Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Sunseeker]

For the sake of the Democrats? Absolutely. She has no chance of winning enough GOP away from Trump and will only split the GOP vote--which I'm perfectly fine with.

She should stick in it to the very end, no matter what. Why? Roll the dice on Trump being ineligible to hold office. If she can keep at least a moderate backing, she could find herself the candidate by default.

[Benggaul]

She should stick in it to the very end, no matter what. Why? Roll the dice on Trump being ineligible to hold office. If she can keep at least a moderate backing, she could find herself the candidate by default.

And she still wouldn't have a chance. She may win over moderates and some Independents, but the MAGA cult would rather write in Trump than vote for her--especially since she's not bowing out in deference to Trump now. And without that support she loses to Biden handily, provided Biden voters don't get complacent.

[Breccia]

So let's talk about Steve Bannon.

We already know he didn't pay his first legal team, DHC, the $480,487 he owes them, we've known that since July. Yes, yes, another member of Team Trump who for any reason can't pay their lawyers, shocker.

His second legal team just...did...something, when the first team demanded the money that, as a reminder, a judge did say Bannon had to pay. The first team, getting tired of winning, fuck, tired of waiting, demanded Bannon's bank statements, as they had reason to believe he did, in fact, have the money he was required by a court ruling to pay them. This seems pretty standard so far.

The second team said, under oath:

DHC’s taking of post-judgment discovery from Mr. Bannon poses a significant risk of compromising Mr. Bannon’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

That's right: Bannon's current lawyers said "We can't show you Bannon's bank records, there is evidence of fraud in there."

"Whoa, that's not what taking the Fifth means."

What's the saying, only guilty people and the mob take the Fifth? Whatever, this same second team also said Bannon wouldn't be answering any questions for the same reason.

"Um...his first team isn't the government. Can they really do that?"

First of all, I have no idea. But I assume because the first team is asking for evidence in a court finding, anything they find would be on the record, therefore evidence other cases could use, even if that wasn't the intent. Second of all, the first legal team, as they no longer represent Bannon, could be under an ethical obligation to turn over evidence of a crime. Third of all, even if they weren't obligated, they might do so to their asshat client who stiffed them half a million out of spite. I mean, there's no law or rule that says they can't. If I tell a random lawyer on the street "I am a murderer, here's the evidence" they have every right to call 911, I didn't hire them. And fourth of all, the FBI was surveillng the first team, so even if they didn't turn it over on purpose, they might do so inadvertently.

(deep breath)

"Didn't Trump pardon Bannon for his blatant fraud?"

Yes, NYState is going at him, there's nothing Trump could have done to stop that.

We've all had this discussion before, in a slightly different context. No, you cannot use the Fifth to block a civil action. Yes, you can use the Fifth during a civil action to block a criminal action. Since the first team is not yet accusing Bannon of a crime, the incriminating act he's on the record avoiding must be the criminal cases, which again, are NYState fraud for "We Build the Wall".

Bannon's first lawyer is Costello, and they've worked together on multiple trials. Bannon keeps breaking the law and/or getting sued. Bannon stopped paying Costello a year ago or so. They've been patient, but when people you contractually owe money are asking the judge to see your bank records, patience is over. And Costello likely knows where the bodies are buried.

Trump, Giuliani, Bannon and some of the Jan 6th violent terrorists all seem to be making this same mistake. Nobody's defending them out of the goodness of their hearts, or because these clients are such nice, honest people. When they took those cases, they became mercenaries; and mercenaries get paid! They want their FUCKING MONEY!

[Sunseeker]

And she still wouldn't have a chance. She may win over moderates and some Independents, but the MAGA cult would rather write in Trump than vote for her--especially since she's not bowing out in deference to Trump now. And without that support she loses to Biden handily, provided Biden voters don't get complacent.

Yeah but what is the GOP gonna do in the end? Go back and pick DeSantis? If Trump is out it doesnt matter who they run, theyre gonna lose.

[Karreck]

When they took those cases, they became mercenaries; and mercenaries get paid! They want their FUCKING MONEY!

Of all the people you could pick to ignore a contract with and a judge's order in favor of, why pick lawyers?

[Draco-Onis]

Yeah but what is the GOP gonna do in the end? Go back and pick DeSantis? If Trump is out it doesnt matter who they run, theyre gonna lose.

I don't know about that, it would depend on how Trump gets out and if he endorses the candidate. Whoever it is would probably run on pardoning Trump also without Trump on the ballot a lot of democrats won't show up. Joe Biden is as exciting as a colonoscopy for the democratic base, Trump being out isn't good for turn out.

