Sanders: Congress Not Smart Enough To Look At Trump Taxes

I am continually mystified by the Trump White House and its public responses to controversies — responses that often magnify the legitimate concerns of the public. That was case this weekend when White House Press Secretary Huckabee Sanders attempted to come up with some plausible rationale for Trump continuing to refuse to release his taxes — a departure from decades of tradition. Sanders declared that “I don’t think Congress, particularly not this group of congressmen and women, are smart enough to look through the thousands of pages that I would assume President Trump’s taxes will be.” It is an attempt to wrap an unjustifiable position within a raw insult to avoid the question. Trump has repeatedly promised to release his taxes but continues to cite the fact that he has been audited as a reason for not turning over the records — a position widely rejected by both tax and legal experts. Now it appears that the collective intelligence of Congress is a barrier to disclosure.

Sanders continued “My guess is most of them don’t do their own taxes, and I certainly don’t trust them to look through the decades of success that the president has and determine anything.” It is an indicative statement of the new reality in politics where insults replace dialogue. It often seems like our politics have been reduced to the appearance of a professional wrestling match and the the rhetoric of a shock jock.

Obviously, Congress has some of the most experienced experts on tax laws and policy on the staff. I have previously questioned the rationale for seeking all of these years in taxes even though Congress often prevails in such fights.

The problem is time. Congress clearly intends to go to court but good lawyers could easily keep this issue tied up in the courts through the 2020 election. That does not excuse Sanders or this latest transparently weak response to the demand of Congress. It was a statement unworthy of the White House Press Secretary and the Administration.

123 thoughts on “Sanders: Congress Not Smart Enough To Look At Trump Taxes”

  1. Here is what I predict Democrats are trying to do with Trump’s tax returns. They will invoke class warfare, and complain that it is immoral for a businessman to use each and every tax deduction and advantage possible. If he carried over a loss for a few years, legally, they will use that to base commercials upon.

    Then, they will claim that, regardless of what the IRS determines, they need a special prosecutor to determine if Trump broke any tax law.

    1. And what prediction will you make for an encore…the sun will rise in the east and set in the west?😏

      1. I am a very talented psychic (buffing my nails). I also predict we will read Trump, Russia, Fox, Faux, Hannity, Trump, Russia, on the thread during the next 24 hours. That will be $5. 🙂

        1. Score! I found all of the above in just two posts! We’ve got to make a Bingo game out of this.

        2. Or maybe Pravda Faux News will run Hillary, BENGHAZI, Hillary, BENGHAZI!! Or, what is more likely, once forensic accountants get hold of the day glo bozo’s tax returns, the indictments which are just chillin’ in the Southern District of New York will get some additional paragraphs. So sorry for your loss, and your disability.

          this is to “but I always buy the magazines from the nice man but the magazines never show up” karen

  2. “Collective intelligence of Congress”. Those words make no sense or cents.
    Congress has little “intelligence” or brain power and cannot think on the same plaine. Or airplane. They went in dumb and come out dumb too.

    1. “Sporadically intelligent Congress” is more like it. My Senators are pretty sharp. So’s my guy in the House. They don’t drop clangers, much less drone on like Pelosi, AOC, Waters, Tlaib, Lieu, Schumer and Schiff.

      The press craft a narrative of cloddish Republicans while coddling the Democrats, never challenging their wild, and now discredited accusations. It’s a mystery whether national beat journalists are too scared to admit they were part of a scam, too dumb to realize it, or too evil to stop doing it.

      1. I agree with Lafitte. As time goes by the Dems look more and more like “dumb as toast”. But I don’t think that toast should be denigrated by liking it to Dems. I used to be a Dem. That was back in the days when we had Harry Truman and LBJ. Hillary sent me away from the party. Now I belong to Dogs R Us. Four legs good, two legs baaaaad!

      2. The short form for those who aren’t able to stomach nonsensical retreads from Pravda Faux News: facts are a bitch, and you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

        this is to “sad” jeannie

  3. I’m still at the point of turning the Dogs of War loose on those who clearly are nothing but the left overs of a failed anti Constitutional revolution with the prime targets the Citizens of our Constitutional Republic.

    Why should these losers be allowed to continue to meddle with Our Representative Constitutional Republic? Answer? They shouldn’t.

    1. Haha. Awesome. You, just like all of your loser cohort, won’t ever say a word to a real person in real life. You, are nothing more than a timid, frightened, old, intolerant, close-minded, uneducated fool (or gullible rube, or dupe). The world will be a better place with your passing. So sorry for your loss, and your condition.

      this is to “I almost elbowed the guy on the bus, but I didn’t” mikey

  4. Sarah Sanders was kicked out of the Red Hen Restaurant last year.
    According to Yelp, the complaints and negative ratings continue till today

    Gotta love their small brain in understanding how to make a business thrive.
    Live by the sword…🔪


    I was in town visiting my father and we tried this The food here is very overpriced and the service was terrible. The menu is very limited and we waited way too long for our food. I do not recommend this place.

    One of the worst experiences I’ve ever had. My chicken came out completely raw I almost got sick at the table. The waiter seemed to care less about this. I threw some money on the table for the drinks and got out of there as fast as I could. Please avoid at all costs

    DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY HERE! This was the worst experience I’ve ever had. The place was dirty, the staff was extremely rude, and our food was served cold. To make matters worse, we found a hair in one of the dishes and the manager didn’t seem to care at all. DO NOT eat here.

