06 Aug 21
@Mott-The-Hoople
Right. We are supposed to actually go to the ultrarightwingnutjob Fox news for a story.
Sure, no problem there since we KNOW Fox news is SO reliable, unbiased reporting, stick with the facts channel with no politics involved, right?
06 Aug 21
@sonhouse saidwhy are you libs always attacking the messenger? I could understand if you disputed the accuracy of the message but you just stick your head in the sand.
@Mott-The-Hoople
Right. We are supposed to actually go to the ultrarightwingnutjob Fox news for a story.
Sure, no problem there since we KNOW Fox news is SO reliable, unbiased reporting, stick with the facts channel with no politics involved, right?
You look childish.
06 Aug 21
@mott-the-hoople saidThe article makes the claim that Dunn worked more than the 130 days triggering the requirement that she file the document, but doesn't show any evidence she did. That someone has a title for X amount of days doesn't mean that they worked on all those days esp. an informal adviser.
…for all those wanting to see Trumps financial records, even though the law doesnt require it.
How do you feel about this that the law does require.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-facing-another-potential-ethics-dilemma
06 Aug 21
@sonhouse saidWhere have they been unreliable? Why are they ‘reliable” with on-the-ground reporting at the border, when lib media ignores the invasion.
@Mott-The-Hoople
Right. We are supposed to actually go to the ultrarightwingnutjob Fox news for a story.
Sure, no problem there since we KNOW Fox news is SO reliable, unbiased reporting, stick with the facts channel with no politics involved, right?
Everyone prepare for a coherent response from Sonhouse
06 Aug 21
@mott-the-hoople saidHow do I feel about it? I think all politicians should publicly disclose tax returns, including Dunn, or they shouldn't be in the offices.
…for all those wanting to see Trumps financial records, even though the law doesnt require it.
How do you feel about this that the law does require.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-facing-another-potential-ethics-dilemma
@AverageJoe1
You look at ASSSWIPES like Tucker Carlsen who is a FUKKING TRAITOR in MY mind and you say FOX NEWS is UNBIASED?
OF COURSE IT WOULD BE SEEN AS UNBIASED TO ULTRARIGHTWINGNUTJOBS LIKE YOURSELF.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/oct/25/fox-news-watching-what-i-learned
Try reading this review, long term study of Fox News.
But you won't will you? For fear of actually finding something negative about Fox News which you could not abide so you would much rather be in the dark forever.
But try reading it just in case I am wrong.
07 Aug 21
@mott-the-hoople saidBecause when the messenger got sued for lying their defence was that no “reasonable person” would take them seriously.
why are you libs always attacking the messenger? I could understand if you disputed the accuracy of the message but you just stick your head in the sand.
You look childish.
Some of us consider ourselves to fall into the category of ‘reasonable’.
I understand it is considered a slur to you and your cohorts who consider ‘reasonable’ to be interchangeable with ‘liberal’.
07 Aug 21
@kevcvs57 saidyou are conflating two different things
Because when the messenger got sued for lying their defence was that no “reasonable person” would take them seriously.
Some of us consider ourselves to fall into the category of ‘reasonable’.
I understand it is considered a slur to you and your cohorts who consider ‘reasonable’ to be interchangeable with ‘liberal’.
@mott-the-hoople saidOh yeah that’s right I’m conflating the well known and self confessed dishonesty of Fox News with the well known and self confessed dishonesty of Fox News. I feel like such an idiot but thanks for pointing that out.
you are conflating two different things
07 Aug 21
@mott-the-hoople saidThe question assumes that Dunn is required to disclose her financial records when, in fact, there has been no showing that the law makes that mandatory. So the question in the form you asked it can't be answered.
not one liberal answered the question…noted
Moreover, Trump is required to turn over his financial records now as the House subpoena has been upheld by the courts. So the question is based on two apparent falsehoods.
@no1marauder saidactually your reply is a falsehood. There is no requirement for a presidential candidate/president to provide tax returns.
The question assumes that Dunn is required to disclose her financial records when, in fact, there has been no showing that the law makes that mandatory. So the question in the form you asked it can't be answered.
Moreover, Trump is required to turn over his financial records now as the House subpoena has been upheld by the courts. So the question is based on two apparent falsehoods.
There is a law for bidens appointee in the case I mentioned and the requirements were met.
Now that a democrat controlled legislature has subpoenaed the records the case is before the courts. They have no legal right to do this…just more democrat abuse of power.
@mott-the-hoople saidI believed I've already shown everything in this post (except for the irrelevant "There is no requirement for a presidential candidate/president to provide tax returns." - no one claimed otherwise) is false.
actually your reply is a falsehood. There is no requirement for a presidential candidate/president to provide tax returns.
There is a law for bidens appointee in the case I mentioned and the requirements were met.
Now that a democrat controlled legislature has subpoenaed the records the case is before the courts. They have no legal right to do this…just more democrat abuse of power.
There was no showing that Dunn actually worked enough days for mandatory disclosure to apply. There was a claim in the Fox News article but nothing to back it up.
Perhaps you have missed later developments in Trump's tax records case. https://thepostmillennial.com/supreme-court-clears-path-to-subpoena-trumps-tax-returns
In Trump v. Mazars the SCOTUS rejected your claim that the legislature "had no legal right" to subpoena personal financial records from the President: "The ruling acknowledged that Congress has the power to subpoena the president and his papers as part of the legislative process, but it set limits to these requests."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Mazars_USA,_LLP#cite_note-bbc_decision-33
Again, cases are decided by the Federal courts not the uninformed opinions of right wing internet posters.
07 Aug 21
@no1marauder saidit right there in my link...
I believed I've already shown everything in this post (except for the irrelevant "There is no requirement for a presidential candidate/president to provide tax returns." - no one claimed otherwise) is false.
There was no showing that Dunn actually worked enough days for mandatory disclosure to apply. There was a claim in the Fox News article but nothing to back it up. ...[text shortened]... cases are decided by the Federal courts not the uninformed opinions of right wing internet posters.
"Federal law requires that highly-involved presidential appointees publicly disclose their finances, but some appointees — known as special government employees — can forgo disclosing their finances if they serve in their role for less than 130 workdays and their salary is $132,500 or below.
Between Inauguration Day on Jan. 20 and Aug. 5, there have been 198 calendar days. According to the U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority, any work "done on any given day means that day is counted as a work day," including weekends.
If Dunn didn't work any of those weekends, which appears to be unlikely due to her role as a senior adviser working on infrastructure and other top White House priorities, Dunn would have still worked 142 days. If you take out federal holidays, Dunn would have worked a minimum of 137 days.
And democrat harassment is not a "legislative process".