That wasn't the way you thought about the unproven allegations against Clinton over her emails. In that case despite the fact that the FBI exonerated her you threw all your innocent until proven guilty rhetoric out the window.I tend to believe that none of these allegations will ever be proven. I accept that others are entitled to believe otherwise. However, I don't think anyone should ever make an important decision based on a belief, unless they think they have strong evidence supporting their belief.
The evidence:I tend to believe that none of these allegations will ever be proven. I accept that others are entitled to believe otherwise. However, I don't think anyone should ever make an important decision based on a belief, unless they think they have strong evidence supporting their belief.
Only if you want to pull an O'Keefe and edit the word "let" out of what Trump said on that tape.These sexual assault allegations were motivated by Trump's own admission that he liked to molest women without permission. His only defense would be he didn't do it to these accusers.
Trump should only be thankful to these accusers for collaborating his bragging about his "celebrity power".Only if you want to pull an O'Keefe and edit the word "let" out of what Trump said on that tape.
As to those who say "but 11 people are complaining, so it must be true", I just hope none of you are ever playing goal in the World Cup final, facing a penalty to decide the game, when the other team starts shouting "your cleats are untied!".
Interesting choice of analogy. On the Project Veritas tape number 3, the Clinton operatives refer to their agitators as "ducks" and say that HRC wanted "ducks on the ground".Trump should only be thankful to these accusers for collaborating his bragging about his "celebrity power".
The bottom line is, there's not enough evidence yet to prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but " if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck", then it's A Donald Duck.
This will be decided by voters on the balance of probabilities. It's an election, not a jury.Only if you want to pull an O'Keefe and edit the word "let" out of what Trump said on that tape.
As to those who say "but 11 people are complaining, so it must be true", I just hope none of you are ever playing goal in the World Cup final, facing a penalty to decide the game, when the other team starts shouting "your cleats are untied!".
And it wasn't just talked about, they actually did put Ducks on the ground, because Hillary wanted Ducks. It's too bad she didn't want dicks, that would have made for some juicy jokes, but maybe she doesn't like dick, which is most likely why Billy boy loves his internsInteresting choice of analogy. On the Project Veritas tape number 3, the Clinton operatives refer to their agitators as "ducks" and say that HRC wanted "ducks on the ground".
Her and Billy Boy supposedly have an open marriage. She gets to bang Huma Abedin, and Bill gets to bang his bimbo groupies.And it wasn't just talked about, they actually did put Ducks on the ground, because Hillary wanted Ducks. It's too bad she didn't want dicks, that would have made for some juicy jokes, but maybe she doesn't like dick, which is most likely why Billy boy loves his interns
While I agree on some points, at the end of the day it is just more spin. "reasons based in law"? The fact is that every candidate runs the risk of scrutiny when they disclose their tax return, but they do it anyways.1. While it is not against the law to show someone your tax returns when they are pending an audit, there are plenty of good reasons not to do so (the best of those being to avoid exposing the return to the scrutiny of a thousand DNC auditors, rather than just a couple of dozen IRS auditors). Further, even if they were produced, the public couldn't rely upon the returns as accurate until the IRS demanded whatever reassesments they will demand as a consequence of the audit, and those matters were resolved. These are not legal prohibitions against releasing the returns, but they are reasons based in law. Any tax lawyer would advise against publicly releasing your returns in these circumstances. This is the distinction that the Clinton campaign consistently fudges with their statements, and the Trump campaign lacks the subtlety to clarify.
Already established that I don't agree with how the email scandal turned out. Does not excuse Trump from doing his duty. Again, are you adults or elementary school kids? (as in "little johnny got away with it, why do I get punished"2. It isn't Trump who is owed the 33,000 deleted e-mails, it is Congress, and therefore the American people. She was required to produce them to Congress by law (subpoena). The only reason the person who deleted them (and the person who directed him to do so) is not in prison is that the DOJ of the Obama administration, on the recommendation of the FBI, gave immunity to the Clinton minion who deleted them. It's beginning to look like the reason that happened is that Obama himself knew of the private server and did nothing about it (disclosed via the WikiLeaks Podesta e-mails). The only way this investigation into contempt of Congress will not go forward after the election is if the Democrats can capture the House.
Seriously, you are trying to justify the birther argument?? I am sure that there was some sort of vetting process that took place long before Obama ran for office. Trump was not even running in the election, and he continued this silliness even after it was established that Obama was a natural born citizen.3. Proof of natural born citizenship is one of only two legal requirements to run for President and has been in place since the inception of the constitution. Production of your tax return is not required to run for President (financial disclosure is, and Trump completed that), and is a rather recent tradition amongst Presidential candidates.
