Does Trump owe Russia? The Supreme Court's ruling on the president's taxes may eventually give us answers

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  2 weeks ago  •  66 comments

By:   Craig Unger, Dutton Books (Brookings)

Does Trump owe Russia? The Supreme Court's ruling on the president's taxes may eventually give us answers
Elaine Kamarck writes that a key component of whatever the public is able to learn from the president's financial records will be his ties to Russia. Would that explain his consistent advocacy for a friendlier stance toward Vladimir Putin?

American voters really do need to know if Donald Trump is financially beholden to Putin and Russia. 


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Elaine Kamarck Friday, July 10, 2020FixGov

This week's Supreme Court decisions on Donald Trump's finances and tax returns will allow us to finally answer the question that has hung over his presidency from the earliest days:

Is Donald Trump a brilliant businessman and a visionary statesman or is he a bogus billionaire who has been propped up by Russian money?

The information on Trump's finances may not come out in time to impact his re-election campaign but it will have a profound impact on his legacy. The Court considered two cases. In the first, Trump v. Vance, the ruling means that Trump's accounting firm will have to hand over financial records to the New York County District Attorney's office. Once Trump is no longer president, prosecutors could use the information to accuse him of crimes. At any time, they could use the information to accuse his children or his associates of crimes. The other decision, Mazars v. Trump, keeps Congress away from Trump's records but only until they can make a better case on the separation of powers issues. Both decisions were 7-to-2 votes with two Trump justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, voting with the majority and against Trump.

Eventually the decisions announced today may help explain Trump's love affair with Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin. From the earliest days of his presidency Trump has advocated policies towards Russia that are not grounded in any coherent foreign policy and that have been at odds with the foreign policy goals of most of the Republican Party.

Alone amongst the 2016 Republican presidential candidates, Trump had a different view of Russia and Ukraine. The first solid evidence came on July 11, 2016 when the Republican platform meeting began. Trump operatives moved to delete language from the platform that would call for "providing lethal defensive weapons" to the Ukraine and replace it with softer language calling for "appropriate assistance." A few weeks later Trump gave an impromptu news conference from his golf course in Doral, Florida. His suggestion that Russia find Hillary's 30,000 emails made big news. But he also had a less-well-covered exchange about Crimea and Russia:


"QUESTION: I would like to know if you became president, would you recognize (inaudible) Crimea as Russian territory? And also if the U.S. would lift sanctions that are (inaudible)? TRUMP: We'll be looking at that. Yeah, we'll be looking."

Once in office, Trump proceeded to do things that raised suspicions about his relationship with Russia. He fired the FBI Director James Comey in an attempt to stop an investigation into Russian interference in the campaign, a move that made it look as if he had something to hide. Even after a Republican Senate had issued a report proving Russian interference Trump continued to call the story a hoax—going so far as to say publicly that he believed Vladimir Putin's denials over the evidence of his own intelligence community. He threw American journalists out of an Oval Office meeting with the Russian Ambassador, he took notes away from the interpreter who sat in on a meeting with Trump and President Putin—leaving no record of the meeting. He has consistently badmouthed NATO and caused rifts in what has been, for decades, the strongest alliance against Russia. In an embarrassing press conference in Helsinki, Trump, a man who is always eager to prove his machismo, instead played lap dog to Vladimir Putin—resulting in howls of condemnation from all across the spectrum, including many Republican Senators. Not too long after that, he withdrew American troops from Syria, leaving it to the Russians. And it wasn't long after that that he held up military aid to Ukraine in order to try and get dirt on Joe Biden. Trump's habit of doing things for Russia led House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a famous Oval Office meeting, to assert that with Trump "All roads lead to Putin."

His pattern of doing catering to Putin's interests resulted in the fact that, in his first three years in office, Trump left behind a long list of disgruntled foreign policy advisors, many of whom quit in protest. And Republican Senators repeatedly departed from their usual fawning praise of the president to object to his foreign policy moves.

This year alone, as the country and the world reeled from the coronavirus pandemic and protests against police brutality against African-Americans, Trump continued to confound and disappoint even his Republican supporters when it came to moves that were seen as favorable towards Russia. In June he announced plans to bring home 9,500 American troops out of the 35,000 stationed in Germany. Once again, this sudden move drew strong objections from Republicans as well as Democrats.

Early this year a SEAL team raided a Taliban outpost and discovered $500,000 in cash. This led to an investigation indicating that the Russians had been providing Taliban fighters with bounties for killing American soldiers. Trump was apparently briefed on this in late March, although it was in his written briefing, which, he apparently rarely reads. This did not become public until the New York Times reported the story on June 26th. Until that story Trump had continued making favorable statements about Putin, even insisting that Russian be reinstated into the G-7. Faced with an embarrassing situation, Trump dismissed the intelligence as a hoax.

Democrats were outraged and demanded an explanation but received only White House spin. And while Republicans largely stayed silent, one Republican Senator, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, said Congress should investigate, asking "…did the commander in chief know? And if not, how the hell not?"

Trump's romance with Putin has never been easily explained. It is unlikely that it is a case of "kompromat," which is usually associated with sexual or personal misconduct of one sort or another. Sexual misconduct is unlikely to bother Trump and his supporters. He has already admitted to extra-marital affairs and to grabbing women inappropriately. He has paid off multiple women with whom he had affairs—one of whom was an adult film actress.

The other explanation that comes to mind stems from Trump's out of control narcissism. It is possible that he is so obsessed with the possibility that he won in 2016 solely because of Russian interference that he has gone out of his way to deny any wrongdoing on the part of Russia. In spite of Trump's rhetoric and veto threat, the Senate did pass a tough Russian sanctions bill early on in the administration. And in late 2017, Trump's administration reversed its stance in the Republican platform and approved the sale of lethal weapons to Ukraine.

The final explanation might be found in his financial dealings. Trump has a long history of doing business with shady Russian characters with ties to Russian intelligence.[1] His behavior in office, beginning with his refusal to release his tax returns and the vehemence with which he has fought any transparency when it comes to his business affairs, leads one to wonder—what does he owe Russia? The Court's decisions may eventually answer this question one way or the other. 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JBB
1  seeder  JBB    2 weeks ago

Voters need to know about Trump's Russian debts!

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1  MUVA  replied to  JBB @1    2 weeks ago

No they don’t it is none of their business.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  MUVA @1.1    2 weeks ago

Say, don't you list all of your debts on your tax returns?

LMAO!!!!

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.2  MUVA  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

No I don’t have any jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.3  seeder  JBB  replied to  MUVA @1.1    2 weeks ago

You really don't care if Trump owes Vlad Putin?

 
 
 
Krishna
1.1.4  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @1.1    2 weeks ago
No they don’t it is none of their business.

Good point-- the less informed voters are about the Trump Crime family and their illegal shenanigans-- the better it is for him and his evil cohorts!

That I can also tell you....

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.5  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

Yes, business returns include balance sheets and income statements which show sources of income and expenses, assets and liabilities (debts). Trump files business returns...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

did you care the Clintons took hundreds of thousands from Vlad Putin?

 
 
 
Krishna
1.1.7  Krishna  replied to  JBB @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
Trump owes Vlad Putin

Yes-- BIG TIME!!!

"Fellow Traveler"

Add ‘America First’ to the laundry list of scams Trump has sold in his life. It’s clearly Trump first, Russia second, and America last.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @1.1.7    2 weeks ago

I wonder if you can show even ONE link (credible, of course) that shows Trump owes Russia money.

I am betting it is a big NO in that!

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.9  seeder  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.6    2 weeks ago

Do you have any proof that the Clintons ever personally took any money from Vlad Putin. I would ertainly care to see such proof!

All of the Clinton's personal and foundational financial information is audited and has been made public going back gor over 40 years. So, what in hell are you babbling about now?

And yes, the Biden's and the Obama's made theirs public too. Only Trump keeps his secret. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @1.1.9    2 weeks ago

Bill Clinton took $500,000 from Putin's pals "for a speech" in 2010. 

