HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Honeycombe8 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 36 Next »

Honeycombe8

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: LA
Member since: Sat Feb 10, 2007, 12:29 PM
Number of posts: 37,648

Journal Archives

Dedicated to "REO" Ben Carson: REO SPEEDWAGON "Take it on the Run"



Excerpts from Court decision Ruling Acctg Firm Must Hand Over Trump Financial Records

Judge Orders Accounting Firm to Hand Over Records to Congress


The decision to issue the subpoena came about after the President’s former lawyer and confidant,
Michael Cohen, testified before the House Oversight Committee that the President routinely would
alter the estimated value of his assets and liabilities on financial statements, depending on the
purpose for which a statement was needed. For instance, Cohen said that the President provided
inflated financial statements to a bank to obtain a loan to purchase a National Football League
franchise. But when it came time to calculate his real estate taxes, the President would deflate the
value of certain assets
. To support his accusations, Cohen produced financial statements from
2011, 2012, and 2013, at least two of which were prepared by Mazars.


History has shown that congressionally-exposed criminal conduct by the President or a
high-ranking Executive Branch official can lead to legislation. The Senate Watergate Committee
provides an apt example.


As the Supreme Court observed in McGrain, the power to investigate is deeply
rooted in the nation’s history....


“From the earliest times in its history, the Congress has assiduously performed an ‘informing function’ of this nature.” Id. (citing James M. Landis, Constitutional Limitations on the Congressional Power of Investigation, 40 HARV. L. REV. 153, 168–194 (1926)).


It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present—even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry. On this score, history provides a useful guide. Cf. Tobin v. United States, 306 F.2d 270, 275–76 (D.C. Cir. 1962) (relying on historical practice to determine the scope of a congressional investigation). Twice in the last 50 years Congress has investigated a sitting President for alleged law violations, before initiating impeachment proceedings. It did so in 1973 by establishing the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, better known as the Watergate Committee, and then did so again in 1995 by establishing the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters.


VI. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court will enter judgment in favor of the House Oversight Committee and against Plaintiffs. The court denies Plaintiffs’ request for a stay pending appeal. A separate final order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.


Dated: May 20, 2019
Amit P. Mehta
United States District Court Judge


http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/05/20/mehta.opinion.in.trump.subpoena.case.pdf

Note: Rep. Elijah Cummings, Chair of the House Oversight Committee, and his staff, are the bomb! His well written & detailed letters to the committee, outlining the reasons for the subpoena was used by the Court to determine that there were justifiable reasons for the subpoena.

CNN: Judge Orders Accounting Firm to Hand Over Records to Congress



History has shown that congressionally-exposed criminal conduct by the President or a
high-ranking Executive Branch official can lead to legislation. The Senate Watergate Committee
provides an apt example.


As the Supreme Court observed in McGrain, the power to investigate is deeply
rooted in the nation’s history: “


“From the earliest times in its history, the Congress has assiduously
performed an ‘informing function’ of this nature.” Id. (citing James M. Landis, Constitutional
Limitations on the Congressional Power of Investigation, 40 HARV. L. REV. 153, 168–194
(1926)).


It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants
Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny
Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present—even without
formally opening an impeachment inquiry. On this score, history provides a useful guide.
Cf. Tobin v. United States, 306 F.2d 270, 275–76 (D.C. Cir. 1962) (relying on historical practice
to determine the scope of a congressional investigation). Twice in the last 50 years Congress has
investigated a sitting President for alleged law violations, before initiating impeachment
proceedings. It did so in 1973 by establishing the Senate Select Committee on Presidential
Campaign Activities, better known as the Watergate Committee, and then did so again in 1995 by
establishing the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and
Related Matters.


"How Did Trump Live So Large While Reporting Such Huge Losses?"

Here's a background tweet by Trump, to remind us what Trump has said about his yuge losses:


Real estate developers in the 1980’s & 1990’s, more than 30 years ago, were entitled to massive write offs and depreciation which would, if one was actively building, show losses and tax losses in almost all cases. Much was non monetary. Sometimes considered “tax shelter,” ……

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 8, 2019


But here is a good article that explains a few things about Trump's so-called "paper losses" in this tax returns.
http://fortune.com/2019/05/15/trump-tax-losses/

Real-estate developer Donald Trump in 1992 lived in a New York luxury apartment, traveled by limousine and had personal bodyguards. That year, he also reported a negative $750 million adjusted gross income to the IRS.

How the future president could live so large while reporting such huge losses has been a question since the New York Times revealed a decade of Trump’s tax information last week. While the president claims there were paper losses that could be chalked up to real-estate activities, four tax experts said that for the president to have claimed such a giant negative income, his businesses must have bled money for years.

(snip)
To have achieved a billion dollars in losses, Trump would have had to lose actual money. And the fact that he continued to live in high style even after such failures means he would have had to either lose someone else’s money or get cash injections from another source.

(snip)
Yet even those deductions aren’t enough to explain Trump’s losses, according to Blattmachr and three other tax attorneys. The losses in the Trump core businesses in the decade through 1994, would have required Trump and his companies to own billions of dollars more in real estate than he did.

