Vance "sent a message that this is an exit ramp for Weisselberg that he should have taken already and, if he doesn't, everything he knows and loves in this world is fair game."
"Prosecutors don't directly threaten to charge a family member, but it's not uncommon that that implicit threat hangs out there .... It can't be lost on Allen Weisselberg ... ... that family members might ...come under investigation."
4/4.
"Agostino ... said it was a smart move to charge the company now rather than wait to see if the other investigative areas lead to charges. 'By making him a beneficiary and a dispenser of the illegal loot they put him in as a co-conspirator.'"
<end>
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
3. Weissmann details why he thinks (a) the content of the indictment, (b) the prosecutors' requests in the arraignment hearing, and (c) the press conference by defense attorneys points toward a criminal investigation with much more to come.
Russia’s influence operation was “in full swing during both the [2015-16] Republican and Democratic primary season that may have helped sink the hopes of candidates more hostile to Russian interests long before the field narrowed.”
3. The Intelligence Community assessment in 2017 and Mueller documents also pointed to Kremlin involvement at time GOP primary was in full swing.
Letter raises key issue: DoD's standard for assessing #CivCas is artificially high, and DoD report "appears to DEFY the congressional requirement" to use lower standard.
2. I wrote about the wrong-headedness of the Pentagon's standard for assessing civilian casualties in this @nytopinion piece in April 2018.
3. In June 2021, @annieshiel (@CivCenter) and @chrisjwoods (@airwars) wrote again about the DoD standard and how its use in reporting to Congress appears to (a) defy Congress' statutory requirements and (b) potentially vastly undercount civilian deaths.
2. Paying a senior executive their income in wads of cash to avoid paying taxes is ... not a fringe benefit case.
3. Professor @DanielShaviro (the very top tax law expert who authored the article) also provides a list.
"The following items that the company paid for, on Weisselberg’s behalf, most emphatically do not fit the profile of potentially excludable fringe benefits":