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
Boat strikes put U.S. service members in legal jeopardy:
"Some junior officers have asked military lawyers, known as judge advocates general or JAGs, for written sign-off before taking part in strikes .... It does not appear that such memos were furnished."
2/ "Career military and civilian lawyers in the Defense Department and lawyers at other agencies who might otherwise be involved in the deliberations have left government or been excluded from the discussions."
3/ "Lawyers at the NSC, State Department, Justice Department and the Pentagon earlier this year questioned the legal basis for military strikes on cartels without authorization from Congress, and for a while were able to forestall action."
It’s important to understand why DOJ indictment of John Bolton seems very different than Letitia James and Jim Comey indictments.
1. Biden administration opened the criminal investigation of John Bolton in 2022. It's been detailed investigative work ever since.
CNN⤵️
🧵
2. Yes, the Biden DOJ did not indict Bolton. But they also did not close the investigation.
Plus CNN reports: “Unlike prosecutions brought against Comey and James, the Bolton case has maintained the support of career prosecutors and investigators.”
3. The Bolton Indictment is signed by career prosecutors (unlike James and Comey indictments).
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.
@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"