Weisselberg was "one of the largest individual beneficiaries" of the criminal scheme.
So there were others.
He wasn't even necessarily the largest beneficiary.
Today, those others are probably having a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day.
I should do this as a thread.
This is important: The scheme is systematic and ongoing. In other words, we're not talking about a few isolated incidents, but pervasive over a period of years.
This is my surprised face. [sarcasm]
The defendants "and others."
The scheme was to compensate Weisselberg "and other Trump organization executives. . . " off the books.
It's hard to believe those others get to skate free. There's just too much noise in here about them.
I mentioned elsewhere that paying employees off the book is a Big Deal.
The scheme allowed everyone to cheat. The Trump Org cheated on payroll taxes, and the executives cheated on their taxes. At the same time, the Trump Org deducted the expenses.
Goodies for everyone!
This spreadsheet thing is almost comic.
Since 2005, Weisselberg lived rent-free (including utilities) in a New York apartment maintained by the Trump Org. Two sets of books (the second set are these spreadsheets) kept track of the cheating.
No way to say it was inadvertent.
Look who signed the off-the-books checks for tax-free (unreported) benefits.
I understand that private tuition in Manhattan for two students is quite expensive.
Apparently living rent-free in Manhattan and free private-school tuition for your kids isn't really complete without a Mercedes paid by the company in and documented in books juggled so nobody pays taxes.
Prison is a small price to pay for years of luxury, right? (sarcasm)
There's been a lot of talk about pressure on Weisselberg to flip. If these "other employees" are not named Trump, I assume they're squirming right now. (#1)
"Other executives" were paid bonuses by subsidiary companies. The bonuses were disguised as self-employed income. (#2)
The problem with tweeting as I read is that the punch-line gets buried.
I hit the "Conspiracy" count and I'm thinking: "Wait. Conspiracy is 2 or more people! Can someone conspire with a corporation or company🤔?"
Then I find an unindicted co-conspirator.
Veeeery interesting.
A total of 15 counts, including frequent mentions of the F-word.
Not THAT f-word.
Fraud.
Will any of the Trumps be indicted? It depends on how well they insulated themselves.
But I will be extremely surprised if more indictments are not coming. There were too many teasers here.
I assume that we'll also see an indictment for bank fraud.
Bank and insurance fraud, in fact, is conspicuously missing.
In his 2018 congressional testimony, Cohen presented financial statements that Trump gave financial institutions misrepresenting the worth of property. theguardian.com/us-news/2019/f…
Michael Cohen, as Trump's former personal lawyer, would have had these records.
Hell hath no fury like a fixer scorned.
If indeed (as is being reported) the unindicted co-conspirator is the comptroller who is cooperating, it seems to me he'd know about as much as Weisselberg.
Sort of an obvious point, but it's easy to see why Trump fought tooth and nail for years to prevent his tax records from coming to light.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The prosecution has everyone confused because they are framing the case as "election fraud" and "election interference" so everyone is trying to connect the crimes we know about to "election fraud."
This would be clear: "It is election fraud. Here is how the evidence will support a charge of election fraud." Then show how the behavior supports election fraud.
For years I was perplexed by what I was seeing on left-leaning Twitter, political blogs, and partisan reporting.
I had the feeling that, in its way, what I was seeing was comparable to Fox: Lots of bad information and even unhinged conspiracy theories.
2terikanefield.com/invented-narra…
Of course, if I suggested that, I was blasted for "both-sidesing."
Then I discovered an area of scholarship: Communications and the overlap between communications and political science.
Another contradiction: when people demanded indictments RIGHT NOW (in 2021 and early 2022) the reason was, "Everyone knows he's guilty! Look at all the evidence!"
We saw the J6 committee findings.
Trump isn't saying "I didn't do it." He's saying, "I had the right to do it."
2
We all know what he did. The question is, "Do people want a president who acts like Trump?"
A lot of people do.
People show me polls that a guilty finding would change minds.
I say rubbish. Use common sense. He lost in 2020 and he lost the popular vote in 2016. . .
3/
. . . because it is designed to keep people hooked. People need to stay glued to the screen for hour after hour.
But to hook people, you need to scare them. The Facebook whistleblower testified that content that produces strong emotions like anger gets more engagement.
2/
Fox does the same thing. There is a few minutes of news, but the facts get lost as commentators and TV personalities speculate and scare their audiences.
Before you yell at me for comparing MSNBC to FOX, read all of this:
If I write another blog post addressing the outrage cycle here on Twitter and in the MSNBC ecosystem, it will be to explore why so many people who believe they are liberal or progressive actually want a police state.
1/
Today alone, a handful of people who consider themselves liberal or progressive told me that the "traitors need to be arrested and prosecuted."
In 2019, back when I wore myself out tamping down misinformation, I explained the legal meaning of treason.
2/
Back then, I now realize, people asked politely: "Can Trump be prosecuted for treason (over the Russia election stuff).
I explained that wouldn't happen.
Now it's different. It's more like fascist chants.
3/