(03-22-2023 01:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I am far more worried about the honesty and integrity of our law enforcement and national security bureaucracy than I am about whether and how DJT paid off Stormy Daniels.

This, and many other things also above that. Trump is just the 'shiny object' meant to distract us from the former.

Quote:Whether or not this IS the law, I disagree that it SHOULD be the law. The ramifications to the company are the reason they might or might not pay.

I dont think a system that is not only open to, but promotes, settlements of wholly personal issues to be willy nilly classified as a business is a very smart one.

The *entire* issue of income tax is accession to wealth. Inherent in that concept is the tax should be on the amount that is the difference between your (gross revenues) and the (-) (costs associated with generating that revenue.) Period.

Not the difference between (gross revenues) and (-) [ the *sum* of the (costs associated with generating that revenue) *plus* (+) (whatever willy nilly garbage settlements fit your mood at the present)]

That is (GR - CAGR) and (GR - [CAGR + whatever rando settlement item you think proper to deduct])

I find that formulation of preferred settlement offsets subjective and specious. Not that I wouldnt mind having a raft full of subjective and specious settlements around that benefitted me personally and offsetting them......

It would be great, but abjectly the wrong path to take for those reasons.

As an example, I dont think someone should be able to offset a claim to their business because he was driving and getting Grand Prix sex in the car at the time of the incident.

I actually think the "basis of the activity claimed" test frames the basic question of taxable income pretty well.

Here's my question.

Would you rather live in a country where Donald Trump is president or a country were the national security and law enforcement bureaucracies are under the control of the likes of Adam Schiff, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Merrick Garland, and James Clapper?

(03-22-2023 02:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's my question.

Would you rather live in a country where Donald Trump is president or a country were the national security and law enforcement bureaucracies are under the control of the likes of Adam Schiff, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Merrick Garland, and James Clapper?

None of the above.

(03-22-2023 02:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:Whether or not this IS the law, I disagree that it SHOULD be the law. The ramifications to the company are the reason they might or might not pay.

I dont think a system that is not only open to, but promotes, settlements of wholly personal issues to be willy nilly classified as a business is a very smart one.

Not surprisingly, I would disagree with your characterization of this as 'willy nilly'. I believe you yourself have provided examples where Trump/the organization did not try and deduct similar settlements. This was somehow 'different'. I believe it was based on the timing of the event. If it doesn't happen weeks before the election, they likely fade the heat and engage in a smear campaign on her or a deflection campaign or any of a number of other tactics, but there wasn't time.

Quote:The *entire* issue of income tax is accession to wealth. Inherent in that concept is the tax should be on the amount that is the difference between your (gross revenues) and the (-) (costs associated with generating that revenue.) Period.

Sure.

Quote:Not the difference between (gross revenues) and (-) [ the *sum* of the (costs associated with generating that revenue) *plus* (+) (whatever willy nilly garbage settlements fit your mood at the present)]

You define them as garbage settlement that fit your mood. That is not what I have described nor do I think it is accurate. MANY MANY Legal fees and settlement amounts absolutely ARE deductible business expenses. The question is, are those expenses intended to promote the generation of revenue.

You and I can't write off a professional chef, but Warren Buffett likely can... a fitness expert certainly can... an actor can.... because his health and image are integral to the generation of revenue. The expense is reasonably objectively tied to revenue generation.

The question to me is exactly what you have described. 'the costs associated with generating that revenue'. If the story comes out without time to 'tell the other side' before the election, no revenue is likely generated. Because of this expense, revenue us generated

It would be no different to me from paying a lawyer to convince a plaintiff to delay a settlement until January from December so as to push the expense into a different tax year.... and deducting the expense of the lawyer and any concession you might have to give the plaintiff. That's not will nilly. It's strategic.

Quote:As an example, I dont think someone should be able to offset a claim to their business because he was driving and getting Grand Prix sex in the car at the time of the incident.

I actually think the "basis of the activity claimed" test frames the basic question of taxable income pretty well.

And this definition is successfully challenged perhaps thousands of times every year based on the specifics of the situation. I don't think your general rule applies to this situation, as I've tried to say. Almost no other situation would have such a tie between an individual's private actions, revenue generation and a date certain deadline.

(03-22-2023 02:12 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 02:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's my question.

Would you rather live in a country where Donald Trump is president or a country were the national security and law enforcement bureaucracies are under the control of the likes of Adam Schiff, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Merrick Garland, and James Clapper?

None of the above.

Agreed.... but we don't get there by 'justifying' Schiff, Comey, Strzok, Garland and Clapper by ousting Trump. Doing that just gets us MORE (and more aggressive) of them (from both sides)

The last 23 years make me yearn for the integrity of the Bushes, especially the elder. And remember what the Lefties had to say about him?

HE LIED.

(03-22-2023 02:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 02:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:Whether or not this IS the law, I disagree that it SHOULD be the law. The ramifications to the company are the reason they might or might not pay.

I dont think a system that is not only open to, but promotes, settlements of wholly personal issues to be willy nilly classified as a business is a very smart one.

Not surprisingly, I would disagree with your characterization of this as 'willy nilly'. I believe you yourself have provided examples where Trump/the organization did not try and deduct similar settlements. This was somehow 'different'. I believe it was based on the timing of the event. If it doesn't happen weeks before the election, they likely fade the heat and engage in a smear campaign on her or a deflection campaign or any of a number of other tactics, but there wasn't time.

Quote:The *entire* issue of income tax is accession to wealth. Inherent in that concept is the tax should be on the amount that is the difference between your (gross revenues) and the (-) (costs associated with generating that revenue.) Period.

Sure.

Quote:Not the difference between (gross revenues) and (-) [ the *sum* of the (costs associated with generating that revenue) *plus* (+) (whatever willy nilly garbage settlements fit your mood at the present)]

You define them as garbage settlement that fit your mood. That is not what I have described nor do I think it is accurate. MANY MANY Legal fees and settlement amounts absolutely ARE deductible business expenses. The question is, are those expenses intended to promote the generation of revenue.

You and I can't write off a professional chef, but Warren Buffett likely can... a fitness expert certainly can... an actor can.... because his health and image are integral to the generation of revenue. The expense is reasonably objectively tied to revenue generation.

The question to me is exactly what you have described. 'the costs associated with generating that revenue'. If the story comes out without time to 'tell the other side' before the election, no revenue is likely generated. Because of this expense, revenue us generated

It would be no different to me from paying a lawyer to convince a plaintiff to delay a settlement until January from December so as to push the expense into a different tax year.... and deducting the expense of the lawyer and any concession you might have to give the plaintiff. That's not will nilly. It's strategic.

Quote:As an example, I dont think someone should be able to offset a claim to their business because he was driving and getting Grand Prix sex in the car at the time of the incident.

I actually think the "basis of the activity claimed" test frames the basic question of taxable income pretty well.

And this definition is successfully challenged perhaps thousands of times every year based on the specifics of the situation. I don't think your general rule applies to this situation, as I've tried to say. Almost no other situation would have such a tie between an individual's private actions, revenue generation and a date certain deadline.

Ham, my point is that your more elastic 'benefits the corporation' would have the leeway for far more subjective determinations of what is not allowed.

Take the 'Grand Prix' sex issue (a real issue, not one that is made up).

Under the 'root activity'-- there is no way this spurious one is allowed, and anyone bringing it up is going to be seriously challenged in trying to do this.

Under your 'benefits the corp.' standard, then a company can more easily bring it to determination. It is plausibly allowed. When, imo, it very much shouldnt even be considered.

I can think of oodles of what are on the surface garbage issues that have zero tie any company activity that could be considered valid under your formulation that have *zero* rationale (and should have zero rationale) under the 'root activity test'.

Example -- CEO gets caught buggering a 16 year old girl. Do you really want to have any issue that the resulting lawsuit aimed at the CEO could be 'taken on' by the corporation and shoved onto the shareholders via expensed settlement?

Under your formulation, if the company thinks the CEO is hot ****, that can happen.

Under the current 'root activity' test -- sorry CEO, corporate dont do that.

Your formulation provides far more subjectivity, and far more leeway to abuse. Im not on board with it for those reasons, among others.

(03-23-2023 12:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Ham, my point is that your more elastic 'benefits the corporation' would have the leeway for far more subjective determinations of what is not allowed.

I didn't say 'benefits the corporation'... I said 'generates revenue'.

