Just an aside because it is in the news here (thanks to our public broadcaster) are there any anti-corruption commissions in the USA, on a state or federal level that can investigate politicians?
Oh, it's still alive and well on the state level, and used by both parties whenever they think they can get away with it.
I note the weasel words in the final clause but it needs stating clearly that the vast majority of recent gerrymandering has been by and for the benefit of the GOP.
The Trump phenomenon has exposed a dimension of democratic fragility. I had thought the Constitution was a strong protector but Trumpism has exposed how much it depended on norms. Couple that with State legislative power and we arrive today at a situation where a populist demagogue continues to threaten the democratic fabric of the USA in ways I had personally never foreseen.
Foresight was not necessary. One just has to look back at the Jim Crow South. The "democratic fabric" only included white people.
I agree with you Soror Magna, but for international fans of the USA like me who did not before Trump look closely at American political history, the Jim Crow South was a thing of the past, and its anti-democratic practices were limited to the South. Neither was true. Both were a shock to me in 2016.
In some parts of the U.S. free and fair elections only date back to the 1980s. There are still a lot of Americans alive today who lived under (and preferred) Jim Crow. That there is a faction wishing to restore the old days is no more surprising than various Eastern European countries having factions that pine for the days of Iron Curtain autocracies, something that went away around the same time. That's become one of the main positions of the Republican Party. When they talk about illegitimate or illegal voters, they mean that it's inherently illegitimate to let non-white people vote and any election in which non-white voters were a decisive factor is, by definition, fraudulent.
Just an aside because it is in the news here (thanks to our public broadcaster) are there any anti-corruption commissions in the USA, on a state or federal level that can investigate politicians?
Violations of anti-corruption laws are usually handled by the FBI (example). Legislative bodies usually have ethicscommittees that also investigate their own members.
In some parts of the U.S. free and fair elections only date back to the 1980s. There are still a lot of Americans alive today who lived under (and preferred) Jim Crow. That there is a faction wishing to restore the old days is no more surprising than various Eastern European countries having factions that pine for the days of Iron Curtain autocracies, something that went away around the same time. That's become one of the main positions of the Republican Party. When they talk about illegitimate or illegal voters, they mean that it's inherently illegitimate to let non-white people vote and any election in which non-white voters were a decisive factor is, by definition, fraudulent.
My father, orphaned at an early age, was brought up by well-off racists. Understand, I loved, respected, and admired my father (and he had, in truth, many admirable qualities); his racism didn't play much of a role in my upbringing. But it was there.
Here's what I learned about his racism over the years: it was profoundly deep-rooted, utterly irrational, and chillingly intractable. Despite this, my dad was in most other respects an intelligent, reasonable, thoughtful man with high moral standards (!!) and an admirable sense of honor (aside from the aspects that led him to believe that "darkies" simply lacked, through no fault of their own, the component self-bits that would allow them to develop into full moral beings.
If a person of color somehow did something admirable, displayed courage or honor or other commendable traits, this was always due to the influence of whites in the "negro's" life. Left the their own devices, blacks/negroes/darkies/insert insulting word of choice here, were incapable of acting admirably or honorably. They weren't "bad;" they were merely incapable of genuine, independent goodness.
As far as I know, he went to his death so convicted. I still wonder what he made of the fact that I simply could not and would not accept this belief.
*sigh* If my Dad has to be scourged for his racism before he gets through, my Mum is adding to her stroke count daily, as are many of my uncles, aunts and cousins, a few of my workmates and one of my clients. I'm pleased to say that my racist scourging is likely to be shorter than many, but I'm for it on pride, arrogance, judginess and general rudeness. And that's just the stuff I can see. Let's hope the Angel of God whips like a bored Mistress dressed in an SS uniform who's looking forward to her break.
On another issue, I think there is a Grand Jury reporting in about 6 months on whether to proceed with criminal charges concerning some of the many crimes committed by Trump and his related entities. Is there any chance that we can see him lashed in the streets of New York before them? Note that lashing is required, but I'm flexible on location.
