Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jbycho

Department of Justice opens criminal investigation into NY AG Letitia James

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

a secondary home is any other home outside your primary.  And you can do whatever you want with it.  but you have to identify it as a secondary home when you apply for the mortgage.  If you declare it as a primary, you are guilty of mortgage fraud.

Thanks. I don’t think that’s the charge here though. I think Halligan is claiming James identified it as a secondary property but then rented it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Thanks. I don’t think that’s the charge here though. I think Halligan is claiming James identified it as a secondary property but then rented it.

If thats all there is, I don't believe that's illegal.  

So I gotta say theres more there, since the grand jury felt she should be indicted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

I didn't read the indictment either and am not gonna.  I have better things to care about honestly

I agree, but fwiw it’s pretty short. It says she identified tge property as secondary but rented the property to a family of three (parents and a child I guess).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

If thats all there is, I don't believe that's illegal.  

So I gotta say theres more there, since the grand jury felt she should be indicted

Ok thanks for the responses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Yes to your first question.

Pretty sure the answer to your second question is you can, but @jonnyutah seems to think you can’t.  But, I believe you do have to at least “use” the property for at least 1 day in the year.

And I’m also pretty sure all of those rules (same with the Lisa Cook thing), at least as it relates to mortgage fraud, only apply to the first year of ownership.

Thanks for the response. Also I’m guessing they’ll need to prove James’ intent and also have the loan officer testify that the designation made a difference in the loan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TimHauck said:

The indictment does not say she declared zero personal use days in total, in fact it says she filed tax “form(s)” that said that, implying that it’s possible it was only one year that she declared that. Watch out for that careful wording, you know that.  It’s technically possible she did, but nothing is clear from this indictment.

Looks like long-term rentals are typically defined as 30 days or more, so yes it is absolutely possible for it to be a long term rental and still have been primarily for personal use (which again was only even a requirement for the first year).

Better quit while you’re behind.

The only careful wording here is you.

I mean come on. You are saying the indictment didnt say it, the idictment says she filed tax forms that say it. Lol. Where else would she have indicated personal use days? 

This is just typical lloyd christmas nonsense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

The only careful wording here is you.

I mean come on. You are saying the indictment didnt say it, the idictment says she filed tax forms that say it. Lol. Where else would she have indicated personal use days? 

This is just typical lloyd christmas nonsense. 

It says she indicated zero personal use days on a tax form or forms.  It does not say what year or years that was.  According to the second home rider, all that matters is the first year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

If thats all there is, I don't believe that's illegal.  

So I gotta say theres more there, since the grand jury felt she should be indicted

That’s all there is, at least for this current indictment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I understand,, I’m just trying to get it for my own purposes. So if I buy a vacation property in Florida, but I end up not going for one reason or another (work, life, family, whatever), if I start putting it on AirBNB it’s a crime? 

I was looking into them, and was told by multiple lenders that I could call it a second home as long as I used it myself for one day, and could rent it out the rest.

But as you alluded to elsewhere, even if you don’t, I think you can make an argument about if you intended to do so then something changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

That’s all there is, at least for this current indictment

You hopefullly understand your partisanship makes your opinion of this kinda suspect right?   I appreciate your thoughts, but I can't take your word for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, supermike80 said:

You hopefullly understand your partisanship makes your opinion of this kinda suspect right?   I appreciate your thoughts, but I can't take your word for it.

Then read the indictment.  You could have done that in less time than it’s taken you to respond multiple times here.  The part talking about the actual allegations is only 3 pages long, double spaced.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26184192-james-indictment/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see @TimHauckhas moved on from defending Iowa school superintendent grifter doosh to defending NY AG grifter doosh. 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Halligan know criminal defendants get discovery? Halligan is facing Abbe Lowell in this case. He’s represented the Trumps, the Clintons & the Bidens, & James herself has tons of experience in prosecutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TimHauck said:

Then read the indictment.  You could have done that in less time than it’s taken you to respond multiple times here.  The part talking about the actual allegations is only 3 pages long, double spaced.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26184192-james-indictment/

No..   Like I said I have no interest in it.  Some questions were being asked, and I answered them based on what I know about some things.  Which I clarified immediately.  Again, all I said is I don't trust your opinion about it because you are very partisan.   I still have no desire to read it.  And frankly I don't care what happens with it.

But your opinion has to always be called into question.  After all, you vigorously defended the superintendent who was found to be a really bad guy.  So you can't be taken at face value based on your partisan opinions.

Have a good day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Then read the indictment.  You could have done that in less time than it’s taken you to respond multiple times here.  The part talking about the actual allegations is only 3 pages long, double spaced.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26184192-james-indictment/

It seems to me the whole thing is 4 paragraphs. 1. She identified the property as secondary, 2. She rented it to a family of three, 3. The rental agreement says it’s owner occupied, 4. James reported the rental income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

No..   Like I said I have no interest in it.  Some questions were being asked, and I answered them based on what I know about some things.  Which I clarified immediately.  Again, all I said is I don't trust your opinion about it because you are very partisan.   I still have no desire to read it.  And frankly I don't care what happens with it.

But your opinion has to always be called into question.  After all, you vigorously defended the superintendent who was found to be a really bad guy.  So you can't be taken at face value based on your partisan opinions.

Have a good day.

Liar.  I did not vigorously defend him, I said it was possible he was a fraudster very early on.

For someone that “doesn’t care” about this topic, you’ve typed a lot of words about it this morning.  But you are welcome to be uninformed, it’s a free country, for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

Liar.  I did not vigorously defend him, I said it was possible he was a fraudster very early on.

For someone that “doesn’t care” about this topic, you’ve typed a lot of words about it this morning.  But you are welcome to be uninformed, it’s a free country, for now.

Again Tim, seems you're missing the point.  I enjoy talking about financial issues, yet, and I know you don't truly understand how to have a discussion that doesn't contain a political angle, I really truly don't care what happens with this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I was looking into them, and was told by multiple lenders that I could call it a second home as long as I used it myself for one day, and could rent it out the rest.

But as you alluded to elsewhere, even if you don’t, I think you can make an argument about if you intended to do so then something changed.

Exactly. I buy property on the coast, I think I’ll go there, but then things change, I don’t use it after all, so I decide to rent it and I report the income. That’s a crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

Again Tim, seems you're missing the point.  I enjoy talking about financial issues, yet, and I know you don't truly understand how to have a discussion that doesn't contain a political angle, I really truly don't care what happens with this.  

Another lie because the main reason I started posting here was to discuss a topic that shouldn’t have been political, and I specifically tried to keep politics out of it.

If you enjoy talking about financial issues, I think it would be in your best interest to read the indictment.  It’s pretty short.  But again, you are welcome to remain uninformed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I understand,, I’m just trying to get it for my own purposes. So if I buy a vacation property in Florida, but I end up not going for one reason or another (work, life, family, whatever), if I start putting it on AirBNB it’s a crime? 

No. 

Also don’t take a swing at DJT and miss. 🤷‍♀️ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Another lie because the main reason I started posting here was to discuss a topic that shouldn’t have been political, and I specifically tried to keep politics out of it.

If you enjoy talking about financial issues, I think it would be in your best interest to read the indictment.  It’s pretty short.  But again, you are welcome to remain uninformed.

I just don't understand what you don't get about how not wanting to read the indictment doesn't preclude me from discussing financial issues.   You are an extremely weird guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, edjr said:

No. 

Also don’t take a swing at DJT and miss. 🤷‍♀️ 

Huh. Ok what happened here then?

I guess not, James has hired Ivanka & Jared’s lawyer so I guess she’s following their example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, edjr said:

Also don’t take a swing at DJT and miss.

Also, James did win her case against the Trump Organization. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

I just don't understand what you don't get about how not wanting to read the indictment doesn't preclude me from discussing financial issues.   You are an extremely weird guy

Because you said you “gotta say there’s more.”   If you don’t want to take my word for it that there’s not, you can find out for sure by reading it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

It seems to me the whole thing is 4 paragraphs. 1. She identified the property as secondary, 2. She rented it to a family of three, 3. The rental agreement says it’s owner occupied, 4. James reported the rental income.

Yup.  I’ve seen people bring up “TaX fRAuD!!” but she’s not being charged with tax fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Because you said you “gotta say there’s more.”   If you don’t want to take my word for it that there’s not, you can find out for sure by reading it.

Well at this point, like usual, I will just end with  "Ok Tim."

