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."
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
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⤵️
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.
Former top official of the National Guard Major Gen. Randy E. Manner
Listen to this excerpt of it.
- Our Guard is not trained for this
- "Negatively impacts military readiness"
- Being as "political props"
2 "This is ... changing the entire context of the way that the average citizens in these cities are going to start viewing ... our military...
We should not have military on our streets, in our American cities. It is absolutely the way that dictatorships run, not democracies."
3
Q: "Joint Task Force ... said that all service members deployed will get an initial briefing on the mission and operational environment, and that prepares them. Is that enough?
General Manner: "No, absolutely not. ... This is a very potentially dangerous situation."
"Epstein was actually still on the Mar-a-Lago membership logs up to 2007. ... That of course is a year after Jeffrey Epstein's arrest in Florida."
So Trump didn't kick him out for many years after knowing Epstein 'stole' Virginia Giuffre from MAL in 2000.
🧵
2/ Here's the Miami Herald piece that @barryscoopking referenced:
"A footnote in the book says the authors were shown the club’s registry from more than a decade earlier and that Epstein in fact had been a member until October 2007."
@barryscoopking @KevinGHall 3/ Here's from the book by then-Miami Herald journalists @Blaskey_S, @NickNehamas and @jayhweaver and Wall Street Journal's @ceostroff.
2/ Along with the Heat Map is essential analysis by leading expert @thomasjoscelyn.
He explains how the Proud Boys orchestrated January 6th attack and risks of resurgence – especially in the event of pardons that former President Trump has suggested.
1/@jacklgoldsmith wrote a NY Times piece attacking special counsel Jack Smith.
@AWeissmann_ and I are refuting the baseless attack.
Compare:
Goldsmith 2020: Bill Barr has "enormous discretion" to ignore 60 day rule
Goldsmith 2024: "Crucial" for Garland to comply with the rule
2/ On left:
Goldsmith piece, “Jack Smith Owes Us an Explanation”
(He thinks DOJ defied a 60-Day rule in recently filing a brief showing details of alleged Trump crimes, and demands explanation)
On right:
Goldsmith shows no awareness DOJ gave the explanation TWICE.
3/ The DOJ explanation is solid.
Simply put, DOJ’s 60-Day Rule against taking actions before an election DOES NOT APPLY and apparently never has to a case after an indictment has been filed. . At that point, it is an open matter and in the hands of the court.