• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump’s Lie of the Day, or the Hour, or....

iguanaman said:
Al Capone was not convicted for any of his crimes either, they finally got him on tax evasion. Trump is another Al Capone. Was he a criminal?
Click to expand...

So you share the same delusion, then.

The witch hunt goes on, the lynch mob grows and the justification for breaking laws to "get him, boys" is that the guy is a bad guy.

Never mind proof or evidence.

What is wrong with you guys?
 
code1211 said:
I DO think.

You have not defined what the topic(s) of the email were.

Maybe the guy in Iowa to whom the email was sent was threatening to bomb the company's headquarters. I don't know. Do you?

There might be some regulation preventing the attorneys licensed to work in Florida from doing this work in Iowa directly. I don't know. Do you?

Obviously, there are huge differences between being an employee and being a contractor. This is something that I DO know. Do you?

As with most things charged by politicians, the recent Kavanaugh Hearings being a great example, half truths, lies and innuendo are no substitute for actual proven facts.

This looks and smells like just another hit job by a political party and the media propagandists more than willing to do their dirty work for them. What facts are included, left out or made up? We won't know for some time. I don't know. Do you?
Click to expand...

Here is more information to answer your questions. By the way, the Scam company was found guilty and had to pay back $26 million to the people it scammed. Other board members, such as Whitaker, were asked to return what the company paid them and all but Whitaker have done so.

Below is an except from this article as well as the link to the article:

"By contrast, Whitaker, who was paid $9,375, appears to have played an active role in the firm’s activities:

Whitaker actively promoted the firm. A December 2014 company press release quoted Mr. Whitaker as saying, “As a former US Attorney, I would only align myself with a first class organization. World Patent Marketing goes beyond making statements about doing business ‘ethically’ and translates them into action.”
Whitaker appeared in at least two promotional videos the firm posted on its website.
Whitaker threatened disgruntled customers. In August 2015, he wrote an email on the company’s behalf to an unhappy customer, citing his background as a former U.S. Attorney and threatening the customer with “serious civil and criminal consequences.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2018/11/10/fbi-is-investigating-criminal-charges-against-firm-the-acting-attorney-general-advised/#7799c9111c59
 
code1211 said:
You are obviously a partisan hack with no tether to reality.

You excuse anything, ANYTHING, that does not attack the opponent and amplify anything that does.

The point is this: There was never a crime defined to investigate. The only thing defined was the person to investigate.

This is not how our system is supposed to work. PEOPLE are innocent until proven guilty.

Mueller's charge was akin to a police state: This is the man we're after. Now, find a crime we can hang him with.

This is, obviously, the exact opposite of the approach taken with Hillary: This is the crime we are trying to hide. Now destroy any evidence or refuse to investigate it until it goes away.

It's been more than two years and still nothing. How much nothing do you need to find until you accept that it just ani't there?

How do you feel about Big Foot marrying a Space Alien?
Click to expand...

Funny post. Then again what you did not answer is the real meat of the matter. Why did Trump hire such people? 6 have already either pleaded guilty or have been found guilty and the other 3 I mentioned (Pruitt, Scott, and Porter) had to be fired because of misdeeds.

When the adage says "tell me who you associate with and I will tell you who you are", it means exactly that. Trump has associated himself with crooks and thieves and unscrupulous people, suggesting that he too is a crook, a thief, and unscrupulous.

You can paint it anyway you want, trying to excuse him by saying "people are innocent until proven guilty" is hogwash. Was Stalin or Hitler or Kim Jung-un or even recently the Saudis and the Kashoggi murder ever found guilty by a judge? No, but they were guilty.

So don't hit me with this hogwash. If you are incapable of defining evil and wrong doing by yourself and need a judge to convince you of guilt, then you have no ability to say anything to me or to anyone to the contrary.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
It's been 2 years and 37 indictments and 6 guilty pleas and Mueller has not even released his report yet. That is hardly nothing...Nothing is the 3 year long Benghazi investigation, nothing is the E-mail investigation of Hillary Clinton. How many guilty pleas do you need to hear before you realize that Trump is guilty?
Click to expand...

What are the guilty pleas in connection to? is there anyone else that is guilty because of this whole sham?

The investigation is supposed to uncover the colluuuuusion of the Trump campaign with the "Russians" to affect the outcome of the election. That's precisely what is not being found. Everything that is being found that you seem to think is so important are process related and the result of the extortion by the Inquisitors. Nothing has anything to do at all with the campaign.

If the extortion was never applied by the government, the pleas would never have been submitted. My favorite is the threat to go after Flynn's son. The breaking in of the front doors while the household is sleeping is another good one.

Compare that to the treatment of the Dems who asked that they not be investigated and the FBI said, "Okie dokie!"

Trump's only crime was winning the Presidency. Neither the FBI nor the Political parties were prepared for the Trump victory. The only people actively planning for it were the FBI higher ups.

Are you saying that Hillary did NOT have an illegal server in her private residence while she was the SOS? What rock are living under?

Regarding Benghazi, hiding under his bed and wetting his pants instead of acting when needed is not a criminal act so Obama was not convicted of anything.

The political fund raiser wasn't going to key note itself. The Big 0 had more important things to do.
 
code1211 said:
What are the guilty pleas in connection to? is there anyone else that is guilty because of this whole sham?

The investigation is supposed to uncover the colluuuuusion of the Trump campaign with the "Russians" to affect the outcome of the election. That's precisely what is not being found. Everything that is being found that you seem to think is so important are process related and the result of the extortion by the Inquisitors. Nothing has anything to do at all with the campaign.

If the extortion was never applied by the government, the pleas would never have been submitted. My favorite is the threat to go after Flynn's son. The breaking in of the front doors while the household is sleeping is another good one.

Compare that to the treatment of the Dems who asked that they not be investigated and the FBI said, "Okie dokie!"

Trump's only crime was winning the Presidency. Neither the FBI nor the Political parties were prepared for the Trump victory. The only people actively planning for it were the FBI higher ups.

Are you saying that Hillary did NOT have an illegal server in her private residence while she was the SOS? What rock are living under?

Regarding Benghazi, hiding under his bed and wetting his pants instead of acting when needed is not a criminal act so Obama was not convicted of anything.

The political fund raiser wasn't going to key note itself. The Big 0 had more important things to do.
Click to expand...

So I suppose these nonsensical posts about no conspiracy charges will go away when Roger Stone and Don Jr are indicted. I don't think you will have long to wait on Roger Stone and I doubt will on Don Jr either. In fact, I would not be surprised if there are sealed indictments for both them right now.
 
code1211 said:
What are the guilty pleas in connection to? is there anyone else that is guilty because of this whole sham?

The investigation is supposed to uncover the colluuuuusion of the Trump campaign with the "Russians" to affect the outcome of the election. That's precisely what is not being found. Everything that is being found that you seem to think is so important are process related and the result of the extortion by the Inquisitors. Nothing has anything to do at all with the campaign.

If the extortion was never applied by the government, the pleas would never have been submitted. My favorite is the threat to go after Flynn's son. The breaking in of the front doors while the household is sleeping is another good one.

Compare that to the treatment of the Dems who asked that they not be investigated and the FBI said, "Okie dokie!"

Trump's only crime was winning the Presidency. Neither the FBI nor the Political parties were prepared for the Trump victory. The only people actively planning for it were the FBI higher ups.

Are you saying that Hillary did NOT have an illegal server in her private residence while she was the SOS? What rock are living under?

Regarding Benghazi, hiding under his bed and wetting his pants instead of acting when needed is not a criminal act so Obama was not convicted of anything.

The political fund raiser wasn't going to key note itself. The Big 0 had more important things to do.
Click to expand...

Boy are you going to hate what happens next year. There will be non-stop hearings on Trump's crooked cabinet members as well as his family who are all deeply involved in the criminal activity Mueller is investigating. More lies will be exposed when Trump's tax returns are turned over to the House. It is going to be exciting to see where Trumps money is actually coming from don't you think? Oh and Trump's campaign manager and National Security advisor will be checking in to JAIL. I bet Flynn had no idea that he would be the one "locked up" while he was leading those chants..:lamo
 
Last edited:
Luckyone said:
Here is more information to answer your questions. By the way, the Scam company was found guilty and had to pay back $26 million to the people it scammed. Other board members, such as Whitaker, were asked to return what the company paid them and all but Whitaker have done so.

Below is an except from this article as well as the link to the article:

"By contrast, Whitaker, who was paid $9,375, appears to have played an active role in the firm’s activities:

Whitaker actively promoted the firm. A December 2014 company press release quoted Mr. Whitaker as saying, “As a former US Attorney, I would only align myself with a first class organization. World Patent Marketing goes beyond making statements about doing business ‘ethically’ and translates them into action.”
Whitaker appeared in at least two promotional videos the firm posted on its website.
Whitaker threatened disgruntled customers. In August 2015, he wrote an email on the company’s behalf to an unhappy customer, citing his background as a former U.S. Attorney and threatening the customer with “serious civil and criminal consequences.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2018/11/10/fbi-is-investigating-criminal-charges-against-firm-the-acting-attorney-general-advised/#7799c9111c59
Click to expand...

In the article you posted, Whitaker is NOT named as a board member.

The wording in the article is very tricky. It says the firm and the owner lost a civil suit and are under investigation by the FBI. Obviously, no criminal charge.

The article specifically says that no board member did much to work the bad things discussed. This is where the wording gets tricky. In the next sentence, the article implies without saying it that Whitaker was a central player in the swindles.

The writer of this piece is pretty slippery with his wording. He is perhaps a lawyer himself.

As always, though, if the accused is a Republican, there is no presumption of innocence. That is reserved for Democrats.

So, is Whitaker a crook or not? I don't know. He's a lawyer and is working in Washington DC so it's likely that he is. But the fact is, I don't know. Do you?
 
Luckyone said:
Funny post. Then again what you did not answer is the real meat of the matter. Why did Trump hire such people? 6 have already either pleaded guilty or have been found guilty and the other 3 I mentioned (Pruitt, Scott, and Porter) had to be fired because of misdeeds.

When the adage says "tell me who you associate with and I will tell you who you are", it means exactly that. Trump has associated himself with crooks and thieves and unscrupulous people, suggesting that he too is a crook, a thief, and unscrupulous.

You can paint it anyway you want, trying to excuse him by saying "people are innocent until proven guilty" is hogwash. Was Stalin or Hitler or Kim Jung-un or even recently the Saudis and the Kashoggi murder ever found guilty by a judge? No, but they were guilty.

So don't hit me with this hogwash. If you are incapable of defining evil and wrong doing by yourself and need a judge to convince you of guilt, then you have no ability to say anything to me or to anyone to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Your thinking is astonishing.

Michael Flynn is one of the folks you are citing as the criminal element with whom Trump associates himself.

After spending his life in service to our country, Flynn accepted appointment to the office of National Security Advisor. He then spoke to someone in preparation for his post. That was not, however, his crime.

He pled to the charge of lying to the FBI.

Mueller and his goons harassed him using their unlimited budget, bankrupting him in court, terrorizing him and his family in Flynn's home and finally threatening Flynn that the goons would do the same to Flynn's son if he didn't confess.

These are the tactics you defend.

You then go on to pronounce the basis of our legal system's protections for individuals to be "Hogwash".

On your list of heinous criminals who are guilty, you omitted Hillary. She's filthy rich and free while Flynn is a broken man.

As far as I know, Hillary was associated with crooks, did illegal things, left plenty of proof that was actively ignored by law enforcement and never got in any trouble for it.

Compare the treatment of Hillary to the treatment of Flynn and you start to get a feel for the insanity that guides what could be a pretty good legal justice system.

Sadly, the actions are less and less often legal and the result is less and less often justice.
 
jnug said:
So I suppose these nonsensical posts about no conspiracy charges will go away when Roger Stone and Don Jr are indicted. I don't think you will have long to wait on Roger Stone and I doubt will on Don Jr either. In fact, I would not be surprised if there are sealed indictments for both them right now.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. Conspiracy? Conspiracy to do what?

Judging from your post, I would guess that you are surprised very often.

I hope for some things and expect other things. Hoping for a thing does not make it any more likely to occur.

You seem to have hope and reasonable expectation confused in your anticipation.
 
Mary Dunsmore said:
Look, I live in the UK, and I really can't see why you dislike Trump so much. It's obvious he wants what is best for the USA, rather than what is best for the rest of the world. The government in the UK is more interested in giving £4b to African aid than putting the money into a crumbling NHS. If Trump was our Prime Minister that would never have happened. You have a president who at long last wants to reduce and control immigration, where as your last president gave amnesty to thousands and thousands of illegal immigrants. If I were American I would have been throwing eggs at the white house when that idiot made such a stupid decision. Your economy is doing great, and many people feel there is a great feel good factor again. Being left is being socialist, and honestly, socialism really doesn't work. I certainly don't agree with all his policies, and I accept he can be a bit of a dinosaur, but your alternative would have a been a stupid woman who would have spent more time choosing handbags and shoes than actually making any serious decisions. At the time many people hated Thatcher, but she has gone down as probably the best prime minister the UK has ever had. Thatcher was a strong leader, and one who wasn't scared of making decisions, some of which upset people. Trump is another Thatcher, and you should be proud you have him !!
Click to expand...

Some of us require integrity in a leader, some not so much.
 
iguanaman said:
Boy are you going to hate what happens next year. There will be non-stop hearings on Trump's crooked cabinet members as well as his family who are all deeply involved in the criminal activity Mueller is investigating. More lies will be exposed when Trump's tax returns are turned over to the House. It is going to be exciting to see where Trumps money is actually coming from don't you think? Oh and Trump's campaign manager and National Security advisor will be checking in to JAIL. I bet Flynn had no idea that he would be the one "locked up" while he was leading those chants..:lamo
Click to expand...

What is the crime to which Flynn pled guilty? I'm pleased that you're laughing. It's good for your physical health.

The Democrats conducting the investigation for which you hope already showed us who they are during the Kavanaugh Hearings: Partisan attack dogs with no integrity and no interest in facts, truth, honesty or justice.

If you liked the Spanish Inquisition, you're going to love these guys. Only the most blindly partisan will not be disgusted by their tactics. Again.

What is the legal requirement that justifies the demand to have "Trump's tax returns ... turned over to the House"? One source we can eliminate for Trump's income is his salary as President. He doesn't take one.

Did Flynn lead those "Lock Her Up" chants? Is he still at the rallies when those chants spontaneously erupt? Do these chants require "leading"?
 
code1211 said:
In the article you posted, Whitaker is NOT named as a board member.

The wording in the article is very tricky. It says the firm and the owner lost a civil suit and are under investigation by the FBI. Obviously, no criminal charge.

The article specifically says that no board member did much to work the bad things discussed. This is where the wording gets tricky. In the next sentence, the article implies without saying it that Whitaker was a central player in the swindles.

The writer of this piece is pretty slippery with his wording. He is perhaps a lawyer himself.

As always, though, if the accused is a Republican, there is no presumption of innocence. That is reserved for Democrats.

So, is Whitaker a crook or not? I don't know. He's a lawyer and is working in Washington DC so it's likely that he is. But the fact is, I don't know. Do you?
Click to expand...

I do know that he has no qualifications for being Attorney General and that his naming by Trump is a way to either get information of the Mueller probe or stop it. It is a crooked thing to do by Trump
 
Luckyone said:
I do know that he has no qualifications for being Attorney General and that his naming by Trump is a way to either get information of the Mueller probe or stop it. It is a crooked thing to do by Trump
Click to expand...

What are the qualifications to be the AG?

How do you KNOW what the motivations for his appointment might have been?

What is the process by which you believe this harvest of information will occur and how do you KNOW this will result in the harvest of info or the end of the witch hunt?

By what metric do you gauge 'crooked"? From what I've seen of the methods and practices employed by Mueller,"crooked" applies to most of what Mueller's done.
 
code1211 said:
Your thinking is astonishing.

Michael Flynn is one of the folks you are citing as the criminal element with whom Trump associates himself.

After spending his life in service to our country, Flynn accepted appointment to the office of National Security Advisor. He then spoke to someone in preparation for his post. That was not, however, his crime.

He pled to the charge of lying to the FBI.

Mueller and his goons harassed him using their unlimited budget, bankrupting him in court, terrorizing him and his family in Flynn's home and finally threatening Flynn that the goons would do the same to Flynn's son if he didn't confess.

These are the tactics you defend.

You then go on to pronounce the basis of our legal system's protections for individuals to be "Hogwash".

On your list of heinous criminals who are guilty, you omitted Hillary. She's filthy rich and free while Flynn is a broken man.

As far as I know, Hillary was associated with crooks, did illegal things, left plenty of proof that was actively ignored by law enforcement and never got in any trouble for it.

Compare the treatment of Hillary to the treatment of Flynn and you start to get a feel for the insanity that guides what could be a pretty good legal justice system.

Sadly, the actions are less and less often legal and the result is less and less often justice.
Click to expand...

It is funny that you are keying on Flynn but did not address all the other people that have plead guilty.

First of all, nn innocent man does not plead guilty. Flynn plead guilty to lying about "his" association with the Russians. Nonetheless, it doesn't stop there. He had been accused of in inappropriately sharing classified information, being paid by Russia for speeches, failing to disclose he was working for Turkey and in general lying about all of it.

I don't know about you, but I personally see Russia as an enemy of the U.S. and anyone that is found working for them or with them and then lying about it is crooked. When you are not doing anything that you personally consider wrong, you don't lie about it. He even lied to Trump himself, meaning he had his own agenda.

As far as Hillary is concerned, at this point it does not matter because she is no longer in charge or in the picture. Trump is, meaning that his actions have to be discussed as it can affect us now and in the future. Hillary is past affecting us in any way. She is now "old news" and no reason to bring her name up at this time.

By the way, you also did not address my point about all the associations that Trump has and the people he has chosen to work for him. Bottom line is that they are mostly all crooks and/or liars. lThe few that he chose that weren't (McMasters and Tillerson) he got rid of them and is also considering getting rid of Mathis. All of these people are people of honor and integrity and seeing that he has gotten rid of them, suggests that he does not want honor and integrity people near him. He is a crook, simple evaluation.
 
code1211 said:
What are the qualifications to be the AG?

How do you KNOW what the motivations for his appointment might have been?

What is the process by which you believe this harvest of information will occur and how do you KNOW this will result in the harvest of info or the end of the witch hunt?

By what metric do you gauge 'crooked"? From what I've seen of the methods and practices employed by Mueller,"crooked" applies to most of what Mueller's done.
Click to expand...

Well, since you are asking me about his qualifications that suggests that you know what they are. Tell me what qualifies Whitaker for AG.

I do know that this is some of his bio:


Whitaker, who is now 49 years old, grew up in Iowa and attended the University of Iowa for college and then law school. After a relatively undistinguished legal career, he’d made enough friends in high places to become one of three people Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) recommended to George W. Bush for a US attorney post in 2004. He got the job. (A Des Moines Register article announcing his appointment focused mainly on the fact that he played college football.)


In his five-year stint as US attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, Whitaker proved willing to court political controversy. In 2007, he was criticized for participating in an event for the Iowa Christian Alliance, a conservative-leaning political group. That same year, he indicted state Sen. Matt McCoy for alleged crimes involving his business. McCoy was eventually acquitted, and he’s argued that his prosecution was political — that the ambitious Whitaker wanted to “give the evangelical right” a “trophy” by prosecuting him, a prominent gay Democratic politician.

After exiting the US attorney’s post in 2009, Whitaker returned to law and bounced around various unsuccessful GOP political campaigns in Iowa. He also ran for US Senate in 2014, when he argued that judges should have “a biblical view of justice” and not “a secular world view” (he finished fourth in the GOP primary).

But Whitaker became better-known among national conservatives once he landed a plum gig at a conservative nonprofit group, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT). At first, the group, funded by anonymous conservative donors, was all about getting Whitaker into the press so that he, a former US attorney, could accuse Hillary Clinton of committing crimes. (“I would indict Hillary Clinton,” he wrote in a 2016 USA Today op-ed.)

When Trump won, Whitaker pivoted — his new job seemed to be arguing that Trump and his associates didn’t commit crimes, particularly in relation to Mueller’s investigation. This hackishness landed Whitaker a CNN contributor gig, since the network wanted some reliable Trump defenders.

Whitaker reportedly said privately that his goal with these on-air remarks was to impress the cable TV-obsessed president and get nominated as a judge. It partly worked — the New York Times reports that Trump did enjoy Whitaker’s TV appearances. But the president had other plans for him.

and here is a link to an article about his bias against the Democrats. An AG is now supposed to have any bias, which in turn disqualifies him for the job.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/415637-5-things-to-know-about-new-acting-attorney-general-matthew-whitaker
 
code1211 said:
What is the crime to which Flynn pled guilty? I'm pleased that you're laughing. It's good for your physical health.

The Democrats conducting the investigation for which you hope already showed us who they are during the Kavanaugh Hearings: Partisan attack dogs with no integrity and no interest in facts, truth, honesty or justice.

If you liked the Spanish Inquisition, you're going to love these guys. Only the most blindly partisan will not be disgusted by their tactics. Again.

What is the legal requirement that justifies the demand to have "Trump's tax returns ... turned over to the House"? One source we can eliminate for Trump's income is his salary as President. He doesn't take one.

Did Flynn lead those "Lock Her Up" chants? Is he still at the rallies when those chants spontaneously erupt? Do these chants require "leading"?
Click to expand...

The "legal requirement" is called Congressional oversight and Trumps finances are part of it. Don't you want to know where Trump's money is coming from and whether it is effecting our relationships with other nations like Saudi Arabia? Trump is the first President in 50 years to not release his returns, don't you wonder why that is? Kavanaugh is yet another matter that needs to be fully investigated and his accusers will be heard in a much less rushed situation like justice demands. I also doubt you will feel sorry for Flynn once you hear what he has revealed about Trump and Putin. I bet you will be joining in a "lock him up" chant.
 
code1211 said:
What is the crime to which Flynn pled guilty? I'm pleased that you're laughing. It's good for your physical health.

The Democrats conducting the investigation for which you hope already showed us who they are during the Kavanaugh Hearings: Partisan attack dogs with no integrity and no interest in facts, truth, honesty or justice.

If you liked the Spanish Inquisition, you're going to love these guys. Only the most blindly partisan will not be disgusted by their tactics. Again.

What is the legal requirement that justifies the demand to have "Trump's tax returns ... turned over to the House"? One source we can eliminate for Trump's income is his salary as President. He doesn't take one.

Did Flynn lead those "Lock Her Up" chants? Is he still at the rallies when those chants spontaneously erupt? Do these chants require "leading"?
Click to expand...

Code, let me ask you a hypothetical question about Trump's tax returns and I am going to use an extreme example but it is one that makes the point.

Let us say that Trump made all of his money by peddling kids to pedophiles and women to sex trafficking. Would you still support him for President if that was found out through his tax returns?

If you say yes, then you are as bad as he is and if you say no, then it makes no sense for you to support him not releasing his tax returns.

We (the American public) have a right to know where and how Trump is getting his money. After all, we could be supporting someone that does not represent our humanity values.
 
Luckyone said:
Well, since you are asking me about his qualifications that suggests that you know what they are. Tell me what qualifies Whitaker for AG.

I do know that this is some of his bio:


Whitaker, who is now 49 years old, grew up in Iowa and attended the University of Iowa for college and then law school. After a relatively undistinguished legal career, he’d made enough friends in high places to become one of three people Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) recommended to George W. Bush for a US attorney post in 2004. He got the job. (A Des Moines Register article announcing his appointment focused mainly on the fact that he played college football.)


In his five-year stint as US attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, Whitaker proved willing to court political controversy. In 2007, he was criticized for participating in an event for the Iowa Christian Alliance, a conservative-leaning political group. That same year, he indicted state Sen. Matt McCoy for alleged crimes involving his business. McCoy was eventually acquitted, and he’s argued that his prosecution was political — that the ambitious Whitaker wanted to “give the evangelical right” a “trophy” by prosecuting him, a prominent gay Democratic politician.

After exiting the US attorney’s post in 2009, Whitaker returned to law and bounced around various unsuccessful GOP political campaigns in Iowa. He also ran for US Senate in 2014, when he argued that judges should have “a biblical view of justice” and not “a secular world view” (he finished fourth in the GOP primary).

But Whitaker became better-known among national conservatives once he landed a plum gig at a conservative nonprofit group, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT). At first, the group, funded by anonymous conservative donors, was all about getting Whitaker into the press so that he, a former US attorney, could accuse Hillary Clinton of committing crimes. (“I would indict Hillary Clinton,” he wrote in a 2016 USA Today op-ed.)

When Trump won, Whitaker pivoted — his new job seemed to be arguing that Trump and his associates didn’t commit crimes, particularly in relation to Mueller’s investigation. This hackishness landed Whitaker a CNN contributor gig, since the network wanted some reliable Trump defenders.

Whitaker reportedly said privately that his goal with these on-air remarks was to impress the cable TV-obsessed president and get nominated as a judge. It partly worked — the New York Times reports that Trump did enjoy Whitaker’s TV appearances. But the president had other plans for him.

and here is a link to an article about his bias against the Democrats. An AG is now supposed to have any bias, which in turn disqualifies him for the job.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/415637-5-things-to-know-about-new-acting-attorney-general-matthew-whitaker
Click to expand...

I didn't ask what qualified Whitaker to be AG.

You said that he was not qualified to be AG. My question indicated that I don't know if there are defined qualifications. In truth, I don't. Your comment implied that you know what specific qualifications are demanded to be AG AND that Whitaker does not meet them.

I asked what the qualifications to be AG might be. Are they specified somewhere? You seemed to indicate by your statement that they are. What are they?

Care to try again?

In passing, I assume the last sentence of your post contains a typo, but, as written, it applies to Holder quite well.
 
iguanaman said:
The "legal requirement" is called Congressional oversight and Trumps finances are part of it. Don't you want to know where Trump's money is coming from and whether it is effecting our relationships with other nations like Saudi Arabia? Trump is the first President in 50 years to not release his returns, don't you wonder why that is? Kavanaugh is yet another matter that needs to be fully investigated and his accusers will be heard in a much less rushed situation like justice demands. I also doubt you will feel sorry for Flynn once you hear what he has revealed about Trump and Putin. I bet you will be joining in a "lock him up" chant.
Click to expand...

What has Flynn revealed about Trump and Putin? I didn't know this was public yet.

What evidence has been presented by any of Kavanaugh's accusers? I didn't hear any from anyone.

Regarding the tax returns, then, there is no legal requirement that you can reference. You seem to be conjuring something that does not exist.

I DO know what the reason is that he does not want to release them. He doesn't want his finances examined by morons who will lie about them to idiots.

Are you trying to make a case that Trump is the FIRST POTUS to ever bow to the Saudis? I seem to remember a picture...

In any case, though, Trump's policies on domestic oil production are the most devastating attack on the OPEC Nations, including SA, ever launched. This reveals to me an independence from the Saudis not enjoyed since whale oil was a thing.
 
Last edited:
Luckyone said:
Code, let me ask you a hypothetical question about Trump's tax returns and I am going to use an extreme example but it is one that makes the point.

Let us say that Trump made all of his money by peddling kids to pedophiles and women to sex trafficking. Would you still support him for President if that was found out through his tax returns?

If you say yes, then you are as bad as he is and if you say no, then it makes no sense for you to support him not releasing his tax returns.

We (the American public) have a right to know where and how Trump is getting his money. After all, we could be supporting someone that does not represent our humanity values.
Click to expand...

What is it with you guys? What are you talking about? You have taken leave of anything connected to reality.
 
code1211 said:
I didn't ask what qualified Whitaker to be AG.

You said that he was not qualified to be AG. My question indicated that I don't know if there are defined qualifications. In truth, I don't. Your comment implied that you know what specific qualifications are demanded to be AG AND that Whitaker does not meet them.

I asked what the qualifications to be AG might be. Are they specified somewhere? You seemed to indicate by your statement that they are. What are they?

Care to try again?

In passing, I assume the last sentence of your post contains a typo, but, as written, it applies to Holder quite well.
Click to expand...

Ethical qualifications for Attorney General are to be unbiased. Whitaker has already shown a strong bias for Trump.
 
code1211 said:
What is it with you guys? What are you talking about? You have taken leave of anything connected to reality.
Click to expand...

It is a simple question and you refused to answer. That says a lot.

Very simply, it does matter where Trump has gotten is money. It does not have to be by peddling kids to pedophiles, it does not have to be by peddling women to sex trafficking. It might just be from offering corruption to the Mafia, or by selling our interests to Russia. It could easily be by selling America out to special interest groups.

Bottom line, is that knowing where our President is getting his income should be a must for any President to show. Trump is the only President that has not shown his tax returns, meaning there is something there he does not want the public to know about.

This is the only way that the people can back/support a President confidently and in an ethical way.

I will ask you the same question but in a different way. Would you still support Trump if you found out that he had made his fortune in an unethical way?
 
Luckyone said:
Ethical qualifications for Attorney General are to be unbiased. Whitaker has already shown a strong bias for Trump.
Click to expand...

As Holder did for Obama. What's your point?
 
Luckyone said:
It is a simple question and you refused to answer. That says a lot.

Very simply, it does matter where Trump has gotten is money. It does not have to be by peddling kids to pedophiles, it does not have to be by peddling women to sex trafficking. It might just be from offering corruption to the Mafia, or by selling our interests to Russia. It could easily be by selling America out to special interest groups.

Bottom line, is that knowing where our President is getting his income should be a must for any President to show. Trump is the only President that has not shown his tax returns, meaning there is something there he does not want the public to know about.

This is the only way that the people can back/support a President confidently and in an ethical way.

I will ask you the same question but in a different way. Would you still support Trump if you found out that he had made his fortune in an unethical way?
Click to expand...

You have jumped off the sanity train.

Why not talk about reality instead of your masturbatory fantasies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom