What Do Trump's Taxes Show?
I am not going down the rabbit hole of whether the House Democrats releasing some of his taxes is legal or not - just know that it is. Is it ethical? In my opinion it is because they are exposing a probable crime of a former president, and it is no more unethical that the Republican's persecution of Hunter Biden.
Unlike all modern presidents before him, Donald Trump refused to release his taxes as he was running for President. Now we know why. They contain evidence of potential criminal tax fraud!
For example, he has over 400 shell companies that feed into his Schedule C. Odd, but nothing wrong with that until you learn that for a period of years many of those companies reported zero income but lots of expenses. If it happened once for one company, no harm, no foul. But happening for several years over many companies, that is a Major red flag of criminal activity.
Another Red Flag of criminal activity is Trump's use of some easements as a charitable contribution. Once the Trump IRS was forced to audit his returns, they determined the tens of millions of dollars in deductions for this "charitable" contribution, over multiple years, is patently illegal.
What else will Americans learn about their former president's financial crimes?Happy holidays, Eso.
So, what else is new? Dishonesty has been and remains at the foundation of his very existence. His supporters, instead of being repulsed by this, have a secret admiration of his ability to game the system.
Rather than tax avoidance, he is engaged in full fledged tax evasion.
When I was a kid, the President of the United States set the example for what it meant to be a good citizen, no longer....Happy holidays to you as well. It is 30 here, is it warmer further South?
"His supporters, instead of being repulsed by this, have a secret admiration of his ability to game the system." - What makes me the sickest about that statement is that we are talking about 70+ million so-called Americans.
I would not be unhappy if these people chose to switch places with those trying to get into America who would respect and honor our Constitution instead of piss all over it as MAGA is doing.Eso, was about 40-45 degrees about the time you asked the question here in central Florida and I am freezing my butt off.
In my 8 years in the area, this is a cold as I have seen it.
The rule of thumb is we are 10 degrees warmer than Jacksonville and 10 degrees colder than Miami on days like this.Lots of ice sculptures popped up overnight, some quite pretty. My stepson is trying to create snow by spraying water from the top of a tree out into the yard. Right now, it is too warm. We will see when it gets below freezing again tonight. At the moment, he just has a sheet of ice laying on his dirt lawn.
70 million Americans might be interested in facts, and willing to await facts before HANGING A MAN high... This in my view is far more repulsive ...
Also, I started doing an annual comparison of the six years of returns they released.
On the face of it, you can easily tell something fishy is going on that needs a deep dive by the IRS. For example, six years of huge losses (carry-forward of an almost billion dollar loss in 1985). That could be legit under special rules that Real Estate professionals get they normal businesses do not. Or, he could have played with the numbers as he is known (and now proven) to do. That original billion dollar loss needs to be examined closely.
It also appears that he ran out of the loss carry-forward in 2017,You know what continues to irritate me about conservatives?
They seem to have "no doubt" regarding the veracity of Trumps claims of a fraudulent election, against EVERY plausible source saying otherwise.
Yet, with Trump's coincidental involvement in so much wrong doing as can be witnessed by anyone with two eyes, somehow we now have no definitive evidence of his wrongdoing. A leader should not even give the appearance that he or she skirts the letter or the spirit of the law. Previous Presidents offered tax returns as evidence that they comply with the law as a prerequisite for the nation's chief law enforcement authority. So, what was there to hide? Why do conservatives believe that he Trump is to be an exception, and why we would not suspect dishonesty in his choice?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/06/politics … index.html
Are we supposed to believe that Trump was so unaware of the practices of an organization in which he is in charge?Which, of course, makes him unfit for office as well.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/15/politics … index.html
Case in point, his hands are consistently dirty.....
"You know what continues to irritate me about conservatives?
They seem to have "no doubt" regarding the veracity of Trumps claims of a fraudulent election, against EVERY plausible source saying otherwise."
Your grouping --- This is something conservatives don't really like to do or understand this form of reasoning.Happy New Year to you as well, Sharlee.
If conservatives do not reason this way, where is the oxygen coming from that keep this "Great Lie" idea in play throughout the entire GOP for so long?Do you not feel the midterms spoke to what Conservatives in general are thinking? There certainly was no sweep, even though a victory. I think the party has been well split at this point. This is why I say it is not necessarily true to put all in one group, they are n odd bunch, and very much stand as individuals. They don't as a rule stick together as a group.
I wish you and yours a Happy New Year.
Actually, studies clearly show that conservatives (or far left liberals) have a high propensity to group-think. Conservatives feel often look for validation from other conservatives (more so than liberals do).
See https://theauthoritarians.org/ or
https://verdict.justia.com/2017/07/07/a … supporters or
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ … story.html or
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … anism_1981
And here we see just why it is so unethical for publish private papers such as tax returns.
"they are exposing a probable crime"
"evidence of potential criminal tax fraud!"
" that is a Major red flag of criminal activity" (but no evidence)
"Another Red Flag of criminal activity"
"What else will Americans learn about their former president's financial crimes?"
Well, all we've learned so far is that you think there is a possibility of a crime. Something that you have made clear over and over and over, without the need to expose his tax returns to public derision.
On the other hand, we have Credence's comment that "he is engaged in full fledged tax evasion.", presumably from your posts of a potential crime (Credence has no more real evidence than you do).
So...yet another political stunt to discredit a political opponent without the need for any real, hard evidence. And you jumped right into the trap with both feet, ignoring any ethical concerns or truth out of the hatred for Trump.
(Has congress ever, at any time, released private tax information into the public domain against the will of the individual? I can't think of any, but here we are, with Democrats once more ignoring any ethics that they might have buried deep within their souls...if they have that either.)
Just a thought, but isn't this very much like forcing a person to testify against themselves? We force a tax return, then make it public so Trump is effectively testifying against himself. I would ask how that works, but it is another Democrat ploy, and we all know how those work.I still don't see why it is unethical. America needs to know what sort of criminal they elected.
If his tax returns were on the up and up, why is exposing them a "public derision"? It's like publishing the name of a bank robber who hasn't been convicted yet.
"We force a tax return, then make it public so Trump is effectively testifying against himself. " - Nope, that doesn't work. Tax returns are used by prosecutors all the time. Further, the law allows Congress to publish them when the circumstances warrant them, as they do now. If a former President hadn't cheated, they wouldn't have been published.
"Has congress ever, at any time, r..." - Yes, but first -
In the definitive scholarly treatment of Section 6103(f), longtime University of Virginia law professor George Yin, who served as chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation from 2003 to 2005, concludes that the choice to allow the three tax committees to publish private tax information was a “conscious decision” by Congress. Prior to 1976, Yin explains, the president—along with the three congressional tax committees—had statutory authority to make return information public. A 1976 amendment eliminated the president’s authority to publicize return information but preserved the power of the three tax committees. “Congress no doubt felt compelled in 1976 to preserve some outlet for Congressional disclosures to the public,” Yin writes, and it “was natural to give this authority to the tax committees.”
https://www.lawfareblog.com/house-democ … hould-they
Now has Congress ever invoked Section Congress 6103 to get Presidential records? No, they DIDN'T NEED TO because every president since Nixon has voluntarily released theirs (We now know why Trump didn't)
That said "Congress invokes Section 6103(f) routinely to allow the JCT staff and Government Accountability Office to obtain tax data in bulk for the purpose of analyzing proposed tax legislation and performing audits of the IRS, respectively.21 The authority was used as part of congressional investigations as recently as 2013 and 2014, as the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finan ce Committee explored allegations of political bias in the IRS’ handling of conservative-leaning groups’ applications for recognition of tax-exempt status.22 The Senate Finance Committee received “extensive information under section 6103(f),” according to its final report on the investigation, while the House Ways and Means Committee obtained confidential information on at least several dozen nonprofit organizations.23 (The committees’ investigations and a separate U.S. Justice Department probe ultimately uncovered no evidence that political bias influenced IRS employees’ actions, and it has since been revealed that left-leaning organizations received similar scrutiny.24)"
https://www.americanprogress.org/articl … -congress/
BTW, the "hard evidence" are the tax returns themselves.
Where did I ignore the Truth??"I still don't see why it is unethical. America needs to know what sort of criminal they elected."
Of course you don't understand the ethics of it - you have already decided he is a criminal so any information is wonderful. Whether it supports that "information" or not, it is wonderful as long as it paints the "guilty" in a bad light.
"No, they DIDN'T NEED TO because every president since Nixon has voluntarily released theirs"
Rather my point, isn't it? Congress has NEVER made tax returns public...until Trump. And you don't think it is a political ploy.
(I'll point out that there is STILL no requirement for a President to make tax returns public - your little "Well, they didn't have to because it already was" holds no water at all in the ethical arena. There is, very simply, no possible reason to make it public knowledge. If a crime is found in those returns, then it may become public knowledge through the court system, but until then it is private, or would be if it weren't Democrats in full cry after an opponent.)Trump leaves me no choice to decide he is a criminal because of his actions. If there were just one or two incidents then I would withhold judgement, but it is decades of bad actions. Why hasn't he been convicted of any of it? Because he is rich and knows how to work the system. That doesn't mean his activities aren't criminal.
Let's say I observe a man robbing a bank. I will "decide" he is a criminal even though he hasn't met your standard of being convicted. That's Trump. The whole world (minus Trumplicans) observes his illegal activities and are forced to conclude he is a criminal.
"Rather my point, isn't it? Congress has NEVER made tax returns public...until Trump." - As I said, they never had to - until Trump.On this, then, we fully agree. You don't need a jury, you don't need a judge, you don't even need real evidence.
Just the assumption that he has done wrong. All I can say to that is that I'm certainly glad you aren't sitting as a judge, and doubly so that your are sitting as the judge in my trial.
We will never get together on this one, for although I feel our system is broken, it is still the best we have, and is far, far superior to anarchy or the hanging mob you constitution all by yourself.I am beginning to understand the conservatives have a hard time digesting analogies. If you had understood by bank robber analogy, then your reply would have been different.
Also, why are you the only one allowed to draw conclusions from the available evidence and nobody else can?And what conclusion did I draw? Only that Trump, along with the rest of the country, is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers. And that is the ONLY conclusion I will draw.
So, what you are telling me is that if you personally observe someone murdering someone else, you will draw zero conclusions to his guilt until he is convicted. Have I got that right?
Did I get it right that you personally observed Trump committing a crime? That was your analogy, after all.
Some of it, yes. For example, his Jan 6th incitement speech. Other examples are his many texts inciting people to believe his lies and to come to D.C. and "have a wild time".
But you never answered the question - if YOU personally observed someone robbing a bank or murdering somebody, would you not for a judgement as to their guilt?
Oh, I got the analogy.
But did you watch Trump arrange the riot? What have you observed him doing that was illegal. Every single item you list is third hand or more, nothing you actually witnessed. So go back and work with you heard someone say that they were in the bank and watched a robbery and they think that they can identify the robbers.
Now you have an honest analogy, not one making a mockery out of the whole idea."But did you watch Trump arrange the riot? " - Yes I did, as did the whole world. It was laid out in living color and Republican testimony by the Jan 6 committee. There should no longer be any doubt in any thinking person's mind about Trump's guilt. The "conclusion" is obvious, even to the untrained eye.
The proof in the pudding is the truth of the following statement - If not for Trump, NONE of what transpired on January 6, 2021 could have happened."It was laid out in living color and Republican testimony by the Jan 6 committee."
Do you not understand the difference between observing something and listening to someone else describe what they saw or heard? Or does it not matter because, after all, Trump is a criminal and anything anyone says bad about him must be true?I have eyes and ears and a mind that can absorb information. I watched the videos and listened to the SWORN testimony by all those Republicans and others. just as I would if sitting in a jury box.