(snip)
It’s much more likely that the failure of Trump’s companies in the 1980s and 1990s generated hundreds of millions in losses, said Steven Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. As the businesses failed, their losses flowed through to Trump’s own returns, and he used them to offset any income he made elsewhere.

Trump also appears to have tried to stretch the tax code to magnify those benefits even more, Rosenthal said. “Was Trump worse off after a decade of red? Not really because it was other people’s money,” Rosenthal said.


Here's Trump's now famous statement about using OPM ("other people's money" ) at about 1:30. Remember how Trump used his charitable foundation to commission a portrait of himself and to pay off lawsuit settlements?

Trump was in my area today giving an "energy" speech

I saw him briefly when changing channels before a contractor showed up. Darn...I couldn't watch the speech. (sarcasm)

It pleased me to no end to see him sweating like a pig. It is SO humid here. His double chin was dripping, and his apple cheeks were shining through the powder they put on him. As he stood there in FULL DARK SUIT. No one in this climate wears a full dark suit in summer when outside. I guess he wanted to hide his growing girth.

It's sickening. The two Repub Senators here turned full Trump some time back, in return for "favors" done for the Senators (bills they were pushing for the state).

When he gave the speech, I'm sure they didn't stand near the beach, where the dead fish float in, along with the tar and foam from the offshore rigs.

A huge South Carolina poll: Biden at 46%

Wow. Biden is at an eye popping 46% in South Carolina in a new May poll. I don't recall ever seeing a primary where the front runner was this strong this early. South Carolina is important.

The next one behind him is Sanders, at 15%.

https://www.axios.com/joe-biden-south-carolina-2020-democratic-primary-18532704-8930-4b16-bffd-51d19466771f.html

Why it matters: Biden has developed deep ties to the early voting state throughout his political career, having spent more days in South Carolina "visiting, vacationing or politicking than the rest of the crowded field, combined," according to the Post and Courier. His appeal with black voters will play an especially important role in next February's primary vote.


Is he a cinch for the nomination? Or is it that he only has one way to go...down? Is he this far ahead in a key state because there are just too many candidates, so the unknowns can't get air time or capture the attention of the public?

I'm sure he's going to get some big donations rolling in, over this poll. S Carolina is a key state for Democrats, with a high Af. American demographic.

In the meantime, Beto has announced a re-introduction and revamping of his entrance to the race. That sounds bad.

Rtd SCt Justice Stevens: "The President is exercising powers that do not really belong to him"

Retired S. Ct. Justice John Paul Stevens was appointed by President Gerald Ford in 1975 & served until his retirement in 2010. He's a lifelong Republican whose rulings often leaned left.

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens accused President Donald Trump of exceeding his presidential powers in an interview published Thursday, telling The Wall Street Journal that the President "has to comply with subpoenas."
(snip)
Asked about the modern political landscape, Stevens told the Journal, "I think there are things we should be concerned about, there's no doubt about that."

"The President is exercising powers that do not really belong to him," Stevens added. "I mean, he has to comply with subpoenas and things like that."

As to how the Supreme Court would handle a case between Trump and the Democrat-led House of Representatives, Stevens told the paper, "I wouldn't want to predict that anybody's going to take the incorrect view. But certainly, the correct view is pretty clear."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/10/politics/john-paul-stevens-wsj-trump/index.html

"The correct view is pretty clear"? What does he mean? I think he meant the view that Congress is proceeding correctly, in whatever it does...getting documents, investigating, maybe impeachment? Is he implying that he can foresee that a court would take the incorrect view, despite the correct view being clear? He could be implying that.

Once Rosenstein leaves, he'll be free to talk.

I doubt there's an NDA, since he wasn't part of Trump's team. He was a staff asst D.A.

So this could be interesting. Or not.

A book? Leaking information? Testimony?

I don't know what he'd have to say, but he's got some stories, for sure.

Shouldn't the House have Mueller testify AFTER he leaves the DOJ?

Mueller is supposed to be leaving the DOJ "in the coming days." If he testifies before he leaves, then doesn't the DOJ (Barr) have control over what they let him testify to? Shouldn't Congress wait until Mueller leaves before questioning him, so that he's not under the control of Barr?

I wonder if Barr offers Mueller a bonus to stay on longer, or asks him to do an extra task or two.

Don Trump Jr.'s FIRST testimony before Senate Intelligence Committe

The Chairman is Richard Burr. The Senate Intel Committee Chairman Burr has said several times that they hadn't found any hard evidence of "collusion" with Russia, but Burr hadn't shut the door on it completely.

They've already been investigating the Russia infiltration matter for many months, starting in 2017. They have issued decisions along the way (that Russia did interfere on direct orders from Putin), but that they hadn't found any collusion and didn't expect to.

Trump Jr. did testify before the Committee in 2018. Burr posted the testimony for the public. So here it is, with an intro article by Vox, for anyone who wants to read parts of it (it's very long, though).

So why are they having him come back? Maybe there are discrepancies between his testimony and what Mueller reported? Or maybe they want to wrap up or clarify some things?

Here is the link. In the article is the pdf of his testimony.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/16/17360484/donald-trump-jr-transcript-senate-judiciary-committee
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 36 Next »