NYT Gets Trump Tax Info 1985-1994

[GoldenBoy89]

Yep, and Trump exposed just how two-faced and hypocritical the establishment is in DC. It's one reason we voted for him.

Yep, can't trust any of them. Both politicians and celebrities.

And don't get me started on celebrity politicians!

 

[GoldenBoy89]

No, there was no obstruction of justice. If it had been real, the Mueller would have said so. But I can see why those on the Left have an interest in perpetuating that lie. It's all you really have.

What type of evidence would you be looking for? A video tape of Trump saying he intends to commit felony obstruction? That's not how these things typically go down.

Legal experts, far more versed in these types of charges than you or I are going to look at his patterns of behavior, things he's said, orders he's given and actions he's taken to determine if the intent was there to have the investigation stopped or shutdown. That is obstruction of justice. That is a crime. There is evidence that suggests he did this detailed in the same report that clears him of collusion with the Russians.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Trump was wrong about that. But I am referring to what Trump said recently about the Russia Hoax.

Why would he publicly defend Russia's interests over the findings of the intelligence agencies? Really makes you wonder...

I'm not sure what you guys keep calling a hoax. Russian meddling really did happen. That's not a hoax. The potential for Trump or members of his election committee to have been involved in that meddling was there. There is ample evidence to suggest Trump having ties to Russia prior to the election including business deals in Moscow he did not disclose as well as statements from his own son and lawyers that they initially denied, that might have tied him to the known election meddling from the Russians. That is more than good enough reason to investigate him to make sure he checks out alright.

I would have thought every patriotic American would want to know their president isn't under the influence of a foreign government.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Billionaire George Soros Lost Nearly $1 Billion in Weeks After Trump Election

Soros must be the #1, he lost 1,000,000,000 in weeks -

Sorry, just had to said.

I'll make sure to not vote for him in 2020.

Additionally, didn't Rachel Maddow try this on a more limited basis and it was spoken of more than year ago?

I don't know; I don't watch her show. But I do think that some of the basic tidbits have been floating out there for a while. This just fleshes out some of the details.

 

[whatbogsends]

They are fighting with all their might to misrepresent and reinterpret the Mueller report because they can't put on their big boy pants and accept that their attempt to frame Trump for crimes he didn't commit just didn't pan out they were hoping it would.

The only official "interpretation" we have on it at present is from Barr, and, despite his proclamations, he is not the soul arbiter of it. There are crimes described regarding obstruction, charges that couldn't even be considered because you can't charge a sitting President. Per the Constitution, the power for Presidential oversight lies in Congress, so let them do their job. It appears that Trump and Barr are trying to exceed their constitutional authority and prevent disclosure as to the reports findings.

 

[yougottabekidding]

I'll make sure to not vote for him in 2020.

I don't know; I don't watch her show. But I do think that some of the basic tidbits have been floating out there for a while. This just fleshes out some of the details.

To what end?

His taxes from 35 years ago mean what?

The Definitive Net Worth Of Donald Trump

3.1 Billion is not poor by any means - so if anything the taxes show a recovery - and isn't that what we applaud?

 

[Speedwell]

To what end?

His taxes from 35 years ago mean what?

The Definitive Net Worth Of Donald Trump

3.1 Billion is not poor by any means - so if anything the taxes show a recovery - and isn't that what we applaud?

No, it isn't. So why does he need to brag that it's 10 billion?

 

[iluvatar5150]

To what end?

His taxes from 35 years ago mean what?

It depends on what they show. This latest bit from the NYT doesn't add a whole lot to the narrative. The earlier story demonstrated that his whole family was a bunch of tax cheats and that the "self-made man" story was even more bogus than a lot of us realized (and we knew it was bogus).

I'm more interested in seeing the more recent data - who's loaned him money and why; what sort of questionable benefits he's given his kids; what tax fraud and other financial crimes he's committed.

I'm interested in knowing how much he's inflated his net worth, but that's more out of gossip than anything legitimate.

The Definitive Net Worth Of Donald Trump

3.1 Billion is not poor by any means - so if anything the taxes show a recovery - and isn't that what we applaud?

Depends on how the recovery happened.

 

[bekkilyn]

Maybe Trump should just change his last name to Christ and be done with it.

 

[yougottabekidding]

Maybe Trump should just change his last name to Christ and be done with it.

Or change it to Obama! LOL that would give some real fits.

 

[bekkilyn]

Or change it to Obama! LOL that would give some real fits.

Thanks Obama!

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The obstruction issue is still not resolved, I suspect you underestimate something like this and how it effect politics.

What does Trumps 20 year old tax information have to do with obstruction? People are getting all spooled up thinking that Trump's 20 year old debt is something new that he was trying to hide. He wrote a book about it! He even bragged about how he was able to come back after being in so much debt. This is yet another attempt by the liberal media to throw mud at the president. The only reason why this is in the news now is because the democrats, and their media supporters, are desperate to find anything they can to trash Trump. Because that is all they have. No real solutions to real problems that Americans really care about. They do not have a platform to stand on other than bash Trump and who can out left the other. That is it.

 

[USincognito]

Did you know before the release of the Muller report that it was going to be a big "nothing burger"? Know who else called it....Fox News.

Then Fox was wrong. It's not a nothing burger.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The report specifically didn't speak to "collusion". It's not a legal term. The "no collusion" claim by Trump and Barr is false.

Moreover, the reason people are "focusing on obstruction" is because there is ample evidence that Trump had multiple acts that constituted obstruction of justice.

Yet Muller said there was no collusion. Even Comey said there was no collusion. Are their claims false as well? In regards to obstruction, there has to be a crime and an intent to obstruct. There was no crime, no collusion, and Trump had no motive to obstruct. The questions we all should be asking is why the Obama administration did nothing to stop the Russian interference in the election? They knew it was happening from the beginning, yet they did nothing to stop it. In fact, it was the Obama administration to gave the order to stand down and observe. Now the dems are attacking Barr because he is getting close to the truth. An I am willing to bet that many of the dems are going to be in some serious trouble. Mark my words.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Then Fox was wrong. It's not a nothing burger.

Well, then why isn't congress impeaching Trump right now? I will tell you why, because they have nothing. No grounds for impeachment. Nada. Ask yourself why Nadler refused to see the less redacted version of the Muller report in the secure spaces. The truth is because it doesn't matter. There is nothing. I think at this point, it isn't even about impeaching trump either. It is about the dems trying to politically assassinate Barr because they are afraid that he will uncover the truth about the phony dossier, the corrupt FISA warrant, and the connection with the democrats in the Obama administration weaponing the DOJ to spy on a political opponent and ensure that Hillary was elected. That is what this is going on. In regards to the OP. This "breaking news" from the NYT is just another smear campaign against the president because the dems have nothing else left. The muller investigation came up empty so the democrat minions are doing their duty to keep the hate alive in hope that Trump is not reelected. Has anyone cared to ask the question as to how the NYTs got ahold of this tax information? It sure wasn't by legal means. It was illegally leaked. If this can be done to a sitting president, what more can they do to you?

 

[USincognito]

Yeah, that is a lie. The Obama economy never got above 2% GDP. And he and his cronies said it would never get that high under Trump and mocked him for it. But it happened.

Wow. This is the worst attempt at gaslighting I've seen on here in at least a day or so. He literally provided a link showing that numerous times from 2011 to 2018 the real GDP growth was above 4%. Did you even take the link?
U.S.: real GDP growth by quarter 2011-2018 | Statista

 

[USincognito]

Well, then why isn't congress impeaching Trump right now? {snip}

Because they are in the process of investigating all of the evidence of obstruction that is laid out in the Mueller Report. As 400+ former prosecutors have attested,
Trump would have been charged with obstruction if he weren't president
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/06/former-doj-prosecutors-trump-obstruction-1305776

 

[whatbogsends]

Yet Muller said there was no collusion. Even Comey said there was no collusion. Are their claims false as well? In regards to obstruction, there has to be a crime and an intent to obstruct. There was no crime, no collusion, and Trump had no motive to obstruct. The questions we all should be asking is why the Obama administration did nothing to stop the Russian interference in the election? They knew it was happening from the beginning, yet they did nothing to stop it. In fact, it was the Obama administration to gave the order to stand down and observe. Now the dems are attacking Barr because he is getting close to the truth. An I am willing to bet that many of the dems are going to be in some serious trouble. Mark my words.

Please, cite where Mueller said there was "no collusion". The Mueller Report specifically stated it didn't look into the matter of "collusion". The Mueller Report did say that they "did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities". That's not the same as "no collusion", and for someone like Barr, who parses his words carefully (like claiming a difference between "attempted to have Mueller fired" and "attempted to have Mueller removed") to use the President's language rather than the language of the Mueller report is concerning. He appears to be setting a narrative rather than providing an straight-forward summary of the Mueller report.

Introduction to Volume I, Page 2:

"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 collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express-between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."


There were crimes. The Russian hacking the DNC servers was a crime. Trump attempted to interfere with the investigation of that crime and potential connections to it with members of his campaign.

And while the Mueller report didn't establish a coordination between Trump and Russia, they certainly welcomed the stolen information.

The copy and paste of this was a bit rough due to redaction:

In Volume II, Section II, Beginning on P.17

"Within the Trump Campaign, aides reacted with enthusiasm to reports of the hacks.23
discussed with Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release the hacked material. Some witnesses said that Trump himself discussed the possibility of upcoming releases~. Michael Cohen, then-executive vice resident of the Trump Organization and special counsel to Trump , recalled hearing Cohen recalled that Trump responded, "oh good, alright,"
...
Deputy campaign manager Rick Gates said that Manafort was getting pressure about -information and that Manafort instructed Gates~ status updates on u com in releases.28 Around the same time Gates was with Trump on a trip to an airport
, and shortly after the call ended, Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging
information would be coming.[Redacted] were discussed within the Campaign,3° and in the summer of 2016, the Campaign was planning a communications strategy based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks."

Obama's "stand down" order related specifically to cyber retaliation by the US. It's certainly worth investigating why he reached that decision. He did give a verbal warning to Putin, but it's not correct to say he did "nothing to stop it". It's certainly fair to say he didn't do enough and/or showed poor judgement.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Because they are in the process of investigating all of the evidence of obstruction that is laid out in the Mueller Report. As 400+ former prosecutors have attested,
Trump would have been charged with obstruction if he weren't president
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/06/former-doj-prosecutors-trump-obstruction-1305776

Again, If this is true, why then are their no impeachment hearings?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Again, If this is true, why then are their no impeachment hearings?

Because the GOP majority in the Senate is even more loyal than you.