Incoming House Ways and Means Committee chairman will seek Trump tax returns

Via:  krishna  •  2 weeks ago  •  100 comments

Incoming House Ways and Means Committee chairman will seek Trump tax returns
As he has since the presidential campaign, Trump said Wednesday that an audit of his taxes by the Internal Revenue Service prevents him from releasing his returns.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


512

Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass. (Photo: Jose Luis Magana/AP)

At a contentious White House news conference Wednesday, Trump made it clear that he had no intention of voluntarily disclosing his returns to members of the House.


Trump is the first president in decades to withhold his tax returns from public view and Democrats believe that they could answer questions about his ties to the Russian government in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, as well as illuminate ways in which he and his family avoided enormous tax bills, as detailed in an explosive New York Times investigation.


As he has since the presidential campaign, Trump said Wednesday that an audit of his taxes by the Internal Revenue Service prevents him from releasing his returns. 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Krishna
1  seeder  Krishna    2 weeks ago

Uh-Oh!!!

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Krishna @1    one week ago

It was hilarious to watch Trump stumble over his words as he was trying to say how complicated his tax returns are and how nobody will understand them and that the Trump businesses are soooo big they can't let the public see his actual income. I think it's far more likely that he's not worth nearly as much as he says he is and we'll find out the insane loopholes his tax attorneys claim he can use to shelter what money he does have. We might also find out the actual source of his fortune since he apparently squandered the hundreds of millions his father left him with like any inept narcissistic man baby would.

"Forbes estimated that Trump was worth $200 million that year (1982). If he'd put that money in an index fund that year at a 0.15 percent fee, he'd have $6.3 billion today"

"It's hard to nail down Trump's precise net worth, but Bloomberg currently puts it at $2.9 billion"

https://www.vox.com/2015/9/2/9248963/donald-trump-index-fund

So the self-anointed "incredible businessman" and co-author of "The Art of the Deal" who convinced all his sycophant followers that he'd make America great again because he was such a financial genius actually LOST over $3 BILLION over the last 35 years trying to play real estate magnate. He would be worth at least twice as much today if he had simply invested the millions his father handed him. His book should have been called "The Art of the Free Meal: How to Squander Billions of Unearned Inheritance".

 
 
PJ
1.2  PJ  replied to  Krishna @1    one week ago

I think you mean......................

320

 
 
JBB
2  JBB    2 weeks ago

It is about time we all got a good look into Trump's books, finally...

 
 
Krishna
2.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  JBB @2    2 weeks ago

The reason Trump fired sessions is because he wants to appoint a different Attorney General in hopes that the new guy will somehow be able to end the Mueller probe. (I don't think this tactic will work). 

But whether Trump's efforts to quash the Mueller Investigation is successful or not-- now there's going to be a second group investigating Trump-- the new Democratic majority in the House will now control all committees and soon the new House Ways and Means Committee will also be investigating Trump's actions. (The party that controls the House also control the committees).

So in addition to Mueller's group, there will now be a second group investigating Trump-- that House Committee.

.

 
 
Krishna
2.1.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @2.1    2 weeks ago

P.S: There have been rumours that Mueller now has Trump's tax records. That seems unlikely to me-- but it could be true. (We don't know at this point because so far Mueller has kept things secret-- we don't know yet what he has uncovered).

 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Krishna @2.1.1    2 weeks ago
There have been rumours that Mueller now has Trump's tax records. That seems unlikely to me

To see if Trump is in Putin's pocket, Trump's taxes were probably one of the 1st things Mueller got at the very beginning.  

>>> Follow the money <<<

79576b5b5f457ef258dd57b2c5cb9bd3.jpg

 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Krishna @2.1    2 weeks ago

So the left will continue sailing on the ship of fools trying to sink Trump, and forget once again that they were elected by their constituents to lead and govern??  Gotcha! That's what we expected them to do!

Such pointless stupidity will ensure Trump's reelection and the GOP retaking the House.

 
 
arkpdx
2.2  arkpdx  replied to  JBB @2    2 weeks ago

Why?  The proper government offices have them and have seen them. If their was something wrong with them something would have been done by now and they news would have been keeled .You have no need and have no right to see them .

 
 
Dulay
2.2.1  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @2.2    2 weeks ago
Why? 

Because the Congress has a separate and Constitutional responsibility for Oversight. There are even Committees with 'Oversight' in their title. 

The proper government offices have them and have seen them.

What 'offices' would those be? 

If their was something wrong with them something would have been done by now and they news would have been keeled .

Well depending on which 'Office' you have on your list, each has separate responsibilities. So which one on your list are you claiming would have 'keeled' [whatever that means] Trump. 

You have no need and have no right to see them.

Actually they have EVERY right to Trump's Tax returns and NEED them in order to judge whether he is motivated or hamstrung by his debt to foreign influences. 

There is also the question of his possible violations of the emoluments clause. 

 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @2.2.1    2 weeks ago

I can only suggest those in Congress that are demanding to see his tax returns are prepared for this:

(g) Disclosure to President and certain other persons
(1) In general Upon written request by the President, signed by him personally, the Secretary shall furnish to the President, or to such employee or employees of the White House Office as the President may designate by name in such request, a return or return information with respect to any taxpayer named in such request. Any such request shall state—
   (A) the name and address of the taxpayer whose return or return information is to be disclosed,
   (B) the kind of return or return information which is to be disclosed,
   (C) the taxable period or periods covered by such return or return information, and
   (D) the specific reason why the inspection or disclosure is requested
President Trump likely will fight any 'demand' in court and will in all probability ultimately succeed.
Those in Congress on the other hand likely wouldn't even know THEY'RE being scrutinized.  
Now, as we're all aware that the vast majority of congressional members are NOT//NOT squeaky clean, who do you think will flinch first?
 
 
gooseisgone
2.2.3  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @2.2.1    2 weeks ago
Actually they have EVERY right to Trump's Tax returns

No they don't, if the IRS sees no problem with his tax returns why do you think the idiots in congress are going to find something. 

There is also the question of his possible violations of the emoluments clause. 

Give me an example of where you think there is a violation.

 
 
Greg Jones
2.2.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Dulay @2.2.1    2 weeks ago

 in order to judge whether he is motivated or hamstrung by his debt to foreign influences. 

What does that have to do with anything? Everything he has done up to now is within his presidential powers.

I would think that Obama's obedient holdover IRS flunkies would have found something by now.

 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.5  XDm9mm  replied to  gooseisgone @2.2.3    2 weeks ago
No they don't,

Actually, they do have all the "authority" they need and it contained in the link I provided in #2.2.2 above.

However, if they're depending on a NY Times article that was recycled from the 1970's I believe, they might have problems.

 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.6  XDm9mm  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.4    2 weeks ago
I would think that Obama's obedient holdover IRS flunkies would have found something by now.

Even if they HAD found something, the statute of limitations has expired decades ago.   

 
 
arkpdx
2.2.7  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @2.2.1    2 weeks ago

Is JBB a member of Congress?  A set ends you?  Please prove if you are going to claim to be. JBB's comment did say "we" would get to see them .

 
 
Dulay
2.2.8  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.2    2 weeks ago

From YOUR link:

(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1)Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

BTW, the new Chairwoman for the Committee on Finance is Rep. Maxine Waters. 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
WallyW
2.2.9  WallyW  replied to  Dulay @2.2.8    2 weeks ago

That's a real knee-slapper. jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Dulay
2.2.10  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @2.2.3    2 weeks ago
No they don't, if the IRS sees no problem with his tax returns why do you think the idiots in congress are going to find something. 

YES they DO. READ the part of the statute that XD conveniently truncated out of his post. 

f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1)Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation

Give me an example of where you think there is a violation.

Foreign profits from his DC hotel.

 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.11  livefreeordie  replied to  Dulay @2.2.10    2 weeks ago

Leftist fantasy. There is NO legal authority to demand a president’s tax returns

nor will they show them anything even if submitted.  Nearly all of Trump’s income is reported as K-1 (share of profit or loss) from business. They show no details except the name of the company which are his and the amount of profit or loss.

The Dems know this so it’s pure political theater

 
 
It Is ME
2.2.12  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @2.2.8    2 weeks ago
(g) Disclosure to President and certain other persons
(1) In general Upon written request by the President, signed by him personally, the Secretary shall furnish to the President, or to such employee or employees of the White House Office as the President may designate by name in such request, a return or return information with respect to any taxpayer named in such request. Any such request shall state—
   (A) the name and address of the taxpayer whose return or return information is to be disclosed,
   (B) the kind of return or return information which is to be disclosed,
   (C) the taxable period or periods covered by such return or return information, and
   (D) the specific reason why the inspection or disclosure is requested

Is Maxine and company Really, Really, REALLY ready to play "The Game "

This would be fun to watch if it occurs ! The Swamp comes clean ? jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Dulay
2.2.13  Dulay  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.11    one week ago
Leftist fantasy. There is NO legal authority to demand a president’s tax returns

READ the statute and weep.

 
 
Dulay
2.2.14  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.12    one week ago

It really would promote cogent discussion if at least one of y'all would learn how to read a fucking statute.

