Trump Tax Returns - Does it Really Matter to You?

dianaiad said:

It's not. We knew who Trump was before he was elected, and he was elected. Since the IRS didn't prosecute him for tax fraud for any of those returns, then...they aren't anybody's business but his and the IRS'. If they (the IRS) want's to back track and prosecute him for tax fraud now, that's their problem.

Click to expand...

They haven't prosecuted him yet. As Trump is fond of pointing out, he's still being audited by the IRS, so it certainly isn't a foregone conclusion that he won't be charged by the IRS.

OTOH, what is a settled matter is that Trump did commit illegal tax impropriety with his Trump Foundation:

Trump charity to dissolve under deal with N.Y. attorney general - Reuters

Whether his illegal conduct rose to the level of being criminal is yet to be determined.

dianaiad said:

That's not what I asked for. I didn't want the opinion you support with those out of context quotes. I wanted the actual context of the quotes. You never know, those quotes in context might support your opinion, but I don't know that, do I?

Click to expand...

Uh, that *was* the context. Not my problem if you struggle with that (or with using google).

9-10ths_Penguin said:

In order for the public to know whether a conflict of interest occurred, the American people need to know what the President's pecuniary interests are. His tax return would be a good first start for this.

Click to expand...

Father Heathen said:

Ethics and accountability are important to anyone with a sense of integrity.

Click to expand...

Why were these points ignored?

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Actually, slavery was also a major factor in the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence. Google "Somerset v. Stewart" if you've never heard of it.

In 1772, a court ruling outlawed slavery in Britain itself. This marked the beginning of the movement toward abolition throughout the British Empire. This helped to push the American colonists to independence in two ways:

- a lot of the Northern colonists thought that slavery wasn't being abolished quickly enough, and they could do it quicker in an independent country.

- a lot of Southern colonists thought that they could avoid the inevitable abolition of slavery if they seceded from the British Empire.

It wasn't the only reason for the Revolution, but it was a significant factor.

Click to expand...

There's an interesting historical parallel.
The Republican Party was formed (1854) to combat expansion of slavery.
Democrats were friendly to slavery.
Would historical origins have the same ramifications for all?

Curious George said:

Why were these points ignored?

Click to expand...

Because of the lip service paid to mawkish religious and patriotic sentiments (despite failing to serve as an actual example of such.)

dianaiad said:

On the other hand, the Dems have quite obviously shown that 'the ends justify the means' policy that makes me think that Machiavelli is their basic playbook.

Click to expand...

The Dems are merely asking for that which is mandated by the law that was passed back in the 1920's, if my memory is correct, and which has been upheld by the federal courts ever since.

dianaiad said:

When they get their hands on those returns, expect some MAJOR rewriting and twisting.

Click to expand...

But both sides will see it, so that could cut both ways. Also, certain aspects of the return could legally be made public.

dianaiad said:

Ah, the old 'if you are innocent, you wouldn't mind....(insert all manner of illegal searches and procedures.) I've never bought into that, and believe it or not, neither has the American justice system, once you get past cops who keep pulling it on people.

Click to expand...

IMO, "actions speak louder than words", and there has to be a reason(s) why Trump & Co have repeatedly tried to stop the investigations and have refused to cooperate with them. And the fact that this is serious is evidenced by the numerous indictments and plea deals that have been struck.

dianaiad said:

Indeed, that protection began formally with the constitution.

Click to expand...

Since I taught a poli sci course for roughly 25 years, I do believe I'm aware of that.

There simply is not one reason under the Constitution why the Mueller report can't be given to certain Congressional committees unredacted, and there is simply not one reason under the Constitution and the law why Trump's tax returns cannot be viewed by the House Judicial Committee as part of its oversight mandate under the Constitution.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

They haven't prosecuted him yet. As Trump is fond of pointing out, he's still being audited by the IRS, so it certainly isn't a foregone conclusion that he won't be charged by the IRS.

Click to expand...

It's not a foregone conclusion that he will, either....and he's right about one thing: the IRS audits, routinely, returns filed by corporations as big as his, just as a matter of procedure. It does not mean that there is any hint of impropriety to start one.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

OTOH, what is a settled matter is that Trump did commit illegal tax impropriety with his Trump Foundation:

Trump charity to dissolve under deal with N.Y. attorney general - Reuters

Whether his illegal conduct rose to the level of being criminal is yet to be determined.

Click to expand...

Well, if the Democrats are involved, that is a foregone conclusion. The fact that Trump was BORN is considered, by them, meat for criminal prosecution. Of Trump-the-baby.

Father Heathen said:

Uh, that *was* the context. Not my problem if you struggle with that (or with using google).

Click to expand...

Father Heathen...you posted a list of partial quotes. At least the site which used them was honest enough to include elipses to show that they were partial quotes. I see absolutely no indication of the REST of those quotes, when they were said, and what Trump may have included surrounding the words being reported.

THAT is 'context.' You know, date, the whole quotes, stuff like that. And it is your job to provide that context, not mine.

metis said:

The Dems are merely asking for that which is mandated by the law that was passed back in the 1920's, if my memory is correct, and which has been upheld by the federal courts ever since.

But both sides will see it, so that could cut both ways. Also, certain aspects of the return could legally be made public.

IMO, "actions speak louder than words", and there has to be a reason(s) why Trump & Co have repeatedly tried to stop the investigations and have refused to cooperate with them. And the fact that this is serious is evidenced by the numerous indictments and plea deals that have been struck.

Since I taught a poli sci course for roughly 25 years, I do believe I'm aware of that.

There simply is not one reason under the Constitution why the Mueller report can't be given to certain Congressional committees unredacted,

Click to expand...

There are LOTS of reasons why it shouldn't be. Most of them are about how Congress people are elected, not vetted for security clearances, and most of 'em talk too much. As a result, completely innocent people get their lives ruined.

This has been argued about for many, many years, and the decision has always come down to 'redact the stuff that doesn't apply to the point of the report."

metis said:

and there is simply not one reason under the Constitution and the law why Trump's tax returns cannot be viewed by the House Judicial Committee as part of its oversight mandate under the Constitution.

Click to expand...

yeah, there is. That law passed in the twenties was a very specific aspect that only was supposed to come into play when real evidence of political/mob/corruption was in place. The most rabid of Democrats cannot possibly equate Trump's tax return with the Teapot Dome scandal.

dianaiad said:

There are LOTS of reasons why it shouldn't be. Most of them are about how Congress people are elected, not vetted for security clearances, and most of 'em talk too much. As a result, completely innocent people get their lives ruined...
yeah, there is. That law passed in the twenties was a very specific aspect that only was supposed to come into play when real evidence of political/mob/corruption was in place. The most rabid of Democrats cannot possibly equate Trump's tax return with the Teapot Dome scandal.

Click to expand...

The law is the law, and what you are proposing is that the law should be ignored, much like Trump loves to do and just did yesterday by not having his tax returns turned over.

OTOH, if one doesn't like a law, there's a process by which it can be changed.

dianaiad said:

yeah, there is. That law passed in the twenties was a very specific aspect that only was supposed to come into play when real evidence of political/mob/corruption was in place. The most rabid of Democrats cannot possibly equate Trump's tax return with the Teapot Dome scandal.

Click to expand...

Equate, no: Teapot Dome was about crimes committed while the perpetrators were in office. His tax returns from before he took office wouldn't serve as evidence for that, but they may provide additional evidence of crimes that Trump committed before entering office, adding to the evidence that already exists:

$7 Million Trump Building Condo Tied to Scandal-Scarred Foreign Leader

Trump Investigation Launched Into Deutsche Bank By House Committees | Investor's Business Daily

Schiff: House Intel focusing on Moscow Trump Tower deal, potential money laundering

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Equate, no: Teapot Dome was about crimes committed while the perpetrators were in office. His tax returns from before he took office wouldn't serve as evidence for that, but they may provide additional evidence of crimes that Trump committed before entering office, adding to the evidence that already exists:

$7 Million Trump Building Condo Tied to Scandal-Scarred Foreign Leader

Trump Investigation Launched Into Deutsche Bank By House Committees | Investor's Business Daily

Schiff: House Intel focusing on Moscow Trump Tower deal, potential money laundering

Click to expand...

Evidence of crimes committed is kinda saying that
it is established that there were crimes.

Of course, some day you may find yourself in the
crosshairs. Be not so eager lest the bell tool for thee.

You Commit Three Felonies a Day

Audie said:

Evidence of crimes committed is kinda saying that
it is established that there were crimes.

Click to expand...

You don't think that money laundering is a crime?

Of course, some day you may find yourself in the
crosshairs. Be not so eager lest the bell tool for thee.

You Commit Three Felonies a Day

Click to expand...

"Meh. Who doesn't launder money for the Russian mob and Congolese warlords?"

9-10ths_Penguin said:

You don't think that money laundering is a crime?


"Meh. Who doesn't launder money for the Russian mob and Congolese warlords?"

Click to expand...

Anyone can be snarky and obnoxious

And anyone can find himself in the corsshairs,
as many people caught up in the day care child abuse
hysteria learned.

It is extremely unlikely that you could not be found
guilty of various crimes, if sufficient effort were put into
convicting you of something.

Admittedly, it does of course require more
than a simple indiscretion or a moment's inattention
to be come a labour racketeer, or an atomic spy.
Chances are your crimes are more pedestrian.

You do not know that Trump has committed any crimes,*
nor what they are, if he has.

You also do not seem to much honour the principle of
presumed innocent until proven guilty.

*name someone who has not committed any crime ever.

Audie said:

You do not know that Trump has committed any crimes,*
nor what they are, if he has.

Click to expand...

There's strong evidence that Trump has participated in money laundering for criminal organizations. Didn't you read my posts before you replied?

You also do not seem to much honour the principle of
presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Click to expand...

No, I'm fine with the presumption of innocence. Let's just be clear on what it is.

"Presumed innocent" applies to conviction and deprivation of the accused's rights. The standard needed to be investigated is much lower, and the standard to merely be suspicious of someone while not depriving them of their normal rights is even lower than that.

metis said:

The law is the law, and what you are proposing is that the law should be ignored, much like Trump loves to do and just did yesterday by not having his tax returns turned over.

Click to expand...

How very....Javert of you. Remember to attach a lantern to the front of your car if you are going to drive the wrong way down a one way street in Alabama. Don't get pulled over if you have a gorilla in your back seat in Massachusetts. In Pennsylvania, if you see a team of horses coming toward you, you must pull your car off the road and cover it with a camo cloth. If the horses are still skittish, you must take your car apart and hide the pieces under the nearest bushes.

Sometimes laws on the books need to be...ignored. Unless of course some sharp eyed lawyer can pull them out to use them on political opposition.

metis said:

OTOH, if one doesn't like a law, there's a process by which it can be changed.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Someone go tell the folks in Pennsylvania that they need to get right on that one.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Equate, no: Teapot Dome was about crimes committed while the perpetrators were in office. His tax returns from before he took office wouldn't serve as evidence for that, but they may provide additional evidence of crimes that Trump committed before entering office, adding to the evidence that already exists:

$7 Million Trump Building Condo Tied to Scandal-Scarred Foreign Leader

Trump Investigation Launched Into Deutsche Bank By House Committees | Investor's Business Daily

Schiff: House Intel focusing on Moscow Trump Tower deal, potential money laundering

Click to expand...

Riiiiiight....

And nobody was worried at all about the far more serious crimes Bill Clinton was accused of before he was elected. Or rather, the Dems were outraged that anybody would want to examine the evidence that might have proven that he (and/or his wife) committed murder, and he raped more than one woman. I remember that.

I really hate hypocrisy.

dianaiad said:

Riiiiiight....

And nobody was worried at all about the far more serious crimes Bill Clinton was accused of before he was elected. Or rather, the Dems were outraged that anybody would want to examine the evidence that might have proven that he (and/or his wife) committed murder, and he raped more than one woman. I remember that.

I really hate hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

Speaking of hypocrisy: which criminal allegations against Clinton do you think shouldn't have been investigated because of presumption of innocence?

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Speaking of hypocrisy: which criminal allegations against Clinton do you think shouldn't have been investigated because of presumption of innocence?

Click to expand...

They should have been investigated at the time they occurred. They were not. When they finally were 'investigated,' that motive was strictly political. Nobody in his party gave a good hoot...they were really engaged in justifying his actions, vilifying his victims and doing everything they could to derail the process.

(BTW, I don't think he committed murder, btw. MAYBE rape, and certainly sexual harassment and 'rape by power," though.

Here's the difference I see between Clinton and Trump.

First, IRS returns, IF they can be used as evidence for financial wrong doing, are the purview of the IRS. If they didn't see anything wrong with them (and unless this current audit comes up with something, they haven't) then WE have no reason to look at them. Opinions over financial decisions vary, of course, but my opinion that he should have done this one way vs. your opinion that he shouldn't have does not mean that he has done anything illegal, or wrong.
But the left is LIVID about any attempt to keep private things private...like tax returns and stuff redacted from reports that have nothing to do with the issue under discussion. They are accusing the Republicans of being horrible, obstructionist, supporting a liar..

At the same time, when Clinton was accused (and was guilty, frankly) of sexual misconduct that should disgust de Sade, they banded together like packs of hyenas, throwing the victims under the Titanic. There was absolutely NO 'Me Too" group coming out.

That's what I am calling hypocrisy, because it certainly is. On both sides, but right now it is the Democrats that disgust me the most. They are raising so much 'justified indignation' over this stuff, where they were willing to overlook the sort of sexual misconduct they CLAIM to be against...

........but only if it is the right wing folks who get caught engaging in it.

dianaiad said:

How very....Javert of you. Remember to attach a lantern to the front of your car if you are going to drive the wrong way down a one way street in Alabama. Don't get pulled over if you have a gorilla in your back seat in Massachusetts. In Pennsylvania, if you see a team of horses coming toward you, you must pull your car off the road and cover it with a camo cloth. If the horses are still skittish, you must take your car apart and hide the pieces under the nearest bushes.

Sometimes laws on the books need to be...ignored. Unless of course some sharp eyed lawyer can pull them out to use them on political opposition.

Yeah. Someone go tell the folks in Pennsylvania that they need to get right on that one.

Click to expand...

We're never going to agree since I do believe the "rule of law" is very important. You and the Donald obviously don't.

If one defies the law, which can be a moral action at times, then one must be willing to possibly pay the consequences, such as what Gandhi did and paid dearly for. But to defy a law for the sake of convenience or to evade the Constitutional mandate that Congress has to oversee the Executive Branch is both immoral and also it can lead to autocracy. Is that really what you want? Is a president to be above the law?

If you want a lawless country, then what you are proposing is the way to go-- I don't. Therefore, there's simply nothing more to discuss since our entire approach to the "rule of law", including the Constitution itself, is very different.