#45's Tax Returns
-
Since July, there has been a strong possibility that special counsel Robert Mueller–-the head overseer on the Russia collusion investigation---has already obtained the president's tax returns. Remember, this president is the only president in modern history to NOT release his tax returns and after many blatant attempts at deflecting, has shown absolutely no signs of being upfront with the American people. Those two pages released by Rachel Maddow did not show everything and wasn't a full tax return; therefore, bringing that up is ignoring MANY other things involved in a standard tax return released by a sitting president.
If Mueller indeed does have the tax returns, I believe he should release them. He should definitely release them if it helps make his case to the public whether or not charges should be filed against the president and/or the people of his administration. I have my own personal beliefs about what's in the tax returns, but I'd still want to see them to see if I'm right or wrong. Releasing them could also take away a major argument the left has on this president, especially if the returns going back a certain number of years show no wrongdoing of any kind. It could potentially make the president's approval ratings go up, even higher than the 45% he came into office with. If there's nothing troublesome in the returns, then why not do what every president from Ford to Obama has done without a fuss? Mueller most likely has the returns and once the investigation concludes, I hope he does the right thing and makes them public to the American people. There is already a precedent set by previous presidents and it has clearly been taken advantage of because of how forthcoming those presidents were with their tax returns. We deserve transparency.
-
Since July, there has been a strong possibility that special counsel Robert Mueller–-the head overseer on the Russia collusion investigation---has already obtained the president's tax returns. Remember, this president is the only president in modern history to NOT release his tax returns and after many blatant attempts at deflecting, has shown absolutely no signs of being upfront with the American people. Those two pages released by Rachel Maddow did not show everything and wasn't a full tax return; therefore, bringing that up is ignoring MANY other things involved in a standard tax return released by a sitting president.
If Mueller indeed does have the tax returns, I believe he should release them. He should definitely release them if it helps make his case to the public whether or not charges should be filed against the president and/or the people of his administration. I have my own personal beliefs about what's in the tax returns, but I'd still want to see them to see if I'm right or wrong. Releasing them could also take away a major argument the left has on this president, especially if the returns going back a certain number of years show no wrongdoing of any kind. It could potentially make the president's approval ratings go up, even higher than the 45% he came into office with. If there's nothing troublesome in the returns, then why not do what every president from Ford to Obama has done without a fuss? Mueller most likely has the returns and once the investigation concludes, I hope he does the right thing and makes them public to the American people. There is already a precedent set by previous presidents and it has clearly been taken advantage of because of how forthcoming those presidents were with their tax returns. We deserve transparency.
Apparently you missed the memo.. nobody gives a damn about Trump's tax returns anymore.. nor do they care about that idiot Mueller.
-
Rachel Maddow did an entire episode with Trump's "leaked" tax return and there was nothing there that showed any sort of wrong doing.
Tax returns are classed as "private and personal" so it would be illegal for the Special Council to publicly release Trump's tax returns. Only a court with standing (a reason to be involved) could order it's publication.
"Precedent" means nothing outside of the legal system. We have a lot of "precedent" by US Presidents that people would get butt hurt if other Presidents also did.
-
Since July, there has been a strong possibility that special counsel Robert Mueller–-the head overseer on the Russia collusion investigation---has already obtained the president's tax returns. Remember, this president is the only president in modern history to NOT release his tax returns and after many blatant attempts at deflecting, has shown absolutely no signs of being upfront with the American people. Those two pages released by Rachel Maddow did not show everything and wasn't a full tax return; therefore, bringing that up is ignoring MANY other things involved in a standard tax return released by a sitting president.
If Mueller indeed does have the tax returns, I believe he should release them. He should definitely release them if it helps make his case to the public whether or not charges should be filed against the president and/or the people of his administration. I have my own personal beliefs about what's in the tax returns, but I'd still want to see them to see if I'm right or wrong. Releasing them could also take away a major argument the left has on this president, especially if the returns going back a certain number of years show no wrongdoing of any kind. It could potentially make the president's approval ratings go up, even higher than the 45% he came into office with. If there's nothing troublesome in the returns, then why not do what every president from Ford to Obama has done without a fuss? Mueller most likely has the returns and once the investigation concludes, I hope he does the right thing and makes them public to the American people. There is already a precedent set by previous presidents and it has clearly been taken advantage of because of how forthcoming those presidents were with their tax returns. We deserve transparency.
You have a real boner about Trump's tax returns.
If Mueller did release them, Mueller would be put in jail. He has no business releasing Trump's tax returns.
It is pitiful and pathetic that you are so desperate to find something.. anything.. to attack Trump with, that you have to keep banging away on the tax returns. Trump's taxes are between him and the IRS. If he did something wrong, then the IRS would penalize him. -
Notice what I've highlighted before you come at me with childish name calling.
Actually, she did an episode about 2 pages from a "leaked" return, not a FULL return; which means we have no idea how the president got his money nor do we know who he owes. We also do not know if he has fully divested from his companies. He could have major conflicts of interest going on right now for all we know. If Mueller does indeed have the returns, he had to get a court order to obtain them which means he had to prove to a judge or a handful of judges that the president's tax returns are necessary to investigate alleged–-forgot to put that in first post because nothing has been proven–-collusion with Russia. If a motion was granted for Mueller to obtain the tax returns for the sole purpose of investigating collusion, then why not clear them to be released to the public once collusion has been proven or ruled out? The president was indeed a private citizen PRIOR to being elected president. He is now susceptible to open investigations and hearings where his finances and debts can be discussed, especially in matters of possible abuse of power and obstruction of justice. Should the investigation go that far, I believe the people should know the truth so there won't be any claims of "fake news" if the president and/or members of his administration are charged with crimes.
There is a serious lack of transparency with this president mainly because of this issue and to call out previous administrations for not being transparent; even though they've been very transparent on this issue, is highly hypocritical. He is the only president in modern history (post-Nixon) to not release his tax returns. In my opinion, this is not fake news. This is not about being bitter over the election, after all I have been calling the man president ever since he was inaugurated (check my statements). Also, it was the Republican party that opened both the Senate and House investigations into Russia collusion, not the Democrats. Democrats do not control the committees because they do not have the majority. This is about the fact that he is the only president since Nixon to not release his tax returns; therefore, it is fair to ask why that is. No one HAS to release anything. However, the questions will remain and so will the mistrust. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of this country now doesn't trust this president (for many different reasons) and he could begin to change that by continuing a long-standing tradition that is arguably the easiest showing of transparency for a new president.
This isn't about attacks. I simply asked should the tax returns be released and why you believe they should or shouldn't. You either believe they should be released or you don't. Either way, you are entitled to your opinion but you should state your opinion and defend it. I personally believe the president should be locked up, but that doesn't mean I am incapable of having a discussion on why he should not be locked up. I don't have a "boner" about this issue neither do the people who have legitimate concerns. I believe his tax returns should be released and I stated my reasons why I think they should be released to the public. Why do you believe they should not be released? Do you believe this country should do away with presidential transparency altogether and just take the president's word for every single thing? Would you feel that same way about the 46th president should this current president not get reelected? This is a discussion, not a petty wrestling match. Let's stop trying to shut each other up with childishness and actually have a discussion.
-
Let's stop trying to shut each other up with childishness and actually have a discussion.
I'm going to hold you to this. :police:
You're talking a lot of could(possible) and should(opinion) but the only two facts are that previous presidents have released their tax returns and Trump didn't. He is under no obligation to release them and the only people who insist on seeing them are the Never Trumpers, so there is no point in him releasing them.
I'll make an assumption: If there were anything wrong in his tax returns, the IRS would have to fine him or file charges and that would get out. If the special prosecutor found any irregularities, that would also get out. Barring that, there's no need and no way you're going to see them. He could show them, but he won't; there's no reason he should show them and that's my opinion.
-
Let's stop trying to shut each other up with childishness and actually have a discussion.
I'm going to hold you to this. :police:
You're talking a lot of could(possible) and should(opinion) but the only two facts are that previous presidents have released their tax returns and Trump didn't. He is under no obligation to release them and the only people who insist on seeing them are the Never Trumpers, so there is no point in him releasing them.
I'll make an assumption: If there were anything wrong in his tax returns, the IRS would have to fine him or file charges and that would get out. If the special prosecutor found any irregularities, that would also get out. Barring that, there's no need and no way you're going to see them. He could show them, but he won't; there's no reason he should show them and that's my opinion.
Why do you believe we as Americans should not be able to see if this president has any conflicts of interests? He is the only one in modern history not to do so. "He doesn't have to" does nothing to lessen the shock of that fact. Also, isn't that the same IRS multiple Republicans have been telling us all not to trust for decades now? So, we're not supposed to have confidence in the IRS except on this sole matter?
-
Where is my Congresswoman's (Sheila Jackson Lee) tax return?
How do I know she has no conflict of interest. She could be donating to BLM or Antifa for all we know.
-
Where is my Congresswoman's (Sheila Jackson Lee) tax return?
How do I know she has no conflict of interest. She could be donating to BLM or Antifa for all we know.
Have you written to her and asked her? If she has donated to Antifa, that would be devastating and it would be great if you (as one of her constituents) did some research to find out. However, she's not my Congresswomen or the Congresswomen for millions and millions of Americans so I wouldn't know and that's not even related to this discussion in any way, shape or form. We're not discussing local or Congressional politicians' tax returns. We are talking about the current president who has broken with a noncontroversial precedent set by many of his predecessors, and we still do not have an honest answer for why he's breaking with that noncontroversial precedent. There are a lot of serious questions that could be answered by him releasing them. Should legislation be passed saying every president should release his tax returns and then have that legislation followed with Congressional action to override his potential veto?
-
I have another question: Would you all take the same stance with our next president, regardless of which party (or no party at all) he or she belongs to? Just for the sake of argument, would you support Gavin Newsom or Deval Patrick not releasing their tax returns or disclosing any financial information about which companies they are invested in or have divested themselves from upon becoming president or is this one president the exception?
-
I have another question: Would you all take the same stance with our next president, regardless of which party (or no party at all) he or she belongs to? Just for the sake of argument, would you support Gavin Newsom or Deval Patrick not releasing their tax returns or disclosing any financial information about which companies they are invested in or have divested themselves from upon becoming president or is this one president the exception?
There are dozens of things far more important than one's tax returns. Such as.. producing a birth certificate BEFORE 1.5 years after they have been elected president (and even then.. a controversial one). Also far more important is where they were raised for the first 13 years of their life. Such as a muslim nation like Indonesia.
-
I have another question: Would you all take the same stance with our next president, regardless of which party (or no party at all) he or she belongs to? Just for the sake of argument, would you support Gavin Newsom or Deval Patrick not releasing their tax returns or disclosing any financial information about which companies they are invested in or have divested themselves from upon becoming president or is this one president the exception?
There are dozens of things far more important than one's tax returns. Such as.. producing a birth certificate BEFORE 1.5 years after they have been elected president (and even then.. a controversial one). Also far more important is where they were raised for the first 13 years of their life. Such as a muslim nation like Indonesia.
Well, if that's important then so is the possible corruption of a sitting president. How do we know he is not being blackmailed by Russia to behave erratically to weaken our position around the world? This is a serious problem and it's dangerous to blindly follow someone who is the current president and we have no idea if he's being controlled by a foreign government. You can't argue that the former president who has no power now is more of a danger to our democracy than the current one sitting in office who is going out of his way to hide financial statements that other presidents have provided easily. How come President Obama–-no longer in office---is still being subjected to conspiracy theorists and birthers such as yourself but it's crazy to want to see the sitting president's tax returns which is something every other president in modern history has provided to the American people to establish trust? :pleasant:
-
I have another question: Would you all take the same stance with our next president, regardless of which party (or no party at all) he or she belongs to? Just for the sake of argument, would you support Gavin Newsom or Deval Patrick not releasing their tax returns or disclosing any financial information about which companies they are invested in or have divested themselves from upon becoming president or is this one president the exception?
There are dozens of things far more important than one's tax returns. Such as.. producing a birth certificate BEFORE 1.5 years after they have been elected president (and even then.. a controversial one). Also far more important is where they were raised for the first 13 years of their life. Such as a muslim nation like Indonesia.
Well, if that's important then so is the possible corruption of a sitting president. How do we know he is not being blackmailed by Russia to behave erratically to weaken our position around the world? This is a serious problem and it's dangerous to blindly follow someone who is the current president and we have no idea if he's being controlled by a foreign government. You can't argue that the former president who has no power now is more of a danger to our democracy than the current one sitting in office who is going out of his way to hide financial statements that other presidents have provided easily. How come President Obama–-no longer in office---is still being subjected to conspiracy theorists and birthers such as yourself but it's crazy to want to see the sitting president's tax returns which is something every other president in modern history has provided to the American people to establish trust? :pleasant:
I've been WAITING for someone to set up this argument so I could squash it.
You are suggesting that the Russians could blackmail a president. Really? Do you honestly think that anything the Russians could possibly do more damage than the relentless daily attacks made from WITHIN the USA by the "Fake News" of CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC?If you are so worried about blackmail… you must be terrified that Hillary got $145 million donated from Russia to her personal Clinton Foundation right after giving Russia 20% of the USA's uranium reserves. You must also be terrified that John Pedosta - who was Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff, Barack Obama's counselor, and Hillary Clinton's campaign manager was a board member of a Russian corporation - and lied about it?
Tax returns indeed...
Let me clue you in. In tax returns, the idea is to minimize one's net worth to lower their tax burden. EVERYBODY does that. That does not mean they lie, it means they invest and divest, and do whatever it is legally permitted to minimize their net worth.
Do you think Trump wants people to start saying that he is only worth $2 billion instead of $10 billion? That would devastate his power and influence in the real estate industry.
Here is one simple example: If someone purchased a building for $5 billion and sold it for $2 billion.. but also made $4 billion in other ventures.. should that person be taxed for $4 billion for that year? Or for $1 billion? (taking the $3 billion loss into account). Moonbats would say $4 billion. Trump would say $1 billion.
That is ironic, because you can bet that the moonbats would want to tax him for $6 billion if that $5 billion property INCREASED in value by $2 billion.Again.. someone's taxes are between that person and the IRS. If they committed a crime, then let the IRS reveal the crime. Nobody has a right to do their own analysis of someone's records. Besides.. publishing tax returns would hurt a successful businessman, while doing no damage to some moonbat that never had a legitimate job in their entire life. Where do you suppose crooked Hillary got her hundreds of millions from? Baking cookies? or crooked political donations?
-
Where is my Congresswoman's (Sheila Jackson Lee) tax return?
How do I know she has no conflict of interest. She could be donating to BLM or Antifa for all we know.
I wonder if Auntie Maxine Waters tax returns would reveal where the money came from to buy her $4.3 million mansion. That's pretty good on a salary of $175,000 per year. She must have put away every penny she ever earned to buy that place.
-
We're not discussing local or Congressional politicians' tax returns. We are talking about the current president who has broken with a noncontroversial precedent set by many of his predecessors, and we still do not have an honest answer for why he's breaking with that noncontroversial precedent. There are a lot of serious questions that could be answered by him releasing them. Should legislation be passed saying every president should release his tax returns and then have that legislation followed with Congressional action to override his potential veto?
Whether a politician releases their tax returns is every bit relevant to this conversation. If you're so worried about transparency then every single politician across the US and it's territories ought to be made to disclose their tax returns – and you know what, you probably would find local politicians with conflicts of interest.
If your primary goal is true transparency and making sure that everyone is on a level playing field then that is the right way to go, so birth a movement to make a constitutional amendment. Or be honest: You're actively looking for -- hoping and praying -- there is something disqualifying in Trump's tax returns.
I really don't care one way or another. I could care less if any future presidential carries through with this kind of political stunt, either.
Why won't Trump release his tax returns? Because he made Obama release his birth certificate as a show of dominance and so Trump will not be made to show his to further assert his dominance over the left's insistence that he does. The answer is as simple as that. And the more you push the issue, the stronger, more defiant, and "maverick" his brand appears: You're unwittingly helping him by pushing the issue.
-
Why won't Trump release his tax returns? Because he made Obama release his birth certificate as a show of dominance and so Trump will not be made to show his to further assert his dominance over the left's insistence that he does.
Dominance of what? Being unfit to be president?
At the end of the day, you have your opinion and I have mine and at least you understand that instead of calling me childish names like some of the others have done over and over again before I took a much-needed hiatus from this forum. Also, there's already someone looking into his taxes: the special counsel that has been appointed to investigate the possibility of collusion. We'll find out what's in the tax returns one way or another.
-
Dominance of what? Being unfit to be president?
At the end of the day, you have your opinion and I have mine
When Trump was testing the waters by accusing Obama of not being a citizen (something I strongly opposed) the media put a spotlight on him. The relentlessness of this new birther movement eventually forced Obama to release his birth certificate. Once that happened Trump went on a victory tour saying again and again, "I made him release his birth certificate". That appealed to his base and everyone, for whatever reason, hated Obama. That's what I mean by dominance.
What has since become the Never Trumpers have continued to keep that spotlight on Trump while accusing him of everything from Pussy-Gate to throwing paper towels at Puerto Rico. Each time you throw an accusation, it bounces off him in the spotlight. Think about how that looks to his base, to the people who have grown to hate the members of the House and Senate. He's being attacked, standing up to it, and winning.
Every smear makes him appear stronger because he can withstand it.
I knew way back when that Trump wouldn't release his tax returns because not releasing them means, for his base, an F.U. to politics while simultaneously signaling that he's being unfairly targeted.
Every time the left demands and he says no, you make him stronger.
As for Fact vs Opinion, no, don't do that. The divide exists because people are using their feelings to judge. If you want a real working democracy, if you want to get rid of "fake news" and all these made up stories then you have to base your arguments on facts.
-
As for Fact vs Opinion, no, don't do that. The divide exists because people are using their feelings to judge. If you want a real working democracy, if you want to get rid of "fake news" and all these made up stories then you have to base your arguments on facts.
Made up stories or theorizing? I stated a theory and I asked everyone for their opinion on that theory. As you've said, the only fact is that other president's in modern history have released their taxes. Are you now arguing that no one should be allowed to pose a theory and ask for input on here? Frederick has stated plenty of his theories on here and I don't see you calling them, "fake news" or "made up stories." You simply state whether or not you agree and you make an argument. Interesting.
-
Made up stories or theorizing? I stated a theory and I asked everyone for their opinion on that theory. As you've said, the only fact is that other president's in modern history have released their taxes. Are you now arguing that no one should be allowed to pose a theory and ask for input on here? Frederick has stated plenty of his theories on here and I don't see you calling them, "fake news" or "made up stories." You simply state whether or not you agree and you make an argument. Interesting.
(clearing throat) Ahem.
At the end of the day, you have your opinion and I have mine…
Instead of taking criticism as an attack against you, stop and think about what the person is responding to. You clearly misread what I said about fake news and made up stories as referring to you. Go reread that paragraph, please.
Further, you dismissed my (valid) argument by chalking it up to opinion and without attempting to dismantle, provide a counter to it, or acknowledge it but move onto a different point my dismissing what I said as an opinion. When I explain how defaulting to opinions is the wrong approach you treat it as an attack on you then generalize that fictitious attack into a slippery slope whereby it now means theory.
And you didn't even state a theory.
You asked a question.
You asked whether DT should show his tax returns. Not only did I answer you but I told you why he won't and I theorized how the left (note how I did not, and have not, singled you out) only helps him. You have yet to answer that.
-
Made up stories or theorizing? I stated a theory and I asked everyone for their opinion on that theory. As you've said, the only fact is that other president's in modern history have released their taxes. Are you now arguing that no one should be allowed to pose a theory and ask for input on here? Frederick has stated plenty of his theories on here and I don't see you calling them, "fake news" or "made up stories." You simply state whether or not you agree and you make an argument. Interesting.
(clearing throat) Ahem.
At the end of the day, you have your opinion and I have mine…
Instead of taking criticism as an attack against you, stop and think about what the person is responding to. You clearly misread what I said about fake news and made up stories as referring to you. Go reread that paragraph, please.
Further, you dismissed my (valid) argument by chalking it up to opinion and without attempting to dismantle, provide a counter to it, or acknowledge it but move onto a different point my dismissing what I said as an opinion. When I explain how defaulting to opinions is the wrong approach you treat it as an attack on you then generalize that fictitious attack into a slippery slope whereby it now means theory.
And you didn't even state a theory.
You asked a question.
You asked whether DT should show his tax returns. Not only did I answer you but I told you why he won't and I theorized how the left (note how I did not, and have not, singled you out) only helps him. You have yet to answer that.
I'm pretty sure I stated in my first post under this topic that "there is a strong possibility that Mueller has the president's tax returns." Synonyms for theory include assumption, speculation, opinion, view, and belief. Is it not a theory to assume Mueller has the president's tax returns? Has it been proven that Mueller does or does not have the tax returns? Can you show me a report saying that he does or does not have the tax returns? I can provide some links to where I got my theory of him possibly having them.
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-09-18/robert-mueller-likely-has-donald-trumps-tax-returns
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/346618-mueller-might-already-have-trumps-tax-returns
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/31/1667725/-Mueller-could-obtain-Trump-s-tax-returns-without-telling-TrumpAfter briefly theorizing that Mueller may have the tax returns, I made the argument that he should release them to the public after he decides what to recommend following the end of the investigation. I followed up that argument with a few reasons why it would be best for him to release them, including it would help the president with transparency if there has been no wrongdoing on the president's behalf. I asked the question in the poll if anyone believes the tax returns should be released (yes or no) and why they do or do not believe the tax returns should be released.
I apologize for calling your argument an opinion if that offended you. I did take your point about fake news and made up stories the wrong way and I do apologize for that also; however, I wholly disagree with you about him coming out stronger. The base that elected this president is an outright minority of voters total. They are some kind of hybrid of Republicans who held their noses and die hard loyalists who felt neglected in other elections. The die hard loyalists are only a tiny percentage of voters as a whole, very tiny; so tiny that only 77,000 of them spread across 3 different states got him the win. They have not proven themselves to be consistent in voting, especially in states he barely won that put him over the top. The president has no control over that base anymore; therefore, those of us outside of his base can see how weak he truly is at this point. He went out on a limb for Luther Strange and gave a speech at that infamous rally only to have Luther Strange lose in a near-landslide to Roy Moore, who will become more ammo for the left nationally given what he's said over the years and what he'll probably say as a U.S. Senator. The president is further digging himself into a different kind of mess by getting involved in Virginia and New Jersey, two states he not only lost but also have off-year elections next month that are arguably seen as referendums on the his actions. He is highly unpopular in those states and there is absolutely no evidence that he has created some unknown number of new voters in those states. Make no doubt about it, he has awaken millions of people who sat out 2016 because they may have not wanted Hillary, but they hate him and will turn out to vote in the midterms against anyone who appears weak on him in the states he did not win and anywhere where the vote was close. The last time something close to this happened was in 2006 when the left got fed up and turned out in huge numbers to flip the House and Senate. There's a possibility the country is on the verge of that happening again but time will tell.
So to make a long post short, asking for his tax returns will not make him stronger in the long run because there are many other factors at play that are weakening him month by month. If he were as strong as you claim and had so much power over his base, why didn't they listen to him and vote for Luther Strange? Why did many burn their MAGA hats over the summer? Why was he forced to let so many cabinet members go like Tom Price, Sean Spicer and Steve Bannon? He's so popular, right? Couldn't he have kept those people instead of getting rid of them when the pressure began to build against them? After all, he hired the "best and brightest," right? He chose to abandon the "best and brightest" the moment the pressure came instead of "asserting his dominance."
