Obviously I do know what it means. So you want me to read through the entire thread to find where you mentioned something? Get real.
Speaking for myself, I think the opinion you two are expressing misses my concerns. T There are three big reasons I think he should release them: 1. Transparency with regard to his decision-making. If he has massive foreign entanglements and debts that motivate him toward or away from policy decisions, I think we have an implicit right to know that. 40 years of Page 6 have shown him to be a compulsive liar at best. You can't realistically trust anything he says. His supporters should want to see his taxes too. This doesn't have to be partisan. 2. He said he would. 3. Precedent. On precedent: You might consider taking your own advice here because it's valid both ways. The precedent Trump is setting on a daily basis is just shredding the mores of an adult democracy, and when the shoe is inevitably on the other foot, you will have surrendered the high ground long ago to your objections to abject compulsive lying, nepotism, score-settling, scapegoating, policy-by-Tweet, Emergency declarations, defanging of the DOJ, sexual predation,... it's all here and it's all being normalized. The future holds nothing but a massive buffet of whataboutism for us and the 100% freedom of politicians of all stripes to enrich themselves and their families in the wide-open without repercussion.
"There are three big reasons I think he should release them: 1. Transparency with regard to his decision-making. If he has massive foreign entanglements and debts that motivate him toward or away from policy decisions, I think we have an implicit right to know that. 40 years of Page 6 have shown him to be a compulsive liar at best. You can't realistically trust anything he says. His supporters should want to see his taxes too. This doesn't have to be partisan. 2. He said he would. 3. Precedent." Simple, legal solution. Get Congress to write an appropriate law.
Then tell me how a statute that has universal application is a "bill of attainder". Hint: It's the polar opposite of a "bill of attainder". Don't pull a Bonespurs and double down on a fraudulent claim.
What Statute are you referring to? You want to keep running in a circle? How about letting me know which post you made where you cited the specific statute you keep referring to, and I'll go look at it and then comment?
Start at the beginning of the thread. If you do that, you'll find 26 USC sect. 6103. Then look up "bill of attainder". Then come back to this thread and swear your fealty to me as the lord of correct answers.
Trump's precedent serves congress's interests. They pay lip service to transparency but none of them want it, which is why people who defend Trump's recalcitrance should *really* think about the erosion of our own abilities to judge our politicians and their choices.
Exactly. First he said that he can't release his returns because they were "under audit", which doesn't prohibit their release, then he promised that he'd release them, then he promised to release them when he's out of office, and now he flatly rejects releasing them. He lied to all of us, but his unthinking supporters don't care.
He's the President. Of course it's our business to know if he's conflicted, and where he's conflicted.
That's ridiculous. It *is* our business to understand who may have leverage over our president. To defend the obscuring of these relationships is to entice blackmail of our foreign policy and markets. There is no rational defense which is precisely why presidents release their returns and divest themselves.
We have a government agency that is dpecifically tasked to look for illegal financial dealings. Democrats have no rights to private, personal information, that they can use to create their false narratives. Why are you supportive of using the powers of government to overturn the result of an election? Jesus! 90% of Trump's agenda benefits you directly.
I want to see the Mueller Report, and BTW, your characterization of Bonespurs' supposed "benefits" to me are not just exaggerated, but completely fabricated. I don't want the Presidency to be used by a dementia-afflicted narcissist to enrich a small segment of the country, wreck trade relationships, burden us with huge deficits, erode our leadership around the world, and take a steaming crap on the rule of law. 26 USC section 6103 gives Congress an unqualified right to the returns.
As far as I'm concerned, you might as well spout some bizarre religious dogma. There is the same disregard for actual facts as in some cult. "26 USC section 6103 gives Congress an unqualified right to the returns." Congress is blatantly attempting to abuse their powers for political purposes. Do you deny this?
You're caught in the weeds of binaryism. It's unhealthy to create shadows in government regardless of who is in power because getting the sunshine back in there is nearly impossible. Take the long view.
Totally agree. For 40 years presidents have been releasing their returns and divesting. Why are you defending Trump's occlusion? I don't get it. You're surrendering your own argument when democrats pull the same bullshit next time around. Your credibility it preemptively shot. Why? Why don't you want to know if someone or some country has leverage over our leaders? That's what you're giving up.
I must be completely missing your point. There exist powerful government agencies that are tasked to enforce all of the laws regarding financial dealings. Summoning forth phantom concerns does not justify abuses of power.
Which powerful government agencies are you thinking of? Here's a possible scenario where no finance laws are initially broken but massive conflicts of interest exist: Trump is leveraged and in debt to some Russian oligarch/Bank/consortium or other after a lifetime of these sorts of business dealings. Trump promises to release his returns (like every other modern president) after the conclusion of a phantom audit. Trump gets elected. Russia seeks a back channel communication conduit through their own embassy to avoid any potential US eavesdropping or -god forbid- oversight. (Ooooooohshit Kushner did THIS exact thing with the Russian embassy!) One of the things they *might* discuss would be a forgiveness of debt based on policy stance advantageous to Russia, then damn if that happened and the public ever found out about it! BOOM! Kompromat. (Why does Trump continue to have meetings with Putin that he denies having, why does he confiscate the translator's notes and attempt to swear them to secrecy? Why doesn't he have advisors with him? Why Thought Criminal? Why? Why protect this?
"Which powerful government agencies are you thinking of?" Treasury Department, and Justice Department. "Why protect this?" Dunno if you're asking me, but I don't believe that I'm defending any such thing. Until someone, anyone, produces actual evidence I'll just keep believing that it's a wacked out conspiracy theory.
It is nobody's ****ing business what a private citizen's tax returns have in them. Democrats got used to running the IRS like their own private gestapo during the Obama years and they think they can go on doing that. Wrong! NOne of them have any right to dig into Trump's tax returns and they are just making themselves look like fools trying to do it.
LOL I'd rather eat maggots. They likely look better to begin with. Ok, so you've learned how easy it is to not jerk someone around. 6103. (1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation. --Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure. So, on it's surface, it looks like no taxpayer has any protection from lawmakers wanting to go on a fishing expedition. But any reasonable person knows there are substantial protections, and in this case, those include separation of powers, that could be used in response to clearly politically motivated efforts like the one the New Democratic Party is attempting. Why the POS Richard Neil would lie, in writing, in the letter sent to the Commissioner of the IRS is interesting. What a total load of bullshit. It remains to be seen whether the continued effort to remove a President by the New Democratic Party, using any means, legal, or illegal, will play out as they dream. The thin ice they are on, and the Armageddon like precedent they are setting is a major consideration that may require Supreme Court input. BTW, my reference to Bill of Attainder relates to New York State, and what the crooks there have said they will do. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-...e-house-stonewalling-brad-holyman-2019-04-11/
