Investigations into Trump - obstruction, campaign, taxes, business, etc

[Bean]

That’s not an insignificant statement in this conversation and certainly not semantics.

You might disagree with my opinions, and I respect that.  But, in this case, you’re simply misstating fact. 

I’m going to say it again, I’m not so much concerned with DT, I’m more concerned with the breakdown and the politicizing (by both sides) in this process.

[RideTheGlide]

For once I find myself somewhat agreeing with you , Bean. I found it significant that even Barr's first short summary, which I thought was a whitewash, did not try to use to report to totally exonerate/absolve. He downplayed Mueller's encouragement for continued investigation but did not deny its existence.

[eastbound]

bean, you dont express opinions--you critique those of others and dont offer your own or, meaningfully, how you arrived at actual opinions

i am a securities trader and i consume the opinions of many researchers--i rarely trade as recommended, but i find big value in offered explanation and logic, which contributes to formation of my own opinion and, often, a trade idea, often different from that reco'ed by the researchers i read

and exoneration, tho not a word barr used (that i am aware of), has been used infinitely by repubs

but critically, you neglect to explain the bad headlines and the complicated tax stuff--and much of what you quip as fact, but which proves to be otherwise----if my semantic error is germane, what of your disproven claim of unfair headlines in the linked nytimes piece??

[Bean]

...unfair headlines in the linked nytimes piece??

It doesn't really matter, and in this case, it truly is semantics, but I did say "misleading headlines".  The piece was run at a time when the entire nation was awaiting "news" on DT's finances and they chose to recycle "facts" form the 80's and 90's. 

With respect to the tax law, the issue was whether an inference could be drawn on DT’s personal finances based upon the financial information reported in the media.  In my opinion, the tax timing differences makes this impossible without additional information.   

[eastbound]

failed. abandoned businesses are what they are, tax losses or not--and trump's been a continual failure with most everything he's been involved with-

without daddy dough he's just a loudmouthed fool--except we would never have heard of him, however loud

bean, what's your opinion of trump's continual characterization of himself as a brilliant highly successful dealmaker and businessman??

[eastbound]

Headlines in question:

"Decade in the Red: Trump Tax Figures
Show Over $1 Billion in Business Losses

Newly obtained tax information reveals that from 1985 to 1994, Donald J. Trump’s businesses were in far bleaker condition than was previously known."

Nothing misleading in these headlines--they describe the content of the piece quite accurately--not sure why you seek to misrepresent that they are misleading?? and then, when questioned, launch this:

"The piece was run at a time when the entire nation was awaiting "news" on DT's finances and they chose to recycle "facts" form the 80's and 90's."

I guess youre just moving on from the misleading headlines claim. And no, no "recycling of facts from the 80s and 90s as you claim"--new stuff, just like the headline says:

"Newly obtained tax information reveals that from 1985 to 1994, Donald J. Trump’s businesses were in far bleaker condition than was previously known."

Not sure why you dodge around like this. is it to attempt to temper negative Trump press?

Seems disingenuous.

[RideTheGlide]

Anyone else notice the irony in complaining that something about Trump might be misleading?

[Area 10]

Trump tweets, in respect of the trade war with China, "We will be taking in tens of billions of dollars in tariffs from China. Buyers of product can make it themselves in the USA (ideal), or buy it from non-tariffed countries."

Do you think it’s actually possible that he thinks that China is paying the tariffs, rather than the US population?

Not that he’s wrong to try and do something about China’s restrictive trade practices. But it occurred to me that maybe he isn’t knowingly lying about the tariffs, he’s actually just so dim a businessman that he doesn’t understand.

[Admin]

Trump tweets, in respect of the trade war with China, "We will be taking in tens of billions of dollars in tariffs from China. Buyers of product can make it themselves in the USA (ideal), or buy it from non-tariffed countries."

Do you think it’s actually possible that he thinks that China is paying the tariffs, rather than the US population?

Not that he’s wrong to try and do something about China’s restrictive trade practices. But it occurred to me that maybe he isn’t knowingly lying about the tariffs, he’s actually just so dim a businessman that he doesn’t understand.

Fortunately, the media has been doing a bit better there in the last week. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/10/opinion/trump-tax-china-tariff.html

Trump’s Tariffs Are a New Tax on Americans
President Trump is undermining the credibility of his trade policies by falsely claiming that China is paying the bill.

Trump has just found another area where a tiny bit of knowledge is involved. So, he correctly assumed that through repetitive misinformation he would be able to blur the lines for many. 

He has held back on tarrifing (most) finished consumer products so far which has helped maintain this blur.  Should cellphones, SUP's and the likes get hit (as he is threatening with a 4th trenche) then that would become more apparent.

[Area 10]

Interesting. I don’t understand how these tariffs fit with the “ultra-capitalist” US economic model. Protectionism and widespread taxes on goods sounds to me more like a SOCIALIST kind of policy

But it could be a nice earner for the US government. What is Trump going to do with the money raised from US consumers and businesses? Build the wall?

From that NY Times article:

“One of the studies concluded that the cost of the tariffs has fallen disproportionately on the parts of the country that have supported Mr. Trump most strongly, in part because China and other nations subjected to tariffs have targeted their retaliatory tariffs at agricultural products and other goods produced in those parts of the country”.

This was exactly what was predicted would happen by economists here in the UK (and no doubt the US) when Trump said what he intended to do.

The parallels between your “Trump situation” and Brexit here in the UK keep getting stronger and stronger. Here, the people who voted most strongly for Brexit are those who (a) are poorest, and whose incomes are most vulnerable, and (b) will be most economically disadvantaged by Brexit. It really is remarkable how easy it is to get people to vote against their own best interests.

[Bean]

bean, what's your opinion of trump's continual characterization of himself as a brilliant highly successful dealmaker and businessman??

He appears to be afloat, although I would not be surprised to find that he is in financial distress.  But that’s the point, there isn’t sufficient financial data to say one way or another.  We can only speculate.

Again, I’m not arguing for DT, I’m expressing my opinion on how I feel the media is reporting on politics in general by mischaracterizing certain facts.

[Admin]

Another: https://www.yahoo.com/news/news/white-house-expects-retaliation-china-over-tariffs-135959830--finance.html

This is another area where under-considered notion will have long term negative impacts on the US.  The US makes up 19% of China's revenue.  Substantial, of course, but far from their whole game as Trump seems to think.  China is long term.  They aren't going to be swayed by Trump's changes of mood.  They know how important China is to the US and they are willing to let that become apparent over time if need be.  They announce retaliatory tariffs today.  Trump will likely end up worse off than he began and then announce another victory (and that would be a good outcome at this point).  Super.

[RideTheGlide]

bean, what's your opinion of trump's continual characterization of himself as a brilliant highly successful dealmaker and businessman??

He appears to be afloat, although I would not be surprised to find that he is in financial distress.  But that’s the point, there isn’t sufficient financial data to say one way or another.  We can only speculate.

Again, I’m not arguing for DT, I’m expressing my opinion on how I feel the media is reporting on politics in general by mischaracterizing certain facts.

A lot of big losses were with other people's money mixed with his, which gets a little dicey when it comes to taxes. There is some speculation (based on information that can only be confirmed if all lenders provide records) that he is under water right now, which is basically broke if the paper work ever catches up with him. Who a government official owes money to is a big deal from a legal standpoint, so the investigations into that are not purely partisan. The GOP should want to clear him as badly as the DEMs want to impeach. Some of this is my opinion and belief that the information on loans has a high likelihood of being true.

[Area 10]

Becoming US president to avoid imprisonment? Well, that’s a novel approach - but maybe not in banana republics.

Admin is right about China, IMO. You won’t win a straightforward slug-out with them. They have little regard for the suffering of their own population, so will be able to plumb depths that Trump could not. There is certainly a problem for the US (and other countries) to solve. But the answer would be to get the whole international community behind a particular well-considered strategy, and approach it that way. The consensus of the experts as regards conventional trade wars seems to be that no-one ever “wins”. Everyone loses.

[krash]

All total crap, nothing will happen, and we will never see his tax returns as he will always be under audit.

If they were to review the tax returns of every billionaire they'd all have skeletons and they all use every loop-hope or rule to their advantage as they should at our expense.

The China deal really suz it really is a tax on the American citizen it will hurt us more than China... pretyt much any technical device we use is made in China, including the service providers like ATT/VeriZon/Sprint where do you think the equipment they use to provid us with internet, tv, and cell phone servcie from...
Thanks mr president for the 2% tax relief, but I can;t afford a 23% hit on all the products I purchase.