China, Trump, Secret Account, $15.1M cash withdrawal etc

[interchange]

Asking stupid questions that aren't intended (by the questioner) to be answered? It's called distraction. Take the eyes off the big picture and focus it on one little snippet in the corner that can't/won't ever be satisfied, in order to discount the entire premise.

You are saying you do this regularly? Because yes, imo it is quite dishonest.

I like to expose myself to my own dishonestly.

Plus I often have honest and dishonest motivations at the same time. If you're ever wondering about my motivations, ask. I will try my best to answer.

 

[Moonbeam]

Then I am often dishonest and somewhat obvious. I hope I am obvious enough to myself.

My take on this is to question when something that looks like a duck to me is a duck or my assumption as to what I came into the analysis with as an understanding of what a duck is. The human brain has an enormous capacity for pattern recognition, able to detect the presence of a duck from scant clues. It also has an enormous capacity to be programmed, to have emotional content unconsciously attached to thinking construed concepts. How do you know if the assumptions you come up, produced in a non verbal part of the mind, or assumptions you make out of programming that has been repressed into unconsciousness is operational or if both may be at work? I think where we naturally fall on this spectrum might be worth consideration. I have stated before that as far as I am concerned, @Greenman is protective of people about whom negative assumptions are made, no matter how obviously 'duck' they appear to be to others, whereas @brycejones is very sure of his pattern recognition. Seems to me you are looking for some happy medium and self examination here.

 

[Greenman]

So, would ‘account that was only revealed after the NYT got access to financial documents Trump has been fighting tooth and nail to keep secret’ be better?

If you're going down that road it should be "account information illegally obtained". Regardless, the account wasn't "secret" if it was listed in financial documents. Why is this so difficult to understand? There is a difference between private and secret. A difference that's being overlooked by the burning need to imply criminal activity.
I don't know what was done with the account in question. I don't know who put money into it or who took it out. I'm simply stating that having a bank account and not announcing it is perfectly legal and ethical.

 

[interchange]

My take on this is to question when something that looks like a duck to me is a duck or my assumption as to what I came into the analysis with as an understanding of what a duck is. The human brain has an enormous capacity for pattern recognition, able to detect the presence of a duck from scant clues. It also has an enormous capacity to be programmed, to have emotional content unconsciously attached to thinking construed concepts. How do you know if the assumptions you come up, produced in a non verbal part of the mind, or assumptions you make out of programming that has been repressed into unconsciousness is operational or if both may be at work? I think where we naturally fall on this spectrum might be worth consideration. I have stated before that as far as I am concerned, @Greenman is protective of people about whom negative assumptions are made, no matter how obviously 'duck' they appear to be to others, whereas @brycejones is very sure of his pattern recognition. Seems to me you are looking for some happy medium and self examination here.

As you prompted me to explore yesterday, there are the ways of the yogi and of the monk and of the fakir. You can give up all of yourself to dedicate your entire life to any and never succeed to reach enlightenment with just one pursuit. Or you can live your life in some happy medium and choose to walk whichever path seems most opportune at the time. You cannot walk more than one path at a time without walking all of them. And got cannot complete your journey on only one path without sacrificing your desire to walk any other.

Of course, I don't buy any of that. I learn from others, but I am incapable of submission. Or maybe I haven't discovered that capability yet.

 

[Grey_Beard]

If you're going down that road it should be "account information illegally obtained". Regardless, the account wasn't "secret" if it was listed in financial documents. Why is this so difficult to understand? There is a difference between private and secret. A difference that's being overlooked by the burning need to imply criminal activity.
I don't know what was done with the account in question. I don't know who put money into it or who took it out. I'm simply stating that having a bank account and not announcing it is perfectly legal and ethical.

What don’t you understand about taking a government position willingly? The information was not obtained illegally. Get real. Show where you see that part. Next, working in the government, especially as President, you have to disclose things. If you fail to do so, it’s a felony. The information obtained is something he has fought to keep for those who can legally obtain it. This is like saying the black book the mob keeps is not real because someone stole it. The information is still there. Amazing you use this standard for tRump, but have posted elsewhere that the e-mails hacked and used in 2016 were okay. Double standard much? You’re a joke. I am amazed that you claim that you run a successful business. Not sure why here you seem like a low IQ person who has no critical thinking if you can be successful in a small business. I bet your family gave a large amount to you. No wonder you feel like you do for tRump. Birds of a feather.

There is nothing ethical about being President and not disclosing an account that is buried in the mess of LLCs you have and then to get a sizable payment for reasons. I am sure you business would do really well is you took all the money out of your account and never paid a bill and never disclosed the reason. Your landlord would be very happy and bankruptcy court would find that very ethical behavior.

 

[Moonbeam]

As you prompted me to explore yesterday, there are the ways of the yogi and of the monk and of the fakir. You can give up all of yourself to dedicate your entire life to any and never succeed to reach enlightenment with just one pursuit. Or you can live your life in some happy medium and choose to walk whichever path seems most opportune at the time. You cannot walk more than one path at a time without walking all of them. And got cannot complete your journey on only one path without sacrificing your desire to walk any other.

Of course, I don't buy any of that. I learn from others, but I am incapable of submission. Or maybe I haven't discovered that capability yet.

Oh, you walk the path of submission, all right even if you do not know it. Everything happens exactly as it must and we are all the same in that, reconciled or not. The Will of God is What Is and What Is is Perfection.

A saying I like: There are a million paths in life and they all lead nowhere. Choose a path that has a heart.

As the Beetles say, The love you take is equal to the love you make and I have heard there is only love anyway.

 

[fskimospy]

If you're going down that road it should be "account information illegally obtained".

How is that relevant? Also, the NYT obtained it legally.

Regardless, the account wasn't "secret" if it was listed in financial documents. Why is this so difficult to understand? There is a difference between private and secret. A difference that's being overlooked by the burning need to imply criminal activity.

It was an account that, along with other financial information, Trump has gone to absolutely enormous efforts to prevent the public from knowing about.

To anyone not trying to play word games that’s a secret.

I don't know what was done with the account in question. I don't know who put money into it or who took it out. I'm simply stating that having a bank account and not announcing it is perfectly legal and ethical.

No one has said it is not legal, although I would strongly disagree that the president concealing his financial entanglements from the public is ethical. It’s extremely, extremely unethical.

It’s precisely the fact that you don’t know what was done in regards to the account in question that highlights why this is both unethical and dangerous to the country. Is everything above board? Maybe! Is a hostile foreign government bribing the president? Also maybe!

 

[Jhhnn]

If you're going down that road it should be "account information illegally obtained". Regardless, the account wasn't "secret" if it was listed in financial documents. Why is this so difficult to understand? There is a difference between private and secret. A difference that's being overlooked by the burning need to imply criminal activity.
I don't know what was done with the account in question. I don't know who put money into it or who took it out. I'm simply stating that having a bank account and not announcing it is perfectly legal and ethical.

You shouldn't accuse Trump of being ethical. It's dishonest. If he were ethical, he wouldn't be rallying the maskless morons all over the country.

 

[fskimospy]

You shouldn't accuse Trump of being ethical. It's dishonest. If he were ethical, he wouldn't be rallying the maskless morons all over the country.

I am mostly confused by the idea that it’s ethical for public officials to conceal conflicts of interest from the public.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Incorrect, the employee’s labor pays for both halves. Putting half the deduction from pay on the employer’s ledger simply makes that portion of the SS contribution not subject to income tax for the employee.

And who pays for the employees labor, the employer? Nobody said that SS/Medicare contribution is subject to income tax, as that isn't true at all for either the employee or the employer. You are making shit up that you don't understand. I will give you a clear example. If you make $25 an hour. It costs your employer $26.91 per hour.

