Weisselberg Indicted

[colfax_m]

I made nothing up, it's my observation of the situation.

Bullshit. You pretend to know what I think.

I can tell how you think from your posts, what you think is also plain as day.

Nah. You just pretend to know that because you’re a partisan hack.

 

[colfax_m]

You don't think everyone with a small business claims everything they can, even the "fuzzy" stuff?

There’s nothing “fuzzy” about what Weisselberg was claiming.

I don’t claim everything I could, because it does get fuzzy. I’d prefer to keep everything out of the gray areas.

 

[martybegan]

That's from reading the indictment. Wait until a good defense attorney has at this.

receipts prove transactions, not intentions.

Yeah, I know. Rich people don’t get convicted because the can afford good attorneys. God bless the USA.

There’s no argument to be made here. They knew it was compensation. That’s why they reduced his compensation at the same time as paying for his tax free shit.

They also tend to commit crimes, or be accused of crimes that are more "what happened" than "who did it"

Murder is murder. all you have to do is prove who killed the person. This is tax law, and not only do you have to prove that what happened happened, but the person doing it knew what they were doing was criminal, and not just bad accounting or misunderstanding tax law.

And you have to prove it to a jury.

You don't keep a second set of books on it, if you didn't KNOW what you were doing...

So they have both sets of books?

according to item 19 on page 13, yes.

it doesn't refer to two sets of books, it says they think there was fraud in reporting.

Now they get to prove it.

Good luck lol.

 

[martybegan]

I made nothing up, it's my observation of the situation.

Bullshit. You pretend to know what I think.

I can tell how you think from your posts, what you think is also plain as day.

Nah. You just pretend to know that because you’re a partisan hack.

Orders of magnitude less than you are, cuck-boi.

 

[Care4all]

that does not say there were 2 books.

Yes it does, read it closer....

They kept an internal set of books, on what compensation was paid via fringe benefits to Weisselberg to make certain they did not payout in these so called fringe benefits, more than his yearly compensation contract required..... While not claiming them as fringe benefit compensation, when filling out Weisselberg's year end IRS W2 AND ONLY SENDING TO THE IRS the amount Trump org paid him weekly....the company did not report the perks they paid him.

That's TWO SETS OF BOOKS my dear. One for the IRS, and one keeping track of compensation contract.

Even trump claimed they were fringe benefits at his rally.... He stuck his foot in the mouth.

 

[martybegan]

You don't think everyone with a small business claims everything they can, even the "fuzzy" stuff?

There’s nothing “fuzzy” about what Weisselberg was claiming.

I don’t claim everything I could, because it does get fuzzy. I’d prefer to keep everything out of the gray areas.

Bullshit.

 

[hadit]

All he has to do or rather his lawyer is point out such events and claims are and have ben since the dawn of the system a CIVIL MATTER resoled by fines and audits.

Nope. As long as it’s proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they broke the law, it’s irrelevant how other defendants were treated.

When it comes to sentencing, it's very relevant.

 

[L.K.Eder]

That's from reading the indictment. Wait until a good defense attorney has at this.

receipts prove transactions, not intentions.

Yeah, I know. Rich people don’t get convicted because the can afford good attorneys. God bless the USA.

There’s no argument to be made here. They knew it was compensation. That’s why they reduced his compensation at the same time as paying for his tax free shit.

They also tend to commit crimes, or be accused of crimes that are more "what happened" than "who did it"

Murder is murder. all you have to do is prove who killed the person. This is tax law, and not only do you have to prove that what happened happened, but the person doing it knew what they were doing was criminal, and not just bad accounting or misunderstanding tax law.

And you have to prove it to a jury.

You don't keep a second set of books on it, if you didn't KNOW what you were doing...

So they have both sets of books?

according to item 19 on page 13, yes.

it doesn't refer to two sets of books, it says they think there was fraud in reporting.

Now they get to prove it.

Good luck lol.

oy vey. of course the indictment refers exactly that. by comparing both data sets they found the discrepancies leading to this indictment. this is not hard to understand, for non-trumptards.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Allen Weisselberg Surrenders To Manhattan DA This Morning

The charges against him are related to unpaid taxes.

crooksandliars.com

This guy knows where all the bodies are buried.

Trump has to be shitting his pants

If Weisselburg was going to rat Trump out, he wouldn't have gone before a grand jury. The fact that this case went to a grand jury shows Weisselburg doesn't have anything to trade.

 

[bripat9643]

that does not say there were 2 books.

Yes it does, read it closer....

They kept an internal set of books, on what compensation was paid via fringe benefits to Weisselberg to make certain they did not payout in these so called fringe benefits, more than his yearly compensation contract required..... While not claiming them as fringe benefit compensation, when filling out Weisselberg's year end IRS W2 AND ONLY SENDING TO THE IRS the amount Trump org paid him weekly....the company did not report the perks they paid him.

That's TWO SETS OF BOOKS my dear. One for the IRS, and one keeping track of compensation contract.

Even trump claimed they were fringe benefits at his rally.... He stuck his foot in the mouth.

No it doesn't, turd.

 

[bripat9643]

That's from reading the indictment. Wait until a good defense attorney has at this.

receipts prove transactions, not intentions.

Yeah, I know. Rich people don’t get convicted because the can afford good attorneys. God bless the USA.

There’s no argument to be made here. They knew it was compensation. That’s why they reduced his compensation at the same time as paying for his tax free shit.

They also tend to commit crimes, or be accused of crimes that are more "what happened" than "who did it"

Murder is murder. all you have to do is prove who killed the person. This is tax law, and not only do you have to prove that what happened happened, but the person doing it knew what they were doing was criminal, and not just bad accounting or misunderstanding tax law.

And you have to prove it to a jury.

You don't keep a second set of books on it, if you didn't KNOW what you were doing...

So they have both sets of books?

according to item 19 on page 13, yes.

it doesn't refer to two sets of books, it says they think there was fraud in reporting.

Now they get to prove it.

Good luck lol.

oy vey. of course the indictment refers exactly that. by comparing both data sets they found the discrepancies leading to this indictment. this is not hard to understand, for non-trumptards.

What "both" data sets? There's only one data set, moron.

 

[Care4all]

So Weisselberg could do his tax return, using his fraudulent W2 with say only $500,000 in total compensation, instead of the $900,000 contract compensation of which he got annually if you included his company fringe benefits, like paying his grand daughters expensive private tuition.

Weisselberg could only get away with this, through the Trump org intentionally not listing the fringe benefit compensation on Weisselberg's W2, and Trump org did this for Weisselberg, for 15 years.

Trump could say he was unaware of it and someone else did the W2s kind of thing, but the spreadsheet, showed the Trumps, were very aware of and participated in, the scheme.

 

[L.K.Eder]

That's from reading the indictment. Wait until a good defense attorney has at this.

receipts prove transactions, not intentions.

Yeah, I know. Rich people don’t get convicted because the can afford good attorneys. God bless the USA.

There’s no argument to be made here. They knew it was compensation. That’s why they reduced his compensation at the same time as paying for his tax free shit.

They also tend to commit crimes, or be accused of crimes that are more "what happened" than "who did it"

Murder is murder. all you have to do is prove who killed the person. This is tax law, and not only do you have to prove that what happened happened, but the person doing it knew what they were doing was criminal, and not just bad accounting or misunderstanding tax law.

And you have to prove it to a jury.

You don't keep a second set of books on it, if you didn't KNOW what you were doing...

So they have both sets of books?

according to item 19 on page 13, yes.

it doesn't refer to two sets of books, it says they think there was fraud in reporting.

Now they get to prove it.

Good luck lol.

oy vey. of course the indictment refers exactly that. by comparing both data sets they found the discrepancies leading to this indictment. this is not hard to understand, for non-trumptards.

What "both" data sets? There's only one data set, moron.

the one reported externally, and the one kept internally. i know this is hard for you to understand. but it is spelled out beautifully in the indictment.

 

[colfax_m]

Bullshit.

Right. Dying to know what’s “fuzzy” about claiming your wife’s Mercedes as a business expense.

Let’s hear it, hack.

 

[martybegan]

That's from reading the indictment. Wait until a good defense attorney has at this.

receipts prove transactions, not intentions.

Yeah, I know. Rich people don’t get convicted because the can afford good attorneys. God bless the USA.

There’s no argument to be made here. They knew it was compensation. That’s why they reduced his compensation at the same time as paying for his tax free shit.

They also tend to commit crimes, or be accused of crimes that are more "what happened" than "who did it"

Murder is murder. all you have to do is prove who killed the person. This is tax law, and not only do you have to prove that what happened happened, but the person doing it knew what they were doing was criminal, and not just bad accounting or misunderstanding tax law.

And you have to prove it to a jury.

You don't keep a second set of books on it, if you didn't KNOW what you were doing...

So they have both sets of books?

according to item 19 on page 13, yes.

it doesn't refer to two sets of books, it says they think there was fraud in reporting.

Now they get to prove it.

Good luck lol.

oy vey. of course the indictment refers exactly that. by comparing both data sets they found the discrepancies leading to this indictment. this is not hard to understand, for non-trumptards.

They think they found it, lets see what the defense does to it.

 

[martybegan]

Bullshit.

Right. Dying to know what’s “fuzzy” about claiming your wife’s Mercedes as a business expense.

Let’s hear it, hack.

if you can get an accountant to figure out how to split your electricity bill when you work from home, I wouldn't put it past them to figure out how to legally do the above.

 

[Likkmee]

Anti semen-ites should be eliminated !

 

[Winco]

What they are probably going to say is it was done in a way to be a write-off.

Id ask how they’re going to do that but you probably don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.

the whole purpose of this is to make Trump look bad.

No, the purpose is to take down a crime family.
ok, IF they produce the evidence that there is in FACT two sets of books, will you believe it then?
NONE of us know exactly what evidence, but I believe trump in a con man, and so does the majority of the USA and most of the entire World.

No, I evidently have to point out the obvious to blithering idiots such as yourself.

You made it up.

Now you refuse to admit it.

I made nothing up, it's my observation of the situation.

Remove the Trump name from this and this whole thing is a footnote on the legal notifications page.

Trump opened this can of worms.
Had trump just continued living his crime filled life and kept out of the spotlight, you are correct, this never would have happened to him. BUT, he himself, POKED the BEAR......constantly, so they are fighting back.
They are not fighting back in the way YOU look at it though, as a witch hunt.
They are going after a criminal that constantly flaunted his crimes in public.

Trump brought this upon himself.
This is a well deserved and rightful set of indictments, and future indictments.

 

[martybegan]

What they are probably going to say is it was done in a way to be a write-off.

Id ask how they’re going to do that but you probably don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.

the whole purpose of this is to make Trump look bad.

No, the purpose is to take down a crime family.
ok, IF they produce the evidence that there is in FACT two sets of books, will you believe it then?
NONE of us know exactly what evidence, but I believe trump in a con man, and so does the majority of the USA and most of the entire World.

No, I evidently have to point out the obvious to blithering idiots such as yourself.

You made it up.

Now you refuse to admit it.

I made nothing up, it's my observation of the situation.

Remove the Trump name from this and this whole thing is a footnote on the legal notifications page.

Trump opened this can of worms.
Had trump just continued living his crime filled life and kept out of the spotlight, you are correct, this never would have happened to him. BUT, he himself, POKED the BEAR......constantly, so they are fighting back.
They are not fighting back in the way YOU look at it though, as a witch hunt.
They are going after a criminal that constantly flaunted his crimes in public.

Trump brought this upon himself.
This is a well deserved and rightful set of indictments, and future indictments.

You start assuming he is a criminal then just keep saying it over and over.

Note they didn't indict Trump here, but that's what you really want. Your TDS is uncontrollable.

 

[colfax_m]

if you can get an accountant to figure out how to split your electricity bill when you work from home, I wouldn't put it past them to figure out how to legally do the above.

I would. That’s not legal. It shouldn’t be legal. Hacks like yourself shouldn’t accept this kind of shit.

But you do because it’s about Trump and he owns you.