As expected, the House Democrats demanded the last six years of President Donald Trump‘s tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service. In a letter to IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., demanded both personal and business tax information from 2013-2018, including individual and corporate tax returns. Trump has failed to supply his tax records in a departure from decades of tradition. He is wrong to do so. However, the oversight value of these taxes seem sketchy at best.
There is no question that the Committee can demand such records from the IRS. Yet, the explanation by Neal seems a tad opportunistic. There is no allegation of criminal wrongdoing or impeachable acts. Instead, Neal claims that the Committee desperately needs Trump’s taxes because it is necessary to ensure “the accountability of our government and elected officials. To maintain trust in our democracy, the American people must be assured that their government is operating properly, as laws intend.” He claims that the Committee might use the records to help establish tax policies.
Neal is relying on authority under the tax code granted only to the tax-writing committees in Congress that gives the chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee the power to request tax information on any filer.
I would certainly support a mandatory requirement for the release of tax records for anyone running for president. However, you do not have to see Trump’s record to advance such an objectively worthy goal. Until Trump, we did not need such a law since presidents since Nixon have acknowledged the reasonableness of such a demand and released their records.
Yet, this is not the Judiciary Committee alleging that there is some potential transactional or banking crime. The Committee’s rationale could not be more generalized and ambiguous. Neal insisted “This request is about policy, not politics; my preparations were made on my own track and timeline, entirely independent of other activities in Congress and the administration.”
It is hard not to see the politics in this demand however. That could set up a fight in the courts. I tend to favor Congress in such fights and I expect the Committee would prevail. However, a court fight could take time with the 2020 campaigns already unfolding.
It’s pretty odd. He says he’s under audit and that he’ll release his returns when he’s not under audit. But he said that during the campaign. And the campaign was in 2016. I’ve never heard of a 3 year audit. But then I’m not a billionaire. Has he been under audit for 3 years?
Excerpted from the Washington Post:
Some members of the office were particularly disappointed that Barr did not release summary information the special counsel team had prepared, according to two people familiar with their reactions.
“There was immediate displeasure from the team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work instead,” according one U.S. official briefed on the matter.
Summaries were prepared for different sections of the report, with a view that they could made public, the official said.
The report was prepared “so that the front matter from each section could have been released immediately — or very quickly,” the official said. “It was done in a way that minimum redactions, if any, would have been necessary, and the work would have spoken for itself.”
Mueller’s team assumed the information was going to be made available to the public, the official said, “and so they prepared their summaries to be shared in their own words — and not in the attorney general’s summary of their work, as turned out to be the case.”
Excerpted from The New York Times:
Mr. Barr has said he will move quickly to release the nearly 400-page report but needs time to scrub out confidential information. The special counsel’s investigators had already written multiple summaries of the report, and some team members believe that Mr. Barr should have included more of their material in the four-page letter he wrote on March 24 laying out their main conclusions, according to government officials familiar with the investigation. Mr. Barr only briefly cited the special counsel’s work in his letter.
However, the special counsel’s office never asked Mr. Barr to release the summaries soon after he received the report, a person familiar with the investigation said. And the Justice Department quickly determined that the summaries contain sensitive information, like classified material, secret grand-jury testimony and information related to current federal investigations that must remain confidential, according to two government officials.
The Dragnet Surveillance programs described below were the forerunner of the NSA’s Stellar Wind program:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/dea-began-bulk-collection-of-phone-records-in-1992-with-approval-of-then-ag-william-barr-report-says
Mar 28, 2019 … Under AG Barr, phone surveillance program began in ’92 without legal review, IG finds … in 1992 by the Drug Enforcement Administration, according to a report from the Office of the Inspector General released Thursday.
Document: Inspector General Report on DEA Bulk Data Collection …
https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-inspector-general-report-dea-bulk-data-collection
3 days ago … The Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Justice has released a report on the Drug Enforcement Agency’s use of administrative …
This is not a list of virtues or the virtuous.
Quite the opposite, it is a word to the wise…
or not.
_____
RESI IPSA HITS 36,000,000
The most frequent commentators were:
Anon
This is absurd
Allan
Mr. Kurtz
Tom Nash
Karen S.
P. Hill
____
“It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it.”
― Maurice Switzer
P. Hill is most definitely virtuous on the counts of courage, patience and savoir faire. And the most recent commenter using the handle Anon is a stalwart, a champion and a real mensch. The other Anons are all vicious guttersnipes. Had it not been for Smith’s bit bucket blockade L4D might have maintained the seventh most frequent commenter position. Or not. Either way, folly is a proper object of love. Wisdom is not.
TRUMP’S BUSINESS EMPIRE WAS BUILT ON TAX AVOIDANCE
Trump’s father was a genius at structuring various tax shelters and dodges. Donald learned those strategies from the all-time master. Over the years New York City has granted Donald Trump about $900 million in tax breaks (New York Magazine, 9/17/16).
$900 million is also the approximate amount that Trump carried for years as a tax write-off. Said write-off represented losses from Atlantic City and Trump Airlines. The New York Times famously broke this story in late September of 2016 and it was widely picked up in the mainstream media. When asked on the campaign trail about this years-long write-off, Trump pointed to his temple and said, “I’m smart”, or something to that effect.
Tax breaks and write-offs might be smart in real estate. But dependency on these strategies looks less than patriotic from a political standpoint. Furthermore, a businessman dependent on these strategies is not necessarily someone we want at the head of government; especially when is empire is still family-run. No wonder the 1% are dong so well!
It is shocking to think that the Tax ‘Reform’ bill Trump signed in 2017, Trump’s only major legislative accomplishment, denied crucial deductions to homeowners in large, blue state cities including New York.
After $900 million in tax breaks from New York City, Trump signed a big ‘F U’ to the homeowners of his hometown. And those who stand to lose the most are single-digit millionaires; essentially the upper-middle class in large, blue state cities. That was the payback they got for failing to vote for Trump. ..Next time they’ll know better, ha, ha, ha..!
P Hill – legal tax avoidance is the specialty of every tax preparer. Ever hear those commercials about not paying a dime more than you owe? Have you ever met with a financial planner on how to get the most out of your money, and invest in a way that avoids the most tax burden? What about estate planning? If you have a trust, it is to avoid probate. The way you structure your legacy is in order to avoid your heirs losing more taxes than necessary.
The only way a family farm can survive is if it’s structured as a corporations, in order to avoid estate taxes.
The poor make decisions about how much they can work without losing benefits, in that transition period where if they earn too much, they are financially worse off. I have known people who turned down a promotion because the higher tax bracket meant less take home pay.
So, P Hill, everyone in America makes decisions in order to save money and avoid taxes.
Karen, show me statistics from a recognizable mainstream source documenting that a significant number of family farms have been lost the estate tax.
Right wing media has promoted the myth for years that farmers live in fear of the ‘death tax’. But exemptions have always allowed enough to spare family farms and small businesses. Yet Republicans like you continue promoting this myth.
If Karen or anyone else shows you such statistics will you act honorably and say you were wrong or even show why you think the other is wrong? From past experience you will turn your back and run. I’m still waiting for your answers on JFK vs Trump since I provided signifcant factual proof of what I said. There are numerous other examples of such behavior by you that I wonder why anyone should spend time to provide you with numbers that you will instantly reject and than make similar comments in a future post.
P Hill – there are farmers and ranchers among my family and friends.
Here is one from Iowa State University:
https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/orourke/OrourkeOct13.html
Note that Trump’s tax cut increased the exemption from $5 million to $10 million, which is a help to farms. This article discusses the necessity of estate planning, and being cognizant of the trigger for federal estate taxes.
American Farm Bureau, this one comes with a downloadable fact sheet:
https://www.fb.org/issues/tax-reform/estate-tax-repeal/
Please note that farmers got relief in 2017 with the tax bill, but it is temporary, expiring in 2025. Tragically, many Democrats oppose efforts to repeal the estate tax, and pretend the problem does not exist.
