>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'.
>

Chalk that up as learning cost. Think like a programmer, create better/more specific rules.

>>>>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.

Interesting thought to ban all politicians from applying to that position...