If the employee is a contractor or self employed, they pay both parts of FICA. Additionally, FICA payments stop when income reaches $137,700. The maximum amount an employer pays per year is $8,537.40 per person. All other payroll taxes are paid from the earnings of the employee. Given the limited number of employees for him, even at his hotels and golf courses, the total dollars to revenue is small. Most of his janitorial and management staff are provided by contracts, which would mean that he does not pay that, his contractors do.

A contractor is not an employee and is not employed by the company they are contracted to do the work for as a separate entity. You are arguing something completely different to try spin a win for the incorrect information. Example: you contract a company to come put a new roof on your house. Are you that contractor's employer? NO, you are a customer a client, not an employer. Contractors are not employees. How can you be self employed but be an employee of another company? You can't! You are an employee of yourself when self employed, and those you work for are not employers, but clients/customers.

 

[IronWing]

And who pays for the employees labor, the employer? Nobody said that SS/Medicare contribution is subject to income tax, as that isn't true at all for either the employee or the employer You are making shit up to save face. I will give you a clear example. If you make $25 an hour. It costs your employer $26.91 per hour.

No, I’m pointing out, quite correctly, that SS contributions are paid through the employee’s labor, period. All the employer cares about is the total cost of that labor and the profit they can take off of the revenue they derive from that labor. Profits and SS contributions are both taxes on the workers. The workers get a return on one of them.

 

[NWRMidnight]

No, I’m pointing out, quite correctly, that SS contributions are paid through the employee’s labor, period. All the employer cares about is the total cost of that labor and the profit they can take off of the revenue they derive from that labor. Profits and SS contributions are both taxes on the workers. The workers get a return on one of them.

Who pays for the employees labor? the employee or the employer? Doesn't the total cost of labor derive from all costs, including hourly wages and taxes paid by the employer? If you only get $25 an hour, which is actually $23.22 per hour after subtracting YOUR portion of the payroll taxes you are responsible for, yet to pay you that $25 and hour, it cost the company $26.91 an hour. how can you say that the employee pays for ALL of the SS and Medicare when it cost them more than your hourly wage? You are trying to throw around the term labor as if it isn't a cost on a company. Do you know that Labor is the FIRST and most controllable COST to the Company? You are more than welcome to show me the math that proves that the employer doesn't pay for any of the pay roll taxes and it all comes out of the workers pocket. (real math, non of this common core crap).

 

[IronWing]

Of course labor is a cost but is also the origin of productivity and profit. The portion of the payroll tax that is paid by the employer is derived from the productivity of the employee’s labor. The employer isn’t running a welfare agency, employees are there because the employer makes money off them.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Of course labor is a cost but is also the origin of productivity and profit. The portion of the payroll tax that is paid by the employer is derived from the productivity of the employee’s labor. The employer isn’t running a welfare agency, employees are there because the employer makes money off them.

What's your argument? Every business requires making money off the labor of either themselves, or others. Is your argument only to point out the obvious?

No, the portion of payroll tax that are paid by the employer are not derived from the productivity of the employee's labor. the payroll taxes are derived by how much that employer pays that employee (wages) times 7.65%. It doesn't matter if that employee sits on his ass for the day and is unproductive, or if he is the most productive person working. The payroll taxes are still that employees wages times 7.65% of those wages. What you are talking about is the effect on the companies profit margin, which still doesn't change the cost to the company, it just effects how much the company makes after ALL EXPENSES are paid. (may I suggest you go learn about Profit and Loss statements, specifically what they mean)

 

[Grey_Beard]

And who pays for the employees labor, the employer? Nobody said that SS/Medicare contribution is subject to income tax, as that isn't true at all for either the employee or the employer. You are making shit up that you don't understand. I will give you a clear example. If you make $25 an hour. It costs your employer $26.91 per hour.


A contractor is not an employee and is not employed by the company they are contracted to do the work for as a separate entity. You are arguing something completely different to try spin a win for the incorrect information. Example: you contract a company to come put a new roof on your house. Are you that contractor's employer? NO, you are a customer a client, not an employer. Contractors are not employees. How can you be self employed but be an employee of another company? You can't! You are an employee of yourself when self employed, and those you work for are not employers, but clients/customers.

Who pays for the employees labor? the employee or the employer? Doesn't the total cost of labor derive from all costs, including hourly wages and taxes paid by the employer? If you only get $25 an hour, which is actually $23.22 per hour after subtracting YOUR portion of the payroll taxes you are responsible for, yet to pay you that $25 and hour, it cost the company $26.91 an hour. how can you say that the employee pays for ALL of the SS and Medicare when it cost them more than your hourly wage? You are trying to throw around the term labor as if it isn't a cost on a company. Do you know that Labor is the FIRST and most controllable COST to the Company? You are more than welcome to show me the math that proves that the employer doesn't pay for any of the pay roll taxes and it all comes out of the workers pocket. (real math, non of this common core crap).

First, of course a contractor is not an employee. I am glad you got my point.

Second, if we are going to talk about where the money comes from, then the revenue pays for it all. Guests and the community at large pay the fees that generate the revenue. If you really do the “math,” then the community pays for everything and the “said smart businessman” pays nothing but takes that which is given to him by the people, those in the community, distributes some to his employees, pays a small amount of payroll taxes, pays for the utilities and other costs of operation. What is leftover is his to keep. He then pays no other taxes on that money. He might pay some small taxes or other fees, but those are not federal, they are mostly local. This “said smart businessman” gets much from the infrastructure built by that federal dollars and may other positives from these dollars for the communities we has operations in, but avoids paying anything into those tills.

Maybe you and others think that is smart. I think it abusive. We all should pay our rightful share.

 

[NWRMidnight]

First, of course a contractor is not an employee. I am glad you got my point.

Second, if we are going to talk about where the money comes from, then the revenue pays for it all. Guests and the community at large pay the fees that generate the revenue. If you really do the “math,” then the community pays for everything and the “said smart businessman” pays nothing but takes that which is given to him by the people, those in the community, distributes some to his employees, pays a small amount of payroll taxes, pays for the utilities and other costs of operation. What is leftover is his to keep. He then pays no other taxes on that money. He might pay some small taxes or other fees, but those are not federal, they are mostly local. This “said smart businessman” gets much from the infrastructure built by that federal dollars and may other positives from these dollars for the communities we has operations in, but avoids paying anything into those tills.

Maybe you and others think that is smart. I think it abusive. We all should pay our rightful share.

What point is that? That the discussion is about EMPLOYEES and EMPLOYERS paying pay roll taxes (equal portions) , and NOT about contractors / Self employed? The original comment I responded to said that the employee pays the pay roll taxes (again contractors are not employees so contractors are irrelevant to the discussion), and not the employer. You have not proven anything different other than trying to argue something that is irrelevant and pointing out the obvious about where a businesses revenue comes from. We aren't talking about where the money comes from, that is a complete different discussion and has NOTHING to do with WHO pays payroll taxes (Hello McFly??) Go read my response in post #89. It also applies to you.

 

[Ichinisan]

Asking stupid questions that aren't intended (by the questioner) to be answered? It's called distraction. Take the eyes off the big picture and focus it on one little snippet in the corner that can't/won't ever be satisfied, in order to discount the entire premise.

You are saying you do this regularly? Because yes, imo it is quite dishonest.

This reveals your willful self-delusion.

"Questions that aren't intended to be answered?" You can't be serious. Shame on YOU for not asking the same question. Instead, you blindly accept the premise of "SECRET" and repeat it without question.

If it's presented as a "secret" account, there must be some reason why it's being presented that way...right? Shouldn't it be a simple answer? Instead, the question was met with hostility and reluctance. You frame it as a rhetorical question! How am I supposed to interpret this?

It could be pretty simple. Maddow misread the NYT article, added the adjective ("secret"), and manipulated some suckers with a shamefully sensationalized scandalous-sounding story of subversive secrecy. You ate it up and repeated it.

According to the New York Times article, Trump has bank accounts in three foreign countries.

"The foreign accounts do not show up on Mr. Trump's public financial disclosures, where he must list personal assets, because they are held under corporate names." -NYT

This account was reported to the government on tax forms. Would you tell the US government about your "secret" account?

"The Chinese account is controlled by Trump International Hotels Management L.L.C." -NYT
"Trump International Hotels Management reported just a few thousand dollars from China." -NYT

Why does Maddow take this article and then say "millions?" Let's look...

"The Chinese account is controlled by Trump International Hotels Management L.L.C., which [was] pursuing licensing deals there from 2013 to 2015."

NYT says the (not really secret) bank account was used by TIHM LLC.

"Alan Garten, a lawyer for the Trump Organization, said the company had 'opened an account with a Chinese bank having offices in the United States in order to pay the local taxes' associated with efforts to do business there." -NYT

"No deals, transactions or other business activities ever materialized and, since 2015, the office has remained inactive." -NYT

Where does the "$17.5m" factor in?

TIHM LLC also owns THC China Development

Maddow says THC got the $17.5m - That's incorrect. TIHM got the money, not THC. Maddow conflated them. Maddow got them mixed-up. The same NYT source article also says why this distinction matters:

"Trump International Hotels Management...is also involved in management of other Trump-branded properties around the world, and it is not possible to discern from its tax records how much of its financial activity is China-related." -NYT

Did Maddow deliberately conflate them? I don't know.

Anyway, it's still a strange spike in the account balance for TIHM. Trump's disclosures list it as "management fees & other contract payments" - which is just too vague.

NYT points out one major business event for TIHM in 2017:

"One significant event for the company that is known to have occurred in 2017 was the buyout of its management contract for the SoHo hotel in New York, which Bloomberg reported to have cost around $6 million."

That's a significant portion of TIHM's revenue spike and has nothing to do with China. Maybe you want to assume all the rest came from China, but we simply have no reason to assume any of it did. If any of it came from China, I still want to know.

 

[interchange]

This reveals your willful self-delusion.

"Questions that aren't intended to be answered?" You can't be serious. Shame on YOU for not asking the same question. Instead, you blindly accept the premise of "SECRET" and repeat it without question.

If it's presented as a "secret" account, there must be some reason why it's being presented that way...right? Shouldn't it be a simple answer? Instead, the question was met with hostility and reluctance. You frame it as a rhetorical question! How am I supposed to interpret this?

It could be pretty simple. Maddow misread the NYT article, added the adjective ("secret"), and manipulated some suckers with a shamefully sensationalized scandalous-sounding story of subversive secrecy. You ate it up and repeated it.

According to the New York Times article, Trump has bank accounts in three foreign countries.

"The foreign accounts do not show up on Mr. Trump's public financial disclosures, where he must list personal assets, because they are held under corporate names." -NYT

This account was reported to the government on tax forms. Would you tell the US government about your "secret" account?

"The Chinese account is controlled by Trump International Hotels Management L.L.C." -NYT
"Trump International Hotels Management reported just a few thousand dollars from China." -NYT

Why does Maddow take this article and then say "millions?" Let's look...

"The Chinese account is controlled by Trump International Hotels Management L.L.C., which [was] pursuing licensing deals there from 2013 to 2015."

NYT says the (not really secret) bank account was used by TIHM LLC.

"Alan Garten, a lawyer for the Trump Organization, said the company had 'opened an account with a Chinese bank having offices in the United States in order to pay the local taxes' associated with efforts to do business there." -NYT

"No deals, transactions or other business activities ever materialized and, since 2015, the office has remained inactive." -NYT

Where does the "$17.5m" factor in?

TIHM LLC also owns THC China Development

Maddow says THC got the $17.5m - That's incorrect. TIHM got the money, not THC. Maddow conflated them. Maddow got them mixed-up. The same NYT source article also says why this distinction matters:

"Trump International Hotels Management...is also involved in management of other Trump-branded properties around the world, and it is not possible to discern from its tax records how much of its financial activity is China-related." -NYT

Did Maddow deliberately conflate them? I don't know.

Anyway, it's still a strange spike in the account balance for TIHM. Trump's disclosures list it as "management fees & other contract payments" - which is just too vague.

NYT points out one major business event for TIHM in 2017:

"One significant event for the company that is known to have occurred in 2017 was the buyout of its management contract for the SoHo hotel in New York, which Bloomberg reported to have cost around $6 million."

That's a significant portion of TIHM's revenue spike and has nothing to do with China. Maybe you want to assume all the rest came from China, but we simply have no reason to assume any of it did. If any of it came from China, I still want to know.

It has something to do with China. The account is in China. There's $11M in revenue there unaccounted for, and Trump withdrew personally $15+M while obfuscating the source. The account is secret to the public because Trump has concealed it in his public disclosures and tax returns are not public.

 

[Greenman]

What don’t you understand about taking a government position willingly? The information was not obtained illegally. Get real. Show where you see that part. Next, working in the government, especially as President, you have to disclose things. If you fail to do so, it’s a felony. The information obtained is something he has fought to keep for those who can legally obtain it. This is like saying the black book the mob keeps is not real because someone stole it. The information is still there. Amazing you use this standard for tRump, but have posted elsewhere that the e-mails hacked and used in 2016 were okay. Double standard much? You’re a joke. I am amazed that you claim that you run a successful business. Not sure why here you seem like a low IQ person who has no critical thinking if you can be successful in a small business. I bet your family gave a large amount to you. No wonder you feel like you do for tRump. Birds of a feather.

There is nothing ethical about being President and not disclosing an account that is buried in the mess of LLCs you have and then to get a sizable payment for reasons. I am sure you business would do really well is you took all the money out of your account and never paid a bill and never disclosed the reason. Your landlord would be very happy and bankruptcy court would find that very ethical behavior.

Your arguments always end up with personal attacks. It's your standard pattern for "arguing" a point. To me, it comes across as being extremely immature. You can't repudiate a logical argument so you make up some foolish line of reasoning based on absolutely no information, and post it as if it had some value or insight. This has happened enough that it can't be chalked up as a bad day or a misunderstanding, it's your go to approach and it's annoying. In the future, you're welcome to have your fantasy arguments, but I won't be participating.

 

[himkhan]

Your arguments always end up with personal attacks. It's your standard pattern for "arguing" a point. To me, it comes across as being extremely immature. You can't repudiate a logical argument so you make up some foolish line of reasoning based on absolutely no information, and post it as if it had some value or insight. This has happened enough that it can't be chalked up as a bad day or a misunderstanding, it's your go to approach and it's annoying. In the future, you're welcome to have your fantasy arguments, but I won't be participating.

Your arguments always end up with you being the Victim. Victim of concern. Victim of I don't know but...... and almost always the victim of the mean liberal words. The real victims are those who have to watch a ball being deflated over and over just to watch it taken home incredulously.

 

[brycejones]

You can't repudiate a logical argument so you make up some foolish line of reasoning based on absolutely no information

I don't think you know what the bolded word means and you seriously shouldn't be accusing anyone of foolish lines of reasoning based on absolutely no information.

 

[fskimospy]

Your arguments always end up with personal attacks. It's your standard pattern for "arguing" a point. To me, it comes across as being extremely immature. You can't repudiate a logical argument so you make up some foolish line of reasoning based on absolutely no information, and post it as if it had some value or insight. This has happened enough that it can't be chalked up as a bad day or a misunderstanding, it's your go to approach and it's annoying. In the future, you're welcome to have your fantasy arguments, but I won't be participating.

Do you still consider it to be ethical for public officials to conceal their conflicts of interest from the public?

