Yet another Trump crime?

Uncategorized 1 Minute

Signs point to – Yes!

For some reason, yet to be determined by the IRS Inspector General, BOTH James Comey and Andrew McCabe – FBI Directors who were not loyal to Trump – were selected for very rare and very intensive IRS audits that are supposed to be done at random. A little back of the envelope math based on IRS data about these audits says that the chances of this happening by chance are beyond miniscule – precisely 0.00000017% or about 1 out of 590 million.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/irs-comey-mccabe-investigation-audit-b2118349.html

Published by Paul Murphy

Published

76 thoughts on “Yet another Trump crime?”

  1. Funny how no one on the right realizes how much TFG attempted to weaponize government agencies in pursuit of rivals or those not being loyal to him. And when it has been pointed out it has been excused, poo-pooed or the one making the point is called “fake news”.

    But Hunter Hunter Hunter!!!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

          1. Then file charges. Perform a citizen’s arrest. Or better yet, stop focusing on the Bidens and pay attention to the Trumpists and their criminal behavior. Like trying to prevent the peaceful transition of power through violent and illegal means based on unproven charges of widespread fraud.

            You comment many times on how Trump lives in OUR heads. It is clear that Biden and his family live in yours. TO the detriment of an open minded conversation.

            Like

          2. Well, if it were Trump Jr who had perjured himself, would you be content to let it slide?

            Remember that this was the gun that was discarded where it could fall into the hands of criminals or children.

            But you are fine with letting Biden protect his criminal son. Of course, he has to, Hunter can take him down with him,

            Like

          3. What proof do you have that Biden is protecting his son? Or are you speculating, AGAIN, because of your blind hatred for that particular family?

            Like

          6. There is physical evidence of perjury, which has been public knowledge for two years, yet there has been no charge.

            Sounds pretty protected to me.

            Like

          9. “He is no doubt guilty.”

            That is not the same as prosecutable. It is pretty clear that the form was submitted when Hunter was addicted, under the influence, and probably suicidal. That is what his family thought and that is why the gun was thrown in the trash.

            So, clearly a case of diminished capacity and impossible to prove conscious intent to commit a crime. And no victim. Not being prosecuted in such troubling circumstances would be the norm. But go ahead. Pretend he got a special break if it floats your boat.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. “Trying driving drunk and telling the cop you aren’t guilty because you were too drunk to know better.”

            You think of yourself as some sort of intellect, and THIS is what you come up with? You seem to understand the concept of proving intent when you are covering for Trump’s crimes. Same concept. Try harder.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. “Isn’t that just the exact excuse you offered for Hunter?”

            Drunken driving is a crime in itself. Duh.

            Being incapacitated by drink or drugs and suicidal while executing a document raises questions of intent that makes such a case pointless to prosecute.

            Did I really have to explain this to you? Really?

            Liked by 1 person

          14. Perjury is a crime in itself.

            There is no crime in which intoxication is a defense.

            You just won’t hold Hunter or Joe accountable under any circumstances.

            Like

          15. “There is no crime in which intoxication is a defense.”

            Diminished capacity is a standard defense. Especially where the crime consists of an erroneous check box on a form.

            It is really beyond laughable that someone who continues to ignore the massive criminality of Trump and his family – criminality that got people killed here and in Saudi Arabia – comes down to whining about a suicidal addict getting a pass on the bad paperwork for the gun he was going to kill himself with. A paperwork crime, by the way, which you constantly whine NOBODY gets prosecuted for.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. “No, diminished capacity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense allowed in any US court.”

            Your made-up facts are very convenient. As always. From legalmatch.com . . .

            “Can I Claim Diminished Capacity If I Was Intoxicated?
            It is possible to use an intoxication defense as the basis for having diminished capacity in the commission of a crime. A defendant may be able to show that the required intent to commit the crime could not possibly have been present due to the fact that drugs or alcohol diminished their mental capacity.”

            So, YET AGAIN, your categorical claim is a product of dishonesty or laziness. Or maybe just the cocksure belief that whatever you think should be, is. Because you are so damned smart.

            But this is beside the point. Hunter was mentally ill and may not have actually been intoxicated at the moment he filled out or signed that form. But he was clearly in an irrational state of some sort.

            Liked by 1 person

          18. So was the Highland Park shooter. Does he get pass?

            From your own site

            What is Voluntary Intoxication Defense?
            When a defendant is intoxicated by alcohol or drugs voluntarily, the situation is different. It is not typically used as a defense to general intent crimes.

            However, some states allow it to be used as a defense to a specific intent crime. In other states, the defense of voluntary intoxication can only be used to mitigate, or lessen the weight of the crime, rather than completely negate it.

            Like

          19. You have been giving passes to those on the Right for worse. When you start holding those you agree with accountable for THEIR actions, then you can accuse Paul of “selective reasoning”. UNtil that time, it might be best to find some other Democrat to blame for EVERYTHING.

            Like

          20. “So was the Highland Park shooter. Does he get pass?”

            He can try. Although an outright insanity plea might work better.

            You made a categorical statement. It was false. Two points…

            1. You should not offer false statements to support your opinions.
            2. When a false statement is called out don’t play the weasel. It is even more laughable.

            Liked by 1 person

          21. There is nothing false about my statement. By your own cite, voluntary intoxication is only useful as mitigation,

            It is not a disqualifier for prosecution, it would only be useful at sentencing.

            It has been known for 2 years he perjured himself. he has not been charged.

            I would suggest that if you do not join in demanding he be charged, you should forever remain silent on the gun control issue, as you clearly only want those laws enforced selectively.

            Like

          22. You are truly ridiculous.

            You pulled this statement out of your ass.
            “No, diminished capacity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense allowed in any US court.”

            Read it again – it is categorical – “not a defense allowed in ANY US COURT.”

            I provided an authoritative cite that said…
            “It is possible to use an intoxication defense as the basis for having diminished capacity in the commission of a crime. A defendant may be able to show that the required intent to commit the crime could not possibly have been present due to the fact that drugs or alcohol diminished their mental capacity.”

            You were dead wrong and not man enough to just admit it.

            Hunter Biden was clearly screwed up when he bought that gun. His family was afraid for his life. That is a textbook case of diminished capacity which made trying to prosecute this wrong answer on a form a non-starter. Perjury is one of those crimes where INTENT is an essential element. I think you know that but your eagerness to accuse has blocked your mental faculties.

            Liked by 1 person

          23. And I provided the rest of the context FROM THE SAME SITE showing that VOLUNTARY intoxication is only used for mitigation, not to determine guilt and certainly not to decline prosecution.

            His INTENT was to purchase a firearm he knew full well he was not eligible to purchase by lying under oath. He is a lawyer, or at least was, and had to know the consequences, he’s just used to being protected.

            Hunter Biden is openly guilty of perjury, and at most might get a lighter sentence, though I doubt that.

            But he is being shielded from prosecution by the corrupt Biden administration.

            Any of us who did the same thing would have been in prison a year by now,

            Like

          24. Still ridiculous.

            You made a categorical statement. It was false. Period.

            You cherry-picked another part of the same source to prove you were right. I guess you are just not too smart because the bit you cited proves you were wrong as well.

            “[Voluntary intoxication] is not typically used as a defense to general intent crimes.
            However, some states allow it to be used as a defense to a specific intent crime.”

            “not typically” does not me “not allowed” which was your claim. And it is allowed as a defense to specific intent crime. According to what YOU cited from the article.

            Perjury is a crime that requires intent to be proven.

            And all of this is a side issue. Hunter Biden was in an irrational suicidal state when he bought that gun. He may have been intoxicated or drugged up at that moment or not. But a prosecutor would never be able to prove deliberate intent of a person who was mentally ill at the time of the crime. A prosecutors’ job is to know when cases are not winnable. That is how the system works. No “corruption” required.

            Liked by 1 person

          25. You’re saying I made a categorical statement, yet you’re presuming Hunter Biden was of diminished capacity to the extent he could not have the intent to perjure himself. Based on what?

            Claims of diminished capacity are decided by a jury, and a prosecutor making he determination it was so certain that a jury would not convict would require very clear and convincing evidence.

            And remember that the crime is not just obtaining the firearm, but perjuring himself.

            Because you say so?

            Like

          26. “You’re saying I made a categorical statement. . .”

            Even more ridiculous!

            You DID make a categorical statement and it was not about Hunter Biden. Now, instead of just admitting you were dead wrong you want to switch to another subject and challenge what I know about Hunter Biden’s condition. Laughable.

            As for my “presumption” that Hunter Biden’s mental state would be a reason to not pursue a prosecution the circumstances of how this came to light scream mental illness. Specifically, family members found that he had purchased the gun. They were concerned that he would harm himself. They took the gun, hid it from him, and threw it in a dumpster. The “perjury” involved was about his mental health.

