Accounting firm fires Trump

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, definitely. That's what democracy is, really. What it should be. Can't hate democracy, and also hate that Trumpers get to vote. They should all vote, every single one of them. Everyone should vote.

People want to make hay every time a politician "flip flops" or "evolves". Yes, sometimes it's slimy. But hey, isn't that what we want, in general? Politicians that cater to us? Tell us what we want to hear, to get re-elected? Okay. Doing is a distinct matter from saying, of course...

Well, there's democracy and then there's democracy.

US democracy is when the political parties tailor the people to their policies. Because they KNOW they're going to win.

What are the chances that the Reps and Dems will not will 95% of the seats at the next election? Whatever election. It's only two parties. Always only two parties.

Other countries have proper democracy where people's votes count and like the AfD in Germany which came from nowhere and became the third party within a decade.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

US democracy is when the political parties tailor the people to their policies.

Yes, agreed. There is that factor. Excellent point. Basically the perfect inverse of what I said. And true in spades. We see it here on this message board every day.

Other countries have proper democracy where people's votes count and like the AfD in Germany which came from nowhere and became the third party within a decade.

Interesting points to be found there, too. The democracies the United States has helped create; the democratic, secular constitutions it has helped to write and has inspired with its own constitution...where are their electoral colleges? They do not exist. Why not?

There is an answer: because they did not want their countries to "tribe up". They promised and delivered democracy, in a more modern and refined sense. We remain shackled to an old idea that is out of date. The irony is thick.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

.

Accounting firm fires Trump​

From what? what was his position there?

 

[Chillicothe]

No doubt, it went about like this:
Lawyers: Immediately release this statement, as we are now exposed, legally, from our association with Trump and our past affirmation of his lies, per the evidence shown to us by prosecutors. Board: ok

I wonder if any of the conversation also included "the prosecutors have told us that if we do this, and if we cooperate fully, we'll get off with something closer to a slap on the wrist".

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Those are plausible speculations.
Other plausible speculations were in an opinion column in this morning's Washington Post.

First, this:

"As the judge noted.....Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars, sent a letter on Feb. 9 to the Trump Organization terminating its relationship with Trump.
Mazars said that 10 years of Trump’s financial statements, from 2011 to 2020, “should no longer be relied upon,” and that Trump should tell that to the people he gave them to. The accountants explained that they reached this conclusion based upon court filings previously made by the New York attorney general, as well as the accountants’ own investigation and other sources.

And then they quit. Under the “totality of the circumstances,” Mazars wrote, “we have also reached the point such that there is a non-waivable conflict of interest with the Trump Organization. As a result, we are not able to provide any new work product to the Trump Organization.” regards, Mazars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

And then the 'plausible speculations' part:

1. By saying the statements “should no longer be relied upon,” the accountants effectively announced, You misled us.
2. By “totality of the circumstances,” they likely meant, The prosecutors investigating you, and the case they’re making, are serious.
3. By pronouncing “a non-waivable conflict of interest,” they were all but saying, We’re on team A.G. — or we might have to join someday soon.
4. And by saying no “new work product” and quitting, they essentially declared, We don’t trust you — and we’re certainly not going to jail for you.

 

[Mac1958]

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Those are plausible speculations.
Other plausible speculations were in an opinion column in this morning's Washington Post.

First, this:

"As the judge noted.....Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars, sent a letter on Feb. 9 to the Trump Organization terminating its relationship with Trump.
Mazars said that 10 years of Trump’s financial statements, from 2011 to 2020, “should no longer be relied upon,” and that Trump should tell that to the people he gave them to. The accountants explained that they reached this conclusion based upon court filings previously made by the New York attorney general, as well as the accountants’ own investigation and other sources.

And then they quit. Under the “totality of the circumstances,” Mazars wrote, “we have also reached the point such that there is a non-waivable conflict of interest with the Trump Organization. As a result, we are not able to provide any new work product to the Trump Organization.” regards, Mazars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

And then the 'plausible speculations' part:

1. By saying the statements “should no longer be relied upon,” the accountants effectively announced, You misled us.
2. By “totality of the circumstances,” they likely meant, The prosecutors investigating you, and the case they’re making, are serious.
3. By pronouncing “a non-waivable conflict of interest,” they were all but saying, We’re on team A.G. — or we might have to join someday soon.
4. And by saying no “new work product” and quitting, they essentially declared, We don’t trust you — and we’re certainly not going to jail for you.

Yeah, agreed.

I can tell you first hand that the engagement agreements signed by the client of an accounting and/or tax firm are chock full o' CYA declarations by the firm. They essentially say "we're going to work with the information you gave us, and you are the one and only responsible party for that information" and "any fraudulent information given to you is on you, not us". And it says that more than once, in multiple ways.

Now, it is possible that the client and the firm can be in cahoots in some way, and that's on the firm. But if the firm is clean, it should be pretty easy to lay all the blame on the client, per the engagement agreement.