Octopus Overlords

Daehawk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:00 pm Hey they got Al Capone on tax evasion...never know. Im just surprised NO ONE investigated a millionaire who pays less tax than me.

Millionaires can pay for lawyers and tend to have very complicated financial records, that make it expensive to get anything out of them. Much easier to go after people without those resources even though the payoff is not even close.

You need a narcissist to grab hold and never let go. Say, like a Guliani. He used tax evasion to take down a lot of players to advance his agenda. In retrospect, when all of Trump's cards fell in in the 90s and he started screwing over everyone banks and contractors alike, you'd think Guliani would have come after Trump too. Or was he no longer doing prosecution then?

Daehawk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:00 pm Hey they got Al Capone on tax evasion...never know. Im just surprised NO ONE investigated a millionaire who pays less tax than me.

Because like Al Capone, he's yugely popular. Al Capone was a legit celebrity, and people cheered and shit when he would show up at ball games, fights, etc. Actually, Capone was probably much more popular than Trump is today, because Trump is divisive...you probably either love him or hate him. Capone was pretty much universally popular.

Also, like Trump, Capone would totally have had his own reality show if he lived in modern times.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:28 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:55 am This is the civil case btw - it means big trouble for the Trump Organization potentially but the underlying crimes that got it that way? Who knows if they'll get there. That is actually part of why they are resisting subpoenas in this civil case claiming it'll be used against them in criminal proceedings.

And not to bring the law into it, BUT: (1) there's no fifth amendment (or other right) to not produce documents pursuant to subpoena even if those documents are incriminating, unless the subpoena is written in a really weird way (e.g., "please produce all documents that prove that you committed a crime");

Right but that doesn't stop these assholes from filing motion after motion to delay producing those documents on those specious grounds.

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:38 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:28 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:55 am This is the civil case btw - it means big trouble for the Trump Organization potentially but the underlying crimes that got it that way? Who knows if they'll get there. That is actually part of why they are resisting subpoenas in this civil case claiming it'll be used against them in criminal proceedings.

And not to bring the law into it, BUT: (1) there's no fifth amendment (or other right) to not produce documents pursuant to subpoena even if those documents are incriminating, unless the subpoena is written in a really weird way (e.g., "please produce all documents that prove that you committed a crime");

Right but that doesn't stop these assholes from filing motion after motion to delay producing those documents on those specious grounds.

That is correct.

Trump's 'Save America' agenda might be lacking some rigor.

tl;dr Trump's accounting firm (Mazars) is cutting him loose and implying that the Trump Org (i.e. the whole rotten family) has been lying to banks and the Federal Government for years.

I'd care if it'd matter. But it won't.

It feels like...declaring an entire decade of financials should be a big deal.

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Feb 14, 2022 7:33 pm I'd care if it'd matter. But it won't.

Well, what I wonder with this is whether it signals that Mazars is willing to say that they witnessed fraudulent activity / received false information / etc. from Trump or his family. If so that raises the odds that prosecutors have a case to bring.

Whether prosecutors can and are willing to deliver...who knows. If they don't, then this doesn't matter at all.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Feb 14, 2022 8:44 pm It feels like...declaring an entire decade of financials should be a big deal.

When I saw the headlines and began reading the article the NYT ran on it, I thought the same thing at first. But the further I read, the more it became clear that there's a shit ton of fine print and caveats to these "financial condition statements" that kind of makes this more of a nothing burger, unfortunately.

The way I see it is that the government has shown for years they are unwilling to take on complex financial investigations. There has been a lot of ink spilled about that and it helped fuel the populist unrest we saw through the last decade. Only to be exploited by a mobster President. And in the end, they won't charge him for the well documented crimes he did in the sunlight. I mean we have to be realistic. Our system is corrupt. I'd love for it to prove me wrong but it almost certainly won't. We're watching the death of a nation in real-time here. I am just choosing to face that probable reality with years of well-supported low expectations.

Also, "got to love" the brazenness of the Trump organization naturally spinning this as a victory while providing the talking points for the army of smooth brain's they field daily.

Kurth wrote: ↑Mon Feb 14, 2022 8:48 pm When I saw the headlines and began reading the article the NYT ran on it, I thought the same thing at first. But the further I read, the more it became clear that there's a shit ton of fine print and caveats to these "financial condition statements" that kind of makes this more of a nothing burger, unfortunately.

I guess I'm struggling because I'm trying to think of another time when a similar organization came out and declared a decade of financials as questionable. I understand that they always reserve the right to revoke their prior certifications ("I've got new information, man. New shit has come to light."), but I can't help but feel this unusual.

It's unusual for sure. I think though that this is partially maybe even primarily Mazars trying to protect themselves - both from the repercussions of factual findings in a court case about the veracity of the documents but also their reputation. It has to be battered after years of being tied to Trump's financials.

Mazars is protecting itself, and firing a highly visible client is a big deal. They are literally saying the accounting firm won’t stand behind the Trump Organization’s financials even with all of the qualifications and limitations.

That happens when an accounting firm can no longer rely on its client, and fears continued work will cause liability. They likely have a good idea where the financial inaccuracies are likely and don’t want to be forced into exposing them.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 10:03 am Mazars is protecting itself, and firing a highly visible client is a big deal. They are literally saying the accounting firm won’t stand behind the Trump Organization’s financials even with all of the qualifications and limitations.

That happens when an accounting firm can no longer rely on its client, and fears continued work will cause liability. They likely have a good idea where the financial inaccuracies are likely and don’t want to be forced into exposing them.

How is this going to keep them from being forced begged to participate in the investigation? If there are discrepancies found are they not still liable for the work them did?

Does all this mean Trump's lenders are now free to call in their loans?

And wouldn't you not want to be the last to do so?

Remus West wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 4:02 pm

Zarathud wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 10:03 am Mazars is protecting itself, and firing a highly visible client is a big deal. They are literally saying the accounting firm won’t stand behind the Trump Organization’s financials even with all of the qualifications and limitations.

That happens when an accounting firm can no longer rely on its client, and fears continued work will cause liability. They likely have a good idea where the financial inaccuracies are likely and don’t want to be forced into exposing them.

How is this going to keep them from being forced begged to participate in the investigation? If there are discrepancies found are they not still liable for the work them did?

It shouldn't keep them from being involved in the investigation. Now, if they are inclined to fight it, given a sympathetic SCOTUS they could probably postpone their involvement a fair amount.

In terms of their liability, I assume their position would be that their work was fine, but that they were given bad information (were lied to) by their client. If that's true, then as a general rule they wouldn't be liable. Of course the truth may be somewhere in the middle where they were lied to but the lies were fairly obvious ones, and they didn't do their job adequately to scrutinize those lies. Which could create liability for Mazars but likely presents a tough case for prosecutors. Though I imagine prosecutors would be more interested in pursuing people in the Trump Organization anyway.

In any event that's what interests me in this. Unless I'm missing something it sure sounds like Mazars is locking itself into an argument that the Trump Organization lied to them, which seems like pretty good evidence for prosecutors interested in prosecuting people in the Trump Organization.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 5:01 pm Does all this mean Trump's lenders are now free to call in their loans?

And wouldn't you not want to be the last to do so?

Owe the bank $500K? That's your problem.

Owe the bank $500M? That's their problem.


Ask Trump, he built an illusory career on it.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 5:39 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 5:01 pm Does all this mean Trump's lenders are now free to call in their loans?

And wouldn't you not want to be the last to do so?

Owe the bank $500K? That's your problem.

Owe the bank $500M? That's their problem.


Ask Trump, he built an illusory career on it.

Banks had actually wised up to him prior to his presidential run. He was down to soliciting questionable funds from Eastern Europe and the Middle East as Western Banks weren't willing to lend to him as I recall. I do suspect that may have changed in the past few years tho...

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 5:44 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 5:39 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 5:01 pm Does all this mean Trump's lenders are now free to call in their loans?

And wouldn't you not want to be the last to do so?

Owe the bank $500K? That's your problem.

Owe the bank $500M? That's their problem.


Ask Trump, he built an illusory career on it.

Banks had actually wised up to him prior to his presidential run. He was down to soliciting questionable funds from Eastern Europe and the Middle East as Western Banks weren't willing to lend to him as I recall. I do suspect that may have changed in the past few years tho...

Deutche Bank was with him up until last year. I think he still owes them north of $300M.

I expect Mazars was getting questions where they would have to investigate. Or Trump Organization was not listening. Better to withdraw before you’re thrown on the hand grenade. That’s definitely Trump’s Strategy — accept no responsibility.

Biden rejects Trump's attempt to shield White House visitor logs, including for day of January 6 attack

In a letter to the National Archives, White House counsel Dana Remus wrote Biden has determined that asserting executive privilege "is not in the best interests of the United States, and therefore is not justified, as to these records and portions of records." The New York Times was first to report on Biden's decision.
...
Remus explained the administration's decision by noting that, while Trump decided to block the visitor logs from public view on claims about national security, the Biden administration "voluntarily discloses such visitor logs on a monthly basis," with some exceptions.

I don't care if Trump gets off scott-free, if he can only get in enough legal entanglement to prevent being able to run in 2024. I'm not sure if that's even possible given his ability to deflect everything, but it's my only hope. Sure, we may still wind up getting a Trump loyalist in the WH, but at least it would be a different brand of crazy. I'm not sure my mental state can handle 4 more years of Trump.

Soros should come in and buy up all his debt. Then tell Florida Man he will forgive it all plus spot him a billion, as long as he and his family disappear from public life.

Can someone lawsplain to me what deposing a hostile opponent accomplishes?

With Donnie it means a full confession in the form of bragging and topped off with a “…but that just means I’m a smart businessman!”

I think he will sit there and say that he relies on his attorneys and accountants to handle that stuff. He has no idea what was happening. Every thing wrong or illegal is all their fault.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 5:15 pm I think he will sit there and say that he relies on his attorneys and accountants to handle that stuff. He has no idea what was happening. Every thing wrong or illegal is all their fault.

Just like most business men and politicians do.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 4:44 pm Can someone lawsplain to me what deposing a hostile opponent accomplishes?

I'm not a litigator, but deposing hostile witnesses happens in just about every litigation, I'd think. It's part fishing expedition/part laying the groundwork for in court testimony. The rule of thumb when you're in court is that you never want to ask a question of the witness that you don't already know the answer to. Deposition allows you to get some answers ahead of time. If the answer in court comes out differently than in the deposition, you can use the deposition to impeach the witness and cast doubt on their credibility. In a case with criminal implications, you're likely to get a lot of 5th Amendment calls (which, for the record, does not mean the person is guilty of anything!), but even that can be helpful in planning your strategy. In this case, which is going to be a media circus, you'll get the benefit of the public acting all outraged that someone has taken the 5th.

stimpy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 5:36 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 5:15 pm I think he will sit there and say that he relies on his attorneys and accountants to handle that stuff. He has no idea what was happening. Every thing wrong or illegal is all their fault.

Just like most business men and politicians do.

To an extent, yes, but not fully. I can't speak to the accountancy side of things, but I can tell you that the business people where I work get fully briefed on legal issues and risks associated with taking various positions. That's because most decisions in business are that - business decisions. They can and should be informed by the law and the legal risks, but in the end the client needs to make the business decision.

Will transcripts of the depo be made public? I could use a good laugh.

One other element to consider about the "advice of counsel" defense is that it typically pierces the protection of attorney-client privilege with respect to that advice. If you're saying that your lawyer told you to do something, you've now proactively waived attorney-client privilege by disclosing the advice your lawyer gave you. That means the other side can now seek discovery into communications between the lawyer and client with respect to that advice, so you'd better be telling the truth if you say that your lawyer told you it was OK to do something!

(Again, I don't know squat about accounting, so I don't know how a similar defense would work in that field.)

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 6:02 pm One other element to consider about the "advice of counsel" defense is that it typically pierces the protection of attorney-client privilege with respect to that advice. If you're saying that your lawyer told you to do something, you've now proactively waived attorney-client privilege by disclosing the advice your lawyer gave you. That means the other side can now seek discovery into communications between the lawyer and client with respect to that advice, so you'd better be telling the truth if you say that your lawyer told you it was OK to do something!

(Again, I don't know squat about accounting, so I don't know how a similar defense would work in that field.)

Well, there's no "accountant-client privilege" (because those suckers aren't writing the laws so who cares about keeping their communications private), so that wouldn't have any impact on prosecutors' ability to compel information related to accountant-client matters. But showing that your accountant told you that your taxes were in compliance with GAAP or whatever is a good defense to criminal fraud, for example.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Judge rejects Trump attempt to toss conspiracy lawsuits, finds 'plausible' case former president incited Capitol riot.

This means...something.

This TIME!

IF convicted he would be presumably be prohibited from holding public office. I think. Where's that Kirschner idiot.