Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump Organization, CFO Allen Weisselberg Plead Not Guilty to Tax, Fraud Charges

Trump Organization, CFO Allen Weisselberg Plead Not Guilty to Tax, Fraud Charges

“A case solely focused on fringe benefits is unusual, former prosecutors said. Charging an individual or company for failure to pay taxes on employee benefits alone is rare…”

The Manhattan District Attorney Office indicted the Trump Organization and its CFO Allen Weisselberg with 15 felony counts of fraud and tax evasion:

Carey Dunne, the general counsel of the Manhattan district attorney’s office, told state court Justice Juan Merchan that the charges encompassed a 15-year-long tax-fraud scheme [2005 to 2021] involving off-the-books payments at the Trump Organization. He said Mr. Weisselberg had illegally avoided paying taxes on $1.7 million in income.

“There’s no clearer example of a company that should be held to account,” Mr. Dunne said. “It’s not about politics.”

“The scheme was intended to allow certain employees to substantially understate their compensation from the Trump Organization, so that they could and did pay federal, state, and local taxes in amounts that were significantly less than the amounts that should have been paid,” states the indictment. “The scheme also enabled Weisselberg to obtain tax refunds of amounts previously withheld and remitted to federal and state tax authorities.”

It’s not about politics, but the investigation did not start until Donald Trump became president. Okay, bro. Whatever you say. The case details do not help Dunne’s declaration either:

A case solely focused on fringe benefits is unusual, former prosecutors said. Charging an individual or company for failure to pay taxes on employee benefits alone is rare, though such charges are used as part of larger cases.

Weisselberg and the Trump Organization pleaded not guilty.

The DA’s office claims Weisselberg is “[O]ne of the largest beneficiaries of the defendants’ scheme.” The indictment explains:

During the operation of the scheme, the defendants arranged for Weisselberg to receive indirect employee compensation from the Trump Organization in the approximate amount of $1.76 million. As described below, the defendants enabled Weisselberg to receive this compensation in ways that enabled the corporate defendants to avoid reporting it to the tax authorities, and that did not result in the withholding of income tax by the corporate defendants. Weisselberg then concealed the compensation from his tax preparer and intentionally omitted it from his tax returns. Additionally, Weisselberg concealed for years the fact that he was a resident of New York City who was required to pay New York City income taxes. During the period of the scheme, Weisselberg thereby evaded approximately $556,385 in federal taxes, approximately $106,568 in state taxes, and approximately $238,159 in New York City taxes, and he falsely claimed and received approximately $94,902 in federal tax refunds and approximately $38,222 in state tax refunds, to which he was not entitled.

Weisselberg faces a maximum of 15 years in prison if convicted of grand larceny in the second degree, which is the top charge.

Former President Donald Trump will not face charges this round. The district attorney’s office did not completely rule it out.

The prosecutors are using Weisselberg to nab Trump and his close family members:

The charges are the culmination of prosecutors’ efforts to pressure Mr. Weisselberg into cooperating with their investigation, the Journal has reported. He has so far declined to cooperate, but some defendants do change course when faced with the possibility of prison time, former prosecutors said.

“Everyone has different levels of tolerance for potential consequences,” said Sean Hecker, a white-collar defense attorney and partner at Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Basically standard practice at almost all businesses. Is any other business now worried about being gone after on the same grounds? No, of course not. That alone proves what this is really about.

Cy Vance is a worm. Always has been. He’ll be out as of Jan-1, but his replacement is likely to be just as bad.

    mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2021 at 4:08 pm

    That doesn’t make a lot of sense, if you are saying that illegal tax evasion is a good excuse I’d respectfully disagree. Unless the underlying law is wrong , tax evasion is still criminal.

    How would you go about showing that it’s standard practise for companies?

      Juris Doctor in reply to mark311. | July 1, 2021 at 4:16 pm

      Vance can only asset state tax claims. He cannot assert federal tax claims and he cannot assert city tax claims that must be brought by the city attorney. Vance errors and asserts all 3.

      WillS68 in reply to mark311. | July 1, 2021 at 4:47 pm

      That’s not what Milhousr said at all but I’d love to offer some clarity on this from my own personal experience.

      (1) As a former drug company salesman a new car (typically a Cadillac) was a standard perk of the job as was a company gas card. Not a single representative ever claimed that vehicle as “income”.

      (2) A big part of my grad school (and all of my wife’s) was covered by our employer and no, we didn’t claim that as “income”.

      (3) in 2010 I was going through a divorce and my regional manager’s family extended me the use of a wonderful loft apartment at no cost (aside from utilities) for nearly sixteen months and no, I never claimed that as income.

