Russia, something or nothing?

[TheTravellers]

I understand you are looking for a gotcha moment. So go ahead and hang your hat on the fact that I don't think Trump embellishing on his story to be a problem in pretty much any way what so ever either.

This may be a shock to you but pretty much every person...ever...does this. Ever interviewed people for a job? Yeah, just like that.

I personally have never lied during self-promotion of myself, or embellished my resume, ever.

[mkjeeves]

I’ll add to that same boat description ...the same Trump supporters on it have proven truth only matters when it’s convenient.

[Eric]

I’ll add to that same boat description ...the same Trump supporters on it have proven truth only matters when it’s convenient.

So you two just stick to lying about my perspective and embellish things that I say in order to win the arguments. You two are so full of **** and worked up over things that you want to be because you think it helps you win an argument. You've obviously not interviewed anyone for a job before. They don't outright lie, but they sure don't bring up unflattering things about themselves and they sure as hell answer questions that are looking for weaknesses in ways that highlight their strengths.

[Eric]

And unfortunately there is no penalty for lying in congressional chambers. In fact it happens rather routinely. To think that you don't decide what is and is not important to be truthful about, and that you are evenhandedly punitive to all politicians that lie is about the most laughable thing I have ever heard. There literally would be no politicians if we held to that standard.

[TheTravellers]

So you two just stick to lying about my perspective and embellish things that I say in order to win the arguments. You two are so full of **** and worked up over things that you want to be because you think it helps you win an argument. You've obviously not interviewed anyone for a job before. They don't outright lie, but they sure don't bring up unflattering things about themselves and they sure as hell answer questions that are looking for weaknesses in ways that highlight their strengths.

Those people are not interviewing for a position on the highest court in the USA. Shouldn't standards be just a bit higher for that than your regular Joe Blow interviewing for a regular job? Oh, and yes, I *have* actually interviewed people for jobs before - swing and a miss... However, my interviews have been completely technical, where we find out real quick if someone's lying or not because if they are, they can't answer the question.

And BS on saying I lie about your perspective or embellish things you say - cite if you have proof.

[mkjeeves]

Dateline 2015

As Donald Trump tells it, he has been told no his entire life. For example, he said Monday, his father gave him a "small loan of a million dollars" that he had to repay with interest at the start of his career.

“Oh many times. I’ve been told no by him. My whole life, really has been a no," the Republican presidential candidate said during a town hall event in Atkinson, New Hampshire, on NBC's "Today."

“It has not been easy for me. It has not been easy for me. I started off in Brooklyn. My father gave me a small loan of a million dollars," Trump remarked. "I came into Manhattan, and I had to pay him back, and I had to pay him back with interest. But I came into Manhattan and I started buying properties, and I did great."

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/...dollars-215154

That's not embellishment. He's a lying sack of ****. You said about that:

My take on the "bombshell" was that the biggest hit was the take down of the self-promoted Trump origin story. In other words he didn't make it all by himself like he generally touts. Which again, is not illegal, or wrong in any way.

It's wrong. In my 29 years of running the business I started and the many years before that of managing people, I can tell you most don't lie or "embellish" about their experience. For the ones that do...it's still wrong. But please, tell us more about how truth and honesty does not matter to you.

[mugofbeer]

l think we pretty much know, whether you call it intentional exaggeration or intentional imbellishment, its still lying and it's still not right. lts what we have with Trump but it's done by pretty much every politician out there. Trump just does it openly, poorly and where the media publicizes every fib he tells - which is a lot. He is a lying S of S but so is nearly everyone in DC. Stop telling us we breathe air, we know it.

As for how he got his money, he may lie about it, his accountants may have used tactics used only by the 1%, but unless what they did violates tax code, it's not necessarily illegal. lf they find it was illegal, then go get him, but that type of thing is usually done only with tax court or IRS OK or precident from prior tax court decision or IRS opinion -
even if he is a lying S of S.

[Eric]

Dateline 2015

As Donald Trump tells it, he has been told no his entire life. For example, he said Monday, his father gave him a "small loan of a million dollars" that he had to repay with interest at the start of his career.

“Oh many times. I’ve been told no by him. My whole life, really has been a no," the Republican presidential candidate said during a town hall event in Atkinson, New Hampshire, on NBC's "Today."

“It has not been easy for me. It has not been easy for me. I started off in Brooklyn. My father gave me a small loan of a million dollars," Trump remarked. "I came into Manhattan, and I had to pay him back, and I had to pay him back with interest. But I came into Manhattan and I started buying properties, and I did great."

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/...dollars-215154

That's not embellishment. He's a lying sack of ****. You said about that:



It's wrong. In my 29 years of running the business I started and the many years before that of managing people, I can tell you most don't lie or "embellish" about their experience. For the ones that do...it's still wrong. But please, tell us more about how truth and honesty does not matter to you.

Ever heard the saying "making a mountain out of a mole hill". Yeah...that.

You will pick a scab to death because it suits your world view, as the world is blowing up around you. But damn Trump lies. Well, no **** Sherlock.

In the mean time **** like this will get blown off like it's no big deal.

Obama Had a Secret Plan in Case Trump Rejected 2016 Election Results

I will give em credit though, it's a pretty ingenious idea.

Possible outcomes:
1. Trump loses, just forgets about it. Great.
2. Trump loses, hit him with the Russia stuff and pound him into submission
3. Trump wins, undermine the administration.

That's good stuff I tell you.

[mugofbeer]

Those people are not interviewing for a position on the highest court in the USA. Shouldn't standards be just a bit higher for that than your regular Joe Blow interviewing for a regular job? Oh, and yes, I *have* actually interviewed people for jobs before - swing and a miss... However, my interviews have been completely technical, where we find out real quick if someone's lying or not because if they are, they can't answer the question.

And BS on saying I lie about your perspective or embellish things you say - cite if you have proof.

Where is there any solid evidence or proof anyone lied to try to get on the Supreme Court? Anyone who doesn't want Kavanaugh on the appointment could claim he/she saw him slobbering drunk "back in 1985." Kavanaugh has no way to defend himself against heresay.

[Eric]

FWIW

Fusion GPS co-founder will invoke 'constitutional rights not to testify': lawyers @ The Hill

[OKCretro]

FWIW

Fusion GPS co-founder will invoke 'constitutional rights not to testify': lawyers @ The Hill

if he has nothing to hide why would one invoke that right?

[BDP]

A day late and a dollar short I'm afraid. The story is essentially lifted from a Slate piece from OCTOBER 2016 To Slate's credit, they came back and followed up noting there was no connection.

Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia @ New York Times

Also found no link.

You should read the following piece. It lays out the whole timeline pretty well.

Perkins Coie Lawyer Michael SussmannÂ’s Coordinated Leaks to Media and FBIÂ’s James Baker, Likely Came From Steele, Fusion GPS by Jeff Carlson @ The Epoch Times

I think you are going to start having to come to terms with the fact that people in the FBI & CIA was abused (or willing participants) in a spy ring on a presidential candidate.

You read the article, right? Doesn't contradict any of the stuff you posted. It was just a blow by blow explanation of what they were looking at and the explanations given by the actors involved. It even lays out how many explanations there are for the look-ups. It could have been this, could have been that, etc.

And, yes, people in the intelligence community have been following Donald Trump's involvement with Russian banks and oligarchs. That's their job. I guess you could call it a spy ring, but, sorry man, you do business with mobsters there's going to be a "spy ring" looking into your business. Maybe you're going to have to come to terms with what Trump has been doing for the last 15-20 years.

You really have no concept of Trump's financial dealings, do you? It's like you first hear of Donald Trump in 2015...

[BDP]

I was still a bit confused as to what illegal occurred in regards to Trump's family taxes. Tax law is really complicated, .

Really?

If you give someone a million dollars interest free, that's a gift. You pay taxes on that gift. Super straight forward.

If you loan someone a million dollars, they pay interest on it and repay it with that interest. Not a gift.

His dad gave him hundreds of millions of dollars, interest free that he did not pay taxes on. He owes it.

It's only complicated or, to quote Sanders, "boring" because it was constructed that way, but it's really one of the most simple things of the tax code.

[BDP]

if he has nothing to hide why would one invoke that right?

Yeah, if someone has nothing to hide, they would show us, right?

Let's see how far that gets us....

[BDP]

Where is there any solid evidence or proof anyone lied to try to get on the Supreme Court? Anyone who doesn't want Kavanaugh on the appointment could claim he/she saw him slobbering drunk "back in 1985." Kavanaugh has no way to defend himself against heresay.

Yeah. He can't defend himself against himself. That's just silly.

[Eric]

You read the article, right? Doesn't contradict any of the stuff you posted. It was just a blow by blow explanation of what they were looking at and the explanations given by the actors involved. It even lays out how many explanations there are for the look-ups. It could have been this, could have been that, etc.

And, yes, people in the intelligence community have been following Donald Trump's involvement with Russian banks and oligarchs. That's their job. I guess you could call it a spy ring, but, sorry man, you do business with mobsters there's going to be a "spy ring" looking into your business. Maybe you're going to have to come to terms with what Trump has been doing for the last 15-20 years.

