politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
So this monitor, she can't come to a conclusion about whether fraud occurred, although there were persistent errors in financial disclosure of the Trump businesses, but if she can't come to a conclusion, what is the function of the monitor in the first place?
And why is the judge taking her information into consideration if she can't come to him decision either way?
My understanding is that the monitor's job is to report information to the judge, not make decisions for them. Offering up her own accusations of fraud could easily be overstepping her position.
Oh, she goes so out of her way to talk about the ongoing fraud in the Trump organizations but can't arrive at a definite decision that I assumed it was part of her role to come to a decision.
Think if it as an equivalent to "I'm not a lawyer, but...". or when an x-ray technician says "I'm not a doctor, but..."
She has no legal authority to make a final decision, only to relay the facts of her investigation. If she were to say "TFG is guilty", it would open an avenue for Orange Hitler to contest something on legal grounds for improper process or some other such nonsense.
Given the unprecedented (starting to hate that word) scope of everything surrounding the fake-tan meatsack, "Cover Your Ass" is the name of the game for the prosecution.
Okay thank you, that makes a lot of sense and does fit in with the prosecutorial strategy that I keep seeing.
Don't even give baby hands the ghost of a leg to stand on.
Looks like she slipped in a good 50 million tax evasion but now
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-dollar50-million-mystery-debt-looks-like-tax-evasion
Reads to me that, in most of the cases, she doesn’t see the final documents provided to 3rd parties. She can ask Trump org for what they provided and if they don’t hand it over, the court could presumably subpoena them.
For most of the instances she references though, she pointed out issues, Trump org said they’d fix them, but her scope doesn’t include asking the banks if they finally got the corrected version or not.
Given the scale of inaccuracies and errors though (such as not including $1.6M in management fees in a line item called “Management Fees…” and not including any depreciation for golf courses), it certainly smells like the court would at least want to dig deeper.
Yeah, that makes good sense.
Looks like she slipped in a good 50 million tax evasion but now
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-dollar50-million-mystery-debt-looks-like-tax-evasion