Actual proof of corruption

3,792 Views | 62 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by quash
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

ATL Bear said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

What is clear is that he has promoted his private interests far more than any one to ever occupy the Oval Office.


No.


Yes.

By constantly conducting state business at his private properties he gets the benefit of direct revenue and the benefit of free advertising. His aborted selection of his own hotel to host G-7 was just a gross overreach. The US has 500 resorts that could host that summit. How in the world can you justify that conflict of interest?

He tweets about his clubs, has aircrews stay at his places,. Kellyanne Conway shills for Ivanka's clothing brand. Who knows we're all the MAGA merchandise money goes. Don Jr sells his attempt at literature.

It literally never ends.
The Clinton's and Obama's net worths have increased by factors of anywhere from 30-50 times from the point prior to election. If Trump experienced a similar windfall he'd become the wealthiest individual in the world by a significant amount. I'm going to predict now that won't happen. Trump was a promoter prior to obtaining office, so I'm not shocked that his commercialism never truly stopped. But the exponential wealth factor generated by the political power play, during and post Presidency, is much more concerning to me and should be to all.


What BS. Obama did zero to feather his own nest during his time in office. It's ridiculous to argue he has used his political influence to enrich himself after he left office as he has no influence over the current government. He has made his money fair and square.

Clinton, I don't know.
Brand Obama is nothing but a political creation, which is the source of his wealth. How else would you define it?
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Booray said:

ATL Bear said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

What is clear is that he has promoted his private interests far more than any one to ever occupy the Oval Office.


No.


Yes.

By constantly conducting state business at his private properties he gets the benefit of direct revenue and the benefit of free advertising. His aborted selection of his own hotel to host G-7 was just a gross overreach. The US has 500 resorts that could host that summit. How in the world can you justify that conflict of interest?

He tweets about his clubs, has aircrews stay at his places,. Kellyanne Conway shills for Ivanka's clothing brand. Who knows we're all the MAGA merchandise money goes. Don Jr sells his attempt at literature.

It literally never ends.
The Clinton's and Obama's net worths have increased by factors of anywhere from 30-50 times from the point prior to election. If Trump experienced a similar windfall he'd become the wealthiest individual in the world by a significant amount. I'm going to predict now that won't happen. Trump was a promoter prior to obtaining office, so I'm not shocked that his commercialism never truly stopped. But the exponential wealth factor generated by the political power play, during and post Presidency, is much more concerning to me and should be to all.


What BS. Obama did zero to feather his own nest during his time in office. It's ridiculous to argue he has used his political influence to enrich himself after he left office as he has no influence over the current government. He has made his money fair and square.

Clinton, I don't know.
Brand Obama is nothing but a political creation, which is the source of his wealth. How else would you define it?

Hang on. Can you seriously not distinguish between post-presidential books and speaking fees and the acts in office to direct business to various Trump family businesses? Trump was pimping his kid's book on Twitter. Speaking of which, how did it get to the top of the NYT bestseller list? Was there a giant buy from one source? A not unknown tactic.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

What is clear is that he has promoted his private interests far more than any one to ever occupy the Oval Office.


No.


Yes.

By constantly conducting state business at his private properties he gets the benefit of direct revenue and the benefit of free advertising. His aborted selection of his own hotel to host G-7 was just a gross overreach. The US has 500 resorts that could host that summit. How in the world can you justify that conflict of interest?

He tweets about his clubs, has aircrews stay at his places,. Kellyanne Conway shills for Ivanka's clothing brand. Who knows we're all the MAGA merchandise money goes. Don Jr sells his attempt at literature.

It literally never ends.
Ideally Trump would donate the direct revenue back to the government, but it's not like his critics would cut him any slack for it. How do I know? Because he does, and you don't.

The Turnberry scandal has been completely debunked. Those aircrews were a small percentage of the personnel staying in the area under an agreement signed by Obama. There's zero evidence that Trump did anything to alter the arrangement.

And Don Jr's books, really? Obama spent $79,000 of taxpayer money to buy his own books and hand them out as "gifts" (read: free advertising). He also reworked his book deals after the 2008 election. He's multiplied his income many times over and done so almost entirely by leveraging interest in his political career.

This kind of thing is so far beneath the radar of constitutional concern that Republicans didn't even bother to feign outrage over it. That ought to tell you something. President aren't priests. It was never the Founders' intention that they take a vow of poverty.
twd74
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mr. Coudrey, at beginning of the voluminous pages at the beginning of this thread, indicates the information proves a slush fund was created to benefit a number of individuals, includng John Kerry, John Kerry Jr., and Heinz, Jr. One of the three, Chris Heinz, was in business with Hunter Biden until Hunter went on the board of the Ukrainian Company, upon which Chris subsequently resigned and has had no dealing with the companies mentioned. John Kerry Sr. is not involved, and John Kerry Jr., is apparently an imaginary person created by Coudrey or his Russian Cohorts. John Kerry does not have a son, in his namesake or otherwise.

As such, I question the validity of everything Mr. Coudrey includes after that statement. I have no confidence that the Russian he has so dramatically highlighted is what he claims it to be.
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
twd74 said:

Mr. Coudrey, at beginning of the voluminous pages at the beginning of this thread, indicates the information proves a slush fund was created to benefit a number of individuals, includng John Kerry, John Kerry Jr., and Heinz, Jr. One of the three, Chris Heinz, was in business with Hunter Biden until Hunter went on the board of the Ukrainian Company, upon which Chris subsequently resigned and has had no dealing with the companies mentioned. John Kerry Sr. is not involved, and John Kerry Jr., is apparently an imaginary person created by Coudrey or his Russian Cohorts. John Kerry does not have a son, in his namesake or otherwise.

As such, I question the validity of everything Mr. Coudrey includes after that statement. I have no confidence that the Russian he has so dramatically highlighted is what he claims it to be.
That is just too perfect. Now watch as all the outraged individuals on page 1 of this thread start ignoring it.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
twd74 said:

Mr. Coudrey, at beginning of the voluminous pages at the beginning of this thread, indicates the information proves a slush fund was created to benefit a number of individuals, includng John Kerry, John Kerry Jr., and Heinz, Jr. One of the three, Chris Heinz, was in business with Hunter Biden until Hunter went on the board of the Ukrainian Company, upon which Chris subsequently resigned and has had no dealing with the companies mentioned. John Kerry Sr. is not involved, and John Kerry Jr., is apparently an imaginary person created by Coudrey or his Russian Cohorts. John Kerry does not have a son, in his namesake or otherwise.

As such, I question the validity of everything Mr. Coudrey includes after that statement. I have no confidence that the Russian he has so dramatically highlighted is what he claims it to be.
I don't know that it was a slush fund. As an investment fund, it was an offshoot of the Heinz family's Rosemont Capital. Kerry's involvement is unclear, but apparently it was enough that Heinz felt the need to notify Kerry's senior staff at the State Department when he resigned.

The question is this: if Trump's pursuit of Hunter Biden is nothing but a bogus investigation for political ends, why did Heinz feel the need to cut ties with Biden and document his resignation way back in 2014?
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

ATL Bear said:

Booray said:

ATL Bear said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

What is clear is that he has promoted his private interests far more than any one to ever occupy the Oval Office.


No.


Yes.

By constantly conducting state business at his private properties he gets the benefit of direct revenue and the benefit of free advertising. His aborted selection of his own hotel to host G-7 was just a gross overreach. The US has 500 resorts that could host that summit. How in the world can you justify that conflict of interest?

He tweets about his clubs, has aircrews stay at his places,. Kellyanne Conway shills for Ivanka's clothing brand. Who knows we're all the MAGA merchandise money goes. Don Jr sells his attempt at literature.

It literally never ends.
The Clinton's and Obama's net worths have increased by factors of anywhere from 30-50 times from the point prior to election. If Trump experienced a similar windfall he'd become the wealthiest individual in the world by a significant amount. I'm going to predict now that won't happen. Trump was a promoter prior to obtaining office, so I'm not shocked that his commercialism never truly stopped. But the exponential wealth factor generated by the political power play, during and post Presidency, is much more concerning to me and should be to all.


What BS. Obama did zero to feather his own nest during his time in office. It's ridiculous to argue he has used his political influence to enrich himself after he left office as he has no influence over the current government. He has made his money fair and square.

Clinton, I don't know.
Brand Obama is nothing but a political creation, which is the source of his wealth. How else would you define it?

Hang on. Can you seriously not distinguish between post-presidential books and speaking fees and the acts in office to direct business to various Trump family businesses? Trump was pimping his kid's book on Twitter. Speaking of which, how did it get to the top of the NYT bestseller list? Was there a giant buy from one source? A not unknown tactic.
Yes, I can tell the difference. But the question I'm asking is, other than tactic, is there really a difference?
twd74
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

twd74 said:

Mr. Coudrey, at beginning of the voluminous pages at the beginning of this thread, indicates the information proves a slush fund was created to benefit a number of individuals, includng John Kerry, John Kerry Jr., and Heinz, Jr. One of the three, Chris Heinz, was in business with Hunter Biden until Hunter went on the board of the Ukrainian Company, upon which Chris subsequently resigned and has had no dealing with the companies mentioned. John Kerry Sr. is not involved, and John Kerry Jr., is apparently an imaginary person created by Coudrey or his Russian Cohorts. John Kerry does not have a son, in his namesake or otherwise.

As such, I question the validity of everything Mr. Coudrey includes after that statement. I have no confidence that the Russian he has so dramatically highlighted is what he claims it to be.
I don't know that it was a slush fund. As an investment fund, it was an offshoot of the Heinz family's Rosemont Capital. Kerry's involvement is unclear, but apparently it was enough that Heinz felt the need to notify Kerry's senior staff at the State Department when he resigned.

The question is this: if Trump's pursuit of Hunter Biden is nothing but a bogus investigation for political ends, why did Heinz feel the need to cut ties with Biden and document his resignation way back in 2014?
I think a lot of people were concerned with Hunter Biden's taking a place on the board of the Ukrainian Gas Company, at State and elsewhere. The danger was exactly this: Corrupt Prosecutors make up allegations on American Business. The former prosecutor at the source of these allegations has changed his story 3 times. He was also identified by 3 US Ambassadors appointed by 3 US Presidents to be corruptly connected with the Russian Oligarchs. Said Prosucutors Deputy Prosecutor has maintained --Despite enormous pressure on Ukraine -- that the former investigation was dormant in the time of the former prosecutor and was focused on the time well before Hunter Biden's time with the firm.
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Trump was just trying to root out corruption"
Turns out that was the lie it obviously appeared to be.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

ATL Bear said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

What is clear is that he has promoted his private interests far more than any one to ever occupy the Oval Office.


No.


Yes.

By constantly conducting state business at his private properties he gets the benefit of direct revenue and the benefit of free advertising. His aborted selection of his own hotel to host G-7 was just a gross overreach. The US has 500 resorts that could host that summit. How in the world can you justify that conflict of interest?

He tweets about his clubs, has aircrews stay at his places,. Kellyanne Conway shills for Ivanka's clothing brand. Who knows we're all the MAGA merchandise money goes. Don Jr sells his attempt at literature.

It literally never ends.
The Clinton's and Obama's net worths have increased by factors of anywhere from 30-50 times from the point prior to election. If Trump experienced a similar windfall he'd become the wealthiest individual in the world by a significant amount. I'm going to predict now that won't happen. Trump was a promoter prior to obtaining office, so I'm not shocked that his commercialism never truly stopped. But the exponential wealth factor generated by the political power play, during and post Presidency, is much more concerning to me and should be to all.


What BS. Obama did zero to feather his own nest during his time in office. It's ridiculous to argue he has used his political influence to enrich himself after he left office as he has no influence over the current government. He has made his money fair and square.

Clinton, I don't know.
Bull*****

In 2008 Obama's net worth was $1.3 Million. It's now $12 Million. While Michelle has a networth of $11.8 Million.
twd74
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

ATL Bear said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

What is clear is that he has promoted his private interests far more than any one to ever occupy the Oval Office.


No.


Yes.

By constantly conducting state business at his private properties he gets the benefit of direct revenue and the benefit of free advertising. His aborted selection of his own hotel to host G-7 was just a gross overreach. The US has 500 resorts that could host that summit. How in the world can you justify that conflict of interest?

He tweets about his clubs, has aircrews stay at his places,. Kellyanne Conway shills for Ivanka's clothing brand. Who knows we're all the MAGA merchandise money goes. Don Jr sells his attempt at literature.

It literally never ends.
The Clinton's and Obama's net worths have increased by factors of anywhere from 30-50 times from the point prior to election. If Trump experienced a similar windfall he'd become the wealthiest individual in the world by a significant amount. I'm going to predict now that won't happen. Trump was a promoter prior to obtaining office, so I'm not shocked that his commercialism never truly stopped. But the exponential wealth factor generated by the political power play, during and post Presidency, is much more concerning to me and should be to all.


What BS. Obama did zero to feather his own nest during his time in office. It's ridiculous to argue he has used his political influence to enrich himself after he left office as he has no influence over the current government. He has made his money fair and square.

Clinton, I don't know.
Bull*****

In 2008 Obama's net worth was $1.3 Million. It's now $12 Million. While Michelle has a networth of $11.8 Million.
Are you aware the Obama's signed a $65mm book(s) deal?
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

ATL Bear said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

What is clear is that he has promoted his private interests far more than any one to ever occupy the Oval Office.


No.


Yes.

By constantly conducting state business at his private properties he gets the benefit of direct revenue and the benefit of free advertising. His aborted selection of his own hotel to host G-7 was just a gross overreach. The US has 500 resorts that could host that summit. How in the world can you justify that conflict of interest?

He tweets about his clubs, has aircrews stay at his places,. Kellyanne Conway shills for Ivanka's clothing brand. Who knows we're all the MAGA merchandise money goes. Don Jr sells his attempt at literature.

It literally never ends.
The Clinton's and Obama's net worths have increased by factors of anywhere from 30-50 times from the point prior to election. If Trump experienced a similar windfall he'd become the wealthiest individual in the world by a significant amount. I'm going to predict now that won't happen. Trump was a promoter prior to obtaining office, so I'm not shocked that his commercialism never truly stopped. But the exponential wealth factor generated by the political power play, during and post Presidency, is much more concerning to me and should be to all.


What BS. Obama did zero to feather his own nest during his time in office. It's ridiculous to argue he has used his political influence to enrich himself after he left office as he has no influence over the current government. He has made his money fair and square.

Clinton, I don't know.
Bull*****

In 2008 Obama's net worth was $1.3 Million. It's now $12 Million. While Michelle has a networth of $11.8 Million.


Try to read all the words. What does "during his time in office" mean to you?
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

quash said:

ATL Bear said:

Booray said:

ATL Bear said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

What is clear is that he has promoted his private interests far more than any one to ever occupy the Oval Office.


No.


Yes.

By constantly conducting state business at his private properties he gets the benefit of direct revenue and the benefit of free advertising. His aborted selection of his own hotel to host G-7 was just a gross overreach. The US has 500 resorts that could host that summit. How in the world can you justify that conflict of interest?

He tweets about his clubs, has aircrews stay at his places,. Kellyanne Conway shills for Ivanka's clothing brand. Who knows we're all the MAGA merchandise money goes. Don Jr sells his attempt at literature.

It literally never ends.
The Clinton's and Obama's net worths have increased by factors of anywhere from 30-50 times from the point prior to election. If Trump experienced a similar windfall he'd become the wealthiest individual in the world by a significant amount. I'm going to predict now that won't happen. Trump was a promoter prior to obtaining office, so I'm not shocked that his commercialism never truly stopped. But the exponential wealth factor generated by the political power play, during and post Presidency, is much more concerning to me and should be to all.


What BS. Obama did zero to feather his own nest during his time in office. It's ridiculous to argue he has used his political influence to enrich himself after he left office as he has no influence over the current government. He has made his money fair and square.

Clinton, I don't know.
Brand Obama is nothing but a political creation, which is the source of his wealth. How else would you define it?

Hang on. Can you seriously not distinguish between post-presidential books and speaking fees and the acts in office to direct business to various Trump family businesses? Trump was pimping his kid's book on Twitter. Speaking of which, how did it get to the top of the NYT bestseller list? Was there a giant buy from one source? A not unknown tactic.
Yes, I can tell the difference. But the question I'm asking is, other than tactic, is there really a difference?


Of course there is a huge difference. First, to the extent a conflict of interest impacts policy, that is much less of a concern with an ex-president. Second, running the country is a full-time job.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

ATL Bear said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

What is clear is that he has promoted his private interests far more than any one to ever occupy the Oval Office.


No.


Yes.

By constantly conducting state business at his private properties he gets the benefit of direct revenue and the benefit of free advertising. His aborted selection of his own hotel to host G-7 was just a gross overreach. The US has 500 resorts that could host that summit. How in the world can you justify that conflict of interest?

He tweets about his clubs, has aircrews stay at his places,. Kellyanne Conway shills for Ivanka's clothing brand. Who knows we're all the MAGA merchandise money goes. Don Jr sells his attempt at literature.

It literally never ends.
The Clinton's and Obama's net worths have increased by factors of anywhere from 30-50 times from the point prior to election. If Trump experienced a similar windfall he'd become the wealthiest individual in the world by a significant amount. I'm going to predict now that won't happen. Trump was a promoter prior to obtaining office, so I'm not shocked that his commercialism never truly stopped. But the exponential wealth factor generated by the political power play, during and post Presidency, is much more concerning to me and should be to all.


What BS. Obama did zero to feather his own nest during his time in office. It's ridiculous to argue he has used his political influence to enrich himself after he left office as he has no influence over the current government. He has made his money fair and square.

Clinton, I don't know.
Bull*****

In 2008 Obama's net worth was $1.3 Million. It's now $12 Million. While Michelle has a networth of $11.8 Million.


Try to read all the words. What does "during his time in office" mean to you?
That was when he left office. These are the reported numbers at the end of 2016.

We're going to find out about Ukraine pay to play with Biden:
Ukrainian Indictment Claims $7.4 Billion Obama-Linked Laundering, Puts Biden Group Take At $16.5 Million: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukrainian-indictment-reveals-hunter-biden-group-made-165-million-mp
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

ATL Bear said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

What is clear is that he has promoted his private interests far more than any one to ever occupy the Oval Office.


No.


Yes.

By constantly conducting state business at his private properties he gets the benefit of direct revenue and the benefit of free advertising. His aborted selection of his own hotel to host G-7 was just a gross overreach. The US has 500 resorts that could host that summit. How in the world can you justify that conflict of interest?

He tweets about his clubs, has aircrews stay at his places,. Kellyanne Conway shills for Ivanka's clothing brand. Who knows we're all the MAGA merchandise money goes. Don Jr sells his attempt at literature.

It literally never ends.
The Clinton's and Obama's net worths have increased by factors of anywhere from 30-50 times from the point prior to election. If Trump experienced a similar windfall he'd become the wealthiest individual in the world by a significant amount. I'm going to predict now that won't happen. Trump was a promoter prior to obtaining office, so I'm not shocked that his commercialism never truly stopped. But the exponential wealth factor generated by the political power play, during and post Presidency, is much more concerning to me and should be to all.


What BS. Obama did zero to feather his own nest during his time in office. It's ridiculous to argue he has used his political influence to enrich himself after he left office as he has no influence over the current government. He has made his money fair and square.

Clinton, I don't know.
Bull*****

In 2008 Obama's net worth was $1.3 Million. It's now $12 Million. While Michelle has a networth of $11.8 Million.


Try to read all the words. What does "during his time in office" mean to you?
That was when he left office. These are the reported numbers at the end of 2016.

We're going to find out about Ukraine pay to play with Biden:
Ukrainian Indictment Claims $7.4 Billion Obama-Linked Laundering, Puts Biden Group Take At $16.5 Million: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukrainian-indictment-reveals-hunter-biden-group-made-165-million-mp
Then you should have not said his net worth is "now" $12 million.

Almost all of the increase in Obama's net worth while in office was from book royalties for books written before he took office. The point is that Obama did nothing while in office to use the presidency as a money making tool. Nothing you have said changes that.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

quash said:

ATL Bear said:

Booray said:

ATL Bear said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

What is clear is that he has promoted his private interests far more than any one to ever occupy the Oval Office.


No.


Yes.

By constantly conducting state business at his private properties he gets the benefit of direct revenue and the benefit of free advertising. His aborted selection of his own hotel to host G-7 was just a gross overreach. The US has 500 resorts that could host that summit. How in the world can you justify that conflict of interest?

He tweets about his clubs, has aircrews stay at his places,. Kellyanne Conway shills for Ivanka's clothing brand. Who knows we're all the MAGA merchandise money goes. Don Jr sells his attempt at literature.

It literally never ends.
The Clinton's and Obama's net worths have increased by factors of anywhere from 30-50 times from the point prior to election. If Trump experienced a similar windfall he'd become the wealthiest individual in the world by a significant amount. I'm going to predict now that won't happen. Trump was a promoter prior to obtaining office, so I'm not shocked that his commercialism never truly stopped. But the exponential wealth factor generated by the political power play, during and post Presidency, is much more concerning to me and should be to all.


What BS. Obama did zero to feather his own nest during his time in office. It's ridiculous to argue he has used his political influence to enrich himself after he left office as he has no influence over the current government. He has made his money fair and square.

Clinton, I don't know.
Brand Obama is nothing but a political creation, which is the source of his wealth. How else would you define it?

Hang on. Can you seriously not distinguish between post-presidential books and speaking fees and the acts in office to direct business to various Trump family businesses? Trump was pimping his kid's book on Twitter. Speaking of which, how did it get to the top of the NYT bestseller list? Was there a giant buy from one source? A not unknown tactic.
Yes, I can tell the difference. But the question I'm asking is, other than tactic, is there really a difference?
From Kay Bailey Hutchinson to Al Gore we hold politicians accountable for using their office instead of a room next door for personal matters. Presidential tweets on what to buy from his family, or as ads for his properties are off limits.

Trump has pushed the limits around so much it allows people to say "Oh, that ain't too bad."
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Y'all need to remember: there will be another Democrat in the WH. Better set some damn boundaries.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

ATL Bear said:

quash said:

ATL Bear said:

Booray said:

ATL Bear said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

What is clear is that he has promoted his private interests far more than any one to ever occupy the Oval Office.


No.


Yes.

By constantly conducting state business at his private properties he gets the benefit of direct revenue and the benefit of free advertising. His aborted selection of his own hotel to host G-7 was just a gross overreach. The US has 500 resorts that could host that summit. How in the world can you justify that conflict of interest?

He tweets about his clubs, has aircrews stay at his places,. Kellyanne Conway shills for Ivanka's clothing brand. Who knows we're all the MAGA merchandise money goes. Don Jr sells his attempt at literature.

It literally never ends.
The Clinton's and Obama's net worths have increased by factors of anywhere from 30-50 times from the point prior to election. If Trump experienced a similar windfall he'd become the wealthiest individual in the world by a significant amount. I'm going to predict now that won't happen. Trump was a promoter prior to obtaining office, so I'm not shocked that his commercialism never truly stopped. But the exponential wealth factor generated by the political power play, during and post Presidency, is much more concerning to me and should be to all.


What BS. Obama did zero to feather his own nest during his time in office. It's ridiculous to argue he has used his political influence to enrich himself after he left office as he has no influence over the current government. He has made his money fair and square.

Clinton, I don't know.
Brand Obama is nothing but a political creation, which is the source of his wealth. How else would you define it?

Hang on. Can you seriously not distinguish between post-presidential books and speaking fees and the acts in office to direct business to various Trump family businesses? Trump was pimping his kid's book on Twitter. Speaking of which, how did it get to the top of the NYT bestseller list? Was there a giant buy from one source? A not unknown tactic.
Yes, I can tell the difference. But the question I'm asking is, other than tactic, is there really a difference?
From Kay Bailey Hutchinson to Al Gore we hold politicians accountable for using their office instead of a room next door for personal matters. Presidential tweets on what to buy from his family, or as ads for his properties are off limits.

Trump has pushed the limits around so much it allows people to say "Oh, that ain't too bad."
The limits were always being pushed around. We never cared as much until we had a loud mouth narcissist who was so publicly brazen about it.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Y'all need to remember: there will be another Democrat in the WH. Better set some damn boundaries.
Y'all need to remember that there will be another Democrat in the WH and the completely unrealistic and unprecedented boundaries you're now trying to set will then be applied to him or her.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Y'all need to remember: there will be another Democrat in the WH. Better set some damn boundaries.
Y'all need to remember that there will be another Democrat in the WH and the completely unrealistic and unprecedented boundaries you're now trying to set will then be applied to him or her.
Yer kidding, right? Might as well get a crown designed...
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kyle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

"Trump was just trying to root out corruption"
Turns out that was the lie it obviously appeared to be.

The key word being "as I understood it," i.e. I have no evidence but feelings.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kyle said:

HuMcK said:

"Trump was just trying to root out corruption"
Turns out that was the lie it obviously appeared to be.

The key word being "as I understood it," i.e. I have no evidence but feelings.
You misfeel him.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Kyle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Kyle said:

HuMcK said:

"Trump was just trying to root out corruption"
Turns out that was the lie it obviously appeared to be.

The key word being "as I understood it," i.e. I have no evidence but feelings.
You misfeel him.
What makes you give more weight to the feelings of someone without direct knowledge of the alleged crime (Sondland) than to a person with direct knowledge of the crime (Zelensky)?
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kyle said:

quash said:

Kyle said:

HuMcK said:

"Trump was just trying to root out corruption"
Turns out that was the lie it obviously appeared to be.

The key word being "as I understood it," i.e. I have no evidence but feelings.
You misfeel him.
What makes you give more weight to the feelings of someone without direct knowledge of the alleged crime (Sondland) than to a person with direct knowledge of the crime (Zelensky)?
Kyle, why did Trump continue to withhold the money even after his DOD had confirmed Ukraine's compliance with set anti corruption measures in May?
Make Racism Wrong Again
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kyle said:

quash said:

Kyle said:

HuMcK said:

"Trump was just trying to root out corruption"
Turns out that was the lie it obviously appeared to be.

The key word being "as I understood it," i.e. I have no evidence but feelings.
You misfeel him.
What makes you give more weight to the feelings of someone without direct knowledge of the alleged crime (Sondland) than to a person with direct knowledge of the crime (Zelensky)?
It is not about feelings. And it is not about Biden. It is about withholding congressionally authorized funds to obtain a campaign benefit.

how does that make you feel?
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Kyle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Kyle said:

quash said:

Kyle said:

HuMcK said:

"Trump was just trying to root out corruption"
Turns out that was the lie it obviously appeared to be.

The key word being "as I understood it," i.e. I have no evidence but feelings.
You misfeel him.
What makes you give more weight to the feelings of someone without direct knowledge of the alleged crime (Sondland) than to a person with direct knowledge of the crime (Zelensky)?
It is not about feelings. And it is not about Biden. It is about withholding congressionally authorized funds to obtain a campaign benefit.
What congressionally authorized funds were withheld? What benefit was provided to what campaign?

As an aside, do you think Obama should have been impeached for using the IRS to attack political opponents?
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kyle said:

quash said:

Kyle said:

quash said:

Kyle said:

HuMcK said:

"Trump was just trying to root out corruption"
Turns out that was the lie it obviously appeared to be.

The key word being "as I understood it," i.e. I have no evidence but feelings.
You misfeel him.
What makes you give more weight to the feelings of someone without direct knowledge of the alleged crime (Sondland) than to a person with direct knowledge of the crime (Zelensky)?
It is not about feelings. And it is not about Biden. It is about withholding congressionally authorized funds to obtain a campaign benefit.
What congressionally authorized funds were withheld? What benefit was provided to what campaign?

As an aside, do you think Obama should have been impeached for using the IRS to attack political opponents?
Was this allegation ever investigated?
Make Racism Wrong Again
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kyle said:

quash said:

Kyle said:

quash said:

Kyle said:

HuMcK said:

"Trump was just trying to root out corruption"
Turns out that was the lie it obviously appeared to be.

The key word being "as I understood it," i.e. I have no evidence but feelings.
You misfeel him.
What makes you give more weight to the feelings of someone without direct knowledge of the alleged crime (Sondland) than to a person with direct knowledge of the crime (Zelensky)?
It is not about feelings. And it is not about Biden. It is about withholding congressionally authorized funds to obtain a campaign benefit.
What congressionally authorized funds were withheld? What benefit was provided to what campaign?

As an aside, do you think Obama should have been impeached for using the IRS to attack political opponents?
Are you kidding me? Ukraine. It's been in all the papers...
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.