馃攳
Expert Says Trump Organization Indictments Could Point To Racketeering Charges - YouTube
Channel: Farron Balanced
[0]
Well, now that some of the dust has settled
over the indictments for both the Trump organization
[4]
and their CFO Allen Weisselberg.
[6]
We can get a closer look at what actually
took place this week.
[11]
Does it mean anything?
[12]
Does it mean nothing?
[13]
And here it is.
[14]
Yes.
[15]
It means something.
[17]
Now the charges against Weisselberg sure he
didn't pay taxes on $1.7 million worth of
[23]
gifts.
[24]
And the Trump organization was indicted for,
you know, this big conspiracy to not pay taxes.
[31]
And that really is the key word.
[33]
According to legal experts, conspiracy, that's
the thing we need to be focused on.
[41]
Weisselberg not paying taxes on 1.7 million
worth of gifts.
[45]
That's relatively small potatoes.
[47]
I mean, let's be honest.
[50]
That's not something that the federal government
or the state government actually, uh, makes
[54]
a huge case about you.
[56]
Don't impanel a grand jury to pop a guy for
not paying taxes on under $2 million.
[62]
I'm sorry.
[63]
You don't do it.
[65]
What I still believe is happening is at their
hidden Weisselberg with all these charges,
[70]
that again, in the eyes of the law is relatively
minor.
[73]
Um, in order to get them to flip, like, Hey,
we can drop these things against you.
[77]
We'll just pop it for this one.
[79]
You pay a fine, you'll be good.
[80]
If you flip on Trump still firmly believed
that that is what's happening.
[84]
The organization itself though, those indictments
mean something.
[88]
And again, it all comes back to that word
conspiracy.
[92]
And when we listened to what legal expert
David K. Johnston has to say starts to make
[98]
a lot more sense as to why that word conspiracy
is central here.
[102]
Here's what David K. Johnston legal expert
had to say on MSNBC this week.
[107]
Uh, it's an affirmative it's N a F a affirmative,
excuse me, defense.
[111]
If you're a bookkeeper or a clerk and you
just do what you're told, uh, unless you've
[115]
benefited from the fraud.
[116]
Clearly the indictment says Allen Weisselberg
was a primary beneficiary of this tax fraud.
[120]
So he doesn't have that as a defense.
[123]
I think more broadly that by indicting the
Trump organization is a further indication
[129]
that they are looking at bringing a New York
state racketeering charge in our article 46,
[134]
a four 60 case, which would have very significant
ramifications, including the power to get
[140]
a receiver, to take control of the Trump organization.
[144]
Now, what Johnston is basically said here,
and he's tied in a lot of other pieces is
[151]
that the conspiracy is all a part of the racketeering
charges.
[156]
Racketeering charges typically do have to
come from the state.
[159]
The state did get involved a couple months
ago, as you know, everybody already knows.
[163]
So that could be what this is pointing to
in that could explain also why the state decided
[169]
to get involved in the case.
[172]
And there's another thing.
[174]
There's another thing that a lot of people
seem to overlook, but it pointed out.
[180]
And that is mentioned in all those pages of
indictments right next to Weisselberg was
[188]
a phrase.
[189]
And that phrase referred to another person.
[191]
And that person was identified as unindicted
co-conspirator number one, unindicted co-conspirator.
[203]
So there is at least one other person who
was involved with this scheme, wonder who
[213]
that would be.
[214]
I don't know, but I'm willing to bet that
the last name of that individual happens to
[220]
be Trump.
[222]
And that's where it all ties back together.
[225]
We didn't get a whole lot of new information
from these indictments.
[230]
You know, we got a pretty decent picture of
some of the fraud and some of the scheming
[235]
that's been taking place for at least 15 years
that we know of, but the big fish are still
[241]
out there.
[242]
And if legal experts are correct those big
fish, they're still going to be real.
[247]
Then eventually we just got to get the smaller
ones.
[251]
Basically the bait is what's happening here.
[253]
You know, we've rounded up the bait, we've
got our Weisselberg, we've got his indictments.
[258]
This guy doesn't want to go to jail.
[259]
We popped him with a lot more charges than,
you know, we probably could have let some
[264]
of them slide, but maybe we'll keep them on
there and then drop them later as part of
[267]
a plea deal, who knows Weisselberg has a basically
planned on pleading, not guilty.
[274]
So we'll see how that plays out, but the way
these indictments are written as Johnston
[279]
explains and as other legal experts have explained,
it leaves the door wide open for the Trump
[286]
family itself to face some pretty serious
charges in the very near future.
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage