Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zax who wrote (968557)	9/29/2016 6:29:06 PM
From: Bonefish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578189

Trump knows the system well. Just the president to bust it. Stop dreaming about Christie going to jail.

To: zax who wrote (968557)	9/29/2016 8:43:31 PM
From: locogringo	1 Recommendation Recommended By Old Boothby Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578189

Christie may be the one going to jail. Some freaks of nature NEVER disappoint!!

To: zax who wrote (968557)	9/30/2016 1:08:01 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1578189

>> The IRS has fined Trump for numerous violations. The IRS doesn't "fine" people unless a crime is committed, which did not happen. It "penalizes" them. There is a difference, and it is big. A "penalty" is what you get for making a mistake or committing negligence. Or paying late. Even for not filing a tax return (which is a crime) it is rare for a fine to be involved and is almost ALWAYS handled with a penalty for "late filing". Paying personal expenses out of a 501(c) organization, on occasion, would likely never give rise to anything other than a statutory penalty. Even if found to be abusive, the outcome is more likely to be a statutory penalty plus loss of 501(c) status rather than any kind of criminal charge. You're trying to make something of nothing. Which you have to do because all you have is Hillary F. Clinton.

To: zax who wrote (968557)	9/30/2016 4:49:52 AM
From: puborectalis	Respond to of 1578189

In the summer of 1990, at the height of his bitter divorce from his first wife, Donald Trump was carrying on a very public extramarital affair with a former beauty queen, Marla Maples. As part of the couple’s divorce proceedings, Ivana Trump’s lawyers asked him under oath about his dealings with other women and whether he had been faithful to his wife. Instead of answering, Donald Trump invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Over the course of five depositions that summer, he was asked approximately 100 questions related to marital infidelity. He pleaded the Fifth on 97 of them. “Donald preaches about his devotion to the Second Amendment, but it was the Fifth Amendment that was his favorite when he was deposed in the divorce with Ivana,” wrote biographer Wayne Barrett in his 1992 book, Trump: The Greatest Show on Earth. A New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement report later verified Barrett’s reporting on those depositions, which are still sealed. For Trump, taking the Fifth seemed to work out well. He later bragged that he managed to settle the divorce without giving his first wife a penny more than required by the prenuptial agreement. Now, with less than six weeks to go until Election Day, Trump is again focused on questions of marital infidelity and invoking Fifth Amendment rights. Only this time, the GOP presidential nominee has cast himself as the judge. And everything looks different. Inside the moral and ethical bubble that Trump has created for himself, taking the Fifth 97 times is a savvy move, and powerful men aren’t constrained by marital vows. Outside that bubble, the Fifth Amendment is apparently used only by criminals, and adultery is a sin to be blamed on both spouses.