International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Criminal Charges Against Trump (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=347810)

Emily's Cat 24th November 2020 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13292980)
[i]
Well, she was an employee... It is not normal for someone to both draw a salary AND get paid as a consultant, since whatever was done under the guise of being a consultant could probably be done under the person's regular work as an employee.

Caveat from the get-go: I don't have any deep knowledge of how Trump Org. is structured, and what follows is complete and utter speculation, intended as a discussion point for a plausible scenario in which a consulting fee could reasonably be paid. I have absolutely zero solid information for this, it is 100% speculation and nothing else.

If Trump Org. is a holding company, it might be okay for Ivanka to be paid as a consultant for work done with one of the subsidiaries, if she were not an employee of that subsidiary specifically.

One of my prior employer was a holding company, and had several subsidiaries of diverse natures. Some of them were customers of another.
For example, one was a reinsurance company, another was a health insurance company, and the reinsurance company sold services to the health insurance company. Similarly, one subsidiary was a brokerage company that sold policies for many insurers, including competitors of the company that was a sibling under the holding company.

There were times where we had to get a bit creative trying to do work between subsidiaries that included competition or potential conflicts of interest. I don't recall specifics, but I could see an argument where an employee of the holding company (or one of the subsidiaries) did work for a different subsidiary on a consulting basis, in order to retain some separation of duties.

Like I said, this is speculative, so grain of salt and all that.

Dave Rogers 24th November 2020 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Other (Post 13305161)
Maybe we should put every President on trial after his/her Administration leaves office. This way partisanship (at least at the filing suit level) is minimized. I cannot think of one President (maybe Jimmy Carter... maybe) who did not commit crimes while in office.

If the matter under discussion were solely the crimes alleged to have been committed by Trump while in office, your thoughts would be relevant.

Dave

psionl0 25th November 2020 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blutoski (Post 13298061)
No, private companies SOP is to issue dividends to owners, if the taxes work out better. Dividends are taxed differently than earned income, is the rationale.

Just as an example, here in Canada, my wife's company has 10,000 shares, and her parents have a minority stake. The sole reason for this was to issue them dividends to supplement their income. (The expression is "income sprinkling") - this was disallowed 2 years ago and we no longer do this.

A classic example of what happens when politicians look after their rich mates.

In Australia, dividends form part of your taxable income and can put you in a higher tax bracket. The difference is that dividends are tax imputed meaning that part of your taxable dividend has already been sent to the tax man and becomes a credit for tax already paid.

Stacyhs 25th November 2020 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Other (Post 13305161)
Maybe we should put every President on trial after his/her Administration leaves office. This way partisanship (at least at the filing suit level) is minimized. I cannot think of one President (maybe Jimmy Carter... maybe) who did not commit crimes while in office. There is no need for me to delineate each and every President on their offenses, as in some cases it is quite extensive, as this is not a party driven activity... it is a power driven activity that is sanctioned and practiced by the two political parties.

I can't remember Obama being investigated for crimes being committed before or during his time in office. I mean, actual investigations by attorneys general and not just allegations by politicians screaming for their 5 minutes of attention.

There's a reason Trump has fought so desperately to keep his taxes from being released. You don't spend this much money fighting to keep your taxes secret unless you're scared of what they'll reveal. He's a crook.

smartcooky 29th November 2020 11:27 PM

https://leftcoastnetwork.com/video/t...r-his-rallies/


The City of El Paso TX is after him for non-payment of his rallies

Norman Alexander 29th November 2020 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Other (Post 13305161)
Maybe we should put every President on trial after his/her Administration leaves office. This way partisanship (at least at the filing suit level) is minimized. I cannot think of one President (maybe Jimmy Carter... maybe) who did not commit crimes while in office. There is no need for me to delineate each and every President on their offenses, as in some cases it is quite extensive, as this is not a party driven activity... it is a power driven activity that is sanctioned and practiced by the two political parties.

Would you be so kind as to list all the official crimes that each of the last, say, half-dozen presidents actually had pressed and faced trial for on leaving office.

Obama=?
GW Bush=?
Clinton=?
HG Bush=?
Reagan=?
Carter=?
Ford=?

