Investigating Trump

[Airbrush]

Today Trump walked out of a meeting about infrastructure and said he won't work with Dems until they stop all investigations.

There are a dozen or more investigations of Trump continuing besides Mueller's.   The Mueller investigation was of very narrow scope.  The other investigations however, cover a broader area, going into all manner of financial dealings, and of many Trump entities and allies.  My question is how much in substance do the remaining investigations compare to the Mueller project that took nearly 2 years?  Do they all add up to be comparable to the Mueller report, or could the other investigations be much more for Trump and company to worry about?  What revelations may come out of the other investigations over the next 18 months?

Edited May 23, 2019 by Airbrush

[iNow]

Mueller was restricted to election interference with Russia and obstruction of justice. These other investigations are looking more at things like financial grifting, corruption, quid pro quo agreements, and other mafia-like behaviors that seem so common with our POTUS. In other words, far broader than the special counsel and his team reviewed. 

Also, he didn’t walk out after the meeting today. He left before it even began. He basically staged it and turned it instead into a press conference. He left after only 3 minutes had passed to make a big tv event out of it. It was planned in advance. He never had any intention of talking about infrastructure or anything else that would actually benefit the American people. 

Edited May 23, 2019 by iNow

[StringJunky]

There's an article in Reuters about it that I've just now read and this was on the end:

Quote

Trump, three of his children and his company on Wednesday lost their bid to block Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial Corp from providing financial records to Democratic lawmakers investigating Trump’s businesses. U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos ruled in New York that Congress has the legal authority to demand the records.

In the first court test of Trump’s stonewalling strategy, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington on Monday blocked a lawsuit by Trump seeking to quash a subpoena by a House panel to his long-time accounting firm Mazars LLP seeking his financial records. Trump has appealed.

On another front, the Democratic House Intelligence Committee chairman has agreed to hold off enforcing a subpoena against Attorney General William Barr after the Justice Department agreed to turn over Mueller probe-related materials.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-congress/trump-torpedoes-meeting-with-democrats-blasts-pelosis-cover-up-accusation-idUKKCN1SS1R3

 

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just to be fair...let's hear Trumps side of things...

...If you don't believe him his staff will set you straight:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/23/trump-stable-genius-1342655

[Airbrush]

In Mueller's 9-minute statement yesterday, he put major emphasis on Russia interfering in the US elections in a "systematic and sweeping" fashion.  It was the first and last thing he mentioned as if to reinforce in our minds that ALL Americans need to think about it.  Trump-supporter's philosophy is "the ends justify the means."  What's wrong with Russia helping Trump get elected?  They did a good thing for America!  So why should they even read the Mueller report?  Barr already told them "nothing to see here folks, let's move along."

Why was Mueller unwilling to state that Russia was helping Trump and hurting Clinton?  Why just say "interfere" in the US election and not say "helped Trump and hurt Clinton?"  The most Mueller would say was the Russian's tried to "hurt a candidate."  I suppose he meant Clinton.

Edited May 30, 2019 by Airbrush

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, Airbrush said:

In Mueller's 9-minute statement yesterday, he put major emphasis on Russia interfering in the US elections in a "systematic and sweeping" fashion.  It was the first and last thing he mentioned as if to reinforce in our minds that ALL Americans need to think about it.  Trump-supporter's philosophy is "the ends justify the means."  What's wrong with Russia helping Trump get elected?  They did a good thing for America!  So why should they even read the Mueller report?  Barr already told them "nothing to see here folks, let's move along."

Why was Mueller unwilling to state that Russia was helping Trump and hurting Clinton?  Why just say "interfere" in the US election and not say "helped Trump and hurt Clinton?"  The most Mueller would say was the Russian's tried to "hurt a candidate."  I suppose he meant Clinton.

Comey hurt Clinton more than any foreign nation did, Russia included.

Edited May 30, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Airbrush said:

In Mueller's 9-minute statement yesterday, he put major emphasis on Russia interfering in the US elections in a "systematic and sweeping" fashion.  It was the first and last thing he mentioned as if to reinforce in our minds that ALL Americans need to think about it.  Trump-supporter's philosophy is "the ends justify the means."  What's wrong with Russia helping Trump get elected? 

Seriously?

7 hours ago, Airbrush said:

They did a good thing for America!

Seriously^2?

7 hours ago, Airbrush said:

  So why should they even read the Mueller report?  Barr already told them "nothing to see here folks, let's move along."

Barr lied.

7 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Why was Mueller unwilling to state that Russia was helping Trump and hurting Clinton?  Why just say "interfere" in the US election and not say "helped Trump and hurt Clinton?"  The most Mueller would say was the Russian's tried to "hurt a candidate." I suppose he meant Clinton.

You suppose? 

I really, really hope this is an attempt at sarcasm.

[Airbrush]

It is my attempt at understanding the Trump supporters' view about Russian "interference," which was actually "helping Trump" (which Mueller could not directly say!)  Trump fans say "thank you Russia," and have no incentive to read the Mueller report.  That is why the Mueller report needs to be recited in Mueller hearings.   Ask Mueller to recite, in his own words, each of the dozen documented instances of obstruction.  That could take a week of 8-hour days, like the Watergate hearings.

Edited June 2, 2019 by Airbrush

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 5/30/2019 at 11:46 AM, Airbrush said:

In Mueller's 9-minute statement yesterday, he put major emphasis on Russia interfering in the US elections in a "systematic and sweeping" fashion.  It was the first and last thing he mentioned as if to reinforce in our minds that ALL Americans need to think about it.  Trump-supporter's philosophy is "the ends justify the means."  What's wrong with Russia helping Trump get elected?  They did a good thing for America!  So why should they even read the Mueller report?  Barr already told them "nothing to see here folks, let's move along."

Why was Mueller unwilling to state that Russia was helping Trump and hurting Clinton?  Why just say "interfere" in the US election and not say "helped Trump and hurt Clinton?"  The most Mueller would say was the Russian's tried to "hurt a candidate."  I suppose he meant Clinton.

However reasonable to surmise it is true, the direct evidence would not be available to anyone, and no one would really know to what extent.

With the election as close as it was, even a small effect could have made the difference, but that would also be true of many factors (including Comey's announcement on Clinton, especially given the timing)

[Airbrush]

Mueller will testify about his report on Wednesday.  The other investigations into Trump and company continue.  The White House has put up a total stone wall against all subpoenas for information and testimony from Barr, McGahn, and others.  They will drag this out in court until after the elections.  Behind the scenes, could Barr have squashed any of the Southern District of New York investigations?  What investigations could Barr have terminated without us ever knowing?

Why don't the Dems clarify the difference between beginning "impeachment proceedings" and simply beginning "impeachment investigations"?  Why would any Dem in congress be against beginning "impeachment investigations" immediately?

Edited July 22, 2019 by Airbrush

[iNow]

This is about the court of public opinion, not the court of legal challenge and proceedings. Most Americans just aren’t paying that close attention. The power comes from them being able to see Mueller on their tv and hear them on their radio or YouTube. The content isn’t new. The channel of sharing it is. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

This is about the court of public opinion, not the court of legal challenge and proceedings. Most Americans just aren’t paying that close attention. The power comes from them being able to see Mueller on their tv and hear them on their radio or YouTube. The content isn’t new. The channel of sharing it is. 

So they already know stuff that is publicly available, believe it is impeachable, but are not comfortable to impeach until it gets better advertising?

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So they already know stuff that is publicly available

For the majority, it’s this part specifically that I don’t accept 

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

believe it is impeachable

The above applies here, too. Regardless, support for impeachment is actually decreasing. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

For the majority, it’s this part specifically that I don’t accept 

 

Sorry. I wasn't at all clear. By "they" I was referring to the ones that pushed for Mueller being questioned and forced to testify in person.

(which I think is reasonable, given the extent, depth, and expense of his Special Council)

[Airbrush]

I heard the IRS audits ALL presidents income taxes, ALL years they are in office.  Is that true?

If that is true then, since so much has been made in the media about Trump's tax-avoidance schemes, suspicion of money-laundering for Russian oligarchs, and other questionable practices, would the IRS NOT have taken an extra close look at Trump's income taxes?  If they found irregularities, would we learn about that?

[iNow]

I’m not sure. The IRS has his taxes. They’re just not sharing them, even with Congress.

[Art Man]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m not sure. The IRS has his taxes. They’re just not sharing them, even with Congress.

Would you want your taxes released to the public? I mean, if its alright with you could you post scans here on this site for all of us? That's right, it's none of our business what taxes you pay.

We can trust the I.R.S. to audit him hard. They are merciless.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Art Man

[iNow]

20 minutes ago, Art Man said:

Would you want your taxes released to the public? I mean, if its alright with you could you post scans here on this site for all of us? That's right, it's none of our business what taxes you pay.

What an ignorant whataboutism style position. 

I’m neither president of the United States nor running to become that. Suggesting my privacy is to be placed on equal footing as POTUS privacy is absurd, at best. 

Elected officials open themselves to scrutiny beyond what’s expected of everyday citizens. Presidential candidates and victors even more so. 

20 minutes ago, Art Man said:

We can trust the I.R.S. to audit him hard. They are merciless.

What’s merciless here is your obliviousness to how the system actually operates and is structured. Let me spell it out for you with small words and fat crayons to help you fill this painful gap in your understanding:

The IRS is controlled by the Department of Treasury. The treasury is controlled by the executive branch, not congress.

Said another way, the POTUS is their boss, and he appoints their cabinet level officials to do his bidding. 

Edited September 16, 2019 by iNow

[Art Man]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

What an ignorant whataboutism style position. 

I’m neither president of the United States nor running to become that. Suggesting my privacy is to be placed on equal footing as POTUS privacy is absurd, at best. 

Elected officials open themselves to scrutiny beyond what’s expected of everyday citizens. Presidential candidates and victors even more so. 

What’s merciless here is your obliviousness to how the system actually operates and is structured. Let me spell it out for you with small words and fat crayons to help you fill this painful gap in your understanding:

The IRS is controlled by the Department of Treasury. The treasury is controlled by the executive branch, not congress.

