Will Trump be indicted ?

[BADecker]

Will Trump be indicted ?


An indictment simply means that somebody decides to make a formal accusation, and take it to court. It doesn't mean guilt or innocence. It means, Lets get to court and find out. You jokers are stupidly making so much about nothing. Even if Trump is guilty of something, his attorneys will draw it out so long, that his accusers will back off; too expensive.

A federal indictment is pretty damn serious.  They don't bring cases without overwhelming evidence, especially against a former president.  I believe the conviction rate is close to 99%, most of which are plea deals.

For Trump, it might be... because he doesn't know the law. If he isn't in office any longer, and doesn't mind losing some of the benefits, all he needs to do is stand as a man rather than a person. The indictment paperwork list Trump, a person. Trump is a man, and for sure is not that person on the indictment... except if he accepts being that person. Let the person on the indictment get locked away if they want. It isn't Trump the man. But he has to take that stance if he wants to avoid being indicted.

[Xinarae*]

I don't think trump will be indicted a motion to impeach former us president donald trump has been raised in the country's upper house of parliament the senate however, a majority of senators from his own party, the republican party voted against the proposal. Trump is getting exemption from impeachment trial in support of party lawmakers none of my true supporters will ever support political violence he has taken many safe measures to deal with the corona virus.

[TwitchySeal]

Cases like this seem like a great opportunity for prosecutors to get those in his inner circle to flip on him to avoid prison.  Remember, if you want to cooperate with the feds and work out a deal, you gotta share everything about any potential crime.  

There were many cases that Mueller's team prosecuted that were intended to do exactly this, however, Trump was never implicated in any crime.

If anyone had knowledge of Trump's crimes, it would have been Cohen, and he was unable to offer testimony implicating Trump in any kind of illegal behavior.

I think Trump will probably be indicted, but it is almost certain that the charges will be frivolous and he will ultimately prevail in court.

Michael Cohen literally implicated Trump in his guilty plea (as individual number 1).  Trump instructed Cohen to create a shell company to funnel money through, and also set up an arrangment with a tabloid, both with the sole purpose of hiding transactions from the FEC.  

He also implicated Trump while testifying in front of congress (despite Trump publicly attempting to intimidate him right before, another felony) the real estate deal for Trump Tower Moscow.

Then there's the whole Trump organization investigation, which will likely be Trumps first indictment.  We don't know whether or not Cohen has implicated Trump under oath yet since he hasn't had the opportunity to do so and the criminal investigation is ongoing.  But it sure seems likely.

[sirazimuth]

Definitely popcorn time

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/01/politics/trump-organization-allen-weisselberg/index.html

[PrimeNumber7]

Definitely popcorn time

Many legal experts and law professors are saying that it is highly unusual for these types of charges being filed against the Trump org and the CFO without additional, more serious charges also being filed.

It is almost as if the charges are politically motivated. Or almost as if the DA made campaign promises to charge Trump and associates with baseless crimes.

[Gyfts]

For the sake of argument, let's say

Ben Shapiro moment 


IMO - Politically motivated witch hunts are still politically motivated.

Two things are true - if he committed crimes, he can enjoy the prison food. But I also hope everyone, even democrat and republican politicians, are held to the same standard of law. And plus, if it turns out he's innocent, then I feel bad that he may have been the target of political charges.

It is almost as if the charges are politically motivated. Or almost as if the DA made campaign promises to charge Trump and associates with baseless crimes.

Obviously we'll see it play out in court, but I doubt these crimes will be baseless because let's be honest, every one of these wall st exec have their hands dirty. Still though, innocent until proven guilty, always. It'll probably be a case of "barely legal."

[PrimeNumber7]

It is almost as if the charges are politically motivated. Or almost as if the DA made campaign promises to charge Trump and associates with baseless crimes.

Obviously we'll see it play out in court, but I doubt these crimes will be baseless because let's be honest, every one of these wall st exec have their hands dirty. Still though, innocent until proven guilty, always. It'll probably be a case of "barely legal."

Say there are two traffic cameras exactly one mile apart in an area in which the speed limit is 30 MPH. The DA could review the footage, see that a Trump associate took 116 seconds to travel the distance between the two lights, and charges him with speeding. The Trump associate was breaking the law -- he was going 1 mile over the speed limit, which is illegal, but this does not mean that the law is applied to everyone else, or that the DA was not looking specifically to charge this particular person with a crime.

If the Trump org was audited in the timeframe of the alleged crimes, this would probably be a pretty strong defense, especially if the audit was done by the NY IRS, and even more so, if the audit resulted in additional taxes being paid not involving the fringe benefits.

The amount of tax revenue that NY state lost out on is very small, and is probably less than the cost of the investigation, somewhere in the range of $8000 or so per year over 15 years. This is also not to say that the Trump org didn't offset some of this with higher corporate taxes on their end.

[TwitchySeal]

It is almost as if the charges are politically motivated. Or almost as if the DA made campaign promises to charge Trump and associates with baseless crimes.

It is almost as if your defense of Trump is politically motivated.  Almost as if you're not interested in whether someone is guilty or not as much as whether they have a D or an R next to their name.  Almost as if D = Guilty, R = Witch Hunt.

[DaveF]

Obviously we'll see it play out in court, but I doubt these crimes will be baseless because let's be honest, every one of these wall st exec have their hands dirty. Still though, innocent until proven guilty, always. It'll probably be a case of "barely legal."

Say there are two traffic cameras exactly one mile apart in an area in which the speed limit is 30 MPH. The DA could review the footage, see that a Trump associate took 116 seconds to travel the ctemtsdistance between the two lights, and charges him with speeding. The Trump associate was breaking the law -- he was going 1 mile over the speed limit, which is illegal, but this does not mean that the law is applied to everyone else, or that the DA was not looking specifically to charge this particular person with a crime.

If the Trump org was audited in the timeframe of the alleged crimes, this would probably be a pretty strong defense, especially if the audit was done by the NY IRS, and even more so, if the audit resulted in additional taxes being paid not involving the fringe benefits.

The amount of tax revenue that NY state lost out on is very small, and is probably less than the cost of the investigation, somewhere in the range of $8000 or so per year over 15 years. This is also not to say that the Trump org didn't offset some of this with higher corporate taxes on their end.
[/quote]

Bad analogy here in NY traffic cameras show your speed as you were going past them. Usually with both radar and another method. I have a collection of some really nice shots of my motorcycle from them if you want. It's an instant image at an actual moment in time of how fast you were going.

As for the taxes:
Remember you pay part of your income tax and the company pays the other part.
If what was released was true they, were paying for other things (some of which were over $100k) for him and others and not recording it as income. So your $8k number is WAYYYYYY low.

And yes they were audited during the time, but the audit was paused during the time DT was president.

And on top of all of that, so far they have just charged them for 1 person many more are coming.

-Dave

[PrimeNumber7]

Bad analogy here in NY traffic cameras show your speed as you were going past them. Usually with both radar and another method. I have a collection of some really nice shots of my motorcycle from them if you want. It's an instant image at an actual moment in time of how fast you were going.

Okay fair enough, Ive never been in NY long enough to know how the traffic cameras work, but I think you understand the annology.

As for the taxes:
Remember you pay part of your income tax and the company pays the other part.
If what was released was true they, were paying for other things (some of which were over $100k) for him and others and not recording it as income. So your $8k number is WAYYYYYY low.

And yes they were audited during the time, but the audit was paused during the time DT was president.

And on top of all of that, so far they have just charged them for 1 person many more are coming.

-Dave

In 2015, the top tax bracket in New York was 8.82%, and today it is 10.9%. In 2005, when it is alledged this started, the top tax bracket was 6.85%. The allegation is that $1.7 million in compensation was hidden from the tax authorities over 15 years, that amounts to about $113k per year. The indictment claims that Weisselberg failed to pay about $106k in NY state taxes, which works out to be about $7k per year.

Take a look at a copy of the indictment. I think it is pretty shaky TBH.

The indictment claims that the Trump org entered into a lease for an apartment that stipulated that Weisselberg would occupy the apartment as his "primary residence". There are a couple of things wrong with this. First, the Trump org does not have any authority to bind where their employees live, so without proof that Weisselberg actually lived in the apartment, the entire indictment goes up in smoke.

The indictment also says that Weisselberg's compensation was adjusted downward in order to account for the rent expenses and that internal spreadsheets kept track of these expenses that were for the benefit of Weisselberg. I would note that I occasionally travel for business, and when I do, my employer pays for my meals, hotel and airfare, but I am not required to pay taxes on these things. These travel expenses are taken out of my department's budget. I don't think it would be unreasonable to argue that the Trump org had a budget for Weisselberg that was to include both payroll and business expenses. I am not sure what criteria travel expenses are allowed according to IRS rules, or where Weisselberg claimed to live during the relevant time period.

The indictment's most serious charge, grand larceny, stems from Weisselberg's claiming tax refunds from the IRS that he was allegedly not entitled to. In addition to proving that the tax returns were in fact fraudulent, the prosecution would need to prove that Weisselberg was in the state of NY when he caused the tax returns to be filed.

[TwitchySeal]

The amount of tax revenue that NY state lost out on is very small, and is probably less than the cost of the investigation, somewhere in the range of $8000 or so per year over 15 years. This is also not to say that the Trump org didn't offset some of this with higher corporate taxes on their end.

In 2015, the top tax bracket in New York was 8.82%, and today it is 10.9%. In 2005, when it is alledged this started, the top tax bracket was 6.85%. The allegation is that $1.7 million in compensation was hidden from the tax authorities over 15 years, that amounts to about $113k per year. The indictment claims that Weisselberg failed to pay about $106k in NY state taxes, which works out to be about $7k per year.

Take a look at a copy of the indictment. I think it is pretty shaky TBH.

Similarly ridiculous as your claim that only 2 or 3 people breached the Capital and the rest were invited in.

So you read this:



And walked away thinking "I know, I'll just tell people the issue is over $8k a year and maybe they'll just believe me.  And even if they don't, I'll make sure there's some element of truth in my post and only imply the untrue stuff so I can seem to have a defense"

[PrimeNumber7]

The indictment claims that Weisselberg failed to pay about $106k in NY state taxes, which works out to be about $7k per year.

Take a look at a copy of the indictment. I think it is pretty shaky TBH.

So you read this:



And walked away thinking "I know, I'll just tell people the issue is over $8k a year and maybe they'll just believe me.  And even if they don't, I'll make sure there's some element of truth in my post and only imply the untrue stuff so I can seem to have a defense"

What I said is true. I was clear that the amount was in reference to NY state taxes. NY courts do not have jurisdiction over alleged federal tax fraud.

The only reason why the federal tax amounts are listed is because of the shaky allegation of grand larceny via filing a tax return that causes a portion of tax withheld to be refunded. In addition to the problems I noted in my previous post with this allegation, I don't think NY courts have jurisdiction over federal tax laws and as such, would be unable to conclude that Weisselberg committed federal tax fraud that resulted in the alleged fraudulent tax refund. I also don't think there is any dispute the tax amounts that were refunded were actually withheld and paid to the federal government, so I think it is a stretch the alleged fraudulent tax refunds constitute grand larceny when Weisselberg could have simply had less money withheld from his pay over the year.

As noted in my previous post, the indictment offers no evidence that Weisselberg actually owes any of the NY city tax. I can't sign a lease in San Francisco, taking responsibility for the payments, saying that TwitchySeal is going to live in the apartment as his primary residence, then have the DA come after you for tax fraud if you never actually lived in the apartment sufficient to have to pay CA taxes. Even if you had signed the lease that says the apartment will be your primary residence, it would not create a tax liability unless you meet certain criteria. NY tax law appears to make it difficult to get out from having tax liability, however, to initially start having tax liability, it appears you need to live in NY (or NY city) for a certain number of days in a year. 

[TwitchySeal]

The indictment claims that Weisselberg failed to pay about $106k in NY state taxes, which works out to be about $7k per year.

Take a look at a copy of the indictment. I think it is pretty shaky TBH.

So you read this:



And walked away thinking "I know, I'll just tell people the issue is over $8k a year and maybe they'll just believe me.  And even if they don't, I'll make sure there's some element of truth in my post and only imply the untrue stuff so I can seem to have a defense"

What I said is true. I was clear that the amount was in reference to NY state taxes. NY courts do not have jurisdiction over alleged federal tax fraud.

The only reason why the federal tax amounts are listed is because of the shaky allegation of grand larceny via filing a tax return that causes a portion of tax withheld to be refunded. In addition to the problems I noted in my previous post with this allegation, I don't think NY courts have jurisdiction over federal tax laws and as such, would be unable to conclude that Weisselberg committed federal tax fraud that resulted in the alleged fraudulent tax refund. I also don't think there is any dispute the tax amounts that were refunded were actually withheld and paid to the federal government, so I think it is a stretch the alleged fraudulent tax refunds constitute grand larceny when Weisselberg could have simply had less money withheld from his pay over the year.

As noted in my previous post, the indictment offers no evidence that Weisselberg actually owes any of the NY city tax. I can't sign a lease in San Francisco, taking responsibility for the payments, saying that TwitchySeal is going to live in the apartment as his primary residence, then have the DA come after you for tax fraud if you never actually lived in the apartment sufficient to have to pay CA taxes. Even if you had signed the lease that says the apartment will be your primary residence, it would not create a tax liability unless you meet certain criteria. NY tax law appears to make it difficult to get out from having tax liability, however, to initially start having tax liability, it appears you need to live in NY (or NY city) for a certain number of days in a year. 

You took a small piece of the big picture and framed it as if it were the whole picture in order to make Trump look like an innocent victim.

[PrimeNumber7]

You took a small piece of the big picture and framed it as if it were the whole picture in order to make Trump look like an innocent victim.

I should be clear, Trump is an innocent victim. There has never been a similar prosecution for not paying taxes on fringe benefits when there was no additional crimes involved. The prosecution is very clearly political.

so without proof that Weisselberg actually lived in the apartment, the entire indictment goes up in smoke.

There has never been doubt that he lived there together with his wife for 7 years. Its an undisputed fact. After they divorced, Allen Weisselberg had his daughter-in-law evicted from the apartment. Regardless, your assertion is incorrect.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9625481/Trump-Organization-CFO-Allen-Weisselberg-EVICTED-ex-daughter-law-apartment.html

If Weisselberg has admitted to living in NYC in the past, please provide evidence of such. Evicting his former daugher-in-law during a messy divorce is hardly evidence of anything other than that he was going through a messy divorce.

The indictment's most serious charge, grand larceny, stems from Weisselberg's claiming tax refunds from the IRS that he was allegedly not entitled to. In addition to proving that the tax returns were in fact fraudulent, the prosecution would need to prove that Weisselberg was in the state of NY when he caused the tax returns to be filed.

No, that's wholly incorrect. It doesn't matter where he was when the taxes were filed. Besides, we're not talking about a one-time thing, we're talking about 9 years of under-reported income.

I have serious doubts about you having any actual familiarity with the case.

Weisselberg is being charged in NY state court for alleged violations of NY state law. In order for the court to have jurisdiction over any alleged crimes, or for NY law to apply, any alleged crimes must have taken place in NY state. If Weisselberg was going 71 in a 70 MPH zone in NJ, the DA cannot charge him for violating NY law in NY courts.

[sirazimuth]

Looks like our dear old former impotus has dug his own grave....

https://youtu.be/g_XJT0JX2UQ

[PrimeNumber7]

Looks like our dear old former impotus has dug his own grave....

[suspicious link removed]

This is by no means an open and shut case.

It has not even been established how often Weisselberg stayed in the NYC apartment, and you cannot assume that just because the lease that the Trump org signed said that the apartment is Weisselberg's "primary residence" that he actually stayed there sufficiently frequently for it to actually be his primary residence.

It really boils down to if Weisselberg stayed in the NYC apartment for reasons listed in (a) of 26 CFR § 1.162-32, and if he had an additional residence he would reside in other than the NYC apartment. I am not a tax expert, but one potential argument could be that Weisselberg is normally a WFH employee, and would sometimes need to come into the office to attend meetings as a condition of employment.

In any case, it is very clear this is a political persecution. I have not read about a single expert in tax law who is aware of a single case in which this type of case would not be settled with a fine.

[TwitchySeal]

The prosecution is very clearly political.

No, your defense  of Trump is political.

No doubt if it were Hillary or Biden in the same situation you'd have the opposite stance.

[PrimeNumber7]

The prosecution is very clearly political.

No, your defense  of Trump is political.

No doubt if it were Hillary or Biden in the same situation you'd have the opposite stance.

Both Hilary and Biden are clearly either running or have run (in the case of Clinton) bribery schemes, pretty much out in the open, and neither have faced any kind of prosecution.

[TwitchySeal]

The prosecution is very clearly political.

No, your defense  of Trump is political.

No doubt if it were Hillary or Biden in the same situation you'd have the opposite stance.

Both Hilary and Biden are clearly either running or have run (in the case of Clinton) bribery schemes, pretty much out in the open, and neither have faced any kind of prosecution.

Yeah we know.  And Trump is an innocent victim.
And if the Clinton Foundation were indicted for exactly the same thing with identical evidence as the Trump Org case, you'd be arguing the exact opposite of what you are now.  You're unable to set politics aside and look at the facts clearly.

[speedy963]

Ok, so I thought I'd start a new thread now that the inevitable has happened.
Trump not convicted ...what a surprise.
But now he's out of office and no longer immune from criminal prosecution, will he be indicted?
And held accountable for his actions during his presidency (among other things) in a criminal court, rather than an impeachment trial in the senate where we all knew
it was a fore gone conclusion that the spineless retrumplican toadies would vote for acquittal, no matter what evidence the house managers presented.

The former president, Donald Trump may have done quite a lot of things that may seem wrong to the eyes of the many but just like other former presidents, he also was able to do good things. The only thing that would make Donald Trump go to prison are strong evidences for the "supposedly bad things" he has done while he was still the president of the United States, else, there would be no such thing as indicting that'll happen. Too bad though, no matter who becomes president, there will never be a great president since people never get satisfied with anything. Specially the ones that thinks that the government owes them a lot, enough to make the government shoulder their daily expenses, housing, etc., etc. I wonder how some people can even bear to have such kind of a mindset.

- Anyway, since there can be no way to influence the outcome of such things, I suggest OP to not think too much about this and focus on things that OP can have better control instead.