I'm confident trump devotees will agree with me after reading this.

[struth]

The MAGATs do the same, tell us something new.

The MAGATs do the same, tell us something new.

Of course, every admin might make a mistake, but the GOP isn't suggesting it's a slush fund to pay the injured parties.

Moreover, this wasn't a mistake, it was intentional

 

[Lesh]

Let’s see that book your daughter supposedly had to buy

Have you forgotten your lies already?

Oh… that was your clone Lisa. Never mind

 

[Billiejeens]

Let’s see that book your daughter supposedly had to buy

Have you forgotten your lies already?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You sure that it's me, and not some other brilliant conservative?

 

[Billiejeens]

Oh… that was your clone Lisa. Never mind

My clone
You are silly.

 

[Lesh]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You sure that it's me, and not some other brilliant conservative?

It was lisa but neither of you could possibly be considered anything close to “brilliant”

 

[Billiejeens]

I live in a world where your lies need to be identified and then ignored

The IRS apologized for doing what you say that they did not do.

You should have intervened with your expert expertise.

 

[Lesh]

The IRS apologized for doing what you say that they did not do.

You should have intervened with your expert expertise.

Link

 

[Lesh]

I’ll save you the trouble

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/10/182867374/irs-apologizes-for-singling-out-tea-party-and-patriot-groups

She apologized for hurting their feefees.

And explained how and why it happened. It was absolutely reasonable

And what the claim about Biden is I have idea.

 

[Nostra]

Trump poised to drop IRS suit, launch $1.7B 'weaponization' fund for allies: Sources​

President Donald Trump is expected to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service in exchange for the creation of a $1.7 billion fund to compensate allies who claim they were wrongfully targeted by the Biden administration, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.

The commission overseeing the compensation fund would have the total authority to hand out approximately $1.7 billion in taxpayer funds to settle claims brought by anyone who alleges they were harmed by the Biden administration's "weaponization" of the legal system, including the nearly 1,600 individuals charged in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol attack as well as potentially entities associated with President Trump himself.

While the settlement is expected to be agreed upon in the coming days, sources caution that the final terms will not be set until they are officially announced.

The proposed fund -- which could face significant legal hurdles -- would draw money from the Treasury Department's Judgment Fund, a permanent appropriation used by the federal government to pay court judgments and settlements, sources said.

The arrangement would be an unprecedented use of taxpayer dollars with little oversight. Under the terms of the potential settlement agreement, President Trump would have the authority to remove members of the commission running the fund without cause, and the commission would be under no obligation to disclose its procedures or decision-making process for awarding more than a billion dollars, the sources said.

Trump poised to drop IRS suit, launch $1.7B 'weaponization' fund for allies: Sources

President Trump is expected to drop his $10 billion IRS suit in exchange for the creation of a $1.7 billion fund for victims of governmental "weaponization," sources say.

abcnews.com

As the article indicates, this isn't a done deal yet. But for the purposes of discussion let's assume it does happen.

For starters, surely trump fans will agree with me he never should put himself in a position where he is suing the government he runs. He's essentially the plaintiff and the defendant in a case over which he controls the judge and jury. It's ridiculously corrupt. As is the idea he should be given what he originally asked for, $10B, over the embarrassment he suffered from the public learning about his $1B loss from being a failed businessman.

Decade in the Red: Trump Tax Figures Show Over $1 Billion in Business Losses​

Decade in the Red: Trump Tax Figures Show Over $1 Billion in Business Losses (Published 2019)

Newly obtained tax information reveals that from 1985 to 1994, Donald J. Trump’s businesses were in far bleaker condition than was previously known.

www.nytimes.com

I guess he's hoping the public will see him only getting $1.7B as a gracious compromise..........with himself. That seems to be a stretch since he will have total control over what amount of a $1.7B slush fund he can use to, for example, pay people who brutally beat Capital police officers on Jan. 6. Or perhaps his co-defendants in the cases brought by Jack Smith will be the beneficiaries of his largesse.

I just know, deep down, no matter how much affection you folks have for trump and how much animosity you have towards me, you agree this is wrong. Right?

Once again you are wrong, Short Bus.

I dont agree with you

THREAD FAIL!

 

[Nostra]

I live in a world where your lies need to be identified and then ignored

Why did the IRS have to apologize to conservative groups for targeting them?

 

[struth]

Honestly, they knew that every lawsuit would never pass the appeal process.

They were simply trying to make him unelectable again.

Largest fail in political history, I would say.

Of course all the cases were only brought after he announced he was running

It’s was made clear had he gotten out the cases cases would of all gone away

 

[berg80]

I'm not sure we can fully discuss this topic without addressing the fact that Biden's DoJ was never weaponized. Garland, reluctantly, appointed Jack Smith who painstakingly went about amassing an overwhelming body of evidence against trump and his co-defendants. He obtained grand jury indictments.

That isn't weaponization. That's the pursuit of justice.

This is what weaponization looks like.

James Comey, a former director of the FBI, was indicted on two criminal counts on Sept. 25 by a federal grand jury in Virginia. But the barely two-page indictment provides very little information about the underlying evidence for the charges of lying to Congress.

The indictment came just days after President Donald Trump publicly pressed the Department of Justice to prosecute Comey and installed Lindsey Halligan as the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan, a former personal attorney for Trump, replaced Erik Siebert, who was pushed out of the position.

ABC News reported, based on anonymous sources, that Siebert and other career prosecutors who led the investigation of Comey had believed there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against him. It was Halligan, who had no prior experience as a prosecutor, who presented the case to the grand jury.

Evidence Behind Comey Indictment Is Unclear - FactCheck.org

Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted by a federal grand jury on Sept. 25 for lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding. In this story, we cover the few details we know about the indictment and what Comey told Congress.

www.factcheck.org

 

[dblack]

I'm not sure we can fully discuss this topic without addressing the fact that Biden's DoJ was never weaponized.

It doesn't matter. It was seen that way. And it was all completely predictable.

 

[Billiejeens]

It doesn't matter. It was seen that way. And it was all completely predictable.

It was seen that way, because it was.

 

[dblack]

It was seen that way, because it was.

I can't disagree.

Dems should have focused on winning the election, and went after him afterwards.

 

[berg80]

I'm not sure we can fully discuss this topic without addressing the fact that Biden's DoJ was never weaponized. Garland, reluctantly, appointed Jack Smith who painstakingly went about amassing an overwhelming body of evidence against trump and his co-defendants. He obtained grand jury indictments.

That isn't weaponization. That's the pursuit of justice.

This is what weaponization looks like.

James Comey, a former director of the FBI, was indicted on two criminal counts on Sept. 25 by a federal grand jury in Virginia. But the barely two-page indictment provides very little information about the underlying evidence for the charges of lying to Congress.

The indictment came just days after President Donald Trump publicly pressed the Department of Justice to prosecute Comey and installed Lindsey Halligan as the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan, a former personal attorney for Trump, replaced Erik Siebert, who was pushed out of the position.

ABC News reported, based on anonymous sources, that Siebert and other career prosecutors who led the investigation of Comey had believed there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against him. It was Halligan, who had no prior experience as a prosecutor, who presented the case to the grand jury.

Evidence Behind Comey Indictment Is Unclear - FactCheck.org

Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted by a federal grand jury on Sept. 25 for lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding. In this story, we cover the few details we know about the indictment and what Comey told Congress.

www.factcheck.org

Members of the J/6 mob were tried and convicted. Not on made up charges like the arrangement of seashells on a beach or bogus accusations of criminal cost overruns at the Fed building. In some cases for violently attacking police officers.

The DoJ didn't prosecute trump because he raped Carroll or because he serially submitted falsified tax documents. NY state and or NYC did.

 

[berg80]

I can't disagree.

Dems should have focused on winning the election, and went after him afterwards.

Am I to understand our system of justice should have been sidelined for a period of time after trump plotted to steal the 2020 election and defied a subpoena for the return of stolen, classified documents? That's not how things are designed to work and no reputable AG doing his job for the people would have allowed it.

 

[dblack]

Am I to understand our system of justice should have been sidelined for a period of time after trump plotted to steal the 2020 election and defied a subpoena for the return of stolen, classified documents?

Yes. Politics is like that sometimes. It's all history now, but it looks like Dems are lined up to make the same mistake again, if they take Congress in the midterms.

 

[Billiejeens]

I can't disagree.

Dems should have focused on winning the election, and went after him afterwards.

after the election they would have had no reason to go after him

 

[dblack]

after the election they would have had no reason to go after him

If he's committed crimes, they'd have just as much reason to prosecute him after.