1. #71001
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    @cubby get in here!

    SCOTUS declines to hear Trump's tax case, therefore, the most recent court ruling (that the NY AG gets the tax returns) is the final ruling.
    Very good news to wake up to this morning. While not specifically a scientific principle, there is a direct proportion to the amount of effort one exudes to prevent financial records from being disclosed to how totally fucked you'll be once they are revealed.

    I bet Vance is going to have two scoops today.

  2. #71002
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    They need a Trump replacement. Trump won't agree to that without a yuge concession. If the GOP has any intent to win 2022 or 2024, they need to find a bribe Trump will accept before the cuffs snap into place.
    I would not be surprised at all if the American justice system managed to let Trump campaign from prison and and get set free to be president after winning. Something something rehabilitation, valuable member of society. He got away with everything so far. To be honest I don't even see him convicted for any of the stuff he faces now.

  3. #71003
    Quote Originally Posted by Ursus View Post
    You say that as if facts and logic have any meaning to Trump supporters.
    Very true, who knows what will cause the cult to finally unwind?

    My pet theory is that part of his appeal is; people see him as a Rich Uncle that will suddenly bail them out. The release of financials and incoming debt lawsuits will chip away at this fantasy.

    It's part of the Green Lantern trend in politics. People thinking that a certain candidate will have magic powers to suddenly "fix government". It reoccurs hand-in-hand with anti-establishment candidates. See also; candidates branding themselves as Tío.

    "According to Brendan Nyhan, the Dartmouth political scientist who coined the term, the Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency is “the belief that the president can achieve any political or policy objective if only he tries hard enough or uses the right tactics.” In other words, the American president is functionally all-powerful, and whenever he can’t get something done, it’s because he’s not trying hard enough, or not trying smart enough."

  4. #71004
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Very good news to wake up to this morning. While not specifically a scientific principle, there is a direct proportion to the amount of effort one exudes to prevent financial records from being disclosed to how totally fucked you'll be once they are revealed.

    I bet Vance is going to have two scoops today.
    I have a theory that the activist con judges aren't trying to rock the boat judicially while dems have power so the dems don't go nuclear and expand the court

  5. #71005
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormspellz View Post
    I have a theory that the activist con judges aren't trying to rock the boat judicially while dems have power so the dems don't go nuclear and expand the court
    They also do their most devastating work when no one is watching. Right now EVERYONE is watching.

  6. #71006
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormspellz View Post
    I have a theory that the activist con judges aren't trying to rock the boat judicially while dems have power so the dems don't go nuclear and expand the court
    Trump appointees (and other GOP judges) are not there to defend Trump or even GOP politicians. They might do that sometimes but they have three primary jobs: overturn abortion, voter suppression and advance corporate interests. The latter is their most important function.

  7. #71007
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Trump appointees (and other GOP judges) are not there to defend Trump or even GOP politicians. They might do that sometimes but they have three primary jobs: overturn abortion, voter suppression and advance corporate interests. The latter is their most important function.
    Very true the ones that stuck their neck out and tried to give a free pass to their white supremacists brothers got swatted down fast.

  8. #71008
    Quote Originally Posted by Twdft View Post
    I would not be surprised at all if the American justice system managed to let Trump campaign from prison and and get set free to be president after winning. Something something rehabilitation, valuable member of society. He got away with everything so far. To be honest I don't even see him convicted for any of the stuff he faces now.
    Well, as far as running for president goes, you only need to be over a certain age and born an american citizen. So yes, he could run for president from prison.

  9. #71009
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormspellz View Post
    I have a theory that the activist con judges aren't trying to rock the boat judicially while dems have power so the dems don't go nuclear and expand the court
    It could be that, although I think the Justices are smart enough to know that Biden/Dems can't expand the court right now, given the thin line of majority. However, I've noticed that justices are backed by liberal/conservative presidents but then take their own road once confirmed (and all but impossible to remove). We've seen that with Chief SCOTUS and his consistent rulings against some "conservative" policies.

  10. #71010
    Trump "..it never ends....."





