(04-09-2019 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 08:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My understanding is that Trump DC is “owned” by the Trump Organization, which Donald Trump still owns. I saw “owned” because the Trump organization leases the building from the GSA.

But you are making a flawed assumption that the Trump Organization is Donald Trump. It isn't. How do I know? Because no competent tax lawyer or CPA would allow a client to do that. And I assume that Donald Trump received competent tax and business advice, Michael Cohen notwithstanding.

Cohen prettify obviously had a specific role to play. You don't build anything commercial in the northeast, particularly not casinos in Atlantic City, without having to deal with a lot of unsavory characters, between the unions and the mob (which may, in many cases, be one in the same). I suspect that he has a lot of dirt, or at least pseudo dirt--situations where he was told to "take care of" things and he would be reimbursed. But I doubt any of that dirt sticks on Donald Trump.

But back to his tax advice. With any kind of competent planning, the Trump Organization is a network of entities with all sorts of ownership structures--common stock, preferred stock, S Corps, partnerships (probably LPs), and LLCs, plus foreign ownership entities for foreign properties. To what extent Donald Trump individually got anything from any of of them would be difficult to trace.

Per Morgan Lewis, Trump is the sole or principal owner of all entities included in the Trump Organization.

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Tax_Doc.pdf

You missed the 'partnerships' language in your sleuthing.

(04-09-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 10:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, if Hamas'representative and Israel's representative are both staying at the hotel, which one will he favor? The one in the most expensive room? The one with longest stay? The one who runs up the biggest room service bill?

The answer, of course, is that he will favor the one he would have favored anyway, regardless of those petty considerations.

Anybody think otherwise? If so, what do you think he will base his actions on? Total bill? Repeat business. Good tippers?

The point is not that someone staying at the hotel immediately creates a conflict of interest.

It's that people using the hotel COULD create a conflict of interest.

The whole point of the term conflict of interest is pointing out that it could be present and could affect someone's judgement. You don't turn down a client that could be a conflict of interest because you know it will affect your judgement, but because it COULD affect your judgement. You don't sell your peanut farm because you'll make policy decisions that will affect peanut prices, but because you COULD do so. You don't put your stocks in a blind trust because you are making policy decisions to favor your assets, but because you COULD do so.

Sheesh.

If I put my assets in a blind trust, i still know what they are and if certain legislation or actions would benefit them. You think Carter didn't know that putting tariffs on imported peanuts(or reducing them) would affect his family's assets in the trust? Did Carter forget he had a peanut farm?

You seem stuck on the thought that the tiniest of considerations would move Trump. Name one time this has happened. If that is all it takes, I am mailing him a $5 bill.

And once more, how is looking at his tax return going to resolve this question?

Your kind (the Democratic base) are predisposed to see any action or nonaction by Trump as proof of influence. At least you aren't busy "proving" he is a Putin puppet anymore. For a while.

Sheesh yourself.

(04-09-2019 10:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 10:02 AM)ausowl Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If that choice is crook versus communist, I'll gladly vote crook.

And I'll gladly vote for the non-Trump, Goldman Sachs pimpin', TPP supportin', deep state statist (assuming Joe Pa Biden gets the nomination and not Bernie or the other Castro brother).

Then our votes will cancel each other. Ain't democracy great?

Question. Would you vote for a non-Trump orangutan? I ask because I have a leftist friend who told me in 1972 why she was, unsurprisingly, voting for McGovern, "I'd vote for a monkey in the zoo before I would vote for Richard Nixon." To which I replied, "So would I. But he's not running against a monkey in the zoo. He's running against George McGovern."

No to monkeys. Nor would I vote for Sanders.

Klobuchar, Biden, and to a lesser extent Buttigieg, seem positioned to govern from the middle.

Any of the current D's that have announced that you would consider voting for v. Trump?

(04-09-2019 12:49 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 10:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 10:02 AM)ausowl Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If that choice is crook versus communist, I'll gladly vote crook.

And I'll gladly vote for the non-Trump, Goldman Sachs pimpin', TPP supportin', deep state statist (assuming Joe Pa Biden gets the nomination and not Bernie or the other Castro brother).

Then our votes will cancel each other. Ain't democracy great?

Question. Would you vote for a non-Trump orangutan? I ask because I have a leftist friend who told me in 1972 why she was, unsurprisingly, voting for McGovern, "I'd vote for a monkey in the zoo before I would vote for Richard Nixon." To which I replied, "So would I. But he's not running against a monkey in the zoo. He's running against George McGovern."

No to monkeys. Nor would I vote for Sanders.

Klobuchar, Biden, and to a lesser extent Buttigieg, seem positioned to govern from the middle.

Any of the current D's that have announced that you would consider voting for v. Trump?

Probably not. But you also need to remember that the Democratic Party *and* the makeup of the slate of candidates has run so far left so fast that it would make a Randy Johnson heater seem like it was being pitched from third base.

(04-09-2019 10:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 08:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My understanding is that Trump DC is “owned” by the Trump Organization, which Donald Trump still owns. I saw “owned” because the Trump organization leases the building from the GSA.

But you are making a flawed assumption that the Trump Organization is Donald Trump. It isn't. How do I know? Because no competent tax lawyer or CPA would allow a client to do that. And I assume that Donald Trump received competent tax and business advice, Michael Cohen notwithstanding.

Cohen prettify obviously had a specific role to play. You don't build anything commercial in the northeast, particularly not casinos in Atlantic City, without having to deal with a lot of unsavory characters, between the unions and the mob (which may, in many cases, be one in the same). I suspect that he has a lot of dirt, or at least pseudo dirt--situations where he was told to "take care of" things and he would be reimbursed. But I doubt any of that dirt sticks on Donald Trump.

But back to his tax advice. With any kind of competent planning, the Trump Organization is a network of entities with all sorts of ownership structures--common stock, preferred stock, S Corps, partnerships (probably LPs), and LLCs, plus foreign ownership entities for foreign properties. To what extent Donald Trump individually got anything from any of of them would be difficult to trace.

Per Morgan Lewis, Trump is the sole or principal owner of all entities included in the Trump Organization.

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Tax_Doc.pdf

You missed the 'partnerships' language in your sleuthing.

No I didn't. See how I said sole or principal? Principal implies there are other owners who would own a minority stake.

"...almost exclusively through sole proprietorship and/or closely held partnerships..."

The partnerships is not being modified by any part of "sole" or proprietorship.

1.) Closely held partnerships != principal owner.
2). Not only that, there is a very good disjoint in the three sentences that you didnt catch.
3.) "Almost" doesnt mean all.

Again, go back and read the letter carefully.

(04-09-2019 02:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  1.) Closely held partnerships != principal owner.
2). Not only that, there is a very good disjoint in the three sentences that you didnt catch.
3.) "Almost" doesnt mean all.

Again, go back and read the letter carefully.

Are you just trying to argue that there is a third category to how Trump owns entities within the Trump Org?

Also, why does using the term closely held partnerships indicate that he could not be a principal owner?

The letter clearly states Trump is the sole or principal owner in the 500 separate entities within the Trump org. The sentences following seem to provide some extra information about that, but you are suggesting that they actually modify it in a way that makes that statement false?

It also says his returns have been under continuous examination since 2002, consistent with the IRS's practice for large or complex entities. For the years through 2008, no assessment or payment of any deficiency was made.

That is some pretty good tax prep.

It also would uphold his claim that his returns are under audit.

How did this private letter become public?

(04-09-2019 03:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 02:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  1.) Closely held partnerships != principal owner.
2). Not only that, there is a very good disjoint in the three sentences that you didnt catch.
3.) "Almost" doesnt mean all.

Again, go back and read the letter carefully.

Are you just trying to argue that there is a third category to how Trump owns entities within the Trump Org?

Also, why does using the term closely held partnerships indicate that he could not be a principal owner?

The letter clearly states Trump is the sole or principal owner in the 500 separate entities within the Trump org. The sentences following seem to provide some extra information about that, but you are suggesting that they actually modify it in a way that makes that statement false?

Define "principal". What is the percentage need to be principal?

In any case, what if the information you would expect to learn from his 1040?

You're an engineer, I am just an MBA, so explain this to me.

(04-09-2019 03:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 02:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  1.) Closely held partnerships != principal owner.
2). Not only that, there is a very good disjoint in the three sentences that you didnt catch.
3.) "Almost" doesnt mean all.

Again, go back and read the letter carefully.

Are you just trying to argue that there is a third category to how Trump owns entities within the Trump Org?

Also, why does using the term closely held partnerships indicate that he could not be a principal owner?

The letter clearly states Trump is the sole or principal owner in the 500 separate entities within the Trump org. The sentences following seem to provide some extra information about that, but you are suggesting that they actually modify it in a way that makes that statement false?

Here is an made up example for starters: Donald Trump *owns* BOHM LLC as a sole shareholder (bad orange haired man).

BOHM LLC may very well be a .0000001 percent partner in PHT LLP (Putin hired Trump).

Again that is for starters. That is the entity function gap that you overlook to start.

There are some semantics in there as well that could very well not make it as closed as you think.

I would posit that somewhere in the tangle of entities and relationships to other outside agreements, that Trump has *some* interest in, say, Trump DC.

But your statement that the 'Trump Organization' owns something is kind of a non-starter --- there apparently is no entity called the Trump Organization from the letter -- it is a miasma of ownership vehicles.

Going back to the Trump v. orangutan thing a lot of it depends on which orangutan the Dems nominate and the platform she runs on.

If Trump is nominated, I will vote for him against the field, unless it is clear, as it was in 2016, that he cannot win.

If for any reason I cannot or will not vote for Trump, Schultz bears a closer look, either as a Democrat or an Independent.

If for any reason Trump is not the Republican nominee, a lot would depend on who is, and what their platform is.

Other parties and/or not voting in this race at all remain viable options, always.

Going back to the Trump v. orangutan thing a lot of it depends on which orangutan the Dems nominate and the platform she runs on.

If Trump is nominated, I will vote for him against the field, unless it is clear, as it was in 2016, that he cannot win.

If for any reason I cannot or will not vote for Trump, Schultz bears a closer look, either as a Democrat or an Independent.

If for any reason Trump is not the Republican nominee, a lot would depend on who is, and what their platform is.

Other parties and/or not voting in this race at all remain viable options, always.

(04-09-2019 03:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 03:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 02:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  1.) Closely held partnerships != principal owner.
2). Not only that, there is a very good disjoint in the three sentences that you didnt catch.
3.) "Almost" doesnt mean all.

Again, go back and read the letter carefully.

Are you just trying to argue that there is a third category to how Trump owns entities within the Trump Org?

Also, why does using the term closely held partnerships indicate that he could not be a principal owner?

The letter clearly states Trump is the sole or principal owner in the 500 separate entities within the Trump org. The sentences following seem to provide some extra information about that, but you are suggesting that they actually modify it in a way that makes that statement false?

Here is an made up example for starters: Donald Trump *owns* BOHM LLC as a sole shareholder (bad orange haired man).

BOHM LLC may very well be a .0000001 percent partner in PHT LLP (Putin hired Trump).

Again that is for starters. That is the entity function gap that you overlook to start.

There are some semantics in there as well that could very well not make it as closed as you think.

I would posit that somewhere in the tangle of entities and relationships to other outside agreements, that Trump has *some* interest in, say, Trump DC.

But your statement that the 'Trump Organization' owns something is kind of a non-starter --- there apparently is no entity called the Trump Organization from the letter -- it is a miasma of ownership vehicles.

Yeah, I kind of figured that the statement from Morgan Lewis I copied and pasted after I wrote about the ownership cleared up that the Trump Org is a mish-mash of organizations. I am admittedly learning things about Trump and his holdings as we discuss them (as I imagine y'all are too).

The Trump DC hotel is being leased by Trump Old Post Office LLC, which falls within the Trump Org umbrella.

(04-09-2019 04:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 03:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 03:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 02:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  1.) Closely held partnerships != principal owner.
2). Not only that, there is a very good disjoint in the three sentences that you didnt catch.
3.) "Almost" doesnt mean all.

Again, go back and read the letter carefully.

Are you just trying to argue that there is a third category to how Trump owns entities within the Trump Org?

Also, why does using the term closely held partnerships indicate that he could not be a principal owner?

The letter clearly states Trump is the sole or principal owner in the 500 separate entities within the Trump org. The sentences following seem to provide some extra information about that, but you are suggesting that they actually modify it in a way that makes that statement false?

Here is an made up example for starters: Donald Trump *owns* BOHM LLC as a sole shareholder (bad orange haired man).

BOHM LLC may very well be a .0000001 percent partner in PHT LLP (Putin hired Trump).

Again that is for starters. That is the entity function gap that you overlook to start.

There are some semantics in there as well that could very well not make it as closed as you think.

I would posit that somewhere in the tangle of entities and relationships to other outside agreements, that Trump has *some* interest in, say, Trump DC.

But your statement that the 'Trump Organization' owns something is kind of a non-starter --- there apparently is no entity called the Trump Organization from the letter -- it is a miasma of ownership vehicles.

Yeah, I kind of figured that the statement from Morgan Lewis I copied and pasted after I wrote about the ownership cleared up that the Trump Org is a mish-mash of organizations. I am admittedly learning things about Trump and his holdings as we discuss them (as I imagine y'all are too).

The Trump DC hotel is being leased by Trump Old Post Office LLC, which falls within the Trump Org umbrella.

Actually it is only confirming his methodology of 'business' tracks that of many very wealthy individuals. I am learning details, but I am not surprised by them.

(04-09-2019 03:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Going back to the Trump v. orangutan thing a lot of it depends on which orangutan the Dems nominate and the platform she runs on.
If Trump is nominated, I will vote for him against the field, unless it is clear, as it was in 2016, that he cannot win.
If for any reason I cannot or will not vote for Trump, Schultz bears a closer look, either as a Democrat or an Independent.
If for any reason Trump is not the Republican nominee, a lot would depend on who is, and what their platform is.
Other parties and/or not voting in this race at all remain viable options, always.

Out of the 487 (seems like it) democrats in the running, there is not one for whom I could vote. Not one for whom I could seriously consider voting. Not one.
I don't know whether or not I can vote for Trump. I didn't in 2016, voted for Gary Johnson, and odds are that I'll vote libertarian again.
If Trump needs me to carry Texas, I would probably vote for him. So libertarian if I can, Trump if I must. But saying that, it strikes me that if Trump needs me to carry Texas, he is probably a lost cause nationally.

(04-09-2019 12:49 PM)ausowl Wrote:  No to monkeys. Nor would I vote for Sanders.
Klobuchar, Biden, and to a lesser extent Buttigieg, seem positioned to govern from the middle.

I see no indication of that from any of them. Moreover, no matter how committed a democrat president would be, any democrat would probably have coattails long enough to carry a enough democrats, including some truly crazies to victory in congress. I would expect a congress that would make it difficult to impossible for any of them to govern from the middle.

Quote:Any of the current D's that have announced that you would consider voting for v. Trump?

No. There's probably not one that I would vote for against that orangutan.

Doesn't mean I'm voting for Trump. I'm guessing I'll vote for whoever is the Libertarian nominee. That's what I've done since 1980, and I would expect to do so again.

(04-09-2019 09:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Trump needs me to carry Texas, I would probably vote for him. So libertarian if I can, Trump if I must. But saying that, it strikes me that if Trump needs me to carry Texas, he is probably a lost cause nationally.

If Beta is the VP candidate, as I expect, Trump may need both of us.

(04-09-2019 11:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-09-2019 09:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Trump needs me to carry Texas, I would probably vote for him. So libertarian if I can, Trump if I must. But saying that, it strikes me that if Trump needs me to carry Texas, he is probably a lost cause nationally.

If Beta is the VP candidate, as I expect, Trump may need both of us.

If Robert Francis is the VP candidate, Trump has my vote. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Well, if there is anything the Democrats have shown us in the last 2+ years, it is how to be good sports and gracious in defeat.

Funniest thing I heard yesterday:

Reporter asking Nadler about a possible investigation into the origins of the FBI investigation that led to the Mueller probe:

Nadler: "It's been investigated for two years and nothing has been found. Time to let it go."