Social Question

Aster's avatar

Should the Democrats give up on demanding Trump's tax returns and why do they matter?

Asked by Aster (19292points) 1 month ago

I think they’re just nosy. Like children wanting to get even with little Johnny down the block by proving he took pennies from mommy’s wallet. Pelosi, give it up. She’s starting to be quite a bore. A crazy one, maybe, and a hypocrit with a wall around her property.
I’m proud to say I don’t care one bit what’s in his returns. And I’m not alone in this either.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

110 Answers

KNOWITALL's avatar

Oh boy, are you going to get it on this site….lol But many of us agree with you, stop spending taxpayer dollars money on a fruitless never-ending witch hunt.
Impeachment is a waste of time this close to 2020, just whittle down your 24 candidates and hope one of them sticks.
Remember, poor Hillary and her emails, which clearly violated federal law? Well we do.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Ha ha! ” New York lawmakers passed a bill giving Congress a way to obtain President Donald J. Trump’s state tax returns, opening a new front in a heated battle.” New York Times

“Witch hunt.” That’s really funny.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Emails are a testimonial banquet compared to what’s confronting Trump. The weight of crushing leverage now arrayed against him pretty much assures his inevitable destruction. The man just plain wears too many glaring flashing “CROOK” signs to he ignored. And believe me, he is GUARANTEED to see to it that he is NEVER ignored. If the Democrats merely sat on their hands you could depend on the fool to talk his way to impeachment.

Dutchess_III's avatar

^^^^ Agreed.

stanleybmanly's avatar

That’s what we’re talking about. The one thing about the current situation that has finally come to match Trump’s silly claims from the past is that “everybody’s out to get him”. He might duck and dodge an investigation or 2, but 50???

Dutchess_III's avatar

Do you think his returns will show anything impeachable?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Some thing that leaves me baffled is how trumpanzees honestly can’t seem to understand what is really going on here. They seem to want to compare it to something else, some nebulous things the Dems did somewhere along the way over the last 50 years.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Are you kidding? Just the things revealed thus far assure almost certain bank fraud charges. Losing 100 million a year means bank fraud for lying on every loan application in the period. If that was all he wanted hidden, why the remaining and obvious desperation to still withhold his taxes?

stanleybmanly's avatar

They want to believe he is what he pretends, and the eruption of horns and a tail right in front of them will not deter them from such aspirations. There is this peculiar tendency from those who for decades claimed the country losing its moral and ethical compass, to now pretend that such trivialities are now irrelevant. There is this obstinacy and incredible failing of understanding that a pathological lying narcissist might not necessarily be the instrument to “make America great again”. Go figure!

Dutchess_III's avatar

I wonder if it’s going to show financial dealings with Russia where he profited, even after he was elected.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Depend on it. The money laundering aspects ALONE promise to be the underpinning of all those tacky real estate ventures (at least those showing any profit).

Aster's avatar

I understand all of this. But it is incredible what being charming and entertaining can do for a candidate. I’m pretty sure he’ll be re-elected and , once again, the Dems will have those draw dropping looks of disbelief on their faces. Only chance he has of losing is if the Dems can come up with somebody who really holds a crowd hypnotized. Not Gropin Joe , God forbid. That wont happen. I mean even Bernie has a better chance than Joe.
But, Bernie is neither charming or handsome or convincing. Plus , he’s a Socialist.

Jaxk's avatar

If his tax returns had anything illegal in them, the IRS would have found it. Give it up. The Dems just want something to scream about as if they need something. Two years of screaming have been enough. Hell they seem to like making it up better than better anyway. Mueller was supposed to be their savior. How many times have we heard ‘THIS IS IT!!!!!’ then nothing.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Jaxk The IRS doesn’t care about crime other than income tax evasion. You pay the taxes on your criminal activities and you are fine by them! By the same token, if you care to list the losses suffered in your criminal activities, you can deduct them. It is because your tax records may be examined by other agencies that it is unwise to list your occupation as money launderer or drug dealer. The IRS could certainly put 2 and 2 together and of course realized that with granting Trump 100 million dollars in write offs FOR TEN YEARS STRAIGHT, guaranteed him as defrauding banks and every business transaction he touched in those 10 years!! And not a peep out of them (the IRS) on the subject!!!

Tropical_Willie's avatar

The guy was dirty 40 years ago and hasn’t stopped; now he continuously is blocking any and all contact with employees and ex-employees (not legal it called obstruction).

He thinks his Non-Disclosure agreements are stronger than the Constitution.

@Jaxk it is not that IRS saw something illegal, if it is not about the taxes paid or in his case not paid? ? The illegality could be where his money came from or where it went, all legal for taxes BUT illegal like; his being an “unregistered agent” for a foreign government.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I wonder why trump said “I’m fucked,” when the Muller investigation was done?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Dig this!

“Judge says Deutsche Bank, Capital One can give Trump financial records to House Democrats.”

This is gonna be interesting.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Yes the fronts on which his war is now being waged are now beyond the fool’s management. The whole sordid mess is coming apart, and I believe the extent of the slime is going to be staggering.

flutherother's avatar

I don’t think the Democrats are being nosy. Most of us expect our leaders to be open and honest and one way they can show this is by making their tax returns public. Recent presidents have all done this and many feel that Trump should do the same. Pelosi is just representing their wishes as you would expect in a democracy. You are not alone in not caring about Trump’s tax returns but you may not be a majority and there is no reason to take pride in not wanting to know.

Aster's avatar

” there is no reason to take pride in not wanting to know.”
Pride? Nah; I couldn’t take pride in something like this. I just don’t care.
His returns would be extremely complex to the point Americans may not even understand the implications of what they say.

Dutchess_III's avatar

All other presidents have offered up their tax returns. Trump refuses….and that sends up some red flags. I don’t think it’s just a question of being nosy, either.

@Aster, but there are lawyers who can understand them, and who can see whether or not he broke the law. Which he probably did.

seawulf575's avatar

I think it is all part of the Dem’s battle plan for 2020. They have offered nothing really, except raging socialism and “hate Trump”. “Hate Trump” requires less propaganda to sell. So they are trying to say the Mueller report isn’t enough…they need more. They want his tax returns. They are trying to subpoena anyone that had any insider information about Trump. And all of their investigations are just like the Mueller investigation…they don’t actually have a crime…they are looking for something they can say is a crime.
I don’t understand how anyone can vote Dem…they offer witch hunts, innuendo, created crisis, hate for anyone that disagrees with them, and wild proposals that put all the control of everything into their hands. But actual proposals that are helpful to the people? Not a word.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Da Trump is power hungry and is obstructing justice ever chance he gets !

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 the Democrats are by no means claiming the Mueller report isn’t enough. They are saying the report is PLENTY enough. It is Barr’s slant on the report that “isn’t enough” & here’s hoping he winds up swinging beside his fool, though like the others, he will probably wind up swinging INSTEAD of the fool at least temporarily.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Seawulf The liberal version of the Birthers lol. Just let it go, its not required. I wouldnt hand you a gun either, loaded or not.

mazingerz88's avatar

Putin just laughs his ass off everytime an American says “let it go.” Lol Every time an American says he doesn’t care about trump’s taxes nor his relentless assholery Putin wets his panties!

JLeslie's avatar

I think if Trump has done something financially that makes him a risk to be our president then the IRS should be able to disqualify him. If he’s doing business with our enemies then he should be out.

I don’t need to personally see the return, but I need to trust a government agency is overseeing any risks. IRS, CIA, even FBI should be able to evaluate his documents. I would think to get security clearance they do?

Should Dems give up? God knows the Republicans wouldn’t. I don’t know if they should give up. I don’t think his supporters care if he made a lot of money or lost money.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@JLeslie The IRS doesn’t care if you broke the law as long as you pay your taxes.

Collusion is not a tax deduction !

stanleybmanly's avatar

It depends on HOW he makes money, particularly since becoming President but even before. For example why when no other bank would lend Trump money, the single bank willing to finance him just happened to be the one fined a billion dollars for money laundering AND facilitating the looting of Russia by kleptocrats who just happened to park their stolen money in Trump properties. Why was Kushner shuttling back and forth to Russia? Why was the recommendation of the intelligence services unanimous that kushner be denied a top security clearance? Why did his father-in-law override his intelligence agencies. Why have so many of Trump’s inner circle stipulated that the fool instructed them to fire Mueller? And the list of infractions and unanswered accusations disappears over the horizon.

ragingloli's avatar

Lock him up!

MrGrimm888's avatar

Why do they matter? Well. It depends on if you care if Trump broke the law. If he broke the law, he should face the consequences.

Why would someone be OK with a double standard? Especially if you are obeying tax laws, and living average or below average financially, while another person is building wealth, while breaking the laws you abide by.

It seems like common sense, to me.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

This is just a spectacle. Trump does not want to give them up because it’ll likely just show he is not worth as much as he says and it’ll hurt his brand and pride. Those who want the returns public just want to win this little battle and appear like they dealt a huge blow to Trump. As long as he holds out they can say stuff like he is hiding illegal activity regardless if something like his tax returns are not given enough scrutiny by the IRS already.

LostInParadise's avatar

I would turn the question around. Why is Trump so much against showing his tax returns? The more he resists, the more I want to know what he is hiding. Every president in the last 50 years has released tax returns. It should not be a big deal.

JLeslie's avatar

What if part of the reason he refuses is so the media, Congress, and Democrats at large will focus on it. He’s doing all sorts of things we should probably be paying attention to more. I do think there are things in his tax returns that would be bad for him politically and maybe even personally, but I have a feeling it’s not anything so dire that it’s that big of a deal to hide his taxes. It might only confirm things we already know.

stanleybmanly's avatar

When Trump was merely a candidate and circulating the lie about being under audit, I assumed that he just wasn’t worth what he claimed. But now that the cat’s out of the bag about his losing 100 million a year for 10 years straight, and he is STILL busting his ass to conceal his records, it can only be because such records are blueprints to crimes. I mean think about it. Clearly, it isn’t about the possibility of embarrassment. To claim that Trump might feel some sort of embarrassment at being caught in a lie is beyond laughable. That can’t possibly be it.

Jaxk's avatar

I think we should all demand a picture of Trump’s ass. I willing to bet there’s something in there that would prove to be disgusting. Why won’t he bare his ass in public, what does he have to hide? These are questions we all should be asking.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Jaxk I think you’re right his tax returns are “full of SHIT” !

stanleybmanly's avatar

Let those of you eager to kiss his ass demand the picture. I’d prefer a picture of a Congressional foot just as far up there as can be arranged.

seawulf575's avatar

So let me ask…why wasn’t there any outrage about Obama sealing his college transcripts? After all, what is there to hide? It might be that his grades weren’t as good as he claimed or that he took the classes he claimed to, or it might be that he claimed foreign status. By the reasoning of the left, he committed a crime, we just need to dig deep enough to find out what it was. But there is silence about Obama. Why don’t we audit Hillary and Bill? Audit the Clinton Foundation to find out where the billions in aid for Haiti went to? Since it didn’t go to Haiti, it probably was used in violation of the IRS filing. Tax violations!!! All we have to do is look. I’m sure that since you all feel that looking until you find something is the right way to do things, you should support these efforts fully.

mazingerz88's avatar

No need to see trump’s ass. He wears it on his face and crap had been coming out of it for years. Radical Repubs just refuse to see it for what it really is. Sad.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 By the reasoning of the left? What do YOU know about either reasoning OR the left? When have you ever heard anyone assert that Trump committed a crime by withholding his transcripts? Is the left out to subpoena Trump’s transcripts? Why do you have this incessant need to keep bringing up Obama for comparison with the fool. The contrast is so preposterous that if you had a lick of sense, you wouldn’t mention the 2 of them in the same conversation. Why don’t you suggest to the Republican Senate that it subpoena Obama’s transcripts? After all, I’m sure they would love being ridiculed to the extent you so enjoy here.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly Your answer is EXACTLY what I expected. You cannot apply your own reasoning to any Democrat. You cannot put forth the idea that if we dig long enough that we could find a crime by a Democrat. It is only Trump. So your entire attitude is nothing more than Trump Derangement Syndrome. But let me point out something that you on the left always forget…it could come around. When Harry Reid used the “nuclear option” to bypass opposition from the minority party, Dems cheered. But they were told that when Repubs took office they could use it too. When that came to pass, the Dems howled at how unfair it was. So now you want to dig and dig and dig until you can find something you can use against Trump. Well, remember, if that’s how you want the country run, it can be run that way against Dems too. And you folks aren’t too good at wanting to admit your politicians could be criminals, much less wanting to actually dig into them until you find something. So expect to be howling the next time there is a Dem president.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I have said, for a long time , that I wouldn’t care if Obama, or Hillary were investigated for potential crimes. I have actually perpetually opined, that ANYONE who rises to the height of being a president, or candidate, is highly likely to have committed a litany of crimes to get to that point. Throw them ALL in prison, if they broke the law. It doesn’t matter to me.

I’m after Trump, because of how dangerous he is to life I can tolerate. Obama had never scared me like that, and Hillary never got the chance to show what she might have done. Hence, they are a lower priority, to me. But it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest, to see them all under a microscope.

I LOVE it, when most wealthy politicians go down. You simply cannot gain so much wealth, without, and governmental influence without breaking some laws…

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , You are talking apples and oranges. Trump is also unwilling to release his college transcripts. So what? Nobody is asking for them.

And by the way, Obama was the first black to become president of Harvard Law Review while he was in law school. He graduated magna cum laude. His grades could not have been too bad. All we know of Trump’s grades is that he never made honor roll as an undergraduate at Penn.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 How can you assert that the left is somehow not playing fair? You pretend that the dummy is somehow a victim of persecution because the lying fool whines like the big orange sissy he is. What you claim as the left’s invention of the “if you dig long enough” strategy is a lot of nonsense, and the proof? How about the 30 plus year effort to nail the Clintons? Who did the digging then? You want to know why the pursuit of the fool is so massive, intense and beyond precedent? There are 2 ways of looking at this. But first let me advise you that if you think the left is any more vindictive than your side, you’re a bigger fool than Trump! Trump is getting hit because IT’S EASY! The dirt is there. Unlike YOUR team, the left’s tax and business records were there for all to see. You didn’t see Clinton ducking subpoenas and blocking his staff from testifying before Congress. You also in those 30 years didn’t see Clinton or Obama’s people and staff indicted and going to jail. You are sitting in the midst of the most massive exposure of criminal corruption in the history of this country and it is ALL centered directly on the fool. I would feel sorry for you, but the best I can tell you is that in all of our conversations, the fatal mistake you make with your boy is with the failure to admit what he is. So let me ask you now. What result would you predict from a close look at a man with the character flaws of your President ? Those flaws alone are so blatantly extensive and brutally explicit that the implicit corresponding corruption is there without a doubt. EVERYBODY KNOWS IT. You don’t have to dig to see it! HE WEARS IT like that stupid hat he flaunts for his STUPID followers.

rockfan's avatar

Trump is a career criminal, who most likely has ties to the mob and committed money laundering. His tax returns will be able to prove a lot of that.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@seawulf575 Don’t bother, let them try to prove it and spin their wheels for another indefinate length of time. They’ve blown every opportunity they’ve created so far. So much energy expended on Trump when they should be uber-focused on 2020 and winning. #obsessed

Dutchess_III's avatar

@seawulf575 Obama’s transcripts are not sealed.
I imagine he must have had awesome grades to become President of the Harvard Law Review. trump couldn’t even pass an English class.

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise The point is not the transcripts or the tax returns. The point is the attitude of the left. You accept behavior from liberal politicians that you claim are unreasonable from conservative ones. You seem to think that digging and digging until you find something on Repubs seems reasonable, yet you try to deflect when it comes to Dems. THAT is the point. If you are at all honest, you will agree that is true. When people asked about Obama’s college records and why they were sealed tight, the concern was that he had claimed foreign status to get breaks. That is unethical and illegal, if he later claims it was false (so he can be POTUS). Yet the response from the left was that it was meaningless and a witch hunt and a conspiracy theory. Exactly the response you are getting about the endless digging the Dems are doing to Trump. Just as with the Mueller investigation, there was no crime. It was an investigation designed to dig until you can find something to say was a crime. That is a classic witch hunt. If you have some evidence of a crime and want to look for more confirmation, THAT is a valid investigation. The left screamed about collusion and yet never actually acknowledged that “collusion” is not a crime. It is an innuendo that really has no basis in law (except in some anti-trust cases). The crime would have been conspiracy, yet the media and the Dems knew they had no evidence at all for that crime. So they wanted to dig and see what they could find. That’s why the original description for Mueller was to look at Russian interference and to deal with whatever other crimes they could uncover. They even pointed the investigation towards the Trump campaign, though at the time there was zero evidence of any wrongdoing. It was butt-hurt Dems that couldn’t admit that Hillary was a dog of a candidate and that she lost the election.
So the point of my comment is not what the details of the investigation should be, it is how you on the left feel it is right to conduct yourselves. Let me put it this way…what will your attitude be when the next Dem is elected POTUS and the Repubs create a crime and push for a special investigator to look into it and see what they can find in the process? And if that investigation shows nothing, and the Repubs start subpoenaing everything they could just to see if they can find a crime? My opinion will still be the same…it is a witch hunt. I’m willing to bet at that point, you will agree with me.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I don’t think anyone broke a major federal law due to their transcripts. You’re comparing ants to elephants.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III Let’s look at what people are saying. Here’s what @rockfan just said: “Trump is a career criminal, who most likely has ties to the mob and committed money laundering. His tax returns will be able to prove a lot of that.” He claims Trump is a criminal…I say Obama is a criminal. We are equal. He then says the Trump “most likely” has ties to the mob and committed money laundering. Please note there is zero evidence of this. It is conjecture and it is innuendo. It is speculation. So based on that, he believes we should dig and dig until we find something. So I say Obama falsified his records to get potentially monetary breaks on college. That is a crime. I say we should dig and dig until we can find the truth. And if we come across anything else we can act on it then. How is that any different? We have the same attitude, we have the same amount of proof, and we are both demanding stupid investigations? The only thing that makes it ants to elephants for you is that you don’t like Trump and you idolize Obama.

seawulf575's avatar

Or if you want to see something more criminal for Obama, I can bring up the fact that he went from community organizer to POTUS in 12 years. That is entirely unheard of and indicates that criminal activity was probably involved….extortion or bribery or any number of things. Let’s dig into that. Would that make it seem more like elephants to elephants?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

HEY @seawulf575What about Hillary? ?

The GOP is still beating on her and Bill 30 years later . But in your Ultra right wing eyes; the left (OF CENTER) and liberals should be BEAT ON 26 hours a day because of YOUR point of view they might take away your superiority complex. ( I KNOW you think you are the one and only true person with a vision of how things should be.)

seawulf575's avatar

Well gee, @Tropical_Willie, let’s take a look at Hillary. The FBI (Obama’s DoJ) did an investigation of her handling of classified materials on her private email. Remember, she denied she had one, then she said (under oath) she put no classified materials over her private server. Yet the FBI found she had sent many classified materials, including some well above top secret classification over her private server. All this proved (a) perjury and (b) violation of federal law concerning control of classified materials. The FBI had to create an “intent” clause in the law to say she shouldn’t be prosecuted and the corrupt AG, after a private meeting with Bill Clinton, went along with it. So you are trying to defend someone that willfully broke the law, perjured herself, had an investigation that showed she broke the law and perjured herself. Now compare your view of that to your view of Trump. You have no crime committed…just supposition and innuendo. You have no evidence in any investigation, but are willing to keep digging until you find something. But you are willing to overlook actual crime and, in fact, ridicule anyone that actually points out that criminal activity. But you don’t see the inconsistency of your view. Here’s the difference: You are a liberal and don’t like Trump but will compromise your values (what there are of them) to defend an actual criminal because they are a liberal.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

So @seawulf575 you continue the to show GOP mentality (fifth grade group headed up by a sixth grade President).

Once again your logic is “YOU ARE A LIBERAL AND DON’T KNOW SHIT!” Circular at best and based on false ULTRA RIGHT assumptions.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The difference and it is a HUGE difference is in the apparent ability of the accusations against Trump to bear fruit. Even if we accept your premise that Obama and the Clintons are behind crimes of a magnitude and similarity to those of the fool, the subsequent difference lies in the perceived characteristics of the parties involved. You consistently dismiss the undeniable truth that there is just plain more for liberals to gnaw on regarding Trump than
there will ever be concerning Obama. You REFUSE to factor Trump’s bizarre behavior and speech into this conversation regarding motives other than the blanket and ridiculous assertion that Obama and the Clintons have equivalent warts to the fool, an assertion which is DEMONSTRABLY false and literally beyond any reasonable defense. Do you suppose for an instant that if Clinton or Obama had attempted to hide their tax returns the Republicans would have put up with it for those 30 years? Had Hillary requested live on national television that the Russians hack the fool’s emails, would the GOP ignore it? If every time you turned around, another official or close confidant from the Clinton or Obama administrations
was convicted or jailed, would YOU believe us when we told YOU “that has nothing to do with Barack or Hillary”? The critical bottom line is this. There is just no getting around the issue of CHARACTER. Were Trump himself pure as the driven snow, and liberals mere inventors of monstrous accusations, what refuge is there for a flagrantly narcissistic proven pathological liar from any and all accusations. Face it. If the fool is being picked on, he has NO ONE BUT HIMSELF TO BLAME. You want to shut the liberals up? Give them the business records and tax returns which they will surely confiscate anyway.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 .“the left screamed about collusion and yet never actually acknowledged that collusion is not a crime.”

The only person “screaming about collusion, ” was Trump. He used almost any situation to claim “NO COLLUSION.”.. He tweeted about it constantly, and mentioned it on countless occasions. Now that some have determined that it was simply “unsthical,” he doesn’t mention it anymore. You left that part, out of your rant… The obvious implication, is that Trump knew he had indeed thought that he broken the law, in that case, and was in full denial. Or do you you have another, more creative reason why Trump was so vehemently in denial of it?

