NYAG Files Suit Against the Trump Foundation

[AUDub 11,158]

A thread. Click the tweet. 

[AUDub 11,158]

 

[AUDub 11,158]

The complaint basically accuses Trump of criminal perjury. 

[AUDub 11,158]

Everybody do a quick check and make sure you're not on the board of the Trump Foundation. 

 

[AUDub 11,158]

Not even a denial. May as well be an admission that they were funneling money through the charity to specially picked interest groups for political quid pro quo.

 

[channonc 466]

Doesn't look good for the Foundation/Trump Org.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

23 minutes ago, channonc said:

Doesn't look good for the Foundation/Trump Org.

Sounds similar to the "Hillary Victory Fund."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/14/clinton-donors-dealings-and-murky-connections-questioned-by-watchdog-group.html

[AUDub 11,158]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

Sounds similar to the "Hillary Victory Fund."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/14/clinton-donors-dealings-and-murky-connections-questioned-by-watchdog-group.html

"The Committee to Defend the President"

Hell of a name for a "watchdog" (I just did air quotes with my fingers) group.

Trump's foundation apparently left a paper trail a mile long. I would be shocked, but this is Stupid Watergate. 

[homersapien 11,393]

I am not surprised at all.

This sort of thing is SOP for a narcissistic psychopath.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 hours ago, channonc said:

Doesn't look good for the Foundation/Trump Org.

How’s that not premature? The suit was filed today was it not?

[AUDub 11,158]

24 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

How’s that not premature? The suit was filed today was it not?

They were just so damned brazen about it. 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, AUDub said:

They were just so damned brazen about it. 

 

People like you that come to early conclusions does not surprise me; as it pertains to things such as this (I mean, hell the reply brief doesn’t have to be filed until the end of the month, at the earliest). I don’t mean that in a negative way. The general public is not familiar with the tenants of a lawsuit, particularly the discovery phase and FRE/evidentiary hearings - especially concerning a 21-month investigation. For example, people are already getting excited about email and handwriting snapshots, but if you can’t get them into court (which could be for a variety of reasons), then they don’t mean jack s***. 

That’s why I addressed Channoc. Per my understanding, she’s familiar with the legal process. Bottom line that every legal mind knows: No one on the outside can read claim the day it’s filed and come to a conclusion or insinuate one. It’s just not dispositive.

But thanks, glad you’re having fun with this Dub. With that said, you’re a smart guy. I don’t mean to take away from that.

[AUDub 11,158]

8 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

People like you that come to early conclusions does not surprise me; as it pertains to things such as this (I mean, hell the reply brief doesn’t have to be filed until the end of the month, at the earliest). I don’t mean that in a negative way. The general public is not familiar with the tenants of a lawsuit, particularly the discovery phase and FRE/evidentiary hearings - especially concerning a 21-month investigation. For example, people are already getting excited about email and handwriting snapshots, but if you can’t get them into court (which could be for a variety of reasons), then they don’t mean jack s***. 

That’s why I addressed Channoc. Per my understanding, she’s familiar with the legal process. Bottom line that every legal mind knows: No one on the outside can read claim the day it’s filed and come to a conclusion or insinuate one. It’s just not dispositive.

But thanks, glad you’re having fun with this Dub. With that said, you’re a smart guy. I don’t mean to take away from that.

I don’t claim to be an expert, so I rely on the views of folks experienced in the field to inform my perspective. People like Chris Geidner, Ken White, Orin Kerr, Patrick Frey, Marc Randazza etc. Most with extensive experience in the law. Most are pretty fired up about this. They do not share your skepticism. 

Your skepticism is tantamount to expressing doubt of guilt when stumbling upon the scene of a murder in progress, just two people in a room with only one entrance, with the assailant holding a bloody knife, going to town on the victim, known to have talked in the past about how he was going to stab that son of a bitch with that exact knife, with the still living victim moaning “why, (assailant), why are you stabbing me? *dead*”

Really. The evidence is that strong. The NYAG literally has the damned receipts. These violations are so laughably blatant only a fool would deny them. Read the damned thing. For crying out loud, look no further than Lewandowski’s email above.

It gets old. Is this a political hit job? I will definitely concede that point, but the fact that this foundation was basically a slush fund is unassailable. 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 hours ago, AUDub said:

I don’t claim to be an expert, so I rely on the views of folks experienced in the field to inform my perspective. People like Chris Geidner, Ken White, Orin Kerr, Patrick Frey, Marc Randazza etc. Most with extensive experience in the law. Most are pretty fired up about this. They do not share your skepticism. 

Your skepticism is tantamount to expressing doubt of guilt when stumbling upon the scene of a murder in progress, just two people in a room with only one entrance, with the assailant holding a bloody knife, going to town on the victim, known to have talked in the past about how he was going to stab that son of a bitch with that exact knife, with the still living victim moaning “why, (assailant), why are you stabbing me? *dead*”

Really. The evidence is that strong. The NYAG literally has the damned receipts. These violations are so laughably blatant only a fool would deny them. Read the damned thing. For crying out loud, look no further than Lewandowski’s email above.

It gets old. Is this a political hit job? I will definitely concede that point, but the fact that this foundation was basically a slush fund is unassailable. 

 

Hahahah and see that’s the thing, you call it skepticism. You seriously don’t understand. To make final assertions when a reply hasn’t even been filed is ludicrous. I’ve read the email, but buddy, you have to introduce it into evidence for it to matter!! That’s not so simple in all circumstances. My goodness. Again, that’s why I didn’t engage you, becuase you don’t understand. You’re only furthering my position. I will reserve my opinion until later, which is the logical and proper thing to do, if you understand how these things work - Why that’s an issue, befuddles me... but again, I understand how it may shock your perspective. 

Get mad if you want, but that’s just how the cookie crumbles.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 hours ago, AUDub said:

Your skepticism is tantamount to expressing doubt of guilt when stumbling upon the scene of a murder in progress, just two people in a room with only one entrance, with the assailant holding a bloody knife, going to town on the victim, known to have talked in the past about how he was going to stab that son of a bitch with that exact knife, with the still living victim moaning “why, (assailant), why are you stabbing me? *dead*”

 

It’s not skepticism or doubt, but rather proceeding with caution. What if the victim was the aggressor? See???? I walked in mid-altercation. What happened precisely before that moment could determine the case. Also, the words spoken describing former state of mind/emotion could be pertinent, assuming there’s no hearsay issues  

Caution and patience my friend, that’s the key. You’ll get there. I believe in you.

[alexava 6,973]

This defense is brought to you by way of justifying a train wreck in the White House. Here we are! Enjoy 

[homersapien 11,393]

9 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

People like you that come to early conclusions does not surprise me; as it pertains to things such as this (I mean, hell the reply brief doesn’t have to be filed until the end of the month, at the earliest). I don’t mean that in a negative way. The general public is not familiar with the tenants of a lawsuit, particularly the discovery phase and FRE/evidentiary hearings - especially concerning a 21-month investigation. For example, people are already getting excited about email and handwriting snapshots, but if you can’t get them into court (which could be for a variety of reasons), then they don’t mean jack s***. 

That’s why I addressed Channoc. Per my understanding, she’s familiar with the legal process. Bottom line that every legal mind knows: No one on the outside can read claim the day it’s filed and come to a conclusion or insinuate one. It’s just not dispositive.

But thanks, glad you’re having fun with this Dub. With that said, you’re a smart guy. I don’t mean to take away from that.

Well, by your own standards Clinton is clean as a whistle and always has been.

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Hahahah and see that’s the thing, you call it skepticism. You seriously don’t understand. To make final assertions when a reply hasn’t even been filed is ludicrous. I’ve read the email, but buddy, you have to introduce it into evidence for it to matter!! That’s not so simple in all circumstances. My goodness. Again, that’s why I didn’t engage you, becuase you don’t understand. You’re only furthering my position. I will reserve my opinion until later, which is the logical and proper thing to do, if you understand how these things work - Why that’s an issue, befuddles me... but again, I understand how it may shock your perspective. 

Get mad if you want, but that’s just how the cookie crumbles.

Matter how?  In the legal outcome or in determining what actually happened?  

[homersapien 11,393]

8 hours ago, AUDub said:

I don’t claim to be an expert, so I rely on the views of folks experienced in the field to inform my perspective. People like Chris Geidner, Ken White, Orin Kerr, Patrick Frey, Marc Randazza etc. Most with extensive experience in the law. Most are pretty fired up about this. They do not share your skepticism.... 

Who you gonna believe, those guys or a 20-something law student?  

[AUDub 11,158]

16 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Matter how?  In the legal outcome or in determining what actually happened?  

He’s so focused on whether they’ll end up being found liable in court that he can’t see the forest for the trees.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, by your own standards Clinton is clean as a whistle and always has been.

I’m having a grown-up conversation. Meet me in smack talk, I’ll play with you there.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

He’s so focused on whether they’ll end up being found liable in court that he can’t see the forest for the trees.

That’s ultimately what matters though dub 

[AUDub 11,158]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

I’m having a grown-up conversation. Meet me in smack talk, I’ll play with you there.

He isn’t wrong. It’s the logical extension of your reasoning. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

19 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Matter how?  In the legal outcome or in determining what actually happened?  

Determining the legal outcome. That’s what this is about.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, AUDub said:

He isn’t wrong. It’s the logical extension of your reasoning. 

That’s doesnt mean Trump or Hillary are clean. It means when one has a suit filed against them, conclusions of liability shouldn’t be asserted on the basis of a petition alone.... 

Thats just not how it works. Do not stoop down to Homer’s philosophy.