Trump Sues to Stop House From Getting His New York State Tax Returns

  
Via:  tessylo  •  4 weeks ago  •  203 comments

Trump Sues to Stop House From Getting His New York State Tax Returns

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Trump Sues to Stop House From Getting His New York State Tax Returns



46cde240-c663-11e8-bb5f-ab13f4d70c8b Andrew Harris and Laura Davison 15 hours ago 







34339579f898483139187e39b92d49bf

(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump sued to block the Democrat-led U.S. House Ways and Means Committee from obtaining his tax records from New York state, in the latest attempt to keep his personal financial information out of public view.

In the lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Washington federal court, Trump is attempting to fend off committee chairman Richard Neal’s potential request for the documents under New York’s TRUST Act, which compels the state’s tax department to comply with the House committee’s records requests. The president is suing as a private citizen.

“Chairman Neal is facing intense pressure from his fellow Democrats to invoke the TRUST Act and obtain the president’s state tax returns,” Trump said in the complaint. “Succumbing to this pressure, the chairman recently announced that he does not oppose using the TRUST Act and that House counsel was ‘reviewing’ it now.”

Obtaining Trump’s New York state tax returns would be just a partial political win for Democrats, who are hoping to learn more about the president’s finances ahead of the 2020 elections. State tax returns show much of the same information as federal returns about income and tax breaks but don’t provide much information on out-of-state income or charitable contributions.

Trump also sued New York Attorney General Letitia James. The aim, according to the complaint, is to prevent the state from acting on the recently passed law.

Presidential candidates aren’t required to disclose their tax information, but every elected president since Richard Nixon has done so.

“President Trump has spent his career hiding behind lawsuits,” James said in a statement. “The TRUST Act will shine a light on the president’s finances and finally offer transparency to millions of Americans yearning to know the truth.”

The lawsuit comes three weeks after the House committee led by the Massachusetts Democrat sued to force the U.S. Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service to hand over Trump’s tax records from the past six years. That suit was filed after Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin rebuffed earlier requests for that information.

The real purpose of that initial request was exposure of Trump’s private tax information, according to the new complaint. “The State of New York shares this ‘animating purpose’ and is eager to help the committee expose the president’s private tax information,” Trump claims.

Trump’s lawyer Jay Sekulow said in a statement that the intent of the lawsuit was to “end presidential harassment,” adding the actions taken by the House and New York officials “are nothing more than political retribution.”


The TRUST Act was signed into law by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo this month. Both he and James are Democrats.

Neal’s office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokeswoman for James, Kelly Donnelly, said she couldn’t immediately comment on the complaint.

Neal hasn’t committed to asking New York state for the returns.

“The House counsel is reviewing all of that right now,” he said earlier this month. “They still have some legitimate concerns about it. That comes from House counsel, not me.”

Asking for the New York tax returns could undercut the Massachusetts congressman’s effort to get the federal tax returns, because he said he needs them to determine whether the Internal Revenue Service is properly doing its job in annually auditing presidents and vice-presidents.

Judge Named by Trump

The earlier suit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, whom Trump nominated to serve on the trial-level court in the nation’s capital in 2017. In a separate filing with the court on Tuesday, the president’s lawyers designated their new lawsuit as related to that earlier case, meaning it too may be assigned to McFadden.

Last month, the judge rejected a suit filed by the House of Representatives challenging the president’s plan to fund his southern U.S. border wall with about $6.1 billion Congress had allocated for other purposes. McFadden concluded he lacked jurisdiction to consider the interbranch dispute.

The president’s attorneys William Consovoy and Patrick Strawbridge are leading federal lawsuits to block the release of his financial records to two other House committees.

The lawyers are repeating earlier arguments that congressional committees can’t investigate private individuals without a legitimate legislative purpose. The president’s attorneys also assert that the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of speech and association protect their client from politically motivated discrimination or retaliation.

The TRUST Act should be struck down on that basis, they said.

“Ultimately, this issue was litigated in the 2016 election,” according to the complaint. “Voters heard the criticisms” from Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, “and they elected President Trump anyway. Democrats in Congress and across the country, however, have only become more eager to disclose the President’s tax returns for political gain.”

The case is Trump v. Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 19-cv-2173, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).

(Updates with news of separate filing under Judge Named by Trump.)

To contact the reporters on this story: Andrew Harris in Washington at aharris16@bloomberg.net;Laura Davison in Washington at ldavison4@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: David Glovin at dglovin@bloomberg.net, Joe Schneider, Peter Jeffrey

For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Tessylo
1  seeder  Tessylo    4 weeks ago

What are you hiding scumbag?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @1    4 weeks ago

That he really isn't a millionaire and is probably in debt up to his eyeballs

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1    4 weeks ago

He lost a billion dollars in less than 10 years.  What a fucking loser.  

 
 
 
Bonehard
1.1.2  Bonehard  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1    3 weeks ago

Bingo

 
 
 
tomwcraig
1.1.3  tomwcraig  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

Well, the government loses about a trillion dollars a year, but you aren't complaining about them losing your money.  At the time he lost the money, he was a private individual and the money wasn't lost by him but by his company.  Are you complaining about Elon Musk and the billions he is losing in both his space company and Tesla?  No, you are complaining about a man you don't like; because he beat the person you supported in the 2016 election.  What the House and the State of New York is doing is actually Unconstitutional as the requirements for President or any member of Congress do not require tax returns as those became a thing in 1913.  Frankly, how someone makes money or loses money is none of our business.  What should be concerning you is the massive wasteful spending passed by Congress after Congress since the 1980s and right now that Congress is being lead by Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell and many others whom made millions while supposedly only getting a Congressional paycheck of a max of a few hundred thousand dollars a year.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.4  CB   replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.3    3 weeks ago
[1.] No, you are complaining about a man you don't like; because he beat the person you supported in the 2016 election.
[2.] What the House and the State of New York is doing is actually Unconstitutional as the requirements for President or any member of Congress do not require tax returns as those became a thing in 1913. 
[3.] Frankly, how someone makes money or loses money is none of our business. 
[4.] What should be concerning you is the massive wasteful spending passed by Congress after Congress since the 1980s and right now that Congress is being lead by Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell and many others whom made millions while supposedly only getting a Congressional paycheck of a max of a few hundred thousand dollars a year.

Where to start. . . .

[1.] Possibly. But it is more like the coward president is hiding six years of his tax returns and using conservative "brain-drain" as cover.

[2.] What the House is doing and the State of New York is doing is their respective due diligence. What was that you wrote above about 'not liking the man'? Well, the tax statute written Section 6103(f) is not new. It is not Trump Derangement Syndrome - anything. President Trump is sitting in the role of Taxpayer-In-Chief, another one of the office's hats. He sets the example all taxpayers should follow. Thus, he must show his taxes to the tax-writing committee in executive session according to the statute.

[3.] How someone pays (or shirks paying) federal taxes is The Ways and Means Committee business. There is a progressive tax upon the citizenry in this country which can only work efficiently when it is enacted properly.

[4.] Red herring. The president can not turn this tax statute into a 'witch hunt.' Or, tool of retaliation. He must abide by and be content to follow the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
1.1.5  tomwcraig  replied to  CB @1.1.4    3 weeks ago

Read the Constitution, what are the requirements to be President?  There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO in the Constitution regarding personal information other than citizenship, age, and residency.  Tax returns are personal information that is not needed for people to make any decision about whom to vote for regarding the Presidency.  What you have here is a bunch of whiny losers claiming they are doing due diligence to excuse their abuse of power and invasion of privacy to gain political advantage.  What the President did WHILE A PRIVATE CITIZEN is of no concern to Congress, only his ACTIONS WHILE PRESIDENT should be their concern.  And, so far, they have only have double talk as their evidence of wrongdoing by the President.  The double talk is in regards to the Mueller report which is essentially a Grand Jury investigation that found nothing that they could use.

The statute regarding tax returns is there for the Congress to monitor how well written and effective the tax code is so they can make appropriate changes to the tax code when necessary.  They do not have the power to use the tax code as a weapon for political destruction or as a means to find any illegal activity on the part of a single person, which they cannot prosecute anyways as the enforcement of the tax code is completely up to the Executive Branch.  You are advocating a usurpation of the Separation of Powers in order to take down someone for no reason other than he won the election.  That has been the case the entire time the Democrats have been in power in the House, it has been one attempt to take down Trump for beating Hillary after another.  You should be telling them to stop it and actually do their jobs.

It is not a red herring, what has Trump done regarding spending other than make deals with Congress and move money around for building the border wall?  Congress keeps spending like drunken sailors on shore leave for the first time in 6 months without any end in sight.  They do not use any sort of common sense to figure how to enact wise spending practices, and many of them became millionaires while in Congress or other public service.  Those are the people getting thousands upon thousands of dollars from somewhere and are hiding it.  Trump is not legally bound to hand over his tax returns and he made any money in his bank accounts from the PRIVATE SECTOR before running for President.  Congress has made their money from the PUBLIC SECTOR and that screams corruption, since many of these members of Congress live in multimillion dollar homes.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.6  CB   replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.5    3 weeks ago
What the President did WHILE A PRIVATE CITIZEN is of no concern to Congress, only his ACTIONS WHILE PRESIDENT should be their concern.

You are not really going with that, are you? Okay. Why not?

 
 
 
tomwcraig
1.1.7  tomwcraig  replied to  CB @1.1.6    3 weeks ago

What is Congress about?  It is about passing legislation, it is not about enforcing laws.  Law enforcement is in the hands of the Executive Branch, and violations of law before someone becomes an Executive Branch member are not subject to Congressional action, especially when there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the person in the Executive Branch.  Right now, we have ZERO evidence that Trump did anything wrong.  What Congress is attempting to do is what Stalin did in his time as Soviet Premier.  He would think someone did wrong to him and he would punish them for their perceived crime regardless of whether they did anything wrong or not.  Anyone, in Congress, searching through Trump's tax returns are looking to fit a crime to a person rather than confirming if a crime has been committed and they are usurping the separation of powers and therefore acting in an Unconstitutional manner.

Now, if Congress wanted to act in a manner consistent with the US Constitution; they would stop with all investigations immediately due to the Mueller report not showing any real evidence of crimes and in fact going beyond its scope to focus solely on Trump instead on overall meddling in the election.  Remember, the Clinton campaign relied on the Steele dossier which was intelligence gathered FROM RUSSIAN OPERATIVES by a British operative.  In that case, they should have solely asked questions as to why the investigation was not really thorough due to his focus only on one half of the election when both halves supposedly had contact with the Russians to gather dirt on the other half.  THAT would have been in their purview as it would be an oversight over an action taken by the Executive branch.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.8  CB   replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.7    3 weeks ago

Tom, you're fishing. Trump is in the 'pond' because he likes the feel of the water. For the record, each time Mrs. Clinton has been asked to sit down and talk with someone or a committee, or provide documents, she has done so - I know, unless they were destroyed. So let's not start up that old cannard again.

Donald Trump has sat down and been interviewed by nobody or committee. Nor has he provided acceptable/required documents as warranted to suit the circumstances he is specifically qualified to supply answers for.

This is not about throwing anybody else under the bus; or letting another person take the fall for Donald Trump. So move out the way, already! Go tell that coward to come out, come out, and bring his six years of returns out for inspection.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.9  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.3    3 weeks ago

That's not at all what I'm doing Tom.  What you are saying has nothing to do with it.  

 
 
 
tomwcraig
1.1.10  tomwcraig  replied to  CB @1.1.8    3 weeks ago

He does not need to give us his tax returns.  There is no requirement to do so.  It has been a tradition since Nixon ran for candidates to display their tax returns as a means of convincing people that they are just like us.  The problem is that it is really an invasion of privacy and only gossipmongers really gain anything from the release of tax returns by a candidate.  Congress is not doing its due diligence by calling for Trump's tax returns, they are only interested in destroying a President whom beat their chosen candidate.

I have never cared about any Presidential candidate's tax returns or tax burden and whether they pay their fair share or not.  I am one of the few people here that want to see the income tax eliminated as all it is anymore is a means to divide the country based on perceived wealth levels.  Frankly, I view the income tax combined with withholding as legalized theft as a portion of EVERYONE's income is taken from them BEFORE they get to touch it and decide what to do with it.  I feel a National Sales Tax is a more fair system as it would tax what people spend, not what they actually earn.  The country did not have a legal income tax at the Federal level until 1913 and we did just fine without it, including fighting several wars (Revolutionary, 1812, Civil, Spanish-American, Mexican-American, etc.).  

As for Hillary, it was not about the providing the documents or not providing them; it was about an actual law that we can prove that she broke a specific clause of and you should read what is required to prove negligence regarding the Espionage Act of 1917.  It only needs carelessness to be proven, which James Comey admitted she was when he gave his press conference on why she wasn't going to be charged with a crime.  We don't have even an accusation of a financial crime regarding Trump.  If you stop and think about it, why should Hillary be allowed to escape charges for her negligence (that is admitted by everyone in Washington, DC) when Trump is being investigated without any evidence of a crime occurring at all?

 
 
 
CB
1.1.11  CB   replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.10    3 weeks ago
The country did not have a legal income tax at the Federal level until 1913 and we did just fine without it, including fighting several wars (Revolutionary, 1812, Civil, Spanish-American, Mexican-American, etc.).  

We did not do just fine without the progressive tax. The government was operating at a bare minimum. It could not grow, develop, and in fact, it was discovering it was atrophying without a uniform tax code.  Increase in wars and need for improvements in infrastructure (for war materials to expedite no doubt) only consolidated the need for more funds in the minds of leaders.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.12  CB   replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.10    3 weeks ago
Trump is being investigated. . . .

. . . because he has failed to live up to the standards of the office. And, the system has cause to consider that a president need not think that he or she is above the law—especially when the law has statutes in place which understandably date back to past periods when presidents acted poorly enough that some policy was needed to be there for a future use.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
1.1.13  tomwcraig  replied to  CB @1.1.12    2 weeks ago

What standards?  Representing American citizens instead of people from Central America?  Securing America from outside forces (aka building the wall along the southern border)?  Following through with his campaign promises?  None of those are violations of the Constitution or the powers of the Presidency, in fact those are part of his JOB REQUIREMENTS.

I know you object to his language and bluster.  Guess what, if that is the case shouldn't you hate the Democrats as much as Trump?  They use far worse language and bluster than Trump does, and Trump actually backs up his bluster with action rather than empty platitudes that the Democrats use.  If you stop and actually observe the actions taken by both sides and the results from both sides, you will see that Trump is actually much more in line with his job than Nancy Pelosi is with hers and Chuck Schumer is with his.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.14  CB   replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.13    2 weeks ago

The office of president has standards. Not sure why you think I am discussing other hemispheres- I am surely not. I am discussing our own national standards for the office of the President, period. What we, collectively, not individually, call acceptable - even when unwritten. Donald Trump deliberately is 'drawing' outside the lines and his sub-par and halting presentation is base behavior and simply not acceptable. All that remains to be seen is if the numbers support his unorthodox presidency and delivery or do not. At this stage in devolution of the highest office:  I, we, may soon not raise an eyebrow if the president literally accosts someone. For example, a person close to him and/or nearby—say, a reporter.

Next. This is not about other people. This is looking critically at the office of the president 2017-2019. Moreover, the last thing any of us could wish for is everybody in Washington going off the 'beaten' traditional paths-because nobody should want to see all civility and pretenses of civility thrown out in our world-class political arena.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
1.1.15  tomwcraig  replied to  CB @1.1.14    2 weeks ago

What standards are you looking at, because there are only the written standards that matter, everything else is PERSONAL PREFERENCE.  Those standards I refer to are in the US Constitution.  Impeaching a President because he doesn't meet your personal standards is not actual grounds for impeachment.  In fact, that should be impeachable behavior in return and the Democrats in the House should be impeached for their wastes of time and money trying to find a crime to impeach Trump for when there is no evidence of any such crime, as I said before to do that is paramount to behaving like Joseph Stalin.

I support his President, because he has done NOTHING to be impeached for.  Show me actual evidence of crimes, not the suppositions that the Democrats are acting under and I might change my mind.  We already know that the current standard for a President to be removed does not include lying under oath as that was proven under Clinton (when he survived impeachment for that and obstruction with hard evidence of both).

The questions I put before you are actual duties and standards that a President of the United States of America HAS to perform and live up to.  His responsibilities are to stand up for the Constitution as that is part of the Oath of Office of EVERY ELECTED OFFICIAL in the country and the first words in the Constitution are: "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES..."  It does not say We the People of the World or anything else.  The Democrats want to represent the World and NOT American Citizens, while Trump is representing American Citizens regardless of their political background.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.16  CB   replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.15    2 weeks ago

Let's just see what happened ultimately. Tomwcraig. Nothing personal, but I don't want to play stupid on the internet. Time is too precious. I could say more, but what useful purpose would it serve? This has become mind-numbing underwhelming for me.

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.17  Don Overton  replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.5    2 weeks ago

The why did you reach so far back into Obama's life.  

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.18  Don Overton  replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.10    2 weeks ago
He does not need to give us his tax returns.  There is no requirement to do so. How can you be so wrong and think you are so intelligent.  Guess who has legal -Constitutional authority- to get even your returns.  Duhhhhhhhh

 
 
 
tomwcraig
1.1.19  tomwcraig  replied to  Don Overton @1.1.17    2 weeks ago

There was a big difference between Obama and Trump.  There was a question of Obama's citizenship status and whether he could be considered a "Natural-Born US Citizen" or if he had given up that citizenship due to visiting Pakistan at a time period where you could not go there as a US citizen and his applying for grants as an non-US citizen.  Those issues actually brought into question whether or not Obama was qualified for being President.  And, that is without considering the rumors that he was actually born in Kenya rather than Hawaii.  However, due to his mother being a US citizen, he was before moving to Indonesia a "Natural-Born US Citizen".

 
 
 
tomwcraig
1.1.20  tomwcraig  replied to  Don Overton @1.1.18    2 weeks ago

Did you actually bother to read the comments regarding the tax returns?  They actually can only ask for the tax returns IF it is to check on how the tax law is working, not in an attempt to find a crime to impeach and official for.  And, they can view the returns only in an Executive session, which is CLOSED DOORS and ONLY Committee members can see the returns without making copies of them or releasing their contents.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.21  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.19    2 weeks ago

Where do you come up with all your nonsense.  

 
 
 
tomwcraig
1.1.22  tomwcraig  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.21    2 weeks ago

I'm an independent thinker.  My conclusions are my own.  My arguments are my own.  I don't issue or regurgitate talking points.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.23  JohnRussell  replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.19    2 weeks ago
There was a big difference between Obama and Trump.  There was a question of Obama's citizenship status and whether he could be considered a "Natural-Born US Citizen" or if he had given up that citizenship due to visiting Pakistan at a time period where you could not go there as a US citizen and his applying for grants as an non-US citizen.  Those issues actually brought into question whether or not Obama was qualified for being President.  And, that is without considering the rumors that he was actually born in Kenya rather than Hawaii.  However, due to his mother being a US citizen, he was before moving to Indonesia a "Natural-Born US Citizen".

Where do you come up with all this nonsense? Oh thats right , you told someone else you are an independent thinker. 

Are you saying that you independently came up with birther conspiracy theories? 

Thats wild. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.24  JohnRussell  replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.22    2 weeks ago
 Those issues actually brought into question whether or not Obama was qualified for being President.  

I will promise any NT birthers one thing.  You will have a very unpleasant time of it. 

More “Birther” Nonsense: Obama’s 1981 Pakistan Trip

ByBrooks Jackson

Posted onJune 5, 2009


We continue to receive queries about claims and theories advanced by "birthers," who wish to believe that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the USA or that he somehow gave up his citizenship and thus is not qualified to hold the office he occupies. One is a claim, first advanced last year, that his trip to Pakistan in 1981 proves he must not have been a U.S. citizen because Americans were not permitted to travel there at the time.

This one is not quite as transparent as the April Fools’ Day hoax that took in many of these deniers of Obama’s birthplace bona fides. That one was a fabricated Associated Press story about Obama’s student records from Occidental College. But the Pakistan theory is just as false. The truth, easily proven, is that American citizens traveled freely to Pakistan in 1981.

Obama did go to Pakistan that year when he was 20 years old with a college friend, after first seeing his mother and half-sister in Indonesia. That much is true. When he mentioned the 1981 trip during a campaign appearance last year, it came as news, because he had not previously written of it in his books.

Some then speculated, or claimed outright, that Obama must have gotten into Pakistan using an Indonesian passport obtained while his mother was married to Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian man whom she had divorced the previous year. Under this theory, the young Obama had somehow become an Indonesian citizen. "Birthers" claimed that the Pakistan trip constituted indirect proof of Obama’s supposed Indonesian citizenship. Philadelphia lawyer Phil Berg even told the U.S. Supreme Court last year, before it refused to hear his case challenging Obama’s qualification to be president, that Pakistan "was on the State Department’s travel ban list for U.S. Citizens."

But that claim is quite false. There was no such ban. Americans traveled there without incident, as shown by a travel piece that appeared in the New York Times in 1981, dated June 14. Barbara Crossette, an assistant news editor of the Times, told her mostly American readers they could travel to Lahore, Pakistan, by air, rail or road, adding: "Tourists can obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports."

Her article prompted a letter to the Times from the U.S. consul general in Lahore saying he would "welcome an influx of Americans" to Lahore. He cautioned only that in addition to getting a visa for Pakistan, American visitors also should be careful to line up an Indian visa for the return trip if they planned to travel overland. The letter is dated Aug. 23, 1981.

Also, a travel advisory from the State Department dated Aug. 17, 1981 notes that Americans traveling to Pakistan require a 30-day visa, and that any staying longer must check in with Pakistan’s Foreigner Registration Office. A digital copy of the advisory is archived at the Electronic Research Collection, a partnership between the State Department and the Federal Depository Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

For those who missed it earlier, high-resolution images of Obama’s birth certificate are displayed as supporting documents to our article "Born in the U.S.A." The document meets the U.S. State Department’s requirements for proving U.S. citizenship. That, along with a 1961 newspaper announcement of his birth and statements last year by state officials in Hawaii, remove for us any doubt that Obama is indeed a natural-born citizen.

The "birthers" aren’t buying it. They, however, so far have produced what we judge to be zero credible evidence that Obama was born elsewhere, or that he later gave up U.S. citizenship. The false claim about a 1981 travel ban is typical of what’s been offered along those lines.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.25  JohnRussell  replied to  tomwcraig @1.1.20    2 weeks ago
Did you actually bother to read the comments regarding the tax returns?  They actually can only ask for the tax returns IF it is to check on how the tax law is working, not in an attempt to find a crime to impeach and official for.  And, they can view the returns only in an Executive session, which is CLOSED DOORS and ONLY Committee members can see the returns without making copies of them or releasing their contents.

If Trump is as innocent as the driven snow, why do you go to such lengths to argue that his tax returns should remain "secret"?  If he's all up and up , showing his tax returns will make all his critics look like fools. Yet we dont see anyone on the right arguing that point. 

Last fall, a very lengthy New York Times article flat out suggested that Trump took part in tax fraud. along with his mother and father and siblings.  Maybe his tax records can shed light on that swamp. 

 
 
 
CB
1.1.26  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.25    2 weeks ago

I am not sure what it is with some conservatives (like Steven Mnuchin and Charles Rettig) who swear allegiance to the Constitution and service to the people of the United States, but stare down a congressional subpoena for Trump's tax records. This is some crooked government mess. And it is outrageous.

Innocent people do not hide from the 'disinfectant of light. Nor do innocent people need a 'bank' of high-power lawyers.

The Conservative Movement has linked up with a 'shady' character and made that one president of the United States. All signs point to it. It's a "dooms-day" scenario.

 
 
 
squiggy
1.2  squiggy  replied to  Tessylo @1    4 weeks ago

A retroactive law, aimed at an individual - little more than comedy.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2  seeder  Tessylo    4 weeks ago

“President Trump has spent his career hiding behind lawsuits,” James said in a statement. “The TRUST Act will shine a light on the president’s finances and finally offer transparency to millions of Americans yearning to know the truth.”

The lawsuit comes three weeks after the House committee led by the Massachusetts Democrat sued to force the U.S. Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service to hand over Trump’s tax records from the past six years. That suit was filed after Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin rebuffed earlier requests for that information.

 
 
 
luther28
2.1  luther28  replied to  Tessylo @2    3 weeks ago

Well Tessy what would one expect, after all he is just a boy named Sue.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  luther28 @2.1    3 weeks ago

I forgot that was his middle name.  

 
 
 
freepress
3  freepress    4 weeks ago

Two faced liar did what? After he spouted on the campaign trail he would release his taxes. Then he spouted he would release his taxes but he was being audited. Then it went to his advisors wouldn't let him and the audit thing came up again. Now it is out and out no, I will not be transparent, I will not release my taxes the way every past President has done, I will sue and will not release my taxes.

An honest person doesn't behave this way, and knowing that several of his campaign appointees are in jail doesn't help the case that he is transparent or honest.

 
 
 
WallyW
3.1  WallyW  replied to  freepress @3    4 weeks ago

At this point, what difference does it make?

His tax returns are nobody's business but his own.

As always, he will prevail.

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @3.1    3 weeks ago
His tax returns are nobody's business but his own.

I don't really care, do you? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.1    3 weeks ago
I don't really care, do you?

I don't think anyone except some Democrats care about Trump's taxes.

Any port in a storm, eh?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

Do you realize how truly stupid that statement sounds ?

.

Knowing WHo Trump is doing business with , making Money from, and owes MONEY To, is damn important so as we know what might be motivating him.

Motivating him to say for example,  NEVER say a negative word about Putin

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.4  MUVA  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.3    3 weeks ago

OK I want to see every single politician and their spouses taxes for their whole life all their investments. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.5  igknorantzrulz  replied to  MUVA @3.1.4    3 weeks ago

So you would be fine, that when all of his mess is finally out in the open, and it showed Trump owed Billions to Russia, and that was why he attempted to not implement sanctions ?

Didn;t Trump already, many many times, agree to share his tax returns ?

He Did    Y did he LIE again 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.6  MUVA  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.5    3 weeks ago

I want to see everyone's taxes and business dealings not just his.I want every politicians held to your standard or are you for two sets of rules?

 
 
 
CB
3.1.7  CB   replied to  MUVA @3.1.4    3 weeks ago

OK! i want to see every single person in the countries return ON DEMAND!!! Reductio ad absurdum.

Having six years of Trump tax returns before the Ways and Means Committee select leadership should not cause a ridiculous failure in our tax system. Why is Trump failing to be a honest broker? Is it simply his contrarian nature to fight, or is he the 'dirtest' president of all who is scared to have a financial spotlight turned on?

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.8  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  CB @3.1.7    3 weeks ago
'or is he the 'dirtest' president of all who is scared to have a financial spotlight turned on?'

This.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.1.9  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MUVA @3.1.4    3 weeks ago

What do spouses have anything to do with it?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.10  Ozzwald  replied to  MUVA @3.1.6    3 weeks ago
I want every politicians held to your standard or are you for two sets of rules?

The house committee can request ANYBODY'S tax documents, that is the standard.  Trump is trying to hold himself separate form EVERYBODY else by trying to block the House committee's legal right to obtain them.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.11  Tacos!  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.3    3 weeks ago
Knowing WHo Trump is doing business with , making Money from, and owes MONEY To, is damn important so as we know what might be motivating him.

Those things are already public knowledge. He already had to file a financial statement with all that information in it. If memory serves, the document was something like 90 pages long.

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.1.12  Don Overton  replied to  WallyW @3.1    2 weeks ago

Again an ignorant comment.  You should really brush up on the Constitution and ALL the articles.

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.1.13  Don Overton  replied to  MUVA @3.1.4    2 weeks ago

Fine with me, get after it.  Keep you busy for awhile

 
 
 
Texan1211
4  Texan1211    4 weeks ago

What exactly are Democrats fishing for?

 
 
 
WallyW
4.1  WallyW  replied to  Texan1211 @4    4 weeks ago

It's certainly not fish!

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4.1.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  WallyW @4.1    4 weeks ago

Money laundering...... From Russian Olegarchs.  Really Tex, Wally, I thought you two were up on things.

A combination of tax records and bank documents is clearly a way of proving or disproving money laundering.

I'm guessing neither of you care that none of the US Banks will lend to Trump..... Nor care about the reasons?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4.1.1    4 weeks ago

Prove it.

Simple as THAT.

There is NO basis for it.

 
 
 
Ronin2
4.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4.1.1    4 weeks ago

The Dems really think the IRS is incompetent. What they seem to forget is that several of those IRS tax reviews came under Democratic administrations.

 
 
 
WallyW
4.1.4  WallyW  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4.1.1    4 weeks ago
A combination of tax records and bank documents is clearly a way of proving or disproving money laundering.
No it's not.
And there is no cause for any investigation to begin.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4.1.5  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.2    3 weeks ago

The release of the tax records "as he promised he would" would easily disprove any sort of money laundering when matched with bank documents.

There is basis for it if you open your eyes.  Trump Tower Moscow, Sucking up to Putin, financing not available through US banks.  

Trump acts and talks like someone that is compromised.  I wish you and others would put the security of the US, and Americans ahead of your political party.  

 
 
 
CB
4.1.6  CB   replied to  WallyW @4.1.4    3 weeks ago

Mueller in his own quiet way, must have had a sly laugh to himself, when he informed a Republican representative that Trump is STILL being investigated. And that Mueller put them on notice could be speaking volumes . . . .

Catch a 'snake' as it slithers during the long night!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1.7  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4.1.5    3 weeks ago

His promises and a quarter can buy a cup of coffee.

 
 
 
luther28
4.1.8  luther28  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4.1.1    3 weeks ago
"Money laundering...... From Russian Olegarchs"
What it has been about from the onset.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4.1.5    3 weeks ago
The release of the tax records "as he promised he would" would easily disprove any sort of money laundering when matched with bank documents.

That statement leads one to believe that you don't know squat about the justice system.

It isn't incumbent on a citizen to prove their innocence. It is incumbent on the government to prove wrongdoing by the citizen.

I wish you and others would want to follow established precedent in law and understand what laws mean.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.10  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.9    3 weeks ago

He promised he would release his taxes, you replied with legal wrangling to cover the fact that trump lied. Not very shocking. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.10    3 weeks ago

Just present the law that requires he release his taxes.

It is NOT a requirement, if you want it to be, talk to your reps.

Dems are still fishing.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.12  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.9    3 weeks ago

[delete]

 
 
 
CB
4.1.13  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.11    3 weeks ago

Fake news. Trump lied to me, you, and the nation. Shame, too. I didn't buy the lie. Why did you?! Let me help you, Texan: Donald puts his pants on in the mornings just like millions of other citizens of this country. No one has to fear his wrath, because Donald doesn't know one supporter from other supporters who ply his twitter feed very so often. Donald is just a lying coward no one has to be mesmerized by. Okay.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  CB @4.1.13    3 weeks ago
Let me help you, Texan: Donald puts his pants on in the mornings just like millions of other citizens of this country.

That is true. It is also true that as a citizen of the US, he has rights, which don't get taken away because you don't like the man or his politics.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.15  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.14    3 weeks ago

I like laws. Congress writes those, you know. You have not defense for your statements. Just stop. Donald Trump is a repugnant coward and he should be ashamed for having conservatives destroy the movement for his sake. But, Donald don't do no shame.

That guy in the article photo top left is throwing y'all under the bus; one-by-one, you are the new asphalt he rides on.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  CB @4.1.15    3 weeks ago
Congress writes those,

They sure do!

They even wrote the ones giving every citizen the same rights you seem to think don't apply to the President.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.17  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.2    3 weeks ago

There is NO basis for it.

The evidence of Trump's corruption just keeps growing

Deutsche Bank Flagged Trump and Kushner for Potential Money Laundering

Deutsche Bank employees reportedly flagged suspicious transactions involving Trump and Kushner

It is not a matter of "proving it is true", it is showing that there is enough suspicious activity to warrant an investigation.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.18  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.16    3 weeks ago

You can not defend Donald. While he is president, he already has more rights than any of us. Trump has more rights. you can't keep your taxes from the Ways and Means Committee- don't pretend you can- you can't. Donald can't either, but in his case the long route will have to be taken to prove it too him.

I'm moving on now; how about you?

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.19  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.11    3 weeks ago
Just present the law that requires he release his taxes.

Thanks for proving my point. Trump lied about releasing his taxes. Thanks for admitting that. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4.1.20  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.9    3 weeks ago

And it is abundantly clear that you don't want to align the ability to obtain a security clearance in the name of national security.  

If I wanted the job.... I had to pass a clearance.  With so many in Trump's inner circle raising questions on their background checks....... But alas, party over country with you as always. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
4.1.21  Don Overton  replied to  WallyW @4.1    2 weeks ago

What were you fishing for when you went thought everything you could find about Obama.  Oh that's "right" He wasn't and American.

 
 
 
Don Overton
4.1.22  Don Overton  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.3    2 weeks ago

No we think the the republicans are incompetent, crooks, and con artists

 
 
 
CB
4.2  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @4    3 weeks ago

At least it is a legal request, no where near that foolish Donald running around begging and pleading for exposure of another man's, Obama, birth right!

The Committee has the authority to see any tax returns it with without exception; and conservatives expose themselves as big old hypocrites who only want to hurt this country, when they choose to ignore Rule of Law!!! HYPOCRITES!!!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
5  Ed-NavDoc    4 weeks ago

That I'm aware of there is absolutely no legal precedent anywhere that says the president is required to disclose his persona state or federal tax returns to the House or Congress. This nothing more than a hateful vindictive with hunt by the Democrats. They have not been able to get the President on anything else so they are tryingbthis.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5    4 weeks ago

I'm not a tax code person, but 26 U.S. Code § 6103 does outline where under the request of congress, anyone's tax records must be disclosed.

 
 
 
bugsy
5.1.1  bugsy  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1    3 weeks ago
anyone's tax records must be disclosed.

But they have to have a good reason, and political grandstanding is not one of them.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1.2  FLYNAVY1  replied to  bugsy @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

What... the president being possibly compromised by a adversarial foreign country isn't enough?

 Hell, people in the military can't get or maintain a security clearance if they have too much personal debt...  How would you feel if you found out that Trump had secured loans through Russian banks?

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.3  katrix  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1.2    3 weeks ago

Trump's foreign ties and financial issues would preclude him from getting a clearance in the civilian sector as well.

Funny how "the most transparent President ever" keeps breaking his promises, and his supporters don't care. If he had nothing to hide, why wouldn't he release them, as the other Presidents have done?

 
 
 
CB
5.1.4  CB   replied to  katrix @5.1.3    3 weeks ago

These 'enablers' of this president are disgusting. Donald lies every day to us, and they see it, and cover for him. Disgusting. Now you can readily see why they found President Obama unworthy of their affection and approval. It is clear they wanted a morally bankrupt, criminally-minded leader to rule over them.

 
 
 
CB
5.1.5  CB   replied to  bugsy @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

It says the committee shall be given, or words to that effect. There is no argument or other consideration in the statute. Donald Trump is such an all-purpose ass and so are some conservatives who associate themselves with letting this coward president steam-roll our systems, which we have as safe-guards to protect all of us. Basically, Donald wants to make the whole country about battles, fences, and mind-wars.

The other presidents and those who considered running for the high office were not stupid shlongs to offer up their tax returns - they respected law, order, appearances and so they graciously supplied what was asked of them or simply knew they could not measure up and stepped out of the 'flow' for a more suitable person to move up.

Here comes this SUPER-GRADE COWARD who can't even supply the basic tax form that a 'regular' wealthy citizen will gladly, and people accuse Congress-any side of the House- of 'grandstanding'?!

If Congress is grandstanding by asking for the returns through the routine other congresses use, then. . . what the heaven is Donald doing - tell me already?

Disgusting! Shame! Unpatriotic. Unhelpful.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
5.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

But they have to have a good reason, and political grandstanding is not one of them.

You are absolutely wrong.  There are no restrictions limiting when they can access the tax returns or whose they can access.

 
 
 
Don Overton
5.2  Don Overton  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5    2 weeks ago

Wrong the House has every right to your tax returns as well as Trumps.  Oh yea of little knowledge

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Don Overton @5.2    2 weeks ago

Good grief, what part of that do you consider educational? Did you bother reading past it, did you do any research of your own, or did you stop "educating" yourself when some stranger on the internet said something you liked?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6  Texan1211    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @6    4 weeks ago

Nah Tex.... Same fishing hole.... just using different bait. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.1    4 weeks ago

And STILL not catching anything!

Some fisherman know when the fish aren't biting, time to pack it in!

Please give us the legal reason Congress needs to see Trump's STATE tax returns.

If you can, of course.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
6.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.1    3 weeks ago
Please give us the legal reason Congress needs to see Trump's STATE tax returns.

To be sure he doesn't have conflicting interests, where as he might make or lose monies, depending on his policies.

Really Tex, you need that explained ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.2    3 weeks ago

You fail to understand what was asked.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
6.1.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.3    3 weeks ago

You just fail 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.1.5  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

Tex.... for the umpteenth time, this is about national security. 

Personally, given all of the obstruction being affronted by every member of this administration, I'd start using dynamite on the fishing hole.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.6  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.1.5    3 weeks ago
'Personally, given all of the obstruction being affronted by every member of this administration, I'd start using dynamite on the fishing hole.' They're all complicit, which is why they're all obstructing.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.7  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.4    3 weeks ago

'You just fail'

She just flails.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.2    3 weeks ago
To be sure he doesn't have conflicting interests, where as he might make or lose monies, depending on his policies.

Nope. Bullshit. It is just ANOTHER Democratic fishing expedition. What evidence do you have or can you get that would warrant looking at his tax returns?

P.S. Guesses aren't evidence.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.1.9  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.8    3 weeks ago

So Tex.... you are complicit in our national security.  You put sticking it to the dems over country.  There is no other explanation for your stance.

 
 
 
cjcold
6.1.10  cjcold  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.1.9    3 weeks ago

Have to wonder how many Russian bots disguise themselves here as good-ol boys.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.1.9    3 weeks ago
So Tex.... you are complicit in our national security. You put sticking it to the dems over country. There is no other explanation for your stance.

Pure bullshit.

I am just not willing to railroad someone based on GUESSES and INNUENDO like some are willing to do.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.12  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @6.1.10    3 weeks ago
'Have to wonder how many Russian bots disguise themselves here as good-ol boys.'

jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Phaedrus
6.1.13  Phaedrus  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.11    3 weeks ago
I am just not willing to railroad someone based on GUESSES and INNUENDO like some are willing to do.

As long as they'e republican.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Phaedrus @6.1.13    3 weeks ago
As long as they'e republican.

Your words, not mine.

Make sure everyone knows that is how YOU feel.

I speak for myself.

 
 
 
CB
6.1.15  CB   replied to  cjcold @6.1.10    3 weeks ago

Mueller say the Russians are here. That is, they never left. (Russian) President Trump while paling around with Vladimir has been kept abreast of the needs of the 'motherland' - where Donald plans to put another of his towers.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.16  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @6.1.15    3 weeks ago
That is, they never left.

Didn't they take a vacation during the midterms?  Didn't they let the dems win the House?

They are sometimes fickle.

 
 
 
CB
6.1.17  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.16    3 weeks ago

No. No. Vladimir and your 'boy' Trump do not tolerate fickleness. Vic, you know better than this. Keep up.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  CB @6.1.17    3 weeks ago

So in your opinion, the Russians helped elect Trump, they want Trump to have power, they are still here affecting elections, and the fact that suddenly Democrats had a good election cycle is just pure coincidence.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.19  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @6.1.17    3 weeks ago
No. No. Vladimir and your 'boy' Trump do not tolerate fickleness

Lol, they aren't quite as good as the American fuckin media right?  Releasing that "Access Hollywood tape" on the eve of the election still takes first prize. Do keep trying CB. Second prize goes to "your boy" Comey, leaker & liar!   You get third prize for projection!

 
 
 
CB
6.1.20  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.18    3 weeks ago

Really (dryly). You don't get how "in spite of" works. Keep up.

 
 
 
CB
6.1.21  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.19    3 weeks ago

The media is our media. So its an "inside" job. /s  Keep up.

Your boy and the Red Russians are going to diminish y'all. The media (you hate) needs to start expending its 'barrels of ink' and 'digits' on telling the truth about the lack of daylight between:

{{Donald & Vladimir}}

{{Mitch and Internet Research Agency}}

Announce Weddings Plans!

Just in time for the 2020 election.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.22  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @6.1.21    3 weeks ago
The media is our media.

So the fact that they are biased and lied to the people for three years is ok?  Lol that's funny!

{{Donald & Vladimir}}

I'd like to trade digs with you all day, but I'm above that.

Have a good one.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.23  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.22    3 weeks ago
'So the fact that they are biased and lied to the people for three years is ok?'

So you are referring to 'Faux' 'news'?

That's a hoot!

'I'd like to trade digs with you all day, but I'm above that.'

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
6.1.24  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.22    3 weeks ago

I was humoring you, VE. (see the /s tag).  For the record, "RT International" is not an American news service. So what else do you have, but the media you have taught yourself to hate? Try doing your level best to be reasonable and factual and you might find our media services not so bad.

Donald is a fake. Those who enable him are fakes too!

BTW, when Donny met Vlad in Japan what did American conservatism get out of the meeting? Anything you want to share with the group; we don't know about?

 
 
 
CB
6.1.25  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.11    3 weeks ago

You support old "Birther 1" - btw, no liberal asked Donald to prove his right to be here. Hypocrisy.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.1.26  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.11    3 weeks ago

I bet if I were to spend enough time, I'd be willing to bet money I'd find a post or two of yours somewhere online demanding Obama release his birth certificate.....

Tex, it's not about guesses or innuendo.  ALL of  National security agencies say that the Russians are hear and messing with our elections, and indicate that they did it in support of Trump.   All these professional people, and national agencies are wrong because you  take the side of a fully documented liar.  That makes you either a fool or complicit, and I know the former is not the case.

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.1.27  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.11    2 weeks ago

[Trolling

 
 
 
Karri
6.1.28  Karri  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.18    2 weeks ago
So in your opinion, the Russians helped elect Trump, they want Trump to have power,

Actually, that is exactly what the intelligence agencies have said.

 
 
 
WallyW
7  WallyW    4 weeks ago

Some fisherman know when the fish aren't biting, time to pack it in!

Liberals keep fishing even after the pond has gone dry

 
 
 
CB
8  CB     3 weeks ago

Donald Trump is a big ass phony. Time to start calling this weak-kneed coward out from behind his conservative firewall! Come out, Donald - You coward! Some conservatives hold a coward president in high esteem. Go figure!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
8.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  CB @8    3 weeks ago

What  a Pussy

 
 
 
CB
8.1.1  CB   replied to  igknorantzrulz @8.1    3 weeks ago

Of course, no insult to any woman. Women are quite courageous as a group. Donald Trump is a coward.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8    3 weeks ago

So impeach him instead of complaining ENDLESSLY about him.

Call your reps and demand it!

 
 
 
CB
8.2.1  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.2    3 weeks ago

Can we get cowardly Senate Republicans to do their jobs which never ever includes standing up for a cowardly president who is a . . .

th?id=OIP.cjgOhdDKppP6HCuYPo8_FQHaHa&w=2

So if Donald is a scaredy cat, what does that make red-state senators who are covering for this weak-kneed coward?

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.2.1    3 weeks ago

Kind of silly and pointless to be asking "cowardly" Senate Republicans to act upon something those brave, brave House Democrats have spectacularly failed to send them.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.3  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.2    3 weeks ago

Trump got plenty of y'all"

Between Donald's intimidation, political whippings, and stuffing greenbacks in-between some conservative causes; y'all ain't stepping out of line.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
8.2.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  CB @8.2.1    3 weeks ago

Enablers.

 
 
 
CB
8.2.5  CB   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @8.2.4    3 weeks ago

Yep!

 
 
 
Tacos!
9  Tacos!    3 weeks ago

Aimed - as this legislation is - at the president, it is unconstitutional on its face. There are two basic eligibility requirements for the office of president. 1) Be a natural born citizen of the U.S. and 2) Be at least the age of 35.

There is nothing in the Constitution about tax returns or financial records to be eligible for president. Absent a constitutional amendment, neither Congress nor any state legislature has the authority to require such records from someone solely on the ground that he is, or wants to be, president.

There is existing legislation allowing the examination of records, but it requires (as any law does) a legitimate legislative purpose. "People wanna see" is not such a purpose.

We also have the 4th Amendment protecting all persons from unreasonable search and seizure, and this includes personal documents. And yes, the 4th Amendment applies to the president.

If you think you're finding evidence of a crime in those documents, then the president is protected by the 5th Amendment as well. He cannot be compelled to incriminate himself. You need articulable and specific probable cause that a crime has been committed to demand those records. Your belief that he is "up to something" is insufficient.

These laws apply to everyone, including people you don't like.

 
 
 
CB
9.1  CB   replied to  Tacos! @9    3 weeks ago
There are two basic eligibility requirements for the office of president. 1) Be a natural born citizen of the U.S. and 2) Be at least the age of 35.

Why are you quoting the 'basics"? Did you quote the basics during the Obama presidency? If some conservatives only considered the basics for Barack H. Obama, then why the heaven did Donald lie for eight years over "birtherism"?

Do you know how maddenly no-nothing that sounds after all the years of applied law, policy, and statutes? You might as well, call us say, Al Capone (crime boss, gangster, tax evader) and apologize to him that he was not considered for a run at the office of president! Incidentally, it was tax evasion which sent Capone to jail and his undoing.

Trump is a coward, a phony, a fake.  And those cheering him on- enablers. Neither deserve respect, which is to be earned not pissed away.

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  CB @9.1    3 weeks ago
Did you quote the basics during the Obama presidency?

I don't know why I wouldn't. 

Al Capone

Huh?

it was tax evasion which sent Capone to jail and his undoing

Yep. Prompted along by things like probable cause, legal warrants, physical evidence, and witnesses.

Trump is a coward, a phony, a fake

None of that entitles you to go leafing through his tax returns.

 
 
 
CB
9.1.2  CB   replied to  Tacos! @9.1.1    3 weeks ago

We are not "leafing through Donald's returns" because he is a coward, a phony, a fake. . . Wait a minute, did you just agree with me that Donald is a 'hot mess'? About time!

Anyway, bad old Al did not accidentally ascend to the presidency before his returns were 'arrested.'

House leadership committee chair is looking to perform his due diligence in accordance with committee policy. You can PRETEND to not understand that, even as you enable a coward president to use you as cover to squelch on participating in the proper working of government. Funny, how ready you are to call other good servants in the eyes of this country bad names, while supporting an obvious abuser of everything you SAY you hold dear. 

There is a word for that: HYPOCRISY!

If you do not have any respect for the shared rules of governing then what the heaven are in this discussion for anyway? Nobody is going to let you claim 'special dispensation" and install fake rules as you go along down the primrose path.

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  CB @9.1.2    3 weeks ago
We are not "leafing through Donald's returns"

Unless you can say specifically what evidence you will find - and of what crime - in those documents, it's "fishing." That's not probable cause. It's not a reasonable search. You're making a character judgment and presuming criminal guilt thereby. That's not how our system works.

Wait a minute, did you just agree with me that Donald is a 'hot mess'?

Of course he is. That doesn't mean I think everything he does or says is racist, criminal, etc.

Funny, how ready you are to call other good servants in the eyes of this country bad names

Who have I ever called a bad name?

an obvious abuser of everything you SAY you hold dear

He is? When and where is Trump going through someone's records in violation of the Constitution?

There is a word for that: HYPOCRISY!

I think the word to describe what you have just written is FANTASY. Or CONFUSION. You are not describing me.

If you do not have any respect for the shared rules of governing then what the heaven are in this discussion for anyway? Nobody is going to let you claim 'special dispensation" and install fake rules as you go along down the primrose path.

I have no idea what any of that means. No part of that makes sense.

 
 
 
CB
9.1.4  CB   replied to  Tacos! @9.1.3    3 weeks ago

 Own your president; the COWARD! That's all!

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  CB @9.1.4    3 weeks ago
Own your president

What does that even mean?

 
 
 
CB
9.1.6  CB   replied to  Tacos! @9.1.5    3 weeks ago

'Tongue-tied." Finally.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
9.1.8  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.1    3 weeks ago

I doubt Capone cared very much at the end. It was not his taxes that sealed his fate.  The tertiary syphilis turning his brain into swiss cheese was.

 
 
 
CB
9.1.9  CB   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @9.1.8    3 weeks ago

Yep!

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @9    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @9.2    3 weeks ago

You'll get nothing. And like it. And come back for more.

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.2.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @9.2.1    3 weeks ago

What does that even mean?

 
 
 
Don Overton
9.3  Don Overton  replied to  Tacos! @9    2 weeks ago

Do you ever pay attention to the real constitution and not your made up one  Go here and learn: 5.1

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
10  Jeremy Retired in NC    3 weeks ago

And it all started with the Democrats suing to get the President to release something there is no legal obligation to release.

Don't you [[deleted]] think Obama had Trumps taxes checked out before he left office?  Don't you [[deleted]] think that if there was something there, Obama would have had it leaked? 

 
 
 
CB
10.1  CB   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10    3 weeks ago

Who are you calling an idiot? Can you prove that Obama gave a hoot about Trump's taxes? Prove that democrats petitioned for Trump's tax records during Obama's administration.

No other president had to to be sued or even coaxed to show multiple years of their returns. You don't want see a single year of this COWARD's  tax returns. You bought the lie. You needed to buy the lie, because Donald gave you no other choice! You've been swerved on!

Not only did Donald not share his returns as a candidate, he has not shared his returns in office, and now he is suing to never share his returns. You need to not enabling this spoiled rotten COWARD because he is making you sound questionable.

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10    3 weeks ago

So now you're saying that President Obama checked out the turd Rump's taxes before he left office?

jrSmiley_44_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
10.2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @10.2    3 weeks ago
So now you're saying that President Obama checked out the turd Rump's taxes before he left office?

With the corruption we've seen come out of the Obama administration it wouldn't surprise me.  Feel differently then provide something that will change my mind.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
10.2.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tessylo @10.2    3 weeks ago

Even if he did, has Obama made anything he might have discovered, no.  He has too much class for that.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
10.2.3  Raven Wing  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @10.2.2    3 weeks ago
He has too much class for that.

Absolutely. Totally opposite from the current resident in the Oval office.

 
 
 
Don Overton
10.2.4  Don Overton  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10.2.1    2 weeks ago

[Trolling

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
10.2.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Don Overton @10.2.4    2 weeks ago

So you are going to troll me claiming my comments are lies but don't provide anything to disprove them.

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.3  MrFrost  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10    3 weeks ago
Don't you idiots think Obama had Trumps taxes checked out before he left office? 

Not happy that you are calling me an idiot, but I retort anyway:

1) Why would Obama want to look at trump's taxes? 

2) He couldn't have seen them because he had no access to them. 

3) Would it not have been easier for trump to release his fucking tax returns like he said he was going to and avoid all the bullshit? 

.

Trump said weeks after he said he was running for POTUS that there were things in his taxes that would cause him to lose the election. Gee, wonder what it was and, why is he trying so hard to hide it? 

The only people hiding things are people with something to hide. Not a difficult concept. 

512

 
 
 
CB
10.3.1  CB   replied to  MrFrost @10.3    3 weeks ago

And, who are the enablers? It takes an idiot to not call out old pants on in the morning like everybody else Donald!

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.3.2  MrFrost  replied to  CB @10.3.1    3 weeks ago

21 hours and not one mod has bothered to do anything about that comment. Sad. 

 
 
 
CB
10.3.3  CB   replied to  MrFrost @10.3.2    3 weeks ago

Well, it really does not bother me, because I know what I am and it not a Trump enabler.

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.3.4  MrFrost  replied to  CB @10.3.3    3 weeks ago

[deleted.] But someone else does it? Meh, no biggie. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.3.5  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @10.3.4    3 weeks ago

Yup, the moderation is very biased against us.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
10.3.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @10.3    3 weeks ago
Not happy that you are calling me an idiot,

If the shoe fits...

 
 
 
Don Overton
10.3.7  Don Overton  replied to  MrFrost @10.3.2    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
The Old Breed Marine
11  The Old Breed Marine    3 weeks ago

Wow!

You can tell the Leftist Democrats have hit rock bottom!

Trump's old tax returns?

Jeez, have you tried digging thru his garbage yet? Maybe ask his maid if there are any skid marks in his underwear?

Maybe Mueller can research his last 666 golf score cards, interview his friends, see if he ever failed to count a stroke....

Laughable doesn't do this justice!

 
 
 
CB
11.1  CB   replied to  The Old Breed Marine @11    3 weeks ago

Why would Congress want to see anybody's funky skid-marked underwear? OBM? What's special about skid-marks-except may be to a medical specialist? Is this in tax statues some where you care to point to? Go on, point.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
11.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  The Old Breed Marine @11    3 weeks ago
Trump's old tax returns?

Well how about this:  If regular every day citizens have to go through extensive background checks to get a job or buy a house or rent an apartment or buy a car or open a bank account or apply for a credit card, then damn skippy a presidential candidate should, at the very least, be held to the same standard.  

 
 
 
JBB
11.2.1  JBB  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @11.2    3 weeks ago

Do you believe anyone moves into a Trump property without disclosing their finances, sources of income and tax records? I purchased a co-op apartment in NYC a few years ago and they demanded EVERYTHING including three years tax returns...

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @11.2    3 weeks ago

Pretty clear that there is a difference between a private entity requiring those things when you want something for it and the government requiring it of private citizens for no legitimate legal reason.

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @11.2    3 weeks ago
If regular every day citizens have to go through extensive background checks to get a job or buy a house or rent an apartment or buy a car or open a bank account or apply for a credit card, then damn skippy a presidential candidate should, at the very least, be held to the same standard.

Funny, I have heard the same exact things being argued as to why people should have ID to vote.

But there sure are a lot of folks who don't agree.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
11.3  FLYNAVY1  replied to  The Old Breed Marine @11    3 weeks ago

So you're just another enabler cause you want to stick it to the dems.....

This is about national security.  If you really are what you say you are, a Marine, then you know to your core that Country comes up there by God and Corps, and well ahead of party.  I care that the peoples voices are being overshadowed by the Russians.  I care that we maintain the three co-equal branches of government.  I care about what our Constitution says we are. 

 
 
 
WallyW
11.3.1  WallyW  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @11.3    3 weeks ago

Bit late for all this belated hysterical conspiracy theory ranting, don't-cha think,   [DELETE  ?]

Were you as concerned that the Russians intercepted Hillary's lost (deleted) emails?

 
 
 
MrFrost
11.3.2  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @11.3.1    3 weeks ago
Were you as concerned that the Russians intercepted Hillary's lost (deleted) emails?

"Intercepted"? They hacked into the system to get them, (just hours after trump asked them to, but I am sure that's just a coincidence...[eye roll]), that's ILLEGAL. You are literally blaming Hillary for someone stealing her emails? Are you fucking kidding me? Here is a new one for you, how about you blame the fucking criminals? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.3.3  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @11.3.2    3 weeks ago

Pretty neat trick by Russia--hacking into a server in 2016 that the FBI took in 2015.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.3.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @11.3.2    3 weeks ago
ey hacked into the system to get them, (just hours after trump asked them to, but I am sure that's just a coincidence

Hillary deleted her emails months before the Trump  rally where he asked Russia to find them and turn them over to the FBI (who was looking for them).

You are literally blaming Hillary for someone stealing her emails

She deleted them after they were subpoenaed. No one stole them (or has been identified as having stolen them)

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
11.3.5  FLYNAVY1  replied to  WallyW @11.3.1    3 weeks ago

But...but...but Hillary!  Her Emails!  Benghazi!   Your go to deflections.

Trump is in the WH.  That is the most critical security risk that needs to be assessed.  That an hardening our voting system.  But hey.... you're complicit.  How are you doing on your Russian language course BTW?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
11.3.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.3.4    3 weeks ago

Prove she deleted them.  Do not make kool aid fueled accusations if you can't provide proof.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
11.3.7  Raven Wing  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @11.3.6    3 weeks ago
Do not make kool aid fueled accusations if you can't provide proof

That speaks for most of the Trump supporters. All mouth and no proof.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
11.3.8  livefreeordie  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @11.3.6    3 weeks ago

Easy, you have a very short memory

Judicial Watch obtained the emails after filing a Freedom Of Information Act lawsuit in 2015, seeking “All emails sent and received by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her official capacity as Secretary of State, as well as all emails by other State Department employees to Secretary Clinton regarding her non-'state.gov' email address.”

Judicial Watch said the case is now closed and the FBI in total was only able to recover or find approximately 5,000 of the 33,000 government emails that an employee managing Clinton's server deleted.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/watchdog-releases-final-batch-of-hillary-clinton-emails-from-fbi

Hillary claimed she deleted prior to the subpoena-that was a lie

“It turned out that Keilar’s assumption was accurate. The 31,830 personal emails that Keilar asked about were deleted “sometime between March 25-31, 2015,” according to the FBI. That was about three weeks after Clinton received a House subpoena on March 4, 2015.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/the-fbi-files-on-clintons-emails/

 
 
 
KDMichigan
11.3.9  KDMichigan  replied to  livefreeordie @11.3.8    3 weeks ago
“It turned out that Keilar’s assumption was accurate. The 31,830 personal emails that Keilar asked about were deleted “sometime between March 25-31, 2015,” according to the FBI. That was about three weeks after Clinton received a House subpoena on March 4, 2015.”

Ouch. I guess Factcheck puts a little crimp in the liberal revisionist story. Just who is the one making the koolade fueled comments?

We sure dodged a bullet keeping that Hillaryious corrupt bitch Hillary out of the White House.

 
 
 
CB
11.3.10  CB   replied to  KDMichigan @11.3.9    3 weeks ago

Naughty. As it turned out your mockery of Hillary's name comes from the Russians. Watch the video @14.1.2. "Get Smarter Here."

 
 
 
KDMichigan
11.3.11  KDMichigan  replied to  CB @11.3.10    3 weeks ago

Bullshit. It came from myself. 

I get triggered snowflakes always trying to correct my spelling and I find it Hillaryious.

 
 
 
CB
11.3.12  CB   replied to  KDMichigan @11.3.11    3 weeks ago

Yeah (dryly), if you say so. Maybe Russia is following your lead. "Impossible" things are happening ♪ everrryyy ♪ddayy!

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  The Old Breed Marine @11    3 weeks ago

That turd 'president' is the skidmark on America's and the world's underwear.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
11.4.1  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @11.4    3 weeks ago
America's and the world's underwear.

I don't know what you're talking about. America goes commando!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
11.4.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tacos! @11.4.1    3 weeks ago

Thank you for the mental image.  Pass the eye bleach please.

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.4.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @11.4.1    3 weeks ago

I have no idea what you're talking about.  

 
 
 
Don Overton
11.5  Don Overton  replied to  The Old Breed Marine @11    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Bonehard
12  Bonehard    3 weeks ago

Good things come to all that wait..

 
 
 
MrFrost
13  MrFrost    3 weeks ago

For "the most transparent president in history", trump sure seems to have a lot to hide. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
13.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MrFrost @13    3 weeks ago

This has nothing to do with the seed, but my cat is sitting next to my monitor and is totally transfixed by your av.jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
13.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @13.1    3 weeks ago

I am glad your cat likes it.. LOL 

 
 
 
CB
14  CB     3 weeks ago

MUST SEE! Psychographics ARE HOW Trump won the 2016 election using Cambridge Analytical data sets. Important: This specific video is about Cambridge Analytical and Ted Cruz. I will get to Trump's use at another time. What does  "persuaderables" mean?

Check this out. Many people are being 'played' and they do not even know it through FaceBook, Instagram, Google, Etc.

(Note: You can speed this up using the wheel symbol.)

Cambridge Analytica - The Power of Big Data and Psychographics

 
 
 
livefreeordie
14.1  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @14    3 weeks ago

What nonsense. Trump won because for real Americans, Hillary was a terrible candidate with radical views.  

It is why Trump will be re-elected. The Democrats insist on running radical leftists

 
 
 
CB
14.1.1  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @14.1    3 weeks ago

Untrue. More to come. . . . 

 
 
 
CB
14.1.2  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @14.1    3 weeks ago
ALL OF NEWSTALKERS!!!  Highlights start: But, it's all good, neverthless. As always you can speed it up using the settings 'wheel.'

MUST SEE VIDEO @ 6:50 in the video below: 'Defeat Crooked Hillary.' "This is part of a campaign by Cambridge Analytical called, 'Defeat Crooked Hillary.' The brand was 'Defeat Crooked Hillary' - 'Crooked Hillary' and the zeros, the "OO" of crooked were a pair of handcuffs. And then we made creative - hundreds of kinds of creatives and put them online. The concept of 'crooked Hillary' was promoted widely on social media. Facebook, Google, and Youtube. Cambridge Analytical boasts the online videos was watched 30 million times and times over, but users were unaware they came from the Trump Campaign, because they were made by an independent organization called, 'Make America Number 1' which is funded by the (Robert) Mercer family. . . ."

"Sometimes you can use proxy organizations which are already there [online]. You feed them. They are civil, society organizations, like charities or activists groups and we [Cambridge Analytical] use them, feed them, the material and they do the work. We just put information into the bloodstream of the internet and then watch it grow—give it a little push, overtime, to watch it take shape. And so this stuff infiltrates the online community and expands. But, with no branding, so it is unattributable, untrackable."

>>>>>

Also please listen starting at 14:17 to the end of video to hear these people explain how THE CANDIDATE is delberately left out of the loop of their activities. Also, how a secret email server which erases emails after two hours!

I am considering making an article out of this as well.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
14.1.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  livefreeordie @14.1    3 weeks ago

Trump won because the members of the EC are morons.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.4  CB   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @14.1.3    3 weeks ago

What is "EC"?

 
 
 
Texan1211
14.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  CB @14.1.4    3 weeks ago
What is "EC"?

Electoral College

 
 
 
livefreeordie
14.1.6  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @14.1.2    3 weeks ago

A meaningless post. You are typical of most on the left who live in denial of the reality of the election

except for far left states and cities, most Americans reject the radical views of the Democrats

Add to that fact, that Hillary’s undesirable ratings were as bad as Trump.  So enough moderates and independents swung to Trump to give him an easy electoral college victory

also your statement about the EC shows you don’t even understand how it works (which is unfortunately true of the majority of American voters)

 
 
 
Tessylo
14.1.7  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @14.1.6    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

[personal sweeping generalization]

 
 
 
livefreeordie
14.1.8  livefreeordie  replied to  Tessylo @14.1.7    3 weeks ago

It must suck to not be able to make a cogent rebuttal

 
 
 
Tessylo
14.1.9  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @14.1.8    3 weeks ago

You should know pastor

 
 
 
CB
14.1.10  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @14.1.5    3 weeks ago

Thank you, Texan. Of course, that is correct! I spaced it out! See? When we try as people - great things happen!

 
 
 
CB
14.1.11  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @14.1.6    3 weeks ago
also your statement about the EC

Er' do specify my statement about the Electoral College? Please proceed. . . . (Let's see how petty this gets! 24)

 
 
 
CB
14.1.12  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @14.1.6    3 weeks ago

Watch the video @14.1.2 or just 'grow away.'

Define: "far left states and cities" and "most," please. And, take your time with it.

Cambridge Analytical on behalf of the Robert Mercer family and Donald Trump "did it" to Hillary Clinton and her 'fault,' as the case may be, is she did not see it coming!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
14.1.13  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  livefreeordie @14.1    3 weeks ago
Trump won because for real Americans, Hillary was a terrible candidate with radical views.  

Trump won because 110,000 people in three different States decided the election even though millions more Americans preferred Hillary over Trump and hadn't bought in to the Russian bot lies.

Millions more real Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump, and 10 million more Americans voted for Democrats in 2018 than for Republicans, so the odds of Trump winning in 2020 is an extreme long shot. His win in 2016 was an anomaly with virtually no chance of a repeat, but you guys go ahead and keep telling yourselves whatever gets you wet for old tiny hands limp dick.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.14  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @14.1.13    3 weeks ago

Hilliary Clinton got swerved by the Mercer family,Cambridge Analytical, and The Internet Research Agency (Russians)! Democrats be on the look out this time around.

BTW, Trump won't admit to the Russians being involved in the win of 2016, because he would have to SANCTION a presidential level investigation - something the coward will not open his mouth to say, or move his pen to sign! It is a different (an other) form of obstructionism.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
14.1.15  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  CB @14.1.14    3 weeks ago
Mercer family,Cambridge Analytical, and The Internet Research Agency

Check out the Netflix movie "The Great Hack". It pretty much delves deep into how those groups used Facebook and other sources data points to target millions of Americans with individually created propaganda. All these idiots think they just started liking Trump on their own but they were all led by the virtual nose to feed from his filthy trough.

 
 
 
CB
14.1.16  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @14.1.15    3 weeks ago

Exactly! Emphatically. Indeed it is from the 'Great Hack' that I am pulling links and information (above). No shame in admitting it. I want people to know - we were had! We all knew something was wrong; happening too fast; we just could not (NewsVine) figure out from where it was 'hailing.' Hillary Clinton was 'crashing' and 'rising' at the same time and it simply did not make sense that so many people had at odds positions about the same person! Cambridge Analytical was manipulating people's social media data and deploying 'psychographics' against her. There was so much noise around Hillary in 2016!

And, we have to be wise-r this time around. Trump slipped in using people's online personas to make them (and others) "persuadeables (a term of art used for people who are possible 'datapoint' switches in candidates looked at by Cambridge Analytical.) Now I understand (I have a link) the Mercer Family is pulling back from the 2020 Trump candidate as they dislike the exposure they have wrought for themselves. Still. . . .

Excellent documentary! I wish I can reproduce it here!

 
 
 
MrFrost
14.1.17  MrFrost  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @14.1.15    3 weeks ago
Check out the Netflix movie "The Great Hack".

STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Damnit, I am only half way through it...  LOL

(just joking with ya..)

 
 
 
Don Overton
14.1.18  Don Overton  replied to  livefreeordie @14.1.6    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Don Overton
14.1.19  Don Overton  replied to  livefreeordie @14.1.8    2 weeks ago

you should try making one sometime 

 
 
 
CB
15  CB     2 weeks ago

original
original
 
 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Texan1211
Snuffy
Dulay


82 visitors