Pecker Problems (Mueller+ Investigation Thread v. 21)

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

I agree, but I think the % of the country under the spell could shrink. So instead of something like 1/3 maybe it's 1/4? That would be an important shift politically.

I think the D voter will go and vote this time. I'm no D but this GOP isn't patriotic anymore so in protest I'm voting D.

And yep, I think the Mueller findings won't be too hard to understand, and the country at large is going to want to see the connections and form their own opinion .

 

[kpt018]

That double guilty day was a hell of drug lol.

Sure was. As a finance guy myself I am totally sucked in to the CFO story now.

 

[*Z*]

Long time Trump Org CFO Weisselberg granted immunity.....

Only in the case against Cohen, guessing he's the one who approved phony invoices to pay off the women for Trump. This will probably end up incriminating Trump on at least the campaign finance violations.

 

[curryjunkie]

I'm thinking she may have benefited somehow.

nah, shes just part of the cult

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

To verify. Am I supposed to be mad at the National Enquirer for sitting on stories?

Would you be at least curious and perhaps suspicious if this were ANYONE else? Do you think you can objectively assess what the findings will be?

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

nah, shes just part of the cult

Maybe. We'll never know so may as well Occam that

 

[Fawlty]

Sure was. As a finance guy myself I am totally sucked in to the CFO story now.

Does this guy have any sort of plausible deniability considering his position, or would he definitely have been aware of illegal activity? I don't even know how many accountants they have, it must be a ton.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Only in the case against Cohen, guessing he's the one who approved phony invoices to pay off the women for Trump. This will probably end up incriminating Trump on at least the campaign finance violations.

The case in which Cohen already plead guilty they just granted immunity to 2 witnesses lol

 

[curryjunkie]

Lastly, if Donald Trump wanted to lock Hillary up he should had made her part of his cabinet.

 

[*Z*]

The case in which Cohen already plead guilty they just granted immunity to 2 witnesses lol

I'm not sure what they are looking for but it should be interesting to see what they find.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Does this guy have any sort of plausible deniability considering his position, or would he definitely have been aware of illegal activity? I don't even know how many accountants they have, it must be a ton.

This guy has been with the company since the 70s hired by Fred Trump himself.

He probably knows everything. This is where we find out if Trump was propped up Russian money laundering after the bankruptcies

 

[kpt018]

Does this guy have any sort of plausible deniability considering his position, or would he definitely have been aware of illegal activity? I don't even know how many accountants they have, it must be a ton.

For publicly traded companies no, the CFO signs off on the financial statements and the underlying financial information (which includes language that the company has controls to detect errors and fraud). So even if he's not aware of wrong doing by the people working for him he is still on the hook. Now, we'll have to ask the WR attorneys if the CFO can prove it was a rogue and a matter of negligence (for not catching the error) whether that means jail time or he/she just gets sued into oblivion.

The Trump Org is not publicly traded by there is zero doubt that the CFO is signing off on financials which can be used to get loans, get credit from vendors, etc.. So he is likely on the hook there and if there was fraud he would be fucked public or not.

I can't imagine a way for the CFO to get plausible deniability if they made fraudulent payments or received shady money, etc.. Dude is probably signing off on tax returns as well.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Oh lawd

The thread is now named “pecker problems”

Drip, drip, drip...

 

[PolishHeadlock]

 

[zebby23]

To verify. Am I supposed to be mad at the National Enquirer for sitting on stories?

No, be mad the president is a mob style criminal

 

[Fawlty]

For publicly traded companies no, the CFO signs off on the financial statements and the underlying financial information (which includes language that the company has controls to detect errors and fraud). So even if he's not aware of wrong doing by the people working for him he is still on the hook. Now, we'll have to ask the WR attorneys if the CFO can prove it was a rogue and a matter of negligence (for not catching the error) whether that means jail time or he/she just gets sued into oblivion.

The Trump Org is not publicly traded by there is zero doubt that the CFO is signing off on financials which can be used to get loans, get credit from vendors, etc.. So he is likely on the hook there and if there was fraud he would be fucked public or not.

I can't imagine a way for the CFO to get plausible deniability if they made fraudulent payments or received shady money, etc.. Dude is probably signing off on tax returns as well.

I wondered especially about that part, because it seems like getting immunity could fit either the CFO being in on the crimes (with direct knowledge) or him just worrying about being responsible for things he suspected but turned a blind eye to (indirect knowledge), or even just straight up not feeling guilty of anything but covering his own ass.

 

[kpt018]

I wondered especially about that part, because it seems like getting immunity could fit either the CFO being in on the crimes (with direct knowledge) or him just worrying about being responsible for things he suspected but turned a blind eye to (indirect knowledge), or even just straight up not feeling guilty of anything but covering his own ass.

I think it will depend on the nature of the fraud. If they were getting money illegally or making payments illegally I really have a hard time seeing how he could shelter himself.

I know that in practice with legitimate businesses you put things in place to make sure there is no fraud. For example, the CFO would personally approve payments and sign all checks (if the company is big it would be over a certain threshhold).

But it's a good question, just a legal one. It has been reported that someone in Trump's org stated that the CFO was intimately aware of every deal and every dollar received/spent, so there's that. Typically the CFO is involved in everything and it would just take him signing off on a tax return, financial statements, signing a business deal that was flaky as fuck and he's toast.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

No, be mad the president is a mob style criminal

Except that he's the one waking up with a bloody horse's head in the sheets every morning

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

Would you be at least curious and perhaps suspicious if this were ANYONE else? Do you think you can objectively assess what the findings will be?

I think it's very common for newspapers to sit on stories for one reason or another. For ex: ny times and Ronan Farrow

So just speaking on that specifically. I'm not concerned at all.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

I think it's very common for newspapers to sit on stories for one reason or another. For ex: ny times and Ronan Farrow

So just speaking on that specifically. I'm not concerned at all.

I would posit that it's done far more often for journalistic reasons- to verify before publication. If it ain't there, the story sits. (Early reporting on Watergate for example.)
It's sort of unusual to have a friendly tabloid pay sluts off in exchange for silence and burying the story.
But yep, agreed.