It's widely accepted by legal experts that Mueller already HAS Trump's tax returns. IF the subsection of that statute meant what you WRONGLY think it means, Mueller wouldn't have been able to get those returns. 

Y'all seem to think that Trump OWNS his tax forms, he doesn't. Your tax returns are government documents and their release is regulated via the statute y'all seem incapable of understanding. 

 
 
It Is ME
2.2.15  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @2.2.14    one week ago
It really would promote cogent discussion if at least one of y'all would learn how to read a fucking statute.

Your understanding and my understanding seem to be at …….FUCKING Odds with each other ! jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

Interpretation of the now "Living breathing law" , and all that Fucking rot dontchyaknow ! jrSmiley_32_smiley_image.gif

 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.16  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @2.2.10    one week ago
YES they DO. READ the part of the statute that XD conveniently truncated out of his post.

Wow...

Well, how about the rest of the WHOLE FUCKING STATUTE YOU truncated?

I simply noted that the President has the same authority to go after tax returns as Congress has to go after his.

Now, do YOU really think ANY MEMBER of Congress is clean enough to have their returns scrutinized?

However, I tend to believe that if there was ANYTHING illegal in any of the tax returns President Trump has submitted, he would have been prosecuted long ago, considering the NY Times article is regurgitated bullshit from the 1970's.

 
 
livefreeordie
2.2.17  livefreeordie  replied to  Dulay @2.2.13    one week ago

I have and it doesn’t support your argument 

the Dems can demand all they want but the President rightfully will win in court

http://yalejreg.com/nc/can-congress-get-president-trumps-tax-returns/

 
 
Dulay
2.2.18  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.16    one week ago
I simply noted that the President has the same authority to go after tax returns as Congress has to go after his.

Bullshit, your stated:

I can only suggest those in Congress that are demanding to see his tax returns are prepared for this:

Which suggests that Trump should use his Executive authority in order to RETALIATE against his political opponents. 

You also stated:

President Trump likely will fight any 'demand' in court and will in all probability ultimately succeed.

It's been reported that Mueller is working with the Criminal investigative unit of the IRS. Trump's returns are OUT THERE already. 

Now, do YOU really think ANY MEMBER of Congress is clean enough to have their returns scrutinized?

You are positing that Trump sould use the IRS for corrupt purposes.

However, I tend to believe that if there was ANYTHING illegal in any of the tax returns President Trump has submitted, he would have been prosecuted long ago, considering the NY Times article is regurgitated bullshit from the 1970's.

Right because the fact that Manafort got away with shit for so long didn't prove that wrong. /s

 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.19  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @2.2.18    one week ago

Whatever you say.

Please don't respond to me again.  I'm tired of your petulant need to get in the last word and assumption that you know everything, even what others are thinking.  Besides, I need to have discourse with intelligent adults.

 
 
Dulay
2.2.20  Dulay  replied to  livefreeordie @2.2.17    one week ago

Wow, I don't think you READ that article either...

From YOUR link:

There are, however, various proper legislative inquiries that Congress can make regarding President Trump. These inquiries may easily relate to his finances, even if not necessarily to his tax returns. For example, there are some lingering ethical issues related to the President’s plan to separate himself from the Trump Organization, as explained by Professor Milan Markovic here. Congress might thus want to examine some of Trump’s financial information as it considers whether to amend ethics statutes. Also, the Foreign Emoluments Clause raises potential constitutional problems for President Trump, and Congress might wish to investigate those problems.
 
 
Dulay
2.2.21  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.19    one week ago
Whatever you say.
Please don't respond to me again. 

There is a process for that, use it. 

I'm tired of your petulant need to get in the last word and assumption that you know everything, even what others are thinking. 

Projecting. 

Besides, I need to have discourse with intelligent adults.

Being an intelligent adult would elevate your own discourse too.  

 
 
cjcold
2.2.22  cjcold  replied to  gooseisgone @2.2.3    one week ago

Trump hotel rooms for visiting dignitaries at extreme rates for one.

 
 
Tessylo
2.2.23  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @2.2.8    5 days ago
'BTW, the new Chairwoman for the Committee on Finance is Rep. Maxine Waters.'

Sweet!

 
 
Tessylo
2.2.24  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @2.2.22    5 days ago

Doesn't the Secret Service also have to pay rent on his golf carts on his golf courses as he hauls his big fat ass around on his golf courses?

 
 
Sparty On
2.2.25  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.24    5 days ago

Big fat ass?   This seed isn't about Hillary ....

