Trump Ordered to Pay $2 Million for Treating His Charity as a Personal Checkbook

Politics • Views: 22,553

A scandal like this would probably put an ignominious end to any other presidential administration.

But now we live in Trumpland, where it barely causes a media blip.

Today a New York state judge ordered Donald Trump, the president* of the United States, to pay a $2 million judgment for a “shocking pattern of illegality” involved the now-closed Trump Foundation “charity.”

I put “charity” in scare quotes because Trump and his sons treated it as “a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump’s business and political interests.”

Jump to bottom

143 comments
1
Yeah Sure WhatEVs  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:03:20pm
2
Scottish Dragon  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:05:39pm

Elizabeth Warren is getting hit for wealth tax proposals while preposterous amounts of Trump charity fraud gets a yawn.

As always, the GOP is graded on a curve while Dems are asked why they don’t have 700 pages of policy memorized.

3
Backwoods_Sleuth  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:06:50pm
4
Khal Wimpo (the extinguisher of tiki torches)  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:07:29pm

Jesus. When you read WTF the Trumps did with their “charity,” it just gets worse & worse:

“Our petition detailed a shocking pattern of illegality involving the Trump Foundation — including unlawful coordination with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated and willful self-dealing, and much more,”

So basically, the “charity” was just a means to launder money to avoid taxes, which they then paid to themselves, and used to pay bills for the campaign (much of which were just, again, self-dealing).

What a bunch of low-rent crooks. Seriously, this is the kind of shit I see when working in former Soviet republics like Kazakhstan or Azerbaijan, where strongmen just fucking steal in broad daylight.

We are a banana republic now.

5
Dread Pirate  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:08:04pm
6
DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:13:38pm

re: #2 Scottish Dragon

Elizabeth Warren is getting hit for wealth tax proposals while preposterous amounts of Trump charity fraud gets a yawn.

As always, the GOP is graded on a curve while Dems are asked why they don’t have 700 pages of policy memorized.

graded on a curve? no

the gop got away with fiscal murder based only on their own ravings and still no one’s batting an eyelash

7
KGxvi  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:13:41pm

re: #2 Scottish Dragon

Elizabeth Warren is getting hit for wealth tax proposals while preposterous amounts of Trump charity fraud gets a yawn.

As always, the GOP is graded on a curve while Dems are asked why they don’t have 700 pages of policy memorized.

I still tend to think that Warren’s wealth tax, as constituted, is likely unconstitutional. If wealth/property taxes are not direct taxes, then nothing is a direct tax and that doesn’t really fly. But that’s not an issue many have picked up on.

8
Mike Lamb  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:22:41pm

Butter Foundation!

9
Hecuba's daughter  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:23:09pm

re: #7 KGxvi

I still tend to think that Warren’s wealth tax, as constituted, is likely unconstitutional. If wealth/property taxes are not direct taxes, then nothing is a direct tax and that doesn’t really fly. But that’s not an issue many have picked up on.

I am not a fan of her wealth tax because it would be too difficult to administer. But I am a fan of a more aggressive estate tax, including handling of trusts, which over time would generate similar income.

Also, we need tax experts to comb through Trump’s tax return to identify all the illegal ploys that his accountants employed to shield him from taxation. And to revamp the tax code to eliminate the carried interest loophole and identify and remove other provisions that allow the wealthy to evade their fair share of taxes.

10
Dave In Austin  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:23:17pm
11
Charles Johnson  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:26:48pm
12
DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:26:59pm

every thread’s an impeachment thread, right?

House Democrats released the transcript of George Kent’s testimony, a senior diplomat who told the impeachment probe that President Trump’s anti-corruption campaign in Ukraine was itself corrupt, The Hill reports.

13
Backwoods_Sleuth  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:27:27pm
14
Dread Pirate  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:28:25pm
15
DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:31:08pm

Democrats’ new moves show House could wrap up impeachment by Christmas (CNN)

16
Backwoods_Sleuth  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:31:38pm
17
Scottish Dragon  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:33:23pm
18
Charles Johnson  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:34:51pm

If Glenn Greenwald ever said the things to my face that he’s written about me, I’d be very tempted to take a swing at him too.

19
Scottish Dragon  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:35:31pm

re: #18 Charles Johnson

If Glenn Greenwald ever said the things to my face that he’s written about me, I’d be very tempted to take a swing at him too.

This this this this.
Is it too much to hope for casualties on both sides in Brazil?

20
lawhawk  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:35:46pm

Trump never met a grift, scam, or con, he didn’t try at least once.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we learn that he attempted to do a Ponzi scheme at one point in his career, just to see if he could get away with it.

As it is, he’s had a scam school shut down and forced to pay restitution. Now he’s had his “charitable” foundation shuttered and forced to personally pay $2 million to actual charities from a list provided by the judge as part of the settlement with the NY AG.

Trump used that foundation as a slush fund. Trump improperly set up the foundation and accepted donations from other people and then distributed those donations as though he was the one who gave the money. That is not how his charity was created under NY law, and that raises tax fraud issues.

Trump and his spawn cannot be on the board of a charity in NY. That’s how pathetic Trump is.

For any other national level politician, this would be the kiss of death, but for Trump, this is a sideshow. That tells you how utterly corrupt and criminal Trumpworld is and has been.

