Supreme Court clears way for House to get Trump’s taxes

[Eric Loh]

4 minutes ago, pomchop said:

but but but he told everyone over and over and over that he is very very very rich....then for years  he sends out emails to his cult begging for money......and of course he sucks millions upon millions more from his cult members who don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that he is a con man and they are being conned....amazing ignorance.....so now if his returns show he pays no taxes will that even register with the cult or will they claim it's all fake news, witch hunt, political, conspiracy theory, hillary or hunter stole all his money and forged his tax returns?

In his defense, he did paid tax in 2016 & 2017. A paltry sum of USD750 each of the year. LOL. 

[EVENKEEL]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Really?  How can you be unaware that Trump never released his tax returns, and is not legally required to do so unless it is part of a criminal investigation or unless it serves a "legitimate legislative purpose".  I am not aware of any government background check on Presidential candidates.  

And, It's my point there should be a requirement to have a background check.

[dotcalm]

Trumps taxes, what do you think they will reveal besides prudent tax management? Those in the know, KNOW there ain't nothing earth shattering in Trump's taxes or....wait for it... or the triggered left would have leaked it by now.

 

LOL

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, dotcalm said:

Trumps taxes, what do you think they will reveal besides prudent tax management? Those in the know, KNOW there ain't nothing earth shattering in Trump's taxes or....wait for it... or the triggered left would have leaked it by now.

 

LOL

Ask Trump, he's the one who has been trying to keep them hidden going through all sorts of courts to try and stop it. Wouldn't it be interesting to see exactly what it is he rather keep secret?

[dotcalm]

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Ask Trump, he's the one who has been trying to keep them hidden going through all sorts of courts to try and stop it. Wouldn't it be interesting to see exactly what it is he rather keep secret?

Maybe if you are nosey and have nothing better to do with your life.

Most people probably couldn't care less.

Edited November 23, 2022 by dotcalm

[scorecard]

10 hours ago, TorquayFan said:

Scott that's surprising - I'd thought that Trump had engineered a Supreme Court to favour him ?

 

"There were no noted dissents" - it appears that his Nominees turned against him ?

 

 

 

 

There's also been very recent reports that overall the supreme court judges dislike each other and are not talking / seeking unity. 

 

What a surprise. 

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, dotcalm said:

Maybe if you are nosey and have nothing better to do with your life.

Most people probably couldn't care less.

 

Two in three Americans want to see Trump's tax returns, Reuters/Ipsos poll shows

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN24G14N

[scorecard]

8 minutes ago, dotcalm said:

Maybe if you are nosey and have nothing better to do with your life.

Most people probably couldn't care less.

I doubt that's true.

[Skeptic7]

10 hours ago, TorquayFan said:

Scott that's surprising - I'd thought that Trump had engineered a Supreme Court to favour him ?

 

"There were no noted dissents" - it appears that his Nominees turned against him ?

 

 

 

 

Yes, his appointees actually showed a smidgen of integrity for a change. Not like he can fire them now. 

 

If only they would start to do what they affirmed to do...uphold The US Constitution, instead of their silly, subjective "Holey" Bible. ????

[FritsSikkink]

36 minutes ago, dotcalm said:

Trumps taxes, what do you think they will reveal besides prudent tax management? Those in the know, KNOW there ain't nothing earth shattering in Trump's taxes or....wait for it... or the triggered left would have leaked it by now.

 

LOL

It will reveal that he uses different valuations of property for tax deduction as for getting loans. This is both bank and tax fraud. This will result in loans being stopped, requiring immediate payback. As he doesn't have that money all property will be seized and he will face jail time.

Edited November 23, 2022 by FritsSikkink

[Eric Loh]

24 minutes ago, dotcalm said:

Maybe if you are nosey and have nothing better to do with your life.

Most people probably couldn't care less.

I sure want to know if my President is a tax cheat. Others, I am not bother. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

And, It's my point there should be a requirement to have a background check.

I agree.  If it were up to the Democrats there would probably be some reasonable ethical standards and transparency requirements.  However so long as the Republican Party is the Trump Party, that's not going to happen.

[Jaybott]

11 hours ago, TorquayFan said:

"There were no noted dissents" - it appears that his Nominees turned against him ?

 

 

 

 

Just goes to show the character of his nominees.

[ozimoron]

Just now, Jaybott said:

Just goes to show the character of his nominees.

Do you believe a judge should be loyal or beholden to the President who nominated them?

[Jaybott]

19 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I agree.  If it were up to the Democrats there would probably be some reasonable ethical standards and transparency requirements.

Like with insider stock trading?

[EVENKEEL]

17 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I agree.  If it were up to the Democrats there would probably be some reasonable ethical standards and transparency requirements.  However so long as the Republican Party is the Trump Party, that's not going to happen.

I'm not talking about ethics. I'm talking about requirements to qualify for candidate to include check on finances and it's not too much to prove US born citizenship, like a birth certificate. 

 

[Jaybott]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Do you believe a judge should be loyal or beholden to the President who nominated them?

Absolutely not!  They are beholden to the Constitution. 

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

I'm not talking about ethics. I'm talking about requirements to qualify for candidate to include check on finances and it's not too much to prove US born citizenship, like a birth certificate. 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, a possible Birther has entered the room!

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

I'm not talking about ethics. I'm talking about requirements to qualify for candidate to include check on finances and it's not too much to prove US born citizenship, like a birth certificate. 

 

The Constitution sets the requirements for who can run for President. 

[HappyExpat57]

Just another Teflon Don miss. The Republicans will quash this investigation as soon as that poor excuse for human flesh McCarthy puts his grimy little fingers around the gavel.

 

The fact that the disgraced former office holder has fought so hard to keep his info hidden is all everyone with two or more working brain cells needs to know.

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Illegal for the House to release them, apparently. They may be leaked anonymously but not legally.

Don't think so. Not even according to the Trump-apponted judge who managed not to issue a decision for over 2 years

"But Judge McFadden also declared that he believed it would be unwise for the committee to use its authority to publish Mr. Trump’s tax returns in the Congressional Record, as it is permitted to to do under the same law that empowered Mr. Neal to request them....

“Anyone can see that publishing confidential tax information of a political rival is the type of move that will return to plague the inventor,” the judge wrote. But he added, “It might not be right or wise to publish the returns, but it is the chairman’s right to do so.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/22/us/supreme-court-trump-taxes-house-democrats.html

[Jingthing]

10 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

I don't understand how not providing tax returns prior to being considered to run for POTUS is even possible. Aren't finances part of a background check?

No.

It's customary but not required for serious candidates to release them but Trump promised that he would several times over many years, but never did.

Grifter that he is.

There is no background check.

No major party is going to nominate someone who isn't constitutionally eligible.

 

[Jingthing]

8 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

And my point is it should be mandatory. Just to get a Fed job sweeping floors a background check including finances is required. But to be POTUS it's not?

You got it now. It is NOT. 

I think the constitution would need to be changed to add any such requirement.

[billd766]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You got it now. It is NOT. 

I think the constitution would need to be changed to add any such requirement.

Why not simply add another amendment to the constitution?

 

It has been amended 27 times already since the original Constitution was created.

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/#:~:text=The founders also specified a,has been amended 27 times.

[Jaybott]

3 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

In his defense, he did paid tax in 2016 & 2017. A paltry sum of USD750 each of the year. LOL. 

Then change the tax code.  If that is all he had to pay, then why should he pay more?  Do pay more tax than you have to? I don't. 

 

Remember during a debate with Hillary he stated " the system is rigged ".  The moderator asked "how do you know" Trump replied "because I use it".

If you can beat the system, then beat it to death.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, billd766 said:

Why not simply add another amendment to the constitution?

 

It has been amended 27 times already since the original Constitution was created.

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/#:~:text=The founders also specified a,has been amended 27 times.

It's incredibly difficult to do.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Jaybott said:

Then change the tax code.  If that is all he had to pay, then why should he pay more?  Do pay more tax than you have to? I don't. 

 

Remember during a debate with Hillary he stated " the system is rigged ".  The moderator asked "how do you know" Trump replied "because I use it".

If you can beat the system, then beat it to death.

Beating it to death is illegal

Trump's company kicks off defense case in criminal tax fraud trial

https://www.reuters.com/legal/prosecutors-rest-case-trump-organizations-criminal-tax-fraud-trial-2022-11-21/

[candide]

1 minute ago, Jaybott said:

Then change the tax code.  If that is all he had to pay, then why should he pay more?  Do pay more tax than you have to? I don't. 

 

Remember during a debate with Hillary he stated " the system is rigged ".  The moderator asked "how do you know" Trump replied "because I use it".

If you can beat the system, then beat it to death.

However, from what we already know about the different ways he valued the same assets, it may well be that it has at least partly been the result of tax fraud.

[Lacessit]

7 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Fully understand your point of view. However I feel that it should remain voluntary as a test of the candidate moral character. 

Testing Trump's moral character would be like using a Rockwell hardness meter to measure Jello.

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

1 hour ago, FritsSikkink said:

It will reveal that he uses different valuations of property for tax deduction as for getting loans. This is both bank and tax fraud. This will result in loans being stopped, requiring immediate payback. As he doesn't have that money all property will be seized and he will face jail time.

I've always wanted to better understand what exactly Trump did in this regard. To me, this seems to be one of the weakest elements for prosecuting him. For property taxes, assessed value is typically used. For insurance purposes, replacement value is the norm. For bank loans, it may be appropriate to use estimated market value. In most instances, these would be quite different numbers. But perhaps New York laws state differently. I don't know.

 

When it comes to bank loans, especially given the amounts involved, I would expect a bank to only accept an appraisal or valuation from a credible, disinterested appraisal company, not the borrower's own numbers. I would also expect that Trump would include a disclaimer if he submitted values stating something like "these are the estimated values we present for your review, however we do not warrant their accuracy. Conduct your own due diligence" or something to that effect.

 

Perhaps I've missed explanations that would clarify the above. In any event, don't mistake my remarks above for support of DJT.