Some Cliff Notes: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...sident/616804/

smartcooky 30th November 2020 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Other (Post 13305161)
Maybe we should put every President on trial after his/her Administration leaves office. This way partisanship (at least at the filing suit level) is minimized.

If they have committed criminal acts, then I agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Other (Post 13305161)
I cannot think of one President (maybe Jimmy Carter... maybe) who did not commit crimes while in office. There is no need for me to delineate each and every President on their offenses

So, you're making a claim but will not be supporting that claim with evidence.

Got it!

Stacyhs 30th November 2020 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13310061)
If they have committed criminal acts, then I agree.



So, you're making a claim but will not be supporting that claim with evidence.

Got it!

That seems to be par for the course nowadays, innit?

Susheel 30th November 2020 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13310061)
If they have committed criminal acts, then I agree....

Don't the people of XXX in Terry Pratchett's discworld arrest its Prime Minister the moment he is elected?:D

cullennz 30th November 2020 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander (Post 13310035)
Would you be so kind as to list all the official crimes that each of the last, say, half-dozen presidents actually had pressed and faced trial for on leaving office.

Obama=?
GW Bush=?
Clinton=?
HG Bush=?
Reagan=?
Carter=?
Ford=?

Some Cliff Notes: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...sident/616804/

I think you are twisting the posters claim.

Forgive me my atrocious spelling from my wee phone keyboard.

"Who did not commit crimes while in office"

You "faced trial for on leaving office"

EHocking 30th November 2020 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susheel (Post 13310072)
Don't the people of XXX in Terry Pratchett's discworld arrest its Prime Minister the moment he is elected?:D

You mean, of course, EcksEcksEcksEcks, or Fourecks.

XXX is bad porn, whereas XXXX is bad lager.

The Great Zaganza 30th November 2020 01:40 AM

All in all, it would safe a lot of time if the President would spend one of his/her 4 years in office in jail.

Susheel 30th November 2020 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EHocking (Post 13310075)
You mean, of course, EcksEcksEcksEcks, or Fourecks.

XXX is bad porn, whereas XXXX is bad lager.

It's been quite a few years since I read it and my age and certain lifestyle choices haven't been conducive to a good memory.

Yup...you are right.

smartcooky 30th November 2020 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EHocking (Post 13310075)
You mean, of course, EcksEcksEcksEcks, or Fourecks.

XXX is bad porn, whereas XXXX is bad lager.

Yeah, but I'll bet you don't know why Castlemain is called XXXX !

Norman Alexander 30th November 2020 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 13310073)
I think you are twisting the posters claim.

Forgive me my atrocious spelling from my wee phone keyboard.

"Who did not commit crimes while in office"

You "faced trial for on leaving office"

It's vague, isn't it. I read it more fully as "Who committed crimes in office but did not face legal ramifications thereof after leaving office."

Norman Alexander 30th November 2020 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13310104)
Yeah, but I'll bet you don't know why Castlemain is called XXXX !

Queenslanders can't spell "quasiantichurchdisestablishmentarianism" in four letters?

Skeptic Ginger 30th November 2020 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander (Post 13310035)
Would you be so kind as to list all the official crimes that each of the last, say, half-dozen presidents actually had pressed and faced trial for on leaving office.

Obama=?
GW Bush=?
Clinton=?
HG Bush=?
Reagan=?
Carter=?
Ford=?

Some Cliff Notes: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...sident/616804/

I only know a couple without checking.

GW - I think there are war crimes there which are prosecutable. He also abused the DoJ to manipulate elections. And there was caging, also to influence elections.

Bill Clinton - Not sure the money schemes were illegal. Sweetheart deals is what they are called. And there were sex crimes that at least should have either gone to court or publicly dropped. Instead the record is clouded.

Reagan - Iran-Contra is well known. And I believe there was a deal to get the hostages released after he was elected.

Carter - I'm not aware of anything.

Ford - I only know Agnew was out and Ford was in specifically to pardon Nixon. Not illegal.

Obama and Sr Bush - I'm not aware of anything.

Norman Alexander 30th November 2020 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13310119)
I only know a couple without checking.

GW - I think there are war crimes there which are prosecutable. He also abused the DoJ to manipulate elections. And there was caging, also to influence elections.

Bill Clinton - Not sure the money schemes were illegal. Sweetheart deals is what they are called. And there were sex crimes that at least should have either gone to court or publicly dropped. Instead the record is clouded.

Reagan - Iran-Contra is well known. And I believe there was a deal to get the hostages released after he was elected.

Carter - I'm not aware of anything.

Ford - I only know Agnew was out and Ford was in specifically to pardon Nixon. Not illegal.

Obama and Sr Bush - I'm not aware of anything.

I'm sure we can find more. But did any of them face charges and/or court personally as a result? As far as I'm aware, they all walked away scot-free when they left the office.

Skeptic Ginger 30th November 2020 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander (Post 13310122)
I'm sure we can find more. But did any of them face charges and/or court personally as a result? As far as I'm aware, they all walked away scot-free when they left the office.

Some of us were disappointed Obama didn't at least address GW lying us into a war and using torture. But compared to Trump I don't think GW's crimes would have been an easy call.

What Biden has said he will enlist a committee to make the decisions if and what to charge Trump with. Before he was elected there appear to be more than a few crimes involving false claims on tax reports. And it's pretty clear Trump has been involved in money laundering for Russian oligarchs.

He's lied on loan applications. I'm not sure if that against US law if the fraud was on foreign banks.

Norman Alexander 30th November 2020 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13310128)
Some of us were disappointed Obama didn't at least address GW lying us into a war and using torture. But compared to Trump I don't think GW's crimes would have been an easy call.

What Biden has said he will enlist a committee to make the decisions if and what to charge Trump with. Before he was elected there appear to be more than a few crimes involving false claims on tax reports. And it's pretty clear Trump has been involved in money laundering for Russian oligarchs.

He's lied on loan applications. I'm not sure if that against US law if the fraud was on foreign banks.

As far as I'm aware, several states want to have a sit-down with him about some of these things. There will be "a spirited search for the truth", at which point Donny will blab and bluster and blunder his way into numerous serious charges being laid. There is the distinct possibility federal law officers will be invited to this party. After this, his attorney will cry himself to sleep.

Emily's Cat 30th November 2020 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EHocking (Post 13310075)
You mean, of course, EcksEcksEcksEcks, or Fourecks.

XXX is bad porn, whereas XXXX is bad lager.

Whereas Dos Equis is merely mediocre.

EHocking 30th November 2020 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13310104)
Yeah, but I'll bet you don't know why Castlemain is called XXXX !

of course I do, not being from godís waiting room. it is an old stale joke.




And spelled Castlemaine

EHocking 30th November 2020 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susheel (Post 13310088)
It's been quite a few years since I read it and my age and certain lifestyle choices haven't been conducive to a good memory.

Yup...you are right.

It is ISF after all.
Whatís a bit of pendantry between friends?

The Great Zaganza 1st December 2020 04:44 AM

Trump should be criminally investigated and, if feasible, charged for the Obstruction found by Mueller.
That should be a no-brainer for anyone who believes in the Separation of Power.

And, of course, we need to investigate the failure of the Trump Administration to deal with the Coronavirus.
That might lead to further charges.

these have nothing to do with retaliation and everything to do with saving lives and democracy.

Trebuchet 2nd December 2020 06:05 PM

One way or another, he'll manage to be pardoned or immune to Federal charges. I'm hanging my hat on state charges and civil suits.

The Great Zaganza 4th December 2020 04:47 AM

It was Kushner who was the go-between to buy Pardons from Trump:

https://www.businessinsider.com/kush...0-12?r=DE&IR=T

Chanakya 4th December 2020 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebuchet (Post 13313141)
One way or another, he'll manage to be pardoned or immune to Federal charges. I'm hanging my hat on state charges and civil suits.


If he "manages" to actually get pardoned, then it'll be Biden he'll have managed. That would be squarely on Biden, isn't it?

Squeegee Beckenheim 4th December 2020 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13314885)
It was Kushner who was the go-between to buy Pardons from Trump:

https://www.businessinsider.com/kush...0-12?r=DE&IR=T

That's not what that article says. It identifies Abbe Lowell, an attorney for Kushner as being the go-between.

Segnosaur 17th December 2020 08:30 AM

Don't recall this being mentioned in any of the other threads, but it seems relevant here....

From: Global News (the major Canadian TV network, not the conspiracy site)
Judge Arthur Engoron said the Trump Organization must turn over to the New York attorney general’s office all communications involving Ralph Mastromonaco, an engineer who worked on the Seven Springs estate in Westchester County, north of Manhattan....Attorney General Letitia James’ investigators are looking at how the Trump Organization and its agents assessed the value of Seven Springs

This is a civil case, so by itself would not directly relate to criminal charges against Trump. But, I'm sure any evidence they turn up might be useful in any fraud charges.

Trebuchet 17th December 2020 11:23 AM

He'll be claiming Presidential privilege somehow or another! Or having Crazy Rudi do it for him.

CORed 17th December 2020 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13310128)
Some of us were disappointed Obama didn't at least address GW lying us into a war and using torture. But compared to Trump I don't think GW's crimes would have been an easy call.

What Biden has said he will enlist a committee to make the decisions if and what to charge Trump with. Before he was elected there appear to be more than a few crimes involving false claims on tax reports. And it's pretty clear Trump has been involved in money laundering for Russian oligarchs.

He's lied on loan applications. I'm not sure if that against US law if the fraud was on foreign banks.

As for GW Bush, I agree with you on the torture. As for getting into the Iran war, I was never certain whether it was a case of lying or a case of error and self delusion. I suspect that, to a large degree, he cherry-picked himmself into believing his own ********.

Mader Levap 17th December 2020 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CORed (Post 13329534)
As for GW Bush, I agree with you on the torture. As for getting into the Iran war, I was never certain whether it was a case of lying or a case of error and self delusion. I suspect that, to a large degree, he cherry-picked himmself into believing his own ********.

Personally, I do not see any reason to give any benefit of doubt to war criminal.

acbytesla 17th December 2020 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebuchet (Post 13313141)
One way or another, he'll manage to be pardoned or immune to Federal charges. I'm hanging my hat on state charges and civil suits.

No, I don't think so. I suppose he might pardon himself, but that is legally questionable. Biden is not going to pardon him and I doubt if he resigned Pence would either.

eerok 17th December 2020 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13329575)
No, I don't think so. I suppose he might pardon himself, but that is legally questionable. Biden is not going to pardon him and I doubt if he resigned Pence would either.

I can't imagine Trump's ego would allow him to resign even briefly to get a pardon from Pence. He'll try to pardon himself for sure, and there's a solid chance it will fail. Failure and BS are Trump's superpowers in any case.

Stacyhs 18th December 2020 01:56 AM

Just a thought: Trump saves face by pretending to need surgery so goes under anesthesia. Section 3 of the 25 Amendment is invoked and Pence temporarily becomes president. Pence pardons Trump. Section 3 says "such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President." This way Trump doesn't have to resign and doesn't have to take a change on the legality of pardoning himself. Would this be feasible?

The Great Zaganza 18th December 2020 02:05 AM

Sure.
completely transparent and lame, but sure.

dirtywick 19th December 2020 03:32 AM

I don’t know why Pence would agree to do that

blutoski 19th December 2020 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13331121)
I donít know why Pence would agree to do that

Perhaps to secure pardons from Trump.

"[Criss cross!]"

acbytesla 19th December 2020 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13310128)
Some of us were disappointed Obama didn't at least address GW lying us into a war and using torture. But compared to Trump I don't think GW's crimes would have been an easy call.

What Biden has said he will enlist a committee to make the decisions if and what to charge Trump with. Before he was elected there appear to be more than a few crimes involving false claims on tax reports. And it's pretty clear Trump has been involved in money laundering for Russian oligarchs.

He's lied on loan applications. I'm not sure if that against US law if the fraud was on foreign banks.

I don't think that dog will hunt.

Deutsche Bank while certainly based in Germany has offices and branches in the United States. These were loans for an American business that involved American properties. Seems a stretch to say that loans that they provided were somehow exempt from US laws.

alfaniner 19th December 2020 11:22 AM

Fortunately, Federal pardons will have no effect at the State level. I think New York has a few things planned for after Jan 20.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.