Living A Nightmare----How Long Can We Survive As A Rogue Nation
All rhetoric aside, this nation is in trouble. We seem to be inextricably divided into two opposing factions that can not or will not reach common ground on almost any issue. 51% of the nation believes that this President and his administration are rogue or illegal actors on both the international and national stage, while a fairly stable 44% of the population believes wholeheartedly that the President and his administration are heroes and heroines of American democracy.
What has happened is that provable facts are believed by only half of our populace. Facts do not have weight assigned to them. It has become de rigueur for individuals to say that there are facts for one side and alternative facts for the other. One of the things that we know is that in just over 1000 days of this administration, the President, by conservative estimates, has stated at least 8000 untruths. This is a number that has made America the laughing stock of the world.
As one of the 51% who believe that we live in what has become a rogue nation, facts matter. There is that which is provable and that which is a perversion of the truth. The question is "What are the provable facts that have set our country apart as a rogue nation? How do those facts affect this country's future?:
A) President Trump is an IMPEACHED chief executive. Whether there is a real or a sham trial in the Senate, President Trump will remain one of only three Presidents who have actually been impeached {Nixon was never impeached......he resigned from office prior to impeachment}. Nothing this President says or does will change the view of history about this President.
B) The two articles of impeachment had both indirect and direct evidence that supported the articles. This was a limited set of articles. Most (over 85% of legal scholars asked) believe that there could have easily been 2 to 5 more articles presented that had sufficient evidence of support.
C) Information from the Mueller report was presented as evidence and were considered relevant to, at least, the article dealing with abuse of power.
D) The President, for the first time in history, prohibited his highest level staff from testifying at the House hearings. This action, in itself, would be reason to call individuals such as Bolton and McElvaney to testify before the Senate. Over 70% of Americans support having these individuals testify.
E) The President has seriously eroded the principle that there are three co-equal branches of government. This executive branch has refused to share critical information with the legislative branch.
F} This president and his staff has forgotten that everything that is said is now on some type of video feed. You can no longer state that the comment was not made or was taken out of context when there are pieces of evidence that directly contradict follow up lies.
G} The evidence of a " Quid Pro Quo" has been stated by not only the President, but the Chief of Staff; and the President's envoy to the European Union and the Ambassador to the Ukraine. Those quotes don't lie.
The facts that will be recorded by history of these items and hundreds, if not thousands, of other facts that the Administration has lied about will be a damning indictment of both this President's domestic and foreign policy.
The bottom line is that this Administrations, lies, obstructions, and deceptions will ultimately be decided by the electorate in 10 short months. There is no doubt that both sides will be energized and active during the election cycle. We are entering a time where facts should count. We have to look at the facts, not the alternative realities that are out there. It is the only way that this nation will re-establish it's place as the premier nation in the world. We have to become what we have always been..... the ethical, the most honest, and the most caring nation in the world. The ball is in our court. If we hit the ball out of bounds, we might be finished as the greatest country in the history of the world,.
I am arguing the case for viewing our representatives on the basis of facts. I would appreciate a debate over factual information. What are the facts on the other side? How can those :"facts' be substantiated? How do we reclaim our allies and separate from those who have negative intentions toward the United States? Let's have a great debate.
In the larger scheme of things, nothing you say or write here has any relevance. Trump will not be removed from office and will be reelected overwhelmingly.
Why is it so difficult for some to understand that simple concept. The nation and its citizens, for the most part, are doing just fine and will vote accordingly.
There's still time for the left to be on the right side of history and begin doing the right thing. As it goes now, all their sore loser tantrums are destroying their party and alienating the electorate.
I wonder where you see an "overwhelming" victory for Trump coming from? The president is currently or potentially in trouble in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Arizona and even Texas. With any combination of these states going Democratic, the Trump campaign appears doomed. Right now the only state that went for Clinton in 2016 that might swing to the Trump camp is Minnesota. That is a long shot. Where do you see a road to victory for this president?
Some folks still can't shake the habit of underestimating Trump, even when he has proven many wrong before.
Maybe, maybe not,
The results of the Soleimani killing may be the factor that prevents him from being re-elected-- or even causes him not to seek re-election. (IMO many people are making th mistake of assuming Iranian revenge for the killing of one of their beloved military leaders is complete-- the harmless firing of a few missiles will not satisfy them..)
