MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
JW: The really interesting question is, what do you think is in Trump’s tax returns? Why do you think he’s trying so hard to keep them secret?
DCJ: There are at least three reasons here. Number one, Trump’s tax returns will show that he is not anywhere near as wealthy as he claimed. Remember during the campaign he kept saying he was worth more than $10 billion. But after he became president, he signed under oath his financial disclosure statement, and 90 percent of his wealth vanished.
Even that statement, which I’ve analyzed, overstates his wealth. There’s never been a scintilla of verifiable evidence that Trump is a billionaire. And I’m the guy who revealed, back in 1990 when he said he was worth $3 billion, that he wasn’t a billionaire. We eventually found that he had negative net worth of about $295 million—MINUS $295 million.
Secondly, Donald Trump is a tax cheat. He had two civil trials for income tax fraud, one by the State of New York and the other by the City of New York. In both cases he lost. In one of those trials, his own long-time tax attorney and accountant, Jack Mitnick, testified against him. Mitnick was shown the filed tax return, which was a photocopy, and testified, “That’s my signature on the return, but neither I nor my firm prepared that tax return.” That’s as good a badge of fraud as you’re ever going to find.
It indicates that Donald Trump took the tax return that was prepared, changed it, and then with a photocopy machine put the signature of Jack Mitnick on it. Donald Trump is also a confessed sales tax cheat. Mayor Ed Koch of New York said he should have served 15 days in jail for his crime. Trump has a long history of hiding records from auditors, cheating governments, using two sets of numbers. So his tax returns are highly likely to show tax cheating.
Finally, the returns may well establish how much money he has been getting from Russians, Saudis, people from the Emirates, and elsewhere. They may show whether he has been engaged in money laundering for these people through real estate transactions and other actions that make no business sense, but, when closely examined, show exactly what we see when there’s money laundering. I think the record is pretty clear that he has been doing that.
I’m old enough to remember left wing demonstrations in the UK when ‘fascist!’ was a standard chant. On most occasions back then it was a ridiculous accusation, and as such it was rightly laughed away. But times have unfortunately changed. With authoritarian regimes in some East European countries, Trump’s election and subsequent behaviour, and far right parties gaining ground in other countries, fears of a return of something like fascism are no longer a laughing matter.
When Andrew Marr interviewed David Lammy a week ago, he suggested Lammy talking about appeasement of the ERG in the same terms of Hitler or apartheid was “unacceptable”. Not ludicrous but unacceptable, and by implication something Lammy should apologise for. Quite rightly, and so refreshingly for a Labour MP in the glare of TV lights, Lammy was having none of this. He said his comments were not strong enough. When Marr protested that these were elected MPs he was talking about, Lammy reminded him that the National Socialists had elected MPs. In 1932 they were the largest party in the Reichstag.
Nigel Farage is not an MP, but the BBC seem happy not just to give the launch of his new party considerable airtime, but also to do so in an uncritical manner. After the BBC had chosen the soundbite from his speech about putting the fear of god into MPs for what they had done to us, no one was given airtime to warn about how dangerous that kind of speech was, and that one MP had been murdered by the far right, another plot foiled and about many other serious threats to MPs. I think it is fair to say that the launch of the Brexit party was news and had to be covered, but to provide no kind of critical balance whatsoever was a strange decision.
Discussions of incipient fascism go in the wrong direction when direct comparisons are made to fascism in the 1930s. Equally ticking off check lists of signs of fascism just beg the question of how many ticks mean we should be worried. There is no generally accepted definition of fascism. We need to be more analytical, but also to update the analysis to the circumstances of today.
...
In my view this has become so dangerous partly because the political centre fails to see it. The Brexiters are appeased by May rather than isolated as John Major did. Those termed political moderates fret about the leader of the Labour party as much if not more than incipient fascism. I cannot quite decide whether the BBC is just blind to all this or elements within actively promote it. A lesson of history is that the far right is at its most dangerous when it is appeased by a centre that is more concerned about the threat from the left.
tRumpFuckingTard ...
President Donald Trump appeared to reverse course on Harley Davidson on Tuesday, pledging to retaliate against “unfair” European Union tariffs that the company partially blamed for its nearly 27% drop in first-quarter profit.
Trump, who called for a boycott against the motorcycle company last year amid a spat over steel, said that the EU tariffs have forced Harley to move U.S. jobs overseas. “So unfair to U.S. We will Reciprocate!” he said in a tweet citing comments by Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo.
Harley announced plans last year to move production of its motorcycles destined for the EU to overseas facilities from the U.S. to avoid EU tariffs imposed in retaliation against Trump’s duties on aluminum and steel imports. In response, Trump called for a boycott of the company and threatened higher taxes as retaliation.
President Donald Trump appeared to reverse course on Harley Davidson on Tuesday, pledging to retaliate against “unfair” European Union tariffs that the company partially blamed for its nearly 27% drop in first-quarter profit.
