ChrisWeigant.com

No Trump Tax Returns, No Democratic Tax Reform Deal

[ Posted Wednesday, April 12th, 2017 – 16:25 PDT ]

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer recently signaled that Senate Democrats might have a rather interesting bargaining chip if the Republicans are really serious about wanting a massive tax reform deal later this year. Schumer hasn't totally drawn a line in the sand over the issue yet, but I personally think this would be a good line to draw: force the public release of Donald Trump's tax returns, or Democrats will not deal on tax reform, period. In fact, this week would be the perfect week to make such a demand, since millions of Americans are currently struggling to fill out their own income tax returns before next week's deadline.

Schumer should go on one of the Sunday morning talk shows this week and say something along the lines of the following:

You know what? I think every American who is currently filling out their income tax returns deserves to see President Trump's taxes. So I'd like to announce that Senate Democrats will have no interest in making a deal with Republicans on tax reform unless part of that deal is the public release of Trump's tax returns for 2015 and 2014. If we're going to negotiate over how to change America's tax system, then the public deserves to know precisely how each proposed change will personally affect the president. It's only fair, after all, and we don't think this is too much to ask.

Other than signing such legislation, Trump himself wouldn't even have to be part of the deal, because Congress already has the power to release the president's full tax returns to the public. Trump would be put into an impossible political position if he refused to sign a tax reform deal solely because he refused to let the public know how such a deal would affect his finances. Two years of Trump's taxes is not too much to ask (although this should definitely include 2014, to cover the year before Trump declared his candidacy).

Currently, Schumer is merely floating the idea as a possibility. Here's what he had to say to reporters yesterday about the idea:

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) is warning that President Trump needs to release his personal tax returns if he hopes to achieve comprehensive tax reform in the coming months.

"It's going to make tax reform much harder" if Trump doesn't release his returns, Schumer told reporters Tuesday. Anytime the president proposes something on tax reform, "the average American is going to say, 'Oh, he's not doing that because it's good for me, he's doing it because it's good for him.' So for his own good, he ought to make them public. And the big mystery is why he hasn't."

"I think he just has an obligation to come clean. When you clean up the swamp, it's not keeping things secret and applies to yourself," Schumer added.

Now, "it's going to make tax reform much harder" isn't quite "we won't deal unless it happens." But Democrats really have nothing to lose by making the demand as explicit as possible. Reforming the nation's tax system is not a necessity, after all. The federal government won't shut down if it doesn't happen, to put it another way. Like the Republicans "repeal and replace Obamacare" agenda item, it is purely optional. There is no built-in deadline for comprehensive tax return, other than the artificial political deadline Republicans have to pass their party's agenda. And Republicans are going to need Democratic votes to make it happen, so Schumer actually has a lot of leverage to use.

Republicans say they want to accomplish "revenue-neutral" comprehensive tax reform. This is kind of confusing to average Americans, because what it means is that the amount of money the federal government collects in taxes is going to be exactly the same after the reform as it is now. "What's the point, then?" is the usual reaction to a "reform" with a bottom line that winds up exactly where it began.

What Republicans will never openly admit is that their ideas for reform are nothing short of redistributing the tax burden for all Americans. In other words, some will pay more in taxes, and some will pay less. Some of these shifts in the tax burden will be hidden and obscured as much as possible by the politicians, and some will be touted publicly. One of the parts that may be obfuscated is a big shift from taxes businesses pay to taxes individuals pay. Because shifting a large portion of the business tax burden to personal income taxes isn't exactly something Republicans are going to be publicly bragging about.

There are really only three ways to change the tax system: raise taxes, cut taxes, or raise some and cut others. Revenue neutrality means the third of these choices. Republicans are never going to simply raise taxes, after all. And if they just cut taxes, then they'll be adding to the deficit and the debt (because tax cuts never actually "pay for themselves"). What revenue neutrality means is that there are going to be winners and losers in any grand comprehensive tax reform. Who those winners and losers are going to be is still open to negotiation.

This is why a demand to see Trump's taxes is such a potent political issue. Trump's taxes are complicated, so tax reform could impact him in both ways at once -- he could be both a winner and a loser at the same time. Figuring this out, however, is impossible without seeing a few years of his back tax returns.

Republicans, led by Paul Ryan, are going to want to slash taxes for the uppermost brackets, if history is any judge. Cutting taxes for the extremely wealthy is a core part of Ryan's basic political philosophy, after all. But any such cuts are quite likely to give Trump tax breaks worth many millions of dollars. Don't the American people deserve to know this, during the political negotiations?

Chuck Schumer is correct to make this a big political issue before this debate even really gets started. Donald Trump could deceive everyone during the campaign about when he'd be releasing his tax returns (even though he knew full well the answer to that was going to be "never"), but that was when he was still a private citizen. He is now president. That changes things. Schumer should draw this line in the sand, and he should do it before the tax deadline arrives for everyone next week. He should loudly let everyone know that Democrats are not even going to discuss reforming the tax system until each and every American can plainly see how such reforms will affect the personal finances of President Trump. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to demand, and it should be a deal-breaker for Democrats.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

45 Comments on “No Trump Tax Returns, No Democratic Tax Reform Deal”

  1. [1] 
    TheStig wrote:

    This is the first time CW.com has added a fresh column immediately after I loaded the site. Do i win anything for this? :-)

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    Would love to see this happen.

  3. [3] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    While I think that this would make for good political theater...and well I do want to see what is under the hood, so to speak. It is not like HRC did the same or anything.

    I question the value of seeing Trumps individual tax return as a majority of his assets and money are derived from the good ole' real estate practice of using LLC's to shelter the actual investors and profits from litigation or payment when it goes south.

    I can think of 650 million reasons why the Dems, if they were smart, would also be demanding to see the Trump organizations tax returns, after all he is a successful business man who derives his income from these entities and has nothing to hide.... right?

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    Schumer has to do this. The sheer entertainment value of making Republicans say that they will eliminate the filibuster to let 45 keep his tax returns secret would be priceless. And would have great potential value in 2018 - drain the swamp my derriere.

    One thing you need to point out is that if the Republicans do decide they have to eliminate the filibuster to get the tax bill through and protect 45 and his family, then they will be able to pass any tax bill they want, and thus do not need to keep it revenue neutral.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do i win anything for this? :-)

    What would you like ... a medal or a chest to pin it on? :-)

  6. [6] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    That is a perfectly reasonable thing to demand, and it should be a deal-breaker for Democrats.

    I'm with you 100% on that one, CW. This is one case where the Republicans can't claim that the Democrats are setting a double standard - the Clintons released their taxes going back to 1977, and the Clinton Foundation tax information going back to 1998 posted online.

    Look for Trump to be able to say again, "This isn't as easy as I thought" on the issue of tax reform. That's because any tax-change option entails some sort of pain, either to taxpayers (revenue-neutral means redistribution of tax dollars), to popular programs (ready for another round of town halls?), or to the deficit. Budget Director Mick Mulvaney today said 'the public is not ready for' the sorts of cuts that would significantly bring down the deficit. Instead, Mulvaney said, the administration would focus on economic growth - DCspeak for tax cuts. In addition, Trump also promised infrastructure spending - experts say we need $2 trillion dollars worth over the next 10 years. One plan for that is to use public-private partnerships and tax credits to fund infrastructure building, but Jesse Feinberg of management consultant Woodlawn Associates, said today on NPR's Marketplace that there's no telling how many projects would qualify, and no telling how much demand from investors who buy such tax credits. "These folks tend not to have the tax appetite necessary to monetize a tax credit on the scale that the Trump campaign proposed," Feinberg said. They "might only get to a trillion if those tax credits sell like hotcakes" NPR added skeptically.

  7. [7] 
    neilm wrote:

    45's latest delusion is that he and he alone deserves credit for the strong dollar at the moment. He knows that this is going to be a problem for exporters, but lordy-my, the rest of the World just loves him so much that they just keep on pushing up the dollar because of all the great things he is doing.

    As usual, not only is 45 lying, but he is irony-lying - he wailed about Yellen keeping interest rates low as a political ploy to help Obama, but now, suddenly, he likes Yellen and low interest rates (he probably just remembered he owes a lot of people a lot of money, and higher rates will hurt his businesses).

    He has also suddenly decided that China isn't a currency manipulator after all. Maybe there were some frank 'explanations' when he met with President Xi that went something like:

    Xi: "Do you have any economists that you trust and can tie their own shoelaces?"

    45: "I have the most beautiful economists, everybody says so, I have lots of economists, amazing ones. They're beautiful."

    Xi: "OK, get one of them to explain to you what happens when the two largest economies in the World start a trade war, and which of the two of us is going to get the blame for tanking the World economy. Let me put it this way, the history books aren't going to call it the 'Xi Depression'".

    45: "Enjoy your cake, I just bombed Iraq."

    (Yes, of course he mixed up Syria with Iraq: http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/04/12/trump-xi-syria-iraq-misspeak-fox-intv-orig-vstop-aa.cnn)

    What a buffoon.

  8. [8] 
    neilm wrote:

    One thing that might need pointed out is that 45's taxes are not the financial documents that really need to be made public. We really need to see who he owes money to, what the conditions of these loans are, and if he is delinquent on any. We also need to see his cash flow to see if his businesses are generating anything like enough profits to cover the debt.

    It is a bit like a regular Joe releasing his 1040 - we get to see his income, and things like his charitable giving, etc, but we don't get to see his car loans, if the banks ia bout to foreclose on his mortgage and if he is spending like a drunken sailor on credit cards.

  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    No problem..

    McConnell just gets rid of the legislative filibuster and the GOP can do whatever they want without ANY input from Democrats whatsoever..

    Works for me. :D

  10. [10] 
    michale wrote:

    One thing that might need pointed out is that 45's taxes are not the financial documents that really need to be made public. We really need to see who he owes money to, what the conditions of these loans are, and if he is delinquent on any. We also need to see his cash flow to see if his businesses are generating anything like enough profits to cover the debt.

    In other words, you ONLY care about sticking it to President Trump... :D

    Color me shocked.. :D

  11. [11] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: He should loudly let everyone know that Democrats are not even going to discuss reforming the tax system until each and every American can plainly see how such reforms will affect the personal finances of President Trump. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to demand, and it should be a deal-breaker for Democrats.

    Yes! Schumer should use the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that PT paid in 2005 as his example as to why Democrats' demands are reasonable. The fact that Donald Trump paid $38 million on $150 million in income of which 5.3 million was regular income tax and about $31 million was AMT. Doing away with the AMT would reduce Trump's and similar others' taxes to a mere pittance so who is going to pick up the slack for the tax slackers when Trump relieves them of their obligations to the United States? Poor people don't pay any taxes, and that leaves you know who.

  12. [12] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [9]

    No problem..

    McConnell just gets rid of the legislative filibuster and the GOP can do whatever they want without ANY input from Democrats whatsoever..

    Works for me. :D

    Sure does... until the pendulum swings back and whacks you in the face... really HARD. :)

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    Sure does... until the pendulum swings back and whacks you in the face... really HARD. :)

    That assumes that the Democrats will be able to obtain a majority again in my lifetime..

    I see nothing that indicates that that is a possibility.. :D

    But, yes.. Unlike ya'all during the creation of the REID RULE, I concede that it could very well come back and bite this country on the arse..

    Considering the utter decimation of the Democrat Party, it seems to be a minimal risk worth taking..

    YMMV :D

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    You yourself have stated that the Democrats don't stand a chance in hell of gaining anything in 2018...

  15. [15] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale -

    Change "Democrats" to "black people" and you will realize how utterly bigoted your comments are...

  16. [16] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [14]

    You yourself have stated that the Democrats don't stand a chance in hell of gaining anything in 2018...

    No, I never said that. Again, you lie. Anyone surprised? :)

  17. [17] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [13]

    That assumes that the Democrats will be able to obtain a majority again in my lifetime..

    I see nothing that indicates that that is a possibility.. :D

    You've either got your head up your tail or you're planning on living a really short life. *LOL* :)

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    No, I never said that. Again, you lie. Anyone surprised? :)

    Surprised you deny it??

    No.. No one is surprised at all.. :D

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    Change "Democrats" to "black people" and you will realize how utterly bigoted your comments are...

    Of course I am bigoted.. I never claimed otherwise..

    EVERYONE here is bigoted..

    The only difference between ya'all and me is that I concede the bigotry..

    Ya'all deny it..

  20. [20] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [18]

    No, I never said that. Again, you lie. Anyone surprised? :)

    Surprised you deny it??

    No.. No one is surprised at all.. :D

    So you've proven you have reading comprehension problems, and you'll just make up lies about people. How pathetic. I never said that, and if you're going to insist that I said something I never said, then you're proving you're not really interested in facts.

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    So you've proven you have reading comprehension problems, and you'll just make up lies about people. How pathetic. I never said that, and if you're going to insist that I said something I never said, then you're proving you're not really interested in facts.

    And if you are going to continue to deny it then you're proving you're not really interested in facts.. :D

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    Do you see the corner you painted yourself into??

    You can't ask me to "prove it" because you are on record as stating that asking people to "prove" things is my "bullshit", not yours..

    So, if you ask me to "prove" something, it proves that asking people to "prove" this is not only my "bullshit", but yours as well.. :D

    Yer so easy to manipulate.. :D

    The fact is, it wasn't you who said it, it was altohone.. I just said that it was you to show you what an untenable situation you have created for yourself.. :D

    Expect further examples to follow.. :D

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    Of course, you'll claim that I was just wrong and am now trying to cover it up..

    Which would show that your previous accusation of me lying, was in fact, a lie...

    Because if I was just wrong, by definition, it wouldn't be a lie... :D

    You see how easy it is to manipulate a Party zealot?? :D

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    You see how easy it is to manipulate a Party zealot?? :D

    We had a word for that in USENET...

    PWNED :D

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    Wanna talk about poll numbers??

    President Trump’s Approval Rating Hits 48 Percent: Politico Poll

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/22/president-trumps-approval-rating-hits-48-percent-politico-poll/

    No???

    Didna think so.. :D

    Ya'all only want to talk polls when President Trump's numbers are low and/or sinking..

    No one EVER wants to talk about President Trump's numbers when they are good and rising.. :D

  26. [26] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [22]

    Do you see the corner you painted yourself into??

    No, I really don't because I'm more interested in discussing political issues than other posters.

    You can't ask me to "prove it" because you are on record as stating that asking people to "prove" things is my "bullshit", not yours..

    Asking people to prove things is your BS and not generally something I do, particularly when they're lying and trolling for a response like you're obviously doing here.

    So, if you ask me to "prove" something, it proves that asking people to "prove" this is not only my "bullshit", but yours as well.. :D

    No, it proves you obviously don't understand the concept of saying something is someone's BS. I was simply saying that it was your MO, your modus operandi... because it is. I don't generally ask people to prove things when I'm capable of researching things myself.

    It's also your BS to use the political discussion board to prove a poster can't do something or has no "moral authority" to post a comment. This utter nonsensical behavior impedes political debate.

    Yer so easy to manipulate.. :D

    You're proving you're like a troll who is more interested in manipulating people than actual political debate, and you're really proving you're not interested in FACTS like you claim to be and you don't mind resorting to lying about other posters.

    The fact is, it wasn't you who said it, it was altohone.. I just said that it was you to show you what an untenable situation you have created for yourself.. :D

    You just said it because you're a liar and acting like a troll who is more interested in nonsense than political debate. I doubt if A01 said it either; you're an admitted liar now so there's that.

    Expect further examples to follow.. :D

    Expect to be called an admitted liar who isn't interested in facts and who lies in order to manipulate posters in troll-like fashion. :)

  27. [27] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [23]

    Of course, you'll claim that I was just wrong and am now trying to cover it up..

    Wrong... Wrong again.

    I'll forever after claim that you're an ADMITTED LIAR and encourage the entire group to call you an ADMITTED LIAR and a MANIPULATOR who promises to do it again.

    Congratulations... 12 is a lot of steps. :)

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    No, I really don't because I'm more interested in discussing political issues than other posters.

    Another lie...You talk about me constantly...

    Asking people to prove things is your BS and not generally something I do, particularly when they're lying and trolling for a response like you're obviously doing here.

    In other words, you don't ask people to prove things who are of the same Party zealotry that you are because, when it comes to Party, you don't CARE if its factual or not..

    You only ask ME to prove things because your Party fanaticism demands it of you..

    Pretty much what I figured... :D

    It's also your BS to use the political discussion board to prove a poster can't do something or has no "moral authority" to post a comment. This utter nonsensical behavior impedes political debate.

    It actually clarifies political debate because it shows who are governed by Party zealotry and who is governed by facts and logic..

    In case you're confused (apparently, it's easy to do) you are the former and I am the latter.. :D

    You're proving you're like a troll who is more interested in manipulating people than actual political debate, and you're really proving you're not interested in FACTS like you claim to be and you don't mind resorting to lying about other posters.

    "No, I really don't because I'm more interested in discussing political issues than other posters."