Please provide evidence that Vlad Putin loaned Trump money.

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.12  seeder  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.10    2 weeks ago

That wasn't Putin and wasn't Russian funded...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.13  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
You really don't care if Trump owes Vlad Putin?

He has a strange way of paying him back -like killing a few hundred Russians!

https://www.newsweek.com/us-military-killed-200-russians-syria-airstrikes-pompeo-says-trump-considers-883947

Putin must have been BULLSHIT over that!

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.14  seeder  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.13    2 weeks ago

Do you think Putin cares about Russian lives?

The point is that American voters need to know if Donald Trump is beholden to foreign bankers, especially to Russian banks. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.10    2 weeks ago

Well, well, well, look at what the Fishwrap of Record had to say about Clintons and Russian money:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html#:~:text=Donations%20to%20the%20Clinton%20Foundation%2C%20and%20a%20Russian,mining%20assets%20in%20Kazakhstan%20and%20the%20United%20States.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And:

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

And:

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.
 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.16  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
You really don't care if Trump owes Vlad Putin?

Nope, and I can't believe you really do either.

What, actually, has done Trump done to make Putin happy?

This fairy tale about Putin-Trump collusion wore out several months ago.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.17  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @1.1.5    2 weeks ago

The IRS isn't interested in them, Y R U?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1.1.11    2 weeks ago

I suppose it IS possible you really can't tell the difference between Deutsche bank and Russia.

Just thought you could. 

My mistake, obviously.

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.19  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.18    2 weeks ago
 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.20  Greg Jones  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.15    2 weeks ago

One thing we know for sure...foreign donors paid into the Clinton Foundation for political favors and influence.

It's all on record

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1.21  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
You really don't care if Trump owes Vlad Putin?

We already know the Obama Administration used the IRS to target opponents.  Nothing was mentioned about Trump.

Democrats wrapped up a 4 year investigation into Trumps connections to Russia.  Nothing.

What other hoax combinations are you all going to run with?

 
 
 
Gsquared
1.1.22  Gsquared  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.17    2 weeks ago

I thought his taxes were under audit by the IRS, for years apparently.  That's Trump's claim.  Since when does the IRS audit tax returns it "isn't  interested in"?

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.23  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.10    2 weeks ago
Bill Clinton took $500,000 from Putin's pals "for a speech" in 2010. 

That's the going rate for ex US Presidents.

Ex Generals make considerably less.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/flynn-was-paid-67g-by-russian-interests-documents-say

Please provide evidence that Vlad Putin loaned Trump money.

None needed; if you believe that taxpayer funds are "mixed" at PP and fund some abortions,

then you have to agree that Russia depositing $511 million in Dutche Bank, undoubtedly helped them loan $$ to Trump.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.24  bugsy  replied to  JBB @1.1.9    2 weeks ago
Do you have any proof that the Clintons ever personally took any money from Vlad Putin. I would ertainly care to see such proof!

Changing the name Clinton to Trump and throwing the question right back at ya...

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.23    2 weeks ago
None needed; if you believe that taxpayer funds are "mixed" at PP and fund some abortions, then you have to agree that Russia depositing $511 million in Dutche Bank, undoubtedly helped them loan $$ to Trump.

So, if you believe that taxpayer funds are "separated" at PP and fund no abortions, then you must agree that Russia depositing money in Deutsche Bank did NOT help them loan money to Trump.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.23    2 weeks ago
That's the going rate for ex US Presidents.

Not quite.

https://www.thoughtco.com/former-presidents-speaking-fees-3368127

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.27  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @1.1.12    2 weeks ago

wasn't Russian funded...

From the New York Times

"Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin"

Whoops!

We all know how this will play out. First you deny the Clintons would ever take money from Russians. Told when and where,  you for some reason deny reality. Now, you will claim of course it's okay that Clinton took half a million from a Russian bank with ties to Putin, but claim it's outrageous that Trump might have taken a loan from a Russian investment bank.

It's all so predictable. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.28  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.26    2 weeks ago

So you agree, $500,000 is just a red herring. He made significantly more later.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.28    2 weeks ago

500k was certainly not the going rate for ex-Presidents, as you claimed. If you read the link, it will tell you what the other ex-Presidents were getting.

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.30  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.29    2 weeks ago

Reagan got a cool million for just one speech and he was already ate up with Alzheimers...

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1989/10/25/Reagan-praises-Japan-in-1-million-speech/4534625291200/

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.31  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.29    2 weeks ago

Ahh, so BC isn't an ex president?  What do you want to do?  Average them over time?

You don't think Obama will get there too?

No doubt Trump will want that much or more...

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1.1.19    2 weeks ago

Oh, yeah, these reasons really prove it!! LMMFAO!!

  1. In summer 2014, a Russian advance team was sent to the United States to plan the cyber war of 2016 (p. 194).
  2. In 2014 Mr. Putin’s advisor Sergey Glazyev anticipated the “termination” of the American elite (p. 226).
  3. In 2014 a Russian think tank, the Izborsk Club, outlined the principles of a new information war to be fought against the United States (p. 226).
  4. In late 2014 Russia penetrated the email networks of the White House, the Department of State, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (p. 194).
  5. Trump was endorsed in late 2015 by the think tank of the pro-Kremlin oligarch Konstantin Malofeev (p. 150).
  6. In February 2016, Mr. Putin’s cyber advisor boasted: “We are on the verge of having something in the information arena that will allow us to talk to the Americans as equals” (p. 227).
  7. Russian military intelligence penetrated the Democratic National Committee in March 2016 as well as personal accounts of leading Democrats. Stolen emails were then used to discredit Hillary Clinton and aid Mr. Trump. (p. 232).
  8. A Russian military intelligence officer bragged in May 2016 that his organization would take revenge on Hillary Clinton on behalf of Mr. Putin (p. 227).
  9. Trump requested, on 17 June 2016, that Russia search for Hillary Clinton’s emails. That same day Russian military intelligence began a phishing campaign to do just that (p. 232).
  10. Some 22,000 emails stolen by Russia were released right before the Democratic National Convention, on 22 July 2016. (p. 232).
  11. In 2016, Russia sought to break into the electoral websites of at least thirty-nine American states (p. 231).
  12. When Mr. Trump seemed to be in trouble when a tape of his advocacy of sexual assault was published on 7 October 2016, emails stolen by Russia were released to change the subject (p. 233).
  13. Trump personally encouraged his followers to explore the emails that Russia had stolen in tweets of 31 October and 4 November 2016 (p. 232).
  14. In the months between Mr. Trump’s nomination as the Republican candidate and the election, anonymous limited liability (“offshore”) companies furiously purchased his properties (p. 222).
  15. After Mr. Trump was accorded the victory in the presidential election in November 2016, he was given a standing ovation in the Russian parliament (p. 218).
  16. After Trump was accorded the victory in the presidential election, he called Mr. Putin to be congratulated (p. 218).
  17. In June 2018, Mr. Putin confirmed before the international press that he had wanted Mr. Trump to win.

All prove squat. Just some guy on a computer typing away.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.31    2 weeks ago
Ahh, so BC isn't an ex president? 

Yes, he certainly was.  Did anyone dispute that fact? Strawman.

What do you want to do?  Average them over time?

Strawman. No one said anything of the sort. 

You don't think Obama will get there too?

That wasn't the question, was it?

No doubt Trump will want that much or more...

Of course it is natural to want the most you can get. Again, not the question or claim.

If the going rate for ex-Presidents was 500k, as claimed, then certainly more than one ex-President would be getting that much.

 
 
 
Gsquared
1.1.34  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.32    2 weeks ago

Just some guy on a computer typing away.

Come on!  I have been telling you to read his book for a while now.  He is a graduate of Brown with a Ph.D. from Oxford.  He is a Professor at Yale.  His book is well-sourced and replete with footnotes.  Right now, pardner, you're just some guy on a computer typing away.  Don't be willfully ignorant.  And don't give me the clap-trap about he's some liberal elitist.  That will not cut it.

And since you think you're an NT lawyer, that list contains circumstantial evidence, is valid, and you know it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.35  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1.1.30    2 weeks ago

And?

Is there a point in there somewhere?

Obama got $400k for one speech. 

Is that relevant too?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.36  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.34    2 weeks ago

Just a bunch of wild speculation, innuendo, and guesswork.

 
 
 
Gsquared
1.1.37  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.36    2 weeks ago

You have not read the book.  I am very disappointed in you.  No glib comments.  This matter is way too serious.  I'm assuming that you are a patriotic American.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.38  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.37    2 weeks ago
I am very disappointed in you.

And yet, somehow, I will survive the sting of your disappointment.

No glib comments. 

Right. Of course not!

This matter is way too serious.

Way too serious for what exactly? Should we lighten up a little?

I'm assuming that you are a patriotic American.  

Even a blind dog finds a bone every now and then! Your assumption is spot on in this case! Congrats!

 
 
 
Gsquared
1.1.39  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.38    2 weeks ago

I take our country, our freedom and our way of life very seriously.

I'm done with you.

 
 
 
Krishna
1.1.40  Krishna  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.15    2 weeks ago

Fake News!

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.41  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.39    2 weeks ago
I take our country, our freedom and our way of life very seriously.

That is wonderful! 

Me too!

 
 
 
Gsquared
1.1.42  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.41    2 weeks ago

I haven't seen any proof of it.

Bye

 
 
 
Adam_Selene
1.1.43  Adam_Selene  replied to  MUVA @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

You don't have any tax returns? Doesn't the IRS find that odd?

How about any debts?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.44  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.42    2 weeks ago
I haven't seen any proof of it.

Gee, what do you want?

A Youtube video of me singing the national anthem followed by reciting all 50 state capitals and naming the last 35 World Series winners and reciting the US Constitution?

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.45  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.33    2 weeks ago
If the going rate for ex-Presidents was 500k, as claimed, then certainly more than one ex-President would be getting that much.

Nonsense.  Clinton got it because he was popular.  He could command it.

It's a market the same as any other.  Few people want to pay to be preached at by Carter or GWB.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.46  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.25    2 weeks ago

By Jove, I think you have it !

Thanks for agreeing again.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.47  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.45    2 weeks ago
Clinton got it because he was popular.  He could command it.

Sure he did... His price tag had nothing to do with the fact his wife was Sec of State and the presumptive next Democratic nominee.  Russians kept giving him and his foundation millions (which his wife failed to disclose lie she was supposed to) because he was "popular."  Amazing how the donations stopped as soon as she was out of power. Just a crazy coincidence.  Or are Russian oligarchs still giving him millions now that he has no avenue to power?

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.48  Sparty On  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.21    2 weeks ago

Crickets ..... ever notice that's what you usually get when you ask that question?  

Well, that and a plethora of ridiculous leftist rationalizations.

The inmates are running the hive these days

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.49  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @1.1.30    2 weeks ago

That's nothing more than a good agent and the fact that Reagan was of more value to the Japanese than Clinton was.  

Ain't the free market grand!

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.50  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.44    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.51  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.45    2 weeks ago

Then it wasn't the going rate for ex-Presidents. As was claimed.

It was the going rate for that particular ex-President.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.52  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.51    2 weeks ago

Yes, in 2010,2011 and later, it was the average for Bill Clinton, but he gave lots of speeches in the average range as well

Reagan ( 1 million in 1989 ) was dead, one Bush was too old, and the other not very popular and Obama was still POTUS.

Carter says he likes to give $$ away, not take it.

So I concede that my original statement lacked the proper tense.

thanks for pointing that out over & over.

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @1    2 weeks ago

What Russian debts...do you know something that everyone else in the world doesn't?

 
 
 
JBB
1.2.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    2 weeks ago

That is why Congress and The American People are exercising their rights to see Trump's taxes...

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1.2.1    2 weeks ago
That is why Congress and The American People are exercising their rights to see Trump's taxes...

Please alert the world when you, as a member of the American public, sees Trump's tax returns.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
2  Jeremy Retired in NC    2 weeks ago

These idiots don't think these were scrutinized by the Obama administration?  If there were something there, it would have been exposed.  

But while they are at it, why not do the same for Pelosi, Schiff and the rest of them?  

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1  Ronin2  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2    2 weeks ago

Because they have that all important D behind their name. None of them would ever do anything illegal!/S

 
 
 
loki12
3  loki12    2 weeks ago

Anybody who is stupid enough to think trumps personal taxes are going to show loans from Russia has either never held a job before that required them to file taxes, or are too stupid to vote.

 
 
 
Adam_Selene
3.1  Adam_Selene  replied to  loki12 @3    2 weeks ago

It's true - there will not be an item that says "5 Billion dollar loan from my buddy Putin".

But there are always "breadcrumbs". A bland little shell corporation or two listed.  Maybe a charity. 

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.1  loki12  replied to  Adam_Selene @3.1    2 weeks ago

Keep the fantasy alive, Obama gave Putin not 1 but 2 countries and ordered the executions of Americans without due process. But trump is somehow indebted to Putin? I guess that makes sense if you don’t have a strong grip on reality.

 
 
 
Adam_Selene
3.1.2  Adam_Selene  replied to  loki12 @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

Can you think of one thing on Putin's wish list that Trump has not provided?

My grip on reality is pretty good. I'm not sure just what you are gripping though.

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.3  loki12  replied to  Adam_Selene @3.1.2    2 weeks ago

Please detail exactly what he has given Putin. Crimea? Nope the last idiot, Syria? Not still the last idiot, the ability to invade Ukraine because he wouldn’t sell them weapons to defend themselves? Nope still the former idiot. The ability to bomb and kill Americans in Syria? Nope still the former idiot, the ability to screw with an election and went so far as the tell cyber to stand down? Still Obama. So please detail how trump has allowed Putin to get what he wants. It appears the democrats worthless choice was soooooo flexible like he promised Vladimir he would be there was nothing left for trump to give Barry’s BFF.

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  Adam_Selene @3.1.2    2 weeks ago

Sure there are several.

  1. Not ending US sanctions against Russia. Those are still in place and the Trump administration added some new ones on top of them. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/01/us/politics/russia-sanctions-executive-order.html https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/09/25/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia/
  2. Allowing the US to sell weapons to Ukraine, something Obama never did. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-admin-approves-sale-anti-tank-weapons-ukraine/story?id=65989898 https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-trump-weapons-ukraine-20171222-story.html
  3. Keeping troops in Syria, and taking over a Syrian oil field. Trump admittedly pissed me off by caving the Democrat chicken hawks on this one. The US has no legal standing in Syria. We were never asked in, and have been told repeatedly to leave by the Syrian government. ISIS/ISIL is done for as a fighting unit in Syria, What is left can be mopped up by Russia, Iran, Syria, and the Kurds. I am sure Putin loves having US forces there and offshore coming into close contact with Russian forces, aircraft, and ships. https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2019/11/10/for-east-syria-american-troops-are-about-much-more-than-oil/ https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-us-troops-syria-oil-bashar-al-assad-kurds-wisconsin-rally-1482250
  4. Sending US missile defense systems in Saudi Arabia to protect their oil fields while Putin was trying to close an arms deal with them. Had  to make Putin happy when he was trying to sell Saudi Arabia a missile defense system at the time.   https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-orders-additional-air-defense-troops-saudi-arabia/story?id=65758812 https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/20/politics/trump-announces-iran-sanctions/index.html  

Ok, now where is your list of what Trump has done for Putin? I mean something that got real physical results; not lip service that accomplished nothing. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
3.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Adam_Selene @3.1    2 weeks ago
But there are always "breadcrumbs".

Apparently those "breadcrumbs" made it by the scrutiny of the Obama IRS.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Eat The Press Do Not Read It
igknorantzrulz
Dean Moriarty


49 visitors