      Look, were talking about 1.7 million over a twelve year period. Yeah, that’s a good chunk of change but it breaks down to about 146,667.00 a year – really seem like that’s much for a guy of Weisselberg or Trump?

      If you can’t see that this is 100% a political hit job your hatred for Trump is impacting your vision! Did you defend Pres Obama and his purchase of land from Tony Rezko for 1/6 what Rezko had paid?

        OleDirtyBarrister in reply to WillS68. | July 1, 2021 at 6:09 pm

        You don’t appear to know much about the tax code.

        A company car provided to an employee by the company to do his/her job is markedly different that a car leased by an employee and his spouse and paid for by the company. There are several ways under the federal regs to handle a leased auto for an employee, and the portion of the use that is “personal” rather than “business” is taxable income. A car leased by a spouse and paid for by the company is going to be taxable income to someone.

        You should be smarter than to publicly admit to potentially taxable income that you did not report.

          I don’t know it at all, I’m a social work (not a defense but just honest). Not worried; were talking 15 – 20 years ago and besides. . . . .it is what it is. Targeting me would be like finding an elevator in an outhouse.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to OleDirtyBarrister. | July 2, 2021 at 10:09 am

          And the problem here is that the man was investigated in great detail due to his business association to an ex-president. This is not and action initiated by the IRS or state taxing authorities in NY They just did a fishing expedition to see what they could find.

          She me the man and I will you the crime justice.

        DSHornet in reply to WillS68. | July 1, 2021 at 6:29 pm

        When I was in the corporate world, I was often allowed to use my company vehicle for personal errands as long as I claimed some mileage personally. This mileage wasn’t nearly as much as I actually drove (three miles to the grocery store when the distance would be six, for example) but was considered payment in-kind because the boss wasn’t willing to go through all the hassle of giving minute pay raises to employees who deserved them. This is often what happens as a reward of doing a good job greater than usual expectations. The value of the extra use of the company car wasn’t much when compared to my total on-the-books compensation but it was a big reason I stayed on in spite of the hassles of the job.

        Of course, if Vance is the horse’s anus he appears to be, he won’t care.
        .

      Barry in reply to mark311. | July 1, 2021 at 4:57 pm

      marxists no nothing about how a business is run.

      More lies from marxist311.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to mark311. | July 1, 2021 at 5:52 pm

      I have had a number companies of my own, and also worked for a large energy company as a VP. Over all that time I drove company vehicles and never paid tax. Those perks were never free, in that I worked long hours.

      Bottom line, government is always looking for ways to squeeze more money out of people.

      How many people in management work less than 60 hours a week?

        mark311 in reply to JusticeDelivered. | July 2, 2021 at 5:38 am

        You should have been taxed and probably were, How it would be calculated would depend how the company chose to sort the tax out. By the sounds of it it was a leased car an therefore part of the cost of the car is calculated and included as part of your income.

      Milhouse in reply to mark311. | July 1, 2021 at 7:44 pm

      “Go about showing”?! You surely know it well enough yourself. It’d be harder to find a company where perks are not standard practice than one where they are. And if you tell me it’s not standard practice in the UK as well, I’ll call you a liar.

      Now find me five more companies that have ever been prosecuted for giving their employees perks.

        mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | July 2, 2021 at 6:46 am

        The question isn’t perks but perks which are not taxed in accordance with the law. You made the assertion, I honestly don’t know how you could possibly know that,

        In the UK perks are taxed depending on the value to you, if its classed as a benefit in kind then its not taxed but this generally relates to things with a trivial value like for example Christmas party value per person (with a threshold) , canteen meals etc. HMRC have a big list of things that are classed as these kinds of items. For items of significant value such as a company car its taxed and you have to pay it as part of your income tax. Its in effect added to your income so the tax bracket is different depending on what you earn.

        i think the mistake you are making here is conflating perks of a normal nature with the ones Trump org have done. A perk in ordinary terms might be taking employees out for drinks, it might be an office party, it might be stationary all sorts of little things. In this case someone’s private tuition was paid for, rent was paid for, these aren’t perks in the normal sense of the word it was an inflation of income without duly giving the tax on it.

        With regard to your challenge I’m not clear how showing its a rarely prosecuted crime helps prove anything other than its rarely prosecuted. If that’s your point sure maybe, if your point is that its political again sure maybe but if your point is that the idea of it makes it less worthy of prosecution then no that doesn’t help your argument. The appropriate response is not that Trump org shouldn’t be prosecuted its that all instances of fraud of this kind should be prosecuted.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | July 2, 2021 at 10:28 am

          ” If that’s your point sure maybe, if your point is that its political again sure maybe but if your point is that the idea of it makes it less worthy of prosecution then no that doesn’t help your argument. ”

          Milhouse’s point is this is that even if the allegations are true, it is selective prosecution. The charges are a result of selective investigation driven by political animus and driven by such things like an IRS audit. The chose a man based on his affiliation with Trump and looked for any possible crime they could find. It is mendacious selective prosecution.

          Normally what happens in these sorts of cases is that an audit is conducted, and if discrepancies are found, additional taxes and penalties are assessed, not criminal prosecution.

          I know people who did not even file taxes for years, and in the end, all the IRS wanted was the taxes, penalties and interest owed. They have all manner of means for collection prior to resorting to criminal prosecution including levies on wages, seizure of bank and securities accounts, seizure of property, tax liens, etc.,

          This is clearly selective, politically driven prosecution.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | July 2, 2021 at 3:54 pm

          @BSR

          Your argument doesn’t really reflect the nature of the charges though. Part of the charges is deliberately lying to conceal the fringe benefits. Additionally if it were the case that it was an innocent mistake surely Trump org/the CFO would offer to pay the money back or make the claim public that it was the mistake. Instead they have plead not guilty.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | July 2, 2021 at 4:45 pm

          “Part of the charges is deliberately lying to conceal the fringe benefits.”

          That’s part of the BS. 1st, proving that will be extremely difficult. Second, they usually just want the money, and putting someone in jail does not further that cause. This should be a civil collections matter. Third, this was not a result of a tax audit, but rather the investigation of a prosecutor who had no predicate to conduct such an investigation, but went looking for a crime. The prosecutor would have turned any flaw in paperwork into a crime. This is selective prosecution because no one else gets prosecuted for this sort of discrepancy. It’s quite glaring and even partisan Democrats need to take pause and say to themselves, “there but for the grace of God….” It can happen to them.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | July 3, 2021 at 3:44 am

          @BSR

          You claim it’s BS without knowing what evidence they actually have so that seems premature. Indeed given the charges if the documents are shown then the intent follows. this is given that one of the indications is that the CFO pretended he didn’t live in NY when he did. That’s a pretty clear indication of intent.

          With regard to civil vs criminal that surely stems from the nature of the charges. Sure some people make mistakes with the amount they are taxes but deliberately avoiding tax is most definitely a crime. It doesn’t make w hole lot of sense to not punish fraud when discovered.

          With respect to the basis of the investigation well it was highlighted by Cohen and given the history of Trump org with Trump university and the Trump foundation there is a clear pattern of behaviour.

      NYBruin in reply to mark311. | July 1, 2021 at 11:44 pm

      Note the different treatment for former Senate Majority Leader who didn’t pay taxes on similar non-cash fringe benefits:

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123335984751235247

        mark311 in reply to NYBruin. | July 2, 2021 at 10:02 am

        Well the story you cite is about him paying the taxes in retrospect. In this instance the Trump org and CFO have pleaded not guilty so why on earth would a case be made to prosecute someone who then paid the required amount of tax. Further given that Trump org and the CFO have allegedly lied about the fringe benefits the crime extends beyond just not paying the taxes but also lying about that and attempting to hide the facts from the IRS. That’s substantially different from the case you cite.

          avi natan in reply to mark311. | July 2, 2021 at 10:16 am

          no, he was caught and knew he could just pay and wouldn’t be prosecuted in our two tiered justice system

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | July 3, 2021 at 5:49 am

          That’s your assertion and without evidence I might add. Claiming the two cases are similar isn’t realistic given the known facts of the case. The CFO went so far as to pretend not to be living in NYC. As others have pointed out intent is a prime aspect of any fraud case and in your example that’s not been shown. In this case it hasn’t gone through full due process yet so we shall see.

    Mil
    It seems to me that how the Trump org treated this expense is important. My company pays a set $ amount as an allowance deducts these cost as an expense. I get taxes withheld on the entire amount. I deducted mileage when using for company business. (Trump “tax cut” eliminated that deduction) I cannot fathom company accountants doing anything different. Other option is Trump org did not deduct the cost and paid taxes themselves. Doubt so, but CEO I don’t think would be liable?

    I have a home office and we have 2 other family vehicles. Over 90 % of that vehicle mileage is business.

E Howard Hunt | July 1, 2021 at 3:59 pm

What a joke! Not $1.7 million in taxes, but tax on $1.7 million over 15 years, split among several employees! This is peanuts. The prosecutor should be embarrassed. This was not even worth pursuing as a civil matter. The Trump organization will be vindicated once this farce runs its course.

    mark311 in reply to E Howard Hunt. | July 1, 2021 at 4:09 pm

    Good for you that this is a trivial sum. I’m glad you feel good sat on top of your Ivory tower.

      Ben Kent in reply to mark311. | July 1, 2021 at 5:37 pm

      Mark – let’s face it – they have a point. In a multi-billion dollar organization that they must have scoured for bad stuff – the best they could do is $1.7 million unreported over 15 years? To any one that knows business – that is a rounding error in an organization the size of the Trump organization. The say its not political – but when investigating entities and people close to the former President of the USA (and possible candidate) while the party in power is the opposite party – it seems burden of proof for “not political” rests with the prosecutors. Until proven otherwise EVERYONE Dem and Repub will think this is profoundly political. This how you and Dems would feel if it were Repub in power and the indicted Obama’s buddy. You bet you’d scream witch hunt – and I’d likely agree with you.

        mark311 in reply to Ben Kent. | July 2, 2021 at 9:01 am

        @ben

        Whether or not its political or not isn’t the question the question is have they committed a crime. Its not actually relevant to ask whether its political or not. As it happens given the nature of the American system its likely that every case relating to a high profile figure is political, that’s inescapable given the nature of the system.

          avi natan in reply to mark311. | July 2, 2021 at 10:21 am

          no this was looking for a crime with no predicate. something good Germans like Robert Müller do when they’re not gassing people. Fabricating 302s to arrest Flynn to get him to compose. How many Americans died because Vance’s father secretly undermined the Shah and arranged for Khomeinito take over.
          Maybe Gestapo tactics are SOP for you und Müller und Vance.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | July 2, 2021 at 10:35 am

          “Whether or not its political or not isn’t the question the question is have they committed a crime.”

          “Show me the man, and I will show you the crime.”

          He was investigated because of his close business affiliation with Donald Trump. There is no other predicate to investigate. No audit by a taxing authority, no whistle blower, just a fishing expedition against a man and his associates.

          The intent is ward off anyone who may want to work for or with him in the future. Same purpose as the Russia collusion travesty of justice. They destroy other people to get at Trump.

          If he owes additional taxes, the normal course of affairs is to levy those taxes with penalties and interest, and if he disagrees, he goes to court while liens are placed on his assets. Then, also normally, to avoid litigation, the taxing authorities often make a deal, like they waive the penalties and interest. People do not go to jail, Clearly political. A great injustice.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | July 3, 2021 at 5:51 am

          Cohen’s testimony was a predicate and Trump org has form

      WillS68 in reply to mark311. | July 1, 2021 at 6:18 pm

      No offense but you’re an arsehat, par excellence! Nobody said 1.7 million wasn’t a good deal of money nor is anyone looking down their snout from an ivory tower.

      However, you lack any sense of reason or logic with your replies. How about this; a quick Google search tells me there are 74 McDonald’s restaurants in Manhattan. Each employee of McDonald’s is given a free meal during their shift. So one employee working five days a week for a year would recieve 260 free meals and lets assume a cost of 5.00 per meal, meaning 1,300.00 a year per employee. Is Mr. Vance checking to make sure each employee claimed that 1,300.00 benefit on a 990 as it’s above the 600.00 threashold? Gee, 74 restaurants with an average of 16 per shift (again, Google) would be 2368 employees (assuming only two shifts) with a benefit of a 5.00 meal per day for 11,840.00 a day or or 4,297,920.00. a year! Now times that by twelve years and you get 51,575,040.00! Surely, the ethical Mr. Vance is going after all 74 McDonald’s for the loss of tax revenue, right? That was an untaxed benefit was it not? Ought they not pay their fair share? Don’t the children deserve those tax dollars? What about the schools!

      Goodness. . . . think! This is 1,000% political!

        amwick in reply to WillS68. | July 2, 2021 at 6:13 am

        Ty for putting this is terms I can identify with.

        mark311 in reply to WillS68. | July 2, 2021 at 8:40 am

        With respect what’s the illogical aspect. lets apply logic and facts your example:

        1) A benefit in kind is with respect to 1 employee therefore it doesn’t matter that McDonalds gives 1 million or 1 billion free meals to employers. The relevant part is the one free meal per employee. From a tax point of view i assume its similar to the UK where a benefit in kind of this trivial size wouldn’t qualify for taxes, from a logic point of view who cares about McDonalds providing one free meal per day per employee. What people care about (people like me anyways) is the fact that an already rich person got free private education etc giving himself an even bigger advantage over others not from being good at something but by tax evasion. Taxes which could go for example go on the police, or social welfare.

        2) With respect you claimed it was trivial, let me remind you “$1.7 million over 15 years, split among several employees! This is peanuts.”. Letting rich assholes get away with illegally making themselves richer is immoral and stupid.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | July 2, 2021 at 10:41 am

          ” From a tax point of view i assume its similar to the UK where a benefit in kind of this trivial size wouldn’t qualify for taxes,”

          It’s above the $600.00 per year reporting threshold, so it is against the law, and earlier, you claimed that was all that mattered. Now, it does not. It is trivial.

          If the law is the law, and people should be treated equally under the law, all these people should be rounded up and placed in handcuffs, arraigned, and charged.

          Or, what should happen is the normal thing. They are assessed additional taxes, penalties, and interest. The taxpayer then pays or makes an arrangement with the taxing authority.

          The problem is how different people are treated. One is hauled off to jail because he is an associate of Donald Trump. The others are either ignored, or treated as per normal protocols.

        WillS68: Each employee of McDonald’s is given a free meal during their shift.

        That would be covered under meals for company benefit, 26 U.S. Code § 119.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Zachriel. | July 2, 2021 at 12:55 pm

          Yes, but one could argue if in the scenario posited above if the meals are furnished for the convenience of the employer. Meals are considered to be furnished for the convenience of the employer if policies require the employer to provide meals for employees to properly perform his or her duties, Normally this is in situations when an employee has no other access to meals life employees on an ocean oil derrick, or working at a remote site where they cannot otherwise obtain meals, or could only eat while actually in the performance of their jobs, that is, they must be at a control or watch station or something like that.

          I am sure the McDonald’s employees in Manhattan are entitled to disregard this as income.

          But let’s say we disagree on this, and it is possible. What should not happen is all these employees are rounded up, shackled, and charged with a crime. What should happen is a clarification of law is issued so things are properly complied with going forward, or, at the very most, audits are made and people are sent tax bills.

          And what should not happen to all these McDonald’s employees should not happen in this instance, either. At most it should be a civil action to recoup taxes, penalties, and interest. It could be as simple as a tax warning to comply with certain strictures moving forward.

          No one should be subjected to arbitrary, capricious, and mendacious prosecutorial investigations. That’s how dictatorships do things. And Trump and his associates have been the victims of this – even Paul Manafort.

          And as for you post somewhat latter regarding the disparity of treatment in the legal system, I wholeheartedly agree. I should add we are seeing not just a class based disparity now, which has been around for a very long time with only very slight and intermittent effort at correction, but a vivid disparity based upon political affiliation, which is even more damaging as the two shall compile and conflate. .

          A biased application of law will not forever retain the respect of the people, and in time shall degenerate into disrespect for the administration of justice, and illegitimacy of the law.

          mark311 in reply to Zachriel. | July 2, 2021 at 4:04 pm

          @BSR

          There is a significant difference between getting your taxes wrong and deliberately concealing your taxable income. Trump org and the CFO aren’t being accused of not knowing what the taxes are they are accused of lying , including where the CFO actually resided in order to avoid tax. They simply aren’t comparable.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Zachriel. | July 2, 2021 at 4:58 pm

          “There is a significant difference between getting your taxes wrong and deliberately concealing your taxable income.”

          The man was investigated without predicate. There was no audit from a taxing authority that claimed he had done this. There was no whistle blower..

          Even if the accusation is true, the normal course of events is for an examination of his taxes to occur, and he is made to pay the back taxes with penalties and interest. They will hold any criminal charges above him to make him comply.

          Tax law is highly complex. Showing willful evasion is very difficult, and rarely employed as a matter of criminal prosecution. Some people seem to be selectively investigated and prosecuted. This is the issue.

          It is likely anyone who runs a business or files anything but the simplest tax returns could be charged for something. Tax disputes are handled civilly in the great overwhelming majority of cases.

          Why are so so in favor of malicious and selective prosecution.

          mark311 in reply to Zachriel. | July 3, 2021 at 8:48 am

          @BSR

          And how exactly would you know that there is selective prosecution? I’m not clear how you could determine this? If you look at DoJ there are numerous tax evasion cases, I’m not clear how you could determine without the benefit of knowing the merits of the case whether of not a case I’d worth prosecuting. How have you determined that there is an issue withe selective prosecution?

      gonzotx in reply to mark311. | July 1, 2021 at 8:21 pm

      Son of worm

      UJ in reply to mark311. | July 1, 2021 at 9:51 pm

      Sit the F down. Everyone, and I mean everyone here is sick to death of your bullshit. Read the room, clown.

        mark311 in reply to UJ. | July 2, 2021 at 8:44 am

        When you mean bullshit I read pointing out the errors in your thinking and the factual basis with which you reach conclusions. Maybe you should step outside the echo chamber and learn something.

      FOAF in reply to mark311. | July 2, 2021 at 5:16 am

      Do they make you pay taxes on the ramen you get for trolling from the boiler room marky mark?

    JHogan in reply to E Howard Hunt. | July 1, 2021 at 5:45 pm

    Hillary destroys 30,000 subpeoned emails and nothing happens to her.

    An FBI attorney falsified evidence to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on a private citizen and the Trump campaign and administration. He gets a slap on the wrist — no jail time and a one year time-out from practicing as an attorney. He’s a hero to the Dems and any financial losses he incurred will no doubt be more than covered by Dem patrons.

    Unpaid corporate taxes on 1.7 million over a period of 15 years? Ruin his life and burn him at the stake unless he makes up something they can use to GET TRUMP!

    Any word on what the unpaid tax was? The corporate tax rate is 21%. That would come to $357k over 15 years. That’s $23,800 a year. Unless there is a clear and obvious attempt to defraud the government the usual IRS approach to situations like this is to not prosecute if the tax and interest is paid.

      OleDirtyBarrister in reply to JHogan. | July 1, 2021 at 6:14 pm

      We do not have a “justice system” in this country, we have a legal system. It is flawed one, the people that run it are corrupt, and there is a big disparity in treatment based on political ideology.

      In addition to what you mentioned, Gen. Flynn could not even get out of federal district court with a govt. dismissal and had to fight his way out.

      The feds squeezed Manafort, Stone, et al on matters that generally go unprosecuted to try to get them to flip so they could get Trump. Now the state and city are doing the same thing.

        Both people you mention were found guilty and justifiably so. I’m not convinced by the railroad argument AT ALL in Flynn’s case and the Manafort case didn’t even have that.

        “The feds squeezed Manafort, Stone, et al on matters that generally go unprosecuted” That’s bullshit and you know it. The prosecutors team resigned in disgust over the over attempt by the Trump DoJ’s attempt to pervert the course of justice with respect to Flynn. One rule for the Trump and his cronies and another for everyone else.

          avi natan in reply to mark311. | July 2, 2021 at 10:25 am

          of course you’d defend the gestapo tactics of the teutonic nazi Müller ( relative of yours?).thank goodness his genocidal female relatives in Pomerania had the pleasure of being repeatedly liberated by the Soviets

          Ex-Oligarch in reply to mark311. | July 2, 2021 at 2:23 pm

          Flynn was not “found guilty.” He pleaded guilty. That’s an important distinction in the American legal system. Plea bargaining by prosecutors has long been a controversial practice, since it is so readily abused.

          Flynn’s case is a good example of such abuse. He pleaded guilty because of coercive threats by prosecutors to arbitrarily prosecute his family. Even the investigating agents did not believe he had committed a crime, yet the prosecutor pursued him anyway.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | July 2, 2021 at 4:06 pm

          When you say gestapo tactics I think what you mean is leveraging there own guilt against them. You may not respect the rule of law but plenty do. It’s generally considered a good thing to lock up criminals after due process.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | July 2, 2021 at 5:13 pm

          “When you say gestapo tactics I think what you mean is leveraging there own guilt against them.”

          In Flynn’s case, it is investigating him without predicate. Altering state’s evidence. Fabricating states evidence. Withholding exculpatory evidence. Threatening prosecution of his child if he does not plead guilty or bear false witness against a business associate. Threatening to charge him for perjury for wanting to change his plea…. all for having a perfectly legal phone conversation that no one in the DOJ had any business investigating..

          Barry in reply to mark311. | July 2, 2021 at 5:30 pm

          Go to hell marxist. You’re just the thug murderer that all marxists are. You wish to live in a world where there is no justice, juts power at the point of a gun.

          You are the enemy of freedom and liberty.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | July 3, 2021 at 8:43 am

          @ex-oligarch

          I appreciate the distinction re pleading guilty or not guilty.

          With regard to railroading that’s been investigated and dismissed by the inspector general.

          It’s also the case that the Trump DoJ attempted to railroad proceedings into dropping the case resulting in the prosecution team resigning out of disgust. The overtly politicised DoJ came out very badly. Flynn was undoubtably guilty and potentially guilty of some very serious crimes. The judge described him as ‘having sold out his country’. His pardoning was a disgrace especially in light of some of the recent comments he has made in far right forums.

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | July 4, 2021 at 4:20 am

          It’s also the case that the Trump DoJ attempted to railroad proceedings into dropping the case resulting in the prosecution team resigning out of disgust.

          The DOJ can’t “railroad proceedings”. It’s in charge of proceedings. The prosecutors are DOJ employees, and are required to follow their superiors’ instructions. Their superiors reined them in from pursuing their personal vendetta, and they resigned in a snit because they felt they were entitled to do whatever they damn well liked.

          Flynn was undoubtably guilty

          Of what?

          and potentially guilty of some very serious crimes.

          Such as? Nothing that even his enemies accused him of was at all serious.

          The judge described him as ‘having sold out his country’.

          Which makes the judge a disgraceful piece of shit, as further evidenced by his disgraceful and unlawful actions in this case; quoting him to that effect does not shed good light on you.

          His pardoning was a disgrace especially in light of some of the recent comments he has made in far right forums.

          What have they got to do with it?

      Think38 in reply to JHogan. | July 1, 2021 at 7:04 pm

      The allegation is the corporation failed to report this as income to the CFO. The lost taxes are the income tax the CFO allegedly should have paid on this income.

      mark311 in reply to JHogan. | July 2, 2021 at 8:52 am

      Those were personal emails, vetted by a legal team and the FBI. The case against Hilary Clinton on that particular point was investigated and found not to have a case. You know due process.

      In your example due process was followed and he faced punishment, crying over it seems pretty stupid.

      When you say ruin his life you mean jail time. after 70 years plus of an advantaged, privileged life style and then going to jail for an illegal act with full knowledge of what he was doing (assuming the courts find him guilty) forgive me for not being compassionate about his fate.

      With respect the case is about fringe benefits like for example a private education, car(s), accommodation in trump towers. This isn’t a trivial thing.

      Given that Trump org and the CFO have pleaded innocent your last statement doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | July 2, 2021 at 10:49 am

        “Those were personal emails, vetted by a legal team and the FBI.”

        The 30,000 emails were not reviewed by the FBI. They were segregated and deleted by Clinton’s attorneys. We have no idea what the contents of these emails were, but email that was retained showed numerous instances of mishandling of classified material. The decision not to prosecute Clinton on this matter was clearly also political. We know this because people have been prosecuted for very similar things.

        In this case, people are NOT prosecuted for these sorts of offenses. Additional taxes are assessed, and penalties and interest.

          “”The decision not to prosecute Clinton on this matter was clearly also political.””

          And, ironically, apparently came from Trump.

          mark311 in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | July 2, 2021 at 4:11 pm

          “Clinton on this matter was clearly also political”

          Not really Comey Was republican.

          Indeed his actions prior to the 2016 election gifted the election to Trump.

          “We know this because people have been prosecuted for very similar things”

          Who

          “In this case, people are NOT prosecuted for these sorts of offenses.”

          It’s a form of tax evasion, there are numerous instances of people being indicted and convicted. The rare aspect is the fringe benefits side of it but then not that many people have access to such high value fringe benefits to actually commit fraud with so that’s unsuprising

        txvet2 in reply to mark311. | July 2, 2021 at 11:57 pm

        In fact, there were about 65K e-mails. About 35K were deleted and NEVER reviewed by anyone outside the Clinton cabal. The 30K you refer to were what was left after all the incriminating evidence was deleted. Let me point out the fact that deleting/destroying official government documents (which includes e-mails) is a felony. That comes out to 35K felonies for which she was not even officially investigated, much less held accountable. However, evidence from other sources tends to indicate that a significant number of them dealt with her selling her office in exchange for “contributions” to the Clinton Crime Foundation.

          mark311 in reply to txvet2. | July 3, 2021 at 8:51 am

          Let me point out that since it was on her personal server determining if it was official information is an assertion. She adhered to a process where her legal advisors sifted through and determined what was personal and what wasnt.

          I’d also point out that Trump did exactly the same thing regularly deleting official documents and using personal emails/phones/servers etc. Are you suggesting that Trump and and his various family members should be criminalised for this too?

2smartforlibs | July 1, 2021 at 4:07 pm

Typical left-wing tantrum. Will we see the power families of Clinton and BUYden grilled over their tax issues with undisclosed money?

So for 15 years, the Trump organization had every aspect of its spending approved by tax professionals who determined that these expenditures were legal. Now, the feds and NY state have decided that these expenditures are somehow illegal.

I want to know how many attorneys on the prosecution team had expenditures of the same type over the last 15 years.

Pot, meet kettle.

    mark311 in reply to georgfelis. | July 2, 2021 at 8:58 am

    You really think that there would be expenditures like private education for any of the prosecutors team. Man, I’ve seen some bad arguments but that is pretty poor.

Juris Doctor | July 1, 2021 at 4:14 pm

There are glaring jurisdictional and standing defects throughout the indictment. Specifically, Count (2) alleges that Mr. Weisselberg short changed the IRS. That claim belongs exclusively to the federal government. Cy Vance cannot assert that on their behalf in state court.

    OleDirtyBarrister in reply to Juris Doctor. | July 1, 2021 at 6:17 pm

    The fact that they mention the violation of federal law as well does not necessarily meant they indicted for it. But it does have a confusing tenor.

