Ryan Goodman Profile picture
Sep 29, 2020 7 tweets 2 min read Read on X
Brilliant, clear explainer by leading tax law professor @DanielShaviro

Shaviro explains why Trump's claim that he "loves depreciation" and was "smart" to pay no taxes doesn't make sense.

Trump's massive economic losses (and potential fraud) do.

<thread>
justsecurity.org/72604/ten-quic…
2. On prospect of Trump's impending personal financial crash:

"A danger of simply running out of money soon if there is no turnaround...$421 million in personal liability debts...due soon add to the impression of an approaching risk of financial breakdown."

#TrumpTaxReturns
3.

It’s not just a question of potential FEDERAL tax crimes—for which Trump could be indicted after leaving office.

It’s also a question of NEW YORK financial crimes—which authorities might bring even if Trump were still president.

Shaviro on the NY & NYC crimes element.👇
4. More liability trouble for Trump:

That $70,000 “deduction” for hair styling?

It likely fails as a legitimate tax deduction.

Shaviro: “Such items cannot generally be deducted unless their use is limited exclusively to the business appearance itself."
5. On that IRS audit:

“The ongoing IRS audit dispute regarding a $72.5 million loss deduction looks very bad for trump.”

Trump's "losing on this issue – as it appears he should, if the stated facts are accurate and relevantly complete."
6. As for net worth:

“Trump does not appear to be rich.”

As for business acumen:

"The pattern looks like one of recklessly and improvidently burning through one’s cash for as long as it lasts, rather than of investing prudently to create future value."
7/7. I'll end where Shaviro starts.

Among most important:

"Tax is the least of it. The article offers direct evidence of Trump’s impending financial liability to unknown lenders, and of pervasive conflicts of interest as president, that are of grave national security concern."

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Ryan Goodman

Ryan Goodman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @rgoodlaw

Oct 6
What was the real message at Quantico?

Janine Davidson (former Undersecretary of Navy and former Chair of Defense Policy Board) discusses:

The domestic paradigm shift in President Trump's addressing Active Duty military leaders with National Guard Adjunct Generals excluded.
🧵 Image
2/3 source:

Trump’s Outline of a Domestic War - The real message from Quantico
justsecurity.org/121940/trumps-…
3/3 audio version via Just Security's Out Loud series

buzzsprout.com/2509956/episod…
Read 4 tweets
Oct 6
Judge Immergut in Oregon v Trump now:

"I grant plaintiffs second motion for a TRO."

Federalized Texas and California Guard to Portland is a "DIRECT CONTRAVENTION" of court's TRO from Saturday.

Both on 12406 statute and Tenth Amendment grounds.
2/ Your reminder that Judge Immergut was appointed to the bench by President Trump.
3/ The new Temporary Restraining Order bars the deployment by the Trump administration of any federalized National Guard -- eg California or Texas National Guard -- in Portland.
Read 4 tweets
Oct 2
“This is not stretching the envelope,” Geoffrey Corn said. “This is shredding it."

On Administration's confidential note to Congress

Completely right

Drug cartels not = "armed conflict"
People killed are civilians

Corn is retired JAG, Army's former law-of-war senior adviser Image
2/ source:

Trump ‘Determined’ the U.S. Is Now in a War With Drug Cartels, Congress Is Told

A notice calls the people the U.S. military recently killed on suspicion of drug smuggling “unlawful combatants.”

By @charlie_savage @EricSchmittNYT
nytimes.com/2025/10/02/us/…
@charlie_savage @EricSchmittNYT 3/ "The administration has also stressed that about 100,000 Americans annually die from overdoses.

However, the focus of the ..attacks has been boats from Venezuela. The surge of overdose deaths...has been driven by fentanyl that drug trafficking experts say comes from Mexico" Image
Read 4 tweets
Sep 25
Comey's testimony in 2020

On left:

In hearing, Senator Cruz erroneously claimed McCabe had said Comey "directly authorized" leak to press. Comey denied that.

On right:

McCabe did not say Comey authorized the leak (source: Inspector General Report, on which Cruz relies) Image
Image
2/ Grassley's question to Comey in 2017 focused on authorization.

(In 2020, Comey testified that he stands by his 2017 testimony.)

So, Comey should be able to stand on that as being truthful and consistent with McCabe's account.

Grassley: "have you ever authorized..."⤵️ Image
3/ Also note the discrepancy in Cruz's letter to DOJ making criminal referral.

On left:

At hearing, Cruz asked Comey whether he was aware AND authorized the leak

On right:

Cruz letter to DOJ falsely frames it as Comey testifying he NEITHER was aware NOR authorized the leak. Image
Image
Read 4 tweets
Sep 15
With terrific team, I just published large study looking at all court cases involving the Trump administration.

Shows basis for courts no longer giving a so-called "presumption of regularity" (a legal doctrine involving a strong benefit of the doubt) to the administration.
🧵 Image
2/ source

The “Presumption of Regularity” in Trump Administration Litigation
justsecurity.org/120547/presump…
3/ We document over 15 cases in which judges have explicitly found the administration violated a court order.

Below are some of the very-strong statements by judges.
justsecurity.org/120547/presump…Image
Read 5 tweets
Sep 3
1/ I worked at DoD. I literally cannot imagine lawyers coming up with a legal basis for lethal strike of suspected Venezuelan drug boat.

Hard to see how this would not be "murder" or war crime under international law that DoD considers applicable.

Read this expert analysis⤵️ Image
2/ The author of the expert analysis worked at the State Department under several administrations with these types of use of force issues as his portfolio.

justsecurity.org/119982/legal-i…
3/ The best line of argument for the administration might be that the law of armed conflict somehow applies.

But if so (and it doesn't), that means the US War Crimes Act applies too, including the prohibition on murder.

Finucane spells out that implication here: Image
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(