Trump getting elected President generates more revenue for the Trump Organization than him losing the election. This isn't some nebulous 'benefit', but using your definition of income minus expenses to generate that income.

Quote:Take the 'Grand Prix' sex issue (a real issue, not one that is made up).

The private chef that an actor can deduct that you and I can't is a better one, but I'll try.

Quote:Under the 'root activity'-- there is no way this spurious one is allowed, and anyone bringing it up is going to be seriously challenged in trying to do this.

Well again, we're still on the genesis argument. Does the 'Grand Prix' sex in any way lead to revenue generation? No, but 'keeping it quiet' and it not being a crime (thus it isn't intended to cover up a crime... illegal acts wouldn't be covered) COULD generate money depending on details.

Quote:Under your 'benefits the corp.' standard,

That again wasn't my standard, but I'm trying to follow

Quote:then a company can more easily bring it to determination. It is plausibly allowed. When, imo, it very much shouldnt even be considered.

Again, only if you can tie it directly to revenue generation. It would be more difficult to argue that people might not buy as many 'My Pillows' if Mike Lindell were accused of an affari 10 years earlier... but there also wouldnt be a 'date certain' time where that rumor had to be addressed... so it's not really comparable. It's pretty easy to argue that a salacious rumor, believeable whether true or not, released just weeks before an election is a direct threat to the success of that endeavor.

Maybe a better example would have been... Pfizer working on a vaccine... and the first to market gets millions while the second to market gets nothing... and the lead scientist gets accused of something (maybe a divorce) that will take him away from finishing the product... so the company pays to delay (within legal reason) whatever hearings or what have you that allows him to finish his research.

That to me is at least ARGUABLY a reasonable business expense, even though the act that brought the expense about may have been a personal one.

And if the argument has any logical basis at all in directly trying to generate revenue... even if it doesn't ultimately WIN... I believe that should result in a disallowance of the deduction, but not a criminal charge of 'intent to defraud'.

That has nothing to do with Trump, but with simple business economics. The money being deducted can directly be tied to an activity designed to generate revenue.

Period.

Quote:I can think of oodles of what are on the surface garbage issues that have zero tie any company activity that could be considered valid under your formulation that have *zero* rationale (and should have zero rationale) under the 'root activity test'.

Sure, but I haven't talked about garbage issues. I've talked about actions where the expense in question is clearly DIRECTLY tied to the generation of revenue.

Quote:Example -- CEO gets caught buggering a 16 year old girl. Do you really want to have any issue that the resulting lawsuit aimed at the CEO could be 'taken on' by the corporation and shoved onto the shareholders via expensed settlement?

Under your formulation, if the company thinks the CEO is hot ****, that can happen.

Under the current 'root activity' test -- sorry CEO, corporate dont do that.

Your formulation provides far more subjectivity, and far more leeway to abuse. Im not on board with it for those reasons, among others.

First, buggering a 16 yr old is a crime. Payments to cover up a crime are not at issue here. You gave me a hard time about repeating that, and now you're ignoring something I made clear to argue in the absurd about it.... and you ignored my Ru Paul hypo where I addressed this similarly, but without a crime.

Second, you've made no argument that the settlement with the person generated any revenue for the company. You just said they think he's hot ****. I've also made THAT distinction numerous times... where people are quite literally 'buying' the character of the individual. The individual IS the product.

Actors and politicians often have very finely crafted images.... and they sell that image to generate revenue... and monies spent to craft and create and defend those images are OFTEN allowable business expenses.... so long as they do not involve criminal activities... and are for the purpose of 'selling' that image.

Even if you disagree that these deductions should be allowed, I am honestly SHOCKED that you believe that submitting something as a deduction that ultimately gets disallowed is a CRIMINAL (even if only a misdemeanor) act rather than a simple audit and correction.

I mean that seriously. In what world is 'being wrong' about whether or not something that has ANY ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER that it can be deducted would be a CRIME.

Quote:

Quote:Example -- CEO gets caught buggering a 16 year old girl. Do you really want to have any issue that the resulting lawsuit aimed at the CEO could be 'taken on' by the corporation and shoved onto the shareholders via expensed settlement?

Under your formulation, if the company thinks the CEO is hot ****, that can happen.

Under the current 'root activity' test -- sorry CEO, corporate dont do that.

Your formulation provides far more subjectivity, and far more leeway to abuse. Im not on board with it for those reasons, among others.

First, buggering a 16 yr old is a crime. Payments to cover up a crime are not at issue here. You gave me a hard time about repeating that, and now you're ignoring something I made clear to argue in the absurd about it.... and you ignored my Ru Paul hypo where I addressed this similarly, but without a crime.

I dont know what your fixation with 'its a crime' is. There is zero distinction between and act that is a crime and a simple tort *in the civil lawsuit regime*. My point is take an act, any act that leads to *civil* liability in the *civil* law regime.

A criminal act may also lead to an independent civil lawsuit. Just as a simple tort, or simple contract breach can lead to a civil lawsuit.

I dont understand your constant delineation of 'but thats a crime.' Zero effective difference in the civil law regime.

Think OJ -- criminal trial. And then the family sued civilly over the same act. In terms of the civil law regime, any criminal act can serve as the basis for a civil action.

You threw that out there in terms of the harassment imbroglio how 'well thats a crime'. Doesnt matter. An act can be prosecuted by the authorities as a criminal act. That same action can equally serve as a basis for a civil lawsuit.

I am confused by your somewhat regular interjection of 'dont use that -- that's a crime'. Being a crime is does not exclude the act from the civil realm.

Quote:Even if you disagree that these deductions should be allowed, I am honestly SHOCKED that you believe that submitting something as a deduction that ultimately gets disallowed is a CRIMINAL (even if only a misdemeanor) act rather than a simple audit and correction.

Again you are off base. The criminal aspect requires both a false business record, and done with the intent that it is known to be false.

Dont mix and match simple 'auditing error' with an intent based criminal regime.

To be clear, if the entry is 'legal fees to Cohen' when the parties damn well are in full knowledge that the funds are 'NDA settlement to Stormy, and a 'kicker' to the bagman to take care of their tax hit' -- that is implicated in the NY false business records law.

It isnt the innocent mischaracterization that you go off on above and try to include in the outrage.

Quote:I mean that seriously. In what world is 'being wrong' about whether or not something that has ANY ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER that it can be deducted would be a CRIME.

If there is an ARGUMENT then there is a huge mountain to climb on the INTENT issue inherent in any criminal matter.

One can absolutely be wrong, or mistaken, and it not be a crime. If you make such an action knowing full well, or reasonably should know it to be false, then the intent is met.

There are significant differences in the makeup and thrust of criminal law and civil law. The most glaring being the intent requirement in criminal law (for the vast most instances), the second being the quick toss down of the protection of the civil rights of the accused.

And interestingly there are commonalities -- one act can lead to a charge in criminal court, and the same act can lead to a claim in the civil court side.

(03-23-2023 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont know what your fixation with 'its a crime' is. There is zero distinction between and act that is a crime and a simple tort *in the civil lawsuit regime*. My point is take an act, any act that leads to *civil* liability in the *civil* law regime.

Now whom is mixing issues??

I'll try and be as clear as possible.

Money spent engaging in or covering up illegal activities are not or should not be tax deductible expenses. Most of your alternative examples involve illegal activities... and they are not generally deductible in my mind because they are illegal. A drug dealer shouldn't be able to deduct the cost of paying off judges or police. A rapist shouldn't be able to deduct the cost of gloves or masks used to conceal their identity while committing a rape.

As to the rest of your comment... all of your comments essentially say that a criminal act like OJ can also have a civil action... but we're talking about a civil action that is becoming a criminal act.

Trump has been accused of a criminal act, not a civil one. His dealings with stormy were a civil, not a criminal matter.... and STILL there was no accusation of a breach by Trump of any civil contract. No crime OR civil breach has been alleged until he (improperly) files his taxes.

Said differently, all of your comparions stem from ILLEGAL (either criminal or civil) actions... There IS no illegal (neither civil NOR criminal) allegation wrt Trump until he files his taxes.

Those in my mind are MEANINGFUL differences, especially as it relates to the deductability of the expenses associated with those LEGAL actions, versus ILLEGAL actions.

Quote:Again you are off base. The criminal aspect requires both a false business record, and done with the intent that it is known to be false.

I'm NOT off base. I'm wondering where you get the PROOF that they KNOW this to be false?? And by proof, I mean something that only a Trumpbot wouldn't agree with, which has been your contention.

Quote:Dont mix and match simple 'auditing error' with an intent based criminal regime.

Don't assume facts not in evidence... that intent has been proven and only a Trumpbot wouldn't agree.

Quote:It isnt the innocent mischaracterization that you go off on above and try to include in the outrage.

Outrage?? Please. I just disagree with your characterization. I never called it 'innocent'... If I had to, I'd perhaps call it lazy or overly general. If you write a check to a GC and they pay a vendor or an employee, skimming off the top as a 'bag man' for arranging the vendors services... even if you absolutely know that they have contracted someone else to do the work, do you put 'payment to Joe's Landscaping with 10% to GC Mike? Or do you just say 'payment to Mike'?

Even so, you haven't addressed the fact that TRUMP didn't likely file his own forms. Ultimately he's culpable for any financial issue, but criminal? I'm sorry... but that's just horse **** to me. I'll never hire a CPA again if I have to verify under penalty of criminal incarceration that he's done everything according to Hoyle.

Quote:If there is an ARGUMENT then there is a huge mountain to climb on the INTENT issue inherent in any criminal matter.

One can absolutely be wrong, or mistaken, and it not be a crime. If you make such an action knowing full well, or reasonably should know it to be false, then the intent is met.

Absolutely. Is it your contention that the only way someone might buy the idea that Donald Trump himself knew, or should have known where that 130k went and/or what the laws were regarding specifically how it should have been accounted for... was for them to be so 'in the tank' for him that they would acquit him of ANYTHING??

That's how I read your comments about Trumpists.... because I've challenged it and you've stuck to it.

(03-23-2023 02:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-23-2023 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont know what your fixation with 'its a crime' is. There is zero distinction between and act that is a crime and a simple tort *in the civil lawsuit regime*. My point is take an act, any act that leads to *civil* liability in the *civil* law regime.

Now whom is mixing issues??

I'll try and be as clear as possible.

Money spent engaging in or covering up illegal activities are not or should not be tax deductible expenses. Most of your alternative examples involve illegal activities... and they are not generally deductible in my mind because they are illegal. A drug dealer shouldn't be able to deduct the cost of paying off judges or police. A rapist shouldn't be able to deduct the cost of gloves or masks used to conceal their identity while committing a rape.

I specifically said in those contexts 'the lawsuit following that act' (or something to that effect). Not 'the trial'. A lawsuit, and damages from lawsuit. To create a financial obligation. You are the one ballooning the issue into other realms with that comment and that inference above.

Quote:As to the rest of your comment... all of your comments essentially say that a criminal act like OJ can also have a civil action... but we're talking about a civil action that is becoming a criminal act.

As to the bolded, just preceding we *were* talking specifically of the current test for allowing a deduction versus what you wished. So no, we are *not* talking about the bolded. If you want to reset to the Trump/Stormy issue -- fine.

We were talking theoretically about different modes of 'when a payment' should become deductible. My examples there said: assume an act, and the resulting lawsuit. Which you proceeded down the 'its a crime ' path.

Quote:Trump has been accused of a criminal act, not a civil one.

His dealings with stormy were a civil, not a criminal matter....

and STILL there was no accusation of a breach by Trump of any civil contract.

All correct.

Quote:No crime OR civil breach has been alleged until he (improperly) files his taxes.

Incorrect. Read the NY statute.

Quote:Said differently, all of your comparions stem from ILLEGAL (either criminal or civil) actions...

There IS no illegal (neither civil NOR criminal) allegation wrt Trump until he files his taxes.

Incorrect. See above. The act of creating the false record is an illegal act. If a CEP spent 10k on chlorine for the private pool at his house, and what is entered is a false entry -- that is a crime under NY statute. The issue if the 'root activity' is legal, or criminal, or tortious has zero bearing on the issue.

The section says "you make, or even cause through other means, a false entry in an enterprise's business records." There is zero distinction in whether the entry is in relation to a legal, criminal, or tortious root issue related in the entry.

You are simply making stuff up that is incorrect.

Quote:Those in my mind are MEANINGFUL differences, especially as it relates to the deductability of the expenses associated with those LEGAL actions, versus ILLEGAL actions.

And utterly immaterial. I dont know what the rapid gyrations in describing the nuance and supposed legal differences in criminal, illegal, legal, or simply tortious is. You are tying yourself up in knots on these supposed distinctions here.

Quote:

Quote:Again you are off base. The criminal aspect requires both a false business record, and done with the intent that it is known to be false.

I'm NOT off base. I'm wondering where you get the PROOF that they KNOW this to be false?? And by proof, I mean something that only a Trumpbot wouldn't agree with, which has been your contention.

I think Trump knows the difference between legal services, and paying a sum through a strawman for different purpose. Maybe not.

Further, Cohen has tapes of him and Trump describing a similar setup to deep six the McDougal issue.

And, since it has gone this far, I also assume that Cohen has testified that Trump knew the setup and approved it.

If Cohen hasnt, then the DA should be removed from office for the series of steps he has taken. I also assume that Bragg knows this.

Call the issue an educated guess. If you think Bragg is doing this blindly without Cohen's testimony to that, and is risking his own office, his bar license, and potentially a jail term -- you are free to make that side of the educated guess.

Quote:

Quote:Dont mix and match simple 'auditing error' with an intent based criminal regime.

Don't assume facts not in evidence... that intent has been proven and only a Trumpbot wouldn't agree.

I suggest you put in the entire thread, here is that full path:

You: I am honestly SHOCKED that you believe that submitting something as a deduction that ultimately gets disallowed is a CRIMINAL . . . act rather than a simple audit and correction.

Me: Dont mix and match simple 'auditing error' with an intent based criminal regime.

My statement was correcting you that there is a difference between a criminal issue and normal 'audit and tax' issue. I dont believe that a simple 'audit and correct' issue should be criminal in nature. That is you made a wild ass assumption that I believe a simple 'audit and correction' should be criminal. It isnt, and shouldnt.

The crime at question is ' intent[ionally] ... make, or even cause through other means, a false entry in an enterprise's business records." Significantly different than your comment on what I believe about simple audit and corrections.

Now you jump at me for 'making facts not in evidence' since there is a significant difference between a a 'simple sudit and correction' and a defined criminal act. Which you seemingly mixed and matched at will when you told me you were shocked that I believed the two were equivalent.

The answer to your initial comment is: They are significantly different. Dont mix and match them at will.

Now you tell me to prove it..... okay...... Im confused....

Then you say: "Don't assume facts not in evidence... that intent has been proven and only a Trumpbot wouldn't agree."

Great -- I just laid out above *for this case* whey and what I think, as an educated guess, has transpired to get us here.

I guess you think that Bragg is risking his being in office, his bar card, and potential prison time -- since that is the only rational alternative in my mind.

Quote:Even so, you haven't addressed the fact that TRUMP didn't likely file his own forms.

See the above on the issue of Cohen. Maybe the statutory language that addresses that loophole you throw out there -- the 'causes to be' language. My guess is that spurious hypo doesnt fit the actual language. Addressed enough?

Quote:Ultimately he's culpable for any financial issue, but criminal? I'm sorry... but that's just horse **** to me. I'll never hire a CPA again if I have to verify under penalty of criminal incarceration that he's done everything according to Hoyle.

I dont think I said that. But do what you wish. The issue isnt "*any* financial issue" as you put it. The issue *is* intentionally make, or cause to be made, a false entry. Next time dont make such assumptions into the wild.

Quote:

Quote:If there is an ARGUMENT then there is a huge mountain to climb on the INTENT issue inherent in any criminal matter.

One can absolutely be wrong, or mistaken, and it not be a crime. If you make such an action knowing full well, or reasonably should know it to be false, then the intent is met.

Absolutely. Is it your contention that the only way someone might buy the idea that Donald Trump himself knew, or should have known where that 130k went and/or what the laws were regarding specifically how it should have been accounted for... was for them to be so 'in the tank' for him that they would acquit him of ANYTHING??

No.

Quote:That's how I read your comments about Trumpists.... because I've challenged it and you've stuck to it.

Then you have misread. My comment is that there is almost no possibility that a jury in this issue can not have a rabid Trumpist. Wont happen.

That leaves three outcomes:

a) not enough evidence to convict at all for a felony -- Id lay that at about 70% + here.

b) Enough evidence, and one or more Trumpist is a holdout even in light of that -- 30% - one thousandth of one percent.

c) Enough evidence and every Trumpist is objective and listens to evidence, and against his overwhelming support of Trump votes to convict, along with everyone else (assuming the proof is there). About one thousandth of one perecent.

By the way -- your setup is logically incorrect.

I think it you meant to say the following:

Is it your contention that the only way someone might NOT buy the idea that Donald Trump himself knew, or should have known where that 130k went and/or what the laws were regarding specifically how it should have been accounted for... was for them to be so 'in the tank' for him that they would acquit him of ANYTHING??

In short, the jury as a whole might NOT buy he idea if there is a lack of evidence for that. I would say many Trumpists would vote to acquit *regardless* if there was sufficient evidence.

Some may be objective and vote to convict in light of sufficient evidence.

But in my opinion, either having no Trumpists on the jury, or one or more Trumpists who all vote in line with evidence tending to show that above are somewhere between slim and none.

Claro?

Which is the greater concern--that Donald Trump paid Stormy Daniels $130K hush money, or that we have a biased, partisan, out of control law enforcement and national security bureaucracy? Are Donald Trump's process crimes--if they are crimes at all--a threat to you or me? Is a Gestapo/KGB-like national security/law enforcement bureaucracy?

I am afraid that this is largely the whirlwind that we released when we passed the patRIOT act. You give armed enforcement agencies the power to violate constitutional rights sometimes, and you can be sure that they will violate them all the time.

The one alleged Trump crime that rises above a process issue is January 6, 2021--if that was truly an armed insurrection and if Donald Trump clearly incited it, both of which have been alleged but so far not proved. I personally think "armed insurrection" is way over the top as a description. More like a largely peaceful protest with a few folks that got out of hand on the margins. But here again the idea of partisan, biased law enforcement rears its ugly head. Protests in Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, and elsewhere came much closer to armed insurrections than did January 6, but so far there have been precious few, if any, arrests and prosecutions over any of them.

(03-23-2023 10:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Which is the greater concern--that Donald Trump paid Stormy Daniels $130K hush money,

Who here has raised that as a national concern, #s? I sure as hell havent. No one has. That is a ridiculous entree.

Quote:or that we have a biased, partisan, out of control law enforcement and national security bureaucracy?

That may very well be a cause for concern.

In return, do you have *any* concern about Trump trying to wrest control of the Presidency through fiat, as outlined by and to him in the Eastman memo?

Quote:Are Donald Trump's process crimes--if they are crimes at all--a threat to you or me?

I would say riding over a Presidential succession process via a fiat ruling on arbitrarily tossing out selected electors *is* a concern. A pretty fing big one in fact.

What is your stance? Aside from the pondering 'if it is a crime at all'.....

Quote:The one alleged Trump crime that rises above a process issue is January 6, 2021--if that was truly an armed insurrection and if Donald Trump clearly incited it, both of which have been alleged but so far not proved.

Who gives a **** about the riot, or whether he instigated it. Again, he sought out, had prepared, refined, implemented, and tried to execute action to arbitrarily throw out certified electors by fiat --- in order to maintain control of the Office of the President.

What do you think about those actions #s?

Quote: I personally think "armed insurrection" is way over the top as a description. More like a largely peaceful protest with a few folks that got out of hand on the margins. But here again the idea of partisan, biased law enforcement rears its ugly head. Protests in Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, and elsewhere came much closer to armed insurrections than did January 6, but so far there have been precious few, if any, arrests and prosecutions over any of them.

What about the process he hatched to get him into the Office by fiat? Support it or not, #s? Should be easy to answer. Yes, or no.

And that doenst even touch the riot, whether it is proper to call it a 'riot', an 'insurrection', a 'bunch of people taking selfies', whether Trump instigated it, whether Donald cowered in the dining room and threw ketchup on the wall because the riot didnt do enough, whether Portland was much closer to an insurrection, or any of the other falderall thats tossed out.

What do you think of the process he hatched, put into place, and executed to short circuit the process to certify the election, and to remove arbitrary slates of electors by a statement of fiat?

