Comrade Trump

[Uncle Ted]

Mueller was not happy with Barr

Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe





https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.d4e4fddd7c38

In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that media coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials. Mueller did not express similar concerns about the public discussion of the investigation of Russia’s election interference, the officials said. Barr has testified previously he did not know whether Mueller supported his conclusion on obstruction.


When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.

Can we get a ruling from Donut Hole on the use of a double negative here?

[Moliere]

Ever honest, transparent and cooperative Trump has nothing to hide.

Trump sues Deutsche Bank and Capital One to block House subpoenas for his financial information

Why do they want his personal finance information? Is that something every democratic candidate is offering up?

[Uncle Ted]

Why do they want his personal finance information? Is that something every democratic candidate is offering up?

They apparently also want the financial records for Drumpf's kids... I guess they want to know if Drumpf's kids are coke heads like Biden's.

[BlueK]

Why do they want his personal finance information? Is that something every democratic candidate is offering up?

To look at potential or actual conflict of interest issues and how it may be affecting US foreign policy decisions.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Why do they want his personal finance information? Is that something every democratic candidate is offering up?

The underlying reason is obviously to find something, anything, to embarrass Trump (which I admit I'd love if they did). But is delving into a sitting president's finances a legitimate function of the legislative branch? In Trump's case, I'd argue that it is given his allegedly vast holdings and the potential for conflicts of interest and third-party influence that is much greater than for previous presidents who put their assets, which presumably were far more modest, into blind trusts. Trump and his family continue to benefit from the Trump brand and, I assume, remain obligated to a large number of unidentified lenders and other creditors. I think it's appropriate to find out more about those relationships.

And a brief foray into Whataboutism... Imagine if an enterprising businessman in 2008 (forget the downturn for a moment), seeing the worldwide appeal of a young, dynamic African-American president, had approached candidate Obama with a deal that would pay Obama a 10% royalty on all revenues generated by a new hotel and entertainment chain using the "Obama" brand. Would anyone have raised any concerns about self-dealing by an Obama administration with respect to investors/creditors/guests of the chain? Would it have been fair to have examined closely what those dealings entailed?

Trump chose to continue to benefit directly from the Trump brand while in office. I think it's fair to find out more about those benefits and related obligations.

[Uncle Ted]

The underlying reason is obviously to find something, anything, to embarrass Trump (which I admit I'd love if they did). But is delving into a sitting president's finances a legitimate function of the legislative branch? In Trump's case, I'd argue that it is given his allegedly vast holdings and the potential for conflicts of interest and third-party influence that is much greater than for previous presidents who put their assets, which presumably were far more modest, into blind trusts. Trump and his family continue to benefit from the Trump brand and, I assume, remain obligated to a large number of unidentified lenders and other creditors. I think it's appropriate to find out more about those relationships.

And a brief foray into Whataboutism... Imagine if an enterprising businessman in 2008 (forget the downturn for a moment), seeing the worldwide appeal of a young, dynamic African-American president, had approached candidate Obama with a deal that would pay Obama a 10% royalty on all revenues generated by a new hotel and entertainment chain using the "Obama" brand. Would anyone have raised any concerns about self-dealing by an Obama administration with respect to investors/creditors/guests of the chain? Would it have been fair to have examined closely what those dealings entailed?

Trump chose to continue to benefit directly from the Trump brand while in office. I think it's fair to find out more about those benefits and related obligations.

Don't all presidents benefit from their brand in and out of office? It makes you wonder why they even collect a pension. They should just donate it back.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Don't all presidents benefit from their brand in and out of office? It makes you wonder why they even collect a pension. They should just donate it back.

Of course, every president benefits from the office (and they should, frankly). But aren't you able to see a difference between those who do so from book sales and speaking engagements where the source and amount of the money is public, and those whose income and related obligations are kept secret?

Trump is hiding something by not making public his tax returns (the "audit" excuse is both flimsy and false). Has Trump ever withheld any information that would make him look good?

[Uncle Ted]

Of course, every president benefits from the office (and they should, frankly). But aren't you able to see a difference between those who do so from book sales and speaking engagements where the source and amount of the money is public, and those whose income and related obligations are kept secret?

Trump is hiding something by not making public his tax returns (the "audit" excuse is both flimsy and false). Has Trump ever withheld any information that would make him look good?

Maybe Drumpf just knows how to use his brand better.

Don't get me wrong... I think all public officials should have their tax returns made public starting with Pelosi. Maybe she could be an example to Drumpf on how it is done.

[Uncle Ted]

I think the vast majority of people already know how Drumpf made his money and why he is worth so much. Now if that net worth goes up significantly while he is in office I think folks will start getting concerned.

[Uncle Ted]

Admiral Mike Rogers told Drumpf that Obama was illegally spying on him... what a rat!

UNSUNG HERO: Admiral Mike Rogers, Obama’s NSA Chief, Discovered Administration’s ‘702’ Illegal Spying Operation And Briefed Trump About Surveillance Of Trump Tower

DiGenova spoke about an Obama administration official who actually had integrity, a man who noticed that something was amiss and acted. He discovered that American citizens were being spied upon.


In fact, it was this man who traveled to Trump Tower on November 17, 2016 to brief then President-elect Donald Trump that communications from the building were being tapped. He did not notify his superior, then Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, beforehand.
[...]

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-v...e-trump-tower/

He didn't even tell his boss... James the Clapper.

Now Mike Rogers wants to shut down the NSA phone "data" collection program for good!

[wapiti]

FIFY

I have yet to see probable cause for searching his personal finances. All I hear is "he won't release them so he must be hiding something." That's not the american way.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I have yet to see probable cause for searching his personal finances. All I hear is "he won't release them so he must be hiding something." That's not the american way.

Until Trump, didn't "the American way" include the routine release by a president of his tax returns without a demand, irrespective of whether they were under audit?

[creekster]

Of course, every president benefits from the office (and they should, frankly). But aren't you able to see a difference between those who do so from book sales and speaking engagements where the source and amount of the money is public, and those whose income and related obligations are kept secret?

Trump is hiding something by not making public his tax returns (the "audit" excuse is both flimsy and false). Has Trump ever withheld any information that would make him look good?

I agree his personality suggests that if it made him look good, it would likely be front and center already. That said, he might want to keep it private because it shows his wealth or income is substantially exaggerated. This is embarrassing to him, but not necessarily illegal. His privacy rights should not be greater than those of everyone else, but they should also not be less than the rest of us. If he wants to keep it private, and there is no compelling legal reason to require a disclosure (and "he must be hiding something" is not a compelling reason) then he should be allowed to keep it private. Everyone can (and certainly will) comment on his position, but I can't see why he should be forced to disclose just because we dislike him and intuit something must be wrong.

And, maybe, there is no 'there' there. He railed against the Mueller probe in a manner suggesting he expected to be charged. But he wasn't. Guys like this, who lie and exaggerate even when they don't need to, tend to want to keep everything hidden because they cant keep track of what they did or didn't do. That's his right, unless we have some other evidence that would require disclosure in the normal due process.

Btw, are speaking engagements required to be made public as a matter of law? Certainly those in office would be, but afterwards? What about winks and nods about post-office income? Surely you must believe that happens all the time, right?

[falafel]

I think the vast majority of people already know how Drumpf made his money and why he is worth so much. Now if that net worth goes up significantly while he is in office I think folks will start getting concerned.

Ha!

[wapiti]

Until Trump, didn't "the American way" include the routine release by a president of his tax returns without a demand, irrespective of whether they were under audit?

It started with Nixon, 7 presidents. Trump's finances are a different animal than those 7 presidents. Candidate Romney is probably the closest in terms of net worth. He was hesitant to release his returns but ultimately caved (they proved uninteresting). Trump isn't Romney, its not surprising that he'd rather fight than cave.

There is no law that says the president has to release his tax returns. There is no law that says he has to put his assets in a blind trust. If that's the way it should be then make it a law.