Post removed

[snowybirdie]

1. Rachel Maddow

said they had affidavits from his siblings, so there's that.

[awesomerwb1]

2. Yeah. Cool story bro.

[brooklynite]

3. So you're saying the Times spent months researching and writing a meaningless 8-page story...

...just in case they needed to distract people from something else?

The only thing worse than a bad conspiracy theory is a lazy one.

[Separation]

8. Ok,

You know what, when I say it out loud that anytime the "failing NYT" releases a story, like that anonymous inside letter that changed the narrative at the time, sounds really crazy to me too, and I'm sure if I did just a basic Google search, nothing would turn up.

[Separation]

15. No

What I am saying is, unless there is %100 bulletproof evidence that you will get a conviction, why release this story now? As in this week? As in the day the FBI is probably finishing up with their report.

[DonViejo]

4. Have your read the NYT piece or are you just relying on The Hill? BTW, did you know...

the owner of The Hill is a Trump supporter?

[dewsgirl]

7. This!

[Separation]

11. Ok stop now

You're just adding more fuel to my conspiracy.

[DonViejo]

13. IOW you haven't read the NYT article and you are relying solely on The Hill's vision

of what is or is not happening. Thanks for responding!

[thucythucy]

5. My question is:

Why weren't the press doing this kind of work BEFORE the election?

Trump has been a cancerous fixture in NYC for decades. He's been a national political figure since he began the birther nonsense. Ad they're only now doing serious journalism on his criminal past and seedy connections?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. ...............

[peekaloo]

10. MARK IT ZERO!

[lunatica]

9. LOL!

I needed that laugh!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. Nonsense. That story took 18 months of research

and involved collecting and reviewing thousands of pages of financial documents. It revealed actual evidence of outright fraud and the NY tax authorities are looking into it. It's a serious, important story.

[Separation]

14. OK fine

But what good is the story? Its not like it will change anyone who votes for him, opinion. Money laundering is a pretty tough crime to get a conviction. Notice I said conviction. So ill say it again. Unless there is %100 bulletproof evidence that he committed tax fraud or money laundering. What's the point....maybe that's not the point...why release it now, This week?

[ADX]

21. The point...

...is that the things asserted in the NYT story are further evidence that Chump is a deceitful, lying, scumbag con artist and anytime anyone wants to pen a well-written article to that effect is a-ok.

Semper Fi...

[Separation]

23. What was bumped from the front page again

You arent about to tell me that the people in the US have an attention span (the average non political junkie) more than 24 hours?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

25. Speak for yourself. I do.

[Separation]

26. Are you the average nonpolitical junkie?

[lame54]

22. They're not prosecutors...

They're information reporters

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

24. The story was about tax fraud, not money laundering.

The statutes of limitations have run on any possible criminal tax fraud charges, but there's no statute of limitations for civil penalties - which in this case could be enormous. Their evidence actually is pretty bulletproof, and since only civil penalties are possible at this point, the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt isn't even necessary. Why release it now? Because it was completed. Why wait?

[demmiblue]

16. Unrec. n/t

[SidDithers]

19. +1...

Sid

[leftstreet]

17. So what? n/t

[Separation]

18. Tried to clear OP up

[Loge23]

20. I don't need any more proof.

He had me 30 years ago. That, or even earlier, was when I knew the conman was a fraud.
I don't need a NYT piece, a Woodward expose, whispers from staffers, or any other breaking news about what he said or tweeted last night. He's human garbage, plain and simple; and he has to go.

[stonecutter357]

27. you seem very concerned !