 
 
Tacos!
3  Tacos!    2 weeks ago

Why? Who cares? Do these morons really think they were elected because Americans lie awake at night worrying about Trump's tax returns? If there was something improper in his tax returns, the IRS would be demanding he fix it or referring the matter to DOJ for prosecution. We don't need Congress to blow the lid off of Trump's finances.

What they would really do is take something perfectly ordinary and legal and portray it as illegal or immoral in some way and the obedient legions will all be appropriately outraged . . . at nothing, as per frickin' usual.

Or Democrats could try governing for a change.

 
 
Krishna
3.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @3    2 weeks ago
Or Democrats could try governing for a change.

How?

Currently the Republicans control the Presidency.

And both Houses of Congress. (The new Congress doesn't take its seats before January).

And now also, the Supreme Court.

 
 
Tacos!
3.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Krishna @3.1    2 weeks ago
How?

By actually engaging with the other side on common goals.

By the way, I thought it was obvious we were all talking about what happens when Democrats have the majority in the House, but they could have been cooperative all along.

 
 
DRHunk
3.1.2  DRHunk  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

So you are demanding the Dems cooperate with the republicans NOW, where was your indignation for the 8 years Obama was in office and Congress refused to cooperate with the Dems.

 
 
Texan1211
3.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @3.1    2 weeks ago

No party controls SCOTUS, but it is rather telling you think they do.

 
 
Tacos!
3.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  DRHunk @3.1.2    2 weeks ago
where was your indignation for the 8 years Obama was in office

I had the same indignation for a president who made it clear from Day 1 that he wasn't interested in working with Republicans. If you remember, he was taking away the keys and making them sit in the back.

 
 
DRHunk
3.1.5  DRHunk  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.4    one week ago

Can you link something to support that, because all I remember is the Repubs sitting in private meetings making pacts with themselves to not work the Dems and ensure nothing got accomplished in hopes to force Obama to look like a failure and keep his term to 1.

Obama made several sacrifices to try and work across the isles, even adopting a healthcare plan designed by a right wing think tank.

 
 
Dulay
3.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.4    one week ago
I had the same indignation for a president who made it clear from Day 1 that he wasn't interested in working with Republicans. 

That is a fallacious rewrite of history Tacos!. 

If you remember, he was taking away the keys and making them sit in the back.

What utter bullshit. Name another POTUS that reached out and had this kind of respectful back and forth with the opposing party. 

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0129/Obama-s-spirited-Q-A-with-House-Republicans

Here, watch the video of the 90 minute EXCHANGE if you dare. 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?291730-1/presidential-remarks-house-republican-conference

 
 
Tessylo
3.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @3.1.6    one week ago

The GOP's no-compromise pledge

By ANDY BARR

 

10/28/2010 08:09 AM EDT

If Republicans take the House as anticipated on election night, voters can expect to hear the customary talk about coming together with Democrats for the good of the country.

President Barack Obama inevitably will extend a hand across the aisle as well.

But that’s Tuesday. Right now, the tone is a lot different — with Republicans pledging to embrace an agenda for the next two years that sounds a lot like their agenda for the past two: Block Obama at all costs.

And even Obama’s pre-election appeals to cooperation are wrapped in an I’m-still-the-president tone that suggests that Americans will be looking at two opposing camps glaring at each other across the barricades — gridlock all around.

Here’s John Boehner, the likely speaker if Republicans take the House, offering his plans for Obama’s agenda: “We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

Obama frequently reminds voters he believes all the delay in Washington this year is the Republicans’ fault.

“So I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle are going to change their minds going forward, because putting the American people back to work, boosting our small businesses, rebuilding the economic security of the middle class, these are big national challenges. And we’ve all got a stake in solving them. And it’s not going to be enough just to play politics. You can’t just focus on the next election. You’ve got to focus on the next generation,” Obama said a recent event in Rhode Island.

It is popular to compare 2010 with 1994. Pundits point to a rejection of an overreaching Democratic president, a swing of moderate and independent voters to Republican ranks and a grass-roots groundswell that brings dozens of new faces to Washington.

But the second part of the prediction foresees that Obama will moderate his goals, Republicans will cool their tone and Washington will be able to responsibly address major issues.

Republicans are sounding like they’re not interested in that part.

To be sure, some of this is political trash-talk, each side trying to stoke up its partisans in the closing hours of the election. Republicans have premised much of their whole campaign on one idea — stop Obama — and it’s put them on the cusp of taking the House and scoring big gains in the Senate, so there’s no reason to quit now.

 
 
Dulay
3.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.8    one week ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Tacos!
3.1.10  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @3.1.6    one week ago
What utter bullshit.

Did he say it or not?

(Hint: Yes. He did say it.)

 
 
Dulay
3.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.10    one week ago
(Hint: Yes. He did say it.)

