Wikileaks email dump 13 on Trump University says AG using low standard to make case

Somebody correct me if I am wrong but they REQUIRED proof of intent to make the charges stick against Hillary. Now we read this sneaky lil email and the AG DOESN"T REQUIRE proof of intent to prosecute Trump. I'm not a lawyer so pardon the ignorance here but this to me is clearly a double standard.

Trump University From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2016-03-01 16:16 Subject: Trump University FYI-

An appeals court in NY just issued a decision that essentially says that the NY Attorney General can go forward in its prosecution of its fraud case against Trump. Significantly, the court says that the AG can use "common law" fraud to prove its case, but it also says that he could use a provision of the NY Executive Law that doesn't require proof of intent-the AG only needs to show a pattern of misconduct. It's a pretty low standard for the AG to make his case against Trump.

Jerry H. Goldfeder Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 212-806-5857 917-680-3132 [email protected] www.stroock.com/people/jgoldfeder [cid:[email protected]] P Please consider the environment before printing this email

a reply to: ReAdY2AsCeNd

They are 2 different things. Yes, two different processes to determine to bring charges or not.

And some guy is giving Podesta his opinion. Yet another useless email sent to John Podesta used as an entire thread.

Different crimes have different standards for prosecution.

For instance, intent doesn't come into play when prosecuting manslaughter. If you accidentally kill someone in a car accident, then you can still be charged and convicted of manslaughter.

But when you're talking about fraud, intent definitely does matter.

The e-mail appears to be from a law firm, so apparently it's a legal opinion (not just some random person's opinion). Reading between the lines, it would seem that Podesta cannot prove any wrongful intent regarding Trump U, and was seeking some legal justification to continue the case.

originally posted by: redmage
Different crimes have different standards for prosecution.

For instance, intent doesn't come into play when prosecuting manslaughter. If you accidentally kill someone in a car accident, then you can still be charged and convicted of manslaughter.

Ahhh I see. Thank you kindly for pointing that out. That makes sense now.

originally posted by: ReAdY2AsCeNd
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

Wondering about why this email is a topic is valid.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
But when you're talking about fraud, intent definitely does matter.

The e-mail appears to be from a law firm, so apparently it's a legal opinion (not just some random person's opinion). Reading between the lines, it would seem that Podesta cannot prove any wrongful intent regarding Trump U, and was seeking some legal justification to continue the case.

Podesta is not prosecuting the case. He might have asked this attorney 'how do you think this will go?' But so many, many people seem to send random emails to John Podesta.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ReAdY2AsCeNd

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: ReAdY2AsCeNd

They are 2 different things. Yes, two different processes to determine to bring charges or not.

And some guy is giving Podesta his opinion. Yet another useless email sent to John Podesta used as an entire thread.

As I stated I am not a lawyer and don't know the in's and outs of the law.

Your condescending tone isn't required nor appreciated especially when the whole front page is littered with useless threads. Please don't respond to me ever. again. in. any. thread. Thanks.

Wondering about why this email is a topic is valid.

Because it makes people think that Donnie is being treated differently.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ReAdY2AsCeNd

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: ReAdY2AsCeNd

They are 2 different things. Yes, two different processes to determine to bring charges or not.

And some guy is giving Podesta his opinion. Yet another useless email sent to John Podesta used as an entire thread.

As I stated I am not a lawyer and don't know the in's and outs of the law.

Your condescending tone isn't required nor appreciated especially when the whole front page is littered with useless threads. Please don't respond to me ever. again. in. any. thread. Thanks.

Wondering about why this email is a topic is valid.

Well since this one isn't topic worthy to you how bout you wander those lil fingers of yours over to the one I started about your girl Hillary taking 12 million of pay to play money (that specifically says she set up) from the King of Morroco. Maybe you can offer some insight in there???

originally posted by: ReAdY2AsCeNd

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ReAdY2AsCeNd

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: ReAdY2AsCeNd

They are 2 different things. Yes, two different processes to determine to bring charges or not.

And some guy is giving Podesta his opinion. Yet another useless email sent to John Podesta used as an entire thread.

As I stated I am not a lawyer and don't know the in's and outs of the law.

Your condescending tone isn't required nor appreciated especially when the whole front page is littered with useless threads. Please don't respond to me ever. again. in. any. thread. Thanks.

