Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

[Animavore]

Like with every other criminal that reached the post, give him an unstated pardon and forget about the whole matter.

Nixon was given a stated pardon by his successor, Ford.

[Svartalf]

Nixon managed to be pushed into resignating, he's the exception that embodies the rule.
If frump finishes his term without being pushed out, my guess is he won't face any trials for whatever he did during his presidency, or during his campaign.

[Tero]

I think he is going to finish with an ankle monitor while he is in the white house.

[Forty Two]

Nixon managed to be pushed into resignating, he's the exception that embodies the rule.
If frump finishes his term without being pushed out, my guess is he won't face any trials for whatever he did during his presidency, or during his campaign.

What's the charge, again?

Section 102.7(k) - a little known provision called "Being President While Trump."

[Cunt]

'ANY time now'...'it's imminent'!

Like the second coming, this impeachment lol

[Tero]

Conspiracy. It’s always conspiracy. This collusion word crept innthe news just before 2016 election. It is not a legal term.

As soon as they know who paid whom, the case is ready. Quid pro quo counts.

[Cunt]

Conspiracy. It’s always conspiracy. This collusion word crept innthe news just before 2016 election. It is not a legal term.

As soon as they know who paid whom, the case is ready. Quid pro quo counts.

Why don't you have a go at predicting the impeachment date?

Then predict the second coming.

We'll start a pool to see which you get closer.

[Tero]

Impeachment 2020 fall, right in the middle of Trump 2020. Campaign.

[Cunt]

Date? And the date for the second event?

[Tero]

No date. Still taking 5 dollar bets that Nikki Haley is the Republican candidate in 2020. How the Trump votes turn to Haley votes is for the ballot tampering Republicans to decide.

[Cunt]

so only willing to bet on half...ok.

On what grounds do you expect Trump to be impeached? Being a meanie to ladies? Scowling at media personalities? Laughing at Chuck Shumer?

[Tero]

Conspiracy. Our ideal situation is for Pence, side kick of Crooked Trump, who ”knew nothing,” to be president 2 months before election day.

[Joe]

Here we go
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... reddit.com
The dirt will come out.

Oh, that's hilarious! They want his tax returns? LOL.

Everyone is familiar with the 1040 and Schedules, right? What "dirt" do you think is in there?

Has it ever occurred to you that politicians gave out their tax returns no problem because there really isn't anything anyone can tell from them? I mean, fuck, how naive are people? You'd be able to tell how much gross and adjusted income/taxable income Trump declared, and you'd see a schedule of businesses from which he drew income. But there is no way to audit or examine those returns without the 18,000,000 pages of receipts and bank account statements and general forensic accounting that the IRS has to do when they audit a return.

This is just a political ploy by Pelosi et al - they stuck their fingers in the air and judged that Democrats think Trump should release his tax returns, and get all giddy at the prospect, so they are making a pointless effort to get his tax returns to rally the base.

So, if there isn't much anyone can tell from them, why does Trump not want to release them? Easy - because his INDIVIDUAL tax returns minimize income, so as to pay the least amount of tax, and if folks see them, then they will question whether he is "really" a billionaire, etc. And, they will not know how to read them, or how to verify the numbers, and you'll get article after article by numb-nut and politically partisan journalists writing hit pieces based on half-understandings of the tax system.

You seem to be arguing against yourself here. How can getting Trump's returns out in public be a pointless effort when you've accurately described how they can be used as a political weapon in the run up to the 2020 election`?

As I mentioned, because the weapon used is a misreading of the returns, a misunderstanding of the tax system, and politically partisan unwarranted conclusions drawn from too little information that would be deliberately misconstrued.

True, but so what? Political weapons can be complete bullshit and still be effective if the media pick up the narrative an perpetuate it. Do you really think the Dems would forego the opportunity to misrepresent Trump's tax returns? If so, you have a higher opinion of them than I do.

As for whether we can learn anything useful from Trump's returns, we'll probably have to wait for Mueller's report. As a former US Attorney recently pointed out:

"The first thing that white collar prosecutors do . . . is you get tax returns and you get credit reports," he said, adding "it's easy to do."

Which has nothing to do with Russia. And, yes, that is what they do.

You mean you think it has nothing to do with Russia. You got no proof, do ya?

"You get tax returns with an order from a federal judge – you get credit reports with a grand jury subpoena – because those are the documents that give you leads," he said.

"They tell you where the money is coming from. They tell you where the money is going, and they tell you who to talk to get more leads. So, does Mueller have Trump's tax returns? You bet."

That seems like a prudent approach, and one that would be as useful for congressional committee investigators as for a special prosecutor.

Perhaps not such a pointless effort or mere political ploy, eh?

Might nail him on a tax issue, for sure. That would be damning.

Taxes? Hardly damning, but as Rosenberg said, you get leads and contacts to get more leads and makes getting Trump's returns more than just the political ploy you described. Releasing them to the public, yeah that's pure politics and a terrible precedent, but getting them to start an investigation, that's just due diligence.

[L'Emmerdeur]

The jury acquitted Edwards, but the judge in the case ruled on the issue of payoffs, and it doesn't support the Trump team's attempt to use the 'irrespective test.' From a recent Washington Post piece:

Edwards repeatedly argued that the payments were not campaign contributions because they were not made exclusively to further his campaign. The judge rejected this argument as a matter of law, ruling that a payment to a candidate’s extramarital sexual partner is a campaign contribution if “one of” the reasons the payment is made is to influence the election.

