New York state and city prosecutors have been investigating Trump's crimes for years

[StarfishSaver]

While investigations aren't normally discussed publicly, we know about these investigations because prosecutors had to go to court to obtain some of the evidence Trump was fighting. And even then, all we knew about the investigation is that they were seeking financial records to submit to the grand jury. Since those court cases were resolved, we have heard and know little else about what's going on with the investigations.

These investigations have been ongoing for years but have not yet resulted in a single indictment. And yet, we've seen very few, if any attacks against Cyrus Vance, Jr. or Letitia James, accusing them of being weak or ineffective or doing nothing because they're not giving us an inside view of what's going on with the investigations we are seeing or hearing nothing about.

But some Democrats are going after Merrick Garland, the man President Biden has entrusted to head the Justice Department, and accusing him of all manner of neglect and malfeasance because his team hasn't, in the 8 months since he took office, indicted a man who's also been under investigation in New York State for years, with no indictment yet forthcoming.

If the New York investigation should tell us anything, it should remind people that investigations like this are long, complicated, and confidential and don't result in instant indictments, regardless how impatient for instant gratification any of us may be.

[elleng]

1. 'investigations like this are long, complicated, and confidential

and don't result in instant indictments.'

[Karadeniz]

2. Justice delayed...

[StarfishSaver]

3. Taking time to properly investigate a case is neither a delay or a denial of justice

[bigtree]

8. it is if statutes of limitations run out

...witnesses die, leave the country, forget details, records get 'lost.'

Not as cut-and-dry as you suppose.


...and we know state prosecutions were held up because of stonewalling from the Trump admin and his lawyers on releasing financial records... something which was just partially resolved in the past few months.

[StarfishSaver]

17. I'm quite sure the DOJ attorneys are very familiar with the statutes of limitations they're working

and are conducting their investigations accordingly, without the need for useless hangwringing by people on the sidelines.

[bigtree]

24. problem with state prosecutions

...is the political vulnerability.

No such pressure on Garland. It's not surprising for folks to expect him to be more responsive than state prosecutors.

I'd also take exception to people advocating for more action from the Justice Dept. as 'handwringers.' I understand how accountability in a responsible administration can seem adequate when comparing it to the last one, but the Justice Dept. isn't inviolable, and expecting Garland to take advantage of Trump being out-of-office, with access to documents hopefully unrestricted, isn't an unreasonable expectation.

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. I agree with you on this issue 99% of the time, however...

The statute of limitations on Trump’s obstruction/campaign finance fraud (Stormy Daniels) runs out next month, so there’s that…

Otherwise, I wait patiently for Justice…

[StarfishSaver]

28. How are you calculating that?

Last edited Sat Sep 18, 2021, 07:11 PM - Edit history (1)

And what federal crime are you basing this on?

[Fiendish Thingy]

41. Trump wrote the checks to Daniels and McDougal in late October 2016

So wouldn’t that be the date the statute of limitations for campaign finance violations clock started?

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/12/18138213/trump-illegal-hush-payments-women-explained

Trump’s comment to Comey to “let this go” re: Flynn prosecution happened in Late January/early February 2017, IIRC, and his attempt to fire Mueller occurred in Spring 2017, IIRC, so there are a few months left before the statute of limitations on his obstruction expires.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map

Of all the potential federal prosecutions of Trump, it is the campaign finance/fraud and obstruction crimes that we know the most regarding evidence in the public record. These are crimes that, if presented to a grand jury, would most likely result in indictments.

If they get presented to a grand jury.

[StarfishSaver]

42. The statute of limitations doesn't necessarily expires 5 years after the crime was first committed

Often the behavior is ongoing and/or acts in furtherance of the crime have subsequently occurred and extends the statute of limitations for quite awhile since the statute starts running upon the last of these acts, not the first.

Trump's campaign finance violations and attempts to obstruct justice in the
Flynn case and Mueller investigation continued long past 2017. This is a continuing pattern of behavior that extended well into 2020, so the five year statute of limitations will run out soon.

Hell, prosecutors going to have a hard time getting the statute of limitations to ever run given how Trump just refuses to stop committing crimes ...

