Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2466 of 4573 (839288)
09-05-2018 9:33 PM


Deep Throat II
Past my bedtime, keeping this short. Today an anonymous senior official in the Trump administration published an op-ed piece in the New York Times, here’s an article about the Trump White House reaction: Trump Aides Seek Out Traitor in the White House
Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2469 of 4573 (839502)
09-09-2018 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 2468 by marc9000
09-08-2018 11:25 AM


marc9000 writes:
Yet no one in the news media today seems to be labeling as temper tantrums what we're all seeing from todays news media. How about the interruptions in the Kavanaugh hearings?
What press interruptions of the Kavanaugh hearings?
And if it actually is fake news, the news media thinks the first amendment shields them from criticism. This is the first time they've had a president stand up to them, and they don't know exactly what to do yet, except have temper tantrums.
Fake news is a fake allegation invented by the right to avoid responding meaningfully to fact-based reporting.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2468 by marc9000, posted 09-08-2018 11:25 AM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2470 by marc9000, posted 09-09-2018 8:28 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2472 of 4573 (839549)
09-10-2018 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 2470 by marc9000
09-09-2018 8:28 PM


marc9000 writes:
marc9000 writes:
Yet no one in the news media today seems to be labeling as temper tantrums what we're all seeing from todays news media. How about the interruptions in the Kavanaugh hearings?
What press interruptions of the Kavanaugh hearings?
I was referring to the lack of labeling of all of todays leftist temper tantrums.
I actually didn't comment on that first sentence. Why would the news media label their own reporting as temper tantrums? I can see Fox News making this criticism of more moderate outlets.
There were none that I know of by the press at the Kavanaugh hearings, those were done by Democrat senators and paid protesters.
Yes, this is true, the proceedings were interrupted and impeded by Democratic senators and protesters. What makes you think the protesters were paid?
Yet they were very similar in nature to the anger put fourth by the press in the press briefing room on a daily basis.
Do you have any videos of press anger being displayed during press briefings? Given that there were only three White House press briefings in the month of August, for example, how is it possible for this anger to be displayed (quoting you) "on a daily basis"?
I didn't post here this time to try to convince any of you that today's angry outbursts by the press / Democrat senators / paid protesters etc are better labeled as temper tantrums than the actions of voters who decided to vote Republican in 1994, because I know my attempts at that would be futile.
Such attempts would not only be futile but stupid, especially for someone paid to post Trump propaganda to EvC (you see, anyone can make stuff up).
But I will go a little further to attempt to enlighten you on one thing that seems to be a false assumption by those on the left in general, that the news media being an "enemy of the people" isn't a view of only Trump and a small handful of his mind-numbed followers, that there is some evidence involved.
No one is asserting that the belief that the press is the "enemy of the people" is unique to Trump and his cronies and followers. Dictators and authoritarian rulers have denounced, shut down and put the press under state control since there was a press and long before Trump. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost," and when he referred to "our liberty" he meant everyone's liberty, not just those of a particular political party.
Judge Kavanaugh is no more radical than any other conservative justice,...
Conservative judges span the range from mainstream to radical. Kavanaugh seems to lean a bit toward the radical side given his writings on Roe v. Wade (not settled law) and the powers of the presidency (unlimited).
Were 60 votes required in the Senate for confirmation, as has been the case throughout the history of the republic until Republicans changed the rules in this most recent Congress, Kavanaugh would not have been nominated because he could not have garnered the necessary votes. Kavanaugh was added to the list of potential nominees and then gradually rose to the top as Trump's legal and constitutional problems worsened.
Yet the paid protestors at his hearing are far more numerous and disruptive than ever before.
How much are you being paid to lie about this?
If individuals like George Soros are involved in hiring them, what's to stop him from also dangling a lot of money in front of the news media, offering a really big prize to the first one who initiates a Trump removal from office?
I'm unable to parse this as saying anything other than something absurd. You just said that someone rich could offer a prize to the first news outlet to initiate a Trump removal from office. How would a news outlet do that exactly?
I suspect it's happened.
Uh, no.
Obama even broke with the tradition of past, mature presidents, and had a temper tantrum, 20 months out of office.
Here's a video of Obama's "temper tantrum". Please tell us where in the video this "temper tantrum" happens:
You are correct (for the first time in your post) to note that it is not common for past presidents to take an active role in campaigning.
Fake news is a fake allegation invented by the right to avoid responding meaningfully to fact-based reporting.
Yes you and I have already covered fake news earlier in this thread, I have no more to say about your denial of the obvious.
How can you "have no more to say" when you never had anything to say in the first place? Provide some examples of actual fake news from the mainstream press and maybe people will start listening to you. Until now you've just been blowing smoke. There's an old thread where a discussion of so-called fake news might be more appropriate: Fake polls, fake news
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2470 by marc9000, posted 09-09-2018 8:28 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2482 by marc9000, posted 09-16-2018 3:27 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2474 of 4573 (839686)
09-13-2018 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 2473 by caffeine
09-10-2018 12:44 PM


caffeine writes:
I find it odd that you're obsessing about something a journalist said slightly before I was born; but either he made a good point or he didn't. His citizenship status isn't really relevant in assessing that.
Years ago we used to watch the nightly news with Peter Jennings. That he was Canadian was just an interesting fact that made no difference at all, and I didn't even know he was Canadian until we'd been watching him for a couple years.
Like Marc I disagree (then and now) with Jenning's commentary about the 1994 midterm elections, otherwise known as the Republican Revolution where Republicans took over the House and Senate and many state legislatures, largely campaigning on a Newt Gingrich platform called the Contract with America. But many liberal commentators of the time agreed with Jennings.
The reality is that for some reason Americans like divided government, and the first midterm after a president is elected is usually most unkind to his party. I don't know that this phenomenon has ever been adequately explained.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2473 by caffeine, posted 09-10-2018 12:44 PM caffeine has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2475 of 4573 (839687)
09-13-2018 8:33 AM


Stephen Colbert Interviews Beto O'Rourke
Last night Stephen Colbert interviewed Beta O'Rourke who is running against Ted Cruz for Senator from Texas. Polls indicate the race is tied within the margin of error. In this interview O'Rourke indicates his opposition to many Trump policies. The interview is short and well worth watching:
I think he might have a chance.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 2477 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-14-2018 4:01 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2476 of 4573 (839742)
09-14-2018 12:28 PM


Manafort Pleads Guilty
Paul Manafort pleads guilty to conspiracy and obstruction and will cooperate in the Mueller investigation
This is big, that Manafort will cooperate with the Mueller investigation. Manafort was one of the Trump campaign attendees at the Trump Tower meeting with Russian representatives.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix grammar.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2492 by 1.61803, posted 09-18-2018 4:20 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2478 of 4573 (839759)
09-14-2018 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 2477 by Hyroglyphx
09-14-2018 4:01 PM


Re: Stephen Colbert Interviews Beto O'Rourke
Hyroglyphx writes:
Trump, for all of his faults, at least has the balls to actually be honest about who and what he is.
Honest isn't a word most people would associate with Trump. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Trump always speaks his mind without subterfuge, in the sense that he truly believes what he says is true.
Of course, when Trump's claims meet reality he doesn't fare too well. For example, check out In 2007, Trump was forced to face his own falsehoods. And he did, 30 times.
But, like I always do, I actually vote for candidates that I actually agree with and never choose the lesser of evils. If I find no 3rd Party candidate with better policies, Beto might be the first time I ever voted for a Democrat.
I've voted for Democrats and Republicans. I vote for the person I think would exercise the best judgment in office, though these days I have to include an adjustment for how clearly they perceive reality.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2477 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-14-2018 4:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2479 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-14-2018 10:24 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 2486 of 4573 (839820)
09-16-2018 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 2482 by marc9000
09-16-2018 3:27 PM


marc9000 writes:
Why would the news media label their own reporting as temper tantrums?
I would expect them to avoid committing something, (to a much larger extent) that they accused their opponents of previously doing.
You provide no evidence of these temper tantrums and are probably just making stuff up again.
Yes, this is true, the proceedings were interrupted and impeded by Democratic senators and protesters. What makes you think the protesters were paid?
See my above reply to Coragpys. Would you not consider incentives that the Woman's March people offer to not be "pay"?
You said the Kavanaugh protesters were paid. Now you're changing the subject. What is your evidence that the Kavanaugh protesters were paid? What is your evidence that participants in the 2017 Woman's March were paid?
Do you have any videos of press anger being displayed during press briefings?
Not that I'm going to take the time to find, but there have been plenty of them. If you don't believe they've ever happened, okay.
I know of only one, when Jim Acosta walked out of the White House press briefing when Sarah Sanders refused to acknowledge that the press is not the enemy of the people and then launched into an attack on Acosta and the press. If you can't provide any evidence of your claim then I assume it is just one more thing you've made up.
Given that there were only three White House press briefings in the month of August, for example, how is it possible for this anger to be displayed (quoting you) "on a daily basis"?
Well they're called "daily press briefings", but I see they're not so daily. They weren't daily with Obama either, but they did happen much more frequently. Josh Earnest undoubtedly enjoyed the love-fests. I don't know why Trump allows them at all now, their purpose should be to inform the news media, and therefore the people, about what's actually going on. They're useless now, just attack shows.
In other words, your claim that anger is displayed by the press at the White House press briefings on a daily basis is just one more thing you've made up.
No one is asserting that the belief that the press is the "enemy of the people" is unique to Trump and his cronies and followers. Dictators and authoritarian rulers have denounced, shut down and put the press under state control since there was a press and long before Trump.
But not in the U.S. Trump is not advocating shutting down, or state control of the press. He has a free speech right to call them on what they do.
On October 17, 2017, Trump tweeted:
quote:
With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!
So Trump has actually advocated shutting down the press.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost," and when he referred to "our liberty" he meant everyone's liberty, not just those of a particular political party.
I don't think he'd be crazy about a press that is so politically one-sided that it advocates "erecting a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers (EPA agents and global warming advocates) to harass our people, and eat out their substance."
Where has the mainstream press ever advocated this complaint from the Declaration of Independence? Wouldn't any writing engaging in such advocacy be in an editorial, not in the news?
Or for advocating "suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever."
Where has the mainstream press ever advocated this complaint from the Declaration of Independence?
Nothing is safe from the global warming hoax.
You're not only having trouble mustering evidence for your silly claims, you can't even stay on topic.
marc9000 writes:
Yet the paid protestors at his hearing are far more numerous and disruptive than ever before.
How much are you being paid to lie about this?
quote:
Within minutes of the start of Tuesday’s hearing, several protesters stood up in the back of the room and started yelling, interrupting Grassley’s opening remarks. Additional protests carried on throughout the day’s proceedings. (RELATED: Protesters Immediately Interrupt Second Day Of Kavanaugh Hearing)
While no one knows what will happen the rest of the week, Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn summed up the first day by saying, this is the first confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court Justice that I’ve seen, basically, according to mob rule.
We Cut Down All The Kavanaugh Hearing Interruptions Into Just Three Minutes And Five Seconds Of Pure Annoying [Video] | The Daily Caller
So you can name a previous Supreme Court hearing that was more disrupted than this one? You're more informed than John Cornyn?
That there were protesters is part of the public record. No one would dispute that. I was referring to your claim that the protesters were paid. Do you have evidence that the protesters were paid or are you making things up again?
I'm unable to parse this as saying anything other than something absurd. You just said that someone rich could offer a prize to the first news outlet to initiate a Trump removal from office. How would a news outlet do that exactly?
Here's a hint, FAKE NEWS. 91% negative coverage of an administration that has presided over a 4% GDP growth.
You still haven't explained how it makes any sense to claim that news outlets could initiate Trump's removal from office. If you have a problem with Trump's negative coverage I suggest you encourage him to stop plumbing the depths of how much worse than the worst president in history he can be, to stop engaging in pathological lying, to bring the chaos in his White House to a halt, and to stop hiring the worst and the dullest into his administration.
How can you "have no more to say" when you never had anything to say in the first place?
I pointed out the ~Trump "crossed a lot of lines"~ fake news in an earlier message.
I meant you had nothing to say of any substance. You're just throwing out baseless accusations in bunches.
91% negative coverage - the bias in the news against Trump is a simple fact. I have no more to say about it, to someone who denies the obvious.
Your "91% negative coverage" claim comes from the conservative Media Research Center (MRC). Most news reporting about Trump merely relates what he did or said, and if MRC wants to interpret what Trump does or says as negative then so be it.
Anyway, how does one report positively on things like plea bargains and guilty verdicts and denying Hurricane Maria fatalities in Puerto Rico and constantly attacking everyone on Twitter and denigrating American institutions and lying about the Trump Tower meeting and lying about the Stormy Daniels payoff and just lying and lying and lying. His own attorney John Dowd couldn't even get him to stop lying during a mock interview in preparation for an interview with Mueller's team.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2482 by marc9000, posted 09-16-2018 3:27 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2495 of 4573 (839964)
09-20-2018 7:41 AM


A timeline of events from the Russia Investigation: What we know so far
Certainly what is known publicly is much less than what Bob Mueller knows, but the New York Times has constructed a detailed timeline of what is publicly known about the Russia investigation accompanied by detailed descriptions of each event: A Timeline Showing the Full Scale of Russia’s Unprecedented Interference in the 2016 Election, and Its Aftermath. Here are a very few short excerpts from the event descriptions:
quote:
NOV. 3, 2015 In one of his emails to [Michael] Cohen, [Felix] Sater [Russian migr, Cohen friend and longtime Trump business associate] predicts that building a Trump Tower in Moscow will help Trump’s presidential campaign. I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected. DEC. 19, 2015 In another, Sater talks about securing financing from a Russian bank under American sanctions.
...
FEB. 10, 2016 The Internet Research Agency instructs workers to use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trumpwe support them). FEB. 29, 2016 Trump receives a letter from Aras Agalarov expressing great interest in his bright electoral campaign.
...
APRIL 18, 2016 The [unnamed London-based] professor introduces Papadopoulos to Ivan Timofeev, a Russian claiming to connections to the Russian foreign ministry. Russian hackers break into the D.N.C.’s computers. Papadopoulos has multiple conversations with Timofeev about setting up a meeting between the campaign and the Russian government. APRIL 19, 2016 Fake ad: JOIN our #HillaryClintonForPrison2016. Russian hackers create a fictitious online persona, DCLeaks, to release stolen documents. APRIL 22, 2016 Timofeev thanks Papadopoulos for an extensive talk and proposes meeting in London or Moscow. APRIL 25, 2016 Papadopoulos tells Stephen Miller, a top campaign adviser, that Putin wants to meet Trump.
What is publicly known seems already more than enough to prove conspiracy.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2498 of 4573 (839976)
09-20-2018 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 2497 by caffeine
09-20-2018 1:31 PM


Re: Walls again
Have you considered mining the US-Mexico border?
Yeah, that would do it. We don't need no wall. Or maybe this:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2497 by caffeine, posted 09-20-2018 1:31 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2500 of 4573 (840058)
09-23-2018 6:51 AM


Yet More Trump Persecution of immigrants
News outlets are today reporting that Trump is proposing to block visas and green cards for immigrants who have used food stamps, Medicaid or Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidy. See, for example, Trump admin rule would deny green cards to immigrants who took food stamps, Medicaid.
Why is Trump doing this? Because he believes immigrants are a net minus to the country rather than a net plus, despite that everyone in this country is an immigrant or descended from immigrants (even Native Americans, one could argue, the only difference being that they immigrated thousands of years before everyone else).
Here's my own brief immigrant history: My mother's side came over in the 1600s and soon began moving as far west as possible, eventually arriving in Calgary, Alberta, in the early twentieth century. My father's side came over in the late 1800's in a flood of Jewish immigrants fleeing Ukrainian pogroms. While the details differ, all our stories are the same: our ancestors came here from somewhere else as immigrants, and we built this country. Immigrants are our country's strength.
Trump seems to ignore that he himself is descended from relatively recent immigrants. Trump's grandparents immigrated (unwillingly after having been thrown out of Bavaria) in the early twentieth century. Trump's wife Melania is a very recent immigrant, as are her parents.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2504 of 4573 (840229)
09-25-2018 9:15 PM


Michael Avenatti in the News Again
Michael Avenatti is again in the news after his announcement that he has a client who also accuses Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual abuse. News articles tend to also mentioned in passing Avenatti's interest in exploring a possible run for the presidency in 2020, almost always in dismissive terms because of his background and lack of government experience. My sense is that most Democrats don't seem much interested, either. They want a traditional candidate.
I'm not a Democrat, but I'm reminded of a three decade old column by conservative George Will who wrote after Democrat Michael Dukakis lost the 1988 election to Republican George Herbert Walker Bush:
quote:
How many times does the electorate have to hit the Democratic Party across the bridge of the nose with a crowbar before the party gets the point? Remarkable beast, that party. Its nose wears out crowbars.
Whoever the Democrats nominate in 2020, he had better learn the lesson that is already part of Avenatti's makeup: the rules of the game have changed. That's what happens when a lying conniving but convincing populist runs. When Trump is out of power then we can return to traditional norms, but until then the emphasis has to be on making sure Trump isn't reelected in 2020 (not that a Republican isn't elected - that Trump isn't elected). If Trump runs again it may well take an Avenatti-style Democrat to effectively run against him.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 2505 of 4573 (840378)
09-28-2018 9:18 AM


Republicans Stunning lack of Honesty, Integrity and Sensitivity`
The Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee considering the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court yesterday displayed a stunning lack of honesty, integrity and sensitivity. There's enough material that one could easily get lost in the details, so I will keep this short. This is what I learned from yesterday's committee interviews of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh:
  • Dr. Ford's story of being sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh was highly credible.
  • Judge Kavanaugh displayed an extreme lack of judicial temperament and revealed himself as a Republican partisan, accusing Democrats and the Clintons of orchestrating attacks on him because of hard feelings about losing the 2016 presidential election.
  • Republicans on the committee revealed they have little interest in the truth by not only rejecting calls for an FBI investigation, but also refusing to give other accusers the same opportunity they gave Dr. Ford, namely Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnik. Swetnik is represented by Michael Avenatti, so it seems unlikely that she will just disappear from the public stage.
  • Republicans also had no interest in interviewing Marc Judge, Kavanaugh's close friend and the other alleged person in the room when Kavanaugh allegedly sexually attacked Ford.
  • Senator Lindsey Graham disgraced himself with an unprovoked tirade against committee Democrats.
  • Other supposedly rational and sympathetic Republicans were notable by their silence, namely Senator Jeff Flake, who sits on the committee, and Senator Susan Collins, who does not.
  • Republicans don't seem to realize that approving the nomination of Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court does not end things. If Democrats take over the House this fall then the House Judiciary committee can call for an FBI investigation and decide whether to open impeachment hearings based on the results. If Judge Kavanaugh thinks a stigma and a cloud are following him now, just wait until that happens. Unless Democrats also take over the Senate, which though more likely now than earlier this year is still unlikely, Justice Kavanaugh would not be convicted and removed from the bench, but just the impeachment itself would mean that he would be under great pressure to recuse himself from numerous cases involving women, including anything to do with Roe v. Wade.
That's my take.
--Percy
PS - The "t" on my laptop keyboard is still broken. I have an appointment with a supposed genius this afternoon.
I'm posting from my development machine, which I don't often do.
Edited by Percy, : In the original Senator Susan Collins was accidentally referred to as Senator Gail Collins.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2506 by Chiroptera, posted 09-28-2018 6:02 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2507 of 4573 (840411)
09-29-2018 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 2506 by Chiroptera
09-28-2018 6:02 PM


Re: Republicans Stunning lack of Honesty, Integrity and Sensitivity`
Chiroptera writes:
I've been thinking for a while, "Man, if he's confirmed, he's gonna be giving some pay-back."
Yeah, just a peach of a guy.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2506 by Chiroptera, posted 09-28-2018 6:02 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2509 by Chiroptera, posted 09-29-2018 11:40 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2508 of 4573 (840413)
09-29-2018 10:30 AM


Democrats Planning to Examine Trump Tax Returns
From Democrats planning to examine Trump’s tax returns after the midterms:
quote:
The years-old mystery of what’s in President Donald Trump’s tax returns will likely quickly unravel if Democrats win control of at least one chamber of Congress.
Democrats, especially in the House, are quietly planning on using an obscure law that will enable them to examine the president’s tax filings without his permission.
The nearly 100-year-old statute allows the chairmen of Congress’ tax committees to look at anyone’s returns, and Democrats say they intend to use that power to help answer a long list of questions about Trump’s finances. Many also want to use it to make public confidential information about Trump’s taxes that he’s steadfastly refused to release.
--Percy

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024