comment: >
  
  I cannot claim authorship of these phrase.  A fellow redditor used it a few weeks ago and it's so good, that it's now in my lexicon.
context: ¿Por qué no los dos? >
  
  Es una pregunta excelente. >
  
  Mierda. My reddit es todos in spañish >
  
  Donde esta la biblioteca? >
  
  
  If there’s evidence of a crime, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; 
  
  The only people saying that he shouldn't are Trump and his defenders.
  
  otherwise, releasing them only results in political embarrassment.
  
  For Trump, no one else. Releasing them is just helping Trump fulfil a campaign promise. >
  
  Why can’t they be both embarrassing and incriminating?  I’d love to see his embarrassed ass go to jail because of it. >
  
  The only caveat I'd put on that is let them be incriminating first. If they need them for evidence I'd prefer they stay sealed until the trial rather than give who ever's foolish enough to think they'll actually get paid for representing Trump an in to try and argue that them being released to the public has prejudiced the jury pool. >
  
  Because those two things are not mutually exclusive and Congress can't criminally charge someone. >
  
  I actually think we NEED to do both.
  We need to expose and embarrass him for the conman/traitor that he is AND charge him as such >
  
  
  Don’t Embarrass Trump Over Tax Records Release—Charge Him Instead
  
  Why not both? >
  
  Nothing embarrasses that man, he has no shame! >
  
  When he was roasted on Comedy Central in 2011, what was off limits to joke about was “any joke that suggests Trump is not actually as wealthy as he claims to be.” Bankruptcy jokes are the “one thing [Trump’s] super sensitive about."
  Don't expect him to be rational about having proof shown of what people have said all along. It's all about protecting his feelings. >
  
  I would be sensitive about it too, if I were one of the only people who ever went bankrupt running a casino. >
  
  Three casinos! Because he thought he could create a new Las Vegas before he had built up enough human traffic. Because that's what real estate moguls do, they keep building while losing money... >
  
  IDK.  The thing I keep hearing is that Trump was talking (taxing?) out of both sides of his ass.  On the one hand, he is claiming massive losses on his taxes.  Or at least they look like massive losses to my poor ass. Then on the other side of the cheek, he's telling lenders that his properties are profitable and a good investment.   So perhaps,  and I'm just spitballing here, the actual release isn't to us, the American public, but rather Trumps backers and this is the way to alert them that the Count of mostly Crisco isn't the golden goose he claims to be.  Now, it may be obvious to us all that Trump isn't the greatest business man, but thats just hearsay.  Having his actual returns in hand, which is a piece of information that is normally not available in a regular business transaction, may just turn the tide on his ability to raise funds.  Which likely explains the NFT scam.  He likely owes someone big bucks and the release of his taxes is going to have quite a few powerful folks calling their markers.  So IMHO this is a chess move to bring the power of lenders to bear and those folks are likely the only ones Trump is actually scared of. >
  
  ‘Count of Mostly Crisco’
  Never heard that one before.  Nice.