N.Y. Attorney General Letitia James alleges ‘significant evidence’ of Trump Org fraud

We've heard it all before. You be sure to let us all know how it works out for ya. Keep running up the hill to find the wolf.

 

It specifies right in there that of course they can plead the 5th.

 

Again, more rhetoric.

 

The Trumps will never be in the clear as long as the left are free to abuse their power in their never ending quest to get him.

 

It's that or the whole thing becomes a perjury trap (by asking them questions)...

So admit you are a criminal or prove it.... those are the 2 choices facing them once they are ordered to deposition...

 

Which could be a huge problem, as the lawyers T**** is working with in NY seem to be considered a little........ hmmmm..... I'll go with untested.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-advisers-reportedly-concerned-over-051008120.html

With the GOP picking up the tab, you'd think he'd be going with some bigger guns...

However, whoever this lady is, she's gotta be an upgrade over sweaty Rudy and crazy Sidney...

 

But what was the intent? Frankly it's so thin it's only got one side.

 

Sorry missed this.

Here is 7000 of them in one state.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...gan-lawmakers-claim-election-fraud/ar-AALcl4i

Is 7,000 in one state enough? Or do you want more to justify JUST ONE full county signature verification audit?

 

No no no no. Those came out BECAUSE of the investigation. NOT prior to. The discussion we were having is WHY is it acceptable to begin an investigation into trumps financial dealings with ZERO proof of misdealings... and yet you find it WHOLLY unacceptable to investigate the election because “we don’t have proof fraud occurred”.

 

Then why shouldn’t we investigate election fraud to uncover all the evidence we can?

 

Snotloller are you ACTUALLY trying to argue that the NY AG Letitia James is not a biased lefty?

Are you serious right now?

 

and I could ask you if you are a biased righty.
If you hang with one tribe or another, bias is always a cheap accusation and easily digested by your biased friends.

I prefer proof over some time, to accuse anyone of bias in any direction. So in answer to your question, I have no idea.
How much proof do you count as valid to come to a conclusion?

 

Sure not a problem. How about she’s funded and her campaign was funded by George Soros and you and I both know Soros supports those who are willing to promote his agenda.

 

I asked for a link to the testimonies. Not a link to a story. The actual testimony or affidavit, so we can see what they said, under oath.

An affidavit (or 7,000 affidavits) saying someone is concerned about election fraud, is not evidence of election fraud.

 

So 7000 sworn affidavits of election fraud from separate individuals IN ONE STATE isnt enough evidence to justify an investigation. But a handful of sworn testimonies is enough to justify an investigation into trumps dealings?

Lol on what grounds?

 

Are the 7,000 sworn affidavits of election fraud? Link to one so I can see what it says. I’ll bet there’s no first hand knowledge in any of those - that it’s just people who are concerned.

 

Personal knowledge and possible culpability....

 

Is that not the usual way someone chooses who to support??

 

Lol.. major zinger there...

 

Only if you have a certain POV.
I don't know of many investors who invest in people they know won't speak well of them.

Anyway this is your issue, not mine. I just picked up on the heavy cynicism.

 

I was serious.. I go with the /s when I'm being sarcastic... also, I liked your zinger post...

 

Where do you get that? All James had to do was look at documents filed by the Trump Organization on their various New York State tax filings, then compare with the publicly available actual values of the listed properties. There was probable cause.

And off topic, the election was investigated, but Trump and his followers simply won't accept that all of the recounts reinforced Biden's win, and none of the often ridiculous lawsuits had merit due to a complete absence of evidence.

 

Then why isn’t that true for an investigation into the election with a SV audit?

 

Absolutely it is. Now what does George Soros support?

 

In addition, they will not accept every court, even with Trump appointees, ruled that no pro Trump "stolen election" case met evidentiary requirements.