Poll: Why is Trump trying so hard to keep his tax returns secret?

[Starlight]

Ulysses S. Grant's administration was plagued by scandal and corruption, but evidence indicates that Grant himself was innocent of any crime.

I'm skeptical Bill could have successfully given that answer or any meaningful answer to the question put to him.

I'm also very skeptical that a man so totally and continually surrounded by scandals and corruption as Grant was, could actually truly have been utter blind to all of them and not in on any of them. We'd have to be talking obvious levels of severe mental disorders for a person to be that blind.

[oxmixmudd]

Oh, this is a fun game. Now let's apply that standard to Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Do it! Of course we should apply the same standards of right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable. I already do. You keep making the mistake of thinking I'm ok with Bill or Hillary or Obama's indiscretions. I'm not. The problem is you AREN'T applying the same standard to Trump you would a Hillary, or a Clinton, or an Obama.


Jim

[Terraceth]

I'm also very skeptical that a man so totally and continually surrounded by scandals and corruption as Grant was, could actually truly have been utter blind to all of them and not in on any of them. We'd have to be talking obvious levels of severe mental disorders for a person to be that blind.

Absent mind reading, it's impossible to know for sure Grant's inner thoughts. But as far as I understand it, general consensus of historians is that the problems stemmed from him being a poor judge of character and being far too trusting to those around him. Blame still goes to him, but that blame is simple incompetence rather than deliberate compliance.

[oxmixmudd]

Ulysses S. Grant's administration was plagued by scandal and corruption, but evidence indicates that Grant himself was innocent of any crime.

Thank you for providing/attempting to provide an example.

However, assuming Grant was overall not sullied by his company, would not the rarity of the same tend to make my point?


Jim

[Tassman]

So basically your position is Trump is guilty and if they can't prove it, then he is still guilty but clever?

No, basically the position is that the Intelligence Services found reliable evidence of election meddling by the Russians to harm Hillary and promote Trump. That’s what the investigation is all about and has so far resulted in the indictment or guilty pleas from 34, the latest being longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone. “That group is composed of six former Trump advisers, 26 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, one California man, and one London-based lawyer. Seven of these people (including five of the six former Trump advisers) have pleaded guilty”.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...nts-grand-jury

[Roy]

... You've already been trounced over this falsehood here, where you resorted to the idiotic claim that no crime was specified because the letter doesn't explicitly reference US Code 30121 (a)(2).

That's not a crime, you dumbass. There is literally no law on the books that makes it illegal for a presidential campaign to coordinate with a foreign government.

US Code 30121 (a)(2). It shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value from a foreign national. Coordination, whether sharing information, synchronising timing or combining efforts, can be of value; soliciting or accepting it from a foreign government is illegal.

[Roy]

And hold on, let me circle back around...

You've already been trounced over this falsehood here, where you resorted to the idiotic claim that no crime was specified because the letter doesn't explicitly reference US Code 30121 (a)(2).

You say it's idiotic to claim that the letter doesn't specify a crime while conceding that it in fact does not specify a crime? And you say I was trounced?

Yes. You couldn't work out the difference between a crime and a law then, and you still can't work it out now.

[Starlight]

Yes. You couldn't work out the difference between a crime and a law then, and you still can't work it out now.

MM finds things like reading comprehension difficult. I recall one discussion with him where he could cope with bullet points.

[Mountain Man]

US Code 30121 (a)(2). It shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value from a foreign national. Coordination, whether sharing information, synchronising timing or combining efforts, can be of value; soliciting or accepting it from a foreign government is illegal.

Nice try, but the actual law says nothing about "Coordination, whether sharing information, synchronising timing or combining efforts, can be of value", and I'm not sure where you got that fanciful interpretation from...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

Even if the Trump campaign did coordinate with the Russian government in some fashion (and there is zero evidence that they did), that would not be a crime in and of itself; therefore, Dirty Cop Mueller's mandate does not specify a crime to be investigated, and the investigation should have been struck down from the start as unconstitutional.

