‘Emoluments’ Challenge To Donald Trump’s Ethics Conflicts Gets A Big Boost

So how do you know Trump has done or will do that? How will that be verified? If he does make a donation, how will we know it's for the full amount? Without transparent accounting, we won't.

That's why transparency is important. And that's why your continued opposition to transparency is so disreputable.

In Trump's case, we also have Trump's long history of making public claims and then failing to follow through on them. So with Trump, we have an even greater need to verify that he is doing what he claims he is doing.

 

Did you think that would somehow answer my question? FFS. Stop acting like a dog around a squirrel.

How do you propose verifying that Trump will donate the profits derived from foreign dignitaries towards the Treasury?

 

We don't. Does that mean we shouldn't have access to stuff we CAN check? That EVERY PRESIDENT FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS has released?

You are engaging in the "perfect solution" fallacy. Please stop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

How can you even think that is an unanswered question?

First of all, we have had 15 years of detailed news reports on the topic.

Second, the Clintons have released DECADES worth of tax returns. We know EXACTLY where their money has come from.

The answer: After leaving the White House, both Clintons joined the speaking circuit. They made millions giving speeches.

Wow. That was really hard to answer. I almost broke a sweat.

 

That's exactly the point. No matter what Trump does the "resist" morons will keep going.

Quite frankly it's worse than the birther movement since the birth certificate IS a requirement. The taxes aren't. They're just tradition.

You know, like giving a concession speech the night of the election.

It's not about "transparency" no matter how much you present that argument.

I'm fully aware of where the Clinton's "offical" cash came from and it all revolved around selling influence.

How much money are they making now? Yeah.

Democrats constantly turned a blind eye to the Clinton's corruption and Obama's scandals so again, please don't insult people's intelligence with the "transparency" argument. Just stop, it's not going to work.

 

I'm not acting like anything, and it is an answer regardless of how much you like it.

The answer is of course that the taxes are simply a fishing expedition, and if Trump wanted to hide money he could do so.

I'm sure Maddow will get him eventually

 

We aren't talking about taxes. We are talking about the emoluments clause and potential Trump conflicts through receiving gifts from foreign dignitaries. A potential conflict and violation of the US Constitution that you allege is mitigated or prevented because Trump will donate profits derived from foreign dignitaries into the US treasury.

How do you propose verifying that plan?

 

You don't. You know as much or more about Trump as anyone else did about Obama or the Clintons.

Anyone who can claim Trump has a long history of failing to follow through who voted for the Obama and the Clintons while voting for either/both of those shows what they're about.

When Trump surpasses Obama's Gitmo, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Pigford, one AG being held in contempt of Congress, one AG secretly meeting in an airport hanger then not recusing herself, spying on journalists and the AP, coming on TV and lying about a video causing Benghazi, allowing ISIS to grow exponentially, overthrowing mulitpile governments, the entire way Obamacare was shoved down our throats, the Snowden reveals, weaponizing the IRS against conservative groups...

When he gets to that level let us know.

Until then, it's just pure hypocrisy.

 

Yeah? And where were either of you the last 8 years of Obama's "no major scandal" presidency? I know where.

Now every one of the "resist" people want "transparency"?

Bull****.

Oh I'll admit, the argument sounds very white-knight of them on the surface. Unfortunately based on their histories I know better.

From the Logan Act to the Emoluments Clause to petitioning the EC not to vote for Trump.... the left has lost it's collective mind and is grasping at any straw to try and take Trump down.

The "transparency" polished-turd argument might look nice, but it still smells exactly like what it is.

Take your faux integrity arguments somewhere they might believe them.

 

Everything you posted is off topic and when asked to stay on topic and address the thread topic you are unable to do so. Your entire post is about distraction because you are now grasping at straws by flinging mud everywhere. The topic is Trump's conflicts of interest and why it's very likely he will be successfully sued in court for violating the emoluments clause.

 

The taxes came up in context, so yeah, that is being talked about.

I don't know how it would be verified, maybe you should ask Congress. I'd think looking at the hotels income might give some idea but that's just me.

 

Then report me and let the moderators decide if I'm on topic.

 

Er, what? How does that statement bear any relationship to what I wrote? You seem to be talking to someone else.

Again, that is totally irrelevant.

The demand here is not Trump specific. The demand is simple: that Trump be held to the SAME STANDARD as EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT IN THE LAST 40 YEARS. You are demanding that he be an exception, and have yet to articulate a logical reason why this should be so. You are arguing for reducing the amount of transparency we demand from our president, a move that will abet Trump and future presidents in hiding corruption.

And yet more irrelevancy. We're talking about a 40-year tradition of transparency. You seem so caught up in partisan bullshit that you can't seem to separate.

Already rebutted. There is no way to claim that wanting to hold a president to the SAME STANDARD AS EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT IN THE LAST 40 YEARS is a partisan demand. Seriously: that is literally, logically impossible.

If I was demanding MORE transparency from Trump, you might have a point. I am not, and you do not.

Oh, I see. And on what do you base that claim?

Many, many former government officials have a lucrative post-government career on the speaking circuit. Bill Clinton, in particular, was one of our most popular presidents in history by the end of his presidency -- leaving office with 65% approval:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx

His speaking fees were in line with his market value as an extremely personable and popular former president. Please provide evidence that they weren't.

I'm not sure of the point of the question. Since you are "fully aware" of how the Clinton's make their money, why don't you tell me how much they make, and then explain your point.

Really? Democrats didn't demand that Hillary release her tax returns? Are you saying that Hillary DIDN'T release her tax returns?

I'm talking about tax returns. About the 40-year tradition of releasing them. Hillary released hers. Trump didn't.

You keep trying to introduce irrelevancies. Let's say the Clintons were "selling influence." Okay. That would be corrupt. That has NOTHING to do with the tax-return transparency question before us. They are two separate questions.

By refusing to release his tax returns, Trump is rejecting a 40-year tradition of transparency.

Does releasing tax returns mean you aren't corrupt? No. You can still be corrupt even if you release your returns.

Does NOT releasing tax returns mean you ARE corrupt? No.

But not releasing the returns makes it EASIER to hide corruption. Which is the point of transparency: to make corruption HARDER, even if it can't be eliminated altogether.

And then there are the non-corruption-related things you can learn from tax returns -- like conflicts of interest.

You are working very hard to ignore all that, and try to paint demands for transparency as partisan lies. It just doesn't work. To sum up: demanding that Trump be held to the SAME STANDARD as EVERY PRESIDENT IN THE LAST 40 YEARS cannot be spun as partisan. On the other hand, your demand that Trump be held to a DIFFERENT, LESSER STANDARD -- indeed, to no standard at all -- is the very definition of partisan. And also damaging to the democratic process.

 

Now you are just straight-up lying. Obama and the Clintons released years and years of tax returns. We know FAR more about their finances than we do about Trump's.

Nonsensical, and also, tiresomely, AGAIN, irrelevant.

Now attempting the "kitchen sink" version of "irrelevant", throwing up everything you don't like about other presidents and trying to act as if it is relevant to what we're talking about, which is "transparency over one's personal finances."

NOTHING you listed has ANYTHING to do with "transparency over one's personal finances."

You are playing the part of a disreputable partisan hack perfectly.

 

Now you're just playing your real hand.

Defending the Clintons when they're the most corrupt people on earth.

Thanks for proving my point about Trump's taxes and your "transparency" bull****.

 

Then why did you bring it up?

Oh so now you don't want "transparency", you're just worried about "transparency of personal finances".

You may need to edit your argument some more before we're done.

 

I simply asked you to provide evidence for you claims.

And whatever I may or may not think or do about the Clintons, it has NOTHING to do with our topic, which is "transparency in one's personal finances", specifically around the 40-year tradition of releasing one's tax returns.

You keep bringing up irrelevancies, and you keep failing.

 

Um ... my entire discussion in this thread has been about Trump's tax returns. Which is about transparency in personal finances. Not sure how you missed that. I have repeatedly said the following:

Trump should be held to the SAME STANDARD as EVERY PRESIDENT OF THE PAST 40 YEARS, and release his tax returns.

Please try to stay on the topic. And please try to come up with an intellectually honest defense for why you insist that Trump should be held to a DIFFERENT standard -- indeed, no standard at all.

 

I love this. Holding Trump to release his tax returns is somehow holding him to a higher standard then, for example, Obama, who everyone asked for his tax returns, and he released them.

VB, you're out of your mind. You simply cannot defend your position.

Hilariously fail.

 

Actually you just reinforced my position, as did others.

They claim they want transparency in the form of tax returns being released, yet that is the only form of transparency they care about (for now). Well, and anything they can use to feed their russian tinfoil conspiracy.

That isn't transparency. Transparency in an administration is a paradigm, not a tax return.

It's no wonder they only want to compare this one issue though.

 

What claim did I make without evidence?

Actually the topic is about this lawsuit and the emoluments clause.

You're welcome to keep acting outraged about Trumps taxes, I really don't care.

 

I really don't understand how you can defend Trump not releasing his tax returns. You're playing partisan grab ass here and you know it. Had a democrat done this, you'd be just as outraged as the liberals are about his tax returns, and there is absolutely NO way you can deny that.

You're also trying to excuse wrongs by bringing up previous wrongs as if that is somehow an excuse for poor behavior.

Your argument is a logic failure.

 

That's nonsensical. "Transparency" can be a very broad term. Typically, when approaching a very broad term (particularly in politics, where there can be partisan disagreement), you try to break it down into smaller, more specific chunks that people can agree on.

Which is why there has been broad agreement for the past 40 years that presidential candidates should release their tax returns, even if there is no broad agreement on things like "how transparent should a policy-making process be?"

You are once again pulling out the "perfect solution" fallacy -- insisting that unless we can agree on transparency everywhere, we can't agree on transparency anywhere.

Want to talk about policymaking transparency? Great. Start a thread on it, and I'd be happy to discuss it.

But opinions about the 40-year tradition of releasing tax returns are not dependent on whatever we discuss in that thread.

So once again, please stay on topic: provide a logical reason why you think Trump should be held to a DIFFERENT STANDARD from everybody else when it comes to releasing tax returns -- indeed, to no standard at all.

 

You made the assertion that the Clintons made their money "selling influence", and that they are "the most corrupt people on Earth."

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I just want you to provide evidence to support your assertion, seeing as what Bill Clinton did -- make money giving speeches -- is no different than what thousands of other former government officials have done.

Yes, that is the overall thread topic. Which led logically to the subtopic of his tax returns, since his refusal to release his tax returns makes it easier for him to hide emoluments and gifts he might receive. That subtopic is what I have been focused on.

Ah, there it is: the concession. Thank you.

 

Trump doesn't care about "personal financial transparency".

Trump doesn't care the "standard of every other President".

Since there is no law forcing him to release them, and he completely lacks character (and has no sense of personal ethics), he will never release them.

He will just continue to thumb his nose at the American public, while further embarrassing the gullible 26.7% of eligible voters that facilititated the egregious mistake of his election.

 

And, also important, line his pockets while he does this!