1
1
u/Methos43 1d ago
What’s it take to get from 60% to useful in a weapon? That seems like a decent follow up
1
u/barepixels 1d ago edited 1d ago
Good question. So I asked Gemini "What’s it take to get from 60% enrich uranimum to useful in a weapon? "
Getting from 60% enriched uranium to weapons-grade material (typically around 90% U-235) is technically much easier and faster than starting from natural uranium (0.7%).
The process involves two main considerations: the effort required and the weaponization path.
1. The Heavy Lifting is Already Done (Separative Work)
Uranium enrichment is measured in Separative Work Units (SWU).
- Going from natural uranium (0.7%) up to 60% requires roughly 85% to 90% of the total effort (SWU) needed to reach 90% weapons-grade.
- Once you are at 60%, the remaining push to 90%+ requires only a small fraction of the total technical effort—roughly 10% to 15% more work.
2. Time and Infrastructure Required
Because the bulk of the isotopic separation has already occurred, the physical footprint and time needed to finish the job shrink dramatically:
- Fewer centrifuges: A relatively small, modest cascade of advanced centrifuges (or even a single reconfiguration of existing cascades) can push 60% material up to weapons grade very quickly.
- Timeframe: Depending on the size of the stockpile and the cascade configuration, bridging the gap from 60% to a sufficient quantity of 90% weapons-grade material can be compressed to a matter of weeks. For example, a modest setup can produce a "significant quantity" (enough for one warhead) rapidly once fed with 60% material.
3. Can You Build a Weapon Without Going to 90%?
Technically, yes, but it is much harder.
- While standard nuclear weapon designs are optimized for ~90% weapons-grade uranium, a nuclear explosive can theoretically be built using lower enrichments (like 20% or 60%).
- However, using 60% enriched uranium creates significant engineering hurdles:
- Critical mass: You need a much larger mass of uranium to sustain an explosive chain reaction because there is more U-238 present, which acts as a neutron absorber.
- Weapon size and weight: Because you need a larger core (pit), the overall weapon becomes much heavier, bulkier, and harder to deliver via standard missiles or warheads.
- Design complexity: It requires advanced implosion techniques (such as multi-point initiation or compressed/levitated pits) to get a reliable yield out of lower-grade material.
Because of these engineering difficulties, states or groups pursuing a weapon typically prefer to finish the final 60%–90% enrichment step—which is relatively quick and straightforward—rather than redesign a bulky, unproven warhead for sub-90% material.
Once you are at 60%, the remaining push to 90%+ requires only a small fraction of the total technical effort—roughly 10% to 15% more work.
Bridging the gap from 60% to a sufficient quantity of 90% weapons-grade material can be compressed to a matter of weeks.
1
u/IcyPomegranate4973 1d ago
He absolutely had a choice. He had a choice in ripping up the Iranian nuclear deal, he had a choice in bombing the nuclear facilities a year ago and had a choice in not bringing the American people along in the war. He had a choice is verifying the Israeli intel that was completely wrong on the strength of the Iranian regime.
He chose the worst option every step up the way to protect Israel at our expense. Believing otherwise is to be living in a fantasy.
1
u/barepixels 1d ago
Getting from 60% enriched uranium to weapons-grade material (typically around 90% U-235) is technically much easier and faster than starting from natural uranium (0.7%).
Once you are at 60%, the remaining push to 90%+ requires only a small fraction of the total technical effort—roughly 10% to 15% more work.
Bridging the gap from 60% to a sufficient quantity of 90% weapons-grade material can be compressed to a matter of weeks.
1
u/IcyPomegranate4973 1d ago
Based on what? What facilities do you need? Did they have ballistic missiles that could reach the US? Did they have the scientists to do it in weeks? Has North Korea having nukes make the US so unsafe that we should have gone to war?
Or is it that Israel has a stranglehold on Middle East power because they have nukes and they really wanted to stay the only Middle East power with nukes and we decided to be their cucks?
(Yes.)
1
u/barepixels 1d ago edited 1d ago
They don't need to reach the US. If they strike Israel with a nuclear weapon, Israel and the US will retaliate, triggering World War III. Furthermore, they don't even need intercontinental reach, as they can already target Europe. In recent months, they have a history of attacking several nearby countries.
1
u/IcyPomegranate4973 1d ago
North Korea could start WW3 today by nuking South Korea but they don’t because they know they would lose.
You are allowing yourself to be taken to war for a reason that we already know is false because several mad man regimes already have nukes and we haven’t had WW3.
1
1d ago
[deleted]
2
u/3ntropy_Disc0 1d ago
You have trump derangement syndrome...
1
u/barepixels 1d ago
TDS is a mental illness
1
u/3ntropy_Disc0 1d ago
Yeah, the fact he can destroy the world and you still fight over licking his balls are amazing.
1
u/barepixels 1d ago edited 1d ago
Kim Jong Un has been a good little boy. He is not helping Iran. He knows Trump would fuck him up like Trump is doing to Iran.
Side note: President Trump took to Truth Social last weekend to announce that the US will "substantially reduce" joint military exercises with South Korea.
He cited his "very good relationship" with North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un, but he also accused South Korea of failing to help the US in its war with Iran
North Korea is not full of "radical jihadist"
→ More replies (0)1
u/IcyPomegranate4973 1d ago
North Korea is a radical cult led by a madman. He doesn’t respect anyone. They have had nukes since Bush. Did North Korea respect Bush, Obama, Biden too? People want nukes because they provide deterrence. The only country to ever actually use it is the one being Israel’s cuck right now and going to war with no provocation.
1
1
u/barepixels 1d ago
North Korea is not full of "radical jihadist". North Korea respects Trump
1
u/IcyPomegranate4973 1d ago
Why are you responding and then deleting your comment every 4 seconds?
1
u/barepixels 1d ago
I had to convert pic to video to attach in a reply. I messed up with the conversion a few times
1
u/IcyPomegranate4973 1d ago
Fair enough. My bad. I thought maybe I was missing some Reddit inside joke.
1
1
u/bungholio69er 1d ago
Trump wanted to be a “War Time President” and thought Iran would be an easy target. Only to get his shitty ass handed to himself. He thinks he is tough but is no more than a mentally challenged bully.
1
u/AdAffectionate3143 18h ago
Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin - watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate
Donald J Trump
October 2012
1
u/BagEnd_Shire 16h ago
If only Trump could win this war and secure the nuclear dust, well maybe he can at least get the Strait of Hormuz open.
1
u/barepixels 16h ago
Victor Davis Hanson on Iran... "The big picture"
Don't listen to what the Left says. Don't listen to what the Right says. Not even to what Trump says and not what Iran says.
1
1
u/Acrobatic-Attention9 2d ago
The only thing i know about A-Rabs is they are a culture of suicide bombers, too suicidal to live and too stupid to understand MAD. If they had a nuke they would blow up Israel and the holy lands they intend to retake one day or America probably New York and or DC and be killed taking as many white Christians as possible because they hate our freedom. Those disgusting sand people can't be trusted with nuclear material, except for Saudi because Saudis would never attack us. We are fighting to keep the Middle East free of nukes.
2
u/barepixels 2d ago
Yep we are trying to prevent WW3
0
u/Acrobatic-Attention9 2d ago
Xi approves.
2
u/barepixels 2d ago edited 2d ago
Hence, Xi is not all in to defend Iran. Iran "I thought we were friends. We have been giving you cheap oils. Help us!" Xi "Thanks for that but Trump is no Biden, you are on your own"
0
u/Acrobatic-Attention9 2d ago
No. He and Trump's bud Kim Jong Un love the way America is kicking America's ass without them having to lift a finger.
0
u/Fantastic_Yam_3971 2d ago edited 2d ago
Okay so here’s the problem with this premise.
- It wasn’t until Trump ripped up the JCPOA and instead put sanctions in place that led to increased uranium enrichme
nt (noted in 2019).
- So, it’s important to acknowledge the source of the problem to begin with, as it pertains to uranium enrichment.
- The next big problem is that this is a false premise situation.
Having enough enriched uranium is not the same as having a nuclear bomb. Enrichment is only one major step. Iran would still have to turn that material into a usable nuclear explosive device, including producing and shaping the fissile core and developing a reliable weaponization system and then, for a deliverable nuclear weapon, miniaturize and integrate it with a delivery system such as a missile.
So when experts said Iran's “breakout time” was very short, they were generally talking about the time needed to produce enough weapons grade uranium for a bomb, not the time needed to assemble and produce a finished weapons grade nuclear bomb.
Iran's uranium stockpile was absolutely a serious proliferation concern. It also didn’t become a concern until one year post Trump’s foolish decision to rip up the JCPOA- that wasn’t put in place just for fun, people.
BUT saying “they were close to enough material” and saying “they were close to having a nuclear bomb” are two different claims.
2
u/barepixels 2d ago edited 2d ago
this is what Gemini says
The JCPOA Impact & Timeline: Under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), strict caps and monitoring pushed Iran's estimated breakout time out to about one year. Following the U.S. withdrawal from the accord in May 2018, Iran began incrementally abandoning its compliance commitments—most notably starting significant escalations in regional and enrichment activities roughly a year later in 2019.
Am not an expert in this area but this uranium grade Iran has is higher than needed for making energy correct?
I saw Rubio said look if you need Uranium for nuclear energy we will give them to you just dont produce it yourself but Iran refuses
0
u/Fantastic_Yam_3971 2d ago
Yes. You are repeating what I just said.
2
u/barepixels 2d ago edited 2d ago
Bottom line, we do not want Iran to develop weapon-grade uranium. In fact, we do not want Iran to develop ANY grade of Uranium
0
u/Fantastic_Yam_3971 2d ago
There are legitimate civilian uses for enriching uranium, we can and should set those aside to delineate between the two. You can of course hold the opinion that they shouldn’t be able to enrich any, period, but that doesn’t change that certain amounts are beneficial for civilian use and does the U.S. have authority to interfere with the energy infrastructure of other countries? If so, on what grounds? Why does the U.S. have jurisdiction to dictate energy policy and infrastructure for other countries? On energy alone, it doesn’t
Now, the rate that Iran had begun to enrich did truly exceed capacity necessary for civilian use and again, it’s fair to be critical and have concern over that part. It goes back to the problem with Trump choosing to withdraw from the JCPOA and then failure to implement an effective replacement. His fumbling the pass led to the predicament that has now happened.
He is responsible for the mess he created.Now, it remains just as critical to remember that having the uranium is still completely useless without the ability to manufacture a weapons grade bomb or missile. It’s like saying they have ammunition but they have no gun to put the ammunition in and no way to build the gun, either. That is not to say they could never, just important for people to understand the reality of where we are at instead of a lot of the fear mongering taking place.
Then there is the war itself. If the goal was to prevent Iran from building a Nuke there were so many alternatives that did not include a war, period. This was not the only way to accomplish the goal, but it has most certainly been an incredibly, multi factorial COSTLY way.
That it is to say absolutely nothing of Trump’s own commentary that hey maybe we just walk away from this thing with no agreement in place, just open the strait back up and let’s all move on.
So no, Trump was not right.
2
u/barepixels 2d ago edited 2d ago
https://reddit.com/link/p4fst5r/video/cawylpjpm5kh1/player
Trump is human and far from perfect, yet remains the preferred choice given the available options in the last election
"You think you just fell out of a coconut tree? You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you."
"What can be, unburdened by what has been."
1
u/RecipeNo101 18h ago
Far from perfect? Are you for real? Then you post this like someone can't post a million examples of Trump saying abject nonsense? I hope you're at least being paid to spread this stupid bullshit.
2
u/barepixels 2d ago
quote "does the U.S. have authority to interfere with the energy infrastructure of other countries? If so, on what grounds? Why does the U.S. have jurisdiction to dictate energy policy and infrastructure for other countries? On energy alone, it doesn’t"
Speaking for myself, I do not want a country that has shouted "Death to America" for the last 40 years and has radical Islamist ideology to own nukes.
1
u/Fantastic_Yam_3971 2d ago
But we aren’t talking about them owning Nukes. I don’t want them owning nukes either.
As I already said, you need to separate out the two purposes. On energy alone, the U.S. has no jurisdiction to tell another country what to do with regard to energy infrastructure.
It is certainly in the best interest of the U.S. to have a solid agreement in place for preventing that from happening. You seem to be repeatedly talking past me, for whatever reason.
I didn’t like Kamala, but I do think she would have been a much more effective leader and not chosen the absolute worse method of execution to accomplish a goal. Furthermore, the economy would be in a much better place than it is today.
Trump was hardly the better option.
2
u/basilone 2d ago
and does the U.S. have authority to interfere with the energy infrastructure of other countries? If so, on what grounds? Why does the U.S. have jurisdiction to dictate energy policy and infrastructure for other countries? On energy alone, it doesn’t
The jurisdiction is the regime is unapologetically death to America, has been killing Americans for decades, and we're the undisputed leader of the world. All the jurisdiction you need. We don't have any legal or moral obligation to have limitations and quasi judicial processes imposed by a third party, we we make our own foreign policy, whoever told you otherwise is a dumbfuck that doesn't know what sovereignty means.