Did anyone see the news story about Rudi Giuliani this morning? That he's had his licence to practise in New York suspended? Link to Guardian coverage
The New York supreme court issued its decision on Thursday, saying that it had found “uncontroverted evidence” that Giuliani made “demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large”, on behalf of his client, then-president Donald Trump, and created a “narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client”.
He should have been disbarred long ago. God willing, he still may be. But devil willing, I understand he has a set time in which to appeal the suspension.
Did anyone see the news story about Rudi Giuliani this morning? That he's had his licence to practise in New York suspended? Link to Guardian coverage
The New York supreme court issued its decision on Thursday, saying that it had found “uncontroverted evidence” that Giuliani made “demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large”, on behalf of his client, then-president Donald Trump, and created a “narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client”.
Since the quoted article begins, “ The New York supreme court issued its decision on Thursday, saying . . . ,” and in case people don’t know it from “Law and Order,” it might be worth mentioning for clarity that in New York the Supreme Court is the trial court, not the highest court of the state like it would be in almost every other state.
The Supreme Court has an appellate division, which is the middle tier of New York’s courts, and the appellate division appears to be the court that ruled here. The highest court of the state is the New York Court of Appeals.
Did anyone see the news story about Rudi Giuliani this morning? That he's had his licence to practise in New York suspended? Link to Guardian coverage
The New York supreme court issued its decision on Thursday, saying that it had found “uncontroverted evidence” that Giuliani made “demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large”, on behalf of his client, then-president Donald Trump, and created a “narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client”.
Since the quoted article begins, “ The New York supreme court issued its decision on Thursday, saying . . . ,” and in case people don’t know it from “Law and Order,” it might be worth mentioning for clarity that in New York the Supreme Court is the trial court, not the highest court of the state like it would be in almost every other state.
The Supreme Court has an appellate division, which is the middle tier of New York’s courts, and the appellate division appears to be the court that ruled here. The highest court of the state is the New York Court of Appeals.
Thanks - did not know that. How does a court at that level have the power to order disbarment? In my state, that can be done by a tribunal but only because it has power derived from legislation to do so.
Listening to US legal experts as I do,* sanctions against lawyers are extremely rare unless you actually steal funds from a client. Thus it is noteworthy that Rudy has been suspended.
AFZ
*I know this is a failing, but pray for me, don't judge.
Listening to US legal experts as I do,* sanctions against lawyers are extremely rare unless you actually steal funds from a client.
Not so in my experience. Disbarment may be rare except in cases of stealing from a client or a few other particular offenses. Lesser forms of sanction are not as rare.
How does a court at that level have the power to order disbarment? In my state, that can be done by a tribunal but only because it has power derived from legislation to do so.
As with so many things, it varies from state to state here. Where I live and practice, a lawyer can be disbarred or disciplined either by the State Bar or by a state court, though in practice courts generally defer to, and refer disciplinary matters to, the State Bar. But lawyers are officers of the court, and the court still has the inherent power to discipline them, even if that power is generally exercised only in particular circumstances.
CNN is reporting that the Trump Organization will likely be formally charged with tax evasion next week, This does not include Trump directly but it seems like another brick in the wall.
CNN is reporting that the Trump Organization will likely be formally charged with tax evasion next week, This does not include Trump directly but it seems like another brick in the wall.
But lawyers are officers of the court, and the court still has the inherent power to discipline them, even if that power is generally exercised only in particular circumstances.
As here, in addition to statutory schemes. About 20 years ago, several barristers, including at least one Senior Counsel I can recall, were disbarred for failing to pay income tax. All but one dealt with under the legislation, but one counsel was struck off by the Court of Appeal sitting as the Full Court (if you follow). I was involved in one case, where the Judge and I were the only ones not struck off within 12 months for tax evasion. That was at a time when there was a solid clamp by the tax office.
It is being reported that The Trump Organisation and CFO will be formally charged tomorrow.
Happy Days...
They have been saying this for the last week. Reminds me of the ice cream shop that put up a sign: "Free Ice Cream tomorrow." The next day came, all the kids were gathered around the shop, but the sign, "Free Ice Cream Tomorrow" was still there.
Three years of investigation into the Trump organization, and the best they could come up with is unpaid taxes on fringe benefits?
This is an almost perfect example of the two-tiered attitudes many Americans have about crime, where “real” crime has to be punished severely but white collar crime isn’t considered “real” crime. Someone who steals a handful of cash out of the till at the local post office has to be imprisoned by the draconian American judicial system, but stealing millions from the public fisc through tax fraud (allegedly), well . . .
Plus, Weisselberg may be the key for demonstrating intent by one Donald J Trump. Do you think the threat of a long time in prison might make Mr Weisselberg suddenly feel cooperative? I think the prosecutors do...
Three years of investigation into the Trump organization, and the best they could come up with is unpaid taxes on fringe benefits?
Does the encounter with Stormy Daniels count as a "fringe benefit" and, if so, how do they calculate tax on it? 🤣
Did Ms Daniels receive a fee (whether in cash or in kind) for her services? If so, was that fee paid for Mr Trump (rather than being out of his own pocket)?
I have no knowledge of American tax law, but from first principles if the answer to either question is 'no' then I would expect that Mr Trump is not taxable on anything arising from the episode in question. If he is taxable, I would imagine that the chargeable amount would reflect the actual payment (if in cash) or the cash value of anything received in kind by Ms Daniels or (if all else fails) her usual tariff.
There is also the way they overvalued their properties when going for loans and undervalued them when paying taxes (if any) on them. Then, if any of this went through the mails, there is mail fraud.
Plus, Weisselberg may be the key for demonstrating intent by one Donald J Trump. Do you think the threat of a long time in prison might make Mr Weisselberg suddenly feel cooperative? I think the prosecutors do...
AFZ
Is there any reason to think that unpaid taxes on fringe benefits is likely to lead to a long prison term? The materials I’ve seen online only mention fines, and also suggest that such violations are rampant and frequently ignored by the IRS. (This category doesn’t just apply to highly paid executives - even things like gift cards distributed to employees before a holiday are supposed to count as compensation and are thus subject to payroll taxes.) Perhaps we’ll know more later today.
Plus, Weisselberg may be the key for demonstrating intent by one Donald J Trump. Do you think the threat of a long time in prison might make Mr Weisselberg suddenly feel cooperative? I think the prosecutors do...
Everything I’ve heard suggests that this is at least part of what is going on. I would certainly not assume this is the end of any charges.
Does the encounter with Stormy Daniels count as a "fringe benefit" and, if so, how do they calculate tax on it? 🤣
Did Ms Daniels receive a fee (whether in cash or in kind) for her services? If so, was that fee paid for Mr Trump (rather than being out of his own pocket)?
Ms. Daniels (legal name Stephanie Clifford) received $130,000 in hush money. In that case the services she was being paid for was not telling people she had sex with Donald Trump, or at least not before the 2016 presidential election. The payment was made by Michael Cohen 86067-054, Mr. Trump's attorney at the time, through a shell corporation created for that purpose. According to Trump's subsequent personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, that $130,000 was later reimbursed by Donald Trump.
. . . then I would expect that Mr Trump is not taxable on anything arising from the episode in question. If he is taxable, I would imagine that the chargeable amount would reflect the actual payment (if in cash) or the cash value of anything received in kind by Ms Daniels or (if all else fails) her usual tariff.
What's the cash value of not having a sex scandal involving a porn star on the eve of a presidential election? This raises all kinds of questions about whether this violates FEC rules as an undeclared in-kind campaign contribution, let alone any possible issue involving unpaid taxes. Certainly the use of a shell company and an intermediary who could claim attorney-client privilege (Cohen 86067-054) indicates a certain mens rea. Note that Michael Cohen 86067-054 was convicted and is currently serving time for crimes including the Stormy Daniels hush money payment. Other crimes he was convicted of include tax evasion and perjury before Congress.
Is there any reason to think that unpaid taxes on fringe benefits is likely to lead to a long prison term?
It depends on if intent can be demonstrated. A trained accountant like Weisselberg typically gets less 'I made an oopsie' leeway than the ordinary taxpayer since they've been trained on what is and is not legal when it comes to taxes. As a professional who supposedly knows what he's doing, Weisselberg's actions are more easily assumed to be intentional. Accidentally not paying taxes you owe usually results in a fine. Intentionally not paying taxes you owe and deliberately structuring your transactions to conceal this fact can result in prison time. Just ask Michael Cohen, a.k.a. inmate 86067-054.
Weisselberg, Trump Organization CFO, has been charged with grand larceny in the second degree. If convicted he could face six months probation to 15 years imprisonment. He has been accused of not paying 1.7 million dollars in state taxes.
And you-know-who claims that it is only a ploy to get to him. This, of course, prompts the question, do you have something to be gotten at? But no one has asked that yet.
Let's be honest: if they had to arrest every single person on Wall Street who has ever avoided paying tax on 1.7m, the prison complex would need a few extra wings. But for the wealthy and well-connected, the usual punishment is just a slap on the wrist instead.
(Not saying Weisselberg should walk away scot-free if he's actually guilty, but the fact that after thousands of hours and millions of $$ spent on investigating the Trump organization and this is what the DA comes up with...kinda makes you wonder if there really is a 'there' there.)
1) What makes you think this is *all* they found, or intend to prosecute? I read it as an opening salvo. And nobody with any sense is going to reveal all their cards up front.
2) IMHO it's entirely appropriate to lead with the charges you know you're going to get a conviction on first, instead of starting out with the nuclear-but-risky charges that you might have a harder time proving.
3) If you want to "turn" someone to help in your further investigation, this is an entirely useful way of doing it.
Let's be honest: if they had to arrest every single person on Wall Street who has ever avoided paying tax on 1.7m, the prison complex would need a few extra wings. But for the wealthy and well-connected, the usual punishment is just a slap on the wrist instead.
This is one of the reasons the American penal system is so draconian. Those with the most power to push for reform (i.e. "the wealthy and well-connected") are confident that they will never be subjected to it.
Not saying Weisselberg should walk away scot-free if he's actually guilty . . .
And yet that's what it sounds like you're saying. This goes back to your previous post implying that tax fraud and grand larceny aren't real crimes. I've always disliked the rhetorical device of "I'm not saying [ thing I just said ], but [ slight variation on thing I just said ]."
For those who are interested the indictment can be found here [PDF].
@Powderkeg First, as I understand it (based on @Gramps49 post), it is not a case of "not paying taxes on $1.7 million." It is a case of "not paying $1.7 million in taxes." In other words, the amount stolen from the government (treating the illegal avoidance of taxes as stealing from the government) is $1.7 million. Pooh-poohing that as No Big Deal is ridiculous. If every person on Wall Street has stolen over $1 million from the government, then they all should be locked up.
Secondly, as LC just said, it is silly to think this is "all they got." It is leverage to lead to further investigation and further wrongful conduct. They can put pressure on Weisselberg to reveal where some of the other bodies are buried in exchange for going easier on him. That is a standard tactic in such matters. Some years ago around my parts, a man with a lot of political pull got convicted of murder--the key evidence came from his brother, whom the prosecutors got to flip by pushing a drug case against him. The principle is the same. In other words, give the prosecution some credit for having brains in their heads.
@Powderkeg First, as I understand it (based on @Gramps49 post), it is not a case of "not paying taxes on $1.7 million." It is a case of "not paying $1.7 million in taxes." In other words, the amount stolen from the government (treating the illegal avoidance of taxes as stealing from the government) is $1.7 million.
That is what @Gramps49 said, but it’s not what the indictment says. The indictment says failure to report and pay taxes on at least $1.7M in income.
But yes, it is silly to assume this is all that prosecutors found or will charge.
Comments
I note the weasel words in the final clause but it needs stating clearly that the vast majority of recent gerrymandering has been by and for the benefit of the GOP.
"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
In some parts of the U.S. free and fair elections only date back to the 1980s. There are still a lot of Americans alive today who lived under (and preferred) Jim Crow. That there is a faction wishing to restore the old days is no more surprising than various Eastern European countries having factions that pine for the days of Iron Curtain autocracies, something that went away around the same time. That's become one of the main positions of the Republican Party. When they talk about illegitimate or illegal voters, they mean that it's inherently illegitimate to let non-white people vote and any election in which non-white voters were a decisive factor is, by definition, fraudulent.
Violations of anti-corruption laws are usually handled by the FBI (example). Legislative bodies usually have ethics committees that also investigate their own members.
My father, orphaned at an early age, was brought up by well-off racists. Understand, I loved, respected, and admired my father (and he had, in truth, many admirable qualities); his racism didn't play much of a role in my upbringing. But it was there.
Here's what I learned about his racism over the years: it was profoundly deep-rooted, utterly irrational, and chillingly intractable. Despite this, my dad was in most other respects an intelligent, reasonable, thoughtful man with high moral standards (!!) and an admirable sense of honor (aside from the aspects that led him to believe that "darkies" simply lacked, through no fault of their own, the component self-bits that would allow them to develop into full moral beings.
If a person of color somehow did something admirable, displayed courage or honor or other commendable traits, this was always due to the influence of whites in the "negro's" life. Left the their own devices, blacks/negroes/darkies/insert insulting word of choice here, were incapable of acting admirably or honorably. They weren't "bad;" they were merely incapable of genuine, independent goodness.
As far as I know, he went to his death so convicted. I still wonder what he made of the fact that I simply could not and would not accept this belief.
My father lamented the fact in me.
On another issue, I think there is a Grand Jury reporting in about 6 months on whether to proceed with criminal charges concerning some of the many crimes committed by Trump and his related entities. Is there any chance that we can see him lashed in the streets of New York before them? Note that lashing is required, but I'm flexible on location.
The Supreme Court has an appellate division, which is the middle tier of New York’s courts, and the appellate division appears to be the court that ruled here. The highest court of the state is the New York Court of Appeals.
Thanks - did not know that. How does a court at that level have the power to order disbarment? In my state, that can be done by a tribunal but only because it has power derived from legislation to do so.
AFZ
*I know this is a failing, but pray for me, don't judge.
As with so many things, it varies from state to state here. Where I live and practice, a lawyer can be disbarred or disciplined either by the State Bar or by a state court, though in practice courts generally defer to, and refer disciplinary matters to, the State Bar. But lawyers are officers of the court, and the court still has the inherent power to discipline them, even if that power is generally exercised only in particular circumstances.
It's a start.
As here, in addition to statutory schemes. About 20 years ago, several barristers, including at least one Senior Counsel I can recall, were disbarred for failing to pay income tax. All but one dealt with under the legislation, but one counsel was struck off by the Court of Appeal sitting as the Full Court (if you follow). I was involved in one case, where the Judge and I were the only ones not struck off within 12 months for tax evasion. That was at a time when there was a solid clamp by the tax office.
You know who can still practice law in New York?
But her emails... oh and Benghazi. Has anyone investigated that yet?
AFZ
Oh, I forgot about her.
Trump's usual word-mangling and general stupidity was given short shrift by one commentator.
This is an outstanding quote from Colbert: “In the end, Mitch McConnell sold his soul for nothing. So, a pretty fair price.”
Happy Days...
They have been saying this for the last week. Reminds me of the ice cream shop that put up a sign: "Free Ice Cream tomorrow." The next day came, all the kids were gathered around the shop, but the sign, "Free Ice Cream Tomorrow" was still there.
Isn't that the kind of thing that's typically handled with a bill in the mail?
It is being reported that a Trump visit to the USS Alabama Battleship Memorial is being cancelled because the organizers suddenly discovered that
Really. That shocked them? They really, really, really didn't think that Donald Trump would engage in partisan politics?
Really?
Really?
I'm sorry, but can the event organizers point me to even ONE event that Trump did not make a partisan political event?
This is an almost perfect example of the two-tiered attitudes many Americans have about crime, where “real” crime has to be punished severely but white collar crime isn’t considered “real” crime. Someone who steals a handful of cash out of the till at the local post office has to be imprisoned by the draconian American judicial system, but stealing millions from the public fisc through tax fraud (allegedly), well . . .
a.k.a. Rich Man’s Justice.
This.
Plus, Weisselberg may be the key for demonstrating intent by one Donald J Trump. Do you think the threat of a long time in prison might make Mr Weisselberg suddenly feel cooperative? I think the prosecutors do...
AFZ
Does the encounter with Stormy Daniels count as a "fringe benefit" and, if so, how do they calculate tax on it? 🤣
Did Ms Daniels receive a fee (whether in cash or in kind) for her services? If so, was that fee paid for Mr Trump (rather than being out of his own pocket)?
I have no knowledge of American tax law, but from first principles if the answer to either question is 'no' then I would expect that Mr Trump is not taxable on anything arising from the episode in question. If he is taxable, I would imagine that the chargeable amount would reflect the actual payment (if in cash) or the cash value of anything received in kind by Ms Daniels or (if all else fails) her usual tariff.
What exactly would you prefer the unpaid taxes to be on?
Ms. Daniels (legal name Stephanie Clifford) received $130,000 in hush money. In that case the services she was being paid for was not telling people she had sex with Donald Trump, or at least not before the 2016 presidential election. The payment was made by Michael Cohen 86067-054, Mr. Trump's attorney at the time, through a shell corporation created for that purpose. According to Trump's subsequent personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, that $130,000 was later reimbursed by Donald Trump.
It is not. The answer to both questions is 'yes'.
What's the cash value of not having a sex scandal involving a porn star on the eve of a presidential election? This raises all kinds of questions about whether this violates FEC rules as an undeclared in-kind campaign contribution, let alone any possible issue involving unpaid taxes. Certainly the use of a shell company and an intermediary who could claim attorney-client privilege (Cohen 86067-054) indicates a certain mens rea. Note that Michael Cohen 86067-054 was convicted and is currently serving time for crimes including the Stormy Daniels hush money payment. Other crimes he was convicted of include tax evasion and perjury before Congress.
It depends on if intent can be demonstrated. A trained accountant like Weisselberg typically gets less 'I made an oopsie' leeway than the ordinary taxpayer since they've been trained on what is and is not legal when it comes to taxes. As a professional who supposedly knows what he's doing, Weisselberg's actions are more easily assumed to be intentional. Accidentally not paying taxes you owe usually results in a fine. Intentionally not paying taxes you owe and deliberately structuring your transactions to conceal this fact can result in prison time. Just ask Michael Cohen, a.k.a. inmate 86067-054.
(Not saying Weisselberg should walk away scot-free if he's actually guilty, but the fact that after thousands of hours and millions of $$ spent on investigating the Trump organization and this is what the DA comes up with...kinda makes you wonder if there really is a 'there' there.)
2) IMHO it's entirely appropriate to lead with the charges you know you're going to get a conviction on first, instead of starting out with the nuclear-but-risky charges that you might have a harder time proving.
3) If you want to "turn" someone to help in your further investigation, this is an entirely useful way of doing it.
This is one of the reasons the American penal system is so draconian. Those with the most power to push for reform (i.e. "the wealthy and well-connected") are confident that they will never be subjected to it.
And yet that's what it sounds like you're saying. This goes back to your previous post implying that tax fraud and grand larceny aren't real crimes. I've always disliked the rhetorical device of "I'm not saying [ thing I just said ], but [ slight variation on thing I just said ]."
For those who are interested the indictment can be found here [PDF].
Secondly, as LC just said, it is silly to think this is "all they got." It is leverage to lead to further investigation and further wrongful conduct. They can put pressure on Weisselberg to reveal where some of the other bodies are buried in exchange for going easier on him. That is a standard tactic in such matters. Some years ago around my parts, a man with a lot of political pull got convicted of murder--the key evidence came from his brother, whom the prosecutors got to flip by pushing a drug case against him. The principle is the same. In other words, give the prosecution some credit for having brains in their heads.
But yes, it is silly to assume this is all that prosecutors found or will charge.
Or better still, transported. I hear Guam is lovely this time of year.