Cop Accused of Trading Favors for Sex Invokes ‘Hillary Defense’

Thank you, Hillary.
Law breakers across the country (and their lawyers) will be forever in your debt for setting a wonderful precedent.

It’s the Hillary Clinton defense!

A lawyer for the NYPD cop who allegedly engaged in mile-high group sex with a hooker paid for by a shady businessman said his client is no more guilty than the former secretary of state, who was cleared by the feds.

“It’s similar to what the FBI said about Hillary Clinton and why she wasn’t charged,” said John Meringolo, a lawyer for James Grant, who pleaded not guilty in Manhattan federal court Wednesday morning.

“She was unaware she was committing a crime. Here there is no crime whatsoever.” Meringolo described his client’s alleged conduct, swapping police favors for expensive gifts, as mere violations of police conduct.

“There’s been similar conduct with private jets in the past,” he said, pointing to Commissioner Ray Kelly, who he said “took a private jet” and then paid the cost after the fact in order to hush criticisms.

Meanwhile, Deputy Chief Michael Harrington and Brooklyn businessman Jeremy Reichberg also pleaded not guilty to several charges on Wednesday, including conspiracy to commit honest-services fraud, honest-services wire fraud, conspiracy to pay and receive bribes, and the payment and receipt of bribes.

Harrington and Grant now face as much as 40 years in prison.

Reichberg, who faces a potential 55 years in prison, has been accused of shelling out large sums of cash with his business associate, Jona Rechnitz, to police officials.

In exchange for the gifts, Reichberg and Rechnitz received “a private police force for themselves and their friends,” Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara said in an indictment.

Grant, Harrington and Reichberg were arrested last month following a sweeping 3½-year corruption investigation that has rocked the NYPD and reached as far as Mayor Bill de Blasio’s office, which is being probed over its fundraising.

Prosecutors said Grant accepted a private jet trip to Las Vegas for the Super Bowl, costing $57,000 for the plane alone. During the trip, Grant allegedly had sex with ex-hooker Gabi Grecko, who donned a skimpy flight attendant outfit for the Vegas-bound plane ride.

nypost.com...

a reply to: IAMTAT

Only one thing todo to this cop. Promote him to POTUS.





Oh yeah, I guess Billy boy didn't ACCIDENTALLY run to the Attorney General to put a good word for this cop.

I hope this snowballs into a state of confusion when it comes to using common sense.

Careless cop. Should have known better. But, carelessness is not a crime.

Looks like lawyers everywhere have a new defense at their disposal.
Perhaps Perjury will soon be ignored in the courts too.

neither Oral or Missionary style activity can be defined as 'sex acts'... sex acts are necessary to procreate, everything else is something else entirely

fun...diversion... ?
maybe even 'intimancy' which IS NOT SEX

“She was unaware she was committing a crime. Here there is no crime whatsoever.” Meringolo described his client’s alleged conduct, swapping police favors for expensive gifts, as mere violations of police conduct.

Absolute PRICELESS.

The CLinton Defense.

Silly cop. that only works for people with the last name CLinton

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Careless cop. Should have known better. But, carelessness is not a crime.

Holy interpretation....

a reply to: IAMTAT


Haha! That's great.

But what a shame it can even be put forth in a court of law.

Thanks obam..I mean hillary.

Hillary is already making the government more corrupt and she hasn't even been given a ridiculous amount of power yet

You know... we all joke about this (and rightfully so because Lord knows we need a bit of levity in these trying times).

That being said, I don't think it takes a legal scholar to comprehend that a serious precedent was set with this whole Hillary/Comey thing.

The FBI essentially interchanged "extremely careless" with "gross negligence." I understand that some will hide behind the technically true fact that Comey wouldn't have been the one to charge Hillary and that would lie with Lynch.... but the overall precedent is there in as much as a decent lawyer can find a way to weave that situation into a defense attorney strategy.

Essentially, Comey said that she broke the law but "she didn't mean to." Much like with some hate crimes, how does one prove what is in the mind of another person?

All we have to really look at and review is a person's actions... not their interior motivations.

Think about all the people that break tax laws. How can one prove that a person is intentionally hiding income versus accidentally failing to report income?

As it pertains to lawsuits regarding healthcare.... what is the difference between a patient dying because a surgeon is "extremely careless" versus a surgeon being "grossly negligent."

My examples here may be a bit extreme (although I don't think so at the moment) but this is the problem with such clear, unabashed corruption at the very top. When those in power blatantly and in such an in-your-face manner flaunt their lawlessness.... It trickles down.

Essentially the somewhat-technically-legally-acceptable defense nowadays is.... "Oops. I didn't mean it."

Lord help us all.

I'd say this is just as much Comey's fault as it is Clinton's. She was obviously at fault. But the person(s) who chose not to indict is the bigger criminal. Hillary has been a criminal for so long, everyone KNOWS she is a criminal. I think she suffers from mental health issues, severely. But the bigger criminal imo, is the FBI. They played a role in helping Clinton escape justice and Comey is guilty as hell for allowing the Clinton POS to float on the surface of her own personal cesspool. And what's funny is all the people who will be found guilty trying to use the 'Hillary Defense', believing the FBI and the rest of the cheating gubment peoples, that everyone is treated the same, Hillary received no special treatment. Jokes on them.

When the Attorney General of the USA decides crime in only based on intent, then this lawyer is 100% correct.

Is everyone reverting back to being four or something?

"What you did was wrong."
*points finger crying*
"But SHE* did it first!"

I already put up with that kind of nonsense in Kindergarten and I ain't goin' back.
No way no how no thanks.

Grown man, consensual partner, and oh no sex is so dirty.
The personal "favors" though, they might get him on that.
Dunno.

I thought we were supposed to be doing our part making our Country GREAT** again. *groan*

This is so not what I had in mind.
Maybe this is some kind of weird News Drama Fetish that isn't in the DSM-V yet.
Oh wait, I'm here too. Reading this crap. Whoops.

What a world what a world.

*This is not an endorsement of any political candidate or party.
**Your experience, definition and overall sky-high mileage may vary.

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
Is everyone reverting back to being four or something?

"What you did was wrong."
*points finger crying*
"But SHE* did it first!"

I already put up with that kind of nonsense in Kindergarten and I ain't goin' back.
No way no how no thanks.

Grown man, consensual partner, and oh no sex is so dirty.
The personal "favors" though, they might get him on that.
Dunno.

I thought we were supposed to be doing our part making our Country GREAT** again. *groan*

This is so not what I had in mind.
Maybe this is some kind of weird News Drama Fetish that isn't in the DSM-V yet.
Oh wait, I'm here too. Reading this crap. Whoops.

What a world what a world.

*This is not an endorsement of any political candidate or party.
**Your experience, definition and overall sky-high mileage may vary.

Do you understand what legal precedence is?

a reply to: TheBulk

Yes.
Do you understand the personal liberties of being able to vent one's initial impressions?

I mean, come on dude.
This forum doesn't have to be dead pan made to order your way.

Ain't Burger King or Rocket Science.

I mean, if he gets to speak his mind candidly in the face of a perceived injustice, good for him...anything goes.....I wanted a bite of that childhood cookie.

Round and round we go where we stop nobody knows.

It's a between the lines sarcasm.

Also, I ain't getting into a political tirade because I have real world things to do and am not vested in this issue.

Ya'll have fun.

No offense intended.
I'm sure the Courts will handle this just fine.
Have a great day.
I'll let the Adults talk without my further commentary.
Peace.

The question is not if he broke the law, but intent.