Breaking: Trump Tax Records Reveal He Could Have Avoided Paying Taxes for Nearly Two Decades

[metis]

It isn't routine for an elected official to release emails to the public. Why this case and not others?

OTOH, it is routine for presidential candidates to release their tax returns.

And "W" Bush's administration never released their e-mails over their 8 year reign of terror.

 

[tytlyf]

Of course it was her fault. She allowed it.

She allowed someone else to send her an email? Do you know the story behind these 'confidential' emails?

 

[suncowiam]

Actually Hillary's and Bill's income and source from those speeches has been made public but what she hasn't done is to make public what she said in some of those speeches.

Oh my bad.

My main emphasis is that all presidential candidates should be open and frank about all their past actions. These types of indiscretions make me suspicious. If a person did no wrong then why not be honest about it.

Trump should release all his taxes. Even if they are irrelevant as he says, he can't be the judge of that. We as the voters are. Same with Clinton concerning her private corporate speeches, her emails, or anything else. It's not fair for each candidate to keep on highlighting how the other holds on to these secrets while they do the same.

I find fault on both sides.

 

[metis]

Oh my bad.

My main emphasis is that all presidential candidates should be open and frank about all their past actions. These types of indiscretions make me suspicious. If a person did no wrong then why not be honest about it.

Trump should release all his taxes. Even if they are irrelevant as he says, he can't be the judge of that. We as the voters are. Same with Clinton concerning her private corporate speeches, her emails, or anything else. It's not fair for each candidate to keep on highlighting how the other holds on to these secrets while they do the same.

I find fault on both sides.

I can agree with this.

 

[columbus]

It is indeed the one factual thing about this matter, ie, he hasn't released a tax return.

No that is not the only fact.
There are gazillions of other facts. We just don't know what they are because Trump is hiding them.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

No that is not the only fact.
There are gazillions of other facts. We just don't know what they are because Trump is hiding them.
Tom

I don't argue against that oddly obvious claim.
I only object to people pretending to know what the hidden facts are.

 

[columbus]

I don't argue against that oddly obvious claim.
I only object to people pretending to know what the hidden facts are.

One fact is that Trump is running for president. Another is that he could resolve a bunch of the speculation by doing what every other candidate in my lifetime has done.
It would be different if he were running on his public service record or something. But an awful lot of his claims don't hold up to scrutiny. He could demonstrate his business brilliance with a lot more transparency.
But for reasons we can only speculate about, he not only won't do that he dissembles about why. He cites his audit, when the IRS says he is free to release any and everything he wants to.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

One fact is that Trump is running for president. Another is that he could resolve a bunch of the speculation by doing what every other candidate in my lifetime has done.
It would be different if he were running on his public service record or something. But an awful lot of his claims don't hold up to scrutiny. He could demonstrate his business brilliance with a lot more transparency.
But for reasons we can only speculate about, he not only won't do that he dissembles about why. He cites his audit, when the IRS says he is free to release any and everything he wants to.
Tom

Tax returns wouldn't necessarily show what you expect.

 

[columbus]

Tax returns wouldn't necessarily show what you expect.

I would think he should produce those plus a whole lot more.
If he is not in hock to Putin's cronys he should give us reason to believe that, as an example.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

I would think he should produce those plus a whole lot more.
If he is not in hock to Putin's cronys he should give us reason to believe that, as an example.
Tom

I think it would be a sign of weakness if he caved into demands that he
disprove Democratic conspiracy theories, eg, Russian control over him.
The only people who buy into those are already die hard Hillary fans.
It's empty criticism which if disproven wouldn't change any votes.
His response would be naught but knuckling under.....dancing to their tune.

But it's reasonable to want him to publish his returns.
And it's reasonable for him to refuse.
But he should offer a better reason.

 

[columbus]

I think it would be a sign of weakness if he caved into demands that he disprove Democratic conspiracy theories.

I think he has already done that pretty well.
Didn't he launch a Twitter attack on some fat chick who won his beauty contest a few years back?
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

I think he has already done that pretty well.
Didn't he launch a Twitter attack on some fat chick who won his beauty contest a few years back?
Tom

So I've been hearing.
But I'm doing well at remaining largely unfamiliar with that drama.

 

[Twilight Hue]

She allowed someone else to send her an email? Do you know the story behind these 'confidential' emails?

Its pretty clear she didn't redirect those emails to the proper storage media or sent out any directives reminding people of proper channels for transmitting sensitive communications in the future.

Looks like she just kept them there and allowed more.

There's certainly some blame to go around there.

 

[Acim]

It's nuts to expect electrd officials to commit serious criminal offenses just to satisfy your curiosity.

Not sure what this is saying, but is sounds like you're flirting with me.

It isn't routine for an elected official to release emails to the public. Why this case and not others?

Who's the elected official? Why not all the cases?

OTOH, it is routine for presidential candidates to release their tax returns.

And still not an obligation.

 

[Acim]

Didn't he launch a Twitter attack on some fat chick

 

[Nous]

I just heard an interview with one of the bankers on NPR.
(Listening to a whole lotta radio these days as I prep my Mr Van for a trip next week.)
His bank survived.
How?
Instead of forcing Trump into very public foreclosure, they cooperated with him so he'd appear financially healthy.
This benefited both the banks & the city.

What did the bank do to "cooperate" with Trump? Write off a huge loss so that Trump could claim the whole thing? And how did whatever the bank did help it survive?

They also broached an issue I'd avoided because I thought it a bit arcane.
But now it's out there....
The 'expert' said that if Trump personally claimed the loss, then this would
mean he had no fiduciary responsibility to any partners or investors.

Yes, I believe that would have been true under that law.

 

[Revoltingest]

What did the bank do to "cooperate" with Trump?
Write off a huge loss so that Trump could claim the whole thing? And how did whatever the bank did help it survive?

What they appear to have done, & it's common (been there & done that), is allow
the defaulting borrower to continue doing business with reduced loan payments.
This is often far better for the bank than foreclosing, & then selling a distressed
asset....which is a long & money losing process.
Everyone benefits....which is likely why <evil snicker> government won't allow
Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to do it.

Yes, I believe that would have been true under that law.

Not in all cases, as I explained earlier

 

[Nous]

What they appear to have done, & it's common (been there & done that), is allow
the defaulting borrower to continue doing business with reduced loan payments.

Where does that "appear"? There is obviously no evidence of "reduced loan payments" on the released tax return pages.

This is often far better for the bank than foreclosing, & then selling a distressed
asset.

I don't believe that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Where does that "appear"? There is obviously no evidence of "reduced loan payments" on the released tax return pages.

That is one way to cooperate with a distressed borrower.
I've no evidence to offer you.

I don't believe that.

Were you a commercial lender or real estate investor, you'd see
the reality of what I say. I've been there & done that....& have
covered this in detail in other threads.

Foreclosed properties lose much value for a variety of reasons.
And banks have a poor record of managing them, losing money
in that long process. So banks will often sell such loans to
private equity companies for 30% or 40% of principal balance.
(They get better results than banks do, for the borrower too.)
The loss of cooperating with a borrower (eg, lowering the interest
rate & payment) can be far less.

 

[Sonofason]

That's awfully partisan.

It is what it is. Liberal, in my opinion stands for debauchery (the condoning of men lying with other men), the murder of innocent children (abortion), freebies for the lazy people of the world. Never Clinton, never a liberal, and so never a democrat. They stand for everything I'd be happy dying to fight against.