Special monitor suggests Trump falsified disclosures over $48 million loan in what could be tax evas

What are her qualifications? How extensive is her accounting background and how much education does she have in accounting, or business management?

 

You don't need an accounting background and the people you are defending have admitted that they have no knowledge of basic accounting. I know more than they do.

 

Looks like you went back and edited what I quoted in post #45 to the negative..

Are you now saying that the court appointed monitor isn't qualified to do their job? Dude, you are all over the place. The only consistency is the Trump fanboy club membership.

 

So, someone auditing a company's books doesn't need an accounting background?... LMAO.

There's also a gag order in those, too. That means the monitor is in contempt of court.

 

If it were me, I'd use that Trump U law degree for what it was made for, toilet paper ! LMAO!

 

If you're convinced that she's qualified, then tell us what her background and education in accounting is.

As far as I can tell, she is a lawyer, who has a bachelor's degree in liberal arts...lol

 

Massive literacy fail. Try again. If you still can't read it, I will dumb it down.

I'd ask you what order the monitor violated and how, but you have no idea what the **** you are talking about.

 

Why is it that people who actually have some background in accounting are also saying you guys are full of ****?

 

Me, seriously WBK, me? She was appointed by a court. The court will not appoint someone that's unqualified on Earth, maybe on Earth II. My point is a blanket denial position does not add any cred to unsupported and unqualified claims. I have confidence that a court/judge would use someone that 'specializes" in forensic accounting. I would have less confidence in a plaintiff or defendant paid "specialist".

 

The only gag order is on Trump and preventing him from defending himself. It's the most un-American anti-free speech thing.
The one good thing from all these lawsuits is that when Trump is president he will know what needs reformed in the judicial system.

 

He can defend himself as much as he wants in court. And no one hates the 1st Amendment more than Trump and his followers do.

 

Even if she herself is not fully qualified in monitoring corporate frauds (and I assume she is, as she's been asked to do so in other circumstances before), the "team" she mentions at least 4x in her letter to Engoran certainly are...

She must have to beat the volunteers off with a stick.... what qualified fraud expert wouldn't want to go over his paperwork??

The best part, as always, is that it's another woman with a stick going after America's Pinata....

 

The OP says it all “that could be “

 

He has the right to defend himself in public no just in court.

The second sentence is just so absurd, I don't think you are being genuine either with us or yourself.

 

It means there should be a more thorough investigation. Do you agree?

 

Haven't tax payers paid enough for these politically motivated investigations?

 

Trump has literally argued that it should be a illegal to call his building plans ugly bud. These sentences wouldn't be absurd to you if you had done even five minutes of homework.

 

Although obviously not politically motivated, I tend to agree.... there are enough charges on the books to incarcerate him for life.... let's get to those first...

This is just more evidence of the business fraudster we all know him to be.... No need for it to be more at this point..

But it's also not up to me... each locality where he's crimed will have to make that decision...

 

Double entry bookeeping

 

Seeing that there have been successful arrests, convictions, indictments, and impeachments — no.

Or are you talking about the Joe Biden impeachment? That one doesn’t seem to be bearing fruit.

 

And it is - firstly not running for president secondly “behind with taxes” is not the same thing as “committed tax fraud” thirdly not running for president fourthly , since when is a whataboutism evidence of innocence? Fifthly NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT

 

Oh! Everyone is on board with “equal under the law” - are you??

 

I guess you proved me wrong. You are just so smart, it should be illegal.

 

And so that should mean it is not admissible in court but I am betting this is admissible

 

You already have enough to bankrupt him and send him to jail for life. Why pursue more than that except unless you know most if not all are bogus?