And it still comes down to this - BUT FOR TRUMP, none of this stuff would have transpired. I suspect the prosecutors will drive that point home time and again - as will I.
As to Trump being a criminal, that goes without saying anymore. His whole life has been nothing more than one long-running criminal enterprise.
As to "must be true". Nope, it needs to make sense first. If it does, then given his long history of law breaking, then chances are high it will be true.
"Every single item you list is third hand or more" - Actually, that is not really true, is it?
Which ones did you personally observe? Were you at the riot? Were you at the festivities before the riot? Did you receive instructions from Trump to go trash the buildings? Were you personally told to hang legislators?
Tell us, what your personal experiences were during the riot?
Really, your OP analogy compares Hunter Biden's potential crimes of high official pay-to-play with foreign countries to tax irregularities.
This anology is so dramatic and so illogical to boot. I mean you did use that analogy, did you not?
Simply common sense would tell one that one crime is very dangerous to America's national security. The other has the potential to use tax laws to benefit one's pocket."high official "pay-to-play" regarding Hunter Biden. Strange, unlike Ivanka and Jared who used their gov't position for personal gain, Hunter Biden was never part of the gov't. So I guess I am missing your point, given Hunter Biden is a private citizen who, according to WIlderness' logic, is as innocent as Trump is since he hasn't been indicted or convicted yet and mortal humans aren't allowed to make judgements informed by known facts.
There are no accusations or indictments against any of Trump's children. I trust the IRS would do its job if there was a problem.
In regard to Hunter, his business partner Tony Boblinsky has implicated Joe and his brother in business dealing with China. He actually has verbally added his accusations on live TV. Yes, Wilderness is correct in my view all are innocent until proven they have in some respect broken a law, and been charged with that crime.
Thus far Trump's taxes have indicated he has not committed any crimes nor has he been indicted. His taxes show nothing but he was having some bad years in regard to his business's bottom lines. He used loopholes, and he followed the tax laws.
It would be better to follow the facts as they are received. The Democrats have sought to get his taxes, and they got them, and at best they have embarrassed Trump. Some may look at this as a discussing Democratic ploy.
For me, I think it set a good precedence. We will now be able to see the taxes of others that Congress chooses to release. I look forward to seeing Hunters, and his uncles, as well as his dads.
It well appears Trump has not broken any tax laws.
First, you need to offer sources for this information.
"For example, he has over 400 shell companies that feed into his Schedule C. Odd, but nothing wrong with that until you learn that for a period of years many of those companies reported zero income but lots of expenses. If it happened once for one company, no harm, no foul. But happening for several years over many companies, that is a Major red flag of criminal activity."
"Another Red Flag of criminal activity is Trump's use of some easements as a charitable contribution. Once the Trump IRS was forced to audit his returns, they determined the tens of millions of dollars in deductions for this "charitable" contribution, over multiple years, is patently illegal."
I would like to see the context of the information you have offered.
Second, there is no law that says the president provides taxes.
" In my opinion it is because they are exposing a probable crime of a former president, and it is no more unethical that the Republican's persecution of Hunter Biden."
The potentul crimes are very diffrent. IRS Tax crimes are very different from a prominent government official using his family and office to run pay fo play scams. (thus far we have no proof of either party being indicted for crimes). Both are parties are under investigation. Let me remind you neither has been charged. I will add the Biden accusations,
if true, puts our country at a security risk due to Hunter's dealings with several foreign nations. Which bank records prove money transactions. I don't make this accusation lightly. (here are my reliable source) -- https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/re … -companies
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … 00000-201/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation … -rcna29462
https://republicans-oversight.house.gov … s-schemes/
I will await links to your sources.
Rep Bennie Thompson starts the summary this way:
"Beginning election night and continuing through January 6th and thereafter, Donald Trump purposely disseminated false allegations of fraud related to the 2020 Presidential election in order to aid his effort to overturn the election and for purposes of soliciting contributions. These false claims provoked his supporters to violence on January 6th."
It bears repeating that BUT FOR Donald Trump, the insurrection on Jan 6th, 2021, would not have happened. This is a refrain the prosecution should repeat over and over again the jury. BUT FOR Trump, I wouldn't be writing this.The Oath that Democrats and true Republicans in Congress take.
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and [i[defend the Constitution of
the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic[/i]; that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I
will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
This is the oath Trumplicans take in its stead.
“I do solemnly swear that I will oppose and desecrate the Constitution of
the United States in support of all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I
will not discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, but instead do the will of Donald Trump. So help me God.”I hate to do it but I need to call out critics of Trump "paying no 'income' taxes" as playing semantical games. In looking over his returns I find that he did pay taxes in 2015 - 2017 and 2020. Here is why.
It is true, for those years Donald Trump wiped out all income using loses carried over from 1985. This made is AGI zero for those years.
BUT, he did pay the Alternate Minimum Tax (as well as some other small taxes). Now, in 2015, that tax was $642,231 on an AGI of -$31 million. In 2016 and 2017, however, his taxes were basically zero - a whopping $750 in similar negative AGIs.
Personally, I count ATM taxes as a proxy for federal income tax. Others don't, apparently.
I am not trying to give Trump a break here, but as I always do, I want the full, true, story to be told.
In 2020, Trump apparently paid zero income taxes or AMT taxes on about $11 million in income.Now, where did Trump probably cheat according the Joint Committee on Taxes?
* In the audit of his 2015 taxes,
** the IRS decided to investigate the Seven Springs conservation easement charitable deductions. One of the recommendations was to penalize Trump for "substantial and gross valuation misstatements attributable to incorrect appraisals." Subsequently, the IRS determined that the "appraiser" that Trump used was not qualified.
** he is being examined for the improper use of Section 108(i), which deals with cancellation of indebtedness, possibly up to $141 million by IRS calculations
** they are verifying the accuracy of the $105 million carryover of net operating loss into 2015
** Unreimbursed business expenses look fishy and are being examined to make sure they are legit.
** Loans to all of his kids are being investigated because it seems they may be illegally avoiding gift taxes.
** Examining Schedule C losses where there was no income. Possible fraud.
** Verifying whether millions of dollars of passthrough losses from over 400 entities on his Schedule E were legal
** The cost of goods sold deductions passed-through from DJT Holdings appear fishy and are being scrutinized
** :Looking at millions of dollars of hotel deductions to how much was personal.
** Examining why pass-throughs to DJT Holdings Management had expenses with no gross sales..The JCT review of Trump's 2016 taxes are basically a repeat of the 2015 issues: Specifically:
* Questionable contributions
* Proper reporting of section 108(i) income deferrals
* Questionable carryover of net operating losses
* Questionable deductions of unreimbursed partnership/S Corp expenses
* Loans to his children
* Pass-through of expenses where there was no income
* It is not clear whether Schedule E pass-through losses were from active or passive participation by Trump
* Questionable business credits
* Questionable calculations of Cost of Goods Sold with DJT Holdings
* Questionable hotel deductions in DJT Holdings' return
* NEW - should DTTM Operations' legal costs be amortized as start up costs?
His failure to disclose his taxes should have been a deal-breaker for anyone to vote for him in the first place. When that refusal was made, his campaign should have been over. But it wasn't, was it? Now that his illegal dealings are exposed, those who put him in office have another chance to get on the right side of history. The question is: Will they?
If it means voting for those that left any semblance of ethics behind in making tax returns public, no I won't. You can wonder why he didn't do it years ago, but we have the answer - because unethical Democrats without a shred of morality in them immediately turned private documents over to the public. An event that everyone in the country saw coming; some slavering for it, some recognizing that it should never, ever be done.
Time for the rest of the story, Wilderness.
https://www.investopedia.com/history-of … al-5080237
--------
"Nixon’s successor, Gerald Ford, didn’t release his full tax returns, but he did provide a summary containing a decade of personal tax information when he ran for president in 1976. That round-up included Ford’s gross income, taxable income, major deductions, and taxes paid, according to Tax Analysts.
Starting with Jimmy Carter, however, every president up through Barack Obama voluntarily disseminated their tax returns for every year they were in office.
While there’s no law requiring them to share that information with the public, doing so has been seen as a way to build trust with the American electorate."
--------
While Rightwinger types always want to excuse dishonesty and malfeasance, the rest of world insists that their proposed leader "walk the talk. I consider that "trust" to be of value. What do you have to hide?
And by the way, it is interesting that you speak of direct observation regarding making accusations as to what happened on January 6. Yet, you don't apply that standard to anything else that you fundamentally disagree with. You live with this blatant contradictionary nature all of the time?
So you must personally observe everything before coming to a judgement? Where do you think any such ability would come from? While I did not personally witness him laid to rest there, I have a very good idea who is actually in Grant's Tomb.
Regardless, I wish a Happy New Year to you even as one of my most troubling adversaries...
Just waiting for the House of Represenatives to implode over GOP infighting, got to get out the popcorn and acquire ringside seats.Nowhere in your post do you indicate that it is the law that a President must release tax information to the public. You might want to see it, but that does NOT mean you get to. In addition, Trump has massive business holdings and business that tax forms might give aid to competitors or business partners that could hurt Trump's business - a good reason NOT to make it public. The basics he perhaps could have, but not the details...and I guarantee that Democrats would not be satisfied with basics. They demand the details in order to hurt Trump.
"Yet, you don't apply that standard to anything else that you fundamentally disagree with."
You missed the earlier post that that statement was applied to, where Eso gave an analogy where he SAW a bank robbery but I wouldn't think it was proof. Unfortunately for his analogy he didn't SEE anything himself, whereupon the statements (plural) that his analogy was worthless.
Nevertheless, like you, I offer best wishes for a troubling (and troubled, but aren't all liberals quite troubled?) adversary here. May the new year be better for both of us, without the massive inflation, without the border crises, without the extreme response to COVID...without, in other words, the "accomplishments" of Biden.No, I did not say if "He", meaning me "saw". I asked if YOU saw someone robbing a bank, your logic prevents you from forming a judgement as to that person's guilt. That is the second time I had to remind and correct you about that.
You, me, King Kong; the point is that the person seeing the crime can make a determination (if he knows the law well enough) of guilt.
But you saw nothing - every bit of information you have is either made up or third hand. And that is a horse of another color entirely. Which I feel confident you understand, you just don't want to acknowledge the inconsistency in your stand against Trump.In reality, Trump's taxes show nothing of law-breaking. They show him using the tax laws to his advantage as the very rich business owners do.
Thus far there is no there - there. However, precedence was set. We once again see this bunch step all over the Constitution.
In my view, we need to impeach Biden with good speed.Oh, I expect them to find something - this is not an audit by the IRS but an examination by every Trump hater in the country. Hundreds of thousands of people looking, desperately trying to find fault.
They will find a number with accidently transposed numbers, a misspelled word, something. And if they can't they will twist what is there into evil and wrong, just as they have been doing for years.This is very true. I would not put anything past this bunch. Although we have laws, and courts that as a rule follow the law. The audacity of this administration is shocking, so who knows?
Thus far it would seem they have nothing to prosecute on. Yes, they have made it very apparent that Trump was having some failing business ventures. I think we know he has somewhat of a history of failed businesses. Last I knew, one can't be arrested for that...It's not an audit by the IRS? Really, what are they doing then besides disobeying the law and twiddling their thumbs, lol. Yes, the IRS is definitely auditing Trump.
It is already obvious to even the casual observer that there are many, major red flags in his returns. Now that they are available, I will use my accounting degree and point them out to you.
There are a few examples in this report
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/30/politics … index.htmlI have followed this conversation, in fact, the comment you have replied to was in response to one of my comments. You missed the context of the response. Wilderness was being sarcastic, that was pretty clear.
"Oh, I expect them to find something - this is not an audit by the IRS but an examination by every Trump hater in the country. Hundreds of thousands of people looking, desperately trying to find fault."
There thus far have been no red flags. You need to provide a source to prove your casual observation. I have certainly seen nothing that indicates Trump had any form of tax problems.
Perhaps you could offer a bit about the red flags you have mentioned. The CNN article was conjecture, and view-oriented, with nothing that points out a tax crime.When you find something that is illegal to the point of indictment then point it out.
Otherwise not interested in the slightest in your opinions, for they have been, for some years now, completely and totally biased against Trump to the point that you agree you do not need solid evidence to declare him guilty of a crime.Then apply that logic to the right-wing media - they would have nothing to talk about.
They have been biased against Trump because Trump gave them every reason to be biased. Had he not been such an obvious con man and crook, they would have reported that as well - but he didn't.I have always said that Trump has made 'his own bed' in so many ways. This idea that he is being picked on contradicts the reality and the big picture about all the sordid affairs that he has had his dirty hands in.
I mainstream media were forced to report only the good about Trump, they would have very little to print or talk about.
That is the job of the IRS auditors. It is my job to point out things that look very fishy
I hope the Republicans House rakes over bidens taxes and then see to it that biden goes to prison where he should have been 5 years ago.
Didn't you know that Biden (and Harris), unlike Trump, already released their taxes. So what is the point of your statement?
Yes. investigate biden for all the money he received from outside the country through his son Hunter. I bet it's in the millions on taxes he did not claim. biden would sell his soul for a dime.
This family was very sloppy, just a matter of time. Hunter left a trail of bank records and a partner that is more than willing to share his info under oath about his meetings with Joe Biden. He has shared his information openly.
"I have heard Joe Biden say he has never discussed his dealings with Hunter. That is false. I have firsthand knowledge about this because I directly dealt with the Biden family, including Joe Biden,” Bobulinski said following The Post’s bombshell reporting on Hunter Biden’s private emails."
The US Navy veteran said he was introduced to the former veep on May 2, 2017, by Hunter Biden and the lawmaker’s brother Jim Biden before the Global Milken Conference in Beverly Hills, Calif.
“That night, we discussed the Bidens’ history, the Biden family’s plans with the Chinese, with which he was plainly familiar, at least at a high level,” he said in Memphis, Tenn., ahead of the final debate between President Trump and Biden.
“I have no wish to bury anyone. I’ve never been political. The few contributions I have made have been to Democrats. But what I am is a patriot, and a veteran, to protect my family name, and my business reputation. I need to ensure that the true facts are out there,” he said, batting away accusations that he was part of a misinformation plot."
https://nypost.com/2020/10/22/hunter-ex … en-a-liar/You can bet your last dollar the Nazi Democrats do not care about Joe biden, hunter or the biden family illegal money dealings from other countries That's already clear. They want Trump out of their way so they can hang on to power. Whether it's stealing an election for biden or any other Nazi Democrat. Nazi Democrats do not care about any Laws or our Constitution. Not one criminal investigation against biden by thecommitee investigations in the House under Nazi Democrat control. But you can't count on all fingers and toes how many investigations the Nazi Democrats have on Tump before, during and after he was President.
Clearly anyone whose willing to see clearly knows Joe Biden should be in prison right now. But again, the Nazi Democrats don't care.
" without a shred of morality in them " I wouldn't open that can of worms if I were a republican who still supports Trump.
"Oh, I expect them to find something - this is not an audit by the IRS but an examination by every Trump hater in the country. Hundreds of thousands of people looking, desperately trying to find fault."
Some things just need repeating.Thus far --- CBS News
"Forensic analyst Bruce Dubinksy says that while the thousands of pages of information will take days to comb through, so far he's seeing no major red flags — but there are questions about certain parts of Trump's finances, and it's clear he took advantage of legal tax loopholes."
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/tr … 022-12-30/
Very obvious that the slimy media are all out to point out any and all loopholes.The keyword was "legal."
CNN is running 'Trump tax returns' segments for most of the day. The may be, could be, looks like, etc. etc. interpretations are being discussed as if they are certainties only needing to be uncovered.
GAYes, that is the charm of CNN, they dance beautifully around an issue, and in the end, one's head is spinning and they are left with what they believe is sure to be the truth. All the important words, like possible, appear, are selectively not observed or heard. A word such as legal, which certainly carries weight, is lost and ignored for false certainties.
You just described right-wing media perfectly.
"What are the most-watched news networks? In November 2022, Fox News was the most watched cable news network in the United States and continues to do well in terms of its primetime audience, with 1.6 million primetime viewers in that period. Fox News viewers in the 25-54 demographic reached 356 thousand, whilst MSNBC had just 148 thousand. When looking at Fox News viewers compared to CNN, the overall average number of primetime viewers was notably different. CNN has been losing viewers in recent years, although during the coronavirus outbreak, tended to pull in a larger audience than usual."
https://www.statista.com/statistics/373 … rship-usa/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyell … 45890642c0
So why do you continue to post CNN articles here, it is a proven fact the general public does not prefer them to other news outlets. In my view, CNN can not be trusted to offer truth, or facts, only spin, and alter the context in their reporting.We have been over this before. To use Fox's viewership out of context is very misleading. Since Fox garners probably 90% of conservative viewers and there are lots of conservative viewers, then is guaranteed (and pointless) that they will be #1 when compared to individual honest outlets.
The proper comparison is to compare Fox (plus the other right-wing propaganda outlets) with the sum of what you define as "mainstream media". Now that result has meaning.I used ratings... They show more view fox. I have no way of knowing who is watching or you.
CNN's reputation alone for retractions should end this line of conversation.
They have poor ratings due to their poor reputation for being dishonest, and not reporting all the news, in my view.
"A survey held in the United States in 2022 showed that 23 percent of responding adults believed CNN to be very credible, whereas 20 percent said that they did not consider CNN credible at all. Opinions on news media tend to vary according to readers’ political stance, age, educational background, and myriad other factors, and in an age where fake news is a growing problem, consumers are demonstrating a higher degree of awareness of how and where they access their news."
https://www.statista.com/statistics/239 … ed-states/
CNN just has a very poor reputation, you might seek out better media outlets.
THE 10 WORST EXAMPLES OF FAKE NEWS. AND CNN WINS
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andr … 8df193525eI know you used ratings - just the wrong ones. The comparison must be apples to apples and yours is not. As I said, the proper comparison needs to be between how many watch right-wing outlets vs mainstream outlets. And I think I used ratings once before to show the right-wing loses out.
It is a shame, and very telling, that your heraldsun source didn't mention Fox, Tucker Carlson, or Sean Hannity who are by far the worst offenders in that regard.
I have shown you before where CNN is a pretty trusted news source, more than Fox. Did you look at your Statistica numbers? They don't back up your implications. And where is a similar report for Fox?
Well here it is and it is worse than CNNs - https://www.statista.com/statistics/239 … ed-states/We were not comparing Fox to CNN in regard to reputation. I did make mention viewership at Fox. Which we know is far above the viewership at CNN.
In fact, I went through the list of popular information providers and came up with this:
CNN: Credible - 53%; Uncredible - 32%; Other - 15%
FOX: C - 48%; U - 39%; O - 13%
CBS: C - 61%; U - 22%; O - 17%
ABC: C - 61%; U - 21%; O - 18%
MSNBC: C - 48%; U - 29%; O - 25%
PBS (2017): C - 63%; U - 22%; O - 24%
Breitbart (2017): C - 18%; U - 30%; O - 52% most never heard of)
So where does that leave the credibility of right-wing media? At the bottom. Consequently, I must disregard any claims that CNN is not credible as so much sour grapes.
Where did they "spin"? All I saw was them pointing out strange things in his taxes that needs to be investigated. Isn't that what journalism is all about.
(Of course, the right-wing media takes it a step further by misrepresenting the truth, reporting only part of the story that is favorable to Trump, and outright lying)
Ah, so everything the right-wing media is printing about Hunter Biden is garbage as well, in your view?
Explain to me why the statistically impossible fact of expenses for one of his LLCs match income to the dollar shouldn't be reported? Are you assuming, like Wilderness, the American public is incapable of forming judgements based on facts available?There was no Hunter Biden connection in my comment. My comment was specifically to the presentations of CNN—as representative of MSM.
Today's morning segments have a different tone. They have panels of their experts talking about legal tax avoidance instead of tax crimes. They are noting that the real estate portions of the returns seem typical to the industry. They are criticizing the IRS. Their may-be and could-be explanations are now prefaced with 'possibly'. And concluding, without saying it, that the 'Red flags' first raised might end up as white flags.
I will leave the statistical impossibilities for the 'experts'. When the 'is too . . . is not . . . ' debates are settled we will know.
To your question, when the available facts can be reasonably contested or unsettled or manipulated I do think "the public' is incapable of forming accurate judgments. My first thought was to when flat-Earthers weren't considered nuts.
GAOf course there was by virtue of what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
So, do you think seeing in black and white that expenses EXACTLY match income isn't worthy of a judgement? Or do you think CNN falsified Trump's tax returns?
Doesn't "may be" and "could be" have the same meaning ss "possible"?
Wealthy businesspeople can experience a mix of good and bad years, but Trump’s complex tax history as depicted by the Times is not an archetypal example of what happens with rich people
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … sive-tax-/
"Flat-earthers" - Apples and jagged rocks."So, do you think seeing in black and white that expenses EXACTLY match income isn't worthy of a judgement? Or do you think CNN falsified Trump's tax returns?"
It has been many years, but I have personally seen quite a few years where expenses EXACTLY matched income. That was because they were higher than income, but it did no good to report them; any reported expenses beyond income were simply set aside as irrelevant.
And I'm pretty sure that a great many businesses do that; unless expenses can be carried into the next year there is zero reason to report them beyond the limits set by income.
But of course it doesn't work that way for Trump; such common practices indicate evil and criminality on his part. Because he is Trump, after all - a known criminal, right?Nah, I don't buy that. Why through away a legal deduction? Doesn't make sense to me as a businessman. If it drives a net zero tax, so be it. Good accounting requires you report everything.
You are the one introducing geese and ganders. A comparison would have been the sauce you need for your analogy. There was none in my comment.
Using CNN as a barometer, it appears the 'drooling' from the excitement of the initial release—as in the first days' talking-head commentaries, might be replaced by 'dry mouth,' as in, What the hell happened, we know crimes were in there waiting to be exposed?' Where the hell are the crimes?
I can't match the expertise of all the 'experts' both sides are presenting so I will wait to see who ends up 'the most' right.
If the flat-earthers analogy is too extreme, the more current Twitter issue will work. Before the Twitter files, it was an available fact that there was no evidence that the government was working to manipulate the public's information or censor conservative voices. Post-release, that available fact wasn't a fact at all, so any judgments formed by the public using it were wrong.
GAI think it works this way - First, there must be some indication that a crime was committed
Second, those suspected crimes need to be investigated
Third, in the case of the IRS, a determination must be made about guilt
Forth, the IRS takes action.
All of that takes time, it seems to me.
Now that we have his returns and they can be perused, if I see something that in my experience looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck then I will make the judgement that it is a duck. Rarely, does it not turn out to be a duck.
BTW, the other thing they should be looking at is WHY the Trump IRS, with a Trump appointed head, didn't audit his returns when he took office? Why did they illegally wait until the Democrats asked for the returns. I have two parts of by duck and hopefully an investigation will fill in the third part.
I am not sure what you think the Twitter files showed you, but any suggestion that the "government was working to manipulate the public's information or censor conservative voices." has been debunked.
For example, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/12 … aptop.html does a great job of telling the story about the reliability and truthfulness of the Twitter Files."Now that we have his returns and they can be perused, if I see something that in my experience looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck then I will make the judgement that it is a duck."
Exactly so. No need for encumbrances like the IRS, courts, juries, defense testimony or any such. Your opinion is sufficient, based on the "quacks" that might be criminal when the details are found."Now that we have his returns and they can be perused, if I see something that in my experience looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck then I will make the judgement that it is a duck."
So, this appears to say you feel you are more qualified to determine tax fraud than, for one the AG of New York, (who had a go at Trump's taxes) and then the IRS, as well as the House Ways and Means Committee, and you can bet the DOJ. Hate to tell you, but your view of Trump's Taxes means nothing to anyone but yourself. You have been clinging to destroying Trump for many years now. It would seem at some point you would realize, he just has not broken any laws. This is actually getting hard to watch...We are not out to destroy Trump, his behavior has done that all by itself. Now honestly, how nefarious of dealings would one have to of had their hands in before you express concern about honesty and legality? Can you imagine anything rising over the issue of Hunter Biden's laptop? If you were honest, you would acknowledge that Trump has many more issues than most in politics, why is that?
I see Sharlee as decided to insult my 40+ years in accounting and 20+ years as CFO of my company. She also got her facts wrong. The "AG of New York" isn't going after Trump for his taxes, at least criminally. It is the Manhattan DA who is doing that.
And I agree with you, our intent is NOT to destroy Trump, but to SAVE America from him.
So many lies have been put out their about Hunter's laptop by the Right-wing propagandists, I don't know what to believe about it. But it is mute in any case because DOJ has whatever was on it and appear to be pursuing an indictment against him. Therefore, I don't get her point.
She apparently cannot differentiate between breaking laws and being convicted of them. Using her logic, it would seem, that if you run a red light, you broke no law unless a cop catches you. Why is that?And you think making private tax forms public will somehow "save America" but not harm Trump.
That's one imagination!If he were honest with his taxes, he wouldn't be hurt, would he. That is why all other modern presidents release theirs - because, unlike Trump, they have nothing to hide!
Further, most Americans, the non-Trumplicans, have a right to know if their President is a Crook.What did he lie about?
And there it is again; you don't hear what you want so Trump is criminal. Once more, no need for a trial - just the assumption that he refused to go public so he did something wrong.
You know, ESO, somewhere recently you commented that you're Republican because you like justice and so do Republicans (or words to that effect). You really might want to reconsider that concept as you have, for years now, refused to even consider the root of our justice system: "Innocent until proven guilty to a jury of peers".Did I say he lied? Where did I say he lied. I didn't even say he cheated. All I said was 1) what's he got to hide and 2) where there is a lot of smoke, there is probably a fire.
Actually, I didn't say anything about being a Republican. I said a "conservative" streak in me, mainly dealing with justice and economics, keeps me out of Credence's camp.
That said, I used to be Republican in a time when they stood for something good. But that faded with their slide into autocracy when Reagan unleashed the wolves. Most Republicans today don't believe in the same principles that Reagan believed in and our 180 degrees out from what Lincoln believed when he started the Republican Party.
But when the McCarthyites and Evangelicals hijacked the Party, I had to find more patriotic grounds.
Like Sharlee, you seem to confuse our justice system with guilt or innocence. Using the same example as I did with her and tried to use with you - if I see you run a red light, you are guilty of breaking the law. It doesn't matter if you were caught and convicted - it is obvious you are guilty.
In your world, you only break the law if you are caught AND convicted of it.
In my world, you are guilty of breaking the law when the known facts lead a reasonable person to that conclusion.Lordy, that's an open door.
What happens when two reasonable people reach different conclusions, who gets to decide which one is most reasonable?
GAThe key there is both people have to be reasonable to begin with.
I should have added that you are guilty of breaking the law when you break the law, such as running the red light even when nobody sees you.
That is a concept I am not sure WIlderness understands.I think the concept being misunderstood is the hard-to-deny fact that two reasonable people can look at the same information and reach different conclusions.
Without speaking for Wilderness, my perception is that he does understand that concept and speaks to the point of who decides which conclusion is the most reasonable—a judicial arbiter.
Your "conclusions" may be the correct ones, but you have no support for your correctness beyond belief in your "reasonableness."
The Democrats' determinations', (your own promoted determinations), reasonableness have failed to find factual support for their, (and your), reasonable conclusions for 7+ years.
You are right that when you break a law you are guilty of breaking a law. Wildness' point is also right: you have to prove a law was broken before applying consequences. That is something you want to skip because you are sure your reasonable conclusions are the only correct ones.
GAYou are correct, but there is another facet as well. Wilderness, in looking at the accusations and accusers, finds that every person making accusations is heavily biased and has a tremendous axe to grind (the vast majority to remove Trump as a political opponent, which they have made clear). There has been virtually nothing seen in the way of defense of the claims - the only "defense" has been that no proof has been found to support them.
And this, IMO, is a far, far cry from what we want our justice system to be; how we want it to behave. You're right in that Eso wishes to skip (has already skipped in his own mind) that part (providing proof as well as hearing a defense) but to me that is way more important than any and all accusations could ever be.Isn't this just an opinion not supported by facts? "Wilderness ... finds that every person making accusations is heavily biased and has a tremendous axe to grind (the vast majority to remove Trump as a political opponent, which they have made clear). "
Do you disagree? Do you find that many Trump supporters make accusations of Trump's criminal activity?
Do you disagree that every politician making accusations of criminal activities wishes Trump were out of the political playing field? Or have you have heard Trump supporters (politicians) make accusations that he is a criminal but support him running again?
Why is a "judicial arbiter" even needed unless there is going to be some punishment possible? It seems to me thinking otherwise denies normal human beings the right to express what they conclude the facts and circumstances show.
Then one can try to determine if a person's understanding of a set of facts and circumstances is reasonable or not.
For example, did the sum of the emails from Eastman probably indicate a crime had been committed? Well, reading those emails it certainly seems so to me because those emails clearly point to a conspiracy to change the outcome of the 2020 election. And that judgement was validated by the judge determining whether to release those emails or not.
Has anyone who thinks Trump didn't commit a crime put forward any logic that refutes such a conclusion? I haven't seen any if there was.Now you are on track. An arbiter isn't needed if there is no punishment involved, even the punishment of being 'caught out.'. And without a demand for punishment those two opposing "conclusions" are just opinions, such as we all get to make.
We just don't get to label them true or call them facts without more proof than an opinion.
GA
Your "reasonable" comment opens a nice rabbit hole. My response below was that both sides need to be "reasonable". So let's take a few hot tipics.
Would you agree that there should be no debate about who won the 2020 election for President? That any person arguing anything other than that is not being reasonable?
Would you agree at this point (maybe not earlier) that what happened at the Capitol on Jan 6 was indeed an insurrection? Anyone saying otherwise would not be a reasonable person in that regard.
Based on the evidence developed and presented by the January 6 Committee, would you say a reasonable person can conclude that more likely than not Donald Trump led the insurrection and overthrow of the 2020 election and that it would be unreasonable to conclude the opposite? (That leaves open the door for a "I'm not sure" answer which could also be reasonable.)Once again, your questions carry the implication that anyone disagreeing with your conclusion is not reasonable.
Based on available media-presented information, I can see a reasonable person reaching your conclusions. On the election issue, I don't doubt the results and I don't think a reasonable person would. However, I don't think it is automatically unreasonable to do so.
I don't know how those 'unreasonable' folks came to their reasoned conclusions, (surely they have ingested some information and digested it to reach their conclusions, so they are "reasoned" conclusions), so I can only think they are wrong. Without proof, (the lack of proof isn't really proof), my conclusions are only opinions.
Your Jan. 6 question is a working example of my "election" answer. I do not think someone not believing it was an insurrection is unreasonable. I don't think it was a real insurrection. As a reasonable person, I can see that the actions fit the description, so technically it was an insurrection. But, I can also see the half-baked non-serious effort it was. It wasn't a serious insurrection attempt and shouldn't deserve the label. You see that as unreasonable and here we are: two reasonable people reaching different conclusions from the same information.
As for Pres. Trump leading the insurrection . . . I think he is responsible for what happened. But I, (nor others so far), can't prove it, so it would be unreasonable of me to conclude that only unreasonable people would disagree with me.
GA
https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-i … minal.html
Well, Eso, I have to say that when one adds up the numerous accusations, not to add on his grifting over Trump U and his tradition of stiffing vendors, just ask Castleloma, I tend not to be of the sort that accept endless coincidences without having to believe that there is a pattern behind them.There are approximately as many accusations of Trump behaving criminally as there are Trump haters.
Not one of which has anything but imagination (and hate filled lies) to back them up.Question - do they hate Trump because of all of those accusations or did they just start out hating him for no reason at all? My bet is they hate him because of what he has done.
As calls were made for impeachment to begin before he ever won the presidency it would appear that your bet is the wrong one.
Trump wasn't born the day he became president. He has decades of bad acts to draw conclusions from .
And my reply is the same as before: you have not seen Trump do anything illegal. You haven't even heard of anything except third hand (or further) reports of possible crimes. Yet, in your world, he is guilty.
It is clear ECO does not understand the meaning of the word facts. Trump has been investigated by what is thought to be some of our best Government agencies. He has even survived a two-year DOJ investigation (The Mueller investigation). He has been audited by the IRS, and has been scrutinized by the FBI, and who the hell knows who else... It well appears to me he feels if he sees crimes he feels Trump committed, the man is guilty. This sort of mindset is odd at best. It literally promotes mob rule, in my view. There is no logic in - accuse, and convicting in one's own mind, and lastly searching for facts of a crime. This is dangerous in any society.
You need to get into the WHY of what you said. Why did Mueller not recommend indictment? ONLY because DOJ said he couldn't. Absent that restriction, it is very clear Mueller would have indicted him.
WHY is he being audited by the IRS? WHY is he being scrutinized by a multitude of state and federal agencies?
I just can't get by your apparent willingness to claim Trump innocent even after observing him run the proverbial red light. And if you watched and read the J6 report (or the Mueller report for that matter), you would have seen many, many instances of Trump running the red light.
Your last comment leaves me scratching my head about how you made that jump in logic. Are you equating making judgements about what one sees and hears as being equivalent to mob rule?Gosh, you just can't move out of the far past. With so much going on you dwell on the Mueller investigation? Mueller did not recommend any form of indictment in regard to his investigation . He had the right to recommend an indictment, but he did not. Period. I repeat myself --- Trump has not ever been indicted for anything in his entire life. Please get let me know if I am wrong.
Mr. Mueller cited a long-standing Justice Department policy barring the prosecution of a sitting president for a federal crime.
"That is unconstitutional," Mueller said. "Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider."
But he also noted, "if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." " We did not make a determination as to whether" Trump "did commit a crime,"
He also said it would be "unfair" to even suggest Trump had committed a crime, because it would deprive him of the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law.
However, Mueller noted that there was another avenue for dealing with a sitting president who broke the law. He said that the internal Justice Department opinion barring the prosecution of a president also "says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing."
That "process," which Mueller did not name, is impeachment.
I think the findings of this probe are often misrepresented. Mr Mueller simply handed it back to congress, where it belonged constitutionally.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/29/robert- … crime.htmlAgain I am relying on this fact --- As special counsel to a DOJ investigation.
I repeat ...
Mueller did not recommend any form of indictment in regard to his investigation. He had the right to recommend an indictment, but he did not. Period.
Mueller had every right to submit any and all crimes he might have found to the DOJ, and to recommend incitement. It would be up to the AG to indict. Which law prohibits. This by no means should have prevented Mueller from pointing out actual crimes. Luckily he did not, due to the fact it was the DNC and Hillary Clinton that actually were conspiring to subvert the 2016 election with the Steel BS.
Meuler was hired to investigate if Trump conspired with Russia in any fashion to sway the election --- That would be Hillary Clinton and her slimy bunch.
It's odd some can overlook the fact that it was the DNC and Hillary that cooked up the huge scam to claim Trump was coluting with the Russians. Even involving lying to the FISA court, I think 4 times.
I must add my personal view here --- how naive one would be to even consider Mueller would not point out even the smallest crime Trump committed if he became aware of it in his TWO-YEAR investigation.
Just saying, in my view, this shows a true failure in how one uses logical reasioning. Just not willing to look at the facts above rumors, and conjecture.Mueller could not have indicted.
During Congressional testimony he noted that part of his decision to refrain from considering an indictment of President Donald Trump was attributed to a long-standing Justice Department policy: According to the agency’s Office of Legal Counsel, a sitting president cannot be charged with a federal crime.
In his report, Mr. Mueller did not ultimately charge the president. He made clear during his testimony that because of the OLC opinion, his team did not even reach a conclusion about “whether the president committed a crime.”You are correct Mueller could not indict, he was hired to find any misconduct or crimes involved with the accusations that Trump had colluded with Russia to sway the 2016 election. He offered a report to the DOJ and did not find any crimes that could be backed with factual evidence. Trump was not indicted.
I note you ignored my thoughts on it -- the fact that it was the DNC and Hillary that cooked up the huge scam to claim Trump was colluding with the Russians. Even involving lying to the FISA court, I think 4 times.Was that a dodge away from being proven wrong?
"how naive one would be to even consider Mueller would not point out even the smallest crime Trump committed if he became aware of it in his TWO-YEAR investigation".
Ethically, he couldn't point that out.
"He also said it would be "unfair" to even suggest Trump had committed a crime, because it would deprive him of the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law.I am aware of what Mueller said. It would seem odd due to the fact he was hired to search out Russian misconduct in our 2016 election.
The only ones working with Russia were the DNC and Hillary Clinton.Again wrong. He was hired to determine if there was any collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. Beyond the multitude he did bring indictments against, he clearly showed "collusion". In fact his report clearly showed conspiracy by the "preponderance of the evidence". What is didn't think he had was enough (meaning he had lots of evidence, just not enough) where he felt he could get a jury to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt".
You pretend that Mueller had no evidence at all.
Your last claim is simply ridiculous and without an iota of proof.
Fay said it best. Mueller could not recommend an indictment of a sitting president no matter how much you want to believe that he could.
The bottom line and I know this might send you over the edge --- Trump was not indicted for anything period...
Time to walk away from this Trumpmainia thread. Not sure why I got pulled into this BS once again. Sort of makes me think about my own intelligence. Yeah reallyWith this I would agree. Being pulled into yet another round of Trump bashing, based on imagination rather than facts, by TDS sufferers is silly. Yet here we both are...
That's disingenuous.
He clearly didnt.
On the issue of obstruction, the Mueller report, which was released in redacted form on April 18, “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.” But the report said it could not make a “traditional prosecutorial judgment,” because the department’s Office of Legal Counsel had issued an opinion that states an “indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President” would be unconstitutional.
“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct,” the Mueller report said. “The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”You brought up Mueller. If you didn't want to talk about the past, you shouldn't have brought him into the conversation.
"He had the right to recommend an indictment, but he did not." - As he said many times, your statement is false - he did not have the right. Period.
You haven't answered the REAL question as to WHY he hasn't. What are the circumstances that prevented it from happening.
In what bucket do you put those hundreds of civil fraud cases he as lost and paid out huge sums of money? Do you think those are nothing more than parking tickets?
Finally, I am betting DOJ will indict him in about two weeks on mishandling classified information and obstruction of justice charges. (If the Atlanta DA doesn't beat them to the punch)
"Why did Mueller not recommend indictment? ONLY because DOJ said he couldn't."
And did Mueller say that, on a public recording? Or are you simply imagining things again, making up "facts" out of thin air?Actually, he wrote it in his report and testified as such.
So Mueller recommended that Trump not be indicted because the DOJ said not to? What kind of "investigator" allows a third party to determine his recommendations, and without giving evidence contraindicating an indictable offense?
According to Mr.Mueller:
"We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."
That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."
The Justice Department has a long-standing policy that prevents federal prosecutors from charging the president with a crime.
Again, you are repeating a falsehood. All one had to do was watch and now read the Jan 6th Committee report and you will have seen multiple instances of Trump running the proverbial red light (unless you have very heavy blinders on). That is why ONLY Trumplicans no longer think he didn't lead the insurrection.
And of course you personally saw all that was reported to that committee. A committee composed solely of people that hate Trump and wish him gone with every fiber of their being. A committee that permitted no opposition, no opposing views and no testimony that did not agree with their predestined conclusion. A committee that permitted, in other words, zero defense.
And you take it all as gospel as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, with the next step to begin calling names of anyone that wishes to look beyond the veil. All I can say to that is "Well Done!" - you have destroyed any credibility you might have had.Just like a jury, I don't need to personally see anything, although in Trump's case, I did.
To be honest I was not aware of your prior profession. I have put my trust in economists such as "Alan Greenspan", and others when it comes to predicting the economy.
"Ex-Fed Chair Alan Greenspan sees a US recession as the ‘most likely outcome Americans are likely to withstand a lot of pain' in the first half 2023" https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/ex- … ly-outcome
Yep, as I said, your complaint should be with the IRS. Or as Sharlee mentioned, the New York Ag that already(?) had, and investigated Trump's returns. Isn't that where the committee got them from?
Your link was impressive but not persuasive. Its perspective was as biased as the Twitter files' authors were. It rightly criticized the bias of the authors—relative to context and spin, but when it came to specific points, authenticated emails, message threads, etc., its refutations seemed to be simply efforts of mitigation.
For instance, the blocking of the NY Post Biden story. It happened. It happened in the way described, but your author thinks that because it was only blocked for one day, (a claim or a fact?), it wasn't really that bad. 'Yeah it happened, but it was only for a day.' That doesn't seem to debunk the conservative claim that the action was done in the way and for the reasons claimed.
That same theme seemed to run throughout the article's points. Sometimes valid sometimes not. That would be a tangent topic all by itself.
GA
Don't you know, Eso? Conservatives always think that they have the inside skinny on any and everything and you should not rely on your own lying eyes, unless it is a point of view that they overwhelmingly support.
They feign objectivity when most of what they say and adhere to is anything but......This Conservative doesn't think he was talking about knowing "the inside skinny", he was talking about CNN's presentation mode. Does your broad-brush characterization cover that too?
As for your thought about "lying eyes," that is your tribe's go-to. For 7 years conservatives have been told not to believe their lying eyes, liberal eyes see the truth. Riots, borders, inflation, and recession, aren't really happening, it's just our lying eyes fooling us.
7 years of failed efforts and accusations put your objectivity to question. Not that of Conservatives.
Back to the point of my comments: How do you view CNN's presentations on Day 1 that said the crime is there to be discovered and on Day 2 they are saying the crime is probably there and on Day 3 they have moderated to a crime could possibly be there?
Are they applying the objectivity that you say Conservatives lack?
GAAs for your thought about "lying eyes," that is your tribe's go-to. For 7 years conservatives have been told not to believe their lying eyes, liberal eyes see the truth. Riots, borders, inflation, and recession, aren't really happening, it's just our lying eyes fooling us.
For seven years, since when? It is easy to blame liberals for all the ills in society, don't you think that conservatives contribute to whatever problems we have today? After all, one of yours was at the head of Government for 4 years within the seven.
I have not seen the interview and the CNN commentary, based on the information you provided, it appears that CNN got it wrong. Are they the first journalistic outlet that can be accused of skewing the news? I have heard more blatant lies from the FOX outlet over anyone else despite its viewing audience.
The point is that this is all subjective, depending on your point of view. I am certain not going to accept rightwing viewpoints as dogma, no more than I can expect you to give the left any oxygen.Subjective? Tell that to the thousands (tens of thousands?
Hundreds of thousands?) of store owners whose lives were destroyed by rioters. Tell it to every person buying gasoline or groceries today. Tell it to the millions that have watched their retirement savings fall drastically while Biden gives their money to unions that suffered the same thing. Tell it to the residents along the southern border who are actually watching the daily invasion of our country with nothing being done about it.
Credence, these things are not "subjective"; they are extremely objective and very easily documented.I can easily document these objective failing regarding the previous administration and its shortcomings. What you consider objective is subjective from my point of view. The hyperbole, "daily invasion of our country" does not give your perspective anymore credibility. You blame Democrats for riots in the Northwest but absolve Trump from any involvement on J6 and say that these slovenly and brutal people's intent was just politically exaggerated by the left.
No, wilderness, I have to trust my hypotheses over your "facts".And the hyperbolic "to the thousands (tens of thousands?
Hundreds of thousands?)
Maybe Wilderness is thinking of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre that leveled around 35 square blocks of homes and businesses. Now THAT is a fact.
So, it seems in WIlderness' mind "Rioter" equal "Liberal". Sorry to tell you, that simply isn't true. The fact is, a rioter is a criminal who needs to go to jail. Although you would never know it from right-wing rhetoric and red herrings and mis-directions, only a tiny percentage of demonstrators ended up rioting.
https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demons … mmer-2020/
The point wasn't about 7 years of societal ills, or the administration responsible for them. It was about 7 years of Democrat lust for Trump blood. 7 years of failure. And finally, their final effort—release the tax dogs. Give the public some metaverse red meat. If it's possible in any way, then declare it a fact. (even if it is yet to be verified as a fact) My point has nothing to do with Trump's guilt or innocence.
Talk about "lying eyes' is rich coming from a view such as yours.
And maybe CNN just got it wrong? Nope, reflect back to their protests/riots evening coverage: Don Lemon speaking about compassion and understanding for the protesters while behind him was a huge split-screen live display of the evening riots with burning and looting.
Fox isn't any different, but that doesn't bear on this CNN issue. It should feel a little uncomfortable making your broad-brush criticisms of conservatives when behind you a huge split-screen is displaying your own 'lying eyes' deceits.
GA"Fox isn't any different, but that doesn't bear on this CNN issue. It should feel a little uncomfortable making your broad-brush criticisms of conservatives when behind you a huge split-screen is displaying your own 'lying eyes' deceits."
Would you make the same point if it were not CNN? There is no such thing as a "moderate conservative", your red tint has become of a darker hue in the last 2 or 3 years.
You keep on absolving conservatives even though by and large they have been the entities who have kept feeding the beast, Trump and MAGA movement.
Trump has behaved like a jerk in the realm of politics and beyond for a period of time far exceeding 7 years and he will deserve all the malevolence coming his way. But again, that is just my humble opinion.
It is much like Shaun Hannity minimizing the significance of J6, if you really want to make comparisons. As you always say, two wrongs don't make a right and I see no innocents here.
Happy New Year...Happy New Year to you too. Check out UK's fireworks. 12 minutes of fireworks, (said to be the world's largest display), and light shows that included formation-flying drones creating light images in the sky. Awesome.
As for my absolving conservatives, I don't think I have done that in any of my comments. My points haven't been about 'like' comparisons, so 'whataboutisms' aren't relevant. So what if the 'other side' does it too? It doesn't alter the points made.
It's like being back in the early Trump days, 'if you don't condemn him you are defending him. (now it's 'them')
The entirety of my comments have been to give the Democrats an undeniable, (reasonably addressed), and well-earned 'I told you so.' You need to start using a trim brush. The splatters of your broad strokes have left grudging agreements on more than a couple of conservative criticisms. One might think you don't really disagree with my point of this exchange. You just need to defend the team. (damn, two metaphors in one paragraph, you are rubbing off on me. I need to light a candle)
You are right, I don't see two wrongs making a right, but, that you say you see no innocents, yet still defend the criticized action, says that you believe they can if it's your right that results.
GAThanks, I will check out the UK fireworks show, I am sure it will be fantastic.
I have to ask you, GA, would you bring out these points if they appears as advantageous from the rightwing angle?
I remember the "old Trump days", he was coarse and vulgar then and he deliberately positioned himself so that moderates of any stripe had difficulty liking him. The only group that did like him were those that shared his biases and resentment, but cheered as he would say things that they wanted to say but couldn't.
I don't disagree on your point of the exchange in principle. The press is supposed to be objective and impartial, but when have we seen that since Walter Cronkite or Huntley and Brinkley?
I have maintained my position as a magnitude left of just left of center. Yes, it is becoming tribal because we are going beyond mere differences in opinion. My adversary has doubled down on all their ideological positions rather than find reasons to moderate instead of build around appealing only to the most zealous of rightwing ideals.
1. Denying loss in elections that they consistently say are rigged, just because they lost. This is a troubling tendency that has been going on far to long.
2. They are behind the ridiculous strongest antichoice in the Abortion issue, virtually hamstringing all women, far beyond reason and fairness. Encouraging with the repeal of Roe vs Wade GOP legislatures to compete as to who can be the most draconian.
As far as the more narrow brush, I have to look at it in terms of where the rubber meets the road as opposed to ideological positioning. With today's conservatives, it appears that the tail is wagging the dog.
This last year has been horrendous in so many ways and while last November's midterms point to an idea that the American people may have regain their senses, the forces of reaction and their promoters are still on the scene and continue be a danger to democratic principles of governance. That side has gone so far down the rabbit hole that I find it difficult to see those across the isle as "ladies and gentlemen". So, I take a stand where I have always taken it while the other side veers toward madness, in my opinion. That may well fit the definition of tribal, unfortunately, and perhaps I am guilty.
Two wrongs don't make a right and "whataboutism" seem contradictory. I say what I have always to you, if you don't want retribution consider your actions in such a way to preclude it. Make sure you do right in the first place and that will not give me justification to do wrong in the act of retribution. This Santos character in New York with his lies and his explanation for then using cryptic excuses pointing to Biden in comparison and his administration is specious at best.
Look forward to many more spirited debates in the coming month....Would I make the same points regarding Right-wing sources? I considered that question. And came up with 'probably not.' So I pondered why. Then decided it might be because the Right-wing sources are more honest about their spin. They don't tell you your pant leg is wet because it's raining.
The Right tells you what they believe, the Left tells you what is the truth, and nothing but their truth. So help them, FDR. Yet each time their truths are invalidated they just change to a different truth. The Right will go down with their truths, they aren't trying to fool you, 'that's their story and they're sticking to it.'
So . . . when an obvious Liberal example presents itself, the 'I told you so' can be a satisfying jab.
Your Santos thought will be an issue that moderate voters will pay attention to. I can understand the political need and legal requirement for him to be seated. McCarthy needs his vote for the speakership. That's a bit of short-term politics I can live with, but if the guy isn't booted by a non-partisan ethics committee after being seated it will destroy any 'benefit of the doubt' those voters had for the party's Trump-related post-election actions.
GAThat was an interesting and honest confession on your part, I have to say.
This is what I see, the Republicans are not concerned about their beliefs being true or not, that is how it is possible for a Santos and his blatant lies to be given the Ok by the GOP establishment. The truth here would have adversely affected the prospects of his candidacy, making him a less desirable candidate in the eyes of many. Obviously, I don't have any concern about an upcoming Republican controlled House of Representatives, nor what it is that McCarthy needs.
But the truth in of itself should have value, but not for Republicans, who would easily dismiss the "truth", which I believe they are well aware of, as an impediment to power or otherwise "owning the libs" and that, in my opinion, is a damn sight lower.I don't think any politician should lie, but they do. Much of the time to bolster educational information. This seems rather odd, just due to how easily one can check info today on the internet. I am sure you have kept up with the many lies Biden has told in the past years,. His colorful stories are outrageous, and he now has a reputation for making up stories at random His latest story about giving his uncle a purple heart while he was VP, was one of his best. The facts show his uncle was dead before he became VP. How did the media cover the many crazy mistruths Biden has shared --- called them inaccurate, not lies, inaccuracies? So, maybe we either need to realize many politicians lie, and stop just pointing out the ones from the "other side".
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/12/biden … nt-add-up/
https://nypost.com/article/worst-joe-biden-gaffes/
https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/09/22 … accurate/.It is not that they all do it, it is the volume of lies (and their equivalents) that emanate from the Right. It far surpasses what comes from the Left.
Why Biden would make up or embellish his story about his Uncle, I don't know (or why the WH wouldn't respond). But I did notice a difference - it wasn't self-serving. Also, for every one such instance you can find about Biden, I can find 10 uttered by Trump (such as https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 346343002/)I could care very much about excuses for why Biden skews the truth. I care about the fact he does frequently, and he more than appears to believe his mistruths. And I beg to differ, Biden seems to make up flowery stories to prop up self-esteem. Make himself something he is not -- an interesting man. He has used lies to suit many situations, such as saying a man was drinking when his wife dies in an auto accident. He was certainly trying to glean sympathy and point to a man that was not in any way responsible for the accident his wife dies in. The purple heart lie was offered up when he was speaking to a Militarycroud... It certainly appeared that he was appealing to a military audience with a bolstering story of how he fought to get his uncle long deserved purple heart --- yet it was a lie from beginning to end. Many of his lies very much appear to suit his audience.
His lies are many and go way back, but are getting worse as he ages.
Yes, and Bush told lies, Clinton told lies, etc. but the lame whataboutism excuse as provided by this Santos is over the top and simply does it get any mileage with me.
Thank you, that is what my comment was pointing out to ECO.
You already observed that most politicians lie on occasion. What you apparently refuse to accept is that people like Trump and Santos make career out of it.
ALL (federal) politicians make a career out of it. You might find some at the city level that don't, though, if the city isn't large enough to go Democrat yet.
Another unsupported and false (on the face of it) opinion.
In any case, no politician in modern political history has lied as much as Trump with Santos trying hard to catch up.
"As far as the more narrow brush, I have to look at it in terms of where the rubber meets the road as opposed to ideological positioning. " - And that is the point of my book that I am slowly working on, very slowly. Conservatism (writ large), as practiced in America, has been devastating to our moral fabric and has stunted our economic growth.
You might want to rethink your premise, then, for it is socialism and liberalism that has stunted our economic growth.
People that stay home, living off the charity of others, contribute nothing to economic growth, and that percentage has been growing ever since the nanny state concept took hold. Worse, so has the number of people simply under producing compared to what they could be adding to the growth, and far faster than the number actually doing nothing.Let me know when you are ready to publish....
I will. I am planning on an extended cruise in a few months, maybe I can get enough done to start publishing excerpts to Hubpages. (To tell you the truth, I am culling many of the articles I have already published to organize them into a cohesive whole.
"It was about 7 years of Democrat lust for Trump blood. " - [i]All done in trying to protect America from a man totally focused on destroying our institutions. That was what they were elected to do - protect America for all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC.
It seems like we need some labels now to keep the players straight.
TRUMPLICANS - at least 8 million strong and infecting our gov't institutions whose sole purpose is to put Trump back in office.
REAL CONSERVATIVES - there are many of them such as Kinzinger and Cheney who champion true conservative ideas such as small gov't, balanced budget amendments, free-trade and the like, everything Trump is against.
DEMOCRATS - who support the ideas of liberalism (self-determination of individuals) and human rights without going overboard on budget busting solutions.
PROGRESSIVES - which are Democrats who sometimes take things too far. (I want to put myself in this camp but progressivism in practice is more than I can take.)
FAR LEFT - the equivalent to Trumplicans.Your roster should help us both. When I am criticizing broad-brush conservative condemnations it is generally because the 'brush' that covers
"Trumplicans", as typically used, also implicates "Real conservatives".
Painting 100% with the colors of a distinct minority percentage is purposely inaccurate. It is spin and hyperbole. Judging by your categorizations, we both understand that inclusion is wrong.
GAYes, Eso, I am one of the irritating progressives that have less respect for those on my immediate right flank that fail to appreciate the true nature of the Right as the opposition.
You had an interesting graph where I put myself to the right of "The Squad" as anarchists, yet to the Left of Clinton, Obama, Biden, as the democrat mainstream. I find more comfort with Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders, even when Bernie may go a little too far for even me at times. That grouping is where I best belong.I sort of figured that. I have too much "conservative" in me (mainly on the economic and justice side) to go that far. Socially, however, I am right there with you.
A perfect description of Elon Musk, lol.
Given his very long history of conning people, fraudulent activity covered up by NDAs in lost settlements, what is the likelihood he didn't try to rip the taxpayer off along with all those who fell for his education and real estate swindles?
It appears that Trump did use every accounting tool he had to legally avoid taxes. If one disagrees with those tax 'loopholes', that's a ding on the IRS, not Trump.
If your rip-off thought concerns nutty real estate valuations and manipulations, that too is on the IRS for allowing the practices to be accepted industry practices. That has been the determination I am hearing from multiple CNN 'experts'. Short of finding blatant fraud, so far the noted practices are not illegal or unusual for the industry.
Consider how many real tax experts; accountants, and lawyers, that the media most likely had ready to examine the data dump of the returns. Imagine the intense effort that army has made, around the clock, to dissect the returns and uncover the black smoldering heart of a Trump crime.
At least, that was the presentation CNN offered on Day 1. Now, after a week of that round-the-clock forensic effort their presentation has moderated to the blurb I paraphrased: It might possibly be . . . if . . . and if . . . '
"Likelyhood" shouldn't be a reason to dox someone's tax returns, and it shouldn't be presented as a probable certainty.
Your 'rip-off' complaint should be for the IRS, not Trump.
GA"If your rip-off thought concerns nutty real estate valuations and manipulations, that too is on the IRS for allowing the practices to be accepted industry practices. "- Since when has the IRS ever done that? And didn't the Manhattan DA just find his company guilty of that and isn't the Manhattan DA currently investigating Trump personally for just that?
Has the Manhattan DA filed charges or is he in the same position you are - "Wait! There just has to be something here if I can only find it! I know he's guilty because his heart is black, but I can't FIIIINNNDDD anything!"
Well, I can't resist saying 'Yes, exactly. That's what I said. They have already poured through the minutia of every detail of his returns with the success that they were able to get all those 'company' convictions. They also got personal convictions, I think. Trump's CFO, and others?
Yet, they didn't find cause, (as you say, yet?), to convict Trump. There seem to be two probable reasons: There was nothing to convict him with, or he was too slick to leave a paper trail.
That you offer the success of the companies' prosecutions, (those efforts included chasing Trump as a perp and ending with the lack of charges against him), as proof of Trump's guilt appears to say nebulous, 'might be' circumstantial evidence is enough for you.
GA"NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump’s COMPANY was convicted of tax fraud Tuesday for helping executives dodge taxes on extravagant perks such as Manhattan apartments and luxury cars, a repudiation of financial practices at the former president’s business as he mounts another run for the White House.
A jury found two CORPORATE ENTITIES at the Trump Organization guilty on all 17 counts, including charges of conspiracy and falsifying business records. Trump himself was not on trial. The verdict in state court in New York came after about 10 hours of deliberations over two days."
Trump was not charged in this case.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/d … executives
You need to consider facts thus far, yes the Manhattan DA is currently investigating Trump. Perhaps you might want to wait and see the outcome.
I finally found your quote several pages down. I wonder what the "Questions" are he is referring to? Also, how does he define "red flag". To me, a red flag is something that looks suspicious such as Expenses Exactly matching Income or interest expense from the kids in round dollars, e.g. $18,000. I am guessing Dubinsky hadn't got to that part yet.
I also found these:
"Given Trump's years in business — specifically the real estate industry — the returns are complex and require a close read. They all appear to show very large pass-through losses from over 100 business entities, according to forensic accountant Bruce Dubinsky. "[/b]
[i]"The former president's 2020 tax returns were prepared by a different accountant than Mazars, which dropped Trump as a client and disavowed years of financial statements it had prepared for him. " - Tell me again why Mazars disavowed Trump's taxes?
"A month earlier, in February 2022, the accounting firm that for years prepared Trump and the Trump Organization's annual financial statements cut their ties with both and said a decade's worth of the reports "should no longer be relied upon." Mazars USA's decision came as the New York attorney general's office sought depositions of Donald Jr. and Ivanka Trump, as part of an ongoing fraud probe. The company said it could no longer stand by financial statements from June 30, 2011 to June 30, 2020. " - WHY would they say that?
"Bruce Dubinsky, a forensic accountant and certified fraud examiner, said it could be an estate planning technique. " - OR, it could be a way to avoid paying a gift tax which many wealthy people have been caught doing. It depends on what the IRS auditors find. "Dubinsky said. "The whole technique hinges on the taxpayer's intent when first making the loan in that they must intend for it to be a legally binding loan, and there can't be an agreement up front that the loan will be fully forgiven in the future." - Given Trump's very long history of fraud, it seems more likely than not he is trying to illegally avoid taxes. The key is whether he forgave more than $30,000/year of the loans to each wealthy kid.
"Former President Trump announced each year of his presidency that he was giving away his salary. As a candidate in 2016, he told "60 Minutes" Lesley Stahl he'd just take $1 a year. ... "There is no backup schedule that breaks down where the $500,150 in charitable deductions claimed in 2018 went," Dubinsky told CBS News. "Typically, when the taxpayer claims a charitable deduction for that large amount of money, the tax preparer includes a detailed list of who the money went to. In Trumps 2018 tax return, for instance, there is no such schedule, so we really don't know if he was telling the truth when he said he donated his presidential salary to charity." - So, was this just another in a long string of lies told by Trump?"Given Trump's very long history of fraud, it seems more likely than not he is trying to illegally avoid taxes."
Is that "long history of fraud" like what you are finding in his tax returns? Nothing to find, nothing to convict on, etc.?He ran on the idea that he was a successful businessman who could come to Washington and use those same principles to help government function better. I think he didn't want his taxes revealed because in no way do they match that narrative. Seems like everything he touched became a losing proposition.
Congress only released his taxes from 2015 - 2020. When Trump was running Forbes showed his worth to be 9 billion. Not sure it is fair to say one way or the other if Trump lied about his worth while campaigning, thus far we have not been privy to his income prior to 2015.
Explain his six (I think) bankruptcies, or do those not count?
You explain to your satisfaction. The rest of us already understand that the majority of new business fail (50% within 5 years) and go bankrupt.
This "stable genius" inherited over 420 million from his father. Giving him the padding tofall on his ass many times and feel no pain. And he has the nerve to try to get people to believe that understands the common man. When someone inherits that kind of money you can fail and screw up only if you deliberately wanted to...
You're correct; he "fell on his ass" many times...and still increased his worth by a factor of 10. IF you believe that 420M figure; I had seen it at a measly 1M.
How do you know that? You are taking a liars word for it.
According to a The New York Times report in 2018, Trump received at least $413 million (in 2018 prices) from his father's business empire.[2] Barstow, David; Craig, Susanne; Buettner, Russ (October 2, 2018). "11 Takeaways From The Times's Investigation Into Trump's Wealth". The New York Times. Retrieved October 3, 2018.So are you; the NYT is not noted for honesty and truth.
But I did not say I believed it; that comes strictly from you as you again put words in my mouth. I just said I heard (read) it. Personally I find it as likely as the 413M figure, but that's up to you to decide for yourself.
Want to bet there isn't a whole lot more to that 413M tale, pertinent information that the NYT "forgot" to include in their efforts to degrade Trump?Again, you have the wrong media outlet. The NYT is very well respected for its honesty and quality of journalism (except by Trumplicans, of course).
Using Sharlee's metric, Statistaca, it seems the NYT is up there with CNN, but behind ABC/NBC/CBS and well ahead of FOX which is itself well ahead of all other right-wing propaganda outlets.
Credible - 52% vs Not Credible - 24% vs Other - 24%
So, I guess your opinion is wrong about the NYT.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/239 … ed-states/
I am not the one who put forward the increase in Trump's net worth. If you didn't believe it 1) why didn't you say so or 2) why even bother to put forward what you consider a lie. Sorry, it is not I who put words in others mouths or mischaracterize what they say." why even bother to put forward what you consider a lie. "
Once more (getting monotonous) I didn't say it was a lie. I said it was unknown, but with as much probability of being true as your claim.ONCE MORE (and yes, it is getting monotonous),did I say you considered it a lie? I did not! I gave you two options.one of which you ignored (so it is probably the true one).
ONE - By leaving out context, you leave the reader to think you agree with what you write
OR
TWO - IF you believed it to be a lie, why did you bother to write it is if it were true?
Anything else is simply intentional misinformation.Guess that's where we differ; my comment plainly said that I had seen the figure of 1M. Unspoken was that it was on the web, but that isn't a long reach.
And that's the difference right there: I recognize that much (most?) of what I see on the web is a lie, while you glom onto it as God's Word as long as it presents Trump in a negative light.
Bankruptcies are not illegal and are very common for entrepreneurs. No, they don't count as a crime... LOL
You might want to brush up on bankruptcy laws.
I have to agree with one exception. What was lucrative for him was selling his image. Granted, that image was built on a pyramid of cons (and thousands of NDAs and lost lawsuits), it nevertheless had value. I wonder if it still does.
I will be honest I have wasted a ton of time looking into Trump's past business dealings, and all the accusations of fraud against his person were conjecture, just accusations. He has never been invited for any crime. I few of his CEOs have had personal tax problems that they have been charged with. Not sure why ECO continues to feel Trump has committed crimes in regard to his taxes. Thus far there is nothing that stands out on his taxes that indicate he broke tax laws. He certainly used loopholes, legal loopholes.
He promoted himself as very wealthy, his tax records prove that claim. He may have claimed to be worth more than he was worth financially, but that is not a crime. It is obvious his taxes show he is a very wealthy man. I guess that fact is being overlooked. I just see the tax thing left egg on Dems' faces, as all their slimy ploys. Not sure why more don't see the folly in all of this. It is apparent many are simply gonners.
I am not sure many are reading Trump's tax records, they show although having various business losses his bottom lines were very good. In his years in the White House, he reported earnings of 2.4 Billion with a B... I am not sure why some refer to his past tax history before 2015 --- the taxes released were tax records from 2015 -2020. Unless I have missed something, we have no facts on how he was doing financially before 2015 or what he was worth. I remember when he was campaigning in 2015 Forbes had him worth 9 billion. The facts are being twisted to create a false narrative in my view."Not sure why ECO continues to feel Trump has committed crimes in regard to his taxes. " - For a couple reasons: 1) just a cursory review of his taxes bring to light several instances where fraud is more likely than not and 2) given his history of conning people out of their money, it fits his character.
"He promoted himself as very wealthy, his tax records prove that claim." - I beg to differ. His tax records show he LOST hundreds of millions of dollars as do his many bankruptcies. (although I must say he comes in a distant second to Elon Musk whose net worth declined $200 billion since 2015.)
The reason we consider before 2015 is we don't wear blinders.
When you report "earnings" you need to also report "expenses" It says nothing to earn $2.4 billion when he spent $2.5 billion earning it. How much did he spend earning $2.4 billion?It is this kind of thinking that keeps you mired in the mudhold of hate.
Whether Trump lost money of not, no matter how much (you compared him to Musk) he is still very, very wealthy compared to the average American. Of the American that is merely "very well off".
Yet you deny he is wealthy ("I beg to differ. His tax records show he LOST hundreds of millions of dollars") even as you agree that Musk is wealthy after losing 50 times Trumps entire wealth.
Two standards then; one for Trump, to be used to denigrate him and what he does, one for everyone else. Which keeps you in the mudslinging business even thought there it is often without a shred of truth, such as denying Trump is wealthy.Explain "It is this kind of thinking that keeps you mired in the mudhold of hate."
" (you compared him to Musk) " - I didn't compare him, I offered an interesting factoid.
"Yet you deny he is wealthy" - you are making stuff up again, I said no such thing nor did I imply it. What I said was is he is he lied about being a great businessman, which he clearly is not.
"Whether Trump lost money of not, no matter how much ..." - That is not the point, is it? The point is he conned you about his business acumen to get elected."Yet you deny he is wealthy" - you are making stuff up again, I said no such thing nor did I imply it."
"He promoted himself as very wealthy, his tax records prove that claim."<Sharlee> - I beg to differ.<Esoteric>" https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/357 … ost4277319
Looks pretty plain to me. You differ with the idea that Trump is wealthy - you deny it. But if you still claim you said he lied about being a great businessman, provide the permalink and quote where you said it. Perhaps I missed a comment along the line.
"The point is he conned you about his business acumen to get elected."
How so? Because he went bankrupt, as over half of new businesses do, and then got up and tried again? And again and again, with new and different business ventures? Or because he has amassed 4.5 Billion dollars with his "business acumen"? That puts him in pretty limited company, for there are very few people that can say they have done that.
The bottom line in his taxes shows him MAKING 2.4 billion while he was president. We have no idea of his expenditures, you are digging.
Keep your blinders on, you will feel better, lol.
I don't feel Wilderness has any form of blinders on. He pretty much offers factual info along with his view, which most frequently correlates with facts. IMO, much of the time, you appear unwilling to accept facts if they don't suit your narrative. Example
"Given Trump's very long history of fraud, it seems more likely than not he is trying to illegally avoid taxes."
This is misleading information, there just is no clear evidence that Trump has a history of fraud. I have asked you time and time again to offer proof of this accusation, You just seem not to be able to. This kind of defamation is uncalled for.
In my view, spreading misinformation is one of the biggest reasons for our split society. We that prefer facts are not willing to spread misinformation information that can't be supported by evidence, or facts.Yes, that was my point as well; that Trump has no convictions for fraud as far as I know. Doesn't stop the accusations and claims that he has committed fraud multiple times though, does it?
But it is not "misleading" information; it is, as far as we know, completely false. Until proven to have committed fraud (via a court judgement, not opinion from someone that hates Trump and has no evidence) for many years (that "long history" and multiple times, it remains false to fact.I find myself astounded at how some can look beyond facts to make accusations about Trump, just due to disliking him. In my view, this type of mindset is a very odd phenomenon that some have adopted. The Trump obsession clearly affects some more than others.
There are people out there that will deify Trump, believing every word he speaks and treating every action as a gift from God.
And there are those on the other side that demonize him, turning every word and every action into a Satanic event.
And neither side of that particular fence is interested in truth, in honesty or in the law. Only in Deifying or Demonizing a man that they either love or hate.
(Don't psychologists tell us that love and hate are closely connected, that going from one to the other is a very small step?
"exposing a probable crime of a former president, and it is no more unethical that the Republican's persecution of Hunter Biden."
I agree.
And I'd add, all of Joe's dirty deals that flowed through Hunter.
Using family to "hide" one's corruption just makes you that much more despicable in my opinion. I know that is how "politics" and politicians do business, with some being more corrupt than others, but this pursuit of Trump is merely a collective group of Pots calling the Kettle black.When did Hunter Biden become a former president? Different rules apply to someone who had control over our national security. Did Hunter have that distinguishing characteristic?
For all of you who believe in false conspiracy theories about President Biden's financial ties to China. answer me this - WHY DID TRUMP HAVE CHINESE BANK ACCOUNTS WHILE PRESIDENT?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/30/politics … index.html
Talk about a real conflict of interest.What conflict, Trump did business for many years in many other countries which can be witnessed in his tax documents. This is a fact.
"In 2015, when Mr. Trump launched his very first (real) bid for the White House, he held bank accounts in five countries listed on that year’s tax returns. Those countries included the United Kingdom, Ireland, St Maarten, the US, and China. Three of those (plus the US) represent regions where the Trump Organization owns or runs properties, while The New York Times previously reported the existence of the China account as well as Mr. Trump’s now-abandoned plans to expand the Trump Organization into the country."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 53713.html
He has not had any of his foreign fund transactions flagged, but one that the media reported with Deutsche Bank, which the bank denies ever happened. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKCN1SP0PB
Hunter Biden has factually had 150 of his foreign transactions flagged. There have been documented that substantial Hunters flagged bank transactions. https://republicans-oversight.house.gov … ed-by-u-s-
“Troubling reports have recently surfaced that numerous international business transactions tied to Hunter and James Biden, the President’s brother, were flagged to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) through Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs). At the same time, the Biden Administration is restricting Congress’ access to SARs. This reversal of longstanding policy raises serious questions about the motives behind the change, including whether it is intended to protect Hunter Biden,” wrote Ranking Member Comer to Secretary Yellen. “More than 150 international business transactions tied to Hunter or James Biden were flagged by U.S. banks in SARs filed with the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The sheer number of flagged transactions, in this case, is highly unusual and may be indicative of serious criminal activity or a national security threat."
banks/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CMore%20than%20150%20international%20business,or%20a%20national%20security%20threat.
Trump is and was clearly a businessman that has done business all over the world. His taxes show this, and he has nothing in those taxes to indicate he was hiding from doing business in many foreign countries.
Again I ask you for some form of facts, or sources to back up your many different views. Other than CNN, it has a proven record of being untruthful., and biased."What conflict, Trump did business for many years in many other countries which can be witnessed in his tax documents. This is a fact." - It is also a fact that he had to report that while he was president on his financial disclosure statements - he didn't. It would seem obvious to me that if the President of the United States had ANY foreign holdings, they must be at the very least reported publicly but better yet, divested.
"Trump is and was clearly a businessman that has done business all over the world. " - And very poorly I might add given the hundreds of millions of dollars he has sustained over the years, lol. That was another line of BS he fed the gullible.I am not sure of your logic. His taxes ( the ones we have the privilege of seeing 2015 -2020) show him making end-of-the-year profits. It has been reported that he made 2.4 billion in his years in the White House. Not sure of his prior years we have no way of knowing what he did prior to 2015. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexand … 6efc9c10c0
I don't think you have no way of knowing his worth prior to 2015. We have not been provided taxes from prior years.We are not talking about his "worth" He are talking about one business failure after another.
"He has not had any of his foreign fund transactions flagged, but one that the media reported with Deutsche Bank," - That we know of so far. I have my doubts that more wont turn-up as the IRS digs into it. Also Trump had a multitude of transactions flagged by Deutsche.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald … r-n1007501
"Hunter Biden has factually had 150 of his foreign transactions flagged. There have been documented that substantial Hunters flagged bank transactions. " - So, what is your point? He is being investigated, isn't he?
BTW, your repeating the claim by Republican Comer is extremely misleading as you can see in this article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … us-crimes/Banks do a good job of flagging suspicious cash. As they did with Hinter Biden 150 times. I have found one bank transition Trump had period. I offered a source, you need to do the same, before making such an accusation.
Yes, Hunter is being investigated, due to the documents from the bank... Trump has no history of his banking transactions being flagged, not sure why yo feel you can just slander this man without any form of evidence he has broken the law.
So what do Trump's tax returns show?
2015:
Even Line 1 is intriguing - only $.14,141 in W-2 wages For a man who owns literally hundreds of companies, he doesn't draw a salary from even one of them. What little he does report comes from gigs with media related companies. Of course, there is no need to but I find it advantageous to draw a salary from my LLC so as to take my earnings as a deductible expense rather than a taxable distribution.
But it is Line 2 where he reports $9 million+ in interest. Digging into the details, we find that $50,715 comes from "loans" to three of his very wealthy kids. This is an automatic Red Flag because that amount of interest indicates very large "loans". Now that "could be" legit but it begs these questions that must be answered. 1 - is very much of the principle being paid back or are these "loans" simply a way to avoid the gift tax, which is fraud. 2 0 how did it come to be that two of the payments were in round numbers, $18,000 and $24,000, that is virtually impossible to happen. 3 - What is the interest rate being charged? If it is below market rate, a - the income is being under underreported; again possible evidence of fraud.
Line 3 - Dividends: $1,739,897. Nothing pops out here.When you have found illegal activities, report them. Your "red flags" mean absolutely nothing - they are completely, 100% legal activities with only your imagination to make them illegal.
Find those illegal activities and quit projecting your imagined "possibilities" as something to hang the man with.You keep "projecting" legality as if it was a certainty. At least my way will catch criminals. Your way will let them off the hook.
Here is an interesting take from a professor of law and economics on Trump's financial prowress;
But we have long known the basic story. Trump is a bad businessman who seems to lose money on everything from casinos to golf clubs, with steaks and vodka and even a so-called university in between. So the main reason he often pays so little, if any, in taxes, is that he often reports a loss. He also lost other people’s money and got big tax breaks for that.
President Joe Biden deliverers a Christmas address in the East Room of the White House on December 22, 2022 in Washington, DC.
Opinion: The 10 political questions that could determine the future of US politics
Trump has benefitted from the huge head start given to him by his father Fred Trump, which continued to pay dividends with large capital gains from the sale of inherited property in 2018 (leading to Trump paying some taxes that year – just under $1 million). And like his father, Trump emerges as an aggressive and rather crude tax avoider, using standard (sometimes illegal) tactics like putting the kids on the payroll, writing off personal expenses, overvaluing in-kind charitable contributions and so on. Friday’s release has already shown, for example, that Trump did not donate his presidential salary to charities in 2020, as he had promised – he made no charitable gifts at all in 2020, when he paid no taxes.
Trump’s taxes often push the lines of propriety, and his company’s sometimes cross them, as we now know from the Manhattan DA’s criminal conviction of Trump Organization.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/30/opinions … index.html
As I mentioned before, the Manhattan DA is now investigating Trump personally for illegal tax fraud.Do you realize this is all your view, your opinion? Your comment wording so matters a fact, it leads me to think you don't. And again a CNN article. Do you seek information on any other outlets? Just need to understand your mindset.
Actually I found the link rather revealing.
First, it is labeled as "opinion", not fact, no matter how it is presented here.
Second, the list of things from the tax returns was interesting:
"Trump emerges as an aggressive and rather crude tax avoider."
"...using standard tactics like putting the kids on the payroll, writing off personal expenses, overvaluing in-kind charitable contributions and so on"
"Trump’s taxes often push the lines of propriety"
"Trump may not have paid net positive income taxes in his life."
"I can write nothing at all about Trump’s tax returns."
The last one says it all: the author can write nothing about Trump's tax returns...except item after item after item of opinions designed to denigrate Trump without ever providing any factual information.
So it really is revealing: it reveals the motives, the thinking, the honesty of the author. Happy to print insinuations and assumptions without facts as long as it degrades a politician he doesn't like. And this is what we're being shown as useful "information" from an expert.So well put...
In my view, the article was very revealing, and the author certainly shares much in common with the fellow that posted the link. He took an opinion piece and ran with it. This is a problem that has caught on with many today. We see more and more journalists printing insinuations and assumptions ( if one can call them journalists) they do little legwork to find facts. Their views are more palatable to some in our society today.
I ask where will this all lead? Does buying into just views, without facts not promote a kind of lack of intelligence?We do indeed seem more interested in views rather than facts today. More and more that's all that we see; someone giving their unsupported opinion when what we really want, and need, are facts with which to make our own conclusion. That's almost impossible to find any more, most definitely including the "journalism" being offered today.
"We do indeed seem more interested in views rather than facts today. " - You may roll that way, but I rely on verifiable facts. I have to presume you are referring to Fox so-called journalism. Mainstream media credibility is high, Fox is low.
Hmmm, let's see now since your view opinions are worthless, lets take apart your comment -
"We do indeed seem more interested in views rather than facts today." - Isn't that worthless opinion by your definition?
"More and more that's all that we see; someone giving their unsupported opinion "- Isn't that worthless opinion by your definition?
"what we really want, and need, are facts with which to make our own conclusion."- Again, opinion and unsupported assumptions, by your definition.
Finally, more unsubstantiated opinion: "That's almost impossible to find any more, most definitely including the "journalism" being offered today."
So experts are not allowed to have opinions based on the evidence before them? Interesting.
Do you realize that what I posted is the view of a highly respected law and economics professor?? It is not MY view but it is one I happen to agree with.
Of course it is a CNN article, after all they and other mainstream media are trusted to tall the truth by most non-conservative Americans.
Was it ethical for the GOP to refuse to hold hearings for an open Supreme Court nominee by a Democrat president? NO.
Was it ethical for the GOP to confirm a Supreme Court nominee within two weeks of a presidential election? NO.
I wouldn't be bringing up the issue of ethics if I were a republican. Too many whatabouts?There isn't a political party in this country, and precious few politicians (at the federal level) that has any business talking about ethics. That is something that our government hasn't seen in many years.
I would argue writ large - EVER. But then the same is true even more of large corporations
That him saying he will do something is no guarantee he will do it. That is what this entire battle has been about. He said he would. But he didn't.
Related Discussions
- 140
Congress Demands Trump's Taxes !
by Ralph Schwartz 20 months ago
Congress has ramped up efforts to secure the tax returns of President Trump, demanding the IRS hand them over for scrutiny, launching what appears to be a legal battle between the Executive and Legislative branches.There is no existing law which requires the President or any other private citizen...
- 82
Republicans trust Donald Trump. Everyone else trusts the media.
by promisem 7 years ago
One of the most widely folllowed political polls just issued the results of a new survey on Trump and found that:1. Trump's disapproval rating dropped again -- to 38%.2. 63% said he is not level headed.3. Voters disapprove 61 - 35 percent of the way Trump talks about the media.4. 52% of voters...
- 462
Trump's Criminal Trials
by J Conn 3 months ago
The country will get at least one verdict before the November election. The New York Hush Money/Election Interference case is set to kick off on March 25. Trump attorneys attempts to get charges dropped and the case delayed were struck...
- 15
What will Donald Trump's taxes reveal?
by Randy Godwin 7 years ago
What will Donald Trump's taxes reveal?It is a sure thing the Special Prosecutor will subpoena Trump's taxes. Will they reveal any monetary ties to the Russians or will they show he isn't as rich as he claims. I realize this is a speculative topic, but I think we'll eventually have the real answers...
- 1121
Jan 6th Hearings Are Approaching Will You Be Tuning In?
by Sharlee 23 months ago
The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol will hold the first of at least a half-dozen public hearings this week, having already promised stunning revelations that would lay bare just how dangerously close the U.S. came to losing its democracy. So, will you tune in? ...
- 27
Trump's Taxes
by IslandBites 7 years ago
Do you think this small leak is a Trump's campaign strategy to kill the issue? Or, do you think this is only a preview of what's to come soon to attack him?