Given the levels of corruption in the Trump administration (and prior to his having been elected) which are being revealed daily, should we have a law requiring that Presidential candidates release their tax returns? Honestly, until 2016 I never thought there would be a need for such a law. I mean, who would vote for someone who insisted on hiding his finances from the public?
Law requiring release of tax returns by Pesidential candidates?
- Thread starter Bdm20
- Start date
KeithD
Virgin
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Posts
- 29,626
There are those who are working on that requirement. California, for instance, recently was floating legislation that required a presidential candidate to release taxes to get on the ballot in the state. I don't know where that went, but it's evidence this is being worked on.
I could not agree more. Though it seems to me, making it a legal requirement is a bit redundant.
People who run for office should be willing to release them. If they don't, people should be intelligent enough to not vote for that candidate...
What amazed me, is people voted, and elected someone who refused....go figure.
Anyone with a concept of privacy.
What corruption exactly???
And no, what the fuck does their finances have to do with anything? If you nosy fuckers worried more about your own pile of money 1/100th as much as you're concerned about everyone else you might not need the government to go put a gun to other peoples heads to provide for you.
K
kissedcherry
Guest
Lots of people don't give a hoot
His life his money his tax. Lots of people respect the fact that his taxes are his business. If there was anything illegal then the IRS would deal with it. Same thing with issues about the sex lives of people in public life. Who cares? It is their private life.
His life his money his tax. Lots of people respect the fact that his taxes are his business. If there was anything illegal then the IRS would deal with it. Same thing with issues about the sex lives of people in public life. Who cares? It is their private life.
jaF0
Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Posts
- 39,168
It was struck down in court.
My proposal is to include consent on the campaign filing papers. By signing and filing the papers, you give consent to release the documents. Since there is no requirement to run for office, you would be making the choice to release them.
You're obviously too stupid to understand the potential for those who own a President debt to influence his decisions to the detriment of the country., or how that debt could prompt a corrupt president to monetize his position to pay off that debt.
That doesn't even touch on the fact that a presidential candidates taxes may reveal criminal behavior.
SAD!!!
Wrong Element
Sentient Onion
- Joined
- May 5, 2002
- Posts
- 24,909
Being on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars is absolutely not about one's "private life."
This is sort of where I am. I totally appreciate why someone might not want strangers looking at their tax information. Typically, though, those with nothing to hide have been OK with releasing them.
jaF0
Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Posts
- 39,168
I can't see any reason for the general public to see the forms in their entirety. They should be sent to independent accountants for review and summary.
Haha! Thanks, I needed a laugh today!
YDB95
Hopeless Romantic!
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Posts
- 13,813
In a perfect world, yes. In a world where the Republicans have spent decades stripping the IRS of any realistic ability to do its job - and where it was already kind of sort of understood that they would look the other way on the uber-rich anyway - yeah, no. And I think you probably know that, too.
Wrong Element
Sentient Onion
- Joined
- May 5, 2002
- Posts
- 24,909
The independent accountants can tell you what's legal, but as the saying goes, "In Washington, the scandal isn't what illegal, it's what's legal." There are things in there that could be politically embarrassing, like skimpy contributions to charity (or in the case of Bill Clinton, a deduction for donation of used underwear).
We're also talking about someone applying for the job of POTUS. It's ridiculous to think that the public doesn't have a right to know every detail of their potential liabilities or conflicts of interest.
GMAFB
Why not?
It is?
What's ridiculous about it? Show me where this right exists.....
Oh, it's only the best way to tell if they are a crook!
I bet I'm talking to a crook right now...show us your finances so we can see how you are living off entitlements dude.
No....that's what WARRANTS are for.
IF you think they are a crook (and have probable cause) you get a warrant, because this isn't N. Korea yet comrade, your team hasn't won.
Define "crook"
I don't get any entitlements, so not at all.
No....that's what WARRANTS are for.
IF you think they are a crook (and have probable cause) you get a warrant, because this isn't N. Korea yet comrade, your team hasn't won.
I know I'm talking to one right now.....your point?
I don't get any entitlements, so not at all.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,876
Given the levels of corruption of the Democrats and their propaganda arm at the NYTs I think we need to read the existing law regarding the unauthorized release of tax returns:
26 U.S. Code § 7213 - Unauthorized disclosure of information
(a) Returns and return information
(1) Federal employees and other persons
It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States or any person described in section 6103
(or an officer or employee of any such person), or any former officer or employee, willfully to disclose to any person, except as authorized in this title, any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)). Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable upon conviction by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution, and if such offense is committed by any officer or employee of the United States, he shall, in addition to any other punishment, be dismissed from office or discharged from employment upon conviction for such offense.(2) State and other employees
It shall be unlawful for any person (not described in paragraph (1)) willfully to disclose to any person, except as authorized in this title, any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) acquired by him or another person under subsection (d), (i)(1)(C), (3)(B)(i), or (7)(A)(ii), (k)(10), (13), or (14), (l)(6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (12), (15), (16), (19), (20), or (21) or (m)(2), (4), (5), (6), or (7) of section 6103 or under section 6104(c). Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
(3) Other persons
It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by this title thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
(4) Solicitation
It shall be unlawful for any person willfully to offer any item of material value in exchange for any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) and to receive as a result of such solicitation any such return or return information. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
Given the levels of corruption of the Democrats and their propaganda arm at the NYTs I think we need to read the existing law regarding the unauthorized release of tax returns:
26 U.S. Code § 7213 - Unauthorized disclosure of information
(a) Returns and return information
(1) Federal employees and other persons
It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States or any person described in section 6103
(2) State and other employees
It shall be unlawful for any person (not described in paragraph (1)) willfully to disclose to any person, except as authorized in this title, any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) acquired by him or another person under subsection (d), (i)(1)(C), (3)(B)(i), or (7)(A)(ii), (k)(10), (13), or (14), (l)(6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (12), (15), (16), (19), (20), or (21) or (m)(2), (4), (5), (6), or (7) of section 6103 or under section 6104(c). Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
(3) Other persons
It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by this title thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
(4) Solicitation
It shall be unlawful for any person willfully to offer any item of material value in exchange for any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) and to receive as a result of such solicitation any such return or return information. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
Someone flunked Law 101.....
YDB95
Hopeless Romantic!
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Posts
- 13,813
Nice try, Rightguide, but...
https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analy...sing-details-of-president-trumps-tax-returns/
And there's much more there.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,876
Look again, Nimrod. NY law does not supersede federal law. It's not decided law on the federal level either, The Statute I posted still stands:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-trouble-to-publish-donald-trumps-tax-return/
And this as well:
https://www.cato.org/blog/did-new-y...ing-trumps-tax-return-or-law-unconstitutional
It all hinges on a court decision. Details of how the NYT's received the information has not yet been the subject of investigation. We know what they said, but we don't know if it is true.
YDB95
Hopeless Romantic!
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Posts
- 13,813
Barring some compelling reason to believe they're lying, there's no need for an investigation. Unless you count diverting attention from the very real issue of Trump's massive debts and the potential national security risk they pose.
Oh, and if you had bothered to look at my link, you'd know it also cites a Supreme Court case - that's the US Supreme Court - that protected the disclosure of illegally procured information by third parties as long as they didn't participate in getting the information.
KeithD
Virgin
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Posts
- 29,626
Trump can show what the NYT has is a lie by simply making one page of the taxes available. We all (including the board Trumpettes) know why he hasn't/won't.
He's now on tape saying he paid millions in taxes (nope, what he's known to have paid to foreign governments in taxes in that period doesn't add up to "millions" either) for 2015 and 2016 that are shown as zero in the NYT reporting. We all (including the board Trumpettes) know he lied on tape about that.
And I think NYT's lack of liability for receiving and reporting on the documents, as a third party, has already been shown on the board.
He's now on tape saying he paid millions in taxes (nope, what he's known to have paid to foreign governments in taxes in that period doesn't add up to "millions" either) for 2015 and 2016 that are shown as zero in the NYT reporting. We all (including the board Trumpettes) know he lied on tape about that.
And I think NYT's lack of liability for receiving and reporting on the documents, as a third party, has already been shown on the board.
jaF0
Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Posts
- 39,168
What's shown on this board doesn't matter. We all know by now that Donny and his pet BillyBarr interpret and manipulate laws in way that Americans would never do. And they have his handpacked court to back them up.
Which is why it's so absolutely critical that he be dumped, though I'm not at all sure he will be.
Similar threads
