The Swamp

I assume part of what Trump would do is string out these deals indefinitely, no? The building would sell at the price that best minimizes tax exposure with the acknowledgement that this would roll into future business or future price adjustments or whatever over and over.

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 10:55 am

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 9:51 am Apparently these two tweets admit to tax fraud for the purposes of salvaging his ego, according to everyone on the internet.

"Everything that I did in those reports is perfectly legal and everyone else did it too. Also it's fake news and I never did it."

- Donald J. Trump

Perfect. It drives me insane how Trump constantly says something, then says the exact opposite in the following sentence, and 40% of Americans still believe anything he says.

A_B wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 9:33 am Welp. Pretty sure he just did what ended up costing Nixon in invoking privilege to not release full information.

Unfortunately, so much of what Trump gets away with is due to his ability to control the media narrative. When Trump says he doesn't have to release information because of privilege, 40% of Americans believe he citing a legal fact.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 2:07 pm I assume part of what Trump would do is string out these deals indefinitely, no? The building would sell at the price that best minimizes tax exposure with the acknowledgement that this would roll into future business or future price adjustments or whatever over and over.

That isn't my specialty at all - but I do believe that once you've taken all the depreciation, you can't take it any more. Meanwhile, the building is bringing in rental income or some other revenue. So if you don't sell, you become unable to use depreciation to counteract the income you are making from the building.

(Where the hell is HDO??)

One wild card is the use of different entities. A lot of tax gaming is done by having one entity own a building, another rent it from entity 1, etc. Unless you have the tax returns of all the Trump-controlled entities, it's hard to get the complete picture.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 2:51 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 2:07 pm I assume part of what Trump would do is string out these deals indefinitely, no? The building would sell at the price that best minimizes tax exposure with the acknowledgement that this would roll into future business or future price adjustments or whatever over and over.

That isn't my specialty at all - but I do believe that once you've taken all the depreciation, you can't take it any more. Meanwhile, the building is bringing in rental income or some other revenue. So if you don't sell, you become unable to use depreciation to counteract the income you are making from the building.

(Where the hell is HDO??)

One wild card is the use of different entities. A lot of tax gaming is done by having one entity own a building, another rent it from entity 1, etc. Unless you have the tax returns of all the Trump-controlled entities, it's hard to get the complete picture.

If this isn't illegal, it should be. And what better motivation to change the law than to make the shady shit Trump brags about doing illegal?

Not for nothing, but the largely bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee just sent Don Jr. a subpoena. Speculation is that his bullshit lying about the Trump Tower deal may be the focus.

https://www.axios.com/senate-intelligen ... 991d2.html

Tariffs sound awesome. Why didn't any of our previous presidents think of this?

rass wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 3:13 pm Tariffs sound awesome. Why didn't any of our previous presidents think of this?

They weren't 'Very Stable' Geniuses!

I guess we're doing this "put American boys on the ground to wage an unwinnable war in the Middle East under the flimsiest of evidence" thing again.

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 9:13 am I guess we're doing this "put American boys on the ground to wage an unwinnable war in the Middle East under the flimsiest of evidence" thing again.

And a country of 80 million people as well. These people are satanic. (Bolton etc., not the Iranian public)

I can't wait to be retired. I don't need the extra anxiety anymore.

Operation "Deflect Attention".

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 9:13 am I guess we're doing this "put American boys on the ground to wage an unwinnable war in the Middle East under the flimsiest of evidence" thing again.

Are we going to be treated as liberators again?

sancarlos wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 1:03 pm Operation "Deflect Attention".

Deflect attention from what? Is it so big, that he needs something better than his current strategies that have led to having no consequences for anything he's done? I'm worried the hawks (especially the ones who have had a boner for attacking Iran for years) in the party are having a bigger influence on him. Or Saudi Arabia is cashing on their bribes, I mean investments.

DaveInSeattle wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 4:02 pm

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 9:13 am I guess we're doing this "put American boys on the ground to wage an unwinnable war in the Middle East under the flimsiest of evidence" thing again.

Are we going to be treated as liberators again?

Man, Grenada was a long time ago.

EdRomero wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 5:38 pm

sancarlos wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 1:03 pm Operation "Deflect Attention".

Deflect attention from what? Is it so big, that he needs something better than his current strategies that have led to having no consequences for anything he's done? I'm worried the hawks (especially the ones who have had a boner for attacking Iran for years) in the party are having a bigger influence on him. Or Saudi Arabia is cashing on their bribes, I mean investments.

Maybe the Mike Flynn testimony coming out soon is really bad.

