Trump to fire US attorney for not charging Letitia James

[Anonymous]

Correct me if I am incorrect but Trump does not have blanket immunity for civil infractions while in office so Comey, James.et al., can sue trump if judge rules that this cases are without merit and for revenge by Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

1. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000158-26b6-dda3-afd8-b6fe46f40000

2. https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-cabinet-mortgage-fraud

[Anonymous]

There’s still the issue of intent. I guess they just didn’t show the emails to the GJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correct me if I am incorrect but Trump does not have blanket immunity for civil infractions while in office so Comey, James.et al., can sue trump if judge rules that this cases are without merit and for revenge by Trump.

Australian MAGA. Entirely fake news. However, Trump is doing everything right and can sue them instead. Fake American by the way, what a shame.

An Australian village idiot as stupid and deployable as home grown MAGA idiots.

Then explain why more Australians are supporting Trump? Fact check it buddy. I dare you.

Who cares? Seriously.

Put it to a vote and we will overwhelmingly ship Trump and his entire grifter family to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correct me if I am incorrect but Trump does not have blanket immunity for civil infractions while in office so Comey, James.et al., can sue trump if judge rules that this cases are without merit and for revenge by Trump.

Australian MAGA. Entirely fake news. However, Trump is doing everything right and can sue them instead. Fake American by the way, what a shame.

Huh??
Don't forget, your country was founded by criminals.

In general, the president is not immune from civil actions, which is why he ended up settling the Trump University lawsuit, court proceedings would have continued during his first presidency.

Analysis of the charges against James (I don't know if all of them ended up getting a true bill from the grand jury) is here: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/next-up--letitia-james

Holy sh!t! I read the Lawfare article. That case is ludicrous. I’m a former prosecutor and that dog has fleas! That is not even a good faith case much less something that could ever win. I hope she goes after law licenses for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Correct me if I am incorrect but Trump does not have blanket immunity for civil infractions while in office so Comey, James.et al., can sue trump if judge rules that this cases are without merit and for revenge by Trump.

He doesn’t even have blanket criminal immunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Hunters have become the hunted... Comey and James are just the appertizer.

You come for the king, you best not miss.

lol

[Anonymous]

So I’m guessing none of the legal geniuses on Trumps team bothered to read paragraphs 6 and 7? Because 7 does not follow from 6.

[Anonymous]

So why couldn't DOJ have indicted Trump for the same thing? Falsifying financial statements for favorable interest rates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So why couldn't DOJ have indicted Trump for the same thing? Falsifying financial statements for favorable interest rates?

Because those prosecutors had ethics and only charged what they knew they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

It’s clear James didn’t falsify anything just looking at the indictment. Nothing in the documents she signed prohibited renting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I’m guessing none of the legal geniuses on Trumps team bothered to read paragraphs 6 and 7? Because 7 does not follow from 6.

Can you explain the problem with 6 and 7? As a non-lawyer I read it as saying she got the loan as a second residence which she could not rent out, and she rented it out.

Aside from that: I'm confused because the Perrone charge involves a 2020 mortgage but the criminal referral letter referred to a 2023 mortgage for a Norfolk home her niece was going to be living in. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26180109-850643623-letitia-james-order/

In the lawfare article (which has the link to the criminal referral) it discusses her Brooklyn home, a Jamaica NY property where at some point someone wrote that she was married to her father, and the 2023 mortgage for the Norfolk home for her niece, but than says "Perhaps becoming desperate, prosecutors have reportedly also probed whether a separate Virginia property of James’s was described as both a “second home” and an “investment property.” This separate count could, remarkably, be even muddier than the Norfolk question: The Fannie Mae guidelines on the subject, ABC News reports, are vague, and senior DOJ leadership is skeptical." https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/next-up--letitia-james

So Halligan must have given up on the 3 original referrals and gone for this other one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He couldn't conjure up charges so he gets fired.

Do people understand why one never goes and works for a malignant narcissist? There is never a winning hand no matter how inner circle you think you are.

But what about Rudy Giuliani?

Well. . . . I assume he now depends on the kindness of strangers. Maybe his son has built mother-in-law unit for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I’m guessing none of the legal geniuses on Trumps team bothered to read paragraphs 6 and 7? Because 7 does not follow from 6.

Can you explain the problem with 6 and 7? As a non-lawyer I read it as saying she got the loan as a second residence which she could not rent out, and she rented it out.

Aside from that: I'm confused because the Perrone charge involves a 2020 mortgage but the criminal referral letter referred to a 2023 mortgage for a Norfolk home her niece was going to be living in. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26180109-850643623-letitia-james-order/

In the lawfare article (which has the link to the criminal referral) it discusses her Brooklyn home, a Jamaica NY property where at some point someone wrote that she was married to her father, and the 2023 mortgage for the Norfolk home for her niece, but than says "Perhaps becoming desperate, prosecutors have reportedly also probed whether a separate Virginia property of James’s was described as both a “second home” and an “investment property.” This separate count could, remarkably, be even muddier than the Norfolk question: The Fannie Mae guidelines on the subject, ABC News reports, are vague, and senior DOJ leadership is skeptical." https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/next-up--letitia-james

So Halligan must have given up on the 3 original referrals and gone for this other one?

It doesn’t say she can’t rent it out. It says she cannot enter into an agreement requiring it to be rented. When you look at the actual rider, it specifically says she can do short term rentals. And it seems that’s exactly what she did here since she reported less than $5k in rental income.

[Anonymous]

As an independent, I always thought the James lawsuit against Trump was terrible. It was an obvious political attack and pretty much meritless.

And now here we are.

[Anonymous]