 |
What they did not show was any illegality on Trump's part . That is why they so readily released them for political gotch ya reasons
So let’s make a list of which Democrat tax returns the public simply must see for the good of the Republic and make sure the House Ways and Means Committee releases them next year .
What I want instead is a detailed expansion of the laws governing Congressional financial disclosures . That is where you will find your money is being plundered .
So the dems have unlawfully released documents which show that Trump was...lawful. Perfect.
That is yet to be seen, but that was not the point. The point is to show a president's financial holdings to avoid conflicts of interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Nope. Trump lied about not releasing them because "they were under audit". They were not. The IRS' own mandate was not being followed. Did Trump have anything to do with that? Stand by for answers.Quote:
That is why they so readily released them for political gotch ya reasons
Too late. Biden already released his tax returns.Quote:
So let’s make a list of which Democrat tax returns the public simply must see for the good of the Republic and make sure the House Ways and Means Committee releases them next year
Write your congressman.Quote:
What I want instead is a detailed expansion of the laws governing Congressional financial disclosures
Huh?Quote:
That is where you will find your money is being plundered .
What has been released showed no illegal activity, so why were they released? It's just another example of liberals being all in favor of anything and everything so long as it's not directed at them.Quote:
That is yet to be seen
That's completely ridiculous. That's only true so long as the release is voluntary. To just release them is illegal and someone should be held accountable for it.Quote:
The point is to show a president's financial holdings to avoid conflicts of interest.
ironically Trump was not audited while the Dems ran the IRS . As soon as Trump appointed a Repub IRS boss his taxes were audited in 2019 .
What's ironic is Trump's refusal to release his tax returns because they were being audited, and he claimed many times that he would release them as soon as the audit was completed. The IRS denied that an audit prevented a taxpayer from releasing his returns!!Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
On top of everything else, there WAS NO AUDIT taking place for the first two years of his presidency. Ironic enough for you?
On top of everything else, there WAS NO AUDIT taking place for the first two years of his presidency.
While a Dem was running the IRS why was that ? He was audited by the Repub whio took over the IRS in 2019
That has nothing to do with Trump refusing to reveal his tax returns nor his repeated false claim of not being able to reveal them due to an audit.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
That was between Trump and the American voter . There is no law that said he had to . On the contrary Americans are allowed to keep their returns private . Congress had no business releasing them . Anyone else who releases them does so VOLUNTARILY
Then why did he refuse to release them? Under false pretenses? Kinda suspicious, wasn't it? It was a long tradition for prez candidates to release tax returns so voters could make a judgment on their possible financial shenanigans. ESPECIALLY for Mr. Shenanigan himself, the biggest crook ever to inhabit the sacred Oval Office, once symbolically occupied by the greats. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Clinton, Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I do think Trump was foolish in trying to hide behind the audit excuse. He should have simply said he would not do it and be done with it.Quote:
Then why did he refuse to release them? Under false pretenses?
I guess since the 1970s is a "long tradition " .
Bubba and the emperor among the greats ?????????????????
I would only add Roosevelt in the mix of the greats for being a war time President . He muffed the depression and he blew the post war big time .
But back to Trump. I don't vouch for anything he did except for the fact that he hired effective people in his cabinet and generally made the right policy decisions .
The point remains the same . Where does Congress get the authority to release someone's taxes to the public ?
As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in 1953 ,“there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure.” [Watkins v US ]
They had the power to write a report based on the taxes and that would've accomplished their goals without this invasion of privacy. They have now gone down a slippery slope that I am sure the new Repub majority will take full advantage of . If a former President's taxes can be involuntarily released then why not a former Speaker of the House and her billionaire husbands ?
As for the IRS ;the audit of Presidents is mentioned in the IRS manual but not codified into law. AGAIN it was the Dem appointed IRS that did not do the audits . When a Repub was appointed audits of Trump's taxes were done .
Chairman Neal said his committee needed Trump’s tax returns to evaluate the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces federal tax laws against the president. Neal said his committee needed the documents “to determine the scope” of the IRS’s audit of the president “and whether it includes a review of underlying business activities required to be reported on the individual income tax return.” The Ways and Means Committee told the Supreme Court that its document request “is well-tailored to illuminating how the IRS conducted any audits of Mr. Trump while he was President and whether reforms are needed to enhance the IRS’s ability to audit Presidents in the future.” Neal and the House Ways and Means Committee adamantly denied that “the request is driven by exposure solely for the sake of exposure”
He lied . That was a head fake to perform an 11th hour political gotcha.
Trump is evidently the most feared man in America. The clear objective of the dems seems to be to make him such a tainted candidate that his election would be unlikely. You have to wonder what drives fear like that.
The phoniest idea is the notion that they can prevent him from becoming President by slapping him with charges of insurrection based on language in the 14th amendment specifically added to prevent former Confederate officers from serving. In addition the clause in the 14th amendment was nullified by the Amnesty Act of 1878 .
They forget that Eugene Debs ran for President from a jail cell.
Debs was an ardent commie socialist in the classic sense . He believed all the workers of the world unite talk. He opposed US entry into WWI and there is where he ran afoul of the law. He made a speech urging men to avoid the draft . He was slapped with sedition charges.; found guilty ,and thrown into jail on a 10 year sentence.
1920 ,while still in jail he ran for President as the Socialist Party of America (SPA) candidate .He received more than a million votes. (3.4 % of the votes cast) .
His register address was the Atlanta Fed Pen. His sentence was no barrier to him running . His sentence was commuted to time served in 1923 .
The Dems plan is fundamentally flawed . Trump's popularity is waning .He will never have the influence again that he had in 2016. But this obsessive persecution of him can only make him a martyr in the eyes of many Americans .
It remains to be seen whether that is enforceable. But that's not the target - it is the voters who should be aware of traitorous conduct.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
It's not about running, it's about serving.Quote:
They forget that Eugene Debs ran for President from a jail cell.
Not flawed at all. It is about indicting a criminal with felony charges. His fading influence has nothing to do with his crimes.Quote:
The Dems plan is fundamentally flawed . Trump's popularity is waning .He will never have the influence again that he had in 2016. But this obsessive persecution of him can only make him a martyr in the eyes of many Americans .
The persecution is hardly obsessive. In fact, it's the opposite. Trump has skated for years because of his teflon avoidance of charges. The core, however, will continue to be troublesome whenever another potentially perceived Christian Nationalist rears its ugly head.
That Christian Nationalist crowd will also fade over time as they return to their literal Bibles and leave politics, an area that were never comfortable in.
Trump a Christian Nationalist ? Thanks for the belly laugh .
A North Carolina Federal Judge has already ruled that the Amnesty Act nullifies 14th Amendment Section 3 . There was no appeal effort .
the key part of Section 3 is highlighted :
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability
That is what Congress did in passing the Amnesty Act .
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), that all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.
That's his latest favorite phrase. It's replaced the aged "white evangelical", perhaps because of the latter phrase's racist element. Perhaps in his mind it is better to be nasty towards Christians than towards whites.Quote:
Christian Nationalist rears its ugly head.
No problem. My reason for being here is to make you laugh and be happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You can't give it up, can you? The 14th amendment business has already been dismissed as irrelevant, but you can't resist exhibiting your erudite grasp of history - even when it doesn't apply.Quote:
A North Carolina Federal Judge has already ruled that the Amnesty Act nullifies 14th Amendment Section 3 . There was no appeal effort .
the key part of Section 3 is highlighted :
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability
That is what Congress did in passing the Amnesty Act .
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), that all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.
correct it is irrelevant because it was nullified . The only provisions for qualification for President is found in the 2nd Article of the Constitution. The people who falsely claim that a conviction will prevent him from running or becoming President are the ones barking up the wrong tree.Quote:
The 14th amendment business has already been dismissed as irrelevant,
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
That tree has many branches - any one of which is sturdy enough to put your boy permanently in an orange jump suit.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
So far the release of his taxes reveals that he hired an army of lawyers and tax consultants to get every benefit ;every loophole he could from a very convoluted tax system.
If Congress were to rewrite and simplify the tax code they would be serving our interests . This gotcha game they played with Trump's taxes has opened a door they do not want opened .
Congress can only lawfully release taxes if it is part of a legislative agenda . Embarrassing Trump is not a legit legislative agenda. The committee has a whole 4 days to review the taxes before release. That was grossly irresponsible .
When the worm turns the Dems will regret the course they have taken
The sad thing to me is that so many liberal dems are all for the release of Trump's taxes. Now they would have a completely different view if it was THEIR taxes that were released. The rule of law should be treasured no matter who the subject is. As you are saying, Tom, what can be done to one can, in time, be done to many others.
Wonder why Congress did that....
it is called gotcha
There's a vast difference between net worth and yearly declared income, just saying.....
none of the above mentioned started public service with that net worth they have now . Trump had the net worth and declined to take the salary he was entitled to earn as President . On top of that his companies bottom line were negatively impacted by his decision to become a public servant The rest of the above enriched themselves through public service .
That's true enough, but you can't get to net worth without going through income. The real question to be asked, and it likely will remain unanswered, is how much their net worth increased during that time between taking public office and leaving public office.Quote:
There's a vast difference between net worth and yearly declared income, just saying.....
That's a great question. Any answer?Quote:
Wonder why Congress did that....
Trump a public servant!!! Oh God, that's about the funniest thing ever seen on these boards. Like saying Hitler was an observant Jew. Tomder, who knew you had a sense of humor??Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
A retort along similar lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
How many self declared billionaires are on that list ?
Difficult to increase net worth if starting from a high, wouldn't you agree..
Not sure what you mean by "a high". If you mean from a point of great wealth, then I don't know why that would be true. You might could argue that increasing net worth becomes easier the more assets you have available. In other words, profiting from investing becomes a lot easier when a person has a lot of money to invest, and that certainly increases net worth considerably,Quote:
Difficult to increase net worth if starting from a high, wouldn't you agree..
As ever you missed, or ignored, the point completely.
Tom's image points out other ex-presidents increase in net worth after leaving office, however, as Mr Trump stepped back from a number of high profile business his tax return for that period reflects the reduction in his net worth.
This neatly illustrates the difference between big business and career politicians.
To a person that has self declared as a billionaire, these 100+ million values are rather meaningless, wouldn't you agree ?
I think you are missing the point. Businessmen are expected to make profits, and good businessmen are expected to make large profits, so Trump being worth north of a billion dollars, assuming it was done legally and honestly, is actually a point in his favor. He was successful in business. We don't expect that of pols. How, for instance, did the Pelosis manage to accumulate 170 mil in net worth with NP making a few hundred thou a year? How did the Obamas accumulate 70 mil when it was only a million or so when he took office? I'm not saying it was unethical, and as far as I'm concerned they are welcome to it, but we don't expect presidents to multiply their net worth by 5,000% in ten or twelve years.
WG earlier asked, "Wonder why Congress did that.?" That's a good question that awaits an answer other than the very good one given by Tom. What do you think?
That's often the case when it happens to someone else.Quote:
these 100+ million values are rather meaningless, wouldn't you agree ?
Pretty normal for senior governmental employees, especially out spoken ones from either House.
How do those figures compare to other Ex-Presidents, or Ex-politicians from either party ?
If that's true, should it be that way? How do elected pols who make 100 to 300 thousand a year end up worth tens of millions?Quote:
Pretty normal for senior governmental employees
This is from Snopes. It is a dated article (2017), but the point can still be seen.
Tom's question centered around why it was necessary to release Trump's income tax forms but not Clinton and Obama. Wonder why?Quote:
As of 2017, the Clintons were estimated to have made $240 million since Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Obamas' combined net worth was reckoned to be about $24 million, while the Trumps' net worth was thought to have dropped to about $3.1 billion.
the posting shows net worth that increased in some cases while they were serving in office.Quote:
Tom's image points out other ex-presidents increase in net worth after leaving office
That would be especially true of Pelosi Schumer McConnell and Feinstein who all still held public office in 2022. In other words their net worth increased while being Congressional office holders . They made a fortune while in office, Trump sacrificed a fortune to serve.
No.....Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Then we sure agree on that.
The question a liberal asked but has not cared to answer. Oh well.Quote:
Wonder why Congress did that....
It was not a real question asked (note the dots after it, and no question mark). It was rhetorical.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:08 AM. |