Impeachment Hearings Open In House Of Representatives

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

You guys lost the House, so you can't do that. You guys wasted all your political capital on the nothingburger of a Benghazi investigation. 

So you admit this is strictly political and not in any way relating to wrong doing or running the country. Glad you’ve finally come around.

[plenzmd1]

46 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

M'kay... so I've written here before how complicated our little holdings make our real estate returns. There is a reason there are permanent hires (CPAs and tax attorneys) constantly working on Trump's taxes, and it ain't something you, me, or the MSM can understand without the underlying documents and in a "release".

 

As far as "off shore companies" and "interest at foreign banks" ... holy *****, go read the damn tax laws. We have a gold holding in Switzerland- that we have to report every stinking year whether or not it has changed. Forms and more forms. We have a foreign bank account - which are almost impossible for Americans to get anymore due to IRS hassling, and if you said due to more reporting and forms, you would be correct.

 

Anyone who has any asssets of any worth is now tracked constantly.  Trusts can't avoid some things (we have trusts, again, paperwork). 

 

His taxes are NONE of our business. The super friendly IRS /snark has made very certain President Trump and his companies are paying every single nickel the IRS thinks he should pay.

 

If this succeeds, I wonder if a hard look at some Democratic leaders taxes should happen- with a public release, of course!

You make my point. Dems will want to say look at all this foreign stuff from the guy who says OTHER companies need to do just the opposite and invest back in America! 

 

And don’t forget, the little piece about asking for all administrative actions as well. 

 

What will then be the excuse if no audits no audits have been requested for any years going back the six years... will Trump folks just excuse that as “ Trump being Trump”

 

if I am the Dems, and this gets tied up in court as I suspect it will, I take it a step farther and just say “

okay Trump, just show us the notice of audit”  and for what years as that is why you claim you will not release the forms. Then don’t show us those years. 

[Gary M]

16 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Again, they want his returns to simply say “ Trump paid x % in 16, and paid y ( y being much smaller) after HIS tax law. Perception is what counts. 

 

All of them are 1 percenters, so that would be true across the board.

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, plenzmd1 said:

You make my point. Dems will want to say look at all this foreign stuff from the guy who says OTHER companies need to do just the opposite and invest back in America! 

 

And don’t forget, the little piece about asking for all administrative actions as well. 

 

What will then be the excuse if no audits no audits have been requested for any years going back the six years... will Trump folks just excuse that as “ Trump being Trump”

 

if I am the Dems, and this gets tied up in court as I suspect it will, I take it a step farther and just say “

okay Trump, just show us the notice of audit”  and for what years as that is why you claim you will not release the forms. Then don’t show us those years. 

First, why did my misspelling make your quote when I had fixed them almost 10 minutes ago?

Second,  he's audited. You don't make that kind of dinero (and deductions) without the IRS combing your returns. 

Third, none of this... absolutely none of it, is anyone's damn business. They asked for returns from a  private citizen (prior to the years he was elected President). How about you give all your earning information to be plastered all over the world so people can pick through it and decided (without knowing *****) that you did something wrong?

Fourth, you had mentioned above his 2016, 2017, 2018 returns. His 2018 returns are unlikely to be completed yet.  Ours are not. He has until October. 

Fifth, the Democrats will rue this one. It will get ugly if "pawing through tax returns for possible political gain" is now going to be a standard. Ever notice how many people arrive in Congress with $12.57 to their name, and leave multi-millionaires on (what is now) $174K a year?  How about we pick through those returns instead!? 

[Tiberius]

Quote

Whether Pelosi intended this result or not, her ability to treat Trump as a spoiled child and provoke even more self-destructive behavior has several positive benefits for Democrats in this context. First, it puts the blame for not accomplishing anything on infrastructure — or anything else — squarely on Trump’s shoulders. Second, he makes it nearly impossible for incumbent Republicans to run in 2020 on any record of accomplishment. The GOP will rightfully be called the do-nothing party. (Well, in fairness they do plenty — excusing Trump, enabling Trump, ignoring Trump’s wrongdoing, etc.) Third, it’s a preposterous position — what else will he refuse to do? — for someone who will be running for reelection in 2020. Fourth, more than anything, he has shown how panicked he is about investigations, thereby giving Pelosi the ability to talk to frustrated members of her caucus who want to start on impeachment the perfect comeback: We’ve got him on the run. Fifth, if they ever do get around to impeachment, Democrats can add another count against him: Refuses to do his job while lawful investigations are going on.

Jennifer Rubin nails it, of course

[Chef Jim]

17 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! 

 

Wow! Just wow! 

 

 

He filed his return right?  With the government right?  

[Tiberius]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/22/pelosi-goads-trump-into-another-temper-tantrum/?utm_term=.61a4a57038aa

Just now, Chef Jim said:

 

He filed his return right?  With the government right?  

So? 

[Chef Jim]

20 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Again, they want his returns to simply say “ Trump paid x % in 16, and paid y ( y being much smaller) after HIS tax law. Perception is what counts. 

 

And if that's the case?  Then what?

Just now, Tiberius said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/22/pelosi-goads-trump-into-another-temper-tantrum/?utm_term=.61a4a57038aa

So? 

 

That's as transparent as he is required to be right? 

[Koko78]

4 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

And what part of his tax return would you look at to see if there was any nefarious dealings with the Russians going on? 

 

Clearly the income line item labeled "Russian Bribes".

[Tiberius]

14 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So you admit this is strictly political and not in any way relating to wrong doing or running the country. Glad you’ve finally come around.

Politics is very important. It's what keeps us from being like Putin's Russia. 

Just now, Koko78 said:

 

Clearly the income line item labeled "Russian Bribes".

I'd love to see his income from Trump University. He scammed all those people, I get you guys could care less whatever he did, but his criminal background is at the very least, interesting 

3 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

And if that's the case?  Then what?

 

That's as transparent as he is required to be right? 

No. Actually not. Transparent means the people get to see it, you know, the American people. And you know that. You are just playing games here. 

[Chef Jim]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Politics is very important. It's what keeps us from being like Putin's Russia. 

I'd love to see his income from Trump University. He scammed all those people, I get you guys could care less whatever he did, but his criminal background is at the very least, interesting 

 

Is there a reason you didn't beat the tax return drum in 2016 for Hillary?  

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

No. Actually not. Transparent means the people get to see it, you know, the American people. And you know that. You are just playing games here. 

 

Games?? Me???  No.  That would be you childish people yelling for someone to do something there is currently zero requirement for them to do. That my friend is the absolute definition of a game.  I childish game.  

 

You say that's not as transparent as he is required to be.  What are you basing that statement on?   

Edited May 22, 2019 by Chef Jim

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Clearly the income line item labeled "Russian Bribes".

I think a line item labeled "Amount paid to you by over litigious porn stars" might be more interesting.

[Koko78]

4 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I think a line item labeled "Amount paid to you by over litigious porn stars" might be more interesting.

 

Off topic, but Avenatti just got indicted for stealing from the porn star. That's hilarious.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Koko78

[Albwan]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Fine, then they should just release it. Don't you agree? 

 

You saying it's just stupid is only a political argument, too. 

Oh the little people have to take their shots when they can! 

You remind me of the attention starved morons who drive by my house in crap

cars that are tuned to sound like bowel movements.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Albwan

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, Koko78 said:

 

Off topic, but Avenatti just got indicted for stealing from the porn star.

 

Reminds me of the scene in "Catch Me If You Can" when Decrapio gives the pro a fake check, gets laid and gets cash back.

[plenzmd1]

6 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

First, why did my misspelling make your quote when I had fixed them almost 10 minutes ago?

Second,  he's audited. You don't make that kind of dinero (and deductions) without the IRS combing your returns. 

Third, none of this... absolutely none of it, is anyone's damn business. They asked for returns from a  private citizen (prior to the years he was elected President). How about you give all your earning information to be plastered all over the world so people can pick through it and decided (without knowing *****) that you did something wrong?

Fourth, you had mentioned above his 2016, 2017, 2018 returns. His 2018 returns are unlikely to be completed yet.  Ours are not. He has until October. 

Fifth, the Democrats will rue this one. It will get ugly if "pawing through tax returns for possible political gain" is now going to be a standard. Ever notice how many people arrive in Congress with $12.57 to their name, and leave multi-millionaires on (what is now) $174K a year?  How about we pick through those returns instead!? 

First    Not sure what misspelling ! ( on an unrelated note, the glitch seems not to happen when I lost from phone)

 

2) all for everyone releasing their tax return. I have no problem showing mine to anyone. I have never boasted nor deny any income I do or do not make , taxes I paid, deductions etc. I am all for someone running for Federal elective office needs to release 3 years of returns. 

 

3) I don’t know that he is audited, you don’t know he is audited. I would be fine him showing the notice of audit, which I suspect he would have done had he in fact been audited all 5 years. 

 

4) you say it’s no one s damn business what he makes etc. I think it is 100 % my business to know if the POTUS  might have issues that could compromise his decision making ability. Don’t want to release them, don’t run for President. 

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

First    Not sure what misspelling ! ( on an unrelated note, the glitch seems not to happen when I lost from phone)

 

2) all for everyone releasing their tax return. I have no problem showing mine to anyone. I have never boasted nor deny any income I do or do not make , taxes I paid, deductions etc. I am all for someone running for Federal elective office needs to release 3 years of returns. 

 

3) I don’t know that he is audited, you don’t know he is audited. I would be fine him showing the notice of audit, which I suspect he would have done had he in fact been audited all 5 years. 

 

4) you say it’s no one s damn business what he makes etc. I think it is 100 % my business to know if the POTUS  might have issues that could compromise his decision making ability. Don’t want to release them, don’t run for President. 

 

One question.  Why do you feel it is necessary to see someone running for POTUS's tax return?  

[Foxx]

12 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Jennifer Rubin nails it, of course

well what do you know... i don't know that i would say Rubin nails it but this is not a good look for Trump. letting the Donners get the better of him here. he is obligated to do the work of the people regardless.

 

the onus is squarely upon him now to get infrastructure done (without the House, he can't).

[plenzmd1]

9 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Is there a reason you didn't beat the tax return drum in 2016 for Hillary?  

 

Games?? Me???  No.  That would be you childish people yelling for someone to do something there is currently zero requirement for them to do. That my friend is the absolute definition of a game.  I childish game.  

 

You say that's not as transparent as he is required to be.  What are you basing that statement on?   

  Chef, Trump as stated as fact he would release the returns as soon as audits are completed. So while you are right no requirement, he has stated he would release. 

 

If there ate no audits

 

# 1) any issue with his untruths?

 

# 2, and he refuses to release, any issue on your end? 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, plenzmd1 said:

First    Not sure what misspelling ! ( on an unrelated note, the glitch seems not to happen when I lost from phone)

 

2) all for everyone releasing their tax return. I have no problem showing mine to anyone. I have never boasted nor deny any income I do or do not make , taxes I paid, deductions etc. I am all for someone running for Federal elective office needs to release 3 years of returns. 

 

3) I don’t know that he is audited, you don’t know he is audited. I would be fine him showing the notice of audit, which I suspect he would have done had he in fact been audited all 5 years. 

 

4) you say it’s no one s damn business what he makes etc. I think it is 100 % my business to know if the POTUS  might have issues that could compromise his decision making ability. Don’t want to release them, don’t run for President. 

2) You must not be on social media. 

3)  Is he audited yearly? That I cannot know. Is he audited? You betchya. The IRS LOVES to audit high net-worth people. 

4)  Nope. Not in the Constitution as a requirement, so it is not a requirement to run for President. 

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

First    Not sure what misspelling ! ( on an unrelated note, the glitch seems not to happen when I lost from phone)

 

2) all for everyone releasing their tax return. I have no problem showing mine to anyone. I have never boasted nor deny any income I do or do not make , taxes I paid, deductions etc. I am all for someone running for Federal elective office needs to release 3 years of returns. 

 

3) I don’t know that he is audited, you don’t know he is audited. I would be fine him showing the notice of audit, which I suspect he would have done had he in fact been audited all 5 years. 

 

4) you say it’s no one s damn business what he makes etc. I think it is 100 % my business to know if the POTUS  might have issues that could compromise his decision making ability. Don’t want to release them, don’t run for President. 

It appears as if you have had some sort of epiphany since November of 2016. You are demanding that Trump adhere to a law you have made up in your mind.

[plenzmd1]

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

 

One question.  Why do you feel it is necessary to see someone running for POTUS's tax return?  

Several reasons

 

1) I want to know if his income and or asset base could compromise his decision making ability

 

2) has the candidate used substantial strategies to circumvent tax 

 

3 ) has the candidate been honest about their income sources 

[Chef Jim]

5 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

  Chef, Trump as stated as fact he would release the returns as soon as audits are completed. So while you are right no requirement, he has stated he would release. 

 

If there ate no audits

 

# 1) any issue with his untruths?

 

# 2, and he refuses to release, any issue on your end? 

 

I like Trumps policies to this point but I think he's an idiot.  If he said "I'll release them when the audits are done" and they are done (I don't know if they are and neither do you) and he doesn't release them I just chalk it up to him being an idiot and sticking his foot in his mouth by saying "I've changed my mind".  That is his prerogative.  I don't have to like the guy to like what he is doing. 

[plenzmd1]

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

It appears as if you have had some sort of epiphany since November of 2016. You are demanding that Trump adhere to a law you have made up in your mind.

I swear to Christ you do not Know how to read. 

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

Several reasons

 

1) I want to know if his income and or asset base could compromise his decision making ability

 

2) has the candidate used substantial strategies to circumvent tax 

 

3 ) has the candidate been honest about their income sources 

 

1. WTF does this mean?  Explain your thought process here

2. You have a problem with the current tax laws bring that up with the Ways and Means.

3. This one I may agree with but I have one quesion.  Why the concern about this now?  I don't know but did you scream for this with Hillary?  

[plenzmd1]

9 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

2) You must not be on social media. 

3)  Is he audited yearly? That I cannot know. Is he audited? You betchya. The IRS LOVES to audit high net-worth people. 

4)  Nope. Not in the Constitution as a requirement, so it is not a requirement to run for President. 

I am far from high net worth, been audited 3 times. Have no clue if he is. He could just show the notice of audit and this might all go way. 

 

I am on so social media , just no Facebook where most the junk flows!

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

I swear to Christ you do not Know how to read. 

Seems like you are always having disagreements in regards to what or how you say something. Do you think that you just might be the problem?

[SoCal Deek]

28 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Politics is very important. It's what keeps us from being like Putin's Russia. 

 

WRONG!

Our representative republic keeps us from being like Russia. What the Democrats are doing is wasting everyone’s time and money!

[Nanker]

19 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Is there a reason you didn't beat the tax return drum in 2016 for Hillary?  

 

Games?? Me???  No.  That would be you childish people yelling for someone to do something there is currently zero requirement for them to do. That my friend is the absolute definition of a game.  I childish game.  

 

You say that's not as transparent as he is required to be.  What are you basing that statement on?   

I blame George Romney - Mitt’s dad. He was an old school gentleman and likely the richest man to run for POTUS up until that time. (JFK’s money was his father’s). 

He released quite a few of his returns which showed him to be very wealthy, but it revealed nothing else. That became the de facto standard until the iconoclast disruptor JDT came on the scene. He’s the FIRST “Republican“ to stand up to the Democrat cowards and sleaze merchants and refuses to play their rigged games by their rigged rules. He’s a streetwise fighter and doesn’t take s ***** from anybody - even people as nice as plenzmd1. 

12 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

First    Not sure what misspelling ! ( on an unrelated note, the glitch seems not to happen when I lost from phone)

 

2) all for everyone releasing their tax return. I have no problem showing mine to anyone. I have never boasted nor deny any income I do or do not make , taxes I paid, deductions etc. I am all for someone running for Federal elective office needs to release 3 years of returns. 

 

3) I don’t know that he is audited, you don’t know he is audited. I would be fine him showing the notice of audit, which I suspect he would have done had he in fact been audited all 5 years. 

 

4) you say it’s no one s damn business what he makes etc. I think it is 100 % my business to know if the POTUS  might have issues that could compromise his decision making ability. Don’t want to release them, don’t run for President.

Then you have a remedy. Just don’t vote for him in 2020. 

[plenzmd1]

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

 

1. WTF does this mean?  Explain your thought process here

2. You have a problem with the current tax laws bring that up with the Ways and Means.

3. This one I may agree with but I have one quesion.  Why the concern about this now?  I don't know but did you scream for this with Hillary?  

Hers my thought process. If the president , who is granted ( I am guessing here , maybe @DC Tom can verify) an automatic top secret clearance and has executive powers, I think as a voter I should know if the candidate derives a substantial amount of income from a particular country or From a particular asset class, especially if he is not getting out( can’t think of right word) as Trump did not with his companies. 

Let’s just say a candidate derives 50 % of his income from companies , not disclosed publicly , in oil and gas exploration. And he is not divesting his positions post election. That’s a problem in my mind that as a voter I have a right to understand. 

 

I get its its not the law now, as have said many times but some seem not to be able to understand. 

[plenzmd1]

9 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Seems like you are always having disagreements in regards to what or how you say something. Do you think that you just might be the problem?

No one else’ here has claimed I said it was the law , ceptin you. As is always the case with my posts and you. You don’t read them, you skim them and assume language that is not in there. 

 

Argue with my thoughts all you want, I welcome that. But don’t make up chit I have not written. 

[Chef Jim]

6 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Hers my thought process. If the president , who is granted ( I am guessing here , maybe @DC Tom can verify) an automatic top secret clearance and has executive powers, I think as a voter I should know if the candidate derives a substantial amount of income from a particular country or From a particular asset class, especially if he is not getting out( can’t think of right word) as Trump did not with his companies. 

Let’s just say a candidate derives 50 % of his income from companies , not disclosed publicly , in oil and gas exploration. And he is not divesting his positions post election. That’s a problem in my mind that as a voter I have a right to understand. 

 

I get its its not the law now, as have said many times but some seem not to be able to understand. 

 

Then rally to change the law not demand someone do something they are not required to do.  

[plenzmd1]

7 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Then rally to change the law not demand someone do something they are not required to do.  

I agree, and I think that is by almost every candidate for President has released their returns and divested their holdings, neither of which he has done, but as you say not required to either. I really don’t remember if he ever claimed in the campaign if if would divest, but he has clearly stated for 3 years would release his returns once audits are cleared. I would be fine if he even showed me he is being audited with a simple notice of audit. 

 

 

[Bakin]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Fine, then they should just release it. Don't you agree? 

 

You saying it's just stupid is only a political argument, too. 

Oh the little people have to take their shots when they can! 

It was a cheap shot. I know. 

But it was so there. 

[Nanker]

JFK put his assets into a (I believe), a Revocable Trust that put control of his assets out of his direct control and with that of the Trustee. 

IIRC, DJT did a similar transaction in that all of his businesses and their interests were already in a trust, and he stepped away from direct involvement in them. I believe Jr. is the Trustee at this point. 

 

Did anyone one question the Kennedys skim off the top of every bottle of Scotch that’s been imported into the USA since Joe was the Ambassador to the Court of King James in the 1930s?

How about the Chicago Mercantile connections?  

Can we look back at FDR’s grandfather who make their family’s fortune in the China/India opium trade? 

When does the movement to rename Washington some feels good name like Sparta, or Planned Utopia, or Indigenous Peoplia, or Stuff-a-pole-up-yer-azz-land, or Were Not Worthyia? 

Its only a matter of time. 

[Tiberius]

So much winning! 

 

Judge again rules against Trump! 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judge-rejects-trumps-request-to-halt-congressional-subpoenas-for-his-banking-records/2019/05/22/28f9b93a-7ccd-11e9-8bb7-0fc796cf2ec0_story.html?utm_term=.1efc4a263c1f

 

banking records will be transparentized  

[Chef Jim]

3 hours ago, GG said:

They're hoping to find a K1 from Russia Collusion LTD with a net distribution of $1 billion. 

 

I'm hoping to find one of those too.  ?

[Nanker]

11 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I'm hoping to find one of those too.  ?

When you find that, can I have the next one?

On 5/20/2019 at 11:12 AM, Deranged Rhino said:

No, he cannot. 

 

Zero shot Pete. 

Zero shot Biden. 

 

There's not a single candidate in the running who has a chance to win in 2020 so far. The ones at the top, other than Sanders, are up to their necks in SpyGate and will be radioactive by the end of the summer. 

 

The DNC is going to have to scramble for a new candidate come fall. And it'll be hilarious to watch.

I’d like to give each of them a “shot”. 

[Kevbeau]

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! 

 

Wow! Just wow! 

You guys lost the House, so you can't do that. You guys wasted all your political capital on the nothingburger of a Benghazi investigation. 

I’ll give you credit Tibs...you are always “on brand”

[DC Tom]

 

2 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

Hers my thought process. If the president , who is granted ( I am guessing here , maybe @DC Tom can verify) an automatic top secret clearance and has executive powers, I think as a voter I should know if the candidate derives a substantial amount of income from a particular country or From a particular asset class, especially if he is not getting out( can’t think of right word) as Trump did not with his companies. 

 

That's rather a misstatement of things.  The President isn't "granted" an automatic clearance; the office itself conveys de facto and de jure right to access to the country's secrets to the person elected to hold the office.  The difference is pedantic, but important: your phrasing implies that someone adjudicates the President for suitability for a clearance, which would be a Very Bad Thing.

 

2 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

Let’s just say a candidate derives 50 % of his income from companies , not disclosed publicly , in oil and gas exploration. And he is not divesting his positions post election. That’s a problem in my mind that as a voter I have a right to understand. 

 

But you don't.  You, as a private individual, do not have a right to another person's private information, of which income tax filings are.  

 

And that is the law.

 

1 hour ago, Nanker said:

JFK put his assets into a (I believe), a Revocable Trust that put control of his assets out of his direct control and with that of the Trustee. 

IIRC, DJT did a similar transaction in that all of his businesses and their interests were already in a trust, and he stepped away from direct involvement in them. I believe Jr. is the Trustee at this point. 

 

Still a conflict of interest if you keep it in the family.  Jack didn't make Bobby his trustee.