Trump Organization Is Charged in 15-Year Tax Scheme

And they remain puny charges that should be settled as a civil matter.

If prosecutors have charges of criminal acts they charge those, they indict. There are no indictments against Trump or his family. And as severaly former prosecutors I have heard on the news sources that are actually reporting the facts here is the an indictment for the company usually comes at the END of the investigation after all the persons have been charged because the company is not a person it is an entity and is a clean up charge.

He paid a civil settlement of the dispute with some former pupils of his real estate course. When has Trump been charged with fraud? Why haven't he or his family ever been prosecuted for this tax evasion you seem to know so much about? That you hate the guy is not reason for an out of control NY prosecutor to persecute him.

 

Are you joking? Do you just make this stuff hoping no one will expose their fallacious nonsense.

"While Lynch asked Comey what the subject matter of the statement was going to be (Comey told her in response it would be about the Midyear investigation), she did not ask him to tell her what he intended to say about the Midyear investigation. We found that Lynch, having decided not to recuse herself, retained authority over both the final prosecution decision and the Department’s management of the Midyear investigation. As such, we believe she should have instructed Comey to tell her what he intended to say beforehand, and should have discussed it with Comey....

.....We concluded that Comey’s unilateral announcement was inconsistent with Department policy and violated long-standing Department practice and protocol by, among other things, criticizing Clinton’s uncharged conduct. We also found that Comey usurped the authority of the Attorney General, and inadequately and incompletely described the legal position of Department prosecutors."
https://oig.justice.gov/node/640

yea nothing wrong with how the decision was made........................too much

 

Where is that in US Code, Flynn did not report to the Vice President and the Vice President has no authority of the National Security Advisor, the Preisdent could order the NSA to NOT discuss ANYTHING with the VP or tell him anything about anything and deny matters for which he has no authority to know. If Flynn did not think the VP had a need to know something he has obligation to tell him.

 

And wrote a stinging rebuke of Comey and Lunch and their actions.

 

Sure they both did things that were idiotic. Lynch’s was silly but still dumb. Dumber is thinking she had to meet bill in person to figure out Hillary was hoping to not go to prison.

 

Oh....cry some more Humpty. I am so sad for you, really, you sook. No-one cares what the motivation is. If you and your lot have acted criminally expect people to investigate and prosecute. You'll have your day in Court matey and you will not win by having a tantrum in front of your fan bois and to the schmedia.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07...ida-rally-to-slam-tax-fraud-charges/100266666

 

Interesting thing has taken place....in the last 48 hours or so all 3 male Trumps have admitted the charges are true, but they are no big deal because everyone does it.

 

Partially true. If Flynn was incidentally overhead on a phone call with the Russian ambassador the recording should have been (legally) discarded; instead it was used improperly by Comey, and improperly and illegally leaked to the press by someone with the intent to smear. Comey knew he could not use the recording for an official investigation which is why he set up Flynn for a "friendly" conversation with FBI agents. The agents, which included Strzok BTW, found Flynn did not violate any protocol or law in the conversation as you state. They also did not think Flynn lied in the interview, but Comey pursued that line anyway. Trump fired Flynn for being less than candid and honest with VP Pence, not for "lying" to the FBI. Trump pardoned Flynn because he was innocent even though he had admitted in court to lying to the FBI rather than have Mueller hammer Flynn's son.

 

Un-registered foreign agents are a dime a dozen and almost never criminally prosecuted (which IIRC Flynn was not.) It is the rough equivalent to forgetting to sign a 1040. Lying to a VP is not a crime.

 

Read my post again. It wasn't a three-way call. It was the Russian Ambassador talking to Moscow reporting his conversation with Flynn. If Flynn subsequently didn't appear to be lying to Strzok, et al, they - or at least Comey - had other information that indicated he was. Why else would the Russian Ambassador lie to his bosses in Moscow? If Flynn was good at his job, he would have known no one would prosecute him for trying to work a deal with the Russians (although it might not look good to the public) in advance of taking office - and with Trump's permission. It was against a law no one had ever been prosecuted under. Trump, on the other hand, would lie to everyone about virtually anything. My theory is that Trump - possibly via a staff member at Mar a Lago - instructed Flynn to keep his conversation with the Ambassador secret. Trump didn't care if Flynn lied to the FBI or not, because Flynn was just carrying out his own orders. Neither did he care about Flynn lying to Pence (who apparently wasn't in on the Flynn - Ambassador call). Pence cared. And, Trump couldn't fire Pence. So, he fired Flynn after probably assuring him there would ultimately be a pardon for him, as well as some other payback. Not wanting to further compound his problem...Flynn admitted his lie to the FBI. IOW, Flynn just took the fall for Trump...not because Trump had committed a prosecutable crime, but because it would have made him look bad to the public and Pence. I don't remember anyone ever questioning Flynn as to why he thought he could make such a deal with the Russians without the President's approval? And, if he did make the deal without Trump's approval, why the President would want to pardon him? I don't believe Trump has ever admitted approving of the Flynn-Russian Ambassador call?

 

HAPPY JULY 4TH TO EVERYONE!

 

I am unable to comment on your speculations -- maybe true, maybe partially true, maybe untrue.

 

But much of your argument rests upon your own speculations. Where is your proof that Flynn himself was wire-tapped? Do you think Flynn acted on his own, without Trump's approval? Wasn't the "deal" that if the Russians did not respond to the new Obama sanctions, the disagreement would be worked out after Trump was in office? Do you think Flynn was acting on his own? If he was, why would Trump pardon him? My "theory" is pretty simple...and often the most simple explanation is the correct one.

 

The flaw in the argument about a SDNY going after a tax case not charged by IRS, is obvious.

All you have to do is read the partisan nature of anti Trump threads! This is about Trump and politics.

 

Not necessarily. Between his inauguration in January 2017 and Biden's inauguration in January 2021, Trump was immune from prosecution according to DoJ policy. Presumably, that would include Federal tax offenses. What would be curious would be if the IRS fails to pursue charges now, after the NY State and local officials have stated in their indictment of the Trump Organization that it avoided federal taxes on some half million dollars in income. Why didn't they pursue a prosecution earlier against the Trump Organization? I don't think Trump ever yielded personal control of the Organization officially (I could be wrong on that). IOW, if my theory is correct, he used the Presidency to shield the company.

 

Re read my post.
It us a partisan headline grabbing effort that will go nowhere. IRS us saying, “WTF are you doing on our turf.”

 

It may be...are you arguing that Trump is innocent? He hasn't been charged yet. The IRS may be preparing its own case on federal taxes and the State and Local (Manhattan) people jumped ahead due to the Vance retirement coming up. There is no doubt that there are a lot of people in "the establishment" who would love to be the person who brings Trump down...but that makes him neither guilty or innocent. He'll eventually have his day in court.

 

You said the IG found NO PROBLEM with how the decision was made, that is a patently false statement. It was seriously a problem and never resolved and led to Clinton not being charge as was planned all along, she was never going to be charged they just had to find a way out of doing so.

 

The IRS could have applied penalties and interest to President Trump's tax return and the guy they indicted was never President he could have been charged at anytime. The IRS if they had some criminal charge would have done by now. AND would take supremacy over any state charges. And they were investigating the Trump organization while Trump was President. Vance got Trump's tax returns MONTHS ago and we see no indictments, no charges. Remember the hyperbole then about "THIS IS IT< JUST YOU WAIT AND SEE<WE GOT HIM NOW" and this is what we have.

As I have reminded others when Tim Geithner was vetted by the Obama/Binden administration and then Senate held hearings it came out he had failed to pay the proper taxes on his income as an executive, benefit income. And it included tuition for his daughter which appears to be the biggest thing Vance has against this guy. And everyone said it's not so bad he paid the penalty and interest so now we can make him the SECRERTARY OF THE UNITED STATES TREASURY.

 

1) The IRS does not have access to all of the evidence that Vance does 2) You clearly haven't read the indictment 3) The Geithner situation is not comparable.

 

They've had his and the Trump organization's tax returns for DECADES and these are TAX ISSUES. And yes the Geithner situation is entirely comparable, it was handled as such an issue would normally be handled not as some HUGE CRIME. As I noted one of the tax problems Geithner had was his daughters tuition payment, what appears to be the main charge here. Send the guy the bill for the tax due with penalties and interest then Biden can appoint him the Secretary of the Treasury.

 

You would need more than just his tax returns to uncover evidence of these crimes. Vance has more than tax returns. No, Geithner is in no way comparable. There was no evidence of intent with Geithner, nor of a pattern stretching over 15 years to hide the income of multiple executives from authorities in order to dodge taxes for those executives and the company. No, the tuition payment is not the main charge. Tuition is only mentioned on 3 pages of the 25 page indictment . . . which, again, you obviously haven't even read. If these could be chalked up to an accident, like with Geithner, then I'd agree with you about just sending him a bill. But in this case we have evidence of intent. That's why it is being handled as a criminal case and not civil. Intent.

 

None of my claims were speculations. If he was recorded under a FISA warrant against the Russian ambassador that is essentially equivalent to wire tapping since they used his recorded voice for action. I don't know if Flynn's conversation was with or without Trump's explicit approval but it makes no difference. After all the appointed National Security Advisor can do things without the president's explicit approval. His pardon had nothing to do with his conversation with the ambassador because that conversation was not criminally prosecuted, so nothing to pardon for, It is your theories that are speculative; maybe rational but still speculative.

 

Here is an excellent summary of the case from the excellent site Just Security....

This is top notch stuff

https://www.justsecurity.org/77331/the-weisselberg-indictment-is-not-a-fringe-benefits-case/

 

I remember the Geithner incident. He explains it in his book "Stress Test," on pages 267-262, as an honest mistake, when he was employed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an international agency. The IMF didn't withhold taxes or payroll taxes, as a U.S> company would do. Geithner paid those himself, but overlooked (he claims unintentionally) his payroll taxes. The IRS ultimately agreed with him and accepted the back taxes and penalties.

The IRS's principal task is to collect money, according to law, for the United States Treasury. To accomplish this they are intentionally given wide prosecutorial discretion. The UBS Swiss Bank scandal of around 2008-2010 is an example. Thanks to a whistleblower who worked for UBS, a tax avoidance scheme that was being run by the bank in the U.S. was uncovered. The IRS claimed 52,000 U.S. citizens were taking part in it, but due to Swiss banking laws, they didn't have the names. They negotiated secretly with the bank (they could have shut their U.S. operations down entirely). The bank offered to give up 5,000 names, but not all 52,000. The IRS agreed on the condition that the bank would not inform ANY of the 52,000. The bank agreed. The IRS then put out a notice that they had these names (without revealing exactly who) and would NOT prosecute the 52,000 IF they voluntarily came forward, admitted their crime and paid back taxes and penalties...i.e. they could escape criminal charges. They gave them a certain period in which to come forward. Since none of the 52,000 knew if their name was one of the 5,000 names turned over, most of them came forward (a few, whose names were on the 5,000 list didn't and were prosecuted criminally; others who didn't come forward and weren't on the 5,000 list, presumably escaped). The IRS accepted those losses, while simultaneously collecting a lot of back taxes and penalties. Point being...their primary job is collecting money...NOT seeing people to jail.

One thing they do hold secret are the names of the taxpayers they deal with. The State and Local indictment may have not been complete...insomuch as it may have not mentioned IRS settlements on federal taxes that have already taken place...just as they never mentioned any of most of the 52,000 who came forward over the UBS scandal. Confidentiality regarding that could have been a contingency of the settlement itself, barring the IRS from releasing news of the settlement itself.