'Trump dossier' on Russia links now part of special counsel's probe - sources

[F4UCorsair]

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

So the firing of Flynn, Comey, the Manafort revalations, Trump juniors admitted meetings with Russian officials and his statements regarding getting money from that country,  etc, etc, etc, isn't enough? Plus there is lots more.

 

Takes time to connect the dots. But it's coming together. What will happen after that? Who knows. But there's too much there to say it's insignificant.

Ypu'te privy to thr 'lots more

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

 

Is the President REQUIRED BY LAW to release his tax returns??

 

This link says not     http://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/candidates-tax-returns/

 

It's merely a loose 'convention', but 7 of the past 34 Presidents haven't released their returns, so it's not 'almost all' who have.

 

Trump has filed a legally required 104 page "Personal Financial Disclosure" as REQUIRED BY LAW!!

 

Why the wild salivating??

"It's merely a loose 'convention', but 7 of the past 34 Presidents haven't released their returns, so it's not 'almost all' who have."

 

Your post says so much about the lack of logic or interest in facts that is common of Trump supporters. 

 

The US has had the Federal Revenue Tax (similar to an income tax) from 1861 to 1872, then the income tax as we currently know it came into being with the 16th amendment to the Constitution in 1913.  Do the math, there have only been 20 Presidents while the US had some form of income tax.  The convention of routinely releasing tax forms began with President Richard Nixon, and was followed by every President since then, until Trump.

 

Did you actually believe your 'facts', or did you think you could make stuff up and not get caught?

[heybruce]

20 hours ago, riclag said:

I agree.

Maybe Muller will put it to rest soon.Then American's can start to really MAGA.

Sarcasm?

[heybruce]

22 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Yes, succinct and to the point.

 

If there was anything - even a smidgen of 'dirt' on Trump et. al. we would have heard something after all these long months. 

How many years of investigating were necessary before President Clinton was caught lying about a BJ?  This investigation is considerably more complicated.

[heybruce]

16 hours ago, jcb2001 said:

Hey wait a minute.  I still haven't gotten over all the things Obama did and got away with.  Now we have to worry about what Trump is doing?

Ah, a Fox News viewer.  For those of us less enlightened, please tell us some of the things Obama got away with?  Don't start with being born in Kenya, we know that fantasy.

[selftaopath]

55 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"It's merely a loose 'convention', but 7 of the past 34 Presidents haven't released their returns, so it's not 'almost all' who have."

 

Your post says so much about the lack of logic or interest in facts that is common of Trump supporters. 

 

The US has had the Federal Revenue Tax (similar to an income tax) from 1861 to 1872, then the income tax as we currently know it came into being with the 16th amendment to the Constitution in 1913.  Do the math, there have only been 20 Presidents while the US had some form of income tax.  The convention of routinely releasing tax forms began with President Richard Nixon, and was followed by every President since then, until Trump.

 

Did you actually believe your 'facts', or did you think you could make stuff up and not get caught?

Didn't the Liar 45 say "he would release" his tax information when the IRS finished it's "would be" audit etc.? That sounded like a "campaign promise." But anything this pathological liar says is NOT to be even remotely considered.

 

[F4UCorsair]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

"It's merely a loose 'convention', but 7 of the past 34 Presidents haven't released their returns, so it's not 'almost all' who have."

 

Your post says so much about the lack of logic or interest in facts that is common of Trump supporters. 

 

The US has had the Federal Revenue Tax (similar to an income tax) from 1861 to 1872, then the income tax as we currently know it came into being with the 16th amendment to the Constitution in 1913.  Do the math, there have only been 20 Presidents while the US had some form of income tax.  The convention of routinely releasing tax forms began with President Richard Nixon, and was followed by every President since then, until Trump.

 

Did you actually believe your 'facts', or did you think you could make stuff up and not get caught?

 

 

bruce, it's not a matter of logic or interest in facts, nor of stuffing up and not being caught, whatever that means.

 

You say that every President since Nixon has produced tax returns, but that's as irrelevant as 7 previous Presidents didn't produce tax returns, because IT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW.  

 

Nothing else is relevant.  He has complied with the law, and there is NO requirement to comply with any convention/custom that the past few Presidents have established.

 

My partner is a lawyer, in fact a judge, and a rabid leftie as well, and to her, THE LAW is everything.   Nothing else matters.  If it complies, then it's OK......loose arrangements/conventions are irrelevant, as they should be.

 

Imagine if Trump pulls his jox off and flys them from the White House flagpole, and the next President followed that ridiculous action.   There's a convention being established, but the first President who doesn't comply is vilified???   That's about as silly as it gets.

