Trump Tax Returns Case Moves At Light Speed As Supreme Court Issues Formal Ruling

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  3 weeks ago  •  168 comments

By:   Jason Easley (POLITICUSUSA)

Trump Tax Returns Case Moves At Light Speed As Supreme Court Issues Formal Ruling
The Supreme Court has granted a request from Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance and Trump's lawyers to issue an immediate formal ruling on Trump's tax returns.

The case is moving quickly now. It is about time...


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The Supreme Court has granted a request from Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance and Trump's lawyers to issue an immediate formal ruling on Trump's tax returns.

CNN reported:

The US Supreme Court granted the Manhattan district attorney's request to immediately issue its judgment in the case over President Donald Trump's tax returns, paving the way for new challenges to a grand jury subpoena to be handled by a lower court judge.

The district attorney asked for that time to be cut short, and Trump's attorney agreed. Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts said the request is granted.

It usually takes 25 days for a judgment to formally issued by the Supreme Court. The speed-up means that the case is still on an accelerated timeline. Trump only has a month to add new challenges to the subpoena from the Manhattan DA.

The President's stall tactics have fallen flat. The DA could have Trump's tax returns and business documents during the heart of the 2020 presidential election. It is not out of the realm of possibility that Trump or members of his family could be indicted in New York as voters are going to the polls in the fall.

None of it is going the way that Trump wanted, as his luck may have finally run out on hiding his tax returns and potentially criminal activity before the election.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JBB
1  seeder  JBB    3 weeks ago

I want to see Trump's taxes. You?

 
 
 
PJ
1.1  PJ  replied to  JBB @1    3 weeks ago

Yes, out of principle and precedence I want his tax returns reviewed.  I look at this as a win:win.  Those who want to see his tax returns will get their way AND if there's nothing unusual there then his supporters can call it a win.

Not sure why either side would be opposed since it would put to rest speculation. 

 
 
 
Krishna
1.1.1  Krishna  replied to  PJ @1.1    3 weeks ago

Not sure why either side would be opposed since it would put to rest speculation. 

Its really quite simple.... 

Actually if Trump really had nothing to hide you would think he would want his returns revealed as quickly as possible-- because that;s that's the only way that would prove-- beyond any shadow of a doubt--  that  he is.in fact,  innocent of any wrong doing! 

Until he does that people will always have suspicions-- and the only way guarnteed to clear his name would be to have the returns revealed as quickly as possible!

 
 
 
PJ
1.1.2  PJ  replied to  Krishna @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

Yes, my point exactly.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

Perhaps Trump simply doesn't care that some yahoos want to see his returns.

Wish in one hand, shit in the other and see which hand fills up faster!

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
1.1.4  Right Down the Center  replied to  PJ @1.1    3 weeks ago

Under normal circumstances I would agree.  In the current polarized country we live in I feel confident the left would cherry pick information and have "experts" tell us why Trump is the devil and the right would cherry pick information and have "experts" tell us how everything he did was within the law.

Everyone will claim they win and no ones mind will be changed.  Sound familiar?

Hmmmm, maybe that is why I really don't care to see them. 

 
 
 
CB
1.1.5  CB   replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.4    3 weeks ago

Trump is most probably a cheap. None of us are "pink-footed babies" here. We have some experiences with cheats, thieves, and robbers to varying degrees—if only in the movies. Donald Trump himself was open enough to admit that he 'cut corners' in his taxes and 'won' big doing so. (Even though, he won't give anybody who can make a proper assessment of just how big those corners were years before his presidency!

As for enablers enabling, oh well. Still, knowledge (knowing facts) carries its own power!

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.1.5    3 weeks ago

The IRS had all of Trumps returns and audited them. What do you think, some yahoos will find something bad when trained professionals didn't!

Lol

 
 
 
CB
1.1.7  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.6    3 weeks ago

The IRS had Richard ("I am not a crook.") Nixons tax returns in the storehouse too. After 'close' examination, Nixon paid back taxes ($4,000) to the treasury for underpayments. The Clinton's underrepresented on their Whitewater deal. They paid back taxes too.  So, Donald Trump's taxes are "Up" . . . .

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.8  Greg Jones  replied to  Krishna @1.1.1    3 weeks ago
and the only way guarnteed to clear his name would be to have the returns revealed as quickly as possible!

He doesn't have to "clear his name" because he hasn't been convicted of any wrong doing....taxwise or otherwise.

Allegations are a dime a dozen.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.1.7    3 weeks ago

Does Congress have them or not?

Last I checked, Congress was still whining about not having them.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.10  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.9    2 weeks ago

Stonewalling. It's a thing. Look it up, please.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.1.10    2 weeks ago
Stonewalling. It's a thing. Look it up, please.

Whining. It's a thing. Look it up, please.

 
 
 
PJ
1.1.12  PJ  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

This isn't about what you or I want.  This isn't about the right of left.  It isn't really about what is in his tax returns.  It's about right and wrong.  About following our laws.   This man has blocked every single subpoena and he and his cohorts need to be taught that America has laws that all Americans have to follow.  Even the President.  He works for us, we don't bow to him.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.13  MUVA  replied to  PJ @1.1.12    2 weeks ago

He has broken no laws you have no right to see his taxes get over it.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1.14  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  PJ @1.1.12    2 weeks ago
he and his cohorts need to be taught that America has laws that all Americans have to follow. 

So demand to see the tax returns for Pelosi, Schiff, Biden, Obama, Sanders, Clinton and the rest.  Why focus on just one person.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.15  MUVA  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.14    2 weeks ago

The Lemming is a site to behold some news anchor told them Trump needs to show his taxes so  now the lemmings demand them.Not being able to think for ones self makes you look foolish. 

 
 
 
PJ
1.1.16  PJ  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.14    2 weeks ago

Your post is an excellent example of short sightedness and narrow thinking.  Thinking in terms of political parties not in terms of the country as a whole has been a successful strategy for this administration.     

This is why so much animosity has developed in the country.  There is an inability by a certain faction of voters (approx. 35%) that are not capable of thinking of anyone but their own self interests.  

Making our leaders accountable is one way for the people to ensure our interests are foremost in their minds.  Allowing leaders to circumvent and manipulate the system for their own self interest is dangerous.  This isn't about political parties - move beyond that way of thinking........if you can.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.17  MUVA  replied to  PJ @1.1.16    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
PJ
1.1.18  PJ  replied to  MUVA @1.1.17    2 weeks ago
removed for context

Then put me on ignore and you don't have to ever read another one of my posts.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.19  XDm9mm  replied to  PJ @1.1.16    2 weeks ago
Making our leaders accountable is one way for the people to ensure our interests are foremost in their minds.  Allowing leaders to circumvent and manipulate the system for their own self interest is dangerous.  This isn't about political parties - move beyond that way of thinking........if you can.

I most certainly can.  That's why I posted this below in post #2.

Many want to see the tax returns of a Billionaire turned politician. Wouldn’t it be more worthwhile to see the tax returns of politicians turned into millionaires?

"Public service" was never meant to be 1- a permanent career position, and 2- a means to enrich ones self at the expense of the PEOPLE SERVED.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.20  MUVA  replied to  PJ @1.1.18    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.21  MUVA  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.19    2 weeks ago

I couldn't agree more if people were really concerned about politicians taxes they wouldn't start with someone that has been in office of only 3 1/2 years. like you said we have life long politicians that have made under 200,00 grand a year for their whole lives that are multi millionaires but it's ok because they are democrats.

 
 
 
PJ
1.1.22  PJ  replied to  MUVA @1.1.20    2 weeks ago
No way your ridiculous post supply education into political hackery at it's finest.

Ugh - another member who communicates via "trump speak".    Let me see if I can translate.......I under the part where you say my post is ridiculous and I kinda get the political hackery at it's finest but I'm totally stumped on the supply education part.  

[Deleted]

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.23  MUVA  replied to  PJ @1.1.22    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
PJ
1.1.24  PJ  replied to  MUVA @1.1.23    2 weeks ago

That's totally true and lord knows I'm no Anne Sullivan.  So to save myself I will put you on ignore.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.25  XDm9mm  replied to  PJ @1.1.24    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
PJ
1.1.26  PJ  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.25    2 weeks ago

You think the member was having a discussion with me?  really..   That wasn't my impression and I took the necessary action to avoid derailing the seed any further.  It appears you also want to talk about me and not the issue.   

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.27  XDm9mm  replied to  MUVA @1.1.21    2 weeks ago
like you said we have life long politicians that have made under 200,00 grand a year for their whole lives that are multi millionaires but it's ok because they are democrats.

Not just Democrats my man, not just Democrats.  There are a number, albeit fewer if I'm not mistaken but there are a number of Republicans that have fed at that trough of political self serving while still legal corruption that are still in office.

Corrupt career politicians are in the same category as lowlife scumbag thugs, although they generally dress and speak better than the street version.

 
 
 
PJ
1.1.34  PJ  replied to    2 weeks ago

Yes, I saw your earlier post but then you inserted yourself into my and another member's back and forth.  That is what I was referring to.

I had not yet gotten to the comment you made that actually WAS on topic.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.35  Greg Jones  replied to  PJ @1.1.16    2 weeks ago
Thinking in terms of political parties not in terms of the country as a whole has been a successful strategy for this administration.

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
1.1.38  CB   replied to  PJ @1.1.12    2 weeks ago

Well said and I personally thank you for entering and restoring the room to its balance!  Donald Trump is running amok and all his sycophants wish to do is change the subject away from authoritarianism (that goes in their favor)!

 
 
 
CB
1.1.39  CB   replied to  MUVA @1.1.13    2 weeks ago

This is so disappointing. So very sad and pathetic. We have to struggle so all over again in this country explaining rights and wrongs to otherwise intelligent people.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.40  CB   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.14    2 weeks ago

The tradition is for presidents, eh? Trump is a pathetic, combative, litigious, obstructionist!

Why are you dodging for this low-class racist-devoid of any redeeming value-man? Donald Trump has been given the world (by God if you are a mind to believe it (I know you are not!)) and still he remains a 'sewer' of all the selfishness and abusiveness he can muster rolled into one!  He stands for nothing really, for he would gladly heave your worldview under the wheels of his bus-if only it was different than his own. . . .

 
 
 
CB
1.1.41  CB   replied to  MUVA @1.1.15    2 weeks ago

Thinking for oneself is not really as complex as you may think there, Muva. What other soundbite you got in your 'quiver.' Curious. Get 'em off out! Make it 'rain' soundbites already! (Giggles.)

 
 
 
CB
1.1.42  CB   replied to  MUVA @1.1.17    2 weeks ago

Trump is a chump! And, he likes his black Americans to know their 'percentages.' They can find 'em left resting in the ghettos of the 70's.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.43  CB   replied to  MUVA @1.1.20    2 weeks ago

What does the word: "shill" mean?  I wonder.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.44  CB   replied to  MUVA @1.1.21    2 weeks ago

This is about a presidential tradition. Trump supporters know this, but 'shill away' anyway.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.45  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.27    2 weeks ago

You like your "quickie" corrupt politicians who score (get conservative policies stuffed down the throats of the citizenry) and then leave? Got it!  This country is not a conservative policy 'piggy back'!  There are over 325 million plus of us and we are diverse. This nation can not exist again to 'service' conservatively selfish and greedy appetites.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.46  CB   replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.35    2 weeks ago

And yet the diverse peoples of this country pack in to the democratic party. Conservatives are even running the independents away! Lies can not serve your goals anymore. Trump is a chump you should dump. He is a lying deceiver his followers have inhaled and imbibed to the point of drunkenness. Only a fool can not see Trump is a relic sticking up out of time. He would fall on his face, if you did not orient him to stand!

How is he the best conservative to lead this great country; this mighty and diverse people?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1.47  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  CB @1.1.40    2 weeks ago

And with that any chance of a conversation with you of any value had disappeared. 

 
 
 
CB
1.1.48  CB   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.47    2 weeks ago

I'm sorry, Jeremy. We definitely were not having a meaningful discussion before. As far as I am concerned, until you can express the plain truth about Trump in the manner you complain about so many democrats, we simply tread water at the surface of deeper discussion. It's really quite shocking too.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1.49  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  CB @1.1.48    2 weeks ago
As far as I am concerned, until you can express the plain truth about Trump

So you want me to back your unfounded accusations.  Sorry, not going to happen.  

 
 
 
CB
1.1.50  CB   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.49    2 weeks ago

I see you're on 'trump time,' got it! Fine, we will 'sleep' here.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.51  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

No, your ranting and rambling doesn't sound familiar at all.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1    3 weeks ago

Sorry, but you have no right to see them.

 
 
 
JBB
1.2.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2    3 weeks ago

That is not what the Supreme Court says...

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2.2  Krishna  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2    3 weeks ago
Sorry, but you have no right to see them.

Wow-- if that's not a compelling argument-- I don't know what is!

/sarc

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2.3  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @1.2.2    3 weeks ago
Sorry, but you have no right to see them.
Wow-- if that's not a compelling argument-- I don't know what is! /sarc

Actually, now that I think of it-- there's an equally impressive counter-argument:

Sorry, but we have every right to see them.

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2.4  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @1.2.3    3 weeks ago
Sorry, but you have no right to see them.
Wow-- if that's not a compelling argument-- I don't know what is! /sarc

Actually, now that I think of it-- there's an equally impressive counter-argument:

Sorry, but we have every right to see them.

My argument is more fact based, and grounded in years of legal precedent that your's is!

jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1.2.1    3 weeks ago
That is not what the Supreme Court says...

You obviously have misinterpreted the Court's ruling then.

Good luck seeing them!

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @1.2.4    3 weeks ago
My argument is more fact based, and grounded in years of legal precedent that your's is!

Please, do link your case precedents that would allow you to view a private tax return.

Being as how you have years of legal precedents, just 3 cases will do quite nicely.

 
 
 
zuksam
1.2.7  zuksam  replied to  JBB @1.2.1    3 weeks ago
That is not what the Supreme Court says...

Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance might get to see them but I doubt you or I will.

 
 
 
TTGA
1.2.8  TTGA  replied to  Krishna @1.2.3    3 weeks ago
Sorry, but we have every right to see them.

Wrong.  Vance may have the right to see them, depending upon how the lower court finally rules.  YOU, however, have absolutely no right to see them at all, nor does anyone else not connected to that District Attorney's office.  Even they are allowed to use them only for official business. 

It seems that you figure that, if they get into the hands of Vance, they will immediately be leaked, and you seem to approve of that.  If they are leaked, Vance should be held totally responsible and should be indicted and convicted for leaking them.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.9  XDm9mm  replied to  JBB @1.2.1    3 weeks ago
That is not what the Supreme Court says...

Hot shit.   I never knew you're on a Grand Jury doing an investigation. 

The PROSECUTOR and GRAND JURY may see them, not you or any john dipshit in the public.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @1.2.4    3 weeks ago

Still waiting on your legal precedents you claim your "opinion" is based on.

12 hours of internet searching, and you can't even find ONE case?

 
 
 
CB
1.2.11  CB   replied to  TTGA @1.2.8    3 weeks ago
Vance should be held totally responsible and should be indicted and convicted for leaking them.

As you may know, highly valued, high-ranking, and high powered people have staffing. And, you can only swear staffing to so much. So unless you can find a 'culprit' who leaks important (not trivial) documents, you can not indict, try, or convict a professional for simply doing his or her job! The courts do not exist to settle vendettas.

Moreover, your leap to leaking is a supposition. It is not a foregone conclusion, despite who the person in question is or the intensive of those who wish to know about these returns. For that matter, the White House and Congress have leakers too. May be Trump should not have driven up the 'stock' of his returns so high?!

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.2.11    3 weeks ago
you can not indict, try, or convict a professional for simply doing his or her job!

No one has suggested that "people doing their job" get indicted for it. That is ridiculous!

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.2.13  Snuffy  replied to  CB @1.2.11    2 weeks ago
As you may know, highly valued, high-ranking, and high powered people have staffing. And, you can only swear staffing to so much. So unless you can find a 'culprit' who leaks important (not trivial) documents, you can not indict, try, or convict a professional for simply doing his or her job!

By that same logic you cannot indict President Trump for things his staff does either.  Guess the buck doesn't stop there.

 
 
 
zuksam
1.2.14  zuksam  replied to  CB @1.2.11    2 weeks ago
The courts do not exist to settle vendettas

If only the Democrats would follow that rule we wouldn't even be talking about this.

 
 
 
CB
1.2.15  CB   replied to  Snuffy @1.2.13    2 weeks ago

Hi Snuffy! What you talking about? Leaking? Something more?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @1    3 weeks ago

I want to see Trump's taxes. You?

It's unlikely you would know how to interpret them.

If there was a problem with Trump's taxes, Obama's IRS would have pointed it out long before the 2016 election.

At any rate, nothing will be done before the November election.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
1.4  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @1    3 weeks ago

I have never been interested in seeing any political office holders tax returns and I don't plan on starting now.  What I would be interested in knowing is how many of the people that seem so interested now have ever actually reviewed any other politicians tax returns.

 

 
 
 
CB
1.4.1  CB   replied to  Right Down the Center @1.4    3 weeks ago

The public as individuals need not see the returns, some trusted representatives should see them. All of this could be resolved if Donald Trump (Do as I say not as i do) would end his stonewalling.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.4.2  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.4.1    3 weeks ago

If I demand to see r return, and you refuse, are you stonewalling?

 
 
 
CB
1.4.3  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.2    3 weeks ago

First, sadly, I am not a 'trusted representative (of this nation),' Secondly, I suppose you are not such a person either. Lastly, as a member of the public, congress and other trusted representatives can view all my returns, for it has never crossed my mind to try to tie 'em up with litigious treatment.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
1.4.4  Right Down the Center  replied to  CB @1.4.1    3 weeks ago
trusted representatives

Really?  Good luck finding one.  Seems they are all too busy spinning everything that happens to be trusted to do what is best for us.

 
 
 
CB
1.4.5  CB   replied to  Right Down the Center @1.4.4    3 weeks ago

Of course, we could let a Trump sycophant or sycophants be our trusted or team of trusted officials. Just kidding. There is no daylight between Trump and his supporters! When Trump looks into a mirror what is staring back? Sycophants in the millions!

And you go by "right down the center" do you? Here is a 'word to the wise': What is good is good 99.99 percent of the time. If Donald Trump is good, let's see a demonstration of it on this right now.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.4.6  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.4.3    3 weeks ago

If you choose to make your returns public, go for it!

Not everyone is so willing to forfeit their rights

 
 
 
CB
1.4.7  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.6    3 weeks ago

That's full of it. And not even the subject. Here refresh yourself, I'll help:

Trump tax returns case moves at light speed as Supreme Court issues formal ruling

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.4.8  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.4.7    3 weeks ago

I know exactly what the topic is, and you have no right to see Trump's returns.

 
 
 
CB
1.4.9  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.8    3 weeks ago

Don't digress. Accentuate this discussion, please.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.4.10  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.4.9    3 weeks ago

Stop telling me what to do. If you don't like my responses, you are completely free to skip on by.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.4.11  XDm9mm  replied to  CB @1.4.9    3 weeks ago
Don't digress. Accentuate this discussion, please.

Like others of your ilk, you don't want discussion.  You simply want surrender and capitulation.

Good bye.

 
 
 
Freewill
1.4.12  Freewill  replied to  CB @1.4.7    3 weeks ago
And not even the subject. Here refresh yourself, I'll help: Trump tax returns case moves at light speed as Supreme Court issues formal ruling

Since it is not possible for anything but light to move at light speed based on today's science, perhaps the "subject" needs to be re-phrased?  There, can't get more on topic than that! jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
1.4.13  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.10    2 weeks ago

You 'chatted me up' Tex'! @1.4.2. I started to act like I am out, but no—it's Tex' after all! (Giggles.)

 
 
 
CB
1.4.14  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @1.4.11    2 weeks ago

Irrelevant. I'm elevated above insults. You are welcome to depart as the reverse of your arrival. See ya!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.4.15  XDm9mm  replied to  CB @1.4.14    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.4.16  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.4.13    2 weeks ago
You 'chatted me up' Tex'! @ 1.4.2 .

Yes, I asked a simple question.

I started to act like I am out, but no—it's Tex' after all!

nice, but really, I am not interested in what else you pretend about.

( Giggles .)

Easily entertained, are you?

But giggles? Aren't you a little old for that?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
1.4.17  Right Down the Center  replied to  CB @1.4.5    2 weeks ago

If you can't see it then it is because you refuse to see/

 
 
 
CB
1.4.18  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @1.4.16    2 weeks ago

You bust me up. "Pepper bellies."  See! (Giggles.)

 
 
 
CB
1.4.19  CB   replied to  Right Down the Center @1.4.17    2 weeks ago

Rhetoric? It is not a demonstration!

"Right down the center" (of one side.) jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.4.20  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.4.18    2 weeks ago

hmmm....yet another off topic post.

guess that can happen when people get emotional and lose their rationality

 
 
 
bugsy
1.5  bugsy  replied to  JBB @1    3 weeks ago
I want to see Trump's taxes. You?

Nope...don't care and none of my...or your business, especially before he became president.

Besides, unless you are a CPA or tax lawyer, you probably would have no idea what you are looking at.

You probably think the word "Russia"shows up in them.

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.5.1  Snuffy  replied to  bugsy @1.5    2 weeks ago
You probably think the word "Russia"shows up in them.

Oh hell yeah...  he's gotta have W-2's from the Kremlin...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @1    2 weeks ago
I want to see Trump's taxes. You?

Outside of the radical left, I would calculate the nation's interest in the President's tax returns as just about ZERO.

 
 
 
devangelical
1.6.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.6    2 weeks ago

yeah vic, who cares if trump broke the law by paying hush money to some trollops before a presidential election, right?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.6.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.6.1    2 weeks ago
who cares if trump broke the law

Please show us where?

 
 
 
JBB
1.6.3  seeder  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.6.2    2 weeks ago
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.6.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @1.6.3    2 weeks ago

I had a hard time getting by that first sentence. If that conversation was criminal, where's the indictment?

It isn't like the left isn't trying.

 
 
 
CB
1.6.5  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @1.6    2 weeks ago

Boring.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2  XDm9mm    3 weeks ago

Many want to see the tax returns of a Billionaire turned politician. Wouldn’t it be more worthwhile to see the tax returns of politicians turned into millionaires?

 
 
 
JBB
2.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  XDm9mm @2    3 weeks ago

Take it up with the Supreme Court...

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  JBB @2.1    3 weeks ago
Take it up with the Supreme Court...

What the fuck does the Supreme Court have to do with my wish to see them?   Don't you also believe it would be more telling to see how someone on the payroll of the government became a millionaire on a salary of now $174,000 a year, and lesser amounts in the previous years of service or corruption?

 
 
 
CB
2.1.2  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.1    3 weeks ago

We are not questioning Trump's returns simply to snoop. Presidents unofficially share their tax history as a way to be open and honest with the public they hope to honor with their service. It a voluntary custom and act of openness. Trump lied in stating he would obligate himself to the tradition. Then, he obfuscated, and the rest of his actions on this are how we arrived here today.  Moreover, Congress' oversight committee has a long-standing policy to view any tax returns which may require or need to stand up to scrutiny. Likewise, the relevant state officials have rights to determine if their policies have been consistently applied too. Donald Trump is not deserving of special treatment.

Not every thing in good governance, needs it own law. Most leaders desire to leave voluntarily, not through political 'combat'!

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.2    3 weeks ago
Moreover, Congress' oversight committee has a long-standing policy to view any tax returns which may require or need to stand up to scrutiny.

link?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.4  XDm9mm  replied to  CB @2.1.2    3 weeks ago
Trump lied in stating he would obligate himself to the tradition. Then, he obfuscated, and the rest of his actions on this are how we arrived here today.

Oh well.  Since no laws and only your curiosity were broken, suck it up.

Moreover, Congress' oversight committee has a long-standing policy to view any tax returns which may require or need to stand up to scrutiny.

Not quite.  There are very specific LEGAL requirements that need to be satisfied.  And the SCOTUS obviously did not believe the bullshit tossed at it by Congress.  Ergo, why they told the Congress to pound sand.

Likewise, the relevant state officials have rights to determine if their policies have been consistently applied too. Donald Trump is not deserving of special treatment.

Maybe you should consider the fact that the "state" has had and has all of his New York State taxes per the legal requirements.  What the state wants is what information his accounting firm has which might include tax information from other taxing entities NYS has no legal basis to view.

Not every thing in good governance, needs it own law. Most leaders desire to leave voluntarily, not through political 'combat'!

When the leaders are under and have been under attack since the very day they announced their candidacy for the office, I would hope that they fight like hell and not roll over an play dead for the over-bearing and over-reaching gestapo tactics of political adversaries.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.5  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.3    3 weeks ago

Google, Teapot Dome scandal and  Chairman Ways and Means Committee can demand tax returns. The Oversight Committee can see returns as a way of over-sighting. Though, that last may involved steps of some kind.

Enjoy your research!

 
 
 
CB
2.1.6  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.4    3 weeks ago
suck it up

You suck it up. I am sure I have nothing to suck up; New York State is doing what it needs to do to get those returns.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.7  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.4    3 weeks ago

You can hope anything you wish for who cares? Trump who loves good 'head space' combat thinks he is a soldier of some kind I'd bet! But, that is why y'all hired him: To kick shit up in everybody that is not your faces! You get your wish. Trump loves kicking shit - win or lose.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.5    3 weeks ago

You will let us know how the Chairman's request from 2019 works out, won't you?

LOL!

YOU WILL NOT SEE HIS TAX RETURNS.

IT IS EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL THAT MOST MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WILL EVER SEE THEM.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.9  XDm9mm  replied to  CB @2.1.6    3 weeks ago
New York State is doing what it needs to do to get those returns.

Goody fucking goody.   Maybe the prosecutor should realize that New York already has his returns.

They're hoping for other information from his tax accountants in what is commonly referred to as a fishing expedition to try to find something, anything, that they think they can use against him.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.6    3 weeks ago
New York State is doing what it needs to do to get those returns.

Do those idiots really not understand that New York State HAS Trump's state tax returns???????

 
 
 
bugsy
2.1.11  bugsy  replied to  CB @2.1.7    3 weeks ago

We can assure you that if this were a republican congress or a right leaning DA wanting to see Obama's tax returns, you and your ilk would be screaming racism and that we have no right to see anything.

There is no refuting this.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.12  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.8    2 weeks ago

Is this you in your role as prophet, soothsayer, or oracle?

 
 
 
CB
2.1.13  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.9    2 weeks ago

Apparently, they don't have the requested tax items or else they could 'roll this up' without Trump's permission or a court's ruling. Nice try though. Why are you defending a loser like Trump anyway?

 
 
 
CB
2.1.14  CB   replied to  bugsy @2.1.11    2 weeks ago
There is no refuting this.

Er, I know Obama and I know Trump. Obama is no Trump! No Refuting? Okay, I won't bother.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.15  XDm9mm  replied to  CB @2.1.13    2 weeks ago
Apparently, they don't have the requested tax items or else they could 'roll this up' without Trump's permission or a court's ruling. Nice try though. Why are you defending a loser like Trump anyway?

So you're claiming that New York State does not have the relevant New York State tax forms?   Or is a New York District Attorney looking for other tax returns from other taxing entities to see if there is anything that might be possibly, maybe, inconsequentially different?

Oh, and who is defending Trump. I'm simply telling you the facts of life you obviously never learned.

Russia, Russia, Russia, collusion, collusion, collusion, I could go on ad nauseam but it even gets old typing out the abject lunacy of the left.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.16  XDm9mm  replied to  CB @2.1.14    2 weeks ago
Er, I know Obama and I know Trump. Obama is no Trump! No Refuting? Okay, I won't bother.

What's to refute?  They are two distinct and different individuals, or don't you understand that?

Fortunately, Obama is long gone.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.17  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.15    2 weeks ago

Insults are so uninteresting and funny. Hey, I have an idea: Get popcorn. Be back soon!

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.12    2 weeks ago
Is this you in your role as prophet, soothsayer, or oracle?

Sorry, I don't speak gibberish.

Is that question at ALL related to the topic?

Are you digressing AGAIN?

 
 
 
SteevieGee
2.2  SteevieGee  replied to  XDm9mm @2    3 weeks ago

If you're referring to Biden they're right here.

https://joebiden.com/financial-disclosure/

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  SteevieGee @2.2    3 weeks ago

What led you to believe it was about Biden?

 
 
 
SteevieGee
2.2.2  SteevieGee  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.1    3 weeks ago

If not Biden then whom?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  SteevieGee @2.2.2    3 weeks ago
If not Biden then whom?

"Wouldn’t it be more worthwhile to see the tax returns of politicians turned into millionaires?

From post 2

Please DO note no mention of ANY particular politician. Including Biden.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.4  XDm9mm  replied to  SteevieGee @2.2.2    3 weeks ago
If not Biden then whom?

Politicians that became millionaires in office.  Do your own research for a change.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3  Texan1211    3 weeks ago

Sure seems like some are very curious about private tax returns.

Pity that the large majority clamoring for them will never see them.

 
 
 
JBB
3.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @3    3 weeks ago

Except, the US President is not a private citizen!

And, the courts have ruled he must show them...

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.1    3 weeks ago

You obviously have misinterpreted the Court's ruling then.

Good luck seeing them!

 
 
 
JBB
3.1.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

I don't need luck. The law is on my side...

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.3  XDm9mm  replied to  JBB @3.1    3 weeks ago
And, the courts have ruled he must show them...

NOT to you or anyone other than the District Attorney involved.  Period.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.4  XDm9mm  replied to  JBB @3.1.2    3 weeks ago
The law is on my side...

Yeah it is and I'll be around when it kicks you in the ass.

 
 
 
Freewill
3.1.5  Freewill  replied to  JBB @3.1    2 weeks ago
And, the courts have ruled he must show them...

Actually not entirely true.  Legal precedent summarized HERE .

The question at the heart of  Mazars  is whether the subpoenas issued by the House committee are a valid exercise of congressional power. Following a principle enunciated first as dicta (commentary not essential to a decision) in  Kilbourn   v.  Thompson  [105 U.S. 168 (1880)] and reaffirmed several times since, Congress may use its investigative powers, including both subpoenas and the ability to call and examine witnesses, only in aid of a legislative function. It may not investigate solely to expose embarrassing or illegal behavior or to gather evidence that might be used in a legal proceeding. Any governmental power to investigate with these ends as goals is impermissible. Justice Brennan put the matter this way: “Investigation conducted solely to … punish the investigated, either by publicity or prosecution, is indefensible—it exceeds the congressional power: exposure for the sake of exposure is not legislative inquiry.”  Hutchinson v. U.S.   [369 U.S. 599, 624 (1962)

While those are the facts, personally I think his refusal to divulge the records reflects poorly on his willingness to support "transparency" as some other presidents have voluntarily done in the past.  He incubates the very suspicions and theories that are being used against him politically.  And he destroys any claim he can make about he or his administration being more transparent than past presidents or administrations.

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2  Krishna  replied to  Texan1211 @3    3 weeks ago

Pity that the large majority clamoring for them will never see them.

Actually the majority clamoring (clamor!, clamor! jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif ) will soon see them,.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @3.2    3 weeks ago

You obviously have misinterpreted the Court's ruling then.

Good luck seeing them!

 
 
 
JBB
3.2.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.1    3 weeks ago
 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.2.2    3 weeks ago

What makes you think you'll see grand jury information?

Did you know about grand jury secrecy?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.2.2    3 weeks ago
I haven't misunderstood anything... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/us/trump-taxes-supreme-court.html

So what in that makes you think you'll see his tax returns?

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.2.5  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.3    3 weeks ago

If (when) Trump is indicted based on the Vance investigation, the tax returns will likely be submitted into evidence.  In that case, I doubt that they will remain under seal.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.2.5    3 weeks ago

You sound awful sure that will happen. So sure, in fact, that I don't see how the returns will help any, if there is a case to begin with.

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.2.7  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.6    3 weeks ago

You sound awful sure that will happen.

My gut tells me... that's totally convincing, right?

Your second sentence is just a bit too much circular reasoning for a mere mortal like me to follow...

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.2.7    3 weeks ago

Did your gut tell you Hillary was going to lose?

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.2.9  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.8    3 weeks ago

My gut told me that Trump could win in 2016, which I told anyone who asked.  It could happen again, unfortunately.  We will find out in November.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.2.9    3 weeks ago

My head told me that Trump--like any candidate--had a chance to win

My gut told me Democrats were over-confident.

 
 
 
loki12
4  loki12    3 weeks ago

To the low functioning morons who think this means they will see trumps tax returns, this is a grand jury subpoena you fucking retards, grand jury info is sealed by law, remember congress couldn’t get mueller grand jury info, if they are leaked, the leaker has committed a felony. If Vance leaks them Barr will prosecute and trump will sue him into oblivion, do you think he is that stupid?

 
 
 
TTGA
4.1  TTGA  replied to  loki12 @4    3 weeks ago

But Loki, they really really want it so they should get it because they WANT  it.

I believe the phrase goes, "I want what I want when I want it. What's so immature about that???"  That's what whiny children say.

 
 
 
JBB
4.1.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  TTGA @4.1    3 weeks ago

It is what Congress says and the courts agree...

 
 
 
TTGA
4.1.2  TTGA  replied to  JBB @4.1.1    3 weeks ago
It is what Congress says and the courts agree...

Congress has no role in this case.  The courts have allowed argument before a Grand Jury under secrecy rules.  No one, particularly not the Supreme Court has allowed the general public or the news media to have any of it.  Neither the public nor the media have any right whatsoever to see anyone's tax returns without that person's permission.  Anyone who leaks Grand Jury testimony is committing a felony and will go to prison.

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.3  loki12  replied to  JBB @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

You realize that congress doesn’t have muellers grand jury evidence? Right?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5  Paula Bartholomew    3 weeks ago

I don't to see them as I don't have the resources to verify the numbers.  I want the experts to do that and just let us know if they are bs or not.

 
 
 
loki12
6  loki12    3 weeks ago

Just out of curiosity, what do you think trumps personal tax returns are going to show you?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1  XDm9mm  replied to  loki12 @6    3 weeks ago
Just out of curiosity, what do you think trumps personal tax returns are going to show you?

Even if the idiots that want to see them actually do see them, which they won't, they wouldn't understand them anyway.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1    3 weeks ago

Man, I don't know.

Sure are a lot of Internet CPAs hanging around here!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.1    3 weeks ago
Man, I don't know. Sure are a lot of Internet CPAs hanging around here!

What the brain dead don't realize is that personal income tax returns, while they can be complicated and daunting for the majority, show little of corporate returns other than income received from the corporation in the various forms given.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
7  Jeremy Retired in NC    3 weeks ago

FFS does ANYBODY think that if there were something Obama and Clinton wouldn't have made it public during the 2016 campaign?  

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7    3 weeks ago
FFS does ANYBODY think that if there were something Obama and Clinton wouldn't have made it public during the 2016 campaign?  

Only fools would believe it, especially after the IRS was clearly not pro-conservative.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1    3 weeks ago
Only fools would believe it,

And there it is.   There ARE those who believe there is something there even when they have not seen it.  Swalwell and Schiff comes to mind immediately proclaiming that they have seen the hard evidence right before their eyes that didn't exist.

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
8  Release The Kraken    3 weeks ago

The non stop obsession with his tax returns and his penis are a perplexing to normal people.

 
 
 
CB
8.1  CB   replied to  Release The Kraken @8    3 weeks ago

Friend 'fish, is Donald obsessed with not revealing his returns? After all, he rode Obama's birth certificate like a 'itch'! Trump's penis? Ew. Thankfully, I do not get a visual on that!

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
8.1.1  Release The Kraken  replied to  CB @8.1    3 weeks ago

You are not entitled to the man's financial information. As for his penis, it's been the subject of a million comments by your comrades here. Inquiring minds would like to know why?

 
 
 
CB
9  CB     3 weeks ago

'Fish! How 'bout that Orly Taitz? How she rockin' these days? Trump still ain't satisfied that black man with a name like Obama can be from here! 

I ain't asking for Trump's returns, by the way: New York State and Congress, the legally responsible people are doing the asking through the courts!

Trump's penis: Eeww. Get it out of here! No thank you! How about no?!

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
9.1  Release The Kraken  replied to  CB @9    3 weeks ago
Trump's penis: Eeww. Get it out of here! No thank you! How about no?

No worries it's the heterosexual (?) married white liberal male that seems to have this fascination. Strange times....

 
 
 
CB
9.1.1  CB   replied to  Release The Kraken @9.1    2 weeks ago

One thing I do know is that heterosexual men are mostly not interested in penises. Especially not an old, overused and abused one. 'Ugly.'

 
 
 
XDm9mm
9.2  XDm9mm  replied to  CB @9    3 weeks ago
New York State and Congress, the legally responsible people are doing the asking through the courts!

I seem to remember the SCOTUS telling the Congress to pound sand.   Do you have evidence to the contrary?

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  XDm9mm @9.2    3 weeks ago
I seem to remember the SCOTUS telling the Congress to pound sand.   Do you have evidence to the contrary?

That's what happens when internet lawyers attempt to read and decipher legal decisions handed down by SCOTUS, they rarely get any of it right.

 
 
 
CB
9.2.2  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @9.2    2 weeks ago

Actually, it was more along the way of 'consolidate' and 'resubmit' to a lower court, I seem to remember. You are free to produce the words, "pound sand" in a high court opinion if you can find it or hey! Even its equivalence.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
9.2.3  XDm9mm  replied to  CB @9.2.2    2 weeks ago
Actually, it was more along the way of 'consolidate' and 'resubmit' to a lower court, I seem to remember.

That was to the STATE....  as I remember.  

You are free to produce the words, "pound sand" in a high court opinion if you can find it or hey! Even its equivalence.

The equivalence was what they told the CONGRESS.

Try to learn the difference if you can.

 
 
 
CB
9.2.4  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @9.2.3    2 weeks ago

You're mistaken. But, since you are so damn sure - go with it!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
9.3  Greg Jones  replied to  CB @9    2 weeks ago
Trump still ain't satisfied that black man with a name like Obama can be from here! 

Typical racist comment.

 
 
 
CB
9.3.1  CB   replied to  Greg Jones @9.3    2 weeks ago

You wish. How about that Central Park Five? Do you think Trump should apologize to them for wishing their black and brown skins the gas chamber? How about those "good" klansmen with tiki torches? Is Trump just misunderstood? Or did his niece just write a book where she says he was an 'ugly' racist child and young adult? Or, words to that effect?

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Dean Moriarty


46 visitors