Congress has ramped up efforts to secure the tax returns of President Trump, demanding the IRS hand them over for scrutiny, launching what appears to be a legal battle between the Executive and Legislative branches.
There is no existing law which requires the President or any other private citizen to hand over their taxes to Congress.
The top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee blasted the request, saying Democrats were "weaponizing our nation’s tax code by targeting political foes."
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, the only member of the House who can, by law, request the president's tax returns, argued in his letter to the IRS that his request stemmed from a policy interest. He said his role in heading the committee comes with "a responsibility to ensure that the Internal Revenue Service is enforcing the laws in a fair and impartial manner."
If any tax violations occurred, most people believe it would be the job of the IRS to determine the consequences. Does the President have the right to privacy on his personal interests? Should he use Executive privilege to stop them? If he is forced to hand them over, should all politicians be forced to do the same? How would this impact other "sealed records" from past administrations?
Is this a Pandora's box ?
Not at all. It's simply another way of finding out how much money Russia has given to Trump.
If he is innocent, he has nothing to hide -- just like all the other Presidents and Presidential candidates of the last 40 years who released their tax returns.
In fact, if Trump is innocent, he should be eager to release his tax returns and prove the Democrats wrong.
Even Trump's #1 supporter in the Senate thinks Trump should release them.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/04/lindsey … turns.html
I have a couple of question. Do you trust our IRS to find illegal activity when auditing a tax return? Do you trust if Trump has committed past crimes that involve any form of breaking tax laws that he would have been charged?
He has only been president for two years, he claims his tax returns have been audited for many years. Myself, I think it common sense if they could have charged him with any tax crimes they would have. Is it possible the Dems are just trying to keep their base fired up about something that just makes no sense?
If I were to believe president Trump has committed ta fraud I would also have to believe the IRS is not doing their job. If he has at any time received money from Russia would the IRS not be responsible for making sure it was all on the up and up?
Mueller had access to Manafort and Gates tax returns and they were both indited with tax violations. returns. It is very possible that he also had Trump's returns, and will address them in his report. For now, I will put my trust in the IRS. Trump was and is not above the law., and if he broke tax laws, he would have been caught long ago.
It surprises me how some can't use a bit of common sense when it comes to Trump and his taxes. There is no there-there. Just like there was no Russian collusion. Mueller was a hero, now he is just another person that Dems feel is protecting Trump. It's all so silly.
Taxes are private, Trump has a right by law, like you or me not to show his taxes.
No, Trump is not like you or me. He is President of the United States.
Presidents and Presidential candidates have been releasing their tax returns for 40 years to prove they are not peddling their influence.
This is not just a legal issue. It's also about ethics and character. It's about multiple connections with Russian money.
Otherwise, why are you afraid to see his tax returns if he has nothing to hide?
"Otherwise, why are you afraid to see his tax returns if he has nothing to hide?"
I have no fear or need to see the presidents taxes. I trust the IRS is doing their job in regards to finding tax crimes, especially on a man that they have been auditing for many years. In regards, to Trump's taxes, would it not be prudent to have evidence of a problem before demanding to see his taxes? You make mention that Trump received money from Russia? I have seen no proof that Trump received any money from Russia? Would the IRS not have picked up any form of tax evasion or ill-gotten gains from a foreign country while auditing Trumps Taxes? Do you think it fair to spread this kind of rumor?
"Presidents and Presidential candidates have been releasing their tax returns for 40 years to prove they are not peddling their influence.
This is not just a legal issue. It's also about ethics and character."
I do not have a problem with Trump not showing his tax returns or his character. I could care less about others that held the office making the choice to show their tax returns. I decided when I voted for Trump, I was voting on his agenda and could care less about his personality or his character or his looks...
I must point out you clearly evaded my questions?.
Questions - I have a couple of question. Do you trust our IRS to find illegal activity when auditing a tax return? Do you trust if Trump has committed past crimes that involve any form of breaking tax laws that he would have been charged?
I will await your response to these common sense questions.
Speculation does not amount to fact.....
But then again Liberals never look at facts first
Please read my entire post before criticizing it. I guess you missed these parts:
"If he is innocent, he has nothing to hide."
"If Trump is innocent, he should be eager to release his tax returns and prove the Democrats wrong."
President Donald Trump is still a citizen with legal rights to privacy.
It is a matter of the IRS being used for political purposes.
If I were him, I would absolutely refuse to release my tax returns. I would especially refuse to give my taxes for review to individuals who are not proven to be tax experts.
My accountant always points out President Donald Trump is a "High-End" tax situation. Most CPAs, unless they have years of experience in preparing such types of corporate tax returns, would not understand what they were seeing.
Can you imagine what the idiot members of Congress would do with such information? None of them would have a clue what they were looking at. Sometimes I realize the left is so unintelligent, they have no idea how unintelligent they actually are in most cases.
The IRS has his tax returns. If they find anything illegal it is THEIR job to bring charges. Trust me, the IRS will bring charges and take you to court if it feels necessary. If President Donald Trump has done anything wrong, the IRS would be on it.
Ever been the subject of an audit? Not a pleasant experience.
"Not at all. It's simply another way of finding out how much money Russia has given to Trump."
Again, you feel the IRS would not have found ill-gotten funds that Trump received from the Russians? Do you not feel Mueller would not have stumbled on any form of ill-gotten money that exchanged hands between Trump and the Russians? Sorry I have to say this... Do you do not see how foolish that even sounds? No really
The truly sad part of this is the claim of wrongdoing as a valid reason for investigation or, in this case, public perusal of private information.
In reality our legal system requires far more than an unsupported claim for any such investigation. Whether it be a wire tap, a search of your home or your tax forms it requires probable cause. Which is not met by saying "I think Russia gave him money and I want to know how much".
We saw the results of such open ended "investigations" without having any probable cause over the last 2 years. Multiple indictments going back years, but all for something not being searched for and nothing found on the primary objects of the investigation. It should not work that way.
The move may have more to do with the fact the this president wants to limit the IRS's power over Americans than anything else.
The double-standard needs to be stopped by voters on both sides. People's votes could clean it up, but I don't think we'll be seeing the IRS agreeing to Republicans calling for Democrat's records.
It's obvious there's nothing to be gained from seeing Trump's taxes because he has told us there's nothing to see in them, just like he's told us that wind turbines cause cancer and his father was born in Germany.
I'll be quite honest here - really wealthy people have a lot going on in their taxes. Based on his history, there's a lot to suggest that Trump probably cheats on his taxes - undervaluing his assets; etc. - but barring some revelation about Russian money, Trump's taxes will be used to bludgeon the wealthy. Maybe they deserve it, maybe not, but it's tangential to what's actually in Trump's tax returns.
"There is no existing law which requires the President or any other private citizen to hand over their taxes to Congress."
The Chair of the House Ways and Mean Committee made a formal written request for tax return information(1):
The law is very clear:
"Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure"(2).
So the IRS has a legal obligation to furnish the Committee with the information it has requested in closed session, or open session if the specified taxpayer gives permission for the information to be discussed in open session.
The IRS has until April 10 to comply with the law, or if it chooses not to, explain why.
(1) https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/de … .04.03.pdf
(2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103 (Internal Revenue Code 3103(f))
The betting windows are open; Which way will the IRS go; turn them over, or wait for adjudication of White House objections?
I will put a dollar on the latter.
Mine too. The Mueller report just did not give the Dems what they had hoped for, so why not turn back to Trump's taxes. If Trump broke any tax laws the IRS would have certainly gone after him. Funny how some just can't use common sense. The IRS would not want to hide anything in regards to Trump's taxes, they know they are under a huge spotlight.
Sharlee01, You've never seen the Mueller report and neither have I which means in REALITY, you actually have no idea what the criminal investigation findings are and according to many surfacing reports of prosecutors contradicting Bozo Trump's little republican SHILL Bill Barr, Donny Boy is in DEEP Trouble:
BTW: Standard procedure is to inspect a presidents tax returns for obvious reasons and it's especially critical to inspect the returns of an illegitimate crook who was embedded in our oval office by our enemy Vladimir Putin:
"Yes, Trump University Was a Massive Scam"
"Many people believe that higher education is a de facto scam. Trump University, Donald Trump’s real-estate institution, was a de jure one."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/t … sity-scam/
"Trump Foundation Will Dissolve, Accused of ‘Shocking Pattern of Illegality’"
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/nyre … ation.html
Jake, you go on and on with your accusations. Not sure I have anything more to discuss with you. I have grown tired of watching all your theories end up going nowhere. I think I will bow out, and check back with you the night Trump is reelected. I would not want to miss your theory on why he won... Perhaps Russians once again or ballad fraud? I am sure it will be, how do you put it -BREAKING NEWS !!!
It should be obvious - if Trump wins again (likely) it will be because Martians stuffed the ballot boxes. Jake will confirm, after it happens, because it is well known that Trump wants to build a tower and golf course on Mars.
I wish to hell he would and leave earth alone. Let him go to Mars with the other billionaires. They seem to be of no earthly use to us anyway.
MizBejabbers: Firstly, there is ZERO evidence that I'm aware of that Clowny McTrump is a billionaire, especially after reading reports that Deutsche-bank apparently loaned him a couple billion or so when most other legitimate banks treated him like the "Radioactive Waste" that he truly is: So, if he's a billionaire WHY did he need to borrow billions after his Massive Business Failures, his New Jersey Casino Bankruptcies? And even if assets total in the billions, the real question is how much does he OWE on those Highly Leveraged Properties?
Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth
McTrump's last remaining nationalist followers apparently refuse to accept the fact that "Trump University" was SHUT Down by authorities and "Trump Foundation" was ordered to be "SHUT Down" as well by a judge because donations were shall we say "DIVERTED": This Corrupt Crumb makes Richard "Tricky" Nixon look like a Squeeky Clean Choir Boy which is nearly impossible to do and investigating his finances is an absolute must to get to the bottom of this SCAM: Furthermore, he MUST BE REMOVED by the LAW or Congress ASAP for the sake of this once great COLLAPSING Nation:
Just remember, he can't get away with it forever: Nobody does:
So odd that president Trump has not been brought up on "anything?" LOL
You just might want to realize if he has a lifetime of committing crimes, he would have been charged accordingly. You might also want to realize he follows the laws our Government has created.
Sorry Sharlee01, but you're just wrong again: He was SUED by those who he ripped off at the now defunct unlicensed "Trump University" and was according to court filings, forced to pay MILLIONS in settlements to the plaintiffs : If he was innocent, WHY didn't he take it to trial?
"Trump Foundation" which was ordered to be SHUT Down by a federal judge due to what the NYAG calls and I paraphrase "SHOCKING Illegality", is still under investigation for several different torts and or crimes:
Just two examples of this clowns nefarious behavior and actions, and you're not interested in full disclosure of his tax returns?
BTW - Reports indicate he recently ordered border agents and other white house officials to break the law and they essentially told him to go jump off the border fence as they should have: Just remember, nobody gets away with it forever:
And, as always to those with severe TDS, being sued automatically indicates guilt.
The Constitution disagrees, every court in the land disagrees, anyone with a grain of ethics disagrees, but you continue to promote it as reality.
You need a pretty strong case and evidence to file an action with pretty strong witnesses and i guess you just ignored the fact that it was "UNLICENSED" which makes it an Unlawful Operation on it's face: That was just one law broken:
WHY did Clowny McTrump conveniently neglect to file for a license if he planned on operating a legitimate business?:
In any event, considering he LIED through his false teeth about never settling law suits, he was ordered by a judge to pay MILLIONS in settlements to plaintiffs, seems like the plaintiffs had a pretty strong case of fraud against him: I wonder if he was able to pay them:
According to multiple investigative reports, apparently, he "STIFFS" workers as well just like he's attempting to "STIFF" our retired folks as well with his EVIL Budget that SLASHES Entitlements like Social Security & Medicare: GOD sees everything, and I believe will inevitably take care of him:
Oh yes, I forgot to add - if a lawsuit is settled (most common, particularly in the corporate world) it proves guilt. And, of course, the claim that "Trump stiffed me" is absolute, incontrovertible proof that it happened.
Try again. Maybe your god will fax down the proof you don't have.
We certainly need their tax dollars. I guess we could get by without their cash, we could just print money... I guess we don't need the jobs they create either? We could just give everybody some of that money we print.
The thousands of people drawing paychecks originating from the efforts of billionaires might disagree with you.
It may not matter. Tax returns for individuals within a state's jurisdiction would very likely closely match their federal returns, which is why . . .
"Under a bill that is scheduled to be introduced this week, the commissioner of the New York Department of Taxation and Finance would be permitted to release any state tax return requested by leaders of three congressional committees for any “specific and legitimate legislative purpose"(1)
(1) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/nyre … state.html
LOL If you can't get what you want legally, and you have the power to do it, change the law until you can! Round and round we go, and it always, somehow, ends up with "Might makes right!" - if I can force it I will do so and it will be right.
You either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. The treasury secretary apparently does, but I'll reserve judgement:
"Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Tuesday that his department intends to “follow the law” and is reviewing a request by a top House Democrat to provide President Donald Trump’s tax returns to lawmakers"(1).
Hi Don. As you say, it may not matter. But doesn't such an action as this stink to you? If current laws can't get what is wanted - then just make new laws that will? Remember the context Don, we are talking about a political maneuver, not a fix, as traditionally understood, for a problem.
I don't know, GA - there is certainly a problem in that Trump was not indicted for collusion, and something else is needed to get him out of office.
In that regard the tax thing might be a solution. Might because there is certainly no guarantee that anything is there to be found (they've all be audited by the IRS already, of course), but if not it could end up costing Trump so much when the information is given to his competitors that he'll back out voluntarily.
For me, what "stinks", is the fact that if someone testified under oath before Congress that you had committed tax fraud, and named two witnesses who could independently corroborate that fraud, a criminal investigation would likely have already started. Yet, when the subject of that allegation happens to be the current President, the laws of the land suddenly no longer apply.
What "stinks" is the fact that the current administration has done everything it can to usurp the Constitution and rule of law, while at the same time attacking and abusing anyone from the other Branches that criticise that userption.
What stinks is the fact that refusing to provide the tax returns requested by Congress flagrantly violates the letter of the law, and there is no justification for it.
So if the New York legislature want to do something that is perfectly within the law and within their Constitutional powers, in order to redress the latest violation, then no GA I don't think that stinks. Whatever smell such a maneuver might have had under normal circumstances, is overpowered by the current putrid stench coming from the White House.
Give that some thought PrettyPanther. It seems obvious that your thank you is for a brother-in-arms saying what you think, and what you think needs to be said, but will your thank you stand when this action is used against anyone other than Trump?
Would it still be a thank you when the person on the receiving end is a good person but a political foe? Or when it is merely a tool to accomplish a nefarious political aim?
I don't think that should be the purpose of any law. Even if I were in complete agreement with your Trump views, I still could not support this action.
I would agree with you, except: the state tax returns can only be requested for a specific and legitimate purpose AND after a request has been made to the Treasury and unlawfully denied.
I'm other words, if federal law has been defied, as this administration appears to be contemplating doing.
Outside of looking for political dirt to throw, what possible "specific and legitimate purpose" can there be to demand those returns? To see if they can find a crime happening, without having any cause to think there IS one?
Well hells bells. I just finished a long extremely rationally stated and supported, (probably would have qualified for a Pulitzer consideration), explanation why the absence of the "unlawfully defied" qualifier in the law negated your reason for disagreement...
... then lost it all when I hit the preview button.
Oh well, the short version is that I didn't see your "unlawfully defied" in the text of the law, so it doesn't change my perspective.
Don, regardless of whether there is, or is not any validity to your reasons, I can draw no other conclusion than, at least in this case, you support a rationalization that the end justifies the means. That is a justification I cannot support.
One characterization in your linked article, if provably accurate, indicates there might be a Constitutional issue deserving of review.
“This is a bill of attainder, aimed at one person,”
The question is; "Is it?" Your comment indicates it doesn't matter; whatever it takes is alright by me.
History is full of examples of such actions that I am sure you would find as deplorable as I do. Yet you think this one is okay because it is aimed at Trump.
I thought my reasoning was clear. As it wasn't let me be clearer:
Has the New York legislature broken any laws by exercising its power to propose a new state law? No. Is the law limited in scope to "statewide elected public officials including the president of the United States"? Yes. Is it directed specifically at one individual? No. Does it apply to members of the public? No.
Does Internal Revenue Code 3103(f) make it a legal requirement for the IRS to provide tax returns to Congress upon receipt of a formal written request? Yes. Does the law provide any clauses, provisos or caveats for not furnishing Congress with tax returns upon receipt of a formal written request? No. Is the IRS therefore, on the face of it, currently breaking the law? Yes. Is it likely doing so at the behest of the current president? Yes. Is that an abuse of presidential authority? Yes. Does it usurp the rule of law? Yes.
So there is no reasonable equivalence between these actions. One action is objectively worse than the other. For me, it's that simple.
But to be clear, even if Trump were not in office, I would have no issue with the proposed NY law, due to its narrow scope.
If you want to play "what if" or "slippery slope" we can, but I strongly suspect the impact of any "what if" scenario involving the IRS and Donald Trump choosing to break further laws, will far outweigh the impact of any scenario involving the New York legislature acting within the law, in a way you happen to dislike.
To Quote myself from many months ago:
What type of 'investigation' do you think these people, the folks who have wormed their way into D.C. for decades, like the worst form of parasite or disease known to man, will conduct?
Sadly, people's hatred is being fixated on Trump, by our loving and honest media, and by groups funded by Open Society Foundation. Yes Trump may be a less than ideal representative for our Country, but he is there because the 'establishment' politicians produced no better choice, no better alternative.
The people who hate him don't seem to realize that he is a symptom of something terribly wrong, not the cause. He is there because enough people in America have awoken to the fact that their government no longer served their best interests.
I am not saying Trump is a great guy (that is a different topic), what I am saying is that those who have had control of D.C. for decades now (those who control the politicians and positions that matter in D.C.) will do everything in their power to destroy the people's belief in him.
The government IS a dictatorship right now, one of corrupt politicians and D.C.bureaucrats, so long as there are enough corrupt Congressmen and women who will do the wrong things for Americans, and for America's future, it is just as bad as any dictatorship... one taking us all down a dangerous path.
And as the pressure builds, the politicians seem to stoke these animosities ever higher, so that people hate each other, blame each other, based on race or religion or political party, rather than focusing their blame on the real source of our problems, an out of control corrupt federal government.
With a dictatorship you can identify the evil, and work to overthrow it. With a false 'democracy' many of the people remain ignorant of the truth, and will fight those who are trying to expose the corruption and criminal activity being done.
For example the ACA (Obamacare) was written to make the Insurance and Pharma companies even richer. It was well known by those who wrote it, and those politicians most in support of it, that it was a new way to control people, take more of their money, increasing costs and taxes, both the government and corporations win… the people lose.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenz … dfbdac3077
http://healthoverprofit.org/2017/02/05/ … n-history/
The people in control, don’t answer to, or do anything on behalf of the best interests of the citizens of America, if anything, they work in direct opposition to what is best for America, and all Americans.
That is why Trump got elected, too many people are aware of this, and the fact that the 'progressives' or 'left' or 'liberals' or 'Socialists' or whatever you want to label this current conglomeration that is the Democratic Party are doubling down on their efforts to destroy him will only make him that much more popular with the majority of people... this despite how truly awful he can be in public or with his tweets.
Well, we obviously have liberals who are as obsessed with their politics as T-fans are obsessed about theirs - so this is not a surprise, now that they have more power on capital hill.
Trump uses force to get his way; and that seems to be all he understands: bully & force things down the country's throat. Doesn't it seem logical that those things would be used against him in return? Law of Attraction - you reap what you sow; and Trump always manifests what he creates for himself, just like we all do.
I don't really care at this point whether we see his tax returns, or not. However, I like that NJ made a law that says they won't put you on the ballot unless returns are submitted. Trump will probably find a way around that for 2020, but if he does - it just creates more suspicion about him.
He HAS a devious business reputation that suggests we all SHOULD be suspicious until he is proven innocent or guilty. How irresponsible would we be to simply trust this man as blindly as his supporters trust him? That's just bizarre. If he was as smart as he claims to be (and assuming he is innocent), he would have voluntary submitted them a long time ago so that this issue didn't become yet another big question that swirls around him.
Then again, I also think he enjoys creating the riptides and diverting our attention with this type of 'silly' thing.
It would seem if Congress hopes to see President Trump's taxes they might want to get to work and change the law. I would think our lawmakers would realize this. The Democratic Congress should start working on making America great again instead of worrying about the IRS's job. They missed on Russia collusion so they doubled back to gather feed for their base. rump taxes! How foolish, with all that is going on int eh country they concentrate on this. It's actually laughable.
We do have a 2005 record that Trump paid more in taxes than a lot of liberal politicians. Wouldn't see an issue in seeing it, just puts more of them to shame.
The FBI was "weaponized" and used as a political weapon to harm the president.
It didn't work, so the IRS is next. Will it be followed by the CIA and then the Coast Guard, Air Force and NASA? Will the 82nd Airborne be dropped onto the White House lawn, guns blazing in a coup attempt?
Stay tuned to see just how far Democrats are willing to go to secure the presidency themselves. This is not the first time powerful politicians have subverted federal organizations for their own political uses - the only question is how far they will go. I hope the Secret Service is on their toes.
Weaponized? If so, it was by Republicans. A Republican appointed AD. A Republican investigator.
An interesting concept; that if it is Republicans misusing the assets of the federal government it is alright. I'm surprised you agree with that.
We have yet to see the Mueller report and what's in it. This charge of weaponization and that somehow investigating a guy whose campaign met with the Russians prior to an election where the Russian interfered to help him win and who has business interests in Russia - that doing an investigation to make sure nothing illegal happened - that's somehow not a smart thing to do?
He says there was no collusion and that's good enough for all his supporters. Hillary Clinton explains Benghazi to everyone and that's not good enough for the same people. Both things needed to be investigated. That's what Congress does apparently.
I'd imagine if Richard Nixon were President and Watergate happened again, his supporters would say the same thing you are saying. "Oh, these investigations are silly."
How is an investigation that produced over 100 indictments and exposed a number of crimes silly?
Were it an investigation into Russian collusion I would not have said that, even given the extremely poor and biased "reports" that started the rumor.
But it was not an investigation into Russian collusion; it was an open ended investigation into anything that could be found that would politically harm the president or anyone connected with him. And that takes it from something faintly reasonable into a gross misuse of political power. And you know that; it was, simply put, a return to the tactics of J Edgar Hoover in using the FBI for political gain. That it has been done since that time, notably by the Clintons with the IRS, does not excuse that abuse.
It isn't about protecting the president from any wrongdoings; it is about misuse of power, pure and simple. We require that the police not engage in such "fact finding" missions, and there is no reason to think it is reasonable to do it in the name of removing political opponents.
I wish the guy would go ahead and share them. No law says he has to. The democrats are desperate for some way to redeem themselves after the collusion hoax fell apart.
No, Pres. Trump should not release his tax returns
I would not do it just to piss-off the Democrats. What is their legitimate claim for demanding them?
Hopefully, they won't publicly declare it is to see how much money Russia has given him. Or that they have the Right to demand them because other presidents have released theirs. Or that he can't be innocent, (innocent of what?), and must have something, (anything, please...), to hide if he doesn't.
Maybe they could just step-up and say we haven't nailed him yet, but if you just let us keep digging we are sure we can find something.
With all the talk about Trump's base, I wonder that the Democrats don't consider how obvious their purpose appears to Pres. Trump's non-base; Independents and swing voters.
Geesh. By the time the Dems get done with this, and the coming fiasco of their efforts regarding the full Mueller report, I might turn into an anybody-but-a-Democrat Trump voter.
I tried to vote my conscience last time with a write-in, but the way the Dems are going now I may turn into an anger voter just to spite the Dems.
If you don't have anything to hide ... How much money Russia gave him... Geez.
"What is their legitimate claim for demanding them?"
Uh, massive evidence of Russian money flowing into his businesses. Overwhelming evidence of Russian interference in our elections including indictments. A Mueller report than didn't "exonerate" him.
National history with all Presidents and Presidential candidates releasing their tax returns over the last 40 years since Nixon.
Why do you want to protect him? How very blue.
"Uh, massive evidence of Russian money flowing into his businesses. Overwhelming evidence of Russian interference in our elections including indictments. A Mueller report than didn't "exonerate" him."
Cue the theme from the Twilight Zone.
Deny, deflect or rationalize this my Fox News friend:
Interference: "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government."
Obstruction: "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
Neither guilt nor innocence.
Oh, and how about those 34 indictments of Russian companies and intelligence agents?
I'm sure there is help with you DTS if you would only seek it out. You are getting worse.
Thank you. I see you can't answer the points in my comment, which explains your emotional response.
You've lost all sense of objectivity on this topic. You ask same questions and make the same statements again and again and again. How would it be beneficial to answer someone who refuses to acknowledge the reality of the answers they are given? It's pointless.
My comment wasn't about protecting Pres. Trump promisem. I don't think you can find anything I said that indicates that, unless you hold an attitude I just saw expressed in another thread; "If you aren't with me, you are against me."
Is that the perspective that prompted your conclusion that I was protecting him?
Your entire comment is about protecting Trump and attacking Democrats as well as my post. Geez.
You are half right, I was attacking the Dems. Since you have restated your opinion that my comment was protecting Pres. Trump you should easily be able to point to something I said that amounted to protecting Pres. Trump.
As I have seen you say; "I will wait for your reply? Or, as I would say; I will wait for you to support your comments."
I have never said in nine years on these forums that "I will wait for your reply".
I can't ever seem to get you to represent me with any degree of accuracy.
Regardless, you said Trump should not release his tax returns, which break 40 years of Presidential protocol. I don't see how in the world that's not a defense of Trump.
Likewise, your thorough attack of the Dems is an implicit defense of Trump.
You have to ignore the reason I said I, (he), would not release the tax returns, to think it was a defense of Pres. Trump.
I said, "I would not do it just to piss-off the Democrats." That doesn't seem to be, and wasn't intended to be, a defense of Pres. Trump.
Your contention that any bashing of Democrats is a defense, (even an implicit one), of Pres. Trump leaves me high and dry. Such a claim seems so without merit that I don't think any response would be helpful.
If there is so much overwhelming "evidence" then why can't anyone produce it after two long years of investigation? You can make all the assumptions you want, but do you have something that will hold up in a court of law (not the court of public opinion or the court of Chuck and Nancy) ?
"Uh, massive evidence of Russian money flowing into his businesses. "
Please supply some form of proof to back up your statement.
"Why do you want to protect him? How very blue." You know what we all have the right to privacy when it comes to tax returns. I for one would be very upset to lose that right.
Are you channeling wilderness this morning? ;-)
It is perfectly reasonable and logical to want to see Trump's tax returns given his known financial interests around the world, including an oft-stated desire for a Trump Tower in Moscow combined with his inexplicably obsequious behavior toward Putin, as well as his financial ties in other foreign countries such as Saudi Arabia.
I'm.surprised you don't see how a man like Trump could be compromised by that. It's probably why Kushner and Ivanka couldn't pass a security clearance.
We, the people who choose a President, deserve to know if he is a security risk and also whether he is a tax cheat.
"Are you channeling wilderness this morning? ;-)"
Yes and no. He's only revealing his true self and not the rhetorical one that he uses much more often.
promisem, I am taking your comments, (particularly this one), as bordering on being insulting.
Don't take that to mean that I am complaining; insults don't hurt me, but I do take your comment to imply that my forum participation is frequently dishonest. You imply that my "true self" is different than what I portray it to be in these forums.
To that point, you may be partially right, but not in the way you might think. I frequently bite my tongue and couch my words carefully so that I don't just outright declare someone's thoughts stupid. My thinking is that I am just trying to be civil. And realistic. What good is gained by telling an idiot they are an idiot? If they truly are an idiot, or if their comment truly is idiotic, telling them so won't make a difference, they won't believe you.
I have heard it said that stating the obvious is seldom a profitable effort.
In our most recent exchanges, I have asked, (personally I would consider such requests as challenges), you to stand behind your words. rather than just declare "I am done discussing this with you.
This time, like your thoughts concerning Pres. Trump's tax returns, I am demanding that you explain yourself. You accuse me of dishonest participation, so back up your words. Put-up or shut-up bud.
GA, many of your comments border on insulting, including your previous one on this thread.
"What good is gained by telling an idiot they are an idiot?" is a perfect example of the subtle and insidious way you insult people with whom you disagree. The fact that you don't use the word "you" in the sentence doesn't change your meaning. You are talking to me and about me in your comment.
Your false claims -- such as "you accuse me of dishonest participation", which I did not say or do -- are another example of why our exchanges have become so poisonous. They also are why I said "I am done discussing this with you" on a previous exchange.
It's quite true that you have two personas in your comments, one that is somewhat to the right and another that is far right. The fact that you take such a minor, non-judgmental comment as insulting is more proof of your hostility.
So instead of claiming innocence, please don't make subtle cheap shots or false comments about me in your replies anymore.
"Put-up or shut-up" yourself. Try debating instead of provoking.
By the way, I am not an idiot.
In the spirit of debate, I will try to offer some clarity promisem. I think a method of point and counter-point is a valid debate approach.
"He's only revealing his true self and not the rhetorical one that he uses much more often."
From my perspective saying that my "true self" is different from the one generally represented by my comments* is an accusation of dishonesty, of falsity, of saying one thing while believing another.
*serious comments, not joking or sarcastic, (I try to avoid sarcasm), "replying-in-kind" comments
Yet you say that you didn't accuse me of that. You say that my claim is a false one. "...which I did not say or do ..."
Can you honestly say you would not have a similar perception? Can you honestly say that your quoted words are not a charge of duplicity?
Of course, those were "rhetorical" questions because I really don't see how--taking your words at face value--you could deny them. If I am wrong about this, then I can only offer that you should review your choice of words to be sure they convey the meaning you intend.
As for calling, (or, with the lack of a "you," inferring), you an idiot, my "true" self, (yes, I am throwing your words back at you), did not do that or intend to do that.
I was addressing a point; your contention that I had a "true" self and a "rhetorical" one when I said;
"To that point, you may be partially right, but not in the way you might think. I frequently bite my tongue and couch my words carefully so that I don't just outright declare someone's thoughts stupid."
That was an explanation that it is correct that my "true self" is restrained, compared to my "rhetorical" self because allowing it free rein would be too rudely blunt.
Hopefully, you can see, when it is parsed from my illustration, that it was not directed at you personally.
I typically disagree with your ideological perspective and have told you so in both clear statements and rebuttal statements, but have I ever called you an idiot or used words that inferred such, (until your perception of this most recent comment)? I don't think I have, but that is just my perception of my recollection, you may remember otherwise. If so, I can honestly say it was never intended.
Yet it appears you took that part as personally directed at you. I don't think that is my fault. My use of "idiot" in my previous comment was an extreme illustration explaining why I do try to be civil and at least semi-polite. It was clearly in the context of that explanation. You are right that I was talking to you, and the use of idiot was intended to be sharp and clear. That you took it as an inference to you is on you.
However, once more, for clarity and in the spirit of honest discussion, I do not think you are an idiot and it was not my intention to infer you were one. There are other adjectives I wouldn't rule out considering, but idiot isn't one of them. I pause to consider if, like my advice to you; I should have reviewed my words more carefully in this instance, and I think my choice was fair. They were intended to explain what I perceived you to mean by the "rhetorical-self" comment construction.
Relative to having two personas, I would say that since I think I have generally "purple" views; red on some blue on others, that I have multiple "personas" as you define them. If you want an example of, what I think is, a single persona/ideology; look to Jake.
I am asserting my innocence promisem. Your own quoted words belie your contention that you did not say my forum participation is duplicitous. I offer what I think is a valid explanation for the use of "idiot," and a clear statement that I do not think you are one, and, a clear explanation why I think you drew an incorrect inference.
Finally, as you can see, (and maybe it is as wrong as your "idiot" inference), I did not take your statement to be minor nor non-judgemental and am at a loss to understand how you can see it as such.
My true self would say my responses are lengthy because I try to explain and support what I say. I see yours as mostly opinionated declarations that you refuse to support with more than just a repetition of the declaration.
