Regardless of how we parse whether the loan should be looked at as from South Korean interests or North Korean interest, one thing is undisputable. Dream his administration, his exercise of Presidential power was very adverse to South Korea and very positive for North Korea. He basically continually threatened to destroy the United States alliance with South Korea and famously fell in love, in his own words, with the dictator in charge of North Korea. He continually made clear that he hated the United States and all it stands for and tried to destroy it
Probably like #101 on his list of most shady things. Crazy how he’s just a walking mess of integrity but still has hardcore fans and reluctant support from the GOP.
Whether the money came from North Korea or South Korea, it is clear that the president lied to the American people and took money from foreigners.
Can you imagine being such a scummy dude that hiding $20m in foreign loans is considered the least of your scummy dude-isms?
The same people that thought Hillary being SoS while TCF accepted contributions from our allies are always notoriously silent on Trump making money hand over fist from foreign countries while president.
saying somethign and writing it down and signing your name to it are different things to most people, and to the legal system. Would you agree? Even DT knew this, it is why he never, not once in any single court filing that required a signature, said that he declassified any documents found at ML even though he kept spewing that BS out loud.
that has been DT in a nutshell. Before anybody could focus on one outrageous act long enough for it to have consequences, he would do something more outrageous. Pubs screwed up when they didn't censor him on the first impeachment and try and teach him to constrain himself. The whole pub house and senate created this monster that they now want to find a way to disavow themselves of
should signing something and saying it be equated? do you go down to dmv and tell them you sold your car? or do you have to sign something? there is a reason they make people sign things, like disclosure statements, versus just verbalizing them
Should: I believe absolutely they should be equated. Reality: obviously they aren't the same for legal purposes
Thank you for acknowledging that and it is the law that we are discussing, not the politics. edit, when said under oath, verbalizing does matter. Perhaps we should make politicians speak under oath or nto at all so that their lies would come with consequences
Seems like he had a loan from a foreign company before he was POTUS, I don’t think he was making money off the company…
It was a foreign company doing business with a hostile foreign government. Hope that answers your question and clears up the confusion.
in some countries, notably N Korea and China, the line is thin, if not non-existent, between a company and the gubmnt