Wondering about why this email is a topic is valid.

Well since this one isn't topic worthy to you how bout you wander those lil fingers of yours over to the one I started about your girl Hillary taking 12 million of pay to play money (that specifically says she set up) from the King of Morroco. Maybe you can offer some insight in there???

I read it. It was money donated to the Clinton Global Initiative. Didn't see any 'pay to play'. Why do you continue to tell me who to answer and where to go?

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ReAdY2AsCeNd

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ReAdY2AsCeNd

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: ReAdY2AsCeNd

They are 2 different things. Yes, two different processes to determine to bring charges or not.

And some guy is giving Podesta his opinion. Yet another useless email sent to John Podesta used as an entire thread.

As I stated I am not a lawyer and don't know the in's and outs of the law.

Your condescending tone isn't required nor appreciated especially when the whole front page is littered with useless threads. Please don't respond to me ever. again. in. any. thread. Thanks.

Wondering about why this email is a topic is valid.

Well since this one isn't topic worthy to you how bout you wander those lil fingers of yours over to the one I started about your girl Hillary taking 12 million of pay to play money (that specifically says she set up) from the King of Morroco. Maybe you can offer some insight in there???

I read it. It was money donated to the Clinton Global Initiative. Didn't see any 'pay to play'. Why do you continue to tell me who to answer and where to go?

Because you started with a snide remark when you could have responded with some civility like redmage. There was no need for the condescending tone so I asked you not to direct answers to me because from reading your responses on the board this is just your nature.

Of course you don't see pay for play here. Wander along there is nothing to see here...

My last response to you in ANY thread.

originally posted by: ReAdY2AsCeNd

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ReAdY2AsCeNd

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ReAdY2AsCeNd

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: ReAdY2AsCeNd

They are 2 different things. Yes, two different processes to determine to bring charges or not.

And some guy is giving Podesta his opinion. Yet another useless email sent to John Podesta used as an entire thread.

As I stated I am not a lawyer and don't know the in's and outs of the law.

Your condescending tone isn't required nor appreciated especially when the whole front page is littered with useless threads. Please don't respond to me ever. again. in. any. thread. Thanks.

Wondering about why this email is a topic is valid.

Well since this one isn't topic worthy to you how bout you wander those lil fingers of yours over to the one I started about your girl Hillary taking 12 million of pay to play money (that specifically says she set up) from the King of Morroco. Maybe you can offer some insight in there???

I read it. It was money donated to the Clinton Global Initiative. Didn't see any 'pay to play'. Why do you continue to tell me who to answer and where to go?

Because you started with a snide remark when you could have responded with some civility like redmage. There was no need for the condescending tone so I asked you not to direct answers to me because from reading your responses on the board this is just your nature.

Of course you don't see pay for play here. Wander along there is nothing to see here...

My last response to you in ANY thread.

It wasn't snide, it was what I thought. You will receive answers you don't like from time to time.

a reply to: reldra

Maybe because if they were seeking reasons to keep the case alive despite a lack of merit to the case, it shows how hard they were looking for dirt to throw at Trump?

But, of course, you guys are all busy saying, "Look! He's in court. GUILTY!"

But behind the scenes, they know the case is think enough they have to shop around to find justification to keep it breathing. In other words, it could be on life supprt meaning it will disappear as soon as the damage is done or the election is over. They know all most of their sycophants need is simply the appearance of impropriety which a court case that will never go forward provides.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: reldra

Maybe because if they were seeking reasons to keep the case alive despite a lack of merit to the case, it shows how hard they were looking for dirt to throw at Trump?

But, of course, you guys are all busy saying, "Look! He's in court. GUILTY!"

But behind the scenes, they know the case is think enough they have to shop around to find justification to keep it breathing. In other words, it could be on life supprt meaning it will disappear as soon as the damage is done or the election is over. They know all most of their sycophants need is simply the appearance of impropriety which a court case that will never go forward provides.

I didn't say that, though Trump Universit almost certainly scammed some people. Maybe Posesta sought out an opinion, it is part of his job. The case may never go anywhere. Trump, and this is TBH, usually settles.

okay, now......

Please discuss the topic and not each other....quit the bickering!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

You are responsible for your own posts.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!