DanteGabriel Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 10 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said: LoL! Faux news, keeping it's base scared of the southern menace since... well forever And if it's dangerous for a black man... If you check the comments on his original tweet, it's either a sling for body armor with no plates, or it's a Dora the Explorer backpack strapped to his front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 2 hours ago, Martell Spy said: Keeping it classy. I'm sure he'll be insulting Nancy Reagan before this term is up. Trump hits back at Barbara Bush: 'She was nasty to me, but she should be' https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/05/trump-barbara-bush-1258925 This kind of awesomeness is why virtually all life long republicans really adore trump, now. Really, A statement this rad makes me like him a little. Damn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 14 hours ago, Fragile Bird said: Lol, the New York Times has just pointed out that Trump asked the Senate to fast track the appointment of the chief counsel of the IRS, ahead of Barr, because of the new tax changes. The Senate didn't,getting Barr appointed first,then the IRS counsel. The IRS counsel did work for the Trump companies. The IRS counsel will give the legal opinion as to whether or not Trump has to hand over his income tax returns. Honestly, I think the media is making too much of this story and reading too much into the tea leaves. Treasury and the IRS had been BEGGING for a chief counsel for a while and Desmond, who is a competent and respected practitioner, had been left swinging in the wind for quite some time (almost a year). This is the 24 hour news cycle + conspiracy theorists with a cork board and twine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 16 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: Honestly, I think the media is making too much of this story and reading too much into the tea leaves. Treasury and the IRS had been BEGGING for a chief counsel for a while and Desmond, who is a competent and respected practitioner, had been left swinging in the wind for quite some time (almost a year). This is the 24 hour news cycle + conspiracy theorists with a cork board and twine. The news stories I saw all mentioned the fact that the position needed filling for quite a long time. Those stories then go on to talk about how many positions have been left unfilled by the Trump administration, including many ambassadorships. Trump ran a tiny corporate organization and apparently has the attitude that lots of positions are just make-work jobs. Haven’t they slashed a huge number of foreign service jobs, because Trump believes he can run all foreign relationships from the White House? Also, when it comes to the expected fight over Trump’s tax returns, from what I saw the statute lists persons who can ask for tax returns, and the department ‘shall’ give them the returns. This fight will be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 33 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said: Also, when it comes to the expected fight over Trump’s tax returns, from what I saw the statute lists persons who can ask for tax returns, and the department ‘shall’ give them the returns. This fight will be interesting. “Shall” seems pretty straight forward to me, and I’d be surprised if Trump won in court. However, where I think the real battle will be is the enforcement of the court ruling. Trump’s tax returns are going to be the closest thing to a smoking gun we’ll ever see, and he’s going to fight like hell to suppress their release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 44 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: “Shall” seems pretty straight forward to me, and I’d be surprised if Trump won in court. However, where I think the real battle will be is the enforcement of the court ruling. Trump’s tax returns are going to be the closest thing to a smoking gun we’ll ever see, and he’s going to fight like hell to suppress their release. The statute is pretty clear to me. And if they are smart, they had them over, but with lots and lots of conditions to ensure that the general public never knows what is in them. And that will be where the fight will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 41 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: The statute is pretty clear to me. And if they are smart, they had them over, but with lots and lots of conditions to ensure that the general public never knows what is in them. And that will be where the fight will be. I’m not so sure about that. I believe at the very least that every member of the committee will see his taxes, assuming they’re handed over, and there’s nothing stopping any Democratic member from going to the floor of the House and reading them aloud. Trump could demand that his taxes be deemed topic secret and it still wouldn’t prevent it from happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 52 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: I’m not so sure about that. I believe at the very least that every member of the committee will see his taxes, assuming they’re handed over, and there’s nothing stopping any Democratic member from going to the floor of the House and reading them aloud. Trump could demand that his taxes be deemed topic secret and it still wouldn’t prevent it from happening. Actually, I believe that statute, while allowing the demand for the taxes, requires them to be kept confidential. The argument from the Republicans is that they will be leaked, so they shouldn’t be given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 Even if Abrams doesn’t run for senate, Georgia Dems seem to have gotten a superb recruit already in Tomlinson. Will be an interesting primary if Abrams runs. https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/politics-government/election/article228847804.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 3 minutes ago, lokisnow said: Will be an interesting primary if Abrams runs. Sounds like Tomlinson's pretty prepared to step aside if Abrams runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 Trump pulled his nominee to head Ice, surprising everyone, especially the Senators pushing the nomination towards a vote. This is the guy who refused to say family separations would stop, and who said Dems should change their name to Liberalcrats or something-Klans. Apparently Stephen Miller told Trump he needed someone tougher. Trump also declared the request for his tax returns should be rejected, on the grounds it was ‘inappropriate’. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said: Actually, I believe that statute, while allowing the demand for the taxes, requires them to be kept confidential. The argument from the Republicans is that they will be leaked, so they shouldn’t be given. Perhaps they do, but it won’t matter. House rules will protect any MoC who wants to read Trump’s taxes aloud, Republicans on the committee will demand expulsion from said committee, the House Republican caucus will demand expulsion from Congress, and nothing will happen. If the MoC’s district is a safe one, there will be no real repercussions for violating any confidentiality requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 just took yet another Microsoft News Poll: 59% of the roughly 65,600 people in the poll strongly support tighter immigration and asylum restrictions. Another 12% support it, though not as strongly. not sure if this support is genuine across party lines or if the vast majority of respondents are anti-immigration types Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 50 minutes ago, ThinkerX said: just took yet another Microsoft News Poll: 59% of the roughly 65,600 people in the poll strongly support tighter immigration and asylum restrictions. Another 12% support it, though not as strongly. not sure if this support is genuine across party lines or if the vast majority of respondents are anti-immigration types Bah, when were people ever strongly pro-immigration? And if the question was ‘do you support tighter immigration and asylum restrictions’, that number sounds right. Everyone suspects too many damn furriners are let in. If the question was ‘do you support ICE taking away your next door neighbor who has lived in the US for 20 years, is married with children and works and pay taxes, and deporting him back to where he came from’, I suspect the numbers would be much lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 46 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Perhaps they do, but it won’t matter. House rules will protect any MoC who wants to read Trump’s taxes aloud, Republicans on the committee will demand expulsion from said committee, the House Republican caucus will demand expulsion from Congress, and nothing will happen. If the MoC’s district is a safe one, there will be no real repercussions for violating any confidentiality requirement. Which, honestly, is kinda sad. But I'm not sure that "reading the returns from the house floor" will do bupkis. The 1040 itself will be pretty simple. All the action will be in the attached Schedules K-1 received from his companies, which you really need the underlying 1065 or 1120S to truly understand, and you probably need the underlying partnership agreements for any 1065 to really understand what is going on. So, that's a short way of saying that to really get at what is going on, you will need to do an audit, and reading the information that is really relevant will take DAYS. ETA - If your goal is to embarrass him, then reading the 1040 might do the trick because it may well/will probably show numbers not consistent with his super successful billionaire fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 31 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: Which, honestly, is kinda sad. But I'm not sure that "reading the returns from the house floor" will do bupkis. The 1040 itself will be pretty simple. All the action will be in the attached Schedules K-1 received from his companies, which you really need the underlying 1065 or 1120S to truly understand, and you probably need the underlying partnership agreements for any 1065 to really understand what is going on. So, that's a short way of saying that to really get at what is going on, you will need to do an audit, and reading the information that is really relevant will take DAYS. You just made my face melt like the Nazis at the end of Raiders Quote ETA - If your goal is to embarrass him, then reading the 1040 might do the trick because it may well/will probably show numbers not consistent with his super successful billionaire fantasy. The goal is larger than that though. Yes you could embarrass him by showing that he's not anywhere near as rich as he claims and/or by showing that he's a tax cheat (both of which are likely true), but the real meat and potatoes is seeing if you can prove that he's been committing financial fraud and/or if he's been laundering money for foreign entries, specifically Russian oligarchs. One thing I keep going back to is the reported comment by Eric Trump. He's quoted as saying that the Trump Organization was flush with Russian money. I'm curious if there's a way to prove that with the Organization's tax returns, and I suspect numerous MoCs are too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said: You just made my face melt like the Nazis at the end of Raiders The goal is larger than that though. Yes you could embarrass him by showing that he's not anywhere near as rich as he claims and/or by showing that he's a tax cheat (both of which are likely true), but the real meat and potatoes is seeing if you can prove that he's been committing financial fraud and/or if he's been laundering money for foreign entries, specifically Russian oligarchs. One thing I keep going back to is the reported comment by Eric Trump. He's quoted as saying that the Trump Organization was flush with Russian money. I'm curious if there's a way to prove that with the Organization's tax returns, and I suspect numerous MoCs are too. I think the Russian stuff will be hard to tell from the tax returns themselves on their face, but you maybe could if you audited.* And I'm not sure whether they will provide the returns and all the schedules and attachments or just the returns (I know how I would interpret this if I were them). *But maybe not if the money came through various DE (Delaware, not Deutsche) corps or LLCs. There is unlikely to be KYC documentation of any kind in the tax return, and even if it was required to be collected (which it probably wasn't), that's not tax information you on a return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 Yeah, you can tell that this Judge Flores, whoever he or she is, is completely racist against white people. I mean, who are they to mandate basic toilet privileges to children? The fuhrer Trump should totally have the ability to deny toilets to children, as long as they are not white children. Quote “I have to tell you, Judge Flores, whoever you may be, that decision is a disaster for our country,” Trump said during a meeting with border patrol officials. Trump Slams Nonexistent ‘Judge Flores’ for Landmark Immigration Ruling Actually Named After Migrant Teen ‘I have to tell you, Judge Flores, whoever you may be, that decision was a disaster for our country,’ he said, at least acknowledging he has no idea who Flores is. https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-slams-nonexistent-judge-flores-for-landmark-immigration-ruling-actually-named-after-migrant-teen?ref=home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted April 6, 2019 Author Share Posted April 6, 2019 44 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: Yeah, you can tell that this Judge Flores, whoever he or she is, is completely racist against white people. I mean, who are they to mandate basic toilet privileges to children? The fuhrer Trump should totally have the ability to deny toilets to children, as long as they are not white children. I know many will take Trump’s reference to “Judge Flores” as being evidence of his pre-dementia. And they may be right but I can’t help but I think you’re on to something with Trump trying to frame this decision having been made out of racism. I think this wasn’t a mistake on his part but a calculated political move. To dog-whistle to his followers that a Hispanic judge are abusing the court out of sense of race superiority. I mean he’s done this before to the Mexican-American Judge overseeing the case of him being sued over Trump university. But to his credit that Judge was real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 In case no one was sure yet if the Prez is a racist xenophobic piece of shit, he's now saying that immigrants "aren't people, these are animals". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.