The top-rated comment at The Washington Post, on "Ex-Baltimore prosecutor Marilyn Mosby guilty in federal perjury trial."
Baltimore’s former top prosecutor, Marilyn Mosby, was convicted of two counts of perjury Thursday after she had been accused of lying about her finances to withdraw money from her city retirement account under a program designed to help people struggling financially during the coronavirus pandemic...Mosby's lawyer described this business as the outgrowth of Mosby's own personal travel. She and a friend "brainstormed about monetizing what they experienced on that trip — how to create an escape for professional women of color who needed break."
Prosecutors said she falsely claimed to suffer from financial hardships to access $90,000 from retirement funds that she later used to buy two homes in Florida....
The trial centered in large part on Mosby’s travel business, Mahogany Elite Travel....
But prosecutors pointed out that the so-called business "had no clients, no revenue and no records linked to setting up trips" and wasn't "operating or bringing in money," so how could it be hurt by the pandemic: "I got a math problem for you. What’s zero minus zero? Zero."
Mosby was once adulated like this...
Posts
97 comments:
They’re right.
This clearly proves the Hillary Clinton non-prosecution was unbiased.
"So here’s my question, if as the Republicans claim DOJ is weaponized against republicans, how in the heck did this Democrat get prosecuted? Just asking republicans?"
Seriously? That's the top-rated comment?
The Washington Post needs a better class of commenter. How does "weaponized against" equal "will only prosecute"? I'll bet that even in the Soviet Union, garden-variety criminals were prosecuted for their crimes even as dissidents were being disproportionately prosecuted on trumped-up charges. In fact, I'll bet that the same thing is happening in China today.
oh please. Bob Menendez(D) has been a crook for decades. The only reason the corrupt left in power are paying attention to some leftist crime is to give WaPo an excuse to write this BS.
So they are arguing that bad cops don’t ever make a good arrest to maintain their credibility? It’s a bold claim, Cotton! I’m surprised that’s the best their readers can do.
She pissed off others in her party and she was so embarrassingly corrupt they had no choice but to act on it. We have the CISA files to show exactly how our government worked (works) to shut down conservative voices, opinions, people. Does WaPo need someone to read the full reports to them?
I mean...it's out there in full. It's available on 'X' if Zuckerberg has decided to censor it on his platforms. They may not find it in WaPo, so there's that. Hell...even "The Daily Mail" has coverage on it. News not found in WaPo?
Non sequitur
The DOJ prosecutes Republicans for nothing. Show that this lady did nothing and you'd have a case.
I pulled out some of my retirement money during COVID and I was able to avoid the 10% early withdrawal penalty, because I was going through, in "my eyes", some tough times. While I am not a Mosby fan, not sure why this case was brought against her.
It is of a muchness. The devil rests in the details of particular events and the politicians involved, and the type of favor or disfavor they receive. It has to do with the speed or the slowness of the process, the severity, and the rank of the person being scrutinized. It also has to do with who that person's enemies are within their own clique biting at their ankles.
If you've been paying attention to what's been happening since Bareback Obama was POTUS you can't unsee the lopsided nature or the heavy hand of the deep state and their control of the cultural and political ratchet, nor the ever leftward direction in which it turns.
WaPo commenter is correct in a sense. The DOJ is not so much weaponized against Republicans as it is weaponized to protect the Democrat establishment. Mosby is putting them in a potentially embarrassing position, so she must be dealt with and the threat removed.
What office was she running for election?
Do Republicans claim the DOJ is weaponized or that it's politicized? I don't care enough about Mosby to wonder who up the Dem food chain she pissed off, but the WaPo commentariat might find the question pertinent.
Now do the Bidens.
Mosby is a small time, symbolic, chicken shit prosecution.
When the DOJ goes after the Biden crime family, or the insider trading Pelosi family, maybe then we'll believe there is balance. Or when they prosecute Fauci for lying to Congress and exposing him for the megalomaniac he is. Maybe they could even investigate and prosecute the 2020 voter fraud and those that broke election laws implementing it.
The commenter is just being disingenuous. Trump is getting attacked from all sides, and it is all coordinated through the DOJ. Even down to the crooked judge in NY, and the Obama appointee trying to force and unconstitutional gag order.
"So here's my question, if as BLM claims the police are racist against blacks, how in the heck did this one white guy get killed by the police this one time?"
And that is the TOP-RATED comment...
"So here’s my question, if as the Republicans claim DOJ is weaponized against republicans, how in the heck did this Democrat get prosecuted? Just asking republicans?"
Apparently this genius is unfamiliar with the term "exceptions that prove the rule"
Republican leaders are dragged into kangaroo courts based on bizarre legal theories that nobody has ever heard of before now. When the occasional Democrat gets prosecuted its because they're so corrupt that even their friends and families can't figure a way to defend them.
Q: "...how in the heck did this Democrat get prosecuted?"
A: Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Yes, innocent Republicans being hounded (and guilty Republicans being over-charged) by a politicized DOJ is totally disproven by the prosecution of a thief who is also a Democrat.
That's WaPo for you--they cultivate a stupid readership and, unsurprisingly, they have a stupid readership.
"You have to keep several things in your head at the same time." - Hillary Clinton
"So here’s my question, if as the Republicans claim DOJ is weaponized against republicans, how in the heck did this Democrat get prosecuted? Just asking republicans?"
Dear clueless WaPo commenter: the evidence was so glaringly obvious that it would be a bad look for the prosecutor not to follow through: "But prosecutors pointed out that the so-called business "had no clients, no revenue and no records linked to setting up trips" and wasn't "operating or bringing in money," so how could it be hurt by the pandemic: "I got a math problem for you. What’s zero minus zero? Zero."
My initial thought was that she had to be sacrificed to make the other prosecutions, based on process crimes, look more legit. Sort of like the Al Franken treatment. But her behavior was so egregious that it couldn't be ignored.
Several possibilities—
1) She pissed off someone who is in a position to do her harm. Remember that even one-party police states have factions and competing centers of power.
2) There is a deliberate policy of throwing a relatively minor team player under the bus from time to time to maintain the fiction of bipartisanship and pacify the grumbling masses. i e The pawn sacrifice in a chess game.
3) Openly partisan prosecution, or openly partisan exemption from prosecution, is considered a valuable and limited commodity, and has to be used sparingly if it is to achieve important Party objectives without inciting a backlash from the masses.
4) there’s at least one honest man left in the DOJ. You never know. It could actually happen…
Oo, oo Mr Carter! I know the answer!!!
Maybe, just maybe......SHE WAS GUILTY!!!!
"So here’s my question, if as the Republicans claim DOJ is weaponized against republicans, how in the heck did this Democrat get prosecuted?"
WTF? Do progs have to feign stupidity?
Yes, DoJ is weaponized against Republicans, and also the corruption of black officials is often too blatant to ignore, particularly if they lack political protection. Not everyone has Hunter's white privilege.
"But it has long been said: oft evil will shall evil mar."
These "top-rated" WaPo commenters are a low-rated mob. They don't even know their Tolkien, whom they read far more often than Shakespeare or the Bible.
Oops, just realized it was Mr Kotter
Well, you see, the DOJ must have done this as a “3 D chess move” to provide cover for prosecuting Trump. Obviously this shows how impartial they are and Mosley was a lost cause for Democrats anyway. Let’s wait and see what the sentence is. What Mosley did was no worse than what thousands of Californian Prison inmates did with Covid funds on the internet in the day, I hope her defense mentioned that in closing.
I think the request for the venue change was a mistake.
A common meme here is that even a flatworm recoils from pain, so indicting Menendez and Mosley are just survival reflexes for the Democrats.
Both of these things can be true.
DoJ is weaponized against Republicans.
If you rob a bank by fraud, the bankers will pressure the DoJ to arrest even Democrats.
Both of those things can be true. Simultaneously.
"So here’s my question, if as the Republicans claim DOJ is weaponized against republicans, how in the heck did this Democrat get prosecuted? Just asking republicans?"
But isn't this the typically disingenuous, bad-faith 'gotcha', using faulty logic?
Please point to us, the 'Republicans' that are saying that NO Democrats get prosecuted for ANY kinds of criminal behavior EVER, and then follow up by explaining to us how an instance of a Democrat politician being prosecuted and found guilty disproves any possibility that the DOJ is biased in its mission, and has been weaponized.