Giuliani on television Sunday seemed very sure of himself, but what he said is problematic in light of the above:

Giuliani tried to claim that, as long as the payments were made for a reason other than the campaign, then they wouldn't run afoul of election law.

"If there’s another purpose, it’s no longer a campaign contribution — if there’s a personal purpose," said Giuliani.

But [Washington Post reporter Aaron] Blake explained why this is wrong:

The law does not say that a campaign finance violation exists only if the “sole purpose” of it is to affect a campaign. In fact, it says a contribution is “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” This definition doesn’t carve out exceptions for things that were also for personal purposes (indeed, if that were the case, basically nothing would qualify). Instead, it says anything with a campaign benefit is a contribution.

So clearly, Giuliani doesn't understand the law in question. But even worse, his comments appear to be an admission that helping the campaign was a clear purpose of the payment.

When, during his ABC New interview, George Stephanopoulos said that the AMI payment to Karen McDougal would be "clearly illegal" as a campaign contribution, Giuliani said, "No, it would not be."

He continued: "It's not a contribution. It's not a contribution if it's intended for a purpose in addition to the campaign purpose."

This would seem to be a clear admission that the AMI payment was made, at least in part, for a campaign purpose. Since Giuliani is wrong that any additional purpose excludes the payment from being a campaign contribution, it seems nearly certain that he just admitted his client broke the law.

[source]

[Forty Two]

True, but so what? Political weapons can be complete bullshit and still be effective if the media pick up the narrative an perpetuate it.

Yes, like the Russia narrative. And that is the "so what?" -- taking an irrelevancy and making it a scandal. It'd be like "we've analyzed his tax returns, and we can't tell if it's accurate, so that justifies an investigation and prosecution to find out...." over....and over... and over ... and over... again and again and again... the drumbeat.

When the media hears an allegation against someone they support, they say "so and so is accused without evidence." When they talk about Trump, any allegation must be investigated because we don't know if there is evidence until we investigate.

Do you really think the Dems would forego the opportunity to misrepresent Trump's tax returns? If so, you have a higher opinion of them than I do.

They would absolutely misrepresent them. They misrepresent his food and beverages, for crying out loud. If you listen to them, he's just an insane, but stupid, Nazi who sits in his bed eating cheeseburger, has absolutely no interest in anything anyone has to say, doesn't care about the country (especially the poor) and is just out to enrich himself.

As for whether we can learn anything useful from Trump's returns, we'll probably have to wait for Mueller's report. As a former US Attorney recently pointed out:

"The first thing that white collar prosecutors do . . . is you get tax returns and you get credit reports," he said, adding "it's easy to do."

Which has nothing to do with Russia. And, yes, that is what they do.

You mean you think it has nothing to do with Russia. You got no proof, do ya?

His tax returns have something to do with Russia meddling in the election? The proof I have are the words and blank spaces on the tax forms. For there to be something to do with Russia, he'd have to be declaring income from some sort of Russian front organization. I think it's safe to say that if Trump earned income from a Russian front organization, that information would be revealed already from sources other than his return.

Also, usually we need some evidence in order to take an accusation seriously. When Trump said Trump Tower was bugged, the media immediately retorted "Trump says WITHOUT EVIDENCE...." -- well, they didn't have proof otherwise, did they? And, they don't seem to need proof to make accusations against Trump. They say that the lack of evidence means they just need more investigations to see if there is any.

I don't have proof there is no God, either.

"You get tax returns with an order from a federal judge – you get credit reports with a grand jury subpoena – because those are the documents that give you leads," he said.

"They tell you where the money is coming from. They tell you where the money is going, and they tell you who to talk to get more leads. So, does Mueller have Trump's tax returns? You bet."

That seems like a prudent approach, and one that would be as useful for congressional committee investigators as for a special prosecutor.

Perhaps not such a pointless effort or mere political ploy, eh?

Might nail him on a tax issue, for sure. That would be damning.

Taxes? Hardly damning, but as Rosenberg said, you get leads and contacts to get more leads and makes getting Trump's returns more than just the political ploy you described. Releasing them to the public, yeah that's pure politics and a terrible precedent, but getting them to start an investigation, that's just due diligence.

Only, you really don't. Trump's accountants sign the returns, and their information is already known. His business entities are far more openly known about through sources other than the tax returns. There are public records that set forth his corporations. What are you going to find out? Who he received his individual income from, which is already known.

His returns, also have been audited every year for many years. The IRS has already had a microscope up his financial ass.

And, given the lack of respect for privacy and security laws, I think we can all safely assume that Mueller has already received copies of the returns. And, the leaks from Adam Schiff and the rest of the Democrat machine wouldn't let something significant go un-released.

If the Mueller investigation, moreover, is down to an investigation of campaign finance missteps and tax returns -- well, Trump really must be rather clean.

The political dissident, linguist, and professor Noam Chomsky says the rest of the world thinks the U.S. media's Trump-Russia collusion allegation is a "joke" given the history of the U.S. in the last 135 years, and that if we are worried about foreign interference, Israel already influences more of American politics than Russia could ever hope to, in this interview with Democracy Now!

"Take, say, the huge issue of interference in our pristine elections. Did the Russians interfere in our elections? An issue of overwhelming concern in the media. I mean, in most of the world, that’s almost a joke."

"First of all, if you’re interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support,” he said.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... ssues.html