• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Judge sides against Trump his tax returns

Shad

Veteran Member
That probable cause can be a nasty thing when you want to rip everything open like and anteater does to an ant hill, in hopes of finding something, anything, to overturn the 2016 election.

That is why it is really a witch hunt. They have no evidence that Trump did anything wrong thus have no ground to get his tax returns. Dems want it so they can "find" a "crime" and to leak the returns to the public via an "aide"
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Yes it did. The Mueller report identified multiple instances where Trump committed obstruction of justice. Mueller even listed the requirements for obstruction and for each instance, described how those requirements were met.

But he stopped short of accusing Trump of obstruction because of DoJ policy against indicting a sitting President.

Did you actually read the report?
Yes, I have the report, and read it. Once again, Mueller copped out. Regardless of DOJ policy, his job was to clearly identify crime if he saw it. He was not to cite instances that could be interpreted as obstruction, if there was obstruction, he should have clearly said so.

Starr did re Clinton, he flat out said Clinton committed crimes and identified them.

Many legal scholars, many, including democrat Alan Derschowitz say there was no obstruction and there was no case to be made. As one who prepared cases for prosecution hundreds of times, I don´t see it.

It is interesting that all the howling about Russian collusion ( conspiracy), the reason for Mueller in the first place, evaporated, there was no there there, so we are talking about alleged obstruction in a case where there was no crime in the first place.

Until someone is tried, has an opportunity to mount a defense, and is convicted, either in the senate or a courtroom, they are presumed innocent. If they are not found guilty they are innocent.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Yes, I have the report, and read it.
Then your claim that the report gave no evidence of any crimes by Trump is bizarre.

Once again, Mueller copped out. Regardless of DOJ policy, his job was to clearly identify crime if he saw it. He was not to cite instances that could be interpreted as obstruction, if there was obstruction, he should have clearly said so.
Since you've read the report, you know that he also wrote that it would be unfair of him to accuse the President of crimes, since the President has no legal means to counter such accusations (if he can't be indicted, he has no access to the courts). Mueller was quite clear that when it comes to the President, it is solely the job of Congress to hold the President accountable.

Many legal scholars, many, including democrat Alan Derschowitz say there was no obstruction and there was no case to be made. As one who prepared cases for prosecution hundreds of times, I don´t see it.
That's hardly surprising. You're aware that many other prosecutors have stated otherwise, right?

"Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.

The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:

· The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;
· The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and
· The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign."

It is interesting that all the howling about Russian collusion ( conspiracy), the reason for Mueller in the first place, evaporated
Again, since you've read the report I assume you're familiar with what it actually says. It identifies multiple instances of direct and indirect contacts between Russians and members of the Trump campaign. It also explains that because "collusion" itself is not a crime, the only potential crime would be if there was a coordinated, deliberate conspiracy to "collude", but Mueller's team couldn't determine if one existed in large part because so many members of the Trump campaign lied and/or destroyed evidence.

there was no there there, so we are talking about alleged obstruction in a case where there was no crime in the first place.
As someone who claims to have worked in the legal world, I'm shocked that you don't know that one can obstruct justice even if they're innocent of the original crime.

Until someone is tried, has an opportunity to mount a defense, and is convicted, either in the senate or a courtroom, they are presumed innocent. If they are not found guilty they are innocent.
No, they are presumed innocent.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Then your claim that the report gave no evidence of any crimes by Trump is bizarre.


Since you've read the report, you know that he also wrote that it would be unfair of him to accuse the President of crimes, since the President has no legal means to counter such accusations (if he can't be indicted, he has no access to the courts). Mueller was quite clear that when it comes to the President, it is solely the job of Congress to hold the President accountable.


That's hardly surprising. You're aware that many other prosecutors have stated otherwise, right?

"Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.

The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:

· The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;
· The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and
· The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign."


Again, since you've read the report I assume you're familiar with what it actually says. It identifies multiple instances of direct and indirect contacts between Russians and members of the Trump campaign. It also explains that because "collusion" itself is not a crime, the only potential crime would be if there was a coordinated, deliberate conspiracy to "collude", but Mueller's team couldn't determine if one existed in large part because so many members of the Trump campaign lied and/or destroyed evidence.


As someone who claims to have worked in the legal world, I'm shocked that you don't know that one can obstruct justice even if they're innocent of the original crime.


No, they are presumed innocent.
As I said, there is no conspiracy to collude with the Russians.

Of course there are always differing opinions, that is why guilt is established in a trial, not by opinion.

