Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump Slams SCOTUS: ‘Continuation of the Greatest Political Witch Hunt in the History of Our Country’

Trump Slams SCOTUS: ‘Continuation of the Greatest Political Witch Hunt in the History of Our Country’

Trump after Supreme Court refuses to stop NY D.A. from issuing subpoenas for Trump financial records: “It just never ends!”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h5_d3DUdR4

The Supreme Court denied President Donald Trump’s request to halt the enforcement of a subpoena to hand over his tax returns to New York prosecutors.

The justices did not explain their choice. Trump followed with a scathing statement.

“The investigation is a continuation of the greatest political Witch Hunt in the history of our Country, whether it was the never ending $32 million Mueller hoax, which already investigated everything that could possibly investigated, ‘Russia, Russia, Russia,’ where there was a finding of ‘No Collusion,’ or two ridiculous ‘Crazy Nancy’ inspired impeachment attempts where I was found NOT GUILTY,” wrote Trump.

“It just never ends!”

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. has been fighting for Trump’s tax records since 2019:

Vance, a Democrat, had subpoenaed the records from the Mazars accounting firm that has long done work for Trump and his businesses. Mazars has said it would comply with the subpoena, but Trump, a Republican, sued to block the records’ release.

Vance’s office had said it would be free to enforce the subpoena and obtain the records in the event the Supreme Court declined to step in and halt the records’ turnover, but it was unclear when that might happen.

Vance wants eight years of tax records.

“These are attacks by Democrats willing to do anything to stop the almost 75 million people (the most votes, by far, ever gotten by a sitting president) who voted for me in the election – an election which many people, and experts, feel that I won. I agree!” exclaimed Trump.

Trump described the moves by his opponents as “fascism, not justice.”

“The new phenomenon of ‘headhunting’ prosecutors and AGs – who try to take down their political opponents using the law as a weapon – is a threat to the very foundation of our liberty,” continued Trump. “That’s what’s done in third world countries. Even worse are those who run for prosecutorial or attorney general offices in far-left states and jurisdictions pledging to take out a political opponent.

“That’s fascism, not justice – and that is exactly what they are trying to do with respect to me, except the people of our Country won’t stand for it.”

Trump pointed out that “murders and violent crime are up in New York City by record numbers, and nothing is done about it.”

Trump is not wrong, except serious crime “fell nearly 1% compared with 2019.” I doubt the fact-checkers will do their job so allow me:

The number of murders in the city rose to 462 last year, up nearly 45% from 319 in 2019, according to the NYPD. The increase accompanied a steep rise in gun violence more intense than any seen in the previous 20 years, according to police statistics.

The city recorded 1,531 shootings in 2020, 97% more than the 777 in 2019. Data showed the number of shooting victims in the city more than doubled to 1,868 in 2020 from 923 in 2019. The number of shooting victims exceeds the number of shootings because multiple people may be shot in a single incident.

Also, why isn’t Vance and every other district attorney going after Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his nursing home deaths? How about Cuomo and his administration fudging the numbers?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Every other president has released there tax records. Don’t see why he is putting up such a fight on something he promised he would do.

    Dejectedhead in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 5:24 pm

    He just doesn’t have to.

    That shouldn’t authorize a prosecutor to go looking for a crime.

      That didn’t authorise him, what authorised him was the probable cause from witness testimony. Cohen specifically gave information in regard to campaign payments to silence stormy Daniels. From a PR perspective Trump fighting tooth and nail to hide his returns when he has promised multiple times to release them paints a pretty bad picture.

        alaskabob in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 5:39 pm

        Fine… how about a grand jury for “The Big Guy”? Campaign donation issues versus extortion.

          mark311 in reply to alaskabob. | February 22, 2021 at 5:41 pm

          If there is evidence sure, go right ahead. But please stop saying it’s a Vs situation that’s just daft. It’s not an either or situation. All crimes should be investigated.

        gonzotx in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 5:46 pm

        That was really a down vote
        Mark is a troll and a stupid one at that

          mark311 in reply to gonzotx. | February 22, 2021 at 5:48 pm

          Says the person with no argument or ability to present one

          UserP in reply to gonzotx. | February 22, 2021 at 6:06 pm

          gonzotx is head and shoulders above you Mark311 and that’s will with his hat off.

          mark311 in reply to gonzotx. | February 22, 2021 at 6:40 pm

          UserP

          Well I look forward to hearing the arguments. As of yet I’ve seen none. So from my perspective your view that he is head and shoulders above me makes little sense.

          UserP in reply to gonzotx. | February 22, 2021 at 7:29 pm

          Mark311

          A couple of years ago when Professor Jacobson was invited to a seminar in Texas, gonzotx made every effort to attend and sat in the front row to hear him speak. He later went up and met the professor and shook his hand. I have been reading gonzotx’ posts for many years and I have found his arguments and sympathies are in tune with the goals and aims of Legalinsurrection unlike some Johnny-come-latelys who come here to argue and cause trouble. From my prospective you are a troll.

          mark311 in reply to gonzotx. | February 22, 2021 at 8:43 pm

          @UserP

          It’s very good of you to defend gonzotx. Maybe his standard of discourse has dropped. I can only just from what I’ve seen.

        paralegal in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 5:57 pm

        Cohen is in prison for lying under oath. Perjury can never provide probable cause.

          mark311 in reply to paralegal. | February 22, 2021 at 7:04 pm

          That’s a fair point, but it appears Vance found him persuasive. It may well be there is other evidence too so who knows. Shall see what happens.

          Milhouse in reply to paralegal. | February 23, 2021 at 12:18 am

          “it appears Vance found him persuasive.”

          Very funny. Are you seriously expecting anyone here to accept that Vance is acting in good faith?! Do you seriously believe that yourself?! Yes, Vance has the grounds he needs to pursue this subpoena, which is of course why the court declined to strike it down; there were no grounds to do so. But his reason for doing so is his personal and political animus to the target. If not for that he would not be pursuing it. If a political ally were in the exact same circumstances he would drop it.

          mark311 in reply to paralegal. | February 23, 2021 at 2:15 am

          @Milhouse

          And how do you know it’s bad faith are you possession of the facts that Vance has? It seems like you are over reaching there but like I say shall see.

          paralegal: Perjury can never provide probable cause.

          A perjurer can provide probable cause if the perjurer also has supporting evidence, such as cashed checks, tape recordings, and knows where the fraud is buried.

          mark311 in reply to paralegal. | February 23, 2021 at 9:50 am

          @Zachriel

          Also a fair point

          Mark311: Also a fair point

          Using crooks to unravel conspiracies is part-and-parcel of modern crime fighting. The jury will certainly consider the veracity of the witness, but also will consider the documentary evidence uncovered.

          Milhouse in reply to paralegal. | February 23, 2021 at 11:02 am

          You don’t need to know anything about the case to know that Vance is pursuing it in bad faith. It’s blindingly obvious.

          mark311 in reply to paralegal. | February 23, 2021 at 2:08 pm

          @Milhouse

          Is it obvious, I mean most of the investigation is under wraps at the moment. We know very little about what’s been going on. I don’t really think you have cause to say bad faith at this stage.

          Milhouse in reply to paralegal. | February 24, 2021 at 12:49 am

          Yes, Mark, it is completely obvious on its face that Vance is acting in bad faith. No inside knowledge is required for that. The basic problem here is that you keep expecting us to accord him a presumption of good faith pending evidence to the contrary; but he does not deserve such a presumption. He’s a known quantity, and therefore the presumption has to be that he is acting in bad faith. The onus is on him or his supporters to prove otherwise.

          mark311 in reply to paralegal. | February 24, 2021 at 5:36 am

          @Milhouse

          I’m not sure I can agree on that. I guess we will only find out if it reaches court and the case detail is reported.

        Dathurtz in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 6:15 pm

        Ooh. Ooh. Now do why people are fighting tooth and nail against forensic audits in swing states.

        Oooor now do why Biden cancelles the pedophile task force.

          mark311 in reply to Dathurtz. | February 22, 2021 at 6:41 pm

          There have already been a number of recounts and audits. Counting again would be a waste of money.

          Milhouse in reply to Dathurtz. | February 23, 2021 at 12:26 am

          Like Democrats care about wasted money. Hahaha.

          Nice trick, that. Do an audit on books you know you didn’t fiddle, and use that to avoid doing the audit on the books the other party is demanding to see, because you know those are the ones you did fiddle. The Trumpists want a signature audit in Fulton County; why not give it to them? Fobbing them off with one in Cobb County, where they don’t allege anything went wrong, only makes their suspicions seem more likely to be true.

          mark311 in reply to Dathurtz. | February 23, 2021 at 2:18 am

          @ Milhouse

          The process has played out, I also believe there was a recount in Fulton county.

          mark311 in reply to Dathurtz. | February 23, 2021 at 10:01 am

          @Milhouse

          Just reread your comment – Cobbs county did have allegations of issues hence the signature checks on a sample.

          AS for Fulton county it was audited although I think you might right in that signature checks weren’t carried out.

          In any case what’s the justification for further checks there have been so many recounts, signature checks,, audits etc and no findings of wrong doing.

          Milhouse in reply to Dathurtz. | February 23, 2021 at 11:04 am

          No, Cobb didn’t have allegations. Fulton did, but they did the audit in Cobb. Funny, that.

          (I don’t expect a signature audit to reveal very much. But it should be done so that we know, and the more resistance is put up to the idea the more suspicious it looks.)

          Has anybody checked Hunter Biden’s birth certificate ?

