Topic: Will Trump be indicted ? - page 15. (Read 3386 times)

What I said is true. I was clear that the amount was in reference to NY state taxes. NY courts do not have jurisdiction over alleged federal tax fraud.

The only reason why the federal tax amounts are listed is because of the shaky allegation of grand larceny via filing a tax return that causes a portion of tax withheld to be refunded. In addition to the problems I noted in my previous post with this allegation, I don't think NY courts have jurisdiction over federal tax laws and as such, would be unable to conclude that Weisselberg committed federal tax fraud that resulted in the alleged fraudulent tax refund. I also don't think there is any dispute the tax amounts that were refunded were actually withheld and paid to the federal government, so I think it is a stretch the alleged fraudulent tax refunds constitute grand larceny when Weisselberg could have simply had less money withheld from his pay over the year.

As noted in my previous post, the indictment offers no evidence that Weisselberg actually owes any of the NY city tax. I can't sign a lease in San Francisco, taking responsibility for the payments, saying that TwitchySeal is going to live in the apartment as his primary residence, then have the DA come after you for tax fraud if you never actually lived in the apartment sufficient to have to pay CA taxes. Even if you had signed the lease that says the apartment will be your primary residence, it would not create a tax liability unless you meet certain criteria. NY tax law appears to make it difficult to get out from having tax liability, however, to initially start having tax liability, it appears you need to live in NY (or NY city) for a certain number of days in a year. 

Similarly ridiculous as your claim that only 2 or 3 people breached the Capital and the rest were invited in.

So you read this:



And walked away thinking "I know, I'll just tell people the issue is over $8k a year and maybe they'll just believe me.  And even if they don't, I'll make sure there's some element of truth in my post and only imply the untrue stuff so I can seem to have a defense"

Okay fair enough, Ive never been in NY long enough to know how the traffic cameras work, but I think you understand the annology.

In 2015, the top tax bracket in New York was 8.82%, and today it is 10.9%. In 2005, when it is alledged this started, the top tax bracket was 6.85%. The allegation is that $1.7 million in compensation was hidden from the tax authorities over 15 years, that amounts to about $113k per year. The indictment claims that Weisselberg failed to pay about $106k in NY state taxes, which works out to be about $7k per year.

---

Take a look at a copy of the indictment. I think it is pretty shaky TBH.

The indictment claims that the Trump org entered into a lease for an apartment that stipulated that Weisselberg would occupy the apartment as his "primary residence". There are a couple of things wrong with this. First, the Trump org does not have any authority to bind where their employees live, so without proof that Weisselberg actually lived in the apartment, the entire indictment goes up in smoke.

The indictment also says that Weisselberg's compensation was adjusted downward in order to account for the rent expenses and that internal spreadsheets kept track of these expenses that were for the benefit of Weisselberg. I would note that I occasionally travel for business, and when I do, my employer pays for my meals, hotel and airfare, but I am not required to pay taxes on these things. These travel expenses are taken out of my department's budget. I don't think it would be unreasonable to argue that the Trump org had a budget for Weisselberg that was to include both payroll and business expenses. I am not sure what criteria travel expenses are allowed according to IRS rules, or where Weisselberg claimed to live during the relevant time period.

The indictment's most serious charge, grand larceny, stems from Weisselberg's claiming tax refunds from the IRS that he was allegedly not entitled to. In addition to proving that the tax returns were in fact fraudulent, the prosecution would need to prove that Weisselberg was in the state of NY when he caused the tax returns to be filed.

Say there are two traffic cameras exactly one mile apart in an area in which the speed limit is 30 MPH. The DA could review the footage, see that a Trump associate took 116 seconds to travel the ctemtsdistance between the two lights, and charges him with speeding. The Trump associate was breaking the law -- he was going 1 mile over the speed limit, which is illegal, but this does not mean that the law is applied to everyone else, or that the DA was not looking specifically to charge this particular person with a crime.

If the Trump org was audited in the timeframe of the alleged crimes, this would probably be a pretty strong defense, especially if the audit was done by the NY IRS, and even more so, if the audit resulted in additional taxes being paid not involving the fringe benefits.

The amount of tax revenue that NY state lost out on is very small, and is probably less than the cost of the investigation, somewhere in the range of $8000 or so per year over 15 years. This is also not to say that the Trump org didn't offset some of this with higher corporate taxes on their end.
[/quote]

Bad analogy here in NY traffic cameras show your speed as you were going past them. Usually with both radar and another method. I have a collection of some really nice shots of my motorcycle from them if you want. It's an instant image at an actual moment in time of how fast you were going.

As for the taxes:
Remember you pay part of your income tax and the company pays the other part.
If what was released was true they, were paying for other things (some of which were over $100k) for him and others and not recording it as income. So your $8k number is WAYYYYYY low.

And yes they were audited during the time, but the audit was paused during the time DT was president.

And on top of all of that, so far they have just charged them for 1 person many more are coming.

-Dave

It is almost as if your defense of Trump is politically motivated.  Almost as if you're not interested in whether someone is guilty or not as much as whether they have a D or an R next to their name.  Almost as if D = Guilty, R = Witch Hunt.

Say there are two traffic cameras exactly one mile apart in an area in which the speed limit is 30 MPH. The DA could review the footage, see that a Trump associate took 116 seconds to travel the distance between the two lights, and charges him with speeding. The Trump associate was breaking the law -- he was going 1 mile over the speed limit, which is illegal, but this does not mean that the law is applied to everyone else, or that the DA was not looking specifically to charge this particular person with a crime.

If the Trump org was audited in the timeframe of the alleged crimes, this would probably be a pretty strong defense, especially if the audit was done by the NY IRS, and even more so, if the audit resulted in additional taxes being paid not involving the fringe benefits.

The amount of tax revenue that NY state lost out on is very small, and is probably less than the cost of the investigation, somewhere in the range of $8000 or so per year over 15 years. This is also not to say that the Trump org didn't offset some of this with higher corporate taxes on their end.

Ben Shapiro moment 


IMO - Politically motivated witch hunts are still politically motivated.

Two things are true - if he committed crimes, he can enjoy the prison food. But I also hope everyone, even democrat and republican politicians, are held to the same standard of law. And plus, if it turns out he's innocent, then I feel bad that he may have been the target of political charges.



Obviously we'll see it play out in court, but I doubt these crimes will be baseless because let's be honest, every one of these wall st exec have their hands dirty. Still though, innocent until proven guilty, always. It'll probably be a case of "barely legal."

Many legal experts and law professors are saying that it is highly unusual for these types of charges being filed against the Trump org and the CFO without additional, more serious charges also being filed.

It is almost as if the charges are politically motivated. Or almost as if the DA made campaign promises to charge Trump and associates with baseless crimes.

Definitely popcorn time

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/01/politics/trump-organization-allen-weisselberg/index.html

Michael Cohen literally implicated Trump in his guilty plea (as individual number 1).  Trump instructed Cohen to create a shell company to funnel money through, and also set up an arrangment with a tabloid, both with the sole purpose of hiding transactions from the FEC.  

He also implicated Trump while testifying in front of congress (despite Trump publicly attempting to intimidate him right before, another felony) the real estate deal for Trump Tower Moscow.

Then there's the whole Trump organization investigation, which will likely be Trumps first indictment.  We don't know whether or not Cohen has implicated Trump under oath yet since he hasn't had the opportunity to do so and the criminal investigation is ongoing.  But it sure seems likely.

I don't think trump will be indicted a motion to impeach former us president donald trump has been raised in the country's upper house of parliament the senate however, a majority of senators from his own party, the republican party voted against the proposal. Trump is getting exemption from impeachment trial in support of party lawmakers none of my true supporters will ever support political violence he has taken many safe measures to deal with the corona virus.

For Trump, it might be... because he doesn't know the law. If he isn't in office any longer, and doesn't mind losing some of the benefits, all he needs to do is stand as a man rather than a person. The indictment paperwork list Trump, a person. Trump is a man, and for sure is not that person on the indictment... except if he accepts being that person. Let the person on the indictment get locked away if they want. It isn't Trump the man. But he has to take that stance if he wants to avoid being indicted.

A federal indictment is pretty damn serious.  They don't bring cases without overwhelming evidence, especially against a former president.  I believe the conviction rate is close to 99%, most of which are plea deals.

Will Trump be indicted ?


An indictment simply means that somebody decides to make a formal accusation, and take it to court. It doesn't mean guilt or innocence. It means, Lets get to court and find out. You jokers are stupidly making so much about nothing. Even if Trump is guilty of something, his attorneys will draw it out so long, that his accusers will back off; too expensive.

There were many cases that Mueller's team prosecuted that were intended to do exactly this, however, Trump was never implicated in any crime.

If anyone had knowledge of Trump's crimes, it would have been Cohen, and he was unable to offer testimony implicating Trump in any kind of illegal behavior.

---

I think Trump will probably be indicted, but it is almost certain that the charges will be frivolous and he will ultimately prevail in court.

We should really start hashtagging some of the craziest things said that will surely be funny to look back on in the future, then you can just search for the hashtag.

#BADeckerHOF could work

Well its quite easy if you want to quote any ridiculous post by BADecker...simply go to his post history and take your pick. Anyone will do.....


OOPS.. getting off topic... my bad....
Yes, Trump will be indicted...just a matter of time.

Well, not specific to this person, but if you want to quote something crazy that you remember from months ago, for example, the phrase "a good soak with MMS (Jim Humble) will even cancel out most of the poison", then just go to that person's profile, and go back through their post history searching for the phrase or keyword that you remember. Then, when you find the post, click the quote button, copy the relevant section, and paste it into your reply.

How can you remember where and when he says such things. Also how to locate I've been wondering how can I quote his other quotes from past months when he is contradicting it in his other posts.

And I will guest he will reply similar to things like this "people made mistake as I made the mistake, i must be drunk or something" something like that.

Can I just draw your attention to this post: