Well the time has finally arrived when the cretin in the WH may just get his wings clipped. No longer has he a "yes man" such as Nunes and Ryan to protect him from his own misdeeds. I believe he has no idea what has just happened to him and his entire family with this change in the Congress.
It will be very entertaining to watch him squirm under the investigations into his campaign, his businesses, his tax returns, his foundation (now defunct),and many other sleazy deals and practices he's well known for. Thank goodness!
I'm especially curious to see Trump's tax returns. I wonder why he is so obsessed with keeping them private.
promisem: Watch this condensed film about Trump, it's a SHOCKING eye opener and mandatory for everyone: Slowly but surely, the pieces seem to be coming together as prosecutors build the puzzle:
Do YOU post your tax returns and business papers online for the world to examine? Would you if asked to by competitors? Would you if asked by "especially curious" people that have zero right to your private IRS information?
U.S. Presidents historically do, and I'm not the U.S. President.
Are you opposed to transparency in government?
No, US presidents do NOT release their private financial and business information to the greedy eyes of competitors and the general public. Check you history and count how many have done so - come back and THEN say it is "historically" true.
Private financial information is not "transparency in government". Whatever gives you the quaint notion that it is: that you are "curious" and want to see if you can find more political dirt on your president in his finances?
Again, are you opposed to transparency in government?
Otherwise, utterly wrong and misleading.
You know full well we are talking about every President and every candidate for the Presidency who have voluntarily released their tax returns to the public over decades.
http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.n … TaxReturns
Unlike Trump, they wanted to prove they are not crooks.
Well Damn! Wilderness beat me too it again!
But, since I looked up the dates, I will respond anyway - just for the hell of it.
Your "historically" only goes back to Nixon in 1973, and that was probably, mostly, due to the Watergate investigation.
That doesn't seem historical to me.
And, I think the "transparency" thing is a bunch of hooey. Do you select your leader by the numbers in his portfolio? How would Lincoln have fared if that were the deciding criteria?
Do you suppose the IRS is so inept that a legally disqualifying fact wouldn't be noticed?
I think this taxes thing is just a stalking horse for the quest of another pile of rocks to throw.
Since when is 45 years of the American Presidency not history?
Well of course it is history. Yesterday is history. But, in the context of a statement that claims "historical" validation, my answer is:
Since 60 years of presidents didn't release their returns vs. 45 years that did.
Or, put another way, since more than half of our presidents, (since the 16th), didn't release their returns, wouldn't that put the "historical" imprimatur on not releasing them?
So it's history if it's before 1973 but not history after 1973? I'm confused by your reply.
Instead of focusing on a single word, maybe you could expand on why you want a President under multiple investigations to keep hiding his tax returns.
You are right promisem, I did jump on the implication of one word.
And I admit that 45 years and eight successive presidents is a historical trend.
As for addressing this specifically to Pres. Trump and whatever investigation would benefit from disclosing his taxes, I think that would be for the investigators to demand.
I don't think the public has any right to demand they be released. Regardless of what other presidents have done.
Thank you for that answer, GA. I partly agree with you about the public demanding that Presidents release their tax returns.
Presidents are not legally obligated to do so, and they have done it as you point out since Nixon. Any President can break with this recent tradition.
I suggest the Trump situation is different in part because of the investigations about Russian connections.
For example, what if his tax returns show he has received $50 million in legal investments from Russian oligarchs close to Putin? The public would have a legitimate concern about influence peddling.
Otherwise, again as you point out, it's an opportunity just to throw rocks.
45 years and several presidents is more than enough time in history to establish precedent:
Donald's excuse has been that he's under audit for which there is absolutely ZERO public evidence to prove, and he has also said in the past that it's a 'routine' audit, he gets audited every year:
Sorry, but if a person gets audited every year there is usually something wrong, very suspicious but actually tax returns while extremely important is not what I'm interested in seeing the most:
Well GA, if the person running for president claims he's a deal maker extrordinaire' I expect him to prove it by some manner and not be afraid to back up his claims. Otherwise we end up where we are now with a crook in the Oval Office. But I do understand you're still riding the fence and won't get off until Bob makes you dismount.
Ya got me Randy, I don't have a clue how that pertains to my comment.
Randy's comment is quite clear to me. He wants Trump to follow the tradition of the last 45 years to see if Trump's tax returns prove he is a successful businessman or a crook.
That was my point as well, especially considering the number of investigations into Trump's finances.
Its is absolutely amazing how Trump supporters and those that sit the "fence" can continue to make excuses for him.
His callous tirade against those federal employees and agencies victimized by the shutdown is anything but Presidential.
I don't care about his business concerns, he is President of the US, not a king or CEO. I think the idea of transparency is a gesture of good faith from one who claims to lead. Of course, it is ridiculous to talk of previous Presidents providing such information before there was an income tax.
Trump is the dumbest guy that I have ever seen hold the office and if he survives to the end of his first term, I would be astonished. He will fall though his own hand and mine will be clean.
Well I will own the "fence sitter" label Cred, at least when it comes to jumping into the mud of either side. But, I don't recall any of that fence sitting qualifying as making excuses.
The past two years in these forums have shown both the potency of my grandfather's example, and also why it is so seldom followed.
"If you can't say something nice about a person, then don't say anything at all."
However, I will lean to one side of that fence, just enough to wonder why you are surprised at what you are seeing? You and I spoke of this point when he first started gaining traction in the campaign.
But I get the distinct impression that if Trump had shot the Pope, and many were critical of that, it would be considered mere mud or rock throwing by conservatives?
Being silent when there are problems that need to be identified is not a virtue for neither the object of the comment or the one who delivers it.
Yes, the public has no right to Trumps return, but even if I were completely neutral toward Trump, and I am not, (part of being honest with candor), with the Tradition being well established would I not wonder what he has to hide?
Nope. At least not from this fence sitter. It would be murder.
Unless the Pope deserved it of course. That is the mold you were describing wasn't it? (geez, I probably have to note that I didn't really mean that don't I)
Now about what is virtuous ... How many times does a problem need to be identified? By how many people? Is the 100th identifier as virtuous as the first?
Does the problem become more serious by repeated identification? Is it worse because 100 people identify than it was when one identified it?
As for wondering if there was mud and rocks to be found in his tax returns, I would bet on it. If I were in Pres. Trump's shoes, I wouldn't release them either. As much because of the demand as because of what might be in them.
It's really a moot point as the congress is going to get them anyway, GA.
"As for wondering if there was mud and rocks to be found in his tax returns, I would bet on it."
Of course there is mud and rocks in it; it is the business dealings of a large financial empire and as such will absolutely NOT conform to what people want to see. Even if 110% legal (it has been cleared by the IRS, after all) it will still contain large amounts of what ordinary people in the street, unfamiliar with the laws and practices of Big Business, want to see.
Of course, that's assuming that the entire business records of Trump are released, not just his 1040 and related forms. I've never done a tax return for a huge business, but HAVE done one for a small business, and the day to day records were never included. Just the results; actual bookkeeping entries were available to an audit, but not on the return.
So you're betting Trump's business dealings were all legal? Like his efforts to muzzle the young ladies he had affairs with were on the up and up? What Cohen was indicted and pled guilty for seems to say otherwise.
That's what I would have thought also Wilderness, but like you, I have never completed a return on that scale either, so I am not sure what would be considered a release of his tax returns.
On the small business scale that I have done, my experience matches yours - just the tallies, not the sub-strata data.
Perhaps this is the reason he's being constantly audited. I doubt the auditors don't have benefit of Mueller's sources as it relates to foreign deals though.
It is my understanding that ALL extremely large returns are automatically audited, so I rather doubt that it's because his name is Trump.
If you don't think the IRS has resources you might consider about who brought down Al Capone after years of effort and failure by law enforcement.
You might be right about those resources Randy, but I still think that if outright illegal stuff was there the audits would have resulted in charges.
Well the recent raid on Deutchebank may lend a view into Trump's financial dealings overseas if it's made public. Just a thought, GA.
I rather suspect that what is "historically normal" here and what is being demanded to be released are two very different things. Most people don't recognize the difference, but I just don't see a 1040 giving the details they so badly want to see. They want each and every detail, every transaction, every employee record from any business Trump is involved in in any way and think that's what a business tax return consists of.
Public evidence already proves Donald is a crook several times over, unforgivable sins to say the least: Trump University, Trump Foundation, Michael Cohen implicating him as co-conspirator to a "Conspiracy to Influence Our Presidential Election", he blatantly obstructs justice and abuses his power in broad daylight on global television as if he believes a crime committed in public is no crime at all, he encouraged our enemy Russia to commit espionage to further his political ambitions, sides with Vladimir Putin over our own intelligence agencies in Helsinki and according to reports, his company accepts private money from foreign governments through his hotels RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK and God knows what else is being uncovered by the criminal investigations !!
He's already a proven crook, the ONLY question to be answered now is how many serious felony crimes, acts of betrayal of the USA and or torts has he committed and will he get away with it, is he above the law or will he be prosecuted and penalized for his atrocities ??
The GOOD News ?? While crooked compliant republicans in the last congress tried desperately to protect this abomination and were wiped out in a Blue Democratic Wave of RIGHTEOUSNESS as a result, the new and improved congress led by Nancy "POWERHOUSE" Pelosi will investigate him and his family and will hold him accountable for the good of this nation:
You see folks, even Jake agrees his tax returns aren't needed to prove he is a crook.
Correct this time, GA! Those familiar with DT's past already knew he was a crook. The others voted for him...
Just a minor correction. Many knew his past, as well as his lies and despicable behavior during the campaign, and voted for him anyway. They didn't care, at least not enough to disqualify him from their vote.
WoW: Agreement between yours truly and GA ?? Is that possible or did the Earth just shift and knock everything out of whack ??
YES GA, you have represented my comment in an honest manner without spin, and yes, I don't believe we need to see Donald's tax returns to prove he's a crook but they should still be revealed to voters in the name of transparency, there's already an abundance of public evidence to corroborate his crookedness with new additions published by the media almost daily:
I also said crooks usually omit or try to conceal dirty business on their tax returns as well so once we do get the chance to see them which might actually be AFTER he's impeached and or indicted, we might be disappointed at first glance until fully investigated:
I guess he would if he runs for president. Is that right, promisem?
Exactly right, IslandBites. In fact, you have my word that I will release them if I run.
Although I find it funny that those who bemoaned the Republicans control during the Obama years as obstructionist are now gleefully anticipating a democratic controlled House, I do think releasing tax returns is not too much to ask of a president. I wish he would just do it already.
I rather wish he would too. But I also recognize that he is under no obligation to do so, no matter HOW much the haters would like to have them. Their desire to cause him political harm via his returns does not require that he make them public.
Still desperately trying to defend an ugly, despicably evil person who is headed straight DOWN into the burning pit when God calls him ?? But have no fear wilderness, when his tax returns are finally revealed to the people which hopefully will be soon now that honesty, integrity and oversight of a madman have been restored to our house of representatives, I think we'll find that crooks usually neglect to disclose all pertinent information, especially when it pertains to crooked financial activity:
The people already have an abundance of damning public evidence to swiftly move forward on impeachment and or immediate indictment of this delusional 72 year old and that excludes the evidence uncovered by prosecutors in private which has yet to be made public:
An indictment of Donald could be imminent by the NY AG however, they may try to co-ordinate with the Mueller investigation to ensure any and ALL criminal charges and or articles of impeachment are in order before action is taken to proceed:
Randy, I grabbed your topic for an observation, not a position on your OP. A;though I might also weigh in on that.
I watched her speech and swearing in.
Oh gawwd! Really, bring in the childrennn..."
Obviously I don't like Pelosi, or her politics, but this is about neither of those points.
Bringing the childrennnn..." to the podium? Really?
Come on Randy, are you really on board with that performance?
To be fair, I would be just as pissed if a Repub had done that, but geesh, does she really think we are that dumb?
I am only here for the childrennnn....
There were lots of children there today, GA. What do you have against children?
Damn brats! Children should be outlawed. Imprison them in the forest until they can feed themselves. Then only let them out when they can recite the pledge.
That's what I have against children!
And those damn adults that brought them out for a political photo op should be the kid's next meal.
Damn kids! If they can't be Tarzan then to hell with them!
"....does she really think we are that dumb?"
I cannot believe, after two years of Trump, you are finally triggered enough to ask if Pelosi thinks we are that dumb.
GA likes riding the fence, Pretty. You see that occasionally when some do not want to commit themselves to making a judgement on something which may come back to bite them in the butt.
I don't see how anyone who knew Trump's past could even consider him being able to run a country, much less a business. If not for his dad and his siblings, his name would be unrecognizable today. They financed him after many failed business deals and he would be otherwise broke except for their loaning him money.
The amount of ignorance from his advocates is astounding.
Tsk. Tsk. PrettyPanther. Jumping to conclusions again.
I usually follow the advice that there is seldom any gain in stating the obvious. I didn't follow it this time and look where it got me.
Fence sitting for two years must be hard. No problem jumping off on one side right from the get-go this time, eh?
When it comes to framing a demand as a Right or obligation - no problem at all.
Okay, but that's not what I was addressing. I was noting the absurdity of your comment, "....but geesh, does she really think we are that dumb?" After two years of fence sitting while Trump repeatedly expected we were dumb enough to swallow several lies per day, you jumped right down off that fence to critique Pelosi's first speech as speaker.
I know, you just don't like her.
You have a point PrettyPanther. And even worse, any rationalization I might try to offer could be tossed back at me ten-fold along the lines of your point.
Except one. I let my disdain for her as such an obvious political animal override my better sense. Mia Culpa.
Ah, so you're human like the rest of us. ;-)
To pay my dues, I do have a thought on your OP Randy.
My crystal ball says we may be in for a surprise. It says that we may see some sort of compromise on "the wall," and re-opening the government, where both will be able to take some credit.
The bet is a virtual martini, you up for it?
[EDIT] How about a 14 day time frame for that bet?
Yep, Nancy will give him a bead curtain and he'll cave..... And I knew you couldn't stop yourself from "having a thought", you never can.
You are right Randy, I can't resist offering a thought. But at least....
Can you predict what I was going to say Randy?
You aren't one of those "either you with me or you're against me" folks are you?
Yes, you were going to tell me how intelligent I am!
And also yes, you're either fer me, or agin me.
Randy, I'm fer ya. Please don't leave the forums again. Your funny one-liners make me laugh. Sometimes. Lol
Massive Progressive Blue Wave of Righteousness already paying BIG Life Enhancing Dividends to Americans: Subsequent to the great democratic victory in the midterms, Bright Spots around the country are emerging amid Bozo Trump's insane, dark evil skies: Racist creep maniac republican LePage who refused to expand Medicaid was REMOVED from his Maine Governorship in the midterms by voters who rallied around Democrat Janet Mill's:
What was Governor Elect Mill's FIRST action in her new position ?? Unlike Bozo Trump and republicans who passed an abominably evil bill which allows the mentally ill to purchase firearms as their first action, Democratic Governor Mills EXPANDED Medicaid so 70,000 residents can afford vitally important health insurance that they never had before: VIVE La Resistance !! :
That's called Swift POSITIVE Change for Americans Courtesy of the Big Blue Progressive Democratic WAVE:
"Mills’ ‘Executive Order 1’ makes 70,000 more Mainers eligible for health insurance"
"The Democrat had vowed to expand Medicaid on 'day one' of her administration, almost 14 months after voters approved it."
https://www.pressherald.com/2019/01/03/ … expansion/
Yes, the former gov. was a piece of crap and is now fleeing to Fla. where no one will know him. Corrupt as hell he was!!
He is simply one example of several corrupt governors who need to go hide their faces somewhere. My own state governor included...
by ahorseback 5 years ago
Trump - 25 %Obama- 18%Clintons- 19%Sanders- 13%Liberals don't seem to like numbers , facts and truth at all ;Liberals everywhere LOVE to celebrate the Income Tax stands , income inequity , and general rhetoric of wealth distribution, re-distribution in...
by Abhaque Supanjang 10 years ago
Which one is better in leading a country; an academician, politician, or a military officer ?The presidents, kings, queens, or the prime ministers who lead their countries in the world came from various backgrounds; some of them came from academic career (having sufficient study at colleges), ...
by Credence2 9 years ago
In recent history, every presidential contender has had to show the American people that he or she conducts their affairs in an open and honest way. Mitt Romney is not the exception. His resistance to releasing these returns, as encouraged by many in his own party, creates a reason to believe that...
by Allen Donald 8 years ago
I was thinking about this from a historian's perspective (I have an M.A. in History). My first caveat about this question is that, as a historian, I think it's misguided to try to evaluate president's while they're still in their presidency. It takes perspective and time to provide a proper...
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
Did Rachel Maddow overhype the Trump tax scoop and should she be prosecuted for an illegal act?MSNBC employee, Rachel Maddow, made her so-called scoop of President Trump's 2005 taxes seem like a big deal, when in fact all that it showed was he paid taxes....much more than anyone might have...
by Ralph Schwartz 3 years ago
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Thursday in a press conference that she personally believes it’s “really important” to lower the voting age to 16.What are your thoughts on this topic?
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|