Considering that Trump’s National Security Advisor is John Bolton and his closest global ally is Benjamin Netanyahu, I don’t think there’s much of a mystery as to why this administration is talking about military aggression against Iran. Those two have both been pushing for the US to attack Iran for years and years now.

Yeah, I kinda of said the same thing with less detail in response to sancarlos's deflection comment, but the Flynn release of information may have a lot that needs to be deflected (at the very least, Barr is going to have to do some impressive Jedi mind tricks to continue the claim his determination of no obstruction is legit when there is soon to be unredacted testimony in the Mueller Report of Flynn receiving phone calls from the White House dissuading him to testify).

Bolton, etc have been telling Trump how hot it would be to attack Iran for some time. Maybe they finally found an excuse (acceptable to them but not to sane people) to do it, or maybe sancarlos is on to something with the timing.

EdRomero wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 12:20 ams.

Maybe the Mike Flynn testimony coming out soon is really bad.
[/quote]



I mean, how could he have possibly known?

Pruitt wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 12:04 pm

EdRomero wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 12:20 ams.

Maybe the Mike Flynn testimony coming out soon is really bad.

I mean, how could he have possibly known?
[/quote]

Didn't Trump fire Sally Yates for telling him Flynn was under investigation and a security risk?

I thought that was the joke Pru was making... That's how I read it, at least.

ETA - I'm also almost positive Obama or someone very high up said something to this effect during the transition. Too lazy to go look it up.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ ... on-1330331

Then-President Barack Obama urged Trump not to hire Flynn in a meeting two days after the election, claiming he was problematic and prone to having crazy ideas, according to officials from both administrations. Sally Yates, Trump’s acting attorney general until he fired her days after taking office, testified to senators in 2017 that she had warned Trump that Flynn could be “compromised” by his ties to the Russians.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 1:21 pmDidn't Trump fire Sally Yates for telling him Flynn was under investigation and a security risk?

No. In fact, after reading countless statements to that effect on Twitter, I was going to come on here and ask why no one seems to remember why she was actually fired. It was during the chaos of Trump's first travel ban, when there were all those airport protests. Yates was acting AG at the time, and she publicly declared she would not defend the travel ban in court. So Trump fired her that same night.

Got 'em now.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 3:17 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 1:21 pmDidn't Trump fire Sally Yates for telling him Flynn was under investigation and a security risk?

No. In fact, after reading countless statements to that effect on Twitter, I was going to come on here and ask why no one seems to remember why she was actually fired. It was during the chaos of Trump's first travel ban, when there were all those airport protests. Yates was acting AG at the time, and she publicly declared she would not defend the travel ban in court. So Trump fired her that same night.

But the overall point is that Trump had been warned, repeatedly, the Flynn was a huge problem.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 3:17 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 1:21 pmDidn't Trump fire Sally Yates for telling him Flynn was under investigation and a security risk?

No. In fact, after reading countless statements to that effect on Twitter, I was going to come on here and ask why no one seems to remember why she was actually fired. It was during the chaos of Trump's first travel ban, when there were all those airport protests. Yates was acting AG at the time, and she publicly declared she would not defend the travel ban in court. So Trump fired her that same night.

Ohhhh, yeah. I remember that. Seems like 20 years ago. Yates testified in Congress that she warned Trump Flynn was a security risk, and several Obama officials warned Trump Flynn was compromised.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 3:42 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 3:17 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 1:21 pmDidn't Trump fire Sally Yates for telling him Flynn was under investigation and a security risk?

No. In fact, after reading countless statements to that effect on Twitter, I was going to come on here and ask why no one seems to remember why she was actually fired. It was during the chaos of Trump's first travel ban, when there were all those airport protests. Yates was acting AG at the time, and she publicly declared she would not defend the travel ban in court. So Trump fired her that same night.

But the overall point is that Trump had been warned, repeatedly, the Flynn was a huge problem.

Yeah - I wasn't referring to any specific warning. Just find it ridiculous that the President* played the ignorance card. Even worse, making it sound like people were hiding this information from the poor guy.

Pruitt wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 3:57 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 3:42 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 3:17 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 1:21 pmDidn't Trump fire Sally Yates for telling him Flynn was under investigation and a security risk?

No. In fact, after reading countless statements to that effect on Twitter, I was going to come on here and ask why no one seems to remember why she was actually fired. It was during the chaos of Trump's first travel ban, when there were all those airport protests. Yates was acting AG at the time, and she publicly declared she would not defend the travel ban in court. So Trump fired her that same night.

But the overall point is that Trump had been warned, repeatedly, the Flynn was a huge problem.

Yeah - I wasn't referring to any specific warning. Just find it ridiculous that the President* played the ignorance card. Even worse, making it sound like people were hiding this information from the poor guy.

Well, when his worshipers believe it, why not? Either he admits he hired the traitor with knowledge that he was a traitor, or he shifts the blame on everyone else and claims innocence and victimhood. It's the Trump way!

The Sybian wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 4:00 pm

Pruitt wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 3:57 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 3:42 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 3:17 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 1:21 pmDidn't Trump fire Sally Yates for telling him Flynn was under investigation and a security risk?

No. In fact, after reading countless statements to that effect on Twitter, I was going to come on here and ask why no one seems to remember why she was actually fired. It was during the chaos of Trump's first travel ban, when there were all those airport protests. Yates was acting AG at the time, and she publicly declared she would not defend the travel ban in court. So Trump fired her that same night.

But the overall point is that Trump had been warned, repeatedly, the Flynn was a huge problem.

Yeah - I wasn't referring to any specific warning. Just find it ridiculous that the President* played the ignorance card. Even worse, making it sound like people were hiding this information from the poor guy.

Well, when his worshipers believe it, why not? Either he admits he hired the traitor with knowledge that he was a traitor, or he shifts the blame on everyone else and claims innocence and victimhood. It's the Trump way!

Or he hired a guy willing to work for him who blew smoke up his ass and therefore why bother with due diligence?

Of course the traitors around him wouldn't see any reason to tell Slimeball Chauncey Gardner the truth.

In this and only this instance I agree with Justin Amash.

Thread:

Wonder if Pelosi will have some dismissive words for him.

She could say "Impeachment has bipartisan support." But nah.

Edit:

Oh jeez. Jon Favreau made this point yesterday. Sorry, I was preoccupied trying to deal with Albuquerque's Finest at an Air Show.

So look at who Trump is planning on issuing pardons for...on Memorial Day....

Trump May Be Preparing Pardons for Servicemen Accused of War Crimes

President Trump has indicated that he is considering pardons for several American military members accused or convicted of war crimes, including high-profile cases of murder, attempted murder and desecration of a corpse, according to two United States officials.

The officials said that the Trump administration had made expedited requests this week for paperwork needed to pardon the troops on or around Memorial Day.

One request is for Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher of the Navy SEALs, who is scheduled to stand trial in the coming weeks on charges of shooting unarmed civilians and killing an enemy captive with a knife while deployed in Iraq.

The others are believed to include the case of a former Blackwater security contractor recently found guilty in the deadly 2007 shooting of dozens of unarmed Iraqis; the case of Maj. Mathew L. Golsteyn, the Army Green Beret accused of killing an unarmed Afghan in 2010; and the case of a group of Marine Corps snipers charged with urinating on the corpses of dead Taliban fighters.

This guy Gallagher sounds pretty much like a serial killer...

Navy SEALs who served with Chief Gallagher told authorities he indiscriminately shot at civilians, gunning down a young woman in a flowered hijab and an unarmed old man. They also said he stabbed a teenage captive, then bragged about it in text messages. His trial is set to start at the end of this month. If convicted, he faces life in prison. He has pleaded not guilty and denies all charges.

I can't wait to be retired so badly.

This is also a trial balloon and a super dangerous one.

Every day I'm legit worried that brick by brick the military institution gets internally degraded to the point that The Law of Armed Conflict and the Geneva Convention rules that are ingrained in us from basic training become suggested as opposed to mandatory.

I thank my lucky stars day in and day out that I've never seen actual combat or came close to having to use a weapon. The closest I may have come was driving the perimeter road in Iraq coming back from a supply warehouse or something and while I was a passenger saw this dude in the other side of the fence who looked like what a terrorist would look like in any photo or video ever.

He was holding an AK47, but it was not raised. The driver and I are only armed with our M9s. After half a beat we both were like "Do you see that?" We both agreed, yes. We just saw that. But, we weren't in danger. And we knew that.

"Drive, drive, drive..." Words we had to echo during combat skills training months prior were uttered and we kept moving. We told proper authorities and that was it.

If either of us engaged that dude we'd be war criminals. But we knew better. We were trained by people that have had to engage.

But this? Unfuckingbelievable.

“Like”, man.

Odds on Trump attempting to dissolve the House just increased 800% ...

mister d wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 7:38 am Odds on Trump attempting to dissolve the House just increased 800% ...

He'll most likely not read far enough into any article to get to this line...

Zelenskiy asked the Supreme Rada to adopt a bill against illegal enrichment