>>...but since he refuses to disclose his tax information we'll never know will we?
>
>The man is not in office yet, Victor.
>He can't violate an oath that he hasn't taken.

That is a lame excuse - you don't honestly think he's ever going to release his tax info do you? You're talking about someone that wasn't to have his own kids run his so-called 'blind trust' - which is absurd as that doesn't even qualify as a 'blind trust'.

>>>You just have to give him the benefit of the doubt - and he's a pathological liar - see the problem here???
>
>Yes.
>That's the way our system works.
>We have to prove guilt - even when we think the accused is a pathological liar.

That doesn't change the proven fact he's a pathological liar. Don't you think that the president should be held to a higher standard here? It's not like he's applying for a job at McDonalds.