Comrade Trump

[Commando]

Ted Cruz and William Barr nearly bust out laughing together about all the Dems' grandstanding...

Embedded Tweet

Are you kidding me? Barr and Cruz sitting up there pretending to not understand why everyone's so upset that Barr tried to spin the Mueller report and get out in front of the release of the report to characterize it one way (lie about its contents) in a four-page fictional summary, and then release the full 400+ pages on a Friday afternoon where news cycles go to die and virtually nobody would read it four weeks later, (rather than the 19 page Mueller summary while the news was still largely of public interest)? Ok.

[Commando]

OMG... Lindsey Graham dropped the F-bomb on live TV:

Spoiler for NSFW... F-BOMB!:

Well, at least he apologies to all the kids out there.

Hey Lindsay Graham said "Trump's a fucking idiot" on live TV. Maybe my favorite thing he's ever done.

[Uncle Ted]

Hey Lindsay Graham said "Trump's a fucking idiot" on live TV. Maybe my favorite thing he's ever done.

Yeah, that was great... he was quoting the two lovebirds text messages:

[Commando]

Yeah, that was great... he was quoting the two lovebirds text messages:

Yeah the fact he said it so emphatically is what I like and what lives on. He could have been quoting me at home for all I know.

[Uncle Ted]

Mods, "It's over!" and Barr tells the House Judiciary Committee he is not coming tomorrow. So it is time to lock this thread and shut it down.

Yeah, I don't blame Barr... Who would want to look at this clown all day?


rkp1galezau21.jpg

[Uncle Ted]

And, finally, there is mic drop by Sen Grassley...

Embedded Tweet

[frank ryan]

Mods, "It's over!" and Barr tells the House Judiciary Committee he is not coming tomorrow. So it is time to lock this thread and shut it down.

Yeah, I don't blame Barr... Who would want to look at this clown all day?


[ATTACH]9524[/ATTACH]

Barr is the total image of fitness himself. The hits from your altright twitter buddies keep coming. If you were an actual Libertarian, and not a pretend, full-of-shit one, you'd find it troubling the AG is refusing to appear before congress. But, you're all about propagandizing for one-party rule. The committee can always subpoena Barr.

A big take away from your posts today is that you find Ted Cruz charming and funny.

[Moliere]

Oh yeah. Maybe there's a Saudi W2 on his taxes.

Game, set, match. This thread is over. BD gets it.

[BlueK]

Game, set, match. This thread is over. BD gets it.

I think the broader discussion was about obtaining financial records, not just a simple personal tax return.

But obviously in this case it's a moot point because Donald Trump is beyond reproach and has never done a shady thing in his life.

[creekster]

I think the broader discussion was about obtaining financial records, not just a simple personal tax return.

But obviously in this case it's a moot point because Donald Trump is beyond reproach and has never done a shady thing in his life.

As to your first sentence, general 'financial records' are not available to the House committee pursuant to the referenced statute. Only the filed tax return, hence BD's point.

As to the second, who says that? Who are you arguing with? And are you actually suggesting that if someone seems like a shady character and is known to have done some improper and maybe even illegal things that they thereby forfeit rights to privacy just because their political opponents want better material to attack them or maybe just want to disrupt their agenda by asking for it?

[BlueK]

As to your first sentence, general 'financial records' are not available to the House committee pursuant to the referenced statute. Only the filed tax return, hence BD's point.

That's fine then. Let's start there.

As to the second, who says that? Who are you arguing with? And are you actually suggesting that if someone seems like a shady character and is known to have done some improper and maybe even illegal things that they thereby forfeit rights to privacy just because their political opponents want better material to attack them or maybe just want to disrupt their agenda by asking for it?

Obviously I'm being sarcastic, and I'm clearly not just talking about "someone" or of random private citizens. But it's hardly that radical to suggest there should be some kind of level of transparency for the president of the US with potential sources of conflicts of interest with his businesses. We probably need a new law to deal with this. The fact is we just haven't had this kind of president before. The closest we probably ever came was Mitt Romney. But he strikes me more as someone who would have put country before his own personal wealth when it came to shaping US foreign policy, or at the very least would have stepped away from the business interests when assuming the presidency.

[creekster]

That's fine then. Let's start there



Obviously I'm being sarcastic. However, I'm not just talking about "someone" or of a private citizen. It's not that radical to suggest there should be some kind of level of transparency for the president of the US with potential sources of conflicts of interest. Probably would require a new law, though.

OK, but who are you arguing with in making that sarcastic point? No one here, literally NO ONE, says that Trump is beyond reproach.

And sure, SOME level of transparency is appropriate, but it seems to me that is part of the evaluative comparison of the election. It bothers me that there is a groundswell among politicians to compel disclosure of confidential information of a sitting office holder not because there is evidence linking him to wrongdoing, but because there is speculation that he might be acting improperly and because he is just not liked at all by the opposition party so, instead of investigating a specific potential crime, the opposition politicians trade on the target's political unpopularity among their supporters to demand a preemptive reveal of his personal information. It's a bad idea and a bad precedent.

[BlueK]

OK, but who are you arguing with in making that sarcastic point? No one here, literally NO ONE, says that Trump is beyond reproach.

And sure, SOME level of transparency is appropriate, but it seems to me that is part of the evaluative comparison of the election. .

How is the electorate supposed to factor it into their decision without having any of the information? If they find out a candidate's income or wealth depends greatly on doing business in a certain part of the world, that's fine as long as they know. But that isn't the case with Trump in any way because he refused to disclose anything. In fact, we found out later he actively lied about some of it (Trump Tower Moscow).

[creekster]

How is the electorate supposed to factor it into their decision without having any of the information? If they find out a candidate's income or wealth depends greatly on doing business in a certain part of the world, that's fine as long as they know. But that isn't the case with Trump in any way because he refused to disclose anything. In fact, we found out later he actively lied about some of it (Trump Tower Moscow).

If you think he didn't disclose enough then don't vote for him.

[BlueK]

If you think he didn't disclose enough then don't vote for him.

A voter doesn't always know what future US foreign policy is going to be and to what extent it might be influenced by a candidate's personal business dealings without anything being disclosed. Of course they can still vote against him. Others, like you would rather not know, I guess.