trump (convicted felon, defamer, insurrectionist, contemnor, and rapist - $537M)

[RTH10260]

as above

IRS Audit of Trump Could Cost Former President More Than $100 Million
The tax agency concluded in its long-running investigation that Trump effectively claimed the same massive write-off twice on his failed Chicago tower.

by Paul Kiel, ProPublica, and Russ Buettner, The New York Times
May 11, 10 a.m. EDT

Former President Donald Trump used a dubious accounting maneuver to claim improper tax breaks from his troubled Chicago tower, according to an IRS inquiry uncovered by ProPublica and The New York Times. Losing a yearslong audit battle over the claim could mean a tax bill of more than $100 million.


The 92-story, glass-sheathed skyscraper along the Chicago River is the tallest and, at least for now, the last major construction project by Trump. Through a combination of cost overruns and the bad luck of opening in the teeth of the Great Recession, it was also a vast money loser.

But when Trump sought to reap tax benefits from his losses, the IRS has argued, he went too far and in effect wrote off the same losses twice.

The first write-off came on Trump’s tax return for 2008. With sales lagging far behind projections, he claimed that his investment in the condo-hotel tower met the tax code definition of “worthless,” because his debt on the project meant he would never see a profit. That move resulted in Trump reporting losses as high as $651 million for the year, ProPublica and the Times found.




contd. https://www.propublica.org/article/trum ... otel-taxes

[Dr. Ken]

[RTH10260]

the Russian Hoax explained

[Dr. Ken]

[Dr. Ken]

[pipistrelle]

The guy in the glasses is a statue, right?

[Suranis]

They both have glasses, but ya I see what you mean

[Dave from down under]

Are they paid actors?

Because if they were real police wouldn’t they be better doing there jobs rather than supporting a felon?

[sugar magnolia]

Are they paid actors?

Because if they were real police wouldn’t they be better doing there jobs rather than supporting a felon?

Please don't make me fuss at you. They ARE doing their jobs as officers if they are assigned to a special detail to protect someone. Just because they are in uniform doesn't mean they should be out chasing people.

Full disclosure, that is one of my pet peeves. I can't tell you how many times some asshole in the back of my patrol car said "why aren't you out catching the real criminals?" Hey Sport, you're in handcuffs in the back of my car on the way downtown. You are the real criminal.

[bob]

They ARE doing their jobs as officers if they are assigned to a special detail to protect someone.

Standing in a phalanx behind the protectee as the cameras roll doesn't seem to be a protection detail.

[sugar magnolia]

They ARE doing their jobs as officers if they are assigned to a special detail to protect someone.

Standing in a phalanx behind the protectee as the cameras roll doesn't seem to be a protection detail.

Someone had to assign them to stand there. It might be different for the deputies there, but you can't just gear up in uniform and go stand around without some sort of authorization.

[bob]

Someone had to assign them to stand there. It might be different for the deputies there, but you can't just gear up in uniform and go stand around without some sort of authorization.

"I order you to be a human prop for a political candidate!" also is not a good look for law enforcement.

[sugar magnolia]

Someone had to assign them to stand there. It might be different for the deputies there, but you can't just gear up in uniform and go stand around without some sort of authorization.

"I order you to be a human prop for a political candidate!" also is not a good look for law enforcement.

Sheriffs (those are deputies, not police officers) are elected officials and are inherently political.

[bob]

Sheriffs (those are deputies, not police officers) are elected officials and are inherently political.

I aware. But if the deputies were ordered to stand there, then they aren't catching real criminals.

[sugar magnolia]

Sheriffs (those are deputies, not police officers) are elected officials and are inherently political.

I aware. But if the deputies were ordered to stand there, then they aren't catching real criminals.

Neither are the ones who are assigned to work in dispatch or sit at the desk or serve as bailiffs.
My point is that just because they are doing something other than literally chasing crooks doesn't mean that they are not on duty and performing their assigned duty.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

He's probably talking about the scandal in 2018 (gee, who was pResident then?) when a French-flagged ship imported gasoline from a French refinery that had sourced some of its crude from Russia. New England gets most of its gasoline from US and Canada, but does get some from other countries, but not Russia. As far as natural gas, there are lots of natural gas pipelines, but not enough capacity for the winter peak, so for about 4 months every year LNG is imported via ship, accounting for about 25% of natural gas during those months. But once again, not from Russia.

[tek]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but my assumption is that they were there because they were told to be there.
Been going on at least since Mayberry RFD.

[bob]

Neither are the ones who are assigned to work in dispatch or sit at the desk or serve as bailiffs.
My point is that just because they are doing something other than literally chasing crooks doesn't mean that they are not on duty and performing their assigned duty.

Dave from Down Under's point was that, if they were ordered to stand there, then they aren't working dispatch, serving as bailiffs, staffing the jail, or any other job.

[sugar magnolia]

Neither are the ones who are assigned to work in dispatch or sit at the desk or serve as bailiffs.
My point is that just because they are doing something other than literally chasing crooks doesn't mean that they are not on duty and performing their assigned duty.

Dave from Down Under's point was that, if they were ordered to stand there, then they aren't working dispatch, serving as bailiffs, staffing the jail, or any other job.

They ARE doing their job if that's what they were told to do. Their job is to do whatever the Sheriff tells them to.

[Suranis]

I'm with Sugar here. The guys were there because that's their Job. They will have been told to stand there. All the other jobs in Law enforcement will be fully staffed while they are standing there. This wont reduce the power of the Police to catch Criminals at all. So why not?

And, I hate to shock you, but he is in the running for a high political position and there will be people in that town who will vote for that slug, so showing a little bit of respect to those town residents will harm no-one. In short, putting 2 officers there really does no harm. So, again, why not?

[Dave from down under]

Sheriffs (those are deputies, not police officers) are elected officials and are inherently political.

I aware. But if the deputies were ordered to stand there, then they aren't catching real criminals.

Neither are the ones who are assigned to work in dispatch or sit at the desk or serve as bailiffs.
My point is that just because they are doing something other than literally chasing crooks doesn't mean that they are not on duty and performing their assigned duty.

I'm not having a go at the officers.

Doing your job sometimes means doing things that are non-productive or worse.

The decision makers deserve to be held accountable.. and since they are political (and far too political in some jurisdictions) they need to be publicly accountable.

The whole politicalisation of law enforcement and the legal system is just so wrong to me!
Like privitisation of police functions.
(or private jails, ambulances, fire fighters, water supply etc)
<yeah - call me a socialist>

[Volkonski]

Back when I was a band parent president we would hold big events. We would hire constables or sheriff's deputies to cover the events.

[bob]

The decision makers deserve to be held accountable.. and since they are political (and far too political in some jurisdictions) they need to be publicly accountable.

Reuters: Trump campaigns in Michigan town with historic links to white extremism:

HOWELL, Michigan, Aug 20 (Reuters) - Former President Donald Trump visited a Michigan town on Tuesday one month after white supremacists rallied there, sparking renewed criticism from Democrats who accuse his campaign of stirring up racial tensions for political gain.

Howell, Michigan is in Livingston County. In 2020, Biden lost that county, 38%-61%. Clinton lost that county, 32%-61%. Obama twice lost that county, 38%-61% and 42%-56%.

So that population isn't going to hold the sheriff accountable. If anything, it'll be pleased.

[Foggy]

Off Topic

Back when I was a public defender, I was invited to a bailiff's (Sheriff's deputy) wedding reception. She was an Orange County sheriff, marrying a deputy sheriff from Los Angeles. I was the only lawyer invited, other than the judge she worked for.

That judge and I didn't get along, so I made sure he got to see me dancing with his bailiff.

But there were a ton of cops from both counties, not really my crowd (and most of them don't like public defenders), so I left early. Which turned out to be a mistake, the fight that broke out after I left was in the papers.

[zekeb]

They ARE doing their jobs as officers if they are assigned to a special detail to protect someone.

Standing in a phalanx behind the protectee as the cameras roll doesn't seem to be a protection detail.

Someone had to assign them to stand there. It might be different for the deputies there, but you can't just gear up in uniform and go stand around without some sort of authorization.

The Secret Service gets paid to give their lives to protect the president. When I worked with the Sheriff's Department the deputies worked under dangerous conditions, but they were never expected to take a bullet to protect someone.