    Had the salmon last night and it tasted like a leather belt. For $25 I should have gone to the supermarket and cooked it over a flaming trash barrel for better quality control. Atmosphere was nice, but parking was horrendous. Wouldn’t come here again

    1. The Red Hen’s proprietor’s choice to chase Mrs. Sanders and her family out and follow them to another establishment, continuing the abuse, is symptomatic of the self-righteous sociopathy of the Left.

  5. I do not find it unjustifiable for any President to claim the same privacy about tax returns of any other American citizen.

    What is pertinent is that all financial ties, big donors, and other connections be revealed by not only the President, but every member of Congress. Congress people serve on committees in blatant conflicts of interest. I do not want to see their tax returns, but I do want financial ties disclosed. I did not need to see Bernie Sanders’ tax returns, but the fact that a socialist anti-capitalist did not give his book away for free, but rather earned millions, is pertinent information.

    We all know what Democrats are trying to make occur. Donald Trump, like any other rich person, has exploited every single tax advantage possible. If he hasn’t, then he should fire his CPAs and tax attorneys. Democrats are then going to try to claim that any weather person utilizing a legal tax shelter, deduction, or legally carrying forward a loss, is immoral, corrupt, etc. It’s the old class warfare bit. Bring out the guillotines. However, those same wealthy Democrats use the same legal tax deductions themselves, with the exception that many do not own businesses. The economy is going so well that they are desperate for a crisis, some reason to become a savior.

    Just because it is a long standing tradition does not make it illegal or immoral not to follow. These types of sound bites generated by tax returns are an excuse to keep businesspeople out of high office. Anyone who owns a business writes off everything they possibly can, to counteract high, punitive taxes. If they are going to be penalized for following the tax law, then that is grossly unfair.

    On the one hand, Trump would be a fool to play into Democrats’ hands, looking to attack a business person for carrying forward losses or using tax deductions. The man has paid millions in taxes over his lifetime. He’s been the subject of multiple audits. It is not Congress’ job to determine if he paid the proper amount of tax. It’s the IRS’s job, as well as Trump’s own tax professionals. I do agree that Trump’s tax returns would be impenetrable to anyone without an accounting background.

    He should disclose financial ties, and nothing else. He should also follow Alan Dershowitz’s oft repeated advice. If there is a scandal coming, get in front of it and be the first to craft the message. He should be remarking that this is nothing but a ploy to attack businesspeople for taking every legal tax deduction and advantage allowed under the law. It is nothing more than a desperate attempt at finding a message for voters, and a further attempt to divide the country in class warfare.

    1. Likewise I find it unjustifiable for those whose acts stem from a socialist revolution against Our Republic to hold an official office from where they may further cause great damage to our nation.

    2. Karen: 1. How do you know how much Trump has paid in taxes? Have you seen his returns? 2. How do you know that he has complied with tax laws? He lies about everything and cheats on his wives, so any betting person would be reasonable in assuming he’s lying on his taxes, too. In fact, Michael Cohen showed the 2 sets of books Trump kept: one for the IRS, with a lower income shown than the second set sent to Forbes, to boost his rating. So, assuming his returns contain lies and misrepresentations is a safe bet. 3. How do you know that Trump’s tax returns would be “impenetrable to anyone without an accounting background?” Did you know that most members of Congress are attorneys? Who do you think writes tax laws, anyway? Tax returns are not that difficult. 4. How do you know how many audits he has undergone, or what the results have been? What does he have to hide, anyway? Since Trump is a pathological liar, I’m betting that he’s nowhere near as wealthy as he would have people believe. Also, disclosing the various tax dodges he’s taken advantage of might fire up the non-1%ers to demand changes in tax law. Comparatively speaking, most Americans likely pay a higher rate of taxes than he does. The midterm elections were a referendum on Trump, and he lost. Badly. Congress would be remiss not to look into his finances on behalf of the American people.

      “Voters” got the message a long time ago about Trump, and that’s why most of them voted for HRC, and that’s also why Trump has consistently low polling numbers in the history of presidential polling. It sounds like you’ve been watching Faux News again.

      1. Tax returns are not that difficult.

        Neither is #12, during the Masters, on Sunday afternoon. Said no professional golfer in contention, ever.

        1. I guess no one needs a CPA license or to get a specialty in tax law. It’s so easy, anyone can understand it. Why have we been wasting our money on CPA’s all these years?

          1. D Good; R Bad; Tax returns Simple. Her depth is so simple, a caveman could do it.

      2. #1 Do you need to see tax returns to understand that a billionaire has paid millions of dollars in taxes over his lifetime? The taxes on his properties, alone, would be in the millions. If you do not understand this, then you should use this time to develop an understanding of how the rich pay the freight in America.

        We are also aware that he has carried forward a loss, spreading it out over years, as the law allows him to do.

        #2. How do I know he complied with tax laws? It is the IRS’s job to audit tax returns. He has been audited multiple times. I imagine that his tax returns are so complicated that it would be easy to make a mistake, but he has never been accused of pulling a Wesley Snipes and simply refusing to pay his taxes. The fact that he has sustained multiple audits tells me, and everyone else in America, that he has followed applicable tax law.

        #3 It does not matter if members of Congress are attorneys. Understanding complicated tax returns requires an accounting background – either a tax attorney or CPA. Likewise, a family law attorney would not be intimately familiar with tax law.

        #4 I know he has undergone more than one tax audit. I know there is no public record of him having been charged for tax evasion. I know he has never gone to prison for tax evasion. The IRS does not release tax information, itself, to the public, due to privacy laws. But criminal matters are a matter of public record. Anyone could spread snide gossip about you, for instance, but unless you have been charged and convicted of tax evasion, it would be libel to state otherwise.

        #5 Pathological Liar is a misuse of a psychiatric term. Trump is most certainly not a pathological liar. That would require far more than lying about adultery. It would be part of any number of underlying disorders such as malingering, confabulation, borderline personality disorder, and antisocial disorder, to name a few.

        It is irresponsible to bandy about psychological diagnosis because you do not like someone’s politics.

        Pathological liar requires a compulsion, among other things. Hillary Clinton lies often, and with gusto. She claimed the she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire, when there was video of her strolling down the tarmac, with her daughter, and chatting with a local 8 year old girl. She wiped her server “with a cloth”. Lied under oath about Travelgate, and was saved by the Statute of Limitations. The list of her lies is extensive. However, a compulsion would require her to lie helplessly. For instance, if she went to yoga she would feel compelled to say she was at dance class. She lies for personal gain, and out of habit, but it does not appear to be a psychiatric disorder. In any case, if it were, only a psychiatrist who had examined her could give that diagnosis.

        With Trump, he has stated opinions that the Left has disagreed with. As a twice divorcee, currently working hard on his third, he has lied about fidelity. That is no where near a psychiatric compulsion to lie.

        Stop playing doctor.

        Also, as stated ad infinitum, Hillary only won CA and NY by a landslide. Those two states had a high enough population that they carried the popular vote. You are aware of this, and so to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

        See this map, and its enormous swath of red?

        “Overall Trump won approximately 2,600 counties to Clinton’s 500, or about 84% of the geographic United States. However, Clinton won 88 of of the 100 largest counties (including Washington D.C.). Without these 100 largest counties she would have lost by 11.5 million votes.”

        Now, it is hard to keep straight whom I’m talking to with all the coy different avatars. Are you L4D/Anonymous?

        1. Karen you are either repeating what you heard on Faux News or you are assuming things. You really do not have any idea as to how much Trump is worth , whether he has cheated on his taxes, the results of audits or anything else, but you are poised and ready to believe anything that is favorable to Trump.

          Multiple psychologists and psychiatrists have commented on Trump’s endless lying about easily -disproven facts — for instance, he repeatedly claimed his father was born in Germany. He lied about the size of his inauguration crowd, the number of votes he received, the fact that he was forced to enter into a consent decree for racial discrimination in housing. He claims he “won”, which is a lie. The consistency and pervasiveness of his lying is not just a sign of immorality –it is evidence of mental illness.

          What do you continue to obsess over HRC? An attempted diversion to Trump and his failures? This tactic isn’t working. Trump’s disapproval ratings continue to set a record.

          1. natacha took that Karen rant apart pretty completely though she didn’t get to her celebration of cattle country over American voters. It’s not easy to dismiss the opinions of the 3 million voters who made up Hillary’s margin, but Karen beats that by dismissing the 60 million people who live in Ca and NY. Let’s try her game of taking away the votes of Trump states and see what happens to the popular vote

            Texas…. no, he still loses.
            Florida….no, he still loses.

            70,000 votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsykania …… no, he still loses and is on Hollywood Squares where he belongs.

            Maybe Karen’s vote should be dismissed.

            1. Anon – going through bullet points, and addressing them, one by one does not meet the criteria for a rant.

              Two, check out this map of the United States, that great, big, swath of red:


              If you do not understand why 136 square miles should not be solely responsible for electing the President, then obtain a pocket copy of the Constitution. They are readily available from the Heritage Foundation.

              “Overall Trump won approximately 2,600 counties to Clinton’s 500, or about 84% of the geographic United States. However, Clinton won 88 of of the 100 largest counties (including Washington D.C.). Without these 100 largest counties she would have lost by 11.5 million votes.”

              I wonder how she would have fared if voter ID was passed in CA, and the rolls were purged of fraudulent and illegal entries. Democrats work very hard against requiring voters to prove who they are, as well as any effort to purge the rolls of fraud, such as illegal aliens registered to vote. It’s quite common in CA, as I personally know multiple non-citizens who voted without realizing they were not supposed to. I wonder why that would be.

              1. Thanks for the livestock v people argument Karen, but I saw it the 1st time you posted and dealt with it accordingly.

                As ridiculous as that argument is, now your claiming voter fraud, a thoroughly investigated and rebuked idea, as well as a logical absurdity – “gee, I think I’ll risk a felony conviction for voter fraud because I’m sure my one vote will decide the election.”

                1. I made no “livestock v people” argument. Did you fail to understand my post that completely?

                    1. Your repeated claiming that I value livestock more than people doesn’t make it true.

                      If you do not understand the argument, please try re-reading it.

                      136 square miles of the United States do not get the right to disenfranchise the rest of the United States. The Electoral College was created by the Constitution to prevent any handful of highly populated states from disenfranchising other states.

                      You know, like preventing a wealthy neighborhood from stealing the vote away from a poor minority neighborhood. Get it?

                    2. Anon – straw man argument, in which you vigorously argue against a point no one made.

                2. “now your claiming voter fraud, a thoroughly investigated and rebuked idea, as well as a logical absurdity – “gee, I think I’ll risk a felony conviction for voter fraud because I’m sure my one vote will decide the election.””

                  Because CA Democrats block efforts to purge the rolls of fraudulent registrations, voter fraud continues, and is rarely prosecuted.



                  “We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.”


                  “August 27, 2018: The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) today released Safe Spaces, a new report detailing how noncitizens were often invited and given access to ballots in 13 sanctuary jurisdictions across seven states over the past decade. The ineligible registrations were typically discovered only after noncitizens self-reported their statuses to officials. Worse, sanctuary policies have resulted in aliens who do illegally vote never being prosecuted.

                  Sanctuary jurisdictions in seven states disclosed various data demonstrating how noncitizens entered their voter registration systems, voted, and were later revealed to be ineligible—often taking years for discovery. In many cases, a state’s implementation of the National Voter Registration Act, also known as the “Motor Voter” law, invited noncitizens to participate in voting and relied on those same individuals to self-report their actions at their own peril.”

                  The above article discussed self-reported voter fraud, which would be very low. Without action to combat voter fraud, such a crime is difficult to stop.

                  1. “.. As a member of the team that produces the datasets upon which that study was based and as the co-author of an article published in the same journal that provides a clear “take down” of the study in question, I can say unequivocally that this research is not only wrong, it is irresponsible social science and should never have been published in the first place. There is no evidence that non-citizens have voted in recent U.S. elections….

                    I first came across the Richman study in 2014 when I was sent a link to an article by the authors promoting their newly published work. Their chief claim, and the one that made headlines, was that as many as 14 percent of noncitizens living in the United States had cast votes in recent elections. As soon as I saw that figure, I knew it was almost certainly nonsense, but what was troubling was that the “evidence” the scholars were pointing to was from a survey that I coordinate along with my colleagues Stephen Ansolabehere of Harvard University and Samantha Luks from the survey research firm YouGov. The survey is the Cooperative Congressional Election Study—a project that interviews tens of thousands of respondents every election year about their views on politics. A wealth of excellent research has come from this dataset in the past decade, providing important insights about our political world. Unfortunately, the Richman study doesn’t fall into that category. It is bad research, because it fails to understand basic facts about the data it uses.

                    Indeed, it took me and my colleagues only a few hours to figure out why the authors’ findings were wrong and to produce the evidence needed to prove as much. The authors were essentially basing their claims on two pieces of data associated with the large survey—a question that asks people whether they are citizens and official vote records to which each respondent has been matched to determine whether he or she had voted. Both these pieces of information include some small amounts of measurement error, as is true of all survey questions. What the authors failed to consider is that measurement error was entirely responsible for their results. In fact, once my colleagues and I accounted for that error, we found that there were essentially zero non-citizens who voted in recent elections…..”



                      “For months, Pennsylvania bureaucrats have concealed facts about noncitizens registering and voting — that ends today,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said.
                      He said Pennsylvania had already admitted to a “glitch” dating back to the 1990s that had allowed noncitizens applying to renew driver’s licenses to be offered the chance to register to vote. Mr. Adams said he now wants to find out how bad the problem is overall…

                      The 100,000 number cited in the lawsuit comes from testimony given by Philadelphia Commissioner Al Schmidt, who revealed the glitch in the state motor vehicle bureau’s systems that prompted noncitizens to register to vote…

                      While Pennsylvania refused PILF record requests, the group did manage to obtain data from some counties, and found several curious cases.
                      One man, Felipe Rojas-Orta, canceled his registration last year, filing a handwritten note saying he was not a citizen. He had, however, registered as a Democrat and voted in three separate elections, including most recently 2016, the year of the presidential race.
                      A woman had her registration canceled in 2006 as a noncitizen, yet re-registered to vote twice — and cast ballots in some elections. That woman, a registered Democrat, is still active in the system, the lawsuit says.
                      Yet another woman voted in 2008 and 2012, had her registration canceled in 2014 because she wasn’t a citizen, then reregistered and voted in 2016, according to documents filed in court. She was registered as a Democrat.
                      The federal “motor-voter” law requires states to make voter registration available at motor vehicle bureaus, but also pushes states to try to keep their voter rolls clean. Under the law, private parties can sue to press states to perform the cleansing.
                      Pennsylvania officials repeatedly refused requests under the law, according to the lawsuit. The state would only let the PILF look at records related to voters stripped from the rolls because of death or change of residence.
                      The PILF says that’s a misreading of the law.
                      The group has released reports in the past detailing more than 1,000 noncitizens registered to vote in New Jersey and more than 5,500 registered in Virginia. Roughly a third of those from Virginia actually cast ballots.
                      The numbers only include people whose registration was canceled because they later said they weren’t citizens, and thus ineligible to vote. Analysts say it’s difficult to figure out how many others are registered but never discovered because they don’t self-report.”


                      In 2014, a study released by three professors at Old Dominion University and George Mason University, based on survey data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, estimated 6.4 percent of noncitizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election and 2.2 percent voted in the 2010 midterm congressional elections.
                      Since 80 percent of noncitizens vote Democratic, according to the study, noncitizen participation could have “been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes [in North Carolina in 2008], and Congressional elections” such as the 2008 race in Minnesota in which Al Franken was elected to the U.S. Senate, giving “Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote” to pass Obamacare. The Old Dominion/George Mason study was sharply attacked by progressive critics, but the mounting evidence makes clear this is a real problem…

                    2. Karens’ “study” has already be destroyed here.


                      The legitimate data all shows that as logic would predict – risking a felony conviction for extremely dubious outcome of being the deciding vote in an election – there are exceedingly few cases of voter fraud at the voting booth in the US in any states. Clearly Karen is brainwashed into believing nonsense and then endlessly regurgitating it here.

                      “Here are nine investigations on voter fraud that found virtually nothing”


                  2. “Even worse, federal and state law enforcement officials—who are entrusted with prosecuting non- citizens who register and vote as a means to deter others from doing the same—have repeatedly done nothing when provided with solid evidence of non-citizen participation in the electoral system.”

                    Voter fraud – enabled to continue by political activists in government.


                  “Herring defeated Obenshain by 165 votes out of more than 2.2 million votes cast, according to results certified by the Virginia Virginia Department of Elections on Nov. 25…

                  An investigation in Virginia by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) and the Virginia Voter’s Alliance (VVA) shows that the cause of this problem is something much worse than simple ineffective governance. Worse still, Virginia state election officials are obstructing access to public records that reveal the extent to which non-citizens are participating in our elections. These obstructionist tactics have led to PILF and VVA obtaining data from only a handful of Virginia counties so far. But the information from a few counties demonstrates a massive problem.
                  In our small sample of just eight Virginia counties who responded to our public inspection requests, we found 1046 aliens who registered to vote illegally…

                  Ultimately, the number of illegal votes doesn’t matter when the integrity of the process is at stake. Nobody should tolerate voter fraud, whether it comes in bunches as we describe here, happens occasionally, or decides the outcome of an election.”


                  “Despite obstruction from local and state officials, the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) expanded the non-citizen investigation to the entire Commonwealth. As a result, the number of registrants removed from voter rolls for citizenship problems during the last few election cycles grew to over 5,500. Of these illegal registrants, 1,852 cast nearly 7,500 ballots in elections dating back to 1988.”

                  Considering the referenced election was won by only 165 votes, then, yes, absolutely, illegal alien votes changed the result of an election and defrauded citizen voters.

              2. Trump still LOST the popular vote, and continues consistently polling below 50%. Some of those big swaths are farm country, mountainous terrain, desert and other low-population areas.

                1. Trump still LOST the popular vote, and continues consistently polling below 50%.

                  I wish you would post that comment more often. When you say it, I picture you mumbling it to yourself as you shuffle along doing laps in the day room.

                  Keep on shuffling! 🙂

                  1. Olly, HIllary won the Popular Vote by a margin that was greater than or equal to several winners since 1960.

              3. So sorry to disillusion you, but cattle and tumbleweeds don’t vote. I suggest you tune in during January of 2021 to see exactly how far off the rails of “Real ‘Merica” you and your oldster clones have fallen. So sorry for your condition and that ticking sound (but not really).

                this is to “but, but, hannity said we could suppress their votes” karen

          2. Then multiple psychologists and psychiatrists have broken the law in diagnosing without an in person examination.

            Were you aware that Chuck Schumer, in 1974, was involved in a racist attempt to get black people out of apartments? He openly planned to renovate them, and jack up the rent so high that blacks could not afford them anymore.

            Trump signed that document in 1975, having taken over his father’s real estate business. After that, he was close to many black leaders and civil rights activists, and received recognition from the same. If you believe that racist people do that, you are not rational.

            Hillary Clinton illustrates the extreme double standard and lawlessness in our government. She actually did what Trump was investigated for. She needs to be investigated, along with her slush fund foundation.

            Are you saying that fraud, felonies, and pay to play should go uninvestigated and unpunished because she is a prominent Democrat? Trump was investigated thoroughly, and his campaign was spied upon. There was no collusion, because it was his political opponent who was engaging in that behavior. An opponent you are determined to protect for political purposes.

            The law must apply equally to all. Government agencies must not be weaponized against anyone for political purposes.

            These truths should be self evident, but apparently not.

            But thank you for already fulfilling my prophecy with the use of “Faux News”.

            1. The Goldwater Rule, enacted because of a similar weaponization of mental health professionals for political purposes:


              “The Goldwater rule is the informal name given to section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Principles of Medical Ethics,[1] which states that it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures whom they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements.[2] It is named after former US Senator and 1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.[3][4]

              The issue arose in 1964 when Fact published the article “The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater”.[3][5] The magazine polled psychiatrists about US Senator Barry Goldwater and whether he was fit to be president.[6][7] Goldwater sued magazine editor Ralph Ginzburg and managing editor Warren Boroson, and in Goldwater v. Ginzburg (July 1969) received damages totaling $75,000 ($512,000 today).[3]”

              “In the fall of 2017, the American Medical Association’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs wrote new guidelines into the AMA Code of Medical Ethics, stating that physicians should refrain “from making clinical diagnoses about individuals (e.g., public officials, celebrities, persons in the news) they have not had the opportunity to personally examine.””

              Note that the Goldwater Rule applies to the American Psychiatric Association. The ApsaA does not have this rule. It is interesting to note how many mental health professionals are willing to abandon medical ethics due to personal political bias and bigotry against conservatives.

              “Physician, heal thyself.”

            2. What law are psychologists and psychiatrists breaking when they observe that someone who consistently lies about easily-validated factual matters has a problem that is not readily explained by mere immorality or lack of conscience? Is it against the law to explain that such consistent lying constitute symptoms of a personality disorder? For instance, riddle me this: why does he continue to claim that his father was born in Germany, when he was born in the Bronx? Is it because this is a lie he has told for so many years that he feels the need to keep repeating it, so as not to contradict himself? What does he gain by saying this over and over again? Everyone knows it’s a lie, except, maybe Faux News viewers. And, no. That is not weaponization of mental health professionals. It is a valid concern to most Americans that Trump simply cannot tell the truth most of the time, that he makes things up, and also that he engages in immature name-calling of people who criticize him or disagree with his policies. Normal people do not lie all of the time about simple factual matters that can be readily verified, especially those holding high-profile positions of responsibility. No one forces Trump to lie. It is the product of his emotional illness. He really needs help.

              We’re not talking about Chuck Schumer or Hillary Clinton here. That is a pivot. The only frauds, felonies and “pay to play” are those dished out every evening by Faux News to pivot away attention from Trump’s lies and failures. I ask again: why do you obsess about HRC? She is not in the public spotlight any more, and nothing she did or failed to do excuses Trump.

              And, no. Trump’s campaign was not “spied upon”, despite the inflammatory rhetoric employed by Barr. All campaigns are monitored to see whether there is foreign infiltration. That is not “spying”, but it makes for good copy on Faux News. All of this is a distraction from the Mueller Report, which is coming Thursday. And, the reason it is coming on Maundy Thursday is because it is a holiday weekend, gauged to distract away attention.

              I’ve seen the A & E Biography on Trump. Have you? He was caught red-handed engaging in race discrimination. I saw the interview with the black man to went to the apartment rental office, and was told “no vacancies”, despite a newspaper ad saying otherwise. Literally immediately, a white woman entered the office and was given an application. They both worked for HUD. Trump threatened HUD when it filed a complaint, but, as usual, his threats did not intimidate HUD. He entered into a consent decree in which he admitted race discrimination and agreed to remedial measures, and then right away claimed he “won” the lawsuit. That was nothing but a big, fat lie, like many other utterances of his.

      3. ah hell no. tax returns for you aint difficult. if you don’t have a pot to pee in or a window to throw it out of

        K 1 to you is a mountain in pakistan that you read about on the internet

        1. Yes, it’s really too bad that we don’t have experts available to analyze any tax returns released by public figures. It’s for that very reason that the public doesn’t realize that we have made advances in much simpler disciplines like DNA analysis.

    3. The President would serve the country better by actively defying the Democratic Party’s demands to comb through his finances. He should act as any private citizen should, confronted with unjustifiable orders from people who lack authority to ask any such thing.

      The House Democrats ought to be shown in no uncertain terms that their power has limits. A nice video might be Nancy Pelosi’s head superimposed on Cartman’s body as he screams “RESPECT MY AUTHORITAY!”

    4. Or, Congresspersons-many of whom are lawyers, can recognize a grifter/charlatan when they see one. Just as Al Capone went down for tax evasion, so the day glo bozo is sweating out the night. Lawyers who toil in the criminal defense trenches become adept at recognizing a criminogenic psychopath. So sorry for your condition.

      this is to “but hannity told me a happy story” karen

  6. Democrats have lied forever so their feigning outrage about their enemies calling them out for hypocrisy is poor theater of the absurd with lots of Hillary-isk drama


    To Defend Ilhan Omar, Democrats Use Identity Politics as a Shield

    To elevate her, they use identity politics as a sword.
    Over the weekend, American political discourse reached another one of its low moments — a moment of nearly record-level hypocrisy and absurdity. And once again, a low moment centered around one of the Democrats’ celebrity House freshmen, Ilhan Omar.

    The cycle went like this. First, Twitter discovered an excerpt of a speech Omar delivered last month at a Council on American–Islamic Relations banquet. Here were her controversial words:

    For far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen. Frankly, I’m tired of it. And every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it. CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.

    As The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf notes, the charitable reading of her statement is relatively clear — don’t hold the many responsible for the actions of the few. At the same time, however, the language was both wrong and undeniably flip. CAIR was not founded after 9/11, and her comment about 9/11 minimized the gravity of the deadliest foreign attack on U.S. soil ever — and the most damaging at least since the British Army burned Washington in the War of 1812. In other words, Americans were alarmed after 9/11 for a very good reason.

    Moreover, it was coming from someone with a record of blatantly anti-Semitic comments, including a reference to Israel as “hypnotizing the world,” a claim that support for Israel was “all about the Benjamins,” and repeated claims that supporters of Israel had “allegiance” to a foreign country. While charitable readings of statements should be our default, there are public voices who’ve forfeited the benefit of the doubt. Like Iowa’s racist congressman Steve King, Omar is one of those people. It’s her responsibility to be clear about what she means.

    When Republican congressman Dan Crenshaw tweeted that her comments were “unbelievable,” the criticism was certainly in-bounds. Other critiques, however, were over-the-top, including — of course — the president’s. He tweeted out a video montage of scenes from 9/11 cut back and forth with Omar’s statement that “some people did something.”

    Then Trump’s tweet was met with an avalanche of hysteria and hypocrisy.

    Bernie Sanders called Trump racist:

    Elizabeth Warren said he was “trying to incite violence”:

    Beto O’Rourke called Trump’s tweet “an incitement to violence against Congresswoman Omar, against our fellow Americans who happen to be Muslim.”

    Warren and O’Rourke were parroting Omar’s own claim that critiques of her words amounted to “dangerous incitement.” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez picked up the theme as well, claiming that conservative attacks constituted an “incitement of violence against progressive women of color.”

    Incitement is a word with a meaning. In the constitutional context, it means speech that is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and is “likely to incite or produce such action.” By no reasonable measure were Trump’s words incitement, nor were any of the other high-profile criticisms of Omar, including the New York Post cover showing the fireball when the second plane collided with the World Trade Center.

    And if that’s incitement by some new definition of the term, then the Left is guilty as well. Where is the regret over its rhetoric in the Kavanaugh confirmation battle? It is terrible that Omar has faced threats, but let’s not forget that Cory Booker called Kavanaugh’s supporters “complicit in the evil” — even though Justice Kavanaugh’s family faced terrible threats and when two people were arrested for threatening Republican senators. I haven’t seen progressive rhetoric ease after a Bernie Sanders fan nearly assassinated Steve Scalise in an attempt to gun down Republican congressmen at baseball practice. Instead, I’ve seen apologetic after apologetic for activists who get in Republicans’ faces at restaurants, in movie theaters, and even at their own homes.

    Democrats may argue that Ilhan Omar is different. Confirmation battles are high-stakes affairs, with fundamental rights at sake. Omar is a mere House freshman. She’s being singled out and elevated because of her race, religion, and gender. For example, here’s Maggie Haberman in the New York Times analyzing the weekend’s events:

    Mr. Trump and his team are trying to make Ms. Omar, one of a group of progressive women Democratic House members who is relatively unknown in national politics, a household name, to be seen as the most prominent voice of the Democratic Party, regardless of her actual position. And they are gambling that there will be limited downside in doing so.

    But that’s not quite right. While it’s true that Trump and conservative media dedicate quite a bit of airtime to Omar and to her friend and ally Ocasio-Cortez, it’s the Democrats and the media who have been working overtime to elevate their voices.

    It wasn’t Trump who put Omar in Vanity Fair, labeled her one of “politics’ new power players,” and called her “ready to fight.” It wasn’t Trump who put her on the cover of Rolling Stone as “one of the women shaping the future.” And if she’s really so marginal in Democratic politics, why is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi right there in that same Rolling Stone picture, standing beside Omar and Ocasio-Cortez?

    In reality, Democrats are following a classic identity-politics playbook, using identity as both sword and shield. When the moment suits, then Omar and Ocasio-Cortez are the powerful voices of a new generation — in Ocasio-Cortez’s case, powerful enough to get Democratic presidential front-runners to immediately and eagerly sign on to her “Green New Deal.” Omar and her allies were powerful enough to get the Democrats to water down their condemnation of her blatant anti-Semitism. And make no mistake, their identity is part of their power. The fact that Omar and Ocasio-Cortez are progressive women of color has elevated their profile immensely.

    But then when the moment changes, the meaning of their identity changes. When Republicans attack, there is indignation. How dare you attack a woman of color. How dare you obsess over a mere House freshman. Your attacks are proof of your racism. The powerful are attacking the powerless.

    No one doubts that there are racists in the Republican coalition, but it’s absurd to attribute GOP attacks against Omar exclusively or primarily to racism — especially when she made expressly racist statements and when she was dismissive of 9/11. Do the Democrats believe Republicans wouldn’t denounce a white Democratic anti-Semite or a white man who made the same comments about 9/11 — especially if that white man was being hailed as a Democratic power player?

    The Democrats and media cannot have it both ways. They cannot work diligently to elevate Omar’s voice and then rule out of bounds attacks against the person they’ve elevated — especially when her own words are often hateful and cruel.

    There are aspects of both Omar’s and Ocasio-Cortez’s stories that are undeniably inspirational — and represent a large part of their appeal. Omar is a former refugee, an immigrant who became a congresswoman. Ocasio-Cortez has enjoyed one of the most meteoric rises in modern politics, from bartender to power broker. But powerful people are responsible for their words and ideas, and when Omar goes too far, it is not racist — nor is it incitement — to call her to account.

  7. Given Trump’s track record of multiple business bankruptcies, inability to borrow money from any U.S. banks, his deference to Putin, attempts to make a deal for Trump Moscow Hotel and then lying about it, Russian interference with the 2016 election and Trump’s failure to even acknowledge this, much less do anything to prevent it in the future, the fact that most Americans did not vote for Trump and do not approve of him, plus Trump’s refusal to voluntarily release his tax returns on the grounds that they are under audit, which is not a valid basis, it would be IRRESPONSIBLE for Congress not to get the returns. Trump and his lawyer, Cohen have lied repeatedly. Cohen even produced 2 sets of books that he testified Trump keeps: one for the IRS, listing a lower income. and a second for Forbes, listing a higher income, to beef up his rating. What does he have to hide? Why does the Trump Administration insult members of Congress who are conducting oversight, which is what they were elected by the American people to do? Last fall’s elections were a mandate.

    1. Given Trump’s track record of multiple business bankruptcies,

      He was an equity investor in a set of Atlantic City properties. The holding company of those properties applied for re-organizaiton 4x ‘ere he finally sold his stake.

      inability to borrow money from any U.S. banks,

      On the one hand, you’re complaining you don’t have his tax returns. On the other, you’re contending you have intimate knowledge of his business affairs. If you weren’t a dope, you’d have noticed the contradiction.

      1. I didn’t see any “equity investor” name on the helicopter that landed on the roof of one of these casinos for the splashy opening. What is the name of the “holding company”, and how many members did it have?

        It is undisputed that NO U.S. banks will loan him any money. Even Deutsche Bank publicly said that it wouldn’t loan him any money because they anticipated a default and that they might not be able to sue him while he was in the White House.

      2. So Tabby, let me get this straight: “Donald Trump was a ‘victim’ of Atlantic City”??

        “The market there was hostile to ‘outsiders’ so Trump got burned”?

        “And us liberals should be understanding enough to realize those bankruptcies are no reflection on Trump’s honor or business savvy”?

        1. Peter you are such a bad troll…deplorable even. You are either 15 years of age or your IQ is the square root and inverse reciprocal of Hillary’s net worth

          NB: inverse would mean the higher the net worth figure, the less your IQ.
          Proceed with care, pumpkin

          Hillary Clinton delivered a speech on inequality in a $12,495 Giorgio Armani jacket, as former first lady spends six figures to dress for success in campaign

          When Hillary Clinton won the New York primary in April, she called for ‘raising wages and reducing inequality’ and building ‘ladders of opportunity’ while sporting a $12,495 Georgio Armani jacket.

          It was just one small part of a major wardrobe overhaul that one fashion expert pegged as a six-figure operation, the New York Post reported.

          It wasn’t just in New York, where Clinton was photographed recently leaving a Ralph Lauren store on 5th Avenue accompanied by longtime aide Huma Abedin, where Clinton sported fancy fashions.

          She also wore a $4,000 white jacket by Susanna Beverly Hills on the campaign trail in rural Iowa.

          ‘She’s had to have spent in the six figures on this wardrobe overhaul,’ Los Angeles-based image consultant Patsy Cisneros told the paper.

          For her campaign kickoff on Roosevelt Island, Clinton wore a custom blue silk Lauren suit that cost upwards of $2,200, according to the paper.

          For a New York funder, she opted for a beaded coat by Andrew Gn comparable to a $3,000 selling at Bergdorf Goodman.

          Her counterpart, real estate mogul Donald Trump, has been reported to favor Brioni suits that can cost more than $7,000.

          Clinton’s fashion choices have been getting an upgrade from her 2008 run and her service as secretary of state, when Clinton made jokes about her penchant for pants suits part of her repertoire.

          She and her husband Bill Clinton have earned more than $230 million since leaving the White House through speaking fees, investments, and other income

          1. So in other words, you’re against capitalism, and making money? Oh, it’s just HRC making money right?

            1. She didn’t give herself a yuge tax cut. So she can’t really claim to be a “real” capitalist. Unless Goldman Sachs paid for her wardrobe in exchange for deregulation favorable to Goldman Sachs. Then she would be a “real” capitalist just like Trump.

          2. ah, let’s talk about HILLARY!! Excellent, that’s all you got?

            this is to “ya, I’m not really gonna visit him in the joint” esto

    2. But none of what Cohen produced had any foundation of being relevant nor the product of any source other than Cohen’s own version. Something like the products of this commenters comments. Not a Nothing Burger but a Bichi Burger.

      1. There are thousand of people doing decades in the fed based solely on the testimony of their coconspirators. So sorry for your condition, and loss.

        this is to “damn, Pravda didn’t give me an answer to that” mikey

    3. First you have to come up with some validity to those statements. Then establish your own credibility. How can one who hides behind a false name establish or verify self credibility? They can’t.

    4. Hmmm, deference to Putin? Did he use a Russia Reset button? Did he get caught on a hot mike saying that he’d have more flexibility after the next election?

      No, that was the Obama administration.

      What has Trump done in deference to Putin?

      1. Sanctioned Russia, thus devaluing the Rule
      2. Expelled diplomats in retaliation for use of chemical weapons in UK/ poisoning of Sergei
      3. Sanctions interfered with offshore oil and gas Russian development
      4. Opposed Putin’s Nord Stream 2 Gas Pipeline
      5. Sent military weapons to Ukraine for them to fight Russian-backed separatists
      6. Increased European Deterrence Initiative spending

      Do you guys spend even 5 minutes researching before you chime in with Trump Russia Fox? Because in reality, if this is what you think someone does in Putin’s pocket, a Manchurian candidate, then it doesn’t mean what you think it does.

      What do you think Russia has paid for? Repeated hits to its own economy and geopolitical aspirations? From their guy?

      1. The Russian President during the reset was Medved, not Putin, and yielded real cooperation on a SALT treaty and Iran, among other ventures. The return of Putin and adventurism in the Ukraine ended with severe sanctions which have crippled the Russian economy and Putin supporting Trump against his sworn enemy Hillary. You think that was a mistake Karen?

        1. I asked if Trump uses “a Russia Reset button? Did he get caught on a hot mike saying that he’d have more flexibility after the next election?”

          I know when the Bear of Russia rose to power.

          You want to address my points about the absurdity of declaring Trump a Russian asset, considering his actions against Russia? Or are you sticking to it?



            Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. President of Russia from 2000 – 2008, and then 2012 to present. 2008 – 2012 served as Prime Minister of Russia because he was prevented from serving in a third consecutive term. He served as PM under Medvedev, and remained essentially in power. He was put forward by Medvedev for another Presidency in 2012.

            Russia Reset – 2009

            Got it?

            Do you understand how an asset is supposed to act?

      2. “The President Has Been Acting on Russia’s Behalf”: U.S. Officials Are …

        Jan 15, 2019 … Chief among the questionable policy decisions the Trump administration has made in recent months is the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, …

        Sorry, but Trump is not ‘tough on Russia’ – The Washington Post

        Jan 16, 2019 … President Trump has aligned the U.S. with Russian talking points on at least … For the past two years, he has consistently made it clear that he …

        1. Sorry. There’s a sign-in at the Vanity Fair article. And a pay wall at the WaPo article. Never mind.

        2. Right. Get your geopolitical information from a fashion magazine, do you? Have your Zoolander moment.

Comments are closed.