• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Wouldn't Trump's tax returns help Mueller get to the bottom of things?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
IronWing said:
I think the only possible value the tax returns might have would be to show if Trump lied on his tax returns. I wouldn't expect them to contain a smoking gun of any sort with respect to his collusion with Russia. Then again, this is "stupid Watergate" so maybe they do.

Line 117b:
$130,000 - Payment to silence porn star
$47,000 - Business expenses associated with hosting Russian intelligence operatives at Trump Tower for campaign strategy planning
Click to expand...

If it were "stupid" people wouldn't be headed to prison.

I suspect that there's more than two items. When Russian connections to Trump financial concerns are explicitly listed it might no go so well. Let's find out.
 
pcgeek11 said:
Looks more like hate to me.
Click to expand...
I'll admit I didn't like or vote for Trump, somehow once he won I was holding onto a tissue-thin hope he would realize the importance and responsibilities of POTUS. Not so shockingly, it didn't happen, we have someone who disrespects all form of law, profits handily from the position and has stoked the fire of racial dissent to unheard of levels. I could go on but I don't want to waste an hour.
 
pcgeek11 said:
And more validation.
Click to expand...

People are angry. I am certainly not happy with 45 and have every reason to believe that his administration is founded on corruption and providing aid and comfort to an enemy of the US who has committed an attack on us. No I'm quite angry about that. If you think that makes me a hater then so be it. Yes this is a left leaning forum but ideology should not make a difference when we are attacked by a KGB despot and our leader is supportive of that action.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
People are angry. I am certainly not happy with 45 and have every reason to believe that his administration is founded on corruption and providing aid and comfort to an enemy of the US who has committed an attack on us. No I'm quite angry about that. If you think that makes me a hater then so be it. Yes this is a left leaning forum but ideology should not make a difference when we are attacked by a KGB despot and our leader is supportive of that action.
Click to expand...

You are reasonable at least and are not spewing venom. Many are completely crazed.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
The problem is someone leaking this to Nunes or the like. Then the Reps have to wait for the proper moment to strike (and they'll make it some big invasion of privacy) and feed FOX what it wishes.

Speaking of Fox, this opinion piece popped up and for once I looked. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...-reactions-to-trump-since-election-night.html




Unfortunately for our opponents that definition is irrelevant as it is the Constitution and how it defines treason which applies, not a Game of Thrones scenario.

The state-run news agency is desperate
Click to expand...
Yes, the Constitution and how it defines is the relevant source.

You may find this interesting or informing:

Aiding Russia is treason against the United States.

Stephen Colbert’s recent segment “Michael Flynn’s White House Tenure: It’s Funny ’Cause It’s Treason” was but one of many accusations of treason hurled against Flynn and other White House associates because of their proven or alleged ties to Russia. “Consider the evidence that Trump is a traitor,” exhorted an essay in Salon. It is, in fact, treasonable to aid the “enemies” of the United States.

But enemies are defined very precisely under American treason law. An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war . Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies. (Indeed, a treason prosecution naming Russia as an enemy would be tantamount to a declaration of war.) Russia is a strategic adversary whose interests are frequently at odds with those of the United States, but for purposes of treason law it is no different than Canada or France or even the American Red Cross. The details of the alleged connections between Russia and Trump officials are therefore irrelevant to treason law....
Click to expand...

The claim of "treason" is as silly and inapplicable as that of "collusion" (which simply doesn't exist in this political context).

IMO, impeachment is the only plausible tool.

Fern
 
Fern said:
Yes, the Constitution and how it defines is the relevant source.

You may find this interesting or informing:



The claim of "treason" is as silly and inapplicable as that of "collusion" (which simply doesn't exist in this political context).

IMO, impeachment is the only plausible tool.

Fern
Click to expand...

The President has supported an attack on the US in an attempt to sway the election in his favor. He claims otherwise but he defends and deflects from that and has not taken significant actions. Contrary to S. Sanders this is not a witch hunt, there is demonstrated criminality on the part of Trump's campaign, and further these "tough sanctions" are at the insistance of Congress with resistance. Trump is harder on Iran and NK who have not attacked us, labels the EU as foes while aiding the interests of our enemies. That latter conforms to the defininition of Treason. The exchange of weapons fire is not a Constitutional requirement.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
The President has supported an attack on the US in an attempt to sway the election in his favor. He claims otherwise but he defends and deflects from that and has not taken significant actions. Contrary to S. Sanders this is not a witch hunt, there is demonstrated criminality on the part of Trump's campaign, and further these "tough sanctions" are at the insistance of Congress with resistance. Trump is harder on Iran and NK who have not attacked us, labels the EU as foes while aiding the interests of our enemies. That latter conforms to the defininition of Treason. The exchange of weapons fire is not a Constitutional requirement.
Click to expand...
I failed to include the link with my post, Apologies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...cee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.de4d8eb10416

You disagree with a professor of law at the University of California at Davis who is writing a book about treason and the American Revolution about the specific definition of an "enemy" in the Constitution?

Fern
 
compuwiz1 said:
Wouldn't Trump's tax returns help Mueller get to the bottom of things?
?
Click to expand...

I think it unlikely. As I have attempted to explain before that kind of info is not disclosed on a tax return. That's not how the tax return is "designed". E.g., revenue is reported in the $ amount only. The payer is not generally listed on the tax return. Likewise for expenses; the payee is not generally disclosed on a tax return. That type of detail will only be disclosed in the course of an audit. In the audit the IRS can drill down by examaning bank statements etc.

So there are better sources: banking records (which I believe Mueller has already obtained/requested) and various other governmental forms such as those required by the Commerce Dept for foreign investment in the USA etc.

While the topic of tax returns excites those who hate Trump there are better, more effective ways to get the data Mueller may seek.

Fern
 
pcgeek11 said:
I for one will be glad when Mueller winds up this either way so we can all get on with our lives either with President Trump or President Pence.

Maybe the left can heal from all the hate they have inside.
Click to expand...

pcgeek11 said:
Looks more like hate to me.
Click to expand...

A) I love your "either way" as though there was some alternate universe where plea deals haven't already been made and indictments aren't coming down on the regular.

B) Again, you need it to be hate, but it isn't. It's a saucy mix of justified outrage and pity of the pathetic.
 
fskimospy said:
I think he’s using the colloquial definition of treason, not the legal one.
Click to expand...

If one is looking for criminal charges we can look at conspiracy to commit a bunch of those. Where Trump is concerned remains to be seen but his campaign certainly has real problems and convictions. If it should be found that Russia was solicited to break into computers then we have serious felonies.

It's not some fat guy on a bed, it's Russia and Putin and Trump's campaign was in on it as already has been demonstrated. These people have betrayed their country in no uncertain terms and Trump continues to do so.
 
Fern said:
I think it unlikely. As I have attempted to explain before that kind of info is not disclosed on a tax return. That's not how the tax return is "designed". E.g., revenue is reported in the $ amount only. The payer is not generally listed on the tax return. Likewise for expenses; the payee is not generally disclosed on a tax return. That type of detail will only be disclosed in the course of an audit. In the audit the IRS can drill down by examaning bank statements etc.

So there are better sources: banking records (which I believe Mueller has already obtained/requested) and various other governmental forms such as those required by the Commerce Dept for foreign investment in the USA etc.

While the topic of tax returns excites those who hate Trump there are better, more effective ways to get the data Mueller may seek.

Fern
Click to expand...
I think most people are using tax returns as a shorthand/colloquial for financial disclosures.
 
pcgeek11 said:
If you only wasn't so filled with hate...
Click to expand...
So do you always assume that the people who disagree with you because they have a conflicting interest do so out of hate? Or just when it's a convenient excuse for you to engage in namecalling?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top