[F4UCorsair]

6 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

So the firing of Flynn, Comey, the Manafort revalations, Trump juniors admitted meetings with Russian officials and his statements regarding getting money from that country,  etc, etc, etc, isn't enough? Plus there is lots more.

 

Takes time to connect the dots. But it's coming together. What will happen after that? Who knows. But there's too much there to say it's insignificant.

craig, I hear what you're saying, but what has to be determined is this.....has he violated any laws?  You don't know if he has, and nor do I.

 

You obviously also have access to privileged information, because you contend 'there is lots more'.  Please share.

 

What you're suggesting is that it may not pass the pub test, or that Joe Citizen may not like what he hears, but is it ILLEGAL??   Would a court convict on the 'evidence', or in this case, would he be impeached.   If not, then everybody's getting themselves in a lather over nothing.

 

The average man can't determine if the 'evidence' produced would result in a conviction, or impeachment, because he doesn't have the 'evidence' and if he did, he doesn't have the knowledge.

 

A prosecutor won't bring a case unless there is a reasonable chance of conviction/impeachment.  That leaves the bush lawyers believing there could/should have been a case, but in reality, if it wasn't going to succeed, there was none, and if not, then the rumours/innuendo are insignificant.

Edited October 6, 2017 by F4UCorsair

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

 

bruce, it's not a matter of logic or interest in facts, nor of stuffing up and not being caught, whatever that means.

 

You say that every President since Nixon has produced tax returns, but that's as irrelevant as 7 previous Presidents didn't produce tax returns, because IT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW.  

 

Nothing else is relevant.  He has complied with the law, and there is NO requirement to comply with any convention/custom that the past few Presidents have established.

 

My partner is a lawyer, in fact a judge, and a rabid leftie as well, and to her, THE LAW is everything.   Nothing else matters.  If it complies, then it's OK......loose arrangements/conventions are irrelevant, as they should be.

 

Imagine if Trump pulls his jox off and flys them from the White House flagpole, and the next President followed that ridiculous action.   There's a convention being established, but the first President who doesn't comply is vilified???   That's about as silly as it gets.

Once again, the number 7 is ridiculously wrong and irrelevant.  You make no effort to get your facts straight.  Instead you rely on invented numbers and ludicrous hypothetical scenarios such as the one in you last paragraph.

 

There is precedent for disclosing tax returns and should it be a legal requirement, and Trump is a clear example of why.  Ample evidence suggests that Trump has significant financial ties to Russia, which represents a clear conflict of interest in the performance of his duties.  Some of us want a president who does more than the minimum required to stay out of prison.

 

The Russia investigation should include Trump's finances in order to determine if such conflicts exist.  That wouldn't be necessary if he had followed established precedent and revealed all pertinent details about his finances and put all holdings in a blind trust.

 

You consider anyone who wants a President who is open with his finances and does not have potentially dangerous conflicts of interests a "rabid leftie".    That says as much about you as your lack of concern for facts.

[boomerangutang]

7 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

There's a lot more evidence, much of which we (the general public) haven't been apprised of yet. But obviously you have been advised.......how else would you know there is a 'lot more evidence' if not?? We've been hearing this for a long time now, but no evidence yet.   Exactly when will it all be revealed??

That's like looking at a burning plane and opining; Well there are flames and smoke, but we don't know for sure what triggered the flame, so until we do, we don't know for certain that it's burning.  

 

Here's some evidence we already know:

>>> Trump asked Russia to provide dirt on HRC "Russia, if you're listening......"

>>> All Trump's top men were at a meeting with several Russian agents in a room directly below Trump's office, and Trump claims he didn't know anything about the meeting until 10 months later.  Yet, as soon as the news leaked by NY Times, Trump immediately drafted a letter telling everyone what happened at that meeting. Of course, Trump's explanation was all lies.   Truth Watch took a close look at all the things Trump tweets and states.  Only 5% were based on truth.

 

>>>  Trump had a pending hotel deal in Moscow during and after the campaign.

>>>  The Steel Dossier on Trump has lots of incriminating evidence, none of which has yet been refuted by all Trumpty Dumpty's lawyers and men (....couldn't put Trumpty together again). The Steel Dossier articulates many details of Trump/Russia collusion.

>>>   There's Manafort's, Flynn's, Cohen's, Kushner's many ties to Trump in re; to aiding the Russkies in throwing the election.  If you don't want to see it, you won't see it.  If an yak was sitting in your bathroom and you didn't want to see it, you won't see it.