 

[Greenman]

How is that relevant? Also, the NYT obtained it legally.


It was an account that, along with other financial information, Trump has gone to absolutely enormous efforts to prevent the public from knowing about.

To anyone not trying to play word games that’s a secret.


No one has said it is not legal, although I would strongly disagree that the president concealing his financial entanglements from the public is ethical. It’s extremely, extremely unethical.

It’s precisely the fact that you don’t know what was done in regards to the account in question that highlights why this is both unethical and dangerous to the country. Is everything above board? Maybe! Is a hostile foreign government bribing the president? Also maybe!

All very good points, and all of them disputable. The tax information wasn't released with Trumps permission, and against his wishes. So it was obtained either through a data breach, or improperly released by someone that was trusted to keep the information confidential. It's likely there was an actionable offence in there somewhere.
The question of the accounts secrecy is tied up in the reporting requirements of being the president. If the account was owned by a corporation, and Trumps interest in that corporation was disclosed, then he probably met the disclosure requirements. I say probably because I don't know how deep those requirements are. That brings us to the web of Trumps holdings. I assume he claims that they have all been placed in the care of his family, which would clearly be a method of sidestepping the rules, but if that precludes him from directly accessing the funds from those holdings, then he's probably close enough to compliance to achieve plausible deniability.
The knowledge of the account in question was apparently obtained through Trumps tax records, that precludes it being a secret account, as it was reported.

If Trump is taking bribes he needs to be impeached, removed from office, and face trial. I'm all for it. But using partial information from a hostile media source to convict him without any redress isn't going to fly. That's exactly what's happening to Joe Biden right now and you don't seem to be vary happy about that. The difference is that you know Trump is a criminal, and you know Joe isn't. I think Trump is leveraging the presidency for personal profit, but I don't know if that has crossed the line into criminal behavior.

 

[cytg111]

But using partial information from a hostile media source to convict him without any redress isn't going to fly. That's exactly what's happening to Joe Biden right now and you don't seem to be vary happy about that. The difference is that you know Trump is a criminal, and you know Joe isn't. I think Trump is leveraging the presidency for personal profit, but I don't know if that has crossed the line into criminal behavior.

You cant fold the paper that way without tearing it apart... that is one hell of a magic trick.

 

[fskimospy]

All very good points, and all of them disputable. The tax information wasn't released with Trumps permission, and against his wishes. So it was obtained either through a data breach, or improperly released by someone that was trusted to keep the information confidential. It's likely there was an actionable offence in there somewhere.
The question of the accounts secrecy is tied up in the reporting requirements of being the president. If the account was owned by a corporation, and Trumps interest in that corporation was disclosed, then he probably met the disclosure requirements. I say probably because I don't know how deep those requirements are. That brings us to the web of Trumps holdings. I assume he claims that they have all been placed in the care of his family, which would clearly be a method of sidestepping the rules, but if that precludes him from directly accessing the funds from those holdings, then he's probably close enough to compliance to achieve plausible deniability.
The knowledge of the account in question was apparently obtained through Trumps tax records, that precludes it being a secret account, as it was reported.

If Trump is taking bribes he needs to be impeached, removed from office, and face trial. I'm all for it. But using partial information from a hostile media source to convict him without any redress isn't going to fly. That's exactly what's happening to Joe Biden right now and you don't seem to be vary happy about that. The difference is that you know Trump is a criminal, and you know Joe isn't. I think Trump is leveraging the presidency for personal profit, but I don't know if that has crossed the line into criminal behavior.

I don’t know Biden isn’t a criminal but yes, I know Trump is. After all, we literally have a report drafted by Robert Mueller describing all the elements of multiple felonies in detail. We have official federal court documents naming Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator to a felony, etc.

As far as the rest goes, it’s obviously a secret account because after four years of intense scrutiny we only found out about it now, and only found out about it despite intense efforts by Trump to conceal it.

Is it ethical for the president to conceal conflicts of interest from the public?