Federal judge orders Donald Trump to hand over 8 yrs of his personal & company tax returns

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Complexity, dumbass! You want to turn 1000s of amateurs loose on tax returns ost likely already audited by the IRS?

Amateurs? What the **** are you whining about? You dont think the top legal minds on the planets have experts? Put up the crack, son.

Top legal minds? Who on PMSNBC and the Clinton News Networks would you put in that category?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No, he didn't.

In fact, Mueller was very clear that his report didn't exonerate Trump of any crime.

Mueller put the happiest face on his report that he could and kicked the can down the road.
The fact is he (Mueller) had the chance to indict Trump for any number of crimes the left all "knew" he was guilty of.
He didn't charge him with a single one, however.

Mueller was asked whether he did not indict Trump on obstruction because of the DOJ's office of legal counsel's opinion
that a sitting president could not be indicted. Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump

"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime." It seems to me and any reasonable person reading Robert Mueller's comment finds he said he simply didn't come to a conclusion that Trump had obstructed justice. Read that quote as many times as necessary to
see that's true.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Top legal minds?

Are you confused about the topic, old man? Scroll up...

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Top legal minds?

Are you confused about the topic, old man? Scroll up...

Not confused that you are a retard!

 

[Skylar]

No, he didn't.

In fact, Mueller was very clear that his report didn't exonerate Trump of any crime.

Mueller put the happiest face on his report that he could and kicked the can down the road.
The fact is he (Mueller) had the chance to indict Trump for any number of crimes the left all "knew" he was guilty of.
He didn't charge him with a single one, however.

The fact is that Mueller was very clear that he didn't have the authority to charge the president with any crime.

It seems to me and any reasonable person reading Robert Mueller's comment finds he said he simply didn't come to a conclusion that Trump had obstructed justice.

Nope. A reasonable person wouldn't ignore this statement by Robert Mueller made on the same topic on the same day:

"We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.

The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.

The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."

Robert Mueller

Utterly debunking your claim that Mueller had the 'chance to indict Trump'. Your claim is demonstrably, provably false. Mueller had no such chance.

Mueller made it ludicrously clear that the reason that he did not make any determination as to whether the president commited a crime. And the reason he didn't is that a president can't be charged.

Your conclusion that what Mueller 'really meant' was that Trump commited no crime is something that Mueller never said.

Instead, Mueller laid out, in painstaking detail with corroborating evidence across 200 page 10 potential acts of Obstruction of Justice commited by the president including ordering law enforcement officials to go easy on his political allies, order that Mueller himself be fired when Trump heard that Mueller was investigating Trump for Obstruction of Justice, and ordering his officials to create fake documents to cover up that order.

No reasonable person, reading any of that would conclude that Mueller concluded that Trump didn't commit any crime.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The fact is that Mueller was very clear that he didn't have the authority to charge the president with any crime.

That's what Mueller said but he also noted the DOJ's policy in that regard was an opinion and not a strict regulation.
The fact is Mueller had the opportunity and perfect platform to declare Trump guilty of obstruction of justice whether he could indict him or not. Mueller never ever made that clear unambiguous statement.

Let me cite this Mueller sentence again. I don't think you brain absorbed the message yet: "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

Nope. A reasonable person wouldn't ignore this statement by Robert Mueller made on the same topic on the same day:

It's a moot point. Mueller declined to state Trump obstructed justice. Read my citation as many times as you like.

 

[Skylar]

The fact is that Mueller was very clear that he didn't have the authority to charge the president with any crime.

That's what Mueller said but he also noted the DOJ's policy in that regard was an opinion and not a strict regulation.

No, he didn't. This is what he said:

The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.

The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."

Mueller couldn't have been clearer. "Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."

Yet you ignore what Mueller actually said and keep inserting your imagination in place of his actual positions. No, Mueller did not have a the 'chance to indict' Trump. Per No, Mueller did not say that the DOJ policy was 'an opinion and not a strict regulation'.

He said ""Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."

Debunking your claims yet again.

The fact is Mueller had the opportunity and perfect platform to declare Trump guilty of obstruction of justice whether he could indict him or not. Mueller never ever made that clear unambiguous statement.

Says you, citing yourself. Meanwhile, Mueller was clear:

"Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."

You're offering your imagination in place of Mueller's actual position. Which is nothing a reasonable person would ever do.

Back in reality, Mueller laid out, in painstaking detail with corroborating evidence across 200 page 10 potential acts of Obstruction of Justice commited by the president including Trump ordering law enforcement officials to go easy on his political allies, order that Mueller himself be fired when Trump heard that Mueller was investigating Trump for Obstruction of Justice, and Trump ordering his officials to create fake documents to cover up that order.

No reasonable person, reading any of that would conclude that Mueller determined that Trump didn't commit any crime.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Top legal minds?

Are you confused about the topic, old man? Scroll up...

Not confused that you are a retard!

Ah, so you get now that you were confused about the topic. You're welcome!

 

[Nostra]

You either find evidence of a crime and indict, or you don't find evidence of a crime. Muehler found the latter.

Wrong.

Nope. Spot on.

Investigations are not conducted to exonerate, they are conducted to determine if a crime was committed. Muehler found no crime.

His "We could not exonerate" is complete bullshit and exposes what a hack he is.

Again, Mueller made it very clear that he didn't have the authority to charge Trump with any crime. And instead, laid out the evidence for 10 potential crimes committed by Trump.

When Mueller isn't allowed to charge Trump with any crime, your insistence that his failure to charge Trump is proof that there was no crime is blithering nonsense.

And Mueller made this ridiculously clear in his testimony and his report.

He did have the authority to spell out exactly what laws Trump violated, and exactly how.

He couldn’t because there were no violations. That’s why the hack invented “could not exonerate”. That can’t be found in any statute.

 

[Nostra]

Nope. Spot on.

Nah...delusional cultist pap.

Nope. Spot on.

 

[grainbely]

(((YAWN)))

Appeal...Supreme Court...Trump Wins again...rinse...repeat...

But you are cool with lie 1k that he was going to give his tax returns? You are cool with all these lies? Hope you arent a religious type, cuz theres a place called hell waiting for such filth.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Top legal minds?

Are you confused about the topic, old man? Scroll up...

Not confused that you are a retard!

Ah, so you get now that you were confused about the topic. You're welcome!

Fart Fun, you are an ignorant troll and your pathetic attempts to troll me does not disguise the fact that you are an arrogant, yet ignorant, piece of shit that no one likes.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

(((YAWN)))

Appeal...Supreme Court...Trump Wins again...rinse...repeat...

But you are cool with lie 1k that he was going to give his tax returns? You are cool with all these lies? Hope you arent a religious type, cuz theres a place called hell waiting for such filth.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

What happened when his tax return was leaked? Total bedlam in the media occurred until everyone had to admit he paid more taxes than they thought he should have! Mr. Rachel Madcow had to take a vacation to console himself that he had almost "Geraldo"-ed his career!

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Trump Taxes: President Ordered to Turn Over Returns to Manhattan D.A.

"A federal judge on Monday rejected a bold argument from President Trump that sitting presidents are immune from criminal investigations, allowing the Manhattan district attorney’s office to move forward with a subpoena seeking eight years of the president’s personal and corporate tax returns. The ruling issued by Judge Victor Marrero of Manhattan federal court does not mean that the president’s tax returns will be turned over immediately. Mr. Trump’s lawyers quickly appealed the decision, and the appeals court agreed to temporarily block the order."

How is this possible?? If Trump doesn't want to release his tax returns, how can some renegade judge order him to release them?? He is the president, he can do whatever he wants as long as he believes it is in America's best interest, and everything he has done has been for America.

This judge is basically part of the coup to try to overthrow Trump -- and as with most violent illegal coups, those involved with staging the coup are committing treason and should be brought up on charges, Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer, Obama and this Victor Marrero guy which is most likely a Hispanic -- so for him to reside over this case is an outrage -- he has a conflict of interest, as Trump so brilliantly pointed out - Hispanic judges are incapable of being objective --- I believe the judge should be investigated and charged.

Why would the judge be charged with Treason? It has nothing to do with tax returns.

Treason is the only crime defined by the Constitution. You may want to give the old Constitution a read before you start talking about it.

The idiot OP thinks he is a comedian.

But you idiots are making the exact same case as I am....except...

I am using satire -- you d1c suckers are dead serious in your belief that Trump is above the law.....

Furthermore, if Trump is so squeaky clean, why is he and you so invested in hiding his tax returns??

What makes you idiots even more goofy is -- you can't even say "but but but Obama" -- because we have already seen his tax returns...

these trump years are not going to age well -- and there won't be no rewriting history to try to make it seem like you were not a Trump sycophant

 

[Billiejeens]

Trump Taxes: President Ordered to Turn Over Returns to Manhattan D.A.

"A federal judge on Monday rejected a bold argument from President Trump that sitting presidents are immune from criminal investigations, allowing the Manhattan district attorney’s office to move forward with a subpoena seeking eight years of the president’s personal and corporate tax returns. The ruling issued by Judge Victor Marrero of Manhattan federal court does not mean that the president’s tax returns will be turned over immediately. Mr. Trump’s lawyers quickly appealed the decision, and the appeals court agreed to temporarily block the order."

How is this possible?? If Trump doesn't want to release his tax returns, how can some renegade judge order him to release them?? He is the president, he can do whatever he wants as long as he believes it is in America's best interest, and everything he has done has been for America.

This judge is basically part of the coup to try to overthrow Trump -- and as with most violent illegal coups, those involved with staging the coup are committing treason and should be brought up on charges, Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer, Obama and this Victor Marrero guy which is most likely a Hispanic -- so for him to reside over this case is an outrage -- he has a conflict of interest, as Trump so brilliantly pointed out - Hispanic judges are incapable of being objective --- I believe the judge should be investigated and charged.

Why would the judge be charged with Treason? It has nothing to do with tax returns.

Treason is the only crime defined by the Constitution. You may want to give the old Constitution a read before you start talking about it.

The idiot OP thinks he is a comedian.

But you idiots are making the exact same case as I am....except...

I am using satire -- you d1c suckers are dead serious in your belief that Trump is above the law.....

Furthermore, if Trump is so squeaky clean, why is he and you so invested in hiding his tax returns??

What makes you idiots even more goofy is -- you can't even say "but but but Obama" -- because we have already seen his tax returns...

these trump years are not going to age well -- and there won't be no rewriting history to try to make it seem like you were not a Trump sycophant

Get back to me when you can explain, with proof that -

He is above the law -
He has broken no laws-

Mean the same exact thing.

Until then keep building your strawmen

 

[Nostra]

"A federal judge on Monday rejected a bold argument from President Trump that sitting presidents are immune from criminal investigations, allowing the Manhattan district attorney’s office to move forward with a subpoena seeking eight years of the president’s personal and corporate tax returns. The ruling issued by Judge Victor Marrero of Manhattan federal court does not mean that the president’s tax returns will be turned over immediately. Mr. Trump’s lawyers quickly appealed the decision, and the appeals court agreed to temporarily block the order."

How is this possible?? If Trump doesn't want to release his tax returns, how can some renegade judge order him to release them?? He is the president, he can do whatever he wants as long as he believes it is in America's best interest, and everything he has done has been for America.

This judge is basically part of the coup to try to overthrow Trump -- and as with most violent illegal coups, those involved with staging the coup are committing treason and should be brought up on charges, Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer, Obama and this Victor Marrero guy which is most likely a Hispanic -- so for him to reside over this case is an outrage -- he has a conflict of interest, as Trump so brilliantly pointed out - Hispanic judges are incapable of being objective --- I believe the judge should be investigated and charged.

Why would the judge be charged with Treason? It has nothing to do with tax returns.

Treason is the only crime defined by the Constitution. You may want to give the old Constitution a read before you start talking about it.

The idiot OP thinks he is a comedian.

But you idiots are making the exact same case as I am....except...

I am using satire -- you d1c suckers are dead serious in your belief that Trump is above the law.....

Furthermore, if Trump is so squeaky clean, why is he and you so invested in hiding his tax returns??

What makes you idiots even more goofy is -- you can't even say "but but but Obama" -- because we have already seen his tax returns...

these trump years are not going to age well -- and there won't be no rewriting history to try to make it seem like you were not a Trump sycophant

Since there is no law requiring the release of his tax returns, why would you make the specious claim Trump thinks he is above the law for not releasing his tax returns?

 

[BlindBoo]

What happened to Mueller's comments that Trump couldn't be investigated for supposed crimes

Didn't happen. Mueller said he couldn't be charged with any crimes he may have committed until he was out of office.

Mueller said that he hadnt committed any crimes

No, he said he couldn't comment on any crimes he may have committed.

 

[Nostra]

What happened to Mueller's comments that Trump couldn't be investigated for supposed crimes

Didn't happen. Mueller said he couldn't be charged with any crimes he may have committed until he was out of office.

Mueller said that he hadnt committed any crimes

No, he said he couldn't comment on any crimes he may have committed.

Which was a lie. He could comment on anything he uncovered evidence of. Nothing prevented him from saying "We have ample evidence Trump committed crime "X", but we have no authority to indict". He didn't because he found no evidence of a crime.

That was the hack Muehler's way of throwing the Dimwingers a bone.

 

[BlindBoo]

What happened to Mueller's comments that Trump couldn't be investigated for supposed crimes

Didn't happen. Mueller said he couldn't be charged with any crimes he may have committed until he was out of office.

Mueller said that he hadnt committed any crimes

No, he said he couldn't comment on any crimes he may have committed.

Which was a lie. He could comment on anything he uncovered evidence of. Nothing prevented him from saying "We have ample evidence Trump committed crime "X", but we have no authority to indict". He didn't because he found no evidence of a crime.

That was the hack Muehler's way of throwing the Dimwingers a bone.

It's not a lie. It's what he said, in writing. He was very verbose about his reasoning behind his decision to not make any recommendation. The evidence Mueller published speaks for itself. The evidence the Corrupt Administration is withholding from the oversight committees will eventually be released.

 

[Nostra]

What happened to Mueller's comments that Trump couldn't be investigated for supposed crimes

Didn't happen. Mueller said he couldn't be charged with any crimes he may have committed until he was out of office.

Mueller said that he hadnt committed any crimes

No, he said he couldn't comment on any crimes he may have committed.

Which was a lie. He could comment on anything he uncovered evidence of. Nothing prevented him from saying "We have ample evidence Trump committed crime "X", but we have no authority to indict". He didn't because he found no evidence of a crime.

That was the hack Muehler's way of throwing the Dimwingers a bone.

It's not a lie. It's what he said, in writing. He was very verbose about his reasoning behind his decision to not make any recommendation. The evidence Mueller published speaks for itself. The evidence the Corrupt Administration is withholding from the oversight committees will eventually be released.

Let me clarify, what he said was a lie for the reasons I laid out.