Court filings by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. on Monday led to renewed speculation that prosecutors in New York have targeted President Donald Trump with a wider probe into possible fraud or other financial crimes than was previously known—demanding eight years of personal as well as business tax documents just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a subpoena for such material must be honored.
According to the New York Times, the first news outlet to report the new developments:
The prosecutors did not directly identify the focus of their inquiry but said that "undisputed" news reports last year about Mr. Trump's business practices make it clear that the office had a legal basis for the subpoena.
The reports, including investigations into the president's wealth and an article on the congressional testimony of his former lawyer and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, said that the president may have illegally inflated his net worth and the value of his properties to lenders and insurers. Lawyers for Mr. Trump have said he did nothing wrong.
The clash over the subpoena comes less than a month after the Supreme Court, in a major ruling on the limits of presidential power, cleared the way for Mr. Vance's prosecutors to seek Mr. Trump's financial records.
It was reporting about Trump's financial maneuvers in the past—including indications of a vast effort to mislead both banks and the government over the value of certain assets or earnings—that formed the basis of an explosive Times exposé published in October of 2018. At the center of that reporting were documents provided to the newspaper by Trump's niece, Mary Trump, who recently published a tell-all book about her powerful uncle and the family dynamics in which both he and she grew up.
As the 2018 Times exposé alleges:
Much of [his inherited] money came to Mr. Trump because he helped his parents dodge taxes. He and his siblings set up a sham corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from their parents, records and interviews show. Records indicate that Mr. Trump helped his father take improper tax deductions worth millions more. He also helped formulate a strategy to undervalue his parents' real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars on tax returns, sharply reducing the tax bill when those properties were transferred to him and his siblings.
Monday's filings in Manhattan, notes Axios, "suggests that Vance's investigation, which was believed to be examining hush money payments made by Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen during the 2016 election, is much broader in scope."
Responding to the developments on social media, veteran political journalist Dan Froomkin said: "This has to be how the story ends, right? With Trump going down for 'illegally inflating his net worth'? Otherwise it's just sadism by the Writers." To which Eric Gelman, editor of Bloomberg's Businessweek, retorted:
Other observers noted that it was the demand by Trump's own lawyers, in addition to aspects of how the Supreme Court ruled on the previous challenge, that likely compelled the District Attorney's office in New York to make it more clear that their ongoing investigation is much broader in scope and potentially must more serious.
"No citizen, not even the president, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court's majority opinion last month.
Shanlon Wu, a legal analyst for CNN, noted it was a "great example of Trump strategy back-firing—by forcing Manhattan DA's office to further detail/justify reasons for their subpoena they also forced disclosure of fact that Trump and his company under a live criminal investigation. Oops."
This article originally appeared on Common Dreams. You can read it here.
Gif of Emma Stone crying via 
A woman comforts an older manCanva
A pair of feet being soaked in hot waterCanva
A smiling woman stretches at her desk at workCanva
Gif of Matthew McConaughey clapping via 
A mother and daughter share an embraceCanva
A woman stands by a lakeCanva
Gif of woman saying "You messed up" via 
A man by a lake speaks on his cell phoneCanva
A boss speak to an employee at workCanva
A broom in a dirty roomCanva
Gof of man saying "Who doesn't want to see a happy ending?" via 
Stressed man covering his face during a move.Image via 
Spaghetti Bolognese.Image via 
Riding bikes on a beautiful day.Image via 
Hi-tech movie room.Image via 
The Beatles 
Friends enjoying pizza.Image via 
Volunteers for a neighborhood cleanup event.Image via 
A cluttered corner of the garage.Image via 
Outdoor heart meditation in a group.Image via 
Leaning a foreign language online.Image via 
A sloth is meditating.
You may have missed the actual meaning behind these 5 popular songs.
'Every breath you ...' what? 5 classic songs where people totally missed the meaning
I’ve never been a "lyrics guy"—as long as the words sound pleasing to the ear, are relatively interesting, and aren’t evil or distractingly dumb, I don’t care all that much what the singer is going on about. I’m focused on the dynamics, the color of the arrangements, the rhythms, and harmonies. It’s only natural that I’d misinterpret some songs over the years, including ones that I’ve heard a thousand times while walking around malls and supermarkets.
I know I’m not alone. And I’d argue there are plenty of factors behind this phenomenon: Some people take lyrics too literally, while others only focus on hooky choruses and fail to notice nuance in the verses. Context can also blind us—if the music is danceable and upbeat, you might fail to catch darker elements in the words. Still, it can be hilarious and/or shocking when hugely popular tunes are misinterpreted on a mass scale.
Speaking of which: Let’s consult a viral Reddit thread titled "Any songs that are (or were) misunderstood by the public?" There's a mountain of suggestions—everything from '90s Latin-pop hits to '80s heartland-rock epics. But five of them felt especially perfect, so let’s dig a little deeper below.
- YouTube www.youtube.com
The Police - "Every Breath You Take" (1983)
As someone argues in the comments, "Pointing out the real meaning behind 'Every Breath You Take' has to have become so commonplace that it can't really be misunderstood anymore." Point taken. But still…this eerie Police track continues to be used in pop culture and everyday life as a signifier of romance—appearing as the soundtrack to TV slow dances and being arranged for weddings by string quartets. It’s easy to assume, at first glance anyway, that the song's protagonist is pledging their devotion—sticking around for "every breath" their partner takes. Instead, the atmosphere is more disturbing, given the whole "I’ll be watching you" thing. "I didn't realize at the time [I wrote it] how sinister it is," Sting told The Independent in 1993. "I think I was thinking of Big Brother, surveillance, and control."
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Bruce Springsteen - "Born in the U.S.A." (1984)
"Born in the U.S.A." is one of Bruce Springsteen's signature songs—but also likely his most misinterpreted. As an official explainer video notes, the words "center around America's industrial decline and loss of innocence during the Vietnam War"—a message that became somewhat diluted as politicians began using the stadium-sized track for their campaigns. "Conservative commenters praised the song, and it earned the approval of both candidates in the 1984 presidential election," the clip's narrator adds. "Despite being adopted as a patriotic anthem, 'Born in the U.S.A.' is far from nationalistic." In a deep-dive piece, NPR quotes Springsteen talking about the song on stage: "'After it came out, I read all over the place that nobody knew what it was about,' he said before performing 'Born in the U.S.A' to a crowd in 1995. 'I'm sure that everybody here tonight understood it."
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Los Del Rio - "Macarena" (Bayside Boys remix) (1995)
Most Americans probably know the bubbly Bayside Boys remix of Los Del Rio's Spanish-language hit—it became the marquee moment of many a mid-'90s wedding reception and middle-school dance, thanks to its once-ubiquitous choreography. Maybe it's because people were too distracted by remembering the dance moves, but lots of us didn’t notice the lyrics. Of course, the chorus is in Spanish, which could have been a barrier for some, but the remix features English lines like the following: "Now don't you worry about my boyfriend / The boy whose name is Vitorino / Ha! I don't want him, can't stand him / He was no good so I, ha ha ha / Now come on, what was I supposed to do? / He was out of town, and his two friends were so fine."
"My little teenage mind was blown when I learned 'Macarena' was about cheating on a boyfriend with his friends," one Redditor wrote. "[Thank you] for the correction, it was 2 friends! Was sleep deprived writing this. I just did the moves, never questioned the lyrics." Yeah, gotta admit—this legitimately never crossed my mind either. Same with some of the people who took part in a reaction video for Distracify: "It’s definitely about dancing," one person said, before learning the truth. Another added, "I have no idea what it’s about still to this day. Please tell me it’s not something really dark."
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Baha Men - "Who Let the Dogs Out" (2000)
The party was nice. The party was pumpin'.' Until, that is, some "flea-infested mongrels" got involved. Back in 2000, you couldn't escape Baha Men's booming cover of "Who Let the Dogs Out"—it became a staple of sporting events everywhere, a kind of bookend for the Jock Jams era. "I know I definitely misunderstood 'Who Let the Dogs Out' to be about actual dogs," one Redditor wrote, likely speaking for most of the listening public. There's probably a good chance most of those people chanting the chorus weren't thinking about the song's real meaning, crafted by Trinidadian artist Anslem Douglas for his 1998 original. But if you pay attention to the lyrics, "Who Let the Dogs Out" has a feminist theme, telling the story of women who stand up against crass catcalling. "This is going to be a revenge song where a woman tells men, 'Get away from me—you're a dog,'" Douglas told Vice in a 2021 video history of the track. "[Offensive] slang was everywhere. It was just degrading women and calling them all sorts of derogatory names. I tried to do a social commentary as a party song, but the party song overshadowed the social commentary aspect of it."
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Hozier - "Take Me to Church" (2013)
One section of the Reddit thread is devoted to songs interpreted as pro-religion, when the truth is... well, more complicated. "'Take Me to Church' by Hozier is often used by Churches for things, and I’m like 'Oh, that’s not…,'" wrote one user. The bluesy, slow-burning ballad may use religious imagery. Still, it's about something more human—"[It's] this idea that powerful organizations use people’s sexuality in order to mobilize people against women, against gay people," the Irish songwriter told Genius in 2023. "And the justification behind that is often religious in nature." Hozier even isolated one particular lyric that highlights this misconception: "'She tells me, ‘Worship in the bedroom' [is] something tongue-and-cheek, a bit of humor to it, also revealing that this is not necessarily a traditional worship song," he said. "I think I still see my name put into playlists for Christian music, and I’m not averse to that—I don’t think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. But that line I would’ve thought would’ve disqualified it from something like that."