Remember when the President’s former lawyer testified under oath before Congress that if one were to look into the President’s financial history and tax records one would find a ton of crime?
Yeah… me too.
The lawyer that went to prison for lying? That lawyer?
Remember last year when the New York Times uncovered a huge tax evasion scheme that was employed by the Trump family by setting up a middle man corporation to self deal to Trump owned properties that not only avoided paying estate tax but was also used to justify rent increases on rent controlled buildings?
Yeah… me too.
1 Like
Yep… the one who named the President as directing the crime that he was lying about.
President “Individual 1”
And you accept the claims of a convicted perjurer blindly because Trump is the target.
The man was trying anyway possible to save his own ass.
Always with the cries for new rules when libs lose an election. lol
2 Likes
Remember last month when it was revealed by going through public filings that at three of the President’s properties show wildly inconsistent financial reporting between the tax authorities and potential lenders. An act that is potentially tax fraud, loan fraud and securities fraud?
Yeah… Me too.
1 Like
Actually, real estate pros thought he way overpaid for the hotel lease – his bid was wildly above everyone else. Same thing he did with the Plaza Hotel – a financial fiasco.
Trump is the first President to refuse to divest himself of his business interests or not place them in a blind trust. This sets up a template for corruption.
Remembering me mentioning on Nov 8th that the tantrum would not end until he left office?
2 Likes
So am I and the fact that they want 10 or more years indicates it has nothing to do with oversight and everything to do with hatred driven by TDS! No one is entitled to a private citizens tax information but the IRS and if there was anything wrong the IRS should have and most likely would have found out about it and prosecuted but no such action was ever taken, so it’s all BS so the Supreme Court should rule in President Trumps favor. IMO
2 Likes
When one is testifying under oath I can assume that they are not only telling the truth, but that they have produced documents that back up their testimony.
But leaving that aside, I do find this line of argument amusing since Cohen ( The President’s former lawyer in case anyone has forgotten… I mean… how long was Cohen the President’s lawyer? Anyway) since the perjury was committed to protect the President.
Quite a Catch-22 that people have set up here.
The Democrats made a tactical decision to keep the Impeachment case focused because a broad case could have tied the country up for much longer with evidentiary and legal issues were resolved.
I am not sure whether this was a wise choice or not, but it was not a concession that Trump was in the clear on other matters.
The charges against him are more than sufficient to warrant removal from office, even if the Republicans in the Senate are too afraid for primary voters to do their duty under the Constitution. The number of charges has not bearing on the cowardice with which this will end.
Nope, I was still banned, so no one remembers when I said Trump would win Pennsylvania 18 months before the election either. 
Facebook remembers though. It has a feature that reminds you what you posted “on this day” in the past. lol
1 Like
I’m hoping Trump is catalyst for more successful business leaders and owners to become pres…I’m tired of crooked attorneys.
Don’t you agree?
1 Like
They had no crimes to charge him with or they would have.
But DOJ says that the sitting President cannot be charged with crimes, so the lack of charges proves nothing.
1 Like
I believe the question at issue is Trump’s argument of “Absolute Immunity”. He and the DOJ have stated in all three of these cases that the President has absolute immunity from investigation.
This would also mean that the President’s tax returns could not be audited by they IRS.
I can’t imagine anyone from Supreme Court Justices to any American citizen would support this. It has been knocked down by every judge that has had to hear this argument. Including one judge that listened to the WH lawyers argue that Nixon would never have been impeached if this theory existed at the time.
Just last week, Lindsey Graham praised Ukraine for overturning their policy of “absolute immunity”. During the Horowitz hearing he stated this as a sign they were serious about dealing with corruption.
Is this something anyone here supports? Absolute immunity?
Trump was largely a failed businessman, who played a successful businessman on television. He seems totally lost at business skills such as deal making, coalition building and long term planning.
Michael Bloomberg would seem to be your sort of candidate – hugely successful in business and not a whiff of scandal about him.
1 Like
Yeah OK…stick to the left-wing talking points.
yeah that lawyer! 
