• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Indictments coming...

Page 190 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
5,183
4,830
136
And the $330M that Russia transferred to Deutsche Bank while they were unwisely and inexplicably lending huge piles of money to Trump.

 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,761
784
126
And the $330M that Russia transferred to Deutsche Bank while they were unwisely and inexplicably lending huge piles of money to Trump.

You make it sound like they GAVE money Trumpo. They were loans,

And the Dems shouldve been a little more careful when making their requests:

Supreme Court said earlier this year that a subpoena issued by House Democrats to Deutsche Bank seeking Trump’s records was overly broad.

According to the New York Times, Trump still owes $297 million to Deutsche Bank for the loans for these properties.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ch33zw1z

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,492
435
126
based on the revelations that Trump paid taxes on only about 1/3 of the 15 years leading up to 2016's election I suspect that any charges that come to him will be related to that.


______________
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,483
2,158
136
based on the revelations that Trump paid taxes on only about 1/3 of the 15 years leading up to 2016's election I suspect that any charges that come to him will be related to that.


______________
There are a hell of a lot of things on the very surface of the returns that appear overtly fraudulent. Of course, proving tax evasion includes proving the act was willful. One of the rare circumstances where even irrational ignorance can get you off.

Anyhow, probably the most substantive thing on the surface with the appearance of overt fraud is the $70+M refund. The reason for that refund is an oddity in his tax history. Those years where he actually paid taxes you reference? That's where the return comes from. So, yes, he paid taxes, but the government then refunded then back to him. Why did he pay income tax in the first place? The Apprentice. In all the decades of personal tax return history the NYT reviewed, it is essentially the only business in DJTs portfolio that was successful, with most businesses hemorrhaging money left and right.

Back to the return. The reason for the refund on those taxes paid is because DJT claimed losses of $1.4BN, in large part from finally giving up ownership of his Atlantic City casinos which went through another bankruptcy. Now, the principle is entirely legal. If you abandon assets, a portion of those losses can be claimed as a deduction on income taxes, even for taxes previously paid. Hence, DJT claimed those deductions for a refund on taxes paid for money earned with The Apprentice 2005-2007 for loses on abandoned assets in 2009.

Here's the catch. Those losses are only refundable when the assets are completely abandon, i.e. receiving nothing of value in return. When Trump abandoned those casinos in 2009, he received a 5% stake in the company set up to take over ownership in his stead. That's most certainly a thing of value.

Fun fact: refunds of over $2M by law require approval from Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation. Since this refund has been in perpetual audit land, it got pushed back to their hands in Spring 2016 while Trump was narrowing in on the Republican presidential nomination. It's still in the hands of that committee. Is it becoming clearer now why it's exceedingly problematic that Trump is President and why Republicans are petrified of losing power this cycle and have an urgency to pack the courts ASAP?
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
22,928
5,349
136
Looks like we finally got our answer:

Mystery court fight
The Egypt investigation also led to one of the most secretive court proceedings in Washington in years.

Until now, the case was only known to be a fight over a grand jury subpoena between the Mueller team and a foreign government-owned company.
But CNN has learned the case was a fight over records from an Egyptian national bank.

In July 2018, the Mueller team issued a secret grand jury subpoena for records to the Egyptian bank -- sparking a months-long court fight that only gradually became public as it progressed through the court system.

Soon enough, the bank was arguing it shouldn't have to give Mueller records because it was interchangeable with the foreign government that owned it. The US courts disagreed repeatedly, saying the company couldn't be immune from the Mueller team subpoena.

At the time, the courts and Mueller's team took extreme caution to keep the matter confidential. One judge, Beryl Howell of the DC District Court, wrote that the case dealt with "foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election and potential collusion in those efforts by American citizens."

The fight was so closely guarded that it took months for the names of lawyers involved to emerge, only becoming public first through CNN reporting then confirmed by court records.

Attorneys who represented the bank in the subpoena fight and a representative from their law firm, Alston & Bird, did not respond to CNN's inquiries for this story.

When the federal appeals court in Washington, DC, heard arguments in the case in December 2018, security cleared journalists from an entire floor of the federal courthouse, allowing attorneys involved in the case to enter and exit the building and the courtroom without being seen.
CNN, however, spotted Mueller team prosecutors, including Ahmad, returning to the special counsel's office minutes after the hearing ended.

The case even landed before the Supreme Court in early 2019. The high court ultimately declined the company's bid to block Mueller's subpoena in March 2019.

Even then, however, the standoff between US prosecutors and the Egyptian bank ended in a stalemate.

The bank had handed over almost 1,000 pages of documents to prosecutors, translated into English, according to redacted court records that were eventually released after the Mueller investigation concluded. But that didn't satisfy prosecutors, either in the Mueller investigation or the DC US attorney's office.

The bank's lawyers  professed it had "gone to great lengths to find and voluntarily produce documents responsive to the subpoena."

"What more could the Special Counsel want?" they asked, according to court transcripts.

The federal investigators told the court they believed there must be more, and even the judge acknowledged gaps in the bank's records.

In the end, it was the bank's word against the investigators. The court proceedings ended with prosecutors getting nothing more than what the bank was willing to turn over, and the bank was excused from hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines that had accrued for defying the subpoena.

It appeared to be a dead end -- and not justification enough for Mueller to keep his office open to finish this case alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jackstar7

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,804
20,668
136
Man, I should have gotten involved in some of these "embezzling money for Trump" schemes, because it seems like there's an endless number of them, it's super easy to be tapped to do it, you can probably make millions and hey....if you turn state's evidence in the end, you can probably pull immunity, then make another couple million publishing the book about how you suckered that fat orange bitch into prison.

damn it!
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
5,793
707
126
It’s hard to keep up with all the clusterfucks this week. At any other time, this would be huge. This is not a partisan Democrat saying this. This is not a low level Republican saying this. This is not someone with little knowledge of national security saying this.





That's funny considering we know that Clinton's campaign started the "Trump-Russia" collusion conspiracy and was aided by the Obama Admin which in turn allowed several Democrats to run on the false platform of impeaching Trump for "Russia collusion". So who created the bigger election interference?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: brycejones

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
20,568
12,231
136
That's funny considering we know that Clinton's campaign started the "Trump-Russia" collusion conspiracy and was aided by the Obama Admin which in turn allowed several Democrats to run on the false platform of impeaching Trump for "Russia collusion". So who created the bigger election interference?
It was such a lie that Trump and those around him felt the need to obstruct the investigation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,685
5,346
136
That's funny considering we know that Clinton's campaign started the "Trump-Russia" collusion conspiracy and was aided by the Obama Admin which in turn allowed several Democrats to run on the false platform of impeaching Trump for "Russia collusion". So who created the bigger election interference?
Trump wasn't Impeached over Russia.

You're a joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,483
2,158
136
That's funny considering we know that Clinton's campaign started the "Trump-Russia" collusion conspiracy and was aided by the Obama Admin which in turn allowed several Democrats to run on the false platform of impeaching Trump for "Russia collusion". So who created the bigger election interference?
I feel certain there is no hope of us agreeing upon a mutual position here, but unlike others that will not inhibit me from engaging honestly with you. I am wondering if you can expand further, point-to-point in your post and explain where your conclusions come from and the underlying evidence which supports them.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,804
20,668
136
Soooooo....30 minutes left until POTUS protections slide off of Donnie's hippo husk of a flesh body.

Think US Marshalls and SDNY are waiting for him at Mar a Lago, with an agreement between them and secret service, to escort Felonious D straight back to NY?

Or are they going to be polite and allow him to chill a few days?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: alexruiz and KMFJD

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
32,869
11,615
146
Soooooo....30 minutes left until POTUS protections slide off of Donnie's hippo husk of a flesh body.

Think US Marshalls and SDNY are waiting for him at Mar a Lago, with an agreement between them and secret service, to escort Felonious D straight back to NY?

Or are they going to be polite and allow him to chill a few days?
I can't hardly wait. I hope the SDNY gets him ASAP. Individual_1 needs some real world consequences instead of slaps on the wrist.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
29,240
9,441
136
Soooooo....30 minutes left until POTUS protections slide off of Donnie's hippo husk of a flesh body.

Think US Marshalls and SDNY are waiting for him at Mar a Lago, with an agreement between them and secret service, to escort Felonious D straight back to NY?

Or are they going to be polite and allow him to chill a few days?
I really hope after the inauguration that charges are announced against trump.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
28,139
3,470
126
already happened, unfortunately, and no coppers.

...now what would be hilarious, is if they drive him into a fake Mar a Lago, like in Blazing Saddles, and the fake Mar a Lago falls apart, and reveals that they drove him straight into a prison, lol.
that's brilliant :tearsofjoy: :tearsofjoy:
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
17,211
4,850
136
The heat is on....

Manhattan DA prosecutors subpoenaed an elite Manhattan private school as part of its investigation into Trump (msn.com)

Jennifer Weisselberg told The Journal that more than $500,000 in tuition was paid for with checks written either by Trump or Allen Weisselberg. But the records in her possession don't show who made the payments, The Journal reported.

The subpoenas for the elite Upper West Side school will allow prosecutors to obtain copies of the transactions for tuition payments, which could tell them whether they came from Trump, Allen Weisselberg, Barry Weisselberg, the Trump Organization, or some other source.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: DarthKyrie

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
17,211
4,850
136
Poor Sondland still does not understand that in the Trump world you are just collateral damage. Maybe, he will get some justice. Discovery will be interesting of course.

Sondland sues Pompeo, U.S. for $1.8M in impeachment legal bills - POLITICO

A U.S. ambassador who offered damaging testimony about then-President Donald Trump during congressional hearings in 2019 that led to Trump’s first impeachment is suing former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the U.S. government to recover almost $1.8 million in legal fees.

Anything that can make Mike's life miserable is OK by me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
13,126
8,162
136
Poor Sondland still does not understand that in the Trump world you are just collateral damage. Maybe, he will get some justice. Discovery will be interesting of course.

Sondland sues Pompeo, U.S. for $1.8M in impeachment legal bills - POLITICO

A U.S. ambassador who offered damaging testimony about then-President Donald Trump during congressional hearings in 2019 that led to Trump’s first impeachment is suing former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the U.S. government to recover almost $1.8 million in legal fees.

Anything that can make Mike's life miserable is OK by me.
Was going to say that he had no basis for suing over attorney's fees, because ordinarily you can't. However, he claims that Pompeo promised him the State Department would reimburse him. This is a colorable claim if proven to a jury's satisfaction. Unfortunately it will only cost the taxpayer, not Pompeo personally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,984
14,146
136
Sondland could have avoided the legal fees from Trump connected lawyers by telling the truth in the first place. Other people probably would have paid the bills for him if he'd just kept on lying. He saved his own hide but not his pocketbook.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
30,169
3,567
126
Sondland could have avoided the legal fees from Trump connected lawyers by telling the truth in the first place. Other people probably would have paid the bills for him if he'd just kept on lying. He saved his own hide but not his pocketbook.
"If you always tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." - Mark Twain
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,149
22,741
136
Sondland could have avoided the legal fees from Trump connected lawyers by telling the truth in the first place. Other people probably would have paid the bills for him if he'd just kept on lying. He saved his own hide but not his pocketbook.
‘If you’re not guilty and not lying you don’t need a lawyer’ is unfortunately one of the most wrong statements about the American legal system there is. Even if Sondland was 100% above board from the start when it comes to things like this he was going to suffer massive legal fees.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY