Also, if he did do something that the IRS acted upon, would it be public knowledge if it did not go to court? Like if the IRS nabbed him for under reporting income and he paid the proper tax and penalty, would such a thing be public?
If Trump fraudulently gave different evaluations of real estate to the IRS (low) and to investors (high), then the IRS would only have half the story right?
An investigation might have both halves and be able to piece things together.
Would a tax return even show wealth? It’ll only show income not assets.
Its been so long since they tried to get access its easy to forget why they did so.
From the wikipedia page:
The house ways and means committee wanted the tax records to evaluate “the extent to which the I.R.S. audits and enforces the federal tax laws against a president”
Meanwhile the House oversight commitee wanted the records to investigate:
-
Whether Trump “may have engaged in illegal conduct before and during his tenure in office”
-
Whether Trump “has undisclosed conflicts of interest that may impair his ability to make impartial policy decisions”
-
Whether Trump was complying with the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause and Domestic Emoluments Clause
-
Whether Trump “has accurately reported his finances to the Office of Government Ethics and other federal entities.”
Domestic emoluments is just his salary. I’m not sure what to call it (other than general corruption) when he steered all those foreign diplomats and foreign and domestic visitors to his hotel in Washington. Anyway, everyone seems to have agreed to look the other way about that.
“Foreign emoluments” is what they generally call it; you’re getting paid for something you provide to foreign interests. In this case, foreign entities go to his hotel and pay for stuff there which ends up in Trump’s pockets since he owns the hotel. The US Constitution, in Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8, states that "…no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
So, it may have been unconstitutional for any foreign diplomat to stay at one of his hotels while he was president, because that would have been an easy way to get a backdoor bribe for favors, which would be corruption as you stated. But whether or not any corruption occurred (say, Trump makes a decision favoring the Saudi government in an oil deal and in turn the Saudis send diplomats to a Trump hotel and build up a huge bill) it doesn’t necessarily matter. The Constitution doesn’t say “you can’t do this if it leads to corruption”, it just says you can’t do it at all (at least not without Congressional approval).
That’s exactly the sort of thing the House Oversight Committee is supposed to keep an eye on.
No cite, but I thought I read that Trump rented out a floor of two of a hotel to foreign diplomates, but the did not show preferring somewhere else.
Yeah, Trump International in DC had rented out several rooms which were never occupied. That’s partly why this existed:
Bolsonaro conceded that he lost the presidential election in Brazil. Then he tried to backpedal. That spurious objection did not please the court:
The head of Brazil’s electoral court has rejected an attempt by outgoing president Jair Bolsonaro’s party to overturn the results of October’s run-off election, which he lost.
Alexandre de Moraes, a supreme court justice, also fined the parties in Bolsonaro’s coalition 22.9m reais ($4.3m) for what the court described as bad faith litigation.
Someone in the USA could take note.
I think one difference is that Trump and his cronies talked a big game in press conferences and interviews and such, but once in court they were careful to say that they didn’t believe fraud occurred. Rather, they nitpicked election laws and procedures. (And lost almost every time.)
“E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer filed the legal papers electronically as the Adult Survivor’s Act temporarily lifted the state’s usual deadlines for suing over sexual assault. She sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for pain and suffering, psychological harms, dignity loss and reputation damage.”
“Trump’s current lawyers said this week that they do not yet know whether they will represent him against the new allegations.”
Cold feet? No pay? Sinking ship?
D) All of the above?
Seriously though, I’d guess it’s a combination of wanting to be paid in advance due to Trump’s prior actions and sheer number of lawyers he’s probably having to retain PLUS the fact that no one wants to deal with his public statements during said trials.
Who wants to defend a doofus who will be spending all their time before, after, and during a trial screaming abuse and lies about the prosecution, judge and probable jurors, and then have to defend said statements.
Trump has a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy thing here with his Scatological Touch. His reputation means that there’s no good exposure to be gained by working his case(s). Money is the only reason to work for him and his history of not paying has killed off being represented by that variety of law firm as well.
This Trump, Kanye, Fuentes story is crazy.
Kanye had dinner with DJT. He brought, possibly uninvited, Nick Fuentes. During the dinner, Kanye announced his intention to run in 2024, and then asked DJT to be his running mate, causing Trump to yell at Kanye.
It was first denied that Fuentes was there. Then it was confirmed. Then Trump confirmed it. Because of course he did.
I literally think I found my #1 Trump-related “fly on the wall” moment.
Oh, and Breitbart is pissed about this dinner, turning on Trump in the process (Fuentes and Bannon are fueding). So Trump’s got that going for him, which is nice.
The Clash of the Titan(ic Ego)s
Ah, if only this had been a Pay per View: just imagine the magnitude of the revenues!
At trial, the obvious thing to do is quote this, and ask Trump “What exactly is your type of woman you like to rape?”
ETA: Yes, I know that no lawyer would allow a client like Trump to get anywhere near the witness stand
Question: If Trump cannot retain a lawyer willing to work for him on this case, will he be assigned a public defender?
Oh, I’m sure he’ll eventually be willing to find one who will take a low enough retainer and suck up enough to make it will happen.
Unless (epic schadenfreude which I don’t expect to happen) the release of his taxes show unexpectedly massive debt that he’s been floating between different enterprises / loans / dodges. IE he’s actually functionally bankrupt.
If only, if only…
I’m sure he can hire someone, though how competent that person is may be a question.