Trump, who called for a boycott against the motorcycle company last year amid a spat over steel, said that the EU tariffs have forced Harley to move U.S. jobs overseas. “So unfair to U.S. We will Reciprocate!” he said in a tweet citing comments by Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo.
Harley announced plans last year to move production of its motorcycles destined for the EU to overseas facilities from the U.S. to avoid EU tariffs imposed in retaliation against Trump’s duties on aluminum and steel imports. In response, Trump called for a boycott of the company and threatened higher taxes as retaliation.
TRUMPY CANDYLAND
https://claytoonz.com/2019/04/23/trumpy-candyland/
Donald Trump deserves to be impeached. After leaving office, he deserves to be indicted, found guilty on multiple charges, and spend the rest of his days in prison eating nutraloaf. That would be a reality show I would watch. So the question isn’t if Trump deserves to be impeached, but should he?
The biggest argument for impeaching Trump is that he deserves it and it’ll stain his legacy. He would be only the third president to be impeached. But, just like the two impeachments before, it won’t remove him from office.
Andrew Johnson was impeached for firing his Secretary of War and replacing him while Congress was out of session. Congress had created a law, which Johnson vetoed, prohibiting him from doing this. Johnson was a very unpopular Democrat in the time of Reconstruction, yet the public opposed the impeachment. The Republican Senate failed to convict and remove him from office. Nearly 40 years later, the Supreme Court ruled that the law the Republicans in Congress claimed he violated, The Tenure of Office Act, was invalid.
The one thing that can be taken from Johnson’s impeachment is that there was no Special Counsel or Independent Prosecutor investigating him before Congress filed charges of impeachment. Congress can make the decision that the president has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Republicans in 1998 initiated the impeachment process against Bill Clinton and approved two charges, one on perjury and another on obstruction of justice. These stemmed from him lying about receiving oral sex from an intern in the White House. The Independent Counsel who filed the report with Congress was initially investigating a bad land deal.
Before going forward with impeaching, the Speaker of the House had to resign as it was discovered he had extramarital affairs, then his replacement had to resign over the same issue. Finally, they settled on Dennis Hastert, who was convicted years later of being a pedophile. They never gained the higher ground, just the pervy ground.
While the GOP remained in control of the House, they lost seats during the impeachment build up. It was a lame-duck Congress that initiated the proceedings. The new Congress impeached Clinton in 1999 and the Republican-controlled Senate failed to convict him.
The GOP had a 55 vote majority in the Senate, yet they needed 67 votes to convict. Five Republicans voted against removing Clinton on one of the charges and ten voted against the second. Despite knowing they would lose, the GOP pressed forward with a losing fight. They were punished politically for it though they were able to win the presidency in 2000 (losing the popular vote and winning through the electoral college) which may have been helped by Clinton fatigue. But most Americans approved of the job Clinton was doing.
The House did file charges of impeachment against Richard Nixon but he resigned knowing he would probably be removed from office.
Donald Trump is a different case altogether. He’s committed greater crimes than lying about oral sex. The charges against him would not be over an imagined violation like the Johnson impeachment. The reasons for removing Donald Trump are made clear in the Mueller Report. Donald Trump attempted to commit obstruction of justice on at least ten occasions, but that’s just the Mueller Report being nice. House investigations will probably prove several more.
Trump’s willingness to receive help from the Russians in his campaign should qualify for impeachment. His disloyalty should be listed as a “high crime.” His attempts to obstruct an investigation should be the nail in the coffin. But he won’t be removed as the Senate Republicans all confirmed his newest Attorney General, which was their way of helping him obstruct the investigation. Republicans, who were mostly opposed to candidate Trump, have all drank the Kool-Aid, converted and are now worshipping at the altar. They don’t care how stupid, corrupt, or embarrassing Trump is as long as he gives them tax breaks and horrible Supreme Court justices.
Should the Democrats go ahead and impeach Trump? While hardcore Democrats and liberals would be for it, the general public may punish them for it…even while despising Trump. It may fortify his rabid, stupid, racist base. And, we’re less than two years from the next election. Should Democrats wait it out knowing Nancy Pelosi won’t let Trump move any legislation, and hope they win the White House back in 2020? Honestly, I’m not sure.
The House does need to hold further investigations. They need to look into his taxes and business dealings. They need people like Donald Trump Jr. to testify, who was not interviewed by Mueller. Maybe what’s discovered will force the case for impeachment. Maybe it’ll wear the public out that Democrats will be convinced to hold off. A question Democrats should ask is, will not impeaching Trump hurt them in the election? I don’t think so. Impeaching him may. It could rub the public the wrong way, even while not having any love for Trump. The majority of Americans are disgusted by him and see his stupidity, racism, and corruption.
Trump does need to be punished, if only for posterity’s sake. That’ll be one of his many blemishes in the history book, along with the asterisks. If Democrats do decide not to impeach and Trump wins reelection (perish the thought), they didn’t miss their chance. He’ll do something stupid and illegal again that’ll warrant removal from office.
Donald Trump is corrupt. Have faith.
https://claytoonz.com/2019/04/23/trumpy-candyland/
Donald Trump deserves to be impeached. After leaving office, he deserves to be indicted, found guilty on multiple charges, and spend the rest of his days in prison eating nutraloaf. That would be a reality show I would watch. So the question isn’t if Trump deserves to be impeached, but should he?
The biggest argument for impeaching Trump is that he deserves it and it’ll stain his legacy. He would be only the third president to be impeached. But, just like the two impeachments before, it won’t remove him from office.
Andrew Johnson was impeached for firing his Secretary of War and replacing him while Congress was out of session. Congress had created a law, which Johnson vetoed, prohibiting him from doing this. Johnson was a very unpopular Democrat in the time of Reconstruction, yet the public opposed the impeachment. The Republican Senate failed to convict and remove him from office. Nearly 40 years later, the Supreme Court ruled that the law the Republicans in Congress claimed he violated, The Tenure of Office Act, was invalid.
The one thing that can be taken from Johnson’s impeachment is that there was no Special Counsel or Independent Prosecutor investigating him before Congress filed charges of impeachment. Congress can make the decision that the president has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Republicans in 1998 initiated the impeachment process against Bill Clinton and approved two charges, one on perjury and another on obstruction of justice. These stemmed from him lying about receiving oral sex from an intern in the White House. The Independent Counsel who filed the report with Congress was initially investigating a bad land deal.
Before going forward with impeaching, the Speaker of the House had to resign as it was discovered he had extramarital affairs, then his replacement had to resign over the same issue. Finally, they settled on Dennis Hastert, who was convicted years later of being a pedophile. They never gained the higher ground, just the pervy ground.
While the GOP remained in control of the House, they lost seats during the impeachment build up. It was a lame-duck Congress that initiated the proceedings. The new Congress impeached Clinton in 1999 and the Republican-controlled Senate failed to convict him.
The GOP had a 55 vote majority in the Senate, yet they needed 67 votes to convict. Five Republicans voted against removing Clinton on one of the charges and ten voted against the second. Despite knowing they would lose, the GOP pressed forward with a losing fight. They were punished politically for it though they were able to win the presidency in 2000 (losing the popular vote and winning through the electoral college) which may have been helped by Clinton fatigue. But most Americans approved of the job Clinton was doing.
The House did file charges of impeachment against Richard Nixon but he resigned knowing he would probably be removed from office.
Donald Trump is a different case altogether. He’s committed greater crimes than lying about oral sex. The charges against him would not be over an imagined violation like the Johnson impeachment. The reasons for removing Donald Trump are made clear in the Mueller Report. Donald Trump attempted to commit obstruction of justice on at least ten occasions, but that’s just the Mueller Report being nice. House investigations will probably prove several more.
Trump’s willingness to receive help from the Russians in his campaign should qualify for impeachment. His disloyalty should be listed as a “high crime.” His attempts to obstruct an investigation should be the nail in the coffin. But he won’t be removed as the Senate Republicans all confirmed his newest Attorney General, which was their way of helping him obstruct the investigation. Republicans, who were mostly opposed to candidate Trump, have all drank the Kool-Aid, converted and are now worshipping at the altar. They don’t care how stupid, corrupt, or embarrassing Trump is as long as he gives them tax breaks and horrible Supreme Court justices.
Should the Democrats go ahead and impeach Trump? While hardcore Democrats and liberals would be for it, the general public may punish them for it…even while despising Trump. It may fortify his rabid, stupid, racist base. And, we’re less than two years from the next election. Should Democrats wait it out knowing Nancy Pelosi won’t let Trump move any legislation, and hope they win the White House back in 2020? Honestly, I’m not sure.
The House does need to hold further investigations. They need to look into his taxes and business dealings. They need people like Donald Trump Jr. to testify, who was not interviewed by Mueller. Maybe what’s discovered will force the case for impeachment. Maybe it’ll wear the public out that Democrats will be convinced to hold off. A question Democrats should ask is, will not impeaching Trump hurt them in the election? I don’t think so. Impeaching him may. It could rub the public the wrong way, even while not having any love for Trump. The majority of Americans are disgusted by him and see his stupidity, racism, and corruption.
Trump does need to be punished, if only for posterity’s sake. That’ll be one of his many blemishes in the history book, along with the asterisks. If Democrats do decide not to impeach and Trump wins reelection (perish the thought), they didn’t miss their chance. He’ll do something stupid and illegal again that’ll warrant removal from office.
Donald Trump is corrupt. Have faith.
Last edited:
