Trump Family Sues to Keep Financial Records Hidden

Trump Family Sues to Keep Financial Records Hidden April 30, 2019

So I wrote last week about Deutsche Bank cooperating with authorities, as far as turning over the financial records of the Trump Organization.

Just to catch up, it was in March that New York Attorney General Letitia James issued subpoenas, regarding projects by the Trump Organization. Deutsche Bank – one of the only banks in the world still willing to do business with Donald Trump – were reportedly cooperating with the investigation.

The Southern District of New York are not the only ones interested in the financial dealings of the Trump Organization. Democrats in Congress have also moved to get a look at those records.

You had to know just the concept would cause mass panic within the gilded halls of Trumpdom.

Of course it did.

On Monday, a lawsuit was brought by President Trump, and his three oldest children, Donald Trump Jr, Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump in a federal court in New York. The suit attempts to stop Deutsche Bank and Capitol One from cooperating with Congress.

I’ve said it before, so I’ll say it again: Donald Trump’s ego and quest for a bigger platform led him to the presidency, and it put all his long held dirty secrets under a huge spotlight. He’s got no one to blame for any of this, but himself.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said at the time that the subpoenas were part of an investigation “into allegations of potential foreign influence on the U.S. political process.” He has said he wants to know whether Russians used laundered money for transactions with the Trump Organization. Trump’s businesses have benefited from Russian investment over the years.

The Trumps want a federal judge to declare the subpoenas unlawful and unenforceable. The lawsuit also seeks to block the financial institutions from disclosing information and complying with the subpoenas.

When the subpoenas were issued April 15, Eric Trump, executive vice president of The Trump Organization, called the subpoenas “an unprecedented abuse of power and simply the latest attempt by House Democrats to attack the President and our family for political gain.”

Let’s not pretend there’s not a partisan element to this. Of course the Democrats are looking for a smoking gun. We’ve all seen how they circle the wagons when it’s a Democrat’s potential financial shenanigans.

Let’s further not pretend Republicans don’t do the exact same thing.

We’re all seeing in real time how desperate the party is to defend any bizarre, twisted, wrongheaded, or potentially corrupt machination of the Trump regime.

There is little to no difference in the two major parties.

That being said, there’s a legitimate reason to want to see Donald Trump’s financial records. Who is he beholden to? Who owns his debt?

Testimony before Congress from his former “fixer” and attorney, Michael Cohen, raised the question of a Trump Organization that inflated or down played assets, depending on whether it was dealing with insurance companies or banks.

If proven, lying to banks and insurance companies tends to be a real no-no.

This newest lawsuit by Trump and his children allege the requests for their financial records is an attempt to cause “political damage” to the president.

Of course it is. That doesn’t mean there’s nothing there to be concerned about.

This is, after all, Donald Trump.

 

"The Blue Tail Gadfly - thank you for the C.S. Lewis quote. It is perfect ..."

New Book by Andrew McCabe: Trump ..."
"Any opinions about Trubnikov and Surkov and their relationship to Putin and/or British agent Christopher ..."

Justin Amash Declares His Independence (and ..."
"Thank you for the good thoughts you've expressed above. I too have noticed the polling ..."

Justice May Finally Call on Billionaire ..."
"I disagree with you on a lot of things. However, I'm always appreciative of how ..."

Justice May Finally Call on Billionaire ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Politics Red
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Michael Weyer

    I think it’s less any illegal activities Trump wants to hide. Rather, he can’t accept the world knowing he’s nowhere near as rich and successful a businessman as he’s claimed to be. And that without NBC giving him The Apprentice, he’d likely be bankrupt (again) by now. Because Trump would rather be known as corrupt than not the success story he’s made himself out to be for his cult.

  • dmk8591

    Susan, The issue is that the people who want the records are Democrats who hate Trump and who will do anything they can to smear his name, whether legitimate or not. Trump just went through a 2 year 35 million dollar investigation which found insufficient evidence to charge him with any crimes, but which triggered daily media smears by anonymous sources. You went through a phase at Red State where you couldn’t wait to write up the latest smears and attracted your own set of Trump-haters as followers. There are a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with crimes that the Democrats want the records for. If they have probable cause for the records, what is it? Hating Trump and his policies doesnt meat that standard.

  • JASmius

    It’s not possible to “smear” Trump, because just about anything of which you can accuse him is already true. Pointing this out and his trademark litigiousness to cover up all his sordid truths is not “hatred,” it’s a statement of objective fact – and a thirst for justice to finally be done.

  • JASmius

    Is this even a story? Trump counter-suing is a reflex, not a strategy. It’s simply what he does. This suit will be dismissed, and the subpoenas will grind forward, but it will extend the time it takes for the whole truth to finally emerge – beyond, Trump hopes, November of 2020. His problem, though, is that the public perception of his rampant corruption is already “priced into his stock,” as it were, which is much of why his re-elect numbers are hovering in the thirties.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    I cannot help be believe the public perception of his corruption is ALSO affecting his financial balance sheet. Now that his reputation has extended well beyond NY/NJ, I’m quite sure his profits from his Scotland golf course and any properties he may hold or operate in Europe are showing the (negative) impact of his antics.

    I think he’s less worried about his re-election chances than he is about this deteriorating condition of his business prospects and those of his SIL Kushner now that Kushner’s antics, corruption and proclivity for abusing the public trust to bolster his personal finances have become internationally known. Once Trump no longer has power to affect US foreign policy, I anticipate his current business “enterprises” to start collapsing like the house of cards it is. Trump’s businesses will likely be joined in their collapse by the Kushner family enterprises once Jared is no longer able to trade influence and access to Saudi Arabia and China in exchange for personal loans and financing. Ditto for Ivanka’s businesses.

    I believe this series of Trump-originated lawsuits is a delay-tactic (as you say) to try to get him past 2020 before the bad news breaks to the public and to international partners and/or customers.

    Should Trump be found guilty of money-laundering or have his business put under serious, long-term scrutiny by either federal or state authorities, it would put a damper on potential suckers business partners’s willingness to be taken by work with him.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    No – the issue is that most people fall into one of two overly-partisan camps:

    A. Trump boot-lickers who will defend and deflect ANY and ALL accusations against Trump based on nothing but Trump’s word – a trust that has been proven time and again through various lawsuits to be worthless and mis-placed.

    B. Rabid partisan Democrats that have reasons other than rule-of-law to hate Trump – often nothing more than simple spite that the Democrat candidate lost the election in 2016, but mostly out of a sense that Trump is not liberal ENOUGH or that Trump is not pushing ahead with the special-interest legislation THEY want to see and that THEY believe Hillary would have pursued.

    C. Then there are a large number of (quiet) conservative voters (not Trumpian-conservative, but true conservatives and moderate Democrats) that see and accept the evidence of Ttrump’s corruption and incompetence (unlike group A), but also realize that group B believes in at least as many conspiracies from the far-left as the most rabid alt-right Q-Anon or Trump cultist from group A. These conservative & moderate voters are disgusted by BOTH groups A and B and are repulsed by – and reject – BOTH viewpoints. These conservatives & moderates do not rabidly and blindly believe the Trumpian or GOP propaganda until the results are completely in: tax reform means nothing if offset by tariffs that raise the prices of all goods through increased import taxes on basic materials. Reducing regulations is immaterial and unimportant if it is offset by new legislation that is just as onerous or oppressive or by new spending policies that exceed any money saved by the tax regulations that were just repealed.

    Susan and most of the people on this website belong to group C. Group C demands to see proof of corruption or exoneration before believing it. Unfortunately, with Trump such proof is rarely forthcoming, nor does Trump follow through on the grand promises he makes to improve our economy or the condition of our culture/society. Instead we get after-the-fact reports of continued corruption and betrayals from Trump, his family and the GOP party in general.

    You are so tied up in your rant to protect Trump that you failed to follow through with (or consider) your own opening line. You state “… whether legitimate or not…” What is your opinion about investigating Trump if the investigations actually ARE legitimate ?

    We – on this website – know that DOJ has a policy to never indict a sitting president. In view of that policy, you cannot now claim that “Mueller failed to indict and therefore Trump must be free from guilt”. Apart from you ignoring the distinctions between “proof of innocencce” and “inssuficient evidence to legally prove beyond doubt and indict” and “insufficient evidence to bring a case to trila” and the most likely case that Mueller found sufficient proof of guilt to indict a private citizen, but was stopped by the DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president. Instead, you seem to have jumped straight to the (now debunked) falsified talking point that Trump is innocent of all charges.

    So now tell us all – what is your opinion if the investigations into Trump’s finances ARE legitimate, if the Mueller investigation WAS legitimate and if Trump IS guilty of the corruption as his entire life history and his actions since taking office indicate ?

    Do you STILL advocate for a would-be-dictator in the WH – a man that believes the unproven words of foreign dictators over the word and evidence of our own intelligence services ? Do you STILL advocate for a childish, petulant, untruthful, immoral individual holding the highest, most honorable office in our country and representing US values to the world, turning US values and foreign reputation into a laughingstock ?

  • dmk8591

    It is not a statement of objective fact. Give me an example of what factual smears you think exist so that I have a chance to rebut something specific other than the obvious fact that you don’t like Trump.

  • dmk8591

    Susan had a prior history with Red State where she was rabidly anti-Trump and echoed every smear put out by Group B and their mainstream media colleagues. I am not saying this to smear her as what is done is done. But the record of her past posts at Red State is undeniable. Susan is not posting the same amount of negative stuff nowadays and that is to her credit.

    I know the DOJ policy is not to indict a sitting President and your assumption about what Trump supporters don’t know is ludicrous. The Mueller report specifically exonerated Trump of conclusion, which is more favorable to Trump that saying a sitting President can’t be indicted. In fact, it means that there was no reason to indict Trump for collusion, even if he were not President.

    As to Obstruction, the Mueller Report did not recommend any charges. Prosecutors normally have the responsibility to either recommend charges or to say nothing, as the rule of law relies on the concept of “innocent until proven guilty.” The bottom line is that Trump did nothing to impede the Mueller investigation and anybody with a fair mind knows that firing Comey was well within his Presidential powers. Comey was also guilty of violating DOJ protocol and leaking classified information. Lindsey Graham who stood solidly behind the Mueller investigation has clearly stated that the investigation is over and there is no reason to continue it. It makes little sense to argue that Trump obstructed justice because he claimed he was innocent of all charges of colluding with Russia, when in fact he was. Except for Russians, the only people who pled guilty were to process crimes which only came about because of the investigation. There are legitimate reasons to argue that the force of an unlimited government investigation can bankrupt anybody and force a guilty plea for practical reasons other than true guilt.

    How is Trump a would be dictator? There is nothing Trump has done that lies outside his powers as President. You throw around wild accusations with no supporting evidence, including allegations that Trump is a laughing stock to the world. He isn’t to Japan or South Korea or to any of the EU countries that don’t like the direction it was headed with open-borders and a power hungry EU-government that is eliminating the right of nations to control their own destiny. The fact that NATO deadbeats don’t like Trump says more about NATO deadbeats than it does about Trump.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Again, you deny reality.

    The Mueller report in no way exonorated Trump. In fact, it implied that he WAS guilty, but left the final decision on whether or not to take action (and what action to take) to Congress and Rosenstein / Barr at the DOJ.

    Your assumption that it found no proof of collusion or obstruction is belied by the 10 instances of actions that could easily be interpreted as obstruction tha are in the report. As to collusion, as you and your friends in group A like to claim (without proof), “collusion is not an identifiable crime”. Trump and his campaign DID however eagerly accept any and all illegal assistance Russia offered, even publicly asking Russia to hack the DNC emails ( which Russia complied with).

    Your continued repeating of the Trump-tweet-inspired falsehood that Mueller found nothing and therefore NO ONE ELSE is allowed to conduct ANY investigation of Trump is somehow ‘illegal’ is just stupendously stupid.

    You have not answered my question: DO you or do you NOT support a con-man, liar, corrupt tyrant wanna-be for President of the US ? Do you feel the traits of a dictator / bully are appropriate ot the highest office of our land ? Do you support Trump threatening anyone that does not bow to his every whim or do you believe (like the rest of us) that Trump is no tin god nor a messiah, but just a man that should be held ot the same laws as the rest of us ?

    The way you are acting, you are definitely in group A – and rabidly so.

    As to Susan’s reporting, if you don’t like it, don’t read it – go get your news from Breitbart or Fox news – they have traded their dignity and reputation for “a seat at Trumps’ table” and ahve lost all credibility as a result.

    The rest of us here appreciate Susan’s reporting and the fact that she provides documentation and proof of her initial facts and the logic of her reasoning – something neither group A nor group B appear capable of doing. (You are clearly in group A).

  • Michael Weyer

    “Breitbart and Fox News have lost all credibility.”

    How can you lose what you never had in the first place?

  • dmk8591

    Please honestly quote the facts. The Mueller Report had two volumes ( https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955379-Redacted-Mueller-Report.html#document/ ), the first volume dealing with whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, the second volume dealing with whether Trump obstructed the volume 1 investigation.

    Quoting from Page 9 of the Mueller Report:(volume 1):

    “while the investigation identified numerous links with individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.” Please explain why that is not exoneration.

    The second volume dealt with obstruction charges which Mueller left to the DOJ decide. In case you missed the news, Barr made the decision that the evidence is insufficient to charge Trump with obstruction. As AG confirmed by Senate, that is the DOJ’s decision to make and he is head of the DOJ. That is strictly following the constitution – is it not? What constitutional authority do you have to challenge that assertion.

    If you want to discuss specific details of the obstruction charges we can. But Alan Dershowitz, an acknowledged legal expert, and not a Trumpist by any reasonable definition, said that Mueller investigation advocated its responsibility to make the decision on obstruction charges that he left to Barr. Volume 2 simply presented evidence on both sides, as Barr’s summary indicated. Barr in combination with Rosenstein made the decision that Mueller left to them. But you wish to continue to smear Trump with allegations of his guilt, even though neither Mueller or Barr decided that there was sufficient evidence to charge Trump. In legal terms, that is exoneration.

    You are correct I don’t have to read Susan Wright and I generally don’t. But all I am trying to do is have a factual conversation about the way Trump is being smeared by allegations that I believe do not hold up against a counter argument. I haven’t called anybody any names and the worst thing I said is that Susan Wright had a history with Red State of being rabidly anti-Trump, and that she posted many articles that echoed the media-gossip of the day about Trump’s guilt. I do not mean to personally attack Susan, as I believe she thought she was doing the right thing at the time. But while Susan is still nothing like a Trump fan, she is also not writing multiple daily post bashing Trump regarding the Mueller investigation.

    This article by Susan was about the Democrats attempt to obtain Trump’s financial records. If you are a fan of the rule of law, what probable cause exists for that, given his exoneration in the Mueller report. Neither Trump’s history of sexual immorality nor his actions as President justify political opponents digging through his financial records and tax returns simply because they don’t like his political policies. I get that you don’t like Trump, and we can have a factual discussion about that topic. But can you not see that there is something wrong with having partisan investigators tear into the personal financial records of a political opponent, as was done by the FBI and as the Democrats in Congress, and the AG’s office in New York wish to do? If the target was not Trump, but your favorite True-Conservative-TM, would you not think that to be an injustice? If you want to defend your case for being in Group C regarding that issue, please do so.

    I am both an Evangelical Christian and a Political Conservative. Trump clearly has led a past life with incidents of sexual immorality. But as a believer in the rule of law, I know of no evidence that he has had any sexual conduct outside his marriage in the last decade. At some point in time, even if one despises sexual immorality as all Christians should, one has to acknowledge that nobody can change what happened in their past. In my opinion, Susan (and others) who are hung up on Trump’s past, need to consider that in judging Trump’s present day behavior, as the primary feature of Biblical repentance is that you stop doing the action that you needed to repent from. In the case of sexual immoral relationships, I believe Trump has done that. If you have evidence that contradicts that assertion, please supply it. Otherwise, please acknowledge that judging Trump as being guilty of that accusation is neither conservative nor Biblical.

    The issue with tariffs is another area of factual discussion we could engage in. Arguably China is potentially our most dangerous military enemy by orders of magnitude. From a military perspective, it is insane to allow your most dangerous military enemy to have significant control over the manufacture of metals (steel and aluminum) and electronic equipment needed in modern military campaigns. It is also undeniable that China is a thief of intellectual property and like the EU has various protection measures and non-reciprocal tariff rates. Also despite Trump’s tariffs, inflation is still low and GDP is still high, so the accusations you made about that being economically destructive are intellectual theories not supported by factual reality. In order to maintain market share, China seems to have dropped its prices so that it is largely paying the tariffs without major price increases. There is also no doubt that if one views the US as a large corporation that producing goods in the US instead of paying unemployment to factory workers is a financial win.

  • Annemarie

    “There’s little to no difference in the two major parties.” Yes. Sigh. I mean, there are philosophical differences but maybe those only come into play for voters.

    There’s a lovely piece in the Financial Times yesterday by Martin Wolf, on how centrists can fight demagoguery. Address matters of leadership, competence, citizenship (as in binding us all together, through economic opportunity or the welfare state, depending on your country), inclusion, economic reform, the local, public services, managed globalisation, looking toward the future, and recognizing that complex problems have complex answers; the simple answer is usually wrong. Obviously some approaches are less acceptable in the US but it’s a basis for discussion. Where do we agree, where do we disagree, is there room for compromise? If not, why? (Abortion comes to mind on that. Pro-life people feel that it is murder, full stop. Pro-choice people disagree. Not sure that is compromisable…if that’s even a word.)

  • dmk8591

    Why was my last content blocked as spam? This has happened to other people I have debated – not to me. It is bad policy to block only one side of the debate without indication why .

  • dmk8591

    The Mueller report comes in two volumes. Volume 1 concerns investigating charges that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during 2016 election. This is Mueller’s conclusion on Volume 1: “while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.” The quote is from page 11 of the Mueller report that is available online from multiple sources:

    Insufficient evidence to support criminal charges can be described as exoneration of Collusion. But if you prefer to say “the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges,” that is okay by me. But it certainly doesn’t say that there is evidence to support criminal charges that are being ignored because Trump is President.

  • dmk8591

    Volume 2 of the Mueller report investigates charges of whether Trump obstructed the collusion investigation of Volume 1. As Barr’s summary indicated, Mueller laid out facts related to potential charges of obstruction, both pro and con. As Barr stated, the Mueller report did not suggest a charge obstruction, which it could have done, if Mueller thought these charges had sufficient evidence. No less a legal scholar than Alan Dershowitz has said that Mueller abdicated his prosecutorial responsibility of either recommending charges of obstruction or to closing the case without further comment. Instead Mueller left this decision up to the DOJ, and Barr made it along with Deputy-AG Rod Rosenstein. The bottom line is no charge of obstruction was recommended by Barr and Rosenstein.
    In our system of justice, defendants are given the right to defend themselves against legal charges made against them as the prosecutors job is not to exonerate them. But in this case, no legal charges were filed, so no legal defense by Trump is necessary. In that sense, Trump has been exonerated. Your attempts to create groups A, B, C and place yourself in the noble-group-C do nothing to counter that factual account. That only amounts to argument by “name calling,” which indicates a lack of evidence to justify your viewpoint.

  • dmk8591

    If a defendant is pronounced not-guilty (which is different than innocent), then our legal system does not permit them to be charged twice for the same crime. Even though Trump wasn’t on trial, he (directly or indirectly) was the subject of a 35 million dollar investigation that did not find sufficient evidence to support criminal charges. At some point, justice demands that defendants are not subjected to intrusive investigative measures without probable cause. In Casa Blanca, Captain Renault has the line: “Round up the usual suspects,” when he already knew who is guilty of murdering Major Strasser. In your mind, Trump is guilty because you want him to be. In my opinion, Trump is being placed in a unique category where “anything goes” in an attempt to take him out. Trump has been tried in the media by anonymous innuendo that has often proved to be false. That is not “equal justice under law.”

  • dmk8591

    As to tariffs, Canada, Mexico, China and the EU have various protection measures and non-reciprocal tariff rates meaning the current world is not exactly free-trade. Also, nobody doubts that China is guilty of massive violations of intellectual property theft. Do you dispute those two statements? If not, then maybe you should consider paying attention to Trump’s efforts to rectify both of those anti-free-trade issues using the threat of tariffs as leverage to achieve that goal.

    Trump has stated that the production of steel/aluminum are vital to our national defense, as our various electronic devices. Because China is a potential military enemy of the US, it makes sense from a national security perspective to maintain manufacturing of these vital products in the US. If one views the US as a giant corporation, it also makes sense to maximize US manufacturing jobs in order to minimize government payments to those who lost their jobs because of current trade policies. Recent economic data suggests that rather than losing market share due to tariffs, China is lowering prices, meaning they are paying the bulk of tariffs, not US consumers. The lack of any significant inflation, the booming US economy, and the stagnating Chinese economy all suggest that Trump’s tariffs are not the end-of-world disaster predicted by his critics.

  • dmk8591

    To Illinois Patriot: I missed answering this question you brought up. I am guilty of supporting Trump. But that in itself does not invalidate my logical reasoning any more than your hatred of Trump (i.e. calling him a “con-man, liar, corrupt tyrant wanna-be, a dictator and a bully) mean you have no reasons to make those accusations. My point is it is wrong to just toss out generalized allegations of that nature, which are impossible to defend against because they are just name-calling without any underlying evidence. Asking for the chance to polite defend Trump against specific allegations with a factual rebuttal is not “boot-licking” as you refer to it. Do you just assume that Trump (and his supporters who you also criticize and condemn) should NOT HAVE the right to defend themselves and Trump? If not, why not?

    Take for example, your dictator comment. What specific evidence are you citing to support that allegation? The fact that Trump supports policies you (and others) may not like does not make him a dictator. It also doesn’t mean that his policies are not generally conservative. For example, here is short list of Trump’s policies that I consider politically conservative: 1. His appointment of judges who support the Constitution. 2. His strong pro-life stand. 3. His attempts to seal the porous southern border. 4. His strong stand against socialism. 5. His destruction of the ISIS caliphate. 6. His elimination of government regulations that hinder economic prosperity. 6. His withdrawal from the Paris Climate accord. 7. His withdrawal from Iran Nuke Deal. 8. His support of a strong military. 9. His support for Israel. 10. His support for repealing Obamacare. 11. His support for US energy development and pipeline construction. 12. His support for reducing taxes on businesses to encourage economic growth.

    Trump has issued executive orders, but they very often only cancel out EOs that Obama previously issued. Trump has declared a national emergency for border security, but he invoked existing laws to do so. Trump has only ever vetoed one piece of Congressional legislation, and that was for the national emergency he declared, and it was within his Presidential powers to do so. None of these issues make Trump a dictator. If previous Congresses have delegated too much power to Presidents, that is an issue with previous Congresses and not Trump.

    As to Susan Wright, I did not personally attack her. I do believe she had a prior history at Red State of echoing the anonymous allegations put out by the partisan Democrats of your Group B, but I gave her credit for bringing that under control. Susan is a committed Christian as am I. But not making false allegations is a Biblical commandment (see Exodus 20:16) and the judgment for breaking this commandment is the same as for committing the sin itself (see Deuteronomy 19:18-21). I am every bit against adulterous behavior as any “real Christian” (see recent posts by Erick Erickson) should be. But I know of no allegation that Trump has committed adultery in the last decade. Unless you (or anybody) has evidence that justify a claim that Trump’s adulterous behavior is still ongoing, then making allegations of that nature is a violation of the Deuteronomy 19 passage. This doesn’t at all justify what Trump has done, but it does acknowledge that nobody can change their past, and that the most important part of repentance is to stop doing what is wrong (see example of the two sons in Matthew 21:28-31, which indicates that actions speak louder than words).

  • dmk8591

    To Illinois Patriot: I missed answering this question you brought up. I am guilty of supporting Trump. But that in itself does not invalidate my logical reasoning any more than your hatred of Trump (i.e. calling him a “con-man, liar, corrupt tyrant wanna-be, a dictator and a bully) mean you have no reasons to make those accusations. My point is it is wrong to just toss out generalized allegations of that nature, which are impossible to defend against because they are just name-calling without any underlying evidence. Asking for the chance to politely defend Trump against specific allegations with a factual rebuttal is not “boot-licking” as you refer to it. Do you just assume that Trump (and his supporters who you also criticize and condemn) should NOT HAVE the right to defend themselves and Trump? If not, why not?

    Take for example, your dictator comment. What specific evidence are you citing to support that allegation? The fact that Trump supports policies you (and others) may not like does not make him a dictator. It also doesn’t mean that his policies are not generally conservative. For example, here is short list of Trump’s policies that I consider politically conservative: 1. His appointment of judges who support the Constitution. 2. His strong pro-life stand. 3. His attempts to seal the porous southern border. 4. His strong stand against socialism. 5. His destruction of the ISIS caliphate. 6. His elimination of government regulations that hinder economic prosperity. 6. His withdrawal from the Paris Climate accord. 7. His withdrawal from Iran Nuke Deal. 8. His support of a strong military. 9. His support for Israel. 10. His support for repealing Obamacare. 11. His support for US energy development and pipeline construction. 12. His support for reducing taxes on businesses to encourage economic growth.

    Trump has issued executive orders, but they very often have only cancelled out EOs that Obama previously issued. Trump has declared a national emergency for border security, but he invoked existing laws to do so. Trump has only ever vetoed one piece of Congressional legislation, and that was to override the national emergency he declared, and it was within his Presidential powers to do so. None of these issues make Trump a dictator. If previous Congresses have delegated too much power to Presidents, that is an issue with previous Congresses and not Trump.

  • dmk8591

    To Illinois Patriot: I have tried several times to reply to your comment on Susan, but each time it has been blocked as spam. Consequently, I can not respond to that portion of your comment.

  • dmk8591

    To Illinois Patriot: I have tried several times to comment on Trump’s immorality, but these posts were flagged as spam and I received no reason why. I am every bit against adulterous behavior as any “Bible-Believing-Christian” should be. But I know of no allegation that Trump has committed adultery in the last decade. Unless somebody has evidence that Trump’s adulterous behavior is still ongoing, making allegations of that nature is a violation of the Deuteronomy 19:18-21 passage that states, “do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party.” This doesn’t justify what Trump has done, but it does acknowledge that nobody can change their past, and that the most important part of repentance is to stop doing what is wrong (see example of the two sons in Matthew 21:28-31, which indicates that actions speak louder than words).

    As to your bully allegation, Trump normally only responds to people who abuse him as he is much more a counter puncher than a bully. Trump does bash powerful media forces like CNN, but you have to be deaf and blind to not know that CNN is blasting Trump 24/7, often with questionable allegations. As far as I know, Trump isn’t bashing you, is he? There are lots of people who are privately bashing Trump that he has never commented on (roughly half the country). But if a political opponent or a media personality is unfairly bashing Trump, doesn’t he have the right to issue forceful responses? If you want to cite specific instances where Trump has unfairly bashed somebody who hasn’t bashed him unfairly, we can discuss details. But I reject your general condemnation of Trump forcefully responding to the mob that is bullying him.