Here is an article on avoiding inheritance taxes for farmers. Considering most family farms are land rich and cash poor, avoiding punitive taxes that can necessitate selling off land and other assets is critical:
https://www.fbfs.com/learning-center/estate-planning-for-farmers-and-ranchers-managing-estate-and-inheritance-taxes
On paper, family farmers are millionaires, but they don’t have that money in the bank. How to avoid estate taxes or inheritance taxes is a very common question among farmers and ranchers. Contrary to the rhetoric swirling around Democrat politicians, safe in the knowledge that their own tax avoidance behavior won’t be scrutinized, farmers trying to save money on taxes is not greed or selfishness. A land rich and cash poor operation just cannot pay that kind of money, and having that debt hanging over the head of your heirs is onerous, especially in an industry that has good and bad years.
However, fighting to protect family farms runs into the usual rhetoric of this problem doesn’t exist, the 1% don’t want to pay their taxes, tax the rich even more, prevent rich people from leaving anything to their heirs and take it all, and on and on. It’s the typical demonization of the opponent and proclaiming that someone is taking something from the proletariat.
Karen, I did say ‘statistics from a recognizable mainstream source. An article with graphs, pie charts and statistics. Data we can look at to say, “Yes, there is a trend”.
I’m not seeing those charts in the sources you provided.
What’s more, I couldn’t find any relevant articles in that college newsletter. I’m sure they’re close to farmers, though. The graphics convey a decidedly rural essence.
Your other source is a journal geared to farmers. Farmers probably have a number of internet sites. Tax issues are going to be a feature of those sites. One presumes that farmers have a number of tax issues unique to their industry.
Invariably publications like that will feature estate planning and the tax issues involved. Which is what I’m mainly seeing in that article.
Some farmers run big operations with many employees. Undocumented immigrants perform those jobs; even in Iowa. Farmers depend on them.
Bright young Whites are not drawn to that work.
But anyway– Farmers employing a dozen immigrants are successful in their field. Some are genuine millionaires with authentic concerns regarding estates. But until recently tax policy allowed a $5 million exemption. That essentially encompasses the ‘average’ family farm.
I have some knowledge of farms; having lived in Wisconsin long ago. I still have family there and visit when I can. Genuine family farms saturate the countryside of lower Wisconsin. I have a good idea of what they actually look like.
The typical family farm in Wisconsin has about 200 acres. The average acre is worth about $4,000. And those prices are decent by national standards. Wisconsin farmland is prized for rich, fertile soil. ..All that snow..!
So based on those numbers, not too many farmers were threatened by estate taxes when the exemption was $5 million.
Some Ranchers were threatened, perhaps. But the category of ‘Ranchers’ includes a number of rich people. Especially in California, which I’m sure you know.
P Hill – you claimed concern about estate taxes among family farms was a myth perpetuated by Republicans. I provided several articles about estate planning for farms, with an eye to avoiding estate taxes. These articles explained how farmers are often land rich and cash poor, and that heirs are therefore unable to pay estate taxes.
Please therefore admit that this is not a Republican plot or a myth. It is a decidedly real concern. Trump’s tax bill of 2017 provided relief, but it will expire in 2025, and is therefore an issue for succession planning.
As mentioned, I have farmers, dairymen, ranchers, and other large landowners among my family and friends. The concern is real, and the taxes are viewed as punitive to the producers of the food in this country.
I don’t fabricate stories.
Family farms that have survived to be passed down generation after generation are dwindling. It is difficult work, with good years and bad. They had to have survived catastrophes like the Great Depression. Then the initiation of an estate tax in 1916 impacted farms.
CA cropland was worth $12,500 an acre in 2013. https://www.capitalpress.com/state/california/california-farmland-prices-rents-set-records/article_98b066f7-5a5b-5156-b1e9-d5ffff126865.html Hence why estate taxes disproportionately hit farmers in high tax high land cost states like CA, which has already hit them over and over and over again with high gas taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, vehicle fees, registration fees, high minimum wage, high business costs, etc. And that’s on top of the water wars, with politicians pandering to pot growers and going after orchards. Premium vineyards in Napa cost $400,000/acre. (https://www.farmprogress.com/crops/california-farmland-values-decline-2017) Why in the world would you pick Wisconsin?
Why Trump’s tax bill, that Democrats HATE, was so critical to helping farmers in 2017, and why it needs to become permanent.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/11/08/estate-tax-forces-farmers-play-defense-editorials-debates/846267001/
The 2017 tax bill was a good first step, but it is not permanent, and so the same problem will come around again in 2025. In addition, the large farms are still impacted, and they have the same problem – land rich, cash poor.
I do not believe in any estate tax, not for the middle class and not for the rich. Every dollar we earn is taxed over and over again. Income tax, payroll tax, SS tax, sales tax, gas tax, use tax, road fees, school fees… there are as many taxes as politicians have imagination, and their imagination is rich. At the end of it all, what is left over from this series of taxes, is taxed again before being given to heirs, who would immediately pay additional taxes on investments, interest, income, property taxes, etc. It’s taxed in the handing over, and then in the owning. That is like double jeopardy for taxes.
We need to do away with it. All of the other taxes are plenty. Politicians need to stop putting their hands out for more and more and more of what we earned, made, and produced. The hunger is insatiable.
Perhaps a cut out for legitimate family farms in the estate tax would be a good resolution to your concerns.
It is estimated that approx. 1700 estates were subject to this tax for 2018.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/so-how-many-people-actually-pay-americas-estate-tax-2018-10-03
From November of 2017:
ABOUT 20 FARMS PER YEAR SUBJECT TO ESTATE TAX
As Republicans push ahead with their tax reform plan, the small farmer is again invoked. This time it’s about the estate tax. During a September speech in North Dakota, President Donald Trump declared, “We’ll … protect small businesses and family farmers here in North Dakota and across the country by ending the death tax.” He added: “Tremendous burden for the family farmer, tremendous burden. We are not going to allow the death tax or the inheritance tax or the whatever-you-want-to-call-it to crush the American Dream.”
But few farmers put the elimination of this tax on the top of their wish lists. Only about 20 farms a year are subject to any inheritance tax, and in almost all cases, those farms have adequate liquid assets to cover the taxes without having to sell any part of the business to do so. After searching for 35 years for one example of a family farm that was lost due to the estate tax, Iowa State professor Neil Harl stated simply, “It’s a myth.”
It is a sales pitch, nothing more, again capitalizing on that mystique of the family farm that people hold so dear. Getting rid of the estate tax is a gift to the very rich, not to farmers. As the old saying goes, ask a farmer what she would do if she won a million dollars. The answer: Keep farming till it runs out.
While estate taxes are not a threat to the family farm, we face plenty of other challenges. But you’ll never see politicians tackle the greatest threat to the family farmer: unfairly low prices for our products.
Farmers, no matter what they produce, are always encouraged to produce more, with no question how much might be too much. Agricultural research focuses on increased yield, be it milk, corn, soy, poultry or any other agricultural commodity.
Edited from: “Stop Pretending The Estate Tax Has Anything To Do With The Family Farm”
THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE
11/16/17
THE ABOVE ARTICLE was written by a Wisconsin Dairy Farmer for the Chicago Tribune. The article goes on to say that current business models, and even government policies, are encouraging farms to get ever bigger. Consequently the entire business of agriculture is undoubtedly going corporate. So losing the family farm to estate taxes is not a paramount concern to authentic family famers. Just staying in business is a worry in itself.
P Hill – the family farms that I personally known are now incorporated for tax and inheritance purposes. They are still family farms.
P Hill – you claimed the problem was a myth. I have linked articles from a university and agricultural estate planning discussing how to organize your farm and estate plan to avoid such taxes.
You said if I provided evidence it wasn’t a myth, you’d admit it.
“ABOUT 20 FARMS PER YEAR SUBJECT TO ESTATE TAX”
AFTER MOST OF THE FAMILY FARMERS HAVE BEEN DRIVEN OUT OF BUSINESS THE SHILL NOW STATES THAT THE PROBLEM DOESN’T AFFECT THE FAMILY FARM.
As farm values increased the taxes increased as well but the actual revenues of the family farm could not keep up with the taxes. A read of the following from 1978 dealing with tax consequences might help some get a better understanding of the problem:
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/bibarticles/hoodetal_tax.pdf
Peter, obviously doesn’t have any understanding what so ever and quotes articles that are related but do not demonstrate the problem. Did the article even mention the disappearance of the previously common family farm? No. But we are dealing with Peter Shill where intellect is not part of the discussion.
The demise of small farms has been going on since the 19th century and has very little if anything to do with the estate tax, first promoted by TR. I ran a gentleman’s farm for a family a long time ago and met and worked with many neighbors who were real farmers trying to get by. The value of the land was worth more than the return they might get in a good year, though none were in estate tax territory.
“The demise of small farms has been going on since the 19th century”
Yes. The article I posted was to demonstrate a part of the problem.
” has very little if anything to do with the estate tax”
Wrong. That the family farm might have disappeared without the estate tax is probably at least in part true, but to say it had little to do with the estate tax is an expression of ignorance. The substantial tax levied on the farm was not accompanied by an increase in revenue. Do the math.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/letters/articles/2017-10-03/the-estate-tax-has-real-negative-consequences-for-farmers-and-ranchers
Trump provided relief to a great many family farms with his tax bill in 2017. A great many farms were valued over $5 million, which was the trigger prior. As I’ve mentioned repeatedly, the tax relief expires in 2025. Therefore, the estate tax is of concern to both the surviving large family farms that have weathered all prior attempts to break them up, as well as farms worth over $5 million, because 2025 will be here before you know it.
Farming is a small world. A lot of these families are known. They matter.
Why do farmers depend upon illegal aliens?
For one, they are readily available cheap labor, who have undercut anyone else from those jobs. When I was a kid, teenagers used to raise money mowing lawns. Landscapers and landscape architects tended to yards. I have not seen a landscaping crew without illegal aliens for many years. Most crews have chainsaws and pruners, and zero training, passing themselves off as arborists as they top beautiful old trees, up and down the street. Ruinous. I knew a landscaper who was going out of business, years ago, because he could not compete with illegal alien crews underbidding him.
Frankly, there are many industries now saturated with illegal aliens. It is impossible to compete, because if you pay good wages and benefits, you cannot compete with their bids. CA votes for higher wages and benefits, but pays for none of that when it comes to their own child care, lawns, house cleaning, or remodeling.
That might be the current state of affairs, but it is not a good thing. Illegal alien workers on conventional farms are exposed to pesticides and herbicides, even while pregnant. There have been scandals with birth defects and miscarriages and neurological problems.
CA, especially, has been guilty of creating a caste system, with illegal immigrants doing the dirty work. Were it not for this never ending source of cheap labor, willing to work for cash under the table at lower rates than legal residents or citizens, there might be more drivers for improved conditions. This also leads to racism, as the worst jobs are deemed fit for illegal aliens. We have been through this, as a country, before with other groups of people. This is nothing to defend.
We need to make illegal immigration far more difficult, and remove any rewards for jumping the line. Enforce work and student visas.
We would not starve to death if illegal immigration shut off. It would be a rough few years, as this caste system is entrenched now. People have an expectation that they will find an illegal alien to do work for less than minimum wage and without any benefits or work comp. They would have to adjust. You might see teenagers mowing lawns again, or working summers on farms.
This is especially a problem in CA, which has the highest taxes in the nation. Land is also typically more expensive, and therefore easier to exceed the threshold for estate taxes. There is a lot of worry about not only current estate tax laws, but also the expiration of the protection in 2025.
I wonder if reimbursing your attorney for his payout of hush money on your behalf qualifies as a business expense?
That depends upon the tax filing status for the Trump Organization. There are several options available to privately-owned limited liability corporations. And those options for tax filing status effect the limits for campaign contributions from the Trump Organization to the Trump campaign. It’s a thicket of buckthorns at the bottom of a morass. And prime habitat for poison sumac, as well.
It is quite telling, that at no point do you claim that his not turning over his taxes is illegal. Which of course it is not. Nor have you suggested that taking the tax breaks he does is illegal. Which it is not. If you do not like the way the tax laws are structured than convince Congress to change those laws. Until such time as the laws are changed there are no business men who are not going to take advantage of the legal deductions and laws allowed under the law. There is nothing legally or morally wrong in doing so. Most people filing personal income taxes also attempt to take advantage of every possible deduction, credit, etc to lower their tax burden as well. That is why tax preparation is such a large and profitable business in this country. A simple flat tax with no deductions allowed to anyone would end this problem.
VIRTUALLY ALL INTELLIGENTLY RUN BUSINESSES ARE BUILT ON TAX AVOIDANCE IN THE US
IN SOME PARTS OF THE WORLD VIRTUALLY ALL INTELLIGNETLY RUN BUSINESSES ARE BUILT ON BRIBERY.
It seems Peter Hill has yet to rid himself of his diapers. Let’s focus on one of the wealthiesst men in the country today. Warren Buffett is one of the most successful investors of all time. At least in recent times he has prominently supported Democratic candidates for the Presidency but spreads money all around like most businessmen, even Trump. Remember its hard to survive in this world when the politicians don’t like you (that is an element of fascism). He actually built his business so he would pay as little taxes as possible. Imagine that, since Warren Buffett was hypocritically complaining about our tax laws. He wants Americans to pay more taxes. I won’t say whether he is right or wrong but when he dies he is giving billions away to charities and denying the federal government money he never paid taxes on and won’t pay taxes on after he is dead. What he is saying is that he is a hypocrite and feels that he knows how to use his money better than government. If he wasn’t such a hypocrite he would make his donations subject to the normal tax that exists when he dies.
Alan, I suspect that ‘you’ are just slightly more stable than Estovir. But not by much!
Peter, at least you didn’t tell me to drop dead like you told the other individual. That makes me feel so safe and cozy. But I still wonder why you didn’t already know what that commenter was talking about?
Did you ever think about Warren Buffett’s tax avoidence schemes that in dollar terms are many multiples of what Trump has ever earned or said he earned? I guess not or you would have told us your side of the story. Do you have a presentable side? I don’t think so. In fact you never responded to the substance of Anonymous’s posting just like you didn’t respond to mine. You are vacuous.
If you want a business sector not preoccupied with tax avoidance, you have to radically simplify the tax code and end sectoral preferences. The Democrats are more averse to this than the Republicans, but the bon-bons-for-business faction among Republicans in Congress is probably the majority. The bon-bons go to politically-connected sectors.
Absolutely. Tax avoidance pushes people to dig a hole and bury money instead of investing it in our economy. If we didn’t have the crazy economics of the ignorant, productivity would boom and we would not have debt or problems paying for today’s entitlements.
Deductions and exemptions are properly excised, Peter. The challenge is getting the excisions past all the members of Congress who act as shills for various business sectors which benefit from the preferences. Or, in this case, from regional interests. If Connecticut taxpayers are dissatisfied with the state-and-local tax bite, the Connecticut legislature can make the necessary adjustments. The state and local deduction allowed for cost-shifting to other states. If you want to cost shift, you can make use of general revenue sharing distributed according to a formula which provides enhanced distributions to impecunious jurisdictions. That would be the insular dependencies, the Deep South, Appalachia, and the northern Plains and Rockies. Instead, you want to be perverse and subsidize DC, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, all of which are comparatively affluent.
The problem with the tradition of submitting tax returns is that it discourages non-career politicians from running for high office. It is also not fair that all other politicians do not disclose theirs.
Everyone wants to save money, whether they are rich or poor. Tax accountants and attorneys advertise their services as saving you all the money you are legally allowed, and not paying a dime more than you owe.
People who are self employed, investors, and officers of companies would have the most write offs. Carrying forwards losses is also a legal way to save money. It would be irresponsible of any tax accountant not to do so.
Politicians, on the other hand, do not have the same write offs as business owners. They have cushy benefits at taxpayer expense. They have years in advance to craft their taxes for maximum public palatibility. If they one day plan to run for President, then they plan accordingly. They also have the advantage of lucrative speaking deals, getting rich on their political fame. They don’t have to build anything, invent anything, or employ anyone. They can give speeches and sell political access.
Trump has been audited multiple times. I would support all politicians at all levels of office being required to disclose all financial ties they have. Perhaps an automatic audit. I think they are entitled to their privacy on their tax returns.
I do not like the class warfare employed by Democrat politicians to buy votes. We have seen this Left tactic before – against the bourgeoise, the 1%, the successful Jews, Ukrainian farmers unwilling to give up their land, the rich…Demonize someone and convince the masses that they took something from them. It is horrifying the lengths that people will go to when their government makes an enemy out of a group or class of people.
Oh, God. You again with your Faux News “class warfare employed by Democrat politicians to buy votes” crap. Karen, Honey–what does it take to penetrate your skull with the fact that MOST Americans don’t approve of Trump, didn’t vote for him, and want him gone? No Democrats purchased votes. Whose votes? When and where were they purchased? How much was paid? Where’s the proof? Just because Hannity and Rush say it and you want to believe it doesn’t make it the truth. Do you have any facts? You keep wanting to believe that you Trumpsters represent the mainstream of American, altruistic values and ideals, and that he occupies the White House because he is an honorable person who validly and legally got elected and is fabulously wealthy on his own because he’s a “very stable genius…in astonishingly good health.” Libs, Dems and “the left” are trying depose this honorable man who deserves to be President because he won the election fair and square. Those beliefs drive the drivel you publish, and they are all fantasies. Is in indeed ironic that they have convinced you that Democrats are the ones brainwashing the masses.
If Trump is honest, hasn’t cheated on his taxes and really is as wealthy as he would have everyone believe, he’d be proud to show his returns. What does he have to hide, anyway? We already know from Michael Cohen’s testimony that he keeps 2 sets of books –one for the IRS and another for Forbes so that it will report an inflated personal worth for a higher ranking. How do you know whether Trump has been audited multiple times? Did Hannity tell you that? Even so, who cares? All other Presidential candidates have voluntarily disclosed their tax returns. Why won’t he?
There is no denying that Russians interfered with the 2016 elections, that Trump and his campaign met with Russians to get dirt on Hillary and lied about the reason for the meeting, that the campaign provided polling information to Russians who used it to target social media in key states, and that Trump lied about ongoing negotiations with Russians even after he obtained the nomination. What else has he lied about? To whom does he owe money? We know he and Jared have been trying to borrow money from Russians and Saudi Arabians because they have defaulted on too many loans and no one else will finance them. Are they beholden to Russians and Saudi Arabians? Is this why Trump won’t condemn MBS for murdering Jamaal Kashoggi or Putin and Russia for interfering with our elections? We also know that Jared tried to establish a secret back-channel communication link with Russia. Is Jared being in bed with Saudis and/or Russians the reason why Trump overruled the NSA’s rejection of Jared multiple times for high security clearances? We need to know these things, because of the risk to our national security. Tax returns will help fill in some of the missing pieces.
Anonymous – I am married, faithful, and straight. Please stop coming on to me with pet names. I have already asked you to stop. At this point it is sexual harassment. I am not your honey, baby, or sweetie, and I am not interested in you in that way.
#MeToo
Trump has failed to supply his tax records in a departure from decades of tradition.
How does one fail tradition? I can see he has not followed tradition, or is ignoring tradition, or bucking tradition. But to claim he has failed tradition implies he is somehow obligated to it, and he is not. The legal recourse for this was defeating him in the electoral college. Oops! Failing that, the lawfarists turn to the administrative state to do their political work. And the nincompoops that put these lawfarists in office will applaud the beast; well as long as that beast is targeting their political enemy.
https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2019/03/12/39580271/bill-requiring-presidential-candidates-to-release-tax-returns-passes-washington-senate
Olly,
This just past in WA. State; I’m not sure if a state can impose that requirement on a candidate for a federal office. If there were a challenge to this, I don’t know how the courts would rule.
Leaving that aside, there’s a real risk to Trump that he may not carry Washington in 2020😄.
(Washington and Oregon have become about as reliably Democratic-voting as California in recent decades).
In a letter to lawmakers issued earlier today, Ferguson said the proposal would “probably not” violate the Presidential Qualifications Clause in the Constitution because it wouldn’t “exclude or handicap any class of candidates.” He also said it would “probably not” violate the Presidential Elections Clause because the measure wouldn’t mess with a party’s “internal processes” for selecting a candidate.
Probably not, huh? It would exclude the class of candidates that opposed voluntarily providing their tax returns. It would mess with a party’s internal processes if that party does not require their candidates to provide the tax returns.
They might as well declare that the state legislature will decide what candidate will be awarded their electoral college votes, regardless of what the popular vote is.
If this passes it will most certainly get tied up in court and eventually find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. It won’t survive.
It would handicap business owners, especially small business owners.
Small business owners are not “handicapped” by holding the Office of the President of the United States.
How many more times will you make The Most Powerful Man on the Face of The Earth go run and hide behind the skirts of the “little guys”?????
Why? I’m a small business owner. I don’t see the problem.
Anon, why do you always think that problems are based solely on a reflection of your own problems? Don’t you think people have diverse interests and needs? Would you feel comfortable releasing every bit of financial data you have in your business? Would you want your competitors to know if you are getting a better price or exactly what you use to make a superior product? Do you make sure all your employees, if you have any employees where you file a W40, are permitted to see everyone elses returns including bonus’s? Maybe you would but in a lot of businesses that could cause a lot of internal problems. In fact some businesses do everything they can to prevent discussions involving salary and benefits. Some of your suppliers would most likely object.
I asked Karen why it should be a problem for small business people to provide their tax returns. As a small businessman who at one time was in a partnership, but now run a Subchapter S corporation, I have some familiarity with what’s required.
Anon, you have a familiarity with what is required for you but I don’t think you are trying to tell us that you are an expert in everyone else’s finances. I don’t think you are. I have rather complex tax returns and they involve more than one business and I don’t think I am as expert as you seem to think you are.
I didn’t say I was expert but I have experience and am familiar with the forms and concepts. I think I would understand Karen’s concerns if she stated them.
Anon, I know you are not an expert and it was proven when your comment erred with regard to what is released with publically open tax returns. Maybe you also now understand that your experiences are very limited and don’t provide you good insight into the forms other people file.
We get back to the underlying question, what do you expect to find in Trump’s tax forms that will significantly better educate us on important things we didn’t know and didn’t have any idea of? That is the least you can provide for us after all the postings you have made on this subject.
Sure. Did he pay any taxes, is he is as wealthy as he claims, is in he serious debt, do they comport with what is known about his business dealings? Based on an exhaustive NYT’s report of about 6 months ago, he and his father misrepresented their finances on previous returns in ways that would be prosecutable if not beyond the statute if limitations.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html
” Did he pay any taxes”
Anon, that is not the question that should be asked. The question is did he follow the law and since he has had extensive audits and found to have followed the law the answer is clear. He is innocent. Are you saying he is guilty of tax evasion? Where is your proof that the IRS agreed with you.
“is he is as wealthy as he claims,”
Are you as good as you claim to be? The country voted with full knowledge that no one (and likely not even Trump himself) knows his exact self worth. However, let’s compare what you have done and what he has done. His buildings are still standing and the total taxes reaped by cities is tremendous. They house many people. They offer beautiful surroundings to millions of people that have visited the atriums and stores. What have you done?/.??.÷?.÷?.?≥÷?≥÷?≥/?≥÷?≥÷?≥÷
?≥
“Did he pay any taxes”
Anon, he has been audited by the IRS and found to have paid his taxes. Are you suddenly accusing the IRS of acting inappropriately? Remember the IRS was in Democratic hands prior to Trump being elected. What is your point?
“is he is as wealthy as he claims,”
What is your point? He has built numerous buildings that pay tremendous amounts of taxes. He houses tremendous numbers of people and has shopping malls within some of the structures that millions of people take advantage of. His contributions will last a long time. What have you done? Should we ask about your wealth and how it was obtained? If it is legal the answer is it is none of our business.
“is in he serious debt”
Where did Obama’s money come from? Who paid for his education? Those might be questions asked but Obama had no legal obligation to provide such answers and didn’t. He was elected President and those questions almost completely disappeared..
“NYT’s report of about 6 months ago”
NYT’s says a lot of things that aren’t true and don’t hold water. Trump and his father were in the spotlight and somehow not found to have broken any laws. Despite the spotlight no criminal action has ever been found against Donald Trump. This last investigation found nothing as well even though the special prosecutor was biased and has been involved in political activities including those involving the IRS scandal.
Anon, you throw out a lot of stuff without any proof what so ever. That is known as shooting blanks. To do what you are attempting to do you need proof and a cogent argument. You have neither.
Allan, I’m not running for office, but if my dad had set me up like Trump’s perhaps the buildings I have constructed, and which I assure you are admired and some AIA and City government award winning, might have been bigger – I primarily build single family residences – and certainly more plentiful. Maybe I wouldn’t have left a trail of ripped off subs and investors holding the bag along the way like Trump did – hopefully at least.
One of Trump’s primary campaign boasts and still while in office is how rich he is. I think it’s a reasonable question to ask.
“Allan, I’m not running for office”
You aren’t Anon, but Trump is President and we need non professional leaders that bring reality to D.C. They don’t intend to stay around for a lifetime so they prefer to keep their proprietary business secret so they can return and earn their money off of their business rather than living off the taxpayer. He has been audited, investigated and everything else but you keep making claims without proof.
You don’t demonstrate the ability to enter the political arena and lead but maybe someone thinks you have been involved in poor business practices making it difficult for them to survive. According to your type of thinking that is enough to have your taxes and all other information revealed.
What Trump has done is clearly revealed on the streets of NYC and other cities. You are shooting blanks and just looking to see what other garbage you can throw for solely political reasons.
It seems your major question is “how rich he is.”.
For that to become an issue you have to tell us why it is important and prove it. I don’t think Trump knows how much he is worth and his net worth changes with the economy and who is doing the calculation. A better economy improves his net worth. The calculations of net worth are very complex and vary. What calculations do you wish to use? Where on the tax forms does one’s full net worth exist? I guess you know less about the tax forms than previously suggested.
Allan, I get that you don’t want Trump’s tax returns made public and have no interest in verifying what he claimed were important keys as to he was as a person and candidate. You’re welcome to that opinion, as well as your apparent judging of Trump being more truthful than the NYTs. We’ll have to respectfully – or not – disagree on these questions.
“Allan, I get that you don’t want Trump’s tax returns made public and have no interest in verifying what he claimed ”
No Anon, I want to follow the law something you don’t seem to respect. He made claims and I evaluated those claims along with his refusal to release his tax returns. I saw nothing of importance in such a release. I wanted certain things released by Obama to understand how his political beliefs evolved, far more important to the thinking individual. He became President and that ended the question.
You don’t even have the ability to provide an argument as to what you would learn about Trump that would affect his ability in the office of the Presidency.
I’ll ask again. What exactly do you hope to learn from the IRS forms? You have told us a few things that would not be revealed in those forms. You are acting like a mouthpiece meant only to distribute talking points.
Allan, I made no claims that are not in the public record. I’m favoring him voluntarily releasing his tax returns as every other major candidate since Carter has done. Why any self respecting voter would object to that is really beyond me, though clearly many here want them to remain secret.
I would also favor a law being passed – not retroactively – making it a requirement of all candidates for federal office. There could be a work around for those holding to the sacredness of their returns – to date no other presidential candidate had a problem with that – allowing for independent analysis with financial statements which would be released to the public.
How’s that?
” I’m favoring him voluntarily releasing his tax returns”
Oh no, that is not true. You want those tax returns to hold the nation hostage and Congress to deal with the tax returns while America and the American people are left to suffer the inadequacies of their Congress. You bounce all around the issue and when a point becomes untenable you flip back and forth between phony points. You do not seem to have the backbone to actually defend what you say.
A law for all is one of the few positions that you have taken and that you have taken a responable defined position is good. I don’t know if that will fix the problem, but it is certainly worth considering so I have a good deal of agreement with you. I might suggest adding more meat to such a law so that their post legislation lobbying is also looked into. My suspicion is that everything we try to do will be twisted and not effective. I therefore, decided to support term limits so that there was a restraint on professional politicians. However, your desire for Congress to politically target Trump is abominable
Allan,
“Is he as healthy as he says?” Here’s my understanding re Trump’s wealth; either Trump is exaggerating his net worth, or if he isn’t, he got much of it illegally by profiteering off his presidency, emoluments😄😀, etc.
So “the bases are covered” either way, regardless of his true net worth. If he’s not “as wealthy” as claimed, he’s lying.
If he “as wealthy” as he claims, it’s evidence of corruption and misusing his office for financial gain.
That’s the “win-win”, loaded position about Trump’s actual or purported wealth.
Hey Tom, I like the way you think. Too bad that your second option would require actual proof, like a significant jump in income since he took office and further information like where it came from. If you’re willing to drop those minor details, I’m all in.
Tom, one of the few things I feel confident of is that he has lost a lot of money by becoming President.
The AOC crowd are absent data and knowledge.
On your later points, none of that information is in your tax returns.
In the quote below at the bottom, I asked you about your comfort level in releasing financial information. You didn’t provide an answer. You were also wrong that a release of everyone’s tax information wouldn’t pertain to some of what I wrote. What you are really saying is that you want to see something you are not entitled to see but perhaps you want to hide those things that affect you. There is an hypocricy to that type of answer. It is really a dodge of the question.
Moreover, the things that demonstrate criminal action aren’t generally in the tax returns of one who has been audited multiple times. Indirectly you admit that the tax forms aren’t providing much of anything except gossip and amunition to rile up some of the tribes against some of the others.
I also ask again, what do you believe you will find in Trump’s tax returns that will enlighten you other than the desire to create tribal warfare? If we did the same to you we could accuse you of cheating whether you did or not. We could audit your tax returns and see what nails were for your personal use and taken off your taxes. Was the milage on your car really for business? Are you paying rent on any of your tools that you use outside of the job? Did you get any cash? Did you return anything and get cash back that you didn’t declare but billed to your business? There is no end to this type of garbage and even after the audit we could continue to accuse of wrongdoing forever. That is not productive.
“Would you feel comfortable releasing every bit of financial data you have in your business? Would you want your competitors to know if you are getting a better price or exactly what you use to make a superior product? Do you make sure all your employees, if you have any employees where you file a W40, are permitted to see everyone elses returns including bonus’s? Maybe you would but in a lot of businesses that could cause a lot of internal problems. In fact some businesses do everything they can to prevent discussions involving salary and benefits. Some of your suppliers would most likely object.”
Tax returns do not provide any of the information you are concerned with.
An accusation requires no proof; that’s why they’ve been common as dirt in hundreds if not thoysands of comments here.
Oh well. If that’s a problem, don’t run for office.
I see that Anon subscribes to the belief that our leaders should be among the least accomplished in our society.
Anon – if you write anything off or carry any losses, that would be a problem. The rhetoric is that tax deductions are unfair if utilized by anyone of upper middle class or higher.
Karen, why would that be a problem unless you have misrepresented something or somehow abused the code?
Why were you at least in past postings complaining about Trump’s very large carry over losses? That has been investigated and Trump didn’t violate any rules. These deals involving Trump that you believe are crooked were created mostly by Democratic governments. Is that what you want to look at on his tax returns? The information is already available and has been looked at over and over again.
Deals like these are done by cities all the time. AOC thinks like you do and she cost NYC 25,000 jobs that would have been placed in a favorable location. Of course AOC got all the data wrong and made a lot of stupid statements that weren’t true. I am not saying that the Amazon deal should have been taken by NY rather the rationals behind not taking the deal were based on the same factual errors as we are seeing every day when Trump is being bashed by the left wing talking points.
Me? Don’t think I’ve done that and don’t know what they are.
Don’t care what AOC says or what others say about her.
Anon, take note that you didn’t bother to respond to “Trump’s very large carry over losses? That has been investigated and didn’t violate any rules. These deals involving Trump that you believe are crooked were created mostly by Democratic governments. Is that what you want to look at on his tax returns?” which seems to be at the center of your obsessions.
You may not care about what AOC says, but you think like her. 25,000 jobs were at stake and lost. Like most of your answers AOC’s discussion on those jobs were filled with elementary errors.
I did respond. I told you I didn’t comment on Trump’s “carry over losses”, so the question is not relevant to me. I don’t know any details about them. You’ve got the wrong guy.
“I did respond. I told you I didn’t comment on Trump’s “carry over losses”, so the question is not relevant to me.”
No you didn’t respond. You made loads of comments and I asked you.
“Why were you at least in past postings complaining about Trump’s very large carry over losses? ”
Is that a point you wish to concede that Trump’s carry over losses were reasonable? If you do then your complaints about Trump’s low taxes in some years have been explained and your claims about what he paid are nonsense. That means that many of the reasons it seems you have to want Trump’s taxes have disappeared.
