35 Burst results for "Trump Organization"
AP News Radio
Trump makes video appearance in New York criminal case, trial date tentatively set for late March
"Did not guilty last month to 34 counts of falsifying business records at his family company, the Trump organization. Trump has portrayed the New York case and other investigations he faces as a coordinated effort to Sully his reelection chances. And Lisa dwyer
America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast
Joe and Victoria Unpack the Legal Theories Around Trump's Indictment
"So far because they've been so many leaks out of Bragg's office, we seem to know that this is a 7 year old misdemeanor that expired 5 years ago that they're trying to connect to some kind of federal election violation felony or a tax evasion case. That doesn't seem to hold water. Could there be anything else or do we think this is the current legal theory? Well, what we've heard is that there are 30 counts. What that probably means is that each book entry or each check that was written to cover the $130,000. And each entry in the computer to keep a track of it is a separate count. Right. That's probably why they're 30 counts. Knowing what we know about the case, I can't conceive of it being anything else. But Seb, you're right, and that it doesn't hold water, because to violate the federal elections law, campaign finance money had to be used. Trump paid it out of his personal funds. And there should be no other reason than to help your election to spend the money, even if it were campaign finance. That isn't the facts aren't there for that kind of situation. So there's just no violation of the federal elections law. And of course, we have the letter from Michael Cohen's attorney that says the money's paid to stormy Daniels were in fact Michael Cohen's explicitly had nothing to do with the Trump organization or the Trump campaign.
The Dan Bongino Show
Tucker Carlson: Taking out Your Opponent Using the Justice System
"Here's Tucker Carlson last night bringing up exactly this fact That this is the single greatest act of election interference You're going to see in your lifetime Check this out But either way Donald Trump's former job as president of the United States is not really the point here Yes of course you can indict former presidents if they've done something wrong That's not what this is about The headline here is that there is as noted a presidential race in progress right now and if you check the polls you will find that Trump is leading the Republican field That's the unprecedented thing Taking out your opponent using the justice system If the Democratic Party is allowed to do this allowed to crush the presidential FrontRunner the main threat to their power with a bogus criminal case where does that leave us We're done Because that president will live forever and voters will never again determine the outcome of a presidential election It's remarkable when you think about it So after all the yelling from permanent Washington about January 6th and how it was a threat to our democratic norms and the peaceful transfer of power they've decided to completely short circuit our democratic norms not to mention the peaceful transfer of power using the courts and prosecutors He's right He's right They graduated from political dirty tricks the Russia hoax To using the political dirty trick the Russia hoax to empower a former director of the FBI to dig into every component of Donald Trump's life to turn his life in his business upside down when that didn't work because the former FBI director found absolutely nothing on Donald Trump that there were no members of the Trump organization that colluded with the Russians Liberals again read the report shut your holster shut your soup cooler I'm not interested in your stupidity
AP News Radio
Michael Cohen to testify Monday in Trump hush-money probe
"Sources tell the AP Donald Trump's former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen is scheduled to testify Monday before a Manhattan grand jury investigating hush money payments made on the former president's behalf. I'm Ben Thomas with the latest. Yeah, it's been a long day. Michael Cohen emerged from a day long session Friday at the Manhattan district attorney's office, with not a lot to say. I'm really gonna be taking a little time now to stay silent and allow the DA to build that Kingston to do the things that they need to do. Cohen is considered a key witness as prosecutors close in on a decision on whether to seek charges against Trump. They appear to be looking at whether Trump committed crimes in arranging payments to two women to keep them from going public about alleged affairs. Or in how those payments were accounted for, the Trump organization. Trump blasted the probe on social media again Friday, calling it scam injustice, mockery, and complete and total weaponization of law enforcement in order to affect the presidential election. Prosecutors this week invited Trump himself to testify before the grand jury. I'm Ben Thomas.
AP News Radio
New York prosecutors convene grand jury in Trump hush money probe
"There are reports that Manhattan prosecutors have convened a new grand jury to investigate whether former president Trump was involved in hush money payments to a porn star who alleged they had an affair. Donald Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen in 2018 pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign finance law by paying porn star stormy Daniels $130,000 and then being reimbursed by Donald Trump to buy her silence before the 2016 election. Cohen also said a $150,000 was given to former Playboy model Karen McDougal, paid through the publisher of the national inquirer, which then squelched her story. Trump has denied both affairs. Now multiple news outlets citing unnamed sources, say Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg is investigating the payouts and The New York Times reports the national inquirer's former publisher David pecker was spotted entering the building where the grand juries meeting this week. The Trump organization, which was recently convicted in a tax fraud case, caused Bragg's investigation reprehensible
AP News Radio
Trump Organization to be sentenced for tax fraud, faces fine
"A New York judge is scheduled to find Donald Trump's company for helping its executives Dodge taxes. As a corporation, the stiffest possible penalty that could be imposed on the Trump organization for conspiracy and falsifying business records is $1.6 million. The company was convicted last month of 17 tax crimes for helping its executives Dodge taxes on job perks, including rent free apartments, luxury cars, and private school tuition. The former president is not on trial and Trump family members aren't expected in the New York courtroom, former chief financial officer Allen weisselberg, the only executive charged, was sentenced Tuesday to 5 months in jail. Trump has said the case against his company was part of a politically motivated witch hunt Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg says that a related investigation is still underway and New York attorney general letitia James is suing Trump and his company alleging they misled banks and others about the value of their assets. That trial is scheduled for October. I'm Jennifer King
This Week on Crypto Twitter Winklevoss Beefs with Silbert Over 900 Million, SBF Donations Tied to ProTrump Organizations
"11 p.m. Sunday January 8th, 2023. This week on crypto Twitter winklevoss beefs with silbert over 900 million. SPF donations tied to pro Trump organizations. Twitch streamer and NFT creator DNP three confesses to squandering investors funds to feed his gambling addiction.
ToddCast Podcast with Todd Starnes
There's No Reason to Review Donald Trump's Tax Returns
"Lot has been made about the numbers in mister Trump's tax returns. I see no reason to really go over any of it because it shows a guy who sometimes made money and sometimes lost money. And again, he's getting money from his businesses, the source of the money is not shown even if it was given to one of his businesses. I am not even going to use Trump as an example because someone will quote this out of context and it'll be on the socials. Let's say, well, I know this will never get reported. So let's say Joe Biden, all right, was receiving a lot of money from foreign governments. Maybe funneled through his son. Let's just say that hypothetically. He's not going to have that on his tax returns. We're not going to see that on his tax returns. If you now go out and say, I want to see all of Joe Biden's tax returns even beyond what he may have released voluntarily. That's not going to be where you'll find the smoking gun about the Biden crime family in the money they received. It's just not. When mister Trump was getting a payment from one of his businesses, the salary that he got paid for working for the Trump organization, et cetera. There's no level of specificity in these tax returns. And there isn't in any one. That's the whole point. This has been a bogus issue from day one.
Stephanie Miller's Happy Hour Podcast
Rep. Ted Lieu Weighs in on a Potential Trump Indictment
"You also tweeted Trump organization found guilty on 17 counts and who authorized the criminal tax fraud Donald Trump. I would say they should get used to hearing guilty in terms of verdicts. Agree with most legal experts at this point that I think Trump is going to be indicted on all of the things we're talking about. Do you remain confident that we're going to see justice whether it's January 6th, espionage, Georgia? What is your take on all that? So as a former prosecutor, there is a difference between someone doing bad and illegal things and whether there is enough evidence to convict a person of doing bad and legal things. And so that's what prosecutors and Georgia and in New York and other places will have to look at. So I don't know enough of those facts and exactly kind of evidence that they have. So it's certainly possible that maybe they don't have enough evidence to go forward and do an indictment. But maybe they do. And so we just have to wait to see what these professionals do.
The Officer Tatum Show
Have Black Pastors Become Bad Actors?
"Let me get back into the conversation I was having because I'm frustrated. This is necessary nobody's talking about it. We need to change it. We need to call these people out. How do you fix your brand and how you get to the community, the church, and for our churches to be putting our people in the bad position is just beyond me. It's our professors and our churches. And I don't because somebody out there, I can hear them right now. Saying, what about the white churches do it too? Well, black people ain't going to white churches. By large numbers. They don't. In case you have never been to a black community. Most black people go to black churches. And also these professors, I hate to say it, but black people are biased. It's so is everybody else. But black people are biased not in a unique way, but you're biased. If a black professor tells you something about black people, you're going to believe that person over white people. Not 100% of the time, but it is a thing. So when you have black pastors saying things about the black community with authority claiming they are hearing from the lord, black people typically will listen to them. You have professors, they were listening to them.