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie No, my answer is not “YOU ARE A LIBERAL AND DON“T KNOW SHIT!” My answer seems to be that you are a liberal and can’t acknowledge your two-faced views.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly The difference and it is a HUGE difference is the facts. Hillary did commit a crime and was never held accountable. Yet the left defended her at the time and continues to justify in their own minds that it is perfectly acceptable for her to not be held accountable. Trump has NOT committed a crime, and the left cannot accept that so they feel it is fully justified to dig and dig until they can find something. You, yourself, said it: ”...the apparent ability…” not an actual event. You give even the acknowledgement that if (you can’t acknowledge reality) Obama or HIllary committed crimes on the level of what you believe Trump to have committed, you STILL wouldn’t hold them accountable because of the “perceived character” of the players. You bring in Trump’s “bizarre behavior and speech” into this conversation like it has any bearing at all. That description is an opinon, not a fact, and it is not a crime. You want to try making it a crime because you don’t like him. You, on th other hand, cannot actually debate the fact that Hillary committed a crime and was not held accountable. You act as if not releasing tax returns is a crime. Here’s a clue…it is not. It is like collusion…the left acts like it is a crime, but cannot actually point to a statute that is being violated. I CHALLENGE you right her and now to show me where it says the POTUS has to disclose his tax returns. Of course you will address this challenge like every other challenge I give you by changing the topic.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 was it Trump that continued to push collusion as a reason for getting a special counsel assigned and wasting millions of tax payer dollars? Even Mueller had to put in his report that the “collusion” was put in his communications from the acting AG and was thrown around by the public (read as liberals) but that “collusion” was not a crime so he was applying the rules of “conspiracy”. None of that was Trump. He wasn’t the one pushing “collusion” 24/7 on the liberal news channels. Trump’s only interaction with any of that was to say he was not guilty. That is not screaming about it, that is reacting to the screaming of others, i.e. the left.

MrGrimm888's avatar

“Trump’s only interaction with any of that was to say he was not guilty.”

Not guilty of what? If collusion isn’t a crime, there is no innocence, or guilt. Yet Trump denied it. Again, if there was nothing to be guilty of, why spend so much time denying it.

Obama was accused by Trump of a crime. The crime of not being born in the US, so that would mean he was illegally elected. Yet you never heard him denying it. Especially not repeatedly.
Innocent people spend little time denying things that they know are fabrications, or lies. Trump’s constant denial of collusion infers that Trump was (in his mind) defending himself of criminal activity. Hence, Trump knew/suspected that he did something that required mention almost daily, and needed to frequently exonerate himself from potential illegal activity.

Trump was trying to attack the investigation, and went out of his way to do so. So much so, that the Mueller report made multiple mentions of the potential that Trump was/had obstructed justice. Going as far as to say that the report did not exonerate Trump of obstructing justice.

So. With those findings, in the report, we know that Trump should probably be investigated for obstruction of justice. As evidence suggests he did.

Trump put lots of resources into stopping the investigation. NOT the actions of someone under the impression that they are innocent. Innocent people, have no reason to attempt to stop investigations into their affairs, unless there is something that they don’t want discovered.

Trump also made multiple public declarations, that he could/would simply pardon himself from any crimes uncovered. Again. The actions of a person who knew that they indeed had something to cover up…

If that’s too much common sense, for you, I’m sorry. The inuendo, and speculation, were created by Trump’s own actions. Not any media sources.

The investigation did lead to multiple people tied to him being indicted. For a witch hunt, it sure found lots of witches…

The only ones shouting about conspiracies, come from Trump’s corner. The only ones acting like they had something to hide, were from Trump’s corner. The media was just reporting Trump’s actions. Which is what the media is supposed to do…

Had it all really been a vast, far fetched ,conspiracy, Trump would not have acted as he did, and wouldn’t have multiple underlings looking at prison time…

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 Let me stick right to the point. There is of course no statute stating that a President must reveal his tax returns, or tell the truth, or have the attention span of a 6 year old. I will grant you those actualities. However, If you actually believe that the fix the fool is in has nothing to do with his behavior or rhetoric, you are beyond hope.

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , No president has shown their college transcripts. I don’t know what you mean by Obama getting a “break”. He graduated magna cum laude. That means he got pretty decent grades. This line of attack of yours is a red herring. Every president in the last 50 years has released their tax status. It is not a big deal. Why is Trump holding out? What is he hiding?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@seawulf575 Same thing only “Wordsmithed” by you. Your view of the world is stilted ultra conservative verbage!

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 And you are identifying so much of where the problems are. Trump is denying the crimes not because they are crimes, but because everyone was treating them like crimes. Even Mueller had to set the record straight in his report. Think about it. If everyone started accusing you of something and treating it like it is a horrible crime, would you just sit quietly? Or would you deny it?
As for attacking the investigation, he called it a witch hunt, which it was. The proof is in the pudding. The final report decided the case of conspiracy against Trump was meaningless. NONE of the indictments against any Americans had anything to do with ties between Trump and the Russians. As to the Obstruction of Justice charges, Mueller didn’t say Trump had or tried to obstruct the investigation. He said that there was evidence of it. In legal terms, if I accuse you under oath of murder, that testimony is considered “evidence”. Does that mean you are a murderer? No. It means somewhere, there is something that could be used in a case against you, if it needs to be pursued. That’s why he turned that portion of the effort over to Barr…to see if there was anything to pursue. And given that there was no crime in the first place, trying to say there was obstruction is just silly.
You claim Trump spent lots of time and resources trying to stop the investigation. What resources? That is a great talking point, but just like my accusation of you being a murderer, it is meaningless unless I actually back it up with a whole lot of solid evidence. When Trump said things like the investigation was a witch hunt, the left went crazy claiming he was trying to stop the investigation. That is opinion on both sides…Trump’s opinion that it was a witch hunt and the left’s opinion that he was trying to stop it. If he really was working to stop it, it would not have gone on for 2 years costing $40M. It SHOULD have been stopped as being a political stunt.
And I particularly love how you say the only ones shouting about conspiracy were coming from Trump’s corner. That claim was the cornerstone of the Mueller investigation. The MSM shouted it 24/7. They claimed he spent a lot of resources trying to stop the investigation (conspiracy), that he was in bed with Putin (conspiracy), that Comey was fired to try stopping the investigation, etc. At the end of the investigation NONE of their claims were true. That is a true conspiracy theory.

MrGrimm888's avatar

The final report mentions NOTHING about conspiracy. Period. As I stated, it opened a door into new/needed investigations of if Trump obstructed justice.

Trump.did try to stop the investigation. And also claimed that it was over, and/or exonerated him multiple times.

In his current dilemma, Trump has ordered some of his underlings to ignore subpoenas.

Since the beginning of the Mueller investigation, Trump’s thesis has been that the media, all of the US intelligence agencies, Obama, Hillary, the DNC, thousands of government employees (on both sides of the aisle,) all liberals, all liberal colleges, mutiple foreign governments (accept for Russia, and NK,) ALL immigrants from the southern border, and pretty much anyone not 100% blindly supporting him are involved in a massive organized plot to smear his otherwise pure name. THAT is a conspiracy. In fact, it has to be the largest conspiracy in human history, to even be 1% plausible.

Anyone who gives this victim fantasy of his even a thought, would surely trade their wedding ring, for a rat’s asshole… I swear. It wouldn’t surprise me if you were huffing paint, between your ridiculous posts…

stanleybmanly's avatar

I sympathize with conservatives for the impossible task of defending a turd like Trump. I mean just listen to the wulf’s excuse for logic. Trump should not be suspected of crimes if the left has to dig for them. Or how about Trump’s character, words and behavior are irrelevant to allegations against him. Or Trump is innocent BECAUSE there is no statute requiring him to reveal his tax returns. The refusal to address the issue of the fool’s character is fatal to any possible crusade in his defense. All these cries of “it’s over, let’s move on with the nation’s business” with the accompanying chorus of “lock up Hillary”. And it’s the left with the hypocrites? It isn’t the fault of the left that Trump oozes criminality to the extent that the issue of his character must be excluded from the conversation or ignored at any cost. Not a word EVER in answer to the question DOES TRUMP ACT LIKE AN INNOCENT MAN?

Dutchess_III's avatar

The ignorance some people display here is really mind blowing.
” Hillary did commit a crime and was never held accountable. ” Um. What?

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888, I point you to page 2 of the Mueller report. It states:

“In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But ciollusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found i the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.”

Sorry, but it is right there. Look it up for yourself as you certainly won’t trust my word.

As for Trump trying to stop the investigation, I still ask for specifics. That is a talking point from the left that is lacking in fact.

Telling his subordinates to ignore subpoenas is pretty much just political posturing. Like the Dems demanding that Barr provide the unredacted Mueller report or being in contempt. There are several federal laws at play that have that report redacted. The Dems are demanding that the AG ignore the law to appease them. That is hokey. Trump telling someone to ignore a subpoena isn’t any more hokey than that. Face it, at this point the Dems are frantic. They have nothing after going for two years telling everyone that Trump was guilty. So they are frantic to find anything to help their stance.
As for Trump’s belief in the conspiracy against him, it is coming out now that indeed Obama, Hillary, the DNC, Obama’s FBI, Obama’s CIA, British ties, and the liberal media created the entire Russia collusion narrative. They took actions based on unsubstantiated information provided by a foreign agent, using information provided by Russia and Ukranian nationals, to push the narrative. It is coming out that they began creating this investigation long before Trump was the Republican nominee…almost before he was a candidate at all. It’s coming out that these agencies withheld information from FISA courts to get warrants issued. They used undercover agents to try getting Trump or his campaign to say or do something that could be used against him in the off chance he won the presidency. Now I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a pretty vast conspiracy to me. In some countries it’s called a coup d’etat.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III 18 USC 793(f) states:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Doesn’t that pretty much detail what Hillary did by sending classified materials through her unsecured server to persons who may or may not have been allowed to receive it? Some was found on Anthony Weiner’s personal laptop. So when James Comey came out and said Hillary showed extreme carelessness in her handling of the materials but she didn’t have any intent to violate the law, he was basically ignoring this law. The law specifically says gross negligence is not an excuse. So yes, she violated the law and was not held accountable.

But you’re right…the ignorance some people display on here is mind blowing. Like anyone that just can’t accept that Hillary broke the law when it is right there to be seen.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Lots of people do that. Even members of trump’s team use personal emails for work related business. Why do you insist on focusing on Hillary?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Let Trump’s department of justice and the Republican Senate investigate Hillary (again?) for this silliness, and throw in the idiotic charges about Benghazi (again). It won’t save the fool. All the duckin & dodgin combined with your useless finger pointing will not spare your fool the fate he so richly deserves.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III you are missing the point. It isn’t that she used a personal email, it’s that she sent classified materials on that system. She lost control of the classified materials. THAT is what she did. The left always tries to make it about something it’s not! Bill Clinton was not impeached for having an affair…he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. Hillary should not in trouble for using a personal email account, she should be in trouble for her lack of control of classified materials. Now the left tries to say that Trump is in trouble for not showing his tax returns…but you fail to actually have a law that was broken. When the left can actually stay on point with a conversation, we might move forward as a country.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Who claims Trump is in trouble for not revealing his tax returns? Trump is in trouble because the Congress will SEE his tax returns. But why worry over it? I’m sure the Congress will reach the same exonerating conclusions as Mueller. Surely the Congress is looking forward to Barr explaining to us what the committees have to say. Maybe they can even get Mueller to help Barr out by telling us himself what HE thinks of the poor persecuted dummy.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly the problem is that it is just a witch hunt. They have no crime and they are just looking for something. You get mad when someone says we should look into just about any Dem, saying it’s just politics or a waste of time. Yet you have no problem with witch hunts as long as they are against Repubs. That is your hypocrisy. Witch hunts waste time and money and are a really horrible way to run a country. But that’s what you want. So remember, the next time a Dem is elected POTUS and the right wants to demand every aspect of that person’s life for the last 20 years be produced and they waste time and money on it, you need to support their efforts because it is the system you want.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Are you telling us that the last 2 Democratic Presidents received a pass from the Republican party? And that truckload of indictments and convictions? Terrible way to run a country?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Witch hunt? I don’t understand your frustration. Don’t you believe that Mueller made a damned good start at fulfilling Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp”?

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . For someone who values fact, over innuendos, you chose the phrase “it’s coming out,” a LOT… I guess it’s OK to draw conclusions from speculation, as long as it fits your narrative…

The fact is, Trump was involved with Russian oligarchs, and was using them to make money. As those types of people (essentially mobsters,) were some of the only bed fellows who would do business with him. Trump is EXACTLY the type of person, who should have been being watched by our intelligence agencies. Regardless of whomever you think our intelligence community had “loyalty” to.
In addition, an ex-military guy (such as yourself,) should be fully aware that the CIA, and FBI, are practically separate entities from the any other branch of the government, and aren’t really “controlled, ” by any POTUS. In regards to the POTUS, they are more like advisors, than a tool for any administration.
Do you really think that Obama, and Hillary, secretly pull their strings from a James Bond villain-like hollowed out volcano?

Obama is enjoying his time, in his post presidential life.

Hillary, is still building her wealth, by being paid to speak in different forums.

They have moved on…

But they are names that his supporters have been trained to hate. And are frequently used as a distraction from what it actually going on. You yourself, are a classic example of these sheep. The mere mention of Trump receives the “but Obama, but Hillary deflection treatment from you… It’s ridiculous, and only serves to paint yourself as one of Trump’s brainwashed sheep… That’s a shame, because you could probably make more interesting contributions, rather than regurgitate right wing propoganda…

MrGrimm888's avatar

Oh yeah. I have to give you credit, for finding the word conspiracy in the report… Even if it was only once… Point @seawulf575

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly Let’s look at the last two Dem presidents and how the Repubs went after them. that is, after all, the point of the conversation….not that Repubs didn’t work with them and not that Repubs didn’t do something when the Pres got out of line.
Bill Clinton…got impeached. Why? Because he lied under oath and tried to obstruct justice. But let’s go back a bit more. Clinton was under investigation for the Whitewater affair when he was elected POTUS. The investigation was started as part of the Ethics in Government Act and a DC district court appointed Ken Starr to replace Robert Fisk, who was appointed by Janet Reno…Clinton’s AG. So there was a specific crime being investigated…it wasn’t a dig-until-you-find-something investigation.
Barack Obama…had nothing investigated seriously, though there should have been special prosecutors appointed a couple times in my book. The reason he was never investigated is because his AGs refused to investigate. Amazing. Even when there was evidence of a crime, they covered for him. I give you Fast and Furious as a perfect example. Obama and Holder create a plan to sell guns to criminals so they can then trace the guns to where they are used. If that doesn’t sound like a really bad plan up front, just wait…it gets worse. They lost the guns. Can you imagine? But we sort of found them later as they were used to kill people on both sides of our southern border. When congress finally started investigating, they got stonewalled by the WH (Obama) and the DoJ (Holder). In fact, Holder was held in contempt of Congress for his refusal to produce records that were requested…records of communications that were specific to the investigation. But don’t worry, nothing ever happened to Holder either. Again….there was a crime committed and the investigation was specific to that. We could look at the IRS scandal. The IRS was weaponized to attack conservative groups. Does that sound like how we should run our government? And when law suits were brought against the IRS on behalf of these targeted groups, Congress finally had to investigate. And you guessed it…they got stonewalled by the WH (Obama) and the DoJ (Lynch). Lois Lerner, the head of the department in the IRS that was specifically targeting groups was held in Contempt of Congress again and really nothing happened to her. In the end, it was found the IRS HAD been targeting conservatives, but no one was really held accountable. A special prosecutor could have and probably would have found charges against many in both these cases and indictments would have come forward. I imagine an obstruction of justice charge would have been brought against Obama as well, but that is speculation. Given his use of power to block congress’ investigations, he would likely have done the same with a Special Counsel and that would have been obstruction.

In the end, nothing happened to either Clinton or Obama because…drum roll please…Dems cover for their criminal actions!

So what you have in all these cases is specific crimes, that were brought up through other means than a sore loser of an election crying, that needed to be investigated. Crimes were committed and THEN investigations were started. What you are proposing is that we should start investigations and continue them UNTIL we find if there was something wrong done. And if nothing is found, we need to keep digging.

So as I say, when this happens to your next Dem POTUS, I expect you to fully support the idea of digging until you find something.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Yeah, I found the use of the word “Conspiracy” in the Mueller report. Interesting thing though; as you downplay its significance, you avoid the fact that it is used by Mueller to say that “collusion” is not a crime. He uses it to say that he had to take the liberty of changing the verbiage in the communications from the acting AG and in the liberal media to something that might be actually looked at as a crime. So the entire start of the investigation…all the hoopla that led up to Mueller being appointed…was predicated on innuendo and propaganda. No actual crime was being investigated. Kind of an important point to make, eh?

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 as to your lengthier diatribe, I use “it’s coming out” to show there is evidence coming to light that show all the “conspiracy theories” put forth by conservatives about Russiagate all along were likely true. And it is in the form of court actions, not media propaganda. But it isn’t solid yet and may never be so, given Washington DC’s ability to cover for criminals. But it also shows that you on the left want to downplay investigations into things that don’t fit YOUR narrative.
Your use of “Facts” is pretty odd, though. You say it is a “fact” Trump was involved with Russian Oligarchs. Problem one…you don’t define how he was involved or in what capacity. Problem two comes when you start trying to say they were all mobsters. You have left the realm of fact and rolled right into speculation. And by that speculation, you create innuendo that their dealings were somehow illegal. So your entire “fact” is pretty lame.
As for me being a former military guy, I do indeed understand how the FBI and the CIA are separate, but no, they don’t operate in a vacuum. The FBI falls under the umbrella of the DoJ who is led by the Attorney General who answers directly to the POTUS. The CIA answers to the Director of National Intelligence who, you guessed it, answers directly to the POTUS, though to be honest the Director of the CIA can go directly to the POTUS. So to claim the POTUS has no power over them is ludicrous and frankly, lame even for you. These groups are in direct line with the POTUS. To put it into submarine terms, the Supply Officer and the Engineering Officer are entirely separate, but they both have to answer to the Captain. If they try to get together and subvert the Captain, to try getting him relieved of command through nefarious and illegal means, that is called mutiny.

Obama is enjoying his time away and Hillary is still building her wealth. Isn’t that nice? Especially since neither was held accountable for criminal or potentially criminal acts because the Dems didn’t respect their sworn duties and put party politics ahead of law and order.
And your conspiracy theory that Trump supporters are “trained” to hate them is laughable. Here’s a clue…Hillary and Obama were pretty much hated before Trump came along. They represent all that is wrong with our federal government…politicians that are not held accountable even for severe crimes. People that can do anything to anyone and get away with it…even get rewarded for it.

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , You really are making a big deal of this. Recent Democratic presidents may or may not have done some things wrong, but they all released their tax returns. That is the question being addressed. It is irrelevant (does anyone still care?) that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about having consensual sex.

.

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise I would say it is the liberals that are making a big deal of this. The POTUS is under no obligation to release past tax returns. Many have, but it is not required. It is only the propaganda from the left that makes this seem like a crime.
As for past presidents, I was responding to @MrGrimm888 who was trying to imply that past Dem POTUS’ have been harassed by Repubs the same way the Dems are going after Trump. The differences involve actual events that had criminal implications and some that were under investigation. as opposed to the dig-until-we-find-something approach. So Clinton lying under oath and using the power of his office to attempt obstructing the investigation are perfectly relevant to this discussion. The fact that liberals don’t like to acknowledge that they are in perpetual witch hunt mode and seem to be perfectly content with that way of doing business implies that the next time a Dem is elected POTUS they will all be okay with Repubs digging until they find something. Isn’t that your stance?

Dutchess_III's avatar

WHAT THE HELL DOES HILLARY HAVE TO DO WITH TRUMP??!! It’s like some insane, knee jerk reaction.

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , Congress has the power to investigate the president and it has done so with regard to Republican and Democratic presidents. Congress also has a right to ask for the president’s tax returns.

In the opinion of many Democratic law makers, the Mueller report raises a lot of questions regarding the president’s behavior. His financial dealings also raise serious concerns. He had a history of defaulting on loans. Deutsche Bank was the only one willing to lend him money and he defaulted on them as well. Additionally, Deutsche Bank has a history of being involved with money laundering schemes from Ukraine and Russia.

It could be that Trump is innocent of any illegal behavior. In that case he should be glad to release his returns, like every other president in recent history. I suspect that Trump is trying to hide something.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The next time we have a Democratic President that doesn’t offer up his tax returns or refuses to honor a Congressional subpoena, Look me up for more discussion.

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise so what is the actual crime they are investigating that needs his tax returns? Right now, I don’t see one. I see a lot of speculation and innuendo…much like what you just provided. As a private citizen, you are afforded the right to privacy and are under no obligation to provide past tax records unless you wish to. Congress is flirting with a 4th amendment violations by demanding private things without actually having a crime to investigate. Speculation is not an actual crime. Saying you think someone might have done something and you need to go look wouldn’t be sufficient to get a warrant in the real world, so Congress demanding private matters without actually detailing what crime they are investigating and how the records they are requesting are pertinent and why they think so borders on invasion of privacy and illegal search and seizure. But then you on the left are okay with the FBI having lied to the FISA courts to investigate Trump.
Do any of you actually realize the set of rules you are accepting? You are basically saying our federal government should be able to do anything they want, whenever they want, without any justification or accountability and that is okay.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III I know talking about Hillary’s criminal activities bothers you. But it pertains to Trump in a number of ways. Who paid for the opposition research that was the Steele Dossier? Who pushed the idea that Trump worked with the Russians? Who committed crimes…with proof…and was never held accountable? You want to hold Trump accountable for crimes for which there is no evidence, yet you want to walk away from Hillary who has committed crimes and you want to let her go her merry way. Why?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Well, as I said before, if there was a nickel’s worth of advantage to chasing Hillary (AGAIN), I imagine the GOP Senate would be all over her.

But why is it you ALWAYS ignore the fact that the Mueller probe was launched to determine the extent of Russian involvement in our electoral process?

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 There does not have to be a possibility of a crime for Congress to request information. They can say that they want to see the tax returns to expand upon information from the Mueller investigation. What is Trump so afraid of? Other presidents have provided tax returns without having been asked.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly You are either accidentally or purposely forgetting the entirety of the Mueller investigation guidance from the assistant AG. He was supposed to investigate:
(a) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(b) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(c) any other matters within the scope of 28 CFR 600.4 (which is the federal guidance for conduct of a special investigation).

So no, the Mueller probe was not launched to solely determine the extent of the Russian involvement in our electoral process. It was geared towards being a witch hunt to find something on Trump. But given that guidance, wouldn’t you think that looking at where the initiating evidence came from and the viability of that evidence? Not surprisingly, it didn’t. At every turn, when something fishy showed up that might put Hillary or the Dems in the spotlight, Mueller and his team ignored it and steered away.

Why is it YOU always ignore the fact that the Mueller probe was launched as a witch hunt?

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise Congress does not supersede the Constitution. They are not allowed to violate someone’s rights just because they want to. That is what you on the left are missing. And you don’t see the danger in your own skewed views. Let’s back up a bit and think. So let’s say we all go along with the idea that you can dig and dig until you find something, violating people’s rights all along the way because you might find that they did something wrong in their past. Now, let’s put a Dem in office. By your reasoning and what you are accepting as sane and rational, the Repubs should be able to do the same, right? They wouldn’t need any actual crime to look at, they should just be able to demand any and all information, texts, phone records, tax returns, and anything else they might want from anyone at any time until they find the crime that was committed, right? Because, after all, that is what you are accepting as sane and rational now. Want a crime? Okay, we can create something…he was a criminal in business, he evaded taxes, he worked with a foreign government to win the election….it doesn’t need facts, just a lot of innuendo. Do you see the insanity that you on the left are calling for?

Dutchess_III's avatar

With enough evidence they sure can invade someone’s rights!

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III so what evidence do they have to invade someone’s rights? See? This is where you fools on the left fall flat. You believe that rights should be tossed away so that possible evidence could be found. There is nothing driving the invasion of privacy other than political motivations.
Ever wonder why the Dems have done absolutely NOTHING since taking the House in the last election? Their sole focus is “hate Trump”. That is what you call good leadership? That is pitiful.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . I realize that given our sometimes heated debates, combined with the ambiguity of a written post, you could conclude that I was attempting to “downplay” your “conspiracy ” find. However, I was attempting to be genuine. You got me there. Nice work sir…

MrGrimm888's avatar

I would opine, that I think the right, and left, may infer different meanings, from the Mueller report. I was content with the findings, and their appearance of non-biased research, and reporting.

I also think the fact that the report was actually not so harmful to the POTUS, implies that it was not so much of a “witch hunt,” as the right would like to claim it to be.

Are the dems digging, for something to hang Trump by? In my opinion, yes. But that is how criminals are sometimes caught. Think Al Capone. A known gangster/criminal, who the government eventually found a way to stop. I personally see this type of damage control as an occasional necessity, in a “nation of laws/rights.”

I believe (and am apparently not alone, )that Trump is a cancer to the US. I don’t care how much it costs, or how unbiased it appears. He needs to be removed from office.

Republicans thought similarly about Bill (although I don’t find the two men comparable, in any way.) To say that they didn’t go after Bill in a similar fashion, is incorrect. To say that Obama didn’t face ridiculous scrutiny, is also incorrect. And I again, will point to your relentless need to drag Obama, and the Clintons, into EVERY possible conversation, as proof that you/the right are indeed trained to hate them…

seawulf575's avatar

While I am not a fan of the Clintons or the Obamas, I have not been trained to hate them. Any more than you have been trained to hate Trump. But I bring them up as examples usually. When you compare the reaction from the left to Trump who has really no actual facts involved in any of the accusations against him to Hillary who James Comey admitted violated the law but that the AG wasn’t going to prosecute or Obama who violated the Constitution and whose administration was caught in some of the slimiest stuff I’ve ever seen (Fast and Furious, IRS, Benghazi, etc) you see that the left doesn’t care about illegal activity by their own people.
Look, I get that people don’t like Trump. I’m not trying to make anyone like him. But don’t like him for the right reasons….reasons that are real, not innuendo. If you don’t like him because he is obnoxious, okay. If you think he lies a lot, sort of okay (depends on what the lies are since ALL politicians lie). If you don’t like him because he is a criminal, you need to step back a second and look at your reasoning. Was there an actual crime committed? Or is it supposition and innuendo? And really, the attitude of “if we dig deep enough…” isn’t saying there is a crime. It’s saying you have nothing but are hoping to find something. That is the part that is scary to me because of the door it opens. And I have put out the warning that it could be done to the next Dem in office by the Repubs. Remember Harry Reid using the “nuclear option” to ram through confirmations in the Senate? He (and the Dems) were warned that it could come around to bite them. So when McConnell used it, the left got all outraged, forgetting it was their people that opened that door. It is a horrible way to run a government. But endless digging and investigating is even worse. And it opens a lot of doors that, to me, look like they are ways to subvert our Constitutional rights.

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , Can the Republicans also carry out investigations? Certainly. They have in the past and they will in the future. Just as Congress does not stand apart from the Constitution, neither does the President. Trump cannot invoke executive privilege to halt Congressional investigations.

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise You are missing what I am saying, whether purposely or obtusely. What is going on right now is not an investigation. An investigation implies there was a crime and you are trying to get the pertinent facts. What the Dems are doing, and what I predict the Repubs will do in the future, is that they searching through random information in the hopes they can find a crime. It is exactly what the Mueller investigation did as well, though at least they gave Mueller the semblance of a crime to investigate. Collusion not being a crime, Mueller had make the decision that he would look at conspiracy instead.

LostInParadise's avatar

There is strong evidence that Trump wanted to interfere with the Mueller investigation. Don McGahn said that he refused an order by Trump to fire Mueller. Trump ordered McGahn to ignore a Congressional subpoena to testify. Something is not right and Congress has an obligation to look into it, regardless of whether or not an actual crime was committed.

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise There is evidence, but not necessarily strong evidence. In legal terms, evidence can be that someone said something that could be construed as obstruction. That is what Mueller was saying. Additionally, to get an Obstruction of Justice conviction, you would pretty much need a crime that was being investigated. Since there was no crime (no conspiracy), obstruction becomes sketchy. That’s why he turned it over to the AG to determine if obstruction of justice charges were worth pursuing. What you are hearing and repeating is liberal media talking points. They are not giving the whole story, they are giving innuendo…just as they did for the entire collusion investigation for 2 years. Our system was following the course it was supposed to with a special counsel. When his investigation is done, he turns over his conclusions to the AG. The AG has the responsibility to let Congress know of what the conclusions are. He has the option of releasing the report, but is not under obligation to do so. If he releases the report, he is under the gun to make sure that everything that needs to be redacted is, IAW established laws. The Dems didn’t like that they had called Trump a criminal and a traitor and then Mueller found nothing. Barr wrote his summary for Congress with Mueller. The only part they differed on was some wording that Mueller felt would put some of the potential questions to rest…he didn’t really disagree with the summary. Additionally, to help put the questions to rest, Barr released the redacted report…again, with Mueller helping determine what needed to be redacted. So the Dems now have egg on their faces. Their wild claims and bogus allegations came out to be total lies. So they have to do something to make it seem like they were right. So they are trying everything. They want Barr to release the unredacted report to them, which he can’t do per the law. They want to start looking at Trump’s financial history for the past 20 years to see if they can find something. They are even trying to subpoena his entire family’s financials for the past however many years. Not sure what that is for since it has no bearing on Trump. And the funniest part about that is they made it so general, they could demand Baron Trump’s financials if they wanted. Melania’s. Donald Jr’s, his wife’s or even his 4 year old daughter’s financials. Anyone they want.
It is all a political game that they (the Dems) are losing. The American people want our government to address issues. The Dems are doing everything except that. They are focusing only on “hate Trump”. And the American people will vote against them again. And they are opening a political strategy they will not be able to recover from in the future. They seem to be counting on the liberal media to be their propagandists, but the American people have pretty much lost faith in most of the liberal news outlets.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . I hate Trump for his agenda, and the damage he’s already done/capable of doing to the US, and the world in general. If I hated people just for being obnoxious, or being a piece of shit, I’d hate a LOT more people, especially in D.C.

More to the point of the question, and your most recent post, Deutsch Bank had allegedly flagged Trump’s accounts internally, for potential failures to report earnings to the Treasury department. Hence, there is sufficient suspicion to investigate, and request Trump’s tax returns.

Also relevant, is that he is under investigation in NY, for the hundreds of millions of dollars that he did not report when his father passed away.

Criminals frequently commit the same crimes. Growing bolder, as they get away with them. As Trump’s previous returns (don’t have the actual years in front of me)showed that he lost more money than any American during that time frame, it is likely that he continued to struggle financially. Therefore making him more desperate, and more likely to find ways to circumvent losing more money, like by fairly paying the IRS.

Uncle Sam isn’t a “donkey,” but the “elephant” in the room, could be hundreds of millions of dollars in unreported/unpaid taxes.

For a man who claims to love America, he may have stiffed the US a hefty sum of money, while (most of) the rest of us played by the rules, or face ramifications.

As the saying goes, there are only two things that are certain, in life ; death, and taxes…

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I’m okay with not liking Trump for his agenda. I have a harder time seeing what damage he has already done since, despite the Dems, the economy is going well and not much else has been accomplished. I didn’t like Obama’s agenda….I get it.

But as for the rest, take a look at what you are saying…look for the key words.
Deutsch Bank had “allegedly”...
Criminals “Frequently”...
It is “likely that”...
All of those words and phrases are triggers that you are not dealing with facts, but with supposition. It doesn’t mean you are wrong, but it is a warning sign.

As for the investigation in NY, I suspect that is all political posturing as well. Fred Trump passed away and Trump got his inheritance in 1999. That is 20 years ago. The statute of limitations for in NY state is 5 years. Federal tax evasion has a statute of limitations of 6 years. So the investigation is pretty much meaningless. All it is designed to do is try to dig up dirt…no actual charges can be brought at this point.

Don’t get me wrong…I’m all about law and order. And I fully believe white collar crime ought to be punished more severely than blue collar crime. But what we are seeing is not issues of criminal prosecution…they are political games being funded by our tax dollars and that are taking away from time, effort, and resources that could be used to address real problems.

Dutchess_III's avatar

“I have not been trained to hate them….” Yes you most certainly have been “trained” @seawulf575. Like every other trump supporter you do not think for yourself. You just parrot the company line, whatever it may be, no matter how absurd.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 YOU are the one describing US as “Trump haters” as though legitimate criticisms of the man amount to scurrilous inventions of the great liberal cabal. I have not ONCE accused you of being an Obama hater or suffering from Hillary dementia. Do you know why? Because it’s a STUPID tactic so ingrained in the right to conflate legitimate criticism with blind hatred. The retort of “you’re mean to Obama because you hate him” Is just plain DUMB. Instead of addressing the argument, it attempts to reduce all opposition to blind hatred. THAT’S stupid.
Then there’s your unflagging insistence that there is no evidence of Trump criminality, when I am flat out telling you, that there has NEVER been a President in my lifetime with a more VISIBLE history and OPEN proclivity toward criminality. Your stubbornness in rejecting the clearly popular perception that “the man just doesn’t smell right” is the reason that the Congress, the press, the State of New York, city of New York, are forced to grab you by the back of your blindly stubborn head and rub your stubborn refuse to smell the truth nose in the offal that is Donald J Trump. Enjoy the ride!

Dutchess_III's avatar

Again, GA. But pointless because @seawulf575 thinks for himself. Part of that process of his is disregarding all facts that don’t support what he wants to believe.

stanleybmanly's avatar

He absolutely refuses (for obvious reasons) to address the issue of the man’s CHARACTER, just as he MUST reject despite conclusive and undeniable proof that the RUSSIANS prefer the crooked dummy as President of the United States. He’s a stubborn goat, but nothing irritates him more than needling him with facts. But sometimes I get tired of it. It’s too much like tearing the legs from some obnoxious bug.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly Let’s see if I can pull a couple things out of your comments to point you to why I think the way I do.
”... legitimate criticisms of the man amount to scurrilous inventions of the great liberal cabal. ” The problem with this statement is the term “legitimate”. So often your (and other liberals’) “legitimate” criticisms amount to “the Orange orangutan” or “The fool” or many other monikers. Additionally, you start spewing innuendo as reasons why his character is bad. You, yourself, got into a diatribe about what a criminal he was because he dealt with Russian Oligarchs…not actually addressing what the dealings were or who the oligarchs were or even why that makes him a criminal.
” The retort of “you’re mean to Obama because you hate him” Is just plain DUMB.” You and others have actually tried that tact. For a long time, if I said something like “I don’t like his agenda” I would be accused of being a racist because God knows only a racist could not like his agenda…because he’s black. But more to the point, I think you are learning that when I say something detrimental about Obama (or Hillary for that matter), I am perfectly willing and able to back it up with FACTS. And that is where you, on the left, fall into deflection and name calling 100% of the time.
“Then there’s your unflagging insistence that there is no evidence of Trump criminality, when I am flat out telling you, that there has NEVER been a President in my lifetime with a more VISIBLE history and OPEN proclivity toward criminality.” This is a perfect example of what I am talking about with your “legitimate” criticisms. Look at what you just said. I claim there is no evidence of a crime and that Dems are digging desperately so they can find a crime to expose. Your answer is that his history and proclivity lean towards criminality. That is opinion and has zero facts behind it…but it is a deflection. It shows zero evidence of a crime…it basically says you don’t like him. That doesn’t make him a criminal.
“Your stubbornness in rejecting the clearly popular perception that “the man just doesn’t smell right” is the reason…” Again…I reject the “clearly popular perception” so I must be a fool. But wasn’t it the “clearly popular perception” that Trump was working with Putin to steal the election? Didn’t you echo that “clearly popular perception” almost daily and tell me we would see how wrong I was to deny it? Yet in the end….there was no interaction between Trump, his campaign and the Russians to interfere in the election. The “clearly popular perception” was flat wrong. Yet you believe I should turn my brain off to just believe what the propagandists tell me. Very 1984 of you.
In all…just about everything you said amounts to “you don’t believe like I do so you are a fool!” You could have stated that and saved yourself a whole lot of typing.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III Which facts have I ignored? Seems to me, I am continually giving references and citations and applying logic yet I receive only opinion in return. You are a fine example. So who is ignoring facts? I can give a long list if you like and you are near the top.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther