ReportWire

Tag: tax fraud

  • 5 reasons why the Republican claim about 87,000 new IRS agents is an exaggeration | CNN Politics

    5 reasons why the Republican claim about 87,000 new IRS agents is an exaggeration | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    In its first vote on legislation, the new Republican-controlled House approved a bill Monday that would rescind nearly $80 billion for the Internal Revenue Service – with key GOP lawmakers making the exaggerated claim that the money would be used to hire 87,000 auditors who will target hardworking Americans.

    “House Republicans just voted unanimously to repeal the Democrats’ army of 87,000 IRS agents,” tweeted speaker Kevin McCarthy after the vote.

    “This was our very first act of the new Congress, because government should work for you, not against you,” he added.

    But Democrats approved the $80 billion in funding last year as part of the sweeping Inflation Reduction Act, intending to support the troubled IRS crack down on tax cheats and provide better service to taxpayers.

    The bill to rescind the funding, which passed along party lines, has little chance of becoming law, given the Democratic majority in the Senate and a pledge from President Joe Biden to veto the bill if it ever reaches his desk.

    But the vote highlights how funding for the IRS has become a political football. The issue is sure to come up when Daniel Werfel, Biden’s nominee for IRS commissioner, gets a confirmation hearing.

    Here’s why the Republicans’ oft-repeated claim about new IRS agents is exaggerated:

    The 87,000 figure comes from a 2021 Treasury report that estimated the IRS could hire 86,852 full-time employees over the course of a decade with a nearly $80 billion investment – not solely enforcement agents.

    And all those new employees can’t be hired overnight. The money will flow to the IRS over a 10-year period.

    “The reality is the $80 billion boost would be spread throughout the agency, with money flowing to enforcement, taxpayer services, operations, and modernization,” wrote Janet Holtzblatt, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

    The Inflation Reduction Act dictates that about $45.6 billion will go toward strengthening enforcement activities – including collecting taxes owed, providing legal support, conducting criminal investigations and providing digital asset monitoring. But the IRS has not specified how many auditors will be hired.

    More than $25 billion is allocated to support IRS operations, including expenses like rent payments, printing, postage and telecommunications.

    Nearly $4.8 billion can be used for modernizing the agency’s customer service technology, like developing a callback service.

    Roughly $3 billion is allocated for taxpayer assistance, filing and account services.

    Many of the new hires will be replacing staff that the IRS has already lost or is expected to lose through attrition in coming years.

    Last year, then-IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig told lawmakers that staffing has shrunk to 1970s levels and that the IRS would need to hire 52,000 people over the next six years just to maintain current staffing levels to replace those who retire or otherwise leave.

    The IRS is already using the new funds to ramp up hiring for work outside of its audit operations.

    In October, the IRS announced it had hired 4,000 customer service representatives to answer phones and provide other taxpayer assistance. At the time, the agency said it intended to hire another 1,000 staffers by the end of 2022.

    Many of the new staff will be in place at the start of the 2023 tax season, and nearly all are expected to be trained by Presidents’ Day in February, which is traditionally when the agency sees the highest call volumes.

    National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins expects IRS services for taxpayers to improve this year – in part due to the funding increase.

    Taxpayer service, like answering the phones and processing returns in a timely manner, has suffered as the IRS’ budget has shrunk by more than 15% over the last decade. Collins, who heads the independent watchdog organization within the IRS, last year called the IRS service “horrendous.”

    Only about one in eight calls from taxpayers got through to an IRS employee last year, according to her annual report released Wednesday.

    The IRS struggled significantly during the Covid-19 pandemic, allowing backlogs of millions of tax returns to pile up in the past two years.

    “The majority of new hires the IRS makes will be those who answer the phones, work on processing individual tax returns or go after high-end taxpayers or corporations who are avoiding their taxes,” wrote Rettig in an op-ed published by Yahoo!Finance in August.

    A Trump appointee, Rettig called the claim that the IRS is hiring 87,000 agents to harass taxpayers “absolutely false.”

    While audit rates are expected to go up for some taxpayers as the new funding flows to the IRS, the rates have also been declining for some time.

    Audit rates of individual income tax returns decreased for all income levels between tax years 2010 to 2019, according to the Government Accountability Office. They decreased the most for taxpayers with incomes of $200,000 and above, which are generally more complex.

    The Inflation Reduction Act says that the new investment in the IRS is not “intended to increase taxes on any taxpayer or small business with a taxable income below $400,000.”

    Still, there is some uncertainty about how exactly the IRS will decide how to ramp up audits.

    In an effort to shed some clarity, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen affirmed the Biden administration’s commitment to not target low- and middle-income taxpayers.

    “I direct that any additional resources – including any new personnel or auditors that are hired – shall not be used to increase the share of small business or households below the $400,000 threshold that are audited relative to historical levels,” she wrote in a six to Rettig in August.

    Yellen also directed the IRS to produce an operational plan within six months to detail how the new funding will be spent.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why 2022 was a tough year for Trump and 2023 may not be much better | CNN Politics

    Why 2022 was a tough year for Trump and 2023 may not be much better | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    This must feel like the year that won’t end for former President Donald Trump, whose actions appear to be catching up with him in public, painful and expensive ways.

    Trump is infamous for escaping accountability, but he’s been put under the microscope in the second half of 2022 in a way that has complicated things for the 2024 contender.

    The FBI searched his Florida resort, where classified documents were seized. His business was found guilty of criminal tax fraud. Documents relating to his tax returns were released by House Democrats, who are expected to release his actual returns before turning over the committee gavel next year to Republicans, who won a smaller-than-expected majority under Trump’s influence. Many candidates Trump backed failed in key Senate races, costing Republicans a majority in that chamber.

    The former president himself hasn’t been charged with any crimes. But a special counsel has been appointed at the Justice Department to oversee two Trump-related investigations – surrounding the hoarding of documents at Mar-a-Lago and the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

    Trump has railed against the House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection, and his most ardent supporters tried to stonewall it, but it’s hard to objectively dismiss its damning 800-page detailed report, which spells out his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and his role inspiring rioters to attack the Capitol.

    And though the committee’s criminal referrals of Trump to the Justice Department are largely symbolic, the former president still has to wait and see what comes of the DOJ’s own twin probes.

    In the meantime, there’s no sign that the former president – who launched his third nonconsecutive presidential bid last month – has done much to clear the GOP field, with other hopefuls mulling their options over the holidays.

    The ongoing end-of-year revelations chipping away at Trump’s facade of power include large developments like the January 6 committee report – and smaller details.

    Hidden in court documents is the inconvenient truth that even his loudest acolytes on Fox News knew his 2020 election fantasy was false.

    Sean Hannity, the Fox News opinion host, admitted he didn’t “for one second” believe the fraud claims he helped push.

