Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 11:21:22 GMT -5
Every American needs to read this and follow the story. If you don't subscribe to the NY Times, you get five free articles a month. Make this one of them.
I've been saying for a while that there are reasons Trump won't release his tax returns as every other president/candidate has done in recent history. And there are reasons he wigs out at the idea that the Mueller investigation and state authorities might cross over into his financial dealings.
In addition to bigly tax evasion, there will be money laundering and sketchy dealings with Russian oligarches. Bigly, yuuge dealings, believe me. Sad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 11:28:14 GMT -5
Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 3, 2018 11:51:08 GMT -5
Come on. Who didn't think/know that someone like Trump would do everything in their power to minimize their tax liability as a matter of course, year after year after year? Who--apart from raving Trump fanatics--accepted the idea that Trump had built his initial empire with nothing but that one loan from his father? Who didn't accept that Trump's refusal to release his tax returns was grounded in his (correct) belief that the numbers, loopholes, and what not would make him look bad?
And let's remember that Romney only released a couple of years of returns (for the same reasons, which I think proved to be well founded, as people tried to make hay out of things like Ann Romney's horse), while Kerry only released his returns, but not his wife's, because again, releasing the latter would have made him look bad for the same reasons.
How many times has Trump been audited? I'm guessing quite a few times. But now the NYT is going to claim non-specific possible fraud. Yeah, okay.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Oct 3, 2018 11:57:40 GMT -5
I haven't read this article yet, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's probably not as bad as the initial excited commentary is saying, and Trump is probably not going to have serious repercussions. Why do I say that? Because billionaires use loopholes all the time, and I'm suspecting his dad did similarly. A Fortune article on this seems rather ho-hum and states the IRS signed off on relevant documents. Also it seems the onus is on Fred or other family members, not Donald. I bet this will end with a whimper just like the Russia collusion accusations. But we will see! Sorry I'm commenting without having read the article in question - I admit these lectures I'm supposed to give are stressing me out. I will read it tonight. And with this, I'm off to work. fortune.com/2018/10/03/nyt-trump-tax-fraud-investigation/ Here's Trump's lawyer's statement:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 12:00:34 GMT -5
You ... you aren't saying this is okay and no big deal, are you? Please tell me you are not saying that. Please tell me you are just saying you are not surprised.
We're not talking about legal tax maneuvers rich people all use to reduce liability. We're talking about years upon years of huge-scale fraud.
I am not remotely surprised, because it's consistent with what I've thought/heard for decades. I also think the people who attend Trump's rallies and the Sean Hannitys of the world will defend Trump on completely batshit grounds. They don't give a shit.
But I've got to hope the real conservatives with genuine, sincerely held conservative values who've clung to the idea that Trump isn't as bad as some of us paint him ARE appalled.
If not, I fucking give up on America. Seriously. I fucking give up. We're done.
ETA:
I just saw c.e.'s post. We are done. Literally, things will have to be in flames Venezuela-style, to an extent that cannot be repaired or denied, before half the country can even begin to think "hmmm. maybe this isn't so great and it should possibly be looked into." And maybe not even then.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Oct 3, 2018 12:05:40 GMT -5
Cass - I'm not judging it yet -- I haven't read the article. I'm just predicting how this will play out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 12:10:47 GMT -5
Then read the article before jumping to a defense. Read the follow up articles coming out in the NY Times and other outlets.
This isn't vague allegations. This is a detailed expose. You are currently in no position to assess it.
Republicans should be joining Dems to demand Trump's tax returns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 12:18:35 GMT -5
Some to start with --
I'll keep posting them as I find them, when I have time.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 3, 2018 12:27:53 GMT -5
Give up, then. Because as much as I think Trump is an awful person, a grifter, and a really poor President, I accept the election results. The fix to getting him out of office is the ballot box.
Criticism of a sitting President is fine, but the undercurrent of this "new" story is that somehow, someway, this could lead to impeachment. That's obvious. Trump is IN office. There's no law that required him to release his tax returns when he was running and there's no law requiring him to do so now (and fyi, there's certainly no requirement that he release 25+ years of returns, which seems to be what people think he should do).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 13:01:22 GMT -5
I can see concluding "I don't think he'll be impeached for this." (And I disagree with you, by the way, that that was the thrust of this piece.)
But saying "yeah, even if it's true, so what? Who cares?"
I can't even bring myself to argue, if that's your position. That's a gulf I don't think can be crossed, and I won't waste my time and energy trying.
I encourage everyone to read the piece and the follow-up articles that will be coming out and decide for themselves if they're cool with it.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Oct 3, 2018 14:48:49 GMT -5
Well, I read it. My conclusions/thoughts:
1. Not surprised in the least. By any of it;
2. Fred Trump was a hard-worker, and a crook;
3. Donald Trump is an incompetent businessman, a crook, and a liar;
4. This is too in-depth and detailed for any of it to be used to hold him accountable (politically, criminal S of L have passed).
This hasn't changed my view of Trump, it's about as low as you can go, and it won't change anyone else's.
And that, perhaps, is the most depressing thing of all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 15:25:05 GMT -5
Well, I read it. My conclusions/thoughts:
1. Not surprised in the least. By any of it;
2. Fred Trump was a hard-worker, and a crook;
3. Donald Trump is an incompetent businessman, a crook, and a liar;
4. This is too in-depth and detailed for any of it to be used to hold him accountable (politically, criminal S of L have passed).
This hasn't changed my view of Trump, it's about as low as you can go, and it won't change anyone else's.
And that, perhaps, is the most depressing thing of all.
The criminal statute of limitations has passed for long ago fraud, yes. But (1) to those who still don't think the guy is a crook and a lying liar who lies, and do believe he's a financial genius and a self-made man, this should be some evidence. (2) given that it shows a long standing pattern of fraudulent behavior, I would think it should provide reason enough to demand his tax returns for the last couple of years. I'm confident there's fraud, money-laundering, dubious dealings with oligarches, etc. That's why he won't release them. Should, that is, were we still in a sane and functioning republic where our leaders were accountable and held to the standards a normal person would be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 15:35:05 GMT -5
It really bothers me, by the way, that a knee-jerk reaction on the right to all heinous behavior by Trump and his cohorts is "well, can he be prosecuted for a crime? If not, pfft, who cares?"
Seems to be true even if there IS a crime, if the statute of limitations has passed and/or if his office currently protects him.
It blows my fucking mind. I mean, I certainly get pointing out "unfortunately, he probably can't be prosecuted". I really don't get "pfft, so what if he's a liar and a crook and a fraud and a lying liar who lies?" And I never, ever will.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 3, 2018 16:05:21 GMT -5
I can see concluding "I don't think he'll be impeached for this." (And I disagree with you, by the way, that that was the thrust of this piece.) But saying "yeah, even if it's true, so what? Who cares?" I can't even bring myself to argue, if that's your position. That's a gulf I don't think can be crossed, and I won't waste my time and energy trying. I encourage everyone to read the piece and the follow-up articles that will be coming out and decide for themselves if they're cool with it. 1) This stuff is about potential tax fraud that is decades old. Why drill down into it now? Why not during campaign season, when so much of the media was clamoring for Trump to release his tax returns? The idea that isn't about creating grounds for impeachment is laughable. Because otherwise, what would the goal be? 2) I never said anything like "even if it's true," because it strikes me as likely grounded in truth at the very least, insofar as I have little doubt that the Trump family--like most other wealthy families of this sort--did and does whatever it can to minimize taxes paid on a yearly basis, especially estate taxes. 3) And in that regard, Trump has--I am sure--been audited by the IRS plenty of times. And I'm sure his father was, as well. In my view, the IRS is one of the most effective bureaucracies in the country. And why shouldn't it be? The cards are securely stacked in its favor, when it comes to going after monies that it thinks someone owes. From what I'm seeing here, there were plenty of red flags to trigger audits or at least cursory reviews. Are we to assume the IRS looked the other way for all of these, even as it vigorously went after other offenders? 4) Some of this is old hat, regardless. Here are WSJ pieces from 2016 detailing that Trump received substantially more from his father than he so often likes to claim: www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-father-helped-gop-candidate-with-numerous-loans-1474656573www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-his-debts-a-narrow-escape-1451868915People are acting like this is all so shocking and all so new, And that's laughable, imo. Every American needs to follow this story? Please. More Americans need to follow the trade deals being hammered out with Mexico and Canada, to see if what Trump is doing is right and good for the country. And what is happening in the South China Sea. And I'll note something else here: most Anericans--imo, based on what I've seen and heard--cheat on their taxes, year in and year out. Maybe it's "just a little bit," more often than not, but it's still cheating. They rationalize this in all sorts of different ways, from telling themselves "everyone does it," to believing that they're paying more than their fair share, to imagining that the system is set up to allow that little bit of cheating (they're a lot like shoplifters in this regard). Of course, the wealthier one is, the bigger that "little bit" becomes, as a matter of course. And with complicated returns, people turn to tax professionals, many of whom make all of this worse (not you, Christine!) because they attract and keep clients by promising big savings. Going back decades with the tax returns of a guy who is now dead, I don't think we can fairly say where he did or didn't purposefully circumvent tax laws to the point of fraud. There were many fingers in this pie, I am sure. And again, the IRS had a chance to question this stuff--and maybe it did--but that time is past, I think.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 3, 2018 16:12:39 GMT -5
It blows my fucking mind. I mean, I certainly get pointing out "unfortunately, he probably can't be prosecuted". I really don't get "pfft, so what if he's a liar and a crook and a fraud and a lying liar who lies?" And I never, ever will. He's a grifter, that's what I've said on numerous occasions, no? All of the above is subsumed in that term, imo. And he's not doing a good job--in general--as President, imo. The "so what" aspect of the former, however, is--for me--more about "what does something like this have to do with current policy?" Whether or not Fred Trump was a tax cheat (and whether or not Donald was complicit) doesn't make something Trump does now any better or any worse, does it? You're recommending this stuff--as are plenty of other people--as yuuuugely significant for every American. Why? So they might come to a conclusion that many (most) have already reached?
|
|