It's high time that Trump releases his taxes

[Sunburn74]

You tell me. How could ANYONE use the office of presidency to enrich themselves prior to getting elected? (Rhetorical question).

edit: I doubt he'll suddenly become "not auditable" as POTUS, and if the IRS finds he's breaking the law, well then good riddance. Prosecute him. I think its safe to say EVERY POTUS has used the office to their own personal advantage in one way or another so meh.

I'm not sure what side of the argument you're on but actually people do use the office of the POTUS to enrich themselves. Or at least the process of trying to get it.
If you wonder why all the GOP had 17 candidates with probably 15 having no real shot at winning the nomination, the reason for it is speakers fees. As someone who was ran for the nomination and didn't make the cut, you can triple your speakers fees and this is a highly profitable thing to do especially if you're a young candidate who has lots and lots of potential paid speeches ahead of you.

Anyway, the reason to get his taxes are very clear. You need to know who he deals with business wise so that if he makes a decision, people can objectively determine if he's making that decision to profit the american people or to profit himself. The only way to know is to have a general understanding of what he profits from.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Shaub (the "ethics chief") is a charlatan himself as well. He claims he wants to sit down with the president and / or his team to provide feedback on how to make his plans better, but he also keeps saying that nothing short of a full divestiture of the business and placing the proceeds into a blind trust will do. Well, if that's his opinion, there really is nothing to talk about is there? Trump isn't required by law to do that, and he's not going to do that. Pure and simple. A real "blind Trust" is not going to happen, because short of divesting the business there's no way to make it "blind".

Perhaps there's an opportunity for more transparency to alleviate some of the concerns? Maybe that's what sitting down with the OGE could accomplish?

 

[blackangst1]

I mean, you just moved the goalposts, but fine; if the POTUS is exempt from a law, there's not much the courts can do. I don't understand why you wouldn't criticize Trump for not being more transparent though. Whatever the law is, do you think, in principal, he should be transparent or not?

I haven't moved the goalposts. Ive never cared, nor will I care, if Trump, or ANY POTUS releases their tax returns. As Ive said previously, I just don't understand the outrage over this, when the main reason people want them released in "to see if there are conflicts of interest", which Ive addressed by pointing out sure it may look bad, but its not against the law so why bother? I figured the anti-Trump crowd has enough to complain about, whats one more (possible) thing to get them?

I dunno. I guess I don't see getting worked up over something that doesn't really matter. And boy...there are some realllly worked up over this! And to answer your question directly...yes, I care about transparency insofar as staying above board and earning money legally. Which he is. Otherwise, no. Especially Trump's return which I doubt more than a small percentage of Americans, including myself, would even understand.

 

[blackangst1]

Yeah, I mean, clearly it does matter. Because even if a conflict of interest is completely legal because of legal statutes or precedence that neither one of us is really an expert on, it might inform our opinion on a particular policy idea of his, and because he doesn't rule by absolute fiat, the other branches of government can check him.

So I really have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

Well, ok...that's fine too

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I haven't moved the goalposts. Ive never cared, nor will I care, if Trump, or ANY POTUS releases their tax returns. As Ive said previously, I just don't understand the outrage over this, when the main reason people want them released in "to see if there are conflicts of interest", which Ive addressed by pointing out sure it may look bad, but its not against the law so why bother? I figured the anti-Trump crowd has enough to complain about, whats one more (possible) thing to get them?

I dunno. I guess I don't see getting worked up over something that doesn't really matter. And boy...there are some realllly worked up over this! And to answer your question directly...yes, I care about transparency insofar as staying above board and earning money legally. Which he is. Otherwise, no. Especially Trump's return which I doubt more than a small percentage of Americans, including myself, would even understand.

It is possible that Trump is engaging in practices which are contrary to law and therefore need to be terminated. I is possible that he's being absolutely untruthful and is benefiting in relations which are directly in the worst interests of the nation. Some people just hate him and this is another excuse.

I'd like to see what he's up to because if it has the potential to be a conflict of interest we should know as it is directly tied to governance. The problem comes down (yet again) of what I think I should have access to and what is permitted and required by law. The latter matters.

 

[PokerGuy]

How does that make Shaub a "charlatan"?

char·la·tan
ˈSHärlədən,ˈSHärlətn/
noun
noun: charlatan; plural noun: charlatans
a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill; a fraud.
synonyms: quack, sham, fraud, fake, impostor, hoaxer, cheat, deceiver, double-dealer, swindler, fraudster, mountebank

He's a fraud. He's pretending to want to 'work with' Trump's team so help them "tweak" their plans so they can work, but that's simply not possible when (from the other side of your mouth) you say nothing short of full divestiture and blind trust can work.

 

[blackangst1]

I'm not sure what side of the argument you're on but actually people do use the office of the POTUS to enrich themselves. Or at least the process of trying to get it.
If you wonder why all the GOP had 17 candidates with probably 15 having no real shot at winning the nomination, the reason for it is speakers fees. As someone who was ran for the nomination and didn't make the cut, you can triple your speakers fees and this is a highly profitable thing to do especially if you're a young candidate who has lots and lots of potential paid speeches ahead of you.

Anyway, the reason to get his taxes are very clear. You need to know who he deals with business wise so that if he makes a decision, people can objectively determine if he's making that decision to profit the american people or to profit himself. The only way to know is to have a general understanding of what he profits from.

And what makes you think its one or the other? Cant be both?

Also, the GOP had 25 candidates, and the Dems had 35.

 

[blackangst1]

It is possible that Trump is engaging in practices which are contrary to law and therefore need to be terminated. I is possible that he's being absolutely untruthful and is benefiting in relations which are directly in the worst interests of the nation. Some people just hate him and this is another excuse.

I'd like to see what he's up to because if it has the potential to be a conflict of interest we should know as it is directly tied to governance. The problem comes down (yet again) of what I think I should have access to and what is permitted and required by law. The latter matters.

And youre not confident the IRS would catch this?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And youre not confident the IRS would catch this?

What the IRS does is dependent on its mandate. As far as I know the IRS investigates legal issues involving transactions. I don't believe they have the authority to weigh in on what a President can and cannot do. That would seem to be more outside their scope of inquiry.

Now if Trump cheated on his taxes they can hold him to task, but complex questions of political ethics? I don't see them equipped for that.

 

[PokerGuy]

Perhaps there's an opportunity for more transparency to alleviate some of the concerns? Maybe that's what sitting down with the OGE could accomplish?

No, that's my point. He's making it seem like it, but other statements are very clear that only complete divestiture and blind trust will meet the standards needed. We pretty much know that's simply not going to happen, so what's the point in meeting?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

No, that's my point. He's making it seem like it, but other statements are very clear that only complete divestiture and blind trust will meet the standards needed. We pretty much know that's simply not going to happen, so what's the point in meeting?

And those statements may be valid based on what is known right now which is nothing. Problem is that it seems like no one will ever know how conflicted he really is.

 

[Blackjack200]

char·la·tan
ˈSHärlədən,ˈSHärlətn/
noun
noun: charlatan; plural noun: charlatans
a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill; a fraud.
synonyms: quack, sham, fraud, fake, impostor, hoaxer, cheat, deceiver, double-dealer, swindler, fraudster, mountebank

He's a fraud. He's pretending to want to 'work with' Trump's team so help them "tweak" their plans so they can work, but that's simply not possible when (from the other side of your mouth) you say nothing short of full divestiture and blind trust can work.

He said "tweak"?

 

[bshole]

Well hot damn, there is a law and Trump has ALREADY broken it.

Trump is being sued as we speak.

A constitutional provision bans payments from foreign powers to government leaders to avoid any influence that could be gained from gifts and payments.

But by pocketing the foreign cash, Trump’s hotels, and by extension the President, are in violation of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, the lawyers group said.

“We did not want to get to this point,” Noah Bookbinder, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said in a statement.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Here is who is suing Trump:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) U.S. government ethics and accountability watchdog organization.[3] CREW, which is nonpartisan and progressive, was founded in part to serve as a counter-weight to conservative watchdog groups such as Judicial Watch.[4]

One of its projects is "CREW's Most Corrupt Members of Congress", an annual report in which CREW lists the people it considers to be Washington's most corrupt politicians, which has since 2005 featured 25 Democrats and 63 Republicans.[5] Its activities include litigation, FOIA requests, congressional ethics complaints, Internal Revenue Service complaints, Federal Election Commission complaints, and requests for investigation with government agencies.[6]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...mp-conflict-interest-claims-article-1.2953205

 

[Blackjack200]

Well hot damn, there is a law and Trump has ALREADY broken it.

Trump is being sued as we speak.





Here is who is suing Trump:


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...mp-conflict-interest-claims-article-1.2953205

That's not clear yet. My understanding is that there's been very little in the way of case law, and Trump's team will claim that the Emoluments Clause only applies to gifts and does not apply to transactions. Basically, a judge is going to have to decide.

 

[blackangst1]

What the IRS does is dependent on its mandate. As far as I know the IRS investigates legal issues involving transactions. I don't believe they have the authority to weigh in on what a President can and cannot do. That would seem to be more outside their scope of inquiry.

Now if Trump cheated on his taxes they can hold him to task, but complex questions of political ethics? I don't see them equipped for that.

Understood. And that's a fair point.

 

[blackangst1]

That's not clear yet. My understanding is that there's been very little in the way of case law, and Trump's team will claim that the Emoluments Clause only applies to gifts and does not apply to transactions. Basically, a judge is going to have to decide.

Yup the courts are going to have to decide. We're in new territory here, in many aspects. I read an article from PBS that talks about this, and also about the emoluments clause. Much in unclear.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/conflict-interest-rules-apply-differently-president/

 

[Fern]

Well hot damn, there is a law and Trump has ALREADY broken it.

Trump is being sued as we speak.

Here is who is suing Trump:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...mp-conflict-interest-claims-article-1.2953205

It's only alleged to have been broken, and that's by the attorney suing.

I don't know what the court will say, but in tax law 'emoluments' is considered to mean wages, salary or payment for personal services. IIRC, the term comes from Latin and meant fee paid to a miller to grind one's wheat or grain (i.e., payment for personal service).

Seems to me the attorney is going to have to prove that a payment to a hotel is the same as payment to Trump and that paying of one's hotel room qualifies as an emolument.

I read the attorney's comments on this and find that it raises another question: If payment to a hotel for room rental is an emolument then every other member of Congress who holds hotel (or really almost any stock) stock in their blind trust has this problem as well.

Fern

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I read the attorney's comments on this and find that it raises another question: If payment to a hotel for room rental is an emolument then every other member of Congress who holds hotel (or really almost any stock) stock in their blind trust has this problem as well.

Fern

Not really. Holding a stock is not direct ownership. I have no guarantee that I will see anything in remuneration should the board decide not to pay out dividends. Trump sees a direct benefit from monies being paid as he owns the property himself.

That and, if it's truly blind trust, they are unaware of what is being held and can't direct anyone to that hotel, nor can someone go to that hotel guaranteeing a personal benefit to the congress critter holding the stock.

 

[Fern]

Not really. Holding a stock is not direct ownership. I have no guarantee that I will see anything in remuneration should the board decide not to pay out dividends. Trump sees a direct benefit from monies being paid as he owns the property himself.

That and, if it's truly blind trust, they are unaware of what is being held and can't direct anyone to that hotel, nor can someone go to that hotel guaranteeing a personal benefit to the congress critter holding the stock.

Trump is said to utilize approx 500 entities to hold his various businesses. I doubt the hotel is held directly in his name. I also doubt he owns 100%.

Whether or not the corp distributes dividends to shareholders is irrelevant.

Not exactly sure why you think Trump being a shareholder is legally different from anybody else being a shareholder.

IIRC, the attorney suing has said that a blind trust is no defense.

Fern

 

[Sunburn74]

I haven't moved the goalposts. Ive never cared, nor will I care, if Trump, or ANY POTUS releases their tax returns. As Ive said previously, I just don't understand the outrage over this, when the main reason people want them released in "to see if there are conflicts of interest", which Ive addressed by pointing out sure it may look bad, but its not against the law so why bother? I figured the anti-Trump crowd has enough to complain about, whats one more (possible) thing to get them?

I dunno. I guess I don't see getting worked up over something that doesn't really matter. And boy...there are some realllly worked up over this! And to answer your question directly...yes, I care about transparency insofar as staying above board and earning money legally. Which he is. Otherwise, no. Especially Trump's return which I doubt more than a small percentage of Americans, including myself, would even understand.

Conflicts of interest matter. They explain motivations, positions, either conscious or unconscious. If you see that trump has $500 million invested in russian oil, that would explain somewhat his position on putin and would color him in a different light.

More importantly, truthfulness is important in a candidate. Tax returns can verify a lot of otherwise unverifiable claims. The basic point is people have been asking for these returns for months, even when the GOP field was heavily crowded. People were asking for taxes in like april, republicans were! You make it sound like its a personal vendetta against trump. Its not. Its part of the basic vetting process that everyone went through. If he claims to be charitable, he should prove it, like everyone else did. If he claims to pay taxes, he should prove it, like everyone else. Every GOP candidate showed their taxes. It is not a partisan issue. Its really a matter of basic decency.

 

[Sunburn74]

Not really. Holding a stock is not direct ownership.

Actually it is. Holding stock is direct ownership.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Actually it is. Holding stock is direct ownership.

Let me rephrase. It isn't Controlling interest. It doesn't give someone any significant influence on the business or its operations nor does it allow someone to steer those operations to their own personal benefit.

 

[Blackjack200]

I can tell by the posts that no one here is a corporate lawyer. I would doubt that the lawyers would bother filing this lawsuit if Trump didn't stand to benefit from increased business at the establishments. Again, a judge is going to have to look at that, and also whether that's even a violation of the Emolument's Clause.

 

[raildogg]

Dude, you have a corrupt man supposedly running a corrupt country full of corrupt law makers and your thinking releasing taxes will make any difference?

The whole system, from top to bottom is designed to serve the elite. These are side stories to keep the sheeple talking about BS issues. Yeah, taxes matter; however, the issue is that the whole system is so crooked that it doesn't really matter in the bigger picture.

America is a giant corporation. Trump is its CEO.

 

[Capt Caveman]

It's only alleged to have been broken, and that's by the attorney suing.

I don't know what the court will say, but in tax law 'emoluments' is considered to mean wages, salary or payment for personal services. IIRC, the term comes from Latin and meant fee paid to a miller to grind one's wheat or grain (i.e., payment for personal service).

Seems to me the attorney is going to have to prove that a payment to a hotel is the same as payment to Trump and that paying of one's hotel room qualifies as an emolument.

I read the attorney's comments on this and find that it raises another question: If payment to a hotel for room rental is an emolument then every other member of Congress who holds hotel (or really almost any stock) stock in their blind trust has this problem as well.

Fern

Everything I've read is that Trump has only relinquished control of his business by resigning from his businesses but still owns them.