Thread: President Donald Trump

Originally Posted by CSFFan

What a great debate question....

Mr. President, why didn't you notify the FBI when the Russians tried to contact members of your campaign staff.

Yeah, but in a debate he'll lie or prevaricate. That's what he does best.
It's a question that Pelosi should be officially asking, now.

^When will his redneck, mouth-breather base realise that Trump is a money-grubbing asshole that is doing them no favours at all, but simply lining his pockets at their expense and encouragement?

^ We are well beyond that threshold. He is simply a deity to them and nothing can shake their belief.

Look at boon Mee and Tex. Brain washed stupid sheep. He got them Hook line and sinker

Originally Posted by Humbert

^ We are well beyond that threshold. He is simply a deity to them and nothing can shake their belief.

Call me naive, but I still have hope in simple human common sense.



Yeah, call me naive. I accept that.

Despite persistent reports over the last week that Julian Assange was soon to be expelled from the Ecuadorian embassy in London and arrested, when the moment finally arrived, with footage of him being dragged out of the building by police, it was nevertheless a stunning development.

What took place, nearly seven years after Assange first sought refuge in the diplomatic mission, is however, not the end of the tale, with all of its twists and turns. It is merely the opening of a new chapter for the founder of WikiLeaks, and one which may reveal important and intriguing information, potentially with far-reaching consequences.

Within hours of his arrest, Assange was found guilty at Westminster magistrates court on charges of failing to answer bail in June 2012 after he had been arrested on sexual assault charges made against him in Sweden.

Those charges were subsequently dropped. But Elisabeth Massi Fritz, lawyer for one of the two women who accused Assange, announced on Thursday that “we will do everything we can to ensure that the prosecutors resume the Swedish preliminary investigation so that Assange can be extradited to Sweden and prosecuted for rape”.

It was, he claimed, fears over extradition to the US which caused him to refuse to go to Sweden to be questioned by prosecutors, and instead seek asylum on Ecuadorian soil. This threat, say his supporters, remains – the fear that he would be extradited to America and face a heavy sentence over Wikileaks’s hacking and dissemination of US intelligence and defence documents in 2010.

The US had not hitherto admitted that it is seeking to prosecute Assange, an Australian citizen, but the US justice department had, in November, inadvertently disclosed that he had been secretly charged over the documents when lawyers erroneously included his name in court papers related to another case.

The US Justice Department has now unsealed the indictment and insists that Assange faces just five years in prison if convicted.

But, a source told CNN on Thursday, the DoJ expects to bring further charges against Assange, although it is not clear what those charges would be or when they would be filed.

In the extradition case, which will begin in May in London, charges allege that Assange was involved in a computer hacking conspiracy with Chelsea Manning to crack Defence Department passwords and encourage Manning (then an army private and intelligence analyst called Bradley Manning) to continue to provide classified information.

Manning, who was convicted by a court-martial in the hacking of the intelligence and defence material and spent seven years in prison, is currently back in jail for refusing to give evidence to a Grand Jury investigating WikiLeaks and Assange earlier this year.

But it is another set of hacks involving Assange and WikiLeaks and America which could prove highly problematic for Donald Trump. Assange is suspected of helping Russian interference in the presidential election by releasing information stolen from Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democrats and subsequently released by WikiLeaks.

Last July the US Justice Department charged 12 Russian military intelligence officers, from the GRU, with hacking computers, with the indictment stating that they had been in contact with WikiLeaks.

The former WikiLeaks founder has not been indicted in “Russiagate”, but he is certain to face investigation in relation to it if he is returned to the US, with a number of committees of the House of Representatives, now Democrat-controlled, who have begun inquiries into Trump.

A number of people close to Trump are said to have been in touch with Assange over the hacking of the Democrat emails, including Roger Stone, a long-term and close advisor to the US president. Stone was in January arrested as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian attempts to subvert the election.

Mueller’s indictment states that during the election campaign, Stone talked regularly to Trump officials about the information WikiLeaks, called “Organisation 1”, possessed which would be damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

“Stone was contacted by senior Trump campaign officials to inquire about future releases by Organisation 1 ... On multiple occasions, Stone told senior Trump campaign officials about material possessed by Organisation 1 and the timing of future releases.”

Stone had mentioned contacts with Assange and at one point instructed a friend, believed to be the conservative author Jerome Corsi, to “get to” Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and obtain the pending WikiLeaks emails.

He also allegedly told Ted Malloch, a Trump supporter in London, to see Assange. Stone later claimed, speaking to a Republican group in Florida: “I actually have communicated with Assange. I believe the next tranche of his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation, but there’s no telling what the October surprise will be.”