Said another way, the POTUS is their boss, and he appoints their cabinet level officials to do his bidding. 

We all have the same rights. Much like we all have freedom of speech but we don't have a freedom that permits us to force someone to listen. Protection against illegal search and seizure applies to all American citizens regardless of power or public disposition.

What you are suggesting is that once an American citizen reaches a certain point of noteriety or office that some of their rights are forfeit and that couldn't be more untrue.

You seem awfully short fused today and your harshness is quite upper end.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Art Man

[rangerx]

1 hour ago, Art Man said:

We all have the same rights. Much like we all have freedom of speech but we don't have a freedom that permits us to force someone to listen. Protection against illegal search and seizure applies to all American citizens regardless of power or public disposition.

What you are suggesting is that once an American citizen reaches a certain point of noteriety or office that some of their rights are forfeit and that couldn't be more untrue.

You seem awfully short fused today and your harshness is quite upper end.

Wrong, when an authority has a reasonable cause to show a crime has been committed, they can access whatever information that's germane to prosecuting the case.

Hence warrants of search or subpoena to gain access to related documents or witnesses.

[Art Man]

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

Wrong, when an authority has a reasonable cause to show a crime has been committed, they can access whatever information that's germane to prosecuting the case.

Hence warrants of search or subpoena to gain access to related documents or witnesses.

That would be legal search and seizure, given the correct warrants are issued through a proper court, but he cannot be forced to release financial records to the public for general scrutiny. No matter how badly the public wants to know something they cannot force disclosure. You have every right to refuse a search of your property short of a court order. If you refuse post court order then some real physical force will take place. To get such a court order the prying party must meet some prerequisites with their investigation, but disclosure of something like tax and financial records will most undoubtedly take place in private.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Art Man

[rangerx]

3 hours ago, Art Man said:

 but he cannot be forced to release financial records to the public for general scrutiny.

He claims he's under audit. A lie. An audit does does bar anyone from releasing them. So a lie on top of another lie.
He said he would release them after the audit. Another lie. Audits  take days and weeks, perhaps maybe a year, but certainly not years. Either he's under audit for every year of his life or only some, which ones?
Then of course he's been implicated for inflating his net worth for loans, which is bank fraud.
Meanwhile he's also been implicated for deflating his net worth, which is tax fraud.
He's been implicated retaining money from his so-called charities, which is reprehensible. no less fraudulent.
He paid hush money to porn actresses and Playboy bunnies in violation of campaign finance laws.

All this (and more) from a man who racially accused Barack Obama of not being a natural born citizen of the USA all the while DEMANDING he produce his birth certificate and LYING about "his people finding out things in Hawaii".

Do you deride those who demanded Hillary be locked up?

 

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Art Man said:

That would be legal search and seizure, given the correct warrants are issued through a proper court, but he cannot be forced to release financial records to the public for general scrutiny

Congress, as per the US Constitution, has the power to subpoena records. The president is not exempt from this authority, as per the separation of powers. Congress has subpoenaed Trumps records based on credible claims of wrongdoing, graft, and actions contrary to another clause of the constitution, specifically regarding emoluments. Trump controls the justice department, however, so is preventing congress from enforcing the subpoena. 

Your argument is logically inconsistent. You suggest in one breadth that all citizens, even the president, must be treated equally. Then in the next breadth you put forth a position suggesting the president should be allowed to be above the law. You may not be informed enough to realize this is what you’ve done, but that doesn’t negate the validity of what I’ve said. 

11 hours ago, Art Man said:

You seem awfully short fused today and your harshness is quite upper end.

 I’m pretty tired of people using confused assumptions and misunderstandings of our system of governance to defend corrupt politicians, but I’ll take your feedback under advisement. In the meantime, you ought to try not being such a snowflake. 

11 hours ago, Art Man said:

What you are suggesting is that once an American citizen reaches a certain point of noteriety or office that some of their rights are forfeit and that couldn't be more untrue.

You may have a philosophical opposition to this point, but true it is. Elected officials are, in fact, held to a higher standard than a standard citizen, subject to significantly more restrictive laws, rules, and regulations, as well as oversight from governing bodies. 

Simply asserting that I couldn't be more wrong does not magically render it so. 

Edited September 16, 2019 by iNow

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

You may have a philosophical opposition to this point, but true it is. Elected officials are, in fact, held to a higher standard than a standard citizen, subject to significantly more restrictive laws, rules, and regulations, as well as oversight from governing bodies. 

And of course they have to be. They are the ones making and/or enforcing the rules, after all (the IRS commissioner is a Trump appointee, for example). Enhanced scrutiny to inform voting decisions are the only tool folks have as a counter-balance.

[Airbrush]

So if the IRS found irregularities in Trump's income taxes, since they do audit his income taxes every year, they would bring the case to AG Barr right?  Then Barr could say to them "Thank you, I will handle this, now go audit someone else."  Then Barr puts the report in his safe and we never hear about it.  Would there be an IRS whistleblower if that happened?

Edited September 18, 2019 by Airbrush