Obstruction relates to the activities of the investigators, not to the presence or absence of an underlying crime.

From the report it is pretty clear that the inferred, not stated obstruction is primarily about the words of someone who knew there was no underlying crime. If there was, one has to assume Mueller would have made the case for it.

Whoever the jury is, the senate, or 12 peers, will take this into consideration. It will be a tough sell without an actual underlying crime.

Further, when the genisis of this investigation becomes clear, that it was started in a most under handed, biased , and probably illegal manner, e.g. FISA court not given any possible exculpatory evidence for FISA warrants, Entrapment attempts of Trump aids, the obstruction issue will fade away.

The IG report will be out Friday on this issue, things will get very clear.

You twist my words, again. I did not say there was no evidence, I said Mueller did not clearly identify any crime, state there were crimes.

As I said, one is presumed innocent till proven guilty.

Then your claim that the report gave no evidence of any crimes by Trump is bizarre.


Since you've read the report, you know that he also wrote that it would be unfair of him to accuse the President of crimes, since the President has no legal means to counter such accusations (if he can't be indicted, he has no access to the courts). Mueller was quite clear that when it comes to the President, it is solely the job of Congress to hold the President accountable.


That's hardly surprising. You're aware that many other prosecutors have stated otherwise, right?

"Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.

The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:

· The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;
· The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and
· The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign."


Again, since you've read the report I assume you're familiar with what it actually says. It identifies multiple instances of direct and indirect contacts between Russians and members of the Trump campaign. It also explains that because "collusion" itself is not a crime, the only potential crime would be if there was a coordinated, deliberate conspiracy to "collude", but Mueller's team couldn't determine if one existed in large part because so many members of the Trump campaign lied and/or destroyed evidence.


As someone who claims to have worked in the legal world, I'm shocked that you don't know that one can obstruct justice even if they're innocent of the original crime.


No, they are presumed innocent.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
There is absolutely no tested evidence that he committed a felony, anywhere.
You realize he is currently being investigated, right? And the point is that releasing his tax returns is meant to be a demonstration that he has not committed any kind of tax evasion. If that's the case, he should release them.

Your vaunted Mueller report didn´t provide it.
You mean, the Mueller report which found enough evidence to potentially convict Donald once he leaves office?

Now Schiffs star chamber has not produced any yet either.

show me the crime, have it adjudicated where the accused can offer a defense, then have a verdict as to guilt or innocence. I will accept the verdict.
Perhaps you don't understand what an investigation is. And if Trump hasn't committed any crime, why does he not release his tax returns?

You are no doubt one of those still stinging from 2016, so a proper legal scenario to actually establish guilt is irrelevant to you. You decide, based upon YOUR political motivation and hatred.
Yeah. My political motivation and hatred against terrible, idiotic, racist presidents.

Trump lies, yep. Hillary lies, all the democrat candidates tell lies, all politicians lie.
"So it's totally fine when Trump does it!"

Your selective outrage is amusing, you really aren´t that naive, are you ?
My outrage isn't selective. I'm outraged with politicians lie, regardless of where they lie on the political spectrum. Apparently, you are the one engaging in selective outrage.

So, if in the political circus of impeachment, if it even occurs, or later if a criminal trial takes place, and Trump is found guilty as defined by either process of a high crime/s or misdemeanor/s I will agree with you.
I very much doubt you will make any public statement to that effect. More likely, you'll avoid bringing it up.

Before then, it is all democrat whining about 2016, the anointed empress lost her crown before it was stuck on her head.

Your rage and that of your fellow travelers in congress have set some very ugly precedents, that will be remembered and employed against you down the road.
The precedent of a President being investigated when there is evidence of a felony?

Don´t whine then. You democrats will have debased the system, and it is all on your head.
I'm not a democrat.

Between now and a trial your emotional whining is just more democrat bulls**t, prove it properly, or shutup, your act is boring.
All you can do is evade. It's sad that you're so much in denial that you can't realize you voted a corrupt, lobbyist-loving, racist criminal into office.

But, hey, who cares? As long as you think you made the totally smart and right decision, that's what matters.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
You realize he is currently being investigated, right? And the point is that releasing his tax returns is meant to be a demonstration that he has not committed any kind of tax evasion. If that's the case, he should release them.


You mean, the Mueller report which found enough evidence to potentially convict Donald once he leaves office?


Perhaps you don't understand what an investigation is. And if Trump hasn't committed any crime, why does he not release his tax returns?


Yeah. My political motivation and hatred against terrible, idiotic, racist presidents.


"So it's totally fine when Trump does it!"


My outrage isn't selective. I'm outraged with politicians lie, regardless of where they lie on the political spectrum. Apparently, you are the one engaging in selective outrage.


I very much doubt you will make any public statement to that effect. More likely, you'll avoid bringing it up.


The precedent of a President being investigated when there is evidence of a felony?


I'm not a democrat.


All you can do is evade. It's sad that you're so much in denial that you can't realize you voted a corrupt, lobbyist-loving, racist criminal into office.

But, hey, who cares? As long as you think you made the totally smart and right decision, that's what matters.
So you say there is evidence of a felony, OK. There is an investigation, thatś fine too.

I do object however to an investigation, in secret. I do object to an investigation that is a political in nature yet is being conducted as if it were a grand jury. I object to an investigation that is totally contrary in procedure compared to previous impeachment investigations. I object to an impeachment investigation ordered by one person, when the precedent is that a vote of the peoples representatives authorizes such investigation. I object to the investigation being moved from the judiciary committee, where such investigation has been conducted in previous impeachments, to the intelligence committee where it can be kept totally secret. I object to the people being denied the knowledge from the interrogations conducted by the intelligence committee. I object to an investigation, contrary to all precedent, where the minority members of the committee cannot call witnesses. I do object to an investigation conducted by a committee that demands secrecy by law, but is rife with leaks of cherry picked statements by the democrat members.

If you really despise lying politicians, then you should never vote. There has not been any president or presidential candidate who has not been a liar. No one but a fool believes otherwise.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
So you say there is evidence of a felony, OK. There is an investigation, thatś fine too.

I do object however to an investigation, in secret. I do object to an investigation that is a political in nature yet is being conducted as if it were a grand jury. I object to an investigation that is totally contrary in procedure compared to previous impeachment investigations. I object to an impeachment investigation ordered by one person, when the precedent is that a vote of the peoples representatives authorizes such investigation. I object to the investigation being moved from the judiciary committee, where such investigation has been conducted in previous impeachments, to the intelligence committee where it can be kept totally secret. I object to the people being denied the knowledge from the interrogations conducted by the intelligence committee. I object to an investigation, contrary to all precedent, where the minority members of the committee cannot call witnesses. I do object to an investigation conducted by a committee that demands secrecy by law, but is rife with leaks of cherry picked statements by the democrat members.

If you really despise lying politicians, then you should never vote. There has not been any president or presidential candidate who has not been a liar. No one but a fool believes otherwise.
I see a lot of obfuscations and distractions to avoid admitting you voted for a dud president, nothing more.

Conspiratorial griping and ridiculous equivalence doesn't excuse Trump of his incompetence, both as a president and a human being, and it doesn't exonerate his obviously criminal behaviour, nor the fact that you were duped into voting for an obvious crook.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
What makes you think he is trying to hide anything ?
It's a fact everybody knows about.
Trump has been hiding and lying about his tax returns since his first day campaigning. The real questions are "What is Trump hiding? Why is Trump hiding it?"
If there was something fishy, or illegal, the IRS would have dealt with it before now.
It isn't illegal to be in hock up to your eyeballs to hostile foreign powers like Russian oligarchs. But it does call into question your judgement when it comes to foreign policy or military endeavors. Like tariffs and reigniting conflicts with Iran. If the USA cannot be trusted to make peace or trade deals that's a big win for Putin's Russian ambitions.

And if nobody in America can figure out what Trump's real motivation is, that's another huge problem for the USA.
There is no law that says candidates should release their tax information, though there should be.
No there isn't. And I agree that basic financial transparency of people running for high office should be required, if only by the electorate.

More than just tax returns, the modern global world of finance and investment and corruption means that a lot more information than tax returns should be required by competent voters before a candidate gets any support.

Because the dems have not yet come up with an impeachable offense, they have been trying to since the inauguration, Why should he help them ? It is just one fishing expedition after another, they remind me of the gang that couldn´t shoot straight, jerry boom boom nadler, adam the lemur schiff, and nancy the boss pelosi haven´t been able to pull it off yet, year after year after year.

They legislate with the same skill.

Suppose that Trump's opponent, Godzillary, could have quashed her record. Kept her record as first lady, Senator, Secretary of State, and all the various investigations, secret. She could describe them as she chose(however dishonestly) and pay people to keep the truth hidden.

The way Trump has kept his track record proprietary. He can lie all he wants. And he has said.
I'll release my tax returns before the election.
I'll release my tax returns after the audit ends.
I'll release my tax returns after Obama proves he was born in the USA.

Then, the most important and profound lie. "Nobody cares about my tax returns".

Trump has lied about his taxes since the first day of his campaign. And mountains of other stuff, as well.

And the only credentials for his run for POTUS was his business acumen. That's one big thing that makes him different from Kasich or Sanders or Clinton or Cruz. Those people all had public records. Trump didn't.
His only credentials were his business acumen, unless you want to include reality TV, banging porno stars, failing at University and casino building, and that sort of thing. Of all the candidates, his financial records were the most important. And things might be perceived very differently if he'd been honest from the beginning, "I won't release any relevant information such as my tax returns." But instead, he consistently lied about it, right up to the election.

You were in law enforcement.
Suppose someone died under very suspicious circumstances. Of the people with possible reasons to kill the victim, most were reasonably cooperative and truthful. One consistently lied about everything from their relationship with the deceased to their whereabouts shortly before the death, and publicly bragged about being smarter than the police. Who would you be most suspicious of and focus your investigation on?
Tom
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
It's a fact everybody knows about.
Trump has been hiding and lying about his tax returns since his first day campaigning. The real questions are "What is Trump hiding? Why is Trump hiding it?"

It isn't illegal to be in hock up to your eyeballs to hostile foreign powers like Russian oligarchs. But it does call into question your judgement when it comes to foreign policy or military endeavors. Like tariffs and reigniting conflicts with Iran. If the USA cannot be trusted to make peace or trade deals that's a big win for Putin's Russian ambitions.

And if nobody in America can figure out what Trump's real motivation is, that's another huge problem for the USA.

No there isn't. And I agree that basic financial transparency of people running for high office should be required, if only by the electorate.

More than just tax returns, the modern global world of finance and investment and corruption means that a lot more information than tax returns should be required by competent voters before a candidate gets any support.



Suppose that Trump's opponent, Godzillary, could have quashed her record. Kept her record as first lady, Senator, Secretary of State, and all the various investigations, secret. She could describe them as she chose(however dishonestly) and pay people to keep the truth hidden.

The way Trump has kept his track record proprietary. He can lie all he wants. And he has said.
I'll release my tax returns before the election.
I'll release my tax returns after the audit ends.
I'll release my tax returns after Obama proves he was born in the USA.

Then, the most important and profound lie. "Nobody cares about my tax returns".

Trump has lied about his taxes since the first day of his campaign. And mountains of other stuff, as well.

And the only credentials for his run for POTUS was his business acumen. That's one big thing that makes him different from Kasich or Sanders or Clinton or Cruz. Those people all had public records. Trump didn't.
His only credentials were his business acumen, unless you want to include reality TV, banging porno stars, failing at University and casino building, and that sort of thing. Of all the candidates, his financial records were the most important. And things might be perceived very differently if he'd been honest from the beginning, "I won't release any relevant information such as my tax returns." But instead, he consistently lied about it, right up to the election.

You were in law enforcement.
Suppose someone died under very suspicious circumstances. Of the people with possible reasons to kill the victim, most were reasonably cooperative and truthful. One consistently lied about everything from their relationship with the deceased to their whereabouts shortly before the death, and publicly bragged about being smarter than the police. Who would you be most suspicious of and focus your investigation on?
Tom
Of course the consistent liar compared to others would be most suspicious. However, a identifying a liar is negative evidence, positive evidence must be developed to add to the lying. Some people lie as a natural part of their personality, Trump is one of these, I think. Then there are pathological liars, who actually believe their lies are truth. These are the kind that beat polygraphs, or more specifically, have a test that is non conclusive.

I object to rummaging around in someones life without probable cause, when there is no legal right to do so. For Trump, for you and for me.

This is why the entire FBI investigation at the beginning of this mess is so suspect. They used the end justifies the means idea to make illegal shortcuts, and to act because of Bias, you may not care because the subject was Trump, but if they can do that to him, they can do it to you.

Back in the day I was taught that the FBI always played it by the book and the agents I worked with reflected this.

To find that the leadership of the agency was so corrupt blew it me away.

So, if Trump committed crimes, prove it by removal from office by trial in the senate, or by an indictment after his term/s. Use legal means however, the law exists to protect us all. If an exception can be made once, it can be made again and again.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I see a lot of obfuscations and distractions to avoid admitting you voted for a dud president, nothing more.

Conspiratorial griping and ridiculous equivalence doesn't excuse Trump of his incompetence, both as a president and a human being, and it doesn't exonerate his obviously criminal behaviour, nor the fact that you were duped into voting for an obvious crook.
of two of the worst candidates ever to run for president, I voted for the least repulsive by a hair.

The results of that, from low unemployment, a strong economy, stemming the tide of illegals, appointing originalists to the supreme court, strengthening the military, cutting taxes, re igniting the manned space program, yes, I am satisfied with my vote.

An obvious crook ? Victims of lynching were hanged based upon that standard.

Prove it by a conviction, otherwise spit in your hand and your opinion has less value than what you hold.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
As I said, there is no conspiracy to collude with the Russians.
As the report noted, whether one occurred was impossible to tell since so many people on the Trump campaign lied and/or destroyed evidence. Apparently you're okay with that.

From the report it is pretty clear that the inferred, not stated obstruction is primarily about the words of someone who knew there was no underlying crime. If there was, one has to assume Mueller would have made the case for it.
He did make the case. For each instance he listed the requirements for obstruction then described how each of those requirements were met by Trump's actions.

Further, when the genisis of this investigation becomes clear, that it was started in a most under handed, biased , and probably illegal manner, e.g. FISA court not given any possible exculpatory evidence for FISA warrants, Entrapment attempts of Trump aids, the obstruction issue will fade away.

The IG report will be out Friday on this issue, things will get very clear.
I'm not interested in Hannity's bizarre conspiracy theories.

You twist my words, again. I did not say there was no evidence, I said Mueller did not clearly identify any crime, state there were crimes.
"There is absolutely no tested evidence that he committed a felony, anywhere."
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
As the report noted, whether one occurred was impossible to tell since so many people on the Trump campaign lied and/or destroyed evidence. Apparently you're okay with that.


He did make the case. For each instance he listed the requirements for obstruction then described how each of those requirements were met by Trump's actions.


I'm not interested in Hannity's bizarre conspiracy theories.


"There is absolutely no tested evidence that he committed a felony, anywhere."
Do you know what tested evidence is ? Apparently not. Tested evidence is that which meets the established rules of evidence and is declared admissable in a legal proceeding.

It doesn´t exist.

There is no legal proceeding. An alleged investigation where the alleged evidence is thrown against the wall to see what sticks does not result in tested evidence, only evidence that awaits testing.

My statement stands, no tested evidence exists, anywhere.

No where does he make the statement that Trump committed a crime. The whole purpose of an investigation is to A) determine if a crime has been committed and B) as far as possible determine who committed the crime, and identify them based on evidence.

Every criminal investigation that I conducted followed this formula because it is a standard formula used in all law enforcement agencies.

Mueller knew this, of course, having once been head of the FBI.

One doesn´t complete a a two and one half year investigation, and then tell the reader of your report to decide if a crime was committed.

So, he lists the elements, and actions, then says ¨you decide¨. Laughable, all designed to protect his butt from the consequences of doing his job properly.

It is all untested evidence, and opinion since he never stated if crimes were committed and who committed them.

Anyone can read the report, and without the clear conclusion from an experienced investigator, develop an opinion. Your opinion, mine, Nancy Pelosiś mean jack squat.

You decide is gutless, contrary to investigative basic principles, and just adds to the clown show.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Do you know what tested evidence is ? Apparently not. Tested evidence is that which meets the established rules of evidence and is declared admissable in a legal proceeding.

It doesn´t exist.

There is no legal proceeding. An alleged investigation where the alleged evidence is thrown against the wall to see what sticks does not result in tested evidence, only evidence that awaits testing.

My statement stands, no tested evidence exists, anywhere.
Exactly. As long as the DoJ maintains the policy that a sitting President can't be indicted, it's absolutely impossible for such "tested evidence" to exist at all.

IOW, you deliberately framed the concept of "evidence" in a way that absolutely precludes any from ever existing. And you would've gotten away for it if it wasn't for those pesky kids!

No where does he make the statement that Trump committed a crime. The whole purpose of an investigation is to A) determine if a crime has been committed and B) as far as possible determine who committed the crime, and identify them based on evidence.

Every criminal investigation that I conducted followed this formula because it is a standard formula used in all law enforcement agencies.

Mueller knew this, of course, having once been head of the FBI.

One doesn´t complete a a two and one half year investigation, and then tell the reader of your report to decide if a crime was committed.

So, he lists the elements, and actions, then says ¨you decide¨. Laughable, all designed to protect his butt from the consequences of doing his job properly.

It is all untested evidence, and opinion since he never stated if crimes were committed and who committed them.

Anyone can read the report, and without the clear conclusion from an experienced investigator, develop an opinion. Your opinion, mine, Nancy Pelosiś mean jack squat.

You decide is gutless, contrary to investigative basic principles, and just adds to the clown show.
We've been over this already. If you don't have anything new, then we're probably done here.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Exactly. As long as the DoJ maintains the policy that a sitting President can't be indicted, it's absolutely impossible for such "tested evidence" to exist at all.

IOW, you deliberately framed the concept of "evidence" in a way that absolutely precludes any from ever existing. And you would've gotten away for it if it wasn't for those pesky kids!


We've been over this already. If you don't have anything new, then we're probably done here.
Nope, nothing new. He will be guilty of a crime if he is convicted by trial in the senate and removed from office, or if he is later indicted and convicted in a court.

There is evidence of something everywhere, until it is deemed admissable, it has no value except for people to form different opinions from it.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
of two of the worst candidates ever to run for president, I voted for the least repulsive by a hair.

The results of that, from low unemployment,
Unemployment has continued to reduce at a steady rate since 2012. In fact, it's reduction has slowed since 2016.
SOURCE: How the Government Measures Unemployment

a strong economy,
National debt has increased by $2 trillion under Trump.
SOURCE: U.S. National Debt Hits Record $22 Trillion

stemming the tide of illegals,
The number of illegal immigrants was also already going down before Trump took office, and there is little evidence that his policies have reduced it any more than this trend.
SOURCE: https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/...-cities-see-a-decrease-in-illegal-immigration

strengthening the military, cutting taxes, re igniting the manned space program, yes, I am satisfied with my vote.
Well, as long as you're happy. That's all that matters.

An obvious crook ? Victims of lynching were hanged based upon that standard.
... Seriously?

You're seriously going to equate Trump and victims of lynching?

You realize Trump was the subject of dozens of scandals, police and tax investigations, even before his candidacy, right?

Prove it by a conviction, otherwise spit in your hand and your opinion has less value than what you hold.
If you can't see that Trump is a crook, you suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Unemployment has continued to reduce at a steady rate since 2012. In fact, it's reduction has slowed since 2016.
SOURCE: How the Government Measures Unemployment


National debt has increased by $2 trillion under Trump.
SOURCE: U.S. National Debt Hits Record $22 Trillion


The number of illegal immigrants was also already going down before Trump took office, and there is little evidence that his policies have reduced it any more than this trend.
SOURCE: https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/...-cities-see-a-decrease-in-illegal-immigration


Well, as long as you're happy. That's all that matters.


... Seriously?

You're seriously going to equate Trump and victims of lynching?

You realize Trump was the subject of dozens of scandals, police and tax investigations, even before his candidacy, right?


If you can't see that Trump is a crook, you suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Who increased the national debt more than all previous presidents, combined ? Barak Obama

Who stated that the new norm was no better than 2% GDP ?, Barak Obama

Mexico, at the behest of Trump, is turning back Central Americans headed for the US by thousands every day.

I didn´t equate Trump with victims of lynching. I said the standard of evidence is the same, "he is obviously guilty".

Has Trump ever been convicted of a crime ?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Who increased the national debt more than all previous presidents, combined ? Barak Obama
False.
SOURCE: The US national debt just pushed past $22 trillion — here's how Trump's $2 trillion in debt compares with Obama, Bush, and Clinton

Also, I see you commended Trump for "lowering taxes". Tell me what part of the economic stimulus package that Obama introduced was, again?

Also also, eliminating the national debt was one of Donald's campaign promises. Instead, he now plans to increase it to $9.1 trillion if voted in for a second term.
SOURCE: Trump Pledged to Eliminate the Debt. Instead He Will Add $8.3 Trillion

Mexico, at the behest of Trump, is turning back Central Americans headed for the US by thousands every day.
Evidence, please.

I didn´t equate Trump with victims of lynching. I said the standard of evidence is the same, "he is obviously guilty".
But it plainly isn't, to anybody with even a passing familiarity with Trump's legal history. How many victims of lynching were the defendant of over 1,400 federal cases?

Has Trump ever been convicted of a crime ?
He's settled most of his criminal cases out of court.

Like a (wealthy) criminal would.
 
Last edited:
Top