It ain't over 'till its over... (will there be more serious revenge by Iran? Only time will tell).
Nothing rude,!sweeping or no value in that insulting remark. Of course if a conservative had directed those very words at a secular progressive member they would have been deleted on sight.
Carrying every state he carried before and adding Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Virginia
Not even close to the mark. He just showed that he still had a set and that the US isn't going to be pushed around.
When all we have are "Words" of MANY others....and a "Media Source" for what is..... "Fact" ….. we are "Left"
, with nothing more than Opinion to rely on. 
Someone needs to "Play" 007 and infiltrate every area we need these actual "Facts" from. Even then....007's word will be questionable !
I assume you've given up on the idea that Trump colluded with the Russians and that the Mueller Report would prove it?
Welcome back.
1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.
2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.
3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.
4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.
5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.
6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected.
7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.
8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time.
9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails , which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.
10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases .
11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.
12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.
13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.
14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration.
Yep, I see nothing in those 14 points that even mentions Russia. /s
So zero evidence of any collusion then. Given all your bluster for years about Mueller was going to nail Trump for colluding etcetera, is pretty pathetic you had to resort to this little list of nothing.
You'd think listing an event AFTER the election to SET UP A BACK CHANNEL with Russia would alert even the dimmest bulb that no coordination was taking place PRIOR to the election, when collusion would be a crime.
I wonder you just didn't state Mueller's conclusion that no one from the Trump campaign coordinated or conspired to interfere in the election. I suppose it's Better, if you don't want to honestly admit how wrong you were, to just make a list to make it look something occurred and ignore Mueller's actual conclusion.
You should have just stopped there.
Specifically, what type of "facts" are you asking for?
Do you want actual "True facts"-- or are "alternative facts" acceptable?
(See the section of the video starting at about 1:28)
I seriously doubt if 44% of americans think Trump is a "hero". There arent that many stupid people in the country.
Some of that 44% will accept anything as long as their bank account goes up and not down.
Sooooo….. Making money isn't your first source for "Income" ?
Nice article by the way Doc Phil.
Really sad that his supporters don't see the reality in A).
In truth this depicts his supporters
Trump crucifiers:
LOL. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. It sits on my desk - the base houses a magnifying glass.
So one carefully watching, one carefully listening and one enjoying a cold beer. Sounds like most Democrats I know.
No, actually they're the antithesis of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil", i.e. "Look for Evil, Listen for Evil, Shout Evil" (using a megaphone).
can I be the beer one ?
LOL. There is no beer one, but I'm not going to stop you.
You seem to keep ignoring the fact that being impeached never seemed to bother Andrew Johnson or Bill Clinton that much, as both went on to successfully complete their terms of office. In the long run, impeachment turned out to be no big deal. Will most likely be the same for Trump when he is reelected.
Apparently there is some disagreement on that subject-- some people are pretty sure that he has not been impeached!
(See, for example, comment # 8. 2. 1. HERE)
Nice work, Doc. You've laid out your case succintly
Rogue actors have forced us to set up military check points at any major venue. Rogue actors have forced us to place security cameras on our front doors, use two factor authentication to protect our identity, and be cautious in public and at home. We must be careful what we say, how we behave, and what we do.
The United States is increasingly under attack by rogue actors every day. We are stuck in the conventional wisdom of a status quo that isn't working any longer. How long will the United States survive by not going rogue?
Donald Trump levels the playing field. We have our own rogue actor to confront the rogue actors attacking us. Trump is unpredictable. Rogue actors who depend upon the predictability of our status quo are at a disadvantage. Trump has demonstrated that chaos and unpredictability are effective counter measures against rogue actors who wish to attack us.
Defenders of conventional wisdom are alarmed by Trump and are at a loss how to respond to Trump. That should be sufficient evidence that going rogue is effective. For all his failings President Trump has not harmed the United States. What Trump has done brings the weaknesses and failings of conventional wisdom and the status quo into sharper focus.
Impeachment is a conventional response to unpredictability. Impeachment is what the status quo demands. But that impeachment will make the United States more vulnerable to attack by rogue actors. Removing Trump will make the United States more susceptible to threats because we will return to confronting those threats in a predictable manner. Like it or not, Trump's unpredictability has made the United States more secure.
Trump being president has caused the far left radicals who now control the Democrats, to go on public display as the party of unpatriotic goons and thugs who have lost all semblance of decency and morality, who wipe their asses with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and who no longer have any regard for presumption of innocence or due process..
I wouldn't characterize the left as unpatriotic. But its plainly obvious that the left has been engaged in conventional politics and expecting Trump to respond in a conventional manner.
Trump has been anything but conventional. That's why there has been a note of desperation in the left's political squealing. The biggest concern voiced by the left is that President Trump has not been playing by conventional rules. Republicans have been caught off balance by Trump, too. But Republicans have finally given up and are just going with the flow.
Whatever Trump is doing, it seems to be working.
Are you attempting to be Oxymoronic on purpose ?
The United States is increasingly under attack by rogue actors every day.
I love "rogue actors"!
My favourite rogue actor is Jack Nicholson-- who's yours?
Trump is universally viewed as a worse threat to world peace and stability than are Bashar Assad, the Ayatollah or even Kim Jong ill. Our allies are appalled. Our enemies are emboldened. Our people are more divided than ever. The Civil War did not destroy our sacred Union butt Donald Trump just may. This is why that awful man must be convicted by the Senate. He is a want to be tyrant, would be dictator and an imminent threat to Democracy. Sadly, I am not exaggerating...
Nope. They are all scared shitless of what he MIGHT do. And I like that in a leader. Keep 'em guessing. It makes them think before they act.
That would be the American 'reich', I mean, 'right'
That’s for sure. Those people hate Trump so much they defend Iran and terrorists against America because Trump...
Kim Jung was a threat because the N Koreans had nukes. But he is no longer a threat as he is going to give them up. (I know that's true because Trump said so...and he would never lie)
The only ones upset with Trump, are the ones that have a "Love Affair" with the status quo !
By the way....the "Status Quo" gave us Trump.
Trump doesn't do "Status Quo". The same "Status Quo" that has gotten us "Trouble" for decades ! If the "Status Quo" was so GREAT, No one would be wanting "Change" from Trump …. bucking the "Status Quo" !
It's really that SIMPLE !
I agree that Trump doesn't do "status quo".....what he does do is demonstrate on almost a daily basis that he is incapable of governing. He allies himself {not our country} with despots from nations that have been, and continue to be rogue nations who are looking to destroy the United States {Russia, North Korea, Syria, China [at times], etc.} and ruins our relationships with long standing allies {France, Germany, Canada, Great Britain, etc.}. Domestically, he has all but destroyed the regulations that were designed to help slow down climate change. He has aided and abetted white supremacists in increasing hate crimes in this country. He has forcibly separated children from their parents at the border and have been slow or unable to reunite these families. His much ballyhooed tax reforms have benefitted the rich over the vast majority of Americans. This is not changing the status quo, it is sowing the seeds for destruction of our great nation.
This is a man who lies even when the truth would better serve him. He has shown the most misdirected moral compass in the history of the United States government.
I do agree that the status quo has to be challenged and changed. The reality, however, is that Trump and his administration are not the ones who should be leading the changes to the status quo. Whoever that person is, he/she has to lead with all of the American people in mind, not just the few who have decided to lie prostrate on the ground, worshipping a "beloved leader" who is neither beloved or a leader.
He "Talks" with Enemies, instead of "Ignoring" them like has gone on from past Elected Officials" for decades. If you don't talk with them, your just "Guessing" on what they'll do next.
As far as our so-called "Allies" go, they've been "USING" this country for their gains, for a long time. Trump is making them "Step up" at their costs for a "Change !
Look at what Justin Trudeau just said about the U.S./China Agreement Trump has been workingon. He wants Trump to not sign it unless he get's (2) Canadians out of a Chinese Jail first.
What the Hell has Justin Trudeau been doing to get "HIS" Citizens back ??
Trump is also making "OUR" elected officials live up to what they've "Promised", by doing EXACTLY what they've ONLY been talking about doing for decades, for votes. When he does what he promised, which coincides with what they've been promising, all of a sudden, Trumps a BAD MAN !
Trump doesn't NEED this job. The others DO !
Trump has figured out our "Allies" !
Sort of like Trump uses our allies towards his own personal ends. For example, attempting to get the leader of the Ukraine to investigate one of Trump's political opponents (Joe Biden).
(Although as I'm sure you'll agree-- there's actually nothing nwrong with using our allies like that, eh?)
Is that what actually …..... happened ?
In case you still want to forget
...." Biden ", isn't Trumps "Political Opponent" . He's Sanders, Warrens and all the other Democrat Wannabe Presidents Opponent ! 
Utter nonsense. Trump and Biden are running for the SAME OFFICE. There isnt a Republican president and a Democratic president, there is one president. All the candidates are each others opponents. If Biden is not an election opponent of Trump's, why does Trump talk about him so much?
"Biden" is running against his own party, in order to be able to run against Trump for President.
Biden hasn't reached that "Pedestal" you put "Biden" on yet.
I dont care how many times you deny reality, perhaps that is your personal specialty. People who are running for the same office are political opponents. Hence they criticize one another across party lines.
"Biden" isn't running for President. He's running for the "Privilege" to run for President.
Did "Biden" win the Democrat nomination already ?
When Donald Trump announced his candidacy in 2015, he said "I am running for president of the United States", he didnt say I am running for president of the Republican Party.
You dont have a case ace.
Aaaaaaahhhhhh …. The "Reach Across the Aisle CRAP !
Democrats only want "The other Side" to do the reaching. When Pressed for them to do it....It's a "Security Risk" that they can't partake in.
Ever notice when some republicans speak, it is, "our" agenda or "our" people.
They are not fooling anyone with that kind of speak.
Interesting !
So...… Biden DID get the nomination to run against Trump for President ?????
When One is known to ONLY have Bluffs and distractions
on their side, I'll take that offer any day. I'm in for a mil.. You ?
So...… Biden DID get the nomination to run against Trump for President ?????
I'm ALL IN !
So...… Biden is the nominee to run against Trump for President ?????
If tRump didn't have this job, how else would he be looting and raping and pillaging the treasury (along with his corrupt administration) as fast as his fat little fingers allow?
Trump has never had a problem with looting, pillaging and raping.
This is how he has spent his life.
Please list what he has taken from the US Treasury.
It might be helpful if you could describe how he did it, too!
Does Trump have any rape convictions? Ever even been criminally charged with rape? Do cite, please.
Be exact in how he is doing that.
I expect nothing but crickets...
Let's not be crickets.....He has violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution more times than can be counted. That clause was specifically written so that those in the highest level of government do not personally enrich themselves through their office. When he benefits from foreign dignitaries staying at his properties, charges the federal government for the rooms and meals at his resorts for the entire government entourage that follows him, when he doesn't place his companies in blind trusts so as not to benefit himself and family, the President is participating in the generation of corruption and illegal gains that the emoluments clause was designed to prevent.
This president and his cabinet level staff have effectively eviscerated the regulations that were preventing those in charge of agencies from profiting from their pre-government jobs. That is corruption on a scale that has rarely been seen in this country.
There have been more scandals and prison terms {as well as indictments} in the first three years of the Trump administration than in any two term president's entire tenure. If Trump's goal was to drain the swamp and replace it with a quagmire of quicksand, he has succeeded admirably. This administration has brought new meaning to the old adage....."never steal anything small". The Trump administration will forever be looked upon, in the eyes of historians, as the single most corrupt, incompetent and evil administration in the entire history of this great nation. Not a sobriquet that any true patriot would want.
blind
Let's take this one at a time...
First, you made claims of emoluments violations, but showed no proof. Maybe you can do that.
Second...Which of these cabinet members, besides Flynn, has been convicted of anything while in the Trump administration. Even the FBI agents tat interviewed Flynn said he was not lying. The prosecutors are now asking for up to 6 months, but he probably won't get anything near that. Not a big deal.
Now, let's wait and see how many of the Obama admin get prosecuted by Durham for something they did during his reign. I think you will be singing a different tune then.
I understand that it is not within you to admit it, as Trump hatred is known to blind many, but this President will go down in history as one of the best.
How would you know? He won't show his taxes.
The president is required to file a disclosure form at the end of each year, which I believe is a public form. Before becoming president, no requirement to show anything. More importantly, who cares if he made income off his properties before he became president? That is capitalism and what every business owner wants to do.
If you can find the disclosure form for 2017 or 2018 (2019 probably not done yet), show us where on the form where it requires "money made from properties".
isn't it rather funny how all the internet CPAs and tax professionals think that IF only THEY could look at Trump's tax returns, they would find all sorts of nefarious things?
So he did make money then....
I think it is funny that you think they would show nothing. If they show nothing, what is he afraid of?
Asked about ProPublica’s findings that the president’s company made itself appear more profitable to lenders and less to tax officials, Bill de Blasio said the city had examined the matter and sent its findings to the Manhattan district attorney.
I didn't write that--those are YOUR words. Please don't attribute YOUR thought as mine.
Trump has been audited. I feel very confident that had his taxes showed something worthwhile for the silly, hysterical left to get worked up over, it would have been leaked LONG ago.
Even little Rachel Maddow and her HUGE "scoop" couldn't nail the President for ONE thing in his taxes.
I love how people type out something then complain when people ask about it.
Not your words?
According to your words, people would find nothing. So don't tell me I am putting words in your mouth that you typed out...
I say they would show a little more than that. Funny that he seems to have been being audited for several years...
The words in bold are certainly mine. I never denied them. I am sorry English seems to be difficult to understand.
Again, sorry about English being difficult. Not what I stated--clearly.
People who are not tax professionals or CPAs could probably find absolutely NOTHING in Trump's taxes that the IRS missed.
But you never can say WHAT exactly you think they will show. Why is that?
If one is at all familiar with IRS audits, one realizes that many people who get audited once get audited more times. Standard fare.
So saying they would show nothing and saying people would find nothing are not the same thing?
Talk about a twist...
What I think they would show is exactly how much he made. How much he paid in taxes...
I complain about his so called audit as all we have on it is his own word. He cannot tell the truth to save his life, so forgive me for not believing him on being audited for four years...
Sigh. Once again, not what was stated by me. Reread it if necessary.
Yes, you seem to have knack for it.
Why, very good! And how would you being able to see his returns change any of that?
Sounds like a personal problem which you should seek to resolve on your own.
So saying it would show nothing is not saying it would show nothing but saying some people would find nothing....
Shake it up baby now....twist and shout...
Oh, FFS.
ONCE AGAIN, not what I wrote.
Don't be intellectually dishonest and flat-out lazy, QUOTE ME WRITING THAT OR STOP PUSHING THAT LIE.
Sing your little fitty to someone who gives a damn---and maybe someone you don't misquote, or make stuff up about.
What is intellectually dishonest is not owning what one says.
So what did you mean actually, when you said some people would find nothing?
If some people would find nothing that would mean that they showed nothing would it not?
You don't give a damn yet can't stop responding can you....
Already dealt with that bit of tripe in post 9.2.13.
Oh, FFS. You are STILL doing that crap. I don't write that. Look at my posts. Quote me writing that.
Here is what I actually wrote--not what you think I wrote or what you wish I had written:
read it CAREFULLY, and then quote me writing what you claim.
At least be honest enough to argue what I wrote. I get that it is FAR easier to attribute words to others and then argue like they said it, but is lazy and dishonest.
If that is all you want to do--argue stuff I don't say, then you don't need me to participate at all in your one-way discussion.
I give a damn when people outright lie about what I have written.
Sometimes I don't give a damn what their opinion is--especially when they lie about me or what I say.
So they think they will find nefarious things? You are implying they will not. That they will find nothing.
Doubling down does not change intent.
You can look up his disclosures to find out. It is 88 pages long (2018). Never mind. I did the research for you. If you see something that says " government money given directly to Trump properties", let us know.
Otherwise, the entirety of the document is legal.
BTW...wouldn't you think the Obama admin IRS would have leaked his tax returns if there was something there that could hurt him? I do....and they didn't.
You are getting nowhere with this one. They like to try and bait you into saying something so they can throw that flag and get you a ticket.
Pretty funny you seem to think that people who are not CPAs or tax professionals will somehow find things the IRS, with trained agents going over everything intensely, missed.
But hey, if that's your world--where unbelievable things happen routinely, so be it.
I'll just stay here in the real world.
That doesn't bother me.
Lying about what is written plainly in their faces does, though. Especially when someone attempts to argue what they CLAIM I wrote.
No one mentioned the government giving his properties money. Wally said he has not gained a cent since becoming president. I said yes he is making money.
That you actually think Obama would leak his taxes says all I need to know.
He is under investigation in NY for falsifying records. So yes, the real world can be a bitch.
You actually admitted what I claimed.
Says the guy that never presents facts.
You demonstrate a real talent for posting unverified facts.
Quote me. You couldn't before, and you can't now.
Just stop, you are beginning to embarrass yourself. Well, maybe not, but I am embarrassed for you.
Now you are simply being a goalpost mover. You and I, and everybody else, knows that when a leftist claims Trump is making money while he is in office, they are insinuating he is violating the emolument clause.
I have never heard a liberal say that yes, he is making money, and it is all legal.
That you actually think Obama would leak his taxes says all I need to know.
Now you are putting words in MY mouth. I never said Obama would leak his returns, I said his IRS would have. There is such a hatred of conservatives during the Obama regime in the IRS, starting at the director at the time and the one that came after.
He is under investigation for alot of stuff, simply because the left hates him and they still cannot get over the fact that he beat Hilary.
Can you tell us that with all of these investigations going on, which one has filed charges against him or has found him guilty of something.
Wait...I'll do it for you...
None of them.
And? Any convictions? You know--in the real world?
The new conservative meme. You are putting words in my mouth....
I have seen that a lot lately. Seems to be the thing when questioned or challenged.
I am not the one that moved the goalpost. Again, Wally said he didn't make any money and I objected to that statement. You are moving the goalpost by first claiming some kind of government money then bringing up emoluments clause, when no one else did, then turn around and bring in the IRS.
How can there be a conviction when it was just handed over to the DA.
There is that 'under investigation' thing there...
Wrong again. Look at 9.2.1. That will answer all of your confusion.
And BTW....who cares that he is making money while in office. As long as it is done legally, no one (liberals) should be whining about it.
Then maybe, just maybe...you are doing alot of it.
Wouldn't have necessarily been Obama himself. Probably one of his minions would have--IF there was anything to actually see.
Of course, I am sure there are plenty of naïve people who think that something so negative about the man they love to hate would never, ever, ever be leaked.
.
We already know for a fact that the IRS, under Obama, wasn't too reluctant to do anything underhanded.
And Harry Reid had an insider in the IRS. Don't you remember him claiming Romney paid no taxes? Whoops--never mind that--it was proven that Harry LIED. But it damn sure didn't stop him from repeating the lie.
Statement from Wally.
I am not wrong as he has made money.
I don't care if he makes money, what I care about is foreign nationals staying at his hotels to curry favor and maybe meetings. Sounds like pay for play.
Maybe, just maybe, it is just a call to get people off their backs. Say something then claim something else...
So it is an investigation.
B.F.D.
The cops could start an investigation into YOU, but that wouldn;t mean you are guilty of anything.
So Reid can't lie, it is horrible yet trump can lie and it is just fine?
We both know if the IRS had leaked anything there would be an investigation and criminal charges.
If I was under investigation for defrauding the city and state, you are damn right I would be worried. Of course I wouldn't devalue or over value things for loans and taxes.
Again, if there was something in his tax returns for 2017 and 2018 that showed Trump did something wrong, a Trump hater in the IRS, and there are probably many, would have leaked the returns.
Also, there are liberal Trump hating "journalists" following Trump, his every move and EVERYTHING going on at his properties. If a foreign national stayed at one of his properties, then got a meeting with the president, these Trump haters would have jumped on it in 2 seconds flat, and rightfully so.
To not have a Trump hating journalist report something like that, then everything must be on the up and up.
And there have been neither.
You THINK you know that. Don't speak for me. The IRS conducted itself in a manner contrary to what it should have, and I don't recall any criminal charges when they were investigated for targeting conservative groups.
Did you feel the same way when Russia paid Clinton loads of money while his wife was S of S? Or when folks made donations to the Clinton Foundation?
Reid lied to affect a presidential election. He colluded with the Obama campaign.
Someone would have to be an idiot to risk losing their job, pension, clearance and go to jail for that. I don't see it happening and believe me there are plenty of people still employed there that don't like him.
And people lied about Hillary to impact a presidential election.
So you don't think there would be charges against anyone leaking tax returns? If that was the case I would say even the republicans would be lying down on the job.
No matter what is said, I have never been a fan of the Clinton's yet if there was wrong doing in their charity, seems to me the republicans would have done something about it.
As much as they investigated her for everything else.
So members of the IRS would risk all that to target conservative groups, but not to expose the man they love to hate?
That can't be believable even to you.
That may be true for any normal person, but we are talking about TDS afflicted people here.
Maybe Schiff could have given them whistleblower protection and we would never had known who it was s/
only if they were caught--and depending on whose returns were leaked, and which Administration was in charge.
I didn't claim anything wrong with Clinton's charity. What I specifically asked you was this:
AFTER you wrote THIS:
See how that works now? I QUOTED you and then asked a specific question based on your post--you know, what you actually wrote.
There was also settlements made and an apology from the IRS. I doubt they would risk such things again. It would be dealt with swiftly.
@9.2.62
Gee, were Democrats in Congress not privy to your little treasure-trove of information? Is that why they failed to impeach him on that, after almost 3 years in office?
Or did they know of your claims and dismiss them as unprovable hogwash?
This story is from July 2019. I can assure you that if there was something to it, every lawyer afflicted with TDS would have been all over it.
Obviously there is nothing there, or this would have been part of the impeachment inquiry. The TDS afflicted in Congress couldn't even bring themselves to invent a charge for this lie they did the other 2 articles.
But no one was disciplined. That gives the TDS afflicted the OK to try again if they could.
Actually I don't like the Clinton's and I had concerns about the charity.
I think any charity can be used in the wrong way. That is why I only give to St Jude's.
Settlements and an apology?
That can't possibly be accurate--based on how many Democrats have insisted over the years that the IRS did nothing wrong.
Do governmental agencies routinely aplogize and make pay outs for doing nothing wrong?
I think scrutiny is somewhat keeping it in check.
Imo most of the 501c's should be looked at. Way to many of them and with the easing of restrictions on politics, is not a good thing.
It seems anyone can open a tax free charity, with over 400 groups involved.
There is too much money in politics now and now it can be tax free.
Duplicate, sorry.
Spectacularly unresponsive to what I asked.
Here it is again if you care to try again.
Did you feel the same way when Russia paid Clinton loads of money while his wife was S of S? Or when folks made donations to the Clinton Foundation?
From what I gather it was not the Russian government that gave to her foundation.
They are. Lois Lerner explained that.
Pretty much--and in accordance with law.
What in hell?
I never mentioned Hillary and the uranium deal. Holy deflection, Batman!
Possibly not directly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation–State_Department_controversy
I posted that because that is where most of the controversy comes from. The fact is that most of the money given to her foundation was from one man in Russia.
I do agree with you though as most Russian oligarchs have government ties.
Did you feel the same way when Russia paid Clinton loads of money while his wife was S of S? Or when folks made donations to the Clinton Foundation?
Not the same thing imo. Bill was paid to speak in Russia as well as Japan, the Netherlands, Austria, the UAE, China, Austria (again), Hong Kong, Nigeria, Italy....
It is not like he only had an event in Russia.
And she was not the president.
I am sorry you can;t seem to answer such a simple question.
A simple answer is it bothers me as much as trump jr getting paid for speeches, which I have never complained about.
Sounds more like you only care about pay-for-play if you think it involves Donald Trump.
If you think Bill getting paid for a speech is pay for play then it would be the same with trump jr.
What office is he running for?
Last I heard neither Bill nor jr were running for office...
So the question makes no sense.
Once AGAIN (SIGH*) you didn't read carefully. I never said one word about what I thought. I asked YOU what YOU thought.
Do you think it is even a possibility that someone MAY have paid Bill for a speech in order to gain access to his wife? Look--you brought up pay for play. I want to know what you consider pay for play, and what facts you may have regarding what YOU consider pay for play, especially in regards to the Trump Administration. Because it appears you may have different standards according to who is doing it.
Now who is reading things that are not there?
I answered your question and you change the goal line.
Your lack of understanding written words isn't my problem. Have a nice night.
I understand gas-lighting just fine. Some are very good at it.
Your confession is good for your soul.
it started with "bitter clingers and "bible thumpers, "tea baggers and such.
it will end with the demise of the lunatic left.
anything else on your mind?
mocking morons is as old as humanity itself.
Well, now we know why we keep most of the libs around here.