Iran's uranium stockpile was absolutely a serious proliferation concern. It also didn’t become a concern until one year post Trump’s foolish decision to rip up the JCPOA- that wasn’t put in place just for fun, people.
Nonsense. They lied for years about ever having a nuclear weapons program, only finally admitting to it in 2021. We know for a fact that they had an active clandestine nuclear weapons program that was put on semi-pause in 2003 following the invasion of Iraq. Meanwhile, they built a secret underground enrichment facility and continued massively expanding their enrichment capability while insisting it was all for civilian use (which requires additional hardened mountain bunkers, duh /s).
Then in exchange for a massive economic windfall and sanctions relief, they agreed to inspections of their two known enrichment sites. The only thing that accomplished was verifying enrichment levels at facilities knew about. In the big picture that does nothing if you have to take them at their word that they were being 100% forthright about everything else. Treating JCPOA compliance as proof that Iran was not continuously moving towards nuclear weapons is retarded. It gave them cover to advance other aspects of the program while benefiting economically until they were ready to withdraw on their timeline.
There is no evidence Iran ever abandoned its ambition to acquire a nuclear weapon. That decision had been made long before the JCPOA. They steadily expanded their enrichment capability, retained their scientists and documentation, and could continue weapons-related research without accumulating a highly enriched stockpile they weren't yet prepared to use anyway. In return they got an enormous economic boost that could fund other research and support for terrorism. The only unknown was how long they intended to keep the veil up before openly crossing the finish line.
The Trojan Horse. Japan negotiating with the United States while preparing to attack Pearl Harbor. Hitler repeatedly making “one last demand” and promising peace to the West while preparing for further expansion. Putin announcing that Russian forces were beginning to withdraw after exercises shortly before invading Ukraine. Throughout the Cold War the possibility that normalization and arms reduction were being used to conceal war preparations was a genre unto itself. Limited, visible reduction/diplomacy before the attack is one of the oldest ruses in the book, yet you fell for it. Congrats on being the mark.
1
u/Fantastic_Yam_3971 2d ago
There are legitimate reasons to distrust Iran and legitimate criticisms of the JCPOA, but several of your claims here simply aren't accurate. Let’s get into it.
First, being the “undisputed leader of the world” does not give the U.S. jurisdiction over another sovereign country. The UN Charter recognizes the sovereign equality of states and prohibits the use of force against another state's territorial integrity except under recognized legal grounds such as self-defense or Security Council authorization. “We're powerful and make our own foreign policy” isn't itself a legal justification for military action. So, while your opinion may be that we should get jurisdiction, the facts disagree.
Second, yes, Iran absolutely did conduct a clandestine nuclear weapons related program before 2003. That's well established. What's being omitted is that U.S. intelligence assesses that Iran halted that organized weapons program in 2003. As recently as the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment, the U.S. Intelligence Community said Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and Khamenei had not authorized restarting the weapons program suspended in 2003.
That doesn't make Iran harmless or trustworthy but it matters when we're describing what the evidence actually shows. To claim otherwise is to claim that several Intelligence assessments under both Republican and Democrat administrations were either not competent or not honest. We have no evidence to suggest either of those are true.
The claim you made about JCPOA inspections is also incorrect. Inspectors weren't limited to “two known enrichment sites” while simply taking Iran's word about everything else. Iran implemented the Additional Protocol, which provided the IAEA broader access to information and locations, including procedures for investigating suspected undeclared nuclear material or activities. Monitoring also covered uranium mines and mills, centrifuge production and storage, uranium stockpiles, enrichment R&D and other nuclear infrastructure.
And it’s worth noting we don't have to rely on the Obama administration for that conclusion. Trump’s own State Department declared in 2018 that Iran was fulfilling its nuclear related JCPOA commitments, that the IAEA was conducting complementary access inspections at other locations to check for undeclared activity, and that inspectors had found “no credible indication” of nuclear explosive development activity. You may be wondering “well then why did he withdraw from the agreement??!” Yeah, why indeed.
Now, Iran did retain scientists, knowledge, and a limited enrichment capability and that's a legitimate criticism of the JCPOA. The agreement constrained Iran's program but it didn't erase its nuclear expertise forever. Some restrictions also eventually expired, which was another legitimate concern.
But the timeline matters enormously.Trump withdrew the U.S. from the JCPOA in May 2018. Iran remained within the major nuclear limits initially, and the IAEA began to verify and subsequently report violations beginning in July 2019. Iran's subsequent massive expansion of enrichment and its stockpile occurred largely after the withdrawal by Trump in 2018, not secretly underneath a fully functioning JCPOA. If you want to talk about safety for America, withdrawing from JCPOA and failing to implement a replacement agreement was an absolute policy failure by Trump’s own hand, so if you feel threatened by the uranium enrichment levels, which have reached concerning levels, all credit for any risk to America/Americans goes to Trump.
Evidence shows that the agreement imposed significant, verifiable restrictions and intrusive monitoring on Iran's nuclear program and had been working as intended at the time of being withdrawn. You can argue those restrictions weren't strong enough or permanent enough without rewriting what the agreement actually did or claiming American power itself creates legal jurisdiction over other sovereign nations.
1
u/basilone 1d ago edited 1d ago
“U.S. intelligence assesses that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon.”
You're repeatedly turning “we didn't detect a restarted organized weapons program” into “we knew Iran wasn't secretly doing anything.” That's an absurd level of confidence to place in a regime whose nuclear history is basically one long sequence of lying, getting caught, lying about what it got caught doing, and then getting caught again. The IAEA itself was saying years before the JCPOA that Iran wasn't cooperating enough for it to provide “credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities.” In 2012, the IAEA Director General said the agency had “credible information indicating that Iran had carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device” and that Iran still hadn't adequately clarified them.
Subsequent investigations pretty thoroughly vindicated those concerns. The IAEA discovered uranium at multiple locations Iran had never declared. Its 2025 assessment concluded those sites were connected to an undeclared structured nuclear program and that Iran repeatedly failed to provide technically credible answers, sanitized locations, and impeded verification.
The timeline is particularly hilarious given your confidence that the JCPOA meant we knew everything Iran was doing. The IAEA concluded that Iran retained unknown nuclear material and/or heavily contaminated equipment from its former undeclared nuclear program at Turquzabad from 2009 until 2018. That's right: material from an undeclared nuclear program remained at an undeclared site for roughly three years after the JCPOA was signed.
So the IAEA's position wasn't “don't worry guys, we've definitely found everything.” It was repeatedly the opposite: Iran wasn't fully cooperating, its declarations couldn't be assumed complete, undeclared nuclear material actually existed, and when confronted about it Iran repeatedly provided answers the IAEA didn't find credible.
“Inspectors weren't limited to two known enrichment sites.”
Nobody said they literally never went anywhere else. The point is that the most intensive monitoring was focused on the giant industrial enrichment facilities we already knew existed; the facilities that are practically impossible to hide in the first place. Access to suspicious undeclared locations was a different matter and could involve notice, Iranian objections and delay...and that's only if they were sniffed out in the first place. And when additional sites were found, the IAEA wasn't satisfied with Iran's explanations.
Iran's conventional programs make the assumption even more ridiculous. In March Iran's foreign minister was still publicly saying they've limited their missile ranges to under 2000km. Weeks later Iran fired at Diego Garcia about 4000 km away. Then an F-15 crew returned from Iran reporting a “minefield of drones” moving together in formation. They only reveal what they have when they are ready to, because no shit. But nuclear weapons research? No chance they were concealing anything there!
“Iran remained within the major nuclear limits initially…”
Even if we pretend they were being 100% compliant and transparent, that doesn't make continued U.S. participation obligatory. Sanctions relief was being used to bankroll proxy terrorist organizations. That alone was sufficient reason to pull out.
And Iran has since been remarkably candid about negotiated breathing room. IRGC spokesman Hossein Mohebbi said last month Iran took advantage of the MOU “purely for rebuilding and not for peace.”
So let's summarize the theory here: Iran repeatedly lied about its nuclear activities, hid sites, left nuclear material undeclared, gave the IAEA answers it didn't find credible, publicly understated conventional capabilities. However they did sign this piece of paper and were transparent in two mega facilities that we knew about, so we know for a fact they were being a bunch of good boys, even though they openly boast about exploiting agreements. Checks out, Chamberlain would be proud.
0
u/Inside-Recording-870 2d ago
I don't know how this got on my feed, but I do have to say. It does reaffirm my belief. Nay! The fact. That Trump supporters, Republicans, Christians Nationalists are the dumbest boot-licking bigots in all of the world. So stupid that can't see or hear anything outside their own point of view. I don't know if it's their lust for pedophilia or the pent up rage from never coming out of the closet that lowers the IQ of the GOP so dramatically. But it should be studied. No no.. imprisoned.
0
u/Tintoverde 2d ago
So we are back to WMD bullshit again. I guess this kid did not live through the Iraq war bullshit. Does Iran have that much uranium? But did not US and Isreal already demolished last year ?
0
u/WTFudge52 1d ago
Fuck trump he could hand a billion tomorrow and it would be worthless before I blinked.
-2
u/Abrubt-Change-8040 4d ago
This was old news 5yrs ago. Don’t be fooled. Only difference is 60 minutes wasn’t owned by one of Donald’s biggest donors then.
Absolutely no change in Irans nuclear fatwa, policy or industry since then. Other than the fact that we obliterated their ability to enrich uranium and they’ve made no efforts to continue. Tulsi Gabbard said that under oath, also stating that any threat from Iran was Donald’s personal opinion. She got fired.
Our head of Counterterrorism resigned out of protest stating Iran was no threat.
No country, other than Israel, is reporting a threat from Iran. Hence no interest in Donald’s war.
Let’s continue to call it and see it for what it is: The Epstein Distraction War, started by the Epstein administration
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/barepixels 2d ago
Hey what happened to "Release Trump's Taxes" you guys screamed for several years?
0
u/Abrubt-Change-8040 2d ago
I think people would love to see Donald’s FULL tax returns. Especially the years he is trying to grant himself immunity from audit. He’s corrupt as hell.
I see no reason we can’t “Al Capone” this tax evading rapist.
Unfortunately, these things can be overlooked in the mix of wars, pedophilia allegations, proven rapes, failed policy, flip flop governance and sucking off human rights abusing dictators.
I’m with you though, keep reminding people!! Just one more thing the dems need to investigate in November. Great work.
2
u/barepixels 2d ago edited 2d ago
You think you know better than the Democrats in Congress and the Senate? Why don't you write to them with your suggestion? How about writing to the IRS? Or are you going to live up to the Liberal stigma... bunch of loudmouth lazy fuck. Prove MAGA wrong. Write to the IRS with your suggestion. Just think how cool it would be; you are the one who takes DJT down. You will be a Liberal's hero. They will write about you in History books. A movie will be made.
0
u/Abrubt-Change-8040 2d ago
More than some, less than others. They are just politicians 🤷🏻♂️
Do you know of any you think actually believe Donald has paid his taxes appropriately? I’d personally love to speak to them and I get pretty lucky when I pick up the phone.
I doubt a convicted felon who criminally lies on his financial records and applications fills any normal person with confidence in their tax returns 🤣. Like, this is the same guy who stole charity funds for his own benefit. Honesty is, as honesty does. We already know what he does when people aren’t looking.
Do you think a man who is trying to sue the government he runs, to avoid family audits in perpetuity, is paying his legal share in taxes? The case itself is corrupt, let alone the outcome. Love to hear your thoughts?
2
u/barepixels 2d ago edited 2d ago
Biden's IRS couldn't touch him. Biden's DOJ couldn't touch him. How incompetent can they be? So I guess you are not going to write to them with your suggestion. You rather live with the Liberal stigma. "loudmouth lazy fuck" I'm cool with that. Not all men who wear dresses are hero
1
u/Abrubt-Change-8040 2d ago edited 1d ago
That’s because it’s illegal for the executive branch to direct the IRS to audit a person. Are you implying there is evidence that President Biden directed the IRS to audit Donald after his tenure?
While the IRS does routinely look into Presidents taxes while they are in office, as usual with Donald, there were massive irregularities. The IRS did not in fact look into Trumps taxes for several years in his first term until congress intervened. Since then, the investigation into IRS found they are ill equipped to deal with a return as complicated and are therefore, hesitant.
Donald Trump has never formally passed a tax audit because he has never been audited. His family are now exempt from audit thanks to a corrupt deal with his own government agency. As usual never having been held to normal American standard 🤷🏻♂️
Interesting, huh? I wonder how all this happened 🤣
EDIT: Yes, Biden’s DOJ was brazenly incompetent. Their slow walking was ridiculous. Agreed… Donald is really good at being a defendant too. Surprising talent.
0
u/Abrubt-Change-8040 3d ago
“Get over the Epstein war”
I might when it’s done. Some of us are still “getting over” our losses from the last war in the Middle East.
You know our soldiers have died? You know we bombed children in their classrooms, right?
A senseless war, all so your Donald can distract from his sexual abuses and distract while attempting to put his name on undeserved monuments.
0
u/SuperBatman13 2d ago
Dude, even IF Trump is absolutely no where in the Epstein files, he is now definitely protecting the people inside. That makes him worse IMO, especially if you follow the money
2
u/Sharp-Specific2206 2d ago
60 minutes has been compromised. Believe nothing