    It might be nice for Fox viewers to hear that from Hannity, but the admission came off the air and in a deposition as part of Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against the conservative network, according to the New York Times.

    Hannity, as we know from text messages, was in close contact with Trump’s then-chief of staff, Mark Meadows, in the days leading up to January 6.

    That the conservative elites in Trump’s circle knew the truth adds context to the fears of fraud they pushed to encourage Republican lawmakers to pass new election security laws in key states.

    The release of Trump’s tax information, without his consent, by House Democrats confirmed what anyone could have guessed – that he paid no federal income tax in a year when he was leading the country.

    Even in years like 2018, where he paid about $1 million in federal taxes, the rate he paid, a bit more than 4%, was on par with the bottom half of American taxpayers.

    The special tax rules for real estate barons, which Congress can’t seem to address, help explain why Trump’s tax bill looks so different than that of regular wage-earning Americans. But the end result is that the former president looks like a tax avoider.

    Trump broke with tradition in 2016 by refusing to release any of his personal tax returns. But his team immediately tried to weaponize the release of his information. “If this injustice can happen to President Trump, it can happen to all Americans without cause,” Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said last week.

    Trump made sure his influence was felt during the 2022 midterms, but after Republicans failed to secure a “red wave,” some members of his party have blamed him for the GOP’s poor showing.

    He must now grapple with polls like CNN’s from earlier this month, which showed that most Republicans and Republican-leaning independents want the party to nominate someone other than Trump in 2024. Their top pick for an alternative? Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. The GOP governor, who won a resounding reelection last month, enjoyed much stronger favorability ratings than Trump among Republicans, according to the CNN survey.

    That’s bad news for a man who jumped out in front of the 2024 Republican field and launched another presidential bid at the precise moment he began to appear politically weak.

    Even his most ardent supporters are growing tired of some of his antics. The $99 Trump-themed digital trading cards timed the NFT market all wrong and drew ridicule even from his most loyal supporters.

    “I can’t do this any more,” complained Stephen Bannon, the former adviser who was sentenced to four months in jail for contempt of Congress after ignoring a subpoena from the January 6 committee. (He’s appealed that conviction.)

    Many of the issues that dogged Trump in 2022 won’t be over with the start of the new year – and could even escalate.

    His business, convicted of tax fraud in late 2022, also faces civil charges from the New York attorney general in 2023.

    On the election-stealing front, it’s not just Special Counsel Jack Smith that Trump has to worry about. An Atlanta-area special grand jury investigating efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election in the Peach State has already begun writing its final report, CNN reported earlier this month. That will serve as a mechanism for the panel to recommend whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should pursue indictments.

    While Trump envisions himself returning to the White House, one of the final bipartisan efforts lawmakers agreed on this month was an update to the Electoral Count Act, making clear that attempts like Trump’s after 2020 – to exploit antiquated language in federal election law and undermine the Electoral College – can never occur again.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Disgraced former attorney Alex Murdaugh facing new tax evasion charges | CNN

    Disgraced former attorney Alex Murdaugh facing new tax evasion charges | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Disgraced former South Carolina attorney Alex Murdaugh, who has been accused of killing his wife and son and being involved in financial crimes and fraud schemes, is now facing a new set of tax evasion charges.

    Murdaugh was indicted by the South Carolina State Grand Jury on nine counts of willful attempt to evade or defeat a tax, state Attorney General Alan Wilson said in a news release on Friday.

    Murdaugh allegedly failed to report more than $6.9 million of income between 2011 and 2019 that he “earned through illegal acts,” according to the release. The former attorney owes more than $486,000 in state taxes, the release added.

    According to the indictments, Murdaugh earned those millions through “an ongoing scheme to defraud” his former law firm, Peters, Murdaugh, Parker, Eltzroth & Detrick (PMPED) and his clients of proceeds from legal settlements.

    “The funds derived through Murdaugh’s ongoing illegal activity were converted to personal use, and as such, are considered earned income,” the indictments say.

    CNN has reached out to Murdaugh’s attorney for comment on the new charges.

    The Murdaugh case first garnered widespread national attention in early September 2021, after the once-prominent attorney was shot in the head on a roadway but survived. Court documents later revealed Murdaugh allegedly admitted to authorities he conspired with a former client to kill him as part of a suicidal fraud scheme so that his only surviving son could collect a $10 million life insurance payout.

    The incident marked the start of what has unraveled to become a complicated, yearslong bloody tragedy.

    That same month, Murdaugh resigned from the law firm after it discovered he misappropriated funds, PMPED said at the time.

    “We were shocked and dismayed to learn that Alex violated our principles and code of ethics. He lied and he stole from us,” PMPED said in a late September 2021 statement.

    That same month, the state’s Supreme Court issued an order suspending his license to practice law in South Carolina.

    Murdaugh’s attorney also said at the time his client had an opioid addiction and was in the early stages of treatment.

    The South Carolina State Grand Jury has indicted Murdaugh for a total of 99 charges for schemes to defraud victims of more than $8.7 million, in addition to the money owed in state taxes, the state attorney general said.

    Disgraced attorney accused of murdering wife and son appears in court

    Murdaugh is also facing murder charges in connection to the deaths of his wife, Margaret “Maggie” Murdaugh, 52, and their youngest son, Paul Murdaugh, 22, who were found shot to death on the family’s property in June 2021. He has pleaded not guilty.

    In a motion filed earlier this month, prosecutors alleged Murdaugh’s motive for killing the two was to distract attention from the schemes he was running to avoid financial ruin.

    “The evidence will show Murdaugh accrued substantial debts over a period of years and to uncover those debts began engaging in illicit financial crimes,” prosecutors wrote in the filing. “The evidence will further show these financial crimes were about to come to light at the time of the killings, more specifically on the date of the killings.”

    The killings, prosecutors alleged, were Murdaugh’s attempt to “shift the focus away from himself and buy himself some additional time to try and prevent his financial crimes from being uncovered.”

    Murdaugh’s murder trial is scheduled to begin in January.

    Murdaugh wants the trial to begin quickly, his attorney has previously said, because he believes his wife and son’s “killer or killers are still at large.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump Org. entities were held in criminal contempt and fined $4K ahead of tax fraud trial | CNN Politics

    Trump Org. entities were held in criminal contempt and fined $4K ahead of tax fraud trial | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A Manhattan criminal court judge held entities of the Trump Organization in criminal contempt for not complying with multiple grand jury subpoenas dating as far back as October 2020 and three court orders mandating they produce the requested evidence ahead of their recent tax fraud trial.

    Judge Juan Merchan’s order requiring that the Trump Org. entities pay $4,000 in fines for the violations had been sealed since he issued the ruling last December so as to not prejudice against the defendants at trial, the judge previously said in court.

    It is unclear whether the companies have already paid the fines levied a year ago, separate from the penalties that could tally as much as $1.61 million in connection to the guilty verdict against the two Trump Org. companies.

    CNN has reached out to the parties for comment.

    Merchan ruled at the end of the Trump Org. tax fraud trial that he would unseal the order once a verdict was handed down by the jury because he found the order to be “of significant public concern.”

    A jury ultimately convicted the two entities – the Trump Corporation and Trump Payroll Corp. – last week on all counts related to schemes for Trump Org. executives to cheat their personal taxes.

    The Trump companies did produce thousands of pages of documents in the discovery process, the order said, but still failed to fulfill key requests from prosecutors despite the court orders.

    Lawyers for the Trump companies claimed they were noncompliant in 2021 because the subpoenas were vague and the time frame to respond was “unreasonably short given the scope and breadth of the demands,” according to the court order.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The latest on Donald Trump’s many legal clouds | CNN Politics

    The latest on Donald Trump’s many legal clouds | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appears in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump has been campaigning in between his many different court appearances for much of the year.

    But his decision to attend the first day of his $250 million civil fraud trial in New York created another opportunity to appear on camera from inside a courtroom when the judge allowed photographers to document the moment before proceedings got underway.

    Keeping track of the dizzying array of civil and criminal cases is a full-time job.

    He is charged with crimes related to conduct:

    • Before his presidency – a hush money scheme that may have helped him win the White House in 2016.
    • During his presidency – his effort to stay in the White House by overturning the 2020 election.
    • After his presidency – his treatment of classified material and alleged attempts to hide it from the National Archives.

    Trump denies any wrongdoing and has pleaded not guilty in all of the criminal cases. He alleges a “witch hunt” against him. But each trial has its own distinct storyline to follow.

    Here’s an updated list of developments in Trump’s very complicated set of court cases, beginning with the one playing out in Manhattan this week.

    The civil fraud trial, unlike Trump’s multiple criminal indictments, does not carry the danger of a felony conviction and jail time, but it could very well cost him some of his most prized possessions, including Trump Tower.

    New York Attorney General Letitia James brought the $250 million lawsuit in September 2022, alleging that Trump and his co-defendants committed repeated fraud in inflating assets on financial statements to get better terms on commercial real estate loans and insurance policies.

    Judge Arthur Engoron has already ruled that Trump and his adult sons are liable for fraud for inflating the value of his golf courses, hotels and homes on financial statements to secure loans.

    The trial portion of the case, playing out in court in Manhattan, will assess what damages will be levied against Trump and how Engoron’s decision to strip Trump of his New York business licenses will play out.

    In May, a federal jury in Manhattan found Trump sexually abused former advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in a luxury department store dressing room in the mid-1990s and awarded her about $5 million.

    A separate civil defamation lawsuit will only need to decide how much money Trump has to pay her. That case for January 15 – the same day Iowa Republicans will hold their caucuses, the first date on the presidential primary calendar.

    In August, Trump was indicted by a federal grand jury in special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the aftermath of the 2020 election. The former president was arraigned in a Washington, DC, courtroom, where he pleaded not guilty.

    The case is based in part on a scheme to create slates of fake electors in key states won by President Joe Biden.

    In late September, Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump’s request that she recuse herself from the case. Chutkan, a Barack Obama appointee, has overseen civil and criminal cases related to the January 6, 2021, insurrection and has repeatedly exceeded what prosecutors have requested for convicted rioters’ prison sentences.

    Chutkan set the trial’s start date for March 4, 2024, the day before Super Tuesday, when the largest batch of presidential primaries will occur. The trial marks the first of Trump’s criminal cases expected to proceed.

    Trump has been charged in Manhattan criminal court with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to his role in a hush money payment scheme involving adult film actress Stormy Daniels late in the 2016 presidential campaign.

    The former president pleaded not guilty at his April arraignment in Manhattan.

    Prosecutors, led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, accuse Trump of falsifying business records with the intent to conceal $130,000 in payments to Daniels made by former Trump attorney and fixer Michael Cohen to guarantee her silence about an alleged affair.

    Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels.

    The trial was originally scheduled to begin in late March 2024, but Judge Juan Merchan has suggested the date could move. The next court date is scheduled for February.

    Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is using racketeering violations to charge a broad criminal conspiracy against Trump and 18 others in their efforts to overturn Biden’s victory in Georgia.

    The probe was launched in 2021 following Trump’s call that January with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, in which the president pushed the Republican official to “find” votes to overturn the election results.

    The August indictment also includes how Trump’s team allegedly misled state officials in Georgia; organized fake electors; harassed an election worker; and breached election equipment in rural Coffee County, Georgia.

    One co-defendant, bail bondsman Scott Hall, has pleaded guilty to five counts in the case.

    Fulton County prosecutors have signaled they could offer plea deals to other co-defendants.

    Willis this week issued a subpoena to former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, a Trump ally, who in turn demanded an immunity deal in exchange for testimony.

    Trial for two co-defendants is expected to begin this month and could last three to five months. A trial date has not been set for Trump, who has pleaded not guilty.

    Federal criminal court in Florida: Mishandling classified material

    Trump has pleaded not guilty to 37 federal charges brought by Smith over his alleged mishandling of classified documents. Smith added three additional counts in a superseding indictment.

    The investigation centers on sensitive documents that Trump brought to his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida after his White House term ended in January 2021.

    The National Archives, charged with collecting and sorting presidential material, has previously said that at least 15 boxes of White House records were recovered from Mar-a-Lago, including some classified records.

    Trump was also caught on tape in a 2021 meeting in Bedminster, New Jersey, where the former president discussed holding secret documents he did not declassify.

    Smith’s additional charges allege that Trump and his employees attempted to delete Mar-a-Lago security footage sought by the grand jury investigating the mishandling of the records.

    Trial is not expected until May, after most presidential primaries have concluded.

    There are other cases to note:

    Trump’s namesake business, the Trump Organization, was convicted in December by a New York jury of tax fraud, grand larceny and falsifying business records in what prosecutors say was a 15-year scheme to defraud tax authorities by failing to report and pay taxes on compensation provided to employees.

    Manhattan prosecutors told a jury the case was about “greed and cheating,” laying out a scheme within the Trump Organization to pay high-level executives in perks such as luxury cars and apartments without paying taxes on them.

    Former Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg pleaded guilty to his role in the tax scheme. He was released after serving four months in jail at Rikers Island.

    Several members of the US Capitol Police and Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police are suing Trump, saying his words and actions incited the 2021 riot.

    The various cases accuse Trump of directing assault and battery; aiding and abetting assault and battery; and violating Washington laws that prohibit the incitement of riots and disorderly conduct.

    In August, Trump requested to put on hold the lawsuit related to the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, citing his various criminal trials. The estate of Sicknick, who died after responding to the attack on the Capitol, is suing two rioters involved in the attack and Trump for his alleged role in egging it on.

    Other lawsuits have been put on hold while a federal appeals court considers whether Trump had absolute immunity as the sitting president.

    Former top FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok, who was fired in 2018 after the revelation that he criticized Trump in text messages, sued the Justice Department, alleging he was terminated improperly.

    In summer 2017, former special counsel Robert Mueller removed Strzok from his team investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election after an internal investigation revealed texts with former FBI lawyer Lisa Page that could be read as exhibiting political bias.

    Strzok and Page were constant targets of verbal attacks by Trump and his allies, part of the larger ire the then-president expressed toward the FBI during the Russia investigation. Trump repeatedly and publicly called for Strzok’s ouster until he was fired in August 2018.

    Trump is set to be deposed this month as part of the case, according to Politico.

    A federal judge dismissed Trump’s lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, several ex-FBI officials and more than two dozen other people and entities that he claims conspired to undermine his 2016 campaign with fabricated information tying him to Russia.

    “What (Trump’s lawsuit) lacks in substance and legal support it seeks to substitute with length, hyperbole, and the settling of scores and grievances,” US District Judge Donald Middlebrooks wrote.

    Trump appealed the decision, but Middlebrooks also ruled that the former president and his attorneys are liable for nearly $1 million in sanctions for bringing the case.

    Trump launched a Hail Mary bid in July to revive the sprawling lawsuit, relying on a recent report from special counsel John Durham that criticized the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe.

    Trump’s former lawyer Cohen sued Trump, former Attorney General William Barr and others, alleging they put him back in jail to prevent him from promoting his upcoming book while under home confinement.

    Cohen was serving the remainder of his sentence for lying to Congress and campaign violations at home, due to Covid-19 concerns, when he started an anti-Trump social media campaign in summer 2020. Cohen said that he was sent back to prison in retaliation and that he spent 16 days in solitary confinement.

    A federal judge threw out the lawsuit in November. District Judge Lewis Liman said he was empathetic to Cohen’s position but that Supreme Court precedent bars him from allowing the case to move forward.

    Trump sued journalist Bob Woodward in January for alleged copyright violations, claiming Woodward released audio from their interviews without Trump’s consent.

    Woodward and publisher Simon & Schuster said Trump’s case is without merit and moved for its dismissal.

    Woodward conducted several interviews with Trump for his book “Rage,” published in September 2020. Woodward later released “The Trump Tapes,” an audiobook featuring eight hours of raw interviews with Trump interspersed with the author’s commentary.

    Trump-filed lawsuits: The New York Times, Mary Trump and CNN

    The former president is suing his niece and The New York Times in New York state court over the disclosure of his tax information.

    A New York judge dismissed The New York Times from Trump’s lawsuit regarding disclosure of his tax returns and ordered Trump to pay the newspaper’s legal fees. Trump is still suing his niece Mary Trump for disclosure of the tax documents. She had tried to sue him for defrauding her out of millions after the death of his father, but the suit was dismissed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jury found Trump Organization

    Jury found Trump Organization

    [ad_1]

    Jury found Trump Organization “was running a scam,” legal expert says – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The Trump Organization has been found guilty of fraud and other charges by a jury in New York. Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney and deputy assistant attorney general, joins John Dickerson to discuss the verdict, what we’ve learned form the trial, and the potential ramifications for former President Donald Trump.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • CBS Evening News, December 6, 2022

    CBS Evening News, December 6, 2022

    [ad_1]

    CBS Evening News, December 6, 2022 – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Trump Organization found guilty of tax fraud; Kirstie Alley, Emmy-winning actress, dies at 71

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump Organization found guilty of tax fraud

    Trump Organization found guilty of tax fraud

    [ad_1]

    Trump Organization found guilty of tax fraud – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    As one investigation into former President Donald Trump expands in Washington with a wave of subpoenas, another involving the Trump Organization reached its conclusion in New York with a guilty verdict. Scott MacFarlane has the details.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Todd and Julie Chrisley sentenced for fraud and tax crimes convictions | CNN

    Todd and Julie Chrisley sentenced for fraud and tax crimes convictions | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Reality TV Stars Julie and Todd Chrisley were sentenced to prison in federal court Monday.

    The “Chrisley Knows Best” couple were found guilty in June of conspiracy to defraud banks out of more than $30 million in fraudulent loans, CNN previously reported. In addition, they were found guilty of several tax crimes, including attempting to defraud the Internal Revenue Service.

    Judge Eleanor L. Ross sentenced Todd Chrisley to 12 years in prison with three years of supervised release. His wife Julie Chrisley was sentenced to seven years in prison and three years of supervised release. Their accountant Peter Tarantino was sentenced to three years in prison and three years of supervised released, Ryan Buchanan, US Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, said during a press conference after the sentencing hearing.

    According to the Department of Justice, evidence in the case showed that the Chrisleys were able to obtain the loans by submitting false bank statements, audit reports and financial statements. The money was used to buy luxury cars, designer clothes, real estate and travel, a DOJ press release stated.

    Then, while earning millions of dollars on their former reality show, the Chrisleys, along with their accountant, conspired to defraud the IRS and evade collection of delinquent taxes.

    “Chrisley Knows Best” debuted in 2014 on the USA Network. New episodes, filmed prior to the trial, will debut sometime next year.

    In a short statement to CNN in June, one of Todd Chrisley’s attorneys, Bruce Morris, said they were, “disappointed in the verdict” and planned to appeal.

    CNN has reached out to representatives of the Chrisleys and Tarantino for comment on Monday’s sentencing.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Allen Weisselberg testifies in Trump organization trial

    Allen Weisselberg testifies in Trump organization trial

    [ad_1]

    Allen Weisselberg testifies in Trump organization trial – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    CBS News Reporter Graham Kates talks about Allen Weisselberg’s testimony today in the Trump organization trial. The former CFO talks Trump’s involvement in a tax fraud scheme.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Todd and Julie Chrisley should each be sentenced to more than 10 years in prison, prosecutors say

    Todd and Julie Chrisley should each be sentenced to more than 10 years in prison, prosecutors say

    [ad_1]

    Reality television stars Todd and Julie Chrisley could be sentenced to more than a decade in prison after being convicted of fraud and tax evasion earlier this year. In a sentencing memorandum, federal prosecutors suggested Todd Chrisley receive 17 1/2 to nearly 22 years in prison, and Julie Chrisley be sentenced to 10 to 12 1/2 years in prison. 

    Prosecutors argued that the Chrisleys deserve a more severe sentence because evidence shows many of their crimes were more severe than previously believed. They said the couple “engaged in a lengthy conspiracy to defraud community banks out of tens of millions of dollars.”

    “A message must be sent to the Chrisleys and others that tax evasion is a serious offense, and that wealthy tax cheats who use personal companies to avoid paying taxes will face a substantial prison sentence,” the prosecutors said. “Finally, Todd and Julie Chrisley’s arrogance merits special consideration.”

    Celebrities Visit Hallmark's "Home & Family"
    Reality TV personalities Julie Chrisley and Todd Chrisley visit Hallmark’s “Home & Family” at Universal Studios Hollywood on June 18, 2018, in Universal City, California.

    Paul Archuleta / Getty Images


    The prosecutors argued that while “most tax cheaters try to keep a low profile while avoiding detection from the IRS,” the Chrisleys did the opposite. 

    “In 2013, while Todd was in the midst of bankruptcy proceedings, the Chrisleys filmed a promotional video for their new reality show about their extravagant lifestyle. In the video, Todd boasted that he ‘make[s] millions of dollars a year,’ and in another shot where he is standing in his walkin closet in his expansive house, he bragged that ‘in a year, we probably spend over $300,000, sometimes more, just on clothing.’”

    The couple, who appeared on “Chrisley Knows Best” and several other reality television shows, were indicted on 12 counts, including tax evasion, conspiracy, bank fraud and wire fraud, in 2019. They were found guilty earlier this year.

    U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Buchanan said in a June 2022 press release that Todd and Julie Chrisley conspired to defraud community banks in the Atlanta area to obtain more than $30 million in personal loans prior to the launch of their first television show in 2014. The Chrisleys and their former business partner submitted false documents to obtain the loans, and then spent the money on cars, clothes, real estate and travel. They used new loans to pay back the old ones, Buchanan said.

    Todd Chrisley filed for bankruptcy and was able to walk away from more than $20 million of the loans. While he claimed he was bankrupt, he and his family were earning millions of dollars from their TV show, according to Buchanan. The Chrisleys were operating a loan-out company, which are usually used by entertainment professionals, and earned money from their show and other entertainment ventures. 

    When the IRS asked for information about their bank accounts, they transferred their loan-out company’s corporate account to Todd Chrisley’s mother in an effort to hide from the IRS. However, Todd Chrisley was still operating the loan-out company behind the scenes, Buchanan said.

    The Chrisleys also failed to file tax returns or pay any taxes in the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, Buchanan said. While speaking on a radio show, Todd Chrisley claimed he paid $750,000 to $1 million in federal income taxes every year. However, he hadn’t paid in years.

    The couple’s accountant, Peter Tarantino, was also found guilty of conspiring to defraud the IRS and filing two false corporate tax returns on behalf of the Chrisleys’ company. On those tax returns, he falsely claimed that their company earned no money and made no distributions in 2015 and 2016. 

    In this week’s sentencing memorandum, prosecutors said the couple’s “crimes cannot be understated.” 

    “The seriousness of their actions is further underscored by the fact that neither defendant has expressed remorse for their crimes, instead continuing to blame others for their own criminal conduct,” they said. “Given the seriousness of the Chrisleys’ crimes, a lengthy period of incarceration is warranted.”

    The Chrisleys’ lawyer submitted a memorandum suggesting the sentencing range should be much lower – between 8 and 9 months. CBS News has reached out to their lawyer for further comment and is awaiting response.

    Several positive character assessments about the Chrisleys were submitted with their memorandum. 

    “Most people don’t get the opportunity to see and know the Todd that I do,” the family’s personal assistant/house manager and former housekeeper Jill Palilla wrote. “They don’t know of the kindness he has extended to myself, my family, and others. They don’t see him leading his family in prayer at the dinner table each night, they don’t see him shed tears of compassion for others that he sees in pain.”

    “I’ve always known him to be a caring friend and devoted advocate for everyone,” wrote fellow reality star Kandi Burruss-Tucker, who stars on “Real Housewives of Atlanta.” “You can see the love he has for his family, but the admirable role that he took on as a caregiver for his granddaughter Chloe represents the essence of who he is outside of the stern but comical persona that people see.”

    Todd Chrisley’s lawyer argued that many people who rely on him “will be severely and negatively impacted when he is sentenced to imprisonment,” especially his elderly mother. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Opinion: No, an indictment wouldn’t end Trump’s run for the presidency – he could even campaign or serve from a jail cell

    Opinion: No, an indictment wouldn’t end Trump’s run for the presidency – he could even campaign or serve from a jail cell

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump announced his 2024 run for the presidency on Nov. 15. In his address he railed against what he perceived as the “persecution” of himself and his family, but made scant mention of his legal woes.

    There is also the not-so-small matter of a Justice Department investigation into the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol.

    The announcement has led some to speculate that Trump may be hoping that becoming a presidential candidate will in some way shield him from prosecution.

    Donald Trump has announced his bid to run in the 2024 presidential race. WSJ’s Alex Leary breaks down the challenges the former president will face on the campaign trail, including new political rivals and a waning influence among voters. Photo Composite: Adele Morgan

    So, does an indictment—or even a felony conviction—prevent a presidential candidate from running or serving in office?

    The short answer is no. Here’s why:

    The U.S. Constitution specifies in clear language the qualifications required to hold the office of the presidency. In Section 1, Clause 5 of Article II, it states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    These three requirements—natural-born citizenship, age, and residency—are the only specifications set forth in the United States’ founding document.

    Congress has ‘no power to alter’

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made clear that constitutionally prescribed qualifications to hold federal office may not be altered or supplemented by either the U.S. Congress or any of the states.

    Justices clarified the court’s position in their 1969 Powell v. McCormack ruling. The case followed the adoption of a resolution by the House of Representatives barring pastor and New York politician Adam Clayton Powell Jr. from taking his seat in the 90th Congress.

    The resolution was not based on Powell’s failure to meet the age, citizenship and residency requirements for House members set forth in the Constitution. Rather, the House found that Powell had diverted Congressional funds and made false reports about certain currency transactions.

    When Powell sued to take his seat, the Supreme Court invalidated the House’s resolution on grounds that it added to the constitutionally specified qualifications for Powell to hold office. In the majority opinion, the court held that: “Congress has no power to alter the qualifications in the text of the Constitution.”

    For the same reason, no limitation could now be placed on Trump’s candidacy. Nor could he be barred from taking office if he were to be indicted or even convicted.

    But in case of insurrection…

    The Constitution includes no qualification regarding those conditions—with one significant exception. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies any person from holding federal office “who, having previously taken an oath…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

    The reason why this matters is the Justice Department is currently investigating Trump for his activities related to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol.

    Under the provisions of the 14th Amendment, Congress is authorized to pass laws to enforce its provisions. And in February 2021, one Democratic congressman proposed House Bill 1405, providing for a “cause of action to remove and bar from holding office certain individuals who engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”

    Even in the event of Trump being found to have participated “in insurrection or rebellion,” he might conceivably argue that he is exempt from Section 3 for a number of reasons. The 14th Amendment does not specifically refer to the presidency and it is not “self-executing”—that is, it needs subsequent legislation to enforce it. Trump could also point to the fact that Congress enacted an Amnesty Act in 1872 that lifted the ban on office holding for officials from many former Confederate states.

    He might also argue that his activities on and before Jan. 6 did not constitute an “insurrection” as it is understood by the wording of the amendment. There are few judicial precedents that interpret Section 3, and as such its application in modern times remains unclear. So even if House Bill 1405 were adopted, it is not clear whether it would be enough to disqualify Trump from serving as president again.

    Running from behind bars

    Even in the case of conviction and incarceration, a presidential candidate would not be prevented from continuing their campaign—even if, as a felon, they might not be able to vote for themselves.

    History is dotted with instances of candidates for federal office running—and even being elected—while in prison. As early as 1798—some 79 years before the 14th Amendment — House member Matthew Lyon was elected to Congress from a prison cell, where he was serving a sentence for sedition for speaking out against the Federalist Adams administration.

    Eugene Debs, founder of the Socialist Party of America, ran for president in 1920 while serving a prison sentence for sedition. Although he lost the election, he nevertheless won 913,693 votes. Debs promised to pardon himself if he were elected.

    And controversial politician and conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche also ran for president from a jail cell in 1992.

    A prison cell as the Oval Office?

    Several provisions within the Constitution offer alternatives that could be used to disqualify a president under indictment or in prison.

    The 25th Amendment allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to suspend the president from office if they conclude that the president is incapable of fulfilling his duties.

    The amendment states that the removal process may be invoked “if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

    It was proposed and ratified to address what would happen should a president be incapacitated due to health issues. But the language is broad and some legal scholars believe it could be invoked if someone is deemed incapacitated or incapable for other reasons, such as incarceration.

    To be sure, a president behind bars could challenge the conclusion that he or she was incapable from discharging the duties simply because they were in prison. But ultimately the amendment leaves any such dispute to Congress to decide, and it may suspend the president from office by a two-thirds vote.

    Indeed, it is not clear that a president could not effectively execute the duties of office from prison, since the Constitution imposes no requirements that the executive appear in any specific location. The jail cell could, theoretically, serve as the new Oval Office.

    Finally, if Trump were convicted and yet prevail in his quest for the presidency in 2024, Congress might choose to impeach him and remove him from office. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution allows impeachment for “treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors.”

    Whether that language would apply to Trump for indictments or convictions arising from his previous term or business dealings outside of office would be a question for Congress to decide. The precise meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is unclear, and the courts are unlikely to second-guess the House in bringing an impeachment proceeding.

    For sure, impeachment would remain an option—but it might be an unlikely one if Republicans maintained their majority in the House in 2024 and 2026.

    Stefanie Lindquist is Foundation Professor of Law and Political Science at Arizona State University. She previously taught at Vanderbilt University, the University of Georgia and the University of Texas.

    This commentary was originally published by The Conversation—No, an indictment wouldn’t end Trump’s run for the presidency—he could even campaign or serve from a jail cell

    More on Trump’s legal problems

    Trump Organization executive says he helped colleagues dodge taxes

    Judge says he’ll appoint monitor to oversee Donald Trump’s company

    Justice Department weighs appointing special counsel if Trump runs in 2024, report says

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former Trump Org. CFO testifies he didn’t pay taxes on $1.76 million in personal expenses | CNN Politics

    Former Trump Org. CFO testifies he didn’t pay taxes on $1.76 million in personal expenses | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg testified Tuesday that he knew he should have paid taxes on hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits he received annually, including a company-paid Manhattan apartment that he said former President Donald Trump suggested he move into.

    Weisselberg testified for about 90 minutes during the criminal trial of the Trump Organization in Manhattan, calmly walking the jury through the growth of the company from 50 employees when he started there in 1986 into an umbrella organization that includes 500 entities.

    Under questioning by prosecutor Susan Hoffinger, Weisselberg answered “yes” as the prosecutor went through each of personal expenses he received from the Trump Org. – and that the company didn’t pay taxes on them from 2005 through 2017.

    One of those untaxed benefits Weisselberg received was a more than $7,000 per month 1200 square foot luxury apartment overlooking the Hudson River in Manhattan.

    The former CFO said Trump offered him the apartment in 2005 to cut his daily commute to Long Island where he lived at the time. Weisselberg sat down with Trump, who Weisselberg said asked him if he would consider moving into the city. Trump said, according to Weisselberg, it would “help you, help the company” and Weisselberg could work longer hours.

    Weisselberg said after speaking with his wife, they agreed to move in and Trump authorized the expense.

    He also said he expensed his utilities, phone, car leases and garage saying it was “part and parcel” with the apartment.

    Either Weisselberg or Trump would sign the rent checks for his apartment. In total, he received as much as $200,000 in untaxed compensation in a year from all those benefits, according to his testimony.

    Weisselberg testified had he asked for a raise the company would have had to pay him double – as much as $400,000, to cover the taxes.

    In all, Weisselberg said he didn’t pay taxes on approximately $1.76 million in personal expenses from 2005 through 2017.

    He acknowledged that he knowingly unreported his income on his tax forms to get the fringe benefits tax free, and he hid that information from the accountants at Mazars, he said, because he thought they would refuse to sign his tax returns had they known about it.

    Trump Organization Controller Jeff McConney knew the practice was illegal when he generated the false W-2 and 1099 tax forms on Weisselberg’s behalf, according to Weisselberg.

    McConney previously claimed on the stand that he didn’t think all of the expenses were handled improperly until an internal review years later.

    Weisselberg on Tuesday also acknowledged that he was stripped of the chief financial officer title after he was arrested and charged with 15 counts of tax fraud and grand larceny. Weisselberg, whose voice dropped to a whisper when discussing his crimes, said he continued to do most of the same work after he was indicted. That changed in October, several months after he pleaded guilty and agreed to testify, when Weisselberg said he began working from home and his contact with Eric Trump, who runs the company on a day-to-day basis, “stopped.”

    Weisselberg said he is on paid leave and still expects to receive a $500,000 bonus in January in addition to his $640,000 salary.

    The day Weisselberg finalized a plea deal with prosecutors in August, his son threw a birthday party for him at Trump Tower. Weisselberg attempted to downplay it, saying he regretted it, and that “it was a small cake.”

    Weisselberg is expected to continue on the stand Thursday morning.

    Two Trump Organization entities are charged with nine counts of tax fraud, grand larceny and falsifying business records in what prosecutors allege was a 15-year scheme to defraud tax authorities by failing to report and pay taxes on compensation provided to employees. The former president is not a defendant in the case and is not expected to be implicated in any wrongdoing.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump Organization’s Criminal Trial For Tax Fraud Starts—Here Are The Consequences It Could Face

    Trump Organization’s Criminal Trial For Tax Fraud Starts—Here Are The Consequences It Could Face

    [ad_1]

    Topline

    Jury selection begins Monday in the Trump Organization’s criminal trial for alleged tax fraud—which will only result in the company having to pay monetary damages if it’s found guilty, though a conviction could have more damaging knock-on effects for former President Donald Trump’s business.

    Key Facts

    The Trump Organization is on trial after being indicted on charges of criminal tax fraud, scheme to defraud, conspiracy and falsifying business records, with Manhattan prosecutors alleging the company “devised and operated a scheme to defraud” tax authorities by paying executives through gifts and other “off the books” compensation.

    Weisselberg has already pleaded guilty to the scheme, through which he allegedly received approximately $1.76 million in indirect compensation between 2005 and 2021, but no other Trump Organization executives—including Trump or his family members—have been directly implicated in the criminal case.

    If found guilty, the Trump Organization will only have to pay a maximum of approximately $1.6 million in fines, which CNN notes is the highest amount allowed under state law for this kind of crime.

    A conviction would not result in any further direct consequences to the Trump Organization, including the dissolution of the company.

    It could make it less likely that creditors or other business partners will be willing to work with the Trump Organization, however, legal experts cited by Bloomberg and NBC News noted, and Brooklyn Law School professor Miriam Baer told Reuters the trial alone “casts a pall of uncertainty over the company” that could affect its future business deals.

    Legal experts cited by Insider also note a conviction could persuade the federal government to stop doing business with the Trump Organization—such as Secret Service agents being charged to stay at Trump properties—citing federal regulations that allow government contractors to be “debarred” if they’ve committed crimes like tax evasion or falsification of records.

    Crucial Quote

    “Is it definitive that a company convicted of a crime will be shunned by lenders and creditors? Not necessarily,” attorney Daniel Horwitz, a former prosecutor at the Manhattan district attorney’s office that brought the charges, told Bloomberg. “Is it a good thing if the Trump Organization is convicted of cheating the government of millions of dollars in taxes over the years? No, it’s not good.”

    What To Watch For

    Jury selection in the case is expected to last for approximately two weeks, Law360 reports, as attorneys in the case try to weed out potential jurors who have a strong political bias against Trump. The trial itself will then take approximately five to six weeks, New York State Judge Juan Merchan said ahead of jury selection Monday, which will include testimony from Weisselberg on the alleged tax fraud scheme.

    Chief Critic

    The Trump Organization has pleaded not guilty to the charges against it, and attorneys representing the company at trial told the New York Law Journal they’ll argue that even though Weisselberg pleaded guilty, there’s “no evidence” to show the company itself did anything wrong. “Our defense has always been that these corporate entities are not liable for things that employees do behind the corporation’s back,” attorney Michael van der Veen told the Journal. “The corporation received no benefit from the tax crimes.”

    Key Background

    The Trump Organization and Weisselberg were indicted in July 2021 following a years-long investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office into the company’s financials. (That investigation has so far not resulted in any other charges.) The indictment alleges the Trump Organization paid for Weisselberg’s Manhattan apartment, private school tuition for his family members and leases for Mercedes Benz vehicles for him and his wife, among other methods of indirect compensation, and the Trump Organization allegedly fraudulently misreported income to both Weisselberg and other unnamed executives to avoid paying higher taxes. Weisselberg pleaded guilty to the charges against him in August and will now serve only up to five months in prison, avoiding a potential 15-year sentence if he had been found guilty at trial. CNN reports the Trump Organization’s trial comes after the company and the Manhattan DA’s office discussed a possible plea deal a few weeks ago, which didn’t come to fruition. According to sources cited by CNN, the Trump Organization was only willing to plead guilty to committing a misdemeanor while the DA’s office wanted them to plead guilty to felony charges, and Trump himself was unwilling to let the company make any guilty pleas at all.

    What We Don’t Know

    What other punishments Trump and his company may face outside of this trial. New York Attorney General Letitia James has separately sued the Trump Organization, Trump, his children and other business associates for allegedly fraudulently inflating the company’s assets. That case could have much more significant impacts for the Trump Organization if they lose in court, including having its business certificates canceled in New York, Trump and his children being barred from leading New York businesses and a heftier $250 million fine. While that litigation is a civil lawsuit, James said her office has also found evidence Trump and his business violated criminal laws, including federal ones, and has thus referred its findings to the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service. That means it’s possible Trump could be prosecuted in federal court as well. The former president is also facing multiple investigations from the Justice Department over him bringing White House documents back to Mar-A-Lago and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and prosecutors in Fulton County, Georgia, are also separately probing Trump’s post-election scheme.

    Further Reading

    Trump Org. criminal tax fraud trial kicks off Monday (CNN)

    How a conviction in Trump Org’s upcoming trial could bar Trump from federal contracts, even for Secret Service (Insider)

    Trump Firm’s Tax Fraud Trial Promises Ex-CFO as Star Witness (Bloomberg)

    5 Takeaways From The Trump Organization’s Indictment (Forbes)

    Allen Weisselberg—Longtime Trump Organization CFO—Pleads Guilty In Tax Scheme (Forbes)

    [ad_2]

    Alison Durkee, Forbes Staff

    Source link

  • Whistleblowers say IRS recommended far more charges, including felonies, against Hunter Biden | CNN Politics

    Whistleblowers say IRS recommended far more charges, including felonies, against Hunter Biden | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Two whistleblowers told Congress that IRS investigators recommended charging Hunter Biden with attempted tax evasion and other felonies, which are far more serious crimes than what the president’s son has agreed to plead guilty to, according to transcripts of their private interviews with lawmakers.

    The IRS whistleblowers said the recommendation called for Hunter Biden to be charged with tax evasion and filing a false tax return – both felonies – for 2014, 2018 and 2019. The IRS also recommended that prosecutors charge him with failing to pay taxes on time, a misdemeanor, for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, according to the transcripts, which were released Thursday by House Republicans.

    It appears that this 11-count charging recommendation also had the backing of some Justice Department prosecutors, but not from more senior attorneys, according to documents that the whistleblowers provided to House investigators.

    In a deal with prosecutors announced earlier this week, Hunter Biden is pleading guilty to just two tax misdemeanors.

    The allegations come from Gary Shapley, a 14-year IRS veteran, who oversaw parts of the Hunter Biden criminal probe, and an unnamed IRS agent who was on the case nearly from its inception. Shapley approached Congress this year with information that he claimed showed political interference in the investigation. He and the entire IRS team were later removed from the probe.

    “I am alleging, with evidence, that DOJ provided preferential treatment, slow-walked the investigation, did nothing to avoid obvious conflicts of interest in this investigation,” Shapley told lawmakers.

    David Weiss, the Trump-appointed US attorney in Delaware who oversaw the Hunter Biden criminal probe, eventually reached a plea deal where the president’s son will plead guilty to two misdemeanors for failing to pay taxes on time. The plea agreement will also resolve a separate felony gun charge, if Hunter Biden abides by certain court-imposed conditions for a period of time.

    Hunter Biden isn’t pleading guilty to any felonies, and he wasn’t charged with any tax felonies. CNN reported that prosecutors are expected to recommend no jail time. He is scheduled to appear in federal court in Delaware on July 26.

    It isn’t uncommon for there to be internal disagreements among investigators over which charges to file against the target of an investigation, much like the disagreements that the IRS whistleblowers described. CNN reported last year that some FBI and IRS investigators were at odds with other Justice Department officials over the strength of the case, and that there were discussions over which types of charges were appropriate and whether further investigation was needed.

    Sources familiar with the criminal probe told CNN in April that prosecutors were still actively weighing a felony tax charge against Hunter Biden. And it is common for prosecutors to strike deals with defendants where they plead guilty to a small subset of the possible charges they could’ve faced.

    The Justice Department probe into Hunter Biden was opened in November 2018, and was codenamed “Sportsman.” According to Shapley’s testimony, federal investigators knew as early as June 2021 that there were potential venue-related issues with charging Hunter Biden in Delaware. Under federal law, charges must be brought in the jurisdiction where the alleged crimes occurred.

    If the potential charges couldn’t be brought in Delaware, then Weiss would need help from his fellow US attorneys. He looked to Washington, DC, where some of Hunter Biden’s tax returns were prepared, and the Central District of California, which includes the Los Angeles area where Hunter Biden lives.

    But Shapley told the committee that the US attorneys in both districts wouldn’t seek an indictment.

    A second whistleblower, an IRS case agent who also testified to the committee but hasn’t been publicly identified, also told lawmakers that this is what happened. He agreed that Weiss was “was told no” when he tried to get the cooperation of the US attorneys in in DC and Los Angeles, who are Biden appointees.

    Hunter Biden’s eventual plea agreement was filed in Weiss’ jurisdiction, in Delaware.

    Shapley contends in his interview that Attorney General Merrick Garland was not truthful when he told Congress that Weiss had full authority on the investigation.

    Shapley recounted a meeting on October 7, 2022, where, according to Shapley’s notes memorializing the meeting, Weiss said, “He is not the deciding person on whether charges are filed” against Hunter Biden. This undermines what Weiss and Garland have publicly said about Weiss’ independence on the matter.

    Shapley also testified to committee investigators that it was during this October 2022 meeting that he learned for the first time that Weiss had requested to be named as a special counsel, but was denied.

    In testimony to Congress in March, Garland said Weiss was advised “he is not to be denied anything he needs.”

    Regarding the claims of political interference with the Hunter Biden criminal probe, Weiss told House Republicans in a recent letter that Garland granted him “ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges.”

    After the transcripts were released Thursday, spokespeople for the US attorney’s offices in DC and Los Angeles issued near-identical statements reiterating that Weiss “was given full authority to bring charges in any jurisdiction he deemed appropriate.” The Justice Department echoed those comments in a statement saying Weiss “needs no further approval” to bring charges wherever he wants.

    The whistleblowers also allege that at multiple key junctures, investigators were thwarted in their efforts because prosecutors were concerned about interfering in the 2020 presidential election.

    In 2020, IRS investigators sought to conduct search warrants and take other overt steps. But according to Shapley, several weeks before the election, in September 2020, a Justice Department prosecutor questioned the optics of searching Hunter Biden’s residence and Joe Biden’s guest home.

    Later that year, other planned searches were delayed because then-President Donald Trump was refusing to concede and was continuing to contest the results.

    Republicans have slammed the plea agreement Hunter Biden struck as a “sweetheart deal,” and said it amounted to “a slap on the wrist.”

    House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith said earlier Thursday that the transcripts reveal “credible whistleblower testimony alleging misconduct and abuse” at the Justice Department that “resulted in preferential treatment for the president’s son.”

    The Missouri Republican highlighted the whistleblowers’ allegations that the Justice Department “overstepped” in their efforts to intervene in the Hunter Biden criminal probe.

    “The testimony … details a lack of US attorney independence, recurring unjustified delays, unusual actions outside the normal course of any investigation, a lack of transparency across the investigation and prosecution teams, and bullying and threats from the defense counsel,” Smith said.

    Democrats on the committee said the transcripts were “a premature and incomplete record” of what happened with the Hunter Biden probe and accused the GOP of a “stunning abuse of power.”

    Hunter Biden’s lawyer pushed back in a statement Friday against the whistleblowers claims, saying it was “preposterous and deeply irresponsible” to suggest that federal investigators “cut my client any slack” during their “extensive” five-year probe.

    “A close examination of the document released publicly yesterday by a very biased individual raises serious questions over whether it is what he claims it to be,” attorney Chris Clark said. “It is dangerously misleading to make any conclusions or inferences based on this document.”

    Shapley, the IRS supervisor-turned-whistleblower, told House lawmakers that Justice Department prosecutors denied requests to look into messages allegedly from Hunter Biden where he used his father as leverage to pressure a Chinese company into paying him.

    “I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled,” according to a document Shapley gave to Congress, which quotes from texts that are allegedly from Hunter Biden to the CEO of a Chinese fund management company.

    The message continues: “Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand. And now means tonight.” The message goes onto say, “I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.”

    The second, unnamed IRS whistleblower also testified to lawmakers about this alleged WhatsApp message, saying prosecutors questioned whether they could be sure Hunter Biden was telling the truth that his father was actually in the room in the messages. The unnamed whistleblower testified that they did not know whether the FBI investigated the message.

    Shapley told House investigators that a Justice Department attorney insisted that the FBI not ask directly about Joe Biden when doing interviews. But the FBI did manage to ask one key witness about Joe Biden, and Shapley said the witness told investigators that some suggestions of the president’s involvement were overstated.

    An email sent among business partners of Hunter Biden said an equity stake should be held “for the big guy,” an apparent reference to Joe Biden, who was vice president at the time. But one of the associates told the FBI that it was probably just “wishful thinking or maybe he was just projecting” that Joe Biden would get involved if he did not run for president in 2016.

    Joe Biden has repeatedly denied having any involvement in his son’s overseas business dealings, where he made millions of dollars from China, Ukraine and other countries. House Republicans have used their oversight probes to look for evidence that Joe Biden was actually involved.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link