21
Joe Bacon 🌹  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:35:56pm

re: #18 Charles Johnson

If Glenn Greenwald ever said the things to my face that he’s written about me, I’d be very tempted to take a swing at him too.

Can’t blame you after all the lies he spread.

22
Scottish Dragon  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:37:21pm
23
Yeah Sure WhatEVs  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:39:46pm

re: #15 DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)

Democrats’ new moves show House could wrap up impeachment by Christmas (CNN)

[Embedded content]

Too soon.

24
Scottish Dragon  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:40:01pm
25
Decatur Deb  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:41:15pm

Speaking of Trump and charity fundraising:

A GFM has successfully raised the funds to bring the Trump barrage balloon to the LSU game. The drive went far over need, extra to be donated to the Equal Justice Initiative.

al.com

26
goddamnedfrank  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:42:57pm

re: #23 Yeah Sure WhatEVs

Too soon.

Conversely a lot can come to light in six weeks and there is a real risk of fatigue. Pelosi has been right so far, and the one thing I’ve learned is to stop second guessing her on strategy.

27
Yeah Sure WhatEVs  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:44:17pm

re: #26 goddamnedfrank

Conversely a lot can come to light in six weeks and there is a real risk of fatigue. Pelosi has been right so far, and the one thing I’ve learned is to stop second guessing her on strategy.

You’re right. And I have full faith in Pelosi. 1000%.

I just know the senate is going to white wash this whole thing. And that scares me. Not on the house side, on the senate side.

28
Backwoods_Sleuth  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:45:28pm
29
Backwoods_Sleuth  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:46:46pm

mmmmm….haggis

30
Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:46:55pm

re: #12 DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)

every thread’s an impeachment thread, right?

Impeachfrastructure Week

31
Belafon  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:48:25pm

re: #27 Yeah Sure WhatEVs

You’re right. And I have full faith in Pelosi. 1000%.

I just know the senate is going to white wash this whole thing. And that scares me. Not on the house side, on the senate side.

Get more Democrats angry that way.

The Senate isn’t going to convict Trump unless it’s something like Trump taking $500M from the Koch’s and donating to Obama initiatives. We’re going to have to vote him, and the other Republicans, out of office.

32
goddamnedfrank  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:48:30pm

re: #27 Yeah Sure WhatEVs

You’re right. And I have full faith in Pelosi. 1000%.

I just know the senate is going to white wash this whole thing. And that scares me. Not on the house side, on the senate side.

Yes, they almost certainly will. Possibly better to just let them make that bed and give them a long time to sleep in it. Personally I think a lot more is going to come out.

33
Shiplord Kirel, Friend of Moose and Squirrel  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:50:23pm

re: #11 Charles Johnson

[Embedded content]

I know something about Brazil, since I have worked there and I speak the language. It’s going to get worse. Glenn needs to get while the gettin’s good, or at least possible. I don’t like the bastard a bit but I don’t want to see him in the hands of a Brazilian death squad, and I am convinced that’s where things are headed. Btw, the term “death squad” originated in Brazil in the 1960s. It was first applied to rogue police squads who went through the favelas killing alleged criminals who could not be brought to trial. The military dictatorship of the time and its right wing supporters noticed their work and emulated it in dealing with dissidents. Bolsonaro has spoken fondly of those days.

34
DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:50:24pm

re: #20 lawhawk

Trump never met a grift, scam, or con, he didn’t try at least once.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we learn that he attempted to do a Ponzi scheme at one point in his career, just to see if he could get away with it.

As it is, he’s had a scam school shut down and forced to pay restitution. Now he’s had his “charitable” foundation shuttered and forced to personally pay $2 million to actual charities from a list provided by the judge as part of the settlement with the NY AG.

Trump used that foundation as a slush fund. Trump improperly set up the foundation and accepted donations from other people and then distributed those donations as though he was the one who gave the money. That is not how his charity was created under NY law, and that raises tax fraud issues.

Trump and his spawn cannot be on the board of a charity in NY. That’s how pathetic Trump is.

For any other national level politician, this would be the kiss of death, but for Trump, this is a sideshow. That tells you how utterly corrupt and criminal Trumpworld is and has been.

another little tidbit
- the 2017 990-pf reports $502,400 in contributions received, presumably cash
- the attached accountant’s report states

“…the foundation had one related party donor who accounted for 100% of the contributions….

- i’m guessing that its trump himself because Part XV of the 990 lists only him. there’s no other detail that i could see

no doubt he took a 500k deduction on his 1040.
if i was NYS (and/or the IRS) i’d certainly want to source and trace that money.

more support why NYS should have his tax returns

35
DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:51:16pm

re: #23 Yeah Sure WhatEVs

Too soon.

agree - slow it down and stretch it out. it’s agonizing them
i just did it for the graphic

36
HappyWarrior  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:51:40pm

re: #14 Dread Pirate

[Embedded content]

I regret not embracing TMac at first. He genuinely gets what being a Virginian is about.

37
Backwoods_Sleuth  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:51:49pm
38
Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:53:06pm

re: #24 Scottish Dragon

WTFISD= What the fuck is Sickles doing?

GIHND = General, I have no division!

39
DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:53:37pm

re: #30 Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))

Impeachfrastructure Week

the guys at electoral-vote.com couldnt settle on a name for the scandal so they change the suffix every day
-gate
- ghazi
- dome
- scam
- contra
etc

i think the’re up to 8 or more by now

40
Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:53:49pm

re: #29 Backwoods_Sleuth

Spent the whole day under pelting rain so I’ve got haggis for one on the go: baked, with honey roast sprouts, whisky sauce and mash.

looks deadlier than the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch

41
Backwoods_Sleuth  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:54:05pm
42
Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:54:39pm

re: #32 goddamnedfrank

Yes, they almost certainly will. Possibly better to just let them make that bed and give them a long time to sleep in it. Personally I think a lot more is going to come out.

Impeachment is just the lever used to pry open the vault where Trump keeps his ugly secrets hidden.

43
DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:54:45pm

re: #31 Belafon

Get more Democrats angry that way.

The Senate isn’t going to convict Trump unless it’s something like Trump taking $500M from the Koch’s and donating to Obama initiatives. We’re going to have to vote him, and the other Republicans, out of office.

and he should be as dirty, damaged, stained and reeking as possible when election day rolls around

44
DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:56:01pm

re: #32 goddamnedfrank

Yes, they almost certainly will. Possibly better to just let them make that bed and give them a long time to sleep in it. Personally I think a lot more is going to come out.

im still a fan of hold the hearings slowly and painfully and waiting on any voting / sending articles to the senate until it’s ‘too late’. dont give mitch any power

45
HappyWarrior  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:56:50pm

re: #33 Shiplord Kirel, Friend of Moose and Squirrel

I know something about Brazil, since I have worked there and I speak the language. It’s going to get worse. Glenn needs to get while the gettin’s good, or at least possible. I don’t like the bastard a bit but I don’t want to see him in the hands of a Brazilian death squad, and I am convinced that’s where things are headed. Btw, the term “death squad” originated in Brazil in the 1960s. It was first applied to rogue police squads who went through the favelas killing alleged criminals who could not be brought to trial. The military dictatorship of the time and its right wing supporters noticed their work and emulated it in dealing with dissidents. Bolsonaro has spoken fondly of those days.

Did not know that about the phrase’s origins. Am a little familiar with Bolsonaro’s love of military rule and disregard for civil law. Greenwald is naive if he thinks Bolsonaro’s regime wouldn’t put him in danger.

46
HappyWarrior  Nov 7, 2019 • 12:59:34pm

re: #17 Scottish Dragon

[Embedded content]

Should point out to him that transgendered people serve in the military at higher rates than non ones. Idiots really do think TG people are opposite gender in a dress/male clothing here.

47
Dave In Austin  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:01:13pm
48
terraincognita  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:02:11pm

re: #44 DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)

im still a fan of hold the hearings slowly and painfully and waiting on any voting / sending articles to the senate until it’s ‘too late’. dont give mitch any power

Yes, what was the old saying? Let Trump’s destiny hang slowly and twist in the wind while the days tick off to the primaries, conventions and the national election. If the Senate Republicans refuse to remove the president, that declination will be fresh on the minds of their voters.

49
Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:03:38pm

re: #48 terraincognita

Yes, what was the old saying? Let Trump’s destiny hang slowly and twist in the wind while the days tick off to the primaries, conventions and the national election. If the Senate Republicans refuse to remove the president, that declination will be fresh on the minds of their voters.

The message will be clear: “The Senate refused to do what needed to be done, so it’s up to you, the voters!”

50
Backwoods_Sleuth  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:08:34pm
51
Yeah Sure WhatEVs  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:11:51pm
52
lawhawk  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:12:26pm
53
Sir John Barron  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:13:21pm

re: #41 Backwoods_Sleuth

Isn’t Junior the one who divorced the mother of his children to marry a Faux Bot?

54
Yeah Sure WhatEVs  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:13:45pm

re: #47 Dave In Austin

That is so freaking cool!!!

55
Blind Frog Belly White  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:14:49pm

re: #53 Sir John Barron

Isn’t Junior the one who divorced the mother of his children to marry a Faux Bot?

He hasn’t married her yet. AFAIK, the mother of his children divorced him for cheating. So now he’s taken up with Gavin Newsom’s ex-wife.

56
Yeah Sure WhatEVs  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:15:25pm

re: #49 Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))

The message will be clear: “The Senate refused to do what needed to be done, so it’s up to you, the voters!”

The fear is Diebold, Russian “Cyber security” People, voter disenfranchisement, etc.

57
Backwoods_Sleuth  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:16:09pm

re: #51 Yeah Sure WhatEVs

[Embedded content]

In Kentucky, my solid SOLID red county turned slightly pinkish.
Still went for Bevin, but not as much as would have been expected, especially with a 35% turnout (higher than usual).

58
Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:16:17pm

re: #56 Yeah Sure WhatEVs

The fear is Diebold, Russian “Cyber security” People, voter disenfranchisement, etc.

Fortune favors Diebold

59
Blind Frog Belly White  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:16:50pm

re: #58 Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))

Fortune favors Diebold

Oh. My. God.

60
austin_blue  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:16:51pm

re: #58 Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))

Fortune favors Diebold

Oooofah.

61
Backwoods_Sleuth  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:16:51pm

re: #53 Sir John Barron

Isn’t Junior the one who divorced the mother of his children to marry a Faux Bot?

only engaged…

62
lawhawk  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:17:19pm

re: #58 Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))

Fortune Favors. Die Bold.

/the joys of punctuation and spacing.

63
ericblair  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:18:16pm

re: #7 KGxvi

I still tend to think that Warren’s wealth tax, as constituted, is likely unconstitutional. If wealth/property taxes are not direct taxes, then nothing is a direct tax and that doesn’t really fly. But that’s not an issue many have picked up on.

I think this would go in a different direction. If you actually want to tax wealth, you’re going to have to pierce the whole fabric of bullshit shell corporations and strawmen owners, not just in the US, but in every tax haven on the planet. Which we desperately need to do. And once the more-or-less honest governments of the world get a handle on this, we’re going to find so much money that was outright stolen from countries and corporations that it’s going to completely upset the international order. Whether we tax that wealth that remains at 1% or 2% per annum is not going to be a concern for a while.

64
jaunte  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:18:35pm
65
Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:19:18pm

I still recall 2004 when the Chairman of Diebold Systems, Inc., got up and promised to deliver Ohio’s electors for the GOP and nobody batted an eyelash at what was clearly a major assault on the integrity of our electoral system.

And it seems to have only gone downhill from there.

66
Blind Frog Belly White  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:22:44pm

re: #64 jaunte

In a place full of people who gave literally everything for the country, a very rich man ponders how his family sacrificed not getting even richer, and feels aggrieved.

I can’t believe the editor didn’t say, “Maybe don’t compare not getting an even larger pile of money with giving up your entire life.”

67
jaunte  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:24:26pm

re: #66 Blind Frog Belly White

I’d like to sentence the whole family to life on 65k a year, or as they would think of it, “death.”

68
Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:25:21pm

re: #67 jaunte

I’d like to sentence the whole family to life on 65k a year, or as they would think of it, “death.”

In New York City…

69
jaunte  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:26:11pm

re: #68 Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))

“Cruel and unusual!”

70
lawhawk  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:26:44pm

re: #68 Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))

If you can make it there… you can make it anywhere.

71
lawhawk  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:27:21pm
72
DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:27:47pm

re: #48 terraincognita

Yes, what was the old saying? Let Trump’s destiny hang slowly and twist in the wind while the days tick off to the primaries, conventions and the national election. If the Senate Republicans refuse to remove the president, that declination will be fresh on the minds of their voters.

more of how this would play out (in my own head anyway)

the senate R’s get steamed and frustrated that they arent getting what they thought was coming ‘on time’

they’ll once again cry foul - as if they house has to work on their schedule, or any schedule at all - or even decide to hold a vote at all

they’ll be pissed the house (ok the dems) are controlling the narrative

first they’ll use the president as the excuse - the ‘confront his accusers’ line because, no trial, no confronting. oh gee, tough.

(and ps - if the house decided to not go forward they do not ever have to hold a vote to ‘vindicate’, or some other such nonsense.) people get investigated and not indicted all the time. no apologies or generally, announcements of being ‘cleared’. Absence of Malice

then they’ll morph that into they have a ‘right’ to vote on this. oh while conveniently forgetting that many of them already telegraphed before hearing any evidence they were ready to acquit - and that nothing could change their minds

and this will sit front and center during the campaign (no i dont think the dem candidates will care)

73
Yeah Sure WhatEVs  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:28:28pm

re: #68 Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))

In New York City…

In Atlantis.

74
Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:29:17pm

re: #71 lawhawk

Trump’s lawyers will try to keep him from ever testifying.

They know that Trump lies nonstop, and can’t keep a story straight. He will always think he’s the smartest guy in the room, and will show that he’s far more corrupt and criminal than we already know.

He would be unable to testify under oath for any length of time without contradicting himself or other sworn testimony.

75
Yeah Sure WhatEVs  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:29:48pm

re: #71 lawhawk

There’s no way that will ever happen. None.

Trump can’t open his yap for more than three seconds without lying his ass off.

76
DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:29:53pm

re: #52 lawhawk

[Embedded content]

voluntarily giving up a huge chunk of our business and all international deals…

when did that happen??????????????

77
DodgerFan1988  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:30:30pm
78
gocart mozart  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:30:44pm
79
lawhawk  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:30:52pm

re: #74 Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))

Precisely. The GOP will call this a perjury trap. Everyone else would know that it’s precisely because Trump lies about absolutely everything and can’t keep his story straight, so he just lies more and more. When confronted with the lies, he’ll just lie even more.

It’s pathological.

80
Blind Frog Belly White  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:31:53pm

re: #74 Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))

Trump’s lawyers will try to keep him from ever testifying.

They know that Trump lies nonstop, and can’t keep a story straight. He will always think he’s the smartest guy in the room, and will show that he’s far more corrupt and criminal than we already know.

He would be unable to testify under oath for any length of time without contradicting himself or other sworn testimony.

That motherfucker couldn’t make it through “Good morning” without lying.

81
lawhawk  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:32:09pm

re: #76 DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)

Excellent point. Trumpworld did no such thing, and they were busy touting business deals like expanded golf resort in Ireland, business deals with India, etc.

It’s all scams all the time from Trumpworld.

82
DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:33:19pm

re: #63 ericblair

I think this would go in a different direction. If you actually want to tax wealth, you’re going to have to pierce the whole fabric of bullshit shell corporations and strawmen owners, not just in the US, but in every tax haven on the planet. Which we desperately need to do. And once the more-or-less honest governments of the world get a handle on this, we’re going to find so much money that was outright stolen from countries and corporations that it’s going to completely upset the international order. Whether we tax that wealth that remains at 1% or 2% per annum is not going to be a concern for a while.

florida used to have an ‘intangibles’ tax
after certain exceptions - bank accoutns, ira’s etc, you filled out a form telling the state how much you owned - brokerage accounts etc

nothing was verified or documented unless selected for audit

because it was ‘voluntary’, everyone did their patriotic duty and was 100% honest and accurate

(im the misuser of what…)

83
Skip Intro  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:33:21pm

re: #55 Blind Frog Belly White

He hasn’t married her yet. AFAIK, the mother of his children divorced him for cheating. So now he’s taken up with Gavin Newsom’s ex-wife.

Who bares a disturbing resemblance to his father’s third wife.

84
DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:34:30pm

re: #67 jaunte

I’d like to sentence the whole family to life on 65k a year, or as they would think of it, “death.”

too kind, too much
oh, not each, you meant in total.
ok then

85
DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:35:59pm

re: #71 lawhawk

they will produce and direct a highly scripted and edited video and try to get it admitted as evidence

86
HappyWarrior  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:36:20pm

re: #71 lawhawk

[Embedded content]

Gotta admit that I never thought about that. I can totally see him having a tantrum when questioned.

87
Blind Frog Belly White  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:37:20pm

re: #83 Skip Intro

Who bares a disturbing resemblance to his father’s third wife.

But who, in a strange break from Trump family tradition, is considerably older than he is, and is, in fact, older than his step-mom.

But, you know, she looks pretty good and she apparently got lobotomized after breaking up with Newsom, so she won’t challenge him intellectually.

88
Blind Frog Belly White  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:38:19pm

re: #84 DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)

too kind, too much
oh, not each, you meant in total.
ok then

“It’s one banana, how much could it cost? $10?”

89
BeachDem  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:47:38pm

re: #39 DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)

the guys at electoral-vote.com couldnt settle on a name for the scandal so they change the suffix every day
-gate
- ghazi
- dome
- scam
- contra
etc

i think the’re up to 8 or more by now

I favor fubarT or snafuT.

90
Backwoods_Sleuth  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:48:50pm
91
HappyWarrior  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:49:55pm

re: #90 Backwoods_Sleuth

[Embedded content]

Did anyone ever say Trump was too angry?

92
DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:51:36pm

re: #89 BeachDem

I favor fubarT or snafuT.

they’re all a bunch of asshats doing all manner of asshattery so i’ve been going with AssGate to cover the entire thing from escalator to perp walk and/or humiliating electoral defeat

93
Backwoods_Sleuth  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:51:48pm

oh…

94
Eclectic Cyborg  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:51:55pm

Couldn’t Mcconnell just decide to not have Trump testify?

95
HappyWarrior  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:54:14pm

re: #93 Backwoods_Sleuth

oh…

[Embedded content]

Lovely.

96
Skip Intro  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:57:08pm

re: #94 Eclectic Cyborg

Couldn’t Mcconnell just decide to not have Trump testify?

Since they’re not going to vote to convict him anyway why not? I guess McConnell could just announce “Case dismissed” in the first hour of the first day of the senate “trial”.

97
Blind Frog Belly White  Nov 7, 2019 • 1:58:15pm

re: #94 Eclectic Cyborg

Couldn’t Mcconnell just decide to not have Trump testify?

I’m a little unclear on how all this works, but my presumption is that McConnell’s ability to make decisions about what will and won’t happen is kinda limited. The Senate is the jury, and if Trump’s defense counsel are dumb enough to call him, I can’t see McConnell stopping them.

I’m also assuming that Trump cannot be forced to testify against himself, so the House Impeachment Managers won’t call him.

98
steve_davis  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:00:52pm

re: #38 Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))

GIHND = General, I have no division!

technically, he did have a division. The carronades had divided them all over the battlefield into little pieces.

99
Blind Frog Belly White  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:01:41pm

This is the whole basis of the Culture Wars - “Those people think you’re stupid!” But it goes back into the mists of history, back to stories rural people loved to tell about ‘city slickers’.

100
Backwoods_Sleuth  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:03:18pm

MSJay, found a make it yourself gyro meat recipe for you (and it’s fairly easy-peasy):

allrecipes.com

101
Blind Frog Belly White  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:03:54pm

re: #96 Skip Intro

Since they’re not going to vote to convict him anyway why not? I guess McConnell could just announce “Case dismissed” in the first hour of the first day of the senate “trial”.

That’s what Hew Hughwitt is saying McConnell should do. Just give it the “Merrick Garland” treatment. He even uses that phrase.

102
Jay C  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:06:36pm

re: #94 Eclectic Cyborg

Couldn’t Mcconnell just decide to not have Trump testify?

I don’t recall the precise procedure, (and will appreciate correction if I’m wrong), but I think in a Senate impeachment/removal trial, the “prosecution” is team of “Managers” appointed by the House, and the impeached official is represented by their own legal counsel. The Senate is the “jury”, so I don’t think they have the authority to “decide” if Trump would testify (in person? on video?) or not. And also, I believe some of the normal rules of court procedure do apply, so (as the accused), The Anus can’t be compelled to testify. Not sure what they would do if he insisted on making a personal appearance, though: I’m guessing he would probably prefer to just send over a tape from one of his Nuremberg rallies ranting away about WITCH HUNT!! and PERSECUTION!! and FAKE NEWS!!, etc.

103
Ace Rothstein  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:07:01pm

re: #71 lawhawk

And if I’m a Democrat I’d hammer Trump relentlessly for being too much of a coward to defend himself. After all, if he’s done nothing wrong wouldn’t he want to say so under oath??!!

104
BeachDem  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:07:08pm

re: #41 Backwoods_Sleuth

[Embedded content]

That site is hilarious—go Samantha Bee!

105
DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:07:48pm

re: #101 Blind Frog Belly White

That’s what Hew Hughwitt is saying McConnell should do. Just give it the “Merrick Garland” treatment. He even uses that phrase.

go right ahead mitch.
have more than half the nation point their finger at you and you alone

no.
he’s a coward

106
BeachDem  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:18:25pm

re: #65 Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))

I still recall 2004 when the Chairman of Diebold Systems, Inc., got up and promised to deliver Ohio’s electors for the GOP and nobody batted an eyelash at what was clearly a major assault on the integrity of our electoral system.

And it seems to have only gone downhill from there.

And remember, in 2004, Ohio had the odious Ken Blackwell as SoS

Every significant decision that Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell made regarding the 2004 presidential election benefited George W. Bush. Blackwell was honorary co-chair of Bush’s 2004 Ohio campaign and served as an election expert in the Florida fiasco that ensued after the 2000 campaign, spinning the Bush campaign’s case to the media.

citybeat.com

Ken Blackwell’s “Greatest” Hits: Voting Edition

acluohio.org

107
Belafon  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:24:25pm

re: #56 Yeah Sure WhatEVs

The fear is Diebold, Russian “Cyber security” People, voter disenfranchisement, etc.

Still couldn’t get Bevin a win.

108
Ace Rothstein  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:26:43pm

I think I’ve figured out the final line of the Republicans defense of Trump:

“Fuck it, we don’t give a shit.”

109
Colère Tueur de Lapin  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:31:33pm

re: #102 Jay C

Doesn’t SCOTUS act as the presiding ‘judge’ authority? So Robert’s is in charge?

110
Belafon  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:31:44pm

re: #99 Blind Frog Belly White

“far too many people in Washington media are trying to shape public opinion consistent w/their worldview - where you eat nothing but kale and quinoa, where those of us who cling to Bibles, guns, fried foods, real America, are looked down upon where you wave your Bible around claiming you speak for God and that gives you the right to attack minorities and gays.”

FTFH

111
KGxvi  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:35:41pm

re: #102 Jay C

I don’t recall the precise procedure, (and will appreciate correction if I’m wrong), but I think in a Senate impeachment/removal trial, the “prosecution” is team of “Managers” appointed by the House, and the impeached official is represented by their own legal counsel. The Senate is the “jury”, so I don’t think they have the authority to “decide” if Trump would testify (in person? on video?) or not. And also, I believe some of the normal rules of court procedure do apply, so (as the accused), The Anus can’t be compelled to testify. Not sure what they would do if he insisted on making a personal appearance, though: I’m guessing he would probably prefer to just send over a tape from one of his Nuremberg rallies ranting away about WITCH HUNT!! and PERSECUTION!! and FAKE NEWS!!, etc.

Roberts sitting as the presiding officer of the Senate would have the power to make some rulings. I think Rehnquist referred most questions to the Senate parliamentarian. But, yeah, in putting on a defense (assuming he does*), he would be able to take the stand and testify (I believe in Clinton’s impeachment they didn’t have live testimony and instead relied mostly on deposition transcripts being submitted**).

*A possible smart play, if you really believe impeachment is improper would be to simply not appear either in person or by and through counsel. But Trump wouldn’t be able to do that, he’s not disciplined enough and way too thin skinned. More likely it’ll be Rudy (or whichever attorneys he have that haven’t gone to prison/been disbarred) up there causing a scene.

**Senate rules on impeachment allow live testimony, and give Senators the power to submit written questions to witnesses. Given the nature of the potential articles against Trump, I suspect we will see live witness testimony in a Senate trial.

112
plansbandc  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:36:45pm
113
Blind Frog Belly White  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:38:05pm

re: #109 Colère Tueur de Lapin

Doesn’t SCOTUS act as the presiding ‘judge’ authority? So Robert’s is in charge?

Yes. My understanding is that the Senate would come up with the rules for the trial - they may already have some - and Roberts would rule based on them, but if a Senator wanted to change the rules it would be possible with a majority vote.

I don’t think that McConnell could, or would, blow the trial off, on his own without majority support, and I think he’s shy of majority support for doing that. At least, that’s my hope. I think if the hearings and the way the articles are constructed are all done right, the Senate will have to at least make a visible effort at fairness. If impeachment/removal are >55% I think McConnell would see trying any blatant power plays to protect Trump as the death of the Republican majority in the Senate.

114
Blind Frog Belly White  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:41:04pm

re: #111 KGxvi

Your better, more informed answer posted while I was still writing mine.

115
KGxvi  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:44:11pm

re: #113 Blind Frog Belly White

Helpful resource: RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS

116
William Lewis  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:47:26pm

re: #17 Scottish Dragon

[Embedded content]

I seem to remember a bunch of idiots who thought they were the only ones with “Martial Spirit” This is the only flag of theirs that matters…

13th US Cav - it shall be done.

117
Blind Frog Belly White  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:51:04pm

re: #115 KGxvi

Helpful resource: RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS

What I wonder about, and which to me is a vitally important question, is, if the Senate does vote to convict and remove, how soon does it take effect?

Because in the case of Trump it seems to me that it should take effect as soon as the vote is closed and the CJ announces the results. As in, the Armed Forces should IMMEDIATELY no longer be under his command. He can take a day to pack, but the instant he’s convicted, he should stop being President.

118
Jay C  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:51:17pm

re: #111 KGxvi

**Senate rules on impeachment allow live testimony, and give Senators the power to submit written questions to witnesses. Given the nature of the potential articles against Trump, I suspect we will see live witness testimony in a Senate trial.

I can just picture some of the doozies certain Senators might lob at an “unfriendly” witness:

“Question for the witness from the Hon. Senator from South Carolina”:

“Sir:
Has your psychopathic hatred for Donald Trump, and your sick desire to overturn the election results of 2016 led to the lies you have provided in your dishonest. biased, and non-credible testimony given here today?
Please answer yes or no.”

119
KGxvi  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:51:26pm

re: #116 William Lewis

I seem to remember a bunch of idiots who thought they were the only ones with “Martial Spirit” This is the only flag of theirs that matters…

[Embedded content]

13th US Cav - it shall be done.

And the US didn’t really have much of a standing military at the time, state militias were actually real functioning military bodies (no offense to anyone in the national guard). Now the US military has drones and ICBMs and tanks and real shit.

Anyone who thinks they could somehow overthrow the federal government needs to consider what the US military has accomplished in the last 25 years or so. And then remember that they won’t have the support of the majority of Americans.

120
ckkatz  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:53:05pm

StoneKettle made an interesting point on the state of the Federal government. Certainly we have real failures due to lack of National interest based policies.

121
ckkatz  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:53:59pm

Also, a certain lizard makes an important point:

122
KGxvi  Nov 7, 2019 • 2:54:09pm

re: #117 Blind Frog Belly White

What I wonder about, and which to me is a vitally important question, is, if the Senate does vote to convict and remove, how soon does it take effect?

Because in the case of Trump it seems to me that it should take effect as soon as the vote is closed and the CJ announces the results. As in, the Armed Forces should IMMEDIATELY no longer be under his command. He can take a day to pack, but the instant he’s convicted, he should stop being President.

My guess is that on the day of the verdict, the VP would be at the capitol and if you got to 67 votes, once the counting was done, the CJ would immediately swear in the VP as the new president (think LBJ being sworn in after JFK was assassinated).

re: #118 Jay C

I can just picture some of the doozies certain Senators might lob at an “unfriendly” witness:

“Question for the witness from the Hon. Senator from South Carolina”:

“Sir:
Has your psychopathic hatred for Donald Trump, and your sick desire to overturn the election results of 2016 led to the lies you have provided in your dishonest. biased, and non-credible testimony given here today?
Please answer yes or no.”

According to the rules, parties can object to questions posed by Senators. So, I’m guessing that question as read by the CJ would be objected to and the objection would be sustained. Hell, Roberts may reject that sort of question without even reading it aloud.

123
Jay C  Nov 7, 2019 • 3:03:14pm

re: #115 KGxvi

Helpful resource: RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS

Fascinating stuff. At least by their own rules, when the House returns a formal Resolution of Impeachment, it seems to take precedence over any other business: and the Senate has to drop everything else and deal with it in a (very) timely manner. So it’s likely McConnell is procedurally limited in how much he can “Merrick Garland” the trial.
Not that that would stop him from trying, IMO……

124
Dread Pirate  Nov 7, 2019 • 3:03:44pm

They need to rake their forests too.

125
Backwoods_Sleuth  Nov 7, 2019 • 3:04:14pm
126
DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)  Nov 7, 2019 • 3:05:31pm

re: #109 Colère Tueur de Lapin

Doesn’t SCOTUS act as the presiding ‘judge’ authority? So Robert’s is in charge?

electoral-vote.com (again coincidentally, today)

One difference between an impeachment trial and a regular trial is the role of the judge. Normally, when a judge makes a ruling, that’s it, although an appeal can later be made citing an “improper” ruling the judge made. That doesn’t hold for impeachment trials. Under Senate rules, any senator can contest any ruling Roberts makes and then the full Senate gets to vote on it. In civil and criminal trials, the jury cannot overrule the judge.

unclear if only a simple majority is necessary

127
DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)  Nov 7, 2019 • 3:07:17pm

re: #117 Blind Frog Belly White

What I wonder about, and which to me is a vitally important question, is, if the Senate does vote to convict and remove, how soon does it take effect?

Because in the case of Trump it seems to me that it should take effect as soon as the vote is closed and the CJ announces the results. As in, the Armed Forces should IMMEDIATELY no longer be under his command. He can take a day to pack, but the instant he’s convicted, he should stop being President.

this one’s gonna be interesting because, it’s never happened

128
KGxvi  Nov 7, 2019 • 3:08:14pm

re: #123 Jay C

Fascinating stuff. At least by their own rules, when the House returns a formal Resolution of Impeachment, it seems to take precedence over any other business: and the Senate has to drop everything else and deal with it in a (very) timely manner. So it’s likely McConnell is procedurally limited in how much he can “Merrick Garland” the trial.
Not that that would stop him from trying, IMO……

Given the results in Kentucky the other day, I suspect McConnell won’t play too many games. McGrath (and all the other Democratic candidates) will have a field day with him and he’s already historically unpopular.

129
A Mom Anon  Nov 7, 2019 • 3:09:06pm

Cleo says hi everyone!

130
KGxvi  Nov 7, 2019 • 3:10:35pm

re: #126 DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)

electoral-vote.com (again coincidentally, today)

unclear if only a simple majority is necessary

Based on the rules, it would probably be a simple majority, per Rule VII “Upon all such questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with the Standing Rules of the Senate.”

Also, fun bit about the purpose of Senators being able to ask questions, from Rule XIX: It shall not be in order for any Senator to engage in colloquy

131
goddamnedfrank  Nov 7, 2019 • 3:13:28pm

re: #123 Jay C

Fascinating stuff. At least by their own rules, when the House returns a formal Resolution of Impeachment, it seems to take precedence over any other business: and the Senate has to drop everything else and deal with it in a (very) timely manner. So it’s likely McConnell is procedurally limited in how much he can “Merrick Garland” the trial.
Not that that would stop him from trying, IMO……

McConnell will want to do the opposite, he needs to get it over with as quickly as possible. The biggest obstacle to that is going to be Chief Justice Roberts, who probably doesn’t want to be viewed for his next couple of decades on SCOTUS as having enabled a pro-forma partisan whitewash.

132
Barefoot Grin  Nov 7, 2019 • 3:13:41pm

re: #99 Blind Frog Belly White

[Embedded content]

This is the whole basis of the Culture Wars - “Those people think you’re stupid!” But it goes back into the mists of history, back to stories rural people loved to tell about ‘city slickers’.

Cling to Southern Comfort.

133
KGxvi  Nov 7, 2019 • 3:15:45pm

re: #99 Blind Frog Belly White

[Embedded content]

This is the whole basis of the Culture Wars - “Those people think you’re stupid!” But it goes back into the mists of history, back to stories rural people loved to tell about ‘city slickers’.

And it’s existed since the days of Hamilton and Jefferson

134
wrenchwench  Nov 7, 2019 • 3:15:49pm

re: #131 goddamnedfrank

KbzK9jTEtY02DxpiqxQlOnJ5LrweJBGlmIS40Wg5+wSHJm4VS1W/vgoOcVuMXBuTl/YUQteS/ZHri7Eq76/pZj1jZ5zzUT4g2KvM0Ud8vGc=

135
Blind Frog Belly White  Nov 7, 2019 • 3:18:46pm

re: #133 KGxvi

And it’s existed since the days of Hamilton and Jefferson

Probably since the first town got large enough to be more than just ‘where all the serfs lived’.

136
Stanley Sea  Nov 7, 2019 • 3:20:18pm

re: #111 KGxvi

Roberts sitting as the presiding officer of the Senate would have the power to make some rulings. I think Rehnquist referred most questions to the Senate parliamentarian. But, yeah, in putting on a defense (assuming he does*), he would be able to take the stand and testify (I believe in Clinton’s impeachment they didn’t have live testimony and instead relied mostly on deposition transcripts being submitted**).

*A possible smart play, if you really believe impeachment is improper would be to simply not appear either in person or by and through counsel. But Trump wouldn’t be able to do that, he’s not disciplined enough and way too thin skinned. More likely it’ll be Rudy (or whichever attorneys he have that haven’t gone to prison/been disbarred) up there causing a scene.

**Senate rules on impeachment allow live testimony, and give Senators the power to submit written questions to witnesses. Given the nature of the potential articles against Trump, I suspect we will see live witness testimony in a Senate trial.

Clinton was videotape testimony. Sorry if posted, I’m behind.

137
goddamnedfrank  Nov 7, 2019 • 3:25:16pm
138
Eclectic Cyborg  Nov 7, 2019 • 3:26:03pm

re: #108 Ace Rothstein

I think I’ve figured out the final line of the Republicans defense of Trump:

“Fuck it, we don’t give a shit.”

I was thinking: “So? What are you going to do about it?”

139
makeitstop  Nov 7, 2019 • 3:44:00pm

re: #129 A Mom Anon

[Embedded content]

Such a cutie!

140
wrenchwench  Nov 7, 2019 • 3:44:38pm
Karma: 229,944

3 pair. Don’t mess it up.

141
William Lewis  Nov 7, 2019 • 3:45:06pm

re: #129 A Mom Anon

[Embedded content]

I didn’t recognize her - isn’t she supposed to be sideways? /////////// Beautiful dog :)

142
Yeah Sure WhatEVs  Nov 7, 2019 • 4:26:27pm

re: #100 Backwoods_Sleuth

MSJay, found a make it yourself gyro meat recipe for you (and it’s fairly easy-peasy):

allrecipes.com

Thanks! I’m making that this weekend!

I went to Arby’s. It was nothing but their roast beef with tziziki (sic) sauce. Disappointing didn’t cover it.

143
DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)  Nov 8, 2019 • 1:48:17am

re: #140 wrenchwench

3 pair. Don’t mess it up.

oops


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 154 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1