General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAnyone want to pitch in on the Leticia James indictment?
I thought I had a handle on the facts of this case and it was so unfounded that I was sure it was going to be another Trump failure. But the thing that has me concerned is that they said there was a federal grand jury now backing the indictment.
What changed? Did Trump handpick the jury?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
no_hypocrisy
(53,373 posts)know it was Letitia James. IOW, someone did something bad. Do you think they should be indicted and tried for it?
If anything, a Grand Jury decides in quasi-ignorance. They determine probable cause.
Baitball Blogger
(51,096 posts)She can show how Trump is full of grudges and revenge.
ForgedCrank
(2,906 posts)doesn't matter if she actually broke a law and there is evidence to support that.
This GJ is also in a very Democratic district, so I highly doubt there is any foul play going on.
None of this means she is guilty though, it's nothing more than an accusation, and there is no defense running. It's just "here is what we believe happened, and here is some evidence to back it up. Can we take it to court, yes or no?". These GJ only exist to reduce the load on the court system by filtering out shaky or bogus charges that would do nothing but waste time and money, and they are very loose, meaning they err on the side of the charges usually rather than just letting people skate. She will get her say at trial if she doesn't take a deal (she probably will), and the reason Trump pushed her being charged won't be at all relevant, only the charge and the evidence relating to it.
I would have never gotten caught if Trump didn't hate me isn't a defense, even though that is what is going on.
choie
(6,212 posts)If an unscrupulous prosecutor who is trunp’s puppet presents lies to the grand Jury, and there’s no presentation from the defense, (as is the case in the Grand Juryy) how are they supposed to make a just decision?
ForgedCrank
(2,906 posts)isn't a conviction. Pretty simple really. All one has to do at that point is go to court and make prosecution prove it. If someone knowingly presented false evidence, that would be a crime and there would be severe consequences.
And prosecutors don't judge people, juries do.
choie
(6,212 posts)This Lindsey halligan person didn’t”t lie when she presented her case? That’s naive, you think there would be consequences if she lied? From whom?
certainly entitled to your position, even the part where you insist that I am naive.
The reality is that what happens in court is what will happen. Nothing presented to the public so far is real evidence, any of it could be faked, or it could all be real. Neither you nor I know right now.
A scant few of us warned about this consequence a couple of years ago and we were mocked for it. All politics are circular. The circle is now forming and here we are. "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime". It's not just a saying.
Is she actually guilty? We don't know, but I'm guessing there is some evidence of it, or it wouldn't have made it this far. It's petty, yes, but that doesn't make it a non-issue.
I read all of these prediction here every day, and about 1% of them actually come true. I think James has a problem here, but the real world consequences if found guilty will be very minor for her. At worst, she may get a minor fine. The major damage will be in the political scope.
maxsolomon
(37,538 posts)Explains why they might indict a Ham Sandwich.
no_hypocrisy
(53,373 posts)don't lead to an indictment or the jury may not like the defendant and unduly indict him/her.
avebury
(11,167 posts)I would have wanted to see the entire loan package. Failure to provide that information would have been a huge red flag for me. I would not vote for a bill of indictment. I have spent way too many years reviewing loan documents. Give me a file and if there are any buried dead bodies so to speak, I will find them.
GoCubsGo
(34,436 posts)in Trump's case, as there will be in every other case. The one that indicts them is not the same one that is seated for the trial--if it ever makes it that far. A new one gets seated. As with Comey's case, I doubt it will ever get that far. From the sound of things, both will be thrown out by the judge before a Grand Jury is even seated.
W_HAMILTON
(9,643 posts)And we all know what a farce that one is too.
Getting indicted doesn't mean they are more likely to be guilty -- it just means the MAGA fascists fired enough to finally find someone that would prosecute their frivolous case.
Irish_Dem
(76,133 posts)He will hurt her until he gets what he wants.
This is his usual strategy.
avebury
(11,167 posts)with the box checked designating it is for a primary residency then I don't think that they will get a conviction. Listening to Nicole Wallace they were talking about other pages clearly stating that the house was not James' primary residency. James will have a top notch defense team and they need to make sure that the entire loan package is included in the evidence. Many years ago I was a Loan Review Officer so I have reviewed thousands of loan documents and have a pretty good idea of what they will find in the packet. If they strictly restricted what the grand jurors saw that tells me that there is stuff in the packet that have a good chance of blowing up the case for the Prosecutor.
Had I been on the Grand Jury and we could ask questions I would have asked to see the entire loan packet. I would love to be on the jury for the trial.
pat_k
(12,035 posts)Nevertheless, it's probably crap. See post below:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220709735#post8
pat_k
(12,035 posts)The thoroughly debunked case involved their attempt to get her on mortgage fraud for a 2023 purchase of a home she made as a co-borrower with her niece. In that case, she gave her niece power of attorney to sign for her. In the power of attorney form, the property was mistakenly identified as her primary residence. In fact, it was to be the primary residence of her niece and she cleared up the confusion and the loan was made on that basis.
The indictment today involved a property she purchased in August 2020. She signed a "Second Home Rider." That is a rider that indicates you will use the home as a second home for the first year. They are accusing her of violating that rider by renting the property.
While she may have rented the property, as alleged, it appears that as of 2019, guidance on the meaning of a Fannie Mae Second Home Rider was "clarified" to allow short-term rental in the first year. After the first year, you can do with the property what you like.
I do not know if the rider she signed was a "Fannie Mae" rider, but if it was, I would bet that she rented the property within the terms as allowed by the clarified guidance and that Halligan is taking the former "strict interpretation" of no rental allowed within the first year.
From AI:
WarGamer
(18,008 posts)
Deuxcents
(24,353 posts)That said she was so picky about her responsibilities that she could be annoying! TSF has once again picked on the wrong person and I hope she turns around and sues him for malicious intent or whatever it is in legalese
pat_k
(12,035 posts)
vapor2
(3,232 posts)
bigtree
(92,981 posts)...they are in complete control over evidence, and have the ability to put forward a one-sided distortion to the GJ.
I'd be interested in the vote total.
Chemical Bill
(2,953 posts)that this was the first day that the grand jury was in session. This may help explain things, as the folks may have been unable to see beyond the presentation. A more experienced group might not have been as persuadable.