OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[Money Shot]

Under what statute??

Complaints have been filed with federal election regulators over the payment to Stormy Daniels my dear Trumpet. I wonder if Twumpy told Daniels he loved her like he did McDougall, maybe on the same night? We'll find out on Sunday's 60 minutes.

I see your turd is touting a $1.3tr spending hike as a species of victory. Add to his $2tr reduction in tax revenues to his golf buddies and it's a maga blackhole in the deficit.

[1bad65]

Complaints have been filed with federal election regulators over the payment to Stormy Daniels my dear Trumpet.

Trump didn't pay her a dime.

Michael Cohen paid her the money.
(That's a darn good friend, if you ask me.)

I see your turd is touting a $1.3tr spending hike as a species of victory.

He is? That's news to me.

He's actually saying he's not happy with it and only signed it because of the military spending. He also said it's the last one like this he's signing.

Add to his $2tr reduction in tax revenues to his golf buddies and it's a maga blackhole in the deficit.

What $2 trillion reduction??

Revenues are actually UP after the Trump tax cuts.

Source:
Go Figure: Tax Revenues Climbed $18 Billion In First Month Of GOP Tax Cuts
https://www.investors.com/politics/e...-gop-tax-cuts/

When I asked you earlier to keep up on current events, I expected you would at least try.

[1bad65]

.....

It's noted you filed to cite a statute Trump violated.

I figured that would be the case.

[Money Shot]

Trump is gonna have to prove he didn't reimburse Cohen under deposition. Laughable claim that Cohen stumped up 130k for free.

Trump signed it. Period. And laughable claims that revenues are up. It came into effect in January and nobody files till April. But it won't be until April 2019 that we know the full effect -12 months of Trumps golf buddy giveaway. You'd know that it you had a brain.

[Don Pichardo]

I see you are back and posting.

Now please tell us if you want to Trump to sign or to veto the spending bill that just passed Congress.

It's noted you filed to cite a statute Trump violated.

I figured that would be the case.

Your grammar doe! Lol.

[1bad65]

Trump is gonna have to prove he didn't reimburse Cohen under deposition. Laughable claim that Cohen stumped up 130k for free.

That's actually the opposite of how our legal system works.

You're doing a very poor job of keeping up, and now you're exhibing ignorance about the most basic tenets of our legal.system.

You gotta do better.

Trump signed it. Period.

Ah, but you added that celebrated a victory part nonsense, so take your own advice.

Next time, just present the facts and leave out your opinions.

And laughable claims that revenues are up.

That was sourced.

Again, you're not keeping up.

I'm growing tired of you posting out of ignorance here.

It came into effect in January and nobody files till April. But it won't be until April 2019 that we know the full effect -12 months of Trumps golf buddy giveaway. You'd know that it you had a brain.

Correct, but the Government started taking less out of people's check per the lower tax brackets in January.

Again, Economics 101.

Yet again, you're not keeping up on the facts.

So please, quit insulting me while I'm having to teach you the basics you should have learned in high school.

It's rude, and it indicates you may suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

[1bad65]

....

Since I'm not sure the level of Economics knowledge on your end, I have a very simple question which should give me an idea of where you are in that regard.

We know that tax revenues went up after tax rates were cut, per my source citation.

Can you explain how that happens?

[siablo14]

They make me laugh so much, they genuinely expect to see Trump being led away from the white house in handcuffs.

Oh man, my sides.

They expected Hillary to win too.

That Dershowitz opinion. Here is another opinion:

Dershowitz’s argument rests on his claim that it’s improper to make something a crime “based on what was in the President’s mind.” But a great deal of criminal law hinges on just that: what was in the defendant’s mind, or what was his intent. Dershowitz is correct that motive alone cannot be a crime. But often it is precisely the defendant’s motive, or intent, that makes an otherwise lawful act potentially criminal.

If I shred my business files because I’m cleaning out my office, that’s not a problem. But suppose I shred the same files because they have been subpoenaed and I don’t want to turn them over to the grand jury. The same action now becomes the crime of obstruction of justice, based on what was in my mind. I acted with corrupt intent, and my otherwise lawful act is now criminal.

Or to take an example from the current prosecution of Senator Bob Menendez: If I take a U.S. Senator on my private jet for a vacation at my Dominican villa because we are old friends, that’s perfectly innocent. If I take him on the same trip to influence him to intercede on my behalf in a dispute I have with the government, now I am acting with corrupt intent and the same actions may become bribery.

Dershowitz himself is inconsistent on this point. He agrees a president could be prosecuted if he lied to the FBI during an investigation, a violation of the False Statements statute, 18 U.S.C. 1001. But whether a false statement is a crime also depends on the defendant’s intent. If the president made a false statement to the FBI because he simply forgot some relevant facts or misunderstood the question, that would not violate the statute. To be criminal a false statement must be a knowing and deliberate lie. And to prove that intent, a prosecutor would have to prove what was in the president’s mind – the very thing Dershowitz claims is prohibited when it comes to obstruction.

Dershowitz argues that, “A president cannot be charged with a crime for properly exercising his constitutional authority.” I agree – but the key word is “properly.” If the president acts with the corrupt intent to save himself from legal jeopardy, he is not properly exercising his authority.

If Trump tried to thwart an investigation because he feared it might lead to him, that could be obstruction of justice. Contrary to Dershowitz’s claim, this would not amount to charging the president based on his motive alone. It would be based on his actions, which become potentially criminal when carried out with corrupt intent.

[Money Shot]

So 1SadShifty-lie basically confirmed everything I said was correct but thinks having the last word makes him right. Trumpturds meanwhile are turning on their Twump. You'd think they'd be happy with more nukes and whizz bangs as they file their returns three months early - good citizens these maga people . Hilarious that one 1Sad thinks he can judge in March 18 what annual federal revenues are gonna be in April2019. He is either dumb as a fish pond rock or the Rasputin of nsb. I know where my cash is.

[BERNIE'S CORNER]

1bad69er after her ignorance has been exposed.

[IMG][/IMG]

Translation: I’ll put you on ignore if you make me look like an idiot again.