, the moment the Buyer negotiated the deal they wanted from Trump using this threat, then the Buyers affirmatively withdrew all accusations and in writing said no crime was committed. Then the DA, who until then had let the civil plaintiffs abuse his office by an unethical criminal threat tactic, closed it all down too. NYC Hardball has its rules.

But 4 years later the Trump kids are being slandered as criminals anyway. Welcome to the Political Assassination Media's game. The only crime committed by Trumps was their defeat of Hillary's Thousand Year Reich.; 10/4/17, 8:12 AM
rehajm said...: What a BS story. I love all the weasel words. An indictment was possible. We were thinking off sitting a grand jury. I believed in the case but I hadn't decided to how to resolve it.

No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case...or in other words: prosecutors found the Trumps innocent and cleared them of any wrongdoing.; 10/4/17, 8:13 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: The "Get Trump" squad - missed it by that much!; 10/4/17, 8:14 AM
narciso said...: You do know how funds propublica, the senders who were part of the subprimr gang who took over Washington mutual.; 10/4/17, 8:17 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Lying about real estate?

This is a crime?

So - Hillary Clinton sets up a private server, uses her private server as a pay-to-play scheme, then deletes 30,000 e-mails with bleachbit and physically destroys those devices...

and and and - nothing.

Lying about real estate value is a major crime worthy of indictment? and jail time?
I can see being slapped with fines - but an indictment?; 10/4/17, 8:18 AM
Jaq said...: You forgot the part about her burning records of her meetings with foreign donors of millions of dollars to her slush fund in State Department burn bags, DickinBimbos.

A clear violation of federal law to which Huma has already testified. Talk about an open and shut case that nobody wants to touch.; 10/4/17, 8:21 AM
mockturtle said...: What does this mean, exactly?
"This article is a collaboration between ProPublica, WNYC and The New Yorker and is not subject to our Creative Commons license."; 10/4/17, 8:22 AM
Jaq said...: All of this whataboutism today! Don't you guys know that you can't use that against Democrats because reasons!?!; 10/4/17, 8:23 AM
narciso said...: Bow the fellow who handled the rezko allocations which allowed him to go after small fry like blago, is a senior partner at skaddrn, one of the firms contracted to defend magnutsky cases, pat Fitzgerald.; 10/4/17, 8:26 AM
narciso said...: Different strokes for different folks:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/business/dealbook/hsbc-case-tests-transparency-of-deferred-prosecution-agreements.html; 10/4/17, 8:32 AM
Sally327 said...: Very rich people, they are hard to take down. Since there doesn't appear to have been anything illegal in a visit by an attorney (nor in his earlier donation) this is a nothingburger story. Prosecutorial discretion is very difficult to challenge. Very hard to prove misconduct. So an attorney made a donation? So that attorney advocated for this clients? Successfully. This is the system, such as it is, same as it always was.

The Trump kids aren't all that bright. But I guess they don't have to be.; 10/4/17, 8:35 AM
narciso said...: And you know who was their designated credit monitor, James comey; 10/4/17, 8:35 AM
David said...: Why should I believe any of this? The credibility of the press is so low that it's hard to trust anything.; 10/4/17, 8:36 AM
Anonymous said...: It seems like Criminal prosecutors (D) in NY State operate at both ends of the spectrum. Many seem to try to get indictments (Ham sandwich time) of famous/rich people, then leverage the publicity for political gain or some sort of agreement, even though an actual conviction is impossible.

In this case, the Criminal prosecutor stops the investigation, perhaps because he can't make the case.

When a Democrat makes that decision it's called prosecutorial discretion. When an (R) does it, it's corruption.; 10/4/17, 8:38 AM
DHunter said...: I'm waiting to see if this story is published in the NY Times and especially CNN, then I'll believe it isn't just a made up story.; 10/4/17, 8:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Sally327 said...
So an attorney made a donation?

It's not news that an elected DA gets contributions from lawyers. Both from the influence buying perspective and the more obvious one that lawyers know mostly other lawyers.; 10/4/17, 8:40 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: "You forgot the part about her burning records of her meetings with foreign donors of millions of dollars to her slush fund in State Department burn bags."

Thank you, T in V. ...and that. Until Hillary is convicted, the "law" in our nation is a joke.; 10/4/17, 8:41 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Painting a rosy picture to sell real estate. OMG! Lock them up!; 10/4/17, 8:43 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Whitewater.; 10/4/17, 8:43 AM
Chris N said...: mockturtle

I think it means they decided to collaborate, or one party had done a majority of the work and the three decided to share publication, perhaps for maximum effect and/or for page views. There's probably more backstory (other parties who declined...?).

This is information I don't mind knowing about the Trump kids, as Ivanka has a lot of power, but thinking about the distance between the facts (car dealer tactics) and the clear attempt to nail these targets leaves me skeptical.

I still notice a irrational hatred of Trump, so that puts me on guard. I notice that this irrational hatred has flowed from topic to topic (and trafficked plenty of bullshit and untrue statements...potentially damaging our Republic). I notice that the New Yorker, especially, is catering to a progressive audience of people desperately looking for their own ideas to be true and for legitimacy of their beliefs, publications and profession.

Facts would be a higher bar that a lot of what's been peddled recently

What angers me is how narrow and obtuse some people are in pursuit of their ideals and ideology (aside from the logic problems and incentives which take people up and makes them narrow). This leads to blind spots and righteous crusades and hypocrisy, and inconsistent standards applied to all Presidents and all politicians.

It further drives us away from process and respect and towards factions, identity politics and disrespect.; 10/4/17, 8:53 AM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: Does sound crooked.; 10/4/17, 8:53 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: So we keep signaling to the DNC-Media that we see their game, how they ignore stories just like this one when the participants are Democrat bigwigs. And we refer back to the good old days when they were sweeping Whitewater and Rezko under the rug to help their friends and colleagues. And yet they persist. It's almost like the journ-O-lister occupation requires no conscience, no memory, no principles at all except obeisance to raw power and protecting the DNC.

So we should totally trust them this one time that this story is important.; 10/4/17, 8:55 AM
Chris N said...: Actually, I still don't know what that Creative Commons license note means; 10/4/17, 8:58 AM
Big Mike said...: I only got through the first couple paragraphs before it became clear that they were trying to invent a charge that would criminalize standard behavior for realtors. No wonder the DA dropped it.; 10/4/17, 8:59 AM
flophouse philosopher said...: It is preposterous to imagine that Cy Vance could be corrupted by a $25,000 donation to his campaign. He was elected in 2009 with 91% of the vote. He will hold his office until the day he dies, if he wants. He scarcely needs campaign money at all, but if he did need it, he could raise a virtually unlimited amount without Marc Kasowitz's help.; 10/4/17, 9:04 AM
Matt Sablan said...: I'm sure they just talked about grandchildren.

God, that line will never get old.; 10/4/17, 9:07 AM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: One of the great mistakes of the Clinton campaign was not focusing on the all the instances where Trump cheated people. Perhaps they didn't think the people cheated weren't everyday enough. Or they thought the sexual predator stuff was sexier. Or they calculated that the Trump base would overlook the behavior and score it to his negotiation skill. Or there were too many instances to pick from. But it was a mistake.; 10/4/17, 9:08 AM
Matt Sablan said...: I think the actual problem with the Clinton campaign is she spent too much time demonizing Trump. Her entire strategy was: "Really? REALLY!? I can't even," followed by a parade of horribles.

And it didn't work, because both of our options were horrible. Yeah, Trump's an asshole: How's that make her any better?; 10/4/17, 9:22 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Clinton focused relentlessly on Trump, running almost $1B of negative ads. The problem is that Hillary throwing dirt doesn't work because we all remember how crooked she is, and that nickname was very sticky during the campaign. Because it's true. She has a 30-year public record of treating low-level government employees like dirt complete with "Don't look at Hillary. Don't speak to her!" demands of her staff that add a ceratin color to the stories of her cattle futures, "not baking cookies," being "turned down by the Marines," sniper fire in Bosnia, Benghazi, emails, etc. She's not a credible person to assess Trump's character for most Americans.

Now partisans like Left Bank who still don't understand how badly she lost last November, they will keep hope alive that if Hillary had just thrown a little more than $1B worth of dirt it would have stuck. She tried. She failed. Her own baggage prevents us from caring what she thinks about Trump. And her biggest mistakes are far more serious than Left Bank will ever admit. Maybe if she hadn't bungled Libya, Benghazi and the 200 different false explanations she gave for storing OUR secure data on a server in a toilet. Those might not have caused her votes if she had avoided those horrible lies and crimes.; 10/4/17, 9:23 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Arg! "...cost her votes" not "caused..."; 10/4/17, 9:25 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: One of the great mistakes of the Trump campaign was not focusing on the all the instances where The Clintons cheated people.

fify; 10/4/17, 9:29 AM
Matt Sablan said...: The way Trump attacked Clinton was different. He usually stuck to thematic slaps, whereas Clinton went for haymakers and uppercuts, rarely using a jab to set up the attack. It was all pussy grabbing all the time. Trump had a patter like a street magician to his attacks, she was crooked, she was this, that, the other thing, oh by the way, this thing too.

I honestly don't know if their negative campaigning really mattered, since both were so well known with built in high negatives to begin with, but their approaches were very different.; 10/4/17, 9:31 AM
Francisco D said...: "Or they thought the sexual predator stuff was sexier."

LOL!

Trump was a sexual predator for talking like a high school sophomore. Bill Clinton very likely raped Juanita Broderick, pawed Kathleen Willey, tried to intimidate Paula Jones into giving him a hummer and many other things that Hillary and her "bimbo eruptions" crew stifled.

Maybe the Hillary campaign got that one wrong, among other things. Focusing on Trump as a sexual predator was way too laughable for the American people.; 10/4/17, 9:38 AM
Michael K said...: She has a 30-year public record of treating low-level government employees like dirt complete with "Don't look at Hillary. Don't speak to her!" demands of her staff

That and her utter failure with health care when Bill gave her a task.

Good Morning, Ma'am. "Fuck You !"

Everybody knows that about her.; 10/4/17, 9:42 AM
Wince said...: Luckily for Trump, wasn't this back when Trump was at least a colorable Democrat?

Kasowitz, who by then had been the elder Donald Trump’s attorney for a decade, is primarily a civil litigator with little experience in criminal matters. But in 2012, Kasowitz donated $25,000 to the reelection campaign of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., making Kasowitz one of Vance’s largest donors. Kasowitz decided to bypass the lower level prosecutors and went directly to Vance to ask that the investigation be dropped.; 10/4/17, 10:01 AM
Ray - SoCal said...: To me it shows how corrupt the system is.

Anyone can file a lawsuit.

Winning is another manner.

And in the current system, even after you win your out at least $25k and your time. Due to this most companies try to avoid dealing with lawsuits. Even when you win, you lose. And to many of us $25,000 is a lot. And when you go to court, even if you have a rock solid case, you may lose. Judges can be biased and/ or capricious.; 10/4/17, 10:17 AM
Skipper said...: Is everything illegal and everybody a felon?; 10/4/17, 10:19 AM
Big Mike said...: wasn't this back when Trump was at least a colorable Democrat?

In many respects he still is a Democrat -- of the "party left me" sort. Unlike his immediate predecessor, or his opponent for that matter, he actually seems to care about doing a good job.; 10/4/17, 10:26 AM
Birkel said...: Left Bank of the Charles,
Are we to assume that you have never dealt with a contractor and never heard all the stories about how contractors screw people? And you think Clinton didn't pursue this angle because it wasn't sexy enough?

How about they didn't pursue this angle because anybody who has ever done business with a contractor or knows anybody who has (i.e. nearly everybody) would ignore that sort of stupidity. It's tiresome when Democrats consistently mistake their own ignorance for other peoples' stupidity.; 10/4/17, 11:45 AM
Bill R said...: OH NO! They exaggerated the sale-ability of real estate they were selling. The fiends!; 10/4/17, 12:51 PM
gadfly said...: Bill R said...
OH NO! They exaggerated the sale-ability of real estate they were selling. The fiends!

Indeed, business ethics are non-existent among Trump family members and Trump supporters. Stealing from customers is just not very smart, even if Trump siblings have good genes.; 10/4/17, 1:02 PM
n.n said...: The Buyers and the DA were both pretending the DA came up with this accusation and started a criminal investigation sua sponte, which is a deliberate fiction.

It sounds like criminal collusion to commit felony fraud. So, this is why New Yorkers are such a hard-nosed people. Not to mention others who have the misfortune of attracting attention from the diverse rackets, including the color diversity industry. Just go along to get along or else.; 10/4/17, 1:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Interesting to me that Cyrus Vance Jr. becomes, if not co-guilty party, the most guilty party. Vance has been sold as Mr. Clean by the Dems since he first took office - and probably deservedly so. Now he becomes a potential victim of TDS. The Dems and MSM are clearly irony impaired.; 10/4/17, 2:17 PM
Eric said...: Explanation No. 682: If the NY DA weren't corrupt, Hillary would have her birthright.; 10/4/17, 2:57 PM
Leslie Graves said...: @Chris N re: that Creative Commons note. Most of the articles published by ProPublica are available for other publishers to re-publish under a Creative Commons license. They say this: "Unless otherwise noted, you can republish our articles and graphics for free under a Creative Commons license."

Once in a while, they do designate an article as not being available for other publishers under Creative Commons. That's the case with the Ivanka/DJT Jr. article.

"Creative Commons" is one of several so-called "copyleft" designations. When a piece of content is available under a Creative Commons license, that means it can be used, modified, and distributed freely -- without having to check in with or obtain the explicit permission of the original publisher -- on the condition that anything derived from it is bound by the same condition.

ProPublica may have suspended their normal Creative Commons arrangement for this article because of who their publishing partners were on this article, or because they thought it was a particularly clickbaitable, noteworthy article, and they wanted the traffic and links.; 10/4/17, 5:21 PM
Drago said...: gadfly: "Indeed, business ethics are non-existent among Trump family members and Trump supporters"

LOL

I used to think that you weren't trying that hard.

Now, it appears that you are.

#Sad.; 10/4/17, 6:18 PM
JAORE said...: Innocent until proven guilty.

Slandered until determined left leaning.; 10/5/17, 7:48 AM