The Officer Tatum Show
Pastor Jamal Bryant Wants to Grow WEED at the Church
"If it had, if it wasn't for good white people who've adopted the American Dream, we would be screwed as a country. Because if you look at the progressive vote, it is destructive to America. We're going to be, we're going to be an internment camps. Messing with folk that only think about emotions when they vote. How come you blend the church with the LGBTQ? How can you blame the church with abortions? That's what Rafael Warnock offers and people eat it up. I got a video. I'm a send it as soon as Nick get my message he'll send it over. You got past the Jamal Bryant in Atlanta. Talking about he needs to go and get land so the church can sell weed. This is what you get. He's the same one criticizing her she walker. And that man had cheated on his wife. Oh no, how many times? At least once had a baby out of whitlock, on his wife, while he was the pastor of the church. This is the best we can do. And they lift that man up like he a king. Eggman is a dirtbag.
The Officer Tatum Show
Rage Against the Extreme
"Get the message across, gain the love and respect from the people, get in office and be a conservative. And then people are going to love and admire you once they see what your policies are. But you can't get restricted on policy before you ever get put in a position of power. And I think that the brand of Donald Trump has been damaged so much that it's going to hurt us more than it's going to help us for him to continue to run. a lot of candidates that were Trump trumpers, they lost. Why would they lose? The people are speaking. Everything ain't cheating, and Arizona, I can't speak for that 'cause Arizona, they did all kind of stuff. And they need to get to the bottom what happened in Arizona. But all these other states, they ain't cheating. I don't see no evidence of them cheating. Are they out? Are they outsmarting us? Maybe that's maybe that's the case, but flat out cheating. Like the 2020 election, no, I don't think they cheated. You know, in some states, Democrats were funding Republicans in the primary who were ultra maga Republicans. To get them to the general and they lost, how did they know they were going to lose? If it's all rig, they don't care to spend money on a maga Republican. It's because they knew that they painted the picture that a maga Republicans is extreme. It doesn't matter what the truth is. It matter how they been able to craft and paint the picture.
The Officer Tatum Show
What Is the Way Forward for Republicans?
"We better start making some decisions fast. We got two years to try to get this right. We have to understand that we got to be more strategic, we should have learned through the midterms that coming out being ultra ultra ultra, magga and all this stuff. People can't digest it properly. And maybe we need to work on the way we say things, not be fraudulent, but work on the way we say things and say things that are maybe more important to people than that's important to be in the shock factor. Going viral. Because you can say certain things to people to make them feel comfortable that you are a candidate that they can vote for, even if they don't agree with everything you say. And once you get in office, you can do whatever you want to do. And when I say do whatever you want to do, you can be a little more conservative in office. oh, I like the way he's governing. I like the way he's in the Senate. Oh, this is what a conservative can do. I'm glad I took a chance. Let me give you an example. Let me give you an example. Kyrsten sinema in a state of Arizona. She will not lose her seat to a Republican ever. Now, Mark Kelly might kyrsten sinema won't. And I'm not going to lie. I don't agree with kyrsten sinema. She's a Democrat. However, the way she votes, I can respect it. For the most part, I can respect it. I don't lose sleep at night over Kirsten sinema. She fights back when I think it's reasonable to fight back and she goes on a Democrat side and sometimes I don't agree with her. But I respect her enough that if they ran a Martha mcsally against her, she's a better candidate in Martha mcsally.
The Officer Tatum Show
Why Do Republicans Keep Losing?
"Nobody knows her should walk her son. But except for me identifying as Herschel Walker's son. Nobody know who he is. And he will become irrelevant. Here soon. But it was our fault that Herschel did not win. It was hers fault that Herschel did not win. And Republicans need to take a step back and evaluate what are we doing why are we losing? Because I feel like Warnock is a trashy candidate when he's up for reelection in 6 years from now. He's going to be a vulnerable candidate. I think he'll be an easy target to take out. He is not a quality candidate. He is not a Christian man. He is not a representative of the black community if you ask me. Why do they vote for him? Because he's a Democrat. And because it has been a disdain for Republicans that's imprinted in the minds of black people in Georgia.
The Officer Tatum Show
Herschel Walker Loses Georgia Senate Race
"Big news coming out. That Herschel Walker did not win. The election. And so we'll talk about that right now and I know that there's a lot of people that may want to make an excuse, but I believe that there's no excuses that need to be made. We literally did not win the race. We did not win. And if you see that Brian Kemp won and we lost, this race, then that tells you something. It tells you that we did not compete and we did not do the things that were necessary to win this race. It wasn't cheating. It wasn't ballot harvesting and none of that of the stuff because those things, we could have done to if you help ourselves in this particular election, but we didn't do what it takes to win. And I'm glad to see that Herschel Walker made up in his mind that he was going to say he's not going to make any excuses and that we just did not run a good race. Let me give you some numbers. I think I had them here. So if you didn't watch the election, I think with 99% of the vote in, I don't know if they have a 100% of the vote, but this is as of the 7th, which is today 9 45 a.m. this morning. Harsher walker ended up getting 48% of the vote and Raphael Warnock got 51% of the vote. So he got beat by a pretty decent margin.
THE NEWS with Anthony Davis
"trump organization" Discussed on THE NEWS with Anthony Davis
"One that's guaranteed to surprise you. Fine art. According to Goldman Sachs, fine art can help protect your purchasing power, even as inflation spikes. It's also appreciated an average 13.8% annually for the last 26 years. So it's easy to see why many investors are trying to protect their portfolios from inflation by investing in art through masterworks, masterworks qualifies each of their paintings with the SEC, so they can split them into shares for you to invest in. They've sold 5 paintings this year alone with the last three delivering 17, 21 and 33% net returns. Masterworks returns speak for themselves. Enough that there's even a wait list right now. But you can skip the weight by signing up at masterworks dot com and using the code, 5 minute. That's masterworks dot com, promo code 5 minute. See important regulation a disclosures at masterworks dot com slash CD. Coming up on 5 minute news.
AP News Radio
Trump Organization found guilty in executive tax-fraud scheme
"Donald Trump's company has been convicted in an executive tax Dodge scheme. A New York jury has found two corporate entities at the Trump organization guilty on all 17 counts. The organization had been accused of being in on a scheme by top executives to avoid paying personal income taxes on perks like rent free apartments and luxury cars, while Trump himself was not on trial, prosecutors say he knew exactly what was going on, though he and his lawyers dispute that. The verdicts of validation for New York prosecutors who have spent three years investigating
AP News Radio
Jury begins deliberating in criminal tax fraud trial of 2 Trump companies
"Jury deliberations have carried into another day in the trial of former president Donald Trump's company. I Norman hall. Prosecutors have asked the New York jury to convict the Trump organization of criminal tax fraud, the firm is accused of helping executives Dodge personal income taxes on perks such as Manhattan apartments and luxury cars. The jury got the case Monday after hearing weeks of testimony from 7 witnesses including the company's longtime finance chief Allen weisselberg, the panel deliberated for about four hours in return to the courtroom with a question just
AP News Radio
Prosecution resumes closing argument at Trump Org. trial
"Prosecutors are telling a New York City jury that Donald Trump did know about a tax avoidance scheme being used by his real estate company. In closing arguments to the jury assistant Manhattan district attorney Joshua Stein glass, said Donald Trump knew exactly what was going on with his top executives at the Trump organization. Two of them are accused of helping executives avoid paying income taxes on company perks. Like pricey cars in Manhattan apartments wanted admitted to fraud and is cooperating with the government. Trump organization lawyers deny any wrongdoing, they say longtime finance chief Allen weisselberg was only out to benefit himself, neither Trump nor any family members are accused in the fraud case. I'm Jackie Quinn
TIME's Top Stories
"trump organization" Discussed on TIME's Top Stories
"The Trump organization's tax fraud trial is starting. Here's what's at stake by Madeline Carlisle. The criminal tax fraud trial of the Trump organization begins on Monday and the outcome could impact more than the coffers of former presidents Donald Trump's family business. A Manhattan district attorney's office has charged two of the business entities within the Trump organization. The Trump corporation and Trump payroll corp with running a 15 year scheme to defraud tax authorities. Prosecutors allege that the scheme allowed certain executives to receive large portions of their compensation through disguised means. Allowing them to under report their income. The Trump organization has pleaded not guilty, and denied all wrongdoing. If found guilty, the company could face stiff financial penalties. Prosecutors also charged the Trump organization's longtime chief financial officer, Allen weisselberg, with devising and operating the alleged scheme. On August 18th, weisselberg pleaded guilty to all 15 felony counts, including conspiring with the Trump organization. Weisselberg was sentenced to 5 months in jail and 5 years probation, contingent on his truthful testimony in the trial beginning Monday in New York City. He also must pay nearly $2 million in taxes, penalties, and interest. And in August statement, Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg said that weisselberg's plea implicated the Trump organization in a wide range of criminal activity. Neither Donald Trump nor any of his children have been charged by the Manhattan DA's office with any wrongdoing. But the trial promises to reveal new insights into the inner workings of the company that dominated much of Trump's pre presidential life. The Trump organization was built upon Trump's brand of 80s era bravado, helped launch Trump to fame, and was run by Trump himself for decades until he entered The White House in 2017. Trump then transferred control of the company into a trust run by weisselberg and his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump. Weisselberg resigned after his indictment last summer. The charges against the Trump organization have emerged out of a years long probe by the Manhattan DA's office into Trump's business dealings, a probe that Bragg pledged to continue in April. Court watchers will be listening to testimony in the trial for signs that more charges could emerge. To win, prosecutors must convince a jury that weisselberg acted within the scope of his employment and on behalf of the Trump organization. If the defense successfully paints a picture of a few rogue executives lying on their taxes, the business could avoid conviction. The outcome will likely hinge on weisselberg's testimony. Even if the Trump organization is convicted, it might be a better situation for the Trump family than having the businesses plead guilty as weisselberg did, says someone familiar with the inner workings of the Trump organization who requested anonymity to speak candidly. If convicted, Trump would rather it be by a jury in a trial that he could blame as biased and flawed, says the individual, as opposed to authorizing a representative of the company to walk into court and it met guilt. The Manhattan DA's probe is just one strand and a web of legal woes entangling the former
The Brookings Cafeteria
"trump organization" Discussed on The Brookings Cafeteria
"Important factor underscore for listeners that this report is both prosecutorial roadmap but also a fence roadmap and also. I think it's important to note that neither you nor any of the three co authors are parties in any way to any current or future lawsuits involved with the trump organization. Is that right. that's right. We've all had our encounters with the former president and those around him in litigation in the past but at the present time none of the co-authors are parties to litigation against trump or the trump organization. So let's look at the report now and you go through three major at least by my count. Three major sets of facts that could form the basis of future indictments and as you just mentioned one of them already has the charges against cfo. Alan weisselberg the first involves hush money allegations paid to two women who were alleged to have had affairs with donald trump leading up to the twenty six election and then payments to them then and thereafter. Why could those indictments again become the basis for coming on dighton. I thought we'd moved path that particular set of concerns in the legal sense. Another back in you and your authors are suggesting that those could be the basis of new charges. Well the hush money allegations were the origin of the new york investigation. We know that because the da had two years of litigation against trump and the trump organization to get their financial records principally from their outside. Accountants may czars broad sweeping said subpoenas. That were litigated up. To the united states to bring court twice. I were the subpoenas were upheld and principles were established and then the courts applied those rules. Trump appealed again and first time there was full argument and opinion second time. The supreme court declined to take it up and may ours. Honored the subpoenas. The reason that those hush money allegations are still at issue is because they involve a very serious set of allegations about maintaining fraudulent books and records on a emphasize that these are just allegations. But it's within the applicable statute of limitations in new york for felony falsification of business records violations only under investigation. No finding has been made but it's very telling when you look at the first set of charges that came down all of the things we're going to talk about the three basic categories you advocate. The foundation has been laid for these kinds of offenses. And now it's clear from the public record. What prosecutors are saying. They're gonna see. There are allegations of falsification of records in this. Not the hush money falsification other forms of falsification in this indictment and the question is going to be whether they build on that by the twelfth thirteenth fourteenth and fifteen counts in the indictments are for falsifying business records. So as we read that the hush money allegations are also. We know they're under investigation. We know that they may make out the crime in new york of falsifying business records. The reason that they might be charged as because there's strong evidence that when the hush money was repaid by donald trump the trump organization book that in its books and records as legal expenses instead of what they actually were so. We'll see if this scaffolding of falsifying business records this structure this margaret that has been laid down if that is expanded to include the treatment of the hush money payments. That's the first big category. But you know a lot of clues suggest that is still getting a very hard look and in my view. It should makes out a very serious set of allegations as we explained in detail in the report. Well so it's a much different set of facts but it strikes me as being somewhat similar. Which is the indictment against mr weisselberg. It's not in my understanding illegal for an employee of a company to be compensated in the ways that perhaps he was compensated tuition for his grandchildren apartment. But it's the way that those elements of compensation were recorded or not recorded by the business. Is that the case right now. Against mr weisselberg exactly as you analyze the case against weisselberg and the trump organization because all of these for felony counts for falsifying business records target both that trump businesses and weisselberg. If you look at that you say well the prosecutors have made clear in the indictment that they're looking at the trump organ weisselberg falsification of business records. They've made clear publicly that they're also looking at the hush money payments which involves falsification of business records so these tax issues about concealing things in the books in records for tax fraud purposes could also apply to the hush money misconduct. And we'll see. They're additional charges on that front or not. Well third major area that you covered in the report has to do with tax fraud issues. Which has to do with consulting fees and the way the trump organization booked consulting fees including as relates to vodka trump. Can you talk about what you detail in the report in that area. Sure you're right in. That's the third of the three basic areas that for potential expansion of this. I guess the. I is the hush money. The second is a misrepresentations to loan officers than insurance brokers and representatives basically insurance and bank fraud and the third is tax fraud and again. these are all allegations. We don't know if they're gonna be charged or not. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Even when they're charged so they're entitled to that presumption how much more so before being charged. That's part of the reason that we spent so much time in this report addressing defenses. That might be available in this tax area. There are a series of issues consulting fees conservation knees men's handling of debt so called debt parking that could provide additional tax fraud charges against weisselberg the trump org and even trump himself now. Let's take the consulting fees that you raised. As an example there has been a lot of public reporting that suggests that apparently tax deductible consulting fees that appear on the trump organizations tax returns presumably with the approval of mr weisselberg about trump himself. We need to know what their personal knowledge was. That still an open question that prosecutors are looking at turns out that these consulting fee payments may have gone to members of the trump family said as the president's daughter. Ivanka trump and the question is whether like the benefits that are at issue in the first indictment question is are there going to be other charges where they say hey this was a tax fraud and somehow tax evasion occurred that might occur with consulting fees if like many of the weisselberg charges instead of something being booked as income on which both the company and the recipient are required to pay taxes. It's somehow hidden or concealed. And there's a negative techs impact for the state. I wanna hasten to add that. Ivanka has denied any impropriety. And said there was no negative tax impact of the state as a result of the consulting fees that she collected so it might amount to something and might not and there's two sides to each of these questions and we marshal the evidence in the report on both sides including people who deny that associated with the trump organization who when confronted with this tax line item of consulting fees said what consulting fees. No consulting fees were paid. So they're legitimate questions about web and there may be good answers. Were there two sets of books that really hits when you come to things like the conservation. -spense where it appears that there are such different valuations that are being applied one set of being evaluation on these conservation. Easement trump god in new york and in california one set that where very high valuation applied for tax-deductibility purposes and then lower valuations where that benefits trump elsewhere so raises the question where there two sets of books again strong general denials by trump world. And we'll just have to see where prosecutors go with sure so. Let me move on to another major setbacks that you and your co-authors detail in the report and those relate to how the trump organization allegedly misrepresents property values to lenders journalists business partners and so on. So what's going on. Is there potential coming liability with that kind of action. One of the most important parts of the indictment can be found in paragraph nineteen where the state alleges that the trump organization internally tracked and treated tax fraud items as a part of authorized annual compensation in one set of books but at the corporate defendants falsified other compensation records so the disputed payments were not reflected in gross income in other words that there were two sets of books and as we detail in the report they're very substantial allegations that were similar treatments of trump properties for a bank and insurance purposes. Where you wanna magnify the value of properties in order to and again these are just allegations based on the public reporting will see it. No charges have been filed based these. We'll see if they are but where the allegation is that. The trump organization and trump personally is magnifying the value of these assets for insurance purposes dim bank purposes. So you get more insurance coverage.
The Brookings Cafeteria
"trump organization" Discussed on The Brookings Cafeteria
"I'm tony a senior fellow at the center for sustainable development here with a sustainable development spotlight a regular segment highlight work from the center. President biden came into office than ambitious agenda the stop the economic hemorrhaging caused by cope nineteen and then transformed the very structure of the economy as it recovers making it more fair. Equitable and sustainable has the nation news. Forward despite having carried the vote in only ten percent of rural counties overall and fifteen percent of rural counties that our economic distress. He's publicly made it a priority to ensure that rural america is part of this transformation and economic rebirth so as large-scale relief legislation has passed and wars proposed. Natalie geiss marin. I took a look at how well he's making good on. That promise for stuff was the one point nine. Trillion dollar american rescue plan passed by congress in march. Twenty twenty one. The legislation focuses primarily on providing relief from the worst ravages of covered nineteen but some of its provisions will represent significant opportunities for replaces a key provision is the three hundred fifty billion dollars in state and local government. Relief which is sending money to nearly every corner of the country of the sixty five point. One billion dollars set aside for counties about twenty three percent. We'll go to non metropolitan in rural counties her also billions for strengthening local food systems expanding broadband promoting economic development in expanding small business credit which may also find their way to rural places. So how can the administration maximize the impact of these. We propose the three point plan. I make sure the rules governing these resources take rural into account and reduce barriers like match requirements and eligibility rules disadvantage distressed rural places. This is key to the administration's equity agenda given that over. Fifty percent of rural black residents and forty five percent of rural native residents live in distressed counties compared to just eighteen percent of rural whites second ensure strategic follow the funding in the american rescue. Plans just to start intentional. Investments through other legislation organized through a national rural strategy will be important to improving term success and third improve transparency having high quality rural data including the ability to follow these federal dollars right down to the specific rural communities. They're meant to benefit will be fundamental to better understanding what works and what is achieving success. The administration's now underway working with congress to build out specifics of the bipartisan infrastructure framework. And it's also has additional proposals that it might consider through a budget. Reconciliation process one proposal. In particular a five-billion-dollar rural partnership program is envisioned to help rural regions including tribal nations. Build on their unique assets and realize their vision for inclusive community economic development. This propose programs signals a real change in approach and recognizes. That federal policy must shift in order to unlock a whole potential of rural america. It's important because it hints at making investments in the software that makes a community run staffing training strong and healthy local nonprofits in other institutions in connections among different leaders in groups of people. We can work together locally to shape strategies and successfully carry them out. It's also an opportunity to make to other fundamental changes to federal policy. One rethink how we measure success rather than simply count. The number of jobs created or dollars out the door. This is a chance to invest in data that measures how well federal investments are improving. The overall quality of life in rural communities make long-term substantial and flexible investments that result in lasting community impact rather than giving discreet injections to put it in water. Here or fix up housing over there. Peru partnership program promises of block of strategic investment that can give communities real on ramp to strengthen and sustain themselves over time the director of the domestic policy council susan rice recently suggested that the road to prosperity runs through rural america. We agree the bein. Administration has taken an important first step through the american rescue plan to get that started. It needs to make sure those resources effectively meet rural communities where they're at and then follow through proposals like the rural partnership program karol. America is to avoid the inadequate recovery experienced after two thousand as we emerge from the kobe. Nineteen you can find. More from tony. Pippa and natalie guys mar on the proposed rural partnership program on our website. And now. here's my interview with norm. Eisen on the new report about. New york's trump investigation norm. Welcome back to the brookings cafeteria. Podcast fred thanks for having me back. It's always interesting when i'm with you. Because it means that something big is going on in my world. Yes i looked at the history of this. And the last time i talked to on this podcast was december twenty sixteen and that was about a report that you and brookings scholar vanessa williamson wrote about the ethics of the soon to be trump administration. So just before. He was inaugurated president. Now here we are a few months after the end of the trump presidency and were again talking about a lot of issues related to trump and his organization. So yeah it's always exciting to talk to you norm we mark the milestones together and knee certainly have encountered one recently right. And so we're here today to talk about a new report that you co authored as i mentioned in the introduction with three other folks and that is about your investigation into the trump organization and since you publish that big news event happened in other news. Events might happen before we hear this. Can you catch listeners. Up on the latest developments and the charges related to the trump organization. And its personnel. Of course the new york. Da joined by the new york state attorney. General brought criminal charges against the trump organization. A number of businesses and the former president's closest financial advisor is cfo. Alan weisselberg in connection with alleged wide ranging tax fraud scheme total of fifteen charges brought in this very sweeping indictment. So that gets us into the report because you cover that particular then possibility in the report again. This report was published at the end of june so before the charges were filed norm. Can you talk about what this report is. And why you and your co authors wrote it. Of course we're very proud that are prognostication. Based on analysis the charges were coming proved to be accurate. The report is entitled new york. State's trump investigation and analysis of the reported facts and applicable law. And i wrote it with three other experts collectively. We have over a century of prosecution and defense experience including with these very actors. The new york. Da and the new york ag or responsible for this first set of charges very likely not the last set of charges as we explained in the report and as united discuss today. fred. Mike co-authors are daniel perry. Who worked as both of federal and state prosecutor and defense lawyer in new york. So she's seen these kinds of cases from both sides of the table. Donayre who had senior Roles helping run the justice department and also as a us attorney in a series For republican administrations and john cudi. Who like me for the most part career defense specialists who have taken on and push back against these charges and as we'll talk about one of the things we do in the report is both lay out of prosecutorial roadmap the first few signs as you know on that road map have now been passed but also very extensive defense road map on how these cases will be defended and the very substantial counterarguments to the arguments. The prosecution is.
Diane Rehm: On My Mind
"trump organization" Discussed on Diane Rehm: On My Mind
"Let just suppose for a moment. They don't get any other information. How similar is this to the fbi. Investigation that finally brought down al capone on tax evasion. It's a really good parallel to make. I think in this case right now. The problem the problem they're going to have is remember. We all watched the great brian. Depalma movie the untouchables. They had the bookkeeper. That right now. The prosecutors don't have the bookkeeper and the bookkeeper in this case weisselberg would be the one who would connect the you know if there were violations of the law done by the company could say yes. This was done at the behest of donald trump and donald trump knew. What he was doing was wrong when he did it. That i think is the difference here. If you're gonna prove trump evaded taxes of trump did anything else. You need somebody to tell you. The trump gave the order. And that he what he understood at the time that he did it at this point they have documents but as far as we know they don't have a person who could put those words in trump's mouth sell a lot rides on whether so bird is going to be. I don't know threatened with a long prison. Term separated from his family stripped of his assets and in. How far can sivan's go to push lights bird. Well i think we we've seen the whole case but we have now seen. What he believes is best shot weisselberg so now in weisberg is you saw last week. He's been handcuffed. He's been walk down the hallway manhattan criminal court with detectives holding his arms. He sat in court. He's had his passport taken. You know it's real now if it wasn't real before and so he now knows his a sense of the risk. He's taking if he decided not to cooperate. And i think you know if you decided to cooperate from what. I've read his chances of getting prison. Time a pretty low if he if he takes the risk doesn't cooperate and it goes to trial could be facing two to six years of prison time. Which is it's a lot for a guy. In his seventies power. He makes calculation how he squares with life he's been working for donald. Trump was sobering is a really good lawyer in mary mulligan. Who's experienced criminal defense lawyer. So he's getting good advice but his decision you know. He's got away those the.
WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch
"trump organization" Discussed on WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch
"I think are healthy as you said for the for the body politic for a state prosecutors now to be trying to go after another candidate after. He's lost you know there's a trade off and maybe maybe they do get. I think mrs clinton got away with murder in hiding her emails and destroying. I but i'm not sure that it was worth it to prosecutor wants. The american public made his decision to defeat her. And i think you could argue the same for For donald trump. It's a bad precedent and who knows You know with this precedent. If some red state prosecutors are gonna find some things to go after joe biden or kamala harris. Finally last last week we got some new jobs numbers. Employment last month was up. Eight hundred fifty thousand but also the unemployment rate ticked up by one tenth of a percentage point. So least you how do you. How do you make sense of this. Latest jobs report. Well i think one issue is that the household survey the establishment survey of employers. Don't always align and they often don't One reason in this case could be just the seasonal adjustments That have been skewed by the pandemic and another reason as there has been a big increase in part-time work And a decline in soap reported Employment and those kinds of could be gig meal gig jobs You know these differences kind of tend to rely on over time. But i wouldn't read too much into the jobs for to one way or the other. I mean what we're hearing in this case. The anecdotes may be more important than the data. And what we're hearing is that businesses everywhere are really struggling to hire workers In which is which is Driving up wages in democrats tout that that's also putting inflationary pressure also hard for businesses. I mean He will get the how much leisure leisure and hospitality workers got a basically twenty eight percent year over a pay raise Which is just stunning. The political context is interesting. So biden is taking credit for that eight hundred fifty thousand new jobs number. Here's part of what he said. None of this happened by accident. It's a direct result of the american rescue plan unquote but bill were still in this strange situation where the headline unemployment number is still about seven million lower than it was in february. Twenty twenty when kovic started to hit the us and yet the labor department's reports are showing that there are nine point three million job openings and so there seems to be a little bit of a disconnect in the labor market here yet the there is.
Diane Rehm: On My Mind
"trump organization" Discussed on Diane Rehm: On My Mind
"They should have been paying. And so think about this thing just as a different kind of case. If i owned a restaurant and i wanted to pay my waiters under the table and i just would give them cash every week and then not report that to the irs. That'd be hard to prove because there wouldn't be records of it and you even if you if you arrested me. It would be hard to know how much money i had how much taxes i hit evaded because i didn't keep records of the cash gave out under the table. This is a different case. Allegedly the trump organization kept records. They understood that they were gonna pay allen weisselberg nine hundred forty thousand dollars every year but they worked hard to convert some of that nine hundred forty thousand into non-cash non paycheck payments and then they only paid taxes on the remainder that they paid through salary so they kept records showing they understood. This was compensation and then they also hit it from the irs. So they would. They were showing that they understood. What they were doing was wrong. But yes that makes sense to keep that separate book knowing it could turn up. It doesn't make a lot of sense. That's i think what surprise the tax law prosecutors so much that most people don't keep another set of books that show you exactly the details of their tax fraud knowing the company as well as i do. I think this is a collision of two values. In which trump had choose one over the other one of those values is not keeping records trump organization and trump particularly bitter famous for not keeping records on things. But there's also a current of cheapness right and the purpose of keeping the second set of books was to make sure that when you were giving these people payments under the table. Allegedly that you weren't giving them too much that they still weren't getting more benefits that ellen westerberg was getting paid nine hundred and forty thousand dollars a year not nine hundred forty one and so you had to keep these records to make sure that in the course this tax evasion. Alan weisselberg didn't get a little more cash than he didn't. He deserved for that. We can speaking to a large grab down. Theron seem to say well everybody do this destin. Everybody grant little here and a little there and help out with college. Tuition and an apartment. So he doesn't have to drive along way. It sounded as he was completely acknowledging that what the prosecutors are charging is.
WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch
"trump organization" Discussed on WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch
"From the opinion pages of the wall street journal this is potomac watch. Welcome back bill. I guess i agree with you that if if the result of this is all that results of this year's long investigation it looks to me also like pretty small beer but how you rate the chances that there are You know that the prosecutors here they are trying to build a broader case Whether that that involves trying to flip weisselberg it remains to be seen at seems a little unlikely to me. I mean he's worked for the trump since nineteen seventy-three so he is kind of a lifer But what do you. What do you wrote the odds of another domino here falling. And i know we've been promised a lot of domino's over the years right and they don't seem to come. We were promised that the muller report i have a slightly different take. I think this is all about pressuring mr weisselberg. You know. this guy is a seventy three year old accountant and he was marched into court with handcuffs on really is he. A threat is going to overpower the guards or something This is designed purely to intimidate and to try to to try to get more information and information that's incriminating donald trump. I don't know where that's going to go. I mean i would have thought if they had more they would have already brought it but apparently not on the the question of the political context. Though i mean the other thing to keep in mind some of the the rhetoric especially from new york attorney. General's james i think has been pretty undermining so even in her her victory speech running for the attorney general's office in twenty eighteen. She specifically called out president trump and i'll report of her quote. She says he should know that. We here in new york. And i in particular. We are not scared of you. And as the next attorney general of his home state i will be shining a bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings unquote and ali to my i mean. In in retrospect bring this case now i. She shouldn't have said that it's it's corrosive to the case. That's now been brought. Grammy kind of rinks of uh selective prosecution like when prosecutors inside pig the target enin search for her crime and again Goes back to why you don't want to give i the irs More documents of from individuals. It's because that just invites more fishing expeditions into political targets. But the the challenge here. Bill is that she was running for elected office. And this is always seems to me a potential danger when you have elected prosecutors and people who are in the public eye who are unpopular especially in a certain state. if it's politics it's a red state versus blue state thing but the danger of having elected prosecutors who think they can You know get votes by promising to go after certain people. Bill is one that You know it's something everybody should be aware of an and watch out for try to avoid. I think yeah kyle. You're absolutely right. Look we're talking about two democrats sivan's in latisha james who made clear that they were after trump a latisha. James campaigned on it. As you said confirmed that this was her purpose when she went in. Now let's let's be fair note. The donald trump you know talked about that with mrs. clinton and You know at the wall street journal. We kinda dinged him for that. You know like we don't you don't really go after defeated opponents right. That's kind of a banana republic thing do so it was. It was not good. When president trump was implying that wanted his attorney general to go after a hillary clinton had been defeated in. It's not good..
WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch
"trump organization" Discussed on WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch
"I do think this you just showed just how politically motivated it is because usually the irs irs or just suburban. Do not bring these kinds of cases they settle them before they even go to tax court because it usually costs more to Costs more to mitigate the cases than they can. Actually you know actually make so. I do think that the there will probably end up being a settlement rather than i don't think this is going to be a clear victory of code tax fraud Especially on larceny larceny. Count the other issue. I raised bill related to framing this as a fringe benefit cases. The indictment alleges. If i'm if i'm reading it right that there were essentially separate books kept by the trump organization tracking this stuff. So there's a section that says will berg's authorized annual compensation was a fixed number for example from two thousand eleven through two thousand eighteen. It was nine hundred. Forty thousand dollars But then it said it says that the trump organization essentially kept track of these benefits and deducted it from that number so weisselberg received the benefits of these payments organization internally tracked and treated many of them as part of his authorized annual compensation so bill essentially what was alleged here is that they would pay him. They agreed to pay him for nine. Hundred forty thousand dollars but then for the purposes of reporting his income they would deduct all this stuff like his car and these tuition payments For his family members. And so i there's so for example there's ap story citing some tax experts former prosecutor saying that the case to them having read the indictment now look stronger than The rumors about this just as a fringe benefits case. I don't know but what you make of that bill. Yeah i'm not that impressed by that. Because i think that has to do with the word trump i'd like to know for example has The manhattan district attorney sivan's ever brought a case like this in manhattan before because I can believe that their executives up and down manhattan that have had similar issues about how they're reporting income and so forth. Look it's not a nice thing to do if they've done it willfully and with the intent of defrauding the tax authorities. But it does seem to me that you know you're disagreeing about the categorization of income or a deduct whether it's income or whether it's a business deduction and i think that that's best handled civilly you know. Find the money that he and if he's guilty find the money that they owe and hit them with that plus a fine..
WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch
"trump organization" Discussed on WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch
"Wwltv's jake columnist bill mcgurn and editorial board member alicia finley on thursday new york prosecutors criminally charged the trump organization and it. Cfo alan weisselberg. An indictment with fifteen counts which include tax fraud grand larceny and falsifying business records. The indictment itself is only about twenty four pages double spaced if any listeners. Wanna take twenty minutes and go give it a skim Bill you've you've taken a look at it. What does it say. Well there fifteen counts but basically it boils down to this Two aspects one is that the trump organization and it. Cfo who is also named in the indictment disguised about One point seven million dollars in compensation employee compensation as business expenses. In other words they reported in such a way that it didn't have to be reported as income and therefore they taxes. I think they say mr westberg avoided About nine hundred thousand dollars in taxes and then the second part of the counts relates to defrauding the new york state tax authorities new york city tax authorities and the irs of the money that would have been do so basic basically. It looks a lot like a civil case. it's it's sort of unusual to bring these charges criminally But again it boils down to a big dispute over a business deductions which The the prosecutors claim is meant to be hiding income. Yeah the numbers. As i as i see them are that he avoided paying taxes about nine hundred thousand dollars in taxes while taking about one hundred thirty. Three thousand dollars in refunds. So that's about a million dollars there On the other hand that sense. I think the indictment says since two thousand five right up but alicia so the leaks in advance of this indictment discussed it as sort of a fringe benefits case Benefits provided to weisselberg as part of his employment that were not reported to tax authorities and there are two things in the indictment that i think challenge that narrative. The first is the specific nature of some of these benefits. I mean you think of a company car may be as a classic example of a fringe benefit and that's not is in the indictment Weisberg car but it also says the trump organization paid for his wife's car paid for new furniture carpeting at his house in florida paid for private school tuition of his family members. And then there's some unreported cash allegedly for him to pay personal indictments as personal holiday gratuities and so leash. I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that one of the difficulties he may have here is trying to justify those kinds of things as a employment related fringe benefits right. So i mean some of these benefits. It's not uncommon in corporate america And there's a lot of dispute about whether certain things should be considered fringe benefits tax pool. You know it's still At the big tech companies they provide meals lunch and dinner for workers and beyond the big tech companies as well. And so i. I think you're right that some of these things it's very difficult to justify a fringe benefit But.
MSNBC Rachel Maddow (audio)
"trump organization" Discussed on MSNBC Rachel Maddow (audio)
"Fit somebody else and serve in the fact that there are all these other executives involved given the fact that there was that detailed set of other records that david was talking about. This is not a one man game so there are all these other people. The prosecutors know that there are all these other people. The question is how can they get to from what they know to what they can prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's the question. Mark that i think is really difficult to answer right now. There's a name that shows up some months ago for the first time. Not a name that people who have involved the company very closely have talked about. We know that there's something called an unindicted conspiracy co-conspirator in this case. Cnn is reporting that that person or a person familiar with the investigation. Told them that. The unindicted co-conspirator jeff mccartney the trump organization longtime controller. There's a lot of information in there. Because weisselberg is the cfo controller and the cfo in most companies worked very closely together on detailed financial matters and have financial responsibility. What if anything does this reporting mean to you. Well you know the conspiracy count to me is quite interesting because you have to have an agreement in order to have a conspiracy and then you have to have an act that is furthering that conspiracy. The act itself doesn't have to be illegal. But in order to make a conspiracy have to have both that agreement and the act so you have to have voice burke agreeing with somebody to engage in the scheme to enrich himself onto enrich and so that makes a lot of sense that it would be the person who works you know basically directly below him. Who would be involved in this agreement again. The question mark is who else if anybody is involved and to me. That's this question about when you think about it. Who stands to benefit from this and to a certain extent it's any of those executives who are named weisselberg not only helping to create this situation in which he's getting all of this compensation that's hidden made as if to seem like fringe benefits there are others and so what were their. What was their involvement in this conspiracy of the conspiracy was between him and and mckearney. That's that shows that that's what the prosecutors can prove right now but if there are others involved in that conspiracy we just don't know that yet and we don't know whether you who those people might be and whether prosecutors can prove that yet or whether they're waiting for a cooperator somebody to flip in order to be able to prove that beyond a reasonable and one can never tell when and how that might happen but this is obviously the first step right you. You file charges against them. People have their come to jesus moment and decide whether they are going to participate or they are going to as donald trump always hopes stay loyal to donald trump. And not do that any sense as to how this plays out. I really don't have a sense. But i do think that the fact that this was a far stronger indictment anybody thought it would be puts increasing pressure on those individuals to cooperate. I'll tell you another thing that i think is really important about this. Which is i feel like. It undermines that narrative that we saw the defense attorneys and his family members. Come out and say this is a political witch hunt. This worked for the president in the past but the stronger the indictment the more iron clad it is. The harder is to make that stick and so there's some way in which you know there's obviously a legal battle and there's a public relations battle but winning the public relations battle or at least being in there helps a little bit with the legal battle and thus far up until this point we had either the defense attorneys basically along with trump himself able.
The Lawfare Podcast
"trump organization" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"And <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> <Silence> <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Male> <Speech_Music_Male> that's <Speech_Female> consistent with how he <Speech_Female> has been as as <Speech_Female> <Speech_Female> some people think that that's <Speech_Female> better. It's <Speech_Female> really a policy sort <Speech_Female> of ideology thing <Speech_Female> whether you would prefer. <Speech_Female> Da like morgenthaler. <Speech_Female> You would prefer. <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> Da like <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> vance but they've been very <Speech_Female> different in terms of their <Silence> <Advertisement> approach to <SpeakerChange> white collar. Crime <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> for the <Speech_Male> manhattan. Da <Speech_Male> and for the state <Speech_Male> attorney general. I <Speech_Male> think there was no <Speech_Male> non-political <Speech_Male> option here. <Speech_Male> Are they charging <Speech_Male> weisselberg <Speech_Male> because <Speech_Male> he was the <SpeakerChange> cfo <Speech_Male> to accompany. That <Speech_Male> was run by <Speech_Male> a republican president. <Speech_Male> Of course <Speech_Male> but weisselberg <Speech_Male> wasn't pursued by the irs <Speech_Male> and doj <Speech_Male> in part because <Speech_Male> he was the cfo <Speech_Music_Male> of a company owned <Speech_Music_Male> by a <Speech_Male> republican president <Speech_Male> in terms of <Speech_Male> assessing the performance <Speech_Male> of offices. <Speech_Male> Here i think <Speech_Male> we should also say <Speech_Male> a little about <Speech_Male> the irs <Speech_Male> and doj tax. <Speech_Male> It's <Speech_Male> the responsibility <Speech_Male> of the. Irs <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> audit the president <Speech_Male> every year <Speech_Male> trump was <Speech_Male> in <Speech_Male> years that were covered <Speech_Male> by those audits writing <Speech_Male> personal checks <Speech_Male> to pay for <Speech_Male> the tuition of <Speech_Male> weisselberg <Speech_Male> grandkids. <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Male> Tuition <Speech_Male> at so. This <Speech_Male> suggests that that <Speech_Male> audit wasn't <Speech_Male> very thorough <Speech_Male> and one <Speech_Male> of the <SpeakerChange> original <Speech_Male> reasons for <Speech_Male> focusing on <Speech_Male> trump's tax returns <Speech_Male> was. <Speech_Male> This thought that <Speech_Male> we need some framework <Silence> for ensuring <Speech_Male> that <Speech_Male> our commander in chief <Speech_Male> energy tax enforcement <Speech_Male> officer <Speech_Male> is actually obeying <Speech_Male> the <Speech_Male> tax laws in his <Speech_Male> personal dealings. <Speech_Male> And i think <Speech_Male> this is emphasized <Speech_Male> that we need <Speech_Male> something more than <Speech_Male> the good graces <Speech_Male> of <Speech_Male> the president in <Speech_Male> voluntarily <Speech_Male> releasing his returns <Speech_Male> lost <Speech_Male> the hope that this <Speech_Music_Male> irs impartial <Speech_Male> audit actually <Speech_Male> turns up <Silence> anything. I miss. <Silence> <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Male> We <Speech_Male> are going to <Silence> leave it there. <Speech_Male> Quinta <Speech_Male> jurassic <Speech_Male> daniel hamill. <Speech_Male> Rebecca roy fee. <Speech_Male> Thank you all <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> for joining us. <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> Thank you sound <Speech_Female> <Advertisement> like thank you. <Silence> <Advertisement> Thanks ben <Silence> <Advertisement> <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> <SpeakerChange> <Speech_Music_Male> <Speech_Music_Male> the <Speech_Music_Male> l'affaire. Podcast <Speech_Music_Male> is produced in cooperation <Speech_Music_Male> with <Speech_Music_Male> the brookings institution <Speech_Male> our audio <Speech_Male> engineer. <Speech_Male> This episode <Speech_Male> is the <Speech_Male> intrepid ian <Speech_Male> enwright of goat <Speech_Music_Male> rodeo. <Speech_Music_Male> if you haven't <Speech_Music_Male> yet raided <Speech_Music_Male> the law fair podcast. <Speech_Music_Male> I don't <Speech_Male> know what more <Speech_Male> i can say to get you to <Speech_Male> do it. We have <Speech_Male> many more listeners <Speech_Music_Male> than we have <Speech_Male> reviews. <Speech_Male> Go add <Speech_Male> one. Maybe <Speech_Male> it should begin. <Speech_Male>
The Lawfare Podcast
"trump organization" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"Of trial procedure in state court in new york is quite limited. But i'm imagining this going to trial and i'm thinking that there's a direct reference to check signed by donald trump and i'm thinking that if you're the prosecutor you would probably wanna call donald trump to verify that that signature is his and that he signed it and that the facts that you're alleging the indictment or accurate should we assume that if this goes to trial donald trump is going to have to testify or at least a the fifth amendment to prevent himself from testifying. And that's a great question. I don't i mean. I think that you could definitely build this case without him. I mean i don't think you know. Part of what makes us such a strong indictment as as you were saying the beginning. I it seems kind of like it doesn't even rely on any witnesses who could be problematic. It doesn't even really. I mean it's mostly seems like it could be almost a paper case you know it would be a strategic decision whether you call them or not and you know it may be. You would want to. I'm trying to think about why. But i don't think you necessarily have to in order to meet the elements of the crime. I mean in this. I don't think it's new. York state procedure difference. There are some important differences like for instance to compel testimony. You need to give somebody transactional instead of instead of use. And derivative use immunity. But but that's not gonna come into play so i you know nobody's giving donald trump transactional immunity on the so. I don't know. I mean it's a great question but i think if it were me and i were making a strategic choice in you know i think from your experience. Probably have as good input on this well. I don't actually think you would need it. And i probably would just go without it. That's interesting so quitter. Talk to us about the level of personal involvement by trump in this There is that reference to the check that he signed there is also a reference to him not by name as the president of the organization at a key time. Are they being coy or are they dangling references to him in a fashion that suggestive of of more pervasive pervasive involvement. It's a great question. I mean i think as both daniel and rebecca have pointed out. This conduct seems like it pervasive within the organization. It's a little hard to imagine. That trump had no knowledge of it whatsoever. He he was signing those checks through twenty seventeen which i think is is worth dwelling on. We don't know when in two thousand seventeen at stopped perhaps it was when he stepped down a leading organization when he assumed the presidency. But that doesn't mean that he was signing these checks you know through the twentieth sixteen campaign Which is very striking and reminded me a lot of michael coen's testimony about trump signing checks to reimburse him for the stormy daniels payments and well trump was in the white house. As you say there's also kind of ambiguous reference to a purchase of so. This is the lease on the apartment for weisselberg that in two thousand and five Was leased by the trump corporation And quoting from the indictment acting through its president. The indictment doesn't say who the president was now in two thousand and five as you said. Ben the president of the trump organization was trump And there's congressional testimony from trump. That actually confirms that he's identified as such. It's not clear who the president of the trump corporation was. I did a little bit of digging. And at least according to a filing with the florida secretary of state as of nineteen ninety five trump was the president of the trump corporation. But there's not an information after that if it is him i mean that does seem like a finger pointed in his direction. I i've also seen you know a fair amount of speculation about who this unindicted co-conspirator is whether that could be him. I've seen some reporting that. It is probably not him. Although i have no idea how reliable that is at this stage. But i will say it reminds me a little bit of original cohen statement of facts. Where the statement kind of waved its hands at. You know that there was individual. One who cohen had been working with but didn't actually name him. I think this is a fair bit more attenuated. It's nowhere near that. We don't know if trump is the person hiding behind you're the president of the trump corporation. But i did find it interesting that there were sort of these little signposts here. And they're hinting threads that might be pulled onto speak to more involvement by his part whether or not that turns into any criminal charges against him. Daniel you know one thing. This document does very clearly is provide a set of facts that are unambiguously tax fraud. If accurate the justice department has as best as i can tell even after the new york times did that immense investigation even after michael collins testimony did not launch a significant tax fraud investigation involving donald trump. Do they have to now or is it adequate for the irs. To let the city prosecutors of new york vindicate the federal interest. Here it's a very strange set of passages in the in the thing where where the new york. Da's office is is alleging fraud against the irs. But is it plausible for doj on the irs. To just now take the position. Well you know sivan's antiques. James have it. We can keep kind of sitting on our hands and the irs in the doj can do whatever they want here it does appear that there is some federal tax. The irs could go and collect if it wanted to. I really like to be a fly on the wall listening into merit garland's internal monologue tonight as he tries to decide whether this is a case worth pursuing or not there's actually not in- assistant attorney general for tax right now so it would be either garland or an acting merit garland's internal monologue. Sounds something like this. We will wait for the career. Prosecutors to make a recommendation we.
The Lawfare Podcast
"trump organization" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"Something new and unexpected for shutter members to experience sign up put shutt- dot com okay but one of the things that is and that was quite succinct and helpful answer and yet it still puts in relief. The problem that i don't understand what the parameters of this investigation are and what it is and isn't looking at. You got a little bit of stormy daniels payments. That seems to have been the credit for it. You've got that giant new york times story about a combined with the michael cohen stuff about property valuations. And now you've got an indictment that's about tax evasion on employee compensation rebecca. What can we infer here about. What the parameters of this this sort of combined state level and city level investigations are or do we just not know. I think we don't know is the right answer. I mean you know. We really don't know. But i do think that there is. There's a common thread to all of those strands within this investigation. Which has to do with you know a particular kind of approach to business accounting. That is like messed up. I mean to use colloquial term. It's like you know. I think all of the news that that that quinta so succinctly put together as being like here is an organization. Here's a person who just mixes everything things that are supposed to from. An accounting from a business perspective from a tax perspective be kept in their little different boxes. It's like personal business campaign all of these things charity. All of them are all mixed up in this kind of one sort of trump organization. Mess and i think that i know that that's not really official parameters for an investigation. But i think you know there is a common strand all of those pieces they all have to do with kind of you know a mis accounting for things and so i think that's kind of the investigation it was into this organization and into how it how it handles its dealings and i think they came up with one piece of it and this may be the end of the story and all they can charge and it may not all right daniel. You alluded earlier to your skepticism. That weisselberg would be the only executive for whom this system of differential accounting internally and externally applied. Is there anything that we can infer from these charges about the scope of the investigation and what broader issues. They may be thinking about nothing. That i saw from the indictment tells me what the next move is it would be surprising if it were just weisselberg so one person who might be looking at now. Is ivanka trump right. She was working for the trump organization to for her kids. Tuition being paid out of business entities attacks case against anyone else would be. I think harder to prove on intent. Brown's it's very clear that weisselberg had been in charge of this organization for a long time and understood exactly what was going on so his testimony would be key in bringing tax charges against other people so when he's looking at the potential of many months maybe years in state prison maybe he flipped by. I don't know whether he then flips on a tax issue or a property evaluation for loan purposes issue or russia issue. And i just ask a question of daniel which is one of the indictment. That i didn't totally understand was the part about the so. Can you explain from a tax perspective. What is exactly going on there because that seemed to be quite similar to what what was being alleged about ivanka in the news that she was getting paid through consulting fees for work that was really part of what her salaried work do you. Can you explain the tax consequences of that keogh of the indictment. That's a charge that you would never bring as a criminal charge unless you were bringing other things but there are certain retirement savings vehicles that you only have access to if you have self-employment income that an employee when be able to so the allegation here was that the trump organization was giving him contractor pay. That was self employment income that then allowed him to sock away about fifty thousand dollars a year in tax preferred savings but since he's gonna pay for the taxes anyway. What's the loss there to the government. deferral right instead of paying taxes. Now he pays tax later at a lower bracket or something Maybe at a lower bracket or he just gets the benefit of tax free growth in the intro so it would be like he essentially he made a complicated maneuver to increase the cap on his contributions to two an ira or to a 401k. Except he was using different retirement savings vehicle that not very many people use these plants iras trying to read into that weather avante whether what was going on with allegedly with ivanka and those payments that that she was getting as whether she could ultimately be charged in in in the surf similar wet. Those would be very weak charges. If that's the best that they have on ivanka then This is a sandcastle case. But explain something to me. Because i listen to this and i say assuming for a minute and just to be clear so that we don't get into any liable territory with respect to ivanka trump. I have no information that the trump organization was paying her school tuition or paying her rent or anything of the kind but if hypothetically that were what facts for out why would she be differently. Situated from alan weisselberg is that he's the chief financial officer of the company so he clearly understands whereas she could be a passive beneficiary of somebody else's scheme another difference is donald trump's allowed to pay his grandkids tuition and that's not tax evasion so there would be less clarity as to whether this was trump making an accounting error but doing it through a business account rather than a personal account for paying for personal expenses which he can do or whether this was disguised compensation and to be clear he can do it through the trump organization because he's the sole owner of it so it may be organized as a business but there's no other shareholder who's suffering is. That is that right. There may be at an issue with the other shareholders in some of these entities that he owns most of them through close to one hundred percent. There would be an issue if he claimed as a deductible business expense hammett's for his grandkids school tuition. I doubt he would do that. In part because he was So up to his nose in tax losses that i don't think he would have cared that much about an extra fifty thousand dollar deduction but it's it's much easier to argue in the weisselberg context. This was the employer paying the employees dependence educational expenses which is income rather than this was grandpa paying grandkids tuition. Which could just be a gift from the grandfather..
WSJ What's News
"trump organization" Discussed on WSJ What's News
"Us has won. International support for global minimum corporate tax officials from one hundred thirty countries including the group of twenty nations have agreed to broad outline says part of a wider overhaul of the rules for taxing international companies. The next step will be to pass laws requiring companies to pay a minimum tax rate of at least fifteen percent in each country where they operate president biden said in a statement that the move would quote level the playing field and make america more competitive in surf side. Florida search and rescue efforts at a collapsed. Condo tower have been suspended due to structural concerns. Officials say they'll continue when it safe. It's been a week since the partial building collapse. At least eighteen people were killed and one hundred. Forty five are still unaccounted for. President biden and first lady. Jill biden traveled to florida today to meet with search and rescue officials and family members. The supreme court upheld two arizona voting rules today that democrats had argued discriminated against minority voters. Legal affairs reporter. Brent kendall has more there were two provisions at issue here. One we're arizona's said you know if you vote in a precinct other than than the one you're supposed to go to. The vote doesn't count. It also had a rule that barred third party ballot collection. These would be a lot of times. Get out the vote. Operatives who in some states can go around and say you know we'll collect your absentee male bows and just turn them all in and save you. The trouble of having to go to the post officer to a dropbox and so arizona had banned this and the court's ruling really lead to some sparring between the conservatives and the liberal justices and it's only really partly about arizona. This case was mostly about the broader broader rules for voting rights and the majority the conservative majority said. Look these kinds of rules are reasonable. And you're going to have to do a lot more than show. Maybe slight disparities or slight burdens on voting to prove that something's awful and so the liberals in response said you know that's not what congress wanted when it passed the landmark voting rights act back in nineteen sixty five and what it really wanted to do was to eradicate any burdens on minority voting. And they said both arizona provision did actually harm minorities. The ruling was one of two that divided the court ideologically on its final day before summer recess in another case conservatives on the court struck down a california requirement that tax exempt charities disclosed their major donors to state regulators. This morning we talked about online. Brokerage robin hoods plans to go public today. The company unveiled the paperwork for its ipo. According to the filing the company generated five hundred. Twenty two million dollars of revenue in the first quarter of this mostly through trading activity. That's more than four times. The revenue it generated in the first quarter of two thousand twenty but robin hood reported a loss of one point. Four billion dollars in the first quarter that was mostly due to a one time charge related to emergency fund raising during the height of the game. Stop riley and house speaker. Nancy pelosi has named republican representative. Liz cheney of wyoming to a select committee investigating the january sixth capital riot. Cheney was removed from the gop leadership ranks in may over her criticism of former president. Donald trump coming up why new york prosecutors are focusing on trump organization. Cfo alan weisselberg. Manvier burana.
All In with Chris Hayes
"trump organization" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes
"It is the now. Can you have a violation of bill. Cosby's due process right. It's not a right result. It's not the right result on the law. And i think it's not the right results in terms of public policy. I think it was the wrong wrong decision. That was me the showing. Of course bill cosby actually released today. He's home now. A free man as of as of now the the case that i've seen well the argument laid out in the descent in this case is goes along the lines of katie. The picture that is painted as i can. Best understand that pastor when he's serving a district attorney basically doesn't want to charge cosby or decides not to but recognizes later that it was kind of look bad and sort of retroactively constructs a story about how that was actually done to get his participation in the civil suit and to katie's point. Like how much do you think it matters that. There's no actual written record of the supposed- deal. That is at issue. chris. I agree that everything. Katie said. and it's hard to overstate how much it matters. I'm gonna put it in context. But i as a bigger point that needs to be made clear based on that seventy nine page opinion if you take caster at his word what he's saying is he allowed cosby to reach an agreement that allowed him to pay his way at being prosecuted for sexually assaulting someone because the deal he suggested he reached never been reached. If cosby wasn't rich which should be a problem for everyone. But let's take in context with the supreme court said here because what they're saying is if a prosecutor makes a public statement that he won't move forward than that is the equivalent of a deal for immunity that bars subsequent people who hold the same office. So let's look at a specific case. It puts this injustice in context a moderate. The young man who has murdered in georgia essentially by slave patrol had his case swept underneath the rug by the prosecuting authority. Who refused to move forward a subsequent prosecutors said that was wrong. And i'm going to make this right. Under today's ruling that second prosecutor would not have been allowed to prosecute his killers for murder which works in extreme justice. As we've seen here. Yeah the the point here is a caster puts out a press release which is the only katie. Use your term paper here right. The only written record again brawl talking about lawyers. Who paper everything. That's what they do at the only. The only written record is his press release which i think the the the prosecutors and others have argued essentially is representation of acta prosecutorial discretion and today's point. The question is like does that bind. Future offices is an actor prosecutorial discretion actually some ironclad deal which then cannot be taken back by by a future prosecutors. I guess the question. Katie also is was the mistake on the part of prosecutors here entering that civil testimony even if they got the trial judge to basically say it was. Okay no because he could have still invoked his fifth amendment right against self incrimination and you know he did it and he gave completely. He claimed it was consensual. Contact with andrew constan but he gave exculpatory statements law enforcement already and what wasn't like he was induced. And that's the problem here. The pennsylvania supreme court says bill cosby was induced. Any detrimentally relied upon this press. Release as the reason why he testified. We don't have any evidence of that. And i think that is where this is so wrong. All of the cases fighter to by the pennsylvania supreme court majority opinion says when a prosecutor makes a plea.
All In with Chris Hayes
"trump organization" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes
"At grassroots on that. I've inaugura now for some time that our democracy is at barrel or you got to do is look at the the vote today on the two. Republicans voted in other the. Get to the bottom of what happened on. January six in lied happened on to republicans. That's that's just cannot be me need to know why. There was this insurrection on january six. Who was behind. Who financed exactly what it was all about. But that's why barrel because that's about partisan issue there's nothing positive about trying to find out who is trying to overthrow out government who is trying to overturn elections. These things are very very important to find out eat. We are going to do what is necessary to preserve the integrity of this great democracy. I've been warning for a long time. Mini look the history and no matter how thanks may look We have a democracy that is really being tested in the winter Ever been tested before you noted that the roll call vote today. This was to empanel the select committee to investigate. It did pass two hundred twenty two hundred ninety but you noted that only two republicans it was adam anger and congresswoman liz cheney of wyoming to vote in favor. What does it say to you that it seems. Every one of these votes have come up. There are fewer and fewer republicans willing to cross party lines. I mean when you look back to like a majority of republicans voted in the house. Not to seat the electors to overturn the election. But a sizeable chunk did not. Then you go to the impeachment and you had about a double digits of republicans. I think if i'm recalling correctly willing to impeach the president now we're down to just a committee and we're down to two republicans. It seems the further we get away from it. The worst those vote tallies get on their side offer the further year away from the issue. It lessens the impact. I if you remember the day after the insects you remember what kevin mccarthy said on the floor you remember what mitch mcconnell said..