|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States44373 Posts
On April 07 2023 03:36 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2023 02:56 KwarK wrote:On April 07 2023 02:36 lestye wrote:
I think we need to be clear: Cohen paid Stormy using some shell company. Trump repaid Cohen, his company logged the reimbursements as legal expenses, not the campaign. Those founds should have been logged in as campaign expenses/contribution because the whole point of the hush payment was to benefit political campaign. Also they presumably should not have been booked as business legal expenses. They have him coming and going. Your company’s legal representation is not a company expense when he’s helping you pay your prostitutes unless those prostitutes were part of your business activities. Accounting question: How does Stormy, and the countless other women he paid, legally report their earnings from hush money that includes and NDA?
If it’s earned in connection with her business as a self employed stripper then she’d put it on her Schedule C as revenue. She could deduct any related expenses against it.
Prostitution/extortion/blackmail revenue is recorded on the 1040 line 21. The IRS asks no questions, you just have to report it.
|
|
|
United States44373 Posts
On April 07 2023 03:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2023 03:47 KwarK wrote:On April 07 2023 03:36 JimmiC wrote:On April 07 2023 02:56 KwarK wrote:On April 07 2023 02:36 lestye wrote:
I think we need to be clear: Cohen paid Stormy using some shell company. Trump repaid Cohen, his company logged the reimbursements as legal expenses, not the campaign. Those founds should have been logged in as campaign expenses/contribution because the whole point of the hush payment was to benefit political campaign. Also they presumably should not have been booked as business legal expenses. They have him coming and going. Your company’s legal representation is not a company expense when he’s helping you pay your prostitutes unless those prostitutes were part of your business activities. Accounting question: How does Stormy, and the countless other women he paid, legally report their earnings from hush money that includes and NDA? If it’s earned in connection with her business as a self employed stripper then she’d put it on her Schedule C as revenue. She could deduct any related expenses against it. Prostitution/extortion/blackmail revenue is recorded on the 1040 line 21. The IRS asks no questions, you just have to report it. So if another woman who is say a nurse, they would put it in 1040 line 21, no direct legal issues. Is that taxable income? Can police use that in anyway to gain and warrant, would law enforcement even have access?
Illegal income is taxable. Everything is taxable except a handful of explicitly carved out exceptions. If you help your friend move and he gets you a pizza that’s taxable.
If they got a warrant for your tax records they might subsequently use it against you as evidence of illegal income but if it wasn’t on there then the IRS would Capone you. Police can’t see tax records by default, they’d have to get a judge I think.
In practice though IRS enforcement is a joke outside of refundable credits and the very rich. They’re not staffed for it. They’d have to know you committed fraud and for it to be an easier/bigger case than the other fraud cases they’re already working for them to do anything. They can’t take one case without dropping another so you have to be worse than the other offenders.
|
|
|
So I just read the stuff about all the gifts given to Clarence Thomas published by propublica, what is the take about it from some of those who knows a bit about US law? Seems incredibly shady if you ask me
|
United States44373 Posts
On April 07 2023 04:04 Neneu wrote:So I just read the stuff about all the gifts given to Clarence Thomas published by propublica, what is the take about it from some of those who knows a bit about US law? Seems incredibly shady if you ask me
They’re shady people. Of course they’re doing shady things.
|
|
|
Yes that's probably why a lot of people see the Trump prosecution as a witch hunt. The corruption and profiteering is so blatant everywhere you look that pretending we really care about right and wrong in this one instance makes it seem disingenuous.
|
On April 07 2023 07:50 BlackJack wrote:
Yes that's probably why a lot of people see the Trump prosecution as a witch hunt. The corruption and profiteering is so blatant everywhere you look that pretending we really care about right and wrong in this one instance makes it seem disingenuous.
Prosecute them then.
This is such horseshit whataboutism
|
On April 07 2023 07:50 BlackJack wrote:
Yes that's probably why a lot of people see the Trump prosecution as a witch hunt. The corruption and profiteering is so blatant everywhere you look that pretending we really care about right and wrong in this one instance makes it seem disingenuous.
If a DA brought charges against Hunter Biden anywhere in the country I wouldn't have a problem with it.
If they committed crimes they should be charged for it. When one side decides the law doesn't apply to them anymore that doesn't mean the other has to acept that.
|
|
|
On April 07 2023 07:50 BlackJack wrote:
Yes that's probably why a lot of people see the Trump prosecution as a witch hunt. The corruption and profiteering is so blatant everywhere you look that pretending we really care about right and wrong in this one instance makes it seem disingenuous.
Certainly comes off as disingenuous to me.
Basically some people argue that fidelity to and the universality of law is what is driving the prosecution of Trump and that it benefits Democrats politically (at least they think it will) is incidental. Other people argue it's the politics that are motivating prosecuting Trump and incidentally they have a (somewhat) plausible case.
The truth imo is that it's obviously politically motivated and Trump is obviously a habitual criminal, so it was less about finding something on Trump (there's plenty) and more about finding something that might stick and wouldn't also clearly implicate his accusers/their donors in one way or another (much less of those).
Even this wasn't great with the John Edwards comparison sitting on the sidelines.
If we want to start a precedent of holding former presidents accountable, I'd again recommend people turn their fervor toward the guy who we all know had people tortured instead of cheering on this charade. That said, I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
|
I don't think there's anyone here at least that doesn't also want to see other instances of corruption and criminal leadership being punished. People have made that very clear multiple times. I don't think we need to rehash for the thousandth time that just because we're not solving all the problems doesn't mean we can't solve some of them.
|
On April 07 2023 11:15 NewSunshine wrote:
I don't think there's anyone here at least that doesn't also want to see other instances of corruption and criminal leadership being punished. People have made that very clear multiple times. I don't think we need to rehash for the thousandth time that just because we're not solving all the problems doesn't mean we can't solve some of them.
To be clear, I'm talking about the fervor for prosecuting Trump for roundabout campaign finance violations being more appropriately aimed at prosecuting someone that's openly admitted to having people tortured, how Democrats/their supporters don't embody that, and how that undermines both global leaders' accountability to international laws and holding Trump accountable under US law.
Not that they don't also want to see other instances punished. I think their fixation on seeing Trump "punished" is precluding them from seeing the forest for the trees.
|
United States44373 Posts
On April 07 2023 11:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2023 11:15 NewSunshine wrote:
I don't think there's anyone here at least that doesn't also want to see other instances of corruption and criminal leadership being punished. People have made that very clear multiple times. I don't think we need to rehash for the thousandth time that just because we're not solving all the problems doesn't mean we can't solve some of them. To be clear, I'm talking about the fervor for prosecuting Trump for roundabout campaign finance violations being more appropriately aimed at prosecuting someone that's openly admitted to having people tortured, how Democrats/their supporters don't embody that, and how that undermines both global leaders' accountability to international laws and holding Trump accountable under US law. Not that they don't also want to see other instances punished. I think their fixation on seeing Trump "punished" is precluding them from seeing the forest for the trees.
If we could get Bush we would but we can’t so we don’t talk about it constantly because it would be weird and pointless if we ended every sentence with Bush Delenda Est. Your point is whataboutism because it presumes that a choice has been made over who to prosecute. That if all the energy used to prosecute Trump were used on Bush then he would be prosecuted and therefore that the people prosecuting Trump have, by their choice, signaled support for Bush’s crimes. But it doesn’t work like that.
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On April 07 2023 11:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2023 11:15 NewSunshine wrote:
I don't think there's anyone here at least that doesn't also want to see other instances of corruption and criminal leadership being punished. People have made that very clear multiple times. I don't think we need to rehash for the thousandth time that just because we're not solving all the problems doesn't mean we can't solve some of them. To be clear, I'm talking about the fervor for prosecuting Trump for roundabout campaign finance violations being more appropriately aimed at prosecuting someone that's openly admitted to having people tortured, how Democrats/their supporters don't embody that, and how that undermines both global leaders' accountability to international laws and holding Trump accountable under US law. Not that they don't also want to see other instances punished. I think their fixation on seeing Trump "punished" is precluding them from seeing the forest for the trees.
I think the whole political establishment could do without a president going
"Hey guys, look at me, I can do anything I want, I can break the law and because I'm popular there's nothing anyone can do about it!"
That's pretty much a lose lose for everyone in politics, law enforcement etc.
I don't think its strictly political, but basic self preservation.
|
On April 07 2023 11:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2023 11:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 07 2023 11:15 NewSunshine wrote:
I don't think there's anyone here at least that doesn't also want to see other instances of corruption and criminal leadership being punished. People have made that very clear multiple times. I don't think we need to rehash for the thousandth time that just because we're not solving all the problems doesn't mean we can't solve some of them. To be clear, I'm talking about the fervor for prosecuting Trump for roundabout campaign finance violations being more appropriately aimed at prosecuting someone that's openly admitted to having people tortured, how Democrats/their supporters don't embody that, and how that undermines both global leaders' accountability to international laws and holding Trump accountable under US law. Not that they don't also want to see other instances punished. I think their fixation on seeing Trump "punished" is precluding them from seeing the forest for the trees. If we could get Bush we would but we can’t so we don’t talk about it constantly because it would be weird and pointless if we ended every sentence with Bush Delenda Est. Your point is whataboutism because it presumes that a choice has been made over who to prosecute. That if all the energy used to prosecute Trump were used on Bush then he would be prosecuted and therefore that the people prosecuting Trump have, by their choice, signaled support for Bush’s crimes. But it doesn’t work like that.
I mean, if all it took to nail Bush, Trump and everybody else was me being angry about it on the Internet, I'd have a lot more motivation to do so. Sadly I'd just be screaming into a void. We're talking about Trump because Trump got indicted and that's worth talking about.
|
On April 07 2023 11:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2023 11:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 07 2023 11:15 NewSunshine wrote:
I don't think there's anyone here at least that doesn't also want to see other instances of corruption and criminal leadership being punished. People have made that very clear multiple times. I don't think we need to rehash for the thousandth time that just because we're not solving all the problems doesn't mean we can't solve some of them. To be clear, I'm talking about the fervor for prosecuting Trump for roundabout campaign finance violations being more appropriately aimed at prosecuting someone that's openly admitted to having people tortured, how Democrats/their supporters don't embody that, and how that undermines both global leaders' accountability to international laws and holding Trump accountable under US law. Not that they don't also want to see other instances punished. I think their fixation on seeing Trump "punished" is precluding them from seeing the forest for the trees. If we could get Bush we would but we can’t so we don’t talk about it + Show Spoiler +constantly because it would be weird and pointless if we ended every sentence with Bush Delenda Est.
How one rationalizes the "we can't" and the "so we don't talk about it" is basically where the "disingenuous" part comes in from my perspective.
Your point is whataboutism because it presumes that a choice has been made over who to prosecute. That if all the energy used to prosecute Trump were used on Bush then he would be prosecuted and therefore that the people prosecuting Trump have, by their choice, signaled support for Bush’s crimes. But it doesn’t work like that.
No. It's more of a keep that same energy situation, and while I personally think this is a charade and a distraction + Show Spoiler +(particularly this case, but hell it's the first so now we know we can do the 'arresting a former president' part, so that's cool),
That said, I understand the throwing of the types of platitudes typically used by parts of the right to justify racist prosecutions, or grand juries that let killer cops walk, etc.. back in their face here with Trump. But after the lols, if one stands on it in earnest, "disingenuous" strikes me as fair if rather faint criticism of their position.
|
"Disingenuous" twords the validity of charging trump with crimes just strikes me as accepting the status quo of presidents and politicians in general not being able to be charged with crimes as something that is either inevitable or preferable. I don't see how you can't take just a little bit of hope that getting the most obvious criminal politician behind bars would at least open the conversation to legitimate prosecutions of politicians going forward. The whole point of progress is fixing the past mistakes to make a better future.
Whats Disingenuous is whataboutising any and all actual steps forward or any and all steps taken by anyone and everyone who could possibly make those steps forward. Like do you want to make the world a better place or do you just want to make the world a worse place like the republicans? I've never seen you happy or hopeful for anything this whole time. Is there anything at all you can point to that you're genuinely happy about happening or hopeful that it'll make things better?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