Link. 

BTW, do you have that list of POTUS' that attempted comity with the opposing party?

 
 
Tacos!
3.1.12  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @3.1.11    one week ago
do you have that list of POTUS' that attempted comity with the opposing party?

Don't need a list. Trump and the current batch of Democrats illustrate the problem nicely. He tries to include them and they still act like he's the antichrist.

Democrats' snub of Trump invite reveals difficulties in bridging partisan divide

In a sign of how difficult it could be for Mr. Trump to carry out his stated desire of working across party lines on his biggest priorities, 28 of 46 Senate Democrats snubbed an invitation to the White House on Tuesday night for a spring soiree of music and fellowship. Independent Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont, a member of the Democrats’ leadership team, also was a no-show.

Democrats Use Invited Guests to Protest Trump Policies

As President Donald Trump prepares to deliver his first address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night, Democrats are gearing up to protest the new president by inviting a diverse group of guests impacted by Trump’s most controversial policies.

Mind you, he had only been president for a month. Kind of hard to believe people could have been too heavily impacted by anything Trump had done. But even so, protest away! A month in and they're protesting.

But hey, Trump keeps trying to include them, doesn't he?

Republican leaders in the room 'shell-shocked' following Trump deal with Democrats

Trump is cozying up to Democrats after his surprise deal with Pelosi and Schumer

Trump meets with Democrats on camera over immigration

President Trump Meets with Democrats on Drug Prices

NBC’s Chuck Todd: Trump may end up reaching across the aisle for a modified Obamacare

 
 
Dulay
3.1.13  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.12    one week ago
Don't need a list. Trump and the current batch of Democrats illustrate the problem nicely. He tries to include them and they still act like he's the antichrist.

Neither of your 2 examples is a person back and forth with the opposing party.

Fail.

Mind you, he had only been president for a month. Kind of hard to believe people could have been too heavily impacted by anything Trump had done. But even so, protest away! A month in and they're protesting.

The first Tea Party protest was in February of 2009.

But hey, Trump keeps trying to include them, doesn't he?

Obama met with GOP leadership ALL THE TIME. That wasn't my question. 

 
 
Ozzwald
 
XDm9mm
3.2.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2    2 weeks ago
Half the people in this country do.

Except for the IRS personnel RESPONSIBLE and authorized to see the tax returns of Donald Trump.

100% of the people have no authority to demand to see anything.

See how simple that is?

 
 
Ozzwald
3.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.1    2 weeks ago

See how simple that is?

Not really.  Why did you answer a question I never asked?  Are you trying to change the subject because you cannot justify anything?  Are you unable to understand my simple question?  Should I have used smaller words?

 
 
Tacos!
3.2.3  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2    2 weeks ago
Democrats have been told by their media svengalis to care. Polls don't answer the question of why anyone should care.

 
 
Ozzwald
3.2.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.3    one week ago
Democrats have been told by their media svengalis to care. Polls don't answer the question of why anyone should care.

You really are refusing to address the question aren't you?  Well you keep trying to move those goalposts.

 
 
PJ
3.2.5  PJ  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2    one week ago

More than half the country would like transparency.  

 
 
Tacos!
3.2.6  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.4    one week ago
move those goalposts

I haven't moved anything. I asked "who?" and your answer is: partisan Democrats. I also asked "why?" and got no answer.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.2.7  Phoenyx13  replied to  PJ @3.2.5    one week ago
More than half the country would like transparency.

i could have sworn that was a complaint from the conservative minded during Obama's years - transparency... yet they don't seem to mind the lack of transparency from Trump.... i wonder what changed ?

 
 
arkpdx
3.2.8  arkpdx  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.2.7    one week ago

Compared to Obama, trump is more transparent than the clearest glass ever made. 

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.2.9  Phoenyx13  replied to  arkpdx @3.2.8    one week ago
Compared to Obama, trump is more transparent than the clearest glass ever made.

ok, let's take a quiz - Who has shown their tax returns, which is a form of transparency:

  1. Obama
  2. Trump

now take your time to answer... then let me know why you are perfectly fine with the current lack of transparency as opposed to the Obama years :) (gosh, can you think of the outrage if Obama didn't show his tax returns ? why there was never ending screaming and whining over his birth certificate and education - still is - could you imagine the treatment he would have gotten if he refused to show his tax returns ? yet... it seems perfectly fine suddenly for the current president... i wonder what changed ?)

 
 
Tacos!
3.2.10  Tacos!  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.2.9    one week ago
Who has shown their tax returns

America learned nothing useful from Obama's tax returns. It's an empty gesture. Even the Washington Post was unimpressed with Obama's transparency.

Obama promised transparency. But his administration is one of the most secretive.

After early promises to be the most transparent administration in history, this has been one of the most secretive. And in certain ways, one of the most elusive. It’s also been one of the most punitive toward whistleblowers and leakers who want to bring light to wrongdoing they have observed from inside powerful institutions.
 
 
Ozzwald
3.2.11  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.6    one week ago
I haven't moved anything. I asked "who?" and your answer is: partisan Democrats. I also asked "why?" and got no answer.

Liar, nowhere in my comment did I even say the words "partisan Democrats".  I provided 1 source of 1 poll about people wanting to see Trump's returns, nothing else.

 
 
Ozzwald
3.2.12  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.10    one week ago
America learned nothing useful from Obama's tax returns.

You mean nothing useful to use against him.  We learned a lot from his returns, primarily that his returns were honestly done, with no criminal activity, and no conflicts of interest to his job as POTUS.

 
 
Trout Giggles
3.2.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.1    one week ago
100% of the people have no authority to demand to see anything. See how simple that is?

trmp is not a private citizen any more. I would think as a "duly" elected public servant he has certain obligations to us, the American electorate, to show us the money, so to speak

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.2.14  Phoenyx13  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.10    one week ago
America learned nothing useful from Obama's tax returns. It's an empty gesture. Even the Washington Post was unimpressed with Obama's transparency.

that's irrelevant - it's the fact that it happened with Obama and hasn't happened with Trump, yet the conservative minded such as yourself aren't upset over lack of transparency with Trump but were highly enraged over Obama. So what changed ?

 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.15  XDm9mm  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.13    one week ago

trmp is not a private citizen any more. I would think as a "duly" elected public servant he has certain obligations to us, the American electorate, to show us the money, so to speak

Private citizen or duly elected official is immaterial.   
No one, allow me to repeat that so there is no misunderstanding, NO ONE, is under any legal obligation to publicize his/her tax returns outside of submitting them to the IRS.
Federal employees and some contractors ARE required to submit annual or bi-annual Financial Disclosure Forms.   I did so annually, until the requirement was changed and then did so every other year.  NEVER was I asked for my official tax returns, and if I was asked, I would have refused.

 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.16  XDm9mm  replied to  Phoenyx13 @3.2.14    one week ago
that's irrelevant

Actually, it's immaterial.   There is NO legal requirement to release tax returns.  Simply because others have done so does not obligate anyone to do so.

 
 
Phoenyx13
3.2.17  Phoenyx13  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.16    one week ago
Actually, it's immaterial.   There is NO legal requirement to release tax returns.  Simply because others have done so does not obligate anyone to do so.

wow... did i talk about any legal requirements ? let's see... let's look at my previous posts.... now take a minute and look carefully for any words like "legal" or "legal requirement" in those posts...
nope.. nothing like that at all... so let's embrace the posts as they stand ok ?

can you tell everyone why you are suddenly supportive of the lack of transparency from Trump (one example: not showing taxes) and weren't supportive of any lack of transparency from Obama ?

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @3    one week ago
Do these morons really think they were elected because Americans lie awake at night worrying about Trump's tax returns?

We get it, Trump supporters don't care that he's a liar, they don't care that he's a serial adulterer, they don't care that he has at least 19 credible women accusing him of sexual assault, they don't care that he paid nearly a quarter million during the 2016 campaign to pay porn stars to keep quiet about his affairs with them, they've even agreed with Trumps statement that he wouldn't lose any support even if he shot someone in the street. And he's probably correct that the vast majority of his followers wouldn't understand his tax returns anyway, many likely have trouble even calculating the tip when eating out at a restaurant, so a stack of tax returns would finish the job of turning their brains to mush, so no, his tax returns won't matter to Trumps average supporter. However, there are many people who can understand his tax returns, can study them and point out the likely many shady tactics, track sources of income and show how much he's actually worth which is almost certainly very different from what Trump has claimed.

 
 
livefreeordie
3.3.1  livefreeordie  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.3    one week ago

What we care about are his policies, legislation signed, Court appointments. His past has no relevance 

 
 
PJ
3.3.2  PJ  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.3    one week ago

Yep - sounds pretty deplorable, wouldn't you agree.  jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Tacos!
3.3.3  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.3    one week ago
don't care that he's a liar

I have yet to meet a politician who wasn't a liar at least some of the time. I see Trump as more of an exaggerator than anything else. He's a salesman who is always closing.

a serial adulterer

I do care about this, but in November 2016, my choice was the serial adulterer or the woman who publicly shamed the women her adulterer husband sexually assaulted. So it kind of evens out.

at least 19 credible women

"Credible woman" to leftists is any woman who accuses a Republican of pretty much anything. No other evidence required.

paid nearly a quarter million

I truly do not care what Donald Trump does with all his money. I never did and I'm not going to start now.

he wouldn't lose any support even if he shot someone in the street

You do know he hasn't actually shot anyone right? Nevertheless, you guys run around hysterical as if he had. That's a little bit crazy.

the likely many shady tactics

I thought you people trusted government. What happened to that? Don't you trust the IRS, SEC, or FBI to catch any violations committed by Trump? They have had access to his tax returns since he filed them. Do you think Don Lemon or Rachel Maddow is going to catch something they couldn't?

almost certainly

Is that the scientific number?

 
 
arkpdx
3.3.4  arkpdx  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.3    one week ago

jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Ozzwald
3.3.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.3    one week ago
I have yet to meet a politician who wasn't a liar at least some of the time.

Strawman argument is all you have huh?

I do care about this, but in November 2016, my choice was the serial adulterer or the woman who publicly shamed the women her adulterer husband sexually assaulted. So it kind of evens out.

So you picked the guy who cheated on his wife multiple times, not the wife that supported her husband?  Telling...

"Credible woman" to leftists is any woman who accuses a Republican of pretty much anything.

Strawman argument...AGAIN, and a generalization at that!!

I truly do not care what Donald Trump does with all his money. I never did and I'm not going to start now.

So you don't care if HE breaks the law with his own money...figures.

You do know he hasn't actually shot anyone right?

That you know of, but if he did you would still be here supporting him and trying to justify it.

I thought you people trusted government. What happened to that?

A known thief, conman, racist, and misogynist was hired as POTUS.

 
 
Trout Giggles
3.3.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.3    one week ago
I do care about this, but in November 2016, my choice was the serial adulterer or the woman who publicly shamed the women her adulterer husband sexually assaulted.

So you don't think women should "stand by their men"?

I'm so glad to hear you say that. I'm glad you're not one of those men that insist women should stay by their husbands' sides no matter what happens

 
 
DRHunk
3.3.7  DRHunk  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3.6    6 days ago

Till death do you part, for better or worse. Vows spoken as God witnessed your union, performed by a priest of your chosen faith.  Yet people are holding that against Hillary...how Christian of you all.

 
 
Trout Giggles
3.3.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  DRHunk @3.3.7    6 days ago

I'm not a Christian. I'm merely making a point

I've only been married to one man. It will be 29 years on November 25. That's an eternity

 
 
DRHunk
3.3.9  DRHunk  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3.8    5 days ago

Sry, was not directed at you was a general appeal to anyone who professes faith in the lord yet chastises any man or woman for taking their vows seriously and take the time and energy to work through the problems of their marriage instead of taking the path of least resistance (i.e. Divorce) 

 
 
Trout Giggles
3.3.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  DRHunk @3.3.9    5 days ago

No problem

 
 
MUVA
4  MUVA    2 weeks ago

He doesn't have to show his tax returns this is not going anywhere.

 
 
zuksam
4.1  zuksam  replied to  MUVA @4    2 weeks ago

They don't seem to understand that the only person who can make Trumps Tax Returns public without going to Prison is Trump himself. I'm sure there are enough Leftists working in the Internal Revenue Service who have access to the returns that Trumps returns have been secretly disseminated to any Democratic Official who wanted to see them, they just haven't been made public and they probably never will be.

 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  zuksam @4.1    2 weeks ago

Once again we see that the Democrats are unfit to govern and lead.

 
 
It Is ME
5  It Is ME    2 weeks ago

Why does the "Left" consistently try to break the law for their political gain ?

"Individual income tax returns — including those of public figures — are private information, protected by law from unauthorized disclosure."

Little Miss MSNBC already showed one of Trumps tax returns on national TV, as MSNBC tried one of those "I found the Vault" Geraldo Promo moments.

She did a face plant on her own desk top, just like Geraldo did back when.

 
 
Dulay
5.1  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @5    2 weeks ago
"Individual income tax returns — including those of public figures — are private information, protected by law from unauthorized disclosure."

f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1)Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation

https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/43205/incoming-house-ways-and-means-committee-chairman-will-seek-trump-tax-returns#cm939303

 
 
Nowhere Man
6  Nowhere Man    2 weeks ago

Well I hope this isn't proof of the democrats going after him like ravenous hounds....

That would be their undoing in 2020......

Talk about being unqualified to be in office.

But it would fit with their ideal of trashing anyone and everyone they hate....

I sincerely hope it isn't so.......

(but history and experience says otherwise)

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
7  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη    one week ago

If the tax returns were an issue, they would have leaked by now.

 
 
bbl-1
8  bbl-1    one week ago

At the 'so called press conference' Wednesday, the Trump reiterated that his 'tax returns' were still under audit and his very powerful, prestigious and big lawyers say they can not be viewed while under audit.  So, for the democrats to think they can see his taxes...……………...the Trump has prestigious and big lawyers. 

 
 
Krishna
8.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  bbl-1 @8    one week ago

At the 'so called press conference' Wednesday, the Trump reiterated that his 'tax returns' were still under audit and his very powerful, prestigious and big lawyers say they can not be viewed while under audit.  So, for the democrats to think they can see his taxes...……………...the Trump has prestigious and big lawyers. 

There has beena lot of speculation in Washington that Mueller already has Trump's taxes! (I have no idea whether that's true or not).

And while many in Washington are "leakers"...Mueller is a clear exception (Heck, I can't remember the last time Mueller said anything about the investigation...)

 
 
bbl-1
8.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Krishna @8.1    one week ago

Except with the Trump, speculation 'is just another word with nothing left to lose.'  Uh, borrowed some of that from Janis.

My own opinion and I do not know, but I honestly suspect that the Trump's taxes are the least of his worries.

My speculation;  the Trump has dabbled with foreigners that...………….well...………..he shouldn't have.

 
 
MrFrost
8.2  MrFrost  replied to  bbl-1 @8    one week ago
At the 'so called press conference' Wednesday, the Trump reiterated that his 'tax returns' were still under audit and his very powerful, prestigious and big lawyers say they can not be viewed while under audit. 

512

 
 
bbl-1
8.2.1  bbl-1  replied to  MrFrost @8.2    one week ago

"So Who's The Liar?"

Aw man, that is too easy.  Besides, the Trump still has Ivanka.  Doesn't he?

 
 
Krishna
9  seeder  Krishna    one week ago

very powerful, prestigious and big lawyers say they can not be viewed while under audit. 

Yes-- very powerful lawyers hired by Trump! 

(Of course his "loyal base" while stupidly believe anything he says-- true or not.  Heck, they're so stupid that he could probably shoot someone on 5th Avenue and they's still support him!)

But its yet another of Trump and his supporters many lies! Fact: there is nothing preventing anyone from releasing their tax returns while under audit! 

THE FACT CHECKER | Trump cites an Internal Revenue Service audit as his justification for not releasing his federal income tax returns, butt the audit does not prohibit from releasing the returns. Richard Nixon, who started the tradition of presidents and presidential candidates releasing their returns, did so in the middle of an audit.

 
 
XDm9mm
9.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Krishna @9    one week ago

FACT:

There is NO legal obligation for ANY President or Presidential candidate to release for public scrutiny their personal tax returns.

Regardless of what President Trump has said or other Presidents have done, there is no law requiring their release.  PERIOD.  END OF STORY.

 
 
bbl-1
9.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  XDm9mm @9.1    one week ago

Of course not.  No legal obligation.  It is simply a matter of honor, honesty and openness. 

Of course with the Trump, the ( H H O's ) are null and void.  It is the Trump, after all.

Don't matter.  The Trump is in Paris now, waiting for the parade and another 'secret meeting' with Putie.  Of course the WH did not mention this----the Russian media did. 

 
 
Texan1211
10  Texan1211    one week ago

What exactly do these keyboard CPA's think that THEY will "find" in Trump's taxes that are illegal and the IRS, despite multiple audits, missed?

That is like your local dental assistant thinking they can cure colon cancer!

 
 
MrFrost
10.1  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @10    one week ago

If there is nothing to hide....why hide them? 

 
 
Texan1211
10.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @10.1    one week ago

Do you make your tax returns publicly available?

Do you think it is any of my business what you made or how much in taxes you pay?

 
 
lennylynx
10.1.2  lennylynx  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.1    one week ago

I didn't realize that Mr. Frost was running for Prez!  He's got my vote...

 
 
Texan1211
10.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  lennylynx @10.1.2    one week ago

Hmmm....just like you don't realize that the President, no matter who he or she is, is under no obligation to satisfy the whims of some by showing his or her tax returns.

Go figure.

 
 
MrFrost
10.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.1    one week ago

Yes, every single time I run for president. 

 
 
Texan1211
10.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.4    one week ago

I just have to love it when some think they have some inherent right to see ANYONE'S tax returns other than their own.

What makes people like that think that?

They damn sure didn't base it on logic or law!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

ArkansasHermit-too
Galen Marvin Ross
cjfrommn
arkpdx
TTGA


46 visitors