Trump paid no income taxes in 10 of last 15 years - New York Times

[Jingthing]

Just now, rebekkahr said:

You're applying the standards of a criminal trial to a matter of public concern. There's a good reason that those safeguards are in place. They're there to protect citizens against the power of the government to fine and imprison them. Not appropriate standards for someone in public office.

Beyond the strong indications of multiple cases of felony level tax fraud that if convicted would lock him up for life, there is actually a much more serious matter. His debts to foreign powers. He's compromised. He's a security risk. If he wants to prove that he isn't then it's his civic obligation to release the details of all of his debts. Which he will never do. What's he hiding? 

[Pattaya Spotter]

Just now, Jingthing said:

They can't indict him while he is president.  If he's so innocent he would have released his taxes like a normal president or presidential candidate. 

Actually, he's the normal president. Since the introduction of the income tax, no president until Richard Nixon released their returns. I know, another inconvenient truth.

[Pattaya Spotter]

5 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Some of the things Trump did was rather "unsophisticated."  Like claiming personal expenses as business expenses for deduction purposes, paying his daughter a consultant fee even though she already worked for the company, etc., etc.  You do realize that it would be near impossible to bring charges against Trump while he's still in office.  But once he's out-of-office, say bye bye to your cult leader. 

As I said, if the IRS feel the treasury is owed money, they can go to court. Until then, everyone, including Donald Trump, has the presumption of innocence...I mean that's what the liberals are always telling us about ANTIFA and BLM rioters right?

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Actually, he's the normal president. Since the introduction of the income tax, no president until Richard Nixon released their returns. I know, another inconvenient truth.

It's been the custom since then. The public expects it. If a candidate refuses they are subject to suspicion that they are hiding something serious, not only embarrassing. Nobody said it was a legal obligation.

 

In any case, the evidence now that he is compromised by foreign powers such as Turkey is actually much much more serious as far as his presidency. It's already obvious that a large part of his agenda is about benefitting himself, and nothing about protecting the American people. If foreign powers have him by the short hairs (it appears some do) personally that is not acceptable at all! He needs to go. How any "patriotic" American of the left, right, or center can't see that boggles the mind. The USA has never seen a president as corrupt as this one and American democracy can't survive a second term of him especially if he strong arms his way into staying in power as he's clearly now planning. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Jingthing

[stevenl]

40 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

More deflection. Answer the question, is it illegal to use a nation's tax laws to minimize one's taxes...and is Donald Trump the only one who does so?

Again, read the full article, quite a few illegalities are pointed out.

[Pattaya Spotter]

4 minutes ago, rebekkahr said:

Really? The Times illegally obtained fake documents? If they're fake, what laws were violated in the obtaining of them? Anyway, Trump is no longer claiming that they're fake. Or, at least, not currently.

The crime is engaging in a conspiracy to obtain confidential tax records of another person/entity...whether one succeeded in obtaining them or not. Just as conspiracy to commit fraud or murder are crimes, whether one succeeds or not.

[Pattaya Spotter]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Again, read the full article, quite a few illegalities are pointed out.

I don't have time for fake news...there is no proof that the records the Times is writing about are even Donald Trump's returns.

[Pattaya Spotter]

10 minutes ago, rebekkahr said:

You're applying the standards of a criminal trial to a matter of public concern. There's a good reason that those safeguards are in place. They're there to protect citizens against the power of the government to fine and imprison them. Not appropriate standards for someone in public office.

What "safeguards" are you referring to?

[stevenl]

Just now, Pattaya Spotter said:

I don't have time for fake news...there is no proof that the records the Times is writing about are even Donald Trump's returns.

But you still want to discuss them. The deflections here are weak, naturally.

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The crime is engaging in a conspiracy to obtain confidential tax records of another person/entity...whether one succeeded in obtaining them or not. Just as conspiracy to commit fraud or murder are crimes, whether one succeeds or not.

Speaking of conspiracies. 

[rebekkahr]

Just now, Pattaya Spotter said:

The crime is engaging in a conspiracy to obtain confidential tax records of another person/entity...whether one succeeded in obtaining them or not. Just as conspiracy to commit fraud or murder are crimes, whether one succeeds or not.

But according to you the documents could be fake. Just like if one plots to commit fraud or murder against say a fictional character like Betty Crocker, it's probably not a crime. 

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

I don't have time for fake news...there is no proof that the records the Times is writing about are even Donald Trump's returns.

Only a hard core 45 loyalist could write that. To such people it really doesn't matter if it's true or not. Defense of dear leader is the whole ball game. 

 

I have had loyalties to political leaders before so I understand that up to a certain point. But not up to the point of what 45 has said and done. There is a time to put country and the preservation of American democracy over party and cults of personality. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Jingthing

[Pattaya Spotter]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It's been the custom since then. The public expects it. If a candidate refuses they are subject to suspicion that they are hiding something serious, not only embarrassing. Nobody said it was a legal obligation.

Custom is not the law; and thank you for informing us what "the pubic" expects...except they don't because they elected Donald Trump president without him releasing the tax returns.

[rebekkahr]

1 minute ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

What "safeguards" are you referring to?

The fifth amendment for one. A right to a trial by jury...etc. You're honestly unfamiliar with this stuff? If so, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to voice an opinion on the matter.

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It's been the custom since then. The public expects it. If a candidate refuses they are subject to suspicion that they are hiding something serious, not only embarrassing. Nobody said it was a legal obligation.

 

In any case, the evidence now that he is compromised by foreign powers such as Turkey is actually much much more serious as far as his presidency. It's already obvious that a large part of his agenda is about benefitting himself, and nothing about protecting the American people. If foreign powers have him by the short hairs (it appears some do) personally that is not acceptable at all! He needs to go. 

Yes turkey is interesting considering he left the kurds to go it alone after all they did for the US.

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Custom is not the law; and thank you for informing us what "the pubic" expects...except they don't because they elected Donald Trump president without him releasing the tax returns.

Which he promised to release soon, even if after the election. But once elected, nothing, refused.

 

He conned you and you dont care.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Sujo

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

As I said, if the IRS feel the treasury is owed money, they can go to court. Until then, everyone, including Donald Trump, has the presumption of innocence...I mean that's what the liberals are always telling us about ANTIFA and BLM rioters right?

Your keyboard has a fault, it’s spuriously printing out ANTIFA and BLM, either that or you’ve got some serious muscle memory issues.

[rebekkahr]

4 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

I don't have time for fake news...there is no proof that the records the Times is writing about are even Donald Trump's returns.

We can tell from the non-denial denial of Trump's lawyer who claimed he paid "personal taxes". The same phrase Trump himself is now using. You'll note that neither of them refer to "income taxes". 

 

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Custom is not the law; and thank you for informing us what "the pubic" expects...except they don't because they elected Donald Trump president without him releasing the tax returns.

They did but that was clearly a yuge mistake!

[Pattaya Spotter]

4 minutes ago, rebekkahr said:

But according to you the documents could be fake. Just like if one plots to commit fraud or murder against say a fictional character like Betty Crocker, it's probably not a crime. 

No...try to follow the logic. The records may be fake but you engaged in a conspiracy to obtain them and believed them to be genuine when you accepted them. The crime of obtaining them isn't absolved if they later turn out to be fake.

[rebekkahr]

1 minute ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

No...try to follow the logic. The records may be fake but you engaged in a conspiracy to obtain them and believed them to be genuine when you accepted them. The crime of obtaining them isn't absolved if they later turn out to be fake.

Only if you are set up by the government in a sting. Otherwise not.

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The crime is engaging in a conspiracy to obtain confidential tax records of another person/entity...whether one succeeded in obtaining them or not. Just as conspiracy to commit fraud or murder are crimes, whether one succeeds or not.

What evidence do you have that the NYT conspired with anybody.

 

Anonymously providing the press with information is a thing, and has been for many years.

[Pattaya Spotter]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Only a hard core 45 loyalist could write that. To such people it really doesn't matter if it's true or not. Defense of dear leader is the whole ball game. 

I would say it's the same with you...accepting as fact some documents obtained by an anti-Trump news source are in fact genuine when the news source has a documented history of relying on false records and interviews in its news reporting (Iraqi WMDs anyone?).

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

No...try to follow the logic. The records may be fake but you engaged in a conspiracy to obtain them and believed them to be genuine when you accepted them. The crime of obtaining them isn't absolved if they later turn out to be fake.

More conspiracy. Please provide a link to show the ny times tried to get them.

[rebekkahr]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

What evidence do you have that the NYT conspired with anybody.

 

Anonymously providing the press with information is a thing, and has been for many years.

I'm sure Pattaya Spotter was just as indignant about the hacking of the Democratic Party servers and the Trump campaign's use of said information.

[Pattaya Spotter]

1 minute ago, rebekkahr said:

I'm sure Pattaya Spotter was just as indignant about the hacking of the Democratic Party servers and the Trump campaign's use of said information.

Democrat Party records on an unprotected server are not federally protected individual's confidential tax returns.

[Pattaya Spotter]

8 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Which he promised to release soon, even if after the election. But once elected, nothing, refused.

 

He conned you and you dont care.

No...I never expected him to release the returns. I certainly wouldn't if I was in the same position and I also don't care about other peoples' tax returns and can't understand why other people do.

[Chomper Higgot]

All this ‘innocent until proven guilty’ talk neglects the fact that the nation is in the process of electing the next President.

 

Its a serious misjudgment on Trump’s part to first promise to release his taxes then spend the whole of his term using the power of the DoJ to keep his taxes secret.

 

His taxes are now in the public domain and people are very rightly asking why has he tried to hide them.

 

Trump could have avoided all of this by keeping his campaign promise to release his taxes.

 

It’s all a mess of his own making.

 

[Pattaya Spotter]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What evidence do you have that the NYT conspired with anybody.

 

Anonymously providing the press with information is a thing, and has been for many years.

But enticing or facilitating someone to provide the records is a crime, which is most likely what the Times has done.

[johnnybangkok]

4 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

No...try to follow the logic. The records may be fake but you engaged in a conspiracy to obtain them and believed them to be genuine when you accepted them. The crime of obtaining them isn't absolved if they later turn out to be fake.

The long and short of it is he can clear all this up by doing what he’s been promising to do for the last 4 years and release his tax returns. The fact he hasn’t so far (with increasing levels of obviously false excuses) draws the conclusion that he is hiding something. YOUR President might be a tax fraud or beholding to foreign powers yet rather than want to get it all cleared up, you are falling into usual Trump supporter mode and shooting the messenger and/or equating his actions to an ordinary citizen. He’s not. He’s POTUS, he has an obligation to be whiter than white and none of your deflections will ever change that fact.