Trump Tax Returns - Does it Really Matter to You?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why is it important to some that Trump release his tax returns

To see if Trump committed financial crimes such as money laundering, bank fraud, and tax evasion. There are good reasons to suspect that he is guilty of them all. Some people want to know if the American president is a criminal. Others, including Trump, wants his taxes, his grades, and the Mueller report all concealed. I'm sure that he has a reason for not wanting any of those things known about him. They don't seem like very good citizens to me. What legitimate reason is there for such a position?

Do you think the renewed calls are politically motivated

No, but I wouldn't mind if they were political. I support the idea of the Democrats returning the favor to the Republicans, the one beginning with the relentless persecution of Bill Clinton and continued through the Obama days, where a Supreme Court nomination was stolen in his last year.

This should be viewed not as different perspectives of how to achieve a national purpose. This is cold war. The other party is not the loyal opposition worthy of being shown forbearance. It's the enemy that needs vanquishing. If a political maneuver hurts the Republicans or any single Republican, that is reason enough to pursue it.

Trump himself says that if you have a chance to exact revenge and don't take it, you're a sucker:

"When someone crosses you, my advice is ‘Get Even!' That is not typical advice, but it is real life advice. If you do not get even, you are just a schmuck! When people wrong you, go after those people because it is a good feeling" - Donald Trump on turning the other cheek.

No problema. Consider yourself a target of the unnumbered people you have cheated and maligned, which includes the Democrats, all liberals, assorted women and people of color, the media, and the intelligence community. Of course, if you come from one of the "sh*thole" countries, you might also be cheering for Trump's downfall.

I've been one of Donald J. Trump's earliest political supporters knowing full well he isn't going to willingly release his tax returns.

I think we all knew that he was lying again when he made that campaign promise, just as we knew he was lying when he promised to have Mexico fund his wall. But we'll hold him to those promises and call him a liar for making and breaking them, which is what the word means.

Now he's promising to replace Obamacare with a superior plan after the 2020 election. Do you believe that? Does it matter to you whether he's lying again?

This may also be an important issue to our POTUS' political adversaries who once again want to go on a political fishing expedition in order to find information that would delegitimize Trump's Presidency

I don't consider Trump to be the legitimate president of the US. He's Putin's choice, and is doing well by Putin, creating unending chaos and discontent.

As indicated, I support any effort to weaken Trump, including unending investigations. I'm waiting to see how he responds to indictments of his family. I suspect that he will throw Don Jr, Eric, and Jared under the bus, but go berserk when they indict Ivanka.

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'.

You need more than tax returns to make the case for financial crimes. You need the records that show that the returns are falsified, such as those from Deutsch Bank. You need bank loan applications that show different figures for the estimated value of properties offered as collateral than were provided to the IRS for taxing purposes. You need bank records that show undeclared money moving through financial institutions.

If they (the IRS) want's to back track and prosecute him for tax fraud now, that's their problem.

That's Trump's problem and the IRS's duty/

Most of us know that campaign promises aren't really promises.
They're things said to win an election

The why participate in the process?

Well then, perhaps we should amend our Constitution that'd replace the electoral college system with a majority popular vote system for determining who lawfully gets to serve as our POTUS

There's a movement afoot in several American states to award all electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. If enough states adopt such a measure, it will make the electoral college meaningless, as it's winner will also be the popular vote winner.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

We are called the United STATES for a reason. It is so that each state can have a say in who the president is. Without the electoral college, most of the states wouldn't have any say at all.

States don't matter. They are not American citizens. People are. It's ridiculous that the two Dakota's have as much representation in the Senate as New York and California.

I think you need Trump to be guilty of something

I think you need for nobody to look.

Anyways the term socialist sticks with the Dems. It's fitting and accurate.

I like fascist for Republicans. It captures the spirit of Charlottesville and Trump rallies..

 

[Salvador]

Now he's promising to replace Obamacare with a superior plan after the 2020 election. Do you believe that? Does it matter to you whether he's lying again?

I'd actually favor expanding Medicare health insurance to cover all Americans, as well as providing a Universal Basic Income of $600/month for all legal adult American citizens who are non-recipients of Social Security; this can be affordably accomplished with the implementation of a Value Added Tax system like that implemented in Australia, along with the replacement of current federal government spending on social welfare programs, and funding from modest excise tax hikes or other modest tax hikes. ..

Perhaps, President Donald J. Trump plans to expand Medicare health insurance to cover all Americans; this would certainly be much better than Obamacare.

 

[Revoltingest]

The why participate in the process?

Because one may judge by more than promises.
Usually, the candidate has a record of pursuing agendas.
Past is prologue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You believe Barr???? I have a bridge to sell you.

I want to know if Trump committed a crime. The law allows Congress to see his returns. And if people refuse to obey the law, LOCK THEM UP

Barr is another example of Trump's short sightedness that will hopefully bit him in the donkey some day. He should have retained Jeff Sessions, while I am no fan of the man he had the good sense and integrity to recuse himself from the investigation since he was part of it. Please note how the innocent are not afraid to do so. He did not want it to look as if he w was covering anything up. Trump apparently wanted him to cover up some of the crimes that he was guilty of committing.

 

[dianaiad]

Because most of us do expect that our president be an honest person as he promised numerous times they'd be released, plus it's important to know of his foreign connections and even some of his domestic ones that might indicate dishonesty. IOW, the release of the tax returns is a means to determine if he's been doing some shady stuff.

The report hasn't even been released, so how could it "work out" one way or the other.

So, here's the questions back at ya, slightly modified:

-Why are you and the Pubs so afraid of Trump's tax returns being released, at least to Congress, thus defending Trump's repeated lies that he would release them?

Wait. Do you want to set that precedent? Remember, what Trump is FORCED to do , your side may also be FORCED to do...and by 'your side,' I mean YOU.

-Why are you seemingly blaming the Dems for trying to get at the Mueller report even though you have not seen them nor know what Mueller's conclusions may contain?

Because they are asking for stuff they aren't entitled to, yet. We will all get that report, in due time. Remember the precedent thing? Think about it. For me, it's not about what's in the report. It's about the methods attempted to get it.

 

[dianaiad]

Kim Jong Un's election was also legal by the laws of his country. People given the issue more than a bit of consideration recognize the difference between legality and legitimacy.

If it's "legal" it's "legitimate." Same root. Do not confuse 'legitimate' with 'moral,' or 'ethical.' After all, abortion is legal. And by the same standard, legitimate.

Not moral or ethical, but absolutely legal and 'legitimate, ' which means 'conforming to the law or to the rules"

 

[dianaiad]

The Electoral College was mainly about implementing the three-fifths compromise for Presidential elections. It's a holdover from the days of slavery.

That is an interesting position. I challenge it. How about you support it? you should be able to, actually...time lines, the establishment of the electoral college, vs the establishment of the '3/5' of a person policy...stuff like that. I would be interested to see exactly how you can support that statement, without, oh, claiming that the entire constitution, the Revolutionary War and establishment of the United States of America and pretty much everything that went on was all about, and was the result of, slavery.

G'head.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, frankly.

Actually, it's very much like the electoral college, only as far as I can tell, it's even less representative of the population as a whole.

In the US, each state elects/appoints/whatever people to represent the state in the electoral college. My father has been asked to do so in almost every presidential election since the early '90's. He has refused every time, because he is old, ill, and absolutely refuses to vote for the Democratic candidate anyway. Since this is California, it's a pretty sure conclusion that he would have to, and it would make him tornado spin in the grave he's not in yet.

The point is, the electors mostly have to vote the way the state went. Not for every state; some can vote their consciences, but in reality, everybody votes the 'way the state went.'

THEY, the electoral college, vote for the president...the actual presidential candidate, not the party in power as a whole. It is quite possible, and has been done, that the president may be of one party, while the Senate and/or the House will be of the other one.

YOU vote for your representatives in parliament, and the head of the party that wins the vote prime minister. You are at least one step more removed from the person who becomes PM than WE are, individually from the election of the president. WE can mix the parties up a bit. You can't.

Now you do it the way you do it. Such a system has worked for you...and for the UK, for quite awhile. You will note that I'm not criticizing your method of doing things. I'm not Canadian. I. don't. have. the. right. to. criticize. the. way. you. handle. your. government.

 

[dianaiad]

If a democrat won by electoral college, conservatives would certainly be screeching and squealing about it.

Here is some Trumpy tweets from the 2012 election:

Gee whiz. would it be possible for you to include the context of these quotes?

 

[dianaiad]

You need more than tax returns to make the case for financial crimes. You need the records that show that the returns are falsified, such as those from Deutsch Bank. You need bank loan applications that show different figures for the estimated value of properties offered as collateral than were provided to the IRS for taxing purposes. You need bank records that show undeclared money moving through financial institutions.



That's Trump's problem and the IRS's duty/

You are quite right on all counts. It is Trump's problem and the IRS's duty. It is NOT up to his political opponents to somehow force someone (Trump, the IRS, the state..) to produce those tax returns. Doing so is setting a hugely bad precedent.

Now me, I'm not exactly happy with Trump promising to produce them himself and then reneging on that promise, but that is an entirely different topic/situation.

The Dems want to FORCE their disclosure, whether Trump agrees and produces them voluntarily or not. This is one of the biggest Bad Ideas I can imagine. After all, once THAT precedent has been set...well, you look at the future and figure that one out for yourself.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is an interesting position. I challenge it. How about you support it? you should be able to, actually...time lines, the establishment of the electoral college, vs the establishment of the '3/5' of a person policy...stuff like that. I would be interested to see exactly how you can support that statement, without, oh, claiming that the entire constitution, the Revolutionary War and establishment of the United States of America and pretty much everything that went on was all about, and was the result of, slavery.

G'head.

Also, if we turn back the clock to look at historical sins, the Democrat Party
was formed to fight for slavery. Losing that battle, they instituted Jim Crow.
And there goes his argument that something is wrong if it's rooted in slavery.

 

[Father Heathen]

Gee whiz. would it be possible for you to include the context of these quotes?

Gosh golly, Trump thought Obama had won via the EC, so he was denouncing it. Of course he changed his tune when he owed his own victory to it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is an interesting position. I challenge it. How about you support it? you should be able to, actually...time lines, the establishment of the electoral college, vs the establishment of the '3/5' of a person policy...stuff like that. I would be interested to see exactly how you can support that statement, without, oh, claiming that the entire constitution, the Revolutionary War and establishment of the United States of America and pretty much everything that went on was all about, and was the result of, slavery.

G'head.

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.

 

[wellwisher]

The game the Democrats are trying to play is to use Trump's tax returns in the light of revisionists history. This is one of the Democrat scams from their patented playbook.

Many years before Trump ran for president, Congress had created a law that allowed one to tax deduct bad investment debt; bankruptcy. Trump legally used the law to deduct a huge amount of debt from a $billion business that went south. This was all legal and by the law, designed by Congress to keep the movers and shakers in the investment game. They help drive the economy.

Trump applied his own huge legal tax deduction, incrementally, over many years, which was also legal. This huge deduction was enough for him not to pay taxes for many years. The law was designed to make up for investment loses. Many people besides Trump used this.

The Democrat scam is to spin this with revisionist's history, using fake news to say Trump cheated on his taxes and/or did not pay his fair share. The scam is all about political optics, using fake news, like they did with the debunked Collusion narrative. There is no legal basis, since it was the law. This can backfire on the Democrats.

A few years ago, Congress also had a law that allowed members of Congress to benefit by insider trading. Insider trading was illegal for everyone else in the country, except members of Congress and their families. Many members of Congress and families, made a lot of money this way. A member of Congress could legally get an insider tip from a lobbyist, instead of a donation, in exchange for selling out the country with a new law or new tax loophole.

For example, Harry Reid bought a lot of land in Nevada very cheap due to insider information. But again, this was legal at that time. You cannot use revisionist history to legally go back and press criminal charges even of it looks shady. However, this could still be used to create mud for slinging. This particular mud would impact older career Democrats, from Pelosi, to Schumer to Bernie Sanders.

Revisionist tax history and revisionists inside trading history games,would start a dangerous political precedent that could back fire, on the Democrats. Their upper level leadership is not clean of mud. Trump, is the Teflon Don of Politics. But key Democrats are very vulnerable now, with the collusion delusion debunked and about to be pinned on high level Democrats. Revisionists history inside trading optics can make other potential crimes stick easier. The Democrats are better off looking for illegal and not legal mud. This game is not in their favor, anymore. It can impact their families with a lot of auditing, while they are on trial for a silent coup.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, it's very much like the electoral college, only as far as I can tell, it's even less representative of the population as a whole.

In the US, each state elects/appoints/whatever people to represent the state in the electoral college. My father has been asked to do so in almost every presidential election since the early '90's. He has refused every time, because he is old, ill, and absolutely refuses to vote for the Democratic candidate anyway. Since this is California, it's a pretty sure conclusion that he would have to, and it would make him tornado spin in the grave he's not in yet.

The point is, the electors mostly have to vote the way the state went. Not for every state; some can vote their consciences, but in reality, everybody votes the 'way the state went.'

Not everybody; most elections, a small handful of electors don't honour the vote of their state. The fact that this is even possible just underscores the undemocratic nature of the way your president is picked.

THEY, the electoral college, vote for the president...the actual presidential candidate, not the party in power as a whole. It is quite possible, and has been done, that the president may be of one party, while the Senate and/or the House will be of the other one.

YOU vote for your representatives in parliament, and the head of the party that wins the vote prime minister. You are at least one step more removed from the person who becomes PM than WE are, individually from the election of the president. WE can mix the parties up a bit. You can't.

Now you do it the way you do it. Such a system has worked for you...and for the UK, for quite awhile. You will note that I'm not criticizing your method of doing things. I'm not Canadian. I. don't. have. the. right. to. criticize. the. way. you. handle. your. government.

Major differences that you glossed over:

- MPs each represent the same number of people as much as possible. EC votes end up being disproportionately allocated: a presidential vote in Wyoming gets weighted 3.6 times as heavily as a presidential vote in California.

- both systems have all the inherent problems of any first-past-the-post system, but these problems are less when the vote is in 338 roughly equal all-or-nothing chunks instead of 56 all-or-nothing chunks of varying size.

- the Canadian Prime Minister has much less power - and more checks on what power he does have - than the American President, so any imperfections in the way the PM is picked have less impact on the democratic rights of Canadians. The PM can't veto leglislation and he serves at the pleasure of the government, who can boot him out and replace him mid-term if it chooses. In terms of real power, the closest American equivalent to a Prime Minister would be House Majority Leader.

 

[metis]

Wait. Do you want to set that precedent? Remember, what Trump is FORCED to do , your side may also be FORCED to do...and by 'your side,' I mean YOU.

Which is Congress' right under the law. This is why Nixon's tax returns became exposed whereas he was almost a $1/2 a million in the red.

Because they are asking for stuff they aren't entitled to, yet.

Both Trump and a 100% vote in the House said that it should be released at least to the House and Senate even of it was done only in closed session.

What sense does it make to have an almost two-year investigation if at least House and Senate committees are not going to be allowed to even see the unredacted transcript even if it's done confidentially? Is the Executive Branch to be able to do whatever it wants with no congressional oversight even though the Constitution says that they do have oversight of the Executive Branch? Plus, withholding of said information would violate what our checks & balance system is all about.

For me, it's not about what's in the report. It's about the methods attempted to get it.

And the methods attempting to obstruct the findings of Mueller's report while eliminating Congress' oversight responsibilities per the Constitution.

And if Trump & Co are supposedly innocent of any and all potential charges, why are they continuing to try and prevent the reports release? If I'm innocent, I would want that report released to prove I'm innocent. If there's nothing there, what about all the indictments and plea deals that have already been struck? Aren't you in the least bit suspicious? And why didn't they immediately tell the FBI when some Russians contacted them, which is protocol?

 

[dianaiad]

Gosh golly, Trump thought Obama had won via the EC, so he was denouncing it. Of course he changed his tune when he owed his own victory to it.

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?

 

[dianaiad]

Which is Congress' right under the law. This is why Nixon's tax returns became exposed whereas he was almost a $1/2 a million in the red.

Nixon's returns were not voluntarily released by him, true. They were ALSO not obtained through force of law. An IRS employee illegally leaked them.

He lost his job but got a Pulitzer. That sends some mixed messages, to say the least.

Both Trump and a 100% vote in the House said that it should be released at least to the House and Senate even of it was done only in closed session.

Yes, Trump said he would release those returns, and he hasn't kept that promise. I have a problem with that. I THINK, being the reactionary old curmudgeon that he is, that the consistent demand for them from the left and all the threats from them are making him go all "I'll be damned if I'll cave in to you and give you even a hint of a 'win' here" I really can't blame him all that much, but I've always figured that true courage is keeping your promises even when the enemy will see doing so as a 'win' for them. 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. He said : "So if a leader does what it takes to win power and keep it, his methods will always be reckoned honourable and widely praised. "

When they get their hands on those returns, expect some MAJOR rewriting and twisting. And their followers will reckon that their methods are honorable and be widely praised. It goes right along with "Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason." (John Harrington, during Elizabeth I's reign)

What sense does it make to have an almost two-year investigation if at least House and Senate committees are not going to be allowed to even see the unredacted transcript even if it's done confidentially? Is the Executive Branch to be able to do whatever it wants with no congressional oversight even though the Constitution says that they do have oversight of the Executive Branch? Plus, withholding of said information would violate what our checks & balance system is all about.

And the methods attempting to obstruct the findings of Mueller's report while eliminating Congress' oversight responsibilities per the Constitution.

And if Trump & Co are supposedly innocent of any and all potential charges, why are they continuing to try and prevent the reports release? If I'm innocent, I would want that report released to prove I'm innocent. If there's nothing there, what about all the indictments and plea deals that have already been struck? Aren't you in the least bit suspicious? And why didn't they immediately tell the FBI when some Russians contacted them, which is protocol?

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.

Indeed, that protection began formally with the constitution.

And those who spout it are, in my book, automatically on my 'don't let this person in my home or near my kids' list.

 

[Audie]

Much has been made over Trump releasing his tax returns and there has been a lot of noise from the democrats and political opponents and recently a democratic 2020 presidential hopeful vowed he'd release his for the last seven years but who cares? Trump was freely and fairly elected without releasing his tax returns.

A few questions:

-Why is it important to some that Trump release his tax returns

-Do you think the renewed calls are politically motivated since the Mueller report didn't work out the way democrats wanted?

My take on how you guys should run your country-

-it is dishonourable for anyone to take more than a token
payment for serving in congress let alone as pres.
(occasional exceptions may exist)

-it is dishonourable and has much appearance of secrecy
and sleaze to hide tax returns. Trumps excuse is
ridiculous.

-IF his t ax returns show he has done wrong, it is kinda
important to get that out, If he has not, get that out too.

As it is he presents as as much of a swamp angel as the
ones he criticizes.

 

[Audie]

Kim Jong Un's election was also legal by the laws of his country. People given the issue more than a bit of consideration recognize the difference between legality and legitimacy.

We occasionally run across the bad analogy, but usually dont comment on them. No analogy is perfect, after all.

But that one is among the worst ever.