    Oh the irony....waaah stop picking on meeeeeeee
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  11. #71011
    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    Well, as far as running for president goes, you only need to be over a certain age and born an american citizen. So yes, he could run for president from prison.
    Can he do? I mean can somebody with a criminal record be even put on ballot in some of these states?
    Elections are run by the state and not by federal law and if you can't vote in some of these states then it would be weird if you could run office in these states.

  12. #71012
    Quote Originally Posted by ati87 View Post
    Can he do? I mean can somebody with a criminal record be even put on ballot in some of these states?
    Elections are run by the state and not by federal law and if you can't vote in some of these states then it would be weird if you could run office in these states.
    It's because the Constitution spells out the requirements to hold office, but leaves requirements for voting eligibility up to the States.

  13. #71013
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    30,914
    From the NYTimes. Quoting the whole thing...some of you may want to skip this post, but (a) I think it's important and (b) this is what you pay me for. If you don't want to read the whole thing, skip from bolded to bolded.

    Terabytes of data. Dozens of prosecutors, investigators and forensic accountants sifting through millions of pages of financial documents. An outside consulting firm drilling down on the arcana of commercial real estate and tax strategies.

    That is the monumental task that lies ahead in the Manhattan district attorney’s criminal investigation into former President Donald J. Trump and his family business after a United States Supreme Court order on Monday cleared the way for prosecutors to obtain eight years worth of Mr. Trump’s tax returns and other financial records.

    The brief, unsigned order was a resounding victory for the prosecutors and defeat for Mr. Trump, capping his bitter and protracted legal battle to block the release of the records — an effort that twice reached the Supreme Court — and delivering a jolt to the prosecutors’ efforts after the lawsuit stalled them for more than a year.

    The investigation is one of two known criminal inquiries into Mr. Trump, the other coming from prosecutors in Georgia scrutinizing Mr. Trump’s effort to persuade local officials to undo the election results there. When Mr. Trump left office, he lost the protection against indictment that the presidency afforded him.
    We'll never know the full extent of that protection. NYState was likely waiting until they knew it couldn't possibly be a factor -- I surmise they could have moved earlier, especially by going after Trump's businesses directly. Trump handed them over to his family in a "blind trust" (rolls eyes) but none of them were elected officials.

    Oh well, moving on.

    The district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., issued a terse statement, saying: “The work continues.” A spokesman for his office declined to comment further on the investigation.

    The crucial next phase in the Manhattan inquiry will begin in earnest this week when investigators for the district attorney’s office collect the records from the law firm that represents Mr. Trump’s accountants, Mazars USA, according to people with knowledge of the matter, as well as former prosecutors and other experts who described the next steps on the condition of anonymity.

    The investigators, carrying a copy of the August 2019 grand jury subpoena that was at the heart of the lawsuit, will go to the law firm’s office in New York’s Westchester County. They will leave with a vast trove of digital copies of the returns, reams of financial statements and other records and communications relating to Mr. Trump’s taxes and those of his businesses.

    Then, the investigators will deliver the mass of data to the office of Mr. Vance, where the team of prosecutors, forensic accountants and analysts have been investigating Mr. Trump and his companies for a wide range of possible financial crimes. Mr. Vance, a Democrat, has been examining whether Mr. Trump, his company and its employees committed insurance, tax and banking fraud, among other crimes, people with knowledge of the matter have said.

    Even before the Supreme Court ruling, the investigation had heated up, with Mr. Vance’s office issuing more than a dozen subpoenas in recent months and interviewing witnesses, including employees of Deutsche Bank, one of Mr. Trump’s top lenders.

    The subpoenas relate to a central aspect of Mr. Vance’s inquiry, which focuses on whether Mr. Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, inflated the value of some of his signature properties to obtain the best possible loans, while lowballing the values to reduce property taxes, people with knowledge of the matter have said. The prosecutors are also examining the Trump Organization’s statements to insurance companies about the value of various assets.

    Now armed with the records from Mazars — including the tax returns, the business records on which they are based and communications between the Trump Organization and its accountants — prosecutors will be able to see a fuller picture of potential discrepancies between what the company told its lenders and tax authorities.

    The prosecutors have also subpoenaed the Trump Organization for records related to tax write-offs on millions of dollars in consulting fees, some of which appear to have gone to the president’s elder daughter, Ivanka Trump, an arrangement first reported by The New York Times. The company turned over some of those records last month, two people with knowledge of the matter said, though the prosecutors have questioned whether the company has fully responded to the subpoena.

    It remains unclear whether the prosecutors will ultimately file charges against Mr. Trump, the company, or any of its executives, including Mr. Trump’s two adult sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump.

    In a lengthy and angry statement
    HAHAHAHAHA not on Twitter or Facebook he didn't HAHAHAHAHAHA

    that included a reiteration of many of his familiar grievances, Mr. Trump lashed out at the Supreme Court and the investigation, which he characterized as “a continuation of the greatest political Witch Hunt in the history of our Country.”

    He added: “For more than two years, New York City has been looking at almost every transaction I’ve ever done, including seeking tax returns which were done by among the biggest and most prestigious law and accounting firms in the U.S.”

    Mr. Trump’s lawyers are likely to argue to prosecutors that Mr. Trump could not have duped Deutsche Bank because the bank, a sophisticated financial player, conducted its own analysis of Mr. Trump’s properties.
    Now I'll ask @cubby for help on this one, because this defense sounds stupid as fuck. "We couldn't defraud someone, because they checked it out" not only sounds like victim-blaming, but also ignores the fact that the greater issue -- the disparity -- only requires a gap between the two values. NYState likely checked out his filings, they just didn't see his loan forms.

    "The victim of my crime tried to stop me from doing the crime, therefore, I am not guilty" sounds stupid as fuck. I hope it's as lame-ass, limp-dick, and IMPOTUS an argument as I think it is...but I'm not the expert.

    Mazars said in a statement that it was aware of the new ruling. “As we have maintained throughout this process, Mazars remains committed to fulfilling all of our professional and legal obligations,” the statement said.

    The biggest challenge for Mr. Vance’s prosecutors will be to piece together the jigsaw puzzle of tax records, financial statements and the supporting documents Mr. Trump’s companies provided to the accountants.

    Early this month, Mr. Vance enlisted a prominent figure in New York legal circles, Mark F. Pomerantz, to help with the investigation. Mr. Pomerantz, a former senior federal prosecutor with significant experience both investigating and defending complex white-collar and organized crime cases, will handle interactions with key witnesses, among other tasks.

    For additional help, Mr. Vance’s office has hired FTI, a large consulting company that can analyze some of the industries in which Mr. Trump’s companies operate, including commercial real estate, as well as tax issues, people with knowledge of the matter said.

    The firm will also load the trove of records into a data analysis and document management system that it can use to explore them and seek patterns in support of the investigation, the people said.

    The action by the Supreme Court justices, who without noted dissent denied Mr. Trump an emergency stay so the court could fully review issues in the case for a second time, will not put Mr. Trump’s tax returns in the hands of Congress or make them automatically public. Grand jury secrecy laws will keep the records private unless Mr. Vance’s office files charges and enters the documents into evidence at a trial.

    The public has already learned a great deal about Mr. Trump’s taxes through other means.

    The New York Times
    Blant self-plug is blatant (rolls eyes)

    obtained tax-return data extending over more than two decades for Mr. Trump and the hundreds of companies that make up his business organization, including detailed information from his first two years in office.

    The Times published a series of investigative articles last year based on an analysis of the data showing that Mr. Trump paid virtually no income tax for many years and that he is currently under an audit in which an adverse ruling could cost him more than $100 million. He and his companies file separate tax returns and employ complicated and sometimes aggressive tax strategies, the investigation found.

    But the Supreme Court’s action set in motion a series of events that could lead to the extraordinary possibility of a criminal trial for former president.
    "a criminal trial for former president"? Do you even proofread bro?

    At a minimum, the ruling wrests from Mr. Trump control of his most closely held financial records and the power to decide when, if ever, they would be made available for public inspection.

    Mr. Trump and his lawyers have long fought to keep the records secret. After promising during the 2016 campaign that he would release his tax returns, as every presidential candidate has done for at least 40 years, he refused to do so, providing a persistent line of criticism for Democrats and other adversaries.

    In addition to fighting the subpoena from Mr. Vance’s office in court, Mr. Trump sued to block the congressional subpoena and successfully challenged a California law requiring presidential primary candidates to release their returns.

    The Supreme Court’s ruling comes nearly 18 months after Mr. Trump first sued Mr. Vance, seeking to block the subpoena from his office and spurring a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court for the first time last summer. In a landmark decision in July, the court rejected Mr. Trump’s argument that as a sitting president, he was immune from investigation. The case was argued by Mr. Vance’s general counsel, Carey Dunne, who is helping lead the investigation.

    But the court said Mr. Trump could challenge the subpoena on other grounds, such as its relevance and scope. Mr. Trump then launched a new legal fight, arguing that the subpoena was overly broad and amounted to political harassment. After losing that argument in the lower courts, Mr. Trump asked the Supreme Court to delay enforcement of Mr. Vance’s subpoena until it could decide whether to hear Mr. Trump’s appeal.

    It was that request that the Supreme Court denied, effectively ending the former president’s legal quest, legal experts said.

    “Trump will not be given deference as a former president,” said Anne Milgram, a former assistant district attorney in Manhattan who later served as New Jersey’s attorney general. “Under the eyes of the laws of the state of New York, he has the same rights as others in the state. Neither more nor less.

    Reed Brodsky, a longtime white-collar defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor, said that Mr. Trump’s lawyers will likely tell him that further attempts to block the subpoena could undermine their ability to argue the merits of his defense.

    “They’re at risk, if they continue to make arguments that are frivolous, of undercutting their credibility,” Mr. Brodsky said.
    Others of you have said it before and better than I could -- Trump blocked the public, NYState, and Congress from seeing his taxes because he's fucking terrified. Something as obvious as "Trump is poor" doesn't seem strong enough to make Trump cower in his bunker.

    I'm not sure this is about going to jail, either. Trump lived through the eighties. He believes (rightly or wrongly) that rich white people don't go to jail.

    I think he's worried that Deustche Bank will find out they've been cheated, and as a direct result of that, Deutsche Bank gets to take all his stuff. Trump is a narcisist to the point of a mental illness. I think he fears being seen as a loser, more than he fears being dead. Or, he'd weigh about 100 pounds less.

    I don't know enough about contract law, but I'm pretty sure if you defraud a bank when getting a loan, not only do you have to give the fraudulent money back but also probably extra penalties. Otherwise, what's the point, right? Trump probably can't pay, so he'd lose properties, all of which would immediately have his name scraped off them. Plus, unlikes his many many many many many...

    (thirty-seven seconds later)

    ...many failures in the past, including but not limited to six bankruptcies, this time it's personal. Trump failed and went business bankrupt so many times that he had to personally guarantee his more recent, Deutsche loans. If I'm right, Trump will not only have to hand over the deeds to properties he used to own, but also some of his own money...at a very bad time, considering the other issues knocking at his door.

    Until he goes to prison. Then, they're knocking on his back door.

  14. #71014
    Quote Originally Posted by ati87 View Post
    Can he do? I mean can somebody with a criminal record be even put on ballot in some of these states? Elections are run by the state and not by federal law and if you can't vote in some of these states then it would be weird if you could run office in these states.
    Funny thing is such state laws I believe are typically found in red states.

  15. #71015
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    From the NYTimes. Quoting the whole thing...some of you may want to skip this post, but (a) I think it's important and (b) this is what you pay me for. If you don't want to read the whole thing, skip from bolded to bolded.



    We'll never know the full extent of that protection. NYState was likely waiting until they knew it couldn't possibly be a factor -- I surmise they could have moved earlier, especially by going after Trump's businesses directly. Trump handed them over to his family in a "blind trust" (rolls eyes) but none of them were elected officials.

    Oh well, moving on.



    HAHAHAHAHA not on Twitter or Facebook he didn't HAHAHAHAHAHA



    Now I'll ask @cubby for help on this one, because this defense sounds stupid as fuck. "We couldn't defraud someone, because they checked it out" not only sounds like victim-blaming, but also ignores the fact that the greater issue -- the disparity -- only requires a gap between the two values. NYState likely checked out his filings, they just didn't see his loan forms.

    "The victim of my crime tried to stop me from doing the crime, therefore, I am not guilty" sounds stupid as fuck. I hope it's as lame-ass, limp-dick, and IMPOTUS an argument as I think it is...but I'm not the expert.



    Blant self-plug is blatant (rolls eyes)



    "a criminal trial for former president"? Do you even proofread bro?



    Others of you have said it before and better than I could -- Trump blocked the public, NYState, and Congress from seeing his taxes because he's fucking terrified. Something as obvious as "Trump is poor" doesn't seem strong enough to make Trump cower in his bunker.

    I'm not sure this is about going to jail, either. Trump lived through the eighties. He believes (rightly or wrongly) that rich white people don't go to jail.

    I think he's worried that Deustche Bank will find out they've been cheated, and as a direct result of that, Deutsche Bank gets to take all his stuff. Trump is a narcisist to the point of a mental illness. I think he fears being seen as a loser, more than he fears being dead. Or, he'd weigh about 100 pounds less.

    I don't know enough about contract law, but I'm pretty sure if you defraud a bank when getting a loan, not only do you have to give the fraudulent money back but also probably extra penalties. Otherwise, what's the point, right? Trump probably can't pay, so he'd lose properties, all of which would immediately have his name scraped off them. Plus, unlikes his many many many many many...

    (thirty-seven seconds later)

    ...many failures in the past, including but not limited to six bankruptcies, this time it's personal. Trump failed and went business bankrupt so many times that he had to personally guarantee his more recent, Deutsche loans. If I'm right, Trump will not only have to hand over the deeds to properties he used to own, but also some of his own money...at a very bad time, considering the other issues knocking at his door.

    Until he goes to prison. Then, they're knocking on his back door.
    It sounds like Trump will lose more money from investigations.
    It remains unclear whether the prosecutors will ultimately file charges against Mr. Trump, the company, or any of its executives, including Mr. Trump’s two adult sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump.
    Props to the NYT for helping deflate readers' expectations of criminal proceedings against Mr. Trump. I don't think civil penalties and a lessening of his (smallish) fortune will assuage their bloodlust much, but whatever. The left has their share of lock-him-up zealots just like the right has an uncomfortably large contingent of people that think Trump really won the election.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  16. #71016
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,064
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    It sounds like Trump will lose more money from investigations.

    Props to the NYT for helping deflate readers' expectations of criminal proceedings against Mr. Trump. I don't think civil penalties and a lessening of his (smallish) fortune will assuage their bloodlust much, but whatever. The left has their share of lock-him-up zealots just like the right has an uncomfortably large contingent of people that think Trump really won the election.
    "Both sides" just doesn't work here, no matter how desperate you are to temper the folly Trump is about to be embroiled in. There are no left "zealots" like we see in the Lock Her Up dipshits on the GOP side.

    Do you know how I know that objectively? Because in four years while Trump was in charge of the DoJ, Hillary was never investigated with an attempt to lock her up. EVER. So we know that all their bullshit was just that.

    Whereas we are already seeing serious legitimacy to Trump's upcoming civil and criminal problems, not even including the fact that Trump never let anyone see his financial records.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    From the NYTimes.



    Now I'll ask @cubby for help on this one, because this defense sounds stupid as fuck. "We couldn't defraud someone, because they checked it out" not only sounds like victim-blaming, but also ignores the fact that the greater issue -- the disparity -- only requires a gap between the two values. NYState likely checked out his filings, they just didn't see his loan forms.

    "The victim of my crime tried to stop me from doing the crime, therefore, I am not guilty" sounds stupid as fuck. I hope it's as lame-ass, limp-dick, and IMPOTUS an argument as I think it is...but I'm not the expert.
    They are probably thinking about the due diligence aspect of most/all loans. What they completely fail to realize is that most of those due diligence efforts come from documents provided by the borrower. So their argument just walks them right back into the same problem they will [more than likely] already face - fraudulent claims on loan documents.

    And as you pointed out, since Trump personally guaranteed the loans (rather than using just the property for collateral) he's financially fucked if there were any errors. They could seize everything.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal attorney and Fixer, is saying that Trump will likely see jail time now that Trump's tax and financial records are available to prosecutors.
    That is just NOT a good sign, when the guy who buried your bodies is now telling everyone you're fucked because the truth is coming out.
    Last edited by cubby; 2021-02-22 at 10:27 PM.

  17. #71017
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    "Both sides" just doesn't work here, no matter how desperate you are to temper the folly Trump is about to be embroiled in. There are no left "zealots" like we see in the Lock Her Up dipshits on the GOP side.

    Do you know how I know that objectively? Because in four years while Trump was in charge of the DoJ, Hillary was never investigated with an attempt to lock her up. EVER. So we know that all their bullshit was just that.

    Whereas we are already seeing serious legitimacy to Trump's upcoming civil and criminal problems, not even including the fact that Trump never let anyone see his financial records..
    The article did plenty to "temper the folly," wouldn't you say? I've heard enough of the demands for criminal consequences for Trump after office to know you're basically talking out of your ass about "no left 'zealots'" Both sides accusation, meet white puritanism. And for the record, whatever representations Trump and his accountants gave to the IRS that inflated the value of tax writeups, go back and charge him for it.

    I know all about Hillary. She had some dumb hearings that were mostly political theater after her term as Secretary of State. That's a shame but that's politics. She's still rich and will probably end up richer than Trump at the end of all this. And she'll probably pay about as much criminal penalties after her stay in public office as Trump did. That's not a certainty, but I'd say it's a probability.

    Best of luck on the legitimacy. The investigation is different than an actual criminal complaint. This aint Michael Cohen that Trump hired for taxes and related filings, it's Mazars USA. They have their own institutional concerns for not having clients use them to conduct criminal activity, since they represent tens of thousands of clients in dozens of countries. I wager he pays some back taxes, interests, and fees. And much like Hillary, which you cited, some things you don't like are still entirely legal.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  18. #71018
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,064
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    The article did plenty to "temper the folly," wouldn't you say? I've heard enough of the demands for criminal consequences for Trump after office to know you're basically talking out of your ass about "no left 'zealots'" Both sides accusation, meet white puritanism. And for the record, whatever representations Trump and his accountants gave to the IRS that inflated the value of tax writeups, go back and charge him for it.

    I know all about Hillary. She had some dumb hearings that were mostly political theater after her term as Secretary of State. That's a shame but that's politics. She's still rich and will probably end up richer than Trump at the end of all this. And she'll probably pay about as much criminal penalties after her stay in public office as Trump did. That's not a certainty, but I'd say it's a probability.

    Best of luck on the legitimacy. The investigation is different than an actual criminal complaint. This aint Michael Cohen that Trump hired for taxes and related filings, it's Mazars USA. They have their own institutional concerns for not having clients use them to conduct criminal activity, since they represent tens of thousands of clients in dozens of countries. I wager he pays some back taxes, interests, and fees. And much like Hillary, which you cited, some things you don't like are still entirely legal.
    Hilary had no criminal penalties to pay, because after 9 separate congressional hearings and 11 straight hours of vindictive hearings, they got nothing. And even after Trump ran the DoJ for 4 years they did nothing to "lock her up". THAT's political theater.

    Meanwhile, in reality, Trump is already immediately seeing multiple criminal and civil investigations into his time before and as Resident. You saying "both sides" is just plain wrong.

    Help me out on one of your points - I don't understand your position on bringing up Mazars. I'm reading what you said above, but I'm not following your conclusion - not knocking you here, either - just not following. Can you clarify.

    Edit: Ok, I'm seeing it now I think. You're saying that a legit company like Mazars having handled Trump's stuff means there probably aren't that many errors. So not much to find and probably not many fines. Do I have that right?
    Last edited by cubby; 2021-02-23 at 01:09 AM.

  19. #71019
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    30,914
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    That is just NOT a good sign
    If my former lawyer said, in public, "Yeah that Breccia guy is screwed" I'd think one of two things.
    a) "Oh shit, I'm screwed"
    b) "He's just upset because of that time I never paid him."

    - - - Updated - - -

    So let's talk about Trump.

    He's fucked.

    That’s fascism, not justice—and that is exactly what they are trying to do with respect to me, except that the people of our Country won’t stand for it
    -- Trump, fascist and begging for help (probably sobbing in fear so hard his makeup is running) in a released statement not on Twitter or Facebook, in which he yet again clais he won the 2020 election. No, really.

    These are attacks by Democrats willing to do anything to stop the almost 75 million people (the most votes, by far, ever gotten by a sitting president) who voted for me in the election—an election which many people, and experts, feel that I won. I agree!
    Yep, that's Trump once again citing his 75 million without citing Biden's higher 81 million figure which directly refutes his point. Actually @tehdang you seem fairly active. Do you believe that Trump won the election? Also, could you name 3 experts (easy to do, if there are "many" unless you're a gully dwarf or troll from Discworld) who agree with Trump, that weren't directly paid by Trump to say so? Or, by failure to do so, do you admit Trump is spouting factually false information?

    Anyhow while Trump continues to directly attack democracy (heh, they invited him to CPAC, have fun with that, it sounds like they have enough problems) [url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/539969-trump-closer-to-legal-jeopardy-after-court-ruling-on-tax-returns]Trump faces an increasing menu of legal issues, which as always Trump will pick the least appetizing and eat three of them.

    1) The DoJ could still go after him for obstructing justice -- such as by firing Comey. So far no such move has been announced, of course, but this seems like the sort of thing Biden could pull out of toolkit if Trump proves to be a legit terrorist threat. Think putting Al Capone away for tax evasion, except in this case, it's for tax evasion because he shot the IRS guys.

    2) There's the Georgia phone call. We know there's movement on that. Graham is probably Trump's closest remaining ally geographically, and we know Graham is trying to convince Trump to be a team player which I choose to mean "begging Trump not to fuck things up any further" until I have proof otherwise.

    3) Congress is still asking for Trump's returns. Trump no longer has a stranglehold oin the IRS. If, incidentally, it turns out Trump had the IRS burn all his records, that's not an action of a President and not protected -- or at least, that'll be the case made in court when "destroying federal records" charges are filed. Also, stupid fucking idea because other firms that filed Trump's taxes would just have spare copies for their own protection. As we saw earlier, a Trump judge refused to block them entirely, but did say there was a 72-hour "heads up" order if Biden decides to hand them over to Congress. That expires March 3. There's plenty that Congress can still do with those -- although it's too late for one of them to be "prevent a known compromised failed businessman to have access to the country's most valuable secrets and also an untapped line with Russia".

    Biden and Yellen have more or less made it clear they're not going to do this move vindictively, but Pelosi has not. If she has a subpoena and a subpoena, I see no reason that Biden would block it.

    4) And of course, NYState. We saw plenty of that today. Trump's lawyer William Consovoy...

    (checks Google translate)

    His lawyer's name is literally "I go there with a bill". Huh. Anyhow, he was asked if Trump had any remaining options and refused to answer, because "I'm surprised we had that many" doesn't play well for your insane client. We know the NY AG OMG is hiring more staff members, including some famous (in those circles) names. And there are those reports that Vance is specced into Barrage, going after Trump's businesses, "charity" and family, because handing your children a bag of evidence and saying "hide this from the cops" is more RICO than sauve. The SCOTUS decision, from which there were no dissents, was the last defense Trump had that won't make things worse. Basically Vance has three of the four orbs and Trump's only healer just ragequit.

    The Shitshow isn't ending for a while. But this isn't as simple as an end-credit scene. There's going to be some really ugly stuff on the way -- no matter how it ends, Trump loses. At best, he can hope to retain his status quo as the sad old man who almost got re-elected and refuses to accept it. At worst, he's legally drawn and quartered.

  20. #71020
    Monday quick report:

    59,257 new cases; 1,374 deaths, bringing the total to 512,590. Texas (and to a lesser degree other states affected by the winter weather) is still recovering and not testing anywhere near their previous level so it's going to be a tough call on whether or not to go with the full reports starting tomorrow. Prior to the storm they were averaging between 100k-125k. Their highest for the past week was 38k. National positivity is below 5% but that's undoubtedly skewed thanks to the dearth in testing the past week. We'll play it by ear.

    Unrelated news:

    Related news:

    Joe Biden honors the half million US lives lost to coronavirus

    Stay safe, folks.
    Last edited by Benggaul; 2021-02-23 at 02:49 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •