So, I posted upthread about Dishonest Don's failing casino being bailed out by father Fred illegally purchasing gambling chips with no intent to gamble (what kind of businessman loses money on a casino? This turns out to be the tip of the iceberg ; the NY Times has conducted a major investigation into the various ways the daily liar's version of how he got rich, as the master dealmaker who broke free from his father’s “tiny” Brooklyn and Queens real estate operation and built a $10 billion empire is just more self serving BS.

In fact

 By age 3, he was earning $200,000 a year in today’s dollars from his father’s empire. He was a millionaire by age 8. In his 40s and 50s, he was receiving more than $5 million a year.

In Mr. Trump’s books and TV shows and on the campaign trail, a central trope of his self-mythology has been that, as he began building his own empire, the only financial help he got from his father was a $1 million loan. Not only that: “I had to pay him back with interest.”

In fact, The Times found, Fred Trump lent his son at least $60.7 million, or $140 million in today’s dollars. Much of it was never repaid, records show. [...] All told, The Times documented 295 distinct streams of revenue Fred Trump created over five decades to channel wealth to his son.

Many of these wealth transfers were legally dubious at best. It looks very much like the US has bought in wholesale to a myth created by a liar and a fraud.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-wealth-fred-trump.html

Of course, the Donald could silence some of this criticism by publishing his tax returns, as every other modern president chose to. Equally obviously, he won't. The scary thing is that this is the new 'normal' - few will find these revelations surprising.

Strange Times.

I suspect that nobody cares as it's seemingly being woven in as a distraction ... (blah)

Over 1,000 comments in a few hours, mostly 'Is anyone suprised'. Not everyting is part of the grand conspiracy. The investigation started in 2005, it takes time to read 100,000 documents. If they were interested in tactical timing, they would have released what they in 2016.

As a law professor for half a century, I tested the consistency and strength of my students’ arguments by constructing thought experiments in the form of challenging hypothetical cases — we called them hypos. So let’s construct one to test the arguments being offered in the Kavanaugh case.

A thought experiment: President Hillary Clinton nominates the first Muslim-American to the Supreme Court. Let’s call him Amir Hassan. He is highly qualified and his nomination is widely supported by most Democrats and some centrists.

Most Republicans oppose him and accuse him of being a judicial activist. Then several witnesses place him at a mosque at which terrorism was advocated. He claims he went there to hear all sides of the issue. One witness places him in a terrorism training camp but that account is not corroborated. One final witness identifies him as the man who planted the bomb that blew off his leg at a demonstration. He categorically denies any association with terrorism.

How would the Senate, the media, ACLU and the public deal with these accusations?

The answer seems clear: the sides and arguments would be largely reversed. The shoe would be on the other foot and the hypocrisy of double standards would be exposed for all to see.

Surely the ACLU would not be arguing, as they have in the Kavanaugh case, that doubts should be resolved in favor of guilt. Radicals would not be insisting that terrorism survivors must always be believed as to identification. My left wing colleagues would not point to the anger displayed by the possibly falsely accused nominee as proof of his disqualifying injudicious temperament.

To the contrary, the ACLU would be demanding due process, a presumption of innocence, and a high burden of proof before so serious a charge could destroy a life, family, and career. My colleagues would be defending the righteous anger of a falsely accused victim of ethnic prejudice.

The identity politics accusations would not be directed against old white men, but rather against those who would stereotype Muslims as terrorists. The Jewish Forward would not be featuring an article entitled “Is Amir Hassan every Muslim man?,” as it is now featuring an article entitled “Is Brett Kavanaugh every American man?”

Many right-wing Republicans would now be making arguments similar to those being made by their left-wing Democratic colleagues in the Kavanaugh case. This is just a job interview not a trial. Believe terrorism survivors. There is no burden of proof; mere suspicion is enough to deny a possible terrorist a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Look how angry he is, demonstrating a lack of judicial temperament.

Hypocrisy is the coin of partisanship. It affects both sides. It may be better than simply not even caring whether people think you’re being fair. As Francois de La Rochefoucauld once put it: “Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.” It is precisely because of the pervasiveness and apparent acceptance of hypocrisy that I insist on applying “the shoe on the other foot test” to all aspects of politics, law, morality and lives. It drives my colleagues and friends crazy when I challenge them to pass the test. Few are willing to take it. Even fewer pass it.

Applying that test to the Kavanaugh case doesn’t provide a perfect resolution. But it does supply some guiding principles. Ask yourself what you would be thinking and saying about my Muslim-American hypothetical thought experiment. One’s first instinct is to try to distinguish the cases: rape is not like terrorism; stereotyping a Muslim-American as a terrorist is different than stereotyping a privileged white man as a rapist; rape survivors are more reliable witnesses than terrorism survivors; the burden of proof should be higher for proving terrorism than rape. None of these distinctions are compelling in the context of a Supreme Court confirmation process. They are makeweights designed to weaken the force of the “shoe on the other foot test” and to justify the hypocrisy of shifting arguments when it is your ox that is being gored.

So now back to Kavanaugh. The test for him should be the test that would have been demanded had the first Muslim-American been nominated to the Supreme Court by a Democratic president and been accused of engaging in terrorism as a 17-year-old. A full investigation, a fair process of judgment, no presumption of truth telling by alleged victims, no presumption of guilt against the nominee because he has so much to lose, a standard of guilt that varies with the seriousness of the accusations, and no identity political stereotypes as substitutes for hard evidence. These and other neutral rules should be applied to this case and every case going forward. Only then could we be confident in the fairness of the outcome.

"Many of these wealth transfers were legally dubious at best. It looks very much like the US has bought in wholesale to a myth created by a liar and a fraud."

Oct 3, 2018 at 10:48 AM | Phil Clarke

That is what Trump has realised about Climate Science.

Oct 4, 2018 at 1:45 AM | Unregistered Commenteralan dershowitz

The real Dershowitz?

The real Clipe? How can we ever know?

The real Dershowitz does not shrink back from "controversial" issues, and is not restricted by party lines.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz

Mr and Mrs Clinton found "party lines" very alluring and liberating.

"[long screed] Strange Times".
Oct 3, 2018 at 10:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Not really. Most Presidential candidates tend to have a lengthy history in politics before running for President. And most of them (all?) will have political skeletons in the closet. Trump doesn't have that history in politics, so finding skeletons there may be nigh on impossible. But he does have a history in business, and that is where the bodies are likely to be buried. It makes sense for his opponents to dig there.

From my scant historical knowledge, I would guess that Eisenhower was the last President without a history in politics[*]. Were he running today I have no doubt he would be accused of war crimes. That's politics.

[*Obama's ascent was fairly rapid, meaning fewer skeletons. Useful. But he was given a huge leg up by the Chicago skeleton itself.]

So you're saying it is unprecedented for the guy ultimately in charge of setting taxation policy to have a long record of tax avoidance, the leader of a nation to have a long record of complete and utter contempt for the truth?

Sounds right.

Oct 5, 2018 at 11:25 AM | Phil Clarke

Is there a difference in US Law between Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion?

Who do you regard as US President or UK Prime Minister or EU Leader, or Member of Mann's Hockey Team, as being a shining example of not having contempt for truth?

You beat me to it, GC. Poor Phil doesn't understand the difference. Tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance is a legal multi-billion (trillion?) dollar industry that is engaged in by all companies and individuals who can afford to pay an accountant.

"But he does have a history in business, and that is where the bodies are likely to be buried. It makes sense for his opponents to dig there."

Oct 5, 2018 at 10:50 AM | michael hart

I am sure there are many fomer rivals and employees who have suffered Trump's "style".

His hairdresser has not commited a Criminal Offence, just challenged credibility

Poor Phil understands the difference extraordinarily well. The tax lawyers advising the NYT are of the opinion that Trump's activities crossed the line into fraud.

Then there's the money-laundering, e.g. The Netherlands has evidence that close associates of Trump’s set up shell companies to hide stolen money. A golf course in Scotland was bought with piles of cash that have no known legal source. 77% of condos in just one of Trump’s properties were sold to shell corporations with no identifiable owner, and so on and so forth.

'Yeah - but there are others just as bad' is hardly a pursuasive defence, just leads to a race to the bottom.

The real Dershowitz?

Apparently so.

Who do you regard as US President or UK Prime Minister or EU Leader, or Member of Mann's Hockey Team, as being a shining example of not having contempt for truth?

There's the small matter of scale and volume. But I hold no brief for any politician. I am not aware of any climate scientist having been shown to be dishonest about any matter significant enough to change the science. Perhaps you have an example in mind?

I also doubted it was the real Dershowitz. If the quote is real then the harm done is small.

For the record, I wouldn't be at all surprised if something bad couldn't be found in Trump's probably highly complex tax returns. The problem is, such things often boil down to a negotiation between the company/individual and the tax authorities. It gives plenty of scope for things to be alleged. And the IRS has, under the Democrats, also been used as a political weapon and is still probably populated with their cronies.

Frankly, I don't blame him for giving away more information than is necessary. Personnally, I regard the traditional habit of releasing tax records as being for the purpose of showing the President has not been bought by a wealthy individual or corporation. In this case the President is a wealthy individual/corporation, so the need is less pressing. Also, if Trump and had been treated rather better in the media then I would be more critical of his refusal.

I'll add another thing that I discovered when living and working in the States: Most Americans will tell you intimate details about their sex lives, and admit to urinating on Russian hookers in the Presidential suites of luxury hotels, before they will volunteer details about their tax returns. It is a very American thing, and I don't think it will do Trump much harm in the voters eyes, whatever his detractors in the media may think.

a couple of typo errors/omissions in my last post, but I'm sure my meaning was obvious.

Personnally, I regard the traditional habit of releasing tax records as being for the purpose of showing the President has not been bought by a wealthy individual or corporation. In this case the President is a wealthy individual/corporation, so the need is less pressing.

It would also establish if he has been honest about the sources of his wealth, and the actual degree of his business success (many doubt his net worth is anything like what the man claims).

My suspicion would be the return would simply provide yet more evidence of the lack of anything resembling integrity. But, as we all now know he has none, there is no great loss.