In the continuing D.C. soap opera drama “As the Weird Turns,” we find Donald Trump’s legal team launching a two front assault on Article Two of the Constitution related to their client’s financial documents.  On one front,  Treasurer Secretary Steven Mnuchin has yet to comply with Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal’s request to the Internal Revenue  Service (IRS) for six years of Trump’s tax returns as prescribed by law.  According to the Los Angeles Times:

The relevant law here is neither obscure nor unclear. If most citizens were previously unaware of tax code section 6103, that’s because they’ve not been in a position to invoke it. But for those to whom it is relevant — law enforcement agencies, state tax authorities, committees of Congress, and others — it is straightforward.

Concurrently, Trump’s lawyers have filed a suit in federal court to prevent Deutsche Bank from turning over financial information related to the Trump Organization’s efforts to secure financing for several business ventures.   The request, made by the House Intelligence Committee, is part of an investigation to determine if money laundered through Deutsche Bank was part of the Russians’ attempt to influence the 2016 election. (Note: Deutsche Bank was fined $630 million in 2017 after being convicted of laundering $20 billion is Russian money and remains under investigations for additional instances of the same crime.) Yesterday, Bloomberg News reported Deutsche Bank likely required copies of some tax returns, in whole or in part, as part of the loan applications.  Why is this important?  How could these two things put Trump, his family and his business in legal jeopardy?

During his testimony under oath on February 27, 2019 before the House Oversight Committee, Michael Cohen claimed his former employer (the Trump Organization) had likely committed bank fraud by overvaluing assets as evidence of its ability to repay loans.  However, those same assets would be undervalued when it came to property taxes owed to state and local governments.  The less than honest information about property market valuations provided to Deutsche Bank was most likely provided on non-governmental documents (e.g. loan application forms).  It might be compared to state and local property tax records, but as we know, there are often discrepancies between the market value of property and its assessment for tax purposes.

However, if Deutsche Bank asked for copies of someone’s tax returns as evidence of past income, the easiest way to do that would be for the applicant to provide a facsimile of the forms submitted to the IRS.  But, if you needed to embellish your financial position, one could certainly prepare and submit a second version of their 1040 and accompanying schedules and form.  Since banks do not have the authority to verify tax information with the IRS, they have little choice but to assume a return is a true duplicate of the official version.  What if it’s not?  I’m no lawyer, but I have followed enough cases where the “smoking gun” turned out to be two versions of a piece of evidence where one rendition has been altered.

As Bill Maher would say, “I don’t know this for a fact, but I just know it’s true.”   Considering what we have already learned about the Trump Organization and the Trump Foundation, as Cohen testified, Trump is a “cheat and a con man,”  who will stop at nothing to achieve a desired outcome.  Yet, knowing and proving are two entirely different things.  If, however, a prosecutor could line up two different versions of the same federal tax return, side by side, that would be hard for the defense to refute.  And since we have already seen the parade of Trump’s associates who have sold their souls and reputations in the service of this modern day P. T. Barnum, it is not unreasonable to think his accountants might have done the same.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP