Trump must release tax returns or be barred from state’s 2020 election ballot

What does it matter why?

I am arguing the principal that ad hoc laws targeted at a single individual are bad and set dangerous precedents.

If you think it is good for states to restrict ballot access based on partisanship, make that argument, not an ad hominem.

 

Democrats have never cared about anyone's rights or what "the people" want...

Bernie Sanders is a contemptible disgrace, but there's no denying that Hillary and her band of corrupt thugs rigged her nomination. And Democrats didn't bat an eyelash.

Even in the face of the murder of Seth Rich, a fellow Democrat, Democrats had no problem voting for a piece of garbage like Hillary.

 

---sigh---

I was cutting to the heart of the matter, that you are specifically against the idea of requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns because you intend to PROTECT the current president from having to do just that.

An "ad hoc" law would be something that is implicitly prejudiced against Trump, something like "all people with hideous orange tans and small hands are precluded from participating in the presidential election." If that were the case, THEN you would have an argument.

 

Why should he release them? But since leftists consider Trump venal why not simply offer to pay him a few billion dollars to look at his income taxes? Taxpayers' money doesn't mean anything to leftist politicians and Trump could use it to build his wall. A win-win situation for everyone.

 

It's as if they cannot fathom that if Trump had done anything wrong in regard to his taxes the IRS would already have pounced. Do these people think that they personally are more expert at tax reviews than the professionals at the IRS? What in the world is going through what passes for their minds?

 

Indeed.

Trump will persist in hiding his tax returns if he believes that keeping his fake promise to release them would be more detrimental to him than coming clean.

Congress will persist in demanding that the IRS comply with the law and release them.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/trump-wrong-about-tax-law/

Most Americans expect him to keep his promise.

The electorate will judge.

 

Illinois does not understand the Constitution. Hilarious.

 

There is no law requiring anyone including the President to release his tax returns to the public.

Richard M. Nixon was the first who voluntary released his tax returns to prove he wasn't a crook.

What Nixon didn't do was to release his tax returns for during the war years (WW ll 42-45) that I bet didn't show all the money Nixon won playing poker in the Pacific theatre of war which gave him enough money to launch his political career.

Nixon was a commissioned officer in the Navy and was known as the best poker player in the Pacific.

Tax returns don't show jack **** except what your gross income was, net income and how much you paid in taxes.

MSNBC's Mad Cow got hold of Trump's 2005 income tax returns and what did we learn ? Rachelle Maddow looked like a fool.
Trump paid $38 million in taxes more than the Mad Cow did.

 

A prerequisite to releasing the tax returns to the public is that they be approved by the IRS. Only a fool would release tax returns under audit.

 

With what probable cause does congress make this request?

 

Here's a start: BECAUSE HE SAID HE WOULD.
Can we put the legality of the issue aside for a moment? Let's focus on the fact that Trump said that he would release his tax returns on the campaign trail, and now he says he won't. Not only that, but he claims that it is "presidential harassment" to ask him to keep his word. His supporters back him up 100% on this issue. Why? The democrats want to see his tax returns. Big deal. If he has nothing to hide, then he has nothing to worry about. Just throw a dog a bone. The issue here is that everybody knows that there are probably things in his tax returns that won't reflect well on him. The democrats want Trump to release his tax returns for the very same reason that the republicans DON'T want him to release them. Let's stop pretending that there is any other issue or concern.

 

The IRS can make its case to the judge about the subpoena, yes, AFM.

This is just another Trump lie, like Mexico would pay for the wall, that Trumpcare would be better and cheaper than ACA, and on and on and on and . . . on.

 

I intend to protect the democratic process from ad hoc laws intended to disadvantage a particular candidate. You are advocating this law to ATTACK the current president.

But now I understand that the "heart of the matter" is indeed the ATTACK on the President, not some high minded goal of transparency. It that were the case, you would frame the law to apply to the 2024 election in a manner similar to the 22nd Amendment which excluded the incumbent (Truman) from Presidential term limits.

Yes, this law is implicitly prejudiced against Trump, who, for whatever reason, is asserting his legal right to privacy.

And then there is the larger issue that this law sets a precedent for other partisan attempts to manipulate ballot access. It is as dangerous to our democracy as is the Democrats threat to pack the Supreme Court.

You Democrats ought to strive to win fairly and eschew outre stratagems like manipulating ballot access.

 

Fine, then he has nothing to worry about. Right? Why won't he release them after he SAID THAT HE WOULD?

 

Those who don't exercise their rights are doomed to lose them.

 

I don't believe you give a hooey about "privacy." Forgive me.

There are plenty of reasons to expect the Complainer-In-Chief to release his tax returns, #1 being that HE SAID THAT HE WOULD.

Since your arguments about manipulating ballot access have already been responded to, I won't be addressing that any further.

 

You Republicans ought to strive to win fairly and eschew outre like voter suppression to cut the number of votes to improve your candidates' chance of success.

 

So your idea of a true American patriot is somebody who says he would do something, but then doesn't, because he is "exercising his right?" Right to what, break promises? I will concede that you are correct, Donald Trump implicitly has the right to break promises. Good for him for exercising that right.

 

Not when seeking the highest public office in the land. They are now dependent on that public.

 

He has his right to privacy to worry about.

I actually care a great deal about privacy and go to some length to protect my own. If you don't, feel free to post your name and address and phone number.

Shrug. If he doesn't, vote for somebody else. But let the good people of Illinois vote for Trump if it doesn't bother them.

Sure.

But let us take this further and imagine that a number of states don't allow Trump on the ballot for this or other reasons and Trump loses.

Do you think such an election is conducive to national unity? (Not that there is much of that at present.) Would you feel that our democracy had been strengthened by such (imo) cynical manipulation of the ballot?

 

It's a slippery slope.

First some black bad hombres (Black Panthers) in California abused their Second Amendment rights.

Instead of punishing the Black Panthers, all law abiding citizens in California were punished and open carry of loaded firearms became against the law.

It was a slippery slope and today there are no Second Amendment rights in California.

 

You are presenting a pretense that it is a "cynical" manipulation of the ballot. So I must answer this question of yours in two ways.

If it WERE a cynical manipulation of the ballot (which it is not), then of course I would be as offended as you pretend to be.

Since it is NOT a cynical manipulation of the ballot, I am completely fine with it. Because every presidential candidate has to abide by the same rule, and it is not a class prejudice (such as "you must be a woman" or "you must be married to somebody of the opposite sex") it is completely fair, justified, and reasonable. It doesn't say "only Donald Trump must release his tax returns."

Your argument that it comes "ad hoc" is moot. Every piece of legislation is "ad hoc," or created or done for a particular purpose as necessary. If the State of Illinois feels that a law needs to be created to make sure that presidential candidates release their tax returns, whether or not they did it because of Donald Trump is outside of the scope of this argument. It is their will that it be done that way, and it does not present any prejudice against any class of people EXCEPT people who do not wish to show their tax returns to the public, which is not a protected class.

 

No such rights thanks to the Republicans who never even bothered to take the BPs to trial for any such alleged crime. As always it is the ultra right wing Republicans who hate the Constitution and all the good it stands for.

 

The only slippery slope here is you sliding away from the main issue, which has nothing to do with privacy or civil rights.

 

Let me ask this question again. I will take out the word "cynical."

But let us take this further and imagine that a number of states don't allow Trump on the ballot for this or other reasons and Trump loses.

Do you think such an election is conducive to national unity? (Not that there is much of that at present.) Would you feel that our democracy had been strengthened by such manipulation of the ballot?