    And yet, here you are, talking about me... :D I proved your lie within the SAME COMMENT!!!

    That's gotta be some kind of record.. :D

    You just said it because you're a liar and acting like a troll who is more interested in nonsense than political debate.

    "No, I really don't because I'm more interested in discussing political issues than other posters."

    The same comment!! TWICE!!! :D hehehehehehehe

    Gods, yer so damn easy.. :D

    I doubt if A01 said it either; you're an admitted liar now so there's that.

    {Dems} may well have just cost their ability to retake the House in 2018 and act as an effective opposition... and hurt their chances in 2020.
    -Altohone
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/04/07/ftp431/#comment-98317

    Like I said...

    PWNED... :D

    This is gonna be fun.. :D

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    I doubt if A01 said it either; you're an admitted liar now so there's that.

    If I am an admitted liar, then how can you believe anything, INCLUDING the admission??

    BBWWWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Dance, puppet! Dance!!!! :D

    The simple fact is, you only believe what your Party fanaticism tells you to believe..

    You act like a mindless drone, totally subjugated and dominated by Party... Not a single independent thought...

  30. [30] 
    Kick wrote:

    Poor Michale. He's a caricature, an admitted liar, and an admitted manipulator who gets his jollies acting like a troll on a political chat board full of people he claims to hate. Sad. :)

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    Poor Michale. He's a caricature, an admitted liar, and an admitted manipulator who gets his jollies acting like a troll on a political chat board full of people he claims to hate. Sad. :)

    "No, I really don't because I'm more interested in discussing political issues than other posters."
    -Kick

    :D

    With every comment I prove who really lies around here.. :D

  32. [32] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01 -- {Dems} may well have just cost their ability to retake the House in 2018 and act as an effective opposition... and hurt their chances in 2020.
    -Altohone
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/04/07/ftp431/#comment-98317

    Michale -- You yourself have stated that the Democrats don't stand a chance in hell of gaining anything in 2018...

    So thanks for proving that A01 actually didn't say that either. I don't generally ask liars to prove they're liars, particularly when they're admitted liars, but thanks for the assist anyway, Occifer. :)

  33. [33] 
    michale wrote:

    So thanks for proving that A01 actually didn't say that either. I don't generally ask liars to prove they're liars, particularly when they're admitted liars, but thanks for the assist anyway, Occifer. :)

    Of course, you would spin it that way.. Your Party fanaticism demands nothing less...

    But the facts are the facts.. You lied..

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    With every comment I prove who really lies around here.. :D

    If you're referring to yourself then you're dead-on-balls accurate. Don't forget that with every comment you also prove your lack of reading comprehension skills because I really am "more interested in discussing political issues than other posters," but there's this admitted liar and admitted manipulator who seems more interested in discussing whether people on this board have the moral authority to post their comments. That guy just posted a lie about me above because he said he wanted to manipulate me, and he's now whining that I got personal. Not just an admitted liar and admitted manipulator who promises to do it again, but a guy who wants to get personal and then whine because things got personal.

    To the admitted liar and admitted manipulator I ask:

    Do you see the corner you painted yourself into??

    Hoisted by your own petard! :D

  35. [35] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, it's been a slice... :D

    But duty calls so I am gonna be off the grid for a bit..

    Ya'all have fun.. :D

  36. [36] 
    Kick wrote:

    18 Syrian Fighters Allied With U.S. Are Killed in Coalition Airstrike

    By HELENE COOPER
    APRIL 13, 2017

    WASHINGTON — An airstrike by the American-led coalition fighting the Islamic State killed 18 Syrian fighters allied with the United States, the military said on Thursday.

    The strike, on Tuesday in Tabqah, Syria, was the third time in a month that American-led airstrikes may have killed civilians or allies, and it comes even as the Pentagon is investigating two previous airstrikes that killed or wounded scores of civilians in a mosque complex in Syria and in a building in the west of Mosul, Iraq.

    Tuesday’s strike was requested by coalition allies who were on the ground near Tabqah, the United States Central Command, which oversees combat operations in the Middle East, said in a statement. The fighters had called in the airstrikes and “identified the target location as an ISIS fighting position,” it said, using another name for the Islamic State.

    The Central Command statement said that the target location turned out to be a “fighting position” for the Syrian Democratic Forces, who have been fighting the Islamic State alongside the United States.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/world/middleeast/syrian-fighters-airstrike-american-military.html?action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=65152042&pgtype=article

  37. [37] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    I like the idea, but Mr. "if we regain the Senate we'll bring back the filibuster and help Repubs screw us again" Schumer won't do it.

    A

  38. [38] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    36

    I don't have a link at the moment, but supposedly there was an air strike on an al Qaida weapons depot in Syria that revealed the presence of chemical weapons.

    I'm outta here til next week sometime.

    Have a great weekend.

    A

  39. [39] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale -

    Trump is going down, Michale, and not just him but his whole rotten-to-the-core clan. Then there's Flynn, Page, Manafort, Sessions, Tillerson, oh yes and Nunes as well and probably Jason Chaffetz too. I'm going to be stocking up on the snacks and wine - I'm really going to enjoy this!

  40. [40] 
    altohone wrote:

    35
    and Listen

    I'm supposed to be packing so I get out of town, but...

    Speaking of duty, two more cops not using excessive force?

    Well, one has been reassigned, the other fired.
    So here's a chance to condemn bad cops.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cop-kick-handcuffed-man_us_58efb3ace4b0b9e9848a3b98?c3u&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

    I did catch your comment the other day Listen, though it wasn't to me.

    I have to say, your argument wasn't convincing.
    Throwing a tiny woman to the ground and then claiming "officer safety" justifies it when there were two cops and up to that point they weren't even trying to restrain her... which they would have been doing if they considered her a threat... doesn't make any sense.

    The "she wasn't hurt" argument doesn't make it acceptable, even if it turns out to be true.

    If I can finish my pre-travel chores, I'll try to check back tonight.

    Otherwise, catch ya next week gang.

    A

  41. [41] 
    altohone wrote:

    One more for the gang

    Republicans flip-flopping on Wikileaks.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39597055

    Note their response to Pompeo... too funny.

    If the next release hurts Trump, who here thinks Dems will re-embrace them?

    A

  42. [42] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01
    38

    I don't have a link at the moment, but supposedly there was an air strike on an al Qaida weapons depot in Syria that revealed the presence of chemical weapons.

    Here is a link for you. The U.S. is calling it "likely intentional misinformation" from Syria, and Russia wouldn't back up Syria's claim.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-isis-chemical-weapons-strike-deir-ezzor-us-russia-clash-over-assad-sarin/

    “The Coalition conducted no strikes in that area at that time,” U.S. Air Force Colonel John Dorrian, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition operating in Syria and Iraq, told the Reuters news agency in an email. “The Syrian claim is incorrect and likely intentional misinformation.”

    Significantly, Russia’s Defense Ministry wouldn’t back up the Syrian army’s claim on Thursday, with a spokesman saying Moscow was unaware of any significant civilian deaths in the Deir Ezzor region resulting from a coalition strike this week.

    I'm outta here til next week sometime.

    Have a great weekend.

    You too, Punk! Keep yourself safe. :)

  43. [43] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01
    37

    I like the idea, but Mr. "if we regain the Senate we'll bring back the filibuster and help Repubs screw us again" Schumer won't do it.

    Speaking of restoring that filibuster, I came across this article and came down off the ceiling about it.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/politics/nuclear-option-senate-filibuster-ed-markey/

    The history of politics suggests that the chances of Senate Democrats actually reinstating the 60-vote threshold to end debate (and bring up a vote) on a future Supreme Court nominee is somewhere between "no way" and "zilch." Pandora's box, once opened, doesn't voluntarily shut itself.

    Leave it alone Democrats! Use it... don't lose it. :)

  44. [44] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [41] altohone -

    If the next release hurts Trump, who here thinks Dems will re-embrace them?

    No informed Democrat will ever embrace Wikileaks again no matter what they say. We know that the Wikileaks server is in Russia and that Wikileaks is a front for the FSB. Also the money trail clearly shows that Russia pays Wikileaks; Assange takes out his cut (most of it) then pays the leakers with the rest.

  45. [45] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [41] altohone -

    If the next release hurts Trump, who here thinks Dems will re-embrace them?

    No informed Democrat will ever embrace Wikileaks again no matter what they say. We know that the Wikileaks server is in Russia and that Wikileaks is a front for the FSB. Also the money trail clearly shows that Russia pays Wikileaks; Assange takes out his cut (most of it) then pays the leakers with the rest.

Comments for this article are closed.