[elklindo69]

NEW YORK (AP) — New York prosecutors have convened a special grand jury to consider evidence in a criminal investigation into former President Donald Trump’s business dealings, a person familiar with the matter told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

The development signals that the Manhattan district attorney’s office was moving toward seeking charges as a result of its two-year investigation, which included a lengthy legal battle to obtain Trump’s tax records.

The person familiar with the matter was not authorized to speak publicly and did so on condition of anonymity. The news was first reported by The Washington Post.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. is conducting a wide-ranging investigation into a variety of matters such as hush-money payments paid to women on Trump’s behalf, property valuations and employee compensation.

So can anyone here guess who has not faced a grand jury investigation and a possible indictment?

DRUM ROLL PLEASE!!!!!

Yes....the email lady

LMFAO!!!

[johnforbes]

Yes, but therein reposes the problem.

Hillary broke 18 USC 793.

Democrats don't have to obey the law, and so she skated free.

It is a characteristic of Banana Republics to have political prosecutions like this, and NY is particularly guilty of them.

[sillydaddy]

All grand jury matters are to be kept secret ...yet...
"... The person familiar with the matter was not authorized to speak publicly and did so on condition of anonymity.

Why? because it ain't shit unless it can be made political and for that, it has to be out in the open...
How much crap have the Demos thrown at Trump ?
and now they are trying to bring him down with property appraisals ??

[johnforbes]

An 8th grader would have known the fake Russia dossier was fake, and yet all manner of agency experts pretended to believe it in order to wiretap Trump's campaign.

Apparently four times these wiretap papers were signed, and everybody involved had to know it was 100 percent partisan absue of official powers.

Democrats are above the law.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, the wiretap had been approved before anyone knew the quite real dossier even existed.

Why you keep telling the lie that the tap warrants relied on the dossier or its veracity is beyond all rational comprehension.

[johnforbes]

No, there were four (at least),.

Ergo, three renewals that we know of (and the facts about this disgrace have been hidden as much as possible).

They did rely on the fake dossier, and it had stamped on it "VERIFIED" when, of course, that was false.

Any 8th grader reading the Steele dossier would have realized it was absurd and fake.

And easy to check. For example, they had a Trump aide in Prague when he was not there -- easy to check, but nobody did because the goal was to absuse the process and try to nail Trump for partisan reasons.

[Clownkicker]

"No, there were four (at least),."-johnflubs

Yes, but the wiretap had first been authorized BEFORE the Steele dossier was known, so obviously there was cause for the warrants independent of the dossier.

I know it's hard for you to grasp the concept of "Which came first?" but the one that came first proves that the thing that happened days later was not the cause of the first thing, as you keep claiming.

[johnforbes]

What you don't understand is that they must be renewed.

We don't live in a dictatorship where civil liberty may be broken via wiretaps at any moment.

At least yet.

Every single time a fresh violation of civil liberty was authorized, the person signing could have -- and should have -- read the footnote indicating that Hillary and the DNC had paid for the fake dossier.

Any school kid could have perused the dossier and realized it was a complete fake -- partisan garbage.

So they all did know (these were bright, educated people), and they went ahead for partisan reasons.

[Clownkicker]

What you clearly still don't understand is that the wiretaps were authorized BEFORE the dossier was involved, so clearly there was cause for the tap even without the dossier, regardless of who paid for it. It's irrelevant.

What's so hard for you to understand about that?

[johnforbes]

Just as with the election procedure, you don't understand the factual backdrop.

The SOLE evidence related to the fake dossier, and the secondary evidence consisted of reports on Yahoo (*** from Isakoff etc) about the fake dossier.

This was all entirely fake, and everybody knew it, including the Fearless Fosdicks who are paid to investigate various matters, and including the judges who are paid to be, well, judges who probe into facts and credibility.

All of these applications for warrants had "VERIFIED" stamped on top of them, and none were.

[Clownkicker]

Just as with the election procedure, you don't understand the factual backdrop.

The Steele dossier was NOT the "SOLE" evidence related to the wiretap.

The proof of this is the fact that the wiretap went on the Trump building in OCTOBER of 2016.

The Steele dossier was not even finished and delivered until DECEMBER of 2016; two months later.

So it is impossible that your assertion that the dossier was the "SOLE evidence" for the warrants is true. A warrant had already been issued before the dossier was delivered.

Any child can see that your entire understanding of the wiretap warrants is based on your faulty understanding and stubborn partisan refusal to believe the dates written on the warrants.

[johnforbes]

It was the sole physical evidence.

And, even at that, it was fake.

If what you are trying to assert is that Carter Page and that other fellow who met Professor Halper of Cambridge over in the UK, then yes of course that was also going on.

But no serious person could possibly have thought any of that was real.

It was, very very clearly, just a partisan attempt to get at Trump by targeting and wiretapping people like Carter Page.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, you just keep yammering when you are simply wrong.

The Steele dossier was NOT the "SOLE" evidence related to the wiretap.

The proof of this is the fact that the wiretap went on the Trump building in OCTOBER of 2016.

The Steele dossier was not even finished and delivered until DECEMBER of 2016; two months later.

Any other bullshit you're bringing up is irrelevant to that fact. You're simply wrong.


(And you also don't get to now change your incorrect assertion from "sole evidence" to "sole PHYSICAL evidence" as a weasel attempt to make your false statement somehow true. It doesn't make your initial lie any more true because the tap was still put on two months before the dossier was delivered. The dossier was obviously not the "SOLE evidence" for the taps because it didn't yet exist when the tap went on. Stop lying about this. We're all on to your dishonesty.)

[johnforbes]

The Steele dossier, funded by Hillary and the DNC, was "written" beginning June 2016.

The only other "evidence" consisted of articles, one in Yahoo "News", about the dossier, plus one other.