Have a wonderful day and weekend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Also, James did win her case against the Trump Organization. 

Isn't the appeals process still going on in that case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Strike said:

Isn't the appeals process still going on in that case?

It might be. The appellate court split the baby. Upheld the conviction & the sanctions but knocked down the fines for disgorgement because it said the law was too vague.

In all this hubbub I think people are forgetting James never threatened Trump with jail time. It was about Trump Org and its practices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Well at this point, like usual, I will just end with  "Ok Tim."

Have a wonderful day and weekend

It's always best to just post 

OK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

It might be. The appellate court split the baby. Upheld the conviction & the sanctions but knocked down the fines for disgorgement because it said the law was too vague.

In all this hubbub I think people are forgetting James never threatened Trump with jail time. It was about Trump Org and its practices.

Let me help you out.  It's still in the appeals process so maybe slow your roll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Strike said:

Let me help you out.  It's still in the appeals process so maybe slow your roll.

The appellate court already ruled. Trump I’m guessing is appealing to the state Supreme Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

The appellate court already ruled. Trump I’m guessing is appealing to the state Supreme Court.

Both sides are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Google it.  
 

Warning - They are real and they are sloppy.  

Flapjacks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

So Trump instructed AG Bondi to indict Comey, James & Schiff. That means Schiff is next.

He's ready for it.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Meglamaniac said:

It's always best to just post 

OK

I do it with the wife.   Just go with "yes dear" cause its utterly exhausting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good info here……

 

RE: The Letitia Peekaboo James Indictment

Honestly, I think this may be the most important thing that Trump 45 or Trump 47 has accomplished thus far.  It may have reset us to the baseline of comity.

You see, for many years now Democrats have believed that they could do basically whatever they wanted to Republicans, whilst Republicans were still bound by the Old Rules of comity and respect.

Those were the New Rules.  (Hat tip, Kurt Schlichter.). They thought we would never adopt the New Rules.

We did.

The  James indictment says to Democrats: 

“You no longer can assume that we will let you do whatever you want to us.  We will do to you what you did to us.  And we will be merciless until you prove you will never do it again.”

The particular beauty of the James indictment is that she brought the most scurrilous and ridiculous of charges against Trump, while the record shows that James clearly committed the basic federal crimes she has been charged with.

Here’s the other thing.  Federal laws are so complex and capacious that pretty much every one of us breaks a federal law every few months without knowing that we did.  There has long been a tacit understanding in this regard that politicians would not take advantage of this with regard to mere “footfaults” on nonsense laws.

But Democrats decide to abandon that too.  New Rules.  That we now follow.  Suck on it, Democrats.  You get what you paid for.

👉(But to repeat; James charged Trump with nonsense; Trump charged James with a verifiable crime.).  👈

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Meglamaniac said:

It's always best to just post 

OK

Of course you’d side with the guy that refuses to read 3 pages that will answer his questions and confirm I’m correct.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HellToupee said:

Good info here……

 

RE: The Letitia Peekaboo James Indictment

Honestly, I think this may be the most important thing that Trump 45 or Trump 47 has accomplished thus far.  It may have reset us to the baseline of comity.

You see, for many years now Democrats have believed that they could do basically whatever they wanted to Republicans, whilst Republicans were still bound by the Old Rules of comity and respect.

Those were the New Rules.  (Hat tip, Kurt Schlichter.). They thought we would never adopt the New Rules.

We did.

The  James indictment says to Democrats: 

“You no longer can assume that we will let you do whatever you want to us.  We will do to you what you did to us.  And we will be merciless until you prove you will never do it again.”

The particular beauty of the James indictment is that she brought the most scurrilous and ridiculous of charges against Trump, while the record shows that James clearly committed the basic federal crimes she has been charged with.

Here’s the other thing.  Federal laws are so complex and capacious that pretty much every one of us breaks a federal law every few months without knowing that we did.  There has long been a tacit understanding in this regard that politicians would not take advantage of this with regard to mere “footfaults” on nonsense laws.

But Democrats decide to abandon that too.  New Rules.  That we now follow.  Suck on it, Democrats.  You get what you paid for.

👉(But to repeat; James charged Trump with nonsense; Trump charged James with a verifiable crime.).  👈

Hold the phone. tim says she broke no laws.  None.  Even if the grand jury indicted her.   So which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×