The Porn Dude

Trump’s bid to block release of his tax returns rejected by federal judge

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
29,255
7,139
113
You seriously think that Trudeau prorogued parliament and redacted emails because there was nothing to hide? Do you seriously believe that?
DO you seriously believe that the Finance Minister resigned because there was nothing else?
Trudeau's family received thousands of dollars before the contract was awarded. You don't think that constitues a violation?

There's my proof you keep crying about me not providing even though it's common knowledge. Hence why I believe you are distracting.

So?

Are you going to accept my bet that the Ethics Commissioner will find wrong doing? Yes or no.

And for at least the 3rd time I have already said I would accept your bet if you accept mine. Why do you keep asking me over and over? Distracting again?
See again you cannot comprehend the basic facts. I said all along that Morneau had violated the ethics regulations for accepting that expenses paid trip to Africa. He admitted it and reimbursed them for it. Of course he had donated over $100,000 to their cause in the past. Trudeau's Mother and Brother accepted those payments well before he was the PM, and his wife as well for minor expenses. That is why he should have recused himself for it. However, he was not the one to nominate WE for that cause in the first place but had reservations about them being nominated. That is why he ordered a further study to be conducted to see if they were the suitable organization. So now tell me what exactly has he done to breach these regulations. The payments to his Mother and Brother are not considered to be a violation when they occurred before he was in office. I will bet with you that you do not have the proof, and that is why he is not convicted in anyway currently. From day 1 if you go back through my posts, I stated that you have to wait for the outcome of the ethics investigation, instead of being judgemental that he is guilty. Are you telling me that Harper did not prorogue Parliament on several occasions?? Was he guilty of doing so, then?? Can you explain this fact??
Did Bill Barr not heavily redact the Mueller report?? Was that not a coverup then using your logic?? Why did you and the rest of the right wingers rush to the defence of his actions??

Why has Trump got away with a far more severe ethics violation and conflict of interest by assigning his Golf Resorts to hold the G7 Summit?? Yes, this was to benefit his own personal interests, and he had to withdraw this assignment, when it came to light what he was involved in. But to you it is fine, as he is your cult leader!!

Still are you interested in the real bet that Trump will lose the elections??
 

Boober69

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2012
6,722
263
83
Total failure.
Zero proof.
Zero accusations of any specific wrong doing, instead listing things cleared by the government.
Total failure.

More distracting.

I like watching your heroes fall on their swords and squirm to hide more wrong doing.

You must be really sore that not only did Trudeau break his promise about election reform, but now about never proroguing.

And for someone who thinks they have done nothing wrong...there sure is a lot of black ink hiding things...hmmmmmmmm, no nothing wrong there. Lol!


1598290352510.png
 

Boober69

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2012
6,722
263
83
See again you cannot comprehend the basic facts. I said all along that Morneau had violated the ethics regulations for accepting that expenses paid trip to Africa. He admitted it and reimbursed them for it. Of course he had donated over $100,000 to their cause in the past. Trudeau's Mother and Brother accepted those payments well before he was the PM, and his wife as well for minor expenses. That is why he should have recused himself for it. However, he was not the one to nominate WE for that cause in the first place but had reservations about them being nominated. That is why he ordered a further study to be conducted to see if they were the suitable organization. So now tell me what exactly has he done to breach these regulations. The payments to his Mother and Brother are not considered to be a violation when they occurred before he was in office. I will bet with you that you do not have the proof, and that is why he is not convicted in anyway currently. From day 1 if you go back through my posts, I stated that you have to wait for the outcome of the ethics investigation, instead of being judgemental that he is guilty. Are you telling me that Harper did not prorogue Parliament on several occasions?? Was he guilty of doing so, then?? Can you explain this fact??
Did Bill Barr not heavily redact the Mueller report?? Was that not a coverup then using your logic?? Why did you and the rest of the right wingers rush to the defence of his actions??

Why has Trump got away with a far more severe ethics violation and conflict of interest by assigning his Golf Resorts to hold the G7 Summit?? Yes, this was to benefit his own personal interests, and he had to withdraw this assignment, when it came to light what he was involved in. But to you it is fine, as he is your cult leader!!

Still are you interested in the real bet that Trump will lose the elections??
Trudeau promised never to prorogue. That's the difference that you have clearly missed when trying to throw Harper into this to distract.

How can I, an ordinary Canadian citizen have proof exactly? Why are you asking for proof when there is no way I can actually provide it to you? I never said I have proof. You keep asking for it.

I bet you that there will be proof. That's the bet.

What I think before that, or what you think before that has nothing to do with it. Obviously I think there has been wrong doing on Trudeau's part and for some reason you don't (or refuse to believe it until it's proven).

The bet is that there will be proof.

So do you thing there will be proof of wrong doing or not?

I do.

Do you?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,866
22,266
113
More distracting.

I like watching your heroes fall on their swords and squirm to hide more wrong doing.

You must be really sore that not only did Trudeau break his promise about election reform, but now about never proroguing.

And for someone who thinks they have done nothing wrong...there sure is a lot of black ink hiding things...hmmmmmmmm, no nothing wrong there. Lol!
Total off topic troll post.
Keep it to posting about Trump's taxes.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
29,255
7,139
113
Trudeau promised never to prorogue. That's the difference that you have clearly missed when trying to throw Harper into this to distract.

How can I, an ordinary Canadian citizen have proof exactly? Why are you asking for proof when there is no way I can actually provide it to you? I never said I have proof. You keep asking for it.

I bet you that there will be proof. That's the bet.

What I think before that, or what you think before that has nothing to do with it. Obviously I think there has been wrong doing on Trudeau's part and for some reason you don't (or refuse to believe it until it's proven).

The bet is that there will be proof.

So do you thing there will be proof of wrong doing or not?

I do.

Do you?
Again, I am categorically stating that I do not know whether Trudeau will be found to be in the breach of the ethics regulations. You said that he was guilty and all I asked you then is for the PROOF!!

I am not trying to distract, but just expose your hypocrisy. Harper stated all along that he would be transparent, and he turned out to be the least transparent PM and he had no problem with his multiple prorogues on Parliament!!

Yes, I know you do not have proof, and my response was that you should wait for the investigation to reach it's conclusion, just like Judge Judy would state in a court of law.

Do you see people then placing bets with Judge based on that statement??

You can bet for all you want, but you have not explained what exactly will Trudeau be guilty of in this WE violation. Guilty that his mother and brother received payments, or guilty that he did not recuse himself that he admitted to?? Which one, and that is exactly what I want to know in the first place!!

But this being a Trump Tax Thread are you willing to bet that Trump will lose this 2020 elections??
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,866
22,266
113
New York’s Democratic attorney general asked a court Monday to enforce subpoenas into an investigation into whether President Donald Trump and his businesses inflated assets on financial statements.

Attorney General Letitia James filed a petition in state trial court in New York City naming the Trump Organization, an umbrella group for the Republican president’s holdings, as a respondent along with other business entities. The filing also named Eric Trump and Seven Springs, a New York estate owned by the Trump family.

The attorney general’s office is investigating whether the Trump Organization and the president improperly inflated the value of assets to secure loans and obtain economic and tax benefits.Investigators are looking into whether the Trump Organization and its agents improperly inflated the value of the Seven Springs north of the city.

In the court filings, the attorney general’s office wrote that “information regarding the valuation of Seven Springs is significant” to the office’s investigation.

Emails seeking comment were sent to lawyers for the Trump Organization and Eric Trump.

The investigation was launched in March 2019 after Trump’s longtime personal lawyer Michael Cohen told Congress that Trump had inflated the value of his assets to obtain more favorable terms for loans and insurance coverage.

 

Boober69

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2012
6,722
263
83
Again, I am categorically stating that I do not know whether Trudeau will be found to be in the breach of the ethics regulations. You said that he was guilty and all I asked you then is for the PROOF!!

I am not trying to distract, but just expose your hypocrisy. Harper stated all along that he would be transparent, and he turned out to be the least transparent PM and he had no problem with his multiple prorogues on Parliament!!

Yes, I know you do not have proof, and my response was that you should wait for the investigation to reach it's conclusion, just like Judge Judy would state in a court of law.

Do you see people then placing bets with Judge based on that statement??

You can bet for all you want, but you have not explained what exactly will Trudeau be guilty of in this WE violation. Guilty that his mother and brother received payments, or guilty that he did not recuse himself that he admitted to?? Which one, and that is exactly what I want to know in the first place!!

But this being a Trump Tax Thread are you willing to bet that Trump will lose this 2020 elections??
Harper never specifically promised to not prorogue. Trudeau specifically did and actually called out the previous government for doing so. That's the difference. It's very specific.

When two people bet on something...it's based on speculation, as both parties don't know the outcome at the time of placing the bet.

I'm speculating that Trudeau will be found in violation of ethics rules regarding his family's ifinancial nvolvement in the WE arrangement.

You attacked me for speculating about that because you claim there is no proof.

I bet you on the outcome.

Again...do you want to bet that Trudeau will be found in violation of what we already know about and perhaps things we don't know yet that haven't been shared by the investigation?

Simple question.


And this is the 4th time I have said I would take your bet if you take mine. Why do you keep asking me?
 

Boober69

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2012
6,722
263
83
Because occasionally I respond to your posts.
You continually try and respond to my posts which are replies to others. You usually trip up like this time.

Maybe stop answering for others and you won't screw up next time.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
29,255
7,139
113
Harper never specifically promised to not prorogue. Trudeau specifically did and actually called out the previous government for doing so. That's the difference. It's very specific.

When two people bet on something...it's based on speculation, as both parties don't know the outcome at the time of placing the bet.

I'm speculating that Trudeau will be found in violation of ethics rules regarding his family's ifinancial nvolvement in the WE arrangement.

You attacked me for speculating about that because you claim there is no proof.

I bet you on the outcome.

Again...do you want to bet that Trudeau will be found in violation of what we already know about and perhaps things we don't know yet that haven't been shared by the investigation?

Simple question.


And this is the 4th time I have said I would take your bet if you take mine. Why do you keep asking me?
For the umpteenth time I will stand by to what I said, and that is that you have no proof as yet.

Let me bet you on that fact first, because this is what I wanted you to comprehend and not debate it. I clearly stated that we should wait for the Ethics Investigation to come to it's conclusion. If you want to go by the real challenge then it is once again for the umpteenth time that you do not have the proof yet!!

The only thing I am taking bets on is the elections as I said before. So are you will to take the bet on Trump losing the elections. Yes or no??
 

Boober69

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2012
6,722
263
83
For the umpteenth time I will stand by to what I said, and that is that you have no proof as yet.

Let me bet you on that fact first, because this is what I wanted you to comprehend and not debate it. I clearly stated that we should wait for the Ethics Investigation to come to it's conclusion. If you want to go by the real challenge then it is once again for the umpteenth time that you do not have the proof yet!!

The only thing I am taking bets on is the elections as I said before. So are you will to take the bet on Trump losing the elections. Yes or no??
No. It's not about having proof yet. It's about whether there will be proof of violations. That's the part you keep twisting around.

Using your logic and your 2020 election bet...how about we bet after the election? Does that make sense?
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
29,255
7,139
113
No. It's not about having proof yet. It's about whether there will be proof of violations. That's the part you keep twisting around.

Using your logic and your 2020 election bet...how about we bet after the election? Does that make sense?
No not my logic, just your nonsensical assumption!!

You once again cannot comprehend that it is totally ridiculous to bet on speculations about a probe.

Can you not accept that I stated that Trudeau is not guilty until proven so. You are the one who stated he was and I asked you to show me the proof. You stated that you do not have it. End of story and he is innocent, till the investigation reaches it's conclusion.

Any attorney will confirm it.

But are you saying that Trump will not win the elections now?? I am categorically stating that Biden will win it. So not willing to take a bet on this election??
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
29,255
7,139
113
More distracting.

I like watching your heroes fall on their swords and squirm to hide more wrong doing.

You must be really sore that not only did Trudeau break his promise about election reform, but now about never proroguing.

And for someone who thinks they have done nothing wrong...there sure is a lot of black ink hiding things...hmmmmmmmm, no nothing wrong there. Lol!
How about this redacted Mueller report that you right wingers defended:



No nothing wrong there: ROFLMAO!!
 

Boober69

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2012
6,722
263
83
No not my logic, just your nonsensical assumption!!

You once again cannot comprehend that it is totally ridiculous to bet on speculations about a probe.

Can you not accept that I stated that Trudeau is not guilty until proven so. You are the one who stated he was and I asked you to show me the proof. You stated that you do not have it. End of story and he is innocent, till the investigation reaches it's conclusion.

Any attorney will confirm it.

But are you saying that Trump will not win the elections now?? I am categorically stating that Biden will win it. So not willing to take a bet on this election??

Why is it ridiculous? Don't people usually bet on something they don't know the outcome of yet? Otherwise, what's the point of a bet?

If you don't believe he's guilty, but I believe he is, that's the whole point of a bet, duh?

Why are you trying to squirm around this?

Simple bet: will he be found guilty or not?

I think he will be.

What do you think?
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
29,255
7,139
113
Why is it ridiculous? Don't people usually bet on something they don't know the outcome of yet? Otherwise, what's the point of a bet?

If you don't believe he's guilty, but I believe he is, that's the whole point of a bet, duh?

Why are you trying to squirm around this?

Simple bet: will he be found guilty or not?

I think he will be.

What do you think?
Listen, I do not care about betting on outcomes from investigations etc. All I asked was to see the proof, as you being the judge, jury and prosecutor already stated that Trudeau was guilty.
Obviously, you put the cart before the horse in this instance. I will not be speculating on such cases as it is not clear what exact codes Trudeau violated besides not recusing himself from this charity!!

But once again since this is a Trump thread, are you will to take the bet that he will not get elected, or will you simply just wriggle your way out of it??
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
29,255
7,139
113
More deflecting...what a surprise.
Obviously you are not aware of the thread that you are posting all your real deflections. This is a "Trump Thread" and nothing to do with Trudeau!! Okay??
So grow up and stop using that deflection nonsense as you buried your head deep in the sand with this quote of yours. Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

 
Toronto Escorts