An example might be my request for proof that a previous comment amounted to "protecting" Pres. Trump. Your response appears to be; because I was bashing Democrats. If I bashed Democrats for failing to participate in their Congressional duty of dealing with our immigration problem would you also see that as protecting Pres. Trump?
Note: Although I continued to use your "rhetorical" descriptor as representative of being different from "true," I really don't know what your "Rhetorical self" means. But it sounded negatively intended, (duplicitous, disingenuous), so that is how I took it.
Note 2; Hmm... have I really gotten away with calling you an idiot and supported that with textual construction that denies you the textual proof to support your claim that I did? True self or rhetorical self - which one wrote that? ;-)
The devil is on my shoulder promisem, in the spirit of lively jest, I just had to come back with this one:
"I am not an idiot."
LOL That "I'll accept the results of the investigation" lasted just until it came up negative, didn't it? Because we all know Trump is guilty of something (just as GA says) and you can find it if you just keep looking long enough, hard enough, and with enough resources behind you.
I haven't seen the results of the investigation. Have you?
I saw the report. Just as you did. But it is not sufficient, is it, because after all it came up negative - something that is completely unacceptable to Trump haters regardless of what they said about accepting it.
Perhaps if you could just get the CIA involved this time. Or maybe the Air Force; anything that can dig up the dirt you just know has to be there, whether the full power and resources of the FBI and two years of digging can find it or not.
You mean Barr's four-page "thing" that even he won't call a "summary" because that would be inaccurate?
You know, Barr, the guy who got the job because, like Tricky Dick, he thinks a president can't obstruct justice?
That four-page thing is a "report" to you?
It is a report. That you don't like it because it didn't result in indicting the president for collusion does not change that and does not make it any less of a report. "I will accept the results of the investigation", remember? Not "I will accept the results of the investigation if it sends Trump to prison".
Again, I haven't seen the results of the investigation. I have seen a summary that the writer, who agrees with Tricky Dick that a president can't obstruct justice. says isn't a summary.
I'm not surprised you're satisfied, though.
And it is certainly no surprise that you are NOT satisfied. That won't happen until your president is in prison, will it? It was never true that you or anyone else would accept negative results, was it?
How many times do I have to tell you I haven't seen the results and neither have you?
Given that you have seem the summary there is exactly zero reason to think you'll be happy with anything at all that does not imprison Trump, for you will read into the full report anything that you think will harm him. Whether reasonable or not, true or not, there or not, you will read it into the report. After all, he is guilty of massive crimes...in your eyes, and evidence is not necessary to come to that conclusion.
Which, just as you say, makes the whole thing hopeless. When truth and reality are unnecessary to convict, it is hopeless.
After all these years you really don't know me, do you?
Well, one of us doesn't know you. Or perhaps doesn't want to admit the underlying philosophy of "might makes right" and "the ends justify the means".
C'mon, PP - I'm pretty sure you are one of the ones that declared you would accept the report, yet here you are saying it is all bogus because the result isn't what you wanted. You were so positive guilt would be found you made the statement, but when it wasn't then you back away from it...because it is obviously bogus as you know Trump is guilty, somehow.
Sigh....I will accept the report. I have no reason to accept that a four-page non-summary created by a AG hand-picked for his belief that Presidents can't obstruct justice is fully accurate, especially when the Mueller team created summaries that could be quickly released for public consumption that were rejected by Barr.
You can readily swallow that load of BS that is backfiring bigly on Barr (i used that word just for you), but I cannot. Who is being more rational? I'm sure you believe Trump was born in Germany and that the wall is already being built, too.
Something that begins with "Dear" and ends with "Sincerely" sure sounds like a letter to me.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 … eport.html
Pretty P, Try not to fall for the "nationalist' alternative fact nonsense because The TRUTH is, despite what the alt-right is peddling today, nobody has seen the actual Muller report except for Donny the imbecile dictator's shill of an appointee and Rosenstein so nobody else knows the content of the approximately 400 pages submitted by Mueller's Prosecutors:
It's that kind of FALSE Narrative which is bringing this site down into the gutter:
The COVER-Up of Mueller's report continues because Trump's illegitimate political career is TOAST and has been for a very very long time but I don't know why they are trying to prolong the agony:
As for his tax returns, it's a no-brainer, he's nothing special in any way and as a matter of fact, he's proven to be well BELOW Average in just about every aspect including his bizarre appearance, he's no more privileged than any other person who occupied our oval office and for decades important financial information has been provided to "we the people" for inspection to ensure they were not common crooks or in the pocket of our enemies as Donald appears to be from televised behavior and tweet tizzy fits:
With all the PUBLIC Evidence of his cozyness, cowering and slobbering over our enemies, tax return disclosure is a must and ALL the investigations must also continue so we can get to the bottom of this elderly 72 year old:
I agree with you PrettyPanther, "It is perfectly reasonable and logical to want to see Trump's tax returns..." That's just human curiosity. The reasons could range from those of the Democrats to just envious voyeurism.
But that is not a legitimate basis for a demand.
We know our perspectives most often vary, so it is not surprising that in many cases, I don't see "channeling Wilderness" as the bad thing that you apparently do.
You just sounded like wilderness, so I said so. In this case, it is not a bad thing. We simply disagree. The Democrats do have a legitimate basis to demand Trump's tax returns, the most compelling being that the majority of Americans believe it important to see them, as has been the precedent for decades now. Our Congressional representatives are, in this instance, doing what their constituents are asking of them.
??? That a large group of Trump haters, desperate to find a way to get him out of office, claim it is "important" to see his private information is a legitimate basis to demand them?
You have GOT to be kidding! By that reasoning there was a "legitimate basis" to keep slaves, murder Indians, hang people on crosses and imprison anyone of Japanese heritage! Mob justice is never a legitimate reason for anything, and you know it.
Aw, wilderness, you do have a flair for the dramatic. There are many other legitimate reasons that have already been thoroughly elucidated on these forums. I'm sure you've seen them.
Polls have consistently shown that about two-thirds of Americans want Trump to release his tax returns and well over sixty percent want Democrats to demand them.
Do you believe two-thirds of Americans are Trump haters? I don't, but if they are, perhaps there is good reason.
"There are many other legitimate reasons that have already been thoroughly elucidated on these forums. I'm sure you've seen them."
I have indeed. And when they are boiled down to basics they all come to the same thing: "Because I might be able to hurt him with the knowledge found there". Which is what I said.
"Polls have consistently shown that about two-thirds of Americans want Trump to release his tax returns and well over sixty percent want Democrats to demand them."
Again, your point is that because people want <blacks to sit in the back of the bus> those returns they should get <blacks restricted to the back of the bus> them? I don't think so.
If Americans demand a sitting president reveal his personal tax information, let them pass a law requiring it. Until then they have exactly zero basis for such a demand. (Greed and hate are not a basis).
On the other hand I'm not against Democrats demanding an illegal action such as the IRS giving them personal information they are not entitled to have so I guess I fall into that 60%. Do them good to get shut down, hard, yet again.
(We've already seen what happens when the "majority" want to hurt someone politically, and spent years and millions proving...nothing. Let's stop the madness before it spreads to demanding the same thing of everyone in the country, and at least pretend we are a nation of laws, not a hanging mob.)
Your biased interpretation of the reasons is not shared by many. I'm guessing his 35% base is right there with ya, though.
Of course it isn't. A great many people view their curiosity and/or the need to find dirt as viable reasons to demand what they are not legally entitled to have.
It's actually rather comical for without the supporting ledger entries a tax return isn't going to tell them anything at all. At most it will give them fuel to make claims that he isn't paying "enough", whatever that might mean to them.
If that's true, then Trump is a fool for not releasing them. His supporters won't budge no matter what is on there and his detractors already know he doesn't pay taxes, so what prevents him from releasing them as has been done by others for decades?. I'm guessing it's simple childish vanity which, in my opinion, is just another indicator of his lack of character.
The nationalists around here keep throwing around the phrase "Trump Haters": I can't think of better reasons than his maniacal criminal efforts to take away American's Health-Care, or his mad efforts to Dismember our Social Security and Medicare, or his disrespect for our Military POWs and Law Enforcement to HATE Trump and his Communist CONservative Congressmen:
If you don't HATE an orange nut case like Donald Trump for his unlawful attacks on your child's Health-Care, when do you HATE someone?
"his detractors already know he doesn't pay taxes"
Now this simple, short, statement is a good indication of why NOT to release his taxes. It is a outright lie, plain and simple, and a good indication of what detractors will do with his tax forms. Spin them into outright lies and spread it as truth.
But maybe it IS vanity. Being vain is not a valid excuse to demand private information be made public.
I should have phrased that better: His detractors already know he didn't pay federal income taxes for years. Because, as he says, no one knows more about taxes than he does.
Donald Trump Acknowledges Not Paying Federal Income Taxes for Years
And, in case you are not aware: The 1924 law Democrats may tap to see Trump's tax returns
Well damn, with your link to that 1924 law, it looks like the President might be in for an audit on a scale he would never have imagined.
It also looks like that law provides the legitimacy for their "demand" that I denied existing before this. Oh well.twice in four decades isn't too bad. ;-)
The man that you call a perpetual liar, and don't believe a word he says, tells you he didn't pay taxes for "years" and you believe him. You even expand it to "ever" from "years" without ever knowing just what "years" was intended to mean or what it actually DID mean?
You also forget to mention that he "prepaid" his taxes, in a manner of speaking, according to the laws of the United States - something that would seem rather important, don't you think? You seem to have forgotten that the only years we have his information from shows he paid taxes. If truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth seems to have been set aside, hasn't it?
Why? Because it meets your criteria for finding dirt, legal, political, moral or any other form?
As far as the law, it does appear that congress has a legal right to demand those returns. Of course, as we all know and accept, if they do so the returns will become public knowledge, conveniently "leaked" with the entire world privy to the private information in them. And as we all know, the only possible reason to demand them is to cause political harm to a political opponent...exactly as was done with an open ended FBI investigation into anything they wanted that was connected, however tenuously, to the president.
Why don't we all just give it up, admit to living in a dictatorship without legal protection from any politician that might want to use the resources of the richest nation on earth for personal gain, and accept that our justice system is nothing but a play toy for the rich of the country?
It is just this kind of ploy, of abuse of power by politicians, that got Trump elected. It isn't about Donald Trump at all; it is about the cesspool on the hill that thinks it can do whatever it wants...and often can and does.
I don't see the point of continuing this discussion. Congress has the duty to provide oversight and the legal authority to request Trump's tax returns. That's the bottom line whether you like it or not.
Have a nice day.
You're right - there is little reason to continue. To those that are overcome with hatred any means is justified in gaining the removal of our elected president from the office. They will even claim that "oversight" includes searching tax returns for something that be used to hurt politically even when it is known the IRS has already searched for illegal activity.
At least this time there is no nonsense about hearing rumors, as we did in the collusion fiasco. This time it is straight up "I'm looking for dirt and will use any means possible to find it".
We do simply disagree on this PrettyPanther. You see "demand" as legitimate, and I see "ask" as legitimate.
Even in agreeing with your reasons, I don't see them as validation for "demand." Just for clarity, the "demand" I am speaking of is the one with the force of law, not just a demand of forceful asking.
"Bad" depends on whether or not you are a victim. Like minds ignore bad behavior by each other, especially in these forums.
So now it is more than a difference of opinions, it is "bad behavior?"
That sure sounds like you are saying folks that don't agree with you are bad, (or at the least, behaving badly).
No worries promisem, I don't hold that same opinion. And I don't feel like a victim.
I certainly turned into an angry Trump voter last time. I will once again vote Trump, just due to his stans on immigration, and this man has the economy humming. Just not willing to return to same old - same old.
Meanwhile, do the Trump de-railers not like the job Trump is doing?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/busi … rates.html
1. The total new jobs added over the past 12 months is about half a million:
a. Professional and business services / white-collar positions added 37,000 jobs in March.
b. Health care services added 61,000.
"This is too true."
"President Trump’s older sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, has retired as a federal appellate judge, ending an investigation into whether she violated judicial conduct rules by participating in fraudulent tax schemes with her siblings.
The court inquiry stemmed from complaints filed last October, after an investigation by The New York Times found that the Trumps had engaged in dubious tax schemes during the 1990s, including instances of outright fraud, that greatly increased the inherited wealth of Mr. Trump and his siblings. Judge Barry not only benefited financially from most of those tax schemes, The Times found; she was also in a position to influence the actions taken by her family".
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/us/m … quiry.html
You can tell who the gullible sheep are here. They are the ones who keep referring to Barr's summary as the be all, end all of the Mueller conclusions. Barr is clearly partisan. His statement about spying confirmed this.
The rest of the rational planet wants to see the entirety of the report before forming any conclusions. We want to see the obstruction of justice evidence, although many of us heard with our own ears when Trump admitted he fired Comey because of the Russia thing on live tv and concluded that as an admission of guilt.
I'm always stunned by the arrogance of liberals. They all think they are so intelligent and yet, they all lack a depth of character that would enable them to admit to a mistake and move on. I would say most liberals I've encountered lack so much in the way of being able to cope with reality, it is a bit frightening. Don't they realize, they've been wrong about virtually everything they stated about President Donald Trump. I support him 100 percent not releasing his tax returns. Who knows what these bunch of loons would say about it. I believe the intelligent and honest liberal, or progressive, will always remain a myth and only be part of popular folklore.
Here is a very powerful video of a man who was once a liberal Democrat and has since walked away from it. What he says makes perfect sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont … Pjs7uoOkag
To be honest, I don't know why you bother replying to a liberal since "the intelligent and honest liberal, or progressive, will always remain a myth and only be part of popular folklore.". Further, "they all lack a depth of character that would enable them to admit to a mistake and move on."
Clearly, you are wasting your time here. The only reason I can think of for a superior intellect such as yourself to continue this discussion is....
Damn, I'm too ignorant to think of a good reason.
Watch the video?
I'm doing my part to help lead the misguided liberals toward the light of truth and reality. I believe there is hope for them. I have not given up hope for them. I am here to help. It is my mission.
Boy! What an echo chamber, lol.
"There is no existing law which requires the President or any other private citizen to hand over their taxes to Congress." - Actually, that is not even close to being true.
- But the law could not be clearer: Congress’ tax committees have the authority to obtain Trump’s tax returns on request - that would be section Section 6103(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code.
- Is that section constitutional? According to the conservative Supreme Court it is - see https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-suprem … 22-11-22/: "The justices denied Trump's Oct. 31 emergency application to block a lower court's ruling that upheld the Ways and Means Committee's request for his tax records as a justified part of the panel's legislative work. No justice publicly dissented from the decision."
- Why should they have them? Here is a partial list:
1. To determine if U.S. national security is at risk of being compromised by the president’s financial conflicts of interest
2. To determine if Trump has conflicts of interests bearing on his trade and tariffs policies
3.To determine whether the president is violating the U.S. Constitution by receiving benefits from foreign countries without Congress’ consent
4. To determine whether he is benefiting from his tax policies despite his many public assertions to the contrary
5. To determine whether the IRS is adequately auditing the president
6. To inform the consideration of additional disclosure requirements for candidates and officeholders
- What right does Congress have in releasing Trump's returns? Because they specifically wrote that ability into the law.? Read this Lawfare article to find out - https://www.lawfareblog.com/house-democ … hould-they
Odd - I read the link and found nothing indicating a specific law that allows anyone's tax returns to be released to the public. Only to Congress and only to specific committees there.
Handing over versus seizure is a pretty wide chasm. After all the hand wringing and both sides battering one another over this topic, no one has been able to point out a law which says any American citizen must disclose their taxes to the public. Congress can seize them, but that's completely different, so no win for Esoteric and his round about non-answer. State the law please and prove me wrong.
I agree, I have read all I could find on this subject. It certainly was legal for the Supreme Court to order that the Congressional judicial committee had the right to see the desired taxes, but I am unsure if the SC stipulated they could share them with the public if Trump did not desire to do so.
I have not found a transcript of the SC order. This SC ruling could be a game changer, they may have stipulated if the records could be
shared. The ruling has not been posted on the SC website as of yet.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/r … oorders/22
I can't believe that congress feels it necessary or even legal to drop Trump's tax returns to the public. My gut tells me this is not legal. I will save my indignation on this issue.
The House Ways and Means Committee has the discretion to make tax information public.
IRC Section 6103(f) gives Congress the discretion to make tax returns or return information public.
https://www.americanprogress.org/articl … -congress/
They do, yes. Does that make it ethical to make public information that can damage a legally operating business? Not in my book.
Congress could have dissected those returns and made public anything that was illegal...but they didn't. They made an enormous, years long, effort to publicize documents that the vast majority of Americans will not understand...but will make them believe something was wrong even if it isn't. Just another political ploy to remove a political opponent, using every dirty trick in the book.
This is interesting. the law was amended and went into effect in Jan 2021. Please note the dates.
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USC … pB-sec6103
United States Code, 2018 Edition, Supplement 2, Title 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Bills and Statutes
United States Code
SuDoc Class Number
Title 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 61 - INFORMATION AND RETURNS
Subchapter B - Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information
Laws In Effect As Of Date
January 13, 2021
What a slimy bunch, we have Government overreach weaponizing anything they feel fit to weaponize. The Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on.
Then a Republican Congress can do the same thing - funny how the IRS laws say that releasing an individuals taxes aren't allowed (26 U.S.C. § 6103) but also say they can.
Yes, they can and if the shoe was on the other foot I would bet my life they'd have done the exact same thing.
They will do the same thing most likely with many. I can't see them not releasing Hunter's Taxes, as well as his uncles.
I predict they will impeach Biden, knowing the Senate will not approve of anything. What dirty tricks one does the other will copy.
Yes, it could also be called precedence, such as dumping private citizens' tax records out for no real reason at all --- just because they could.
OH and yes, they better impeach Biden, he is not fit mentally to hold the job.
From here on in we need anyone running for President to be required to have a cognitive test, as well as a dam good physical.
by Scott Belford 3 weeks ago
I am not going down the rabbit hole of whether the House Democrats releasing some of his taxes is legal or not - just know that it is. Is it ethical? In my opinion it is because they are exposing a probable crime of a former president, and it is no more unethical that the Republican's...
by IslandBites 6 years ago
“I am the king of debt,” Mr. Trump once said on CNN. “I love debt.”A New York Times investigation into Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's US real-estate holdings revealed that companies he owns have at least $650 million in debt — twice the amount that Trump's public filings, made as...
by Randy Godwin 6 years ago
What's hidden in Trump's Income Tax returns?Since there's so much speculation by Trump supporters about Hillary's supposed illegal woes-even if she hasn't been convicted or charged with anything--I'm looking for those same opiners to speculate on what The Donald has to hide in his tax...
by Mr Bueno 6 years ago
Why hasn't Donald Trump published his tax returns?If you check the panama papers searchable database, Trump sure does seem to have a lot of offshore companies. Has he not released his tax details because he is dodging paying tax, or is there another reason?
by Catherine Mostly 5 years ago
Rachel Maddow reports Trump's leaked 2005 tax returns. Can bad news by the media also be good news?Media seems to have tainted many things about the 2016 election from beginning to end. ALL news is written to 1) make most money & 2) reflect the view of the person writing it - meaning...
by Dr Billy Kidd 10 years ago
The Senator from Nevada, Reid, says a Bain Capital employee told him Mitt Romney did not pay taxes for 10 years. If this proves to be true, does this change anything? Won't some people simply regard Romney as more of a hero, wishing they could do the same thing.
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena 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.|