You really have no concept of Trump's financial dealings, do you? It's like you first hear of Donald Trump in 2015...

Your openness to spying on US citizens is slightly concerning. As much as Trump is loathsome, he deserves the same protections and privacy that you and I are afforded.

[Eric]

Really?

If you give someone a million dollars interest free, that's a gift. You pay taxes on that gift. Super straight forward.

If you loan someone a million dollars, they pay interest on it and repay it with that interest. Not a gift.

His dad gave him hundreds of millions of dollars, interest free that he did not pay taxes on. He owes it.

It's only complicated or, to quote Sanders, "boring" because it was constructed that way, but it's really one of the most simple things of the tax code.

Because tax law affords the opportunity to be less than forthright with the IRS is not exactly my problem, nor do I begrudge those that take advantage of these "loopholes" or whatever you want to call them.

Take your ***** envy hat off for a moment and really try to examine it. In this case you really can't because you only have about 1/8th of the info needed to come to a conclusion. Which is why I didn't come to a conclusion.

[Eric]

Yeah. He can't defend himself against himself. That's just silly.

Yet it's enough to condemn him? That's what is silly.

[BDP]

Your openness to spying on US citizens is slightly concerning.

It's stuff like that...

Take your ***** envy hat off for a moment and really try to examine it.

and that, that really makes having a conversation with you difficult. Clearly, I was examining it and just explaining part of it. Then to dismiss that explanation, which is not inaccurate, because of an assumed envy you placed on me is just childish. Again, please stop doing that.

back to:

Your openness to spying on US citizens is slightly concerning.

This is just lazy and weak and completely ignores the entire context of the conversation. This is about Russia. You'd have to know exactly zero about what Russia is and how it operates to even begin to make that dismissive.

Because tax law affords the opportunity to be less than forthright with the IRS is not exactly my problem, nor do I begrudge those that take advantage of these "loopholes" or whatever you want to call them.

That's not a loophole. It's potentially fraud. I understand some see that kind of fraud against the US as a badge of honor, but that's what failure to accurately report in order to avoid paying taxes is.

[Eric]

It's stuff like that...

and that, that really makes having a conversation with you difficult. Clearly, I was examining it and just explaining part of it. Then to dismiss that explanation, which is not inaccurate, because of an assumed envy you placed on me is just childish. Again, please stop doing that.

back to:

This is just lazy and weak and completely ignores the entire context of the conversation. This is about Russia. You'd have to know exactly zero about what Russia is and how it operates to even begin to make that dismissive.

That's not a loophole. It's potentially fraud. I understand some see that kind of fraud against the US as a badge of honor, but that's what failure to accurately report in order to avoid paying taxes is.

When I don't have enough evidence to draw a conclusion, I don't draw one. I don't say it's potentially fraud. I say there isn't enough evidence. Apparently we diverge on this opinion. Not sure what else to do about that.

Again, tax law is incredibly complex, and not something I expect the New York Times to have a firm handle on at any given time.

[BDP]

Russian hackers were caught in the act — and the results are devastating

[BDP]

When I don't have enough evidence to draw a conclusion, I don't draw one. I don't say it's potentially fraud. I say there isn't enough evidence. Apparently we diverge on this opinion. Not sure what else to do about that.

Again, tax law is incredibly complex, and not something I expect the New York Times to have a firm handle on at any given time.

Did you read it and review the supporting documentation?

[TheTravellers]

When I don't have enough evidence to draw a conclusion, I don't draw one. I don't say it's potentially fraud. I say there isn't enough evidence. Apparently we diverge on this opinion. Not sure what else to do about that.

Again, tax law is incredibly complex, and not something I expect the New York Times to have a firm handle on at any given time.

Why would you think that about the NYT? I'd expect them to know/be able to contact tax attorneys/accountants that have intimate tax law knowledge and are experts any time they have any tax questions, it's not like they're some local outfit that publishes a 10-page weekly rag, they're the New York Times...

[mugofbeer]

How about multiple other stories of questionable accuracy or completion run about Trump since he started his Presidential campaign? Yes, I'm sure they have access to forensic accountants who would love nothing more than to catch The Donald in some sort of scam, however, as l said earlier, l doubt seriously the family didn't undertake the loan without running it through the accountants on Trumps payroll. The 1%ers use IRS Private rulings and tax court decisions to justify deals that make legal for them, transactions that you and l can't get. I've seen it done quite a few times while working with some of that category. I doubt it was as simple as Dad writing Donald a birthday check.

[Jersey Boss]

When is Trump going to order the FBI & DOJ to investigate the Cruz connection to the JFK assination?