In Ruling Against Trump, Judge Defines Anticorruption Clauses in Constitution for First Time

[Fanatical Meat]

Mitt missed the year that the IRS offered amnesty over previously undeclared Swiss accounts...

GOP voters blithely overlook the fact that their heroes don't pay shit fer taxes. In the debates, Trump said he didn't pay taxes because he's smart & they lapped it up. It's apparently highly patriotic for the richest to not pay taxes in Trumplandia.

Yeah Mitt handled the tax thing pretty poorly. He should have just released them, said "yup I'm rich and grateful I am, I'd like to show you all how to become rich" and been done with it.

 

[Greenman]

Hillary did and the Clinton foundation did and I believe they ultimately release a couple of decades of taxes on a searchable site.
Nearly all serious Presidential candidates release years of full tax returns.

https://www.npr.org/2016/08/12/489776309/in-an-effort-to-pressure-trump-clinton-releases-tax-rate

I had no idea.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I had no idea.

I kind of remember the site where all of them were posted being pretty slick like having a search feature, key word search and it being pretty responsive. They actually spent money on making sure it worked better than expected.
Too bad nobody gave a shit.

 

[whm1974]

Mitt missed the year that the IRS offered amnesty over previously undeclared Swiss accounts...

GOP voters blithely overlook the fact that their heroes don't pay shit fer taxes. In the debates, Trump said he didn't pay taxes because he's smart & they lapped it up. It's apparently highly patriotic for the richest to not pay taxes in Trumplandia.

I doubt that the Swiss Bank are going to offer up data on who hold accounts with them anyway. Maybe we should be closing the loopholes that allows the filthy rich to avoid paying taxes?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I doubt that the Swiss Bank are going to offer up data on who hold accounts with them anyway. Maybe we should be closing the loopholes that allows the filthy rich to avoid paying taxes?

US Banks don’t make account info public for anyone either.

 

[trenchfoot]

After digesting all that's happened to Trump over the last couple of weeks I'm getting the sense in a palpable kind of way that the Wall 'O Lies put up by the Trump Clan, his administration and those sycophant Repub enablers of his in the House and Senate in order to conceal, divert and obfuscate their malfeasance has got some major cracks in it, is crumbling in many spots and its foundation is just about ready to experience some catastrophic failure due to the mounting pile of evidence being gathered up by Mueller and his crack team of investigators.

Can't wait for that wall built out of 100% pure conservative branded bullshit to fall around Trump and bury him and his henchmen up to their necks in some really hot-n-spicy kim chee.

 

[brycejones]

I had no idea.

Somehow I doubt it was covered much in conservative media, it wouldn't have played into the whole lock her up shtick.

 

[Greenman]

Somehow I doubt it was covered much in conservative media, it wouldn't have played into the whole lock her up shtick.

Odd how you fellows think I'm one dimensional.

 

[Moonbeam]

Odd how you fellows think I'm one dimensional.

Punch drunk.

 

[mikeymikec]

Proof that we have too many judges.

"In Trump We Trust": The only judge we need!

 

[Jhhnn]

I doubt that the Swiss Bank are going to offer up data on who hold accounts with them anyway. Maybe we should be closing the loopholes that allows the filthy rich to avoid paying taxes?

That's what the banking amnesty was all about. The DoJ had Swiss bankers & their customers by the balls & the bankers were forced to cave. Rather than throwing all those tax dodging rich people in jail the DoJ offered conditional amnesty for voluntary compliance. Declare the accounts, pay fines & find sleazier bankers elsewhere.

https://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=964

 

[Jhhnn]

US Banks don’t make account info public for anyone either.

It wasn't about going public but about reporting to the IRS.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

It wasn't about going public but about reporting to the IRS.

Ah, misunderstood

 

[whm1974]

That's what the banking amnesty was all about. The DoJ had Swiss bankers & their customers by the balls & the bankers were forced to cave. Rather than throwing all those tax dodging rich people in jail the DoJ offered conditional amnesty for voluntary compliance. Declare the accounts, pay fines & find sleazier bankers elsewhere.

https://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=964

I'm thinking that the Us would have been better off putting those rich people in prison.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'm thinking that the Us would have been better off putting those rich people in prison.

