If ignorance is bliss, everyday must seem like a party for you.

*toots party horn*
*throws confetti*

Sorry, but those are the only two possible positions consistent with your side of our dispute: 1), he's guilty and he's going down as soon as they get around to prosecuting him, 2), he's guilty but he's gonna get away with it.

OK, we're just repeating ourselves here

You do that a lot, and that's what makes others have to do it a lot right back at you... so there's that.

So where are you at this moment?

Making a drink at my local pub called the Rose & Crown... located in my house. Where are you? I would wager somewhere in Podunk in the State of Taters.

You still hoping/claiming that Trump is guilty of collusion and going down, or are you at the concession point claiming "He did it but he got awasy with it."

You are still doing that "thing" where you misrepresent my positions regarding the entire "thing" and asserting the ridiculous and nonsensical notion that the very big "thing" where we are living history can all be boiled down to one issue in law and/or a few limited talking points... when it cannot and never could be. Stop doing that, please. :)

So where are you at this moment?

You still hoping/claiming that Trump is guilty of collusion and going down, or are you at the concession point claiming "He did it but he got awasy with it."

Imagine a perp in federal court in the... oh, let's say... Southern District of New York, New York, a city that doesn't sleep... king of the hill, top of the heap.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Judge: You are being charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, theft of documents via hacking, multiple counts of attempted theft via hacking, aiding and abetting [long list of multiple counts]. How do you plea?

Perp: But, but, but, your honor, I read on the Internet that "no law that prohibits any politician from getting 'dirt' on his opponent, regardless of the source would ever pass constitutional muster, and I quote, your honor.

Judge: Would you like me to restate the charges or would you like to enter a plea?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And scene. :)

Kick, and anybody who agrees with Kick on Trump having violated election laws by getting "dirt" on Hillary from Russians.

You keep misrepresenting my views while insisting on defining the entire "thing" by this one tiny aspect of it as if no other laws may have been violated. You seem blissfully unaware that there are a myriad of laws that apply to the "thing" versus this singular focus and obsession of yours. Try to "clue in" to the fact that your ridiculous limited focus and futile attempt to boil the entire "thing" down to the single aspect of "election law" is a fool's errand. The law is nuanced and not remotely as simple as you'd like to make it. You're the only one on this blog arguing that it's all just a simple issue of "campaign finance." It isn't and never has been. That little bean is but one tiny aspect of the whole enchilada.

You're all doing the classic comparing apples to oranges thing here.

Wrong. It's actually more like you're doing the limited focus on "apples" alone and failing to see the entire cornucopia full of produce, flowers, and nuts.

Nobody, least of all this writer, claims that there is no such thing as "intangibles of value" (i.e., "intellectual property", etc.)

Oh, please! Who could forget the time I had to explain to you about intangible items being sufficient to constitute a "purchase" when you insisted that I couldn't have made a "purchase" because I received nothing "tangible"!?

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/12/20/gops-swamp-creature-of-a-tax-bill/#comment-112723

The only thing we're talking about here is election law, and whether you people believe it or not, no law that prohibits any politician from getting "dirt" on his opponent, REGARDLESS OFTHE SOURCE, would ever pass constitutional muster.

Wrong again! Two things:

1. Firstly, you are the one who can't "let it sink in" to your oxygen deprived cranium that this entire "thing" isn't remotely just related to the singular issue of "election law." The fact that you keep trying to wrap up the whole issue into one facet of law is the entire problem! It's way more than that.

2. Your opinion of the constitutionality of laws that actually exist in the United States Code does not change the fact one iota that those laws exist. You keep insisting it isn't illegal to "get dirt" from "foreign nationals," and I keep pointing out that the law says it is. Fact: Whether or not it might at some later date be deemed an unconstitutional law or some old man living in the State of Taters thinks it's unconstitutional now does not in any way, shape, or fashion change the fact that the law exists. :)

Very well stated. :)

Which are not crimes..

The laws against foreign interference in our elections aren't a great work of art, but succinct enough to pass constitutional muster.

Obtaining opposition research from foreign sources is not foreign interference..

If it were, then Hillary would be as guilty, likely MORE guilty, than Trump..

You lost.. The sooner you accept that, the happier you will be..

Wrong, wrong, wrong, as I suppose you'll see.

The laws against foreign interference in our elections aren't a great work of art, but succinct enough to pass constitutional muster.

But Trump is a tough target. He's lawyered up like the executive session of the ABA. All of the crimes that we know he did, such as the payments to the model/girlfriends, are on the table, as well as others that are harder to prove.

The question isn't when, but if. Start any of these and you've got yourself a decade's work. It would probably be way easier to just defeat him at the ballot box.

You're all doing the classic comparing apples to oranges thing here. Nobody, least of all this writer, claims that there is no such thing as "intangibles of value" (i.e., "intellectual property", etc.)

The only thing we're talking about here is election law, and whether you people believe it or not, no law that prohibits any politician from getting "dirt" on his opponent, REGARDLESS OFTHE SOURCE, would ever pass constitutional muster.

Trump will not be prosecuted for getting any non-monetary help from Russians or anybody else, so as I've previously stated, when the Mueller Report dust finally settles, Trump will still be ensconced in the oval office (at least when he's not golfing), and you nut jobs will be left with claiming some sort of facesaving "moral victory", by saying "he got away with it" (the crime of collusion.)

The purity claim on Sanders, as Belaney said, is mostly a creation of his opponents.

She didn't actually say that DH; that was your interpretation of what she said.

It is a standard attack made to ridicule/demean an opponent that is pointing out something that the person making the accusation doesn't want to acknowledge or cannot make a rational argument against.

Wrong again, DH. Bernie and his supporters have set the terms of the "purity" or "litmus" tests in a similar manner that you've set your own terms of purity for your failed attempt at political activism.

Bernie Sanders
@BernieSanders

You can be a moderate. You can be a progressive. But you cannot be a moderate and a progressive.

11:34 AM - 3 Feb 2016

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/694967235333484544

It is rich that Hillary supporters would now be claiming that Bernie is impure and therefore not suitable because he may be a millionaire but they were okay with Clinton.

What's really rich is you -- as per your usual modus operandi -- missing the entire point that it was indeed Bernie himself who defined this particular purity test by spending multiple decades wagging his finger in the air while prattling on and on endlessly about "millionaires and billionaires" and the "one percent" and "monied" in Washington being the root of all evil for the original Berner sin of having money... as if everybody with money had nefarious intentions and were inherently evil while Bernie and many of his supporters claimed the moral high ground and mantle of purity regarding the issue.

I don't know any Hillary supporters who are now claiming that Bernie is "impure" and "not suitable" because he is admittedly a millionaire and has been for years... not remotely and not at all. They think Bernie is unsuitable because he is an inauthentic hypocrite.

It's nothing new, though, since Bernie supporters would be the first ones to criticize Hillary's looks while Bernie would slink out on stage with his hair going in all directions and looking like he just crawled out of bed. They'd also be quick to criticize her advanced age when she is 6 years younger than Bernie and shall remain ever thus, but I digress.

Imagine you are back in 2016 at one of the many Democratic debates: Bernie is wagging his finger like he always does and railing against the "millionaires and billionaires" like he always does and has done over several decades over and over ad nauseam, and then Hillary leans into her microphone and says:

"I wrote a best-selling book. If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too."

The Berners heads would have been exploding; they'd have gone positively ballistic in their outrage that Hillary Clinton was so out-of-touch to think that real working men and women of America could just churn out a best-selling book in their spare time and get rich too like Hillary. Then after their quick turn at authoring a book was over, perhaps they could do some voiceover work for cartoons or maybe cut a record or star in a blockbuster movie or two.

So let me be as clear as I can, DH: The issue isn't Bernie having money. Nope, not at all. The issue is the hypocrisy and the ease with which Bernie blows off his own inability to meet his self-imposed decades old purity test and his tone-deafness that Americans could join the "one percent" and "millionaires and billionaires" if they'd just get busy publishing.

Not only did Mueller completely exonerate President Trump on Russia collusion, he also provided Barr with a ready made case against Odumbo for spying on the Trump campaign..

Ahhhhh Sweet delicious irony... :D

If what you say were true, why has Trump lied about his son’s meeting with the Russians at Trump Tower? Why continue to claim that NOTHING came of that meeting?

Do you have any facts to prove Trump lied? Any facts to prove that something came from the meeting??

No, you do not..

What part of THERE WAS NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION is unclear to you??

Funny how you go to the first amendment when it suits your agenda..

But you are strangely silent when Democrat AntiFa terrorists attack those on the Right to silence them..

Hypocrisy much..

Yes, that’s a good point. At the time, I agreed with Gillibrand’s stance re. Franken’s resignation. Though in retrospect, I think I overreacted. Even at the time though, Gillibrand’s pushing so hard for him to resign seemed a bit self serving on her part(even when I agreed in thinking he should resign, I mean). Gillibrand didn’t endear herself to me by calling for Franken’s resignation. It would probably be going too far to say she tried to co-opt #metoo to boost her politcal career. But especially in hindsight it does appear a bit cynical and self-serving. Maybe I shouldn’t throw stones though, since my initial reaction was to want Franken to resign also. In any case, I do recall that a lot of people were pretty unhappy with Gillibrand over it. If it was an attempt to boost her profile and promote herself as feminist in anticipation of 2020, it sure seemed to backfire.

Plagiarism of a published work is another example. It makes no difference whether the plagiarist bought the original book, got a copy from a library or stole a copy; it's the infringement of copyright that is the offense. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Copyright_Law_in_the_United_States

That isn’t just Kick’s interpretation, it’s the court’s rulings as well. If “dirt” information had no value, then blackmail wouldn’t exist. As for the stolen DNC emails, how can someone be convicted of stealing electronic copies of something that had no value? Paying hush money to keep a porn star from telling the world about his small penis was Trump violating campaign finance laws with an unreported campaign donation. That means that SILENCE also has value.

As far as Stucki's redundant and asinine claims that the "whole legal establishment appears to agree" with him regarding the utter nonsensical claim of his that "anything of value has to be tangible," I can't stop laughing. Mind you, this is the same guy who professes to be the board expert on economics repeating over and over ad nauseam the ridiculous concept that information doesn't qualify as a thing of value because it's intangible.

It's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard from a "smug" self-professed economics explainer, but it is always there as living proof that Stucki doesn't have a clue about basic economics or legal concepts, and I'm not even going to try to explain to Stucki about intellectual property law and how intangible assets are indeed valuable things (actually it would be the third attempt). It is the height of ignorance for a guy who claims he understands economics to not understand the concept that something doesn't have to be "tangible" in order to be considered valuable.

I will say it would be a laugh riot to attend a court proceeding wherein lawyers for Donald Trump attempted to argue the utter asinine position that information and intangible assets don't qualify as things of value... the same guy who overinflates the intangible asset of his brand name in order to claim he's worth over $10 billion dollars arguing the position that something had to be "tangible" in order to be valuable would be highest order entertainment -- yet another thing of value that's intangible -- yet totally worth the price of admission. :)

Nailed it! :)

I know, right!? This Devin Nunes' cow thing is hilarious. Devin Nunes is suing multiple entities and journalists trying to silence their opinions of him. It is fun to watch it backfire spectacularly, and he's going to lose in court. Devin is following the marching orders of Donald Trump on this issue because Trump hasn't exactly made it a secret that he wants to stifle the free press.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866

It seems that Devin Nunes has some really good lawyers who give him great advice like:
1. Sue a cow
2. Try to get a story squashed by turning it into one of the top trending hash tags on Twitter

and drumroll --------> 3. Sue your mother

Can somebody please lend Devin their copy of the constitution and highlight the First Amendment for him please.

I steadfastly refuse, but tomorrow I'm going to see the Declaration of Independence, one of the originals created on July 4, 1776, referred to as "John Dunlap's Broadside." Dunlap was the official printer of the Continental Congress, and it is believed John Adams took the original Declaration to have the broadside printed because there is evidence he was also buying ladies gloves that day. I'll send Devin Ignorant Tool Nunes a picture to remind him we are no longer subjects of a king. :)

That of course is Kick's interpretation, but I suspect where it breaks down is the interpretation of the 'anything of value'. I'm saying (and obviously Mueller and pretty much the whole legal establishment appears to agree), that the anything of value has to be something tangible. Information, gossip, news "dirt", etc., regardless of how valuable they my be toward victory, do not qualify, Indeed, communications of that sort are clearly covered under the 1st amend.

We'll just have to disagree on that, but you'll soon have to admit that the people who count (the legal establishment) are going with my interpretation.

I’m honestly rather surprised that Gillibrand is doing as badly as she is. Not that she’s a fave of mine or anything. But she already has at least a decent public profile, she’s a fairly prominent Democratic senator. I guess I expected her to be at least second tier. Anyone have have any speculation why her campaign isn’t taking off?

I believe that her role in pressuring Al Franken to resign is why her campaign is stalling. Franken’s actions were juvenile, but they did not warrant his resignation. Gillibrand used the MeToo movement to rid herself of someone she saw as a political rival, while ignoring the fact that more importantly, Franken was a valued member of the Democratic Party. Her putting personal gain over the good of the people is why many, including myself, won’t support her.

If ignorance is bliss, everyday must seem like a party for you.

If what you say were true, why has Trump lied about his son’s meeting with the Russians at Trump Tower? Why continue to claim that NOTHING came of that meeting?

If what you say were true, why would Trump defenders continue to call for investigations into the Steele dossier?

Also, information has value, wouldn’t you agree? Campaign finance laws state that it is illegal for foreign governments to donate anything of value to a political campaign... which renders your claim that campaigns can receive “dirt” on their opponents from any source they choose false.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/us/maryanne-trump-barry-misconduct-inquiry.html

Retiring as a Judge, Trump’s Sister Ends Court Inquiry Into Her Role in Tax Dodges

The court inquiry stemmed from complaints filed last October, after an investigation by The New York Times found that the Trumps had engaged in dubious tax schemes during the 1990s, including instances of outright fraud, that greatly increased the inherited wealth of Mr. Trump and his siblings. Judge Barry not only benefited financially from most of those tax schemes, The Times found; she was also in a position to influence the actions taken by her family.

Judge Barry, now 82, has not heard cases in more than two years but was still listed as an inactive senior judge, one step short of full retirement. In a letter dated Feb. 1, a court official notified the four individuals who had filed the complaints that the investigation was “receiving the full attention” of a judicial conduct council. Ten days later, Judge Barry filed her retirement papers.

The status change rendered the investigation moot, since retired judges are not subject to the conduct rules. The people who filed the complaints were notified last week that the matter had been dropped without a finding on the merits of the allegations. The decision has not yet been made public, but copies were provided to The Times by two of the complainants. Both are involved in the legal profession.

The piece goes on to list the skeevy things she did and made money from.

Don't understand where you're coming from on the "shame" thing. I intended to point out that the "he got away with it" thing is inevitably going to be the last gasp of the crazy girls, who've been saying for over 2 yrs that he colluded/conspired, and that such is clearly against the law, while I've been pointing out the obvious fact that any politician is perfectly free to get "political dirt" on his opponent from any source.

But actually, no, I definitely have no shame, nor any reason to have shame.

https://www.cnet.com/news/heres-why-yachtcocaineprostitutes-is-trending-on-twitter/

It seems that Devin Nunes has some really good lawyers who give him great advice like:

1. Sue a cow
2. Try to get a story squashed by turning it into one of the top trending hash tags on Twitter

Can somebody please lend Devin their copy of the constitution and highlight the First Amendment for him please.

On second thoughts, don't, he might stop the entertainment machine that he is kind enough to pay for via legal fees.

"New DOJ court filings on emoluments “would permit the president & all federal officials, to accept unlimited amounts of money from foreign governments, as long as the money comes through commercial transactions with an entity owned by the federal official”

https://t.co/HrSDrj6eLe

Hillary Clinton lost because she was a shitty campaigner that took for granted alleged Democrat strongholds that were not....

That is the beginning and end of this sad sorry Democrat debacle...

As usual, you misunderstand..

"He got away with it" was one person's claim.. A claim unsupported by ANY facts...

The FACTS clearly show that there was no "IT" to begin with...

It was all in the fevered and hysterical imagination of those who simply cannot handle the fact that they got beat by Donald Trump...

Have you, at long last, any shame?

..

Is anybody really surprised?

"I think spying did occur," Barr told a Senate hearing. "But the question is whether it was adequately predicated and I am not suggesting that it wasn't adequately predicated. ... I am not suggesting those rules were violated, but I think it is important to look at that. And I am not talking about the FBI necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly.

"I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal - it's a big deal."
http://news.trust.org/item/20190410144125-laelo

Now Odumbo and the Dumbocrats are on the hot seat.... :D

OR....

Or maybe there WERE no crimes and it's only your hysterical fevered imagination that says there is..

but evidently there's enough bad-sounding circumstantial evidence

And yet, the evidence was not bad sounding enough for Mueller to make a determination. He let AG BARR and ASST AG ROSENSTEIN decide and THEY decided the facts weren't sufficient..

So, all the way around, ya'all lost...

Accept reality... You'll be better off..

End of discussion.

Preachin' to the choir my friend..

Preachin' to the choir..

Maybe Mueller couldn't get the "smoking gun" because the gangster Blotus has been smart enough over the years to avoid records of his crimes where possible, but evidently there's enough bad-sounding circumstantial evidence in that report that Blotus knows people will fill in the blanks if they get access to it.

Crimes Blotus accuses others of are always what he's done.

Much as Democratics hate to admit it, there is no such right, constitutional or othrwise, as the "Right never to be offended".

End of discussion.

If only we could work that here in the US.. How joyous THAT would be :D

Rut Roh, Raggey!!!

Democrats are going down!!! :D

One of the things I tell my Constitutional Law students is that if someone says something like “hate speech isn’t free speech,” or “the First Amendment doesn’t protect hate speech,” they can safely write that person off as an ignoramus and ignore anything else they have to say.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/04/09/cnn-journalist-understand-free-speech-the-slants-simon-tam-column/3403958002/

It's SCARY to listen to Left Wingers on what is and isn't constitutionally permissible...

Hate speech is protected speech.. Every American has a first amendment right to be offensive and hateful and intolerant...

This is fact that no amount of social constructs and delusions can erase...

The big story from Barr's testimony then before the subcommittee was not that the AG plans to release a redacted version of the Mueller report within a week or even that those redactions will be color-coded four ways and annotated to explain the reasons for the edits. Or that Democrats like Nita Lowey whined about transparency with all the hypocrisy only a politician can muster. This is all pro forma and predictable.
https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/william-barr-is-the-democrats-worst-nightmare/

"You got an armed escort home!!"
"It's not the arms I am worried about.. It's the hands..."
-GREASE

Black hole picture captured for first time in space breakthrough

Network of eight radio telescopes around the world records revolutionary image
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/apr/10/black-hole-picture-captured-for-first-time-in-space-breakthrough

... is way WAY kewl!!

Kinda makes all of our petty ass issues insignificant by comparison...

not having read the mueller report i can't say with certainty,

If Mueller is the man of integrity, the man of honor ya'all have been claiming for the last 2+ years he is, then we CAN say with absolute certainty that President Trump did not collude with the Russians to win the election..

Of course, if the Weigantian gallery wants to alter their opinion of Mueller, SOLELY based on what he reported, that is an option...

2016 Bernie Sanders actually had a chance to beat Donald Trump because, at the time, both were Anti-Establishment candidates...

In 2020 Bernie is the Democrat Establishment candidate and, as such, doesn't stand a chance, even if he does win the nomination, which is not likely...

If Democrats want to protect the rule of law, they can’t rush the Mueller report

The first set plainly envisions disclosing less rather than more of any special counsel’s investigation. The governing law and accompanying regulations were written in the aftermath of special counsel Kenneth Starr’s public release of his explosive and salacious report into a variety of allegations against President Bill Clinton. As Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith explained at the Lawfare blog, the regulations were drafted specifically to limit public discussion of the special counsel’s investigation, and thus to provide fewer incentives for independent counsels to overstep. They were intended to make a special counsel’s investigation more like a normal criminal investigation whose conclusion is rarely, if ever, made public
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/29/if-democrats-want-protect-rule-law-they-cant-rush-mueller-report/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.64d2eabc5672

It was ***DEMOCRATS*** who created the law that Special Counsel reports are NOT to be released to Congress or the Public...

That's right, ladies and germs... The same Democrats who are screaming hysterically to the high heavens that Mueller's report MUST BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC are the SAME Democrats who, in the aftermath of the STARR REPORT, screamed hysterically to the high heavens, "NEVER AGAIN!!!! NEVER AGAIN WILL A SPECIAL COUNSEL REPORT BE RELEASED!!!! NEVER AGAIN!!!!"

It was DEMOCRATS who created the law they are now denigrating and castigating..

Howz THAT for delicious irony... :D

Are we ever going to get a Mueller Totally Exonerates President Trump On Russia Collusion commentary??

I realize it's a very depressing subject for the Left, but it IS pretty momentous..

Or if Sanders’ promotion of his own purity was in 2016, and directed against Clinton, I don’t remember any particularly mudslinging attack ads. My understanding is it was a fairly clean primary as far as the candidates were concerned(supporters of the respective candidates slinging vitriol at each other online notwithstanding). I’m not aware of a 2016 equivalent of the famous 3am ad from 2008. As far as the super pak/campaign finance issue goes, I remember Sanders being fairly circumspect in that he usually presented it as a systemic issue(which it is), not an issue with Clinton specifically and personally. His supporters were, again, not always so circumspect. I’m not sure how the issue could be treated by a campaign in such a way that no one would notice that your opponent actively participates in the system you are criticizing. Inevitably some people are going to take it as an attack on your opponent. But it isn’t as though Sanders only pretended to care about campaign finance for the sake of indirectly attacking Clinton. This has been a major issue for him for years.

Most of all, I think if he was obsessed with purity, I doubt Sanders would have endorsed Clinton after she won the nomination. Plenty of people on the left were pissed at him for doing so. As for myself, I knew it was the right choice. From a pragmatic standpoint, Clinton was just a far better option than Trump. Every child who was separated from their parents and put in a cage is a testament to that. Walking out of the Democratic convention and forming a new party(a bit of foolishness I heard floated by some on the left) would have been a terrible move. Better to keep association with the Democratic Party and try to influence its policy leftward. Which is pretty much what happened. Although you can always debate how much the party’s embrace of more progressive economic policy is due to Sanders. No way to know for sure.

I gues when you have so many candidates, it’s inevitable that some will underperform. I Back in early 2015, I was expecting then-Wisconsin-governor and Koch prodigy Scott Walker to be a major player in the GOP primary. With his presumed Koch backing and fairly high national profile(for a governor) he seemed like a strong horse to bet on. But Walker turned out to be a rather weak campaigner, and he was the first Republican to drop out of the race.

I'm reading this while watching the PBS Reconstruction documentary. I just heard a pithy phrase that could prove helpful in future horserace columns.

"A first rate second rate man."

Originally used in the context of Rutherford B. Hayes (presently best known for a Simpson song about forgettable presidents).

For present day purposes "A first rate second rate candidate" covers all sexes!

Then we'll see how it all squares with his "I'm the only PURE politician in America" schtick/brand.

Arguments are breaking out in response to his "I'm a millionaire coz I wrote a bestseller and you can too!" admission/comment. They break down to the: "nothing wrong with being rich" crowd vs. "yeah, but he's pontificated about wealth and corruption etc. for years - seems hypocritical" crowd.

A minor theme is also emerging demanding taxes from 2008 (technically eleven tax returns ago) coz that's when Jane was doing something snaky and is why, some are contending, he wanted to drag it out til now so he could release 10 yrs. without revealing that specific dirty laundry.

So we'll see if the issue gets put to rest or not.