CSNbbs
Trump Administration - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+------ Forum: Rice Archives (/forum-640.html)
+------ Thread: Trump Administration (/thread-797972.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656


RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 10-16-2019 08:26 AM

(10-16-2019 08:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 07:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 06:54 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies
Stark differences in newly seen tax documents on two of Donald Trump's buildings show stark differences in reporting on expenses, profits and occupancy figures.
The discrepancies made the buildings appear more profitable to the lender — and less profitable to the officials who set the buildings’ property tax.
For instance, Trump told the lender that he took in twice as much rent from one building as he reported to tax authorities during the same year, 2017. He also gave conflicting occupancy figures for one of his signature skyscrapers, located at 40 Wall Street.
Time to talk some more about Warren's 1971 teacher job I guess......
Are these documents for Trump personally or for an entity in which he has an ownership interest?
Who prepared and signed the applicable documents?
Are the tax and loan forms for exactly the same entity or property?
Are the tax forms prepared on a cash or accrual basis? The financial statements?
IIRC, the left was telling us a while back that Trump no longer had equity stakes in his real estate, because the banks had forced him into a position where he merely allowed the use of his name for a fee. If that is true, then Trump has no interest in or responsibility for the tax and financial reports. Which story is true?
Other questions come to mind, but for now I'll just ask one more. Does the person who wrote the article know anything about real estate accounting and finance?
It isnt even clear that the documents refer to the same entity. I can think of twenty reasons to have nested entities with varying interests in a single piece of real estate.
For example, one entity might be the direct leasehold holder operator, one might be a sublessee special entity for a special portion of the property, one might be a limited partnership that holds title and leases to the operator, one might be a special purpose LLC that is the general partner for the LLP, one might be a loan/lien holder in order to derive pass through equity cost to bypass depreciation.
I mean even in the Hill Country I know one guy that has 5 entities related to a single 30 acre plot. One funds the project and is a lien holder with small equity stake in every other entity; one is the owner of the land; one is a leaseholder and the owner of the buildings; one is sublessee that operates the buildings and the owner of the commercial activities on the plot associated with the buildings; one is a lessee of the agri portion and the operator of the agri functions on the land.
Each one of those will have very different answers on the items in the article as to the various line items; and can easily have very different answers to an outside lender as well as a tax office.
But the study compares 'properties' --- nothing indicates that they even bothered to address the question of *which* entity and *what* that entity's function is.

Exactly. Ergo my questions about entity definition and the level of understanding of the author about real estate and tax matters.

This is exactly the problem with releasing tax returns. People with no knowledge or understanding of what they are looking at can derive all manner and sort of unjustified and inappropriate interpretations.

I'm not saying there could not possibly be a problem. But I am saying that this article falls far short of establishing the existence of one. And the questions that Tanq and I have raised expose some of the areas where this article falls short.

I did identify one other question. Regarding the discrepancy in insurance expense, note that the larger number (on the tax document) is captioned "Insurance (annual)" whereas the smaller amount in the financial statement is captioned "Property insurance." A very simple explanation may be that there are other kinds of insurance included in the larger number.


RE: Trump Administration - georgewebb - 10-16-2019 08:46 AM

(10-15-2019 03:50 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  If you think the left isn't critical of China, we should have a discussion about who we're defining as "The Left."

I'd be happy to have such a discussion, over lunch, cold beer, whatever. Where would you like to meet? Please look me up on the Rice directory (https://search.rice.edu/advanced/) and give me call. I'm tied up today, but free later this week.

I look forward to hearing from you.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 10-16-2019 10:39 AM

(10-16-2019 08:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 07:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 06:54 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies
Stark differences in newly seen tax documents on two of Donald Trump's buildings show stark differences in reporting on expenses, profits and occupancy figures.
The discrepancies made the buildings appear more profitable to the lender — and less profitable to the officials who set the buildings’ property tax.
For instance, Trump told the lender that he took in twice as much rent from one building as he reported to tax authorities during the same year, 2017. He also gave conflicting occupancy figures for one of his signature skyscrapers, located at 40 Wall Street.
Time to talk some more about Warren's 1971 teacher job I guess......

Are these documents for Trump personally or for an entity in which he has an ownership interest?
Who prepared and signed the applicable documents?
Are the tax and loan forms for exactly the same entity or property?
Are the tax forms prepared on a cash or accrual basis? The financial statements?

IIRC, the left was telling us a while back that Trump no longer had equity stakes in his real estate, because the banks had forced him into a position where he merely allowed the use of his name for a fee. If that is true, then Trump has no interest in or responsibility for the tax and financial reports. Which story is true?

Other questions come to mind, but for now I'll just ask one more. Does the person who wrote the article know anything about real estate accounting and finance?

It isnt even clear that the documents refer to the same entity. I can think of twenty reasons to have nested entities with varying interests in a single piece of real estate.

For example, one entity might be the direct leasehold holder operator, one might be a sublessee special entity for a special portion of the property, one might be a limited partnership that holds title and leases to the operator, one might be a special purpose LLC that is the general partner for the LLP, one might be a loan/lien holder in order to derive pass through equity cost to bypass depreciation.

I mean even in the Hill Country I know one guy that has 5 entities related to a single 30 acre plot. One funds the project and is a lien holder with small equity stake in every other entity; one is the owner of the land; one is a leaseholder and the owner of the buildings; one is sublessee that operates the buildings and the owner of the commercial activities on the plot associated with the buildings; one is a lessee of the agri portion and the operator of the agri functions on the land.

Each one of those will have very different answers on the items in the article as to the various line items; and can easily have very different answers to an outside lender as well as a tax office.

But the study compares 'properties' --- nothing indicates that they even bothered to address the question of *which* entity and *what* that entity's function is.

So I guess we should conclude that the multiple tax experts cited in the report don't understand these seemingly basic issues that you bring up?

Do you think it would be out of character for Trump to try and game the system to over-value and under-value his properties based on what is beneficial to him?

The article is pretty clear that there was a consensus among experts that the deviations between valuations was perplexing and not explainable. And for at least one property (40 Wall Street) Trump is directly involved in the holding of the right to lease.


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 10-16-2019 11:16 AM

(10-16-2019 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Do you think it would be out of character for Trump to try and game the system to over-value and under-value his properties based on what is beneficial to him?

I don't think it would be out of character for any human being who owns real estate, in large or small quantities. I am guessing you rent. I am guessing FBO has a home, and nothing else. I wonder if FBO would sell his house at the tax value.

Real estate has a range of value, not a set value. You can report within this range and still be honest. That is one reason banks want independent appraisals on loans backed by real estate. I ran into this problem just yesterday.

If you have a piece of property valued in the $40-60M range, you put the 60 on the statements to the bank, and the 40 on statements to the Tax Board. Standard procedure. Now, if you put $150M on the statement to the bank, that is fraud. But the actual value of the property is not set until a deal is made and closed. The value of a property is whatever a willing buyer and a willing seller agree upon. Until then estimates vary, and one may choose the estimates that are most beneficial to you. I will guarantee you any member of Congress who owns real estate does the same. I bet Oelosi would not sell her SF house for the value on the tax rolls.

I have been saying since the git-go that this is the reason, and a good one, that Trump does not and should not release his tax returns. Remember, the original reason was to show his Russian ties that would explain why he is beholden to Putin. But over the years it has evolved into a childish whine of "WHY can't I see your tax returns?"

In this thread we have already seen two instances of people misunderstanding because they want to misunderstand.

I am going to presume these documents have passed IRS audits, bank audits, property tax audits, and all the other audits that financial records are subject to.


RE: Trump Administration - Hambone10 - 10-16-2019 12:14 PM

(10-16-2019 11:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Do you think it would be out of character for Trump to try and game the system to over-value and under-value his properties based on what is beneficial to him?

I don't think it would be out of character for any human being who owns real estate, in large or small quantities. I am guessing you rent. I am guessing FBO has a home, and nothing else. I wonder if FBO would sell his house at the tax value.

Real estate has a range of value, not a set value. You can report within this range and still be honest. That is one reason banks want independent appraisals on loans backed by real estate. I ran into this problem just yesterday.

If you have a piece of property valued in the $40-60M range, you put the 60 on the statements to the bank, and the 40 on statements to the Tax Board. Standard procedure. Now, if you put $150M on the statement to the bank, that is fraud. But the actual value of the property is not set until a deal is made and closed. The value of a property is whatever a willing buyer and a willing seller agree upon. Until then estimates vary, and one may choose the estimates that are most beneficial to you. I will guarantee you any member of Congress who owns real estate does the same. I bet Oelosi would not sell her SF house for the value on the tax rolls.

I have been saying since the git-go that this is the reason, and a good one, that Trump does not and should not release his tax returns. Remember, the original reason was to show his Russian ties that would explain why he is beholden to Putin. But over the years it has evolved into a childish whine of "WHY can't I see your tax returns?"

In this thread we have already seen two instances of people misunderstanding because they want to misunderstand.

I am going to presume these documents have passed IRS audits, bank audits, property tax audits, and all the other audits that financial records are subject to.



This

The value of 'unique' parcels of land or art or intellectual property or even a business is based on formulas with assumptions. Unlike most traditional residential real-estate, where there are only relatively minor differences between your home and the 200 that surround you... there are potentially HUGE differences in businesses, art and unique parcels. All you have to do is look at stock prices where some companies are trading at 2 x book while others are trading at 200 x book. A lot of it is based on 'guesses'. That's not (generally) fraud... but I'm sure if Trump is valuing Mar-A-Lago at $1mm/acre and someone else is valuing THEIR property at 500k/acre, plenty of anti-Trump people would call that fraud... and that's mostly what people are looking for.

Is it fraud to value a book by former President Obama at $20mm and for State Senator Obama at $200,000? If Obama makes $100,000 per speech and Bush makes $50k and Clinton 25k, is that fraud by any of them?

If the IRS, bank auditors and state and city tax boards didn't find fraud, a bunch of Senators sure won't.... but that's not their goal. Their goal is to find VOTES... and EVERYONE knows it.


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 10-16-2019 01:49 PM

(10-16-2019 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 08:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 07:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 06:54 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies
Stark differences in newly seen tax documents on two of Donald Trump's buildings show stark differences in reporting on expenses, profits and occupancy figures.
The discrepancies made the buildings appear more profitable to the lender — and less profitable to the officials who set the buildings’ property tax.
For instance, Trump told the lender that he took in twice as much rent from one building as he reported to tax authorities during the same year, 2017. He also gave conflicting occupancy figures for one of his signature skyscrapers, located at 40 Wall Street.
Time to talk some more about Warren's 1971 teacher job I guess......

Are these documents for Trump personally or for an entity in which he has an ownership interest?
Who prepared and signed the applicable documents?
Are the tax and loan forms for exactly the same entity or property?
Are the tax forms prepared on a cash or accrual basis? The financial statements?

IIRC, the left was telling us a while back that Trump no longer had equity stakes in his real estate, because the banks had forced him into a position where he merely allowed the use of his name for a fee. If that is true, then Trump has no interest in or responsibility for the tax and financial reports. Which story is true?

Other questions come to mind, but for now I'll just ask one more. Does the person who wrote the article know anything about real estate accounting and finance?

It isnt even clear that the documents refer to the same entity. I can think of twenty reasons to have nested entities with varying interests in a single piece of real estate.

For example, one entity might be the direct leasehold holder operator, one might be a sublessee special entity for a special portion of the property, one might be a limited partnership that holds title and leases to the operator, one might be a special purpose LLC that is the general partner for the LLP, one might be a loan/lien holder in order to derive pass through equity cost to bypass depreciation.

I mean even in the Hill Country I know one guy that has 5 entities related to a single 30 acre plot. One funds the project and is a lien holder with small equity stake in every other entity; one is the owner of the land; one is a leaseholder and the owner of the buildings; one is sublessee that operates the buildings and the owner of the commercial activities on the plot associated with the buildings; one is a lessee of the agri portion and the operator of the agri functions on the land.

Each one of those will have very different answers on the items in the article as to the various line items; and can easily have very different answers to an outside lender as well as a tax office.

But the study compares 'properties' --- nothing indicates that they even bothered to address the question of *which* entity and *what* that entity's function is.

So I guess we should conclude that the multiple tax experts cited in the report don't understand these seemingly basic issues that you bring up?

I do not know; nor do I not not know. Apparently what is being spoon fed for you as a conclusory article is sufficient for you. That is your prerogative.

Quote:Do you think it would be out of character for Trump to try and game the system to over-value and under-value his properties based on what is beneficial to him?

I dont think it is out of character for 99% of the tax payers in a similar situation to do that. When confronted with a tax assessment via a local or state office re: an asset that has not been sold, any individual is free, and should be free, to argue for a lower assessment.

When confronted with a bank determining a credit risk, an individual is free, and should be free, to bargain for a higher assessment.

Even on the same property.

Criminy, every entity that engages in commerce engages in the exact same duality when it comes to whether they are on a buy side or a sell side. Nothing unnatural or sinister about it when presented in that light, is there?

I mean hell, one time I bought a parcel of land at X when the original ask was 1.2x, then turned around a sold it in 45 days at 1.3x after asking 1.4x. So literally within less than 7 weeks I went from representing that it was .9x to representing it was 1.4x. I guess that is 'bad' or 'sinister' in nature for some.

Apparently you might think that.

Quote:The article is pretty clear that there was a consensus among experts that the deviations between valuations was perplexing and not explainable. And for at least one property (40 Wall Street) Trump is directly involved in the holding of the right to lease.

Actually when you read the article closely, they actually never really go into the weeds as to the various entities, nor any relationship, nor any function that they play. All they give is a common property and let the reader assume it is the same entity or operational party.

That is a big tell for me. If they are the same entity, note it for the record. To not note that in the slightest smacks of either ignorance or an agenda at play. I couldnt tell you which would be worse for a journalism effort. Which of those would you think worse?


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 10-16-2019 02:12 PM

As for the experts quoted, I will note that experts differ, and sometimes they differ based on their politics. There are experts who confirm the corruption of Hunter Biden.

Remember, half of all lawyers say the defendant is guilty and half say he is innocent. All are experts.

I wonder if Lad's employer owns any real estate. If so I would wager it is shown at different valuations to the bank and the tax office. I doubt he would accuse his own company of malfeasance.


RE: Trump Administration - Hambone10 - 10-16-2019 04:06 PM

As to your other points, Lad...

If you own real estate (or most any relatively illiquid asset) for any period, there will come a time when you are at odds in terms of value with (at least) the other side's agent/broker or a taxing authority. They will have potentially a team of CPAs and experts who disagree with you on the appropriate valuation of that asset. That doesn't make them correct and you not only wrong, but criminally so.

If Trump got a loan from DeutscheBank for $20mm on a piece of property that he valued at $30mm and DeutscheBank agreed, you won't find that on his tax returns. If you somehow did find out that DeutscheBank was complicit with Trump in Fraud because the property was only worth $10mm, that is a clear violation of banking laws and would come under the easy and almost completely unfettered jurisdiction of agencies such as the FDIC, Treasury and others... and you wouldn't need ANY information from Trump to produce such evidence and formal charges against DeutscheBank, which of course MAY (but wouldn't necessarily as in Russia) also trap Trump.

Seriously, have you never heard of someone who couldn't qualify for a home loan because the property didn't appraise high enough? Or someone who was a home flipper who bought a home with no money down based on the expected value (as determined by experts) at the end of the construction? If the property doesn't ultimately appraise for the expected value, is that fraud?

Absolutely Trump pumps everything he does up. It is not the sellers job to point out the flaws in a plan. Trump said his property was worth 'x'. I suspect Deutsche and the IRS and others said 'z', and they ultimately agreed on 'y'. Obama told us we could keep our doctors. Trump says America is the greatest country on earth. Are those impeachable lies?

I suspect what they're looking for is something like this....

On Trumps 2015 taxes, he valued some assets (for tax purposes) at $20mm. In 2016, he then got a loan from Deutsche claiming the property was worth $30mm. To someone who doesn't know anything (or is merely blinded by politics) that could sound like 'fraud'... and I am 100% confident that there would be people, including 'experts' who would argue that...

but it's really not


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 10-16-2019 05:35 PM

(10-16-2019 04:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As to your other points, Lad...

If you own real estate (or most any relatively illiquid asset) for any period, there will come a time when you are at odds in terms of value with (at least) the other side's agent/broker or a taxing authority. They will have potentially a team of CPAs and experts who disagree with you on the appropriate valuation of that asset. That doesn't make them correct and you not only wrong, but criminally so.

If Trump got a loan from DeutscheBank for $20mm on a piece of property that he valued at $30mm and DeutscheBank agreed, you won't find that on his tax returns. If you somehow did find out that DeutscheBank was complicit with Trump in Fraud because the property was only worth $10mm, that is a clear violation of banking laws and would come under the easy and almost completely unfettered jurisdiction of agencies such as the FDIC, Treasury and others... and you wouldn't need ANY information from Trump to produce such evidence and formal charges against DeutscheBank, which of course MAY (but wouldn't necessarily as in Russia) also trap Trump.

Seriously, have you never heard of someone who couldn't qualify for a home loan because the property didn't appraise high enough? Or someone who was a home flipper who bought a home with no money down based on the expected value (as determined by experts) at the end of the construction? If the property doesn't ultimately appraise for the expected value, is that fraud?

Absolutely Trump pumps everything he does up. It is not the sellers job to point out the flaws in a plan. Trump said his property was worth 'x'. I suspect Deutsche and the IRS and others said 'z', and they ultimately agreed on 'y'. Obama told us we could keep our doctors. Trump says America is the greatest country on earth. Are those impeachable lies?

I suspect what they're looking for is something like this....

On Trumps 2015 taxes, he valued some assets (for tax purposes) at $20mm. In 2016, he then got a loan from Deutsche claiming the property was worth $30mm. To someone who doesn't know anything (or is merely blinded by politics) that could sound like 'fraud'... and I am 100% confident that there would be people, including 'experts' who would argue that...

but it's really not

It would only convince the ignorant and/or those who want him impeached.

I have done this sort of stuff many times, in buying, selling, renting, and maintaining property. I guess that is why some lefties think I am unfit for public office and should be impeached as soon as I am elected. Oh, and a couple of times I have been untruthful, like when I told that Highway Patrolman I didn't realize how fast I was going. Good thing all the Democrats in congress are made of sterner moral character.

As for "experts, the last time a government entity exercised eminent domain on some of my property, they ended up paying 9.5X their initial offer, which was based on some 'expert" valuation. Should they be in trouble for wasting taxpayer dollars? Did we collude?

That was the third time I have been involved with eminent domain. In every case the initial offer was based on experts' valuations. In every case the final amount was considerably more than the initial offer. And that is with me negotiating with a gun to my head.


RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 10-16-2019 09:45 PM

(10-16-2019 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So I guess we should conclude that the multiple tax experts cited in the report don't understand these seemingly basic issues that you bring up?

I would actually be more inclined to believe that are strongly biased against one Donald Trump, and they realize that their audience does not understand these basic issues, and that they will be believed because of their credentials, so they can suggest that certain things "might be true" without actually going on the record. Kind of like the stuff that Paul Krugman and Robert Reich do with respect to economics. In other words, I think it is highly likely that the "experts" were cherry-picked and that their agenda trumped their expertise.

Quote:Do you think it would be out of character for Trump to try and game the system to over-value and under-value his properties based on what is beneficial to him?

Real estate typically does not have one single, precise, unquestionable value, but rather has a range of possible values at any given time. Do I think it would be out of character for any person who deals in real estate to value property at the top of the range for certain purposes and at the bottom of the range for others? Absolutely not. For that matter do real estate values move around over a fairly wide range from time to time? Yes.

Quote:The article is pretty clear that there was a consensus among experts that the deviations between valuations was perplexing and not explainable. And for at least one property (40 Wall Street) Trump is directly involved in the holding of the right to lease.

But were those experts objective and unbiased observers, or were they sufficiently biased against Trump that they would be willing to suggest all manner and sort of conceivable issues? Were they doing objective analysis or witch hunting?

I don't know, and neither do you.

Given that we see only snippets from various financial reports and not the entire reports, I'm not certain that it is possible to draw any reasonable interests from such sketchy source documents. Are both reports for even the same legal entity?

One other question--What was Donald Trump's role in the preparation of the financial reports from which we see those snippets?


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 10-17-2019 04:15 PM

(10-16-2019 08:46 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 03:50 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  If you think the left isn't critical of China, we should have a discussion about who we're defining as "The Left."

I'd be happy to have such a discussion, over lunch, cold beer, whatever. Where would you like to meet? Please look me up on the Rice directory (https://search.rice.edu/advanced/) and give me call. I'm tied up today, but free later this week.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Well, George, did he contact you?


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 10-17-2019 05:00 PM

(10-17-2019 04:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 08:46 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 03:50 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  If you think the left isn't critical of China, we should have a discussion about who we're defining as "The Left."

I'd be happy to have such a discussion, over lunch, cold beer, whatever. Where would you like to meet? Please look me up on the Rice directory (https://search.rice.edu/advanced/) and give me call. I'm tied up today, but free later this week.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Well, George, did he contact you?

Walton?

edited to add: When will you buy *me* a beer, ingrate?


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 10-18-2019 11:02 AM

Hunter[

"A career State Department official overseeing Ukraine policy told congressional investigators this week that he had raised concerns in early 2015 about then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son serving on the board of a Ukrainian energy company but was turned away by a Biden staffer, according to three people familiar with the testimony."

Hmm...rebuffed by what kind of staffer?


RE: Trump Administration - georgewebb - 10-18-2019 11:31 AM

(10-17-2019 05:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-17-2019 04:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(10-16-2019 08:46 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(10-15-2019 03:50 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  If you think the left isn't critical of China, we should have a discussion about who we're defining as "The Left."

I'd be happy to have such a discussion, over lunch, cold beer, whatever. Where would you like to meet? Please look me up on the Rice directory (https://search.rice.edu/advanced/) and give me call. I'm tied up today, but free later this week.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Well, George, did he contact you?

Walton?

edited to add: When will you buy *me* a beer, ingrate?


OO: not yet.
Tanq: I certainly do owe you one! When will you next be in Houston?

Real people are good.


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 10-18-2019 03:07 PM

Clinton emails

"...588 violations involving information then or now deemed to be classified,..."


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 10-18-2019 03:47 PM

(10-18-2019 03:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Clinton emails

"...588 violations involving information then or now deemed to be classified,..."

I liked 'but could not assign fault in 497 cases.' Hmmm..... how about the jacktard that *required* the outside server in the first place. I wonder who *that* might be?


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 10-18-2019 04:09 PM

(10-18-2019 11:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Hunter[

"A career State Department official overseeing Ukraine policy told congressional investigators this week that he had raised concerns in early 2015 about then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son serving on the board of a Ukrainian energy company but was turned away by a Biden staffer, according to three people familiar with the testimony."

Hmm...rebuffed by what kind of staffer?

Bit more detail than the lead:

Quote:Kent said he had concerns that Ukrainian officials would view Hunter Biden as a conduit for currying influence with his father, said the people. But when Kent raised the issue with Biden’s office, he was told the then-vice president didn’t have the “bandwidth” to deal with the issue involving his son as his other son, Beau, was battling cancer, said the people familiar with his testimony.

Completely reasonable, and correct concern to have, but doesn't seem to be anywhere close to the sort of corrupt claims that Trump and co. have been making recently. If the concerns he were raising were about corruption or illegal actions, then the rebuffing would be a big concern.

I do wish we could find a way to eradicate nepotism, but I don't think there is any way to do that when it comes to take private sector jobs.


RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 10-18-2019 04:11 PM

(10-18-2019 04:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Completely reasonable, and correct concern to have, but doesn't seem to be anywhere close to the sort of corrupt claims that Trump and co. have been making recently.

Really? Seriously?


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 10-18-2019 04:11 PM

(10-18-2019 03:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-18-2019 03:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Clinton emails

"...588 violations involving information then or now deemed to be classified,..."

I liked 'but could not assign fault in 497 cases.' Hmmm..... how about the jacktard that *required* the outside server in the first place. I wonder who *that* might be?

I wonder how many of those cases involved post-email sending classification.

I'm unaware of the nuances of that process, but it would be weird if someone could get in trouble for sending an email that was retroactively classified.


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 10-18-2019 04:15 PM

(10-18-2019 04:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-18-2019 03:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-18-2019 03:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Clinton emails

"...588 violations involving information then or now deemed to be classified,..."

I liked 'but could not assign fault in 497 cases.' Hmmm..... how about the jacktard that *required* the outside server in the first place. I wonder who *that* might be?

I wonder how many of those cases involved post-email sending classification.

I'm unaware of the nuances of that process, but it would be weird if someone could get in trouble for sending an email that was retroactively classified.

I cant fathom a Secretary of State (or any cabinet-level equivalent) sending *anything* related to his/her job to or through an unsecured server, to be blunt.

And I cant fathom such a person telling others to do so with SoS matters.

The issue isnt whether it was classified or done so after the fact in all honesty.