Talk:The Trump Organization/Archives/2021
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Matthew Calamari
Cltr-F "matthew calamari" - zero results. Are you kidding?
AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- AllThatJazz2012, why don't you be bold and include it yourself? As long as there is proper sourcing that gives verifiability, and it is non-trivial, then it should be fine. Curbon7 (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Curbon7 Why would I do that? You (or your ilk) would remove it within an hour. I made a mistake. You (or your ilk) would remove it within five minutes. I'm not making your day for you. I know how the GOP justices on the Supreme Court are. I know that game. Sorry. :( AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Addenda: I unreservedly apologize to anyone who was offended in any way by what I said. AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Criminal charges
@HaeB: This edit leaves the casual reader with the impression that the tax fraud schemes are mostly on one rogue employee, i.e., Weisselberg. He profited from them but so did the Trump Organization since presumably they booked the fringe benefits as business expenses—that would have lowered their profits and also resulted in lowering their corporated taxes, not just the payroll taxes. Weisselberg presumably didn’t keep the second set of books with the actual tally of compensation received to remind himself, and the indictment mentions an as yet unindicted Individual-1. Also, what makes The Hill's article stand out from the numerous others? I don’t see any reason for the emphasis on one source with a direct quote and special mention. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Having added the hatnote link and worked on some of the other bits, I think Space4Time3Continuum2x's contribution was an improvement, and the edit summary of the reversion didn't make sense to me. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Please disregard that comment, as I looked at this while I was mobile and missed how much removed. I don't mind incorporating the hatnote as a link but The Hill went into more, necessary detail than the shortened version. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)