Former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, who initiated the investigation into former President Donald Trump that eventually led to a grand jury indictment, spoke with CNN's Erin Burnett about his perspective on the case now that Trump has been arraigned. #CNN #News
Style experts spot a ‘no-no’ inside the Oval Office
Amanpour: Dissent about war in Ukraine in Putin’s circle is ‘silenced’
Cannes Film Festival 2023: The stand-out films and stars this year
Anti-Putin Russians based in Ukraine allegedly stage incursion into Russia
He must be so embarrassed. No violence today because of a lesson learned from J6.
Whos embarrassed?
@Kazi the Cane Corso Donald Trump
I can see he’s having trouble answering a simple question…I wonder why
@Geoffrey Wood . So if the statute of limitations did apply there would not have been an indictment
THE CLOCK PAUSES WHEN YOU LIVE OUT OF STATE
Remember when he lived in DC for 4 years?
Her questions are leading. He’s trying to avoid her leading him into statements he doesn’t want out there. I think the problem with this interview is on Erin.
No, he answered it accurately and fully.
Because he knows that nothings new and multiple agencies have already weighed in on this and said there was no crime.
How MANY ways can he NOT answer her question? Why even come on the show?
@Robert S Why don’t you just say it… zero!
@Wesley C. I don’t need to re-read the question. My answer was that he in fact DID answer her question, which entirely negates the question he asked, which is how many ways could he NOT answer it. Get it Wes? Oh, and then I explained precisely how he in fact DID answer her question, rendering his question entirely moot.
@Robert S We’ll wait anyway!
It’s a sad day for justice and democracy.-If you are going to take someone down, then present something serious. This has just won Trump the next presidency.
@Wesley C. Because the reason it’s zero is far more important than the number. The question posited presumes that Vance doesn’t answer the question and that Vance instead fails to the answer the question in MANY ways. The number is clearly zero but that would only beg the question why. I answered the why, and the number is inherent in that. So bottom line is, I most certainly answered the question asked while also explaining why the question was itself predicated on an incorrect assumption.
Wait – this happened before he was campaigning?
No, it happened in 2017 in the wh per the recorded conversations
Got blind sided by Barr.
The sex coverup sets the motive to support the felony charges.
They feel that they can prove the false accounting. The sex stuff coverup provides the motive.
It’s weird that all this was reported on 7 years ago and nothing…… must be some kind of political motivation
@Insert Last name 7 years ago and beyond the statute of limitations.
@Insert Last name yes, the political motivation part was where the Southern District told the DA to “stand down.”
Luckily that is no longer the case, and Bragg was able to follow through with the indictment ❤
😂😂😂😂😂 talk about picking straws.
Come on, man, there aren’t even any straws.
Well said
Bragg’s entire justification to bring charges now was because there is new evidence. And Vance just said he couldn’t see any.
They don’t present all the evidence in the indictment lol
That is NOT what he said. First of all,. if you pay attention, he said that he did NOT decide to blow off the Stormy case for lack of evidence. He made it clear he was asked to stand down by the Southern District, which he did as a courtesy. He then moved on to a different investigation regarding financial crimes of the corporation that took all of his time up. He simply never finished the investigation and was too busy with a different one to take it back up. And then he said, besides, you aren’t going to see new evidence in the indictment and he doesn’t know enough about the investigation because he’s not the one doing it any more.
@Robert S no, that’s what he said. The direct question was, now he’s seen the list of charges did he see anything new. He said no, on the face of it.
@mimiisrofl it’s true, he could have found more evidence on previously know incidents. But Vance said there were no new incidents.
He skated through that like a professional athlete
Single A baseball.
Puhlease…if we’re talking about Big Don T, he looked like any other scared criminal…sitting there with his big mouth finally shut tight…except when he pled to another lie.
HE SAID HIS BOSSES (Bill Bahr) TOLD HIM TO “STAND DOWN!!”
You are correct. Except that they weren’t his bosses. They ASKED him to stand down and he did so as a courtesy. By the time he had figured out that they were blowing it off, he was already too busy on the next investigation.
Why doesn’t Damian Williams(SDNY) pick up the case and run with it?
Others on other networks say the indictment is redundant and repetitive – someone is not telling the truth.
Read it yourself. It’s public. Just know there are two documents in the indictment. People are confusing them.
@CommaCam however, the crime is not stated.
@Mr Rey The crime is literally stated, including what he did and the specific law he broke. That’s the purpose of an indictment. Read the documents.
It’s all important. An indictment of a further president is a big deal. But it’s all public. And well deserved. This is public in the next w
Way possible.
@CommaCam If barely literate laymen like you could actually understand an indictment document, lawyers will be out of their jobs!
THIS IS HILARIOUS !
This guy talks in better circles than Jen Psaki
Nah, that’s a defect with your own brain. He made complete sense with what he said. And it’s not even that hard to understand.
Cy: The indictment was not bare bones.
Host: How’s that?
Cy: ???????
It’s not even a misdemeanor! No falsification of records occured. Legal services were rendered by his lawyer and he was compensated. Even if it was falsely labeled on business records, you need an intent to defraud. But nobody relied on these records. Tax deductions were not sought.
The truth is that Cohen was probably not guilty of the campaign-finance crimes to which he pled guilty. He pled guilty because he was trying (unsuccessfully, as it turned out) to persuade SDNY prosecutors to cut him a cooperation deal that might keep him out of prison, and he knew they were trying to make a case against Trump. It was a no-cost strategy because the sentencing guidelines on the other fraud counts to which he pled guilty were sufficiently high that adding on a couple of comparatively minor campaign-finance counts didn’t make any difference.
Legally, the campaign-finance case against Trump was even more dubious than the one against Cohen. As the candidate, Trump would not have been restricted by the donation limits that contributors like Cohen faced — although he would have been bound by reporting requirements if the reimbursement, with private (non-campaign) funds, of a loan to close a nondisclosure agreement were deemed an in-kind campaign contribution.
And here we come to Bragg’s incoherence. He is said to be miffed because he believes Trump beat Hillary Clinton by such a narrow margin that the failure to disclose the indecorous hush-money arrangement put Trump over the top. This aligns perfectly with the Bolshevik Left’s continuing inability to accept that Trump was legitimately elected president (even as it seethes over Trump’s similar inability to concede Biden’s win). But the premise is false.
Let’s say Trump — despite having law on his side, and having the same incentive to conceal his indiscretions that led him to orchestrate a hush-money deal in the first place — said to his underlings, “You know what? I really think this business with Stormy was akin to a campaign donation. We should disclose it.” (Yeah, I know, I know . . . but just go with me on this for a sec.) In that impossible-to-take-seriously hypothetical, when would the disclosure have occurred? Cohen paid Daniels off on October 26, 2016. Even if we ignore the fact that Trump didn’t finish reimbursing Cohen until December 5, 2017, the fact would remain: Cohen’s hush-money outlay came so late in the campaign that it would not have been reported to the FEC until months after the November 8, 2016, election.
That is to say, we are dealing with a transaction that is almost certainly not an in-kind campaign contribution and almost certainly did not need to be disclosed at all, and the non-disclosure of which made utterly no difference to the 2016 election. Clearly, that is why the federal authorities, who have jurisdiction over the federal laws pertaining to elections for federal office such as the presidency, did not file charges.
I like Erin Burnett face she saying to herself this is going nowhere
Mr. Vance should be called Mr. June Taylor since he can dance around an issue better than most weasels.
The lawyers have the affidavit with the charges…all 34.