ADVERTISEMENT

Just dropping this bomb here...

Meh. Trump's been demanding this and so have the Trumpsters forever. Let them have their fake little scandal. Again. Meanwhile, Mueller persists.
 
Anyone see the news coverage about whether the Trumps might see tax benefits from this new tax bill? I did. I understand it's ok to see financial benefits from brokering political deals when your people do it. Irony is the opposite of wrinkly.
 
Anyone see the news coverage about whether the Trumps might see tax benefits from this new tax bill? I did. I understand it's ok to see financial benefits from brokering political deals when your people do it. Irony is the opposite of wrinkly.

Nah, it's corruption to feed at the public trough when you're the one filling it.

Trump takes corruption to a whole different plane . . . and nobody even blinks anymore.

I miss America. It used to be a helluva country. Now it's just a hell country for all too many.
 
This report is from MSN, not Fox. And I quote


“A senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the initial FBI investigation told NBC News there were allegations of corruption surrounding the process under which the U.S. government approved the sale. But no charges were filed.

As the New York Times reported in April 2015, some of the people associated with the deal contributed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. And Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for a Moscow speech by a Russian investment bank with links to the transaction.”

I guess if you look at the information thru blue colored glasses there is nothing to see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUBBALLAWOL
Anyone see the news coverage about whether the Trumps might see tax benefits from this new tax bill? I did. I understand it's ok to see financial benefits from brokering political deals when your people do it. Irony is the opposite of wrinkly.

Are you saying that Trump won’t benefit from the bill? I’m confused as to what you mean here.
 
Are you saying that Trump won’t benefit from the bill? I’m confused as to what you mean here.
I was pointing out the difference between the media coverage as it pertains to politicians who broker political deals and the financial benefits that arise from those events. Uranium One is swept under the rug with haste, but gosh, it is red-letter corruption if the current President Might get to keep more of his OWN EARNED money.

It is un-American IMO to oppose tax cuts for anyone on any level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUBBALLAWOL
I was pointing out the difference between the media coverage as it pertains to politicians who broker political deals and the financial benefits that arise from those events. Uranium One is swept under the rug with haste, but gosh, it is red-letter corruption if the current President Might get to keep more of his OWN EARNED money.

It is un-American IMO to oppose tax cuts for anyone on any level.
There is a difference, because they are two wildly different situations.

In one, we have a former government official who did not personally benefit from a decision that she herself was not solely responsible for.

In the other, we have a current President who has publicly touted that the tax bill is personally bad for him, despite an unwillingness to release the very records necessary to verify the claim.
 
Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. - Oliver Wendell Holmes
I agree. Render unto Caesar and all that. Read Matthew 25: 14-30. The Fed is a black hole of waste. I'll support a candidate who is serious about a balanced budget. Heard of any?
 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/prosecutors-ask-fbi-agents-for-info-on-uranium-one-deal/ar-BBH6WIH

If "they" are prepared to go down this route then it's basically gloves off. Democracy will officially be dead in America.

They are just humoring Congress. They need to be able to go back to Congress and say, "Yeah, we looked into it again. Still nothing there."

What a waste of important resources, though.
Meh. Trump's been demanding this and so have the Trumpsters forever. Let them have their fake little scandal. Again. Meanwhile, Mueller persists.

If the FBI has evidence about Uranium One, it accumulated the evidence during the previous administration. All the DOJ is doing is reviewing the evidence. BFD. The DOJ has been politicized over the course of many administrations.

"Democracy will officially be dead" is overreacting just a tad.
 
If the FBI has evidence about Uranium One, it accumulated the evidence during the previous administration. All the DOJ is doing is reviewing the evidence. BFD. The DOJ has been politicized over the course of many administrations.

"Democracy will officially be dead" is overreacting just a tad.

Why is the DOJ interested in something the corrupt FBI put together? There must be a lot rehearsing going on at Fox to keep the stories straight.

