U.S. House committee seeks Trump tax returns from IRS

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, mikebike said:

Which comes first? Evidence or investigation?

 

When a cop pulls me over citing "observed erratic driving" does he have evidence or a theory? I would suggest he has a cause to "investigate", but not "evidence". Hence the protocol would be: theory, investigation, evidence.

Probable cause comes first, which may or may not be coincident with evidence, which can lead to an investigation.

[mikebike]

55 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

That dog won't hunt IMO. The IRS is already looking at him year after year, and his attorneys will settle for whatever the best they can do in any given year. The only other reason could be shame or embarrassment and those character traits don't seem to loom large in The Donald.

I would suggest adding "severely neutered" in front of IRS. Their funding and mandate have been reduced to the point of virtual rubber-stamping.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

A few simple questions need to be answered:

 

1.) Are any trump (personal) returns currently under audit?

2.) If yes, which year(s)?

 

 

Then the president must release any returns not currently under audit, as he has said he will do many, many, many times.

 

 

It is understood that Mueller already has trump's returns and that Andrew Weissmann has reviewed them.

 

Like the Mueller report, if you have nothing to hide why not release returns, whether under audit or not.

 

And please don't claim privacy, the president is not an ordinary citizen and should be transparent.

He probably doesn't release them because they are no one else's business. If anyone thinks the IRS hasn't done some sort of investigation they must be …………………..

If the IRS hasn't done anything, simplest explanation would be because like Russian collusion, there is no "there" there.

He probably enjoys not releasing them because he knows it "annoys" "them".

However he will probably release them right after being interviewed by the FBI.

[lannarebirth]

10 minutes ago, mikebike said:

I would suggest adding "severely neutered" in front of IRS. Their funding and mandate have been reduced to the point of virtual rubber-stamping.

 

Not really. But their ability to go on "fishing expeditions" like the California Franchise Tax Board, for instance, regularly does, has been curtailed. That's a good thing IMO. Organizations like the CFTB are rapacious bureaucratic fraudsters IMO and if the IRS no longer is, that can only be a good thing.

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by lannarebirth

[mikebike]

30 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

That's hilarious after the week of breathless constant moaning from the tvf progressive cabal after the 3 years of collusion delusion was debunked. 

The whole "collusion" debacle was more a manifestation of establishment Dems and establishment media's unacceptance of their chosen one's loss to 45. Progressives really didn't have a dog in that fight.

[mikebike]

34 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

Were holder and lynch lackeys too? 

 

We certainly have some shady actions by them. 

 

Just wondering if you have this same view of other AG. 

To a certain extent they were. The game used to be to hide your partisanship deep inside and publicly proclaim non-bias. 45's admin has dropped the facade and proudly wears their partisan bias on their sleeve (unless they are under review for prominent positions - then they hide it like almost every other political operative).

[mikebike]

22 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Personally, I think the "what aboutisms" are fair. I mean, a standard has been set...

I look at it slightly differently.

 

There are many things that the Clinton's could have, and should have been investigated about. Fair enough to point that out.

 

But if the "standard" that has been set is to ignore/minimize wrongdoings, then it is incumbent on us as the electorate to change that standard for this admin and all those which follow.

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, mikebike said:

I look at it slightly differently.

 

There are many things that the Clinton's could have, and should have been investigated about. Fair enough to point that out.

 

But if the "standard" that has been set is to ignore/minimize wrongdoings, then it is incumbent on us as the electorate to change that standard for this admin and all those which follow.

 

I'll buy that, but there should be a mass mea culpa by the credulous press that lays the groundwork for that IMO.  BTW, ain't gonna happen.

[sfokevin]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

Well, he's a liar. But then you knew that already if you've been alive these past 40 years.

I did not vote for him for that very reason... Along with his active demeaning of a handicapped reporter... A Gold Star parent... A tortured POW... I could go on... But those of you who did vote for him and God only know why you still support him knowing all this need to check your moral compass...

Edited April 4, 2019 by sfokevin

[lannarebirth]

Just now, sfokevin said:

I did not vote for him for that very reason... Along with his active demeaning of a handicapped reporter... A Gold Star parent... A tortured POW... I could go on... But those of you who did vote for him knowing all this need to check your moral compass...

 

You must be high. I didn't vote for him.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Actually there is no legal impediment to Trump releasing returns that are under audit.  Trump just doesn't want the public to see his returns.  Odds are he doesn't want Congress to see them either.

So every President since Nixon is a sucker?

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

I understand that, but using trump's "defense" - that he will release his returns once the audit(s) are finished - was my point.

 

trump also seems to be confused about how many years are under audit. Sometimes it's two or three, other times it's 10 or more.

 

Seems like it would be a simple activity to just say which year(s) are under audit. Right?

Simple and reasonable to anyone but Trump.  He won't even release the letter stating he is being audited, so he has shown no proof of the audit.

[mikebike]

23 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I'll buy that, but there should be a mass mea culpa by the credulous press that lays the groundwork for that IMO.  BTW, ain't gonna happen.

The modern mainstream press are nothing but corporate shills echoing and amplifying the biases of their owners and editorial boards. As entities (not dissing individual journos  with integrity) they are not journalism but providers of cover and propaganda. Consume with caution!!

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

So every President since Nixon is a sucker?

I would call them worse than that, but that would be about right.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

35 minutes ago, mikebike said:

I look at it slightly differently.

 

There are many things that the Clinton's could have, and should have been investigated about. Fair enough to point that out.

 

But if the "standard" that has been set is to ignore/minimize wrongdoings, then it is incumbent on us as the electorate to change that standard for this admin and all those which follow.

So, go do it. Probably none of us on here can- many, ?most are not even American voters.

[KMartinHandyman]

The modern mainstream press are nothing but corporate shills echoing and amplifying the biases of their owners and editorial boards. As entities (not dissing individual journos  with integrity) they are not journalism but providers of cover and propaganda. Consume with caution!!

Looking forward to the 11/09/2020 headline that asks “Did Congressional Democrats and the Main Stream Media collude to hand Donald Trump his re-election?”

[lannarebirth]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I would call them worse than that, but that would be about right.

 

I'm of the same opinion, which I know is waaaay unpopular. Nixon was the last good president, though not as good as any of the 5 that preceeded him.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by lannarebirth

[elmrfudd]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It's clear he won't ever show them. Even if the supreme court rules he has to, I wouldn't hold my breath either. He thinks he's above the law, and so far, he has been.

well, your opinions must be the final word on it then. it's a done deal

[Boon Mee]

6 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

Glad you agree that this is political. 

That's right. 

Trump should tell these people to pound sand 

Let's see Nancy Pelosi's tax returns, eh? 

[elmrfudd]

2 hours ago, mikebike said:

The whole "collusion" debacle was more a manifestation of establishment Dems and establishment media's unacceptance of their chosen one's loss to 45. Progressives really didn't have a dog in that fight.

hmmmm, i guess all those people marching, protesting, screaming and crying like little spoiled children or commenting on the media

are not progressives.....who knew

[Chomper Higgot]

What a difference a House Majority makes. 

 

The founding fathers really knew what they were doing when they established the separation of powers. 

[elmrfudd]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

We shall see.

There is obviously a coverup happening and the American people know that.

Even 45 fans know that. That's why they're defending this corrupt coverup.

Americans may not be the brightest in the world, look who they elected in 2016, but they are capable of learning. 

yes,a cover up by the fbi and certain former DOJ personnel. we will see who else when the senate investigations begin.

 

as for the insulting a nation, that is pure nonsense, but expected

[elmrfudd]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What a difference a House Majority makes. 

 

The founding fathers really knew what they were doing when they established the separation of powers. 

and the electoral college

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

What's all the fuss?

 

Trump said he would release his taxes, he's simply being given the opportunity to make good on a campaign promise. 

[mikebike]

30 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

hmmmm, i guess all those people marching, protesting, screaming and crying like little spoiled children or commenting on the media

are not progressives.....who knew

You learn something everyday. Progressives march, protest, and scream with the best but it was Maddow and her ilk in the media and the democratic establishment who rode the collusion or bust bus, not progressives.

Edited April 4, 2019 by mikebike

[elmrfudd]

1 minute ago, mikebike said:

You learn something everyday. Progressives March, protest, and scream with the best but it Maddie and her ilk in the media and the democratic establishment who rode the collusion or bust bus, not progressives.

sorry, there is nothing to back that up.

[riclag]

4 hours ago, Berkshire said:

I've heard that the AG basically buried the report....

 

[WASHINGTON — Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.]

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/some-on-muellers-team-see-their-findings-as-more-damaging-for-trump-than-barr-revealed/ar-BBVB0HE?ocid=wispr

 

Conspiracy theory "I've heard"

[riclag]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Simple and reasonable to anyone but Trump.  He won't even release the letter stating he is being audited, so he has shown no proof of the audit.

He doesn't need too produce a letter

Edited April 4, 2019 by riclag

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

sorry, there is nothing to back that up.

Please point me to something which indicates progressives are at the root of collusion-gate. I'd be happy to check it out.

[elmrfudd]

24 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Please point me to something which indicates progressives are at the root of collusion-gate. I'd be happy to check it out.

at the "root" ? no, encouraging it's perpetual existence, certainly