Trump Org. CFO to plead guilty, testify against company

They are now displaying their real values and ethics.
Prior to trump, the faked it.
Actions speak louder than words.

 

Charges could have been brought at any time but he is NOT President now so try again.

 

Let me know when he is charged with a crime.

Yes, note the UN...the Manhattan probe was dropped against him with no charges and no he has not been identified as #1 in the CFO dealings and the CFO is not testifying against him.

Former President Trump not co-conspirator in Allen Weisselberg indictment
The indictments against the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, reference an unindicted co-conspirator. NBC News’ Tom Winter explains why former President Donald Trump is not that co-conspirator.
https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with...-in-allen-weisselberg-indictment-115852357584

"Unindicted Co-conspirator #1 may or may not be an officer or employee of the company: The indictment just says “agent,” which could be the organization’s outside tax preparer. Jose Pagliery of the Daily Beast, recounting this morning’s hearing, argues that it may be Trump Organization company controller Jeffrey S. McConney, who received immunity to testify before the grand jury."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/is-alvin-braggs-trump-case-alive-after-all/

So what? You do support the 5th Amendment right?

Civil disputes

Possible's that didn't hold up under scrutiny. Mueller brought no charges in his report even though he had a duty under his charter to report any he found in his report to the AG. The AG and the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel reviewed and found not obstruction of justice.

 

Weird right diaper Don has nothing to do with Trump Org right? LMAOROG

We'll know when he's charged, the Trump CIRCUS that follows him (has that instead of the C word?)-, will ALL be out to support him, sending him their last dollar to his "defense" fund

 

Nope weird amnesia there right? Diaper Don's DOJ think they'd have overruled this:

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion...enability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution

 

Non-sequitur

Charged for what? I've been waiting for almost seven years for these charges y'all keep saying are just around the corner.

BTW thanks for your avatar and reminding me of the GREAT speech Bush43 gave that day as he greeted the USS Lincoln Carrier Group back home.

 

Yes the issuance of the indictment itself would await his leaving office after an impeachment/removal or not being reelected or his term ending. Weird amenisa there right? With Clinton that was when his term was ending as the Dems refused to remove him from office. As he left office then the OIC informed him he would be indicted and they entered into a plea bargain for the felonies he was charged. Trump was never charged by Mueller let alone had a indictment issued. He's been out of office for over 18 months plenty of time to bring an indictment by now.

 

You need to follow the news more carefully

Russia probe memo wrongly withheld under Barr, court rules

The Justice Department under Attorney General William Barr improperly withheld portions of an internal memo Barr cited in announcing that then-President Donald Trump had not obstructed justice in the Russia investigation, a federal appeals panel said Friday.

Friday’s appeals court decision said the internal Justice Department memo noted that “Mueller had declined to accuse President Trump of obstructing justice but also had declined to exonerate him.” The internal memo said “the Report’s failure to take a definitive position could be read to imply an accusation against President Trump” if released to the public, the court wrote.

Sitting presidents are generally protected from criminal charges on grounds it would undermine their ability to perform the office’s constitutional duties. The Justice Department, like Mueller, “took as a given that the Constitution would bar the prosecution of a sitting President,” the appeals court wrote, which meant the decision that Trump wouldn’t be charged had already been made and couldn’t be shielded from public release.

“Because the Department did not tie the memorandum to deliberations about the relevant decision, the Department failed to justify its reliance on the deliberative-process privilege,”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...474002-1fdd-11ed-9ce6-68253bd31864_story.html



You know that memo that says sitting Prez can't be indicted?

 

Sure Diaper Donnie has no connection to the Trump ORG being charged criminally, lol

 

Someone is confusing the Sexual Predator Donnie Trump with Good Ole Joe Biden.
The lawsuit accuses Trump of raping a 13-year-old girl with his then BBF, Jeffery Epstein.


Crooked Donnie has a pattern of palling around with criminals.

 

Jeffrey Epstein introduced me to Trump at 14, Ghislaine Maxwell accuser says
Testifying at Maxwell’s trial in New York City, the woman, identified by the pseudonym Jane, said she met the former president in the 1990s at his Mar-a-Lago resort.

Jane also acknowledged that in 1998, she took part in a Miss Teen USA beauty pageant that was associated with Trump. It wasn’t immediately clear whether that was before or after the meeting at Mar-a-Lago.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...mp-14-ghislaine-maxwell-accuser-says-rcna7253

 

Not that we know of and the CFO has nothing to testify against him. Apparently he has proffered nothing that would get him off in some plea deal and the DOJ offered him this one.

Almost seven years and still waiting. I'm all ears give me the specific crime and evidence of it, your hoping and wishing does not make it so.

 

Gawd, HE IS TRUMP ORG. The guy is loyal to Diaper Don, I'll give you that, but yes he does testify if needed against Trump Org, which IS Diaper Donnie

 

INTERNAL MEMO which is not required to be release under the Special Prosecutor statute and is to protect the innocent who are not charged with a crime.

Well DUH prosecutors don't exonerate people and to release something that to the effect implies not doing so implies guilty is HIGHLY in violation of an accused rights to be presumed innocent. His duty was to investigate and report any crimes he determined occurred to the AG who would then refer it to Congress for impeachment and removal. THEM Mueller would have prosecuted him. He reported NONE. The judge engaged in GROSS violation of Trump's rights when he ordered that memo release and for the reasons he did, to insinuate that Trump COULD be guilty.

Sitting are completely protected and why had Mueller found any crimes his duty was to report them to the AG who then refers it to Congress for impeachment and removal and then the FORMER president can be presented with an indictment and either plea bargain or be prosecuted AS HAPPENED WITH PRESIDENT THEN FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON. Did miss the whole Clinton thing entirely?

And the law was changed after the Clinton impeachment to restrict the release of such information including the Mueller Report. During Clinton's it was an independent counsel, he worked outside the DOJ and issued his report to the Congress. Starr did as the law required and Congress voted to release it with all the gory details. That pissed off the Dems and they changed the law to the special prosecutor ala Mueller who sends his report IN CONFIDENCE to the AG who reviews it and any charges made and sends a referral to the Congress for any crimes the special prosecutors finds. So Mueller's report was not required to be released let alone release internal prosecutorial debates and discussions on whether to charge someone. And ANY judge who asserts that if a prosecutor does not exonerate someone that person can still be considered guilty should be removed from the bench immedicately.

SITTING. You do know former Presidents can be indicted?

Tell me, if the FBI heard a gun shoot and ran into the Biden's bedroom and there is Joe with gun in hand standing over Jill's now dead body that he would get away with it because sitting Presidents can't be indicted? What do you think would happen.

 

Internal memo Bill Barr used to lie about Mueller's report!

Been a year an a half since Diaper Don left, give them time to get the ducks in a row, we know Bill Barr and Jeff Sessions didn't look at him

Once more, the DOJ used the previous finding, in their memo, when Bill Barr mislead WHY they wouldn't indict Diaper Don

A SITTING PRESIDENT’S AMENABILITY TO INDICTMENT AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president’s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution

 

There were no lies about the Mueller report, it found no crime. It found no Russian collusion and they could not bring an obstruction of justice so he punted to Barr because he and his staff didn't want to admit they were a two year waste of time.

And I can't explain it any CLEARER. The purpose of the Special Prosecutor was to investigate CRIMES. Had he found any he would have reported them to Barr. Barr and the DAG and the OLC would review and send to the Congress for impeachment and removal and THEN he would no longer be a SITTING President and could be indicted and prosecuted.

What do you think he was doing? What was the purpose of his Office of Special PROSECUTOR?

Did you NOT follow the Clinton impeachment and his subsequent plea bargaining a criminal indictment as he left office?

Tell me, if the FBI heard a gun shoot and ran into the Biden's bedroom and there is Joe with gun in hand standing over Jill's now dead body that he would get away with it because sitting Presidents can't be indicted? What do you think would happen.

 

You really that low informed? Seriously?

There was Trump-Russia collusion — and Trump pardoned the colluder
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...ia-collusion-and-trump-pardoned-the-colluder/

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) released a less redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference. The new details confirm everything the president has tried to deny: Yes, the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. And yes, President Donald Trump obstructed justice to prevent investigators or the public from finding out.
https://themoscowproject.org/dispatch/yes-collusion-yes-obstruction/index.html

Republican-chaired Senate Intelligence Committee released a report with damning details of the extent of cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence operatives.

The Post reports: “The long-awaited report from the Senate Intelligence Committee contains dozens of new findings that appear to show more direct links between Trump associates and Russian intelligence, and pierces the president’s long-standing attempts to dismiss the Kremlin’s intervention on his behalf as a hoax.” These include a determination “that a longtime partner of Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was, in fact, a Russian intelligence officer.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/19/yes-there-was-collusion/



Upon his resignation on May 29, 2019, Mueller stated that: "the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing". In July 2019, Mueller testified to Congress that a president could be charged with obstruction of justice (or other crimes) after he left office

The New York Times reported in August 2020 that Rosenstein curtailed a May 2017 FBI inquiry into Trump's personal and financial dealings in Russia, giving the bureau the impression that the special counsel would investigate it, though Rosenstein instructed Mueller not to



The Special Counsel law requires a special counsel to confidentially provide the current attorney general with a report of findings. The attorney general, in this case William Barr, is then required to provide a summary of the findings to Congress, although he has considerable discretion in how much detail he provides

 

AS I TOLD YOU.

In that report he is to list the crimes if any and supporting evidence so the AG can make a referral to the Congress. Mueller did not find any crimes to charge Trump and reported no evidence of collusion between Trump or his campaign to effect the outcome of the election.

 

No you said CONGRESS gets it, Congress only gets a summary, Barr ONLY gave Congress a REDACTED summary at that!

"Mueller did not find any crimes to charge Trump"

LIE,

Mueller: ‘If we had had confidence that’ President Trump ‘clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so’

Mueller revealed why he didn't charge Trump with a crime — and it wasn't because of a lack of evidence



Mueller pointed to three factors that he said impeded prosecutors from making a decision on the obstruction case.

The first is a 1973 decision by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted. For that reason, Mueller said, charging Trump with a federal crime "is unconstitutional."

He also said it would be "unfair" to even suggest Trump had committed a crime, because it would deprive him of the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law.
And he said filing a sealed indictment was not an option because of the 1973 DOJ policy, and because there was a risk that it could leak.

"Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider," Mueller said.

But the former special counsel emphasized that if prosecutors had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, they would have said so. He also implied that it is up to Congress to potentially pursue impeachment proceedings against Trump.
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-mueller-didnt-charge-trump-obstruction-2019-5



"no evidence of collusion between Trump or his campaign to effect the outcome of the election."

Oh NOW it's to effect the outcome? LMAOROG

 

I specifically said that under CURRENT law Congress doesn't get it, that the CONFIDENTIAL report goes to the AG. Then if the OSP finds and any crimes and evidence to support them a referral is sent to the Congress. Under the OIC the report went to the Congress, the Dems upset because all the dirty deeds of Clinton were exposed changed it to the OSP and a confidential report. Of course since it was Trump they demanded the entire Mueller report be release.

Truth else he would have listed the specific charges and specific evidence to back it up and request a referral be made so he could prosecute the charges.

AGAIN where were you when Clinton was being charged and impeached? Didn't you follow it?

Which is nonsense that would be proving a negative. Prosecutors do not exonerate they CHARGE else do nothing.

AGAIN at total canard. He gets impeached and then removed so he can be charged. JUST LIKE with Clinton.

Again if the Secret Service heard a shot and ran in an Biden had just murder his wife do you think he would get away with murder because he was a sitting president at the time?

Again a canard, that could be said about ANYONE being charged with a crime because it can takes months or years to bring it to trial. Had there been a crime the first step is impeachment and removal, it the Congress doesn't remove then it awaits their leaving office and then they are charged. That is why the Starr OIC remained after the impeachment while Mueller closed his. Robert Ray took over after Starr left and as Clinton was leaving office he went to the WH and informed him they were prepared to prosecute him for perjury, obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury and witness tampering. He accepted the plea bargain to those felony charges.

The SAME could have and should have happen if Mueller have found crimes were committed.

Then what was he as a PROSECUTOR doing, why did he spend all that time and money? The purpose of criminal investigations and the power of the government to conduct them is to find CRIMES and charge people with CRIMES, not just to see what they can find.

Here is the authorization that created his office



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:...Presidential_Election_and_Related_Matters.pdf

Note the last line especially.

False again, prosecutors do not exonerate people, they have not power or insight or privilege, They either find evidence of a crime or they don't.

Yes that's what the investigation was all about DUH

 

Will be interesting just how much of the "inside story" Allen tells.
He was given a sweetie deal of 5 months (big fine) and he had to testify here at this trial.
He's had a taste of prison and I don't know if he doesn't live up to his end of plea deal if he can be resentenced?
For only 5 months, probably get out much sooner, one would think that his testimony was worth it.

NEW YORK

"Trump Org. CFO will spill tax fraud to New York jury, prosecutors say"

"In opening statements, Manhattan prosecutors promised the 'inside story' from former Trump Organization money man Allen Weisselberg."

Snip:

"Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg arrives at court, Friday, Aug. 12, 2022, in New York. | John Minchillo/AP Photo

By ERIN DURKIN

10/31/2022 04:30 PM EDT
NEW YORK — Convicted ex-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg will give the “inside story” of how the company allegedly used years-long tax fraud scheme to boost executive pay, Manhattan prosecutors said Monday.

The teaser came during opening remarks in the firm’s long-awaited New York Supreme Court criminal trial — one case in an increasingly complex web of legal woes for former President Donald Trump. The former president is not involved in the case, but the charges could lead to financial penalties for the Trump Organization if a jury finds it engaged in a 15-year scheme to pay Weisselberg off the books".

cont:
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/31/trump-org-cfo-tax-fraud-jury-00064268

 

He's got to talk.
Michal Cohen has repeatedly said that nothing is ever done without Trump's approval.
Yet...it is possible due to Weisselberg's years of being with Trump and his father that he had a lot of wiggle room with money and made financial decisions on his own?

Snip:

"Necheles claimed Weisselberg was only implicating the company to avoid a lengthy prison sentence. If he fulfills his plea agreement and testifies truthfully, he is expected to be sentenced to five months on Rikers Island. Should he violate the deal, he could face up to 15 years in prison.

“The prosecutors had him paraded in front of cameras in handcuffs. Mr. Weisselberg realized he was facing not just public humiliation, but a potential jail sentence that could be years long,” she said. “I will ask you to consider the extreme pressure he is under.”
"

 

Here's all you can expect to hear from the defense in this trial..

“It started with Allen Weisselberg and it ended with Allen Weisselberg,” Necheles said. “Allen Weisselberg caused the company to do something illegal with the intent to benefit Allen Weisselberg, his buddy or his son.”

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/31/politics/trump-organization-fraud-trial-allen-weisselberg/index.html

And between the start and the end, T**** signed checks from his personal account giving many of these untaxed perks...

Interesting that an alternate juror didn't show up yesterday.... Hope that's the only one found underneath the Hudson...