          Milhouse in reply to Dathurtz. | February 24, 2021 at 12:46 am

          @milhouse

          https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9788511080

          1. Lin Wood is a lunatic

          2. Wrong allegation. How could a signature audit have resolved accusations of ballots being shredded? You’d have to produce allegations of fraud there, that might have been caught by such an audit, to explain why the audit was conducted there rather than where the fraud was alleged to have occurred.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 6:43 pm

        There is no way to rationalize someone which huge business interests releasing their tax returns. Doing so would enable competitors to commit all sorts of mischief.

          Then he shouldn’t have run for president. Sorry but the conflicts of interest are too great and the record indicates that he has done very well for himself as a result of his position. He has not acquited himself well at all in that regard.

          Then he shouldn’t have run for president.

          Listen to yourself. So anyone who is actually creating wealth and improving the country is thereby excluded from public office?! Only parasites may run?! Is that what you’re saying?! If the productive sector is excluded from office then the republic is illegitimate and should be overthrown with maximum violence.

          Why should he not run for president, just because he doesn’t want to do something that has never been required? His tax return is nobody’s business, and you can’t invent a new requirement for office that is not in the constitution.

          he record indicates that he has done very well for himself as a result of his position.

          What record? What on earth are you talking about? Seriously, this seems like a bizarre fantasy without any factual foundation at all.

          @ Milhouse

          It’s reasonable to expect a president to not have conflicts of interest. I think that’s just professional.

          As for Trump getting rich from the presidency well there have been lots of examples

          https://www.opensecrets.org/trump/trump-properties

          https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/01/20/trump-businesses-empire-tied-presidency-100496

          Good starting point for you

          What conflicts of interest? Neither of your links shows any conflict between his business interests and his duties as president, or his making any money from the presidency.

          The first link seems to be Republican entities spending money at Trump properties. What’s that got to do with the presidency? It’s not government money. They can spend their money where they like.

          The second link isn’t much more. All it says is that his properties continue to do business as usual; it doesn’t even allege, let alone demonstrate, that he’s done anything to steer business to them.

          And the bit about his assassination of the Iranian terrorist chief putting his own properties at risk is just bizarre. How is that corrupt? It’s the exact opposite! It shows that he did not let his private interests sway him from his duty. He had the terrorist killed and if it hit him in the pocket so be it.

          The bottom line is that there is nothing in the law or the constitution or in any reasonable theory of ethics that says a business should stop operating as usual just because the president owns it. And saying so effectively means barring the productive sector from national office, which is perverse and wrong.

        yoakumtx in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 7:04 pm

        He is under no obligation to release his returns. Especially based on campaign statements. Which politician would not be in jail for lying in their campaigns or after they win the election? So Cohen who did time is a good enough source to subpoena someone’s personal tax filings? Would not want to live in your America… You make a good lamb.

          mark311 in reply to yoakumtx. | February 23, 2021 at 2:40 am

          You are right of course but it’s a bad look, if it were a crime Trump would never get out.

          As for your comment about Cohen as I’ve said that’s a fair point but it’s entirely possible there is already other evidence.

          Milhouse in reply to yoakumtx. | February 23, 2021 at 11:09 am

          It’s also “entirely possible” that the paranoid fantasies we hear from some commenters, e.g. that supreme court justices are being blackmailed, or even the infamous satanic child sacrifice stories, are true. They’re not physically impossible. But there’s no basis for supposing such a thing; it’s just a wild guess. And so’s your idea that “there is already other evidence.”

          lgbmiel in reply to yoakumtx. | February 23, 2021 at 11:14 am

          @millhouse…

          You shouldn’t dismiss those blackmail rumors.

          Of course you’ve read Rosemary Collier’s scathing report on the obama admin spying????

          mark311 in reply to yoakumtx. | February 23, 2021 at 2:13 pm

          @ Milhouse

          Of course it’s a guess about further evidence, as is your comment about bad faith

          Milhouse in reply to yoakumtx. | February 24, 2021 at 1:12 am

          lgbmiel, I don’t even elevate them to the level of “rumors”. They’re not real rumors, that real people believe and whisper about, they’re completely pulled out of their rear ends by paranoid freaks who don’t give a **** about the truth and will say anything that helps them. Like Harry Reid.

          lgbmiel in reply to yoakumtx. | February 24, 2021 at 1:41 am

          @millhouse…

          Just admit you haven’t read Collier’s report.

          lgbmiel in reply to yoakumtx. | February 24, 2021 at 1:47 am

          @millhouse…

          So you haven’t read Collier’s report….

          Just say that….

          lgbmiel in reply to yoakumtx. | February 24, 2021 at 1:50 am

          @millhouse…

          sorry for the double post….

        Ironclaw in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 8:01 pm

        If Cohen had had ANYTHING that Mueller could have used against Trump or a member of his family, he wouldn’t have seen the inside of a jail cell.

          mark311 in reply to Ironclaw. | February 22, 2021 at 8:47 pm

          That’s a flawed argument. Mueller made lots of comments about Trumps wrong doing but didn’t make a conclusion because of the DoJ policy of not indicating a sitting president. Rightly or wrongly his report painted a picture got auctioned then got delivered to the wrong address.

          fishstick in reply to Ironclaw. | February 23, 2021 at 1:20 pm

          I don’t know if you watched the Mueller hearings but he said nothing of the sort

          instead he repeatedly stated his investigation couldn’t come to a conclusion outside the “not under my purview”s of which we got many

          so he did worse than punt the decision, he knowingly construed his end stance as not coming to a decision and left it open-ended in the hopes it would reflect negatively on the President, who during the hearings couldn’t identify any crimes of his taken place in his near 2 year investigation

          he worded many his case of not absolving him of ‘guilt’ despite not finding any evidence to the former, all the while investigating people that wasn’t the President

          the whole DOJ ‘can’t indict a sitting president’ was a leftist talking point added in by the Dems – of which all the Mueller team was – after the Mueller debacle where he seemingly had no idea of what was in his own investigation

          mark311 in reply to Ironclaw. | February 23, 2021 at 2:21 pm

          @fishstick

          There are quite a few different analysis of the Mueller report. It would seem that there was quite a bit if evidence for obstruction.

          https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map

          … but only if you use the new and more board definition of obstruction of justice. You know, the one where you tell the prosecutor to “go fish” and he says you are obstructing

        MarkS in reply to mark311. | February 23, 2021 at 7:56 am

        The FEC has ruled that a payment to Stormy was legal, and even if it weren’t that doesn’t require 8 years of tax returns.

          mark311 in reply to MarkS. | February 23, 2021 at 3:15 pm

          @MarkS

          That’s a lie, the FEC hasn’t ruled yet on it. In fact there was an attempt to sue them for taking so long.

        Lucifer Morningstar in reply to mark311. | February 23, 2021 at 9:20 am

        So Cohen arranged for a NDA with Stephanie Clifford and made one payment of $130,000 out of his own personal funds which was later and wrongly determined to be a “campaign contribution” so that gives the vindictive NY prosecutor(s) “probable cause” to go deep diving into Trump’s personal/business taxes for the last eight years. A time period which pre-dates both his campaign and his presidency. Sounds like the NY prosecutors office really has nothing and is now desperately looking for something, anything at all, to hang on Trump.

          Lucifer Morningstar: so that gives the vindictive NY prosecutor(s) “probable cause” to go deep diving into Trump’s personal/business taxes for the last eight years.

          The courts who looked at the warrant upheld probable cause. Trump appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

          We don’t know exactly what the prosecutor is investigating, but it is clearly more than the Stormy Daniels situation.

          except we do know it has nothing to do with what Cohen was convicted on

          the so called hush payment to Stormy Daniels was cleared as not illegal and done by Cohen’s own discretion

          heck I would even venture to say the “info” Cohen gave the prosecutor doesn’t even have any collaborating evidence behind it

          because if it did – we would know alot more specifics about it other than it could be within 8 years of Trump’s tax returns?

          are we suppose to believe Cohen couldn’t narrow the supposed crime he’s attested to within a timeframe of 3 months?

          I mean the media clamors him to be Trump’s supposed political fixer/lawyer/go to guy for all things concerned

          it just reeks of more bad behavior done at the highest echelons of government (like Carter Page) with no consequences to be held for the perpetrators should the truth of their phony inquiries be brought to light

          fishstick: it just reeks of more bad behavior done at the highest echelons of government

          Except that the warrant required a showing of probable cause before the court, and the finding of probable cause was upheld on appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.

          @lucifer Morningstar

          You’ve missed out the part where Guilliani then said Cohen was reimbursed for that payment.

          @Zachriel

          again, nothing specific was waylaid with collaborating evidence along with whatever Cohen said about Trump’s taxes

          hence the prosecutor wanting 8 years worth of returns

          a person who was hailed as Trump’s fixer and lawyer would atleast be able to show WHERE said crimes were taking place, no?

          @mark311

          you must have missed the understanding that Cohen did all this himself

          him asking to be reimbursed shows his client (Trump) was not made aware of the NDA beforehand

          I even remember audio of of ‘this’ where Trump seemed a bit miffed at the payout

          @fishsticks

          Since the grand jury is in secret we don’t know whether Cohen has given over secrets spanning a long time or not. All that has yet to come out if it ever does.

          With regard to your point about Cohen and Trump. Trump changed his story a number of times during that period. Including an instance where he admitted making the payment bit not considering it part of a campaign fund.

          Zachriel | February 23, 2021 at 1:48 pm

          Except that the warrant required a showing of probable cause before the court, and the finding of probable cause was upheld on appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.

          * * * * * * *

          What warrant are you talking about? What showing of probable cause are you talking about?

          felixrigidus: What warrant are you talking about?

          Sorry. It was a grand jury subpoena, which doesn’t require showing probable cause. However, the subpoena was subject to challenge and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. The challenge was rejected by the courts. Unless there is an indictment and the documents are required at trial, they will remain secreted to the grand jury.

        fishstick in reply to mark311. | February 23, 2021 at 12:44 pm

        except if there was such specific information given by Cohen – who is only saying ‘this’ as part of a plea sentence – the prosecutor wouldn’t be wanting 8 years of tax returns to find the supposed crime

        it would be a much more specific request given to a judge, as Cohen – the so-called political fixer for DJT for some 20 years – would have given collaborating evidence as part of his word on record

        so where is the evidence of the crime? normally an investigation would need alot more than a statement issued by a convicted person to open such a grandiose case

        it is fairly blatant that the prosecutor wants the keys to the proverbial kingdom because he currently has no idea if any laws have been broken by his target

        so his best bet was to use Cohen to give him an 8 year window ?

        in what used to be the sane world – we called that a fishing expedition

          fishstick: so where is the evidence of the crime? normally an investigation would need alot more than a statement issued by a convicted person to open such a grandiose case

          The grand jury investigation is secret, so no one knows exactly what is being investigated, only that the courts upheld the warrant.

          fishstick in reply to fishstick. | February 23, 2021 at 4:49 pm

          @Zachriel

          and so was secret those FISA warrants…

          it doesn’t make your case here bud

          but again, why still the 8 years of tax returns?

          nothing upheld by these rulings have any specificity to the merit of the investigation to begin with

          and the fact nothing has been leaked only further shows the likelihood of any actual evidence being presented by this prosecutor to be legit is the same that was used on the FISA courts years ago

          that is none at all

          fishstick: it doesn’t make your case here

          Your argument is that some subpoenas have been flawed in the past. For that matter, some convictions have been flawed in the past. However, subpoenas are more likely than not to be correct. And convictions are more likely than not to be correct.

          We don’t have the information to determine the reason the grand jury requested eight years of tax returns, but we do know this very issue was litigated through appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.

    Barry in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 5:26 pm

    Non communists think digging for legal dirt without cause violate constitutional rights.

    Bur then you are what you appear to be – a marxist of the first order.

    Then you are not very perceptive. You speak of every other president, but he is unlike any other president.

    Not to mention that there is one reason only that these proponents of “good governance” have, and it’s not good governance.

      You mean he is more corrupt and has more to hide. I’m perfectly perceptive of the obvious. Trump is corrupt.

        alaskabob in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 5:40 pm

        In office???? Versus “The Big Guy”? Clinton’s?

        Interesting that is your take from what was implied, which was that the exercise is a fishing expedition of a loose canon prosecutor, who is not candid about his intentions. THAT is obvious.

        As for your assertion that Trump is corrupt, it’s just the Biden credo, “We choose truth over facts.” Or a wet dream of a dupe.

          You realise there is a lot of indications of Trump’s corruption. The trouble is you always interpret his words with mental gymnastics to give him a free pass. When are you going to leave he doesn’t care about you, he cares about the limelight and power and money. The pardoning of corrupt politicians, his endless hiding of his tax returns, the Hush money paid to keep stories quite, the endless election fraud bullshit, the abuse of the emolument clause of the constitution, the constant lies, I could go on.

          You act like you know more than anyone, which is an actual exercise in mental gymnastics. Perhaps it’s the result of obvious TDS. You sound like a total dupe.

          You mean I use reason and argument, I don’t consider myself above anyone but I do respond better to argument rather than empty comments.

          Your comment above belies that you don’t act like an authority when the foundation of your remarks rests in bias, among other things.

          I disagree, I express my opinions based on the evidence. I also respond to argument. If you can present a counterpoint I’ll listen if not then I won’t. If that makes me authoritive then sure. Everyone is biased it’s virtually impossible to eliminate. I do my best to see things from the other side but when it comes to Trump sorry but he is an awful human being.

          What indications of corruption?

          1. The vast majority of the people he pardoned were not politicians and not corrupt. But in any case, how is pardoning a corrupt politician any kind of indication that the president who did so is himself corrupt? Are you suggesting that those politicians paid him for their pardon?! On what basis?

          2. How is hiding his tax returns, which is his absolute right, an indication of corruption? Yes, he shouldn’t have said he would eventually release them. That was probably dishonest of him. So what? How does saying something he didn’t mean indicate corruption? All it indicates is that he didn’t feel like telling the truth, that he simply didn’t want to reveal them.

          3. Hush money paid to keep stories quiet. All that indicates is that there exist embarrassing stories about him, specifically about his sex life. So what? What has that got to do with corruption? Surely those stories are nobody’s business, and he’s entitled to pay those who know them to keep their mouths shut.

          4. “The endless election fraud bullshit”. Even granting your premises, what has that got to do with corruption?

          5. “The abuse of the emolument clause of the constitution”. What abuse? First of all, which emolument clause? There are two. The foreign emolument clause doesn’t apply to the president. Not that there’s any indication he’s received any foreign emoluments, but if he had there’d’ve been nothing wrong with it. The domestic emolument clause only applies to the president, but there’s no indication that he’s received any of those either.

          @ Milhouse

          1. The vast majority of the people he pardoned were not politicians and not corrupt. But in any case, how is pardoning a corrupt politician any kind of indication that the president who did so is himself corrupt? Are you suggesting that those politicians paid him for their pardon?! On what basis?

          On the basis that a considerable number were corrupt.
          That’s

          2. How is hiding his tax returns, which is his absolute right, an indication of corruption? Yes, he shouldn’t have said he would eventually release them. That was probably dishonest of him. So what? How does saying something he didn’t mean indicate corruption? All it indicates is that he didn’t feel like telling the truth, that he simply didn’t want to reveal them.

          That’s not a great indicator is it, and in context of his business dealings which are decidedly murky. It’s also a bit rich given the comparison of treatment aka Hilary. The right seem to have a double standard here

          3. Hush money paid to keep stories quiet. All that indicates is that there exist embarrassing stories about him, specifically about his sex life. So what? What has that got to do with corruption? Surely those stories are nobody’s business, and he’s entitled to pay those who know them to keep their mouths shut.

          Except some of that Hush money may well be from campaign funds,

          4. “The endless election fraud bullshit”. Even granting your premises, what has that got to do with corruption?

          Because he’s peddled it for personal gain. Enrage the base try and cling onto power and thus avoid criminal proceedings.

          5. “The abuse of the emolument clause of the constitution”. What abuse? First of all, which emolument clause? There are two. The foreign emolument clause doesn’t apply to the president. Not that there’s any indication he’s received any foreign emoluments, but if he had there’d’ve been nothing wrong with it. The domestic emolument clause only applies to the president, but there’s no indication that he’s received any of those either.

          There are tonnes of indications and you are incorrect about the foreign emolument clause that does apply.

          https://www.opensecrets.org/trump/trump-properties

          https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/01/20/trump-businesses-empire-tied-presidency-100496

          https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/trump-and-foreign-emoluments-clause/

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2020/09/11/trumps-businesses-raked-in-19-billion-of-revenue-during-his-first-three-years-in-office/?sh=58d2c4d21e13

          https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/trumps-2000-conflicts-of-interest-and-counting/

          Mark, you have no ****ing clue about the foreign emoluments clause.

          1. The clause does not apply to the president. It says who it applies to, and the president is not included. George Washington openly accepted gifts from foreign governments and never asked congress for permission, nor did anyone in congress say a word in protest. This proves beyond all challenge that neither Washington nor anyone in congress thought he needed permission.

          “theusconstitution.org” is a partisan Democrat organization that says whatever it finds convenient at any given moment. So’s “CREW”. And the suit touted in the piece you linked was brought by two of the biggest scoundrels in the congress, Dick “stolen honor” Blumenthal, and Jerry Nadler; both have a hide accusing anyone else of dishonesty.

          2. Even if it had applied, none of your links even allege that he has received any emolument from a foreign government. A foreign government choosing to do business with a company he owns is not an emolument. Especially when it’s done at market rate and at arms’ length.

          3. One of the links breathlessly reports that he earned $1.9 billion during his first three years as president. How is that even remarkable? There’s no allegation that any of that money came about because of his presidency. The whole premise seems to be that presidents should not be making money, which is just wrong.

        gonzotx in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 5:48 pm

        Mark that up vote was a down vote big thumbs
        No one agrees with you but already know that and just want to be that unpopular kid hiding in his mothers basement

        paralegal in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 6:03 pm

        You make a lot of nonsense claims with zero corroborating evidence. In fact, most of your asinine claims are contradicted by all known evidence on the issue.

          mark311 in reply to paralegal. | February 22, 2021 at 6:14 pm

          Sorry have you read the list of Trump pardons? Or maybe you can explain why Trump continues to hide his tax returns, or maybe you can explain why he didn’t divest himself of his portfolio during his presidency or maybe why he owes $400m dollars to foreign investors. It’s funny there are some here who claim that Obama isn’t American on no basis what so ever yet when it comes to Trump you folks have an entirely different standard.

          txvet2 in reply to paralegal. | February 22, 2021 at 6:32 pm

          He was under no obligation to divest anything. Like every other Republican president, his estate was held in a blind trust during his presidency – and it looks like they didn’t do a very good job, since he reportedly lost about 2 billion dollars in the interim. Likewise, he was under no obligation to reveal his tax returns to anyone but the IRS, who have audited him routinely as they do pretty much every wealthy Republican. Note that I don’t include Democrats. They play be different rules, especially the Clintons and Obamas, who became wealthy in office and after. As far as pardons are concerned, he has the absolute right to pardon anyone, just as Clinton and Obama did. Unlike Clinton, however, there’s no evidence that he actually sold or otherwise profited from them.

          mark311 in reply to paralegal. | February 22, 2021 at 6:53 pm

          @txvet

          Incorrect Trump has used a revocable trust. He is hardly at arm’s length of his business dealing especially given his children and in laws are well ensconced into his business dealing and the white house previous to his election loss.