[Fiendish Thingy]

43. Outside of RICO, aren't most indictments specific to individual acts, not patterns or series of acts

That would indeed mean the statute for the payoff crimes (which there was enough evidence to convict Cohen) expires next month, and the obstruction crimes expires early next year. There may be other, later obstruction crimes, but the ones covered by Meuller, which have the most publicly known evidence, were all from early 2017, IIRC.

IANAL, but if the statute of limitations for a specific crime expires, the evidence for that crime wouldn’t be admissible for a trial for a later crime, no?

Again, I wait patiently for DOJ, NYAG and Fulton county to complete their investigations, but, for some specific well known crimes with lots of well known evidence, the clock is indeed ticking.

[StarfishSaver]

44. Not necessarily

Obstruction of justice for example can be an ongoing act.

And campaign finance violation can also be if a series of acts in furtherance of that violation continue to occur, the statute can be extended and not start to run until the last act occurred.

And the expiration of a statute of limitations does not affect the ability to use the evidence in other proceedings. They just can't be charged with that specific crime, but they can certainly charged with other crimes that arise from that act.

You're right that the clock is ticking - it always is. But I don't think any charges are in danger of being limited by any statutes of limitations any time soon.

FYI, campaign finance violations are small potatoes compared to other crimes he likely committed.

[Fiendish Thingy]

45. Yes indeed, but if he were to be convicted of the same charges as Cohen, as "Individual 1"

He could get a couple of years just for that.

I’m just fine waiting for Justice to take its course; I think the perfect time for Trump indictments to begin to be handed down would be around December 2022, just after the midterm elections, and just before most candidates for 2024 announce their candidacies for president. Another wave of indictments would be perfectly timed for a year later, just before the primaries.

So, no rush…

[StarfishSaver]

48. Judges rarely make sentences consecutive, so it probably wouldn't make much difference

The prosecutors aren't timing this for the campaign cycle. That's how Trump Justice worked, not the Biden Justice Department. They will move when the case is ready.

However, the bottom line is that the little back and forth we just had pales in comparison to the in-depth and constant analysis the prosecutors are and have been doing - with volumes more information, knowledge and experience than we have. All of the second-guessing and insistence that the prosecutors don't know what they're doing, mostly based on next to no knowledge and even less experience (not referring to you - you're being very thoughtful and reasonable) and assumptions is really bizarre.

It's interesting that people who laugh at Trumpers for pontificating about medical issues and tell people to stop second-guessing the scientists and doctors about COVID think nothing of second-guessing lawyers and insisting they know more about the law and the criminal justice system than they do.

[brooklynite]

4. People were too busy accusing Tish James of wanting to replace Cuomo as Governor.....

[FrankBooth]

5. Agree 100%

NM

[MineralMan]

6. Excellent point!

[Marius25]

7. Cy Vance gets tons of criticism.

He let Ivanka and Trump get off the hook on crimes in the past, and he's been called out for it a lot.

[choie]

12. well deserved criticism.

nt

[mcar]

9. Thanks for the reminder. nt

[global1]

10. Accountability - I Thought That My Earlier Post Here Might Contribute To This Discussion.....

Here's the link: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215870514

Tr**p and his accomplices in crime were the ones that I was hinting at in my post.

[Silent3]

11. This is quite fair to point out, but it's still a clear indication of a two-tier "justice" system

If you or I had done a tenth of what Trump and his minions have been up to, no one would spend years working out cases against us. The fear of "Oh, God! What about our reputations if we lose this high-profile case?" wouldn't figure into it, nor would the fear of high-priced lawyers on the other side figure into it.

This isn't even to mention the psychological prejudices that work in favor of people of privileged status.

We'd just get our asses thrown in jail fairly quickly and without a whole lot of fuss.

[lamp_shade]

13. Thank you.

[stillcool]

14. the past 20+ years has been one hell

of an education in what I never knew I didn't know. So much so that if something isn't real today, it isn't real. Not much to see with that viewpoint, but I'm thinking it's good for sanity purposes.

[kentuck]

15. If the truth be known...?

The FBI was probably investigating him for years also?

Nobody has laid a finger on him.

[StarfishSaver]

21. I doubt the FBI conducted any serious investigation of him before he became president

He was seen by many as a two-bit con man who just wasn't important enough to expend a lot of time and resources on, contrary to his own view of himself.

[msfiddlestix]

16. I've been holding my tongue, though I have gone after Vance, I simply never trusted him

It's not just Garland.

[StarfishSaver]

19. Do you at least understand that Vance is conducting an investigation even though

you have no idea what's going on with it?

[Grasswire2]

22. No need to be rude to that commenter. nt

[StarfishSaver]

27. There was absolutely nothing rude about my comment.

But I thought you weren't engaging ...

[msfiddlestix]

30. I think he's conducting a cover up.

do you not agree this "investigation" has been going for years? Results?

I might have missed the reporting... so far I think it's resulted in zero charges, zero consequences.

Unless I missed reporting that counters my impressions..

[StarfishSaver]

37. You seem to have missed quite a bit

Prosecutors engaging in cover ups don't convene grand juries, subpoena documents and fight all the way to the Supreme Court to get them.

[msfiddlestix]

34. I just re-read your op. In my reading your other posts in the thread

you seem to be arguing against your own comments in the OP regarding Vance's investigation having concluded. apparently. with no results.

I'm confused by why you seem to be arguing in his defense..

I take it you have been following all of these legal procedures very closely. got any insights other than, suggesting we're too stupid to understand how this sordid drama plays out in the end? Meaning Trump et al gets away with everything because that's how it works?

[StarfishSaver]

38. I think you have missed the point altogether

My point is that the Vance investigation has been going on for years, and during that time we have been given very little information about what's happening in the case. The only reason we know anything about it is because Trump fought the subpoenas for his financial records and the case went to the Supreme Court.

I raised this to point out that an assumption that if we don't hear about the progress of an investigation or if an investigation hasn't been wrapped up and resulted in indictments within a few months, "nothing is happening," is faulty.

[msfiddlestix]

39. Ok. I also understood you to say, that the investigations are over

Vance is done. I believe I read that in the Op. Maybe I misunderstood.

If Vance is finished, and I read that somewhere else a few weeks ago, what happens now? The investigations are done. I've been away from news reports for several weeks, spot checking now and then, but nothing regarding the Manhattan investigations have come across my radar.

I read something about Horowitz surmising the investigations are done, and there's nothing there to charge him with. That might be a separate matter I'm not sure. But basically conclusions pretty much match up with some of our complaints regarding the two tier justice system.

It is what it is, we ain't never gonna see no justice. And pretty much, we just have to accept that and move on.

[StarfishSaver]

40. I didn't say that - just the opposite

The investigation started years ago and is still going on.

The case regarding the subpoena for Trump's financial records is over. But the investigation and case before the grand jury are still happening. We just aren't hearing about it because, as I keep saying, these kinds of investigations aren't conducted in public and details are usually only released to the public when and if the grand jury hands down indictments.

And if the grand jury doesn't hand down an indictment, it certainly won't be for lack of effort by the prosecutors.

[msfiddlestix]

46. Will the Public be informed in either case?

[StarfishSaver]

49. If the grand jury issues indictments, yes.

If not, it depends. Usually prosecutors don't comment on cases that don't result in indictments. James Comey's treatment of Hillary Clinton - which went against that practice - is a good example of why they don't normally do that.

But I do think that on a case this high profile against people whom the vast majority of the public are certain committed numerous serious crimes, if indictments aren't brought, the prosecutors would have to explain why.

I don't think that's going to be an issue, however, because I think there will be indictments.

[msfiddlestix]

50. Another reason not to make public anything related to TFG ..

is he runs for white house again, I have no doubt in mind that bastard will use "lessons" learned and standard policy to his benefit wrt any legal issues decided by Grand Jury's or in the courts. That is a factor all along. Everyone knows that's all he has to do if it comes down to any hail mary. There's no plus side for accountability which is vital. And the longer these matters are delayed the easier it will be for him to use it to his advantage.

I'm not optimistic, but at least I'm not assuming and expecting justice to prevail.

[StarfishSaver]

51. I don't understand your point about a delay helping him

Not releasing information about the investigation doesn't mean that there's any delay in the investigation.

While we would love to know everything going on with the investigation, so would Trump and his cronies. But the last thing prosecutors need - and one of the things that can most compromise an investigation - is for targets and witnesses to know details of investigations.

I'd rather they keep everything under wraps if it helps to protect the investigation. I really don't need to know what they're doing right now of confidentiality will make the investigation stronger.

[msfiddlestix]

52. The more time the "wheels of justices" slpgs along, the closer it is for 2024 to get underway

by striking earlier as a candidate. then for sure he won't have to face accountability. Because Political figures running for president can't be held to public scrutiny related to investigations. Because Justice Dept policy.

[StarfishSaver]

53. You may need to lower your expectations

Even if Trump is indicted tomorrow, it's unlikely he would be convicted and sentenced and start serving time before the 2024 cycle.

But it's not correct that "political figures running for president can't be held to public scrutiny related to investigations." If you think otherwise, Hillary Clinton would like a word with you.

[msfiddlestix]

59. HRC was the anomaly, right? The "exception to the Rule" per Comey, if I recall correctly

The blow back from that wretched action by Comey has pretty much laid down an effective hardening of that policy, so now Trump will be protected.

And yes I agree, lowering expectations is exactly what I have done. I do not expect to see justice. I do not expect to see accountability.

Not Ever. That's the sad, but accurate fact in all of this.

[StarfishSaver]

60. Exactly - she was an anomaly, but not for the reason you seem to think

She was an anomaly not because she was investigated during an election cycle, but because the investigation was publicly discussed in blatant violation of Department policy.

Comey's action did not "lay down an effective hardening of that policy." It was a blatant violation of the Department's policy against discussing ongoing criminal investigations. In fact, DOJ has gone back to properly adhering to that policy - something some folks who want DOJ in violation of that policy to show its hand are now complaining about.

DOJ doesn't have a policy against conducting investigations or issuing indictments during election cycles. The policy is to be extra sensitive about announcing indictments that could influence elections during an election year - such indictments aren't prohibited, but the Office of Public Integrity must be consulted before moving forward to make sure that it is warranted and appropriate, which this one clearly would be.

[msfiddlestix]

61. I don't see any divergence between what I said and your rephrasing.

Bottom line is essentially the same thing and at the end of all it, there will not be accountability.

And oh, he'll skate by for his next run for office successfully because he will be FREE to do so.

[Grasswire2]

20. the history of Vance is enough to make a person wary here

His letting off of the Kushners will always be part of public opinion about him.

[StarfishSaver]

23. You think he went through all that trouble to get Trump's financial documents just for fun?

Or did he convene a grand jury and take those cases to the U.S. Supreme Court just to throw is off the track by making is THINK he was doing something?

[Grasswire2]

25. Not engaging. nt

[StarfishSaver]

26. Good idea

You have been having a lot of trouble holding your own with me.

[msfiddlestix]

32. I missed that report..

When did the cases go to the Supreme Court? And is that the typical procedure?

If there were indictments handed down against Trump et al, doesn't it then go to filing charges, making arrests and then trial held?

Isn't that the typical procedure?

[StarfishSaver]

36. Yes, it went to the Supreme Court

Vance subpoenaed Trump's financial records as part of the grand jury investigation into him and Trump sued to block the subpoena. Vance won at every level and Trump appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which ordered the records be turned over.

There have been no indictments, arrests or trial - yet - since this was a fight about the investigation, which is still ongoing.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-vance/

[msfiddlestix]

47. thank you.. glad to know. n/t

[msfiddlestix]

35. indeed. Looks like he's going to live up to his reputation..

thus far.

[PufPuf23]

29. If Trump is not indicated and successfully prosecuted, Garland is a failure.

Personally I am giving Garland time and the benefit of the doubt.

Don't think have much other choice.

Not that easy to be optimistic given history of last 60 years.

For instance, Cheney, GWB, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice are War Criminals.

[rockfordfile]

31. Who looked the other way for all of those years?

[Mr.Bill]

33. A guy named Rudy, to name one.

[former9thward]

54. Really?

He has been out of the DOJ and law enforcement since 1989. Since other people have been running the show for the last 32 years you are going to blame a lack of indictments on him?

[Mr.Bill]

55. During his tenure, yes.

I often wonder what his relationship with Trump was at that time. What did he let Trump get away with? That sort of gives it some contemporary context.

[former9thward]

56. Who are you blaming for the last 32 years?

[Mr.Bill]

57. I don't have enough knowledge of NYC prosecutors

in recent decades to have an opinion.

[former9thward]

58. Giuliani was not a NYC prosecutor.

He was federal. So if he was to blame then there has been administrations of both parties in charge of the DOJ since he left. That is the problem with CTs that are presented with no evidence.