Executive Privelege

[rjs330]

Donald doesn't seem to share your confidence on the matter, given all the effort he's put into blocking their release.

Maybe he just thinks it's none of your business.

 

[Speedwell]

It's none of you business. He has already been cleared of the Russian stuff.

The IRS would have already done something by now if his tax returns were out of order.

No one is supposing that possible violations of tax laws is all there is to it. Trump is at the head of a large and complex financial organisation with substantial foreign entanglements. Given that he is not just your ordinary real estate con man but President of the US, there are serious national security implications.

 

[HannahT]

No one is supposing that possible violations of tax laws is all there is to it. Trump is at the head of a large and complex financial organisation with substantial foreign entanglements. Given that he is not just your ordinary real estate con man but President of the US, there are serious national security implications.

Problem is they need to show how it could hint at national security implications.

Claiming, 'Well it's TRUMP and he is a con man' may not go as far as people think it will.

Or - We need to make sure just in case - won't go far either.

It will go to court, and they might have to show a serve a legitimate legislative purpose for it.

 

[Michael]

It's none of you business. He has already been cleared of the Russian stuff.

The IRS would have already done something by now if his tax returns were out of order.

Every other President in my lifetime has revealed all their financial information so that I could be absolutely sure there were no obvious conflicts of interest. They all felt it was my business and it is my business if he wants that particular job. I don't think he'll even be on the ballot in at least 18 states if he won't release his tax returns in the next election, so apparently a lot of states think that it's my business too.

California Senate approves bill requiring presidential candidates to submit tax returns - CNNPolitics

 

[HannahT]

I have no doubt that will be challenged in court as well. This is getting really ridiculous.

 

[Speedwell]

Problem is they need to show how it could hint at national security implications.

Claiming, 'Well it's TRUMP and he is a con man' may not go as far as people think it will.

Or - We need to make sure just in case - won't go far either.

It will go to court, and they might have to show a serve a legitimate legislative purpose for it.

No problem, they've got both. It should be going to court this week. There is evidence that Deutchebank has served as a conduit for Russian funds going to the Trump organisation. Deutchebank had agreed to comply with a House subpoena to turn over Trump organisation records but Trump has sued them to prevent it. That's the case in court.

 

[Michael]

I have no doubt that will be challenged in court as well. This is getting really ridiculous.

The solution is really simple. Either release your tax records when you run for President, or don't run. It's not a complicated choice or a complicated solution. Trump can try taking those 18 states to court. Good luck with that.

 

[Speedwell]

There seems to be the feeling around that Trump is just an ordinary guy who is being harassed about his tax returns and business connections for no good reason. But the present situation has nothing to do with the "collusion hoax" or the Mueller report. Forget the Mueller report. Forget the Russian attack on our election, and just consider this:

Trump is not just an ordinary guy, he is President of the United States. Trump is also the head of a large and complex financial organisation with substantial foreign entanglements. He has failed to distance himself from the operation of that organisation as is usually required of Presidents. Just on the face of it there is real potential for conflict of interest. Even in the absence of any indication that the affairs of Trump's organisation might not be on the up-and-up, Congress would be derelict in its duty not to look into the matter.

 

[KCfromNC]

Maybe he just thinks it's none of your business.

If he didn't want scrutiny about the results of him leading his family business, he probably shouldn't have run for president.

 

[KCfromNC]

Problem is they need to show how it could hint at national security implications.

The law says otherwise.

 

[HannahT]

The law says otherwise.

What law are you talking about? Be specific.

Investigations could start towards anyone over anything if they didn't have some firm reason to suspect something. If that was the case? Then people should have been screaming about dictatorship long before now. The beltway is full of speculation/gossip/and innuendo for more years than anyone has lived today.

Normally, investigations are started and politicians tend to drum up the drama. They tend to NOT turn out as awful as they were spouting the whole time. It's been that way prior to Trump as well. Everything is the end of the world as we know it, and the very worse has to be truth according to them. Then people get upset when they find out it was blown out of proportion.

Meanwhile, all the things that need to get done for the country don't. It sure would be nice if they placed as much time and effort into healthcare, immigration, drug prices, infrastructure, etc.

 

[rjs330]

Every other President in my lifetime has revealed all their financial information so that I could be absolutely sure there were no obvious conflicts of interest. They all felt it was my business and it is my business if he wants that particular job. I don't think he'll even be on the ballot in at least 18 states if he won't release his tax returns in the next election, so apparently a lot of states think that it's my business too.

California Senate approves bill requiring presidential candidates to submit tax returns - CNNPolitics

People are just nosy. It doesn't matter what other president's have done. It's none if our business. It's only our business if they broke the law. Is there any evidence of Trump doing something legislatively to benefit his own business elsewhere that can be proven by his tax return? No! It's a fishing expedition. We ALREADY KNOW he has businesses in other countries. His tax returns won't do anything more than what we already know.

 

[rjs330]

The solution is really simple. Either release your tax records when you run for President, or don't run. It's not a complicated choice or a complicated solution. Trump can try taking those 18 states to court. Good luck with that.

Prove that a requirement in the Constitution. You're adding to the Constitution. Just out of spite for a president you don't like. Frankly the law in California ought to be made unconstitutional.

 

[hedrick]

The solution is really simple. Either release your tax records when you run for President, or don't run. It's not a complicated choice or a complicated solution. Trump can try taking those 18 states to court. Good luck with that.

The Constitution contains the qualifications for President. I doubt States can add to them.

 

[Arcangl86]

The Constitution contains the qualifications for President. I doubt States can add to them.

States can control who appears on the ballot. If they couldn't you wouldn't have ballot access laws, most of which make it hard for third parties to even make it onto the ballot.

 

[KCfromNC]

What law are you talking about? Be specific.

26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information
Section f, paragraph 1. Notice there's nothing about the restriction you claimed.

 

[Gigimo]

Did you claim Obama's use of executive privilege was abuse? If not, what was your reason for not doing so? Did you also believe Bill Clintons use was abuse?

And just so you know this isn't whataboutism. I don't think Trump should use executive privilege on this report.

But one does have to wonder if those that claim it is an abuse of the power are motivated simply by ideology or by principle.

You're wasting your breath you know they're only convincing each other of what they want to believe. Besides not that many people read these forums anyway so it's not as if they are influencing very many possible voters to possibly change their minds.

 

[Speedwell]

People are just nosy. It doesn't matter what other president's have done. It's none if our business. It's only our business if they broke the law. Is there any evidence of Trump doing something legislatively to benefit his own business elsewhere that can be proven by his tax return? No! It's a fishing expedition. We ALREADY KNOW he has businesses in other countries. His tax returns won't do anything more than what we already know.

You understand, I hope, that the purpose of Congressional investigation is not primarily to discover crime. If Congressional investigators happen come across evidence of a crime during their proceedings they are to turn it over to the Justice Department and then get back to their own business--which is, to carry out oversight of the Executive Branch in order to determine if the laws which they have passed are being faithfully executed and have the effect intended. You also understand, I hope, that Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. A President may be impeached and removed from office for any reason that two thirds of Congress can agree on, defining "high crimes and misdemeanors" to suit themselves.

 

[Michael]

Prove that a requirement in the Constitution. You're adding to the Constitution. Just out of spite for a president you don't like. Frankly the law in California ought to be made unconstitutional.

It's not being done out of "spite", it's being done out of concern over the potential for conflicts of interest. Trump is the first President in modern times to refuse to release his tax returns. Why? In some cases the states will have to pass such bill during the next general election so it may not even prevent Trump from being on the next ballot, so again, it's not being done out of spite that is directed at a single individual.

Secondly, its not *just* California, it's a total of 18 states, so again, it can hardly be a matter of "spite".

 

[rjs330]

You understand, I hope, that the purpose of Congressional investigation is not primarily to discover crime. If Congressional investigators happen come across evidence of a crime during their proceedings they are to turn it over to the Justice Department and then get back to their own business--which is, to carry out oversight of the Executive Branch in order to determine if the laws which they have passed are being faithfully executed and have the effect intended. You also understand, I hope, that Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. A President may be impeached and removed from office for any reason that two thirds of Congress can agree on, defining "high crimes and misdemeanors" to suit themselves.

Yes I get that. Trump isn't going to be impeached. It's just like Comey could be removed by Trump for ANY reason. Thus it can't be considered obstruction.