███████████ Mueller Investigation Results Thread ███████████

[Que]

Lol.. I'm glad you finally used your vastly superior intellectual mind to roll over and play dead. It'll serve you well.

Since you went to the trouble of quoting what I said to Botanydummy..here's the deal...

I put him on ignore just for the sheer volume of crap he posts. He's like a turd about the size of your giant head that swirls around the toilet bowl over and over and over. No matter how many times he touches the side, or how much he smells, he just won't go down. Much like busy body. There's just no reason for me to have to wade through that much crap.

Out of all the rwcj, even tho he claims not to be, he's the only one not on ignore. Not even you. He has zero redeeming quality..and now it seems, neither do you.

Btw..you were still wrong on the Mueller post..funny that would be the one to really trigger you.

Read it again, dumbass. You are on Shitslinger-style fake ignore. You know, what YOU do when you get your ass handed to you. You would do it far more often except for the fact that you're not smart enough to know when you've had your ass handed to you.

 

[Aglaopheme]

At one time I posted the law these folks like to say prohibits the President from having business interests while in office, actually exempts the President and the Vice President, and the other day I posted a legal analysis by a prominent legal scholar saying the Emoluments Clause cannot apply to a President.

Yet the cases continue through the courts despite Trump’s best efforts to have them thrown out or delayed.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Even before the new tax law, the U.S. tax code provided loopholes and special breaks that favor wealthy real estate investors. Tax experts say they’re often able to claim losses more quickly and easily than other taxpayers. They are also afforded several ways of delaying or avoiding reporting profits to the Internal Revenue Service.

They can fall behind on their debts and still face fewer tax penalties for having the debt forgiven than other kinds of investors, according to Steve Wamhoff, director of federal tax policy at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Trump took advantage of that, Wamhoff says, when he couldn’t repay debts on his Atlantic City casinos in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Wealthy families typically try to transfer some of their assets during their lifetime to ease the tax burden on their heirs. There are a number of ways to do so legally. As assets go, real estate is one of the most flexible options.

https://www.apnews.com/d22eed1d8e2f4ff0972a4616f917995b

 

[HisArpy]

Yet the cases continue through the courts despite Trump’s best efforts to have them thrown out or delayed.

This is called Litigation. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[HisArpy]

https://www.apnews.com/d22eed1d8e2f4ff0972a4616f917995b

This isn't news sweety.

SMART investors know where to put their money because the law protects it more than for other investments.

There is nothing wrong with this.

 

[Luk]

Rapey, you disingenuous fuckwaffle.







45 told a group of deplorables that, "We kept more promises than we even made!"
The deplorables ate it up.

Poor poor luk, reduced to salvaging his pride by falsifying facts.

Shameful really.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37982000

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/20/6865...sident-trumps-campaign-promises-2-years-later

Which part of my post was false? Exactly which part is false?

Poor, poor Rapey. Got caught being a disingenuous liar again.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Poor, poor Rapey. Got caught being a disingenuous liar again.

He has a real problem. TDS daily.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

At one time I posted the law these folks like to say prohibits the President from having business interests while in office, actually exempts the President and the Vice President, and the other day I posted a legal analysis by a prominent legal scholar saying the Emoluments Clause cannot apply to a President.

Let's play Devil's Advocate and pretend Trump did what he legally should have done. Doesn't it bother you as a conservative that Trump is profiting from taxpayers by staying in the hotels he owns?

 

[HisArpy]

Let's play Devil's Advocate and pretend Trump did what he legally should have done. Doesn't it bother you as a conservative that Trump is profiting from taxpayers by staying in the hotels he owns?

First of all, he wasn't LEGALLY required to do anything. The emoluments clause exempts the President.

From there, no.

Why does it bother you where people stay when traveling? Do you really think that anyone cares if you stay at their hotel prior to conducting business with them instead of staying at the hotel across town and being late for the meeting?

 

[HisArpy]

Poor, poor Rapey. Got caught being a disingenuous liar again.

Lol. Poor poor little Lukie...

Disingenuous suits you more than me. You like to play word gamez and then claim victim status.

No, nothing you said was "false" on it's face. The way the post was worded, however, conveyed a different message than the words themselves imparted.

It's called an Equivocation Fallacy. You use it quite often. Which is why you're considered such a dumbfuking liar by almost everyone.

 

[Aglaopheme]

First of all, he wasn't LEGALLY required to do anything. The emoluments clause exempts the President.

From there, no.

Why does it bother you where people stay when traveling? Do you really think that anyone cares if you stay at their hotel prior to conducting business with them instead of staying at the hotel across town and being late for the meeting?

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gif


Trump’s lawyers are not even making that argument in any of the suits brought against him involving the emoluments clause.

The Republicans sure didn’t think that when they want Obama to get Congressional permission to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Speaking a changes that favor Trump...

Trump’s Justice Department changed their take on the clause to exclude Trump Hotels, not that Trump was completely exempt.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a27148184/emoluments-clause-trump-justice-department/

 

[HisArpy]

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gif


Trump’s lawyers are not even making that argument in any of the suits brought against him involving the emoluments clause.

The Republicans sure didn’t think that when they want Obama to get Congressional permission to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...ons-on-foreign-gifts-dont-apply-to-presidents

 

[jomar]

It's not proof that he still is either. Yet, when faced with FACTS which show he is appearing to abide by most of his promises, absent PROOF, one should tend to believe that he is also keeping the others.

8 out of 19 to you shows he is appearing to abide by some promises. Appearing to abide is not factual proof he's abiding by them. Trump doesn't get the benefit of the doubt because lying is his baseline behavior, or can't you see that.

Me=What can you see that verifies he's not involved with his businesses?

You=See the linky I put up. There are also others if you google for them which show the same. Of course some of them are hysterical, but the evidence is the same.

The link doesn't verify anything on over half of his promises to stay out of his businesses. Your link argues against you. And his promises have shown to be fake news!

Me=Unverified assumption...what on earth are you talking about??

You=Well, you see, when you claim to have evidence, but your evidence isn't apparent anywhere except you saying so, that's called "unverified". What you have done is blind cite to a book which may or may not state what you say which support is supposedly a personal experience by the book's author. No cite, no quote, no nothing. Just you saying that the author of some book says he personally knows differently than the citeable sources do.

Your citable sources even say "who knows?" and can't confirm he's staying out of his own businesses. Your own references that can't back up your claims! I gave you links supporting my contention but you chose to ignore them, fine, but you can't claim victory on what you have presented. As far as the book I mentioned goes, do feel free to dismiss investigative journalism.

M=You're the one being awfully strident.

You=Defending others in the face of a concerted attack isn't strident, it's my job.

That's just silly. This is a porn board. Relax.

Me=Right. If it was an actual law he'd have had to do it. What does it tell you that he's the only president to adamantly refuse to do so?

You=Umm, that he's not breaking the law?

More like "move along please, nothing to see here. I promise."

Me=I assume if you've got good trustees, or whatever the folk who run a blind trust for you are called, you can profit from assets when you get back to being a private citizen.

You=Yep. Unless you're Trump. Then you can't because that would "bad".

Apples and oranges. Blind trust vs no trust at all. Very different animals.

Me-Simmer down, sounds like you're about to stroke out.

You=dudly, trying to impart that you're oh so concerned about my health and welfare makes you look like a loser grasping at straws in order to get in a final word.

You don't care and would in fact rejoice if I suddenly stopped decimating your silly childish arguments here.

Well, guess I'd hate to hear you got his by a truck for about a minute, but you are now officially in lala land and experiencing delusions. If this is how you make your case in court, other attorneys must absolutely love to see you across the aisle.

 

[HisArpy]

8 out of 19 to you shows he is appearing to abide by some promises. Appearing to abide is not factual proof he's abiding by them. Trump doesn't get the benefit of the doubt because lying is his baseline behavior, or can't you see that.



The link doesn't verify anything on over half of his promises to stay out of his businesses. Your link argues against you. And his promises have shown to be fake news!



Your citable sources even say "who knows?" and can't confirm he's staying out of his own businesses. Your own references that can't back up your claims! I gave you links supporting my contention but you chose to ignore them, fine, but you can't claim victory on what you have presented. As far as the book I mentioned goes, do feel free to dismiss investigative journalism.



That's just silly. This is a porn board. Relax.



More like "move along please, nothing to see here. I promise."



Apples and oranges. Blind trust vs no trust at all. Very different animals.



Well, guess I'd hate to hear you got his by a truck for about a minute, but you are now officially in lala land and experiencing delusions. If this is how you make your case in court, other attorneys must absolutely love to see you across the aisle.

Catastrophic thinking at it's finest.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-the-face-adversity/201103/catastrophic-thinking

 

[jomar]

Catastrophic thinking at it's finest.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-the-face-adversity/201103/catastrophic-thinking

You should stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[HisArpy]

You should stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

dudly, when I post a link showing that what we know appears to be supporting the facts regarding Trump's promise and YOU have NOTHING to refute it with except your UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION, because Trump, then you're engaging in Catastrophic Thinking. For which there is an actual psychological term and reference.

To wit:
You ignore facts to focus exclusively on the worst possible connotation by creating fictional theories and then positing them as "truths" in spite of real evidence to the contrary.

The one who is embarrassing themselves here, is you.

 

[Luk]

Lol. Poor poor little Lukie...

Disingenuous suits you more than me. You like to play word gamez and then claim victim status.

No, nothing you said was "false" on it's face. The way the post was worded, however, conveyed a different message than the words themselves imparted.

It's called an Equivocation Fallacy. You use it quite often. Which is why you're considered such a dumbfuking liar by almost everyone.

I just unequivocally proved you to be a liar and your best defense is IKYABWAI.
You're a fucking mutt.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

First of all, he wasn't LEGALLY required to do anything. The emoluments clause exempts the President.

From there, no.

Why does it bother you where people stay when traveling? Do you really think that anyone cares if you stay at their hotel prior to conducting business with them instead of staying at the hotel across town and being late for the meeting?

That's certainly your opinion but not a fact.

I'm not talking about people in general, I'm specifically talking about POTUS. When Trump heads down to Mar-a -lago in the winter he turns a profit from that on the back of taxpayers. You may be cool with that, but I'm not.

 

[jomar]

dudly, when I post a link showing that what we know appears to be supporting the facts regarding Trump's promise and YOU have NOTHING to refute it with except your UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION, because Trump, then you're engaging in Catastrophic Thinking. For which there is an actual psychological term and reference.

To wit:
You ignore facts to focus exclusively on the worst possible connotation by creating fictional theories and then positing them as "truths" in spite of real evidence to the contrary.

The one who is embarrassing themselves here, is you.

Seriously, are you day drinking?

You gave a link saying Trump won't divest from his businesses and another saying "we don't know if Trump is staying out of his businesses" to "prove" your point he was staying out of his businesses. I gave you links supporting my contention.

Worst possible connotation, fictional theories and posting them as truths? #ascriptionmuch?

And you presented no "real evidence" to support your position at all.

 

[phrodeau]

Old news, but I guess some here haven't read it.

http://fortune.com/2019/04/30/trumps-emoluments-lawsuit/

By ERIK LARSON and BLOOMBERG May 1, 2019
President Donald Trump’s narrow definition of an “emolument” failed to win him an escape from a lawsuit by almost 200 Congressional Democrats who claim the president is violating the Constitution by doing business with foreign governments.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan on Tuesday denied a Justice Department request to dismiss the lawsuit, filed in 2017 by Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal and other members of the House and Senate who claim Trump is violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.

Trump and the Democrats have clashed over what the once-little-known word “emoluments” meant at the time the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, with Democrats using a broad definition to cover profits from Trump’s businesses and Trump seeking a narrow meaning. Sullivan said the Democrats had the more convincing argument.

Trump’s definition “disregards the ordinary meaning of the term as set forth in the vast majority of Founding-era dictionaries,” Sullivan said in his ruling. The judge also said Trump’s definition “is inconsistent with the text, structure, historical interpretation, adoption, and purpose of the clause; and is contrary to executive branch practice over the course of many years.”

The clause says that certain federal officials, including the president, can’t accept an emolument from “any King, Prince, or foreign State” without “the Consent of the Congress.” The congressional Democrats are seeking an order compelling Trump to notify Congress when he’s offered an emolument, giving them the option to vote on whether he can accept it. Blumenthal has called the emoluments clauses the Constitution’s “premier anti-corruption provision.”

Trump said he stepped down from running his $3 billion empire but retained his ownership interests, a decision the Democrats say violates the Foreign Emoluments clause because he’s getting payments from foreign governments without congressional approval.

 

[cowslinger64]

Read it again, dumbass. You are on Shitslinger-style fake ignore. You know, what YOU do when you get your ass handed to you. You would do it far more often except for the fact that you're not smart enough to know when you've had your ass handed to you.

Lol...dude, I couldn't possibly think any less of you, so your silly name calling does nothing.


You're the pussy that refused a trip.


Btw.. You were fuckin wrong, and too arrogant and not bright enough to see it. It's not unexpected.


*points and laughs at your giant empty head*

 

[Aglaopheme]

Old news, but I guess some here haven't read it.

http://fortune.com/2019/04/30/trumps-emoluments-lawsuit/

But, but, but Harpy found someone with a different opinion. Trump’s lawyers must really suck. Clearly, neither they, nor the judges in all of the cases currently ongoing know as much as Harpy.

 

[Rightguide]

Speaking a changes that favor Trump...

Trump’s Justice Department changed their take on the clause to exclude Trump Hotels, not that Trump was completely exempt.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a27148184/emoluments-clause-trump-justice-department/

Understand the only part of the DOJ that you could call Trump's is Barr and his immediate assistant.

 

[Rightguide]

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...ons-on-foreign-gifts-dont-apply-to-presidents

It's pitiful the lack of aptitude on the left in any subject matter they bring forth.