Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gosh, if Trump committed a federal felony, how is it that the Democrat hacks in charge at the DOJ haven't gotten around to charging him with a crime yet?
The US attorney wants to make sure the charges will stick, evidently.
Are they really wasting their time on something this dumb now?
I tell ya what, why don't you try doing something like he did and see how dumb you think it is! Where do you draw the line on all of the illegal things this man and kids do? So, do you think if you or I did what he did and got caught we would just be ignored by the law?
No one is acting like a banana republic dictator. Unlike Trump, James isn't filing a frivolous lawsuit. Taken down? What does that mean? She's only doing her job. There's evidence, she found it and now she's presented it to the court, much as many will dislike it.
You missed my point. Trump is acting like a banana republic dictator.
I never understood any of the tax or financial claims because people like Trump are audited by the IRS like every two years so if he had done something illegal he’d have been caught years ago
That's not true. He's just been lucky to not have been caught. So, you are saying that lying about your real estate values and making up square footage to get a loan isn't fraudulent? I mean he didn't just fudge it a little bit, he fudged it ALOT! Is there another term for it to call it legal? You or I would be prosecuted in no time flat if we got caught doing that.
while interesting anecdotally, it would only disprove "property tax fraud" if this was the point
Quote:
Anyway, Trump's problem is the value he used when appealing his taxes was quite different from the value he used when applying for a loan on that same property. That is the fraud.
tell us more about this. If you can cite the page in the lawsuit, that would be best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBromhal
dangit. now your bias has to be checked. Because nowhere does the judge call the lawsuit in May '22 frivolous. Now, James does, but of course we know that doesn't count as "stated to be frivolous".
Trump blows lots of hot air. And most of the time he's just talking. Him bragging he has a bigger condo than he does , does NOT translate to reporting on any official document that the condo is that size for any valuation.
They would have to have a signed document where square footage is overstated.
I'm not saying he didn't overstate values.....mmmm -- he wouldn't be the first or last.
Again --- let's see where this goes.....
at least one of them has some sense about this.
Yes, apparently somewhere he stated his penthouse was 30,000 square feet in some document. On the tax records, it's listed at 11,000 square feet. We've known this for more than a year.
All that is, based upon what HAS been said, is trying to use unrelated and circumstantial evidence.
Trump filed approximately 60 frivolous lawsuits in state courts after the last election where he didn't charge voter fraud.
if you get there, you'll see there's a standard for "frivolous" and the judge determines it. It involves the lawyers getting in trouble for filing the suit (not other activities).
How would they discover he was lying about the details of his property each year? An audit does not catch that.
Correct, it wouldn't automatically catch that.
Trump was in a unique situation because they weren't just auditing returns he filed as President. He was already under audit when he ran.
And given his bragging about carryover losses for many years I would imagine they were looking at multiple years tax returns.
It's possible they could have seen some pattern that was a red flag, but more than likely they would have had to request/or obtain by due process additional documentation from either Trump or other third parties.
Whether or not they would do that would probably hinge on how far down into the weeds they would go with any average taxpayer on a similar issue and I suspect they don't go that far unless they have a really good reason to and a solid case they can prove without costly litigation.
They or the DOJ US Attorney they would consult or refer a case to would have considered the politics involved with a President. And, more than likely a negotiated settlement would have been pursued first as it is with most taxpayers. Trump himself spoke of negotiating with them.
For all we know he has already settled all years with IRS..........possibly committing fraud during that settlement.......who knows.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
