Let's say, purely hypothetically, that there was an investigation into Obama's fiest election win...

320 of them are dead Democrats who still vote

It will be released in full. They are just waiting while liberals foam at the mouth. Then they will release it and liberals will be crying all over again because Reump did nothing wrong. I love playing this game.

Trump has ties with Americans, liberals furious!

They cant change the laws user theyre too busy trying to figure out how their going to uselessly try to fuck over Teflon Don next week.

Wut

>they can't just order them to do something against the law
They didn't.
The nature of the vote was to push for a speedy release, but not an immediate demand.

>fuck over Teflon Don next week
And why that's a good thing, next on CNN.

Let's say, purely truly, that you are a russian shill faggot, and the mods and Hiroshimoot are taking Pootie-Poots' cancerous kopeks to allow you to fag up the board.

Other anons will take the bait, and hurr durr, and create more cancer. This is what happens.

So at the end of time, the cancer has multiplied to the point that Yea Forums only supports cancer. The cancer rate is over 9000, and then some.

2 centuries later, the OP releases his blood from his body in a bloody suicide. Anons cheer and welcome this decision.

The only problem is that it came way too late, and OP should have killed himself before he took the kopeks to post this cancer. In fact, someone should track him down an kill him now, so he can't fuck it up, so he won't keep living.

Imagine OP being dead instead of a russian shill posting cancer. Just imagine.

Attached: Advice for shit eaters.gif (407x405, 317K)

They're gonna release that shit but not until libs cry more first.

rent free 24/7

Attached: Trump derangment syndrome.jpg (618x480, 52K)

>4-page statement absolving Obama from any wrongdoing
it literally said it does not exonerate him tho

420 senator's really

Basically this. Trump plays them like a fiddle.

Trump can declassify anything he wants faggot.

>>implying senat consists of democrats only

>obama is black
he's a halfrican jew. that makes him about as black as Rachel Dolezal.

You don't prove innocence. You prove if he's not guilty. And they found him not guilty.

When was he tried? What court?

To be perfectly frank, I'm wondering at what point it wouldn't be hyperbole or rhetoric to straight up start talking about putting the entire Administration and GOP to the guillotine.

No, that's not what it said either. It actually said the report wouldnt specify if either he was guilty or not.
That's also a cute way of thinking. I wish I still believed in the system that much.

The FBI gives the DOJ recommendations, they don't personally charge people.
According to Barr's memo, which quoted Mueller, no charges were recommended.

They won't be taking him to court because there is no evidence.

It’s called there is classified info in it. Hundreds of people gave depositions and grand jury testimony without benefit of having a lawyer present. It’s not fair to them to have their name put out there if they did nothing wrong. Legally, the justice department can’t release someone’s name or info unless they committed a crime. The democrats know this and are grandstanding. The report will get released with all the classified and personal info omitted. Democrats have nothing else. They are relying on you to not know how the process legally works.

It will get released with all the personal info of people redacted. Democrats are hoping you stay ignorant of the legal process. The attorney general could get in major legal trouble if he doesn’t redact certain info. Moron.

LOL you are trying SO hard. It's downright cute.

It will get released in its legal form. Can’t out people who have done no wrong or gave testimony without benefit of having a lawyer present. Democrats want the full unredacted report released. They know that is illegal to do. They need to keep the charade up.

>muh legal standard
A compelling case can be made of a persons guilt without a legal conviction.
Al Capone was never convicted of anything but a few petty street crimes and tax evasion, yet it's indisputable he was a powerful gangster.

underrated post

That’s the law, moron. It’s illegal to release grand jury testimony of someone who did no wrong and had no lawyer present. Read the law, dipshit. It will get released in a redacted form. Lawmakers will be able to see the unredacted report.

Try it

Show where dems are pushing for an unredacted version.

So your argument is that Trump is a powerful gangster that's had countless people murdered and we should throw him in prison for the rest of his life on a bullshit charge?

Attached: 1543312883724.gif (500x267, 999K)

Well let's just make shit up then.

Everyone knows Obama is gay. He just had his staff wipe out the gay-related shit (the gay sauna and such things).

BTW the POTUS has always been no more than a small piece of shit if compared to the powerful men around him (yes, Reagan's face when they told him about 9/11 is the best thing to describe the USofA in the XXI century). If they don't like the President, some lone killer ****always**** happens and ****never**** misses. If they just need to change something, some (((((jewish))))) Monica Lewinsky happens.

