Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

John Bolton Trump hater on indictment

Sledog
Sledog Member Posts: 37,695 Standard Supporter
in Tug Tavern
https://rumble.com/v2g8ilu-it-must-have-hurt-anti-trump-turncoat-john-bolton-to-admit-this-about-indic.html
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • PurpleThrobber
    PurpleThrobber Member Posts: 48,028
    LaughingBolton.gif
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 23,891
    Reasonable argument. Doesn't address the tax issues.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,695 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:

    Reasonable argument. Doesn't address the tax issues.

    What tax issues might that be? I didn't see any tax code charges. Enlighten us.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 23,891
    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Reasonable argument. Doesn't address the tax issues.

    What tax issues might that be? I didn't see any tax code charges. Enlighten us.
    Presenting the reimbursement as a fee for legal services has obvious income tax implications.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,695 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Reasonable argument. Doesn't address the tax issues.

    What tax issues might that be? I didn't see any tax code charges. Enlighten us.
    Presenting the reimbursement as a fee for legal services has obvious income tax implications.
    Yeah not charged.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 113,747 Founders Club
    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Reasonable argument. Doesn't address the tax issues.

    What tax issues might that be? I didn't see any tax code charges. Enlighten us.
    Presenting the reimbursement as a fee for legal services has obvious income tax implications.
    Like the dossier?

    Or Joe not declaring 50k a month in rent received from Hunter?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 23,891
    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Reasonable argument. Doesn't address the tax issues.

    What tax issues might that be? I didn't see any tax code charges. Enlighten us.
    Presenting the reimbursement as a fee for legal services has obvious income tax implications.
    Yeah not charged.
    "The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme."

    sure
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,695 Standard Supporter
    Yeah that looks like a penal code section alright!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 23,891
    Sledog said:

    Yeah that looks like a penal code section alright!

    Straight out of yesterday's unsealed filings.

    Next dodge?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,695 Standard Supporter
    No dodge the guy with no charges based in reality didn't mention the REAL charges you just uncovered.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Bob_C
    Bob_C Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,641 Founders Club
    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Reasonable argument. Doesn't address the tax issues.

    What tax issues might that be? I didn't see any tax code charges. Enlighten us.
    Presenting the reimbursement as a fee for legal services has obvious income tax implications.
    So are NDA settlements not tax deductible then?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,695 Standard Supporter
    Bob_C said:



    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Reasonable argument. Doesn't address the tax issues.

    What tax issues might that be? I didn't see any tax code charges. Enlighten us.
    Presenting the reimbursement as a fee for legal services has obvious income tax implications.
    So are NDA settlements not tax deductible then?
    Since she has been ordered to pay Trump 600+K I wouldn't know.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Bob_C
    Bob_C Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,641 Founders Club
    Sledog said:

    Bob_C said:



    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Reasonable argument. Doesn't address the tax issues.

    What tax issues might that be? I didn't see any tax code charges. Enlighten us.
    Presenting the reimbursement as a fee for legal services has obvious income tax implications.
    So are NDA settlements not tax deductible then?
    Since she has been ordered to pay Trump 600+K I wouldn't know.
    Shhh, it's a trap.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 23,891
    Bob_C said:



    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Reasonable argument. Doesn't address the tax issues.

    What tax issues might that be? I didn't see any tax code charges. Enlighten us.
    Presenting the reimbursement as a fee for legal services has obvious income tax implications.
    So are NDA settlements not tax deductible then?
    Business expense? I wish I'd thought of that before my audit.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 23,891
    Sledog said:

    No dodge the guy with no charges based in reality didn't mention the REAL charges you just uncovered.

    What part of "Straight out of yesterday's unsealed filings." was too complicated for you?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Reasonable argument. Doesn't address the tax issues.

    What tax issues might that be? I didn't see any tax code charges. Enlighten us.
    Presenting the reimbursement as a fee for legal services has obvious income tax implications.
    For which you'd normally pay a fine and any unpaid taxes. How did I know that the Dazzler would be defending that craptastic indictment.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 23,891
    Sledog said:

    Bob_C said:



    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Reasonable argument. Doesn't address the tax issues.

    What tax issues might that be? I didn't see any tax code charges. Enlighten us.
    Presenting the reimbursement as a fee for legal services has obvious income tax implications.
    So are NDA settlements not tax deductible then?
    Since she has been ordered to pay Trump 600+K I wouldn't know.
    He must be great in bed.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    No dodge the guy with no charges based in reality didn't mention the REAL charges you just uncovered.

    What part of "Straight out of yesterday's unsealed filings." was too complicated for you?
    Can you cite for me how this misdemeanor rises to the level of a felony. What's the actual crime Trump has committed here? Cite it for me.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • WestlinnDuck
    WestlinnDuck Member Posts: 17,550 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Reasonable argument. Doesn't address the tax issues.

    What tax issues might that be? I didn't see any tax code charges. Enlighten us.
    Presenting the reimbursement as a fee for legal services has obvious income tax implications.
    Yeah not charged.
    "The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme."

    sure
    NDA payments for sexual harassment were deductible in 2017. So, what was the scheme?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Bob_C
    Bob_C Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,641 Founders Club
    WestlinnDuck said:

    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Reasonable argument. Doesn't address the tax issues.

    What tax issues might that be? I didn't see any tax code charges. Enlighten us.
    Presenting the reimbursement as a fee for legal services has obvious income tax implications.
    Yeah not charged.
    "The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme."

    sure
    NDA payments for sexual harassment were deductible in 2017. So, what was the scheme?
    Good work. That was the trap. They aren’t deductible in 2018-current.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 23,891
    edited April 2023
    WestlinnDuck said:

    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Reasonable argument. Doesn't address the tax issues.

    What tax issues might that be? I didn't see any tax code charges. Enlighten us.
    Presenting the reimbursement as a fee for legal services has obvious income tax implications.
    Yeah not charged.
    "The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme."

    sure
    NDA payments for sexual harassment were deductible in 2017. So, what was the scheme?
    Daddy might have wanted to characterize it as "payments for sexual harassment" then. He didn't. That's the whole point. Falsification of business records.

    As for the scheme, you might want to peruse the 10 pages or so unsealed yesterday under a heading which reads, in very subtle wording you may have missed, "THE SCHEME". Does someone have to cut your meat for you?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 23,891
    edited April 2023
    Bob_C said:

    HHusky said:

    WestlinnDuck said:

    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    Reasonable argument. Doesn't address the tax issues.

    What tax issues might that be? I didn't see any tax code charges. Enlighten us.
    Presenting the reimbursement as a fee for legal services has obvious income tax implications.
    Yeah not charged.
    "The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme."

    sure
    NDA payments for sexual harassment were deductible in 2017. So, what was the scheme?
    Daddy might have wanted to characterize it as "payments for sexual harassment" then. He didn't. That's the whole point.

    As for the scheme, you might want to peruse the 10 pages or so unsealed yesterday under a heading which reads, in subtle wording, "THE SCHEME". Does someone have to cut your meat for you?
    So he should have characterized it as something else that was also tax deductible then for a net change in his taxes of $0?

    Ok
    That's assuming it can be deemed a payment for "sexual harassment", though he wasn't being accused of that as far as I know. But more fundamentally, it also assumes that there are no concerns with untruthful tax reporting as long as all the taxes owed (or more) get paid, which is obviously incorrect.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Bob_C
    Bob_C Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,641 Founders Club
    I don’t actually care about “untruthful” characterizations that don’t change the actual outcome. And I’m a CPA.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 46XiJCAB
    46XiJCAB Member Posts: 20,967
    Smart legal types are laughing at Bragg. Dazzler is focused on his crotch…….eeerrrr case.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 23,891
    Bob_C said:

    I don’t actually care about “untruthful” characterizations that don’t change the actual outcome. And I’m a CPA.

    I'll PM you when I need to launder some money or commit bank fraud then.

    Thanks!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 46XiJCAB
    46XiJCAB Member Posts: 20,967
    HHusky said:

    Bob_C said:

    I don’t actually care about “untruthful” characterizations that don’t change the actual outcome. And I’m a CPA.

    I'll PM you when I need to launder some money or commit bank fraud then.

    Thanks!
    Crackerjack box lawyer. Let your smarter peers handle this one. Stick to giving your clients shitty “legal” advice.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Bob_C
    Bob_C Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,641 Founders Club
    HHusky said:

    Bob_C said:

    I don’t actually care about “untruthful” characterizations that don’t change the actual outcome. And I’m a CPA.

    I'll PM you when I need to launder some money or commit bank fraud then.

    Thanks!
    I don’t have any kiddy porn deal connections, sorry.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 46XiJCAB
    46XiJCAB Member Posts: 20,967
    Notice how Dazzler, the shitty dishonest lawyer, has said zero about Bragg’s office leaking the indictment details to Michael Isikoff.

    And then he wrote the most blatant hit piece possible.

    A felony that Dazzler apparently approves of.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,695 Standard Supporter
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/mother-veteran-killed-nyc-shreds-alvin-bragg-trump-charges-nonsense
    Meanwhile the Dazzler cheers this fucking POS commie rat bastard! He let's killers off easy. Oh and the statute of limitations on those minor misdemeanor charges are long expired.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter