Not so. The tax documents are the legal responsibility of the taxpayer regardless of any assistance received or intermediaries involved. The same is true of a corporate return, the executives are responsible under the law for every document they sign.
That's an interesting concept. Any politician who breaks a promise made on the campaign trail should be removed from office. And people like Adam Schiff would then determine what was a 'promise' or not. The country would be under 7/11 impeachment hearings and destroy the democratic process, just like the Democrats are attempting now.
Irrespective of who is to blame, the issue is not about any discrepancies on the tax returns, the issue is about conflicts of interest
The legal standard. Is the legal standard. Because is the moral standard. It is wrong to demand to see someone's tax returns president or not. Whether they promised they would release them or not.
I missed where you said how "the Democrats" acted inappropriately. Anyway, who are "the Democrats" you're talking about? Pols? Everyday folks? All of 'em? Pols never seem to collectively act appropriately--across the political spectrum--so the only issue here is whether or not Congress has a right to seeTrump's return. They do. We don't.
Why should he have to release his person taxes from years ago? Perhaps there is reason to demand those filed during his Presidency. I can go along with that. At the same time Congres should release theirs while in office. Maybe they already do.
You continue to be stuck. There is no legal standard on this. A politician makes a promise and the recourse for breaking that promise is political. This is not new, it is very AMERICAN and you continue to pretend that somehow it is a legal matter. Your position is distinctly Anti-American, unethical and amoral, Congress does have more authority than common citizens as provided for in the Constitution. Such as to compel testimony or documents via their authority to investigate and subpoena. So yes, I expect they will eventually get to see Trump's returns and a great many other documents. The People do have rights here too. Not legally enforceable ones but Trump made promises. A politician breaking a promise may be punished by the political process. Meaning to be defeated at election or impeached and convicted in a political trial. Along the way the People have every right to make demands upon a politician, as is the normal chaos of all political systems in a free country such as ours. As for the Democrats (for whom I hold no small dislike) and the impeachment process, they are following rules created by the Republicans from when that party had the majority. Preliminary hearings were closed door. Full hearings are public. All testimony is being seen by both parties, who get to ask questions, cross-examine witnesses, issue their own subpoenas, all aspects of this political process are available to both parties. There is no requirement in the Republican's rules being followed by the Democrats to hold a full vote of the House before starting hearings. Nothing about how this impeachment has come about has been inappropriate on the part of majority party.
There is a difference between someone filing a return with a ‘mistake’ vs filing one to fraudulently composed to avoid paying taxes legally obligated and the IRS deals with the two situations differently. If a mistake is encountered, the IRS (in any mistake resulting in under payment) the IRS updates the taxes payer’s account with the corrected assessment, notifies the taxpayer of the required increase of liability and the amount owed, begins to assess interest on the unpaid amount, and the taxpayer can remedy the mistake by paying the owed balance and accrued interest. If the tax payer disagrees with the IRS’s assessment, there is an avenue of appeal. There is no charge of criminality applied. If fraud is suspected you the IRS, unless egregious and obvious, a deeper review of the taxpayer’s records are triggered, and the taxpayer is still provided with the opportunity to remedy the situation an has an appeal path. Only when fraud, or other crime, is suspected as intentional, remains with out remedy, does the IRS proceed to make a criminal referral. In either case, the IRS has in their toolkit the ability to seize assets, garnish wages, etc.. There are those situations where the IRS, acting with in the law, but seemingly contrary to the Constitution, and not following Due Process, will seize assets of an individual for suspected, but uncharged potential criminal conduct such as when they see a pattern of taxpayer unreported (but reported by the bank) structured bank deposits... in this case often requiring the taxpayer, contrary to Constitutional protections, to prove funds are not associated with criminal behavior. That all aside, if Trump’s tax returns, had indicated suspicious activity, the IRS would have already acted. Most people on either side of the debate often view the debate from the perspective of their own IRS experiences which are extremely trivial in comparison to that of someone like Trump. Trump more than likely submits a personal earnings return, which is linked by earnings to many other corporations, charities, non-profits, chains of organizations having tax liabilities. When he suggests he’s being audited, it could mean his personal return, or any combination and chains of those entities with which he’s affiliated which could potentially involve extremely complex analysis of the financial records and transaction of a large network of entities; not trivial and not necessarily something done over night. The Dems know that, and the question is, how deep a look do they want? His personal return or the entire chain of entities he’s associated with? A skeptic would say, they are hunting for a crime or any conflict of interest they can extrapolate and imply with a crafted narrative. Arguably, few politicians would have, or have had, as complex a financial situation as Trump; not even the Clintons. Were I in his shoes, knowing the IRS hasn’t leveled any charges of wrong doing, I’d resist going down the rabbit hole of providing my returns as well. If some think the Dems are pursuing a which hunt now, it would only provide a fertile, almost unlimited, means of the Dems to fabricate multiple narratives of ‘fishy’ behavior... narratives that would be impossible for the average person to validate, narratives that could be peddled and endlessly interpreted by Trump’s political and MSM opposition spun anyway they like, keeping him addressing spurious accusations from here to eternity. I say, if there is evidence for wrong doing or conflicts of interest then let them be made and investigated. Without a law requiring disclosure of his returns, were I in his shoes and witnessing the continual, desperate fabrications of the Dems, I’d make the Dems work hard as I could make it to access the returns. For their part, the Dems probably get better mileage if Trump doesn’t provide his returns; they can fabricate as many fictions as they think they can get away with weaving. Of course, Congress could act, and proceed to legislate disclosure of financial records a requirement for any public office. Would they?
congress has a right to them when the courts say they have the right to them.. I bet we are a ways from that point.
The Democrats in New York made it a legal matter. my position is VERY American VERY ethical and VERY moral.
I want to see Maxine Waters tax returns, she never had a job except for the house and she lives in a 5.5 million dollar mansion. Id like to see Nancy Pelosis and her husbands tax returns and Adam Schiffs and Obama. How did obama that was a community organizer, then a senator who never showed up for 2 yrs, then potus for 8 Just buy a multimillion dollar mansion. How about Hilly and Billys tax returns Do you get my point ? do I have to go on Robert
My point was clear. If you need to have it spoon fed to you then yours is an opinion I'm likely not real interested in...
I agree all their tax returns should be made public the day they file as a candidate and for every year in office.This should be the law for all elected Federal office holders. Some redactions would be appropriate, addresses, names of dependents, social security numbers, stuff like that. On the names you list, many have released tax returns. Not all and I agree they should have to. For links to the returns released by candidates and those elected President (both Clintons, Obama, others), see here: https://www.efile.com/historic-1040-income-tax-returns-of-us-presidents-and-candidates/
hire Jay Sekulow i imagine he could point you in the right direction.. I'd give each of those people you mentioned the same protections. probable cause then get a warrant then let the legal games begin.
When Trump leaves office in 2025, I hope he releases his tax returns then and liberals see that there was nothing amiss. That'd be funny...
Right now it is supposed to be about politics. But while Congress's mandate to investigate and impeach Trump will end with his Presidency, various criminal jurisdictions are made more free.In particular the State of New York and the US Attorney for the Southern District of NY.
Check. He promised he wouldn't cut taxes for rich people, then turned around and gave 85% of the cuts to people making $400,000 a year.
No, Congress clearly has a right to them NOW and Trump is obstructing legitimate oversight of the Executive branch. Obstruction is an impeachable offense. How far is that?
No, it wasn't. No need to comment on my posts. Of course, I will continue to comment on yours as I see fit.