 

That's just a partial list on what we know.  Mueller and his team are good at keeping secrets, which is part of their job description. They ain't gonna blurt out each bit of incriminating evidence they find.  Mueller didn't convene FOUR grand juries so people could get together and socialize.  He convened them because there's a whole lot of evidence and many law-breakers to deal with.  My prediction:  Ivanka, Pence, Page, Cohen, Stone, and Don Jr will also be indicted.  

 

Part of the reason it's getting stretched out, is many of us hope Trump will be out of office when it's time to indict.  Two reasons why that's good.  #1: Trump can't be indicted while he's prez.   #2. While prez, Trump will simply pardon everyone he cares about, so all the sleuthing will amount to naught.  It will show Trump giving the finger to the American people, which he has been doing non-stop since he started campaigning.  Same like he gave the finger to Arizona jurists who worked long and  hard to bust Arpaio for breaking laws, and then Trump pardons him even before he's sentenced.   Sick.  Trump is giving the finger to all Americans.

 

7 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

We have BM!!    Lots of rumours, but nothing founded in fact.   Maybe there will be, but a thinking person, at this stage, would have to doubt there will be anything of any significance.

See why you're wrong.  Above.

[F4UCorsair]

15 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Once again, the number 7 is ridiculously wrong and irrelevant.  You make no effort to get your facts straight.  Instead you rely on invented numbers and ludicrous hypothetical scenarios such as the one in you last paragraph.

 

There is precedent for disclosing tax returns and should it be a legal requirement, and Trump is a clear example of why.  Ample evidence suggests that Trump has significant financial ties to Russia, which represents a clear conflict of interest in the performance of his duties.  Some of us want a president who does more than the minimum required to stay out of prison.

 

The Russia investigation should include Trump's finances in order to determine if such conflicts exist.  That wouldn't be necessary if he had followed established precedent and revealed all pertinent details about his finances and put all holdings in a blind trust.

 

You consider anyone who wants a President who is open with his finances and does not have potentially dangerous conflicts of interests a "rabid leftie".    That says as much about you as your lack of concern for facts.

I don't intend continuing a petty discussion.

 

IT IS NOT CURRENTLY THE LAW THAT PRESIDENTS RELEASE TAX RETURNS.  Nothing else is relevant.

 

When it is, give me a call.

 

NO!!   I said my partner was a rabid leftie, nobody else.   Don't write your intent into my post.

Edited October 6, 2017 by F4UCorsair

[boomerangutang]

27 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

craig, I hear what you're saying, but what has to be determined is this.....has he violated any laws?  You don't know if he has, and nor do I.

I'm not Craig, but I can say without hesitation; TRUMP HAS VIOLATED LAWS.

 

Quite possibly TREASON included.   If I conspire with an adversarial foreign country to harm the US (in this case, its voting laws/tradition), I too should be hauled off to court for treason.  Corsair is essentially saying 'Trump is above the law,'  and 'there is no amount of conspiring with a foreign country to undermine the US that is illegal, when it comes to Trump or his cohorts.'

[F4UCorsair]

Just now, boomerangutang said:

I'm not Craig, but I can say without hesitation; TRUMP HAS VIOLATED LAWS.

 

Quite possibly TREASON included.   If I conspire with an adversarial foreign country to harm the US (in this case, its voting laws/tradition), I too should be hauled off to court for treason.  Corsair is essentially saying 'Trump is above the law,'  and 'there is no amount of conspiring with a foreign country to undermine the US that is illegal, when it comes to Trump or his cohorts.'

No, I'm not saying that.   What I am saying is that bush lawyers can't interpret the law.   What seems an open and shut case to the man in the street may not fit with the law, no more....no less.

 

In YOUR opinion, Trump has violated laws, but to lawyers, it may not be quite so simple.

[F4UCorsair]

Just now, boomerangutang said:

5 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

THAT PRESIDENTS RELEASE TAX RETURNS.  Nothing else is relevant.

If you're going to quote me, please do so accurately.   I realize it doesn't suit your purposes, but it is a posting requirement here on TV.

 

This is what you SHOULD have quoted.......

 

IT IS NOT CURRENTLY THE LAW THAT PRESIDENTS RELEASE TAX RETURNS.  Nothing else is relevant.

[boomerangutang]

6 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

IT IS NOT CURRENTLY THE LAW THAT PRESIDENTS RELEASE TAX RETURNS.  Nothing else is relevant.    When it is, give me a call.

I'm giving you a call:  You want to limit charges to one single item.  Preposterous.  If a thief breaks your window, steals valuables, kills your dog, then steals your car to escape, ......are you going to tell police; "I only want to press charges for him putting muddy footprints on my nice carpet. Nothings else."

 

You want Trump to get off.  We get it.  The vast majority of Americans want law-breakers brought to justice.  Brace yourself for a lot charges being filed against Trump and his cohorts in crimes.

 

 

 

 

[boomerangutang]

1 minute ago, F4UCorsair said:

If you're going to quote me, please do so accurately.   I realize it doesn't suit your purposes, but it is a posting requirement here on TV.

This is what you SHOULD have quoted.......

IT IS NOT CURRENTLY THE LAW THAT PRESIDENTS RELEASE TAX RETURNS.  Nothing else is relevant.

I don't know who may have mis-quoted you.   Anyhow, Trump releasing his tax returns is secondary concern.  He said during the campaign, "I'd love to release my tax returns, believe me. It's just one of thousands of lies Trump trots out daily.   We're so used to him lying, that it's now amazing if he says something which is remotely true.

 

His taxes will (or already have) been shown to Meuller's team.  That's enough.

[boomerangutang]

8 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

In YOUR opinion, Trump has violated laws, but to lawyers, it may not be quite so simple.

it looks as though we agree on something.  Indeed, it's not so simple.  

It reminds me of Thailand trying to bust Thaksin for his lawbreaking.   How many thousands of lawyer hours, and tens of millions of baht did it cost?   Who knows?

 

Similarly, because Trump and his shielders keep dragging their feet, it's taking tens of thousands of lawyer hours (they're not cheap, btw), and tens of millions of dollars to try to find the truth.  

 

What a waste of money.  For that amount of time and money, we could put a colony on Mars, or put each Rohinga refugee in a nice suburban house, or build 30,000 libraries to place in disadvantaged places around the world.

[heybruce]

29 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

I don't intend continuing a petty discussion.

 

IT IS NOT CURRENTLY THE LAW THAT PRESIDENTS RELEASE TAX RETURNS.  Nothing else is relevant.

 

When it is, give me a call.

 

NO!!   I said my partner was a rabid leftie, nobody else.   Don't write your intent into my post.

Factually incorrect again.  You wrote " My partner is a lawyer, in fact a judge, and a rabid leftie as well", clearly implying that I am also a rabid leftie.  You are a real stickler about other people quoting you correctly and in context.  Funny that you can't quote yourself in such a manner.

 

It is the law that Presidents not have conflicts of interest.  I'm sure that is where this investigation is heading.

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

Ypu'te privy to thr 'lots more

Yes. As is everybody else.

[Jai Dee]

A post mis-quoting another member has been removed in accordance with the following from the Forum Rules:

 

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

[craigt3365]

31 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

No, I'm not saying that.   What I am saying is that bush lawyers can't interpret the law.   What seems an open and shut case to the man in the street may not fit with the law, no more....no less.

 

In YOUR opinion, Trump has violated laws, but to lawyers, it may not be quite so simple.

The issues surrounding Flynn are probably going to be enough. Not to mention all the other bs. Trump is the worst president in modern history. Hard to try and defend him. Though some still do.

[Jai Dee]

A troll comment has been removed from this thread.

 

Discuss the topic subject matter, not each other.

[Srikcir]

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

It is the law that Presidents not have conflicts of interest. 

Presidents are trusted not to have conflicts of interest but sadly, it's not the law:

Under Title 18 Section 208 of the U.S. code, the president and vice president are exempt from conflict-of-interest laws on the theory that the presidency has so much power that any possible executive action might pose a potential conflict.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2017/live-updates/trump-white-house/confirmation-hearings-trump-speaks-and-vote-a-rama-analysis-and-updates/fact-check-trumps-claim-that-the-president-cant-have-a-conflict-of-interest/?utm_term=.eea0ecbf30ee

 

 

[Thailand]

Can't Trump simply invoke article 44 and make it all go away? 

[Si Thea01]

On 10/5/2017 at 4:21 PM, craigt3365 said:

We have seen the dirt. The list of his lies is now a mile long. Or more!

 

So you are ok with his family using personal emails for white house business?  Didn't he blast Hillary for that?  LOL

Maybe you can help me here?  HRC supposedly sent classified emails, did Kushner?  if not, then I am at a loss to see how this aspect even remotely matches what HRC allegedly got up to.  I thought for it to be illegal it had to be classified information?  Am I wrong here?

[craigt3365]

10 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

Maybe you can help me here?  HRC supposedly sent classified emails, did Kushner?  if not, then I am at a loss to see how this aspect even remotely matches what HRC allegedly got up to.  I thought for it to be illegal it had to be classified information?  Am I wrong here?

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/02/jared-kushner-ivanka-trump-had-third-private-email-account.html

Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump had a third private account — it received hundreds of White House emails

 

    Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner used a third, private e-mail account for White House business in addition to their two respective personal addresses, Politico said on Monday

    This third account received non-public travel documents, internal schedules and official materials from White House addresses , Politico said

[F4UCorsair]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Factually incorrect again.  You enrote " My partner is a lawyer, in fact a judge, and a rabid leftie as well", clearly implying that I am also a rabid leftie.  You are a real stickler about other people quoting you correctly and in context.  Funny that you can't quote yourself in such a manner.

 

It is the law that Presidents not have conflicts of interest.  I'm sure that is where this investigation is heading.

No, not my Intent.  You  misinterpreted It.  She's a rabid leftie as well as being a judge.  If I'd Intended comparing/likening her to you , I'd have said, '.....a rabid leftie as you are', or possibly ...'like you'..

 

I would never have said....as well as you.

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by F4UCorsair

[boomerangutang]

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

Maybe you can help me here?  HRC supposedly sent classified emails, did Kushner?  if not, then I am at a loss to see how this aspect even remotely matches what HRC allegedly got up to.  I thought for it to be illegal it had to be classified information?  Am I wrong here?

                            Pence also had an unsecured email server in his political job prior to being VP. He emailed details of sentencing maneuverings of Muslim radicals caught doing bad things. It was there for the whole world to see.   Kushner is as pure as a sponge in a cess pool. 

 

             Ivanka's in the same mess.  She's the lynch pin at the center of all the problems besetting the WH.  She's like the rotten hub of the wheel with spokes named:  Trump Sr, Trump Jr, Jared, Bannon, Flynn, Manafort, etc.   Ivanka will be called on the carpet, for sure.  Right now, Mueller's team is working on the low-hanging fruit like Cohen and Manafort.  Mueller's team will be working their way up (as the Mooch would say) 'to the head of the rotten fish.'  That's how it's done with mafia investigations, and there's scant different with the WH mafia.

 

4 minutes ago, jcb2001 said:

How about Obama's selecting Hillary as Secretary of State. Need I say more?

She was a good Sec.of State. It was during her time that OBL got killed.  Bush had 8 yrs, and didn't come close. Our current Sec of State won't fill positions (doesn't have a deputy), is afraid of the press corps, calls the prez a f*%#$%ing moron in a public gathering. What's wrong with this picture?   Also HRC was roundly liked and respected by foreign leaders.  Tillerson and Trump are laughed at behind their backs.

[Si Thea01]

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/02/jared-kushner-ivanka-trump-had-third-private-email-account.html

Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump had a third private account — it received hundreds of White House emails

 

    Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner used a third, private e-mail account for White House business in addition to their two respective personal addresses, Politico said on Monday

    This third account received non-public travel documents, internal schedules and official materials from White House addresses , Politico said

Is that against the law, have they done anything illegal?  I am only asking because I don't know.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Si Thea01

[Si Thea01]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

                            Pence also had an unsecured email server in his political job prior to being VP. He emailed details of sentencing maneuverings of Muslim radicals caught doing bad things. It was there for the whole world to see.   Kushner is as pure as a sponge in a cess pool. 

 

             Ivanka's in the same mess.  She's the lynch pin at the center of all the problems besetting the WH.  She's like the rotten hub of the wheel with spokes named:  Trump Sr, Trump Jr, Jared, Bannon, Flynn, Manafort, etc.   Ivanka will be called on the carpet, for sure.  Right now, Mueller's team is working on the low-hanging fruit like Cohen and Manafort.  Mueller's team will be working their way up (as the Mooch would say) 'to the head of the rotten fish.'  That's how it's done with mafia investigations, and there's scant different with the WH mafia.

 

She was a good Sec.of State. It was during her time that OBL got killed.  Bush had 8 yrs, and didn't come close. Our current Sec of State won't fill positions (doesn't have a deputy), is afraid of the press corps, calls the prez a f*%#$%ing moron in a public gathering. What's wrong with this picture?   Also HRC was roundly liked and respected by foreign leaders.  Tillerson and Trump are laughed at behind their backs.

Wow, I thought I asked a couple of simple questions and instead of receiving and answer to something I had no knowledge of I got this.  Gee thanks for nothing.