60 MINUTES - NEWSMAKERS Mark Pomerantz on investigating Donald Trump

[Justice matters.]

Video at link: (WARNING: LARGE FINANCIAL FRAUDS DETAILED)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mark-pomerantz-people-vs-donald-trump-60-minutes-2023-02-05/

[gab13by13]

1. I just hope the "wait and see crowd"

doesn't insult my intelligence and try to tell me that Alvin Bragg is all over this.

[brooklynite]

5. The Hill: "Prospects rise for NY charges against Trump in Stormy Daniels case"

New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s latest moves suggest prosecutors are nearing a decision about charging former President Trump in connection with a $130,000 hush payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office this week escalated the fight by empaneling another grand jury in the case and presenting witnesses.

Legal experts and a former colleague of Bragg’s said the Democratic attorney’s actions indicate prosecutors are edging closer to possible charges against Trump.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3841665-prospects-rise-for-ny-charges-against-trump-in-stormy-daniels-case/

[gab13by13]

6. I will never click on The Hill

the right wing rag that hired John Solomon.

[Justice matters.]

9. I wonder who the prosecutors who told Bragg not to indict the fraudster are?

What their reasons were. It's pretty obvious the numbers are false (and signed).

Do they have Republican-leaning views?
Are there any payments they could have received under the table?

They should be investigated...

[fightforfreedom]

10. You do understand a grand jury is now in place.

Bragg backed down when he took office. He said he did not believe he had a good enough case to get a conviction. Something has changed his mind. Possible more evidence has been found. Prosecutors do not put a grand jury in place for the hell of it.

Bragg is now going for an indictment. That is good news, yet people still complain.

Your endless attacks on Garland are not always backed by facts. Garland should have done this, Garland should have done that. Garland may have good reasons for not doing this or that. Nobody knows ,including the talking heads your get your information from on cable news.

[Scrivener7]

2. That was quite the interview.

I'd heard those numbers before and I wondered then how the numbers and the certifications of those numbers by tfg himself don't constitute a fairly clear-cut case.

Apparently, they do.

[gab13by13]

3. I have been saying for 2 years now,

that indicting Trump has little to do with evidence.

[Scrivener7]

4. And I've been reading you saying it and wishing it were not true, though it is.

Because we certainly have plenty of evidence.

[gab13by13]

7. Michael Cohen said it himself,

the "individual one" case was a slam dunk and Merrick Garland allowed the statute of limitations to expire.

That is just a fact.

I see a lot of crap here against Bob Mueller but he got indictments or guilty pleas from 34 people and 3 companies, many of Trump's pals. Mueller would have indicted Trump but for the DOJ memo.

Garland has now had more time than Mueller and he still doesn't have a grand jury indictment against any of Trump's inner circle let alone a conviction.

[sarcasmo]

8. A lying, liar, who lies all the time, remains a free man.

[Emile]

11. K&R