Skip to comments.Update: Rep. Michael Grimm to be indicted after long investigation
Posted on 04/25/2014 5:59:30 PM PDT by Beave Meister
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- Rep. Michael Grimm (R-Staten Island/Brooklyn) is expected to be indicted by the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York following a long federal investigation, his attorney told the Advance.
In a statement to the paper, Washington D.C. attorney William McGinley said "After more than two years of investigation plagued by malicious leaks, violations of grand jury secrecy, and strong-arm tactics, the U.S. Attorney's Office has disclosed its intent to file criminal charges against Congressman Grimm. We are disappointed by the government's decision, but hardly surprised."
McGinley said, "From the beginning, the government has pursued a politically driven vendetta against Congressman Grimm and not an independent search for the truth. Congressman Grimm asserts his innocence of any wrongdoing. When the dust settles, he will be vindicated."
He added, "Until then, he will continue to serve his constituents with the same dedication and tenacity that has characterized his lifetime of public service as a Member of Congress, Marine Corps combat veteran, and decorated FBI Special Agent."
While it was initially thought that Grimm would be indicted on charges connected to his 2010 campaign fundraising, which have been under investigation by the Justice Department, the New York Times reported it would be on federal fraud charges.
(Excerpt) Read more at silive.com ...
This Houston businesswoman rejected the plea deal to testify against Grimm.....
interesting right after his name in the first sentence they put the (R) there. if it was a democrat, we’d have to hunt for it in the tail end paragraphs, if it’d be mentioned at all.
A two year investigation and he’s indicted on an un-related charge?
They’ve obviously mistaken him for a ham sandwich.
I guess that will be one less vote for Bonehead for Speaker, unless the GOP
gives him an exemption to cast his vote for speaker from prison.
“I guess that will be one less vote for Bonehead for Speaker, unless the GOP
gives him an exemption to cast his vote for speaker from prison.”
...and maybe one less vote for AMNESTY, although I really have no clue where he stands on it.
Talk to Tom DeLay.
Basically Obama freely uses power opf prosecution to destroy his political enemies....just like he used the IRS.
The Dems did the same to Tom DeLay. But he prevailed.
The government is now completely corrupt. They can destroy whoever they like for any reason.
He ran as a Tea Party candidate, and has been a terrible RINO.
But with the Obama crime family running the country, who knows who is guilty?
Please tell me that filing for the election can be reopened when he resigns. Filing JUST closed, god damn it, the timing is deliberate.
What’s so bad about it? He’s a RINO and it’s one less vote for Bonehead
as speaker. One less amnesty vote too.
I don’t care about HIM (good riddance), I care about the seat. No other Republican filed to run, if we can’t replace him on the ballot we lose it to someone who will vote for Pelosi.
You may hate “Bonehead” so much that you don’t care but some of us are rational.
I thought the RATs had only 1% chance of retaking the house?
Chill out. You can keep your majority and Bonehead can be replaced too.
Both can happen.
They have a zero % chance of taking the House, this year.
That doesn’t mean we should sit around and say “so what” when they try to steal a seat by having Obama’s US Attorney indict a GOP Congressman RIGHT after the filing deadline passes.
And Harry Reid is next.
Only Rs/conservatives get indicted.
Libs get a promotion and a bonus!
Now, that was funny! :)
If I remember my NY electoral law correctly, a party can’t replace a nominee unless he (i) dies, (ii) moves out of state or (iii) is nominated for state judge. Of course, Grimm hasn’t won the GOP nomination yet, so maybe a write-in can beat him in the primary.
So if worse comes to worse we can nominate him for state judge for some seat in the Bronx we aren't gonna win anyway (didn't someone use that trick to quit?)? This could one instance where the total absurdity of NY having a separate later primary for state offices works in our favor. The new nominee wouldn't have much time before November though.
Another option is run someone as an indie, deadline for them isn't until August.
I'm flashing back to Tom Delay's seat, Sekula-Gibbs as a write in for the GE, ugh.
And Florida, leaving Tom Foley's name on the ballot but letting the votes count for Negron, that was just bizarre.
Our best shot to get him out of there would be to run a write-in against him in the primary.
In 2010, when the Conservative Party gave the gubernatorial nomination Rick Lazio, who then lost the Republican primary to Carl Paladino, Lazio asked to be nominated for a judgship in the Bronx (an unwinnable race for a Republican), which ipso facto removed him from the gubernatorial ballot and permitted the Conservative Party to nominate Paladino for governor. But, thinking it over, I don’t think such trick would work for a congressional election, given that a state constitutional provision that disqualifies judicial candidates from simultaneously being candidates for political office (which I assume is the reason why Lazio could be replaced on the gubernatorial ballot) would be unconstitutional to the extent that it purported to disqualify a candidate fir Congress; the U.S. Constitution is the sole source of the qualifications for the offices of U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator (see Powell v. McCormack and the U.S. Term Limits case), so NY couldn’t ban a judicial candidate from running for Congress (although it could ban a congressional candidate from running for a state judgeship). And I’m not even sure that having Grimm move o NJ would allow the GOP to replace him on the congressional ballot, since moving to the DC area and signing an affidavit that he no longer was a resident of TX didn’t work for Tom DeLay when he tried to allow the GOP to replace him on the ballot (I think that the TX judge reasoned that since the U.S. Constitution merely required that a Representative have been an inhabitant of the state he represents *on the say in which he was elected* that, in theory, DeLay could move back to TX on election day, so his leaving TX did not per se disqualify him from the office.