Put your rulers in jail? Lol....save that for the next revolution.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So Trump will go down in history as the worst POTUS in American history, replacing Nixon.

Nixon wasn't the absolute worst but Trump has exceeded our lowest expectations. He's at the top of the bottom.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

It's been conceded generally in the last couple weeks that:

1) Robert Mueller's team has already obtained Trump's tax returns to their possession
and
2) The process by which the returns were obtained would've given no indication of it to the Trump White House

Now -- if you check today's LA Times -- Sunday, July 28, 2018 -- there is an op-ed on page A-20 by Virginia Heffernan entitled:

"Was the 2016 election legitimate?"

In passing, I would say that although I agree with Heffernan, this seems like a limp-wristed attempt to merely argue that people should have "questions."

I refuse to accept the legitimacy of the Trump Presidency simply because the tax returns were never produced to the public before the election.

Do you file deduction claims on your tax returns without ever saving the source documents that prove them?

Do you arrange for an expensive household repair project without obtaining the paperwork assuring warranty?

Do you buy any expensive piece of durable goods -- an air-conditioner or a car -- without acquiring and saving the paperwork?

Do you instead pursue any routine contract arrangement, transaction or other matter that costs you more than chump-change, paying in advance without any assurances of fulfillment?

If you contribute to a local non-profit group or club, and you elect or appoint a Treasurer, do you accept their pronouncements about the entity's finances on blind faith, without any audit mechanism?

Do you have the slightest idea of a methical or oral principle?

Ask me if Trump is "legitimate." No, No, No, No. is my answer.

There is no "law" that requires disclosure, and this is perhaps a flaw and something too long overlooked. It is, however, a tradition.

A "public person" has less in the right to privacy than a regular citizen. Period. A Public Person elected by the public should be compelled to disclosure except in special circumstances (i.e., revealing sensitive information deemed critical to national security).

Period. The End. Legitimate as a Toddler in a Moscow Whorehouse after Midnight.

 

[SNC]

So Trump will go down in history as the worst POTUS in American history, replacing Nixon.

Does he not already have that title?

 

[SNC]

It's been conceded generally in the last couple weeks that:

1) Robert Mueller's team has already obtained Trump's tax returns to their possession
and
2) The process by which the returns were obtained would've given no indication of it to the Trump White House

Now -- if you check today's LA Times -- Sunday, July 28, 2018 -- there is an op-ed on page A-20 by Virginia Heffernan entitled:

"Was the 2016 election legitimate?"

In passing, I would say that although I agree with Heffernan, this seems like a limp-wristed attempt to merely argue that people should have "questions."

I refuse to accept the legitimacy of the Trump Presidency simply because the tax returns were never produced to the public before the election.

Do you file deduction claims on your tax returns without ever saving the source documents that prove them?

Do you arrange for an expensive household repair project without obtaining the paperwork assuring warranty?

Do you buy any expensive piece of durable goods -- an air-conditioner or a car -- without acquiring and saving the paperwork?

Do you instead pursue any routine contract arrangement, transaction or other matter that costs you more than chump-change, paying in advance without any assurances of fulfillment?

If you contribute to a local non-profit group or club, and you elect or appoint a Treasurer, do you accept their pronouncements about the entity's finances on blind faith, without any audit mechanism?

Do you have the slightest idea of a methical or oral principle?

Ask me if Trump is "legitimate." No, No, No, No. is my answer.

There is no "law" that requires disclosure, and this is perhaps a flaw and something too long overlooked. It is, however, a tradition.

A "public person" has less in the right to privacy than a regular citizen. Period. A Public Person elected by the public should be compelled to disclosure except in special circumstances (i.e., revealing sensitive information deemed critical to national security).

Period. The End. Legitimate as a Toddler in a Moscow Whorehouse after Midnight.

That sounds eerily similar to what a lot of people were saying about a birth cert a while ago. The actual piece of paper is so much less important than the reason not to show it. What reasons can there be; Just because I dont want to, I dont have one, I dont want you to see what's in\on it, I like to see the other side twisted up, who the fuck are you to ask me to show you it? NONE of them are good reasons. If you run for the highest position on the fucking planet you should be an open book, barring any top secret shit. So just as O should have released his BC the very second it was asked about, so should Trump reveal his full tax return. not showing it at first ask will always give the other "side" a reason to speculate.

 

[ivwshane]

That sounds eerily similar to what a lot of people were saying about a birth cert a while ago. The actual piece of paper is so much less important than the reason not to show it. What reasons can there be; Just because I dont want to, I dont have one, I dont want you to see what's in\on it, I like to see the other side twisted up, who the fuck are you to ask me to show you it? NONE of them are good reasons. If you run for the highest position on the fucking planet you should be an open book, barring any top secret shit. So just as O should have released his BC the very second it was asked about, so should Trump reveal his full tax return. not showing it at first ask will always give the other "side" a reason to speculate.

I'm sure you understand the difference between the two and you aren't trying to make a false equivalence. One is something all presidents have done since Nixon and the other has never been asked for by anyone ever before, before the black man ran.

 

[fskimospy]

That sounds eerily similar to what a lot of people were saying about a birth cert a while ago. The actual piece of paper is so much less important than the reason not to show it. What reasons can there be; Just because I dont want to, I dont have one, I dont want you to see what's in\on it, I like to see the other side twisted up, who the fuck are you to ask me to show you it? NONE of them are good reasons. If you run for the highest position on the fucking planet you should be an open book, barring any top secret shit. So just as O should have released his BC the very second it was asked about, so should Trump reveal his full tax return. not showing it at first ask will always give the other "side" a reason to speculate.

Obama did release his birth certificate while he was still a candidate. Then the crazies said they wanted a new, different birth certificate. Obama did exactly what you want but some people can never be satisfied because they are either insane or acting in bad faith.

I agree that presidents should strongly err on the side of transparency but at some point you have to just say no.

This is in marked contrast to Trump who has repeatedly lied about releasing his tax returns. The argument of ‘if you have nothing to hide why not do X’ doesn’t mean much to me but when you lie about something over and over again then I really do think you have something to hide.

 

[SNC]

Obama did release his birth certificate while he was still a candidate. Then the crazies said they wanted a new, different birth certificate. Obama did exactly what you want but some people can never be satisfied because they are either insane or acting in bad faith.

I agree that presidents should strongly err on the side of transparency but at some point you have to just say no.

This is in marked contrast to Trump who has repeatedly lied about releasing his tax returns. The argument of ‘if you have nothing to hide why not do X’ doesn’t mean much to me but when you lie about something over and over again then I really do think you have something to hide.

So its you who gets to decide when it's OK to say no? What does it matter if the crazies want another one?

 

[SNC]

I'm sure you understand the difference between the two and you aren't trying to make a false equivalence. One is something all presidents have done since Nixon and the other has never been asked for by anyone ever before, before the black man ran.

I'm not trying to do anything except point out that when someone is not as transparent as they should be, it gives others the fuel they need to make up whatever they like. Let's say that Trump releases his full returns for the last 20 years, and there is nothing in there that is newsworthy. What would have been the point of not releasing them? You, and I , believe he is not releasing them because there is something in there he does not what us to see. Nice attempt at injecting the race card.

 

[Commodus]

I'm not trying to do anything except point out that when someone is not as transparent as they should be, it gives others the fuel they need to make up whatever they like. Let's say that Trump releases his full returns for the last 20 years, and there is nothing in there that is newsworthy. What would have been the point of not releasing them? You, and I , believe he is not releasing them because there is something in there he does not what us to see. Nice attempt at injecting the race card.

Keep in mind that Obama was not only reluctant to entertain racist conspiracy theory nuts by showing his birth certificate, but knew that it wasn't likely to satisfy them -- much in the same way as NASA footage of Earth doesn't satisfy flat Earth types.

 

[fskimospy]

So its you who gets to decide when it's OK to say no? What does it matter if the crazies want another one?

No, in the end Congress and the voters decide if saying no was okay.

As for why it matters - the crazies will never stop. If you’re just supposed to provide whatever is asked for then why stop with a birth certificate? Those can be forged, after all. Then he should get a forensic guy to verify its authenticity. Oh, he did? Well we should investigate his background because he could be a Democrat operative. Etc, etc, etc, forever. Should Hillary Clinton have led investigators on a tour of that pizza place to show there were no child prostitutes in it?

The job is to be the president, not to be a personal research service for insane or dishonest people. Once his eligibility was certified by the appropriate authorities he should have refused all further requests.