It may seem like spin if you don't understand what it is like to go through a large corporate audit, and what happens before such audits are resolved, how costly the process can be, and how costly an adverse reassessment can be. "Every candidate", as I've said, refers only to very recent history among Presidential candidates, none of whose returns were subject to audit (that I can recall). I agree that it is up to a candidate to choose to reveal, or not to reveal, information about himself to the public, and the public are entitled to compare the candidates based on the information that each chooses to provide or not provide. As a result, there can be some measure of political consequence to choosing not to provide some information about yourself. The question is, how much will voters care about that consideration compared to the many more significant differences between these two candidates?While I agree on some points, at the end of the day it is just more spin. "reasons based in law"? The fact is that every candidate runs the risk of scrutiny when they disclose their tax return, but they do it anyways.
There is no duty. Trump's only obligation was to provide financial disclosure, which he did.Already established that I don't agree with how the email scandal turned out. Does not excuse Trump from doing his duty. Again, are you adults or elementary school kids? (as in "little johnny got away with it, why do I get punished"
It depends what you mean by the "the birther argument". If you mean - "has Obama, at this point, proven he was born in the United States?", I would answer, yes - when he provided his long form birth certificate. If you mean - "was it sufficient in 2008 to provide a short form birth certificate when it was not disputed that a long form certificate existed?", I would say no - no court would accept second best proof of a fact when better proof existed. So, I would say that Trump and others were right to call for Obama produce the long form. Obama petulantly waited 4 years to do so, undermining his authority with many Americans. He has only his pride to blame for that.Seriously, you are trying to justify the birther argument?? I am sure that there was some sort of vetting process that took place long before Obama ran for office. Trump was not even running in the election, and he continued this silliness even after it was established that Obama was a natural born citizen.
Its one of fuji's kookie conspiracy theoriesLast, why would Trump have money coming in from Russia? His son suggested to look into the topic, and said the family has no assets, buildings or interests there
Russian oligarchs. They are big multi billionaire investors in real estate in the US and Europe. We know Trump borrows money to fund some of his projects and partners with investors on others. So how much did he borrow from Russia and to what extent are they his business partners?Last, why would Trump have money coming in from Russia? His son suggested to look into the topic, and said the family has no assets, buildings or interests there.
ie, fuji is playing "let's make shit up because I have no proof". Just what he accuses anyone who disagrees with him of doing. Go figure.Russian oligarchs. They are big multi billionaire investors in real estate in the US and Europe. We know Trump borrows money to fund some of his projects and partners with investors on others. So how much did he borrow from Russia and to what extent are they his business partners?
Is his pro Russian stance because of his indebtedness to people who are effectively the Russian state? Is that why Russia is using its spy agency to get him elected?
The extent of his debts to the Russians and his business dealings are murky because he refuses to share his tax returns and the disclosure he did make does not detail who he is in business with, who he owes money to, etc.
Some reporters tried to find out but they ran into a wall of shell companies with unclear ownership.
His son said they get a lot of money from Russia and his family hangs out with Putin's girlfriend. He's very pro Russian and the Russian state has been interfering with the election to try and help him.ie, fuji is playing "let's make shit up because I have no proof". Just what he accuses anyone who disagrees with him of doing. Go figure.
fuji, your conspiracy theories are showing!His son said they get a lot of money from Russia and his family hangs out with Putin's girlfriend. He's very pro Russian and the Russian state has been interfering with the election to try and help him.
So who does he owe money to?
Ahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa.............kookie Russian conspiracy theory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Russian oligarchs. They are big multi billionaire investors in real estate in the US and Europe. We know Trump borrows money to fund some of his projects and partners with investors on others. So how much did he borrow from Russia and to what extent are they his business partners?
Is his pro Russian stance because of his indebtedness to people who are effectively the Russian state? Is that why Russia is using its spy agency to get him elected?
The extent of his debts to the Russians and his business dealings are murky because he refuses to share his tax returns and the disclosure he did make does not detail who he is in business with, who he owes money to, etc.
Some reporters tried to find out but they ran into a wall of shell companies with unclear ownership
With his family hanging out with Putin's family, and with the Russian state using its spies to undermine his political enemies, and with Trump being so overly pro Russian, it's more than just the fact that he won't reveal who he is in debted to. Oh yeah and several of his core campaign staff worked for the Russian government.Appreciate the answer. Nothing worse than asking someone to explain, only to rip into them for doing so.
I don't doubt Trump would rely on investors, and as such some very well could be Russian and Chinese financing for his businesses. I tried to find anything to show he had for sure borrowed something, but found nothing. Obviously that's not to discredit your view. Perhaps withholding the taxes does support what you suggest.
He doesn't have a stake in it. He just sold his name and hotel management. But no ownership.Didn't even know we had a Trump tower in Toronto until I saw it on the news tonight. Thanks for the read.