But you go on thinking that you've "trounced" me on this point while you continue playing pigeon chess.

[Bill the Cat]

I'm skeptical Bill could have successfully given that answer or any meaningful answer to the question put to him.

I couldn't give two rips about what you think...

[Bill the Cat]

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

The giant abortion derail has been split into its own thread. We now return you to your regularly scheduled tinfoil hat thread

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Tassman]

Nice try, but the actual law says nothing about "Coordination, whether sharing information, synchronising timing or combining efforts, can be of value", and I'm not sure where you got that fanciful interpretation from...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

Even if the Trump campaign did coordinate with the Russian government in some fashion (and there is zero evidence that they did), that would not be a crime in and of itself; therefore, Dirty Cop Mueller's mandate does not specify a crime to be investigated, and the investigation should have been struck down from the start as unconstitutional.

“Zero evidence” that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in some fashion. Seriously?

“Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team has indicted or gotten guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies that we know of — the latest being longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone.

That group is composed of six former Trump advisers, 26 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, one California man, and one London-based lawyer. Seven of these people (including five of the six former Trump advisers) have pleaded guilty”.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...nts-grand-jury

More like “dirty Trump” not “Dirty Cop Mueller” as absurdly characterized by your extreme right questionable sources.

[Mountain Man]

“Zero evidence” that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in some fashion. Seriously?

“Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team has indicted or gotten guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies that we know of — the latest being longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone.

That group is composed of six former Trump advisers, 26 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, one California man, and one London-based lawyer. Seven of these people (including five of the six former Trump advisers) have pleaded guilty”.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...nts-grand-jury

More like “dirty Trump” not “Dirty Cop Mueller” as absurdly characterized by your extreme right questionable sources.

Do we really need to go over this again?

Trump's associates that have been indicted and/or convicted are for nothing-burger process crimes that only happened because they were grilled by a dirty cop, or for crimes that were committed long before Trump even considered running for president; other indictments are against people who had no involvement whatsoever with Trump or his campaign.

The case against the Russian nationals went nowhere after lawyers showed up to contest the charges, and Mueller swallowed hard and told the judge the dog ate his homework.

The case against Paul Manafort has stalled out because the judge isn't convinced that Manafort actually lied.

Mueller's case against Flynn is falling apart.

For that matter, Mueller doesn't have enough to compel Trump to sit for an interview. Trump voluntarily answered some questions in writing in December, and when the dirty cop said, "Please, sir, may I have some more?" Trump's lawyers told him to take a hike. That's how little leverage Dirty Cop Mueller has after two-years.

Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee: "If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia."

Michael Dowd, former attorney to President Trump: "In my opinion, on March 5th [2018], we were done. [Mueller] had everything. He said he had everything. He told me that no one had lied. He told me they had every document we asked for. He told me that it was nothing more. [...] I know what the case is. There is no case. [...] [T]here are people in the press, who say, 'Well, he must have a surprise.' He didn't have-- I know exactly what he has. I know exactly what every witness said, what every document said. [...] There's no basis [to prosecute]. There's no exposure. It's been a terrible waste of time."

[Tassman]

Do we really need to go over this again?

Trump's associates that have been indicted and/or convicted are for nothing-burger process crimes that only happened because they were grilled by a dirty cop, or for crimes that were committed long before Trump even considered running for president; other indictments are against people who had no involvement whatsoever with Trump or his campaign.

You see, this is where you go wrong. Outside of the ‘extreme right’ sources to which you are addicted, Mueller is held in the highest regard by all sides (he himself is a lifelong Republican) and he is regarded as a competent investigator of unassailable integrity. Your attempted mitigating examples are pure ‘spin’. Trump and his hand-picked Campaign Team is awash with Russian connections, including the demonstrable fact that six of his hand-picked associates have been indicted or pleaded guilty.

[Starlight]

Mueller is held in the highest regard by all sides (he himself is a lifelong Republican)

To my mind, anyone who is a lifelong Republican needs their sanity seriously questioned, and as such I certainly do not hold him in the highest regard.