New documents show Trump kept 2 sets of books for his biggest property in Manhattan

Only Trump's core base believe he gives a hoot about corruption.

 

I provided as much as you did. Ignore yourself.

 

Really? I beg to differ. Oh well. Off you go then.

 

According to the three solid witnesses who were on that call and heard Trump's overall tone, it ranged between highly irregular and deeply disturbing. Logic would indicate that Trump was fully expecting Zelenskiy to comply by doing Trump's "dirty work" against his likeliest election opponent.

He mentioned Biden several times during the call. The only people convinced that he was merely trying to root out corruption in Ukraine are his hard core, fully enthralled base.

 

Also, fyi, the process for aiding a foreign country is as follows:

1. The State Department assesses an ally's needs as well as their ability to use the aid without corrupt officials pocketing it.
2. Congress approves the aid package.
3. For military aid, the DOD assesses the corruption level in the recipient country and either approves or disapproves the aid.

All of the above had been done months before Trump decided to hold up the aid for his own personal purposes.

 

I’m not his base(I voted for Ann Richards) but I certainly believe it. Witness after witness testified that Ukraine is a very corrupt place. The world knows it’s a very corrupt place. The head(yes the head) of the Anti-corruption Bureau in Ukraine was recently convicted of meddling in our election in 2016 as well as a parliamentarian(like a senator or congressman). It’s extremely corrupt there. Feelings don’t do it for me. Assumptions don’t do it for me. Perceptions don’t do it for me.

 

1. Who is the head of the state department? Trump.
2.That they do. It also comes with a date to have it disbursed by. It was sent out by that date.
3. Who is the head of the DOD? Trump.

Basically, he can personally review it himself as he is the state department and he is the DOD.

 

1. That would be Mike Pompeo.
2. The aid wasn't released until Trump learned about the whistleblower. The jig was up.
3. That would be Dr. Mark T. Esper.

If what you're trying to say is that Trump can hold up aid if he wants to, that's true. But to withhold it in order to get a foreign leader to drum up dirt on a personal political opponent carries consequences.

 

For years we owed thesr terrorists billions and held it why? Because they are terrorists. Correct ? Until of course the anti American, muslim loving scumbag gave it to them anywy , correct?

 

Stating the value of some of your property as part of your net worth is lying how, exactly????

 

Or not, since it ain't there.

 

No, they do not. Public corporations have to file annual reports and more detailed 10K reports. They are not required to provide any other information unless ordered to by a court. Requests from individuals for other information goes right into the wastebasket, and certainly does not fall under the FOIA.

 

That is probably true, but not what the poster said.

That is highly unlikely though has never been attempted and so never validated. Impeachment is a way to remove a president (and others) from office for egregious wrong doings as president, not for shop lifting when he was a teen. All three previous impeachments were over actions while in office. Actions outside of office were never even considered.

 

Probably a New York state or local tax code.

 

Yes, a court complying with a FOIA request, like the one we're discussing here.

 

Not so. Clinton's impeachment came about after an extensive investigation into a possible fraud case from when he was governor of Arkansas, the infamous Whitewater case. Starr couldn't find any crime in that, so he went with the "lying to the FBI" bit over a sexual liaison between consenting adults.

 

What are you talking about?? Courts do not comply with FOIA requests.

 

Your history has many large holes. 1. Whitewater had nothing -- zero, nada, zilch -- to do with Clinton's impeachment. 2. Reno had to convince Starr to move his investigation targets. 3. Clinton was not impeached for lying to the FBI. He was impeached for perjury in front of a federal judge and a grand jury, among other things.

 

Overstating its value is fraud. Why do you think it isn't?

 

Actually it did. If there were Ken Starr investigation, would the Monica thing even be investigated?

 

Who said anything about overstating (other that the gladiators at the gate I mean)? Are you claiming he consciously overstated some property values? How on earth would you know that? Do you know any of Trump's property values?

 

It has been widely reported how Trump like his father, would value their properties high while trying to get assessments for tax purposes lowered. Certainly you are no so ignorant not to know this.

The entire Trump family are tax cheats. Why do you support this?

 

How does this relate to anything in my post? Actually it did what?

 

Perhaps you should know who you are responding to before you attempt to side step with claptrap like that.

Valuations are subjective. I could say something is worth X, and someone else can say it's worth Z. That's why numbers that are intrinsic to a particular deal are verified by a third party.

You automatically jump to the forgone conclusion that 'Trump lied'. That pretty much clarifies your position on anything Trump may do.

 

The logic is quite consistent after you take into account a significant distinction. We are talking about exculpatory versus incriminating statements.

I am more inclined to dismiss an exculpatory statement that appears after a need to invent a cover story. So, Trump's efforts to seek "corruption" showed up after he learned about the whistleblower complaint. I am less likely to accept that exculpatory statement as accurate when it did not appear before Trump learned a need to cover for himself.

On the other hand, I am not inclined to need a (more explicit) incriminating statement to be made in order to believe that something incriminating took place. So, Trump made several incriminating statements in that phone call that already support my conclusion. I do not need him to make a more explicitly incriminating statement to reach my conclusion.

Also, the Biden analogy is just terrible because you have no knowledge of the conversation that took place between Biden and the Ukrainian president beyond what he publicly relayed in that very brief reference publicly.