            Your theory is that he got special treatment at the time because Joe Biden pulled some strings WHILE TRUMP WAS PRESIDENT to keep him out of jail. My theory is that cases of lying on the form are almost never prosecuted and that is doubly true for this particular question.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. Moi? Really? Gaslight much? You attack and insult me every time I post anything. Get your story straight bubba. Laughable lunacy that is consistent with left wingers, accuse others of which they are guilty. Grow up.

          Like

          Reply

          1. I fire back when fired on. Most of your posts are filled with personal attacks and you have never even been reprimanded by the moderator. You just go about your merry little troll journey and insult and attack at will.

            And you have it backwards; tis the RIGHTIES who accuse others of exactly what they are themselves are doing.

            Like

  2. Paywalled

    Does the article say on what dates this occurred? I don’t remember the IRS bureaucracy being an ally of Trump.

    But if Trump continued the Obama policy of weaponizing the IRS, that would be criminal, just as it was when Obama did it.

    Like

    Reply

    2. I will ignore your childish mantra about Obama and the thoroughly debunked “conservative” whining about unfair treatment and answer your question.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/four-years-later-the-irs-tea-party-scandal-looks-very-different-it-may-not-even-be-a-scandal/2017/10/05/4e90c7ec-a9f7-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html

      It was Comey’s 2017 return, and it was McCabe’s 2019 return that got this treatment.
      The IRS Directory appointed by Mr. Trump, Charles P. Rettig, was in charge when these audits were initiated. He denies any deliberate decisions. It may have been pure chance, but that possibility is very, very unlikely from a purely probabilistic point of view.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

        1. These intensive audits were part of an annual program. I assume, but do not know, that they were selected the year they were filed. 2018 and 2020, respectively. Democratic members of Congress are the ones pushing for the explanation which reinforces my assumption.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          2. “So, you don’t know”

            Congratulations! You are able to read plain English. Unlike you, I do not state as fact things that I guess or am not sure of.

            BTW, Trump’s 2018 appointee is STILL the Director of the IRS.

            Liked by 1 person

    3. Here is an extensive and detailed Wikipedia post on the IRS scandal.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

      “ In late September 2017, an exhaustive report by the Treasury Department’s inspector general found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny, blunting claims that the issue had been an Obama-era partisan scandal.[1][2] The 115-page report confirmed the findings of the prior 2013 report that some conservative organizations had been unfairly targeted, but also found that the pattern of misconduct had been ongoing since 2004 and was non-partisan in nature.”

      Media including MSNBC, Jon Stewart, NBC, ABC excoriated the Obama administration for the scandal.

      People resigned, poop flew off the fan and conservatives went into full “whine” mode. In the findings, there were more than a few organizations that did not qualify for exempt status, both conservative and liberal. But there were a lot more applications from conservatives also.

      In my opinion, it was a tempest in a teapot, but gave some press the conservatives cherished.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

        1. Don’t bother reading the post, it might prove you wrong. There were committee hearings, IG investigations, DOJ investigations…all in one big conspiracy to use Italian satellites.

          Bubble vision is so comforting, no?

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

  3. Don, when you hit a paywall, 9 times out of 10 you can get around it with: 12ft ladder
    https://12ft.io/

    Just copy and paste the URL of the site you want to see into the 12ft ladder box and hit “Remove Pay Wall.”

    It works for this article.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  4. Thank you, I will use that

    I don’t see any specific dates but it seems to be current, long after Trump was out of office.

    Perhaps it is the current administration seeking to coerce false or exaggerated testimony about Trump?

    Like

    Reply

    1. Thanks for confirming what was already obvious – The audits were started on Trump’s watch while Trump’s handpicked Commissioner was in charge.

      If you had much in the way of critical thinking skills, you would not have linked to this slimy opinion piece. It repeats the poor little Tea Party PACs bull that has been debunked over and over again. It slanders Trump adversaries as “rotten.” Laughably, it implies that Comey was corrupt because the FBI was investigating Russian subversion. And it drags in the whatabout of an unrelated IRS leak that has nothing to do with this remarkable and unlikely coincidence.

      There is such a thing as reasonable doubt. When there is a 1 in 600 million chance of something occurring, it is not reasonable to believe it was just a coincidence. Somebody targeted these two on instructions from someone. Trump was in charge when it happened. Yet another Trump crime?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Had you read the whole article, it was Trump’s appointee who initiated the investigation.

        There is no indication that he or Trump knew anything about the audits.

        It is certainly possible that some honest Federal employee was so offended by Comey and McCabe’s horrendous abuse of office that he set the hounds on them, but that doesn’t implicate Trump

        Like

        Reply

          3. You raised the captain of the ship.

            When there is a change of command in the Navy, do they change all the Chiefs? Is a screw up a year after the change in command, is it the responsibility of the previous captain?

            For all we know, some lower level civil servant checked the box on them all on his own,

            Like

          4. Then Biden would have to take action to STOP an already started audit. Or even be made aware of it. And if he had taken action to stop the audits, he would be accused of meddling in IRS affairs.

            …”some lower level civil servant checked the box”…

            Funny how that is all Durham’s “investigation” turned up, a low level lawyer’s statements. Yet now you trumpet the lower level civil servant?

            Like

          5. “Nope. Biden was in command at the time.”

            Didn’t real your own link, I see.

            “Mr. Comey’s [audit] came three months after then-Attorney General William Barr chose not to indict him related to the Russia probe” That was in 2019.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. “Had you read the whole article, it was Trump’s appointee who initiated the investigation.”

          Because he had no choice after the story broke. You really think that means he had nothing to do with it? It is those critical thinking skills checked at the door when you become a Trump apologist.

          “Horrendous abuse of office”
          Things that gullible people say?

          Obviously, I think Comey exercised extremely bad judgment when he handed the Presidency to Trump, but you do not hear we liberals calling for him to be drawn and quartered.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

        3. “There is no indication that he or Trump knew anything about the audits.”

          Except that Trump is known to be a vindicative, petty and criminal piece of shit who thinks following the law is for the little people.

          SOMEBODY made this happen. Trump had the motive, means, and opportunity. That makes him a prime suspect.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          4. YOUR interpretation of things is not evidence, it is opinion. An opinion based on pre-conceived hatred for any and all things Democrat.

            Like

          5. Is English not your first language.

            I have not said there is any proof of Trump’s guilt.

            But, he is very definitely a prime suspect. SOMEBODY set these audits in motion. And, he had motive, means, and opportunity.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. This reminds me of a humorous line from some forgettable sitcom a decade or more ago.

        Woman tells a man that the odds of a date with her were a billion to one. He replies “so there is chance?”

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

  8. There is only speculation of some back door dealings at this point but mere speculation is enough to drive liberals to unfounded accusations of crimes. So, if even true, has a crime taken place and could it proved? I think not for both. This is petty and pathetic…

    Like

    Reply

    1. You are correct. There is no evidence at the moment to show that Trump ordered this IRS harassment of his enemies or even that he hinted that “somebody should check their taxes.”

      However, SOMEBODY caused this to happen and Mr. Trump is the most likely suspect. Maybe the IRS IG will wring the truth out of whoever manages these special audits.

      Of course, this is a petty crime compared to his seditious conspiracy, attempted election fraud, and his incitement of violence to stay in power.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. What’s funny is notification of this petty post went directly to junk mail. Even my email knew it was trash…lol. True story, never happened before!!! Now that is hilarious…

        Like

        Reply

        1. “Now that is hilarious…”

          Simple pleasures for simple people.

          But obviously you have no substantive response to Trump’s criminality. No surprise. There isn’t one. But rather than FINALLY admitting that you were conned, you try to slime the people who weren’t. Now THAT is hilarious.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Cite the c ode. Your constant childish insults only amplifies the weakness of your TDS drama. Ciao

            Like

    2. “So, if even true, has a crime taken place and could it proved? I think not for both.”

      Of course you don’t. You are like Don; you only see things you WANT to see. Proof be damed.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Cite a code then. Even the “victims” stated nothing improper happened and could only lament the inconvenience. This is a nonstory, junk, trash, hooey…

        Like

        Reply

        1. A code of ethics, while not legally binding or a breach of, criminal, had been followed by Presidents since the beginning. Trump threw out the idea of an ethical presidency in a manner reminiscent of Harding and Nixon. Perhaps Grant as well.

          But to the unethical, there is no such thing so damn the torpedoes full speed ahead and screw the country. It’s all about power, exercising it to punish those who are not loyal enough (to the man, not the country) and keeping it by any means necessary.

          Like

          Reply

Leave a comment