• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge denies Trump’s bid for a stay of subpoena in Manhattan DA’s tax records case

Post a few examples.



Evidence?



An AG is a president's wingman. That's how it works. Right?

Oh right, I keep forgetting: The guy you folks sent to drain the swamp is really no better than ObamaBidenClinton.

Got it. Yah.
 
Oh right, I keep forgetting: The guy you folks sent to drain the swamp is really no better than ObamaBidenClinton.

Got it. Yah.

Feel free to support your claims. That's how you do it on a debate forum. If you keep posting unsupported claims, at some point it becomes a lie. To date, no one has supported anything you poste, so those lies are years old.
 
Feel free to support your claims. That's how you do it on a debate forum. If you keep posting unsupported claims, at some point it becomes a lie. To date, no one has supported anything you poste, so those lies are years old.

Debate is not folks like you demanding I give you things you’ve asked others for and have summarily dismissed only to ask for them again.

Having a disingenuous back and forth where the Trump voter has zero intentions of extending good faith isn’t the compelling proposition you guys seem to think it is.

Example: “Give me just one example of Trump’s racism?”

This is such theater at this point. If you don’t agree with the billions of examples you’ve been exposed to at this point, say that. but to pretend as though you’ve never heard the accusation and can’t even be bothered to debunk unless someone does the legwork for you is bad faith and nonsense and this ain’t my first political debate rodeo on the internet.

Also: You don’t get to set the terms of a conversation. You can choose to participate or you can choose not to. Your opinion nor your validation were a requirement in the site’s TOS.

And what does ANY of this have to do with your hypocrisy vis a vis grabbing at lame sauce whataboutism branches on the Debate Tree? I brought up a perfectly fair point via sarcasm - Trump voters clinging to how the swamp works when they want to excuse Trump’s swampy behavior while demanding credit for draining said swamp.

Bring something other than hypocrisy, bad faith, and a false sense of ownership to context and I’ll take you seriously.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Debate is not folks like you demanding I give you things you’ve asked others for and have summarily dismissed only to ask for them again.

Having a disingenuous back and forth where the Trump voter has zero intentions of extending good faith isn’t the compelling proposition you guys seem to think it is.

Example: “Give me just one example of Trump’s racism?”

This is such theater at this point. If you don’t agree with the billions of examples you’ve been exposed to at this point, say that. but to pretend as though you’ve never heard the accusation and can’t even be bothered to debunk unless someone does the legwork for you is bad faith and nonsense and this ain’t my first political debate rodeo on the internet.

Also: You don’t get to set the terms of a conversation. You can choose to participate or you can choose not to. Your opinion nor your validation were a requirement in the site’s TOS.

And what does ANY of this have to do with your hypocrisy vis a vis grabbing at lame sauce whataboutism branches on the Debate Tree? I brought up a perfectly fair point via sarcasm - Trump voters clinging to how the swamp works when they want to excuse Trump’s swampy behavior while demanding credit for draining said swamp.

Bring something other than hypocrisy, bad faith, and a false sense of ownership to context and I’ll take you seriously.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

When debating, it's customary to support your argument.

See, watch...

DC Circuit tosses suit claiming Trump is violating emoluments clause
 
Feel free to support your claims. That's how you do it on a debate forum. If you keep posting unsupported claims, at some point it becomes a lie. To date, no one has supported anything you poste, so those lies are years old.

If an employee violates a law, is the employer responsible when the employer had requested the employee's actions?

It’s Illegal for Federal Officials to Campaign on the Job. Trump Staffers Keep Doing It Anyway.
Trump administration officials have been cited 13 times for violating the Hatch Act, a New Deal-era law prohibiting government officials from engaging in campaigning.

Lawsuit, filed Wednesday (Aug 19, 2020) in the U.S. District Court in Denver, alleges that the Bureau of Land Management violated federal law by pursuing a land-management plan for fossil fuel development that ignored environmental risks to agriculture, climate and endangered species.

THE ACTUAL LAWS TRUMP HAS BROKEN, JUST WITH THE UKRAINE AND CHINA AFFAIRS, COULD LAND HIM 10 YEARS IN PRISON

18 U.S. Code § 872: “Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.” It’s not hard to grasp:

“Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

The only question, here, is the definition of extortion. The law describes it as “the extraction of anything of value from another person by threatening or placing that person in fear of injury to any person or kidnapping of any person.”

18 U.S. Code § 610, . . . “Coercion of political activity.”

The law reads: “It shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, any employee of the Federal Government … to engage in … any political activity.”

It’s also illegal, according to 18 U.S. Code § 595, when a government official, “in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President.”

52 U.S. Code § 30121, “Contributions and donations by foreign nationals.” - just might be one reason Trump is fighting release of his financial records.

In February of this year, Trump was able to beat down an emoluments case filed by those librul Demorats in Congress - interesting reason behind the ruling
Individual members of Congress lack legal standing to sue the president for alleged violations of law, said the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a unanimous ruling Friday.

The appeals panel did not decide the question of whether Trump had violated the emoluments clause.

Then in May, something happened
Appeals Court Allows Emoluments Suit Against Trump to Proceed

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court in Virginia on Thursday revived a lawsuit accusing President Trump of violating the Constitution by profiting from his Washington hotel, a decision that will most likely lead the Justice Department to appeal to the Supreme Court to keep the plaintiffs from gathering evidence in the case.

“We recognize that the president is no ordinary petitioner, and we accord him great deference as the head of the executive branch,” the majority opinion from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said. “But Congress and the Supreme Court have severely limited our ability to grant the extraordinary relief the president seeks.”
This is a separate case from the one filed by the Democratic members of Congress.

Interesting, to me at least, is the DoJ arguing that only Congress can bring an emoluments case against the president when the other ruiing found that "individual members of Congress" can't file such a lawsuit.
The Justice Department contends that the president cannot be sued for violating the emoluments bans without the express authorization of Congress
 
Do you think he is ignoring my post #80?

Of course he is. You demonstrated you’re familiar with the material and his talking points.
 
Of course he is. You demonstrated you’re familiar with the material and his talking points.

Fun stuff one can find when the right question is asked - this one surprised me though it shouldn't have: Wikipedia - Legal affairs of Donald Trump THEN, when you take the time to read a page, you might find some fun bits buried at the bottom - Legal affairs of Donald Trump - Wikipedia
A former general counsel of the Trump casino unit confirmed that all data were deleted from nearly all companies' computers annually. Trump and his lawyers claimed they were not keeping records and digital data although it was revealed that Trump had launched his own high-speed internet provider in 1998 and an IBM Domino server had been installed for emails and digital files in 1999.
 
I don't think that there's any real intent to prosecute or at least no real expectation of a successful prosecution. I think this whole thing is a political ploy with at least some of the intent being to make Trump's tax returns public.

On the contrary I believe that is very real intent to indict and the prosecute if the evidence gathered supports and correlates to the description of the pertinence of the subpoena Vance's lawyers gave to a federal judge of a “complex financial investigation” that followed public reports of “extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization.” If so Trump and likely other family members involved in the Trump Organization business could be facing some serious legal challenges in the near future.
 
The judge is in on the scam.

The judge properly ruled that Trump's claim that handing over these tax return documents in compliance with the subpoena would cause him 'irreparable harm' had no basis in fact or law. Grand jury proceedings are secret and the records sealed.
 
On the contrary I believe that is very real intent to indict and the prosecute if the evidence gathered supports and correlates to the description of the pertinence of the subpoena Vance's lawyers gave to a federal judge of a “complex financial investigation” that followed public reports of “extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization.” If so Trump and likely other family members involved in the Trump Organization business could be facing some serious legal challenges in the near future.

The Trump organization has been around for a couple of decades and this kind of interest in it didn't happen until he became president. The absurd premise of a campaign finance violation was simply the tool to kick in the door. As far as claims regarding the valuation of property for income tax, property tax, collateral and insurance goes that should be one heck of a case to make since "value" is pretty doggone subjective and requiring a property owner to use something such as unadjusted basis for valuation under all those circumstances would pretty much blow up the commercial real estate, insurance and lending sectors. It's a political move, 100%.
 
The Trump organization has been around for a couple of decades and this kind of interest in it didn't happen until he became president. The absurd premise of a campaign finance violation was simply the tool to kick in the door. As far as claims regarding the valuation of property for income tax, property tax, collateral and insurance goes that should be one heck of a case to make since "value" is pretty doggone subjective and requiring a property owner to use something such as unadjusted basis for valuation under all those circumstances would pretty much blow up the commercial real estate, insurance and lending sectors. It's a political move, 100%.

Yes, and it's probably been corrupt since day one. If you're part of such organization than perhaps running for President may not be such a great idea because it will certainly involve closer scrutiny. Remember the part about public allegations of extensive and protracted criminal conduct? This is an example of what that is alluding to.

Maryanne Trump Barry - Wikipedia

Allegations of tax evasion
In October 2018, The New York Times published an investigative report asserting that Barry, along with her father and siblings, had engaged in fraudulent and illegal activity for the purpose of limiting estate tax and gift tax liability stemming from Fred Trump's real estate enterprises. Investigative journalist Susanne Craig discovered a critical piece of information in the investigation: a filing Barry had made to the Senate as part of her federal judiciary confirmation in 1983, in which she had reported a $1 million contribution from All County Building Supply & Maintenance. The Times reported that All County Building Supply & Maintenance was a "sham company" formed in 1992 and owned by Barry, Donald Trump, their siblings, and a cousin.

All County Building Supply & Maintenance reportedly paid for work performed at Fred Trump's apartment buildings; those apartment buildings then reimbursed All County Building Supply & Maintenance, but fraudulently added extra money to those reimbursements. Tax experts reportedly indicated that because All County "performed no real work, the transfer of money through the corporation was essentially a gift that evaded the 55 percent tax in place at the time". Its address was the Manhasset, New York, residence of John Walter, Fred Trump's nephew. In a follow-up article, The New York Times reported that the money illicitly earned by All County was split by the Trump siblings.

In October 2018, as a result of the publication of this investigation, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance began a review of the fraud allegations against Barry and her siblings.
 
What are you under the impression is going to happen here?

That you’ll get to personally comb through the returns to see if you think there was any crime?

Or that the Deep State, Globalist, Pedophile ring will get a hold of it and be able to manufacture crimes from it before you get to decide if there’s anything there?

I'll take "Option TWO" for $500, Alex.
 
The Trump organization has been around for a couple of decades and this kind of interest in it didn't happen until he became president. The absurd premise of a campaign finance violation was simply the tool to kick in the door. As far as claims regarding the valuation of property for income tax, property tax, collateral and insurance goes that should be one heck of a case to make since "value" is pretty doggone subjective and requiring a property owner to use something such as unadjusted basis for valuation under all those circumstances would pretty much blow up the commercial real estate, insurance and lending sectors. It's a political move, 100%.

Sucks when the libruls are mean to orange daddy doesn't it?:cry:

He never did nothin' to deserve it huh?:cry:

Bummer dude! :violin :screwy:lamo
 
Fun stuff one can find when the right question is asked - this one surprised me though it shouldn't have: Wikipedia - Legal affairs of Donald Trump THEN, when you take the time to read a page, you might find some fun bits buried at the bottom - Legal affairs of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

A fellow I knew "built" his own accounting system for his business. The one he "built" had no "posting lock" so data could be changed retroactively. What he did was print out a new set of books every month and send that previous month's one through the shredder.

He didn't do it to defraud but he did it because the anguish of complying with accounting rules that required that all accounts balance to the exact penny at all times and that any changes to "correct entry errors" be extensively documented was just too damn much bother. (Formal investigations would be commenced if it was ever found that an incorrect entry had been made for a deposit and then a later entry made to bring the deposited amount up to what it should have been entered as [and the presumption of the investigators was ALWAYS that the original entry had been made in order to divert funds without authorization].) He figured that having one incorrect entry in the last month of 10 years of meticulously accurate entries might end up cutting him some slack with the investigators. He could have used the system to embezzle millions.
 
The judge properly ruled that Trump's claim that handing over these tax return documents in compliance with the subpoena would cause him 'irreparable harm' had no basis in fact or law. Grand jury proceedings are secret and the records sealed.

Until the returns are leaked to the communist media.
 
What are you under the impression is going to happen here?

That you’ll get to personally comb through the returns to see if you think there was any crime?

Or that the Deep State, Globalist, Pedophile ring will get a hold of it and be able to manufacture crimes from it before you get to decide if there’s anything there?

What idiotic impression are you under? That illegal funds are listed in someone's tax returns? :lamo
 
Leaking the tax returns violate Federal law, but at least you're honest about this being a ploy to leak his returns to the media.
Leaking the tax returns would violate federal law.

But if those tax returns become evidence in a trial, they will likely become public.
 
Back
Top Bottom