It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rachel Maddow tweets. BREAKING We've got Trump tax returns. Tonight, 9pm ET. MSNBC.

page: 45
40
<< 42  43  44    46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth


No, that's what Trump and Kellyanne said AFTER he was in office, when Trump decided to renege on his promise to the American people, to release his tax returns. They lied again. Most Americans want Trump to release his tax returns, as he promised during the campaign.



www.opposingviews.com...


Excuse me? Did Trump not get elected?
The American people did not see this as an issue big enough not to vote for him, or he would not have been elected. Again, simple facts.
I'll take the actual election result as a much clearer barometer of what people actually cared about, thanks.




posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Advantage

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Advantage

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth


We, the American people, myself included, want Trump to release his tax returns to the public.

I want to have the ability to look at them. But, I'm happy to have a professional explain them to me! My stance hasn't changed. That's always been my stance. I don't care about Racheal Maddow's tax expose. I don't care about Trump's 2005 tax returns.

If Trump refuses to release his tax returns, then I hope an investigative committee subpoenas them. In that case, as they are not legally available to the public, I would be fine with the committee's assessment.



I... one of those we the American people.. dont care to see his tax returns any more than I cared to see Obamas birth certificate.
He was raised in Kenya, by a livid marxist, as a muslim.  He was indoctrinated into the Quran as a child.  And like the counselors and therapist all tell us, we learn everything we will ever know  by 5 years of age. His birth certificate was irrelevant.


Just like Trumps returns.. the BC made little difference after the election.. and then reelection. You have to choose what battles are more important... not necessarily the most shocking. While people were speculating over a BC that was never going to be resolved.. so many other things happened that COULD have been opposed. Same with Trump. Ok.. he is elected. Now triage your battles.

BTW his dad wasnt a marxist.. he was a anti-colonialist.

Obama’s father was a socialist economist for the Kenyan Government.
In Obama’s own biography, he says his main mentor from age 8 to 18 was Frank Marshall Davis, a card-carrying Communist Party leader (Party #47544) who hated everything America stood for.


At the very least look up what an anti colonialist IS.

You didnt mention his mentor.. you mentioned his father.

But hey, keep thinking there will be any resolution to that BC.. its been how many years of missed opportunities to oppose things that were quieter and more insidious than that? He was elected.. and his background was known. TWICE.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



Actually they don't.


Yes, legal experts do disagree with you, and believe that there's enough evidence to justify a proper investigation into Trump's ties with Russia and a special prosecutor to oversee the investigation.


—Attorney General Jeff Sessions' decision to recuse himself from investigations of Russian contacts with Trump campaign officials is a step in the right direction, some legal experts say. 

But more needs to be done for a responsible investigation into Russia, the election, and the Trump campaign, they add.
.......
“It’s critically important that there’s an independent review, not just of Sessions but of the entire questions around [Trump campaign] contact with Russians during the campaign,” he adds.
www.csmonitor.com...



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Most Americans (55%) who voted did not vote for Donald Trump.

Politico - 2016 Election Results



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth


We, the American people, myself included, want Trump to release his tax returns to the public.

I want to have the ability to look at them. I'm happy to have a professional explain them to me! My stance hasn't changed. That's always been my stance. I don't care about Racheal Maddow's tax expose. I don't care about Trump's 2005 tax returns.

If Trump refuses to release his tax returns, then I hope an investigative committee subpoenas them. In that case, as they are not legally available to the public, I would be fine with the committee's assessment.


So long as you could decide who sits on the committee, amirite? And---if the first few sets of returns didn't show what you're wishing---well, we have to broaden this investigation.....to family, friends, business associates and gardeners---'cause you know, the people at the IRS aren't competent to discover illegal stuff.

Please tell us exactly what it is in his financial disclosures that caused these suspicions of yours to arise? Is it the fact that he does business all over the world---that he is a successful business person so therefore must be suspected of illegalities? We understand that you didn't want him to be president. But he won. And---he presented all the required financial disclosure reports.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

That fact that Trump is in the Oval Office doesn't mean his constituents, and those that didn't vote him, are giving him a pass to lie to the American people and reneging on his promise to release his tax returns to the public. FACT: Most Americans still want Trump to release his tax returns.

What is he afraid of? What is he hiding?


edit on 16-3-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Advantage

It. Was. Resolved.

I resolved the question of whether Obama's BC was authentic or not, in 2010. I proved his short form birth certificate had no raised seal and Factcheck deceived the public by claiming it did.

Link

There's no disputing these facts, but the media ignored the story.

If the media can ignore/bury that, then nothing can be expected to be exposed.

The BC is as worthy as anything else you thought was more worthy of exposure.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt



So long as you could decide who sits on the committee, amirite?


This isn't about me. The committee should be bi-partisan, independent and free of Trump appointees.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

That fact that Trump is in the Oval Office doesn't mean his constituents, and those that didn't vote him, are giving him a pass to lie to the American people and reneging on his promise to release his tax returns to the public. FACT: Most Americans still want Trump to release his tax returns.

What is afraid of? What is he hiding?



The investigation will do it's job. We have already established you have no legal right to see them and that you wouldn't know how to read them, so as I said several pages ago - leave it to the experts investigating.
If his tax returns being kept secret was an important issue he would have lost, plain and simple.
edit on 16/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: diggindirt



So long as you could decide who sits on the committee, amirite?


This isn't about me. The committee should be bi-partisan, independent and free of Trump appointees.



The committee is bi-partisan and free of Trump appointees.
Currently they are saying there is no evidence of any collusion with Russians.
edit on 16/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Who are these anonymous legal experts quoted in your link? Did I miss where they were actually named? I've not been able to find out who these "legal experts" are and what qualifies them as experts.

Also, further into the article about anonymous sources---



Multiple investigations are ongoing. An interagency group including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and Treasury Department has been investigating communications between Trump campaign officials and Russia for months, perhaps since as early as April 2016, according to reports. Separately, three Senate committees are delving into different allegations of Russian interference in the election.


It would seem that there are already several agencies spinning their wheels looking for that pot 'o gold said to exist at the end of the Donald's tax returns. Been going on now for nearly a year.....what gives? Who knows, maybe we should request investigations by the Easter Bunny as well....since the guys who are experts at investigation haven't been able to come up with anything.

GIVE UP! Get yourself a new hobby horse, this one is dead.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




bi-partisan, independent


Seriously? Did you used to work for military intelligence? Please explain how a committee could be found that was bi-partisan and independent at the same time.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth



Actually they don't.


Yes, legal experts do disagree with you, and believe that there's enough evidence to justify a proper investigation into Trump's ties with Russia and a special prosecutor to oversee the investigation.


—Attorney General Jeff Sessions' decision to recuse himself from investigations of Russian contacts with Trump campaign officials is a step in the right direction, some legal experts say. 

But more needs to be done for a responsible investigation into Russia, the election, and the Trump campaign, they add.
.......
“It’s critically important that there’s an independent review, not just of Sessions but of the entire questions around [Trump campaign] contact with Russians during the campaign,” he adds.
www.csmonitor.com...


Like I said, they don't.
Sessions recusing himself has nothing to do with a legal outcome of a case.
There is an investigation, after which we will know the legal ramifications and whether any legal process will ensue.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Deny it at your own risk of looking dumb. I've linked you to two articles that prove you're wrong. There are legal experts that disagree with you.

By the way, where did you get your legal degree again?



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Quit moving the goal posts.

Democrat lawmakers, Republican lawmakers, most of whom possess legal degrees, as well as independent legal professionals agree that there needs to be an independent investigation, overseen by a special prosecutor, to look into Trump 's Russian ties. That's fact, and not up for debate.

You're right though, this argument is dead. We won't find any agreement in this thread. The future will happen without you guys, and an independent investigative committee, overseen by a special prosecutor, will be formed to look into Trump's Russian ties.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Expert legal opinions are worthless with regard to U.S. politics. All that matters is the narrative that will be shoved down our throats despite 'legal issues.'



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: diggindirt

The future will happen without you guys, and an independent investigative committee, overseen by a special prosecutor, will be formed to look into Trump's Russian ties.






The future is now. There is an independent investigation underway. Haven't you heard?



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

Deny it at your own risk of looking dumb. I've linked you to two articles that prove you're wrong. There are legal experts that disagree with you.

By the way, where did you get your legal degree again?






You haven't linked anything pertinent to you claim.
Your article is a link to a reporter talking about how to proceed with an investigation.
Perhaps you'd like to explain how talking about how to proceed with an investigation means 'legal experts' disagree with the House Intelligence Committee's view that no evidence has yet been found regarding collusion between Trump and Russia to influence the election?

As for the risk of looking dumb, I posit that people acting like Racheal Maddow already look dumb.
edit on 16/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

That fact that Trump is in the Oval Office doesn't mean his constituents, and those that didn't vote him, are giving him a pass to lie to the American people and reneging on his promise to release his tax returns to the public. FACT: Most Americans still want Trump to release his tax returns.

What is afraid of? What is he hiding?



What is he hiding? Something.. maybe nothing.
Hence the independent investigation underway, which has so far found nothing.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

No, you're the one claiming that "no legal expert" disagrees with you! That's a pretty dumb statement, especially given the political climate around Trump and his Russian ties.

The issue in this thread is Trump's taxes. Racheal Maddow had Trump's 2005 taxes. No one cares, because the issue revolves around Trump's recent taxes, his broken promise to release them, and what they might reveal about his Russian ties.

There is lots of evidence of Trump's Russian ties that, many legal experts agree, should be investigated in a bi-partisan committee, overseen by a special prosecutor.

Those are facts. Everything else is deflection and rubbish.

As to your claim that nothing was found, well, that's just dumb. Because the special prosecutor, yet to be appointed, and their committee will investigate what has been found and then determine if those findings mean that Trump knew and colluded with Russia.

I won't argue this BS with you any longer.

edit on 16-3-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)







 
40
<< 42  43  44    46  47 >>

log in

join