The Trump Card...

[muttly]

Nobody really knows the origin of the virus and we may never actually know where it made the jump from bats to humans.

No, he wasnt right, did some of the people who took it get better, yes but would they have recovered the same if had take nothing???? Hard to say....

1 in 3 hospitalized compared to 1 in 5. Extrapolate those numbers in cases in thiis country and others, if it was made widely available to those that wanted to take it.
But anti Trumpers wanted to politicize this helpful drug.
TDS caused people to die.

 

[ATeam]

I expect the crowd size to be tiny compared to his campaign rallies of old. First, it's not campaign season.

I looked in on the live shot to check crowd size. It is way smaller than Trump's campaign rallies of old, but that can be expected given that we're not in a campaign season and Trump is not a candidate. That said, the crowd is a good-size crowd. Not huge like Trump's previous rallies, but any politician would be delighted to have a crowd as large as the one Trump has tonight.

 

[Turtle]

Nobody really knows the origin of the virus and we may never actually know where it made the jump from bats to humans.

Uhm, if nobody really knows the origin of the virus, how do you know it made the jump from bats to humans? Meaning, if it made the jump from bats to humans, that's the origin.

But it certainly didn't jump from bats to humans. Scientists know that for a fact. The reason they know it is twofold.

One is because the coronavirus found in bats is a distant relative to the one found in humans, and the one in bats isn't even infectious to humans. You can directly inject or snort the bat virus and it has no effect on people. So if it did jump from bats to humans it would be the same strain found in bats, but it's not. The one infecting humans has gone through hundreds or thousands of mutations, somewhere between 5 and 50 years worth, from the one found in bats. In order for it to have happened naturally, all those mutations would have had to happen in some other host before it got to humans. It couldn't have jumped from bats to humans and instantly go through years or decades worth of mutations to be so infectious, harmful and as easily spread. It wasn't a pangolin, either, because the coronavirus found in pangolins isn't related to the bat or the human coronavirus.

The other reason they know it didn't jump from bats, and is proof that it came from a lab is, the covid coronavirus contains a very specific DNA sequence that only exists in a virology lab and doesn't exist in nature. Labs insert it into the DNA sequence of viruses, in a very specific location, in order to track mutations. It's a sequence that can't bond naturally and was created in the lab for that very reason.

In January of last year, when the outbreak first hit, virologists who knew exactly the sequence to look for and exactly where to look said, "Lookie here! This came from a lab!" But the media and Big Tech said, "No! No! No! Trump cannot and will not be right on this!" and they disappeared all talk of such nonsense. The scientists who had a vested interest in not having gain-of-function research scrutinized said the notion of a lab leak was preposterous. And the WHO, bought and paid for by China, said, "Nope. We looked into it. No lab leak in China. Impossible!"

So Trump was right. Again.

Just like he was right when he said Don Lemon is the dumbest person on television.

Look at Don's cookie jar in his kitchen. In the words of Tucker Carlson, it's a "white supremacist QAnon cookie jar.”

 

[Turtle]

... criminal charges against the Trump Organization are likely to be filed next week.

People who think this means they're finally gonna git him, that Trump will be charged, found guilty, and then perp-walked in an orange jumpsuit to prison are in for a massive letdown.

They're investigating that one or more of the organization's executives failed to pay income taxes on fringe benefits. It's one of the most common "crimes" committed by businesses. The penalty for that is usually, "You owe this much, plus a penalty fine, so here's the bill, pay it."

 

[danthewolf00]

Hunter got 83k a month.....
Daddy had to go stop a investigation by a Ukraine prosecutor by threatening to block aid funding.
1 billion in aid vs. a prosecutor is cheap.
And oh there is video of Biden sr. bragging about doing it.....

 

[ATeam]

People who think this means they're finally gonna git him, that Trump will be charged, found guilty, and then perp-walked in an orange jumpsuit to prison are in for a massive letdown.

They're investigating that one or more of the organization's executives failed to pay income taxes on fringe benefits. It's one of the most common "crimes" committed by businesses. The penalty for that is usually, "You owe this much, plus a penalty fine, so here's the bill, pay it."

You're right about the hoped-for perp walk scene. I hope you realize by now that I am not one to read more into legal developments than what's actually there. What's there for us to know so far in a way that can be objectivly confirmed, is the expectation that criminal charges (yet to be specified) will be filed this week. Anything beyond that is speculation, which some people find fun to do but I find unproductive and unhelpful.