Mueller investigation: the FBI is corrupt and we can’t trust them. They are probably attempting a coup. The DOJ is also corrupt from top to bottom. They are all lying about Trump.

In other news...

Uranium One: the FBI has evidence and they need to give it to the DOJ so we can finally get Hillary.
 
Anyone see the news coverage about whether the Trumps might see tax benefits from this new tax bill? I did. I understand it's ok to see financial benefits from brokering political deals when your people do it. Irony is the opposite of wrinkly.
No one would care about that if he didn't constantly lie about it and say he would be paying far more under the new bill. Of course, he could show us hi same taxes, so we could see if that is true. But no, he isn't hiding anything. Not at all.
 
No one would care about that if he didn't constantly lie about it and say he would be paying far more under the new bill. Of course, he could show us hi same taxes, so we could see if that is true. But no, he isn't hiding anything. Not at all.
I would assume he will be susceptible to the same kinda of personal tax hikes Nancy Pelosi is belly-aching about.
 
There is a difference, because they are two wildly different situations.

In one, we have a former government official who did not personally benefit from a decision that she herself was not solely responsible for.

In the other, we have a current President who has publicly touted that the tax bill is personally bad for him, despite an unwillingness to release the very records necessary to verify the claim.
He is not required to verify that claim - especially with regard to your wishes for it to be verified.

She's a criminal, the Clinton family is a continuing criminal enterprise. She should walk with those lovely stainless steel bracelets.

You're so right, though. They aren't the same. You hate Trump to your bones and will do anything and say anything against him. She's a criminal and you are excusing all her crimes every time the subject comes up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUBBALLAWOL
He is not required to verify that claim - especially with regard to your wishes for it to be verified.

She's a criminal, the Clinton family is a continuing criminal enterprise. She should walk with those lovely stainless steel bracelets.

You're so right, though. They aren't the same. You hate Trump to your bones and will do anything and say anything against him. She's a criminal and you are excusing all her crimes every time the subject comes up.
Incorrect. I don't excuse any crimes. I do, however, remind people like you that "I just know she's guilty in my gut!" isn't the legal standard for proving criminal activity.
 
I agree. Render unto Caesar and all that. Read Matthew 25: 14-30. The Fed is a black hole of waste. I'll support a candidate who is serious about a balanced budget. Heard of any?
I'll support any candidate who is serious about balancing the budget without raising taxes. I'll support some other candidates,too, but the person who is willing to cut taxes until the budget balances (excluding national defense) is for sure getting my vote.
 
Of course its not and I have never said those words. Why do you twist things like that? Its just nasty to behave as you do.
I'm paraphrasing your insistence that the Clintons' status as a "continuing criminal enterprise" is a sure thing. Since you can't prove the claim, the only possible explanation is that you just know, man.
 
There is a difference, because they are two wildly different situations.

In one, we have a former government official who did not personally benefit from a decision that she herself was not solely responsible for.

In the other, we have a current President who has publicly touted that the tax bill is personally bad for him, despite an unwillingness to release the very records necessary to verify the claim.
Goat could you post your tax returns here on the board, I would like to know how much you are making off the board :rolleyes:
 
He is not required to verify that claim - especially with regard to your wishes for it to be verified.

She's a criminal, the Clinton family is a continuing criminal enterprise. She should walk with those lovely stainless steel bracelets.

You're so right, though. They aren't the same. You hate Trump to your bones and will do anything and say anything against him. She's a criminal and you are excusing all her crimes every time the subject comes up.

Let me guess, you don’t hate Hillary at all.

nh_bmp14.jpg
 
I was pointing out the difference between the media coverage as it pertains to politicians who broker political deals and the financial benefits that arise from those events. Uranium One is swept under the rug with haste, but gosh, it is red-letter corruption if the current President Might get to keep more of his OWN EARNED money.

It is un-American IMO to oppose tax cuts for anyone on any level.

Take a breath, you're showing the distinctive signs of having the vapors . . . .
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT