Investigations into Trump - obstruction, campaign, taxes, business, etc

[Area 10]

Ok, so it finally may be that something will stick with Trump, and sure enough it’s taxes, the Achilles heel of any fraudster.

It’s a remarkable article:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html

But I’m puzzled why the UK press haven’t picked it up yet. Could it be that they want to do some more fact checking before they run with this? It would seem to me to be the biggest Trump story of his presidency, since not only does it show him to be a bad businessman (indeed, just about the worst in the whole USA, in terms of losses), but also there’s this worrying big wedge of money which suddenly appears in his accounts, where we don’t know where it came from. So I’m puzzled why the British press are slow off the mark with this.

But if it’s true, it’s no wonder the Russians wanted him POTUS. Do you imagine that they didn’t know this stuff already? Who better to bankrupt the US than the worst businessman in the whole country? You couldn’t make it up.

And this comes just one day after Trump gets his highest approval ratings.

[RideTheGlide]

Depends on what you consider the UK press. the Independent can be "out there" sometimes. they picked it up:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-tax-returns-released-figures-business-losses-income-a8903946.html

This has been pretty well known, just not so meticulously documented.

[Area 10]

Ah yes, they are all going with it now. It looks like they may have been waiting for a response from Trump. They do try to be as impartial as they reasonably can.

Trump: billion dollar losses were 'for tax purposes' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48201786

[Bean]

This has been pretty well known, just not so meticulously documented.

Keep in mind that this is from 1985-1994 and not what congress is currently demanding.  So, the headlines are a bit misleading to say the least.

In order to appreciate the significance of the $1.17b in losses accumulated in that time frame you have to know a little about the tax law and understand the effect of timing differences.  In short, the losses should have turned around at some point and are not an indication of financial performance in any given year.

[Admin]

Through this history Trump bankrupted six businesses.  Having been given hundreds of millions of dollars, he could not have done worse.  No one rational buys that this chain of failures was intentional.  He wanted so desperately to be viewed as a strong businessman but failed time after time.  In doing so he left a wake of creditors, contractors and workers to foot his unpaid bill.  Using others to prop up his facade.  He is doing exactly the same with America now.  Drive up the debt and stick us all with the bill. 

Keep in mind that these new NYT article docs are official IRS documents.  This is the legacy of Trump's business acumen.  Anyone else would produce records to contradict these documents but Trump is in a position where he cannot.  They would only show further history of the same.  So much for the Art of the Deal.  This is now how businessman Trump will be remembered.

[RideTheGlide]

This has been pretty well known, just not so meticulously documented.

Keep in mind that this is from 1985-1994 and not what congress is currently demanding.  So, the headlines are a bit misleading to say the least.

In order to appreciate the significance of the $1.17b in losses accumulated in that time frame you have to know a little about the tax law and understand the effect of timing differences.  In short, the losses should have turned around at some point and are not an indication of financial performance in any given year.

We have some hard data and some speculation which varies widely and is of little value. You speculate that other decades made up for that and I speculate that it's a life long pattern. There is some speculation that if current outstanding liabilities were called in at face value he might not even have a positive net worth. There is a little data behind that theory, just not definitive proof. What's the data behind your speculation?

[Bean]

You speculate that other decades made up for that...

No, not necessarily.  It could be a compination of burning his inheritance and other people’s money (loans, etc.) 

In fact, as I've said before, it's entirely possible that DT would be embarrassed to disclose his more recent returns.

Make no mistake, the issue here (for congress) is not so much whether DT is fiscally solid as it is to determine illegitimate sources of income.

Regardless, there is only so much to glean from tax returns.  If they are produced, congress will surely request additional discovery –where does it end?

[Bean]

Through this history Trump bankrupted six businesses.  Having been given hundreds of millions of dollars, he could not have done worse. 

Or, you could say he did alright (President, TV star, enviable lifestyle) despite all his shortcomings…

[Admin]

Through this history Trump bankrupted six businesses.  Having been given hundreds of millions of dollars, he could not have done worse. 

Or, you could say he did alright (President, TV star, enviable lifestyle) despite all his shortcomings…

Would you accept that gold plated fame on the suffering of others?  I know that I would not.  You idolize a con.  I find it hard to believe that you or anyone else would envy Donald Trump's lifestyle.  It looks like a living hell to me.  I guess we differ there.

[Bean]

...It looks like a living hell to me...

On that we agree for sure...

[eastbound]

bean, i see nil misleading from the ny times headline--pls quote the headline you describe as misleading and explain--or this is just vacuous garbage throwing---it'll take with trumpians who dont want to know facts (and dont read)  that make their dear leader look bad--unfair headlines!!---puhleeeze

also, seems youre cherry-picking again----like did you read the same ny times piece i did?---couldnt be more clear in its citation of continual business blundering and costly never-recovered losses---again, for those trumpians who wont read the piece, your take is comforting, but it's simply wrong, and seem intentionally misleading--unless, maybe you didnt read the piece either??

not sure why you continually seek to mislead, with lousy minimal explanation, in ways clearly designed to protect trump from compromising info and developments

it ends when trump and his pack of criminals have been thoroughly investigated---something youre trying to argue shouldnt happen---and if ive got that wrong, pls elaborate in a real reasonably-explained fashion--spare the loaded questions etc etc

[Area 10]

You speculate that other decades made up for that...

No, not necessarily.  It could be a compination of burning his inheritance and other people’s money (loans, etc.) 

In fact, as I've said before, it's entirely possible that DT would be embarrassed to disclose his more recent returns.

Make no mistake, the issue here (for congress) is not so much whether DT is fiscally solid as it is to determine illegitimate sources of income.

Regardless, there is only so much to glean from tax returns.  If they are produced, congress will surely request additional discovery –where does it end?

Why should it end? He’s the President of the USA fer chrissakes! If you stand for that position then you cannot expect to be hiding secret dealings. If you don’t feel that you’d stand up to scrutiny, then don’t stand for POTUS, it’s that simple.

[RideTheGlide]

You speculate that other decades made up for that...

No, not necessarily.  It could be a compination of burning his inheritance and other people’s money (loans, etc.) 

In fact, as I've said before, it's entirely possible that DT would be embarrassed to disclose his more recent returns.

Make no mistake, the issue here (for congress) is not so much whether DT is fiscally solid as it is to determine illegitimate sources of income.

Regardless, there is only so much to glean from tax returns.  If they are produced, congress will surely request additional discovery –where does it end?

Where does it end? That line from the GOP is ridiculous IMO. They act like Mueller found nothing, despite all the prosecutions/convictions and the clear evidence of obstruction that the DOJ is prevented from charging Trump with, but as Mueller noted, congress could pursue. As far as income that may violate the Emoluments Clause found in Article 1 of the Constitution, it really hasn't begun and they are already acting like slowing DEMs down by delays and possible obstruction makes the DEMs guilty of hounding Trump for purely political reasons. So it seems that the sentiment is that since he has been successful at stonewalling the inquiries for long enough for people to get tired of hearing about it, the DEMs should just drop it and accept that he can do whatever he wants without consequence. Do you really not understand how dangerous it is for any branch to have that much power?

[Bean]

not sure why you continually seek to mislead, with lousy minimal explanation, in ways clearly designed to protect trump from compromising info and developments

Do I?

[Bean]

Do you really not understand how dangerous it is for any branch to have that much power?

You mean congress?