 

[ATeam]

They're investigating that one or more of the organization's executives failed to pay income taxes on fringe benefits. It's one of the most common "crimes" committed by businesses. The penalty for that is usually, "You owe this much, plus a penalty fine, so here's the bill, pay it."

While I question your claim that failure "... to pay income taxes on fringe benefits is one of the most common 'crimes' committed by business," the rest of what you say is true in civil matters. But it appears something more serious is will be charged this week since it is not civil but criminal charges that will be filed against the Trump Organization.

It has never before entered my mind to ask, "what are the most common crimes committed by business?" But your comment made me curious, so I asked Google that very question. A quick review of the results tells me that the failure to pay income taxes on fringe benefits is a form of tax evasion. In the several articles that my Google search produced, tax evasion did not come close to topping any list of common business crimes.

This kind of tax evasion happens when an employer provides a fringe benefit to an employee and either the employer or employee fails to report the financial value of that benefit as taxable income.

For example, if, as an incentive to entice a manager to relocate to our area and work for us, my company provides the new manager with a free apartment for one year that costs the company $1,200 per month to rent ($24,000 per year), that is called payment in kind and it is considered taxable income.

That income is taxed at two levels. The company pays payroll taxes on it like we pay taxes on all other money and items of value paid to our employees. And the employee pays income tax on the items received. The company is also required to withhold a certain amount of the employee's gross pay and send it directly to the IRS. The amount withheld is calculated on the employee's total income, which in this case includes the $24,000 in-kind payment for housing.

The If the employee intentionally fails to include the $24,000 on his or her income tax return, it is tax evasion and a reporting violation by the employee. If the employer intentionally fails to report the $24,000 to the IRS, it is tax evasion and a reporting violation by the employer.

Such things are crimes, but, based on my Google search results, they are not one of the most common crimes committed by businesses.

 

[muttly]

While I question your claim that failure "... to pay income taxes on fringe benefits is one of the most common 'crimes' committed by business," the rest of what you say is true in civil matters. But it appears something more serious is will be charged this week since it is not civil but criminal charges that will be filed against the Trump Organization.

It has never before entered my mind to ask, "what are the most common crimes committed by business?" But your comment made me curious, so I asked Google that very question. A quick review of the results tells me that the failure to pay income taxes on fringe benefits is a form of tax evasion. In the several articles that my Google search produced, tax evasion did not come close to topping any list of common business crimes.

This kind of tax evasion happens when an employer provides a fringe benefit to an employee and either the employer or employee fails to report the financial value of that benefit as taxable income.

For example, if, as an incentive to entice a manager to relocate to our area and work for us, my company provides the new manager with a free apartment for one year that costs the company $1,200 per month to rent, that is called payment in kind and it is considered taxable income.

That income is taxed at two levels. They company pays payroll tax on it like we pay tax on all other money and items of value paid to our employees. And the employee pays income tax on the items received. If the employee intentionally fails to declare the $24,000 ($1,200 per mo.) on his or her income tax return, it is tax evasion and a reporting violation by the employee. If the employer intentionally fails to report to the IRS the $1,200, it is tax evasion and a reporting violation by the employer.

Such things are crimes, but, based on my Google search results, they are not one of the most common crimes committed by businesses.

Because Dem Prosecutors in New York are similar to the the mobs that reigned there. Targeting their political enemies by concocting criminal charges with the blessing of politically activist partisan judges and the help of Grand Juries comprised of people from an area that voted against him 90 +. No checks on them. Just enablers.

 

[ATeam]

Because Dem Prosecutors in New York are similar to the the mobs that reigned there. Targeting their political enemies by concocting criminal charges with the blessing of politically activist partisan judges and the help of Grand Juries comprised of people from an area that voted against him 90 +. No checks on them. Just enablers.

Trump challenged and continues to challenge this investigation with numerous legal maneuvers, some of which came before judges appointed by Trump himself. The courts, including the Supreme Court of the U.S. did not stop the investigation or block evidence from being obtained. They specifically allowed the investigation proceed. Unless you consider the Trump appointed judges to be "politically activist partisan judges," your statement is supported by nothing more than the partisan assertion you yourself make.

You are correct about the voting results of the area from which the grand jurors are drawn. Only 12.3% of voters who voted there voted for Trump in 2020. But that is not the reason the grand jury was there convened. This is happening in Manhattan because Trump lived there when the alleged crimes were allegedly committed and the Trump Organization is headquartered there. That district suited Trump just fine as a place to live and work. He's stuck with it now as the investigations proceed.

