Jury finds Trump Organization guilty of tax fraud scheme

He was NOT found to be personally not guilty. He was not charged.
He might or might not be charged in the future.

The Trump Organization was convicted on all counts of tax fraud .

So yes, DJT is quite literally the head of a criminal organization.

 

Right on schedule. Prepare for "it's always somebody else's fault!!!"

I'm guessing he changed the header because he can't legally run for office 3 times.

 

Looks like Maples was smart to keep a wide berth around Tiffany.

FOX fired Lara a couple days ago.

 

Yes. He wasn't found guilty because he wasn't even in the indictment.

Bow look through this thread and see how many lefties said Trump was guilty.

Do YOU know the difference?

 

Oh boy

Are you suggesting the left assumed Trump innocence during the multitude of allegations? Even now, he isn't named, but is being found guilty on this thread.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

 

LoL, another clueless post about the legal system from the "right." The jury did and you cannot put political idealogy into the jury pool. The key question for jurors is whether or not based on the preponderance of the evidence is the firm guilty of the crimes charged. When it comes to tax fraud, it is pretty cut and dry most of the time. It is a numbers game and who the jury believes at the end of the day. Trump wasn't even indicted since corporations are "persons" too you know. He was mentioned in the final closing arguments, but this was a pretty cut-and-dry case with no political aspirations to it. Only the right tried to make it so in their lack of legal analysis and fantasy land talk on TV, radio, and social media.

 

Nothing in this thread is new, the corrupt lawsuits have been in the works for awhile. Nothing has nor will come of this nor any other “indictment” lol (if that’s what you wish to call this).

But yes….y’all got em this time!!

 

Tax Fraud is not as rare as you might think in the corporate world. This only made national news because of the company's name.

You may want to look at these tax fraud cases. Notice the number of business owners and businesses who either pled guilty or were found guilty of tax fraud. Are those corrupt cases or are you just wanting different rules for different folks here?

 

I’m fully aware of how often it occurs and I am also fully aware of the political witch hunt that has ensued that yes, makes this corrupt.

 

this was not a political witch hunt. New York legal system made a mistake in the 1980s and 90s when DJT screwed some 400 small businesses out of their right contractual pay for their services. Even Trump bragged that he thought he could decide on a whim what the pay was worth. The New York State thought it was a civil issue, but the reality it was a conspiracy to commit larceny by improper business practices as the actual crime. Trump has been doing this sort of thing for four decades. And when the accounting firm stated that the books were not accurate, it was a matter of time before the company would get charged.

You are not as aware as you think you are. For you, the only thing you care about is that "R" behind Trump's name and you will gloss over any infractions, no matter how serious they are, all in the name of partisanship politics. PERIOD.

 

Realistically, if the result here is only $1.6m in fines then, financially, the smart decision is to just pay it. That's rather small potatoes for such an extensive investigation and, frankly, shows that the DA didn't have much beyond the Weisselberg matters.

 

Personally guilty or not, he obviously has a very poor control over what happens in his own organisation over many years.
Maybe he was too busy sending outrageous tweets to check up on his own business.

 

Oh, here we go with the intellectual superiority of the left. *rolls eyes*

The FIRM. A corporation. Not a person.

You completely ignored my point that the left typically and consistently has not upheld the concept of innocent until proven guilty regarding Trump on this forum. Yet, that is the desired perspective related to Biden. Even in this thread, look how many lefties are calling Trump guilty, which is NOT what transpired in this case.

Why are you talking about how the right is clueless, yet you're completely strawman argument the topic?

 

But was not the criminal.

As my the writer I previously cited you got your grist now, yes you can not attach "felonious" in front of the Trump Co. name now which is the main goal here.

As the writer I previous cited notes

"....It would be absurd to suggest that the kind of nickel-and-dime tax violations that were at issue in the Trump Organization case are not widespread. But they are often ignored, and only very rarely grist for criminal prosecution. Moreover, progressive prosecutors like Alvin Bragg — the Manhattan DA whose office brought the tax case against Trump and has recently revived a separate investigation of Trump’s pre-2016 election hush-money payment to a porn star — are notorious for their resistance to prosecuting serious street crime. With homicides and other violent offenses surging, it is reasonable to wonder how it is that Bragg has time and resources to hound Trump on comparatively minor misconduct — in this instance, misconduct that could not even be pinned on Trump personally.

It is close to a cakewalk for prosecutors to bring an indictment against a company once one of its senior executives admits committing corporate fraud, as Weisselberg did. Not much personal participation on behalf of other company officials is needed; it’s basically enough if they knew it was going on and failed to stop it, even if they don’t benefit from it. The fact is: Most of the time, prosecutors do not charge the business entity, even though they could do so, because such prosecutions tend to harm innocent people — especially employees and creditors of the business, who may find themselves out of jobs or financially damaged if the prosecution destroys the business. Most of the time, prosecutors content themselves with pursuing the individual executives who committed crime, while sparing the business the stigma and fallout of a criminal conviction.

But this is Trump, and Democrats have made clear that when it comes to Trump, the usual rules do not apply. That Trump brings much of this on himself, and that he has foolishly given his determined enemies plenty of ammunition, does not make this dynamic any more savory....
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022...tent=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

As I noted previously now they reopen the Stormy Daniels things again in which no crime was committed by Trump by paying her money to not discuss their personal relationship. But is salacious and can be dragged on and on with the TDS once again proclaim we REALLY got him this time just you wait and see.

 

Do you not think that the man who runs an organization that has been convicted of tax fraud should take some responsibility? Even if he is not personally convicted?

Isn’t the boss ultimately responsible for what happens in the organization?

 

This wasn't about the fine or this CFO. It was about getting the tag line, Trump Co committed FELONIES, the will now be referred to as "the FELONIUS Trump Co". And Trump the owner of "the FELONIOUS Trump Co".

And it will never end, as I noted of all things this Braggs guy is going to reopen Story Daniels. Hey why don't we have a Rep AG reopen Paul Jones.

 

Did Trump commit the tax fraud or was it committed against him by this CFO? Trump's responsibilty would be to the owners and in this case that is him. HIs company will pay the meager fine.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not really, PDS. I didn't ask you, but whatever. I do appreciate the time you put forth though I disagree with most of what you deem is "proof"
for Trump crimes. Most of your sources have an extreme liberal bias, hence they aren't what I would consider legitimate news sourcing nor do they prove much of anything. What they are though are allegations that have not been proved, and the sources are heavily laced with bias and innuendo. Remember this is what I asked MJ Davies to do. Provide legitimate, news links that prove all his allegations.

So let's get started.

allegedly Trump allegedly

From your source: Trump doesn't admit to any wrongdoing under the terms of the settlement. So, no, he did not admit to "scamming thousands out of millions". Read your source again.

Let me point out right now that you have not proved anything other than you can copy and paste a bunch of Trump allegations. I asked Davies to prove his allegations. The same request goes for you not that you have decided to contribute to the conversation.

"The FEC likewise failed recently to approve a recommendation from staff that it sanction Trump for directing a $130,000 hush money payout to former porn star Stormy Daniels." ~ Trump escapes FEC sanction for hush money, National Enquirer publisher pays fine (cnbc.com)
I do concede that he uses bad judgment when it comes to having affairs outside his marriage.

Your source has a liberal bias hence it does not count as a legitimate news source and therefore is dismissed.

Your source has a liberal bias hence it does not count as a legitimate news source. Remember, these are "alleged" crimes.

Trump has been accused of no crimes of espionage.

Again, Trump has not been accused of conspiracy or anything implied above, and your link leads to message, "page not found".

No charges were brought against former President Trump for violating the emoluments clause, so no, Trump was not found guilty of committing corruption.

Nepotism is not a crime, hence no charges of corruption.

He was ordered by a federal judge to pay two million in a settlement. Hardly was he found guilty of the crime of "embezzling".

Keyword: Allegedly Trump Allegedly Discriminated Against Blacks Renting His Apartments | The Daily Wire
"The Trumps counter-sued the federal government for $100 million, but settled in 1975 with a consent decree while admitting no guilt."

Allen Weisenberg plead guilty to tax fraud.

Presidents have the power to pardon. Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution says: “The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

You meant to say alleged "tax schemes"?
The NY Times ... lol, btw, I can't get thru the paywall.

Prospect.org has a liberal bias, hence their opinions are dismissed and are not proof for much.

 

You are correct. Some don't seem to know the difference between an allegation and a conviction.

 

Individuals within the organization were found guilty of tax fraud. The main guy was granted immunity for his testimony. Testimony that didn't implicate Trump in any crime, unless you think Trump giving him a loan a crime.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-organization-trial-fraud-scheme-allen-weisselberg-testifies/

 

It was commuted by the Trump Organization. Of which DJT was the head.

 

Who got immunity?

The fact is that the Trump Organization was convicted - and DJ Trump is the head of that organization. He signed some of the checks that formed part of the fraud.

Not currently convicted of a crime, but responsible.

 

It's in the link I cited.

Sure, Trump's organization is responsible, but he isn't personally. The people within the organization responsible for the scheme were found guilty. Nevertheless, there's a chance it will be overturned in appeal. I'll have to do some research on it, but I don't see how an organization can be responsible for the criminal conduct of it's employees unless the CEO was aware of it.

 

He's the leader of the Republican party.

You have to remember that he's still the candidate that Republicans could very well choose to be our next president.

Do you really need an explanation of why that would be a monumental disaster?

 

It's interesting to note that Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, is taking a victory lap on this one. Of only he would take as much interest in prosecuting violent, repeat offender felons, New York City would be safer. That's not within his area of interest, however.

In my years in corporate America, I saw this sort of thing, but not the extent that it appears to be here. Executives would take their wives with them on business trips and write the expenses off on the company. They are also had the company buy artwork from their friends. As an underling, who had to review the vouchers, there was nothing I could do about it except get into trouble for pointing it out, which I did on a number of occasions. What really ticked me off was that the company was losing money, and "the little people" would get canned to cut down on expenses.