          I never suggested he couldn’t pardon anyone he wanted what I said was his list was pretty much exclusively those who had rich powerful friends and we’re corrupt. I don’t remember any Trump supporters being pardoned.

          As for Obama and Hillary you may have a point you may not. If they are guilty of something go prove it Id commend you for it if you prove them guilty of a crime. That doesn’t give Trump from what he has allegedly done.

          https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.voanews.com/usa/report-trump-assets-revocable-not-blind-trust%3famp

          Alice Johnson.

          Seven prisoners with life sentences for marijuana — including some jailed without parole under Biden’s 1994 crime bill.

          Among others.

          Your memory is quite selective in one direction.

          mark311 in reply to paralegal. | February 22, 2021 at 7:39 pm

          @oldschooltwentysix

          And that was thanks to his son in law and Kim Kardashian. Not all the pardons were bad choices but it remains a fact that the list was dominated by corrupt politicians

          Markiii – Your right. Sloppy writing on my part. His trust is not blind, and couldn’t possibly be simply because of the vast extent of his holdings – but it is still a trust.

          As far as the Clintons and Obamas are concerned, I note that you don’t hold them to the same standards as you do Trump, which is no surprise.

          Milhouse in reply to paralegal. | February 23, 2021 at 12:51 am

          I never suggested he couldn’t pardon anyone he wanted what I said was his list was pretty much exclusively those who had rich powerful friends and we’re corrupt.

          That is an outright lie.

          Milhouse in reply to paralegal. | February 23, 2021 at 12:54 am

          maybe you can explain why he didn’t divest himself of his portfolio during his presidency

          Why on earth should he? It would have been insane of him to do so, especially since so much of his wealth is inherently connected to his name, and wouldn’t be worth nearly as much without it.

          or maybe why he owes $400m dollars to foreign investors.

          Um, because he’s in real estate, and every real estate developer works with bank loans. There’s no indication that he’ll have any problem paying or refinancing those loans as and when they fall due.

          mark311 in reply to paralegal. | February 23, 2021 at 4:17 am

          @txvet

          Well we were talking about Obama and Clinton were we so how do you know what standard I’ve used for them? That seems to be a common fallacy used. Referencing someone else for the same crime or sin isn’t relevent. In any case I don’t agree with what Obama did although it does seem to be a case of comparing apples to oranges don’t you think. Obama had no business interests or at least very limited whereas Trumpn owns something like 500 companies. I don’t know about Clinton so I can’t comment.

          lgbmiel in reply to paralegal. | February 23, 2021 at 9:25 am

          @mark…

          obama’s father was not a US citizen — this makes obama a dual citizen. Doesn’t matter if obama never claimed citizenship from his father’s country. A child inherits citizenship from his parents.

          A dual citizen cannot be a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution.

          obama was a fraud.

          Now we have treasonous traitor china puppet biden the fraud, who was obama the fraud’s vp.

          Criminals!!

          Seriously?

          lgbmiel: A dual citizen cannot be a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution.

          Thought the U.S. had birthright citizenship. Hmm. Oh yes. Here it is:

          “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It’s kinda hard to read, but you’ll find it buried among the amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
          https://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/todays-doc/index.html?dod-date=709

          lgbmiel in reply to paralegal. | February 23, 2021 at 9:54 am

          @zach…

          No. We don’t.

          ‘Subject to the jurisdiction, thereof.’

          obama’s father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. He was visiting the US. He was the citizen of another country, subject to the jurisdiction of that country.

          The men who wrote that Amendment made very, very, very clear what it meant. They meant people born in the Country to citizens and legal residents.

          People who are in the Country legally, with the permission of our government. Not subject to the jurisdiction of any other government.

          If the framers of the amendment meant anyone born in the Country, they wouldn’t have included — subject to the jurisdiction, thereof. They would have just left it — born in the Country.

          The Constitution does not allow birthright citizenship.

          lgbmiel: obama’s father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

          The Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t say anything about the father. Barack Obama was born under the jurisdiction of the United States, which is the requirement of the 14th Amendment.

          lgbmiel: If the framers of the amendment meant anyone born in the Country, they wouldn’t have included — subject to the jurisdiction, thereof.

          Indians of the time were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but were considered members of semi-independent nations. Nor are the children of diplomats subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but are bound to the laws of their home nation.

          lgbmiel: The men who wrote that Amendment made very, very, very clear what it meant.

          Yes. The same persons who enacted the 14th Amendment also enacted the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which granted citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”

          lgbmiel in reply to paralegal. | February 23, 2021 at 10:58 am

          @zach…

          Children inherit the citizenship of their parents. A non-citizen can’t create a citizen. obama’s mother passed her US citizenship to him as his father passed his foreign citizenship to him. Only a US citizen can create a US citizen.

          [T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

          Trumbull continues, “Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn’t make treaties with them…It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.

          Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment.

          Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

          This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

          Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) United States Senate in 1866.

          The people who wrote the amendment. They excluded foreigners, aliens, people who were government dignitaries.

          They stated that ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ means they don’t owe allegiance to any other government. It means the same jurisdiction that applies to citizens, now.

          Milhouse in reply to paralegal. | February 23, 2021 at 11:22 am

          obama’s father was not a US citizen — this makes obama a dual citizen. Doesn’t matter if obama never claimed citizenship from his father’s country. A child inherits citizenship from his parents.

          Says who? It depends entirely on Kenya’s citizenship laws, which you have not examined. There is no principle that says Kenya must regard him as its citizen.

          In any case, it’s irrelevant.

          A dual citizen cannot be a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution.

          This is utter bullshit. The real high-octane stuff. It’s an outright falsehood and nothing more, and it discredits everything else you have to say.

          lgbmiel in reply to paralegal. | February 23, 2021 at 11:28 am

          @millhouse…

          BS. I just cited some of the framers of the 14th amendment when they put forth the Amendment.

          You should really read what they had to say.

          A natural born citizen is born in the Country to two citizens.

          Says who???

          Says the Founders and the Framers of the 14th Amendment.

          You’ve never read what the Founders had to say on foreign influence??

          Surprised. Anywhooo….

          lgbmiel (quoting): This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States

          Notice the missing “foreigners, aliens, {or} who belong to the families of ambassadors”. That could be read as meaning foreigners who are families of ambassadors. In any case, the distinction you are trying to draw didn’t make it into the 14th Amendment or the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the latter of which you ignored.

          We’d cite Supreme Court precedent, but you have indicated elsewhere that it doesn’t matter what they have said on the matter.

          lgbmiel in reply to paralegal. | February 23, 2021 at 11:46 am

          @zach…

          Seriously???

          A lacking ‘or’ is what you are going to hang your ‘hat’ on?? In one place? Where in other places it is perfectly clear what is meant???

          Civil Rights Act of 1866, the one that says this….

          That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power

          Not subject to any foreign power.

          Sheesh.

          lgbmiel: That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power

          Barack Obama was not subject to any foreign power when he was born. He was under the jurisdiction of the United States.

          lgbmiel in reply to paralegal. | February 23, 2021 at 12:03 pm

          Wow.

          Yes, he was. He was born subject to the foreign government of his father. That’s how it works.

          Children inherit the citizenship of their parents.

          obama inherited US citizenship from his mother and Kenyan/British?from his father. Kenya was a British colony.

          That’s how it works.

          obama is a citizen, but not a natural born citizen. Natural born citizenship excludes dual citizenship.

          It’s unification of soil and blood. Born in the Country to two citizens.

          obama’s father could not create a US citizen. He could only pass his foreign citizenship to obama.

          lgbmiel: He was born subject to the foreign government of his father.

          No he wasn’t. Jurisdiction is well established in common law. Barack was born under the jurisdiction of the United States. The only exceptions are for foreign diplomats and their families, who, if they commit a crime, are prosecuted by their home country.

          lgbmiel in reply to paralegal. | February 23, 2021 at 1:59 pm

          @zach…

          No, he was not.

          obama was born under the jurisdiction of the US and the jurisdiction of his father.

          Was his father a citizen of the US?

          No?

          Then, obama was born under the jurisdiction of two governments.

          That is inescapable.

          You are a liar.

          mark311 in reply to paralegal. | February 23, 2021 at 2:39 pm

          @milhouse

          Are you kidding Trump has a horrible track record with money. The only bank in the western world that would touch him is Deutsche Bank. It’s likely given it was the only bank willing to finance him it attached strings to his loan repayments which are due in the next four years as I understand it.

          mark311 in reply to paralegal. | February 23, 2021 at 3:26 pm

          @lgbmiel

          You seem to say that if someone’s parents aren’t citizens even where they are borne in the US they can’t become citizens. The constitution clearly states that that is not the case.

          You claim thereof somehow changes the definition to exclude it doesn’t all that means is – of the thing just mentioned; of that. “the member state or a part thereof”

          Sorry the plain reading of the constitution and the case law surrounding it clearly indicates you to be wrong.

        herm2416 in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 6:05 pm

        Says the person who shows no evidence.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 7:22 pm

        I think it is pretty clear that mark311 is a Marxist stooge, corrupt to the core. Mark311 should release his-her-its tax returns, so that we can show why such should not be released. Mark311, step up to the plate.

          ??? oh my days, I’ve never laughed so much in my life. That’s your response. Dear me.

          If that’s your standard of argument wow. That’s the equivalent of saying look over there it’s a shiny thing don’t look at the crime scene. Honestly you’ve got to do better than that surely. In other words irrelevant to the point at hand , sure I’ll release my tax returns if I ever run for president.

          In addition to being a marxist asshole, you’re an idiot.

        Ironclaw in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 8:03 pm

        If he were so corrupt, they wouldn’t need a Stalinist fishing expedition to find something, anything.

          mark311 in reply to Ironclaw. | February 23, 2021 at 4:21 am

          I think we have very different definitions of Stalinist. Vance is doing his job investigating a potential crime, he has enough for a grand jury so what’s your issue exactly.

        amwick in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 8:09 pm

        It has been a while since Rags disappeared.. It was so nice.. really.. at least you don’t have his foul mouth.

        caseoftheblues in reply to mark311. | February 23, 2021 at 6:13 am

        ….the…big…guy…

        based on waht ? your gut ?

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 6:10 pm

    I have said before, the next step of the suppression is criminal prosecution of Trump. Democrats are never prosecuted, but they will make up stuff, if required, on Republicans. This will only enrage the Trump base, and rightfully so.

    The are playing with fire. Republicans will insist on conducting their own politically motivated persecutions when they are in power. There is plenty to go after Biden and his kid over. Every Democrat in Congress has a skeleton in the closet. You just have to rummage around hard enough to find it. And if a Republican with nads gains office, the search will begin.

    If Biden truly wanted unity, he would call off these partisan dogs.

      Not true a number of Democrats have been convicted.

      Laura Richardson
      Jesse Jackson Jr.
      Michael Grimm
      Chaka Fattah
      Anthony Weiner

      That’s a list of democrats in the legislative branch who have been convicted during the Obama years.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

      If you want the full list

      You ascribe a one sidedness that doesn’t exist. There is a requirement for evidence to convict sometimes it doesn’t reach the threshold.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 7:25 pm

        Next up, Biden, his family crime syndicate and Harris.

        maxmillion in reply to mark311. | February 23, 2021 at 10:06 am

        Yes! That’s because every one of those is a criminal, and were properly perp marched off. Trump has never broken any law. That’s right: Not one, not ever. And you can’t name one. Read it and weep, chump.

          mark311 in reply to maxmillion. | February 23, 2021 at 3:33 pm

          Well that hasn’t played out yet has it. There are plenty who think that the Mueller report gave clear indications of obstruction of justice. Then of course there is the campaign funds misused, the insurrection charges potentially, the abuses of the emolument clause, being sued by Dominion … It’s quite the list.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | February 22, 2021 at 6:26 pm

      “ Republicans will insist on conducting their own politically motivated persecutions when they are in power “

      No. They won’t. They are spineless whomps who won’t fight back. Ever.

      Democrats are never prosecuted

      It was Trump’s decision not to go after Hillary Clinton. He promised he would lock her up, but he never intended to fulfill that promise.

        Milhouse: It was Trump’s decision not to go after Hillary Clinton.

        If Clinton were guilty of some crime, then her associates may also be implicated.

        To lead chants of “Lock her up!” was wrong. To decide not to prosecute her was wrong. The legal system should work based on the law and evidence, with the pardon reserved for showing clemency towards those who have otherwise redeemed themselves, but only after the law has run its course.

        felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | February 23, 2021 at 11:00 am

        I do not think he promised that, nor do I believe the chants were actually demanding that. Given that President Trump’s administration did not try to prosecute Clinton and nobody really cared I think it is safe to say that this was always just a means of expressing disgust with the two-tier system of justice that is so obviously on display here.
        And at least in that respect Trump’s administration, while clearly unable to root out the partisan actors implanted by Obama and return the law enforcement and security agencies to non-partisan status, managed to stem the tide. The furious efforts of the current administration to make these agencies even more rabidly political are sadly on display right now.

          felixrigidus: I do not think he promised that, nor do I believe the chants were actually demanding that.

          Huh? You don’t believe they meant what they said over and over and over again?

          felixrigidus: Given that President Trump’s administration did not try to prosecute Clinton

          Clinton had already been investigated and charges were not found to be warranted. There was no basis for “Lock her up!” It was just a bit of fascism-lite rearing its head.

          fishstick in reply to felixrigidus. | February 23, 2021 at 1:33 pm

          I would hardly call an ‘investigation’ where Huber interviewed a single person as a real detailed out investigation

          just from what we learned 4 years ago of smashing court subpoenaed blackberries and even having the secret email server, those two alone should have gotten the pantsuit some jail time

          heck even the FBI’s conduct of giving many immunity for testimony was highly suspect and could have atleast opened a corruption charge

          but on this account – I blame Trump

          he appointed 2 do-nothings AGs that had no intention of creating a real prosecution against HRC and said FBI agents

          many of whom Trump kept in place during the opening year of his term

          guys… that’s on him

          fishstick: just from what we learned 4 years ago of smashing court subpoenaed blackberries and even having the secret email server

          Using personal email for work is not a crime. It’s an administrative problem with administrative sanctions. Only knowingly trafficking in information “relating to the national defense” could be considered a violation of the law. Even state.gov emails are not supposed to contain classified information, but they often do.

          The next Republican President needs to accept ALL offered resignations at the beginning of his administration.

          The evidence is more in line with Trump making a lot of political appointments. He made it much worse.

          fishstick in reply to felixrigidus. | February 23, 2021 at 4:59 pm

          @Zachriel

          on the surface, having a private server isn’t a crime

          but the pantsuit using it run federal material through it is, and classified ones at that

          I mean a Secretary of State running a clandestine server off the grid along with classified material

          THOSE are just crimes, especially when you factor in it got compromised

          THAT is how we learned about it (lol)

          people are serving/served sentences for less, even if done by mistake as you tried to imply above

          @fishsticks

          Well it was investigated and not found to be a crime. I’d also point out that a number of Trumps entourage used personal emails as well which includes confidential information.

          La La La…

          The End because you say so….

          JFC…

          Men!!!!!

          fishstick in reply to felixrigidus. | February 23, 2021 at 8:53 pm

          @mark311 Well it was investigated and not found to be a crime. I’d also point out that a number of Trumps entourage used personal emails as well which includes confidential information.

          no it was investigated and determined no charges would be filed

          that’s a key difference when one finds various infractions but no charges are filed

          or it seems, ever bothered to by the very same feds that wanted to comb through the personal life of anyone even remotely connected to Trump on even the smallest of infraction

          and confidential information from lawyer to client is not classified government information under the statutes of penal code

          Hillary literally broke the law by just having a single classified document run though her bathroom server

          as it existed outside the chain of authority

          and she had thousands of such tagged docs, each that could have been used as grounds to levy a charge

          AG Sessions per Huber looked at it and did nothing

          AG Barr just did nothing

          but none of that takes away that crimes were not committed there

          they were just conveniently ignored despite the overwhelming evidence of malfeasance

          Fishsticks

          That’s not quite accurate “FBI director James Comey announced that the FBI investigation had concluded that Clinton had been “extremely careless” but recommended that no charges be filed because Clinton did not act with criminal intent, the historical standard for pursuing prosecution”

          With regard to Trump and Co they have used personal emails including confidential documents

          https://www.americanoversight.org/investigation/the-trump-administrations-questionable-email-practices

          This paints a picture of Trump being more than a bit hypocritical and disingenuous.

          fishstick: I mean a Secretary of State running a clandestine server off the grid along with classified material

          Powell used AOL for state email.

          fishstick: using it run federal material through it is, and classified ones at that

          The law requires showing she knew the information was classified at the time. The evidence indicated that it was pretty typical “leakage” of classified information into emails.

          @Zachriel

          Powell used AOL, uhg I think we can all agree that’s the real crime here.

        gmac124 in reply to Milhouse. | February 23, 2021 at 1:09 pm

        “It was Trump’s decision not to go after Hillary Clinton. He promised he would lock her up, but he never intended to fulfill that promise.”

        Actually I think Trump fully intended to at least have charges brought against Hillary. I believe he was talked out of it by Sessions and Comey. Sessions I am sure talked about not going after your political rivals because he believed in the old code of honor that the Dem’s don’t follow anymore. and the FBI didn’t have enough evidence left to prosecute because of immunities and destruction of the files. Look at how many Dem operatives where in the FBI. I am sure someone took it upon themselves to make sure Hillary couldn’t be prosecuted even if Trump wanted to.

          lgbmiel in reply to gmac124. | February 23, 2021 at 1:12 pm

          I think President Trump was ‘talked’ out of many things.

          Dirty rotten scoundrel RINOS!

          People who did not believe in MAGA and AMERICA FIRST!!

          mark311 in reply to gmac124. | February 23, 2021 at 4:12 pm

          @igbmiel

          “Dirty rotten scoundrel RINOS”

          You realise in a free country people can believe what they like within reason. You seem to have an extreme aversion to anyone who doesn’t hold exactly the same views as you. Which is kinda illiberal.

          lgbmiel in reply to gmac124. | February 23, 2021 at 4:47 pm

          @mark

          Oh no you don’t!!!

          People who wanted to be in President Trump’s cabinet or his office but didn’t believe in AMERICA FIRST?

          No.

          ‘realise’

          You don’t live here!!!

          Sod off!!!

          mark311 in reply to gmac124. | February 23, 2021 at 5:17 pm

          @igbmiel

          Some maybe but RINO has been used as a term to denigrate all republican opponents. So there are plenty who are conservative who might well have differing views compared to Trump or his base. What you are advocating is uniformity of belief and indoctrination which isnt healthy

          lgbmiel in reply to gmac124. | February 23, 2021 at 5:22 pm

          Mark you don’t live here. I have no use for you. I don’t comment on Great Britain politics. Please leave our politics alone.

          It’s disingenuous for you to even make any comments.

          It doesn’t matter that you have family here.

          YOU DON’T LIVE HERE!!!!!

          mark311 in reply to gmac124. | February 23, 2021 at 6:33 pm

          @igbmiel

          I won’t be dictated too , it’s a free platform thank you.

          lgbmiel in reply to gmac124. | February 23, 2021 at 6:36 pm

          YOU won’t be dictated to???

          Hilarious.

          Sod off

          Fucking Brit!!!

          mark311 in reply to gmac124. | February 23, 2021 at 6:54 pm

          @igbmiel

          No I won’t, the end.

          If you have a problem with that take it up with someone who cares.

        felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | February 23, 2021 at 4:10 pm

        Zach, is that your idea of arguing in good faith?

        Zachriel | February 23, 2021 at 11:41 am

        felixrigidus: I do not think he promised that, nor do I believe the chants were actually demanding that.

        Huh? You don’t believe they meant what they said over and over and over again?

        I know it is hard, but please work on reading comprehension. A lot of your confusion could have been avoided if you read the whole paragraph, including the explication that it is safe to say that this [chant] was always just a means of expressing disgust with the two-tier system of justice that is so obviously on display here.
        Sometimes the meaning of a slogan is not literal. Wouldn’t you agree?

        Zachriel | February 23, 2021 at 11:41 am

        felixrigidus: Given that President Trump’s administration did not try to prosecute Clinton

        Clinton had already been investigated and charges were not found to be warranted. There was no basis for “Lock her up!” It was just a bit of fascism-lite rearing its head.

        The passive voice is telling. It is not true either. First of all, Mr. Comey had no business making that kind of decision. The Obama administration not going after their party’s presidential candidate is hardly surprising nor is it binding on a new administration.
        You think you saw something you call fascism-lite, when in fact you witnessed crowds demanding equal justice for all. Lady Justice wears a blindfold to remind us that Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s (Dt 1,17)

          I could be wrong but I think Zachriel wasn’t confused it was more of an expression of disbelief.

          The Trump rallies where they were shouting that slogan did not appear to be anything other than very literal. That’s certainly the way it looked and given the visceral nature of some of the Trump supporters belief and indeed apparently Trumps belief in a number of bat shit crazy conspiracy theories. Those kinds of people are very much saying those things literally.

          felixrigidus in reply to felixrigidus. | February 23, 2021 at 5:57 pm

          Mark, I’ll go out on a limb here and assume you haven’t actually attended or watched a whole Trump rally but only seen snippets on the news. I find it difficult to believe that anybody who did watch or attend without insuperable prejudice one of these rallies would prefer your reading of the “lock her up” chant.

          But let us assume that I am wrong and you are right, and the crowds chanting “lock her up” meant “the minute you get into office have her disappeared without a trial and throw the keys away,” or, less extreme, “throw her into prison without bothering to involve the courts and never let her out again.”
          How would you explain the decided lack of protests when Trump did not have Ms. Clinton separated from her consoling Chardonnay and snatched out of the woods to be summarily sentenced and thrown into prison? Or the fact, that far from blaming Trump for breaking a “promise” the “lock her/him up” chant was repeated, quite cheerfully, later with respect to other people?

          It might just be that my interpretation fits the known facts and doesn’t need to resort to exotic explanations as to why the deplorables demanding swift retribution did not appear to mind very much when it wasn’t actually dealt out.

          @Felixrigidus

          You are correct I’ve only seen snippets. An interesting perspective , I’m torn now. It seems like you are correct but my nagging doubt is that at the time perhaps the conversation and talking points moved on. As in there were many other things hogging attention.

          Not sure but yes you may well be right.

          felixrigidus in reply to felixrigidus. | February 23, 2021 at 6:48 pm

          Mark, I appreciate your response.

          Your welcome Felix.

          Been interesting, I’ve learnt a lot so thank you.

          Milhouse in reply to felixrigidus. | February 24, 2021 at 1:42 am

          But let us assume that I am wrong and you are right, and the crowds chanting “lock her up” meant “the minute you get into office have her disappeared without a trial and throw the keys away,” or, less extreme, “throw her into prison without bothering to involve the courts and never let her out again.”

          Of course it didn’t mean either of those things. Nobody thought it did. What it did mean was “the minute you get into office assign a prosecution team to investigate everything she has done in her long criminal career, determine which offenses you can prove beyond reasonable doubt, and are still within the statute of limitations, and prosecute her; upon obtaining convictions, ask the judge for prison time.” At least that’s what I thought it meant, but I didn’t believe Trump meant to do that; and the fact that he didn’t confirms my initial disbelief. I wish he had done it.

          @Milhouse

          With regard to Hilary’s emails. I think maybe you are right there should have been an investigation. That would have been the right thing to do. Malpractice and corruption from any politician should be routed out.

          There is another point thought in that Trumps own practises were pretty similar so it seems like he was disingenuous on the face of it using it as a stick to beat Hilary with when in reality he was happy to do the same himself.

          But yes overall Felix and yourself make some good points so thank you

          felixrigidus: I find it difficult to believe that anybody who did watch or attend without insuperable prejudice one of these rallies would prefer your reading of the “lock her up” chant.

          Different people would obviously have had different views of the meaning of the chant. Clearly, some thought it meant Trump would use his power as President to bring the Justice Department to bear against his political opponents. Regardless, you can’t ignore the literal meaning of the words and the damage it does to the rule of law.

          @Zachriel

          “Regardless, you can’t ignore the literal meaning of the words and the damage it does to the rule of law.”

          Fair point

          felixrigidus in reply to felixrigidus. | February 24, 2021 at 10:34 am

          @Milhouse | February 24, 2021 at 1:42 am

          What it did mean was “the minute you get into office assign a prosecution team to investigate everything she has done in her long criminal career, determine which offenses you can prove beyond reasonable doubt, and are still within the statute of limitations, and prosecute her; upon obtaining convictions, ask the judge for prison time.” At least that’s what I thought it meant, but I didn’t believe Trump meant to do that; and the fact that he didn’t confirms my initial disbelief. I wish he had done it.

          This. I agree.
          The problem that remains (and I think that is visible in Zach’s comments) is that there is both the real danger of abuse as a partisan weapon and the virtual certainty that any investigation will be perceived as partisan shenanigans. There are ways around it, hopefully, but it should be used extremely sparingly.

          However, I agree, in this particular case Trump should not have followed Churchill’s (slightly adapted) motto In Electioneering: Resolution. In Victory: Magnanimity.
          Clearly, when the political opponents have all but declared total political warfare the victory stage has not yet been achieved. But that seems to be what marred Trump’s presidency most: when he actually had won he was far too trusting and not cynical enough by a long shot.

          Finally, the rules of engagement have been fundamentally changed by the Democrats, the Vance subpoena is just one of the many ways they have done away with all. This all but requires that, say, an enterprising DA in not-California subpoenas all records pertaining to Biden’s fanily’s suprising business acumen. Surely nobody defending Vance’s obvious bad faith actions would find any issue with that, right?

          @Felix

          I agree with what you say, to me the fundamental problem isn’t who started what though(lets face it both sides can cite examples of increasing the temperature so to speak) it that the process is politicised.

          It should be that a complaint is made and depending on the nature of the complaint and investigation is carried out. Clearly there needs to be a process of sifting malign or spurious complaints but in principle every complaint needs an adequate and neutral investigation and process for every politician. As far as I’m concerned all politicians should be investigated where there is a reasonable basis of complaint.

    will you show us your tax return? will you post your tax return on facebook , Twitter or any social media site? it doesn’t matter what other presidents have done. it was their CHOICE to do that . what that person in New York is doing is political and technically ” fish finding”. There is no criminal charges concerning this issue. The person is hoping to find something that they might have broken a law..still our personal taxes is no one’s business except for the IRS.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 6:22 pm

    Gee! All the other kids are doing it! His tax records are none of anyone’s business. If New York believes he’s in violation of some law, let them file charges.

    Paddy M in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 6:26 pm

    Nixon was the 1st, so, no, every other president hasn’t.

    NeighborOfTheBeast in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 6:36 pm

    No, not every President has shown their tax records. Richard Nixon was the first. And even he didn’t do it voluntarily.

    Let’s see you release yours. Post them someplace online and link to the site so we can all see them.

    felixrigidus in reply to mark311. | February 23, 2021 at 8:52 am

    This has nothing to do with the release of tax returns, whether promised or not.
    Now, the theory here is bank fraud, which is preposterous, given the fact that banks tend to do their own due diligence and rich construction tycoons tend to have professionals handle accounting. It is almost as unlikely to find a memo in the DA’s office stating that the intent of the investigation into President Trump is to use tax dollars to punish a political enemy through the process than to assume that this investigation will uncover anything actionable.
    That is exactly what this is designed to do.
    There is a chance close to zero that Trump will actually be charged any yet it forces the victim of such prosecutorial misconduct to pay lawyers to protect his interests.
    It will be very interesting to see how long it takes until someone in that DA’s office will illegally leak to the NYT. Maybe a week?

      felixrigidus: Now, the theory here is bank fraud, which is preposterous,

      We only have educated guesses based on the nature of the subpoenas.

      felixrigidus: given the fact that banks tend to do their own due diligence

      Bank agents could also be implicated.

      felixrigidus: and rich construction tycoons tend to have professionals handle accounting.

      That’s the usual out for the rich. They plead ignorance, which results in fines not jail.

        felixrigidus in reply to Zachriel. | February 23, 2021 at 11:11 am

        It is not “an out” it is an actual defense.
        Unless you can demonstrate that the professional acted on orders to deceive that is, of course.

        Much is in doubt about what the theory here is. As somehow the documents they go after must be relevant to the crimes they (allegedly) investigate, it must be something like fraud or tax evasion. If you have another idea, I’d be interested to hear it.
        For both fraud and taxes it is extremely unlikely that Trump did not have accountants and lawyers to see to it that they implemented the goal in a legal manner.

        Given these odds, I’d wager the process is intended as punishment and there is no expectation whatsoever that this move actually helps any investigation. Second prediction: once the DA has the documents, they will be leaked to anti-Trump media within a few weeks at most.

          felixrigidus: It is not “an out” it is an actual defense.

          Well, sure. Just one that seems to work better the more money you have. As Anatole France said, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread.”

          felixrigidus: As somehow the documents they go after must be relevant to the crimes they (allegedly) investigate, it must be something like fraud or tax evasion.

          Most likely, but we don’t know what possible fraud is being investigated. It could be Russian money laundering for all we know (where ignorance would be a great defence! Really, how was Trump to know that kleptocrats upstanding investors from Russia were laundering money siphoned off the Russian economy?)

          felixrigidus in reply to felixrigidus. | February 24, 2021 at 10:51 am

          Zach, I do not think it is a function of wealth, primarily, but of the division of labor.
          In this case, I don’t think that quote about the majesty of the law is not really applicable. It has a point that needs to be remembered though. Even when it is not always applicable.

          felixrigidus in reply to felixrigidus. | February 24, 2021 at 10:52 am

          Or rather, I think it is not applicable. Sorry for my shoddy editing.

Don’t blame him for trying to tell Lavrentiy Beria, I mean Cy Vance, to go pound sand. Political persecutions like this one should not be tolerated or excused in the US. We aren’t the USSA quite yet…… though people like Biden and Vance and many others are trying to push the country to the brink.

Because there is no reason and no law that says he has to

It is pure evil, just like you Mark

It’s time we face the truth, the whole theater over the Kav’s and Barrett’s is just that a production by the McConnell’s to cover the fact they are pushing corrupt venal left wingers onto the court.

Clearly, there are NeverTrump nutjob justices. John Roberts for sure. May even Any Coney Barrett, too, biting the hand that fed her.

Little Amy looked like a Pentecostal wife during the hearings
SHe with her blank Pad and little Diane Chinastein falling all over her

We. Should.have.known…

And Kav, looks like he lost his cojones and is an imp in the corner

What a clown show

    mark311 in reply to gonzotx. | February 22, 2021 at 6:24 pm

    Maybe she read the constitution differently from you?

      Barry in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 7:43 pm

      Maybe you’re a marxist shill?

      Mark,
      Have your parents read the Constitution to you. Then come back to discuss.

        Not a great insult, my comment was the supreme court justices have a different interpretation of the constitution and in theory at least they are the leading thinkers on that subject. Thus if a majority opinion happens that kinda indicates a consensus. If I agree with them that puts me on relatively firm ground don’t you think?

          Barry in reply to mark311. | February 23, 2021 at 11:41 am

          “…they are the leading thinkers on that subject.”

          Now you’re engaging in comedy.

          “leading thinkers”

          LOL

          fishstick in reply to mark311. | February 23, 2021 at 1:08 pm

          to Barry – the Supreme Court works as a single body so only the majority opinion counts going forward

          the minority opinion is just a dissent to the former and carries no legal weight (that I’m aware of)

          so mark311 is right on this regard, even if the opinion is inherently flawed or even wrong as it pertains to the very document they claim to espouse

      MarkS in reply to mark311. | February 23, 2021 at 8:03 am

      reading comprehension isn’t all that difficult

All income and expenses related to tax filings must be reported to the IRS. That’s the reason tax filings are confidential. If the DA manages to uncover any crimes in Trump’s tax returns- the evidence cannot be used in court under the 5th amendment, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . The IRS itself would be going after him were there evidence of tax evasion. They don’t concern themselves with other crimes- because they can’t. So not only is it a fishing expedition, it’s a fishing expedition for evidence that cannot be used in a court of law.

    Chicklet in reply to gospace. | February 22, 2021 at 6:08 pm

    Maybe that’s all true, but that won’t stop Vance. He has unlimited taxpayer dollars, can hire dozens of tax attorneys and experts, leak President Trump’s facts and figures all day long. He literally has nothing else to do.

    What’ll it cost to defend against this guy? Who will do it, and for how long once the mob comes a-calling? The real goal is to make it clear to anyone else not to run and not to speak out.

    jakebizlaw in reply to gospace. | February 22, 2021 at 6:44 pm

    I believe you are wrong on the law, Gospace. I’m retired, so I’m speaking from memory without the case citations, but since the 70’s, courts have held that compelled production of documents, even those the potential defendant created himself, is not self-incrimination to which the 5th amendment applies. The rationale, clearly reflecting fear of rubber-hose interrogations, is that only current compulsion of speech is protected. Ironically, I believe I first learned these principles when I had a summer job in the U.S. Attorney’s office in Newark where my supervisor was DJT’s sister.

      gospace in reply to jakebizlaw. | February 22, 2021 at 8:26 pm

      The difference is- he was compelled in the first place to create the tax documents. In non-tax issues, documents created were without official government sanctioned coercion. For taxes- file or go to jail for not filing… If a business or personal document exists- it’s evidence- it was created, assumedly, voluntarily. May require a warrant to obtain, but it’s evidence. Tax forms were not created voluntarily. Their production was coerced. They exist, but are only evidence for tax fraud and the IRS is responsible for finding that. Anything else revealed by them cannot be used in a criminal trial.

      Let’s say, for example- you’re a drug dealer. You make a cool million. You report it on line # 27 (no clue if that’s the right line number) as “miscellaneous income”. DEA goes to the IRS- “Hey, Mr. D.D. made a cool million selling drugs- he’s living beyond his means!” IRS looks and says- “Nope, he reported one million in income and paid taxes.” Over and done with as far as the IRS is concerned. DEA has to prove the million came from drug sales. IRS doesn’t care- taxes were paid. IRS can do all kinds of digging if the DEA shows someone is living beyond their means.

      In the case of thousand page filings for Trump’s, or anyone’s, business, the IRS goes looking for mistakes. If they’re big enough- the IRS will call them crimes- if there seems to be intent to evade taxes. Since no one, including the IRS, knows what the tax law actually says, it’s all open to interpretation. The company lawyers will win some, they’ll lose some, as will the IRS.

      I’m familiar with one IRS loss. The FBM, or BOOMER tax deduction. Used it during the time I was stationed on an SSBN. The full story is- IRS made one decision, put it in a letter, the tax lawyer looked at it, so an even larger deduction was made based on the IRS interpretation, the IRS said, “Wait a minute- that’s not we meant!” The tax court ruled that is, however, what they said. They weren’t allowed to change their mind…

      http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/BOOMER_(aka_FBM)_DEDUCTION.html

        gospace: The difference is- he was compelled in the first place to create the tax documents.

        Al Capone agrees!

        It’s clearly settled law that tax returns can be used against a person in a criminal proceeding.

          gospace in reply to Zachriel. | February 23, 2021 at 3:16 pm

          And you proved the point- Al Capone’s returns were used to prove tax fraud- unreported income. The only thing the IRS cares about.

    Barry in reply to gospace. | February 22, 2021 at 7:47 pm

    Doesn’t matter, Trump committed no crimes. He has been examined more than any person in history and they can’t even get him for a late book return.

    They have already examined his returns with a magnifying glass.

    They will make up a crime however. They need to have his returns in hand so they can claim that is what led to it.

This is a fishing expedition. At heart there is a problem however.

If you send your taxes to two accounting firms that are both legitimate, both genuinely trying to do their jobs do you get two identical opinions of what you owe?

A skilled lawyer could make most of the country criminal on taxes.

Even without that they are sure they could damage Trump with deductions he claimed which are legitimate (he is an American citizen, and deductions aren’t put into law not to be taken advantage of).

But while this decision was a horrible one in result was it bad in terms of why it came down to it? The law often isn’t what we want it to be, and I have no idea if this decision was just them applying the law as written or bending it to allow a political result.

    Milhouse in reply to Danny. | February 23, 2021 at 1:04 am

    The decision was correct. Vance has the right to subpoena the documents. There are no grounds to stop him. That Vance is motivated by his political and personal animus for Trump is true but irrelevant. It means he’s a bad person, but that’s not the court’s business.

The Friendly Grizzly | February 22, 2021 at 6:32 pm

I’d like to see Trump move every one of his New York operations elsewhere. Then, shut the doors of everything in NY that he can. Throw a whole bunch of Noo Yawkuhz ziti of work. I’m willing to bet most of his employees in NY still vote Communist.

    If he is keeping operations in New York open there is very good reason he is doing it.

    I’m not saying this as a fan of his but it is just common sense that you wouldn’t keep such an expensive operation open if it isn’t still doing well.

    It would be hard to move Trump Tower, and if he sells it NY gets to tax the transaction. Then they’d continue to dun him for taxes after he left, a la Limbaugh.

    But he would still have significant real estate holdings in NY. Moving his corporate office to Florida would accomplish little

    The world’s financial system goes through New York. Any financial transaction anywhere in the world probably went through NYC. So the Manhattan DA has traditionally claimed jurisdiction over pretty much the whole world.

The smartest thing fro Trump to do is jump right back into the political arena on steriods – he’d destroy them all. With our help, of course.

It is not a witch hunt, it has been an insurrection against him since his inauguration, against a duly elected president. And continues to this day.

EIGHTEEN Troll comments from “Mark” on this one article alone. This troll gets immense satisfaction from all of your responses and puts great effort into being annoying. Either ~it~ has no life, or is being paid but either way, who needs it?

To annoy and upset “Mark” the antidote is simple: DO NOT respond under any circumstances. All trolls are driven nuts by this non-reaction and will pull out the stops trying to get attention.

    Barry in reply to Jmaquis. | February 23, 2021 at 2:17 am

    Or,

    treat the idiot marxist as entertainment –

    Point, laugh, and call it names.

    mark311 in reply to Jmaquis. | February 23, 2021 at 4:30 am

    No I’m an insomniac, and not a troll. I take great pride in being able to engage which is not something that a troll does. There have been a number of occasions where arguments presented have convinced me I’m wrong on a point.

      MarkS in reply to mark311. | February 23, 2021 at 8:09 am

      Being factually accurate would make you more persuasive, you come across as a CNN viewer

        mark311 in reply to MarkS. | February 23, 2021 at 3:44 pm

        Says the conspiracy theorist who has blatantly lied in this very thread. I don’t watch CNN either. So you are wrong on all counts.

      Barry in reply to mark311. | February 23, 2021 at 11:44 am

      You’re a paid liar, nothing more.

        mark311 in reply to Barry. | February 23, 2021 at 3:45 pm

        Still no arguments or reasoning Barry … I’d be over joyed if you could actually refute any of my points. It’s much more interesting to have a conversation rather than casually dodging your bullshit *yawns

The law in order to work assumes a certain amount of good faith, which may be missing.

There’s always jury nullification.

UserP

Thanks so much!

I am a she lol

    UserP in reply to gonzotx. | February 22, 2021 at 11:15 pm

    Yes ma’am!

    mark311 in reply to gonzotx. | February 23, 2021 at 4:31 am

    I may have referred to you as a he at some point. In which case sorry about that. My bad I shouldn’t have assumed.

      UserP in reply to mark311. | February 23, 2021 at 12:58 pm

      What you should apologize for is your put-downs and belittling comments toward gonzotx which were offensive.

        mark311 in reply to UserP. | February 23, 2021 at 4:01 pm

        Except it was gonzotx who said this

        “Mark is a troll and a stupid one at that”

        And that was because I had a view that was contrary to hers.

        If anything I’d say she owes me an apology. So yes I feel justified in saying the following.

        “Says the person with no argument or ability to present one”

        For the reason that so far I’ve yet to see an argument or reason that addresses my points. Instead she just decided to be rude.

        If she decided to present an argument then I wouldn’t feel the need to respond in that manner.

        You clearly don’t know what a troll is. The majority of my comments attempt to use reason and logic to make a point. Gonzo however threw insults by the proper definition of a troll “Trolling is defined as creating discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages in an online community. Basically, a social media troll is someone who purposely says something controversial in order to get a rise out of other users.” thus actually on the face of it gonzotx is a troll by attempting to deliberately provoke me.

        If I sound rude I don’t mean to be but it really takes the biscuit when I’m the one being called stupid or a troll or some other perjorative and then you have the fucking audacity to say I should apologise when I respond without swearing or insult but to point out the obvious that they haven’t bloody engaged.

        mark311 in reply to UserP. | February 23, 2021 at 4:02 pm

        And to top it of I have to apologise for caller her a him because you bloody claimed gonzotx was a he. How bloody annoying is that.

Observation: the “thumbs down” has not done so much work since the troll ‘Mark311’ came aboard.

It’s getting very strong.

@igbmiel

And that gives you exclusivity to the articles does it. I’d suggest that some of the topics have international appeal.

    lgbmiel in reply to mark311. | February 23, 2021 at 4:59 pm

    Yes, it does!

    I don’t comment on articles where I don’t bloody live!!!

    If you don’t even live here, you have no bloody business commenting!

    Mind your own bloody business!

    You need to clean up where you live!!

    It’s Great Britain, right??

    They have YUGE problems!!!!

    Clean up your own bloody messes!

      mark311 in reply to lgbmiel. | February 23, 2021 at 5:03 pm

      No it doesn’t.

      Sure I have business I have American family, and technically am still an American citizen.

      Yeah sure the UK has problems don’t all countries. Are you thinking of any in particular?

        lgbmiel in reply to mark311. | February 23, 2021 at 5:08 pm

        You don’t bloody live here.

        You have no bloody business commenting.

        Don’t GAF if you still have family here.

        YOU AREN’T HERE!

        BLOODY SOD OFF!!!!

        The fucking gall of some people!!!

          mark311 in reply to lgbmiel. | February 23, 2021 at 5:26 pm

          Indeed you have a lot of gall to determine who should or shouldn’t participate in a conversation on a digital platform.

          lgbmiel in reply to lgbmiel. | February 23, 2021 at 5:33 pm

          @mark…

          Aw…poor baby…

          Yes I do!

          I actually live here!!!

          I don’t care if you post here or not.

          Post whatever you want.

          You don’t live here.

          So, you point is what???

          Nothing, because….YOU DON’T LIVE HERE!!!

          YOU HAVE NO SAY!!!

          Whatever you post is MEANINGLESS!

          It’s just for your EGO!!

          Propping up your ego.

          mark311 in reply to lgbmiel. | February 23, 2021 at 5:52 pm

          It’s online ….

          Meaningless eh, learning about the perspective of others, or idea about what various issues night mean, or maybe news on cancel culture and how it impacts before it truly gets to the UK.

          You are a close minded person, and not much going on in terms of argument. Maybe you’ll prove me wrong in time.

          Your insults mean nothing. They just reflect on the kind of person you are.

        lgbmiel in reply to mark311. | February 23, 2021 at 6:02 pm

        The perspective of others…

        Not all perspectives are valid.

        I DGAF what you think of me.

        Cancel Culture??? You’re kidding, right??

          mark311 in reply to lgbmiel. | February 23, 2021 at 6:43 pm

          That depends. Most are capable of reasoned thought , I’m hopefully that everyone can summon a coherent thought or two. Alas not always.

          Lol clearly. But then that feeling is mutual.

          No im not kidding it’s a terrible phenomenon. The UK only has modest examples so far but seeing how’s it’s playing out in the US is a good test run for the UK. Maybe learning some lessons and trying to counter the Ill effects in some manner.

          lgbmiel in reply to lgbmiel. | February 23, 2021 at 6:53 pm

          @mark

          You are a clear example of unreasoned thought, aren’t you?

          The US is a good test run for the UK?

          BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…..

          Not even….

          The other way round, my DEAR PHONY, MOUTHPIECE for PROPAGANDA.

          mark311 in reply to lgbmiel. | February 23, 2021 at 7:05 pm

          Is that so unreasoned eh, hmm ironic since you haven’t really had a coherent thought on the thread.

          Yes indeed, it’s likely to get transferred over from the states. That tends to happen with both good and bad ideas.

          Haha phony eh, if you mean independent minded then yes I’m guilty.

          Well whilst it’s been an absolute pleasure chatting I’m calling it a night. Until the next time

          lgbmiel in reply to lgbmiel. | February 23, 2021 at 7:14 pm

          @mark…

          Oh dear what am I to do???

          Your insomnia must not be bothering you today? tonight?

          You have no independent thoughts.

          Whilst????

          WTF is that???

          Insomnia must not be a bother….

1. Anyone has the right to comment on US politics, even if they live on Mars, just as LI has the right to comment on foreign politics, which it does regularly, and just as LI contributors have the right to comment on the politics of states where they don’t live.

2. Mark is a US citizen, and thus entitled to vote in US elections. I don’t know whether he does so, but he has the right. Therefore he certainly has the right to comment on US politics.

    lgbmiel in reply to Milhouse. | February 24, 2021 at 1:59 am

    BfuckingShit millhouse

    he doesn’t live here, he should keep his british nose out of things!!!!!

      mark311 in reply to lgbmiel. | February 24, 2021 at 3:07 am

      Milhouse has said very succinctly everything that needs saying.

      felixrigidus in reply to lgbmiel. | February 24, 2021 at 11:24 am

      My apologies for having clicked on the wrong button there.

      Please, try to display fewer of the characteristics of the classic unhinged angry reader: the proverbial capital letters, the exclamation mark, the personal slurs, and the slang.
      Sadly there is no option to ignore comments, so it would be nice to just tone it down a bit.

        @felixrigidus

        Rigidus….

        Rigid, stiff, inflexible, stern, severe, hard.

        So, felix, what exactly are you conveying in your name???

        I’m a passionate person, I feel very strongly about some things. I don’t have the ‘gift of gab’ so I use !!!! and CAPITALS to express myself online.

        You do have the option of ignoring comments, it’s called not reading them.

        Not to worry, dear hard, stern, inflexible felix.

        I hardly ever comment on here because usually I’m doing something more productive like working. I read LI cause I love Prof Jacobson and think his work is so needed.

        I’ve been in NY two weeks and I was just offered a position yesterday.

        My downvote was not an accident!

        P.S. I am angry — My Country being murdered has made me quite cranky…..

        Felix , that was an excellent read. I may not agree with you on many things but on the ability to have a good conversation where people can agree to disagree like adults you most certainly have my respect.

        These are trying times and trying to connect with others that disagree is important. It’s better to argue and have a beer than argue and fight. Otherwise it’s a slippery slope for those who nominally actually share at least some of the same values such as a belief in the constitution and the rule of law, opportunity and so on.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend