U.S. Supreme Court sets the stage for release of Trump tax returns

[Bod]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Donald Trump suffered a major setback on Monday
in his long quest to conceal details of his finances as the U.S. Supreme
Court paved the way for a New York City prosecutor to obtain the former
president’s tax returns and other records as part of an accelerating
criminal investigation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-trump-taxes/u-s-supreme-court-sets-the-stage-for-release-of-trump-tax-returns-idUSKBN2AM1MN


Should be interesting :-)

[Jim Joyce]

I've been waiting for this for several years now. At last!

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 22 Feb 2021 16:06:25 -0600, Jim Joyce

<no...@none.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 20:13:57 +0000, Bod <bodr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Donald Trump suffered a major setback on Monday
>>in his long quest to conceal details of his finances as the U.S. Supreme
>>Court paved the way for a New York City prosecutor to obtain the former
>>president’s tax returns and other records as part of an accelerating
>>criminal investigation.
>>
>>https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-trump-taxes/u-s-supreme-court-sets-the-stage-for-release-of-trump-tax-returns-idUSKBN2AM1MN

He's going to be mad at his 3 pet justices.
>>
>>
>>Should be interesting :-)

Stumpie said "the witchhunt continues". It is a witchhunt and he is a
witch.

[Bod]

Me too.

[gfre...@aol.com]

I am not sure what you expect to see except that Trump may not be as
rich as he lets on but I have always said that. I think I have a
higher net worth than trump, I just don't borrow and spend as much as
him.
OTOH he is the perfect metaphor for the US in general. I know I have a
greater net worth than the US government. I am not 28 Trillion in debt
with additional $Trillions in unfunded obligations.

[Bod]

I highly suspect it will expose his dodgey dealings. There's obviously a
reason why he has been so desperate to keep them secret for all those
years.

[Bod]

On 23/02/2021 07:03, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

I suspect that you don't regularly stiff contractors who work for you,
like Trump has done on an industrial scale.

[Rod Speed]

"Bod" <bodr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xf1ZH.169562$scTb....@fx43.ams1...

Bet its just as pathetic a non event as the indictments.

Just more pointless political piss and wind.

[Rod Speed]

"Bod" <bodr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:jn2ZH.16920$wzda....@fx44.ams1...

The general public and the media still don’t get to see the detail, stupid.

[Rod Speed]

"Bod" <bodr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:wx2ZH.41793$VNz9....@fx30.ams1...

But you still wont get to see that info, stupid.

[Peeler]

"Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."

https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID: <g4t0jt...@mid.individual.net>

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 23 Feb 2021 06:27:42 +0000, Bod

The info goes only to the prosecutor and, if he shows it to them, the
grand jury. It's still secret all that time.

Then, if the prosecutor introduces it at trial, it's public. At least
in theory. I don't know how one would ever get to see court exhibits.

It woudln't work well to have thousands of people show up at the court
to look at exhibits. So does the press have access. I've never heard
that.

If facts about the tax returns are mentioned during witness questioning
or testimony, that would be public.

[Bod]

Ok, I obviously don't know how it works, so I'll take your word.

[trader_4]

Trump was indicted? Tell us more about that when you get back from
feeding the kangaroos.

[trader_4]

I've said this before, if Cy Vance is going to bring charges, it better be something
major and airtight. The last thing the country needs is another divisive shit show
over some nonsense about payments to silence a porn star or the like. We've
also heard he's looking at Trump valuing properties at one value for loan purposes
and another for property tax assessment. If that's a crime, they could charge most
Americans. When you go for a home equity loan, you value it as high as you can.
When you go to appeal your real estate taxes, you value it as low as you can.
And in both of those situations, you don't get the final say, only an input. It's
the banks and the local tax appraiser that make the decision on whether you
get the loan or your taxes lowered. I think it would be very hard to argue that
banks made $100 mil loans just based on what Trump claimed a property was
worth. To get different valuation, you don't even have to say anything. You
call up an appraiser and say I need a valuation for a loan or you call and say
I need one for a tax appeal. Then they put together a valuation, using
comparable properties and the like, choosing them to get a higher or lower
value. Banks making loans use their own appraisers. Could they have something
like that, where it's crystal clear fraud? It's very doubtful. What Vance needs
is something new and really stunning, like unreported income from Russia,
but I see no signs of that and with all the scrutiny if something like it exists,
it would be surprising. The two officials at Deutsch Bank that handled Trump;s
business there both resigned late last year. Whether that was just DB ending
any association with Trump or more, who knows. But it's possible they have
flipped, turned on Trump, admitted some kind of illegal activity. Like if they
were working with Trump to use fake appraisals, to get the bank appraisals
fixed, pretending they were legitimate, getting kickbacks, etc, that would be
something major.

[gfre...@aol.com]

The IRS is pretty good at finding "dodgy dealings". I have to believe
if he was cheating on his taxes, his legal problems would have
consumed him long before now.

[gfre...@aol.com]

That is true.
Unfortunately Trump's lawyers are experts in exploiting the bankruptcy
codes. I pay cash so I don't have any debts to default on.

[Frank]

Supreme court under supposedly conservative Roberts has been a huge
disappointment in not accepting cases like this.

[Bod]

Well he may have to defend an upcoming rape accusation.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/trump-may-soon-answer-rape-110635759.html

[jimmy]

Maybe investigate Hunter's laptop and then impeach him a couple times?

Or why don't the election fraudsters observe election laws? Impeach them too...right before they go to prison.

Or why if Joe Sixpack doesn't wear an N-Zero mask at the airport, TSA will throw a $1500 fine at him?

It appears that >95% of politicians are totally corrupt.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 07:32:53 -0500, micky <NONONO...@fmguy.com>
wrote:

I imagine lots of it will be leaked, just because the DoJ is a leak
machine. It will still be uncorroborated gossip tho. That won't keep
Larry and Rachel from running with it.
In real life I don't expect any bombshells. We will just see how good
he was at writing down his losses and avoiding taxes. I am sure
Deuchebank would confirm the losses.
My partner Carl just blew up one of the crown jewels in Trump's crown.
I do smile when I realize I own more of the former Trump Plaza AC than
Trump.

[Bod]

Ok.

[Bob F]

It hard for Repubs to not get their way all the time.

[trader_4]

What are you talking about? The SC has taken multiple cases concerning
Trump's claims related to access to his tax records by both Congress and
state courts. They took briefs from both sides, they issued rulings. They
just did it again on this case. You just don't like the rulings. I mean, what
a surprise. The SC ruled that it's legal for a prosecutor and grand jury to
subpoena someone's tax records for a criminal investigation.

[rbowman]

Roberts is the Earl Warren of the 21st century.

[trader_4]

It's not the DOJ, at least not the US DOJ, it's Cy Vance in NYC and maybe the
state AG too, not sure what she's been doing with Trump. She's been busy
burying Cuomo lately.

It will still be uncorroborated gossip tho. That won't keep
> Larry and Rachel from running with it.
> In real life I don't expect any bombshells. We will just see how good
> he was at writing down his losses and avoiding taxes. I am sure
> Deuchebank would confirm the losses.

I would think some number of Trumpets would be shocked if his taxes
show that he paid almost nothing, maybe less than many of them pay.
But most of them are so deep in denial that they will probably think that
shows how great and smart he really is. And like you say, if it's leaked
Qanon and the like will still be saying it's fake news, not real, etc.
because it's not an official release. They've already been partially leaked.
If Vance makes a case and it goes to court though, that will change.

> My partner Carl just blew up one of the crown jewels in Trump's crown.
> I do smile when I realize I own more of the former Trump Plaza AC than
> Trump.

What do you have, piece of rubble?

[Scott Lurndal]

trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> writes:
>On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 9:17:48 AM UTC-5, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

>> >

>> I imagine lots of it will be leaked, just because the DoJ is a leak=20
>> machine.=20
>
>It's not the DOJ, at least not the US DOJ, it's Cy Vance in NYC and maybe t=

>he
>state AG too, not sure what she's been doing with Trump.

Fretwell has never been concerned with the facts. Supposition is the name
of his game.

That said, the NY Times has had the returns for a year or more and has written
several stories about them.

[Bob F]

The data to be provided far exceeds just the returns. Records of all sorts.

[Rod Speed]

"micky" <NONONO...@fmguy.com> wrote in message
news:27t93g5enslgp4ug2...@4ax.com...

> In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 23 Feb 2021 06:27:42 +0000, Bod
> <bodr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 22/02/2021 22:06, Jim Joyce wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 20:13:57 +0000, Bod <bodr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Donald Trump suffered a major setback on Monday
>>>> in his long quest to conceal details of his finances as the U.S.
>>>> Supreme
>>>> Court paved the way for a New York City prosecutor to obtain the former
>>>> president's tax returns and other records as part of an accelerating
>>>> criminal investigation.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-trump-taxes/u-s-supreme-court-sets-the-stage-for-release-of-trump-tax-returns-idUSKBN2AM1MN
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Should be interesting :-)
>>>
>>> I've been waiting for this for several years now. At last!
>>>
>>Me too.
>
> The info goes only to the prosecutor and, if he shows it to them, the
> grand jury. It's still secret all that time.
>
> Then, if the prosecutor introduces it at trial, it's public. At least
> in theory. I don't know how one would ever get to see court exhibits.
>
> It woudln't work well to have thousands of people
> show up at the court to look at exhibits.

> So does the press have access.

No they don't currently and wont to the whole thing even if it does go to
trial.

> I've never heard that.

> If facts about the tax returns are mentioned during
> witness questioning or testimony, that would be public.

Only the bits referred to, not the whole thing.

[gfre...@aol.com]

I assume Garland will want a taste of that too.

>
>It will still be uncorroborated gossip tho. That won't keep
>> Larry and Rachel from running with it.
>> In real life I don't expect any bombshells. We will just see how good
>> he was at writing down his losses and avoiding taxes. I am sure
>> Deuchebank would confirm the losses.
>
>I would think some number of Trumpets would be shocked if his taxes
>show that he paid almost nothing, maybe less than many of them pay.
>But most of them are so deep in denial that they will probably think that
>shows how great and smart he really is. And like you say, if it's leaked
>Qanon and the like will still be saying it's fake news, not real, etc.
>because it's not an official release. They've already been partially leaked.
>If Vance makes a case and it goes to court though, that will change.
>

They might be surprised that he is not the great business man he
professes to be but I will not be shocked if his losses are real.

>> My partner Carl just blew up one of the crown jewels in Trump's crown.
>> I do smile when I realize I own more of the former Trump Plaza AC than
>> Trump.
>
>What do you have, piece of rubble?
>

The LP owns a shitload of prime property across from the boardwalk.
Icahn is a lot better businessman than Trump and he keeps those checks
rolling in at my house. They get bigger every year.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 16:39:54 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

You are right. I don't give a shit about the business fiascos of
Trump.
I do wonder why there is so much buzz about these tax returns in the
NYT has them.

[Rod Speed]

<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:j7ib3gtbaebt1rkos...@4ax.com...

The buzz is about the evidence supporting the tax return claims.

[Jim Joyce]

I do like softball questions. The NYT got their hands on 10 years of tax
returns, but no supporting documentation. Also, the NYT has no
prosecutorial powers, no subpoena powers, nothing like that at all.

Now that the SC has ruled against Trump, actual prosecutors will get 8
years of personal and corporate tax records, along with all of the
supporting documentation, including emails back and forth between the corp
and the accountants. There could be real gold in there, as far as showing
that someone knew they were filing fraudulent documents. Who knows, because
those supporting documents haven't been released before.

As someone else said, released doesn't mean released to the public, at
least not at first, but that's not important. The important part is that
prosecutors can finally take a look. Maybe they won't find anything wrong,
in which case they should say so loud and clear.

[Rod Speed]

"Jim Joyce" <no...@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:oqob3gt6c2c1blrqn...@4ax.com...

Nope.

> along with all of the supporting documentation, including
> emails back and forth between the corp and the accountants.

Nope.

> There could be real gold in there, as far as showing that
> someone knew they were filing fraudulent documents.

Nope. since they don't get those.

> Who knows, because those supporting
> documents haven't been released before.

They havent been released now.

> As someone else said, released doesn't mean
> released to the public, at least not at first,

Bet they arent ever.

> but that's not important. The important part
> is that prosecutors can finally take a look.

But they don't get to look at what you claim.

> Maybe they won't find anything wrong, in
> which case they should say so loud and clear.

Taint gunna happen because its just another political stunt.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 23:35:02 -0600, Jim Joyce <no...@none.invalid>

I am sure if they do a deep dive into anyone's return they will find
something. That was what the problem was with the Tax Compliance
Program was. They were assessing penalties and interest on virtually
every return they audited. The people doing it did have the incentive
to find something to protect the program but public outrage and the
meager return on investment made the program go away.

I don't really have an opinion. If Trump owes more taxes, make him
pay. That is pretty simple. The only issue that may not turn out the
way you like is whether it is misapplying the code, negligence or
criminal. Usually the IRS just wants their money, plus penalties and
interest if the tax payer was filing returns, didn't hide income and
only misapplied the multitude of loopholes the congress has loaded
into the code.
For many people this is still the head shot tho. They end up with a
debt they can't ever pay off. Guys like Willie Nelson can come up with
the money but there are plenty of contractors I know about who simply
work for the IRS now. They will never get out from under that debt.
The IRS lets them live and work but it is a bare subsistence.
Like Krushchev said "When you are skinning your customers you should
leave some skin on to heal so you can skin them again".

[Snag]

By fall we'll have our last debt paid off , our house in Memphis .
Other than that we too are on a cash basis . If I ain't got the cash in
my pocket , I can't afford it . If I really want something that bad ,
I'll save up for it ... no way in hell am I to ever going to be beholden
to a lender again if I can help it .
--
Snag
In 1775, the British demanded we give them our guns.
We shot them.

[gfre...@aol.com]

I paid off the last of my debts in 1992 in anticipation of retiring in
96. It made the offer I got in 96 something I couldn't refuse. I was
49. There is no way I could have done it if I owed money.

[trader_4]

AFAIK, Hunter admitted that he is under investigation by the FBI and I have
not heard that it's ended.

>
> Or why don't the election fraudsters observe election laws? Impeach them too...right before they go to prison.

There was no massive fraud and the election laws were followed. The few minor
deviations were not anywhere near significant enough to have made a difference.
This is nothing new, there are always some allegations by losers in many elections.
What you have to realize is different is that this time we had a mental case, a
malignant narcissist, that was willing to rip the country apart with lies in a
desperate attempt to cling to power. Trump had been talking about rigged primaries,
rigged elections, since he first started to run. If he wins, then it was a perfect
election. If he loses, he has laid the base for his shit show. This time he lost and
boy what a shit show we got. The sad thing is that Trumpsters can't see the truth
and want more of Trump. The Democrats are very happy.

>
> Or why if Joe Sixpack doesn't wear an N-Zero mask at the airport, TSA will throw a $1500 fine at him?

IDK if that fine is accurate, but aholes that refuse to wear masks at the airport should
be fined.

[rbowman]

On 02/24/2021 06:20 AM, Snag wrote:
> By fall we'll have our last debt paid off , our house in Memphis .
> Other than that we too are on a cash basis . If I ain't got the cash in
> my pocket , I can't afford it . If I really want something that bad ,
> I'll save up for it ... no way in hell am I to ever going to be beholden
> to a lender again if I can help it .

It might not be bad to be in hock up to your eyeballs on the day you
die. See ya! Planning is a bitch though.

[trader_4]

I doubt that very much, unless something new surfaces. The feds haven't
requested and won't be getting his tax returns. I don't think Garland and
Biden are dumb enough to start a needless divisive crap show. Even Trump,
despite all his lies about "lock her up", his administration did nothing.

But if they wanted to, there is a place to start. There is video of the
model of the new AF1 at Trump Mar a Lago, sitting on a coffee table.
So Trump stole that. I know team Biden is very busy, but I hope they get
around to fixing Trump's new paint job and restore it to the Ray Lowey
design. It was beautiful and timeless in 1960 and it still is today. We
sure don't need an AF1 that looks like Trump's plane.

> >
> >It will still be uncorroborated gossip tho. That won't keep
> >> Larry and Rachel from running with it.
> >> In real life I don't expect any bombshells. We will just see how good
> >> he was at writing down his losses and avoiding taxes. I am sure
> >> Deuchebank would confirm the losses.
> >
> >I would think some number of Trumpets would be shocked if his taxes
> >show that he paid almost nothing, maybe less than many of them pay.
> >But most of them are so deep in denial that they will probably think that
> >shows how great and smart he really is. And like you say, if it's leaked
> >Qanon and the like will still be saying it's fake news, not real, etc.
> >because it's not an official release. They've already been partially leaked.
> >If Vance makes a case and it goes to court though, that will change.
> >
> They might be surprised that he is not the great business man he
> professes to be but I will not be shocked if his losses are real.

Leona Helmsley's losses were "real" too. She had the losses, it's just that
she was using receipts for work done at their personal properties and
claiming they were business expenses. I would not be surprised at all if
Trump was doing similar. Like at Mar a Lago, he uses part of it as his
personal property. There have already been stories in credible media
tracing how Trump set up companies to buy supplies for his properties,
then sold them to those properties at jacked up prices, way out of line
with reality. The effect was to shift income from one business to another.
If you're doing that to avoid taxes, it's illegal and it's also something that
the IRS may very well not notice, as they typically aren't going to go looking
to see if a shipment of janitor supplies is really worth the $3000 claimed or
only $1000. But if you pulled that, you could shift $2000 in income from
say NYC to somewhere where it's taxed less. And we know Trump is a
prolific world class shyster, so.......

[Rod Speed]

<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:peoc3g9em26gs9t4n...@4ax.com...

I beat that, I did it at 44. And realised a year or so ago
that I will never spend my vast accumulated wealth
before I die, even if I last till 110 which is rather unlikely.

I still basically do what I did before I retired but don’t
charge for doing it and don’t have to bother with the
bullshit paperwork and mindless bureaucracy anymore.

I don’t even have to fart around with tax returns either.

> There is no way I could have done it if I owed money.

I could have, because I had very substantial assets.

I did that when I built the house too, borrowed the
money, mainly to see if it could be done and because
I was earning more on the stock market than I was
paying on the loans.

[Peeler]

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 02:41:48 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>


--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"Shit you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID: <ogoa38$pul$1...@news.mixmin.net>

[Peeler]

On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:53:34 -0700, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> It might not be bad to be in hock up to your eyeballs on the day you
> die. See ya! Planning is a bitch though.

What an endlessly driveling bullshit artist you truly are, senile gossip!

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:53:34 -0700, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

Yup, you don't want to guess wrong on your life expectancy and spend
your last 10 years living under a bridge.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:10:56 -0800 (PST), trader_4

How do you explain the impeachment boondoggle then?

>
>But if they wanted to, there is a place to start. There is video of the
>model of the new AF1 at Trump Mar a Lago, sitting on a coffee table.
>So Trump stole that. I know team Biden is very busy, but I hope they get
>around to fixing Trump's new paint job and restore it to the Ray Lowey
>design. It was beautiful and timeless in 1960 and it still is today. We
>sure don't need an AF1 that looks like Trump's plane.

I doubt they were seriously considering changing a basic design that
goes back 60 years or more.

There have always been a lot more tax avoidance vehicles for the rich
than for Joe Six pack. Poor old Joe S doesn't have enough money to pay
for lobbyists.
I see Trump getting judgements for a shit load of money if these cases
succeed but I don't see jail in his future. I suppose I could be wrong
but as I have said before, don't expect a little time at Club Fed to
stop him. It might make him stronger in his base. Mein Kampf was
written in prison.

[gfre...@aol.com]

Unfortunately pretty much anyone who isn't living on the street here
needs to file tax returns.
Your SS alone will put you over the limit.

[Rod Speed]

<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6lbd3g10r0ebo0kpb...@4ax.com...

That cant happen here, the state aged pension is always
available in that situation and that provides subsidised rent.
Quite a decent standard of living too, even if you smoke.

[Rod Speed]

<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:47cd3g13ekfk513lk...@4ax.com...

That isnt the case here, most of the retired don’t need to
file a tax return anymore and it isnt hard to organise your
affairs so that even those like me don’t need to anymore.

[Peeler]

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 09:22:36 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

--

Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID: <g4t0jt...@mid.individual.net>

[trader_4]

What exactly are you referring to? Trump's two impeachments? That wasn't
for anything new, it was for what Trump had already done and we knew about,
Biden and the AG were not involved. Note I said, "unless something new
surfaces".

> >
> >But if they wanted to, there is a place to start. There is video of the
> >model of the new AF1 at Trump Mar a Lago, sitting on a coffee table.
> >So Trump stole that. I know team Biden is very busy, but I hope they get
> >around to fixing Trump's new paint job and restore it to the Ray Lowey
> >design. It was beautiful and timeless in 1960 and it still is today. We
> >sure don't need an AF1 that looks like Trump's plane.
> I doubt they were seriously considering changing a basic design that
> goes back 60 years or more.

Then obviously you missed Trump unveiling the new paint scheme, one that
looked very much like the red, white and black on his 757. It;s on the model
that Trump stole.

Actually I'm sure there are plenty of people pulling similar shystering to avoid
taxes. Like people that own rental property claiming that the new faucets,
and toilets they bought went into the rental property when it actually went into
their own house.

> I see Trump getting judgements for a shit load of money if these cases
> succeed but I don't see jail in his future. I suppose I could be wrong
> but as I have said before, don't expect a little time at Club Fed to
> stop him. It might make him stronger in his base. Mein Kampf was
> written in prison.

Like I said, if they are going to go after Trump with criminal charges it better
be something major and with overwhelming proof. If it's a shit load of money,
he's been audited every year and the IRS didn't see it, that suggests it's
criminal. But he's also lying about getting audited every year.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:03:23 -0800 (PST), trader_4

I was just thinking about the trial after he left office. Isn't Biden
the head of the democrat party. Hasn't he been since November?
He doesn't seem to have much to say about what they do if they did
that without consulting with him.

>> >
>> >But if they wanted to, there is a place to start. There is video of the
>> >model of the new AF1 at Trump Mar a Lago, sitting on a coffee table.
>> >So Trump stole that. I know team Biden is very busy, but I hope they get
>> >around to fixing Trump's new paint job and restore it to the Ray Lowey
>> >design. It was beautiful and timeless in 1960 and it still is today. We
>> >sure don't need an AF1 that looks like Trump's plane.
>> I doubt they were seriously considering changing a basic design that
>> goes back 60 years or more.
>
>Then obviously you missed Trump unveiling the new paint scheme, one that
>looked very much like the red, white and black on his 757. It;s on the model
>that Trump stole.
>

I didn't see anyone start painting. A Trump doodle is not a real order
to change something he doesn't own. I am sure he wanted Trump dishes
and a big "Trump" over the North Portico too but GSA was not getting
right on that either.

They wouldn't even do this.

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Air_Force_One_Trump.jpg

[Rod Speed]

<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mgie3g1q19c68djk0...@4ax.com...

Nope, just the prez. He couldn’t even get Pelosi to not waste
congressional time on another pointless impeachment.

> Hasn't he been since November?

Nope.

> He doesn't seem to have much to say about what
> they do if they did that without consulting with him.

Because that would make it obvious what little say he has.

[Peeler]

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 20:04:00 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

--

[jimmy]

On 2/22/21 3:13 PM, Bod wrote:
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Donald Trump suffered a major setback on Monday in his long quest to conceal details of his finances as the U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for a New York City prosecutor to obtain the former president’s tax returns and other
> records as part of an accelerating criminal investigation.
>
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-trump-taxes/u-s-supreme-court-sets-the-stage-for-release-of-trump-tax-returns-idUSKBN2AM1MN
>
>
> Should be interesting :-)

I'm sure the proctologists at the leftist IRS have already probed Trump's tax returns...and like all other government colonoscopies of late, they found nothing.

Personally I'd rather they investigate the massive 2020 election fraud.

[trader_4]

It's been explained to you many times now. Trump was impeached while he was
president, Biden was not in office. There were tremendous evidence justifying
both of those impeachments. I prefaced my remarks that the DOJ
was unlikely to go after Trump on some charges unless something NEW surfaces.

> >> >
> >> >But if they wanted to, there is a place to start. There is video of the
> >> >model of the new AF1 at Trump Mar a Lago, sitting on a coffee table.
> >> >So Trump stole that. I know team Biden is very busy, but I hope they get
> >> >around to fixing Trump's new paint job and restore it to the Ray Lowey
> >> >design. It was beautiful and timeless in 1960 and it still is today. We
> >> >sure don't need an AF1 that looks like Trump's plane.
> >> I doubt they were seriously considering changing a basic design that
> >> goes back 60 years or more.
> >
> >Then obviously you missed Trump unveiling the new paint scheme, one that
> >looked very much like the red, white and black on his 757. It;s on the model
> >that Trump stole.
> >
> I didn't see anyone start painting.

Why do you always start trying to weasel away, instead of just admitting you

didn't know something or were wrong? You said:

"I doubt they were seriously considering changing a basic design

(AF1 paint design) that goes back 60 years or more. "

Trump ordered a new paint scheme because he didn't like the old one.
They supposedly came up with several alternatives, Trump picked one
that looked very much like the red, black, white of his own 757. It's the
paint scheme that Trump unveiled, it's the paint scheme that's on the
model he showed at the time. The model is at Mar a Lago, Trump stole it.

>A Trump doodle is not a real order
> to change something he doesn't own.

There you go again. It was not a doodle.

I am sure he wanted Trump dishes
> and a big "Trump" over the North Portico too but GSA was not getting
> right on that either.
>
> They wouldn't even do this.
>
> http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Air_Force_One_Trump.jpg

And if Trump had, you'd be here defending it, as always and
denying the truth, presenting "alternate facts", whatever it takes
to try to justify whatever Trump has done. We've seen how that's
working out for the Republicans.

[Frank]

On 2/23/2021 9:44 AM, rbowman wrote:
> On 02/23/2021 07:11 AM, Frank wrote:
>> On 2/23/2021 9:07 AM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 07:44:17 +0000, Bod <bodr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23/02/2021 07:03, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 06:27:42 +0000, Bod <bodr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22/02/2021 22:06, Jim Joyce wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 20:13:57 +0000, Bod <bodr...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Donald Trump suffered a major setback on
>>>>>>>> Monday
>>>>>>>> in his long quest to conceal details of his finances as the U.S.
>>>>>>>> Supreme
>>>>>>>> Court paved the way for a New York City prosecutor to obtain the
>>>>>>>> former
>>>>>>>> president’s tax returns and other records as part of an
>>>>>>>> accelerating
>>>>>>>> criminal investigation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-trump-taxes/u-s-supreme-court-sets-the-stage-for-release-of-trump-tax-returns-idUSKBN2AM1MN
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Should be interesting :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been waiting for this for several years now. At last!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Me too.
>>>>>

>>>>> I am not sure what you expect to see except that Trump may not be as
>>>>> rich as he lets on but I have always said that. I think I have a
>>>>> higher net worth than trump, I just don't borrow and spend as much as
>>>>> him.
>>>>> OTOH he is the perfect metaphor for the US in general. I know I have a
>>>>> greater net worth than the US government. I am not 28 Trillion in debt
>>>>> with additional $Trillions in unfunded obligations.
>>>>>

>>>> I highly suspect it will expose his dodgey dealings. There's
>>>> obviously a
>>>> reason why he has been so desperate to keep them secret for all those
>>>> years.
>>>
>>> The IRS is pretty good at finding "dodgy dealings". I have to believe
>>> if he was cheating on his taxes, his legal problems would have
>>> consumed him long before now.
>>>
>>
>> Supreme court under supposedly conservative Roberts has been a huge
>> disappointment in not accepting cases like this.
>
> Roberts is the Earl Warren of the 21st century.

As time goes on, I believe more and more that President Bush the Lesser
and maybe his dad were more nearly RINO's in what the did.

[angelica...@yahoo.com]

There was no massive 2020 election fraud. It's been investigated every
way from Sunday, including by Republicans.

What is your proposal for conducting a proper investigation? Who should
do it and what steps should they take?

Cindy Hamilton

[rbowman]

While I voted for GWB in 2000 I had no use for the dynasty from Prescott
Bush on down. I found GHWB particularly annoying with that effete,
smarmy voice. I do not consider being head spook a good qualifier for a
POTUS.

[rbowman]

There's something troubling about a person showing signs of early
dementia campaigning from his cellar and getting 80 million votes that
is troubling. I'm not alleging fraud as much as questioning the whole
process of letting low information people with a high time preference
select Dumb or Dumber.

[angelica...@yahoo.com]

I think you underestimate Democrats' desire to get rid of Trump. They
would have voted for a damp newspaper if they thought it could beat him.

I've been reading some on the Republican prospects for 2024. I'll quite
likely vote in the Republican primary, for the person Trump hates the most.
I'm sure it'll be a hollow gesture, at best.

Cindy Hamilton

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 2/25/2021 9:52 AM, rbowman wrote:


>>
>
> There's something troubling about a person showing signs of early
> dementia campaigning from his cellar and getting 80 million votes that
> is troubling. I'm not alleging fraud as much as questioning the whole
> process of letting low information people with a high time preference
> select Dumb or Dumber.
>

I bet very few actually voted for Biden. I'd bet that 79.5 million
voted against Trump. Remember him? The guy that started lying to the
public within hours of his inauguration.

[trader_4]

It wasn't just the Democrats. Many Republicans and independents voted for Biden
too. You had the Lincoln Project running a good ad campaign against Trump.
Trump was like a lightning rod and that's what the Republicans thought was great
and a winning strategy. He generated enormous enthusiasm in his 42% base,
but he also awakened a sleeping giant, a huge turnout, because they hated him.
Trump and what's he's done to the GOP converted me from a Republican to an
independent. I don't recognize the GOP anymore. And sadly the GOP wants even
more of Trump, to have him lead the party and help them some more. Go figure.

If you listen to them, it's like listening to an addict or someone in a mind control
cult. Dopes like Newt, Christie, McCarthy, Graham are saying essentially we need Trump
to win and Trump needs us, he has to play a major role going forward. Then they
say that to win the GOP needs to focus on issues, Trump needs to do that.
I mean how much in denial can they be? Trump sucks up all the oxygen, it's always
about him, it's one news cycle after another, the latest shit show, rarely about the core issues.
But they act like this 78 year old malignant narcissist is suddenly going to become
an elder statesman and policy guy for the GOP. They will get a first taste of that
Sunday, with CPAC. They'll be lucky if someone can stop him from calling the
insurrectionists patriots or Antifa.

[Peeler]

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 07:47:46 -0700, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> While I voted for GWB in 2000 I had no use for the dynasty from Prescott
> Bush on down. I found GHWB particularly annoying with that effete,

Certainly not as annoying as your endless verbose and flowery drivel on this
group, senile gossip! <tsk>

[Peeler]

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 07:52:59 -0700, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> There's something troubling about a person showing signs of early
> dementia campaigning from his cellar and getting 80 million votes that

Not as troubling as a senile asshole like you who is endlessly babbling and
gossiping in his well-known demented and senile manner!

[angelica...@yahoo.com]

What does Trump call someone who's 99% loyal to him?

Traitor.

Cindy Hamilton

[Bob F]

They have not changed. It is you who has gone off the wacky right wing
cliff.

[Bob F]

LOL! Good one.

[Bob F]

He started many years before that.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 04:38:35 -0800 (PST), trader_4

It was an exercise in futility that ate up the first few weeks of
Biden's term with nothing to show for it but giving Trump another win.
If he actually had any say in what the party he is supposed to be the
head of as president (elect or sitting) he would have told them to
stop it. He still has the whole justice department to go after Trump
if they think this was a "high crime or misdemeanor".

>> >> >
>> >> >But if they wanted to, there is a place to start. There is video of the
>> >> >model of the new AF1 at Trump Mar a Lago, sitting on a coffee table.
>> >> >So Trump stole that. I know team Biden is very busy, but I hope they get
>> >> >around to fixing Trump's new paint job and restore it to the Ray Lowey
>> >> >design. It was beautiful and timeless in 1960 and it still is today. We
>> >> >sure don't need an AF1 that looks like Trump's plane.
>> >> I doubt they were seriously considering changing a basic design that
>> >> goes back 60 years or more.
>> >
>> >Then obviously you missed Trump unveiling the new paint scheme, one that
>> >looked very much like the red, white and black on his 757. It;s on the model
>> >that Trump stole.
>> >
>> I didn't see anyone start painting.
>
>Why do you always start trying to weasel away, instead of just admitting you
>didn't know something or were wrong? You said:
>
> "I doubt they were seriously considering changing a basic design
>(AF1 paint design) that goes back 60 years or more. "
>
>Trump ordered a new paint scheme because he didn't like the old one.
>They supposedly came up with several alternatives, Trump picked one
>that looked very much like the red, black, white of his own 757. It's the
>paint scheme that Trump unveiled, it's the paint scheme that's on the
>model he showed at the time. The model is at Mar a Lago, Trump stole it.
>

I didn't hear any "they" mentioned, (you quoted me, read the fucking
quote) just a Trump doodle. He never owned those planes (there are 2)
nor did he have any real power over how the planes were painted.
This was not going to be the current planes anyway. It was a brain
fart about planes that haven't been built yet and Trump vetoed the
appropriations bill that was going to build them (overridden).
It was buried in the military appropriations bill.
At any rate, Trump will be a distant memory before the planes show up
and I doubt Biden will change JFK's paint job. The air force has a
dozen or more, all sizes,
with the same paint job parked out at Andrews. Nancy has one.

>
>
>
>>A Trump doodle is not a real order
>> to change something he doesn't own.
>
>There you go again. It was not a doodle.
>
>
>
> I am sure he wanted Trump dishes
>> and a big "Trump" over the North Portico too but GSA was not getting
>> right on that either.
>>
>> They wouldn't even do this.
>>
>> http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Air_Force_One_Trump.jpg
>
>And if Trump had, you'd be here defending it, as always and
>denying the truth, presenting "alternate facts", whatever it takes
>to try to justify whatever Trump has done. We've seen how that's
>working out for the Republicans.

Seek help, your Trump derangement have overwhelmed your good sense.

[gfre...@aol.com]

They certainly suffered from that LBJ "Pull out? Doesn't sound manly
to me" thing and they perpetuated another non winnable war.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 07:47:46 -0700, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

I had no use for GHWB in 91. I said at the time, if we kick that
middle east tar baby we won't get out and we are still there.
I knew I was right when he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory
and did not get the fuck out when we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait.
That pot is still bubbling on the back of the stove and I would not be
shocked if Biden turned up the heat again.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 07:23:05 -0800 (PST), "angelica...@yahoo.com"

<angelica...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 9:52:25 AM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
>> On 02/25/2021 06:33 AM, angelica...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 6:44:33 AM UTC-5, jimmy wrote:
>> >> On 2/22/21 3:13 PM, Bod wrote:
>> >>> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Donald Trump suffered a major setback on Monday in his long quest to conceal details of his finances as the U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for a New York City prosecutor to obtain the former president’s tax returns and other
>> >>> records as part of an accelerating criminal investigation.
>> >>>
>> >>> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-trump-taxes/u-s-supreme-court-sets-the-stage-for-release-of-trump-tax-returns-idUSKBN2AM1MN
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Should be interesting :-)
>> >> I'm sure the proctologists at the leftist IRS have already probed Trump's tax returns...and like all other government colonoscopies of late, they found nothing.
>> >>
>> >> Personally I'd rather they investigate the massive 2020 election fraud.
>> >
>> > There was no massive 2020 election fraud. It's been investigated every
>> > way from Sunday, including by Republicans.
>> >
>> > What is your proposal for conducting a proper investigation? Who should
>> > do it and what steps should they take?
>> >
>> > Cindy Hamilton
>> >
>> There's something troubling about a person showing signs of early
>> dementia campaigning from his cellar and getting 80 million votes that
>> is troubling. I'm not alleging fraud as much as questioning the whole
>> process of letting low information people with a high time preference
>> select Dumb or Dumber.
>
>I think you underestimate Democrats' desire to get rid of Trump. They
>would have voted for a damp newspaper if they thought it could beat him.

... and they did.

[Rod Speed]

<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1vqf3g9udvre3n4pu...@4ax.com...

That’s never been the case, even on policy choices.

That last is bullshit.

[rbowman]

On 02/25/2021 08:23 AM, angelica...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 9:52:25 AM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
>> On 02/25/2021 06:33 AM, angelica...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 6:44:33 AM UTC-5, jimmy wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/21 3:13 PM, Bod wrote:
>>>>> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Donald Trump suffered a major setback on Monday in his long quest to conceal details of his finances as the U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for a New York City prosecutor to obtain the former president’s tax returns and other
>>>>> records as part of an accelerating criminal investigation.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-trump-taxes/u-s-supreme-court-sets-the-stage-for-release-of-trump-tax-returns-idUSKBN2AM1MN
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Should be interesting :-)
>>>> I'm sure the proctologists at the leftist IRS have already probed Trump's tax returns...and like all other government colonoscopies of late, they found nothing.
>>>>
>>>> Personally I'd rather they investigate the massive 2020 election fraud.
>>>
>>> There was no massive 2020 election fraud. It's been investigated every
>>> way from Sunday, including by Republicans.
>>>
>>> What is your proposal for conducting a proper investigation? Who should
>>> do it and what steps should they take?
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>
>> There's something troubling about a person showing signs of early
>> dementia campaigning from his cellar and getting 80 million votes that
>> is troubling. I'm not alleging fraud as much as questioning the whole
>> process of letting low information people with a high time preference
>> select Dumb or Dumber.
>
> I think you underestimate Democrats' desire to get rid of Trump. They
> would have voted for a damp newspaper if they thought it could beat him.

Well, they got the copy of the New York Times that was lining the cat's
litter box...

[Jim Joyce]

That damp newspaper kicked the incumbent's ass.

[Jim Joyce]

I don't know what's futile about impeaching a President who incites an
armed insurrection. If you're thinking he should have been arrested,
convicted, and put to death instead of only being impeached, that's a
discussion we could have, but impeachment is clearly where things very
properly have started.

>that ate up the first few weeks of
>Biden's term with nothing to show for it but giving Trump another win.

Of course, because nothing spells 'win' like being impeached for the second
time. Trump has two of those wins, more than any other President in the
country's history. Go, Trump, go, what a winner.

>If he actually had any say in what the party he is supposed to be the
>head of as president (elect or sitting) he would have told them to
>stop it.

Get serious. What message would it have sent to the country for the
President to wade in where he has absolutely no role to play? Especially if
he had tried to derail the impeachment. The dickheads who showed up in DC
would have taken that as a green light to organize the next riot. Why not?

I guess you got used to Trump barging in where he doesn't belong so you
wonder why Biden didn't do it, too. That's pretty pathetic.

>He still has the whole justice department to go after Trump
>if they think this was a "high crime or misdemeanor".

Yep, sounds like Trump-style behavior is fine with you.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 22:31:58 -0600, Jim Joyce <no...@none.invalid>

Nobody ever believed he would be convicted in the Senate so it was a
futile mission
If you have a real charge, bring it in federal court, not congress.
I think the problem is if they couldn't convince 66.7% of the Senate
they would never convince 100% of a jury.

>
>>that ate up the first few weeks of
>>Biden's term with nothing to show for it but giving Trump another win.
>
>Of course, because nothing spells 'win' like being impeached for the second
>time. Trump has two of those wins, more than any other President in the
>country's history. Go, Trump, go, what a winner.

He is not convincing me. As far as I am concerned he is yesterday's
news but he believes it and about 100 million voters still agree

>>If he actually had any say in what the party he is supposed to be the
>>head of as president (elect or sitting) he would have told them to
>>stop it.
>
>Get serious. What message would it have sent to the country for the
>President to wade in where he has absolutely no role to play? Especially if
>he had tried to derail the impeachment. The dickheads who showed up in DC
>would have taken that as a green light to organize the next riot. Why not?
>

Politicians like Biden don't publicly "wade in". That was Trump. Biden
would call Nancy and say "C'on Nancy, what the fuck are you doing"?
Have you listened to the LBJ tapes?

>I guess you got used to Trump barging in where he doesn't belong so you
>wonder why Biden didn't do it, too. That's pretty pathetic.

Biden was smart enough to know this was a loser. That is why he didn't
say anything about it.

>
>>He still has the whole justice department to go after Trump
>>if they think this was a "high crime or misdemeanor".
>
>Yep, sounds like Trump-style behavior is fine with you.

Are you saying the case against Trump is just a political vendetta not
really "upholding the Constitution"?

[Jim Joyce]

That's an interesting conclusion but most people would disagree with you.

>If you have a real charge, bring it in federal court, not congress.

Yes, I know, you hate Presidential impeachments and you want to change the
Constitution. How is that going?

>I think the problem is if they couldn't convince 66.7% of the Senate
>they would never convince 100% of a jury.

It's good to have an opinion.

>>>that ate up the first few weeks of
>>>Biden's term with nothing to show for it but giving Trump another win.
>>
>>Of course, because nothing spells 'win' like being impeached for the second
>>time. Trump has two of those wins, more than any other President in the
>>country's history. Go, Trump, go, what a winner.
>
>He is not convincing me.

No need to convince you since you're already convinced.

>As far as I am concerned he is yesterday's news

As far as I'm concerned, this is where things finally start looking up. No
longer sheltered by the office, he's finally fair game.

> but he believes it and about 100 million voters still agree
>>>If he actually had any say in what the party he is supposed to be the
>>>head of as president (elect or sitting) he would have told them to
>>>stop it.
>>
>>Get serious. What message would it have sent to the country for the
>>President to wade in where he has absolutely no role to play? Especially if
>>he had tried to derail the impeachment. The dickheads who showed up in DC
>>would have taken that as a green light to organize the next riot. Why not?
>>
>Politicians like Biden don't publicly "wade in". That was Trump. Biden
>would call Nancy and say "C'on Nancy, what the fuck are you doing"?
>Have you listened to the LBJ tapes?
>
>>I guess you got used to Trump barging in where he doesn't belong so you
>>wonder why Biden didn't do it, too. That's pretty pathetic.
>
>Biden was smart enough to know this was a loser. That is why he didn't
>say anything about it.

Again, it's nice that you have an opinion and are willing to share it. It
sounds totally ignorant to me, but who knows.

>>>He still has the whole justice department to go after Trump
>>>if they think this was a "high crime or misdemeanor".
>>
>>Yep, sounds like Trump-style behavior is fine with you.
>
>Are you saying the case against Trump is just a political vendetta not
>really "upholding the Constitution"?

No. Where did I lose you?

[trader_4]

On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 1:53:39 PM UTC-5, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 04:38:35 -0800 (PST), trader_4
> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 2:07:40 AM UTC-5, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:03:23 -0800 (PST), trader_4

> >> >Then obviously you missed Trump unveiling the new paint scheme, one that
> >> >looked very much like the red, white and black on his 757. It;s on the model
> >> >that Trump stole.
> >> >
> >> I didn't see anyone start painting.
> >
> >Why do you always start trying to weasel away, instead of just admitting you
> >didn't know something or were wrong? You said:
> >
> > "I doubt they were seriously considering changing a basic design
> >(AF1 paint design) that goes back 60 years or more. "
> >
> >Trump ordered a new paint scheme because he didn't like the old one.
> >They supposedly came up with several alternatives, Trump picked one
> >that looked very much like the red, black, white of his own 757. It's the
> >paint scheme that Trump unveiled, it's the paint scheme that's on the
> >model he showed at the time. The model is at Mar a Lago, Trump stole it.
> >
> I didn't hear any "they" mentioned, (you quoted me, read the fucking
> quote) just a Trump doodle.

If you didn't hear a they, it's because as usual you're not well informed.
The they are the paint scheme designers that Trump ordered to come up
with new paint schemes for the new AF1 because he didn't like the classic
design. The thing that no one except you heard was a "doodle" by Trump being
behind the new paint scheme that Trump orderd up. The rest of us
followed the news, that Trump did not
like the current paint, that he was very involved with the new Af1s, that
they came up with several paint schemes, that Trump selected one that
is almost the same as his 757's paint job, that Trump proudly showed off
the model of the new planes, painted in that new red, black, white scheme
to reporters. That's a Trump doodle?

>He never owned those planes (there are 2)

Irrelevant of course and they are obviously not complete yet.

> nor did he have any real power over how the planes were painted.

BS. Following that logic, how the hell did the 707's go from Air Force
paint to Ray Loewy's classic design? Jackie got him engaged because
the Kennedy's had class and good taste and wanted something great
to represent America. And at the time Trump unveiled his new paint
scheme, I don't recall anyone saying, Trump can't do that. Biden is now
in the process of reviewing it, probably going to change it, and I don't
see anyone saying he has no power over it.

> This was not going to be the current planes anyway.

No shit Sherlock, always trying to wander us into the wilderness. It
was always the new planes we were talking about.

>It was a brain
> fart about planes that haven't been built yet

Only according to you. The rest of us saw the real story, the new planes
being ordered, Trump wanting a new paint scheme, designers coming up
with one that was close to Trump's own 757. We saw Trump proudly
showing the model off as Boeing was busy building them. We also saw
Trump steal the model.

and Trump vetoed the
> appropriations bill that was going to build them (overridden).

You have that wrong too. IDK what bill your're referring to, but the order
for the planes, the work had already begun before Trump even entered
office. If it's the bill that Trump vetoed in December, because he objected
to renaming Confederate named bases, what the hell does that have to
do with any of this? The planes are under contract, well along and they
were going to be paid for regardless of Trump throwing a temper tantrum
on his way out the door. Again, off to the wilderness.

> It was buried in the military appropriations bill.

Right, no one knew that the new AF1s were ordered up before Trump came
into office, Boeing having been being paid regularly as they are completed.
But thanks for bringing up paying for them. I just took a quick look at found
some more Trump BS. Trump attacked Boeing, bitching when he came into
office that the cost of the AF1 program was over $4 bil. After vilifying Boeing,
dragging them through the mud, he claimed to have reduced the cost to $3.8 bil.
Just looked, the current cost is over $5 bil, another great Trump achievement.

> At any rate, Trump will be a distant memory before the planes show up

You expect him to die?

> and I doubt Biden will change JFK's paint job.

Biden has to change Trump's paint job and revert back.

The air force has a
> dozen or more, all sizes,
> with the same paint job parked out at Andrews. Nancy has one.

Wrong again, no other govt plane has the same paint scheme as AF1
They use some of the same colors, but are distinctly different, particularly
as to where the colors go. A paint *scheme* is not just colors.
And of course as most the rest, this is an irrelevant trip to the wilderness.

> >
> >
> >
> >>A Trump doodle is not a real order
> >> to change something he doesn't own.
> >
> >There you go again. It was not a doodle.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am sure he wanted Trump dishes
> >> and a big "Trump" over the North Portico too but GSA was not getting
> >> right on that either.
> >>
> >> They wouldn't even do this.
> >>
> >> http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Air_Force_One_Trump.jpg
> >
> >And if Trump had, you'd be here defending it, as always and
> >denying the truth, presenting "alternate facts", whatever it takes
> >to try to justify whatever Trump has done. We've seen how that's
> >working out for the Republicans.
> Seek help, your Trump derangement have overwhelmed your good sense.

Even if that was true, at least I had good sense to start with. Feel free at any
point to just say, I didn't know that Trump ordered up a new paint scheme,
that it was close to his 757 paint job and that he ordered it for the new AF1.

[trader_4]

Fortunately Bush 41 knew genocide when he saw it, knew that the Kurds
were being massacred, knew that the US and our allies could save them
at little risk and acted. And after that we were there pursuant to UN
resolutions, as Saddam, not the allies, violated the terms of his cease
fire that ended the war. And you conveniently play Monday morning QB,
as usual, assuming that had Bush not done X, then everything would have
turned out just swell. You didn't want the US to get involved when Saddam
invaded Kuwait. Suppose next he took Saudi Arabia and we had an even
worse problem to deal with. I suppose we could ignore that. And as usual,
we didn't hear you issue a peep about TRUMP sticking his finger in the Mideast,
reneging on the nuclear deal with Iran, royally escalating that, despite our
allies pleading with him not to. Trump not only reneged, he put the economic
screws to Iran, directly confronting them, demanding regime change.
Lucky for Trump it didn't turn into something bad, but again, no complaints
from you about Trump "meddling" in the Mideast.

[trader_4]

I wouldn't be surprised at all that in two years or sooner, most Republicans
will be wishing that the futile removal vote had succeeded. We'll get a good
preview of what's coming on Sunday. I see one Republican politician after
another saying essentially we need Trump to set the future policies and
direction. Then they get around to saying, what he needs to do is focus on
that, uniting the party, not go off on other things, like the stolen election.
It's like a woman suffering from domestic abuse for the last 5 years, saying
he's a swell guy, I want more, he just needs to stop the abuse. It's like
they've been watching a different movie the last 5 years and forgetting that
they said the same things all those years. They said he's just being obnoxious
because it's the primary, when he wins, he'll change. When he did the same
in the general election, they said when he wins he will change. When he did
the same after he won, they said when he takes office he will change.
They were partly right, he got worse, much worse. But somehow they want more.
Democrats are very, very happy.

[trader_4]

As explained to you many times, it was important to put this on record,
to document for history what happened, who was willing to stand up for
America and the Constitution, who was still going to side with the evil
orange clown.

> If you have a real charge, bring it in federal court, not congress.

Too bad our founding fathers didn't consult with you when they wrote the
Constitution.

> I think the problem is if they couldn't convince 66.7% of the Senate
> they would never convince 100% of a jury.

One more time, it does not have to be a crime to be impeachable. Again,
suppose a president just said screw you, I'm not doing my job anymore,
I'm going on vacation, don't call me. Or announced that from now on
they are going to consult with Putin or KJU on all policy decisions and
go with their recommendations or decide whether to sign all future
bills on the flip of a coin. Those are not impeachable even thought they
are not crimes?

> >
> >>that ate up the first few weeks of
> >>Biden's term with nothing to show for it but giving Trump another win.
> >
> >Of course, because nothing spells 'win' like being impeached for the second
> >time. Trump has two of those wins, more than any other President in the
> >country's history. Go, Trump, go, what a winner.
> He is not convincing me. As far as I am concerned he is yesterday's
> news but he believes it and about 100 million voters still agree
> >>If he actually had any say in what the party he is supposed to be the
> >>head of as president (elect or sitting) he would have told them to
> >>stop it.
> >
> >Get serious. What message would it have sent to the country for the
> >President to wade in where he has absolutely no role to play? Especially if
> >he had tried to derail the impeachment. The dickheads who showed up in DC
> >would have taken that as a green light to organize the next riot. Why not?
> >
> Politicians like Biden don't publicly "wade in". That was Trump. Biden
> would call Nancy and say "C'on Nancy, what the fuck are you doing"?
> Have you listened to the LBJ tapes?
> >I guess you got used to Trump barging in where he doesn't belong so you
> >wonder why Biden didn't do it, too. That's pretty pathetic.
> Biden was smart enough to know this was a loser. That is why he didn't
> say anything about it.

What would you suggest? That Biden be stupid and divisive like Trump?
"Yes, they should impeach and remove that SOB. Trump sucks"
Maybe Biden should have held lock him up rallies. Fortunately Biden isn't Trump

> >
> >>He still has the whole justice department to go after Trump
> >>if they think this was a "high crime or misdemeanor".
> >
> >Yep, sounds like Trump-style behavior is fine with you.
> Are you saying the case against Trump is just a political vendetta not
> really "upholding the Constitution"?

I don't see Jim saying that at all. We have an impeachment process, Trump
was impeached before Biden came into office, it was the most deserved
impeachment in American history and I'm confident future historians will
view it that way, not just in the USA either. And Biden doesn't sit as the jury,
he correctly stayed out of it, something that the evil orange clown would
never do. I welcome the return to normalcy.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 00:37:28 -0600, Jim Joyce <no...@none.invalid>

There may have been some rabid never trumper democrats who thought
they could flip 34 GOP senators but nobody with a clue believed it and
I am sure Nancy had a whip count by the time she chose to draft the
document. .

>>If you have a real charge, bring it in federal court, not congress.
>
>Yes, I know, you hate Presidential impeachments and you want to change the
>Constitution. How is that going?
>

The constitution is silent on carrying an impeachment process beyond
the term of the president and I am still waiting for someone to cite a
case of an impeachment trial after the person left office where "being
unconstitutional" wasn't cited as the reason to acquit.
I know Belknap is the case you hang your hat on but in that case he
resigned early. They didn't plan to try him after he was scheduled to
leave office.

>>I think the problem is if they couldn't convince 66.7% of the Senate
>>they would never convince 100% of a jury.
>
>It's good to have an opinion.
>
>>>>that ate up the first few weeks of
>>>>Biden's term with nothing to show for it but giving Trump another win.
>>>
>>>Of course, because nothing spells 'win' like being impeached for the second
>>>time. Trump has two of those wins, more than any other President in the
>>>country's history. Go, Trump, go, what a winner.
>>
>>He is not convincing me.
>
>No need to convince you since you're already convinced.
>
>>As far as I am concerned he is yesterday's news
>
>As far as I'm concerned, this is where things finally start looking up. No
>longer sheltered by the office, he's finally fair game.
>

Hence this should have been turned over to the justice system, not
congress.

>> but he believes it and about 100 million voters still agree
>>>>If he actually had any say in what the party he is supposed to be the
>>>>head of as president (elect or sitting) he would have told them to
>>>>stop it.
>>>
>>>Get serious. What message would it have sent to the country for the
>>>President to wade in where he has absolutely no role to play? Especially if
>>>he had tried to derail the impeachment. The dickheads who showed up in DC
>>>would have taken that as a green light to organize the next riot. Why not?
>>>
>>Politicians like Biden don't publicly "wade in". That was Trump. Biden
>>would call Nancy and say "C'on Nancy, what the fuck are you doing"?
>>Have you listened to the LBJ tapes?
>>
>>>I guess you got used to Trump barging in where he doesn't belong so you
>>>wonder why Biden didn't do it, too. That's pretty pathetic.
>>
>>Biden was smart enough to know this was a loser. That is why he didn't
>>say anything about it.
>
>Again, it's nice that you have an opinion and are willing to share it. It
>sounds totally ignorant to me, but who knows.
>
>
>>>>He still has the whole justice department to go after Trump
>>>>if they think this was a "high crime or misdemeanor".
>>>
>>>Yep, sounds like Trump-style behavior is fine with you.
>>
>>Are you saying the case against Trump is just a political vendetta not
>>really "upholding the Constitution"?
>
>No. Where did I lose you?

When you said Biden couldn't ask his DoJ to prosecute Trump if he
really believed this was an attack on the constitution that he is
sworn to uphold.
You are really all over the place on this. You say impeachment was the
proper venue, in spite of the fact that Trump would be "fair game" for
federal prosecution before they even delivered the document to the
Senate. Then you keep standing by that while spinning the "fair game"
angle.
You folks are just blindly swinging in the dark trying to make
something stick ... anything.

[Scott Lurndal]

gfre...@aol.com writes:
>On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 00:37:28 -0600, Jim Joyce <no...@none.invalid>

>>>Nobody ever believed he would be convicted in the Senate so it was a
>>>futile mission
>>
>>That's an interesting conclusion but most people would disagree with you.
>>
>There may have been some rabid never trumper democrats who thought
>they could flip 34 GOP senators but nobody with a clue believed it and
>I am sure Nancy had a whip count by the time she chose to draft the
>document. .

What most rational people believed was that the Senate would put
country ahead of party. The fact that they didn't is the first
nail in the coffin of the great american experiment.

[trader_4]

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 10:51:06 AM UTC-5, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 00:37:28 -0600, Jim Joyce <no...@none.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 00:37:06 -0500, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

> >>>I don't know what's futile about impeaching a President who incites an
> >>>armed insurrection. If you're thinking he should have been arrested,
> >>>convicted, and put to death instead of only being impeached, that's a
> >>>discussion we could have, but impeachment is clearly where things very
> >>>properly have started.
> >>>
> >>Nobody ever believed he would be convicted in the Senate so it was a
> >>futile mission
> >
> >That's an interesting conclusion but most people would disagree with you.
> >
> There may have been some rabid never trumper democrats who thought
> they could flip 34 GOP senators but nobody with a clue believed it and
> I am sure Nancy had a whip count by the time she chose to draft the
> document. .

I'm pretty sure that what Jim was saying was most people would disagree with
your claim that it was futile for Trump to be impeached because it was
unlikely that Trump would be removed.

> >>If you have a real charge, bring it in federal court, not congress.
> >
> >Yes, I know, you hate Presidential impeachments and you want to change the
> >Constitution. How is that going?
> >
> The constitution is silent on carrying an impeachment process beyond
> the term of the president and I am still waiting for someone to cite a
> case of an impeachment trial after the person left office where "being
> unconstitutional" wasn't cited as the reason to acquit.

Irrelevant diversion into the wilderness. Just because someone can try to
cite something as being unconstitutional doesn't mean that Congress can't
proceed.

> I know Belknap is the case you hang your hat on but in that case he
> resigned early. They didn't plan to try him after he was scheduled to
> leave office.
> >>I think the problem is if they couldn't convince 66.7% of the Senate
> >>they would never convince 100% of a jury.
> >
> >It's good to have an opinion.
> >
> >>>>that ate up the first few weeks of
> >>>>Biden's term with nothing to show for it but giving Trump another win.
> >>>
> >>>Of course, because nothing spells 'win' like being impeached for the second
> >>>time. Trump has two of those wins, more than any other President in the
> >>>country's history. Go, Trump, go, what a winner.
> >>
> >>He is not convincing me.
> >
> >No need to convince you since you're already convinced.
> >
> >>As far as I am concerned he is yesterday's news
> >
> >As far as I'm concerned, this is where things finally start looking up. No
> >longer sheltered by the office, he's finally fair game.
> >
> Hence this should have been turned over to the justice system, not
> congress.

Too bad the founding father's didn't consult you when they wrote the Constitution
that we use.

What is the criminal statute that makes it a crime for a president not to
uphold the Constitution? Oh, wait, there isn't. I guess that's why those silly
framers provided for impeachment.

> You are really all over the place on this. You say impeachment was the
> proper venue, in spite of the fact that Trump would be "fair game" for
> federal prosecution before they even delivered the document to the
> Senate. Then you keep standing by that while spinning the "fair game"
> angle.
> You folks are just blindly swinging in the dark trying to make
> something stick ... anything.

I think Jim is consistent and right on target. You're the one that can't grasp
that impeachment is not a criminal trial, nor does it require an actual crime.

Also I thought some more about you accusing me of having Trump derangement
syndrome, can't get over Trump. I'm OK with the impeachment, how it ended.
We got the whole thing on record, we got House and Senate members to vote
on where they stood when America needed them, it's recorded for history.
I haven't been suggesting criminal charges should be brought against Trump
for inciting an insurrection. You keep bringing that up. You're the one suggesting
that DOJ will now go after him somehow, I doubt it very much. You sound like those
Republicans that can't get over it. They are out there right now, vilifying the
ten GOP who voted to remove Trump, trying to censure them, primary them,
defeat them, etc. That sounds wonderful for the future of the party. Replace
Liz Cheney and Ben Sasse with someone like Qanon Greene, sounds like a winning idea.

[Rod Speed]

"trader_4" <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:e61c23fc-367f-4035...@googlegroups.com...

They are actually saying that they need Trump because so
many vote for him and plenty who voted for Joe wont next
time when it becomes obvious how useless he is.

> Then they get around to saying, what he needs to

> is focus on that, uniting the party, not go off on
> other things, like the stolen election.

> It's like a woman suffering from domestic abuse
> for the last 5 years, saying he's a swell guy, I want
> more, he just needs to stop the abuse.

More like you obsessed about Trump
even tho he isnt the prez anymore.

> It's like they've been watching a different movie the last 5 years
> and forgetting that they said the same things all those years.

More like they noticed that Trump got more votes last time
than any presidential candidate of theirs has ever got.

> They said he's just being obnoxious because it's the primary,
> when he wins, he'll change. When he did the same in the
> general election, they said when he wins he will change.
> When he did the same after he won, they said when he

> takes office he will change.They were partly right, he got

> worse, much worse. But somehow they want more.
> Democrats are very, very happy.

And it remains to be seen how long they stay that way for.

[Rod Speed]

"Scott Lurndal" <sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote in message
news:ts9_H.118767$dw2.1...@fx37.iad...

> gfre...@aol.com writes:
>>On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 00:37:28 -0600, Jim Joyce <no...@none.invalid>
>
>>>>Nobody ever believed he would be convicted in the Senate so it was a
>>>>futile mission
>>>
>>>That's an interesting conclusion but most people would disagree with you.
>>>
>>There may have been some rabid never trumper democrats who thought
>>they could flip 34 GOP senators but nobody with a clue believed it and
>>I am sure Nancy had a whip count by the time she chose to draft the
>>document. .

> What most rational people believed was that
> the Senate would put country ahead of party.

That’s not rational, that’s pathetically naïve.

Politics doesn’t work like that.

> The fact that they didn't is the first nail in the
> coffin of the great american experiment.

More pathetic naiveté.

[Heywood]

On 2/26/2021 11:58 AM, trader_4 wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 10:51:06 AM UTC-5, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

>>>> Nobody ever believed he would be convicted in the Senate so it was a
>>>> futile mission
>>>
>>> That's an interesting conclusion but most people would disagree with you.
>>>
>> There may have been some rabid never trumper democrats who thought
>> they could flip 34 GOP senators but nobody with a clue believed it and
>> I am sure Nancy had a whip count by the time she chose to draft the
>> document. .
>
> I'm pretty sure that what Jim was saying was most people would disagree with
> your claim that it was futile for Trump to be impeached because it was
> unlikely that Trump would be removed.
>
>

Of course he would not be removed but there are still both political and
legal reasons to impeach.

One benefit is the potential destruction of the Republican Party as we
know it today. It may help destroy Trump the private citizen and
businessman too.

[Peeler]

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 04:46:30 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

--
Bod addressing abnormal quarrelling senile pest:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID: <g4ihla...@mid.individual.net>

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 06:34:28 -0800 (PST), trader_4

Did they actually ever change any paint?

>
>>He never owned those planes (there are 2)
>
>Irrelevant of course and they are obviously not complete yet.
>
>> nor did he have any real power over how the planes were painted.
>
>BS. Following that logic, how the hell did the 707's go from Air Force
>paint to Ray Loewy's classic design? Jackie got him engaged because
>the Kennedy's had class and good taste and wanted something great
>to represent America. And at the time Trump unveiled his new paint
>scheme, I don't recall anyone saying, Trump can't do that. Biden is now
>in the process of reviewing it, probably going to change it, and I don't
>see anyone saying he has no power over it.

Different time, different president.

>
>> This was not going to be the current planes anyway.
>
>No shit Sherlock, always trying to wander us into the wilderness. It
>was always the new planes we were talking about.
>
>
>>It was a brain
>> fart about planes that haven't been built yet
>
>Only according to you. The rest of us saw the real story, the new planes
>being ordered, Trump wanting a new paint scheme, designers coming up
>with one that was close to Trump's own 757. We saw Trump proudly
>showing the model off as Boeing was busy building them. We also saw
>Trump steal the model.

If they are not using it, why shouldn't he get to keep it?

>
>and Trump vetoed the
>> appropriations bill that was going to build them (overridden).
>
>You have that wrong too. IDK what bill your're referring to, but the order
>for the planes, the work had already begun before Trump even entered
>office. I
>

The money to actually finish them was in this defense bill.

>> At any rate, Trump will be a distant memory before the planes show up
>
>You expect him to die?
>
>
>> and I doubt Biden will change JFK's paint job.
>
>Biden has to change Trump's paint job and revert back.
>
>
>
>
> The air force has a
>> dozen or more, all sizes,
>> with the same paint job parked out at Andrews. Nancy has one.
>
>Wrong again, no other govt plane has the same paint scheme as AF1
>They use some of the same colors, but are distinctly different, particularly
>as to where the colors go. A paint *scheme* is not just colors.
>And of course as most the rest, this is an irrelevant trip to the wilderness.

They may not be exactly alike but close enough not to confuse yourself
that this is not a US executive plane and nothing like the Trump
design
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/AF1%20Nancy's%20plane.jpg

[gfre...@aol.com]

No I didn't. I knew once we got in we would not get out ... and we
didn't. The Arabs should have handled an all arab problem. Then we
would not have had 9-11 and all that came from that, including the
wars GW lied us into.
GHWB sold his war with a lie too., There was no impending invasion of
Saudi Arabia, that was doctored up photos and a big lie. There were
also no babies thrown out of incubators and other similar made up
atrocities and that was the tear jerker that got the left off the
bench. The right wing neocons like you never saw a war they didn't
like.
If we had only followed Powell and Swartzkopf's advice and got the
hell out after we kicked Saddam out it would have been OK. They just
couldn't stop until they got Saddam.
How did that work out for you? We got the ISIS problem and 10 years of
insurgency.
Oh and fuck the Kurds.
We don't seem to give a shit about all of the other people in the
world who can't get along. What makes them so special? Oil?
If there was oil in Central Africa would we invade there too. Plenty
of people are regularly hacked to death there but we don't care, only
George Clooney.

> I suppose we could ignore that. And as usual,
>we didn't hear you issue a peep about TRUMP sticking his finger in the Mideast,
>reneging on the nuclear deal with Iran, royally escalating that, despite our
>allies pleading with him not to. Trump not only reneged, he put the economic
>screws to Iran, directly confronting them, demanding regime change.
>Lucky for Trump it didn't turn into something bad, but again, no complaints
>from you about Trump "meddling" in the Mideast.

If you could have gotten over your TDS and read what I wrote, I had
plenty to say about Kushner and his dealings with Israel. That was the
motivation for blowing up the iran deal, moving the embassy, fucking
over the Palestinians and other things that were not helping.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 07:07:12 -0800 (PST), trader_4

All you did was give Trump another win to crow about and he is already
doing it. He thinks he is superman and he wants you to shoot at him so
you can watch the bullets bounce off.

His 174 million supporters just got to liking him more.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 16:36:41 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Nobody believed that. Step out of the bubble and look around. I am
sure Biden knew this was going down. 45 Senators voting that it was
unconstitutional should have been a hint.

[angelica...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 3:06:20 PM UTC-5, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

> No I didn't. I knew once we got in we would not get out ... and we
> didn't. The Arabs should have handled an all arab problem.

As you said later in the part I snipped: oil. If the Middle East weren't
sitting on an ocean of oil we wouldn't give a damn what happens there.

That reason is sufficient that I'd like to see successful alternative energy.

Cindy Hamilton

[Rod Speed]

<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:v8ki3gpoqcgl6hnhb...@4ax.com...

But did with Syria.

And didn’t with Japan and Germany. So do you seriously
claim that the USA shouldn’t have gotten involved in WW2
and should have just let the Japs have anything they wanted ?

> The Arabs should have handled an all arab problem.

They didn’t have that capability. And still
don’t, most obviously with Syria and Yemen.

> Then we would not have had 9-11

You can run the same stupid line about WW2.

> and all that came from that, including the wars GW lied us into.
> GHWB sold his war with a lie too., There was no impending invasion
> of Saudi Arabia, that was doctored up photos and a big lie.

That’s bullshit.

> There were also no babies thrown out of incubators and
> other similar made up atrocities and that was the tear jerker
> that got the left off the bench. The right wing neocons like
> you never saw a war they didn't like.

That’s bullshit too with Georgia, the Ukraine
and Hungary before that and Suez.

> If we had only followed Powell and Swartzkopf's advice
> and got the hell out after we kicked Saddam out it would
> have been OK. They just couldn't stop until they got Saddam.
> How did that work out for you? We got the ISIS problem
> and 10 years of insurgency.

It wasn’t cause and effect there.

> Oh and fuck the Kurds.
> We don't seem to give a shit about all of the other
> people in the world who can't get along.

That’s bullshit too.

> What makes them so special? Oil?

Nope, no real oil there.

> If there was oil in Central Africa

There is, Nigeria.

[Rod Speed]

"angelica...@yahoo.com" <angelica...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:27a5b12a-aad0-4f36...@googlegroups.com...

Nukes make a hell of a lot more sense.

[Peeler]

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 07:33:37 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

> Nukes make a hell of a lot more sense.

Nembutal would make a lot more sense for you, senile sociopathic swine!

--
Keema Nam addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You are now exposed as a liar, as well as an ignorant troll."
"MID: <0001HW.22B654E700...@news.giganews.com>"

[gfre...@aol.com]

Biden just bombed Syria so are far from out.

>
>And didn’t with Japan and Germany. So do you seriously
>claim that the USA shouldn’t have gotten involved in WW2
>and should have just let the Japs have anything they wanted ?
>

I never said anything about the Americans being in WWII.

>> The Arabs should have handled an all arab problem.
>
>They didn’t have that capability. And still
>don’t, most obviously with Syria and Yemen.

The Saudis have some of the most sophisticated weapons the US has.
They are not Yemen.

>
>> Then we would not have had 9-11
>
>You can run the same stupid line about WW2.

They have nothing to do with each other. 9-11 was a response to US
troops being in Saudi Arabia, mostly the women who were not acting
like the way those rag heads want women to act.
It is no accident that Bin laden and most of his gang were Saudi.

>
>> and all that came from that, including the wars GW lied us into.
>> GHWB sold his war with a lie too., There was no impending invasion
>> of Saudi Arabia, that was doctored up photos and a big lie.
>
>That’s bullshit.

What part? It is true we doctored up spy satellite photos to make the
invasion look imminent when no such thing was happening.

"As Scott Peterson reported for The Christian Science Monitor in 2002,
a key part of the first Bush administration’s case “was that an Iraqi
juggernaut was also threatening to roll into Saudi Arabia. Citing
top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in
mid-September [of 1990] that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500
tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier.”

A quarter of a million troops with heavy armor amassed on the Saudi
border certainly seemed like a clear sign of hostile intent. In
announcing that he had deployed troops to the Gulf in August 1990,
George HW Bush said, “I took this action to assist the Saudi Arabian
Government in the defense of its homeland.” He asked the American
people for their “support in a decision I’ve made to stand up for
what’s right and condemn what’s wrong, all in the cause of peace.”

But one reporter — Jean Heller of the St. Petersburg Times — wasn’t
satisfied taking the administration’s claims at face value. She
obtained two commercial satellite images of the area taken at the
exact same time that American intelligence supposedly had found
Saddam’s huge and menacing army and found nothing there but empty
desert."

>

>
>> If there was oil in Central Africa
>
>There is, Nigeria.
>

Geography isn't your long suit is it and we also ignore human rights
abuses in Nigeria.

[Rod Speed]

<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4p5j3g98pc1fj76sf...@4ax.com...

He actually bombed Hezbollah etc who had done some
missile strikes on US and coalition people in Iraq.

> so are far from out.

There are no US troops or planes in Syria.

>> And didn’t with Japan and Germany. So do you seriously
>> claim that the USA shouldn’t have gotten involved in WW2
>> and should have just let the Japs have anything they wanted ?

> I never said anything about the Americans being in WWII.

But that’s the facts that blows your stupid
line right out of the fucking water.

>>> The Arabs should have handled an all arab problem.

>> They didn’t have that capability. And still
>> don’t, most obviously with Syria and Yemen.

> The Saudis have some of the most
> sophisticated weapons the US has.

They don’t have anything like what would have
been needed if Saddam had chosen to invade
them after Kuwait, whatever bin Laden claimed.

> They are not Yemen.

Wrong, as always.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(2014%E2%80%93present)

And the west has been involved there ever since WW2 and
https://www.amazon.com/Yemen-David-Smiley-Middle-East/s?rh=n%3A5010%2Cp_27%3ADavid+Smiley
is an interesting read about that.

>>> Then we would not have had 9-11

>> You can run the same stupid line about WW2.

> They have nothing to do with each other.

Never said they did, but the US involvement
in WW2 was the reason for quite a few of
the attacks on the US since then.

> 9-11 was a response to US troops being in Saudi Arabia,
> mostly the women who were not acting like the way
> those rag heads want women to act. It is no accident
> that Bin laden and most of his gang were Saudi.

And there are plenty of other examples of attacks
on the USA because of their involvement in WW2,
particularly by russia, china, north korea etc etc etc.

>>> and all that came from that, including the wars GW lied us into.
>>> GHWB sold his war with a lie too., There was no impending invasion
>>> of Saudi Arabia, that was doctored up photos and a big lie.

>> That’s bullshit.

> What part?

All of it.

> It is true we doctored up spy satellite photos to make the
> invasion look imminent when no such thing was happening.

Bullshit.

> "As Scott Peterson reported for The Christian Science Monitor in 2002,
> a key part of the first Bush administration’s case “was that an Iraqi
> juggernaut was also threatening to roll into Saudi Arabia. Citing
> top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in
> mid-September [of 1990] that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500
> tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier.”

The Saudis realised that it wasn’t bullshit, that’s
why they allowed US troops to be based there.

> A quarter of a million troops with heavy armor amassed on the
> Saudi border certainly seemed like a clear sign of hostile intent.
> In announcing that he had deployed troops to the Gulf in August
> 1990, George HW Bush said, “I took this action to assist the Saudi
> Arabian Government in the defense of its homeland.”

And that threat was real, which is why the Saudis chose to
hold their noses and let the US base troops in their country.

> He asked the American people for their “support in a
> decision I’ve made to stand up for what’s right and
> condemn what’s wrong, all in the cause of peace.”

And got the support of most of the countrys
in that area and got them to pay for it too.
Because they realised that the threat was
real post the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam.

> But one reporter — Jean Heller of the St. Petersburg
> Times — wasn’t satisfied taking the administration’s
> claims at face value. She obtained two commercial
> satellite images of the area taken at the exact same
> time that American intelligence supposedly had
> found Saddam’s huge and menacing army and
> found nothing there but empty desert."

How odd that the Saudis didn’t buy that.

>>> If there was oil in Central Africa

>> There is, Nigeria.

> Geography isn't your long suit is it

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

> and we also ignore human rights abuses in Nigeria.

And in the Philippines and in South America and russia during WW2.

[Jim Joyce]

You seem to think that Presidential impeachment without a conviction is not
only futile, but a 'win'. If so, that's bizarre. Like I said above, I think

most people would disagree with you.

>>>If you have a real charge, bring it in federal court, not congress.
>>
>>Yes, I know, you hate Presidential impeachments and you want to change the
>>Constitution. How is that going?
>>
>The constitution is silent on carrying an impeachment process beyond
>the term of the president and I am still waiting for someone to cite a
>case of an impeachment trial after the person left office where "being
>unconstitutional" wasn't cited as the reason to acquit.
>I know Belknap is the case you hang your hat on but in that case he
>resigned early. They didn't plan to try him after he was scheduled to
>leave office.

Good job moving those goalposts. Either get off your rear and get the
Constitution changed or STFU about it. Complaining here isn't going to get
the job done.

>>>I think the problem is if they couldn't convince 66.7% of the Senate
>>>they would never convince 100% of a jury.
>>
>>It's good to have an opinion.
>>
>>>>>that ate up the first few weeks of
>>>>>Biden's term with nothing to show for it but giving Trump another win.
>>>>
>>>>Of course, because nothing spells 'win' like being impeached for the second
>>>>time. Trump has two of those wins, more than any other President in the
>>>>country's history. Go, Trump, go, what a winner.
>>>
>>>He is not convincing me.
>>
>>No need to convince you since you're already convinced.
>>
>>>As far as I am concerned he is yesterday's news
>>
>>As far as I'm concerned, this is where things finally start looking up. No
>>longer sheltered by the office, he's finally fair game.
>>
>Hence this should have been turned over to the justice system, not
>congress.

That pesky Constitution again. I feel bad for you.

I didn't say Biden couldn't. I said he shouldn't and he didn't. I said
doing so would have been a Trump move. Hopefully, Biden isn't Trump.

>You are really all over the place on this.

It may appear that way when you hit Reply before you actually read what
you're replying to. Slow down, take a breath, and try to understand what
you're reading.

>You say impeachment was the
>proper venue, in spite of the fact that Trump would be "fair game" for
>federal prosecution before they even delivered the document to the
>Senate. Then you keep standing by that while spinning the "fair game"
>angle.

Wow, you're more confused than I thought. I'm not sure I can help you.

>You folks are just blindly swinging in the dark trying to make
>something stick ... anything.

You're completely lost, wandering around in the wilderness.