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

Biden's finances are a complete sham. They cooked the books and never included the shared account he and Hunter used for their illegal business deals with China. They are almost as crooked as Hillary Clinton. At least Hillary was funneling her money through a "foundation". Ask Haiti about that awesome hospital they never got. lol

Hillary Clinton made an extroidinary amount of money while serving as SoS.

 

I had said nothing about Nixon. I had said, I believe, "for the last half century." Forgive me, if my rounding of 46 years (since Carter, in 1976), confused you.

How, pray tell, would requiring any President to release his taxes, "be turned around," in some way of which I would not approve? I have already stated, that a Presidential candidate's refusal to release his taxes, is a deal breaker, in my book. Were you not paying attention? Do I need re-explain the rationale, behind my thinking? It seems, to me, that your argument is without much substance; a speculative grasping, at straws.

 

If you're specifically referring to making the returns public, you may have a case. One issue might be how open our government is.

But, our legislature has had full rights to subpoena tax returns when there is adequate justification. I don't see any argument for the subpoena in this case to be some new low bar.

 

She also had income from writing books, giving speeches, having investments and other activity that is legitimate.

If you want her to be investigated, you would need to show that there is an issue that is serious enough to rise to the level of our DoJ or legislature.

I'd point out that Trump has lost cases related to business practices - and not just the most recent one. And, there are other cases pending.

 

Congress cannot subpoena anything unless it is directly related to legislation (the legislative process). The reason that, "Hey we are going to consider tax legislation for presidents" is an extreme lowering of that bar.

 

Here you are. I’m sure Trump filled out every page and forged the CPA stamp next to his signature.


Only a fool businessman would do his own taxes now a days. It all CPA, all the time.

 

How much? Her taxes are public so it should be easy to find out how….

 

I don't think that is correct, as I am hearing that there had supposed to be a mandatory, annual audit of the President's taxes which, for some reason, had not been carried out, under the first two years of the Trump administration. Come on, Rod, you very well know that, had the exact same circumstance arisen under a Hillary Clinton administration, you would have found that to be sufficient cause for suspicion. Congress, IMO, has a good enough reason, here, to want to see if there is any fire, beneath that obvious smoke.

Secondly, if the Congress were to pass a law, requiring all Presidential candidates to release a copy of their taxes, I would not have a problem with that, as I have argued that voters should have the right to know of any potential, financial conflicts of interest, before electing anyone as our President. Since this law would be conditional, in its application to only those who choose to run for our country's highest office, I do not see how this logically endangers the privacy of any other, private citizens. You seem to be arguing against any regulations requiring financial transparency, among our elected officials. I disagree that these are by nature, automatically unconstitutional threats to our freedom; in point of fact, the intention of such regulations, is to preserve those freedoms.

 

That is your opinion; and I strongly disagree with it. I think it is a matter of common sense, that the financial interests and arrangements of any potential Chief Executive, of our country, be known to those who are making the choice, through their vote. That most people could not decipher these things from someone else's tax form is irrelevant, if it is an open, public record, about which those who do understand such things, will be able to put forth their arguments.

 

Who?

 

On what basis do you presume there is a right to public scrutiny of a private citizen's personal information? On what basis do you presume that there is a right to access the tax returns of an elected official? Where are you even getting that from?

 

I'm pretty sure they've audited Biden and Harris.

https://www.taxnotes.com/presidential-tax-returns

"Since 1977 the Internal Revenue Manual has required that every tax return filed by a sitting president or vice president be subject to an audit. According to IRS officials at the time, the new policy was established “in the interest of sound administration” and in light of “everything that has happened in the past.”

 

Speak for yourself.

The fear-mongering about this issue being the death knell of personal privacy is farcical and pathetic. The rules are different for those seeking positions of power and great responsibility, as they should be. Tax returns are one of the modern devices we have to vett candidates for president and vice president. If Trump didn't know that when he decided to run, that's on him.

And BTW, freedom ain't free. It's purchased by taking responsibility for your actions, something Trump has never had to do before now.

 

In that case, let me repeat something I heard for four years:
No charges, no conviction = TOTAL EXONERATION!!!!

 

How did you get that from the post to which you replied? Are you just lashing out because someone noticed the hypocrisy of the right constantly screaming about Hunter and Joe and their financial records, while perfectly willing to give Trump a pass?

 

Then perhaps you don't understand it. See the link in #53.

If you don't want to show the people your money, don't run for president or vice president.

 

I'm pretty sure that the Presidential Tax Transparency Act is a legal federal law.

 

Gotta love a minimalist. Nice cut to the chase, Doof.

 

So now you're just going to make **** up? How desperate are you to maintain your hero worship?

Trump is a very bad man. Period. Deal with it.

 

You were whinging about the 4th Amendment. I'm just supplying a "chill pill." If Trump didn't want to disclose his personal financial information, he shouldn't have run for president. There is no violation of the 4th here.

 

Thanks. The point was that if there were information that does not make him look bad, there would be no reason to release it. No matter how bad it makes him look, he will still be better at managing money than those releasing the info

 

I recommend that you actually read, more carefully than you, to all appearances, do, the posts of others, you are quoting, before you reply to them. Of course, you should also try to not misrepresent what another member has said. Here is the beginning of what you'd been responding to, which seems to address your redundant questions, before you even ask them. Note that I nowhere say that, unconditionally, all citizens should have the right to scrutinize all other citizens' tax returns. That is your own, very poorly made, Straw man argument. Nor do I believe I said this, about all elected officials, but only, specifically, of anyone wishing to be our President, our top leader.

DEFinning said: ↑
That is your opinion; and I strongly disagree with it. I think it is a matter of common sense, that the financial interests and arrangements of any potential Chief Executive, of our country, be known to those who are making the choice, through their vote.



Best of luck, in your second attempted reading of this!

 

They haven't been published yet. Only the House is currently privy to their contents. I don't even know for sure that we the people will get to see all of them, but at least some disclosure to someone has been accomplished. As I keep saying, if he didn't want to show us his money, he shouldn't have run for president.

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the damned kitchen.

 

Except that how good Trump is, or isn't, at "managing money," is not the real point, here (or at least, it should not be the thing to which people pay most attention). I would contend, it would be any indications, of Trump's doing business with other principals, particularly those associated with foreign interests, which could suggest conflicts in his own interests, should he succeed in his current bid, to re-ascend to the Presidency.

 

The policy requires at least 10 years of disclosure when one signs up to run for president. Those are all from the years after Trump announced his candidacy in 2015.