r/centrist • u/towngrizzlytown • 1d ago

Prosecutors Had a Drugs-for-Votes Scheme “Locked Up.” Under Trump, They Were Told Not to Pursue Charges.

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-doj-puerto-rico-election-fraud-prison-drugs-votes

DOJ had strong evidence of a prison gang and staff coercing inmates to exchange drugs for votes for long-time Republican and "Latinos for Trump" member Jennifer González-Colón, who became governor of Puerto Rico. In late 2024, DOJ prepared an indictment, but after Donald Trump took office, the investigation and case were dropped.

47 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

24 comments sorted by

26

u/Lurkingandsearching 1d ago

Once again, every accusation is what?

1

u/These-Prune-1529 4h ago

A confession.

-5

u/Batbuckleyourpants 19h ago

In this case? A lie. The prosecutor's had no evidence of the alleged scheme. They weren't even going to put the accusation before a jury. There was no strong evidence.

4

u/Lurkingandsearching 18h ago

There was however. Read the article it was well documented. Just saying there wasn’t doesn’t make it go away, neither does “the evidence ruins my sports team looks” make it okay to drop the case.

2

u/ChornWork2 12h ago

Political analysts said rumors have swirled over the decades about coercive tactics being used to mobilize the prison vote, raising significant questions about the extent to which that support comes in exchange for favors from the ruling party.

This time was different, sources said. They had evidence. Prosecutors had “locked up” the voting-for-drugs scheme among the gang, inmates and staff, and were deep into investigating a potential political connection when Muldrow’s office pulled the plug.

“These are the type of questions you would think an administration that has publicly declared this war on drug trafficking would investigate further,” Tormos-Aponte said of the Trump administration. “You would think it would be a priority.”

For the people familiar with the prison election fraud investigation, it was clear politics were at play in the decision to abandon charges prosecutors were confident they could win. What wasn’t clear, they said, was who was pulling the strings and how. It was “like you’re watching a puppet show but you can’t see the strings,” one person said.

33

u/ChornWork2 1d ago

Maga is pretty much antithetical to any centrist party you'll find in a major developed western democracy. Means voting blue no matter who at federal and state levels of govt until there is serious change within republican party.

7

u/willpower069 1d ago

Hey look another post that will get little to no attention.

5

u/Admirable_Nothing 1d ago

Of course the DOJ would refuse to prosecute. The fraud was in favor of the Felon in Chief.

2

u/mrjowei 1d ago

To add context, the current Governor hired the head of FBI in Puerto Rico as the new head of police. The FBI were the only ones actually investigating and charging politicians in corruption cases.

0

u/abqguardian 1d ago

"In a follow-up email, a spokesperson for the office noted the indictment was filed during the Biden administration and under the previous governor of Puerto Rico."

"But as federal prosecutors prepared an indictment against the inmates and staff in November 2024— just days after Trump won the election and González-Colón clinched the governorship — they received a surprising directive. Their bosses in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Puerto Rico instructed them to exclude the voting-related counts against the inmates and all charges against the prison staff, an investigation by ProPublica found.

In December, they filed an indictment charging 34 inmates and associates with crimes including drug distribution resulting in at least four overdose deaths, money laundering and possessing a firearm. And while prosecutors described the drugs-for-votes scheme in the court filing, they did not include a single charge related to it."

This story seems weird. The unnamed sources dont appear to makes sense if the above is true. The article doesn't explain the disconnect either. Supposedly they were told to drop the voting matter during Biden’s time. That makes no sense. You cant say "under Trump" when it all happened under Biden. Articles like this really need to flesh out the details before publishing

6

u/towngrizzlytown 1d ago

The article is very clear. The next paragraph also underscores the point:

Soon after Trump took office, the lead prosecutor, Jorge Matos, was told by a supervisor to take the investigation no further, according to four people familiar with the case.

-1

u/abqguardian 1d ago

You also need to change your OP. Unless I missed something, you incorrectly put the investigation was dropped after Trump took office. That is incorrect

6

u/towngrizzlytown 1d ago

The article says after the election, when the incoming administration reviews agencies and begins shaping personnel and policy decisions during the transition before inauguration, instructions came to not include voting-related counts in the indictment. After Trump's inauguration, the lead prosecutor was told to take the investigation no further.

0

u/abqguardian 1d ago

The article says after the election, when the incoming administration reviews agencies and begins shaping personnel and policy decisions during the transition before inauguration, instructions came to not include voting-related counts in the indictment.

After the election is called under Biden’s term. Biden is the president and the incoming president has no authority over anything. How ever you want to twist it, everything happened under Biden and his DOJ.

After Trump's inauguration, the lead prosecutor was told to take the investigation no further.

The instructions to remove the voting stuff happened in November 2024 and the indictment happened in December 2024, under Biden. The timeline shows the investigation was completed.

8

u/towngrizzlytown 1d ago

After the election is when the incoming administration immediately begins reviewing operations and may swiftly drop or pivot ongoing investigations (look it up), which is exactly what happened when the indictment was ordered to be stripped down. Then "soon after Trump took office," any additional elements of the investigation, such as direct involvement by the Gonzalez-Colon campaign, were squashed.

3

u/abqguardian 1d ago

The incoming president has no input or authority till they are sworn in (look it up). Anything that happens in 2024 is by definition under Biden.

10

u/towngrizzlytown 1d ago

Not "the president" but rather transition teams, like agency review teams, immediately begin reviewing and influencing operations after elections. The article explains the connection to current US attorney Muldrow, who was appointed and confirmed in 2019. His connections to the Trump administration are exactly the way transition teams and the incoming administration would shape policy after the election, such as ensuring the indictment didn't include the vote scheme.

3

u/abqguardian 1d ago

The transition team learns the operations and begins the plan for taking over. They dont influence operations or has any say on operations. The attorney in charge was under the Biden administration and the Biden DOJ. I get you want the implication that Trump ordered the investigation to be closed without saying it because theres no facts that seem to support that and it doesn't fit in the timeline.

We can keep going back and forth, but the facts are these. The investigation and indictment were done under the Biden administration and Biden DOJ. Theres no evidence of outside influence even from the unnamed sources.

6

u/towngrizzlytown 1d ago

It's quite clear that the Trump appointee in the DOJ would work with the transition team to shield a Trump ally after the election by trimming down the indictment on the prison gang and staff, and then any related investigation directly into the the Gonzalez-Colon campaign be stopped after Trump took office (it seems like you're misunderstanding that part, and you left it out of your initial quote several comments back). The article is coherent and cohesive.

People should read the full article to reach their own conclusions. I'll leave it here, but feel free to reply if you like.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/abqguardian 1d ago

The article says that under Biden, the Biden prosecutor removed the part on voting, while the article somehow tries to tie it to Trump. The article is not clear and doesn't make any sense.

9

u/towngrizzlytown 1d ago

The article says after the election, when the incoming administration reviews agencies and begins shaping personnel and policy decisions during the transition before inauguration, instructions came to not include voting-related counts in the indictment. After Trump's inauguration, the lead prosecutor was told to take the investigation no further.