TLDR, don't believe the President equals the King.

>p.s.: Putin always knew there was no Russian Connection and always laughed at Ameritards desperately trying to prove it (and those reeeeeing out "Not My President"). Putin knows USA only exists to serve Israel.

This is not CNN user.

You aren't very far off the mark. Trump IS absolutely a mobster, or at least he comports himself and his businesses like one. Plus he laundered or lauders money for the Russian oligarchs at his properties, most of which are actually owned in part or full by them.

You mean Fox News.

Attached: 4chan_itsthateasy.jpg (800x498, 46K)

That’s why they are crying now. The justice department just got it on Friday. Democrats know that it takes time to go through probably thousands of pages of the report. It’s all an effort to keep their base happy that they just let down after two years. The same type of hysterical crying that they did for the last two years. Congress already voted to release the report to the public. It will get released with proper legal redactions.

Ok, kid. Trump launders money for Russians...proof, faggot.

>Plus he laundered or lauders money for the Russian oligarchs at his properties, most of which are actually owned in part or full by them.
Wow, you should hurry up and call Robert Mueller with your evidence, user.
I'm sure he'd love to see it.

My argument is that the rich and powerful have a very different relationship with the courts than everyone else.
There are criminals, then super criminals.
Trump is the latter with decades of tax fraud and other financial crimes, scamming investors and contractors, sexual assault, to name a few pre-presidency, and part of his career of being a con artist involves heavy investment into his legal teams.

That is why in spite of several other NYC real estate moguls becoming bigger and richer than him, he's been involved in more lawsuits than them put together, and many of them initiated by him to bully opposition.

show. where. dems. are. pushing. for. an. unredacted. version.

>Trump is the latter with decades of tax fraud and other financial crimes
Why hasn't the IRS fucked his shit up yet, user?
>sexual assault
What?

Did you honestly miss everyone, literally everyone in the media running interference for everything Obama did?

youtu.be/Pb51PtIT5tM

Somehow, I missed the media and Hollywood pledging their allegiance to Trump. Mind posting the video?

Nah, you're just a disingenuous hack who lacks self awareness. But hey, flip the situation around and pretend like the press would go after the anointed one like they do cheetoman

>The entire senate voted, 420-0, to release the report. Who makes the laws if not them?

Thinks there are 420 members of the Senate.

Show me where Republicans are voting to not release the redacted version. Can’t find it anywhere.

Fuck off, Chucky.

>after the GOP screamed bloody murder that a black guy couldn't have got into the WhiteHouse on his own.
Actually they would have been right. Obama DIDN'T get in to the White House on his own, he had lobbyists and political donations and fundings that helped him get there.

Here is what’s happening. All the democrat crying is just hot air. It’s gonna be released to the public and lawmakers will get to see the unredacted version within a week. The White House isn’t getting to see it before Congress. OP is a fucking butthurt liberal faggot.

nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/ag-barr-release-mueller-report-weeks-not-months-n987646

The report will be released in a few weeks, the WH will not be given it first. Hopefully the congressional request for an unredacted copy and underlying evidence is provided ASAP too.

>Why hasn't the IRS fucked his shit up yet, user?

Because he hides his financial trails well beyond the scope of any legitimate business.
Timothy O'Brien attempted to get to the bottom of Trump's wealth, and worked with Trump directly.
Trump promised him the best access imaginable, believe him, but they proved to be misleading with no clear answer.
O'Brien had to resort to anonymous sources, which calculated Trump's personal wealth around 2-300 million dollars.
Upon releasing his book, Trump sued O'Brien for defamation.
O'Brien won.
law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/2011/a6141-08-opn.html
>Trump delights in the sort of elaborate shell games and impenetrably complex deals that frustrate the most conscientious efforts to assess a person's true worth. "It's always good to do things nice and complicated," he once told an interviewer, "so that nobody can figure it out."

>That difficulty is compounded by Trump's astonishing ability to prevaricate. . . .

>[W]hen Trump says he owns 10% of the Plaza Hotel, understand that what he actually means is that he has the right to 10% of the profit if it's ever sold. When he says he's building a "90-story building" next to the U.N., he means a 72-story building that has extra-high ceilings.

>What?
The man who brags about grabbing pussies grabbed a few who didn't like it.
He had been sued for it before running for President, and his first wife described him as disturbingly aggressive in the bedroom with no regard to her own feelings.

The Judicial Branch. Civics 101

I got better one.

