Democratic-led House Ways and Means Committee votes to release materials on Trump’s taxes to the pub

Then let us know when they all go to jail.

 

The way he talks about his brilliance in business, how could they not?

 

I guess you missed this:

https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1276617

Financial privacy is for those who don't run for high office. The only citizens to whom the 4th Amendment no longer applies are women of childbearing age.

Trump doesn't want us to see his tax documents for a reason.

 

What? I didn't see that Democrats want to make presidents release their tax returns to the public? What does that have to do with anything we're discussing?

 

No one is being forced to disclose aside from those who run for high office. Both Biden and Harris have been audited and their finances are a matter of public record. Have you even tried to Google that?

See the link in #53. Don't run for office if you can't stand the scrutiny.

 

See #55. Trump has been hiding from the scrutiny that is expected when you run for president. I guess he thought the rules didn't apply to him, as usual.

 

Yea, like they're in a position to criticize how others handle money!

 

OK, a proposed law is not law until it's approved so that whole discussion is a waste of time for both of us. As far as "hiding from scrutiny" goes...so what? That STILL doesn't validate the public release of Trump's tax returns by a congressional committee.

 

I never said they would go to jail. I said it appears they are breaking the law. IMO the chance of any going to jail is somewhere between none and nil.

 

Not at all. I was making a comparison, of the way Tusconian treats information in such vastly different ways: being blasé, when there is legitimate cause for concern, if it is a Republican who is involved, but when it is a Democrat, imagining all sorts of ridiculous ramifications-- jumping to the ludicrous conclusion, for example, that our getting to see the President's tax returns, is but a step away from anyone being able to see anyone else's tax returns. Do you not realize how farcical an idea, that is? Either Tusconian has a phobia of Democrats that borders upon delusional, or he is tossing around a patently dubious load of bull.

That you cannot recognize the connection between how one reacts to major loosenings of the law, during a Republican administration, manifesting in policies which affect millions of people, and something which it takes effort to see as even slightest compromise of rights-- applying to only the person holding one position (or two, if this applies equally to the Vice President)-- under a Democratic administration, leads me to wonder if you might not suffer from the same condition (or be operating under the same, disingenuous, double- standard).

 

No, your post is your own, fantasy word: citizens getting to see the head of the government's taxes, to have a better understanding of any potential conflicts of interest = I/we should get, "whatever you want, and the government should have to give it you, even if they have to take it from others," is a non sequitur, hyperbolic statement which bears no resemblance to fact.

I would wish you better luck, next time, but you are arguing from a perspective which obviously has nothing to do with reality.

 

Looks like the figures are in:

Welp, here are Trump's tax returns that Democrats fought so hard to get:
2015: $31.7M loss, $641,931 paid in taxes
2016: $32.4M loss, $750 paid in taxes
2017: $12.9M loss, $750 paid
2018: $24.3M gain, $999,456 paid
2019: $4.4M gain, $133,445 paid
2020: $4.8M loss, $0 paid

Courtesy of Greg Price.

 

Hmm... So the House committee commits a felony. Will wonders never cease....

 

Here's the difference; I'm "blase" when the "legitimate cause for concern" is purely speculative and I get rather animated when someone actually does something that moves us in the direction of a police state. For example, when someone says that Trump's refusal to release his tax returns is an indication of criminal activity that's pure speculation. When the Ways and Means committee actually releases those returns it's no longer speculative that they are acting in direct contradiction to Constitutional protections.

 

Are they happening now? And why didn't they figure out the income transfers from his family business yet?

 

Perhaps democrats will now explain how the carry charge deductions are "illegal"....

 

If you've ever had to itemize your taxes you know that is certainly NOT what the issues would be.

 

The evil capitalist pig Trump!
$28.7 gain
$79.3 million
****************
$50.6 million loss to serve his country.
That’s about what the Biden’s grifted in 20 lean years.

 

Do tell?

 

??
Those figures are the sums of numerous claims.

The obvious question is where those numbers came from.

 

The American people have no right to the personal information of anyone else. Furthermore, most people have no idea what they're looking at on their tax return, much less the return of anyone else. You DO NOT have the right to see the president's tax return unless he or she chooses to disclose it.

 

You make a decent point, but it is not very far fetched to have concerns about congress now wanting to see my our your return. Or far more likely DeSantis', Dershowitz's, Jordon's, et al returns. The court just lowered the bar something fierce on "legislative purposes."

 

My examples had to do with the actions of the Trump administration, which were not just "speculation," as numerous people, have both pled, and have been found, guilty of crimes. Others resigned, in the midst of controversy over their highly questionable actions. I notice you could not bring yourself, to entertain these examples (which are the ones, about which, I'd said you had a "blasé" attitude).

All I can say about your charge that the belated release of the former President's taxes is a "direct contradiction to Constitutional protections," which "moves us in the direction of a police state," is that this Supreme Court, which has been highly partial to Republican arguments (with three of its members, one third of the Court, appointed by Trump), does not see it that way. Of course, you are welcome to argue that you are more of an authority on the Constitution, than the SCOTUS.

Actually, I would not be out of reach, of any argument about the current Court, having made decisions which were an abridgement of Constitutional protections, as they have been interpreted and accepted to be, by many Courts, over time. But that argument could not possibly ignore all their other decisions, such as on gerrymandering, abortion, and so on, which have much more blatant repercussions, and potential effects, relating to establishing a police state, than does this decision over Trump's taxes. So the question becomes, are you willing to consider those, with respect to your "police state" charges? (And if you claim that you know better than this SCOTUS, as far as the Constitutionality of their decision on Trump's taxes-- you understand that you will not be able to, conversely, maintain their infallible authority, against my own indictments of their other decisions?)

 

The legislation they’re discussing would mandate they occur and the findings be sent to the committee.

 

None of them are in a position to corruptly influence the IRS. It’s also now clear there is a legislative need, as the audits were not happening.