Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, February 22, 2021

The US Supreme Court rejected an attempt to shield Donald Trump's personal and business financial records from the Manhattan district attorney. The scope of the investigation is unclear but court filings have indicated that it may involve multiple possible crimes including tax and business fraud. Mazars USA, Trump's accounting firm, says it will abide by the ruling and will quickly comply with the subpoena.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

... The scope of the investigation is unclear but court filings have indicated that it may involve multiple possible crimes including tax and business fraud. ...

Once DA Vance gets the tax records, I suspect the scope of the investigation could expand with the additional evidence available.

Also, there's this recent activity in the case...

Trump's former fixer Cohen interviewed by Manhattan DA's office and newly hired litigator (Feb 18, 2021)
www.reuters.com

...he Manhattan District Attorney's Office and a newly hired high-profile litigator interviewed Donald Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, on Thursday, as part of a criminal probe of the former president's business dealings, said two people familiar with the investigation.

The interview came after Mark Pomerantz, who has extensive experience in white-collar and organized crime cases, joined District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.'s team investigating the Trump family business. Pomerantz started on Feb. 2 as special assistant district attorney, said Danny Frost, a spokesman for Vance.

Pomerantz's hiring is part of a flurry of recent activity in Vance's investigation, including the issuance in recent days of roughly a dozen new subpoenas, according to the sources. One of those went to Ladder Capital Finance LLC, a major creditor used by Trump and his company, the Trump Organization, to finance the former president's commercial real estate holdings, the sources said....


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-02-22 10:27 AM | Reply

Hopefully he will be exposed for the absolute fraud he's always been.

#2 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2021-02-22 12:02 PM | Reply


newyork.cbslocal.com
...In a three-word statement, Vance on Monday said only: "The work continues."...

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-02-22 12:12 PM | Reply

Should this really, actually go south for Trump, would it be prudent for us to enshrine a requirement for POTUS candidates to hand over their taxes before primaries?

A simple matter of trust, that's all.

#4 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-02-22 12:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#4

One thing this will do is set a precedent that will be played by any political enemy on either side.
At this point it's all about revenge. And that card gets slapped down with glee on both sides.

#5 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2021-02-22 12:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

One thing this will do is set a precedent that will be played by any political enemy on either side.

I can only recall of two political candidate who refused to release all of their taxes because they are shady AF. Both are firmly GOP. Romney and Trump.

#6 | Posted by Nixon at 2021-02-22 12:20 PM | Reply

Be prepared for a litany of new court filings regarding the blacked out entries on Trump's tax returns which he will challenge as irrelevant to the Manhattan D.A.s investigation.

#7 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-02-22 12:21 PM | Reply

@#5 ... At this point it's all about revenge. ...

Is it?

I don't see revenge in this.

I do see a DA following the evidence to see if a crime has occurred.

#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-02-22 12:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

At this point it's all about revenge.
#5 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

To want to bring a lawbreaker to justice is only "revenge"?
The court just made this decision, should they have prosecuted Trump before it came down?

#9 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2021-02-22 12:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"These justices aren't patriots! They aren't loyal to the President!" - Donnie OneTerm

Well... maybe now we'll get somewhere. Somewhere like prison.

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2021-02-22 12:29 PM | Reply

Will Donald Trump be the presidential Al Capone of our time? Stay tuned.

#11 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2021-02-22 12:30 PM | Reply

www.efile.com

Traditionally presidents of the United States make their tax returns a matter of financial disclosure and public record. However, the practice of releasing returns as president or when running for office didn't become commonplace until the late 1960's. In the run-up to the 1968 presidential election, Republican candidate George Romney (the governor of Michigan at the time) released 12 years of his returns covering the period from 1955-1966. This set the precedent for future presidential candidates to release their tax returns. Almost every president since Richard Nixon has made their tax returns public. The only exceptions are Donald Trump and Gerald Ford.

#12 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2021-02-22 12:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

One thing this will do is set a precedent that will be played by any political enemy on either side.
At this point it's all about revenge. And that card gets slapped down with glee on both sides.

#5 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

Two things.

First, the worse precedent is not holding somebody accountable because they're a politician.

Second, all you're saying is "don't hold our guy accountable or else we'll be children and attack yours."

It's childish and stupid.

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2021-02-22 12:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

www.msnbc.com

No law requires presidential candidates to release their tax returns, but history does.
PolitiFact found only seven presidential or vice president candidates since 1976 have refused to release any tax returns. Romney is not among them, though he was in 2008. Those seven include five Republicans, one Democrat, and one Green Party: Jerry Brown, Pat Buchanan, Mike Huckabee, Steve Forbes, Rudy Giuliani, Richard Lugar, Ralph Nader.

#14 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2021-02-22 12:39 PM | Reply

www.robertreeveslaw.com

ARE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES LEGALLY REQUIRED TO RELEASE THEIR TAX RETURNS?
Candidates Are Not Legally Required to Release Tax Returns

No. There is no legal requirement of any kind that presidential candidates release tax returns from any year. Indeed, there is a strict, strong constitutional right to privacy for all tax returns. Thus, tax returns can be released by an individual taxpayer, but cannot released by the IRS to the public.

Despite the lack of legal requirement, for the last thirty years, almost all presidential and vice presidential candidates have released reams of their personal tax returns. Of 34 past presidential and vice presidential candidates, only seven " Brown, Buchanan, Huckabee, Forbes, Giuliani, Lugar, Nader " declined to release personal tax returns. Hillary Clinton has released her tax returns for years 2007 to 2014 showing that the Clintons paid more than $43 million in taxes over that period. For his part, Donald Trump has said that the tax rate he pays is "none of your business" and "I fight very hard to pay as little tax as possible."

#15 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2021-02-22 12:42 PM | Reply

All the references above say that neither Trump nor anyone else is compelled to release their tax returns.
EOS

#16 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2021-02-22 12:43 PM | Reply

#12

You witless potato.

None of them were blatant serial criminals. The SDNY has been trying to get Trump for years. Now he's buffoonishly in their sights. How could anyone vote for someone whose public record is so damaging? It's because he told you what you wanted to hear and you ran with it, no matter the consequences. We all knew Trump is rotten to the core. Get ready for the 'I told you so.'

To wit,

Republicans, remember: You asked for this. Given the choice between a dozen solid conservatives and one Clinton-supporting con artist and game-show host, you chose the con artist. You chose him freely. Nobody made you do it.

#17 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2021-02-22 12:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

No. There is no legal requirement of any kind that presidential candidates release tax returns from any year.

Why do you keep repeating this? We already know it, which is why I asked the question in #4.

#18 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-02-22 12:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"Should this really, actually go south for Trump, would it be prudent for us to enshrine a requirement for POTUS candidates to hand over their taxes before primaries?"

Yes. States should require primary candidates for president to provide at least 10 years of recent tax returns.

#19 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2021-02-22 12:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

All the references above say that neither Trump nor anyone else is compelled to release their tax returns.
EOS

#16 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

You do realize you're not addressing the actual point, right?

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2021-02-22 12:47 PM | Reply

Donnie Fail - A Festering Boil on the Posterior of the Nation.

#21 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2021-02-22 12:49 PM | Reply

Well Mr tomato head, This is all about cheap revenge and hate. Starting with the impeachment of the cigar tsar. After that, it was all out war.
Let's ask ourselves something that does not appear in writing. So far.
If they further crush Trump, is there a good possibility of "retribution" by the crazies we saw in action Jan 6?
I say there is. Are they weighing this against Trump's prosecution? I say yes.
Just my personal opinion.

#22 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2021-02-22 12:54 PM | Reply

This isn't about a POTUS candidate sharing their tax returns. Trump said that he would release his returns, but as usual that was another lie.

This is about a criminal suspect trying to hide his tax returns from a grand jury.

Separate from the former Russian mob guy's obstruction of justice, all elected officials should be required to release their tax returns to voters.

#23 | Posted by bored at 2021-02-22 01:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Name-calling is a great way to shut down critical thinking and discussion."

Cindy Sheehan

#24 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2021-02-22 01:06 PM | Reply

The main flaw in your logic, PhB, is that no one tried to impeach, or impeach much to be honest, Bush.

#25 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2021-02-22 01:07 PM | Reply

First thing first: the order is in response to an investigation of possible criminal acts, so SCOTUS is hesitant to block such activity.

Second: the investigation is for crimes against the State of New York, and not federal crimes, so SCOTUS is loath to block a state matter (states rights, and all that).

Third: Trump's lawyers made a big tactical and strategic blunder in bringing this to SCOTUS, because they no longer have an avenue of appeal, and their action generates precedent, in the event any future state investigator is conducting a criminal investigation for acts against a state.

Here's how this will play out: Trump's folk will file more nonsensical briefs challenging various nits in the Vance case, trying to get some NY state court to knock Vance's case out of the box. They will fail in every filing. The Trump Crime Family will squeal like stuck pigs during visits to Fox News/NewsMax/OAN. Meanwhile, Mazars--Trumps accountant--will quietly cough up all that the Vance team wants, and various Mazars folk will sit for depositions, because they want to be done with this matter and rid of Trump's bad smell.

End game: Vance will reveal that he has something serious on Trump, and the Trump family will quietly cough up what is owed, along with a fine. Vance will agree to having the file sealed, and Trump will crow about a victory--a victory so big it will be described as 'pyrrhic' in size...

#26 | Posted by catdog at 2021-02-22 01:20 PM | Reply

If they further crush Trump, is there a good possibility of "retribution" by the crazies we saw in action Jan 6?
I say there is. Are they weighing this against Trump's prosecution? I say yes.
Just my personal opinion.

#22 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

Of course there's a chance the loons will react to his finally facing deserved criminal prosecution.

But let me ask you this, "Mr tomato head," are you suggesting the criminal investigation is purely partisan?

Are you suggesting it's not for actions Trump committed prior to being POTUS?

#27 | Posted by jpw at 2021-02-22 01:26 PM | Reply

Trump should not be above the law so if a grand jury wants his tax records he should provide them.... but since he is corrupt he challenges everything....
and republicans love him still.

My guess is they are rushing to put the final touches on Trumps new home in Southern Russia....

#28 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2021-02-22 01:29 PM | Reply

" are you suggesting the criminal investigation is purely partisan?
Are you suggesting it's not for actions Trump committed prior to being POTUS?"

Did you see that suggestion? NO?
Then why you asking dumb ----? Joey

#29 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2021-02-22 01:32 PM | Reply

Right wingers are up in arms, trying to force their twisted view of what they think reality is on the rest of us. They're a bunch of blustering, whiny ---------- with guns and a hankering to murder women and children.

We've let them grow their ranks for too long. Time to put an end to the alt-right. Prison for every single person who set foot in the Capitol on January 6th, and for everyone who planned it. All the way up the line...

#30 | Posted by chuffy at 2021-02-22 01:32 PM | Reply

Did you see that suggestion? NO?
Then why you asking dumb ----? Joey

#29 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

Then why are you so "concerned" that this will lead to retribution? Especially partisan retribution?

#31 | Posted by jpw at 2021-02-22 01:41 PM | Reply

If Trump is guilty of crimes then he should be prosecuted. It is not a complex concept. And if is "supporters" don't like it they can go **** themselves.

#32 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-02-22 01:47 PM | Reply

One possible upside to requiring anyone seeking public office to pony up a verifiable 10-year account of their finances to appear on the ballot, is it will keep the cannibal capitalist/real estate bunko/pump & dump/tax cheat-types from continuing to rig the game in their favor. It will, however, not deter the dilettante gun-nut Qanon mouthbreathers from running I'm afraid. Trump let those monsters off the chain and groomed them with the dangerous idea statute law is now subject to cavalier, situational interpretation. Hawley? Cruz? Greene or Boebret? Cawthorn? You ain't seen nothin' yet.

#33 | Posted by dutch46 at 2021-02-22 02:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There is a mushroom cloud and some NSFW language heard at Mango Lamo this morning.

#34 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2021-02-22 02:11 PM | Reply

Another view, from Mr O'Brien (who has seen fmr Pres Trump's tax returns as part of some prior litigation)

The Supreme Court Puts Trump's Tax Returns in Play
www.bloomberg.com

...Donald Trump and his lawyers have routinely argued that the former president would be subjected to "irreparable harm" if his tax returns landed in unfriendly hands. The Supreme Court disagreed, and refused to block a subpoena that local prosecutors in New York had issued for the records.

This doesn't mean Trump's returns will suddenly appear online. They're going to a grand jury, and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., whose office issued -- but had yet to enforce -- the subpoena, presumably will be circumspect about who gets to see them.

Even so, a dam that Trump has spent decades fortifying around his finances and tax returns has been broken. And Vance's investigation appears to be broad enough to pose a serious criminal threat to the former president, his three eldest children and the Trump Organization.

Vance is investigating Trump for possible tax fraud and falsification of business records, according to appellate court filings. His office is also examining whether Trump inflated the value of his properties and other assets to secure funds from lenders and investors. Vance's investigation also involves the former president's payment of hush money to two women who allegedly had sexual encounters with him, a possibly less-threatening inquiry that may involve campaign finance violations and falsification of business records....

Trump has spent decades inflating his wealth and his business acumen, which has also fed his desire to keep a lid on his financial records. Pride, as much as the legal perils he faces, has informed his efforts to keep Vance, other prosecutors and Congress from getting his tax returns.

(Trump sued me for libel in 2006 for a biography I wrote, "TrumpNation," alleging that the book misrepresented his business record and understated his wealth. Trump lost the suit in 2011.) ...

The Supreme Court has now given Vance fodder to pursue a criminal investigation that entails something Trump has always feared: exposure....


#35 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-02-22 02:22 PM | Reply

"Then why are you so "concerned" that this will lead to retribution?"

There is a concern that the same nuts that stormed the Capitol Bldg *might take up arms in anger over Trump being prosecuted.
This fear is self explanatory, so knock off the stupid gotcha questions.

#36 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2021-02-22 02:29 PM | Reply

Additionally, in SCOTUS actions...

High court formally rejects Trump election challenge cases
www.wnct.com

...The Supreme Court on Monday formally rejected a handful of cases related to the 2020 election, including disputes from Pennsylvania that had divided the justices just before the election.

The cases the justices rejected involved election challenges filed by former President Donald Trump and his allies in five states President Joe Biden won: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Other than the disputes from Pennsylvania, the justices' decision not to hear the cases was unsurprising. The court had previously taken no action in those cases and in January had turned away pleas that the cases be fast-tracked, again suggesting the justices were not interested in hearing them.

At the same time, the justices' decision not to hear Pennsylvania disputes involving a Republican challenge to state courts' power over federal elections continued to provoke strong feelings from some of the justices. On Monday, three of the nine justices said the court should have taken up the issue.

"A decision in these cases would not have any implications regarding the 2020 election ... But a decision would provide invaluable guidance for future elections," Justice Samuel Alito wrote. Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch also would have taken up the issue....


#37 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-02-22 02:31 PM | Reply

There is a concern that the same nuts that stormed the Capitol Bldg *might take up arms in anger over Trump being prosecuted.
This fear is self explanatory, so knock off the stupid gotcha questions.

#36 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

Just trying to figure out why you think it's OK for the mouth breathing Trump base to hold the country hostage.

I say prosecute him for every single crime he committed. That's the standard for all of us, isn't it?

Let the insurrectionists show their faces. That will allow for their arrest and or them being "fired."

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2021-02-22 02:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

There is a mushroom cloud and some NSFW language heard at Mango Lamo this morning.

#34 | POSTED BY _GUNSLINGER_

A very tiny mushroom cloud.

#39 | Posted by a_monson at 2021-02-22 02:45 PM | Reply

I would love for the same knuckleheads who stormed the capitol on January 6 to try that same game at the downtown New York criminal courthouse. There would be the bodies of skin heads, Oathkeepers, Qanon, and White Supremacists piled up in the streets. Unlike DC, there will not be a lot of Trump sympathizers in downtown Manhattan. Maybe it will require something like that for the far right wing of America to understand it does not represent the vast vast majority of Americans.

#40 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-02-22 02:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Just trying to figure out why you think it's OK for the mouth breathing Trump base to hold the country hostage."

If that's what you understand my answer to be, ...Well let's just say you're wrong.

#41 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2021-02-22 02:49 PM | Reply

I hope the nuts that stormed the capital try it again.
This time have the cops pull back and make sure the traitors are straffed to hamburger, no survivors.

#42 | Posted by bored at 2021-02-22 02:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You sound tough mod. lol
Cops have learned to stand down so who do you think will lay them idiots out?

#43 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2021-02-22 02:52 PM | Reply

BORED I hoped that would have happened Jan 6, this ---- would have been settled.

#44 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2021-02-22 02:55 PM | Reply

www.youtube.com

#45 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2021-02-22 03:02 PM | Reply

The LAW AND ORDER party should have no problem with tRumP getting prosecuted for his crimes. Why would anyone fear retribution for upholding the law? Unless said group of people lives in a fantasyland created for them by propagandists on the payroll of Murdoch, Koch, Mercer and Putin...those people are all unhinged and believe in some weird stuff.

#46 | Posted by chuffy at 2021-02-22 03:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If that's what you understand my answer to be, ...Well let's just say you're wrong.

#41 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

Final question: Should Trump be prosecuted?

#47 | Posted by jpw at 2021-02-22 03:14 PM | Reply

Final question: Should Trump be prosecuted?

#47 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2021-02-22 03:14 PM

If there's evidence of crimes, then yes.

#48 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-02-22 03:37 PM | Reply

Trump's Judges' Let Him Down. Now He's in Truly Deep ---

The Donald's accountants will turn over his tax returns"and supporting documents"as soon as this week. Reality bites the reality star.

The new season of The Trump Show starts now.

www.thedailybeast.com

#49 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2021-02-22 03:57 PM | Reply

One thing this will do is set a precedent that will be played by any political enemy on either side.
At this point it's all about revenge. And that card gets slapped down with glee on both sides.

#5 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

Gonna be fun watching GQPpers demanding Dems' tax returns and the Dems saying, "We released them at the start of the campaign".What the GQPpers gonna say "we didn't read them?"

See,if tRump had been HONEST and released them when he said he would, none of this would even be an issue would it?
As for revenge, google "Whitewater" if you want to know about political attacks on a President's (his wife's actually) business dealings.

Bet you Vance finds more than Starr did. And he'll do it quicker and cheaper than your guy.

#50 | Posted by northguy3 at 2021-02-22 06:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If they further crush Trump, is there a good possibility of "retribution" by the crazies we saw in action Jan 6?

I expect the boys in blue finally clued in that "Blue Lives Matter" has been replaced by "shoot them with their own guns" by the Right. I expect they also clued in as to how easy it is to shoot the domestic terrorists. As well, Biden won't tell the Nat Guard to stand down like tRump did, so there's that.

#51 | Posted by northguy3 at 2021-02-22 06:42 PM | Reply

"Trust but verify" Regan would say.

#52 | Posted by tmanfromal at 2021-02-22 09:47 PM | Reply

If there's evidence of crimes, then yes.

#48 | Posted by BellRinger

Do you know what michael cohen went to jail for and who committed his crimes with him?

#53 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-02-22 11:21 PM | Reply

Pertinent (and should scare Trump):

Manhattan DA hires high profile 'mob lawyer' who prosecuted Gambino boss John Gotti to help investigate Trump's business dealings

The Manhattan district attorney's office has hired a high-profile attorney with decades of experience with white collar crime cases as it ramps up its investigation into Donald Trump's business dealings.

Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor for the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, joined Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr's team as a special assistant district attorney earlier this month, Vance's office confirmed last week.

Pomerantz has already hit the ground running, conducting an interview with Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen on Thursday, Reuters reported.

www.dailymail.co.uk

#54 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2021-02-23 06:34 AM | Reply

Do you know what michael cohen went to jail for and who committed his crimes with him?
#53 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT

What's your point? Cohen got a trial. Have a damn trial

#55 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-02-23 04:28 PM | Reply

I sense am uptick in Polonium milkshakes heading America's way!

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-23 04:32 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort