This. It will be the birther crap Redux. “I’ve sent a special team to Ukrainia, and you won’t believe what they’ve found. Believe me, it’s big, and soon Sleepy Joe will be in jail. We’ll know more in two weeks, believe me bigly.”
There is absolutely no way Trump could say even half of that without devolving into word salad.
This is what Biden should hit, hard.
However, I disagree with those who say Biden should avoid the ‘paid only $750 or nothing for years’ issue. Biden should point out that federal income taxes are what support our troops.
He should ask Trump “Why don’t you support our troops?”
It’s a fair question and it needs to be asked.
I don’t know why people are worried about President Trumps debt. He will just get new loans to pay the debt. Regular business for rich people.
I think the 2016 debate after the Access Hollywood tape is a pretty good predictor of what we’ll see tonight. We’ll see someone who’s back is against the wall, and he will come out swinging. I wonder if Trump will physically stalk Biden the way he did Clinton. Trump isn’t interested in debate - he never has been. He’s interested in turning this into a spectacle and making Biden look nervous and uncomfortable.
Which Biden can turn around by asking why Trump forgets who is the president.
If Bob Woodward thought what I said was bad, then he should have immediately right after I said it gone out to the authorities so they can prepare and let him know.
“‘The authorities’ include yourself, Mr. President.”
What is the evidence that Trump has broken laws, as presented by the NY Times? I read the article linked to below. (I said earlier I didn’t have access. Indeed, I do, I thought I’d let my subscription lapse). Anyway, here is a quote:
The article is full of details about shady behavior by Trump, if that is the right word. But it does not say laws were broken. So I ask you again, what is the evidence that he has?
The full article: Trump’s Taxes Show Chronic Losses and Years of Income Tax Avoidance - The New York Times
As for this: " They are covering the evidence of law breaking extensively and not, contrary to reports in this thread, just saying “OH MY GOD, TRUMP ONLY PAID $750 IN TAXES!!!” That’s made up bullshit."
I never said that the “$750” story was all that was being covered. Come on, you know that. Why do you like to put words in my mouth?
Because he had, several years ago, gotten to the point where most of the major U.S. banks were no longer willing to keep lending him money. Deutsche Bank was a notable exception, and they’ve since been under investigation for shady dealings. (Note: the article below is from 2017.)
This a beautiful example of the Fiddle_Peghead brand… denying that you have seen evidence when you have the evidence right in front of you.
“Details about shady behavior by Trump,” is, in fact, evidence that laws were broken. It falls short of proof, of course, but it is definitely evidence. This is the exact same mistake you make in virtually every thread where you ask for evidence.
I am aware of that, and the Russians saving his ass by renting/ buying his NewYork real estate.
Yes, i agree. but remember, every auditor and appeals officer can rule differently. It’s a gray area.
In her case claiming "business gifts, cable television, car expenses, cell phone, contact lenses, cosmetics, gym memberships, haircuts, Internet access, makeup, manicures, meals, self-defense classes, satellite radio, subscriptions to newspapers and magazines (Cosmopolitan, Glamour, Newsweek, and Nickelodeon), and teeth whitening.]”" was likely the 500 lb safe that broke the camel’s back. Just the hair? Would the IRS go to court over that?- very doubtful. I worked with District Council, they never wanted to go to Court without a slam dunk ironclad case.
trumps hair is very likely not deductible, but claiming it isnt fraud. Good faith grey area.
Here’s a specific example.
The “consultants” are not identified in the tax records. But evidence of this arrangement was gleaned by comparing the confidential tax records to the financial disclosures Ivanka Trump filed when she joined the White House staff in 2017. Ms. Trump reported receiving payments from a consulting company she co-owned, totaling $747,622, that exactly matched consulting fees claimed as tax deductions by the Trump Organization for hotel projects in Vancouver and Hawaii.
This is evidence that Trump broke the law.
Can you say “quid pro quo”?
I think that when some here say “What is the evidence that Trump has broken laws”
What they are actually asking for is not “evidence” but rather “Proof beyond any conceivable doubt, that would convince me personally, given that I think Trump is the embodiment of perfection.”
Newspapers and courtrooms have their own lanes, rules, and jobs to do.
Are you saying they are exceeding their mandate by not providing a slate of documentary evidence to support the story?
Are you or are you not going to show what laws may have been broken by Trump, and what the evidence is. If someone behaves in a morally reprehensible way that can be characterized as “shady”, that does not mean they broke laws while doing it. You want to talk about brands, whatever the hell that is? You never answer my questions, you just make embarrassing non-replies. That is YOUR brand.
I think we’re seeing a Trump - style debate here:
Ignore the answer to your question and trash talk in order to derail the conversation. Classic.
I am here to state opinions and also to learn, believe it or not. So, show me a law that may have broken in Trump’s dealings with Ivanka.