8 Supreme Court cases the justices have yet to rule on

Show where he paid her for the sex and then tried to claim that.

 

And then he can just fire the AG and get one who will end it.

 

No he paid the hush money. Are you calling that a business expense? Is that what they called it in their books?

 

I think it was debunked that investigation ended a year ago where are the charges it was an illegal write off?

 

Your dancing now.

 

You guys keep playing wack-a-mole. The assertion was for the sex.

 

And if Trump misrepresents the value of his assets in order to persuade them to agree to a higher value than they would agree to if they knew the truth, that's on him. And that's criminal fraud. "They should have known better than to trust me" is not a legal defense.

The only time the IRS does a full audit of your claims is when you, well, actually get audited. That's not the default.

Businesses submit forms based on their own accounting: either generated internally without any external auditing (this is what the Trump Organization does), or contracted out to a third party accountant that does the auditing.

Trump owns a lot of hotel properties and condos. Surely you know this. The value of his properties goes up or down depending on units rented and/or sold, which the government does not automatically audit. In case you forgot, Trump's kiddos got caught lying to investors about the number of units sold. Trump may call this "truthful exaggeration," and others may cheekily call it "creative accounting," but there's another name for it: fraud.

 

No, the assertion was for hush money. Neither one is a business expense.

 

No one is going to charge Trump until he leaves office. That investigation has already ended up in the arrest of his lawyer -- kind of the opposite of "debunked." In their filing, the SDNY said they had evidence that the lawyer was acting at the direction of Trump. It would be very odd for them to charge the lawyer and not the client, and it would be even more odd for them to mention this without plans to follow up once Trump can be charged.

 

Again, it was hush money. Cohen and AMI have already testified that it was hush money. Cohen has also testified that this was claimed as a business expense. This is part of why the court wants his tax returns.

 

Well that’s what the hush money was for. Is that a legit business expense? Is that how they recorded it in their books?

 

Glad you agree the claim he paid her for the sex was fallacious nonsense then. This was adjudicated a year ago and no charges were filed against Trump for the payments.

"Cohen said he used a home equity loan in order to pay off Daniels. Cohen has said neither Trump's business nor the Trump campaign reimbursed after paying her."
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607943366/giuliani-says-trump-did-know-about-stormy-daniels-payment

The checks were from Trump's personal account.

 

See above the checks were not from Trump Inc but his personal account.

 

They can announce charges any time they want. The NYT got totally burned on one of their hair on fire stories about this. The payments to Daniels were LEGAL.

 

The IRS would not be involved in your negotiations with a bank over how much they will lend you on a piece of property or business that is between you and the bank.

And those CPA's know they will lose their licenses and go to jail if they commit a fraud. It is the bank that has a fudiciary responsibility to it's investors and savers to calculate what THEY believe is the value of the assets.

 

The first two checks were from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account, and signed by Donald Trump Jr. and Trump Organization finance chief Allen Weisselberg.
Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) said in a December sentencing memo that Cohen sent monthly invoices to Trump’s company “falsely indicating” that these invoices were part of some retainer agreement, and that the Trump Organization falsely accounted for the payments as legal expenses.

 

Trump left the money he owed Cohen off of his 2017 disclosure, but in a footnote in his 2018 disclosure he said he had “fully reimbursed” Cohen for expenses he had incurred. (It didn’t specify for what.) Subsequently, in May of last year, the OGE sent a letter to the Department of Justice alerting Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about the omission. And in August, watchdog group the Project on Government Oversight asked the OGE to review whether that footnote had been accurate, since it declared Trump had paid Cohen up to $250,000 but prosecutors revealed Cohen had received $420,000.

 

So, here I was, on the hunt to see how banks come to conclude the value of the assets that an individual would use as collateral for a large scale loan.

Then I came across this article and I feel it accurately sums up the questions that Deutchbank need to answer to clear up the uncertainty of this particular situation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mayrar...deutsche-bank-fraud-raises-serious-questions/

 

Thus the need for investigations into his taxes....

Thanks for making the point...

 

There are 2 problems with that approach.

1. It's not very sexy, so most Americans will get lost in the weeds
2. Trump has the ability to delay all of this research until after he's no longer President in 2021

Ocaam's razor tells us that if Deutschebank was the ONLY bank loaning Trump money, that they were following their own modeling as to why he was a good risk...

 

Making Michael Cohen feel a little stupid for pleading guilty saying it wasn't...

 

. . . and? The checks were from his personal account. So what? I take it you are either trying to claim that this means it couldn't have claimed it as a business expense or that it couldn't have been a campaign contribution. Neither of these things are remotely true.

 

The DOJ's position is that you can't charge a sitting president. How is this the first time you are hearing about this? And why are you trying to change the subject to the NYT?

If they were legal, then Cohen wouldn't be in jail for making them. Yet that's exactly why he's in jail.

 

Dude, you aren't following the conversation. Two things going on here: statements made to the IRS and statements made to the banks. Two different things. Lying to either about the value of your assets is criminal fraud. One is tax fraud and the other is bank fraud.

Again, you aren't following. For one thing, the Trump Organization produces its statements internal, without getting an audit from a CPA. That's why there's a statement at the end from the accountant saying that he has not verified the accuracy of the numbers. This is common practice, though really shady when you are dealing with someone like Trump.

And you are essentially saying that no fraud could have been committed because people know they will go to jail if they commit fraud. By that "logic" no fraud has ever occurred in the history of our country. Turns out that it has.

And they typically rely on statements from the borrower to do so.

I know you will just keep running away from this fact, but I'll state it again anyway: here in reality, it is a crime to lie to the bank about the value of your assets when applying for a loan. Period. How is it possible that you don't understand that? Even if the bank does its own calculations, it is still a crime to lie to them.

 

Yeah, they are going to just keep dodging that one. They'll also ignore the fact that the judge had to agree to the guilty plea and could have turned it down if this wasn't actually a crime . . . which of course it is. They'll also ignore the fact that the SDNY told the judge that they have evidence that Trump directed the payments.

Hm, wonder why Trump and Barr are so desperate to shake up the leadership at the SDNY?