The BIG ONE: 20 years of Trump taxes obtained by NYTs

[Anonymous]

Part 4

[Anonymous]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/01/11/trump-organization-eric-trump-donald-trump-jr-editorials-debates/96460668/

"Trust me" they said.

[Anonymous]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-wont-revive-congressional-emoluments-case-against-trump/2020/10/13/6b26da36-0d5e-11eb-8a35-237ef1eb2ef7_story.html

While the ACB show continues, watch the SC...

[Anonymous]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/13/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-subpoena-for-his-tax-returns.html

And another push to the SC on the tax case.

Don’t just listen to what they say, watch what they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the statute of limitations on this shit?

Shockingly it’s five years for most federal crimes.

If HRC committed crimes with her email the statute of limitations has probably run out.

Butter emails? Are you trolling or that stupid?

DP

I read PP as noting that the POTUS' obsession with HRC is literally irrelevant and just a distraction at this point.

Wow. I just revisited this thread hoping for updates. I’m not stupid nor do I think HRC committed crimes but even if she had they would probably not be prosecuted due to the statute of limitations. Please explain how I’m a stupid troll? PP seems to have a reading comprehension problem and yes it’s a desperate attempt at distraction by Trump but it’s working with his 25% base. You can apologize now.

[Anonymous]

Who are these crazy voters in the 16%?

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/520803-poll-majority-of-voters-say-new-york-times-report-on-trumps

A majority of voters say the New York Times report on President Trump's taxes makes no difference in whether or not they will vote for him, a new Hill-HarrisX poll finds.

A report of the Times' analysis of Trump's tax documents released late last month revealed that the president had paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017. Furthermore, the report said that Trump did not pay income tax for 10 of 15 years leading up to the 2016 election.

A second report released by the Times on Oct. 10 said that Trump's tax records showed that nearly 200 entities funneled millions of dollars into the president's properties while reaping benefits from the administration.

The Hill-HarrisX poll was conducted before the second analysis by the Times was released from Oct. 3-6.

Fifty-one percent of registered voters in the survey said the Times report makes no difference in their voter preference.

Thirty-three percent said it makes them less likely to vote for Trump while 16 percent said it makes them more likely to vote for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who are these crazy voters in the 16%?

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/520803-poll-majority-of-voters-say-new-york-times-report-on-trumps

A majority of voters say the New York Times report on President Trump's taxes makes no difference in whether or not they will vote for him, a new Hill-HarrisX poll finds.

A report of the Times' analysis of Trump's tax documents released late last month revealed that the president had paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017. Furthermore, the report said that Trump did not pay income tax for 10 of 15 years leading up to the 2016 election.

A second report released by the Times on Oct. 10 said that Trump's tax records showed that nearly 200 entities funneled millions of dollars into the president's properties while reaping benefits from the administration.

The Hill-HarrisX poll was conducted before the second analysis by the Times was released from Oct. 3-6.

Fifty-one percent of registered voters in the survey said the Times report makes no difference in their voter preference.

Thirty-three percent said it makes them less likely to vote for Trump while 16 percent said it makes them more likely to vote for him.

People who also grift?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who are these crazy voters in the 16%?

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/520803-poll-majority-of-voters-say-new-york-times-report-on-trumps

A majority of voters say the New York Times report on President Trump's taxes makes no difference in whether or not they will vote for him, a new Hill-HarrisX poll finds.

A report of the Times' analysis of Trump's tax documents released late last month revealed that the president had paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017. Furthermore, the report said that Trump did not pay income tax for 10 of 15 years leading up to the 2016 election.

A second report released by the Times on Oct. 10 said that Trump's tax records showed that nearly 200 entities funneled millions of dollars into the president's properties while reaping benefits from the administration.

The Hill-HarrisX poll was conducted before the second analysis by the Times was released from Oct. 3-6.

Fifty-one percent of registered voters in the survey said the Times report makes no difference in their voter preference.

Thirty-three percent said it makes them less likely to vote for Trump while 16 percent said it makes them more likely to vote for him.

Evidently sociopathy is far more common than the experts guessed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who are these crazy voters in the 16%?

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/520803-poll-majority-of-voters-say-new-york-times-report-on-trumps

A majority of voters say the New York Times report on President Trump's taxes makes no difference in whether or not they will vote for him, a new Hill-HarrisX poll finds.

A report of the Times' analysis of Trump's tax documents released late last month revealed that the president had paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017. Furthermore, the report said that Trump did not pay income tax for 10 of 15 years leading up to the 2016 election.

A second report released by the Times on Oct. 10 said that Trump's tax records showed that nearly 200 entities funneled millions of dollars into the president's properties while reaping benefits from the administration.

The Hill-HarrisX poll was conducted before the second analysis by the Times was released from Oct. 3-6.

Fifty-one percent of registered voters in the survey said the Times report makes no difference in their voter preference.

Thirty-three percent said it makes them less likely to vote for Trump while 16 percent said it makes them more likely to vote for him.

People who also grift?

People who think that he's smart, because he's "exploiting loopholes".

[Anonymous]

Who are these crazy voters in the 16%?

I can sort of explain this: lots of us thought that anyone who was willing to go to the Supreme Court to avoid sharing his tax returns must have something truly horrifying in there that he was desperate to keep secret. Many of us suspected outright tax fraud and/or big debts to Russia. We also suspected that "being under audit" was just a lame excuse, and that he wasn't actually being audited.

Assuming that the NYT report is based upon real information, it raised some questions, but revealed no massive tax fraud or debts to Russia. (There are some expenses that might turn out to be fraudulent, but determining that requires more information than what was provided in the NYT article, per various tax experts.) It also revealed that he is actually under audit (not that this would prevent him from releasing his tax returns, but at least it validates one of his points). If anything, he came off looking better than before to those of us who expected the worst. The $750 thing isn't a big deal, really. It's not as if most of us would voluntarily pay more tax than we are absolutely required to pay.

That said, I'm not in the 16%. Trump disqualified himself years ago from getting my vote. But I can see where those who feared the worst might be slightly less fearful now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Who are these crazy voters in the 16%?

I can sort of explain this: lots of us thought that anyone who was willing to go to the Supreme Court to avoid sharing his tax returns must have something truly horrifying in there that he was desperate to keep secret. Many of us suspected outright tax fraud and/or big debts to Russia. We also suspected that "being under audit" was just a lame excuse, and that he wasn't actually being audited.

Assuming that the NYT report is based upon real information, it raised some questions, but revealed no massive tax fraud or debts to Russia. (There are some expenses that might turn out to be fraudulent, but determining that requires more information than what was provided in the NYT article, per various tax experts.) It also revealed that he is actually under audit (not that this would prevent him from releasing his tax returns, but at least it validates one of his points). If anything, he came off looking better than before to those of us who expected the worst. The $750 thing isn't a big deal, really. It's not as if most of us would voluntarily pay more tax than we are absolutely required to pay.

That said, I'm not in the 16%. Trump disqualified himself years ago from getting my vote. But I can see where those who feared the worst might be slightly less fearful now.

I have to disagree with you.

1. There's a lot in the NYT reporting that points to fraud and a violation of law. Ivanka being a consultant? $70K write off for hair? The casino cash that was used for the campaign?

2. The personally guaranteed loans of $421MM may have been funneled through a bank, but the money most likely originated with Russian oligarchs. Recall that in 2014 Eric Trump said on the record that they get lots of funding from Russia.

3. For those of us who feared the worst, this does not make us feel much better. There are still a lot of questions, and plenty of evidence pointing to a criminal and highly compromised President.

The 16% are people who just love that Trump is a 'badass' who gets away with stuff. And maybe they don't understand the full scope of the reporting and what it might indicate.

[Anonymous]

To the PP: I agree that questions are raised, but we need more information than was provided in the NYT article (assuming that it was even based on valid data) to establish that there was actual fraud or actual debt to Russia. We can all assume lots of bad things, but there was nothing that incontrovertibly screamed "fraud" in the NYT article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the PP: I agree that questions are raised, but we need more information than was provided in the NYT article (assuming that it was even based on valid data) to establish that there was actual fraud or actual debt to Russia. We can all assume lots of bad things, but there was nothing that incontrovertibly screamed "fraud" in the NYT article.

If only POTUS would release his taxes as every other modern president has done. Then we would have more information...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the PP: I agree that questions are raised, but we need more information than was provided in the NYT article (assuming that it was even based on valid data) to establish that there was actual fraud or actual debt to Russia. We can all assume lots of bad things, but there was nothing that incontrovertibly screamed "fraud" in the NYT article.

Calling your corporate officer/employee a “consultant“ and deducting the expenses of paying her is fraud
Calling your personal residence an “investment property“ and deducting property taxes and other expenses is fraud
Calling personal expenses like hair care and clothing “business expenses” and deducting them is fraud

[Anonymous]

Calling your corporate officer/employee a “consultant“ and deducting the expenses of paying her is fraud

Not necessarily. An employee can be a consultant doing a different job. An employee whose job is to empty the trash cans can also be a contractor who paints the walls. Two different functions. But the "consultant" pay rate needs to be in line with market value for the service. You can't pay someone $750k to paint an office and deduct that. Since his daughter seems to have very few marketable skills, and is unlikely to have any that are worth as much as claimed, this is certainly a suspect deduction, but, as noted above, we would need more information to verify that.

Calling your personal residence an “investment property“ and deducting property taxes and other expenses is fraud

Again, more information is needed. This one is the hardest claim listed to justify, though.

Calling personal expenses like hair care and clothing “business expenses” and deducting them is fraud

Not entirely true. Actors and models can deduct certain similar expenses like this when they are essential to the job. It is a harder case to justify here, partly due to the cost and partly due to the fact that he wasn't an actor. He did appear on television regularly, though. So, again, more information is needed. This isn't a clear-cut case of fraud.

To be clear: everything listed is questionable, but the NYT article just raises the questions. It proves nothing, even if it is based on correct information. Many of us suspected far worse.