Finally, contrary to your statement "no checks on them," there are checks in place to protect people against proprietorial overreach and grand jury errors. They are called appeals and Trump has invoked his right of appeal several times already. The problem for him is not that there are no checks in place. The problem is that when the checks are invoked and the appeals are heard, the judges (including some Trump-appointed judges) are finding the legal arguements the prosecutors make prevail.

 

[muttly]

Trump challenged and continues to challenge this investigation with numerous legal maneuvers, some of which came before judges appointed by Trump himself. The courts, including the Supreme Court of the U.S. did not stop the investigation or block evidence from being obtained. They specifically allowed the investigation proceed. Unless you consider the Trump appointed judges to be "politically activist partisan judges," your statement is supported by nothing more than the partisan assertion you yourself make.

You are correct about the voting results of the area from which the grand jurors are drawn. Only 12.3% of voters who voted there voted for Trump in 2020. But that is not the reason the grand jury was there convened. This is happening in Manhattan because Trump lived there when the alleged crimes were allegedly committed and the Trump Organization is headquartered there. That district suited Trump just fine as a place to live and work. He's stuck with it now as the investigations proceed.

My comments are about the political partisan judges in New York specifically where these investigations ORIGINATED from. And they originated because political activists in prosecutorial positions want to destroy him and his associates. Yes it suited Trump fine when he lived there 70+years. UNTIL he became a political opponent of theirs. (then it all changed with them) NOW they want to destroy him.
It's about a lack of integrity with them. And those that are for these concocted criminal charges lack integrity and are intellectually dishonest.

* A pattern with partisan Dem Prosecutors against Trump and associates:
A NDA is considered a crime.
A FARA violation is adjudicated with a prison sentence instead of paying a fine.
Not paying taxes on Fringe benefits is adjudicated with jail time instead of paying a fine.

 

[ATeam]

My comments are about the political partisan judges in New York specifically where these investigations ORIGINATED from. And they originated because political activists in prosecutorial positions want to destroy him and his associates.

How do you know this?

Who, specifically, are the "political activists in proseceturial positions" you are talking about?

How do you know they want to destroy Trump and his associates?

In the interests of clarity, it will be helpful to state which investigations we are talking about. The one I have in mind is the one associated with Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance. The grand jury he convened apparently voted to indict the Trump Organization and we are expecting to learn the details of the charges this week.

So, regarding Vance, how do you answer the above questions?

Another investigation that is prominent in the news is the one being conducted by NY State AG Letitia James. Regarding the origination of that investigation, information about her motives is readily available. "As a candidate in 2018, James called Trump an 'illegitimate president' and told voters that she would challenge Trump’s policies and investigate his businesses." (Source)

James is also on record saying that the investigation she is conducting "... was triggered by testimony from Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, who told Congress that Trump had repeatedly exaggerated the values of his assets to fool lenders and tax authorities." (Source)

These two statements by James do not contradict each other. Yes, she considered Trump an illegitimate president, yes, as a candidate for AG, she stated her intent to use the power of her office to challenge and investigate Trump (and the people elected her partly on that campaign promise), and yes (when the opportunity rose to legally do so), she originated an investigation, using the probable cause Trump's former attorney Cohen provided when he publicly stated under oath that illegal acts had been committed.

I'm not going to go so far as to say James hates Trump, any more than I would go so far as to say Trump hates James. What they have said about each other is a matter of public record. What they truly think and feel in their heads and hearts is known only by them, unless they tell us otherwise. Hate is a vague word. Until a public figure actually says he or she hates someone or something, I'm reluctant to put that word in their mouths.

Reviewing the James statements, there is no question in my mind that she considered Trump to be an illegitimate president. She said that very thing (kinda like Trump is saying now that Biden is an illegitimate president or words to that effect). But that view does not preclude a state AG from launching a legitimate investigation where legally viable probable cause exists.

I'm inclined to make a similar argument supporting Vance's decision to launch an investigation. I'm inclined to believe probable cause exists and the investigation is legitimate, not because Vance feels one way or another about Trump, but because probable cause actually existed.

I believe this because checks and balances are in place to preclude prosecutors from launching cases and abusing their for emotional reasons. I believe this because the Vance investigation has been challenged several times in various courts for various reasons. And if it was actually true that this was a case without grounds, a court would have shut it down long ago.

 

[Turtle]

Such things are crimes, but, based on my Google search results, they are not one of the most common crimes committed by businesses.

I apologize, I should have been more specific. Since we're talking about tax evasion, I was speaking in the context of tax crimes. Whenever the IRS does an audit of a business, unless they are already looking for something specific, the low-hanging fruit they first peruse is fringe benefits. It's not THE most common, but it's up there, probably in the top 10.

 

[danthewolf00]

Rlent you laugh at joe Biden vice president at the time doing collusion with the Ukraine leadership and bragging about it....but still think trump did collusion with Russia.

 

[muttly]

How do you know this?

Who, specifically, are the "political activists in proseceturial positions" you are talking about?

How do you know they want to destroy Trump and his associates?

In the interests of clarity, it will be helpful to state which investigations we are talking about. The one I have in mind is the one associated with Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance. The grand jury he convened apparently voted to indict the Trump Organization and we are expecting to learn the details of the charges this week.

So, regarding Vance, how do you answer the above questions?

Another investigation that is prominent in the news is the one being conducted by NY State AG Letitia James. Regarding the origination of that investigation, information about her motives is readily available. "As a candidate in 2018, James called Trump an 'illegitimate president' and told voters that she would challenge Trump’s policies and investigate his businesses." (Source)

James is also on record saying that the investigation she is conducting "... was triggered by testimony from Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, who told Congress that Trump had repeatedly exaggerated the values of his assets to fool lenders and tax authorities." (Source)

These two statements by James do not contradict each other. Yes, she considered Trump an illegitimate president, yes, as a candidate for AG, she stated her intent to use the power of her office to challenge and investigate Trump (and the people elected her partly on that campaign promise), and yes (when the opportunity rose to legally do so), she originated an investigation, using the probable cause Trump's former attorney Cohen provided when he publicly stated under oath that illegal acts had been committed.

I'm not going to go so far as to say James hates Trump, any more than I would go so far as to say Trump hates James. What they have said about each other is a matter of public record. What they truly think and feel in their heads and hearts is known only by them, unless they tell us otherwise. Hate is a vague word. Until a public figure actually says he or she hates someone or something, I'm reluctant to put that word in their mouths.

Reviewing the James statements, there is no question in my mind that she considered Trump to be an illegitimate president. She said that very thing (kinda like Trump is saying now that Biden is an illegitimate president or words to that effect). But that view does not preclude a state AG from launching a legitimate investigation where legally viable probable cause exists.

I'm inclined to make a similar argument supporting Vance's decision to launch an investigation. I'm inclined to believe probable cause exists and the investigation is legitimate, not because Vance feels one way or another about Trump, but because probable cause actually existed.

I believe this because checks and balances are in place to preclude prosecutors from launching cases and abusing their for emotional reasons. I believe this because the Vance investigation has been challenged several times in various courts for various reasons. And if it was actually true that this was a case without grounds, a court would have shut it down long ago.

Dude, it's rigged in NY. And in DC for that matter. Free reign without any repercussions for prosecutorial misconduct. Even a laughing Hyena can see that.

 

[danthewolf00]

How do you know they want to destroy Trump and his associates?

Because James out right said she would go after trump in her bid to get reelected to office.

 

[muttly]

How do you know they want to destroy Trump and his associates?

Because James out right said she would go after trump in her bid to get reelected to office.

And his family. And anyone in his orbit.

 

[ATeam]

Hypothetical question: If you really, really, really dislike a city council member in your city, tell everyone you dislike this person, tell everyone you will do everything in your power to destroy this person; and you then see this person do something illegal, or you hear it credibly and publicy reported by someone in a position to know that this person did something illegal; and you file a complaint against this person ...

Are you within your rights to file your complaint?

Should your complaint be considered invalid or otherwise baseless because it is well known you do not like the person in question?

 

[muttly]

Hypothetical question: If you really, really, really dislike a city council member in your city, tell everyone you dislike this person, tell everyone you will do everything in your power to destroy this person; and you then see this person do something illegal, or you hear it credibly and publicy reported by someone in a position to know that this person did something illegal; and you file a complaint against this person ...

Are you within your rights to file your complaint?

Should your complaint be considered invalid or otherwise baseless because it is well known you do not like the person in question?

Yes

 

[ATeam]

Yes

So you're saying you are within your rights and your complaint should be considered not valid?

 

[RLENT]

Rlent you laugh at joe Biden vice president at the time doing collusion with the Ukraine leadership and bragging about it....but still think trump did collusion with Russia.

No, I'm laughing at what you wrote ... simply because it's ludicrous.

Stop guzzling the Cucker Tarlson and Sham Flamnity swill.

And FWIW:

Trump did collude with Russians, read the Mueller Report.

Biden was carrying out the foreign policy of the United States as an elected official.

Big difference.