Congress Demands Trump's Taxes !

Jump to Last Post 1-11 of 11 discussions (129 posts)
  1. RJ Schwartz profile image92
    RJ Schwartzposted 7 weeks ago

    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 ?

    1. promisem profile image96
      promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      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

      1. Sharlee01 profile image86
        Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. promisem profile image96
          promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. Sharlee01 profile image86
            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            "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.

      2. RJ Schwartz profile image92
        RJ Schwartzposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Speculation does not amount to fact.....
        But then again Liberals never look at facts first

        1. promisem profile image96
          promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          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."

          1. Readmikenow profile image95
            Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            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.

      3. Sharlee01 profile image86
        Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        "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

        .

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          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.

    2. RTalloni profile image91
      RTalloniposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. MizBejabbers profile image91
        MizBejabbersposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Clinton was harassed by a special counsel just as Trump says he has been the victim of a "witchhunt". Clinton also voluntarily turned over his tax returns as have other Presidents. What is Trump trying to hide?

    3. crankalicious profile image90
      crankaliciousposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

    4. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      "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))

      1. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        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.

        GA

        1. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
            JAKE Earthshineposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            https://hubstatic.com/14483925.jpg

            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

            1. Sharlee01 profile image86
              Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              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 !!!

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                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. big_smile

                1. MizBejabbers profile image91
                  MizBejabbersposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
                    JAKE Earthshineposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    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:

                  2. Sharlee01 profile image86
                    Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    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.

                    .

                  3. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    The thousands of people drawing paychecks originating from the efforts of billionaires might disagree with you.

        2. Don W profile image84
          Don Wposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          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

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Don W profile image84
              Don Wposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              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).

              (1) https://www.apnews.com/fb77ba999d954e068c348a8bfb0c4abc

          2. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            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.

            GA

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              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.

            2. Don W profile image84
              Don Wposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                PrettyPantherposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                Thank you.

                1. GA Anderson profile image91
                  GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  GA

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                    PrettyPantherposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    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.

              2. GA Anderson profile image91
                GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                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.

                GA

                1. Don W profile image84
                  Don Wposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image91
                    GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Harumphhhh! Well I never....! *sticks nose in air, turns back, and walks off muttering...

                    GA ;-)

                  2. PrettyPanther profile image84
                    PrettyPantherposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Thank you, again. :-)

    5. Ken Burgess profile image90
      Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

    6. Misfit Chick profile image73
      Misfit Chickposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      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. wink

      https://hubstatic.com/14493546.jpg

    7. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

  2. StevenHall4646 profile image73
    StevenHall4646posted 7 weeks ago

    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.

  3. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 7 weeks ago

    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.

    1. crankalicious profile image90
      crankaliciousposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Weaponized? If so, it was by Republicans. A Republican appointed AD. A Republican investigator.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. crankalicious profile image90
          crankaliciousposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            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.

  4. Live to Learn profile image82
    Live to Learnposted 7 weeks ago

    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.

  5. GA Anderson profile image91
    GA Andersonposted 6 weeks ago

    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.

    GA

    1. promisem profile image96
      promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      "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.

      1. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        "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.

        1. promisem profile image96
          promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. Readmikenow profile image95
            Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            I'm sure there is help with you DTS if you would only seek it out.  You are getting worse.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image84
              PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              Lame.

              1. promisem profile image96
                promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Thanks.

            2. promisem profile image96
              promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              Thank you. I see you can't answer the points in my comment, which explains your emotional response.

              1. Readmikenow profile image95
                Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. promisem profile image96
                  promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  If you are afraid to answer my questions and keep changing the subject, then of course I'll ask them again.

                  "I'm sure there is help with you DTS if you would only seek it out.  You are getting worse."

                  Yeah, that sounds really objective.

      2. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        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?

        GA

        1. promisem profile image96
          promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Your entire comment is about protecting Trump and attacking Democrats as well as my post. Geez.

          1. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            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."

            GA

            1. promisem profile image96
              promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. GA Anderson profile image91
                GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                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.

                GA

      3. RJ Schwartz profile image92
        RJ Schwartzposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        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) ?

        1. promisem profile image96
          promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          "Overwhelming evidence of Russian interference in our elections."

          I think indictments of 34 Russians is quite a bit of overwhelming evidence.

          Anyone who thinks otherwise is judging the case in the court of Sean Hannity.

      4. Sharlee01 profile image86
        Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        "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.

    2. PrettyPanther profile image84
      PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. promisem profile image96
        promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        "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.

        1. GA Anderson profile image91
          GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          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

          1. promisem profile image96
            promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. GA Anderson profile image91
              GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              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.

              You say:
              "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? ;-)


              GA

            2. GA Anderson profile image91
              GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              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."


              https://hubstatic.com/14481512.jpg

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        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.

        Pitiful.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image84
          PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          I haven't seen the results of the investigation. Have you?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image84
              PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              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?

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                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".

                1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                  PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    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?

              2. promisem profile image96
                promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Something that begins with "Dear" and ends with "Sincerely" sure sounds like a letter to me.

                https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 … eport.html

              3. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
                JAKE Earthshineposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                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:

      3. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        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.

        GA

        1. PrettyPanther profile image84
          PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            ???  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.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image84
              PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                "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.)

                1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                  PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Your biased interpretation of the reasons is not shared by many. I'm guessing his 35% base is right there with ya, though.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    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.

          2. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            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.

            GA

        2. promisem profile image96
          promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          "Bad" depends on whether or not you are a victim. Like minds ignore bad behavior by each other, especially in these forums.

          1. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            "Like minds...?"

            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.

            GA

    3. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image78
    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 weeks ago

    Meanwhile, do the Trump de-railers not like the job Trump is doing?

    For instance:
    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.

  7. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 5 weeks ago

    This is too true.


    https://hubstatic.com/14489278.jpg

    1. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      "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

  8. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 5 weeks ago

    This is too true.

    https://hubstatic.com/14493120.jpg

    1. tsadjatko profile image56
      tsadjatkoposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      The score

      Mike - 2
      Don - minus 1 (for using known fake news source)

  9. Valeant profile image96
    Valeantposted 5 weeks ago

    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.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Don't be ridiculous; your conclusions were made years ago.  Trump is guilty.  Of what is questionable, but he is certainly guilty and belongs in prison.

  10. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 5 weeks ago

    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.
    https://hubstatic.com/14494647.jpg

    1. Valeant profile image96
      Valeantposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      https://hubstatic.com/14495231.jpg

      1. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        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

        1. PrettyPanther profile image84
          PrettyPantherposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Readmikenow profile image95
            Readmikenowposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. tsadjatko profile image56
              tsadjatkoposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              Thank you Mike for that powerful video!

              1. Readmikenow profile image95
                Readmikenowposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                Glad you liked it.  This is a great video.  The person who did it and put in on the web is truly courageous and a real American.

  11. profile image41
    Christopher Markposted 4 weeks ago

    Trump has complicated Income Tax returns. What they require Trump to submit they need to require future President and all members of  Congress to provide.

    Chris       
    Owner                                                                                                                                                                                                                          CEL Financial Services         
    IRS Registered Tax Preparer   
    Registered bonded California CTEC Tax Preparer
    https://incometaxprepfillmore.com/

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)