Maybe someone can help me here about tRUMPS taxes.

[bluestarone]

Even if there is no proof of breaking any laws, why cannot he be charged with LYING on ALL his loan papers? (lots of them i'm sure!)

[C_U_L8R]

1. Bank fraud, insurance fraud, tax fraud....

Pick your fraud or prosecute them all.

[bluestarone]

2. ALL of the above and MORE

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Statutes of limitations are a problem - can't use these old bank records

to support prosecutions of crimes committed before 10 years ago (bank fraud) or 5 years ago (most other crimes). But you can be damn sure he's still doing that stuff, which is why he's moving heaven and earth to be sure his tax and other financial records aren't produced.

[bluestarone]

7. Which i see as the BIGGEST reason

To acquire RUMPS FULL tax returns! Using his past violations a REAL reasoning!

[rusty fender]

11. Why can't the IRS charge him or refer the potential crimes to the DOJ

if he is still committing these crimes

I believe that he continues to commit financial crimes, but the IRS has seen his taxes, for pete’s sake

[bluestarone]

12. EXACTLY my point!

[rusty fender]

13. Yes! And why didn't the IRS and the DOJ do

This in ‘80s, ‘90s and ‘00s

[bluestarone]

17. YES i mentioned THIS also!

Nobody was doing their job!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. Tax records by themselves usually don't reveal crimes unless there's an audit.

The IRS relies otherwise on the data you supply. There's nothing illegal about declaring large losses or taking deductions that are themselves legal or declaring a large amount of interest earned in a single year. The numbers might look strange but unless there's some other context there's no basis for charging anything, because the IRS cares only that you pay the tax you owe on the money you earned. Even if there is an audit and something dodgy turns up, unless there's also proof that you intentionally committed tax evasion the IRS will normally leave you alone if you pay (or negotiate) the tax you owe plus interest and penalties. If it isn't a tax crime they don't follow up - they are so understaffed they can't keep up with the audits they should be doing.

[FakeNoose]

19. Chump's current tax filings haven't been released

We're looking at info from the early 1990's and it's old enough that the IRS can't use it in court to prove fraud. What the IRS would need is the fraudulent statements Chump has given the banks and insurance companies that overstate his income. They would compare that with the recent tax filings (same years) that understate his income, and that's how they would prove his fraud.

Michael Cohen testified to the fact that this very thing was done while he worked for the Chump Organization.

[rusty fender]

20. Right, but the IRS has them

so if Trumpass’s current returns show possible fraud, why hasn’t the IRS charged him tax fraud?

[FakeNoose]

21. When DeutscheBank releases their documents

Chump borrowed money from DeutscheBank only a few years ago, am I right? That's the current info they're looking for, I would think.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. If the returns by themselves didn't contain evidence of anything illegal,

they wouldn't have gone after him for tax fraud/evasion. Declaring large losses isn't illegal. Without the larger context of his other business records they wouldn't have had anything to go on.

[at140]

23. K&R. NT

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. Who will prosecute? What happens when, NOT IF, he REFUSES to leave the WH?

Which is why we have to be in the streets now and in a way that makes it CLEAR we wont accept this shit another minute.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. There could be evidence of bank fraud, tax evasion and money laundering.

The problem with the tax records the NYT got hold of is that any crimes those records revealed would be outside the relevant statutes of limitations (10 years for bank fraud, 5 years for most other federal crimes). However, we can be pretty sure he kept on doing whatever he was doing then.

[bluestarone]

5. Hate statute of limitations bullshit

I almost bet that was a REPUBLICON idea!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. No, there are good reasons for statutes of limitations and they were not a GOP idea.

Witnesses die or become unavailable; records are lost; memories fade. The only crime for which there is no statute of limitations is murder.

[bluestarone]

8. True BUT in some cases this is NOT the problem.

If records AND persons are available then it SHOULD proceed.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. That would violate the law and no prosecutor would do it.

[Locutusofborg]

34. There's more!

“There is no statute of limitations for federal crimes punishable by death, nor for certain federal crimes of terrorism, nor for certain federal sex offenses. Prosecution for most other federal crimes must begin within five years of the commitment of the offense. There are exceptions. Some types of crimes are subject to a longer period of limitation; some circumstances suspend or extend the otherwise applicable period of limitation.
Arson, art theft, certain crimes against financial institutions, and various immigration offenses all carry statutes of limitation longer than the five-year standard. Regardless of the applicable statute of limitations, the period may be extended or the running of the period suspended or tolled under a number of circumstances, such as when the accused is a fugitive or when the case involves charges of child abuse, bankruptcy, wartime fraud against the government, or DNA evidence.”
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf

[onenote]

9. Statutes of limitation have existed for hundreds of years

And the are part of the legal system of most countries.

So, no, it was not a repub idea.

[bluestarone]

10. Maybe time to change it then?

Just seems like it protects MORE than it should. (my opinion)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. Be careful what you wish for. Statutes of limitations have always existed

with good reason. Things can turn around and bite you in the ass.

[bluestarone]

18. I DO see your point BUT

If your an honest person, no worry about this.

[onenote]

31. It's weird to see DUers make arguments that law and order types made in the past

and that were opposed by progressives. For example, if you're an honest person, why worry about warrantless searches, or getting read your Miranda rights, etc etc etc.

[bluestarone]

32. Put that way

I really do see your point!! I'm wrong for sure! TY. Just don't see the full picture here sometimes!

[HipChick]

22. So how come the IRS never went after him?

but let me or you make one ickle mistake...

[bluestarone]

24. You or i would be in jail

Of that i have NO DOUBT

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

25. Because taking large losses or declaring a lot of interest isn't illegal.

The tax returns themselves, even if unusual, wouldn't have alerted the IRS to any criminal acts by themselves. The only crime the IRS is interested in is tax evasion, and if they had no evidence of it they wouldn't have done anything.

[bluestarone]

30. Gotta wonder tho that if they see NOW what he was up to in the past

They would be looking a LOT CLOSER now? Pretty good proof looking at them. Couldn't someone really push the IRS now? I'm thinking the NY state could be the ones requesting ALL of tRUMPS taxes!! They have a better chance than the house?

[Cicada]

28. The irs tax transcript probably came from a lender file

Typically you must sign a paper permitting the lender to get your tax transcript from the IRS. Trump probably lied about his net worth, assets minus liabilities. The IRS does not have that information.

[fwvinson]

29. Tax Fraud

Lying on your Tax Forms, right?

[dlk]

33. The Statute of Limitations has Likely Run