Jump to content

NYC vs the Trump Crime Family Watch Thread

PenelopeWitherspoon

By PenelopeWitherspoon
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31983

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Keef said:

There is no grey area here, and it is not the sort of thing that anyone who works in tax/benefits would miss or confuse as being non-taxable.  If companies don't intend to sell or raise money (and thus, undergo diligence), they'll sometimes take aggressive tax positions banking on the risk of audit being low, but this isn't "aggressive" - it's just straight up illegal.  The statute of limitations (e.g., how far they can go back and assert tax) is typically 3 years, except in cases of a substantial understatement of income, in which case it is 6 years.  If fraud is proven, I think it is unlimited?

Yes, unlimited in the event of fraud or "willful attempt to evade tax."  Don't see how this wouldn't qualify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90542

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Keef said:

There is no grey area here, and it is not the sort of thing that anyone who works in tax/benefits would miss or confuse as being non-taxable.  If companies don't intend to sell or raise money (and thus, undergo diligence), they'll sometimes take aggressive tax positions banking on the risk of audit being low, but this isn't "aggressive" - it's just straight up illegal.  The statute of limitations (e.g., how far they can go back and assert tax) is typically 3 years, except in cases of a substantial understatement of income, in which case it is 6 years.  If fraud is proven, I think it is unlimited?

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yes, unlimited in the event of fraud or "willful attempt to evade tax."  Don't see how this wouldn't qualify.

And keeping two sets of books seems kinda bad.  

Kind Of Kinda GIF by Bounce

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8248

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

So Don Jr. couldn't afford to pay for his kids' education?

 

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The oddball thing is, or maybe it isn't odd at all, is this is blatant and not very sophisticated tax evasion.

That these things were taxable income to Weisselberg is pretty much beyond dispute.  That both he and the employer should have reported them as income, same.  There's really just no excuse or avoidance that is apparent to me.

This is pretty much a slam dunk as far as I can tell.  The amounts aren't particularly massive, but it would seem to be highly intentional.  

It was having the corporation pay for personal items to avoid recording it as income first.  It is income tax evasion.

Make it an expense of the corporation and it is a tax write off.  Avoid taking the cash as income to the individual before paying for non-deductible expenses like rent or personal car payments and you avoid the income take on that end.

It's a double tax avoidance scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UpperWestside

UpperWestside 6262

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

So when nothing substantial comes of this, will we finally admit that the rule of law does not exist in this country?

I am good with this investigation, especially so when you remember the new Manhattan DA that will be the one prosecuting the cases they will bring forth worked in the office of Attorney General James. 
 

Still I get the general sentiment and apathy on getting actual charges that stick and result in guilty verdicts that are not a slap on the wrist. Both offices have a lot of pressure on them here. I’ll just stand back and see if they do the work they are paid to do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keef

Keef 852

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

So when nothing substantial comes of this, will we finally admit that the rule of law does not exist in this country?

I'm sure the CFO and anyone who didn't report all this as income will get wacked, but I'm not sure how fringe benefits makes it back to Donald.  Trump didn't force them to not report this as income on their tax returns, and he also didn't prepare (or likely even sign off on) the company's tax and informational returns.  Maybe there is some "conspiracy to commit tax evasion" or other avenue to get at him, but that would require some documentary evidence he was involved in some material fashion and seems pretty unlikely.  The risk here is with the company and the individuals in question.  The DA is clearly trying to rattle their cage to get them to flip on Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90542

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Keef said:

I'm sure the CFO and anyone who didn't report all this as income will get wacked, but I'm not sure how fringe benefits makes it back to Donald.  Trump didn't force them to not report this as income on their tax returns, and he also didn't prepare (or likely even sign off on) the company's tax and informational returns.  Maybe there is some "conspiracy to commit tax evasion" or other avenue to get at him, but that would require some documentary evidence he was involved in some material fashion and seems pretty unlikely.  The risk here is with the company and the individuals in question.  The DA is clearly trying to rattle their cage to get them to flip on Trump.

Yeah, Trump was not directing them to keep a second set of spreadsheets detailing the payments/etc..

These are the only spread sheets Trump knows about.

Trump-bathrobe-618x400.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31983

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

So when nothing substantial comes of this, will we finally admit that the rule of law does not exist in this country?

Inasmuch as there are indictments, something is coming of this.  It may be a plea bargain, it may be a jury trial, or the indictments might get dismissed, but that seems really unlikely given the context.

Absent some kind of sweetheart plea bargain (also seems unlikely), or dismissal of the indictments, it would appear that the rule of law is operating as intended.

The rule of law fails to operate when people don't get indicted for hazy, political, and influence-brokering reasons.

Which is not to say that the rule of law doesn't have its own set of problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ted Lange

Ted Lange 16350

Posted
Posted

Trump will never get caught.  Noting will ever happen to him.  It’s the inverse of Trumpkins chanting lock her up.   Nothing will ever happen to trump or the Clintons.  Anyone who thinks it will might as well be a QAnon’er.   Keep wishing in one hand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28904

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

Trump will never get caught.  Noting will ever happen to him.  It’s the inverse of Trumpkins chanting lock her up.   Nothing will ever happen to trump or the Clintons.  Anyone who thinks it will might as well be a QAnon’er.   Keep wishing in one hand. 

Why would anything happen to the Clintons? (Other than Bill getting impeached for lying under oath about getting a blow job.) The Starr Commission was originally formed to investigate THEIR business dealings but couldn’t find anything. Then it turned into an actual witch hunt, a fishing expedition to try to create any scandal they could. Every accusation against the Clintons came from their political rivals.

Trump was effectively named as a co-conspirator in the felony campaign finance violations that sent Michael Cohen to jail. We’ve seen the payoff checks he signed while in the Oval Office. He’s bragged before about how cheating on his taxes makes him “smart.” The Clintons have submitted to way more investigations and have actually testified in person for many hours of interrogation, unlike Trump who’s never sat for a second of testimony under oath.

If there’s actual evidence of criminal activity on the part of the Clintons, bring charges. They’ve been the constant target of character assassination from the right for close to 30 years. The Clinton Chronicles propaganda movie, distributed by Jerry Falwell in the early 90’s, actually accused Bill of being a cocaine addict. They’ve been accused of being drug dealers, murderers, and pedophiles without any evidence to support those allegations. Fox News viewers will tell you how many times Bill flew with Jeffrey Epstein, yet no photos of the two together, let alone with Bill playing grab ass with young women, have ever been made public, unlike with Trump. Also unlike Trump, no woman has come forth with an accusation against Bill for assaulting her when he was with Epstein. If Jeffrey Epstein had dirt on Bill Clinton but not on Donald Trump then he’d still be alive.

Over the course of decades, if the Republicans had anything on which to base charges against the Clintons then you can be damn sure they would’ve been charged. 

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90542

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

Trump will never get caught.  Noting will ever happen to him.  It’s the inverse of Trumpkins chanting lock her up.   Nothing will ever happen to trump or the Clintons.  Anyone who thinks it will might as well be a QAnon’er.   Keep wishing in one hand. 

5 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Why would anything happen to the Clintons? (Other than Bill getting impeached for lying under oath about getting a blow job.) The Starr Commission was originally formed to investigate THEIR business dealings but couldn’t find anything. Then it turned into an actual witch hunt, a fishing expedition to try to create any scandal they could. Every accusation against the Clintons came from their political rivals.

...

Over the course of decades, if the Republicans had anything on which to base charges against the Clintons then you can be damn sure they would’ve been charged. 

Like WTB said, if the Republicans had anything on the Clintons, they would have been charged.  The Clintons were a useful bogeyman, nothing more, nothing less.  Barr would have went after them if there was anything there.

Every time anybody yelled "Lock her up!" at a Trump rally, Trump encouraged it, knowing nothing would ever happen to her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46060

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

My point was less about Clinton committing a crime than it is people wanting her locked up.  She, like Trump, is never going to jail.   I’d love to see Trump locked up but it ain’t ever happening.

I think the real point is she didn’t do anything really wrong, whereas Dotard is a blatant criminal. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted
My point was less about Clinton committing a crime than it is people wanting her locked up.  She, like Trump, is never going to jail.   I’d love to see Trump locked up but it ain’t ever happening.

Like, what???

This isn’t some game of “locking up” the other team’s mascot as a way to win something.

Donald Trump is an actual criminal. Therefore it is logical and rational for Americans who think the rule of law matters to want him “locked up”.

Hilary Clinton is not an actual criminal. Therefore it is not logical and not rational for Americans to want her “locked up”.

I despise Trump. I think the best outcome for our country is if he just fades away. I’m almost afraid if he is “locked up” the weird violent grievance gang will make him their martyr.

But despite those fears, he still needs to be held accountable so hopefully those elusive “guardrails” and “democratic ideals” that were smashed to hell during the Trump administration will be given strength and heft in guarding against future Trump fascist wannabes.

TL;DR bothsidesing with Trump and Hilary on this topic is really dumb.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walden Ponderer

Walden Ponderer 12639

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I think the real point is she didn’t do anything really wrong, whereas Dotard is a blatant criminal. 

She may not have done anything criminal, but that's not the same thing as never having done anything unethical.

Granted, by that standard, 99% of the political class should be behind bars. But Hillary Clinton's embrace of corporate donor money is just about as disgusting as it can get, and no clean legal bill of health can change its stench.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28904

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

My point was less about Clinton committing a crime than it is people wanting her locked up.  She, like Trump, is never going to jail.   I’d love to see Trump locked up but it ain’t ever happening.

That may be true but we have evidence of Trump’s crimes. The only evidence of Hillary being a criminal is the “(D)” next to her name on the ballot and only seen by her political rivals.

Did you see the way Putin outlawed Navalny’s party? Don’t think for a second that Trump wouldn’t have tried to do to the same to the Democrats if he had won re-election. Or if he regains power in 2024. I’d like to believe he’d be prevented from doing that even from members of the GOP but never say never in the world of Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4668

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Walden Ponderer said:

She may not have done anything criminal, but that's not the same thing as never having done anything unethical.

Granted, by that standard, 99% of the political class should be behind bars

Well, by that standard, zero percent, since we don't put people in jail for violating some "ethical" code.

.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28904

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Walden Ponderer said:

She may not have done anything criminal, but that's not the same thing as never having done anything unethical.

Granted, by that standard, 99% of the political class should be behind bars. But Hillary Clinton's embrace of corporate donor money is just about as disgusting as it can get, and no clean legal bill of health can change its stench.

Bullshit. How many members of the Trump administration came from Goldman Sachs? Don’t recite GOP attacks as though they’re legitimate arguments. Trump couldn’t have been more friendly to Wall Street  But if Hillary even TALKED to them, that makes her dirty? Give me a break. Gary Cohn, Steve Mnuchin, fucking Jared Kushner and a bunch of his incompetent former colleagues that he brought in to help advise him on issues they weren’t qualified to comment on? You can’t be more Wall Street friendly than the GOP. But no, Hillary gave a speech to Goldman Sachs so that makes her dirty.

Jesus, it’s exhausting.

The Bushes are far worse than the Clintons. Dubya should be in jail for war crimes. The Clintons don’t even come close. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walden Ponderer

Walden Ponderer 12639

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Well, by that standard, zero percent, since we don't put people in jail for violating some "ethical" code.

You get what I mean. I don't find "both siderism" to be anything other than repugnant any time I hear it, and in this context, we're comparing apples to oranges (vile behavior that is perfectly legal, for Hillary, and vile behavior that is clearly criminal, for Trump). So I don't want my complaints to be thought of as "both siderism". But the complaints are real. Taken together with war-mongering, I don't especially care to hear Hillary Clinton's name spoken in polite society.

I voted for her because "at least she's not Trump." That seems to me to be the lowest possible bar you could set for someone, though.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28904

Posted
Posted

Have you ever noticed how similar Mike Pence’s campaign patter is to Hillary’s? In conversation, Hillary is clearly smarter than Trump or Pence or Palin or McCain or Dubya, etc. When Bill was first elected, a popular refrain was that we elected the wrong Clinton.

In case you don’t know your history, Hillary has studied the subject of health care a lot more than Trump or Pence ever have, and if Comey had stayed in his lane and either kept his fat mouth shut or also announced that Trump was being investigated for conspiring with the Russians then she probably would’ve won the 2016 election and hundreds of thousands of American lives would’ve been saved.

The first Clinton presidency was better than both Bush presidencies. The second one would have been better than both too. I still can’t believe that we ever had a second Bush presidency after the first one, run by the idiot son of a mediocre president. And then we even risked a third! And even THAT would’ve been better than Trump/Pence. Maybe not much better, but better. It still would’ve resulted in massive tax cuts for the rich and weakening of regulations and appointments of Federalist Society-approved judges. But at least it wouldn’t have involved alienating our allies, cozying up to our adversaries, and weakening ourselves on the world stage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 78461

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Why would anything happen to the Clintons? (Other than Bill getting impeached for lying under oath about getting a blow job.) The Starr Commission was originally formed to investigate THEIR business dealings but couldn’t find anything. Then it turned into an actual witch hunt, a fishing expedition to try to create any scandal they could. Every accusation against the Clintons came from their political rivals.

Trump was effectively named as a co-conspirator in the felony campaign finance violations that sent Michael Cohen to jail. We’ve seen the payoff checks he signed while in the Oval Office. He’s bragged before about how cheating on his taxes makes him “smart.” The Clintons have submitted to way more investigations and have actually testified in person for many hours of interrogation, unlike Trump who’s never sat for a second of testimony under oath.

If there’s actual evidence of criminal activity on the part of the Clintons, bring charges. They’ve been the constant target of character assassination from the right for close to 30 years. The Clinton Chronicles propaganda movie, distributed by Jerry Falwell in the early 90’s, actually accused Bill of being a cocaine addict. They’ve been accused of being drug dealers, murderers, and pedophiles without any evidence to support those allegations. Fox News viewers will tell you how many times Bill flew with Jeffrey Epstein, yet no photos of the two together, let alone with Bill playing grab ass with young women, have ever been made public, unlike with Trump. Also unlike Trump, no woman has come forth with an accusation against Bill for assaulting her when he was with Epstein. If Jeffrey Epstein had dirt on Bill Clinton but not on Donald Trump then he’d still be alive.

Over the course of decades, if the Republicans had anything on which to base charges against the Clintons then you can be damn sure they would’ve been charged. 

 

perhaps you haven't heard about hillary's emails ?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4668

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Walden Ponderer said:

I voted for her because "at least she's not Trump." That seems to me to be the lowest possible bar you could set for someone, though.

That bar is about you and how you voted.  Don't cast that shitty low bar onto other voters.  Most people who I respect as voters find a vast chasm to exist between the resumes, capabilities, intellect, honesty, and indeed character between the two.  If HRC a political opportunists who reflects what is standard issue flaws of US military policy?  Will she act as an advocate (lawyer) when she should be acting as a diplomat.  Sure.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walden Ponderer

Walden Ponderer 12639

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

That bar is about you and how you voted.  Don't cast that shitty low bar onto other voters.  Most people who I respect as voters find a vast chasm to exist between the resumes, capabilities, intellect, honesty, and indeed character between the two.  If HRC a political opportunists who reflects what is standard issue flaws of US military policy?  Will she act as an advocate (lawyer) when she should be acting as a diplomat.  Sure.

Bill and Hillary Clinton's first date was crossing a picket line. The only way she could have gotten over the bar is if it was set pretty low, so excuse me if I find your high-handedness misplaced. She's a shitty human being, who happened to be running against the shittiest of human beings. Not much room for moralizing when your choice is "vote for her, or else he'll win."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4668

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Walden Ponderer said:

Bill and Hillary Clinton's first date was crossing a picket line. The only way she could have gotten over the bar is if it was set pretty low, so excuse me if I find your high-handedness misplaced. She's a shitty human being, who happened to be running against the shittiest of human beings. Not much room for moralizing when your choice is "vote for her, or else he'll win."

I'm not being high handed. I am just pointing out you have a really shitty way of lumping clearly distinguishable candidates into one group.

If that makes maneuvering this complicated world of ours easier for you, great.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28904

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Walden Ponderer said:

Bill and Hillary Clinton's first date was crossing a picket line.

Well, I guess that settles it then. Unless a Democrat is just exactly perfect in everything they ever do, they suck. If only they could all be as perfect as you.

Come on, man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 86924

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Well, I guess that settles it then. Unless a Democrat is just exactly perfect in everything they ever do, they suck. If only they could all be as perfect as you.

Come on, man.

This is always how it's been.  Which is normally why Republicans win elections - Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love and sit out because they get big mad the Dem isn't perfect. 

Edited by Js1
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32542

Posted
Posted

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-organization-cfo-removed-as-officer-of-subsidiaries-records-show-11626120671

 

Quote

The Trump Organization has removed longtime finance chief Allen Weisselberg as an officer at some of its subsidiaries, after prosecutors accused him and the company of a 15-year tax-fraud scheme, according to public filings and people familiar with the matter.

 

Quote

The removal of Mr. Weisselberg as an officer from multiple Trump Organization entities comes amid discussions of potential changes in the chief financial officer’s duties, responsibilities and possibly title at former President Donald Trump’s company, people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Weisselberg, who has worked for the Trump family since 1973, is expected to remain at the company, the people said.

 

Quote

One company that is facing charges in the same criminal case, Trump Payroll Corp., previously listed Mr. Weisselberg as treasurer, director, vice president and secretary on Florida Department of State business records. Now Mr. Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., is listed as executive vice president, director, secretary, treasurer and vice president on records filed late last week. His son Eric Trump is now listed as president, director and chairman on those records.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46060

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Now Mr. Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., is listed as executive vice president, director, secretary, treasurer and vice president on records filed late last week. His son Eric Trump is now listed as president, director and chairman on those records.

Lulz

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

$50 says Eric had no idea those promotions took place.  When informed of them, he screamed, "He likes me!  Daddy really, really likes me!"  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28904

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

and ivanka get away scott free 

Well, none of the New York socialites whose respect she craves think highly of her, she’s dumb as a brick, she’s married to a wuss, and her dad has a huge sexual crush on her. So she’s got that going for her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...