Exclusive: Trump Loses It Over Financial Bombshell Revealed by Court Monitor!
CNS News–The Trump family has been embroiled in a legal tussle following revelations by a court-appointed monitor, retired federal judge Barbara S. Jones, suggesting financial discrepancies within the Trump Organization. In a startling move, the Trumps have enlisted their accountant to scrutinize the monitor’s findings, reacting sharply to what they perceive as unfounded accusations of potential tax fraud.
Jones’s scrutiny began under the directive of New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur F. Engoron, aimed at preventing asset concealment amidst ongoing litigation concerning the Trumps’ alleged inflation of real estate values. Despite a series of reports from Jones indicating nominal irregularities, a recent disclosure suggested a dubious $48 million “personal loan” by Donald Trump to one of his companies, potentially implicating tax evasion.
This revelation, coinciding with Trump’s defeat in a separate legal battle involving journalist E. Jean Carroll, has escalated tensions. Clifford S. Robert, representing the Trumps, vehemently disputed Jones’s findings in a recent court filing, questioning her integrity and the necessity of her role.
NEW: Trump’s lawyers tried to push back on the claim that a $48 million personal debt didn’t exist, but just made it weirder. They told the court the loan was real, but didn’t say it was a loan to *Trump.* They said it was to another LLC. w/@Jose_Pagliery https://t.co/3f8cYpal4m
— Roger Sollenberger (@SollenbergerRC) January 29, 2024
The Trumps are particularly aggrieved over the $2.6 million fees paid to Jones, which they argue have yielded nothing but trivial errors and discrepancies. The counterarguments presented by the Trumps hinge on an internal memo, purportedly clarifying the loan’s status, yet lacking in concrete evidence of the loan’s existence or terms.
This has only added to the skepticism of Justice Engoron, who has previously criticized the Trumps for unreliable testimonies and dubious financial representations. Amidst these developments, the Trumps have sought to bolster their position by introducing testimony from their CPA, Jason Flemmons, who asserts the absence of financial misconduct.
However, Flemmons’s credibility has been previously questioned, further complicating the Trumps’ defense. As the legal saga unfolds, the Trumps’ aggressive response to Judge Jones’s findings underscores their determination to challenge the oversight, casting it as an overreach that has failed to unveil any significant wrongdoing.