    OleDirtyBarrister in reply to Juris Doctor. | July 1, 2021 at 6:18 pm

    I meant to add that it seems the prosecutors are trying to get the feds to jump on them or perhaps they are implying that they are working with the feds.

bobinreverse | July 1, 2021 at 4:24 pm

Weisselberg – the new Mickster.

Nothing more than a political hit job by conmen that work for a corrupt government.

I’m sure the screws will be put on him to make up new charges.

    Ben Kent in reply to Skip. | July 1, 2021 at 5:39 pm

    They will twist the knife until he not just sings – he composes.
    > As some legal eagles have pointed out.

The obvious tactic here is to squeeze Weisselberg until he turns on Trump and says whatever the Trump hating inquisitors want him to say.

Mueller and Weissmann tried to use this tactic during the Russia, Russia, Russia inquisition. Several people they tried to squeeze have gone on record about it.

Unless they practice a novel jurisprudence, they will open investigations of every public and private; for-profit and non-profit; agency, institution, and business; domestic and foreign; starting with their own.

Can they abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too?

OK.

Now give the Clinton Foundation the same financial accounting and tax liability proctological examination. And then do Hunter Biden and his dad.

On second thought, do Hunter and his dad first.

Hillary Clinton still slithers free.

This is grotesque intimidation, Soviet style.

Discussion of secession, anyone? Or let it get worse?

Obvious partisan witch hunt, Hitler and Stalin would be proud. The real test is, if Weisselberg worked for the Biden or Clinton groups, would they have bothered to pursue this?

The sight of him on TV being perp walked, handcuffed, with his hands behind him just disgusted me. Cyrus Vance is a political hack

Might be more to the story than the Trump organization seems a divorce Might be involved

JHogan: Unless there is a clear and obvious attempt to defraud the government the usual IRS approach to situations like this is to not prosecute if the tax and interest is paid.

That’s right. They have to show that it was not just an error, but intentional; otherwise, it’s a civil matter.

JHogan: Normally what happens in these sorts of cases is that an audit is conducted, and if discrepancies are found, additional taxes and penalties are assessed, not criminal prosecution.

That’s right. It’s not a crime to owe the tax authorities money — unless there is evidence of intention to defraud.

georgfelis: So for 15 years, the Trump organization had every aspect of its spending approved by tax professionals who determined that these expenditures were legal.

The allegation is that they did not provide the information to their tax professionals, that they essentially had two sets of books.

2smartforlibs: Will we see the power families of Clinton and BUYden {sic} grilled over their tax issues with undisclosed money?

The Clintons, the Bidens, and the Clinton Foundation have all disclosed their tax returns and sources of income. The Clinton Foundation has annual, independent audits.

mark311: When you say ruin his life you mean jail time.

Those who complain about two tiers of justice are right. Rich people are rarely held to account. Even when convicted, connections by the rich may result in a pardon. Meanwhile, people have gone to jail for decades for stealing a few dollars.

    Sorry. The 2nd quote should have been attributed to Brave Sir Robbin.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Zachriel. | July 2, 2021 at 1:04 pm

      No problem. Oddly we agree entirely here, except I think the annual audits of the Clinton Foundation have not been entirely independent or sound. Elites, not just the Clintons, are misusing charitable foundations to hide taxes while maintaining control of the funds to fund vanity enterprises, employ or pad the income of various associates and family members, and use the funds to pay for extravagant activities such as trips abroad to meetings and conference, parties, and the like. This is a not a corruption limited to the Clintons, but that who :but for a modest donation to my favorite charity” stich, it’s just more in your face, in my opinion.

      This may be legal, but it does not make it anything less than sleazy.

        Brave Sir Robbin: except I think the annual audits of the Clinton Foundation have not been entirely independent or sound.

        The latest audit was by CohnReznick, one of the highest ranked auditors in the U.S.

        Brave Sir Robbin: Elites, not just the Clintons, are misusing charitable foundations to hide taxes while maintaining control of the funds to fund vanity enterprises, employ or pad the income of various associates and family members, and use the funds to pay for extravagant activities such as trips abroad to meetings and conference, parties, and the like.

        There is no evidence of misuse of Foundation funds. The Foundation has a program percentage of 75%. The Clintons receive no salary. The Foundation has worked on many important initiatives, including economic development, public health, and climate change.

        Brave Sir Robbin: This may be legal, but it does not make it anything less than sleazy.

        The Clintons clearly have interests in charitable work, but also want to be seen as doing good. That’s how nearly all charities work.

    mark311 in reply to Zachriel. | July 2, 2021 at 4:15 pm

    Well said Zach

    Barry in reply to Zachriel. | July 2, 2021 at 5:36 pm

    “The Clinton Foundation has annual, independent audits.”

    You are really trying to provide the laughter today.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend