HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Honeycombe8 » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »

Honeycombe8

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: LA
Member since: Sat Feb 10, 2007, 12:29 PM
Number of posts: 37,648

Journal Archives

Trump, Pelosi, and Bush...oh my!

Lions & tigers & bears! Oh, My!

2008:
"When [Pelosi] first got in and was named speaker," Trump said to Blitzer then, "I met her. And I'm very impressed by her. I think she's a very impressive person, I like her a lot." "But I was surprised that she didn't do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush," he continued. "It just seemed like she was really going to look to impeach Bush and get him out of office. Which personally I think would have been a wonderful thing."

Blitzer interjected: "To impeach him?"

"For the war," Trump replied. "For the war! Well, he lied! He got us into the war with lies!"


"I mean, look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant," Trump said, referring to the Monica Lewinsky investigation. "And they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. And yet Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying. By saying they had WMDs, by saying all sorts of things that happened not to be true."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/13/in-2008-donald-trump-said-george-w-bush-shouldve-been-impeached/?utm_term=.c854d1407d75

2019:
Trump on impeachment: 'It's a dirty, filthy, disgusting word'

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/30/trump-impeachment-dirty-word-1347500

Bill Kristol: Ad by "Republicans for the Rule of Law"

I think this short video in Bill Kristol's tweet is very powerful.

https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1134137830299590656

Imagine it's election night in FL. We're down to the wire. Trump & Dem. are tied.

It changes regularly...Trump's ahead, then the Dem. is ahead, then Trump's ahead, then the Dem. is ahead.

There have been some problems in the state. Bad weather resulted in some polling places being closed temporarily. Some ballots have gone missing in some districts. There may have been an issue with absentee ballots.

But the counting continues. In the end, Trump is ahead. He declares himself the winner, even if only technically and barely.

Which Democratic candidate is going to go to the mat, to ensure he or she lost legitimately? To ensure every vote that is needed, is counted? Which Democratic candidate is going to insist that the people know for certain who their state voted for? Which candidate is going to say that it's very unlikely that further counting would change the results, so for the good of the country, we need to move forward and accept that Trump won?

I'm guessing (and this is in no way saying that I think they are the best candidates or ones I plan on supporting for the nomination)...I'm thinking that the most tenacious and insistent on all votes being counted would be Sanders and Warren. ???

Who do you think would go the distance, even at the end of a very loooong race?

Howard Stern dishes w/Anderson Cooper on Trump, Hillary, & current Dem candidates

This is a clip of Anderson's longer interview with Howard Stern. Some pretty interesting tidbits, as Howard Stern dishes on Trump. He also talks briefly about Hillary Clinton, and a couple of honorable mentions to current Democratic candidates.

He dishes on the "publicity stunt" that Trump pulled, in running for President. And his belief that Bill Clinton was the greatest President the country has ever had. And that he's been a Hillary supporter since way back and did everything he could think of to get her on his show. The clip is less than 10 minutes long.



He's obstructing justice in plain sight.

A blanket objection and refusal to obey any subpoena or request from a co-equal branch of government, which has the legal authority and duty to investigate possible crimes and corrupt behavior revealed in other testimony and evidence obtained legally by both Congress and the Special Counsel. Now, saying that he won't do his job (infrastructure that HE promised to his voters), unless the investigation ends... can't get any more obvious than that.

Obstruction of justice in plain sight, and Trumpers STILL can't see what the con man is. Some do and don't care. But some really ARE that blinded by worship and loyalty.

Dedicated to "REO" Ben Carson: REO SPEEDWAGON "Take it on the Run"



Excerpts from Court decision Ruling Acctg Firm Must Hand Over Trump Financial Records

Judge Orders Accounting Firm to Hand Over Records to Congress


The decision to issue the subpoena came about after the President’s former lawyer and confidant,
Michael Cohen, testified before the House Oversight Committee that the President routinely would
alter the estimated value of his assets and liabilities on financial statements, depending on the
purpose for which a statement was needed. For instance, Cohen said that the President provided
inflated financial statements to a bank to obtain a loan to purchase a National Football League
franchise. But when it came time to calculate his real estate taxes, the President would deflate the
value of certain assets
. To support his accusations, Cohen produced financial statements from
2011, 2012, and 2013, at least two of which were prepared by Mazars.


History has shown that congressionally-exposed criminal conduct by the President or a
high-ranking Executive Branch official can lead to legislation. The Senate Watergate Committee
provides an apt example.


As the Supreme Court observed in McGrain, the power to investigate is deeply
rooted in the nation’s history....


“From the earliest times in its history, the Congress has assiduously performed an ‘informing function’ of this nature.” Id. (citing James M. Landis, Constitutional Limitations on the Congressional Power of Investigation, 40 HARV. L. REV. 153, 168–194 (1926)).


It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present—even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry. On this score, history provides a useful guide. Cf. Tobin v. United States, 306 F.2d 270, 275–76 (D.C. Cir. 1962) (relying on historical practice to determine the scope of a congressional investigation). Twice in the last 50 years Congress has investigated a sitting President for alleged law violations, before initiating impeachment proceedings. It did so in 1973 by establishing the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, better known as the Watergate Committee, and then did so again in 1995 by establishing the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters.


VI. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court will enter judgment in favor of the House Oversight Committee and against Plaintiffs. The court denies Plaintiffs’ request for a stay pending appeal. A separate final order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.


Dated: May 20, 2019
Amit P. Mehta
United States District Court Judge


http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/05/20/mehta.opinion.in.trump.subpoena.case.pdf

Note: Rep. Elijah Cummings, Chair of the House Oversight Committee, and his staff, are the bomb! His well written & detailed letters to the committee, outlining the reasons for the subpoena was used by the Court to determine that there were justifiable reasons for the subpoena.

CNN: Judge Orders Accounting Firm to Hand Over Records to Congress



History has shown that congressionally-exposed criminal conduct by the President or a
high-ranking Executive Branch official can lead to legislation. The Senate Watergate Committee
provides an apt example.


As the Supreme Court observed in McGrain, the power to investigate is deeply
rooted in the nation’s history: “


“From the earliest times in its history, the Congress has assiduously
performed an ‘informing function’ of this nature.” Id. (citing James M. Landis, Constitutional
Limitations on the Congressional Power of Investigation, 40 HARV. L. REV. 153, 168–194
(1926)).


It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants
Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny
Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present—even without
formally opening an impeachment inquiry. On this score, history provides a useful guide.
Cf. Tobin v. United States, 306 F.2d 270, 275–76 (D.C. Cir. 1962) (relying on historical practice
to determine the scope of a congressional investigation). Twice in the last 50 years Congress has
investigated a sitting President for alleged law violations, before initiating impeachment
proceedings. It did so in 1973 by establishing the Senate Select Committee on Presidential
Campaign Activities, better known as the Watergate Committee, and then did so again in 1995 by
establishing the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and
Related Matters.


"How Did Trump Live So Large While Reporting Such Huge Losses?"

Here's a background tweet by Trump, to remind us what Trump has said about his yuge losses:


Real estate developers in the 1980’s & 1990’s, more than 30 years ago, were entitled to massive write offs and depreciation which would, if one was actively building, show losses and tax losses in almost all cases. Much was non monetary. Sometimes considered “tax shelter,” ……

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 8, 2019


But here is a good article that explains a few things about Trump's so-called "paper losses" in this tax returns.
http://fortune.com/2019/05/15/trump-tax-losses/

Real-estate developer Donald Trump in 1992 lived in a New York luxury apartment, traveled by limousine and had personal bodyguards. That year, he also reported a negative $750 million adjusted gross income to the IRS.

How the future president could live so large while reporting such huge losses has been a question since the New York Times revealed a decade of Trump’s tax information last week. While the president claims there were paper losses that could be chalked up to real-estate activities, four tax experts said that for the president to have claimed such a giant negative income, his businesses must have bled money for years.

(snip)
To have achieved a billion dollars in losses, Trump would have had to lose actual money. And the fact that he continued to live in high style even after such failures means he would have had to either lose someone else’s money or get cash injections from another source.

(snip)
Yet even those deductions aren’t enough to explain Trump’s losses, according to Blattmachr and three other tax attorneys. The losses in the Trump core businesses in the decade through 1994, would have required Trump and his companies to own billions of dollars more in real estate than he did.

(snip)
It’s much more likely that the failure of Trump’s companies in the 1980s and 1990s generated hundreds of millions in losses, said Steven Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. As the businesses failed, their losses flowed through to Trump’s own returns, and he used them to offset any income he made elsewhere.

Trump also appears to have tried to stretch the tax code to magnify those benefits even more, Rosenthal said. “Was Trump worse off after a decade of red? Not really because it was other people’s money,” Rosenthal said.


Here's Trump's now famous statement about using OPM ("other people's money" ) at about 1:30. Remember how Trump used his charitable foundation to commission a portrait of himself and to pay off lawsuit settlements?

Trump was in my area today giving an "energy" speech

I saw him briefly when changing channels before a contractor showed up. Darn...I couldn't watch the speech. (sarcasm)

It pleased me to no end to see him sweating like a pig. It is SO humid here. His double chin was dripping, and his apple cheeks were shining through the powder they put on him. As he stood there in FULL DARK SUIT. No one in this climate wears a full dark suit in summer when outside. I guess he wanted to hide his growing girth.

It's sickening. The two Repub Senators here turned full Trump some time back, in return for "favors" done for the Senators (bills they were pushing for the state).

When he gave the speech, I'm sure they didn't stand near the beach, where the dead fish float in, along with the tar and foam from the offshore rigs.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »