I don’t mean to move any goalposts. And I just said 100% to illustrate where I’m coming from. But if I thought anyone was indeed 100% sure of a crime, then it would be moving them. I am not sure Trump is guilty of anything. So in the context of what I believe, and what others say, I’m just not ready to go all the way as of yet.
-
No.
-
Also, no. It was just a question, and involves news people and the like, not Trump. But, both sides do do it. IMO.
What is your level of certainty on Trump having committed sexual assault?
Among the evidence we have is Trump, on tape, confessing to the crime, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 corroborating witnesses.
I haven’t looked at those recently, and for some accusations, probably not at all. I remember a woman saying Trump assaulted her in the dressing room at Sak’s Fifth Avenue or similar, and she seemed credible. But Trump’s “grab 'em by the pussy” comment, to my mind, is not good enough to convict him of anything. It was a crass and reprehensible remark, and in the debates he tried to play it off as “locker room” talk. For all I know, Trump was trying to impress the young and relatively hip Billy Bush, and maybe it was. I really don’t know.
I have heard people’s opinions and know what they are capable of believing. Got anything better?
In addition to what friedo said, the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction since the United States has never signed on to the Treay establishing the Court.
Are there things you are certain of, even if you don’t have any details immediately at hand? I mentioned Bob Somerby upthread, and he is the one most responsible for teaching me to question everything any political person, whether elected official or news person, says. And he has written many articles on precisely Rachel Maddow, where I agreed with his analysis that she was being disingenuous, or worse… If one thinks it’s silly of me to “know” that the left uses these tactics without being able to quote chapter and verse from memory, I understand that. But as I said, this thread is not about it, and I, like k9bfriender, just don’t want to start another thread to discuss it.
Three areas which have quite a bit of publicly-known evidence to suggest that he has committed a state or federal crime:
- Tax evasion. Already beaten to death in this thread (and many others), but he has fought tooth-and-nail against any release of his tax records, has claimed to be under audit for years (and if he is under audit so often and for so long, there’s at least something irregular in there), and forms which got leaked earlier this year indicate he paid only a token amount of taxes in recent years. At a minimum, he and his accountants are probably making some very creative interpretations of the tax code.
- Sexual assualt. Numerous accusations, and consistent with his other behavior, and his comments in the Access Hollywood tape.
- Campaign finance fraud. Paying off Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Small change in the grand scheme of things, but it’s pretty damned clear what happened.
Also, though it is not apparently a state or federal crime, he has been in continual violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution since he took office.
Being that I’ve been talking about tax crimes, let me just say that hiding your taxes is not the only reason you might not want them public. As for paying little taxes, I’m not an expert by any means, but imagine a creative accountant or tax attorney could conceivably do this within the bounds of the law. Needs investigating.
One possibility is just garden-variety fraud, but on a major scale, in obtaining his funding from lenders like Deutsche Bank.
Cohen has stated that Trump would give an inflated value for assets which he used for collateral in obtaining loans, and an under-value for those same assets for tax purposes. If that can be proven by the documents, then he is potentially facing fraud charges for his dealings with his bankers, as well as potentially facing tax charges, both state and federal. That’s the sort of claim that doesn’t tend to depend on witness testimony, like Cohen’s, but on the documents.
What this makes me think of is that Trump has potentially followed the Gotti path, rather than the path of the old mobsters, who lived quiet lives in nice houses, but didn’t draw attention to themselves. Maybe Trump could have skated by forever as a somewhat sleazy real estate guy in New York, but once he ran for Prez and was elected, it opened all sorts of attention on him and his business practices. We’ll just have to wait and see if anything comes of it.
You want the right to bring things up without anyone questioning what you bring up?
I don’t think so.
I am not 100% sure that this isn’t just all a simulation, and that everything in the world is just an artifact of an advanced algorithm designed for my amusement.
But, reasonable preponderance of the evidence suggests that, yes, Trump has most likely committed a number of financial, electoral, and carnal crimes, all before having taken office. In order to have enough evidence to convict in a court of law would require a thorough investigation, the likes of which are exactly what he has worked hard to obstruct.
As far as the crime of obstruction of justice, I am as sure as I am that this is actual reality that I am interfacing with that he is indeed guilty of this. And because he is guilty of this, it truly makes me think that he is guilty of the crimes that were being investigated, otherwise, why would he obstruct them?
He has been found guilty of some crimes and violations. He has been ruled against and had to pay fines and restitutions for those crimes and violations.
Some of the other stuff, the money laundering for terrorist organizations, or taking bribes from Putin for looking the other way as Russia moved into our sphere of influence, I can speculate as being likely, but I have no hard evidence, and such may never be forthcoming.
Exactly. It all really does need to be investigated.
Maybe…maybe…he just has really smart, really knowledgeable tax attorneys, and everything he’s done with his taxes is within the scope of the tax laws, but is so complex and arcane that it is difficult for even the IRS (let alone laymen like you or I) to tell if he’s cheated or not.
However, we also know that his business empire itself is a Gordian knot of literally hundreds of shell companies and the like. Maybe he is an upright businessman, but the ways in which he conducts business have more in common with how mobsters operate than the Fortune 500.
Yeah, he seems to be opposed to people believing things unless they they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those things are 100% true, but he doesn’t hold himself to that same standard.
Not at all. I will say that I’m sorry I even brought it up, as I have repeatedly said it was not my intent to get into a whole conversation about it here. It is interesting to me that no one wants to answer my question about whether or not they think the left is beyond disingenuous tactics.
And I fully respect this opinion, and we both agree there should be a thorough investigation. You say “most likely”, and I say “possibly”. Are these not both reasonable?
So, your entire balance here against people in office along with an entire network, along with pretty much an entire band of radio, is one individual.
Okay. I’ll take your word for it. I pretty much never watch Maddow, I hear more about what she has to say by Trump supporters trying to play false equivalence games than I do from her or liberals, but sure, if you say so.
No, that’s a false equivalence, once again. I said I don’t want to start threads on things that I don’t believe, as there is no end to that. You are saying that you don’t want to bother to support an assertion that you have made.
hiding you taxes from the public is one thing, even if it is breaking longstanding precedent of running for president. But hiding them from an investigation and a subpoena, that’s a bit different. That pretty much is a crime in and of itself.
There are things that can be done within the law sure. But there are also things that can be done in violation of the law. Without him complying with the law demanding that he release them to a legal subpoena, we cannot know for sure. But, like I said, if you refuse to release evidence to investigators, it does promote speculation that your creative accounting may have not been entirely within the law.
People thought that Enron and Madoff’s accounting was within the law until investigators were able to examine them.
I would say that the obstruction moves the needle pretty far from possibly to most likely, IMHO.
Why try to cover a crime that you did not commit?
I really, really, really wish you would stop doing this. No, that is not the only reason, and I never said it was. I’ve been watching cable news regularly since the Factor was on, going back 22 years. This is nothing new for the left leaning cable news media. They can be as full of shit as anyone in the business.
Now, holding to my New Year’s resolution, I’ve got nothing more to say here on this.
It shouldn’t be that interesting. There is no monolithic “left”. I am sure that you could do some nutpicking and find some left wing blogger that confirms whatever it is that you want to claim that the “left” believes.
However, as a member of those who are left of center, and as one who disagrees quite strongly with the “principles” of those on the “right”, I am a member of the “left”, and I do not engage in the sort of tactics that you claim that those on the left engage in.
So, all you have is an assertion that “we” are just as bad as “them” and I will not agree with it, as it is simply not true, and it is entirely on you to make that argument, not just drop the assertion into a thread, and then claim to be too noble to back it up.
It’s a rather bullshit passive aggressive tactic, and it serves no purpose, does no enlightenment, and only serves to annoy those who may otherwise agree with you.