But it is another set of hacks involving Assange and WikiLeaks and America which could prove highly problematic for Donald Trump. Assange is suspected of helping Russian interference in the presidential election by releasing information stolen from Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democrats and subsequently released by WikiLeaks.

Last July the US Justice Department charged 12 Russian military intelligence officers, from the GRU, with hacking computers, with the indictment stating that they had been in contact with WikiLeaks.

The former WikiLeaks founder has not been indicted in “Russiagate”, but he is certain to face investigation in relation to it if he is returned to the US, with a number of committees of the House of Representatives, now Democrat-controlled, who have begun inquiries into Trump.

A number of people close to Trump are said to have been in touch with Assange over the hacking of the Democrat emails, including Roger Stone, a long-term and close advisor to the US president. Stone was in January arrested as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian attempts to subvert the election.

Mueller’s indictment states that during the election campaign, Stone talked regularly to Trump officials about the information WikiLeaks, called “Organisation 1”, possessed which would be damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

“Stone was contacted by senior Trump campaign officials to inquire about future releases by Organisation 1 ... On multiple occasions, Stone told senior Trump campaign officials about material possessed by Organisation 1 and the timing of future releases.”

Stone had mentioned contacts with Assange and at one point instructed a friend, believed to be the conservative author Jerome Corsi, to “get to” Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and obtain the pending WikiLeaks emails.

He also allegedly told Ted Malloch, a Trump supporter in London, to see Assange. Stone later claimed, speaking to a Republican group in Florida: “I actually have communicated with Assange. I believe the next tranche of his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation, but there’s no telling what the October surprise will be.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8865896.html

All the indicted by Mueller will surely tell us now something about Assange, in exchange for their mitigation...

Here’s the Law That Requires Steven Mnuchin to Turn Over Trump’s Taxes, or Lose His Office and Go to Prison


Donald Trump and his top White House aide declare that the administration will not give the president's tax returns to Congress, as required under a 1924 anti-corruption law. But both the Treasury secretary and the tax commissioner have been much more nuanced, saying that they will obey the law even as they delay actually doing so.

I know why Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Charles Rettig, the IRS commissioner, are so cautious. They don’t want to be removed from office and sent to prison for five years just for doing Trump’s bidding.

The reason will no doubt surprise those who think Trump can thumb his nose at the law governing congressional access to anyone’s tax returns, including his. It will for sure shock Trump, who claims that "the law is 100 percent on my side."

The exact opposite is true.

Under Section 6103 of our tax code, Treasury officials “shall” turn over the tax returns “upon written request” of the chair of either congressional tax committee or the federal employee who runs Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation. No request has ever been refused, a host of former congressional tax aides tell me.

There is, however, a law requiring every federal “employee” who touches the tax system to do their duty or be removed from office.

The crystal-clear language of this law applies to Trump, acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Mnuchin and Rettig, federal employees all.

The law says all of them "shall" be removed from office if they fail to comply with the request from Representative Richard Neal, the Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee.

There are no qualifiers in Section 6103 that shield Trump from delivering, in confidence, his tax returns to Congress. No wiggle room at all.

Another provision in our tax code, Section 7214(a), provides that “Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States… who with intent to defeat the application of any provision of this title fails to perform any of the duties of his office or employment… shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.”

All that Neal must do is make a request in writing that falls within the committee’s tax law and IRS oversight duties. Neal’s carefully articulated reasoning and requests for specific tax returns and related tax information in his April 3 letter easily meets that standard.

Congress earlier applied this law to Richard Nixon, who resigned in disgrace after a second audit of his returns showed he was a major league tax cheat. Nixon fabricated deductions worth more than $3.4 million in today’s money. Nixon got off with a pardon, while his tax lawyer went to prison.

The IRS had audited Nixon’s 1969 tax return but failed to catch major league cheating by the sitting president. Only when Congressional tax lawyers went over it, and the IRS did a second audit, did they spot blatant tax evasion.

Even if Mnuchin or Rettig or anyone else escaped prosecution for failing to provide the requested tax returns, removal from office under 7214(a) would damage and perhaps destroy their opportunities to cash in once they leave office.

Removal from office would require disclosures to future employers and investors, limit or block service on corporate boards and require disclosures to lenders. Even someone running a privately held company, as Trump still does, would be affected by heightened disclosure requirements.

Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs partner and savings and loan company chief executive, is only 56. Removal from office alone could mean an end to his big paydays in finance under existing regulations.

Rettig, 61, a tax lawyer whose specialty was helping wealthy tax dodgers who got caught in audits, could lose his California law license, especially were he to be convicted.

The good-conduct provisions of the tax law are as broad as they are severe. Significantly, it doesn’t just affect IRS auditors and collections officers. It applies to any federal employee—which means Trump as well as Mnuchin and Rettig—who “fails to perform any of the duties” they are assigned.

It also applies to any federal employee “who conspires or colludes with any other person to defraud the United States; or who makes opportunity for any person to defraud” the government. This provision could hit Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff and Trump’s budget director, given his reckless statements on Fox News, which some call Trump TV.

Should congressional tax lawyers, after examining Trump’s tax returns, finds that he is a tax cheat, anyone with knowledge of the cheating would also be at risk of prosecution.

Keep in mind that Trump lost two income tax fraud civil trials over his 1984 New York state and city tax returns, as recounted in my 2016 book The Making of Donald Trump.

He is also a confessed sales tax cheat, prompting Mayor Ed Koch of New York to say that Trump should have served 15 days behind bars for his crimes.

The law covers official inaction, too. Anyone who “omits” his duty “shall” be removed and may be prosecuted as a felon.

Section 7214 covers anyone with “knowledge or information of the violation of any revenue law by any person, or of fraud committed by any person, against the United States [who] under any revenue law, fails to report, in writing, such knowledge or information to the” Treasury secretary.

The risks to his liberty and fortune help explain why Mnuchin, while not turning over tax returns by the Wednesday deadline, told Congress this week, “as I've said in the past when we received the request, it would be reviewed by our legal department, and it is our intent to follow the law.”

That artful language was likely written by a government lawyer to help shield Mnuchin from removal from office and prosecution, at least for now.

Mnuchin can’t stall forever. If he or Rettig tries endless inaction, forcing House Democrats to sue in federal court, the failure to act could result in the same painful results as outright refusal to comply.

Under what is known as a “delegation order,” the responsibility for giving Congress tax returns upon written request has long been the duty of the IRS commissioner.

In testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday, Rettig said the decision on turning over the tax returns was his. He said he is “working on” a letter about what he will do. He also noted that he reports to Mnuchin since the IRS is under the umbrella of the Treasury Department.

One big problem for Rettig and Mnuchin, and perhaps others, is the provision requiring removal from office for anyone who “conspires or colludes with any other person.”

Mnuchin has acknowledged that Treasury officials talked with White House officials. And Rettig indicated he has spoken with Mnuchin and others at Treasury.

How many others were in the loop? Maybe Congressional hearings will tell us.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/heres-...d-go-to-prison

Originally Posted by bsnub

Interesting how he points out that refusal to hand over trumps tax returns amounts to obstruction of justice right there in plain view.
But to me the really interesting thing is how calmly everyone seems to be taking this.
Imagine the outrage if any other president had so blatantly flouted the law
Behaving as though it doesn't apply to him.

I'm pretty sure that's Booners on the right.

The "billionaire" who hides his tax returns
The "genius" who hides his college grades
The "businessman" who bankrupts casinos
The "playboy" who pays for sex
The "philanthropist" who defrauds a charity
The "patriot" who dodged the draft
The "innocent man" who wont testify

not mine, but no link

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I'm pretty sure that's Booners on the right.

"Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?" Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England wrote this magnificent response.



“A few things spring to mind.

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace - all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.

So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing - not once, ever.

I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility - for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.

But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults - he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.

Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.

Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.

He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.

He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.

That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.

There are unspoken rules to this stuff - the Queensberry rules of basic decency - and he breaks them all. He punches downwards - which a gentleman should, would, could never do - and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless - and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority - perhaps a third - of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think 'Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:

* Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.

* You don't need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.

He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.

In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws - he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:

'My God… what… have… I… created?

If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set."”

Originally Posted by TizMe

"Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?" Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England wrote this magnificent response.



“A few things spring to mind.

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace - all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.

So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing - not once, ever.

I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility - for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.

But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults - he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.

Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.

Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.

He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.

He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.

That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.

There are unspoken rules to this stuff - the Queensberry rules of basic decency - and he breaks them all. He punches downwards - which a gentleman should, would, could never do - and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless - and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority - perhaps a third - of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think 'Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:

* Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.

* You don't need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.

He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.

In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws - he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:

'My God… what… have… I… created?

If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set."”

So spot on it needs repeating.

^Excellent!

Spot on!

Originally Posted by bsnub

Spot on!

There's not one point in that piece that can be argued with honesty.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

There's not one point in that piece that can be argued with honesty.

The people that would argue it are the ones who are just as soulless and stupid as he is.

I actually sent that on to quite a few folks...something I very rarely do as his stupidity usually speaks volumes on its own.

Originally Posted by Cujo

So spot on it needs repeating.

It was repeated, I posted it in this thread on Valentines Day.

You fuckers have all got Alzheimers.

where is texpat ?

happy day - you still have a drumf , racist, fat white [at][at][at][at] as president - biggly democracy wins again

I would blame your education system , but the fcuker failed