[Benggaul]

Yeah but what is the GOP gonna do in the end?

If I were them or interested in helping them? Write off 2024, spend the next 2-4 years purging the MAGA element from their ranks and get back to making more sensible candidate choices. If they abandoned the crazy guaranteed they'd start winning back some of the "moderate" conservatives that have been scared off since 2016. They'll lose in the short term, no doubt, but within a decade they'd start making their way back to a party to be taken seriously rather than one that is slowly bleeding support the more off the deep end they go. And without Trump as their lodestone the bulk of the MAGA dipshits would likely just fade back into obscurity as they were before he empowered them. Sure, they wouldn't disappear completely, but they'd lose their stranglehold on (primarily Southern) US politics.

If Trump is out it doesn't matter who they run, theyre gonna lose.

I'd love to agree, and I'm inclined to, but I learned even before 2016 not to underestimate the stupidity and/or bigotry of a large subset of Americans.

[Surfd]

I don't know about that, it would depend on how Trump gets out and if he endorses the candidate. Whoever it is would probably run on pardoning Trump also without Trump on the ballot a lot of democrats won't show up. Joe Biden is as exciting as a colonoscopy for the democratic base, Trump being out isn't good for turn out.

You have better odds of finding a unicorn sitting at your kitchen table eating lucky charms when you get up to have breakfast tomorrow than you do of Trump endorsing anyone who isn't Trump for president. He will never concede. He will go down kicking, screaming, biting and clawing all the way to the bottom.

[Benggaul]

Whoever it is would probably run on pardoning Trump also without Trump on the ballot a lot of democrats won't show up. Joe Biden is as exciting as a colonoscopy for the democratic base, Trump being out isn't good for turn out.

I'm not sure I agree with this. We've had plenty of other MAGA dipshits in office prove that they're in a race to the bottom and, given even the tiniest amount of power, will do their level best to make the lives of at least half of Americans absolutely miserable. Every election since 2016 has been the most important election of our lifetimes, without hyperbole, and I don't see that changing even without Trump for a long while. That being the case, even without Trump on the ballot it remains imperative that as many people as possible vote against his cult and the rest of the GOP.

[Mazza]

If I were them or interested in helping them? Write off 2024, spend the next 2-4 years purging the MAGA element from their ranks and get back to making more sensible candidate choices. If they abandoned the crazy guaranteed they'd start winning back some of the "moderate" conservatives that have been scared off since 2016. They'll lose in the short term, no doubt, but within a decade they'd start making their way back to a party to be taken seriously rather than one that is slowly bleeding support the more off the deep end they go. And without Trump as their lodestone the bulk of the MAGA dipshits would likely just fade back into obscurity as they were before he empowered them. Sure, they wouldn't disappear completely, but they'd lose their stranglehold on (primarily Southern) US politics.



I'd love to agree, and I'm inclined to, but I learned even before 2016 not to underestimate the stupidity and/or bigotry of a large subset of Americans.

A thought about that is just how big would the short term damage to the republican presence in politics be. If democrats get a a big enough majority in Congres to get meaningful changes through on say... how the presidential election is run, for instance changing it to a simple majority nationwide, the GOP can forget about voting in a president for the foreseeable future. I think they just don't want to take the risk on the Democrats getting big changes done.

[Benggaul]

I think they just don't want to take the risk on the Democrats getting big changes done.

Naturally. And now in exchange for some short-term power they're essentially dooming their party to oblivion in the long term. Their worship of Trump, endorsement of MAGA and anti-abortion war are driving people from them in droves. How'd that "Red Wave" in 2022 turn out for them? How many GOP congressmen are noping out once their term is up (or even before)? Sure, they fucked the SCOTUS for a while, but that scale is going to tip the other way once some of those old bastards croak. I'm not going to bet my life savings on it or anything, but I seriously think their sprint towards the right has fucked them, ultimately. Personally I'm fine with it.

EDIT: Oh, and as far as getting changes to the presidential election done, I'm not 100% sure they could do away with the EC without a Constitutional Amendment which would also need to be ratified by 3/4 of the States--which given how fucked currently GOP States are probably wouldn't happen in our lifetimes.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So yeah, you remember when Republicans were freaking out over a tiny baggy of cocaine found in the visitor section of the white house? You know the place where hundreds to thousands of people mill through every day?

IDK if it's been covered or where it's being covered but the White House seemed to have a completely unregulated not by the books no prescription medication service. And they kept logs. Looks like team trump was abusing the fuck outta morphine, hydrocodone, fentanyl and all kinds of hard prescription drugs.



Looks like Trump wanted to chill his brain out the day the Mueller report came out. Anyway, the GOP continue to be liars and hypocrites, more news at 11.

[Dontrike]

So yeah, you remember when Republicans were freaking out over a tiny baggy of cocaine found in the visitor section of the white house? You know the place where hundreds to thousands of people mill through every day?

IDK if it's been covered or where it's being covered but the White House seemed to have a completely unregulated not by the books no prescription medication service. And they kept logs. Looks like team trump was abusing the fuck outta morphine, hydrocodone, fentanyl and all kinds of hard prescription drugs.

[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GE5Bj1AbIAAJ5JB?format=jpg&name=medium[/IG]

Looks like Trump wanted to chill his brain out the day the Mueller report came out. Anyway, the GOP continue to be liars and hypocrites, more news at 11.

The Trump White House drug ring has been mentioned, but you may be onto something and could be a lingering stash or forgotten bag that he and his druggies left behind.

[Elegiac]

So yeah, you remember when Republicans were freaking out over a tiny baggy of cocaine found in the visitor section of the white house? You know the place where hundreds to thousands of people mill through every day?

IDK if it's been covered or where it's being covered but the White House seemed to have a completely unregulated not by the books no prescription medication service. And they kept logs. Looks like team trump was abusing the fuck outta morphine, hydrocodone, fentanyl and all kinds of hard prescription drugs.



Looks like Trump wanted to chill his brain out the day the Mueller report came out. Anyway, the GOP continue to be liars and hypocrites, more news at 11.

Gonna pull an Edge here and say hooooooold your horses, pal. Assuming this is legitimate, DEA regulations require practitioners to keep logs like these for any controlled substance prescriptions. Moreover, the drugs, dosages, and intervals listed are not uncommon for a patient suffering from chronic pain.

Whether or not someone who is of the age where their chronic pain is severe enough to merit opioids should be the President of the United States is a whole other matter, lol.

[Edge-]

Gonna pull an Edge here and say hooooooold your horses, pal. Assuming this is legitimate, DEA regulations require practitioners to keep logs like these for any controlled substance prescriptions. Moreover, the drugs, dosages, and intervals listed are not uncommon for a patient suffering from chronic pain.

Whether or not someone who is of the age where their chronic pain is severe enough to merit opioids should be the President of the United States is a whole other matter, lol.

I've been skimming the report - https://media.defense.gov/2024/Jan/0...D%20SECURE.PDF

So far it looks pretty standard overall. "People didn't follow proper procedures across the board and had a fondness for name-brands over genrics." but I'm not seeing any indication (not that it would be explicit) that there was some pill farm running out of the White House during the Trump administration. The report is mostly about those years as that's what they could get records on, but it doesn't really seem exclusively to it. Is it possible some folks had habits on the side that the supplemented this way? Sure, but there's no real evidence I see that suggests this (again skimming so far, not a thorough read).

Records are obviously redacted in terms of who the recipients were so we can't say who may have received what. I'm also kinda uncomfortable about potentially getting into speculation of personal medical histories for folks for a variety of reasons.

[Draco-Onis]

You have better odds of finding a unicorn sitting at your kitchen table eating lucky charms when you get up to have breakfast tomorrow than you do of Trump endorsing anyone who isn't Trump for president. He will never concede. He will go down kicking, screaming, biting and clawing all the way to the bottom.

If he's in deep shit he will take the lifeline of a pardon from anyone and will agree to say anything initially then try to backtrack but all they need is for him to say the words. However I firmly believe that Trump will not face any real consequences, he is basically the kryptonite of the judicial system (rich white guy with connections).

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure I agree with this. We've had plenty of other MAGA dipshits in office prove that they're in a race to the bottom and, given even the tiniest amount of power, will do their level best to make the lives of at least half of Americans absolutely miserable. Every election since 2016 has been the most important election of our lifetimes, without hyperbole, and I don't see that changing even without Trump for a long while. That being the case, even without Trump on the ballot it remains imperative that as many people as possible vote against his cult and the rest of the GOP.

He is the main figurehead and if another politician shows up to take his place they would be smart enough to lull the general populace into not showing just by not being as crazy as Trump (which isn't hard). I mean think about it, Trump is unique in the fact that he is a blabbering idiot, most sinister politicians are smart enough to stay under the radar and do the damage.

Also we should be asking ourselves why do we keep voting for the "most important election" in our lifetimes? I think that's a sign of the flaw in the system because the democrats don't fix shit and executive power keeps being a threat.

[DarkTZeratul]

I think that's a sign of the flaw in the system because the democrats don't fix shit and executive power keeps being a threat.

The problem is these aren't flaws that can just be fixed by putting *A* Democrat in power. To really substantially fix anything would at the very least require a 2/3 majority in both chambers.

[Kaleredar]

If he's in deep shit he will take the lifeline of a pardon from anyone and will agree to say anything initially then try to backtrack but all they need is for him to say the words. However I firmly believe that Trump will not face any real consequences, he is basically the kryptonite of the judicial system (rich white guy with connections).

He won't take a lifeline because that'd admit to him having done something wrong.

The point is moot. Trump will be the republican nominee, barring him being tossed in jail. Hell, even if he's tossed in jail. Relevant red states will bend over backwards to allow him onto their ballots. Maybe he doesn't make it onto the ballot in a few blue/purple states. Maybe he loses spectacularly because of that. But he will be the nominee. There is no concerted, directional effort in the coalesced gelatinous blob that is the republican party to affect any kind of adroit direction in appointing a new candidate

He is the main figurehead and if another politician shows up to take his place they would be smart enough to lull the general populace into not showing just by not being as crazy as Trump (which isn't hard). I mean think about it, Trump is unique in the fact that he is a blabbering idiot, most sinister politicians are smart enough to stay under the radar and do the damage.

You seem to assume that they can't anger enough people to get out to vote against them; what says they'd be able to energize enough people to vote for them?

Also we should be asking ourselves why do we keep voting for the "most important election" in our lifetimes? I think that's a sign of the flaw in the system because the democrats don't fix shit and executive power keeps being a threat.

With what majority in the last eight years would democrats have affected this? How was the legislation supposed to have passed both chambers of congress and then get the sign off from the presidency?

[Breccia]

If he's in deep shit he will take the lifeline of a pardon from anyone and will agree to say anything initially then try to backtrack but all they need is for him to say the words.

I disagree. Trump is fully aware of how much he lies, cheats, and breaks contracts. He is also a sociopath and projects his own feelings onto other people. No, he won't take that lifeline, he'll assume whoever he asks for help will stab him in the back, as that's all he's done for seventy years. The fact that giving up and begging for help would look like weakness is secondary, but also relevant.

He might literally rather die.

"errors"

UPDATE: Buried in a footnote of the report is a potentially massive whammy.

Trump’s $50 Million Mystery Debt Looks Like ‘Tax Evasion’

Okay this is a deep cut, so bear with me...

Could it be Part 8, "Liabilities"? See, Trump's OGE 278e form, the very one he's talking about, says exactly this


(bla bla bla)

Also, what kind of fucking idiot pays prime plus five percent? When is it due? Oh, it's not listed. Who is Chicago Unit Acquisition LLC? Wait, they're in Delaware? The tax haven state? Who runs that shady organization? Oh my God, it's Trump. It's on page 13 of the same goddam form. It's worth $1,001 to $15,000.

Yes, this is me in 2016 saying "Trump evades taxes by owing money to himself" using Trump's own fiscal disclosure forms...as in, things he submitted that, by law, are required to be truthful, even (as in this case) if almost cripplingly vague.

Fast forward to today.

Always read the footnotes.

That’s where former federal judge Barbara Jones, the court-appointed special monitor in Donald Trump’s New York business fraud case, just planted a financial bombshell that legal experts say suggests Trump lied knowingly and repeatedly on his federal financial disclosures about a major loan that never existed—and may have evaded taxes on $48 million in income.

The detail came in a letter Jones filed on Friday to update New York Judge Arthur F. Engoron, first reported by The Messenger, on her efforts to get a full and clear accounting of the Trump Organization’s assets. The letter claims, yet again, that Trump and his company have filed statements containing inconsistencies and errors, but have been “cooperative” in the review process.

But Jones tucked a major revelation into footnote 6, writing that a massive chunk of debt Trump has claimed to owe one of his own companies for years apparently does not exist, and never did.

“When I inquired about this loan, I was informed that there are no loan agreements that memorialize the loan, but that it was a loan that was believed to be between Donald J. Trump, individually, and Chicago Unit Acquisition for $48 million,” Jones wrote, referencing the name of Trump’s LLC that held his debt.

“However, in recent discussions with the Trump Organization, it indicated that it has determined that this loan never existed—and thus that it would be removed from any upcoming forms submitted to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) and would also be removed from subsequent versions of [corporate financial statements],” Jones wrote.

If true, that would essentially be an admission from the Trump Organization that all the financial disclosures Trump has filed with the federal government listed an entirely fictional debt worth tens of millions of dollars, which Trump claimed he personally owed to one of his own companies.

"Surely this was just a misunderstanding and immediately cleared up."

Quite the opposite, actually. For one, a loan with no evidence of existence, such as a signed contract, isn't a loan, it's fiction. I can't tell the IRS I owe one hundred billion dollars to Chef Breccia LLC and expect them to take me at my word. For two, asking about it made things worse.

Asked to comment on Jones’ letter, Alan Garten, chief legal counsel for the Trump Organization, told The Daily Beast that her claim—that the company confessed to the loan never existing—was inaccurate and the loan did in fact exist.

“That’s one of many inaccuracies contained in the monitor’s letter, which we will be addressing with the court,” Garten said in a phone interview.

Moreover—in contradiction to the ex-president’s own statements about the mystery loan—Garten repeatedly insisted that the LLC actually owed the money to Trump. Asked to confirm the loan, Garten replied, “Yes, the loan existed,” specifying that it was “an internal loan” where Trump “leant money to the entity that he owns.”

Yet all of Trump’s financial disclosures, including his most recent amended version approved by the OGE last October, clearly state that it was Trump who owed Chicago Unit Acquisition LLC. He’s consistently listed his debt as more than $50 million, in the form of what’s known as “springing loan”—a loan with unfavorable terms to the borrower.

I would say "prime plus five percent" would normally be considered unfair to the borrower, unless of course, the borrower is also the lender. Which I pointed out in 2016.

Funny story, some of y'all commented on this, defending this. I know, it was a while ago, but gosh golly it sure became relevant recently didn't it? Well, this is a topic you've proven to be interested in by those responses, this is a fast-moving thread, looks like I get to respond.

Does it really matter? What would it change? Oh...we find out he doesnt pay as much as he should in taxes. Big whoop, he tries to avoid paying as much as he can in taxes. Name one person who doesnt!

Exactly, well said. I do not like ether choice. But I like some of his stances more than what Hillary's are. So the choice is clear. He did say last night on Greta, he would release his tax returns if the IRS can get the audit done in time. Nothing wrong with anyone not wanting to release them if the info could be inaccurate. He asked Greta , " If you were my lawyer and a audit was going on, would you advise me to go ahead and release them? " She said " No!".

I would ask both clearly genuine and upstanding good-faith posters to return to the conversation that they both personally and directly commented on. Especially Ghostpanther, the person who admitted to supporting Trump for his policies, then vanished from our forums January 2021 for what I just assume is a coincidence, he is "Ghost" panther, after all. If either of you choose to return, please also remind me if Trump ever disclosed his taxes. Ghostpanther, you in particular said he should. Perhaps he did and I just missed it somehow?

Back to the article.

In fact, Trump confirmed this arrangement himself. In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Trump claimed that he bought back this loan from “a group of banks several years ago.” Trump said that he’d chosen to keep the debt on his books, the Times reported, claiming that he pays interest on it to himself—despite the LLC’s “practically worthless” valuation.

“We don’t assess any value to it because we don’t care,” Trump said in the interview. “I have the mortgage. That is all there is. Very simple. I am the bank.”

Jordan Libowitz, communications director at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said that, assuming the court filing is accurate, Trump would appear to have intentionally and repeatedly broken the law.

“When you fill out your personal financial disclosures, you attest under penalty of the law that the information is true,” Libowitz told The Daily Beast. “Trump had to know that his Chicago business never gave him a loan of more than $50 million, as he claimed, repeatedly.”

Kedric Payne, general counsel for ethics at watchdog Campaign Legal Center, agreed, telling The Daily Beast that, given the personal nature of the loan and the repeated filings, authorities likely wouldn’t just write this off as an unintentional oversight.

“Financial disclosure laws require accurate reporting of debt. It seems clear that Trump inaccurately reported this loan, and it’s unlikely that he will get the benefit of the doubt that it was a simple mistake,” Payne said. “It defeats the purpose of the disclosure laws if the public does not have complete and accurate financial information for their elected officials.”

Trump had many opportunities to correct this claim, including over the last year while Jones had been inquiring about this loan specifically. As of his latest amended disclosure, filed in October, he never did.

“While the reasons behind claiming this fake loan are still unknown, at the very least he misled the government for years about his finances,” Libowitz said. “It appears that Trump knowingly and intentionally broke the law. The only question is how many laws.”

A simple mistake would be what that lawyer did, accidentally getting the borrower/lendee swapped. It is not a simple mistake when you not only fill out the same thing on years and years of official records, but also say it in public.

The OGE warns filers that the Justice Department may bring civil or criminal action against any individual who “knowingly and willfully” falsifies or omits any required information on their disclosures. The Trump Organization’s promise to remove the debt from upcoming OGE filings would indicate that all of Trump’s prior filings—dating to the 2015 fiscal year—contained a staggering inaccuracy.

This mysterious chunk of debt has long been a white whale for Trumpworld financial reporters. It has always seemed odd that Trump owed $50 million or more to a company that he fully owns. Odder still, Trump also reports that this company—Chicago Unit Acquisition LLC—doesn’t make money or have any value at all. It would seem logical, reports point out, that a company with a $50 million credit on its books would have a value of at least that amount. This LLC, however, is reported as having no value.

See my above post. Yes, I'm still taking that victory lap.

“There should be an offsetting entry somewhere,” Harvard real estate professor Richard Peiser told Forbes in 2020. “I can’t explain that.”

The Daily Beast consulted multiple tax experts to analyze the new revelation, and the verdict was that Trump may have created a fake loan to avoid income taxes.

That’s because Jones’ letter appears to match a 2019 analysis from Mother Jones’ Russ Choma—which concluded that Trump may have committed tax fraud by fabricating the loan, making it look like his LLC still owned a debt that had in reality been fully forgiven. That would have allowed Trump to duck taxes on $48 million of canceled debt, a rate which could run up to 39 percent.

Jones’ letter, citing the Trump Organization itself, backs up what would be the centerpiece to that theory: That the loan does not exist.

In case anyone's about to jump on the desperate piece of Titanic flotsam of "might not exist" I will remind you the court-appointed monitor, a judge, said, under oath, that they asked about this specifically and got nothing in return. If there is proof the loan exists, and the monitor asked, and it wasn't provided, that's not realy a ton better. What else could Trump Org be holding back, if they won't even turn over evidence in their favor? Failure to cooperate with a court order isn't something you dick around with.

"39 percent of 48 million isn't a big deal to Trump. He can just write a check."

Yeah, if you tried that shit with the IRS, you'd have a different opinion. Let's also remind everyone that there are terms like "grand theft" which relate to the amount stolen, even if you are rich when you steal it. Trump stealing even low eight figures sure sounds felony level to me. So does committing 2015->now levels of perjury by lying about a loan you gave yourself to duck taxes.

"Trump owns Trump Org. How does this somehow turn into missing income? It was a zero-sum game."

First of all, when someone like Trump has so many businesses go bankrupt without himself going bankrupt, you know there's a wedge between personal and business assets. You can't just shuffle them back and forth with no records on whim. There are tax laws about that.

But second of all:

During his maneuvering, Trump convinced one of the entities funding that project—a financial firm called Fortress—to cut him a deal on the slightly less than $100 million they’d loaned him for the project. As prior reports show, Fortress eventually agreed to cancel half that original amount in 2012, forgiving Trump a total of $48 million.

Normally, tax experts told The Daily Beast, that would qualify as $48 million in reportable, taxable income. But instead, these experts said—as experts previously told Mother Jones—it now looks like Trump may have made it look like the debt wasn’t canceled, but that he instead bought it from Fortress. His 2016 statements to The New York Times—that he had in fact bought this specific loan back from a group of banks—further supports this theory.

Martin Lobel, a prominent Washington, D.C., tax lawyer who also spoke to Mother Jones for the 2019 report, said that the new information appears to confirm the tax fraud hypothesis.

“It would appear, assuming Judge Jones’ letter is accurate, that this amounts to tax evasion,” Lobel told The Daily Beast.

“This explains why the Republicans have been so intent on cutting the IRS’s budget,” he said, “because they don’t want it to be able to audit transactions like this.”

Yeah, was he under audit? He said he was in 2015 and it's 2024. Maybe we shouldn't have someone running for office, claiming to be a good businessman, when they claim to be under audit since 2001 and can't show any tax forms, they also say that fiscal forms are enough, and lied on those.

So yes, that's how it's income. When you borrow money, you don't pay income tax on the loan itself, because it's not really income, you have a debt. When that debt is forgiven, a bank has just given you a large pile of cash with no debt. That's income. Imagine if that wasn't the case. Why wouldn't every company in the world lend money to its employees, then cancel the loan? Tax-free income, and they get to write off a bad debt. That doesn't happen, because it's fraud. What Trump did is fraud.

Martin Sheil, former special criminal investigative agent for the Internal Revenue Service, also told The Daily Beast that the letter suggests a tax dodge.

“I would characterize the whole matter as ‘shady’ and the so-called ‘springing loan’ as ‘funky,’” Sheil said. “The fact that Jones, as a court appointed monitor, officially references the transaction as a $48 million loan that never existed, should raise eyebrows.”

“That there exists no loan agreements or other indicia of an actual loan certainly suggests the existence of an alternate possible characterization of the large money transfer as income,” Sheil noted, adding that even if the original transfer was intended as a loan, “forgiveness of the ‘debt’ would trigger a taxable event.”

To pull this off, Trump would have fabricated the “loan” that he claimed to owe Chicago Unit Acquisition LLC. This would make it appear on paper as if Trump had used the LLC to buy his debt from Fortress. Now—as Mother Jones reported, and as tax experts told The Daily Beast—instead of owing Fortress $48 million, Trump was saying that the debt simply got transferred and he now owed his LLC $48 million.

In reality, however, according to the reports, Fortress had canceled that debt. It did not exist.

"Surely this sort of thing happens all the time!"

You mean criminal behavior? Yes. Trump seems to do a lot of it.

"No no, people shuffling debts around, owing money to themselves, accidentally forgetting they found $50 million under the sofa cushions when the IRS asks, that sort of thing."

Not like what Trump is doing, no.

Sometimes borrowers will perform a maneuver like this, “parking” their debt in a related entity and then paying it down later, tax experts told The Daily Beast. It isn’t all that uncommon with major borrowers, the experts said, but the issue becomes potentially criminal if you park your debt with no intention of ever paying it off.

But it appears even worse in Trump’s case: He apparently never bought the debt to begin with. If so, the experts said, Trump would have essentially pocketed the $48 million that had been canceled, and then simply invented a new loan to cover it up or misdirect financial scrutiny.

Sounds far-fetched. But that’s exactly why it’s so notable that Barbara Jones’ footnote happens to fit this bizarre, seemingly outlandish scenario.

Many of us have said Trump made a big mistake by asking the world to check his finances. We're seeing it now. Honestly, Trump taking out a loan from himself so he could deduct the interest payments -- prime plus five percent, don't forget -- was bad enough. Lying about fifty million in income is much worse. And he did this in 2012, before he was running for office, okay that's just standard CEO criminal greed, then ran for office, and lied on federal documents for a decade to cover it up.

"Also, while $48 million is large, Trump said it was $50 million, and fiscal disclosure forms have brackets not exact amounts. You lamented that very fact on the ancient post you necroed. Trump used the wrong bracket, in addition to everything else."

It’s also entirely unclear why it took so long for Trump and his team to “figure out” that this colossal debt he thought he’d owed for years didn’t actually exist, and never had.

But another unusual thing happened last year: Trump paid his taxes. A lot of them—$29 million, in fact, according to a previous status letter from Barbara Jones. If Trump were hit with the 39 percent capital gains tax on that $48 million, that would come out to a little more than $18 million.

It’s unclear from the letters exactly why Trump started paying taxes this year. But in that previous letter, filed at the end of November, Jones also alluded to the mysterious Chicago loan.

“I have also reviewed information regarding the existence of an intercompany loan related to the [Chicago] property. Defendants are continuing to investigate this issue and any reporting requirements or documentation that may be required,” Jones wrote.

Trump seems to be saying "oh, you meant that $48 million in income!" right about the time NYState's case against him was filed. I'm sure that's also coincidence, like a Trump supporter vanishing Feburary of 2020, right about the time COVID was tearing the nation a new one.

Trump paying his taxes eventually, eleven years late, is technically better than never, but it would also be implied admission that he should have done it in 2012, knew he didn't in 2012, and lied on federal documents since they were required in 2015 and further.

Trump could have blamed his accountants or maybe Weaselberg until recently, but gosh, a few things have happened since. His accountants have gone on the record saying "if Trump lied to us, it's not our fault for missing it" That would go double in this case, since the possibly fictional loan was internal. There was nobody bringing it to the accountants except Trump. And Weaselberg is already flattened from being thrown under the bus once already.

Now I will admit, it is possible that this loan actually does exist, and somehow, despite being asked by a judge and a court-appointed monitor who is also a judge for proof of this loan, they didn't find any records. I'm guessing that's still pretty bad. A loan you can't prove exists stops being a loan really quickly. If it turns out this was just Trump Org being damn near criminally bad at keeping records, I'm not going to apologize for being wrong. Failing that, though, it seems Trump not only stole $18 million from NYState until he suddenly magically remembered two months ago when the courts started combing his records, but also that he lied on federal forms before, during, and after his tenure in the WH.

This ny.gov site posts the penalties for breaking various tax-related laws. Under the section "Fraudulent returns" it says you have to pay double the difference. That's $36 million. Plus interest, minimum 7.5%.

However, multiple NY lawyer sites I found looking for that reference NY Tax Laws 1801 to 1806, which I also found on a dot-gov site. While that site is apparently "are they guilty or not?" jury instructions, the lawyer sites all said the same thing: you go to prison for this. Assuming you can prove the intent was to defraud and profit from it, which considering how often Trump claimed a fictional loan from himself to himself existed when he's literally the person who should have known the most it didn't, seems pretty direct.

So there we go. Barring a miracle in which some Trump Org employee admits they accidentally lost the only copy of the loan forms, there appears to be pretty solid evidence Trump cheated NYState out of $18 million in taxes, and only paid it back when the courts started looking. Which is a lot like only putting the gun down when the cops demand it, not when the terrified liquor store clerk begs for his life.

Too little, too late, too Trump.

[Draco-Onis]

The problem is these aren't flaws that can just be fixed by putting *A* Democrat in power. To really substantially fix anything would at the very least require a 2/3 majority in both chambers.

Incorrect most of the emergency powers being abused by the executives are laws passed by congress, a simple majority or basic legislation is the only thing you need. For example the only major change that Biden did was recently they made it so that the President cannot unilaterally pull out of NATO without congressional approval. If Democrats gave two fucks about "saving democracy" the first two years in power they would have passed laws pertaining financial disclosures, taking bribes like Trump was doing through his businesses etc. There were so many steps that could have been taken but they took mostly meaningless one having to do with certifying the election. While better than nothing it's nowhere near as significant as other measures that while would tie Biden's hands would do the same for a out of control Trump administration. This is a systematic issue presidents have too much "emergency" powers, I mean heck I would have taken some laws against abusing the DOJ like Trump did.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree. Trump is fully aware of how much he lies, cheats, and breaks contracts. He is also a sociopath and projects his own feelings onto other people. No, he won't take that lifeline, he'll assume whoever he asks for help will stab him in the back, as that's all he's done for seventy years. The fact that giving up and begging for help would look like weakness is secondary, but also relevant.

He might literally rather die.

Trump is also a giant pussy, a few weeks in jail he would crumble like a cheap lawn chair.

- - - Updated - - -

The point is moot. Trump will be the republican nominee, barring him being tossed in jail. Hell, even if he's tossed in jail. Relevant red states will bend over backwards to allow him onto their ballots. Maybe he doesn't make it onto the ballot in a few blue/purple states. Maybe he loses spectacularly because of that. But he will be the nominee. There is no concerted, directional effort in the coalesced gelatinous blob that is the republican party to affect any kind of adroit direction in appointing a new candidate

True, I think too many people assumed he would go away and weren't proactive when it came to make sure he would never come back.

You seem to assume that they can't anger enough people to get out to vote against them; what says they'd be able to energize enough people to vote for them?

Do you think there's anyone who is as outrageous and as annoying as Trump? I don't see any politician not even DeSantis having that kind of gift.

With what majority in the last eight years would democrats have affected this? How was the legislation supposed to have passed both chambers of congress and then get the sign off from the presidency?

We had the majority for two years under Biden and the wind at the back on this because the insurrection was so fresh in the public consciousness. It remind of the missed opportunity after the financial crisis instead of reigning in the banks in Obama gave them blank checks and pats on the back it's a pattern with democrats. Trump showed our democracy relies too much on norms and has more holes than Swiss cheese. Let's say Trump dies tomorrow there's nothing stopping another person from doing the worse. The problem isn't Trump eventually a republican will take power and we and our great grand children will have to keep voting to "save democracy" unless democrats get off their asses.

We don't want this to turn into another Roe V. Wade, where democrats don't do the right thing because it's good for them come election time.