(03-23-2023 10:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What do you think of the process he hatched, put into place, and executed to short circuit the process to certify the election, and to remove arbitrary slates of electors by a statement of fiat?

See my post immediately above yours the probably crossed in transit.

(03-23-2023 10:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-23-2023 10:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What do you think of the process he hatched, put into place, and executed to short circuit the process to certify the election, and to remove arbitrary slates of electors by a statement of fiat?

See my post immediately above yours the probably crossed in transit.

The only post above mine in this thread is the one I responded to there (#92), in fact responded to and quoted from in #93. You dont even touch on the Eastman memo stuff that I am referring to in #92, and there is no post from you between that one I responded to (#92) and mine (#93).

#94 is the one that I am responding to here in #95.

Yours (#92) only explicitly refers to his interaction with the people rioting/ insurrecting/ taking selfies at the Capitol. It does not explicitly address the seriously fked up and wild plan to short circuit the certification process, which seems to be independent from Trump's interactions (in the speech) or instigation in the speech (if any) with the rioters/ insurrectionist/ people taking selfies (including all to make sure we dont go down the rabbit hole of 'what is an insurrection'-type stuff, mind you)

So: What do you think of the process he hatched, put into place, and executed to short circuit the process to certify the election, and to remove arbitrary slates of electors by fiat?

Hate it?

Like it?

Not important enough to answer?

Sounds like a fun way to run the USA?

Great process, lets keep it around and run with it as our way to certify the electors?

Sounds criminal?

Lets try and experiment with new and random interesting methods every Presidential cycle?

A roll of dice might be a good next experiment on which slates to remove?

Doesnt "rise[] above a process issue", a mere trifle or glitch in the ether?

If the last is what you are referring to in your non-explicit answer, all I have to say is --- wow.....

Actively trying to put into place a system by which the election is determined by a fiat declaration that select elector slates are invalid, just upon the notation of one person, and that ipso facto the elective process either swallows that fiat decision, rolls to a standstill, or gets thrown into probably *the* largest Constitutional crisis of 160 years....

I sure as **** hope you dont think that doesnt "rise[] above a mere process issue", hardly worth mentioning as a mere sideshow. It sounds like a seriously fked up course of action that the Donald aimed at us from my perspective.

I will agree that the events of 6 January 2021 are more troubling than anything else Donald John Trump has done. But I stop short of agreeing with all the hyperbolic accusations that have been made. Let's wait for actual evidence of what truly happened instead of buying into allegations.

Trump may have actually tried "to put into place a system by which the election is determined by a fiat declaration." Or he may not have. I would need to see more evidence than I have seen before concluding that he did. Maybe he did, maybe evidence exists that he did, maybe we will see that evidence some day. But so far, what happened at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 does not look like an armed insurrection. If it had been, then a lot more people--including congress critters--would have been killed.

Relevant: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/...stman-memo

Quote: At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (here). A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.

4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well.

It reads like a script from Whose Line is it Anyways? Set up on the idea that the points don’t matter…

(03-24-2023 06:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Relevant: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/...stman-memo

Quote:
At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (here). A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.
4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well.

It reads like a script from Whose Line is it Anyways? Set up on the idea that the points don’t matter…

John Eastman wrote a memo =/= Donald Trump committed a crime.

(03-24-2023 06:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 06:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Relevant: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/...stman-memo

Quote:
At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (here). A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.
4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well.

It reads like a script from Whose Line is it Anyways? Set up on the idea that the points don’t matter…

John Eastman wrote a memo =/= Donald Trump committed a crime.

I’m not trying to argue one way or the other about it’s criminality. I wanted to post the text since that seems to be the crux of Tanq’s argument and I hadn’t actually read the memo.

How do you feel about the plan and it’s implications? After finally reading the text, I get Tanq’s disdain for it - a lawyer retained by POTUS wrote out a plan to literally ignore the will of the voters. Seems like a slippery slope we should be real concerned with.

(03-24-2023 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How do you feel about the plan and it’s implications? After finally reading the text, I get Tanq’s disdain for it - a lawyer retained by POTUS wrote out a plan to literally ignore the will of the voters. Seems like a slippery slope we should be real concerned with.

I figure a lawyer was told to do some research and see if there was a way to make it work. So he did.

I think it's a bad idea and I'm glad it went no further.