Imagine someone said Obama was a Muslim born in Kenya, and then his birth certificate became available from a US .gov website showing he wasn't.

>a compelling case can be made
Not in America, faggot. Innocent until proven guilty. Otherwise your ass would be in jail for being a faggot.

Mitch McConnell did.
reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-senate/republicans-block-u-s-senate-democrats-move-on-making-mueller-report-public-idUSKCN1R62LI

I can tell you honestly I've done a number of crimes.
So where is my conviction in court?

>vox.com/2019/3/23/18278896/nancy-pelosi-mueller-report-house-democrats

4th amendment. Can't release it unredacted.

I fail to see how you smuggling cocks up your ass has anything to do with Al Capone.

>vox.com/2019/3/23/18278896/nancy-pelosi-mueller-report-house-democrats
Awesome, thank you.

You seem focused on what's in my ass, so.

Everyone wants an unredacted version. Demos wants it for details, repubs want it to go "Fuck off he's perfect"

She knows it’s illegal to release an unredacted version to the public. It’s all smoke and mirrors and you morons eat it up. Nancy now wants justice department methods and grand jury testimony by private citizens to be made public, or so she claims. I can’t believe you morons believe her. She doesn’t even know where she is half the time. Vox is about as far left as you can get.

Cause I'm a faggot. Takes one to know one.

And they won't get one. 4th amendment.

This isn't a 4th situation, and with a 420-0 vote, they could literally just change it.

>Because he hides his financial trails well beyond the scope of any legitimate business.
Oh, so you're just speculating all of this.
Glad we could clear that up.
>Trump sued O'Brien for defamation.
>O'Brien won.
Did you even read about the case you just sourced, moron?
>because O'Brien's book constituted entertainment, not news, despite the judge's acknowledgment that it contained many items of news and concerned matters of public interest.
>All those persons, whatever their job titles, performing a legitimate journalistic function will be protected.
>Without doubt, details of the life of Trump, whether entertainingly reported or not,8 constitute matters of public interest and thus “news” protected by the Shield Law.
caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1450396.html
He didn't win because he told the truth, he won because he was employed as a journalist at the time.

That would of applied during the investigation, not after.
Numerous politicians know things are illegal but say they want to do them or want them done anyway. It's a show, but not in a smoke and mirrors, more of a "THIS IS WHAT WE WANT, AND WE WANT IT NOW (But I'm willing to take what you'll give me)". The only people confused by this are people whose first time voting was for based cheeto.

I think if Trump was in part elected as a repuke against the corrupt establishment and criminals, then it's reasonable to expect an initiative from his administration to push for as much transparency as possible.
Trump instead hides behind pieces of shit like McConnell, who will protect anyone and anything that benefits the GOP, so we're back to square one of dirty politics.
>I can’t believe you morons believe her
Never particularly liked her, but getting Trump to pussy out of the shutdown was pretty funny.

Well shit, I just recently came out as bisexual.
Wanna suck some dick?

>He didn't win because he told the truth, he won because he was employed as a journalist at the time.
He could be sued for lying, by someone who threatens his old school's with legal action if they choose to release his grade, so which do you think it probably is?

>Oh, so you're just speculating all of this
No, as that court case demonstrates.

>He didn't win because he told the truth, he won because he was employed as a journalist at the time
And that negates Trump's dishonest collaboration with him because....?

>Did you even read about the case you just sourced, moron?
Yes, and among the many juicy bits, it confirms the alt right voted for a literal post modern snowflake who thinks with feelings instead of facts.
>Q Now, Mr. Trump, have you always been completely truthful in your public statements about your net worth of properties?

>A I try.

>Q Have you ever not been truthful?

>A My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings, but I try

>Q Let me just understand that a little bit. Let's talk about net worth for a second. You said that the net worth goes up and down based upon your own feelings?

>A Yes, even my own feelings, as to where the world is, where the world is going, and that can change rapidly from day to day. Then you have a September 11th, and you don't feel so good about yourself and you don't feel so good about the world and you don't feel so good about New York City. Then you have a year later, and the city is as hot as a pistol. Even months after that it was a different feeling.

>So yeah, even my own feelings affect my value to myself.

>Q When you publicly state what you're worth, what do you base that number on?

>A I would say it's my general attitude at the time that the question may be asked. And as I say, it varies.

What are you even talking about?
The guy claimed to have three "sources" and refused to name them and was shielded by specific laws forcing him to do so.
Meaning, he couldn't be sued for lying if he's just "reporting" his findings.

>instead of facts.
The reporter didn't show facts, user.

>laws forcing him to do so.
laws that didn't force him to do so.**

>Further, it is unquestionable that, under New Jersey law, information developed by O'Brien for his Times article and for TrumpNation constitutes news, and that in collecting and utilizing that information, O'Brien acted as a member of the news media, as defined by the Shield Law.
caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1450396.html

He never had to prove his findings.
He never had to name his sources.
Because he was shielded by laws.

No facts shown, just words.
No verifiable documentation proving Trumps net worth, just words.

Trump says to release it. He has no control over its release.

>The reporter didn't show facts, user
It's a fact that Trump had the opportunity to work with a journalist to make his personal wealth clear, and proved to be full of shit.
The original question was why Trump has evaded IRS scrutiny, and that's exactly because it's his hustle to obfuscate his finances.

>No verifiable documentation proving Trumps net worth
Because Trump didn't provide any, and mislead O'Brien instead.

hey guys just remember orange bad

user, just admit that your example was horse shit.
The guy didn't win a defamation case because his article was true, he won because he couldn't be sued for defamation.
>The original question was why Trump has evaded IRS scrutiny, and that's exactly because it's his hustle to obfuscate his finances.
So he's smarter than everyone at the IRS?

Hey fuckhead, you forgot the part where GWB started investigating him while he was running, and obtained a warrant from our secret court system using an unverified dossier written by a foreign agent, funded by the sitting presidents party candidate, and verified by a YAHOO news article based off...the same dossier.

Attached: 55554530_2136820343065062_8174500521629974528_n.jpg (652x750, 55K)

>Because Trump didn't provide any, and mislead O'Brien instead.
He didn't have to prove it, you mongoloid.
He wanted to sue the guy for defamation but couldn't because of that states laws.
Again...Zero verifiable facts given by the defendant, no proof of his claims.

>What are you even talking about?
Probably the Cohen thing.
Sounds like he wasnt guilty of defamation, user. Sounds like he wasn't making fiction.
I'm sorry you don't like that American reporters are allowed to keep their sources safe. Guess you're just going to have to stick with your opinion then. For your consideration:
> In opposition to the motion, O'Brien claimed with respect to the three sources that their identities were confidential, and that they feared retribution by Trump upon disclosure.

He was also suing for malice, which he didn't prove.

>Trump willingly and extensively aided O'Brien in his research for the book, and that O'Brien was willing to meet with Trump at any time to discuss the project
>Won't show him his actual net worth
>Because it fluctuates
>On his FEELINGS
Jesus, you guys, get it together.

>Sounds like he wasnt guilty of defamation, user.
>Sounds like he wasn't making fiction.
Seems like you have a reading reading impairment...
>Further, it is unquestionable that, under New Jersey law, information developed by O'Brien for his Times article and for TrumpNation constitutes news, and that in collecting and utilizing that information, O'Brien acted as a member of the news media, as defined by the Shield Law.
caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1450396.html

He never had to prove his findings.
He never had to name his sources.
Because he was shielded by laws.

No facts shown, just words.
No verifiable documentation proving Trumps net worth, just words.
>I'm sorry you don't like that American reporters are allowed to keep their sources safe.When did I say that I didn't like that, user?
I simply said that he didn't show his work.
If he was taking a math test in grade school, he would have failed.
All I'm saying is that the win doesn't constitute his writing as truth.

You're obsessing over the legal standard and bitching about a law protecting journalists I find legitimate.

>Again...Zero verifiable facts given by the defendant, no proof of his claims.
>He didn't have to prove it, you mongoloid
How the fuck is anyone supposed to calculate Trump's wealth with legitimate, public sources if Trump himself refuses to provide them, which is exactly what he promised to O'Brien?
You are a fucking idiot.

a reading impairment*

>You're obsessing over the legal standard and bitching about a law protecting journalists I find legitimate.
I'm not bitching about any laws, you illiterate donkey.
user above, not sure if you're that retard, posted that case as if it proved Trump's net worth was lower than it really is.
I quoted from the case showing exactly why the defendant won and it had nothing to do with the defendants accusations and everything to do with that states laws shielding media.
Learn to fucking read and follow conversation before spouting off like a retard, user.

>How the fuck is anyone supposed to calculate Trump's wealth with legitimate, public sources
Well, you can look at his property for one.
His assets alone have been assessed and alone are worth around 2 billion.

>posted that case as if it proved Trump's net worth was lower than it really is.
He also posted that case as if it proved Trump lies about his worth, he thought that because the defendant won, that Trump must be lying about his net worth.
This couldn't be further from the truth as to why O'Brien won that case.

>that case as if it proved Trump's net worth was lower than it really is.
That wasn't the premise
>Why hasn't the IRS fucked his shit up yet, user?

>Learn to fucking read and follow conversation

Attached: 1551562221553.jpg (640x480, 77K)

That is not personal wealth.

>That wasn't the premise
You;re right, he probably thought that was the cherry on top, in his mind.
This was why...

Google personal wealth...

>What is personal wealth?
Wealth measures the value of all the assets of worth owned by a person, community, company or country. Wealth is determined by taking the total market value of all physical and intangible assets owned, then subtracting all debts. Essentially, wealth is the accumulation of resources.

I mean you can keep clinging to that if you want, but really if we want to complain about facts, which for all purposes he did publish, why didn't Trump give him hard facts so he could give a good estimation of his net worth?

That doesn't disprove O'brien, btw. It does show that Trump 'tries' and by tries, we clearly mean 'does not do so all the time' about his net worth.

>I mean you can keep clinging to that if you want
I'm not the reject who posted that case as if it meant anything, user.
>why didn't Trump give him hard facts so he could give a good estimation of his net worth?
How do we know he didn't?
It's his word against Trumps.
I didn't study the case in depth, because at face value, it had nothing to do with our conversation like you wanted it to.

>That doesn't disprove O'brien, btw.
I never said it did, holy shit you people are fucking illiterate.
O'Brien didn't prove his own words, user.

It could be coming very soon, why do you think Trumps still shook even though he was just "exonerated"? He's up to his neck in shit and he knows he is, the Mueller report has just lowered the shit-tide by a centimetre.

No, numbnuts, you cannot release sensitive financial information of someone who is not being charged with a crime. 4th amendment.

Yes, the court case wasn't on whether Trump lies about his finances, but his testimony and other sources indicates he does.
On top of lying a journalist, he refused to disclose his tax papers as a Presidential candidate.
So we have someone who brags about being a billionaire with a brand "bigger than coca-cola", yet multiple times has refused to prove it and makes sure it's virtually impossible for anyone to verify it.

That is someone who lies about it wealth.

>Essentially, wealth is the accumulation of resources.
And factoring in debt as you said.
youtube.com/watch?v=c-7KoKOUENs

foxbusiness.com/politics/trumps-business-credit-score-is-19-out-of-a-possible-100

>According to Nav, The Trump Organization, Inc.’s business credit score is a 19 out of 100 as of Sept. 23, 2016, which puts it below the national average score by more than 30 points. The Nav report said the score indicates the Trump Organization “is very likely to default on its credit payments” and that “this will make it difficult to get financing.” It puts Trump’s Organization in a “medium-to-high risk” category.

>“Payment status is the most important factor when it comes to business credit scores, accounting for approximately 50% or more of the score,” Detweiler said. The Trump Organization’s payment history shows it pays an average of 26 days beyond terms (DBT), compared to the national average of 12 DBT.

Do you know what that amendment is? It was lawfully searched for/gathered.
I believe the initial point was that Trump hides his finances. If this isn't the case, why didn't Trump disclose more information during the research for the book?
He had to get it through other sources, and if you have an issue with someone not disclosing the names of those individuals then this is an ongoing logical loop, and I hope you make sure that in any situation if someone doesn't disclose their sources, regardless if it is good news or bad news to you, you disregard it entirely. Enjoy your opinion.
It's not really my conversation I was just chiming in. And it does really if we're talking about his dishonesty about his wealth.

>but his testimony and other sources indicates he does.
Are you retarded?
What testimony?
>On top of lying a journalist
Again, are you fucking retarded?
What are you even talking about?
>That is someone who lies about it wealth.
You're the only one making baseless claims here, user.
I have a big dick, I don't need to show it to everyone to prove it's big.

>If this isn't the case, why didn't Trump disclose more information during the research for the book?
How do we know he didn't?
How do we know that writer is unbiased?
How do we know that writer didn't have an agenda?

>And it does really if we're talking about his dishonesty about his wealth.
No, it still doesn't because the writer showed you, the reader, zero proof of his claims.
Therefore, everything about that case and person are completely irrelevant in my opinion.

>How do we know he didn't?
He may have, but then why not put some effort toward publicly releasing anything that might help prove an estimated net worth? It is more likely to assume that the decorated journalist wasn't lying
>How do we know that writer is unbiased?
I think everyone is kind of biased, but to the point where it would effect anything, was disproved in the court case.
>How do we know that writer didn't have an agenda?
That's the same question, and probably because it was way before the presidency bullshit and it was just Tman being Tman, you social relevancy newfag. Him being a not amazing/sneaky business man has been a meme since before memes were self identified.

Then 90% of news must also be irrelevant in your opinion. Neat.

>why not put some effort toward publicly releasing anything that might help prove an estimated net worth?
Because it's none of our fucking business, that's why.
>I think everyone is kind of biased, but to the point where it would effect anything, was disproved in the court case.
The guy could have said he had three sources saying they witnessed Trump raping a cat and he would have been shielded by the same law, user. His credibility and bias had nothing to do with that case.
>Him being a not amazing/sneaky business man has been a meme since before memes were self identified.
Nobody that's a billionaire is squeaky clean, bozo.

Yes.
Now you're getting it.

>What testimony?
O'Brien being forced to use anonymous sources, Trump basing his net worth on his feelings.

>You're the only one making baseless claims here, user.
Trump refused to disclose his taxes. Fact.
A journalist resorted to using anonymous sources after working with Trump directly. Fact.
Trump claims to base his net worth on his feelings. Fact.
By Trump's own actions, it is impossible to asses his actual wealth, and we have to base it on the word of a man who says it goes up and down on how it feels.
Truth be to told user, I'm actually richer than Trump and Bill Gates put together, and today I'm smoking a cigar looking at a fat 500 trillion dollars. It was 700 trillion yesterday, but the tumultuous political climate leaves me worried and uncertain.

weak and predictable

weak and predictable

That's just silly.
>The guy could have said he had three sources saying they witnessed Trump raping a cat and he would have been shielded by the same law, user.
Are you going to pretend that those two things are even remotely comparable and would have been treated the same way?
And if the rich aren't squeaky clean, I have no reason to believe the evidenceless assumption that at the time he was worth something other than what was stated. So I guess we're at an impasse.

>being forced to use anonymous sources
LOL
>Trump refused to disclose his taxes. Fact.
So?
Is that against the law?
>A journalist resorted to using anonymous sources after working with Trump directly. Fact.
That's not a fact, show me proof he even had sources, user.
You literally have to take his word for it to assume that's a fact.
>Trump claims to base his net worth on his feelings. Fact.
Yeah, I thought that was kind of funny when he said it.
>By Trump's own actions, it is impossible to asses his actual wealth
Not his assets. Those are worth in excess of two billion dollars.
>Truth be to told user, I'm actually richer than Trump and Bill Gates put together
Awesome, show us all of your rad houses, golf courses and buildings.

>That's just silly.
No, not at all.
>Are you going to pretend that those two things are even remotely comparable and would have been treated the same way?
They're both claims without evidence.
They're very much comparable in the context of this conversation.
>And if the rich aren't squeaky clean, I have no reason to believe the evidenceless assumption that at the time he was worth something other than what was stated.
That's fine, you're entitled to your OPINION.

THERE FUCKING WAS AN INVESTIGATION YOU DON'T REMEMBER DONALD TRUMP SENDING PIS to HAWAII TO CHECK OBAMA's BIRTH CERTIFICATE
YES I AM YELLING BECAUSE I WISH I COULD BE HITTING YOU WITH A SHOVEL

Remember that lady that gave over his birth certificate?
What was her name again?
I wonder what ever happened to her, hope she's doing alright.

Attached: 1523181648515.jpg (445x482, 25K)

They're comparable in that they're both fruits, but not the same and aren't eaten the same. Murder and rape are both crimes, but have different punishments, get it? You are also entitled to your opinion. That said, by your own admission, rich people aren't squeaky clean, which implies wrong doing and dishonesty. So I feel like that's enough for me. You do you, boo.

>Is that against the law?
It works against an honest assessment of wealth and success of business.
>show me proof he even had sources, user.
He had one, with Trump. That failed.
>Yeah, I thought that was kind of funny when he said it
If that's his testimony in court, then how does he probably conduct himself with other people curious about his wealth?
>Not his assets. Those are worth in excess of two billion dollars.
And if he's got billions in debt, that doesn't mean shit.
>Awesome, show us all of your rad houses, golf courses and buildings
Nah man, I commit to a full spartan lifestyle to reduce my carbon footprint. It's all invested in cryptocurrency, you better believe it.

>Murder and rape are both crimes, but have different punishments, get it?
I didn't say those two things were exactly the same, I was saying they are both comparable in that no evidence is required to say either.
If I lived in New Jersey, I could literally say that about anyone I wanted to and the law would shield me from proving that I had sources.

You reside in pelosi’s district, huh?

>It works against an honest assessment of wealth and success of business.
And?
>He had one, with Trump. That failed.
Neither you or I know whether or not Trump gave him what he asked for.
We can either take the writers word for it or not.
I chose to not believe people who refuse to show their work.
I don't know what Trumps worth, I just know his assets are worth around 2 billion.
>If that's his testimony in court, then how does he probably conduct himself with other people curious about his wealth? I don't care about his wealth, I mind my own fucking business. You should try it sometime, you may get somewhere in your own affairs.
>And if he's got billions in debt, that doesn't mean shit.
It obviously means he's making a lot of money, paying off his debts on time, otherwise they would be taking his assets from him.
>Nah man, I commit to a full spartan lifestyle to reduce my carbon footprint. It's all invested in cryptocurrency, you better believe it.
Ahh, well even Trump is willing to show his assets, user.
Are you worse than Trump?

>Neither you or I know whether or not Trump gave him what he asked for.
There were a few responses in the links posted earlier, none of them had him mention that he was more fourth coming with that information.

Does his dick taste good, at least?

>Neither you or I know whether or not Trump gave him what he asked for
If Trump can't be arsed to disclose his taxes while running as President based on bullshit excuses, and according to him is incapable of giving an objective estimate of his own net worth off the cuff, then a journalist interested in his wealth probably did not receive legitimate information.
>I chose to not believe people who refuse to show their work.
Journalism and anonymous sources are inseparable.
Bob Woodward didn't disclose his at the time, yet his published report was incisive enough to bring the Nixon administration to heel.
>I don't care about his wealth, I mind my own fucking business. You should try it sometime, you may get somewhere in your own affairs.
I don't care how you feel, snowflake.

>otherwise they would be taking his assets from him.
Or most of those assets are paid for by other investors money. That's exactly what happened in atlantic city.
Trump is not a wealth . creator, and Trump ORG is described as a "medium-to-high risk assets" >Are you worse than Trump?
Nope, I don't need a display of hideous, tacky resorts to prove I got a big dick, and I certainly don't need to prove it to you :^)
>haha you're lying
How do you know?

>Does his dick taste good, at least?
Ironic, who's the one obsessing over Trump and his money?

>obsessing over Trump and his money?
Me. Because one of the central selling points of his campaign was him as a model of success, yet he has a decades long pattern of refusing to substantiate that.
He did transform his father's real estate empire in a world famous brand, but that highlights Trump's skill as a marketer and not necessarily in making a profit.

>based on bullshit excuses
Audits are no joke, user.
Get wrapped up in a few and you'll think twice about flaunting specifics for no reason too.
>Journalism and anonymous sources are inseparable.
What does that have to do with proof?
Just because someone claims to have sources providing facts, doesn't mean they're telling you the truth.
Until you see the truth yourself, you shouldn't take their word for it, unless you want to live life gullible and stupid.
>I don't care how you feel, snowflake.
Another ironic post from an user obsessed with Trump and his money.
>Or most of those assets are paid for by other investors money.
Or maybe you could take two seconds to verify whether or not that's true.
Would you like to do that, user?
I didn't think so.
>Trump is not a wealth . creator
Well that's just stupid as fuck.
>haha you're lying
When did I say that?
Is this what it's come to, you need to insert fantasy to make points now?

It’s not required businesses make profit

Him, probably. It was only 3 pages of the book.

>about flaunting specifics for no reason too.
The whole point of previous Presidents disclosing their taxes was a gesture of good faith to the public that they are not compromised by money.
That is an extremely important reason.
Trump did contradict himself in that he would release them if Hillary released her emails, so how much risk was he avoiding?
>Until you see the truth yourself, you shouldn't take their word for it, unless you want to live life gullible and stupid
Until Trump provides irrefutable provide, I have to rely on people whose job is to find the real story.
washingtonpost.com/outlook/trump-lied-to-me-about-his-wealth-to-get-onto-the-forbes-400-here-are-the-tapes/

If multiple, unrelated parties asses that Trump does not show his finances, and he did not running as President, then he claims to be a billionaire without proof.

>Well that's just stupid as fuck.
If he's pulling in so much money, why is he unable to get good credit in the US and takes twice as long to pay back loans than the national average?
nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html
>When did I say that?
If a man claims to be rich as fuck yet doesn't prove it, then he's probably lying.

Yet Trump claims to be filthy rich.

Sometimes chapter 11 saves you money.
And do you care if he’s filthy rich or not? I don’t.
I worry about myself before trump. You don’t seem to.

I care whether the most powerful man in the world, the President of the United states, was elected on legitimate merit or what he wants people to believe.
>I worry about myself before trump
Then why bother posting in a Yea Forums thread about the topic in the first place?

>The whole point of previous Presidents disclosing their taxes was a gesture of good faith to the public that they are not compromised by money.
Yeah, and I always found that gesture quite laughable.
Start looking into their family members and you'll see why.
>Trump did contradict himself in that he would release them if Hillary released her emails, so how much risk was he avoiding?
I guess he thought that his taxes weren't more important than her emails.
>Until Trump provides irrefutable provide, I have to rely on people whose job is to find the real story.
When has the PodestaPost ever been credible or unbiased?
> then he claims to be a billionaire without proof.
He is a billionaire though.
I don't know how many times we need to go over this, his assets were appraised at around 2 billion, years ago.
If he was billions in debt, as you claimed above, then his businesses are making enough money to pay off his debts and he's netting positive gains.

>If he's pulling in so much money, why is he unable to get good credit in the US and takes twice as long to pay back loans than the national average?
The Nav report also shows a tax lien, a judgement and three collection accounts, all of which ding the Trump Organization’s score, but the status of these is unclear.

The first, from the Environmental Control Board, said “paid in full, amount paid $0” and is dated 2015. Another is an account in collections reported by Altus Global Trade, which shows up twice: One appears to be closed and the other seems to be uncollected, according to the report. There’s no start date. The amount paid is listed as $0.

“This could be a duplicate, it could be resolved, it could be a mistake,” Detweiler said. “Just like personal credit, this is an illustration of why, as a business owner, you want to check your business credit report, and if it isn’t accurate, then you need to dispute it.” So, in effect, Trump or someone from his organization should dispute these items on his business credit report if they believe they are inaccurate. “If these items bringing down the credit score are mistakes, they could be fixed,” Detweiler said.

The other items are a state tax lien for $526, which shows as released and presumably was paid. (Note: Tax liens can stay on your credit report for a given number of years, even after they’re paid.) There was also a judgement regarding ABC Imaging of Washington, D.C., for $3,294 from December 2013.

Emperor Selfie is a vain arrogant little man with thin skin and a nasty temper

>Start looking into their family members and you'll see why.
I did.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3382756/Donald-Trump-cut-medical-treatment-nephew-s-sick-baby.html

>I guess he thought that his taxes weren't more important than her emails.
Yet he asked where Hillary emails were at Helsinki.
> then his businesses are making enough money to pay off his debts and he's netting positive gains
Yet he's unable to get credit in the US.
Which is why Deutsche Bank is his primary creditor
reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-ethics/trump-owes-lenders-at-least-315-million-disclosure-shows-idUSKBN1972XM
>Trump released a disclosure form in May 2016 that his campaign at the time said showed his net worth was $10 billion. Some critics disputed that figure as overblown

>should dispute these items on his business credit report if they believe they are inaccurate
So where is the dispute from Trump?

>I did.
Start looking into the wives and children of everyone in office.
You didn't look into shit, user.
>Yet he's unable to get credit in the US.
Do you mean loans from American banks?
marketwatch.com/story/donald-trump-has-had-no-trouble-getting-big-loans-at-competitive-rates-2017-06-22

>Start looking into the wives and children of everyone in office.
Melania has no power, so she's irrelevant. Jared Kushner getting millions from Israel, Ivanka securing patents for her fashion line in China.
I expect politicians to be like this, yet Trump and his family's conduct breaches any normal parameters.
>Do you mean loans from American banks?
No, credit.

Do you think that Replebians will ever recover from the fact that a literal Jackass reality-star was a better president than their last 5?

Attached: 402cec5ffbc0f019452778732edc986b.jpg (1056x816, 124K)