• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NY AG "actively investigating" Trump Organization "in a criminal capacity"

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Fanatical Meat said:
Yeah, while it isn’t crazy to think the literal greediest man on earth is involved in some type of financial crime(s). The expectation he is going to jail vs a fine or real big fine is sort of nuts. We don’t jail former Presidents.
Click to expand...
It's actually not even that. Wealthy people don't fill out their own financial documents or do their own taxes. They have attorney's and CPA's that do that. I'd be nothing short of astounded if Trump balances his own check book.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Yeah, while it isn’t crazy to think the literal greediest man on earth is involved in some type of financial crime(s). The expectation he is going to jail vs a fine or real big fine is sort of nuts. We don’t jail former Presidents.
Click to expand...

I said this in the previous threads where mind-drooling idiots proclaimed he would go to prison... Even people who do crimes as rich people.. DONT GO TO JAIL... UNLESS they screw over other rich people.

See: Bernie Madoff, Jeffrey Epstein, etc.. etc... Only then do they spend any time in the slammer.
 
Greenman said:
It's actually not even that. Wealthy people don't fill out their own financial documents or do their own taxes. They have attorney's and CPA's that do that. I'd be nothing short of astounded if Trump balances his own check book.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree, I’m no expert in this field I am going to guess it has to do with salaries paid to family for no show jobs or hidden assets and such.
Just a guess.
Honestly an enormous fine would probably cause the former President more pain than a jail term. He loves his money.
 
Greenman said:
Then why did the report end with the statement that Trump couldn't be exonerated? Isn't that an odd thing to say after proving multiple felonies?
I've never been corrected on this point. You and others have made the claim that Trumps guilt was proven, I haven't seen that proof.
Click to expand...
The Mueller report is very clear on why the it says this. Here's the conclusion:

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Click to expand...

The reason they declined to make this judgment is outlined in the intro to volume 2:

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”
Click to expand...

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.
Click to expand...

So, because Trump couldn't be indicted, they decided they would not say whether or not he committed crimes. They did however outline his conduct and the report shows very clearly that Trump fulfilled all necessary elements of obstruction of justice numerous times. Does this clear it up?

 
Greenman said:
It's actually not even that. Wealthy people don't fill out their own financial documents or do their own taxes. They have attorney's and CPA's that do that. I'd be nothing short of astounded if Trump balances his own check book.
Click to expand...
Why on earth would it matter if he filled the documents out himself? Like...do you really think an alibi to tax fraud is that your accountant filled out the forms? lol - it is not.

The only argument Trump could try to make was that these individuals were committing massive tax fraud to his personal benefit behind his back and he never knew, but in cases like the NYT reported on that argument would be laughed out of court.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Yeah I agree, I’m no expert in this field I am going to guess it has to do with salaries paid to family for no show jobs or hidden assets and such.
Just a guess.
Honestly an enormous fine would probably cause the former President more pain than a jail term. He loves his money.
Click to expand...
Could be. Often those are handled with an amended return and a penalty payment.
 
fskimospy said:
Why on earth would it matter if he filled the documents out himself? Like...do you really think an alibi to tax fraud is that your accountant filled out the forms? lol - it is not.

The only argument Trump could try to make was that these individuals were committing massive tax fraud to his personal benefit behind his back and he never knew, but in cases like the NYT reported on that argument would be laughed out of court.
Click to expand...

I think he means if an accountant does your taxes and fucks up majorly, you are responsible for the fine and paying the difference, unlikely a judge would expect you to be a professional tax accountant and lock you up.
 
Greenman said:
Could be. Often those are handled with an amended return and a penalty payment.
Click to expand...
Why are we guessing about this? 1) we already know that one of the things he's being investigated for is falsifying the values of his properties to secure loans and/or avoid taxes. This is tax fraud and bank fraud. In addition, we have the NYT report of the sorts of likely criminal activity they found when examining his past tax returns.

www.nytimes.com

Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father (Published 2018)

The president has long sold himself as a self-made billionaire, but a Times investigation found that he received at least $413 million in today’s dollars from his father’s real estate empire, much of it through tax dodges in the 1990s.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Search for 'All County'. Essentially Fred Trump and his kids (Donald included) made up a fictitious company that Fred Trump routed his business purchases through. All County would not actually do anything but it would slap a huge markup on everything, profits that then went to his kids. This is so they could avoid the gift tax. It is also extremely likely to be tax fraud.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
I think he means if an accountant does your taxes and fucks up majorly, you are responsible for the fine and paying the difference, unlikely a judge would expect you to be a professional tax accountant and lock you up.
Click to expand...
Right, but we aren't talking about Trump forgetting to carry the 1 in some tax return. The tax fraud being discussed is things like the creation of fictitious shell companies to route gifts through in order to avoid gift taxes or telling the bank your building is worth $100 million and then turning around and telling the government it's worth $10 million.

Like, is the idea that Trump's accountant fucked up and accidentally created a shell company that his dad routed invoices through for years by accident?
 
Greenman said:
Then why did the report end with the statement that Trump couldn't be exonerated? Isn't that an odd thing to say after proving multiple felonies?
Click to expand...

There are explicit answers to your questions. If you seek them in earnest, you will find them. The fact that you do not know the answer does not defeat those who assert differently than you. In fact, the answers you seek are in the Mueller report. Have you read the Mueller report?
 
fskimospy said:
Right, but we aren't talking about Trump forgetting to carry the 1 in some tax return. The tax fraud being discussed is things like the creation of fictitious shell companies to route gifts through in order to avoid gift taxes or telling the bank your building is worth $100 million and then turning around and telling the government it's worth $10 million.

Like, is the idea that Trump's accountant fucked up and accidentally created a shell company that his dad routed invoices through for years by accident?
Click to expand...

well that is the question right there
 
fskimospy said:
I do not believe the argument that your accountants mistakenly set up a shell company with no employees and essentially no office that your dad suddenly decided to route all his building purchases through at considerable losses would be taken very seriously by a jury.
Click to expand...

shell companies or other shenanigans is the question
 
I know a lot of talk centers on potential (and likely massive) tax fraud but there exists the strong possibility of other kinds of fraud as well. Ivanka and Don Jr came real close to charges over lying to buyers at Trump SoHo.
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
I said this in the previous threads where mind-drooling idiots proclaimed he would go to prison... Even people who do crimes as rich people.. DONT GO TO JAIL... UNLESS they screw over other rich people.

See: Bernie Madoff, Jeffrey Epstein, etc.. etc... Only then do they spend any time in the slammer.
Click to expand...
Anthony Wiener was rich with women, he went to the slammer.
 
Greenman said:
Then why did the report end with the statement that Trump couldn't be exonerated? Isn't that an odd thing to say after proving multiple felonies?
I've never been corrected on this point. You and others have made the claim that Trumps guilt was proven, I haven't seen that proof.
Click to expand...
Wait...what do you think exonerated means? Exchange it for cleared of wrongdoing:

Trump couldn't be cleared of wrongdoing?

What do you take from that statement? I read it as:

Trump is so filthy that we can't say he is innocent for fear of instantaneously bursting into flames.

Now I'd admit I'm a little bit biased so let's dial that way back worst case rosy-eyed I-hate-liberals-but-not-enough-to-divorce-from-reality:

There is too much damning evidence even before we get to the obstruction charges to say he is innocent.
 
Greenman said:
Take a look. I have no memory of what I might have said, or if I said anything. I'd like to think that I didn't buy into the stupid, but I'll take my lumps if I did.
Click to expand...
Well, let's take a brief look, searching "Hillary" posted by you:
Greenman said:
That's why there is an investigation.
As secretary of state, Hillary had access to a secure and probably well managed email system. Instead of using that she used an unsecured server at her home. She said no secret information passed through her private server, given that she wouldn't lie about such a thing, that means she did use the state department email for sensitive information. That leads to the next obvious question, why? Why go through the trouble of using two different systems, two different addresses, having two sets of information to correlate? Why would an intelligent, well organized person operate that way? How did she verify that someone sending her information didn't accidentally use her home email?

I can think of several reasons for her doing this, they rang from stupid to criminal. It needs to be looked at.
Click to expand...
Greenman said:
Isn't it sometimes difficult to determine if a crime has been committed without an investigation?

Simply proclaiming that Hillary did nothing is every bit as stupid as proclaiming her guilt. Why not let the FBI actually look into the matter before deciding the outcome?
Click to expand...
Greenman said:
That's simply stupid. You're closing your eyes and putting your hands over your ears so you won't have to face the truth. There is absolutely no doubt at this point that she knowingly and willfully ignored the rules, attempted to destroy evidence, and continually lied to the American people and the FBI about it. It's either intent or stupidity on an enormous scale.

I was on the fence about this until today, but watching the FBI director's questioning, the truth is obvious. Hillary is either a complete idiot, a criminal, or absolutely certain that she's untouchable.
Click to expand...

Doesn't exactly read as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law now does it?
 
Last edited:
rommelrommel said:
www.axios.com

New York AG: "We are now actively investigating the Trump Organization in a criminal capacity"

It's investigation "is no longer purely civil in nature," a spokesperson for the NY attorney general said in an emailed statement.
www.axios.com www.axios.com




Not much info yet, but it's a start.
Click to expand...

Does the NY AG routinely notify people that they're opening a criminal investigation into their activities?

"Oh, excuse me Mr. Genovese, but we have decided to open a criminal investigation into tour business dealings."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top