(06-15-2017 10:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It's very much like a recent article I saw on our sending an aircraft carrier to the vicinity of North Korea, where the author wrote about how many "soldiers" were on the carrier and about Japanese "battleships." When people know the subject matter, they don't make stupid terminology errors like that. That aircraft carrier article, by the way, was clearly intended as a hit piece aimed at the Trump administration, and I have to wonder if that isn't what is going on here.

OT, but in case anybody cares, here is a link to the aircraft carrier article. They've taken so much flak that they've edited out some of the more obvious errors, like the statement in the original that the crew of the USS Carl Vinson consisted of 5,000 "soldiers." But it's still a pretty ludicrous article.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/uss-carl-vins...17491.html

(06-15-2017 03:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 01:49 PM)Barrett Wrote:  69 is definitely correct that the two entity types are different. No argument there. I just want to understand how he perceives the distinction to be relevant or a difference maker on whatever point the article is making about Trump. In other words, if the article had said "LLC" instead of "corporation," does the article's point (explicitly or implicitly) change in some way?

The point is not that the difference between a corporation and an LLC is somehow relevant to the larger point of the article. The point is that there IS a difference, and anyone with any depth of knowledge about the subject matter would know that, and the author of this article obviously didn't. So why does someone who doesn't understand WTF he is talking about write an article like this?

You can use S Corporations to achieve virtually the same objectives as using LLC, except that you can't do special allocations in an S Corp. One issue that anyone who understands the subject matter would reasonably investigate is what kinds of entities were used for the non-LLC purchases in every instance. Another would be to supply some actual numbers instead of percentages.

The author of the article didn't know enough about the subject matter to understand that they are not the same. Why would you have somebody who doesn't understand the subject matter write this kind of article? One obvious explanation would be that the article that was written from the standpoint of, "Hey, let's go out and find a few factiods that we can toss around as innuendoes against Trump, and don't worry that you don't know anything about what you're writing. Just make it sound bad." Can I prove beyond a reasonable doubt that is what happened? No, but it's a pretty reasonable and likely inference.

If you actually wanted to write some reasoned and intelligent analysis piece, you wouldn't have somebody who doesn't know the difference between and LLC and a corporation write it. If you wanted to write a hatchet piece, you wouldn't care. And the quoted sentence is just not something that anyone who knows the difference would ever write. That's not the only problem of that sort with the article, but that is an obvious one.

Ah, so you didn't read the article.

(06-15-2017 03:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 03:00 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I can see your point as stated, Tanq. It's not that there's any meaningful difference in nefariousness between an LLC or a corporation (i.e., you're not saying that the author's use of "corporation" was meant to, or at least had the effect of, painting a more nefarious picture than if he had simply used "LLC"), but rather, you're saying the author's lack of understanding of the difference between the two is *further* indication that the author doesn't understand the subject matter of his article in the first place. I can accept that as a reasonable criticism--setting aside that I probably feel less prickly about (and assign less weight to) that misuse in terms by the author than you might. But I get your point.

I think it is twofold. The author both implies nefariousness in a perfectly ordinary set of circumstances, then uses an incorrect example that both shows the ignorance on the subject matter, *and* doubles down on the implication of wrongdoing embedded *with* the showing that he doesn't understand what he is talking about.

All my opinion, of course.

Like Owl69, did you actually read the article?

The author does a very good job presenting the results and discussing the very non-nefarious reasons for using LLCs, and provides plenty of examples of properties purchased from Trump that meet that criteria.

This is an investigative piece that raises concerns about the practice for a number of reasons that the author clearly outlines. They don't really damn the practice of LLCs, but raise the alarm for the potential for their misuse given the position of POTUS. I mean, do you think that LLCs can't be used to help funnel and/or launder money via residential property transactions?

Quote: Profits from sales of those properties flow through a trust run by Trump’s sons. The president is the sole beneficiary of the trust and can withdraw cash any time.

The increasing share of opaque buyers comes at a time when federal investigators, members of Congress and ethics watchdogs are asking questions about Trump's sales and customers in the U.S. and around the world. Some Congressional Democrats have been asking for more detail about buyers of Trump’s domestic real estate since USA TODAY’s initial report.

Their concern is that the secretive sales create an extraordinary and unprecedented potential for people, corporations or foreign interests to try to influence a President. Anyone who wanted to court favor with the President could snap up multiple properties or purposefully overpay, without revealing their identity publicly.

(06-15-2017 04:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ah, so you didn't read the article.

Yes, I read the article. How in the f*** do you think I picked up on the author's inability to distinguish an LLC from a corporation? And that's probably an essential bit of information that the author of any article describing LLCs as potential vehicles for fraud should have known. For that matter, corporations would provide the same cover as LLCs.

I see one number, 28 sales in the last 12 months. I don't see any similar numbers to compare with. By itself, that number is pretty meaningless. If you see a more complete tabulation of actual numbers, please feel free to educate me.

Also, I don't see any analysis of any market factors that may have been in play there. I would expect that to be beyond the capability of anyone who doesn't know the difference between and LLC and a corporation.

(06-15-2017 04:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 03:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 03:00 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I can see your point as stated, Tanq. It's not that there's any meaningful difference in nefariousness between an LLC or a corporation (i.e., you're not saying that the author's use of "corporation" was meant to, or at least had the effect of, painting a more nefarious picture than if he had simply used "LLC"), but rather, you're saying the author's lack of understanding of the difference between the two is *further* indication that the author doesn't understand the subject matter of his article in the first place. I can accept that as a reasonable criticism--setting aside that I probably feel less prickly about (and assign less weight to) that misuse in terms by the author than you might. But I get your point.

I think it is twofold. The author both implies nefariousness in a perfectly ordinary set of circumstances, then uses an incorrect example that both shows the ignorance on the subject matter, *and* doubles down on the implication of wrongdoing embedded *with* the showing that he doesn't understand what he is talking about.

All my opinion, of course.

Like Owl69, did you actually read the article?

The author does a very good job presenting the results and discussing the very non-nefarious reasons for using LLCs, and provides plenty of examples of properties purchased from Trump that meet that criteria.

This is an investigative piece that raises concerns about the practice for a number of reasons that the author clearly outlines. They don't really damn the practice of LLCs, but raise the alarm for the potential for their misuse given the position of POTUS. I mean, do you think that LLCs can't be used to help funnel and/or launder money via residential property transactions?

Quote: Profits from sales of those properties flow through a trust run by Trump’s sons. The president is the sole beneficiary of the trust and can withdraw cash any time.

The increasing share of opaque buyers comes at a time when federal investigators, members of Congress and ethics watchdogs are asking questions about Trump's sales and customers in the U.S. and around the world. Some Congressional Democrats have been asking for more detail about buyers of Trump’s domestic real estate since USA TODAY’s initial report.

Their concern is that the secretive sales create an extraordinary and unprecedented potential for people, corporations or foreign interests to try to influence a President. Anyone who wanted to court favor with the President could snap up multiple properties or purposefully overpay, without revealing their identity publicly.

No more than Ford 150s can be used to transport drugs across the Chihuahua desert. I guess if you want to see smoke, smoke is what you will see. And, to be blunt, looks like you took the media angle hook, line, and sinker.

I read it. It does a smash-up job of showing "it could be used". Duh. No big news there. But of course, they utterly fail to mention how absolutely and commonplacethat style of transaction is. And that failure, to me at least, tells me that there is a serious slant here.

If you want to get worked up over that extremely common style of transaction, you are perfectly free to do so. Whatever blows your hair back.

But to me he states a big nothing-burger when he states that, then follows it up with "Trump uses them all the time" (hardly surprising, or hardly surprising that many buyers do it this way). The cheesy ass innuendo is what I noticed, but then again, with the Solyndra stuff I dealt with many years ago on a literally daily basis --- 've become rather attuned to that style of reporting. The big massive factual error sitting at the beginning of another innuendo round really kind of seals the deal for me.

There are so many "could"-type clauses in that piece, I nearly imagined that pointy haired dude from "Secrets of Ancient Aliens" narrating that piece....

But heck, it sells copy space. Most smoke involving Trump is guaranteed to get about 55 per cent of the population acting like Pavlov's pooches these days.

(06-15-2017 04:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 04:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ah, so you didn't read the article.

Yes, I read the article. How in the f*** do you think I picked up on the author's inability to distinguish an LLC from a corporation? And that's probably an essential bit of information that the author of any article describing LLCs as potential vehicles for fraud should have known. For that matter, corporations would provide the same cover as LLCs.

I see one number, 28 sales in the last 12 months. I don't see any similar numbers to compare with. By itself, that number is pretty meaningless. If you see a more complete tabulation of actual numbers, please feel free to educate me.

Also, I don't see any analysis of any market factors that may have been in play there. I would expect that to be beyond the capability of anyone who doesn't know the difference between and LLC and a corporation.

You can be angry at me, but nothing you've actually written indicates you actually read the entire article.

There is a GIANT chart that states the number of properties sold during the two time periods. 9 of 212 units purchased pre-nomination via LLCs versus 29 of 41 units purchased post-nomination.



Also, the article discusses how long the team researched these transactions (over 6 months), so your comment: "Hey, let's go out and find a few factiods that we can toss around as innuendoes against Trump, and don't worry that you don't know anything about what you're writing. Just make it sound bad." suggests that you thought they just quickly pulled together a "few factoids" instead of doing actual research and expending effort.

(06-15-2017 06:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You can be angry at me, but nothing you've actually written indicates you actually read the entire article.
There is a GIANT chart that states the number of properties sold during the two time periods. 9 of 212 units purchased pre-nomination via LLCs versus 29 of 41 units purchased post-nomination.

Also, the article discusses how long the team researched these transactions (over 6 months), so your comment: "Hey, let's go out and find a few factiods that we can toss around as innuendoes against Trump, and don't worry that you don't know anything about what you're writing. Just make it sound bad." suggests that you thought they just quickly pulled together a "few factoids" instead of doing actual research and expending effort.

I don't see that chart when I go to the link you provided earlier. Now my follow-up question. What were the non-LLC purchasers in each of those time frames? Individuals? Corporations? What?

(06-15-2017 05:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 04:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 03:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 03:00 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I can see your point as stated, Tanq. It's not that there's any meaningful difference in nefariousness between an LLC or a corporation (i.e., you're not saying that the author's use of "corporation" was meant to, or at least had the effect of, painting a more nefarious picture than if he had simply used "LLC"), but rather, you're saying the author's lack of understanding of the difference between the two is *further* indication that the author doesn't understand the subject matter of his article in the first place. I can accept that as a reasonable criticism--setting aside that I probably feel less prickly about (and assign less weight to) that misuse in terms by the author than you might. But I get your point.

I think it is twofold. The author both implies nefariousness in a perfectly ordinary set of circumstances, then uses an incorrect example that both shows the ignorance on the subject matter, *and* doubles down on the implication of wrongdoing embedded *with* the showing that he doesn't understand what he is talking about.

All my opinion, of course.

Like Owl69, did you actually read the article?

The author does a very good job presenting the results and discussing the very non-nefarious reasons for using LLCs, and provides plenty of examples of properties purchased from Trump that meet that criteria.

This is an investigative piece that raises concerns about the practice for a number of reasons that the author clearly outlines. They don't really damn the practice of LLCs, but raise the alarm for the potential for their misuse given the position of POTUS. I mean, do you think that LLCs can't be used to help funnel and/or launder money via residential property transactions?

Quote: Profits from sales of those properties flow through a trust run by Trump’s sons. The president is the sole beneficiary of the trust and can withdraw cash any time.

The increasing share of opaque buyers comes at a time when federal investigators, members of Congress and ethics watchdogs are asking questions about Trump's sales and customers in the U.S. and around the world. Some Congressional Democrats have been asking for more detail about buyers of Trump’s domestic real estate since USA TODAY’s initial report.

Their concern is that the secretive sales create an extraordinary and unprecedented potential for people, corporations or foreign interests to try to influence a President. Anyone who wanted to court favor with the President could snap up multiple properties or purposefully overpay, without revealing their identity publicly.

No more than Ford 150s can be used to transport drugs across the Chihuahua desert. I guess if you want to see smoke, smoke is what you will see. And, to be blunt, looks like you took the media angle hook, line, and sinker.

I read it. It does a smash-up job of showing "it could be used". Duh. No big news there. But of course, they utterly fail to mention how absolutely and commonplacethat style of transaction is. And that failure, to me at least, tells me that there is a serious slant here.

If you want to get worked up over that extremely common style of transaction, you are perfectly free to do so. Whatever blows your hair back.

But to me he states a big nothing-burger when he states that, then follows it up with "Trump uses them all the time" (hardly surprising, or hardly surprising that many buyers do it this way). The cheesy ass innuendo is what I noticed, but then again, with the Solyndra stuff I dealt with many years ago on a literally daily basis --- 've become rather attuned to that style of reporting. The big massive factual error sitting at the beginning of another innuendo round really kind of seals the deal for me.

There are so many "could"-type clauses in that piece, I nearly imagined that pointy haired dude from "Secrets of Ancient Aliens" narrating that piece....

But heck, it sells copy space. Most smoke involving Trump is guaranteed to get about 55 per cent of the population acting like Pavlov's pooches these days.

To the bolded, they provide examples of the relative % of sales of condos to LLCs in the same buildings that his properties were sold in, and they were never more than 20%. I would think comparing the percentages of these sales within the same building would be a good metric to see if something was abnormal.

Plus, the article does explicitly state that LLC purchases are common for wealthy of famous home purchasers.

And I'm not really getting worked up over this. I think pieces of journalism like this, identify what appear to be outlier type activity (see: % of LLC sales, not sales in general) by those in power, are a good idea. It can be a big nothingburger, but I'd rather hear about the big nothingburger via investigative journalism, than not.

Also, it's not like using shell companies for purchasing real estate, especially in New York, hasn't made headlines before...

(06-15-2017 06:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 06:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You can be angry at me, but nothing you've actually written indicates you actually read the entire article.
There is a GIANT chart that states the number of properties sold during the two time periods. 9 of 212 units purchased pre-nomination via LLCs versus 29 of 41 units purchased post-nomination.

Also, the article discusses how long the team researched these transactions (over 6 months), so your comment: "Hey, let's go out and find a few factiods that we can toss around as innuendoes against Trump, and don't worry that you don't know anything about what you're writing. Just make it sound bad." suggests that you thought they just quickly pulled together a "few factoids" instead of doing actual research and expending effort.

I don't see that chart when I go to the link you provided earlier. Now my follow-up question. What were the non-LLC purchasers in each of those time frames? Individuals? Corporations? What?

Unfortunately they give you nothing more than "non-LLC" and don't provide their database.

This article digs into some of the LLC owners: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017...102382726/

(06-15-2017 06:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't see that chart when I go to the link you provided earlier. Now my follow-up question. What were the non-LLC purchasers in each of those time frames? Individuals? Corporations? What?

I do see one thing that was apparently an issue. I have an online subscription to USA Today. The user name and password are in memory on one computer. I was using a different one earlier that does not have the USA Today credentials, and I got a much shorter version of the article. Now I'm on the one with the USA Today credentials, and I see quite a bit that I couldn't access further. Maybe there's some kind of firewall thing going on.

It looks like they ran the numbers for the whole of Trump's holdings. Therefore there could be a lot of apples and oranges in that mix. I do note that the 4% of LLC sales before were accounting for 9.5% of revenues, suggesting that the LLC buyers were buying more expensive properties than the average for all sales. On the other hand, the 70.7% LCC sales in the last year have accounted for only 46.5% of revenues, therefore selling for much less on average that the overall average. What's going on there? Note that this would tend to disprove the allegation in the article that LLC purchasers could be overpaying for properties to buy influence with Trump.

It looks like these numbers are across several markets. Which sales are where, and how do market conditions compare? Also they sold 212 in the two prior years, or more than 100 per year, but only 41 in the last year, a decline of more than 50% per year. What's going on there? Are they selling fewer but more expensive units? If not, are they in serious financial straits? Has this analysis in fact included all sales? Something doesn't pass the smell test, hard to say exactly what.

I wish I had been able to access this part sooner. I can see a lot more methodological problems with the story now.

(06-15-2017 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Unfortunately they give you nothing more than "non-LLC" and don't provide their database.

Without that information, this whole article is pretty much meaningless. I'm really curious about how the LLC units are now selling cheaper than the overall average for all units, whereas previously they were more expensive. How does that square with the allegation that the LLC buyers were somehow overpaying to curry favor with Trump?

(06-15-2017 06:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Unfortunately they give you nothing more than "non-LLC" and don't provide their database.

Without that information, this whole article is pretty much meaningless. I'm really curious about how the LLC units are now selling cheaper than the overall average for all units, whereas previously they were more expensive. How does that square with the allegation that the LLC buyers were somehow overpaying to curry favor with Trump?

Where was that allegation?

The author actually explicitly state that no purchases in the recent period with increased LLC purchases significantly exceeded the market value.

Quote: USA TODAY found no sales by Trump's companies that were obviously above the market rate, based on analysis of comparable properties in the same buildings and neighborhoods.

This is why I kept saying they did a fairly fair job of evaluating the situation. This is a piece that points out an interesting trend that the public should be aware of, and provides a decent amount of background on that data, and does some digging into the questions you have.

That's why I keep saying this isn't some article damning Trump as has been suggested. It's critical of the practice because of its potential for corruption. I mean, would you argue that this isn't a method that could be used to launder or funnel money to someone to curry favor?

(06-15-2017 06:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Where was that allegation?
The author actually explicitly state that no purchases in the recent period with increased LLC purchases significantly exceeded the market value.

"Anyone who wanted to court favor with the President could snap up multiple properties or purposefully overpay, without revealing their identity publicly."

So, we didn't actually find anything to support the idea that was happening, but that isn't going to prevent us from saying that it could happen. We're just going to suggest the possibility, without actually saying it. Good, nice and honest there.

Quote:This is why I kept saying they did a fairly fair job of evaluating the situation. This is a piece that points out an interesting trend that the public should be aware of, and provides a decent amount of background on that data, and does some digging into the questions you have.
That's why I keep saying this isn't some article damning Trump as has been suggested. It's critical of the practice because of its potential for corruption. I mean, would you argue that this isn't a method that could be used to launder or funnel money to someone to curry favor?

If you're willing to agree that it's rarely done for those nefarious purposes, that there are other reasonable and more compelling reasons for so doing, and that it appears from every indication that these transactions were done that way for one of those other more reasonable and compelling reasons, yes. But if that's the case, why even make the suggestion in the article?

Thinking about it, in view of the additional information, the article is even more disingenuous than I had originally thought. "Here are some nefarious things that might happen. They didn't happen in this case, but don't forget that they might."

My overall impression is that the authors have precious little subject matter knowledge or integrity, were sent to do a hatchet job, and did one to the best of their ability.

(06-15-2017 07:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 06:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Where was that allegation?
The author actually explicitly state that no purchases in the recent period with increased LLC purchases significantly exceeded the market value.

"Anyone who wanted to court favor with the President could snap up multiple properties or purposefully overpay, without revealing their identity publicly."

So, we didn't actually find anything to support the idea that was happening, but that isn't going to prevent us from saying that it could happen. We're just going to suggest the possibility, without actually saying it. Good, nice and honest there.

Quote:This is why I kept saying they did a fairly fair job of evaluating the situation. This is a piece that points out an interesting trend that the public should be aware of, and provides a decent amount of background on that data, and does some digging into the questions you have.
That's why I keep saying this isn't some article damning Trump as has been suggested. It's critical of the practice because of its potential for corruption. I mean, would you argue that this isn't a method that could be used to launder or funnel money to someone to curry favor?

If you're willing to agree that it's rarely done for those nefarious purposes, that there are other reasonable and more compelling reasons for so doing, and that it appears from every indication that these transactions were done that way for one of those other more reasonable and compelling reasons, yes. But if that's the case, why even make the suggestion in the article?

Thinking about it, in view of the additional information, the article is even more disingenuous than I had originally thought. "Here are some nefarious things that might happen. They didn't happen in this case, but don't forget that they might."

My overall impression is that the authors have precious little subject matter knowledge or integrity, were sent to do a hatchet job, and did one to the best of their ability.

Just like most crime, criminal activities are pretty rare overall - if using an LLC for laundering/funneling money wasn't rare then you would likely see laws be put in place to prevent it. But that doesn't mean it is not a common loophole/route for the laundering/funneling of money, which is the concern given Trump's position of power.

If it wasn't for the fact that that this method is a common laundering technique (http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/...nal.html), there have been concerted efforts in the
US recently to crack down on shell companies buying real estate for that reason (that this method is a common laundering technique (http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/...nal.html), or Trump has a history of being paid way over asking price for properties for questionable reasons (http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/27/news/don...dex.html), then I would agree that there may be no newsworthy aspects to this article.

And you can have your theories, but wow, 6 months is a long time to spend on a project, not learn anything about it, and try and produce a hatchet job. I think rather, they wanted to investigate something, did so, and published the results - good, bad, or ugly - so that the public could have them.

On a side note, I found another article on Trump real estate that discusses the use of LLCs in purchasing residential properties with respect to seven Trump-branded properties in South Florida. The % of LLC owners is still much lower than the spike observed post nomination.

[quote] The analysis found that at least 703 – or about one-third – of the owners of the 2044 units in the seven Trump buildings are limited liability companies, or LLCs, which have the ability to hide the identity of a property’s true owner. [quote]

http://www.reuters.com/investigates/spec...-property/

Why couldn't they just say, "LLCs may be used for such purposes, but we see no indication that is happening here"? No, the message they wanted to leave is that something nefarious could be happening here. Even though we have no evidence, and what evidence we have suggests otherwise, it COULD be happening.

Given the witch hunt that has gone on against Trump, I am quite certain that if I were having any business dealings with his companies, I would want to keep my identity hidden. I can just see it now, "Owl 69/70/75 speaks a little bit of Russian and he bought a condo from Trump's real estate company, so that proves he colluded with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary." No, thanks.

(06-15-2017 08:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why couldn't they just say, "LLCs may be used for such purposes, but we see no indication that is happening here"? No, the message they wanted to leave is that something nefarious could be happening here. Even though we have no evidence, and what evidence we have suggests otherwise, it COULD be happening.

Given the witch hunt that has gone on against Trump, I am quite certain that if I were having any business dealings with his companies, I would want to keep my identity hidden. I can just see it now, "Owl 69/70/75 speaks a little bit of Russian and he bought a condo from Trump's real estate company, so that proves he colluded with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary." No, thanks.

To each their own.

I doubt this would have been a story if the % of LLC purchase had remained stagnant, though. You have to be careful, because correlation does not mean there is causation, but based on the data, there was a jump in LLC purchases after his nomination as the Republican candidate...

(06-15-2017 08:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 08:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why couldn't they just say, "LLCs may be used for such purposes, but we see no indication that is happening here"? No, the message they wanted to leave is that something nefarious could be happening here. Even though we have no evidence, and what evidence we have suggests otherwise, it COULD be happening.
Given the witch hunt that has gone on against Trump, I am quite certain that if I were having any business dealings with his companies, I would want to keep my identity hidden. I can just see it now, "Owl 69/70/75 speaks a little bit of Russian and he bought a condo from Trump's real estate company, so that proves he colluded with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary." No, thanks.

To each their own.
I doubt this would have been a story if the % of LLC purchase had remained stagnant, though. You have to be careful, because correlation does not mean there is causation, but based on the data, there was a jump in LLC purchases after his nomination as the Republican candidate...

So you write a story saying that LLCs may be used for nefarious purposes, without providing any indication that they were here.

(06-15-2017 08:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 08:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 08:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why couldn't they just say, "LLCs may be used for such purposes, but we see no indication that is happening here"? No, the message they wanted to leave is that something nefarious could be happening here. Even though we have no evidence, and what evidence we have suggests otherwise, it COULD be happening.
Given the witch hunt that has gone on against Trump, I am quite certain that if I were having any business dealings with his companies, I would want to keep my identity hidden. I can just see it now, "Owl 69/70/75 speaks a little bit of Russian and he bought a condo from Trump's real estate company, so that proves he colluded with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary." No, thanks.

To each their own.
I doubt this would have been a story if the % of LLC purchase had remained stagnant, though. You have to be careful, because correlation does not mean there is causation, but based on the data, there was a jump in LLC purchases after his nomination as the Republican candidate...

So you write a story saying that LLCs may be used for nefarious purposes, without providing any indication that they were here.

The story was about the increase in LLC purchases for a company owned and operated by, potentially, the most powerful man in the world.

The story then highlighted potential issues with this practice and how it can be used to influence powerful people, such as the person who say a significant increase in LLC purchases...

(06-15-2017 08:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 08:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 08:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 08:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why couldn't they just say, "LLCs may be used for such purposes, but we see no indication that is happening here"? No, the message they wanted to leave is that something nefarious could be happening here. Even though we have no evidence, and what evidence we have suggests otherwise, it COULD be happening.
Given the witch hunt that has gone on against Trump, I am quite certain that if I were having any business dealings with his companies, I would want to keep my identity hidden. I can just see it now, "Owl 69/70/75 speaks a little bit of Russian and he bought a condo from Trump's real estate company, so that proves he colluded with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary." No, thanks.

To each their own.
I doubt this would have been a story if the % of LLC purchase had remained stagnant, though. You have to be careful, because correlation does not mean there is causation, but based on the data, there was a jump in LLC purchases after his nomination as the Republican candidate...

So you write a story saying that LLCs may be used for nefarious purposes, without providing any indication that they were here.

The story was about the increase in LLC purchases for a company owned and operated by, potentially, the most powerful man in the world.
The story then highlighted potential issues with this practice and how it can be used to influence powerful people, such as the person who say a significant increase in LLC purchases...

Attack by innuendo.

(06-15-2017 09:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 08:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 08:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 08:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 08:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why couldn't they just say, "LLCs may be used for such purposes, but we see no indication that is happening here"? No, the message they wanted to leave is that something nefarious could be happening here. Even though we have no evidence, and what evidence we have suggests otherwise, it COULD be happening.
Given the witch hunt that has gone on against Trump, I am quite certain that if I were having any business dealings with his companies, I would want to keep my identity hidden. I can just see it now, "Owl 69/70/75 speaks a little bit of Russian and he bought a condo from Trump's real estate company, so that proves he colluded with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary." No, thanks.

To each their own.
I doubt this would have been a story if the % of LLC purchase had remained stagnant, though. You have to be careful, because correlation does not mean there is causation, but based on the data, there was a jump in LLC purchases after his nomination as the Republican candidate...

So you write a story saying that LLCs may be used for nefarious purposes, without providing any indication that they were here.

The story was about the increase in LLC purchases for a company owned and operated by, potentially, the most powerful man in the world.
The story then highlighted potential issues with this practice and how it can be used to influence powerful people, such as the person who say a significant increase in LLC purchases...

Attack by innuendo.

I can understand your critiques about the lack of analysis of the pre/post-nomination data. But I think the significant increase in LLC purchases is noteworthy in and of itself. There is a reason people (myself included) were so concerned about potential conflicts of interest with Trump, and this is a prime example.