Comments, including this one, are often written and approved by idiots.
Lawless people installed into Law Enforcement authority is a guaranteed disaster. That’s why Soros spreads out his Billions of dollars in every State level Prosecutor and Vote Counter office targeting us for destruction.
And guess what Sgt Carter, they took the easy stolen money and ran.
It's a rabbit garden.
Throw some low level pols who are not well connected specifically so demmies can say "see? We're even-handed"
John Henry
Lol. That commenter is clearly a bit touched.
"how in the heck did this Democrat get prosecuted?"
I see two possibilities (not mutually exclusive):
One, the Department isn't completely politicized.
Two, there is drama within the DoJ that outsiders don't know about.
As for that top-rated comment, are people really that obtuse?
By way of explanation, it's a simple intra-mural squabble. If there was a white person or even - heaven forbid - a Republican of any color anywhere near this transgression it would be circle the wagons and call in the cavalry - BLM, Rev Al, et al.
As is it's just one politician criminal handing off the mayoral baton to another within a criminal political party that should be RICO'd from stem to stern.
Here’s the difference, Democrats are only prosecuted for crimes so obvious that they can’t be ignored, republicans are prosecuted in lieu of a crime
She didn't pay off the right people, or sometimes they simply do something so egregious that the can't look the other way. Or, they simply did it to spur thinking and commentary like that. "See, see?? Both sides!!!"
Prosecuting a few lower level dems who are no longer useful to the party, such as this woman and Menendez, give them cover.
Someone’s gotta take the fall for Baltimore.
One robin doesn't make a spring.
Just a wild guess but maybe because she broke the law and got caught. Again just guessing here.
To refute the peception that the DOJ is weaponized?
If the DOJ is corrupt, then there is no reason to think that Marilyn Mosby, just by being a Democrat, is protected.
The top-rated comment question sounds like something a fairly bright but inexperienced high school sophomore would ask. It indicates a binary thought process. It is the sort of question that the asker will find embarrassing by age 30, assuming the person ever learns anything.
I recall, at the time of the indictment, Mosby making a big thing about the fact that the Assistant U.S. Attorney (Leo Wise) leading the grand-jury case against her was a donor to her primary-election opponents.
I'm always wary in such discussions when someone says (i)"Party (A) says (X), yet . . ."(/i) whether (X) is an accurate summary or quote of what party (A) has said.
I've been seeing lots of online criticism of the DOJ: along the lines that charging/trying/convicting political-opposition of process crimes when in power brings a strong odor of third-world dictatorship with it.
If you swap (i)"weaponized against (establishment democrats') political opposition"(/i) in the headline quote in place of the word Republican, then it both matches my observation of Republicans' complaints about the DOJ (b)and(/b) explains this prosecution/conviction from the viewpoint of the Mosby supporters
And how about everyone's favorite NJ senator?
My question is why did it take so long for a federal indictment of Trump?
Frank: Sir, I think the Chinese have captured Major Houlihan.
Col. Potter: I see. So, naturally, you shot Captain Hunnicutt.
I’m surprised that’s the best their readers can do.
Actually no. No I'm not. That was irony that sounded too sincere when I read it back just now.
IS she in prison yet?? If not, why not??
she gave them enough room to destroy Baltimore, much like Nagin did with New Orleans,
Meh. Once in a while the Democrat graft and corruption is so obvious to everyone that the DOJ has to take action.
How do you buy 2 homes for $90,000? I imagine they were down payments, but still…
Imagine Obama in the middle foreground of a photograph. Around him are arrayed all of the "right" Democrats who eagerly sought his attention. Now imagine a series of other photographs each of which show one of those attention seekers missing from the original picture. Just like the famous photo sequence featuring Stalin and his sycophants , that's what is going on here. Mosby was no longer useful to the "Party" (or its Leader) and so could be sacrificed. Who's next? Biden is also in that picture.
On a different note; her fraud was taking advantage of a means to access her retirement funds. This is a major frustration for us conservatives, who are bashed about not wanting social safety nets yet really just want people to learn to save their own money so they can control how to use it.
In the larger scheme of things, why shouldn't she be able to use $90,000 of funds available for her retirement to buy two retirement homes in Florida, if that's how she wants to retire? Why must she give a pretense of financial hardship to access those funds, and why does such a loophole exist at all? Isn't the behavior that typically leads to financial hardship a reason to not allow early access to retirement funds? Shouldn't proof of financial wellbeing be the rational for trusting a person to earlier access of retirement funds?
Let's try turnabout, shall we?
if as the lefties claim Police are unfairly harsh on Blacks..
how in the heck did gilbar get prosecuted for speed in excess of 20mph over the speed limit on his Yamaha?"
WELL? Any One? Bueller? Bueller??
I misread "federal perjury trial" as "feral perjury trial".
So to prove the that the justice system is biased against Republicans/conservatives I must first prove that no Democrat/leftie has ever been prosecuted. Wow! That’s a pretty tall order.
But apparently this is the only time it’s happened, so there is that.
However it is noteworthy that the crime was relatively small potatoes as compared to the Biden money laundering syndicate.
There is some level of flagrancy that cannot be overlooked, even when the offender is a Democrat, and Mosby well exceeded it. She had become a public embarrassment to the Party and was therefore cast off. Hardly a sign of fair-mindedness.
Amadeus 48 (8:22am):
"Comments, including this one, are often written and approved by idiots."
You probably should have written "including this one in the Washington Post". At first glance, I thought you were calling yourself and Ann (or maybe Meade) idiots.
In a democratic/dictatorial duality, some are viable, some are convenient, while others, in their turn, are sacrificed for social progress.
So here’s my question, if as the Republicans claim DOJ is weaponized against republicans, how in the heck did this Democrat get prosecuted? Just asking republicans?
Now do Lois Lerner.
A couple of reasons:
-- Her fellow liberal political opponents have more clout than her and wish to take her off the field.
-- Her fellow lefty prosecutors have to sacrifice one of their own every so often to keep up appearances of 'fairness.'
The thing to watch out for is the punishment.
The DoJ went after Hunter too, but the 'punishment' was going to be laughable.
jim said...
"And how about everyone's favorite NJ senator?
My question is why did it take so long for a federal indictment of Trump?"
Jim asks a vewry interesting question.
First, jim, the state has to meticulouly mine the law in order manufacture evidence. This takes time. Then, despite someones civil rights, that evidence must be broadcast far ands wide to convince the people that may form a jury pool that the person is guilty. Finally you must secure a judge with the correct political credentials. This is a demoncracy after all. You can't just hustle people off to jail right from their homes.
The FBI & DOJ aren’t targeting conservatives.They’re targeting criminals. I understand why that’s confusing for you as the distinction is blurry. But it’s nonetheless true.
Leland at 9:49 speaks on the substance of the claim rather than the lameness of the comment.
I don't know enough about this person to hold an opinion about whether she should or should not be indicted for this withdrawal, but Leland's point about how conservatives would like to see people take responsibility for, and have control over, their retirement funds (while understanding that a lot of people are bad at doing this without incentives and programs to help and instruct them, and that we will never be without a need for safety nets) is a good one.
Maybe we see the difference between how they treat Trump and Biden differently? Or how concerned parents are labeled a terrorist group? Or Jan6, or Hunter, or, or? Examples abound.
But since reason and logic aren't acceptable in lefty circles I guess the best answer to the question would be that it's obvious, you moron. Open your eyes.
Why did law enforcement go after Marilyn Mosby?
"In 2015, Mosby charged six police officers, who had arrested detainee Freddie Gray prior to his death caused by injuries sustained in police custody, with a variety of crimes including second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter."
Payback. Protecting their own overrules protecting the party.
My question is why did it take so long for a federal indictment of Trump?
Because they had to invent a new crime or two (or 90) to charge him with. Creativity takes time. Oh and they had to pass laws in New York changing the Statute of Limitations in order to go after him there too. I thought everybody knew these things.
"During the trial, jurors determined Mosby did not experience those financial hardships and actually received her full gross salary of nearly $248,000 from Jan. 1, 2020 -Dec. 29, 2020, in bi-weekly gross pay direct deposits of nearly $9,200.
As of Friday Nov. 10, a sentencing date had not yet been set.
Mosby, 42, faces up to five years in prison when she is sentenced, prosecutors said"
You have to admire the corrupt audacity of limousine liberals. Facing a possible five years in prison, I'd bet Mosby gets zero.
Communist always kill a number of their own. That's how they roll. Any doubt? Ask Uncle Joe and Mao. Moseby is just a useful idiot who is now disposable. If every elected official in Baltimore were to be scrutinized, how many would turn up clean?
I saw the video on Twitter of Mosby leaving court with her lawyers after the verdict. She's kind of hot. Her only comment was "I'm blessed. I'm blessed".
I'd say for most Americans, $250K per year salary is very blessed.
Perhaps Ms. Mosby just underestimated her blessings at the time of her fraud and perjury.
Does that commenter have any idea how suspicious it would look if the DOJ prosecuted Republicans but didn't prosecute any Democrats? You have to throw a few unimportant people under the bus to give the appearance of objectivity.
She has yet to be tried on two counts of making false statements on mortgage applications under 18 U.S. Code § 1014. These two charges carry potential 30 year terms.
An aggressive, politically motivated federal prosecutor could use this section and a conviction in the civil case in NY to charge Trump under the same law if any of his loan applications could be considered "mortgages" and involved any of the variety of offendable agencies named in the law, and his supposed overvaluing of assets could be considered false statements. No harm to those agencies is necessary for a prosecution to proceed.
The NY civil case is the set-up. The Mosby case provides the political cover.
That's my conspiracy theory of the day. I see a few flaws.
The law.
Elements.
Yea, It makes me think she might be innocent.
For an easy to understand easily provable crime.
Not for novel interpretations of the law that have never before been used.
The gotcha WP comment aside, and Moseby's own partisanship as prosecutor aside, the charges against her are complete BS. She was convicted of lying in order to get her own money. And is accused of false statements to gain a mortgage from a bank which will do its own investigating and will have a security interest in the property regardless.
Corruption against the corrupt hardly proves the WP commenter's point.
On the plus side, a SWAT team didn't show up at her house at 5 am with a CNN camera crew available to record the event. She wasn't held without bail in solitary confinement. Her crimes were not exhaustively covered as a dangerous threat to democracy that must be punished by any means necessary. Her treatment by the DOJ and the media was, in fact, preferential.
Heck the Feds and the FBI went after Boston lefties all the time. If you wanted a liquor license you had to take that Emily’s List up and comer black lady for lunch at No. 9 Park and hand her a wad of bills she stuffed in her bra right at the table. Apparently someone else with connections wanted that gig…
….and THAT is why DOJ prosecutes liberals, WaPo commenter.
"if the Nazis are racist how come they just executed three Germans?"
said the Idiot Althouse
You can ignore a cat. You can’t ignore a skunk.
Good grief. One Democrat gets caught with her hand in the cookie jar and it's proof of everything being all squarsies at the DOJ?
GFY.
Her prosecution (also) reeks of political retribution. She lied to get to money that was hers. And compared to the scope of much of the fraud around Covid relief funds, it's pretty small potatoes. She made someone, or many people angry. Those people were likely other Democrats.
The FBI & DOJ aren’t targeting conservatives.They’re targeting criminals. I understand why that’s confusing for you as the distinction is blurry. But it’s nonetheless true.
Parents speaking out at a school board meeting expressing opposition to their daughters being raped by 'trans' boys in the school locker room are criminals, according to Rich.
A person silently praying outside of an abortion clinic is a criminal, according to Rich.
I bet Rich can come up with a long list of criminal activities committed by conservatives ... which aren't actual crimes.
Keep pushing it, leftist. Keep it up.
"I suspect (s)he was about to become an embarrassment."
Kevin said...
They’re right.
This clearly proves the Hillary Clinton non-prosecution was unbiased.
Trump won the presidency in 2016 by screaming "Lock Her Up!," which he has continued to do for the past seven years, but all he ever did was file a civil RICO lawsuit against her and eight or so other political enemies last year. US District Judge Donald Middlebrooks threw out the suit.
Trump “is not attempting to seek redress for any legal harm,” Middlebrooks said. “Instead, he is seeking to flaunt a two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him, and this Court is not the appropriate forum.”
Add New York maypr to your list.
Rich: The FBI & DOJ aren’t targeting conservatives. They’re targeting criminals.
Well, that's a meaningless observation.
Who decides who is a criminal? The DOJ. If someone commits a crime and the DOJ refuses to prosecute, then they are not a criminal. The circular logic is glorious. One rarely gets to see it so pure in the wild.
As for Mosby, if her name was "Hunter Biden" then the result would have either been no charges or some sweetheart plea deal that involved no jail time and blocked prosecution on all other unrelated crimes.
It is apparent that Mosby is not important enough to protect, and most likely someone better connected wanted to get rid of her. The particular motivations are hard to discern without understanding the backroom politics involved. It may simply be paying off a personal slight.
A corrupt DOJ serves its corrupt masters. Who those masters are and who is in the good graces of said masters can and do change, but the results have nothing to do with what the DOJ's purpose is supposed to be.
Perhaps Ms. Mosby fell out of favor with the powers that be?
She exposed her naked ambition. She is no longer politically viable. She will be reassigned and rewarded.
FBI seizes New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ phones as part of federal investigation into fundraising.
Some, like Mosby and Menendez are so bad they will be prosecuted so DOJ and the leftmedia can say, Look, Democrats."
Anybody who thinks the scales are balanced is an ignoramus.
You'll notice she didn't buy two houses in Baltimore.
She's not that stupid.
Democrats us the Proccess against their enemies.
Much like Mayor Adams.
On the day Adams was to meet with Biden concerning the border, Bidens DOJ went after Adams fundraising chief. Adams was forced to go back to NYC. Today the FBI seized Adams phone and Ipad. So the Dems abuse power punishing their enemies.
Leland said...
On a different note; her fraud was taking advantage of a means to access her retirement funds. This is a major frustration for us conservatives, who are bashed about not wanting social safety nets yet really just want people to learn to save their own money so they can control how to use it.
In the larger scheme of things, why shouldn't she be able to use $90,000 of funds available for her retirement to buy two retirement homes in Florida, if that's how she wants to retire? Why must she give a pretense of financial hardship to access those funds, and why does such a loophole exist at all? Isn't the behavior that typically leads to financial hardship a reason to not allow early access to retirement funds? Shouldn't proof of financial wellbeing be the rational for trusting a person to earlier access of retirement funds?
*******
Jeebus. Leland, you have revealed yourself to be an IDIOT. And you're no conservative, that's for shit sure.
* The money wasn't available to her until she retired.
* She LIED about her financial circumstances to try to get around that LEGAL requirement. That's not "taking advantage", that's fucking FRAUD.
* Ya think you could go to Social Security and pretend you --like a tranny--- are "really" 68 years old and are thus eligible to get that money, and ALL AT ONCE to boot??
* Or to go to your private sector employer, and demand that you need that pension money NOW? ALL OF IT?
DEEEERRRRPPPP
*************
Ditto Bender, whose IQ is measured in Celsius and not Fahrenheit, who wrote:
"The gotcha WP comment aside, and Moseby's own partisanship as prosecutor aside, the charges against her are complete BS. She was convicted of lying in order to get her own money. And is accused of false statements to gain a mortgage from a bank which will do its own investigating and will have a security interest in the property regardless."
&&&&&&&&
You estupido: that retirement money is not "your" money until you RETIRE, and even then only in monthly payments. But even if a lump sum payment were an option, you can't LIE to get it.
Similarly, you can't lie to Social Security to get at "your money".
On top of that, you don't get to take it out all at once.
You can't claim financial hardwhip when you're pulling in $250K a year.
Finally, making false statements to a bank to secure a mortgage on properties you DON'T OWN
is a crime. A down payment doesn't convey title, you moron.
So no bullshit about comparing any of this to Trump.
Double DEEEERRRRRPP.
p.s. you can both find really cheap shoehorns on Amazon to help with cleaning the shit out of your tighty-whiteys after soiling yourselves so badly here.
Hard to remove?
Just keep scraping.
I gotta say, effinayright is rather brilliant here and has the better of the arguments. I mean, who can beat the argument of insults and "DERP"?
It is to laugh.
Post a Comment