Pelosi says House Democrats will begin process to obtain Trump tax returns

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  spikegary  •  3 years ago  •  199 comments

Pelosi says House Democrats will begin process to obtain Trump tax returns
There is no law or rule compelling a president or candidate to do so

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



WASHINGTON — Nancy Pelosi said Democrats will begin to seek President Donald Trump's tax returns — a move likely to prompt outrage from the White House - when they take control of the U.S. House of Representatives in January.

The House Ways and Means Committee will "take the first steps," said Pelosi, who has the backing of her members to become the next speaker of the House in January.

"There is popular demand for the Congress to request the president's tax returns," she said, speaking to reporters. "I'm sure the White House will resist, so the question is where do we go from there."

Trump defied decades of tradition when he refused to release his tax records while running for president and after taking office. There is no law or rule compelling a president or candidate to do so, but nearly every nominee and president since 1976 has done so.

Democrats have argued that Trump's tax returns are crucial in determining whether his sprawling business operations present a conflict of interest. Trump opted not to divest from his business, but turned over control of day-to-day operations to his sons Donald Jr. and Eric.

Several committees expected to investigate Trump could find use for the returns.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Pelosi's remarks.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Spikegary
Junior Participates
1  seeder  Spikegary    3 years ago

Key words:  There is no law or rule compelling a president or candidate to do so.

WHat will she do?  Craft a law that says presdients/candidates have to show their tax returns?  Then get the senate to pass it?  Then get Presdient Trump to sign it into law?  Likely not happening.  And even if a law like that does become law, how does one make it retroactive to the sitting president?

That's not even talking about the fact that the only plan the Democrats in Congress seem to have is to investigate the President.  One has to wonder who will be doing the governing, since our elected officials don't seem to have any interest in it?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
Masters Expert
1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Spikegary @1    3 years ago

Actually, congress has the legal authority to demand the IRS provide them tax returns for examination.

I just wonder if Nancy is aware that the SAME law that gives congress that authority, also gives the President the authority to examine the tax returns of the legislators in Congress.

This could be a real pissing contest going forward.

Pull up a chair and grab the pop-corn.....    it's going to get interesting.

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Participates
1.1.1  seeder  Spikegary  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1    3 years ago

The funny thing is, President Trump was a billionaire before he became a politiican, as opposed to most of today's politicians who became millioaires after they became 'public servants' as elected politicians.  That sword definitely is double edged.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
1.1.2  96WS6  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1    3 years ago
Actually, congress has the legal authority to demand the IRS provide them tax returns for examination.

True but it does NOT allow them to disclose any of the info about the returns to the public.  (At least not legally)  This is either a move to shut up the far left wackos, or an attempt at another basket of illegally leaked information, we shall see.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
1.1.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  96WS6 @1.1.2    3 years ago

I don't want to see them.  Tolstoy is a depressing enough of a read without adding Trump's bs to the mix for me.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Spikegary @1.1.1    3 years ago
The funny thing is, President Trump was a billionaire before he became a politiican,

Prove it!  He was in debt for close to billion dollars is waaayy more likely.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
1.1.5  1stwarrior  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.4    3 years ago

Prove it.  Be sure to show your official links.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
1.1.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.4    3 years ago

When you stiff your contractors, declare bankruptcy multiple times so that you only pay pennies on a dollar owed, use other people's money from your foundation as a personal piggy bank, well of course you have more money than you should.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.7  Ozzwald  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.5    3 years ago

Prove it.  Be sure to show your official links.

Pretty sure we will be seeing his tax returns before too long, then you can look for yourself.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.1.6    3 years ago
When you stiff your contractors, declare bankruptcy multiple times so that you only pay pennies on a dollar owed, use other people's money from your foundation as a personal piggy bank, well of course you have more money than you should.

Don't forget hiring illegal aliens and paying them a fraction of the normal cost.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
1.1.9  dennis smith  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.7    3 years ago

"pretty sure". Is that the best you have?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
Masters Expert
1.1.10  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.7    3 years ago
Pretty sure we will be seeing his tax returns before too long, then you can look for yourself.

Really?   How so?  You do know don't you that divulging tax returns to the public require the specific permission of the individual.  Even any received by Congress for their official use.

Are you supposing that Pelosi will risk prison for YOUR infatuation with the tax returns of President Trump?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1.12  cjcold  replied to  Spikegary @1.1.1    3 years ago

Trump has fucked up every business he's ever run into the ground.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @1.1.12    3 years ago

And that relates to Pelosi and his tax returns how?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
1.1.14  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.8    3 years ago

His resorts are full of undocumented workers.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
1.1.15  96WS6  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.7    3 years ago
Pretty sure we will be seeing his tax returns before too long, then you can look for yourself.

That's what a lot of loony leftists think but the facts are we won't see them unless a criminal leaks them.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
1.1.16  Split Personality  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.1.14    3 years ago

There are certainly cases of some undocumented people being abused at certain locations as recent accusations and investigations are being conducted.

The mystery of Mar-a lago is what happens to those 85 visas Mar a lago gets annually.

It appears that some just move on to different jobs without returning to their home countries.

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Participates
1.1.17  seeder  Spikegary  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.4    3 years ago

Nice attempt to de-rail, but not playing, homeslice.

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Participates
1.1.18  seeder  Spikegary  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.1.14    3 years ago

Please provide proof of this.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.19  Ozzwald  replied to  96WS6 @1.1.15    3 years ago
That's what a lot of loony leftists think but the facts are we won't see them unless a criminal leaks them.

Seriously?  Is there anything that this White house hasn't leaked?  They leaked info about a meeting about leaking info.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.20  Ozzwald  replied to    3 years ago
Can you prove anything you're saying.

The initial statement is that "President Trump was a billionaire before he became a politician", I would like to see the evidence supporting that first.  Or as I said in my comment ADDRESSED to Spikegary, "PROVE IT".

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
1.1.21  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Spikegary @1.1.18    3 years ago

"Trump hired hundreds of undocumented Polish immigrants to demolish a New York City building in 1980 and paid them as little as $4 an hour without providing proper safety equipment to do the job, court documents show."

Newsweek

 "Trump turned down 94% of American job applicants to his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Fla., in favor of foreign workers brought in under the H-2B visa program."

National Review

Will this suffice?  I found numerous articles to back my statement up.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
1.2  dennis smith  replied to  Spikegary @1    3 years ago

Once again Pelosi is grasping at straws by trying to pass legislation that most Americans do not give a crap about

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
1.2.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  dennis smith @1.2    3 years ago

... most Americans do not give a crap about

You might want to go see a doctor about that myopia.  You are in a tiny minority if you have no interest in seeing if Trump has lied to you on a huge scale about his net worth.  That says everything that anyone needs to know about your politics.  You aren’t even interested in him defending his wealth with some evidence.  He’s a fucking liar one multiple layers, and you love it.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.2.1    3 years ago
You are in a tiny minority if you have no interest in seeing if Trump has lied to you on a huge scale about his net worth

Well, it's a minority of at least two, then. I don't care even a little bit about his net worth and I have felt the same way about every president. In fact, I feel that way about every politician. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.2    3 years ago

Exactly.

What someone else has shouldn't be MY business.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.2.1    3 years ago
You might want to go see a doctor about that myopia. You are in a tiny minority if you have no interest in seeing if Trump has lied to you on a huge scale about his net worth. That says everything that anyone needs to know about your politics. You aren’t even interested in him defending his wealth with some evidence. He’s a fucking liar one multiple layers, and you love it.

Really not anyone's business what someone else's net worth is. Net worth isn't listed on tax returns.

What POSSIBLE difference does it make in your life if Trump is worth $5, $500k, $5 million, or $500 million? How are YOU affected by HIS net worth?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
1.2.5  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.4    3 years ago

What POSSIBLE difference does it make in your life if Trump is worth

[deleted] Do you just eat up every single lie that rolls off his tongue, regardless of how obvious it is?  Why do you consistently defend the most prolific liar in history by claiming to have no interest in corroborating anything he says?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
1.2.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.2.5    3 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.2.5    3 years ago

We are seeing here a preview of what the next two years in America will look like, unless Trump mans up and leaves the building first.

The Trumpsters are up against it, the wheels are coming off, and they are now in a rear guard action that consists of complaining about the Democrats every chance they get. They DON'T care that they have been supporting a human piece of shit Hal, and while it is not a surprise it still is somewhat stunning to see in action every day.

Then we have the "see no evil" independents and moderates who pretend the investigations into the cornucopia of Trump crime don't exist.

The last three years have been strange, but one gets the feeling we haven't seen anything yet.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
1.2.8  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.7    3 years ago

There is no better indicator of ignorance than someone who reflexively defends an obvious and prolific liar.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.2.6    3 years ago

Removed for context

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
1.2.10  dennis smith  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.2.1    3 years ago

Voters elected him even when his tax records were not public. What has magically changed? Nothing, but you keep beating a very old drum. Boring at its worst is all you have.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
1.2.11  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.7    3 years ago

You sure jumped on the Pelosi bandwagon about repeating her lie about wanting Trump to man up. Where were you regarding that type of comment before Pelosi? 

BTW, Trump soundly defeated Clinton in 2016 with the support of the "deplorables" you seem to continue to not understand. They wanted change from old school politics and got it. Your ongoing rants aboutthose who voted Trump in and support is what is deplorable. He is the CIC no matter how badly you don't want him to be.

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Participates
1.2.12  seeder  Spikegary  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.2.6    3 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Participates
1.2.13  seeder  Spikegary  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.7    3 years ago

[deleted

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Spikegary @1.2.13    3 years ago

removed for context

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
1.2.15  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.9    3 years ago

Ackkkkkkkkkkkkk!!!!! We just got slimed lol.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
1.2.16  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  dennis smith @1.2.10    3 years ago

WE did not elect him, the EC did.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
1.2.17  Jasper2529  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.2.16    3 years ago
WE did not elect him, the EC did.

Voters represent the Electoral College, Paula.

Clinton 232 ... Trump 306, remember?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
1.2.18  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.2.17    3 years ago

3 million less popular votes than Clinton shows that the EC could care less.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.19  Texan1211  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.2.15    3 years ago
Ackkkkkkkkkkkkk!!!!! We just got slimed lol.

And now I can't even remember what was posted! 

I hate when that happens--at least with a ticket, you can see what you posted!

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
1.2.20  Jasper2529  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.2.18    3 years ago
3 million less popular votes than Clinton shows that the EC could care less.

Ah, that  Hillary won the popular vote thing again? There are very good reasons why the Electoral College exists:

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Participates
1.2.21  seeder  Spikegary  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.2.5    3 years ago

Moderators:  What was deleted, why was it deleted, by whom?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Expert
1.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Spikegary @1    3 years ago
Key words:  There is no law or rule compelling a president or candidate to do so.

A functional democracy isn't just laws. It is also traditions, principles, standards, ... For quite some time, it was traditional, standard, for Presidential candidates to publish their tax returns, so that voters could better understand.

This was one of the first democratic standards that Trump ignored. Trump is culpable, of course... but American voters - Americans in general - deserve equal blame. They elected a man who clearly doesn't care in the least about democratic institutions.

Americans deserve what they have. They chose him.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.1  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.3    3 years ago

For about as long, it was "tradition" to keep your tax returns private.

Gee, I wonder if many bitched about the break in tradition THEN?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Expert
1.3.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.1    3 years ago
I wonder

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.3  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.3.2    3 years ago

I'm betting people weren't such whiners back then.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Expert
1.3.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.3    3 years ago

How do you intend to adjudicate your bet?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.5  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.3.4    3 years ago

Well, gee, Bob, I just don't know.

Any ideas?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Expert
1.3.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.5    3 years ago

[Deleted.]

[Please discuss the seeded topic, which is not Texan.]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.8  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.3.6    3 years ago
Removed for context.

Oh, I am so sorry.

I didn't realize that comments here were for your entertainment.

Please stay on topic.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.3.9  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.3    3 years ago
This was one of the first democratic standards that Trump ignored.

A "tradition" that started all the way back in 1976.

Ooooo! That is a long time! /s jrSmiley_30_smiley_image.gif

How did we ever manage without tax returns?

By the way, Trump has submitted extensive paperwork detailing his various holdings. In fact, that is required. There's a form for it. It's called "Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report" (OGE Form 278e) . Before you get too eager about reading, it though, make sure you have lots of free time. It's 92 pages - twice the length of the form submitted by Mitt Romney. If you're really interested in conflicts of interest, this is the place to look. 

His tax returns would give you his income, his effective tax rate, and the amount he donated to charity. That's about it. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Expert
1.3.10  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.9    3 years ago

Did you read my post entirely?

If so, why did you Comment on a secondary point, while ignoring the primary?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.3.11  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.3.10    3 years ago

I commented on what I felt like commenting on. At least I responded to something you wrote. All you're doing is complaining.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
1.3.12  dennis smith  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.3    3 years ago

It is a tradition to respect others also which the sad Dems are unwilling to do 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
1.3.13  Studiusbagus  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.9    3 years ago
His tax returns would give you his income, his effective tax rate, and the amount he donated to charity. That's about it. 

Ya think he's filed a 1040EZ? 

 I'm peanuts compared to a mega business person and I have to file how and where my income derives. Including money made offshore and the source. 

Since American banks won't touch him he's going to have a lot of detail of his financing.

So many on the right don't want to know about Trump's dealings in public but drooled at the thought of tearing in to the Clintons income and the foundation.

Hypocracy much?

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Participates
1.3.14  seeder  Spikegary  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.3    3 years ago
For quite some time, it was traditional, standard, for Presidential candidates to publish their tax returns, so that voters could better understand.

1976 - 2018 = 42 years

1776 - 2018 = 242 years

So, 'quite some time' is only what, what 20% or so?  Yeah.  Again I ask, when are the Democrats actually going to govern?  Seems all they plan on doing is investigating stuff.  Is this what they were elected to do?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Expert
1.3.15  Bob Nelson  replied to  Spikegary @1.3.14    3 years ago
Seems all they plan on doing is investigating stuff.

Benghazi!

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.3.16  Tacos!  replied to  Studiusbagus @1.3.13    3 years ago
I have to file

So does Trump. If he didn't, the IRS would have gone after him for it a long time ago.

As for what we investigate, I just there want there to be a solid reason to justify it, whether it's Trump or Clinton. It's not right to demand documents from Trump just because others have submitted those documents and then try to claim that you're looking for a conflict of interest, but you can't name what that conflict might be.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.3.17  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.3.15    3 years ago
Benghazi

Where Americans actually died, prompting (very appropriately) thorough investigation.

Here, the Democrats just want to go fishing through Trump's tax returns to see if there is anything they can spin as being somehow potentially problematic. They don't have a specific reason to be looking for anything in particular.

Those two scenarios are like millions of miles apart.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
1.3.18  Studiusbagus  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.16    3 years ago
It's not right to demand documents from Trump just because others have submitted those documents and then try to claim that you're looking for a conflict of interest,

We are way past looking for conflict of interest. 

Like I said, this isn't some 1040EZ or A. He has to itemize everything for the tax breaks he gets which is about $500 million a year. 

I have zero doubt Mueller already has Trump's filing and his credit report. 

If they pulled my filing the details of who and where are obvious. His even moreso.

It's not right to demand documents from Trump just because others have submitted those documents

I'm sure they'll get right on that and apologize...lol

It doesn't matter what you think, it's legal.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.3.19  Tacos!  replied to  Studiusbagus @1.3.18    3 years ago
We are way past looking for conflict of interest.

You might be, but according to the seed, that is the reason the Democrats want to see his tax returns. That's why I'm talking about it.

Democrats have argued that Trump's tax returns are crucial in determining whether his sprawling business operations present a conflict of interest.

I just think people should be fair and reasonable. We have his financial disclosures. Read all 92 pages and come back with a reason based on what is in there to look at his tax returns. "We didn't find anything" is not a reason.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
1.3.20  Studiusbagus  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.19    3 years ago

Lol....the financial disclosures he has had to amend? That alone should invite scrutiny.

The federal Office of Government Ethics, in a letter to the Justice Department released Wednesday, said that " the payment by Mr. Cohen" to a third party by law should have been revealed in Trump's financial disclosure filing last year. However, the payment was not revealed in that filing. The OGE's acting director on Wednesday gave the   Justice Department   both this year's report and last year's report "because you may find the disclosure relevant to any inquiry you may be pursuing."

From CNBC

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
1.3.21  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.5    3 years ago

I vote for some awesome Texas BBQ.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.3.22  Tacos!  replied to  Studiusbagus @1.3.20    3 years ago
That alone should invite scrutiny

So scrutinize, then - where reasonable, not randomly.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.23  Texan1211  replied to  Studiusbagus @1.3.18    3 years ago

If Mueller already has Trump's tax returns (which I am not sure he would) there is no need for Pelosi to get them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.24  Texan1211  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.3.21    3 years ago

smoking a brisket and turkey for Christmas.

I'll save ya some!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
1.3.25  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.24    3 years ago

I will trade you my Kobe steak for your brisket.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.26  Texan1211  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.3.25    3 years ago
I will trade you my Kobe steak for your brisket.

I got lucky enough to try Kobe once when a company I worked for took a bunch of us out to eat. It was fantastic! but out of my price range.

Trade pound for pound? LOL!

Ok, ok, 2 lbs. of brisket for one pound of Kobe.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
1.3.27  Studiusbagus  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.22    3 years ago
So scrutinize, then - wherereasonable,not randomly

You don't get to make those calls the law does.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
1.3.28  Studiusbagus  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.23    3 years ago
If Mueller already has Trump's tax returns (which I am not sure he would) there is no need for Pelosi to get them.

Why is that? It's a seperate investigation.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.29  Texan1211  replied to  Studiusbagus @1.3.28    3 years ago

What exactly is Nancy "investigating" and why?

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
1.3.30  Studiusbagus  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.29    3 years ago

Don't know. I'm not a congress member and I've only talked to her a few times and that was several years ago.

Why don't you ask her?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.31  Texan1211  replied to  Studiusbagus @1.3.30    3 years ago

Sounds more like a fishing expedition then.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.3.32  Tacos!  replied to  Studiusbagus @1.3.27    3 years ago
You don't get to make those calls

Oh, but I do! I'm a voter.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
1.3.33  Studiusbagus  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.32    3 years ago
Oh, but I do! I'm a voter.

Well, you just go step right up and tell them how to do this. I'm sure they'd get right on that for you.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
1.3.34  Studiusbagus  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.31    3 years ago
Sounds more like a fishing expedition then.

So far the creel is filling up...

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
1.3.35  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.26    3 years ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.36  Texan1211  replied to  Studiusbagus @1.3.34    3 years ago

SO little Nancy is filling up a creel with God-knows-what, and you get all excited over THAT?

LMFAO

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
1.3.37  Studiusbagus  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.36    3 years ago
SO little Nancy is filling up a creel with God-knows-what,

Yes, sometimes I wonder that about conservatives.

She will be flipping Nunes fish, Issa fish, Trump fish, oh and what most runs with that school....suckers.

Unfortunately they're worthless because they're bottom feeders.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.38  Texan1211  replied to  Studiusbagus @1.3.37    3 years ago

it's nice you still dream.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Masters Participates
1.3.39  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.38    3 years ago

[Removed]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.40  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.3.39    3 years ago
Trump and Cump
will be going down like an aging Asian Hooker who on occasion is caucasion, and they'll take Jared and Sub Weigh as well as the whole adultering Family as Well
straight to HELL
with the hole bunch !

You sound as though you may have some valuable insights on aging Asian hookers. Done much research?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Masters Participates
1.3.41  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.40    3 years ago

unlike Trump

ive know need to pay

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.42  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.3.41    3 years ago
unlike Trump
ive know need to pay

So how exactly did you become an expert on aging Asian hookers?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Masters Participates
1.3.43  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.42    3 years ago

i like the way certain words can go together

but

u probably never noticed

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.44  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.3.43    3 years ago
i like the way certain words can go together
but
u probably never noticed

And THAT'S how you became an expert on aging Asian hookers???

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Masters Participates
1.3.45  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.44    3 years ago

[Removed]

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
1.3.46  Studiusbagus  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.9    3 years ago
By the way, Trump has submitted extensive paperwork detailing his various holdings. In fact, thatisrequired.

Didn't he have to amend that to show the illegal payoff to Daniels?

I know Ivanks and her hubby has had to.

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Participates
1.3.47  seeder  Spikegary  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.3.15    3 years ago

So, you are saying one side of the aisle should do the same thing that they bitched about the other side doing for years?  How childish of them.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Expert
1.3.48  Bob Nelson  replied to  Spikegary @1.3.47    3 years ago
So, you are saying...

No.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
1.3.49  Tacos!  replied to  Studiusbagus @1.3.46    3 years ago

I don't know, but I have heard that it's pretty common that people have to amend those things to correct errors. I would imagine that with a 92-page filing, there would be a lot of potential for that.

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Participates
1.3.50  seeder  Spikegary  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.3.48    3 years ago

So, you vomited out the single word, 'Benghazi'.

What exactly is it you are trying to communicate, then?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Expert
1.3.51  Bob Nelson  replied to  Spikegary @1.3.50    3 years ago
... you vomited...

Really?

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
1.4  Studiusbagus  replied to  Spikegary @1    3 years ago
WHat will she do?  Craft a law that says presdients/candidates have to show their tax returns?

Nope a subpeona will do just fine.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
1.4.2  Studiusbagus  replied to    3 years ago
But Trump could redact a lot of the information if he so choose.

And you said I was uninformed?

That is one stupid, stupid comment.

How the fuck is Trump going to redact a tax return and a credit report that wouldn't be going through him anyway?

Don't run away, I would love to see your follow up answer.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
1.4.3  Studiusbagus  replied to    3 years ago

[Removed]

 
 
 
Rmando
Sophomore Silent
2  Rmando    3 years ago

Another shiny object to dangle in front of the left while it saves Dems from actually having to think up ideas or solutions to real problems.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Rmando @2    3 years ago

Another shiny object to dangle in front of the left while it saves Dems from actually having to think up ideas or solutions to real problems.

Problem no.1 = Trump.

The rest will be addressed after no.1 is taken care of.

 
 
 
Rmando
Sophomore Silent
2.1.1  Rmando  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1    3 years ago

Trump is no problem at all. Democrats standing in his way are.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Rmando @2.1.1    3 years ago
Trump is no problem at all. Democrats standing in his way are.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Republicans have had majorities in both the House and Senate for the last 2 years, AND YOU'RE STILL BLAMING THE DEMOCRATS ?!?!?!?!

[ Removed ]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Rmando @2.1.1    3 years ago

You forgot one of the progressive left's favorite words:

"Obstuctionists!!!"

 
 
 
XDm9mm
Masters Expert
2.1.4  XDm9mm  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.3    3 years ago
You forgot one of the progressive left's favorite words: "Obstuctionists!!!"

True.   They needed to learn a new 50 cent word since "collusion" failed miserably.

I'm curious as to what the word of the week / month will be in January.

 
 
 
lennylynx
Sophomore Participates
2.1.5  lennylynx  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.4    3 years ago

Collusion is the LEFT'S word??  LOL!  Uh, no 9mil, that is definitely Trump's word, he can't stop saying it. "No collusion, no collusion!!"  As if 'collusion' is the only thing he has to worry about!  You wish Donnie.  'Collusion' is the least of his problems...

 
 
 
XDm9mm
Masters Expert
2.1.7  XDm9mm  replied to  lennylynx @2.1.5    3 years ago
Collusion is the LEFT'S word??

It most certainly is.   Or has the left now discovered conspiracy?    The left comes up with new terms so rapidly, it's difficult to keep current.

Needless to say, it's all empty words with no substance.  Two years and counting and what do you have?  NADDA, ZIP, ZILCH, ZERO, NOTHING!!!!  LMFAO!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
2.1.8  96WS6  replied to    3 years ago

fake news.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.1.9  cjcold  replied to  96WS6 @2.1.8    3 years ago

Far right wing s

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
2.1.10  Studiusbagus  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.4    3 years ago
I'm curious as to what the word of the week / month will be in January.

Gee, I don't know.....maybe "Gruber" "marxist" "snowflake"....

The left isn't fed dog whistle words of the week for the weak" which is something I noticed and noted frequently since the days of NV. 

The right are so easily led by these.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
2.1.11  Jasper2529  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.4    3 years ago
I'm curious as to what the word of the week / month will be in January.

Well, the "code words" fried chicken, watermelon, and cornbread have already been overused so maybe these can replace them at least through the winter:

  • baby
  • cold
  • outside
  • frosty
  • red-nose 

jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
2.2  Studiusbagus  replied to  Rmando @2    3 years ago
Another shiny object to dangle in front of the left while it saves Dems from actually having to think up ideas or solutions to real problems.

Uh huh....BENGHAAAAAZI

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3  Tacos!    3 years ago
Democrats have argued that Trump's tax returns are crucial in determining whether his sprawling business operations present a conflict of interest.

OK, this is not how we do things in this country. I don't care who the focus of the investigation is, the government does not get to demand documents from you without probably cause to suspect wrongdoing. That's the 4th Amendment. They don't get to demand your tax returns and then go hunting for possible conflicts of interest - emphasis on possible. Furthermore, no person is required to turn over evidence that might tend to incriminate him. That's the 5th Amendment. The President of the United States - like any citizen - is protected by these rights.

If Congress had a specific, articulable reason to suspect a actual conflict of interest, then asking for his tax returns could be reasonable.

What is being proposed here is the very kind of tyranny our founders sought to protect us from when they wrote the Bill of Rights. The notion that Congress can just start demanding documents and records from people so they can look for a crime should offend anyone who values the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.1  96WS6  replied to  Tacos! @3    3 years ago

They actually can but they can't reveal anything they have found.  That is why it is a stunt to appease the loons.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  96WS6 @3.1    3 years ago
That is why it is a stunt to appease the loons.

The other reason it's a stunt is because he has already filed 92 pages of paperwork detailing all of his holdings. If they wanted to find conflicts of interest, they could simply look there.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  96WS6 @3.1    3 years ago
They actually can but they can't reveal anything they have found.  That is why it is a stunt to appease the loons.

That's why it IS NOT a stunt.  If they can't reveal anything, it is no stunt, however it is a method for an investigative committee to determine any conflicts of interest, OR violations of the Emoluments Clause, OR signs of someone being bought and paid for by a certain hostile country.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3    3 years ago

The New York Times demonstrated convincing evidence of tax fraud by the Trump family. Congress has every right to look into it.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Expert
3.2.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    3 years ago

It's annoying that everything that Trump has destroyed must be rebuilt... but it will be fun to watch the law gradually consume Trump..

I remember Watergate...

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    3 years ago
The New York Times demonstrated convincing evidence of tax fraud by the Trump family.

How convincing!

You do know that's literally the job of the IRS , right? Are you suggesting the IRS isn't doing its job? Why would Congress be more qualified to conduct such an investigation?

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.2.3  96WS6  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.2.1    3 years ago
I remember Watergate...

Me too.  Ironic how much worse folks have done and gotten away with it.

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Participates
3.2.4  seeder  Spikegary  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.2    3 years ago

That's the same question I had.  Especially, the IRS under the Obama Administration couldn't find anything.....and yet, Congress Critters?  Maybe they need to have Occasio-Cortez be the lead congressional investigator...oh wait, she doesn't know how to pay for an apartment.........

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
3.2.5  Studiusbagus  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.2    3 years ago
You do know that's literally the job of the IRS , right? Are you suggesting the IRS isn't doing its job?

The IRS is tasked with accounting, not forensic investigation.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.2.6  Tacos!  replied to  Studiusbagus @3.2.5    3 years ago

It always kind of blows me away when someone comments in direct contradiction to a fact that's right there in front of them. Did you follow the link you ended up quoting? Did you notice it was an IRS website entitled "Criminal Enforcement?"

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.6    3 years ago
Did you notice it was an IRS website entitled "Criminal Enforcement?"

IRS has the same issue as so many other government agencies, not enough resources to do their job thoroughly.  Criminality would have to stand out like a sore thumb before the IRS starts any criminal investigation, wealthy people hire lawyers to hide any questionable tax practices from being looked at that closely.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.2.8  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.7    3 years ago
Criminality would have to stand out like a sore thumb before the IRS starts any criminal investigation

Are you suggesting the IRS is incapable of catching someone like Trump and needs Congress to help them out?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.8    3 years ago

Are you suggesting the IRS is incapable of catching someone like Trump and needs Congress to help them out?

Except for very rare occasions, yes.  IRS generally needs Congress, or more commonly the FBI, to bring them into a criminal investigation.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.9    3 years ago

Bullshit through and through.

The IRS is a powerful body unto itself. 

Note:

 
 
 
XDm9mm
Masters Expert
3.2.11  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.9    3 years ago
Except for very rare occasions, yes. 

You are aware are you not that the IRS only investigates roughly 2% of tax returns for POSSIBLE illegalities.   Purportedly they only look at returns where there is roughly a $70,000 evasion or what they believe to be intentional evasion.

As Trump has been operating for decades with no criminal actions, and I feel confident in noting that he is among a handful of individuals that generates intense scrutiny by the IRS, there is nothing illegal happening.   

If there WAS illegal activities involved, the IRS if FULLY CAPABLE of initiating and prosecuting if necessary it's own criminal investigation without the help or request of Congress or the FBI.   The IRS is after all a LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

IRS generally needs Congress, or more commonly the FBI, to bring them into a criminal investigation.

Simply put.....  a LAUGHABLE comment.   Congress and or the FBI can request IRS assistance in a criminal investigation, but the IRS is fully capable of initiating their own investigation.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.12  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.11    3 years ago
As Trump has been operating for decades with no criminal actions, and I feel confident in noting that he is among a handful of individuals that generates intense scrutiny by the IRS, there is nothing illegal happening.   

You seriously need to stop contradicting yourself in the same comment.

You are aware are you not that the IRS only investigates roughly 2% of tax returns for POSSIBLE illegalities.

Because of budgetary shortcomings.  Thank you for confirming my statement.

If there WAS illegal activities involved, the IRS if FULLY CAPABLE of initiating and prosecuting if necessary it's own criminal investigation without the help or request of Congress or the FBI. 

Never said they are incapable of it, merely said that they don't have the staff or budget to examine all returns that closely.  The same thing you stated in your 1st sentence.

Simply put.....  a LAUGHABLE comment.

Which comment?  The one you confirmed, or the one you didn't address?

Congress and or the FBI can request IRS assistance in a criminal investigation, but the IRS is fully capable of initiating their own investigation.

Never said they couldn't, merely said that they normally "DIDN'T", because "the IRS only investigates roughly 2% of tax returns for POSSIBLE illegalities" because they don't have the budget or manpower to do more.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.2.13  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.9    3 years ago
IRS generally needs Congress, or more commonly the FBI, to bring them into a criminal investigation.

What makes you think this?

Here's how it's done, according to the IRS (tl;dr, the word "Congress" does not appear in this document):

How Criminal Investigations Are Initiated

The Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division conducts criminal investigations regarding alleged violations of the Internal Revenue Code, the Bank Secrecy Act and various money laundering statutes. The findings of these investigations are referred to the Department of Justice for recommended prosecution.  

So, it's the IRS, who calls DOJ, not the other way around. Now, of course that doesn't the DOJ couldn't alert the IRS to the possible subject of an investigation. These agencies cooperate with one another. But to suggest that the IRS generally needs DOJ to bring them into an investigation for tax fraud to be investigated just isn't true.

Approximately 3,000 criminal prosecutions per year provide a deterrent effect and signals to our compliant taxpayers that fraud will not be tolerated.

For more information, see the IRS Criminal Enforcement page.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.14  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.13    3 years ago
Here's how it's done, according to the IRS

Why do you keep arguing about something I never stated???

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.2.15  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.14    3 years ago

I quoted you. That's all I have to go on. Not trying to misrepresent you or anything.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.16  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.15    3 years ago
I quoted you. That's all I have to go on. Not trying to misrepresent you or anything.

Yes you quoted me, but your responses are not about anything I actually said.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.2.17  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.16    3 years ago

Well, then maybe you can clarify. The discussion seems to be about whether or not it is warranted and/or necessary for Congress to investigate Trump's tax returns. I am content to let the IRS do its job until I have a solid reason to believe they aren't. You do seem to be arguing that the IRS needs Congress to step in. Is that wrong?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.18  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.17    3 years ago
Well, then maybe you can clarify. The discussion seems to be about whether or not it is warranted and/or necessary for Congress to investigate Trump's tax returns.

Perhaps you should simply scroll up and refresh your on my original comment.....I'll wait.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.2.19  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.18    3 years ago
scroll up

Sorry, I only hunt in the mountains.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
3.3  Studiusbagus  replied to  Tacos! @3    3 years ago
OK, this isnothow we do things in this country. I don't care who the focus of the investigation is,

Never heard of Al Capone?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.3.1  Tacos!  replied to  Studiusbagus @3.3    3 years ago

I have. Funny thing about that. From 1924 through 1929, Al Capone failed to file a tax return of any kind. Makes it kind of easy, doesn't it? That's what you call some solid "probable cause." And do you know who brought him down? It wasn't Kevin Costner and Sean Connery. I t was IRS investigators .

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
3.4  Studiusbagus  replied to  Tacos! @3    3 years ago
Furthermore, no person is required to turn over evidence that might tend to incriminate him

He won't be required to turn over anything, a subpeona will take care of his tax returns and credit report. No need for Trump's involvement at all.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
4  bbl-1    3 years ago

It is true that...….."There is no law or rule compelling a candidate to reveal their Tax History."

However...…..There are laws concerning honest, legal and 'non-criminal' tax filings.

Remember the 'good ole' right wing argument concerning The Patriot Act, "You have nothing to hide--You have nothing to fear?

Well Mr. Trump...……………….,"Did you pay your fair share to assure that the grounds of Arlington National Cemetery were cared for?"

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @4    3 years ago

Trump has filed his taxes, and they have been audited by the IRS.

I will go with the IRS making sure he paid whatever he owed.

That IS their job.

Next?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
4.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    3 years ago

Uh no and no. 

As far as paying?  Well...….the Trump enterprise is about to get its due. 

Next...……..

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @4.1.1    3 years ago

No?

Trump did NOT file taxes?

Trump was NOT audited by the IRS?

It ISN'T the IRS' job to make sure people paid what they owe?

Or just "NO" to all of these simple facts?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
4.1.3  bbl-1  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.2    3 years ago

Sleep well.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @4.1.3    3 years ago

LMFAO!

I will take that as capitulation.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
4.1.5  dennis smith  replied to  bbl-1 @4.1.1    3 years ago

According to you? LOL

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    3 years ago
Trump has filed his taxes, and they have been audited by the IRS.

Prove that he filed honest tax forms.  Remember, there are are hush payments that he illegally omitted from other financial filings, why should we believe him on his taxes?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.6    3 years ago

Prove he filed correct returns?

Did the IRS penalize  him in any way?

Have you heard even a whisper that anything was wrong with his federal returns, besides some flapping gums on tv telling you? Maybe you should listen to something other than CNN and MSBN

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
5  Nowhere Man    3 years ago

My only problem is how insufferable the assholes are going to be.....

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Principal
6  It Is ME    3 years ago

"Nancy Pelosi said Democrats will begin to seek President Donald Trump's tax returns"

That's such an IMPORTANT matter for this countries welfare ! jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
6.1  Studiusbagus  replied to  It Is ME @6    3 years ago

As was Benghazi.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Principal
6.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Studiusbagus @6.1    3 years ago

More important than Tax returns.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
6.1.2  Studiusbagus  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.1    3 years ago

Your opinion only.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Principal
6.1.3  It Is ME  replied to  Studiusbagus @6.1.2    3 years ago
inion only.

I'd say "Death" is more important than "Paperwork"....wouldn't you ?

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
6.1.4  Studiusbagus  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.3    3 years ago

Can't bring those people back to life, sorry. But the right tried to put the gun in Clinton's hand didn't they?

I'll take what we can rectify.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Principal
6.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  Studiusbagus @6.1.4    3 years ago
I'll take what we can rectify.

Aaaaahhhhh….. The easy stuff.

I see answering the question is a bit ……. Taxing ? jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

Seems "Politics" has got you in it's web ! jrSmiley_46_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
6.1.6  Studiusbagus  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.5    3 years ago
I see answering the question is a bit

I already did answer it. 

But carry on governor.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6.1.7  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.3    3 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
6.1.8  bbl-1  replied to  Ozzwald @6.1.7    3 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  bbl-1 @6.1.8    3 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Principal
6.1.10  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @6.1.7    3 years ago
Have they started the 2nd investigation of the Niger killings yet?

Don't know…..

Can you fill me in on that Insider Knowledge you have ?

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Principal
6.1.11  It Is ME  replied to  Studiusbagus @6.1.6    3 years ago
I already did answer it.

Using the word "BUTT".....is a Merry-Go-Round response used by those that have no "REAL" response, on "the grounds It might Incriminate themselves" !

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Participates
6.1.12  seeder  Spikegary  replied to  Studiusbagus @6.1    3 years ago
As was Benghazi.

I'll ask the same question as I did above.  So it's okay for one side to do the exact same thing they bitched about the other side doing for years?  How childish.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
6.1.13  bbl-1  replied to  bbl-1 @6.1.8    3 years ago

Apparently the 'gorilla in heels crowd' are overly thin skinned, ya think?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6.1.14  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.10    3 years ago
Can you fill me in on that Insider Knowledge you have ?

If I had insider knowledge, why would I be asking????

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7  Sean Treacy    3 years ago

While it’s no surprise to democrats abuse their power and will destroy someone’s privacy in their pursuit of power( see Clinton taking fbi files of opponents) , the reality is no one will care.  His tax returns have already been illegally leaked and the public couldn’t have cared less as the stories dissappeared within a news cycle. He takes deductions, minimizes liability and borrows money.  Wow!

This just reinforces the fact that democrats have no respect for the individuals privacy rights.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
7.1  Studiusbagus  replied to  Sean Treacy @7    3 years ago
His tax returns have already been illegally leaked and the public couldn’t have cared less as the stories dissappeared within a news cycle.

That's because they knew Trump was the one that leaked them.

Didn't see him looking for thr leaker did ya?

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Participates
7.1.1  seeder  Spikegary  replied to  Studiusbagus @7.1    3 years ago

That makes no logical conenction and is unsupported by any facts.

So, you're just guessing at stuff.  Typical throw it against the wall in hopes it sticks.  Gotcha.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
7.1.2  Studiusbagus  replied to  Spikegary @7.1.1    3 years ago
That makes no logical conenction and is unsupported by any facts.

Guess you don't remember when maddow had that old return? 

He leaked that out to show he paid some taxes. Everyone but you figured that out.

The kicker was Trump wasn't jumping up and down to look for the leaker...because it came from him.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
8  Jeremy Retired in NC    3 years ago
Trump defied decades of tradition

(emphasis mine)  As pointed out by many others, there is no law for a candidate or office holder to release their tax returns.  

Aside from that, with all the shit with the Obama administration and the IRS, it's safe to say that they had looked into President Trumps taxes.  If there was something, they would have tried to exploit it during the campaign.  Their silence should tell everybody that  there is nothing there except Democrats continuing with their temper tantrum.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Quiet
9  livefreeordie    3 years ago

This is nothing but political theater to feed their radicalbase.  The Dems know they won’t get anything from Trump’s tax returns if they even get them

Trump’s returns will show them nothing of interest.  Most of his income on his personal return comes from K-1s which merely indicate how much money he received from profits or negative income from business losses. It will NOT show any detailed info from those businesses.

so keep wasting time on something you will never get

it shows the wisdom of FDR and JFK who also refused to make public their tax returns 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
9.1  Ozzwald  replied to  livefreeordie @9    3 years ago
The Dems know they won’t get anything from Trump’s tax returns if they even get them

Then why is he putting so much effort into hiding them?

Trump’s returns will show them nothing of interest.

Have you seen them?  Didn't think so, and refer back to my first response...why is he putting so much effort into hiding them?

Most of his income on his personal return comes from K-1s which merely indicate how much money he received from profits or negative income from business losses.

Once again, you haven't seen them, so you don't know anything about them.

so keep wasting time on something you will never get

Mueller already has them and Pelosi will after the 1st of the year.

it shows the wisdom of FDR and JFK who also refused to make public their tax returns

Did they also have business deals with hostile foreign countries?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
Masters Expert
9.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @9.1    3 years ago
Then why is he putting so much effort into hiding them?

He's effectively saying;  'It's none of your fucking business.'

And the truth of the matter is that's all he should say on the matter.

As to Mueller, you know that how exactly.  Please provide a viable link proving that point.

As to Pelosi, she'll have access to them once they're requested.    But, don't believe you'll ever see them.  To be released for public view still requires the individuals permission.

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Quiet
9.1.2  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @9.1.1    3 years ago
As to Mueller, you know that how exactly.  Please provide a viable link proving that point.

No need.  Mueller has access to everything, including the tax returns and doesn't need permission.  Of course he has them.  He has the legal right to them and they are most definitely pertinent. 

"I believe Mueller has already obtained tax returns in the Russia investigation," Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor in the Securities and Commodities Fraud Section of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago, said on Twitter on Aug. 10. He later wrote in The Hill he often used tax returns in his own federal investigations, and that it is almost a necessity in an investigation like Mueller's. It's also done without knowledge of the subjects of the investigation.

"A federal prosecutor obtains tax returns by seeking an ex parte order from a federal judge. That means that the person who is being investigated doesn't know that the tax returns are being sought or if the judge issues the order," he said. "Basically, it's done in secret."

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
9.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @9.1.1    3 years ago
He's effectively saying;  'It's none of your fucking business.'

Then you're saying that he lied each time he promised to release them?  You seem to suffer the same memory problems ( selective ) that Trump has.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @9.1.3    3 years ago

Of course he was lying.   Trump is a highly practiced liar.   IMO his method for advancement is based on lying and cheating.    

A better PotUS would be nice.   Will 2020 deliver?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
9.1.5  bbl-1  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.4    3 years ago

2020 deliver? 

How about Sheldon Whitehouse D RI?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Quiet
9.1.6  livefreeordie  replied to  Ozzwald @9.1    3 years ago

I’m a tax preparer and I’m well aware how business owners report income. Secondly we have seen at least one of his tax returns and it confirms what I stated.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
9.1.7  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @9.1.1    3 years ago
He's effectively saying;  'It's none of your fucking business.'

Then why did he demand that everyone else release THEIR tax returns? 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
Masters Expert
9.1.8  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @9.1.7    3 years ago
Then why did he demand that everyone else release THEIR tax returns? 

Effectively telling them to 'put up or shut up'.

It's a polite way of telling them to 'go fuck yourself'.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
Masters Expert
9.1.9  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @9.1.3    3 years ago
Then you're saying that he lied each time he promised to release them?  You seem to suffer the same memory problems (selective) that Trump has.

Did Hillary release all of her emails?

"I'd like" is no 'I promise'...   [deleted]

Do you know if any audits are complete?  If so, please state the source and provide the link.

So, please show me SPECIFICALLY where Trump "PROMISED" to release anything.  [deleted]

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
9.1.10  Split Personality  replied to  XDm9mm @9.1.9    3 years ago
Do you know if any audits are complete? 

Given that the IRS never comments, confirms or denies, do we really have any proof other than President Trump's words,

that he ever was or is currently under audit.

Maybe someone should ask Cohen...or Weisselberg.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @9.1.10    3 years ago

Feel free to ask them--and share what you find out!

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Participates
9.1.12  seeder  Spikegary  replied to  Split Personality @9.1.10    3 years ago

Do you rememebr Leona Helmsley?  They filed charges against her for essentially cheating on her taxes.  We all heard abot that.  How about Martha Stewart?  Why would they not do the same against President Trump, especially before he was president,o r even before he was a candidate?

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
9.1.13  Split Personality  replied to  Spikegary @9.1.12    3 years ago

Generally speaking the IRS always gives tax payers a chance to amend a return.  LH took tax avoidance to new levels.

Leona Helmsley ( "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes." )  could have settled but she was too mean, lol.

Guess who her lawyer was?  The Alan Dershowitz.

Though they lavishly furnished their homes and hotel, the Helmsleys were curiously diligent about evading the required payments and taxes for their purchases. Much of their personal furniture was written off as a business expense, and there were claims that the Helmsleys extorted free furnishings from their suppliers. Contractors were hardly ever paid on time-if at all-and many filed lawsuits to recover even just a portion of what they were owed. Leona reportedly also purchased hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry in New York City but insisted that empty boxes be sent to Connecticut so that she could avoid the sales tax.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
9.1.14  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @9.1.13    3 years ago
Contractors were hardly ever paid on time-if at all-and many filed lawsuits to recover even just a portion of what they were owed.

Sounds remarkably similar to what Realtor Trump has been accused of, must be something in the New York water.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
9.1.15  Split Personality  replied to  Spikegary @9.1.12    3 years ago

Martha Stewart, another new Yorker.   She started out as just a stupid small time state tax evader, arguing that because she didn't spend any time in her New York home, she shouldn't have to pay New York taxes, the State of New York disagreed to the tune of $220,000.00.  The IRS was not involved.

Her SEC troubles are well known, but as the Feds could not prove insider trading, they convicted her of lying and the stock loss of $45K she tried to avoid

turned into much, much more in restitution, fines, a brief imprisonment and house arrest and of course damage to her reputation.

As she rehabilitated her image afterwards, having retained 60% of the stock in her comany, she became even wealthier, possibly because of the good/bad publicity.

Now if you want to talk about kings of tax evasion

We can always drag out Democratic favorites

Wesley Snipes  On November 1, 2018, the United States Tax Court ruled that the Internal Revenue Service did not abuse its discretion in rejecting an offer in compromise made by Snipes and in sustaining the filing of a notice of federal tax lien in connection with approximately 23.5 million dollars in Federal tax liabilities for tax year 2001 and years 2003 through 2006.

Willy Nelson Nicholas Cage and Marc Antony all blamed their managers for mismanagement.

Nelson repaid 16 million, Cage 6 million plus fines and Anthony over 5 million.

No sympathy for any of them.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
9.1.16  Studiusbagus  replied to  livefreeordie @9.1.6    3 years ago
I’m a tax preparer and I’m well aware how business owners report income

Yeah, sure you are. And all my years of business I didn't take my taxes to H&R Block. 

Business people like myself use CPA's not some guy that's good at filling out 1040EZ forms for granny.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.17  Vic Eldred  replied to  Studiusbagus @9.1.16    3 years ago
Yeah, sure you are.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that he is not a tax preparer? Or that Business people only use CPA's?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Quiet
9.1.18  livefreeordie  replied to  Studiusbagus @9.1.16    3 years ago

Neither do I,  I own my insurance, tax and accounting business.  I’m registered with the IRS and am a bonded CETEC registered preparer in the State of California. 

more than 75% of my clients are small business owners, partnerships, and independent contractors. My clients are in 7 states 

i haven’t done a 1040 EZ for a client in more than a decade when I was doing volunteer returns at a senior center in my free time

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
9.1.19  Studiusbagus  replied to  livefreeordie @9.1.18    3 years ago
small business owners, partnerships, and independent contractors. My clients are in 7 states 

Whether you are or not, and frankly I don't really care that you have clients in 7 states.

All your clients are mom n' pop businesses. 

I just retired and sold my import/export company this year.

Clients in 22 COUNTRIES, employees in 4, and gross sales north of 40 mil. I imported in to L.A., Jacksonville, Miami and NYC.

You ain't preparing shit if you don't have a CPA license.

I'm peanuts in comparison and none of my competitors would even come near you let alone Trump.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Quiet
9.1.20  livefreeordie  replied to  Studiusbagus @9.1.19    3 years ago

I never claimed they would. But that doesn’t negate your false accusation that I don’t know tax procedures, rules, or tax law.

and in my prior career in the corporate world, I ran companies or served in an executive position in companies in the US and Asia. Your bragging is meaningless. I had as many as 4000 employees under me and operating budgets up to several billion dollar. I met regularly with NASA, military leaders, Congressional members of the Defense Appropriations Committee, foreign government cabinet members and their staff.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @9.1.20    3 years ago

original

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
9.1.22  Studiusbagus  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.21    3 years ago

Hahahaha!

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Participates
9.1.23  Studiusbagus  replied to  livefreeordie @9.1.20    3 years ago
Your bragging is meaningless

Neither do I,  I own my insurance, tax and accounting business.  I’m registered with the IRS and am a bonded CETEC registered preparer in the State of California. 

more than 75% of my clients are small business owners, partnerships, and independent contractors. My clients are in 7 states 

Uh huh...

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
PhD Guide
10  Thrawn 31    3 years ago
There is no law or rule compelling a president or candidate to do so

There should be. If you want to be the president then I damn well feel I have a right to know what financial shit you are in. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @10    3 years ago

I suggest you contact your reps and press them on the issue.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


XXJefferson51


21 visitors