Again I ask what is it on Trump’s tax returns that you need to see?
Anon – you and many others have complained about Trump using tax deductions and carryovers. Those are part of the tax law. If you ran for high office, your own use of every tax deduction open to you would come under scrutiny.
You can’t have it both ways – complain about someone following existing tax law in order to not pay a single dime more than necessary, and then wonder what is wrong with following exiting tax laws and not paying a single dime more than necessary.
I am surprised by Mr. Turley’s response to this. Surey he agrees breaking tradition is not against the law.
*surely
Yes, and Trump with his large business interests will have a tax return that will be very complex. Great fodder for political potshots but beyond all but the most accomplished tax experts to decipher.
The tax code is thousand of pages. It is complex and the average voter will find it unreadable if they ever tried.
Trump’s business ventures are equally complicated. If ten neutral unbiased tax attorneys/CPAs analyze Trump’s tax returns they will likely calculate ten different tax liabilities.
The liberal arts majors/political activists who get paychecks as “journalists” won’t have a clue how to decipher any of it. Most them are Trump haters, so they will focus on the analysis that portray’s Trump’s tax returns in the worst possible way.
There’s nothing but headaches for Trump if he releases them. That, of course, is why Democrats want them.
Pretending the motive is anything but political strikes me as disingenuous.
I would bet those in congress who vote on such tax laws could not fully understand it.
How dare you doubt the intellect of Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Nancy Pelosi
Yeah but Trump has already said that he’ll release them when he’s not under audit. So he’s not buying into your comment, at least not publicly, yet. Under your supposition, he should have said that he won’t release them at all.
Just another Dem.delusion.
No part of Congress should be using its power to advance their political goals. We saw the DOJ, the IRS and the FBI weaponized for political reasons. Now some in Congress wish to weaponize Congress itself and all agencies for political gain and not for benefit of the people they serve. Those attempting to do such a thing seem to love themselves more than they love America.
Do we wish the President to do the same? I don’t think so. In a war like this the nation loses.
Apparently in a coma for the last decade.
What I remember about the last decade was Lois Lerner, do you? But that was ok right?
Shhh, don’t disturb Anon while he’s processing your questions. Maybe, just maybe his comment was a self-reflection and he considers your questions redundant. Ah, yeah, no; I’m going with option 1.
I have a job.dude.
Yeah, I remember Lerner and 10 Benghazi hearings, back in the good old days when congress wasn’t running politically driven investigations.
Well good for you. Your mom must be so proud.
The only time I can recall congress wasn’t running politically driven investigations is when they bent over for the uber president and the lawfarists in his administration.
Anon, why do you always deflect very important issues? What Lois Lerner did at the IRS was tell every American that government lawlessness is acceptable. This involved private people not in the broader public eye. I will repeat, the IRS exists to provide money for government operation and services. It doesn’t exist as a political football for any party, any corporation or any individual. You have a job. Is that a reason to look at only one side of the coin? When a nation becomes too self serving it gives up the right to govern itself.
In all fairness, I believe Anon mentioning his job was to explain why he hadn’t yet responded. However, when he did respond he completely whiffed on the issue of the lawfarists at the IRS.
I am waiting for real answers to real questions that don’t involve talking points that have little merit. We aren’t hearing these answers but we will hear how the President Lies and Fox News is bad. You served this nation for a reason, but if those are the issues the American people are interested in why did you serve? I’ll answer. Most Americans want to be left alone to do their jobs, raise a family in a secure environment and not have to worry about violence or criminal acts. How these short talking points respond to the needs of the working class family is beyond reason.
Anon, the weaponization of Congress and the bureaucracies such as the FBI is a more recent phenomenon though to a lesser extent it has occurred in the past. As far as Congress being in coma, I don’t think that is a very apt use of the word, I think you are looking at it in a totally partisan sense, but to me Congress has been “absent” at least in part for decades (good financially for our elected officials though not so good for the American people).. That is why the Supreme Court has become so important. Congress is using the Supreme Court to pass legislation that should have been dealt with by Congress. We have also seen Congress yield power to the executive branch because Congressional members are more interested in getting reelcted and satisfying their lobbyists than in running the country.
We also see another problem that increases the power of the executive branch and the courts, as well as Congress when Congress doesn’t give that power over to the other two branches. We are transferring power from the states to the federal government making the federal government so big that it has become very inefficient and power hungry along with becoming a bigger target for lobbyists. That creates a revolving door between large corporations and high office in the federal government. That leads to corpocracy or fascism.
While some focus too much on politics, I like to focus on our Constitutional Republic in a more general sense so that we do not permit powerful interests to gain too much control. While the left and right fight that is exactly what is happening.
Congress is using the Supreme Court to pass legislation that should have been dealt with by Congress.
In the interstices, in tangles over administrative regulations. (And here the DC Circuit may be more salient). The real outrages by the Supreme Court have concerned 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and the targets have been states and localities.
Again, the ratio of public expenditure to domestic product reached a plateau around about 1974.
The Noise Maker declared, “No part of Congress should be using its power to advance their political goals.”
Presumably The Noise Maker refers to the subpoena power of Congress. (Though it was explicitly stated.) Presumably the political “goals” at issue would be winning elections. (Though that was not explicitly stated either. Even so, on the odd chance that implied terms were correctly deduced, the resulting paraphrase of The Noise Maker’s declaration would read:
No majority party in Congress should use it subpoena power to advance its political aims at winning elections.
Therefore, The Noise Maker opposed the first and only declassification of a FISA warrant application. Or did he? D’oh! That one failed to win the election for that majority party.
Correction: (Though it was NOT explicitly stated.)
Diane, you are a Stalinist so you believe that once you get power you arrest everyone that opposes you and throw them into work camps where they are essentially slaves of the state rather than slaves on a plantation.
How could you tell, the Five Year Plan or the tractor production reports?
Actually those reports did not reflect economic reality and that was very costly to the Russian economy. Money was spent in the wrong places. Check out how the train may have been reasonably painted to satisfy your needs but the grain fell through the cracks in the car.
Maybe it was that statement that “Trump’s policies are shortening the lifespan of the average American”, when that extremely usually streak of lower U.S. life expectancies started BEFORE Trump was in office.
Let’s also get the tax records of all congressmen and women. I would like to see how they became so wealthy on such a meager salary.
What does the government pay for medical coverage for each Senator and Congress person? A lot. We need this to be revealed. The media needs to demand it. Congress won’t demand this and Trump probably will not either. Congress people do not deserve free medical care and coverage. They may be over age but there is no c spot. The women have a G spot but that is not relevant.
The president should say he will release his tax returns if every member of Congress releases their tax returns. It would be interesting to see how each member of Congress uses the system that they create to benefit themselves.
How about he will release his tax returns like every other president and major candidate since 1976 and at the same time support making it a law and to include Congress in the future. You OK with that?
Better for all Members of Congress.
that is justice that even you can support, amiright?
speak!
😜
Sure…require tax return disclosures for the past 6 years for all members of the House and Senate….that’s bound to pass easily.😉
I like that suggestion and the way and spirit in which it was made.
And yet Anon, balked at the idea with the usual “no response” comment
Anon is viewing Hitler videos to get more ideas on how to ax Amurikuns
Tom Nash – it’s only fair.
Anon, what you are saying is that you wish to pass rules after the fact. Why isn’t Congress passing budgets and making rules as to what a future Presidential candidate must release? We don’t pass laws to target single individuals. Joe Biden is being accused of all sorts of sexual acts where none of them seem to amount to much of anything. I don’t think anything he did was so terrible though perhaps some might convince me otherwise. What is being created is a sterile world where no affection what so ever can be offered.
I did not suggest making retroactive laws. If Trump had any facility for shame, he would have already released his returns, unless they may prove very damaging.
Right to privacy supersedes your desire to try to cook up some controversy that you feel is “damaging”.
Anon – it is indeed a retroactive law. Submitting tax returns was a recent tradition, not a requirement to become President. Now Congress is requiring it of someone who was already elected. That retroactively made it a requirement to become President. They have passed a requirement for another that they do not need to meet themselves.
If tax returns are a requirement for President, it should be a requirement for all political office, even at the state level. After all, inappropriate financial ties can lead to wrongdoing with members who sit on committees.
Personally, it’s the financial ties themselves that are relevant. Tax returns are governed by privacy laws.
Karen, there are good reasons for many in the lower office not to want to release there IRS forms. If such a release was made mandatory it might make many that could serve their office well decline to do so.
Allan – I wonder what Pelosi writes off? She owns a winery in the highest taxed state in the Union. Quid pro quo.
Personally, I believe tax returns should be private.
“Personally, I believe tax returns should be private.”
Yes I agree but our leaders have enriched themselves at the taxpayers expense so I think close accounting should be utilized to keep them honest while in office and afterwards. We need term limits and laws so that the revolving door doesn’t unfairly enrich the one willing to pay the most.
I have not proposed any specific law and avoiding making it retroactive would not be difficult. , Trump should release his returns as a matter of maintaining a tradition of a minimal level of financial transparency by presidential candidates. Why anyone would be trying to protect from well deserved criticism on this is beyond me, except they like being bs’ed or are afraid of what may come out.
Anon,Trump has already refused to release his returns because of an IRS audit. You are disagreeing with some members of Congress in their attempt to change the law in order to force Trump to release them. We agree.
Congress on both sides should stop wasting time on garbage and do their job.
There is no reason an audit would make releasing his returns a problem, and he’s been saying that for several years. You know he lies all the time, right?
Congress is subpoenaing his records.
and Hillary is running in 2020, 2024, 2028 and brandishing those same numbers on her prison cell too
Anon, on the one hand you state you don’t want to use politics to create a retroactive law. You even corrected one of my responses to let me know how you felt about a retroactive law. On the other hand your words show support for for the use of politics to force the President to release his tax forms. Apparently you are embarrased by the former but even though the latter might be worse for the nation (the former would be thrown out of court without great upset to the nation) you seem to support it while actively engaging in rhetoric that uses insult (he lies) rather than logic or intelligence.
“There is no reason an audit would make releasing his returns a problem,”
Are you a tax lawyer or a tax accountant? What authoritative source gave you this opinion, “There is no reason…”?
In any event he is already President and won the Presidency despite the public knowing this detail which isn’t very important. This argument is a substitute for legitimate discussion and is IMO a waste of time. Other than to create political havoc and a talking point what are you looking for that you can’t get in the NYC investigative records and reports done whenever a building is buit and the records from the gaming comission when casino’s were built in Atlantic City or the tax form that was illegaly released a year or two ago?
“If Trump had any facility for shame, he would have already released his returns, unless they may prove very damaging.”
Anon, I should have added at the time that the issue of Trump releasing his tax returns came up during his campaign. He refused to do so and that was his legal right. The IRS exists to fund government and the military, not to particpate in party politics though it seems that is what some people wish to use it for even though that type of use is destructive to the nation.
In any event Trump’s refusal to release his taxes was more than adequately known during the election and the people voiced their opinion when they voted. Trump won. Some are unable to act like adults and refuse to recognize the legal victory so all they do is complain about the election and continue fighting over an issue of taxes that should be moot.
Perhaps the IRS should release Trump’s tax records once they’ve released the Lois Lerner documents they “accidentally” destroyed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63XPv1F50S0
Remember when Lois Lerner sought to keep her testimony before Congress private?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CopCEXdGNGE
Dem were dah gud ol daze
If the president is forced to hand over his tax returns, can we then remove the IRS? Isn’t it their job to catch wrongdoing? It would seem unbelievable that they would have let President Trump off the hook for so long.
Thde purpose of releasing ax returns is not to catch illegality but to provide information to voters about the finances of candidates.
“Thde purpose of releasing ax returns…”
at least you admit that the Dems have an ax to grind in this latest despicable move of theirs so I will give you that
Ax away!
No, I didn’t admit that – didn’t watch the vid.
“releasing ax returns”
Democrats love to release their powerful ax at Deplorable Americans and wack them all to smithereens…
My or anyone else’s finances are not your business. Especially if the IRS has accepted the documents.
Wouldn’t law review papers and school documents provide information about the candidates. Why doesn’t Congress create a law of what should be released by any future Presidential nominee. I believe we should see Congress’s taxes before, during and after their service so that we can see that they aren’t enriching themselves while on the job. That is what many that came in poor and left as millionaires did. Maybe the release of taxes should also involve the taxes of the significant others and children.
US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin will block it.
Lois Lerner wrote the book on how to weaponize the IRS. Mnuchin will follow her lead
“Days later, Mnuchin “retracted his permission” to release video of his appearance and the university complied, according to the Wall Street Journal. The newspaper later reported that the Department of the Treasury objected to the video’s release because it provided a “platform for the non-student protesters, who sought to disrupt the event, at the expense of the otherwise thoughtful discussion.”
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/29/ucla-sued-for-not-releasing-records-related-to-speech-by-treasury-secretary-steven-mnuchin/amp/
“Mnuchin suggested in testimony to Congress last month that he would protect Trump’s privacy if the House Democrats requested his tax returns. “We will examine the request and we will follow the law … and we will protect the president as we would protect any taxpayer” regarding their right to privacy, Mnuchin said.”
https://www.chron.com/news/article/House-Democrats-ask-IRS-to-provide-Trump-s-tax-13740267.php
“There is no question that the Committee can demand such records from the IRS.”
Clearly the Dems embody the abuse of power that makes Americans seethe.
Another nail in the coffin for the already scorned Democrats.
“Republicans accused Mr. Neal of weaponizing the tax code and threatening other taxpayers’ privacy. They argued that the request was grounded in politics, not oversight.” “This particular request is an abuse of the tax-writing committees’ statutory authority,” Rep. Kevin Brady (R., Texas), the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, wrote to Mr. Mnuchin on Wednesday.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-ways-and-means-chairman-requests-trump-s-tax-returns-11554329362
Pencil Neck and others can “demand” anything they want to demand. It’s clear that Committee Chairmen’s demands can be rebuffed, or basically ignored.
Chairman PN could then take his case “to the people”, possibly even doing some TV interviews?
Pencil Neck would have to consult with Rachel Mad Dog Maddox to give him pointers to drive the number of viewers! 😜
Aren’t you too smart to engage in the juvenile trump mimicking?
No.
Tax records are confidential by law. Any citizen has a right to demand compliance, the voyeur interests of his political opponents notwithstanding. Trump has proven again and again he is not your typical politician. The Deep State can’t handle that so they attack what they can. The public looks on wondering why the official it elected is subjected to undeserved vituperative scrutiny. It’s the buildup to another Nixon-McGovern blowout in 2020. The Deep State will then be on life support. Here’s rooting for political euthanasia.
mespo is also rooting for political amnesia. Who is this Deep State and what have they done?
How does that scrub Trump of the accountability all previous Presidential candidates have provided us since Carter? It’s not like he’s been living on a school teachers salary all these years?
Anon:
Let me define it for you. The Deep State are those current and former members of the intelligence services and their willing apparatchiks in Congress and business who believe they run things since they know better. It’s composed of men like Clapper, Brennan and Comey and their flying monkeys who detest common folk and seek to feather their financial nests at their expense. Trump, for all his flaws, is the antidote to that and they hate him for it. What they’ve done is embroil us in unnecessary wars since Vietnam and made fat profits doing it. And lots of other nefarious things but you can read history as easily as I can.
All 3 are no longer in Government and I have not heard any evidence of them personally enriching themselves by their actions while in government. What wars has Trump removed us from and what other nefarious and more current deeds has this Deep State engaged in?
Crimea River
Anonymous,
Those are not disappointed Hillary voters on election night 2016; they are grieving because the Barr summary of the Mueller report means that the report will not be nearly as damning as they”d hoped😉
There were very high expectations that the Mueller report would destroy Trump and his presidency. Those hopes have been greatly diminished over the past couple of weeks.
Those who didn’t fall to pieces over the Hillary loss are now trying to “keep it together'” and brace for more disappointments now that Trump has been “completely vindicated”.
You’ve got that Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm outlook on life. Keep it, The rest of us will stay aware.
The “deep state” Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history.
The co-conspirators are:
Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Kadzic, Yates,
Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Steele, Simpson,
Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Kerry, Hillary,
Huma, Mills, Brennan, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett,
Sessions, Obama et al.
mespo is also rooting for political amnesia. Who is this Deep State and what have they done?
You don’t remember Lois Lerner and you don’t remember Peter Sztrok, Andrew McCabe, and Lisa Page. But you fancy someone else is suffering from ‘amnesia’. Yesterday, you tell me you’re betting Trump has Alzheimer’s. (Without realizing that Alzheimer’s damages one’s short-term memory ‘ere the late stages).
None of those people, save Lisa Page in diminished position remain in office, and the IG found no evidence of improper behavior by any of them except texting personal comments on a government cell phone and lying about accurately correcting a WSJ news article.
Got anything else, because that’s pretty weak tea.
None of those people, save Lisa Page in diminished position remain in office, and the IG found no evidence of improper behavior by any of them except texting personal comments on a government cell phone and lying about accurately correcting a WSJ news article.
You mean they got fired, ergo they did nothing?
The Inspector-General hasn’t completed his reports. Outside of his narrowly conceived mandate, we know perfectly well what they were doing, even if you refuse to acknowledge it.
You haven’t told us what the Deep State was doing. I’ve heard the nonsense and asked people of your ilk here repeatedly to describe how this maniacal group managed to protect Trump from almost the exact same information being released as that which ended up costing Hillary the election. If this is their conspiracy, that is some f… up results.
Surely you have something other than that nonsense, right?
“Surely you have something other than that nonsense, right?”
You people are so negative, so conspiratorial, so down on life. Get thee to a Nunnery…or ask Biden to grope you for cheap thrills
Anon has posed his “Deep State” question here about 10 times.
I commented on his “question” in at least one exchange with him.
If anyone wants to engage in a similar exchange and deal with his stream of demands of answers to his Deep State questions, here are some time-saving tips:
Anon has a specific Deep State theory about the 2016 election tampering by his version of the Deep State.
He will accept discussions to that align with his DS theory, while simultaneously maintaining the position that there is absolutely nothing to explain why others might think there’s a Deep State.
Additional pointers are available if anyone wants to play that game, determine what his position actually is, then untangle it all.
Set aside a few hours in anticipation of what will be involved in that.
Absurd,
For the variety Anon desires, you could always regurgitate HIS nonsense.
It would be agreeable were the Democratic Party electorally destroyed so that something better could take its place. The German Social Democrats and the French Socialists have been severely wounded in recent years, as has Israel’s Labor Party (sadly in that case as it is a much more appealing outfit).
I think the smart money is on the proposition that federal elections will continue to be closely contested. Neither party has had much of an advantage the last 50 years, though the specific properties of the competition between them have seen some evolution.
And yet the GOP has won one popular vote for president since 1992 (out of 7) and has a diminishing and narrow demographic base.
Good times.
The Democratic Party has one a majority in a presidential contest 3x since 1964. Barack Obama in 2008 did no better than George Bush in 1988, even though every contingency in the election of 2008 broke his way. During his time in office, the Democratic Party had a net loss of 1,000 state legislative seats. You’ve all controlled the House of Representatives for four of the last 24 years. Glad you’re satisfied.
Never satisfied, but as we all know presidential elections draw out more voters than mid-terms – usually the province of the old and angry – and as noted above, the demographics are promising.
“the demographics are promising….”
Yup. Agreed. Dems have lost their base and now they are sheeting up a storm desperate for relevancy.
Sux to be you
“Polling done by the Pew Research Center has suggested that among self-identified Democrats, blacks and Latinos are less likely to describe themselves as liberal than whites.
Data from this AP/NORC poll comports with Pew’s findings: The majority of blacks say they are moderate (44 percent) or conservative (27 percent), while just 26 percent said that they are liberal.
Forty percent of blacks in this survey said they live in suburban areas, and 19 percent said they live in rural areas. Often “inner-city” and “urban” are used to describe black people or black communities, but that perception is no longer accurate. (Census data shows that the majority of blacks do not live in cities.)”
https://fivethirtyeight.com/
Look at voting dude and get back to us.
Yeah, Hillary lost ….twice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrWzBg475Q8
The US Constitution is not on your side
Next you will celebrating Adolph Hitler’s concentration camps of Americans you deem deplorable
Stalin we hardly knew ye
Actually, the Democratic Party’s support for Social Security and Medicare is prolonging the lives of Trump’s base even while Trump’s policies are shortening the average life expectancy of Americans.
I have noted that the U.S. has experienced almost unprecedented back to back years of higher mortality and lower lower life exlentencies in 2015, 2016, and (likely) 2017.
I don’t know if the results for 2017 have been finalized, but it looked like we were heading for three consecutive years of lowered life expectancy based on preliminary statistics.
This happened in the years after ObamaCare was enacted, but I stopped short of claiming a cause and effect relationship….that would be “stretching it”.
To claim that Trump policies are responsible for lower life expectancies in the years Obama was president isn’t just stretching it….it’s moronic.
What makes you assume that I was referring to the past? Did you not know about my propensity for making predictions? Did they not tell you about my crystal ball?
I presented those past years of declning life expectancies for the purpose of demonstrating how stupid your claim was that Trump’s policies are shortening American lifespans.
How did he manage to do that before he was even in office?
Intersex coal use and weakening of EPA rules are likely to affect the health of Americans negatively, though it’s too early to have data on that and the connections may be difficult to prove.
Anon, there are consequences and unintended consequences. The unintended consequences of Obama’s actions caused great harm to the economy. That loss in job opportunity, higher wages, etc. also affects the health of society and leads to less money available for our entitlements and people in need.
No one wants rampant pollution but I believe everyone wants our standard of living to increase especially the standard of living of the minorities. There is a balance and your objections don’t seem to recognize that such a balance exists.
The white population of the US will continue to grow, but not as fast as other groups.. You misread the facts and implications of this issue.
Anin:
Your read of the fertility rates of conservative Christians (especially Mormons and Amish) is different than mine then. I guess even you agree that secular leftists aren’t meeting the replacement rate as every study shows. 1.5 kids per couple won’t cut it. Too busy protesting I suppose.
White people are declining as a percent of the US population.
And Blacks, Latinos and Asians have abandoned the Democrats as trends report
Good luck to you in Venezuela
Well, fortunately we have suburban Republicans to fall back on if the 2018 election trends continue. Blacks going for 92 to 91 % could really hurt!
Let us know when Americans start rooting for Dems because thus far Cory Brooks, et al, are turning white from their shock of having no traction
Ahhhhh, when race baiting was a guaranteed win for LBJ times. Dem were the gud ol dayz
Again your read of the manifest demographics is wrong. Hispanic couples and mixed Hispanic-Caucasian couples overwhelmingly identify as “white.” In addition, offspring of Hispanics and Hispanic-Caucasian couples identify as “white” 70% of the time. That insures a white identifying nation for generations.
Zeus, why is that so important to you? Are you scared of your shadow, too?
Depending upon the details in the fine print, electoral destruction might be fair game. But I wouldn’t sign it without reading that fine print. And neither would Triply Absurd.
Hear, hear!
We should have seen this coming in 1999/2000. The leftists will never accept defeat. So they are trying to find something, anything to boot him out of office. Meanwhile, Omar used campaign money to divorce her brother, Maxine Waters is a multi millionaire for no apparent reason, AOC is being investigated for campaign fraud and dark money. That’s the short list. That’s just this week.
There’s probably nothing to get Trump on. They’ve had to make stuff up. They don’t like him, so he’s a criminal. Yet they used to love him.
The hypocrisy is stunning. Is it mental illness or do they have something to hide?
What ever it is, it’s wasting my money. Is very tiresome.
The Mueller Report created a net gain of approximately $17 million for the government. The Starr Report cost $70 million.
The Mueller Report created a net gain of approximately $17 million
The Mueller team is a commercial enterprise?
Which talking point mill supplied you with this factoid?
http://time.com/5557693/mueller-report-cost/
He is talking about how Mueller did not only investigate Russia connections. He investigated associates of Trump for any and everything, getting some on process crimes, and others for tax evasion from long ago.
Any proceeds is referring to asset forfeiture and unpaid taxes.
It might be a good idea to investigate all of Congress for any and all crimes, going back to age 18. We already know AOC hasn’t paid her taxes. She is actually guilty of what she’s accused Trump of. Trump, meanwhile, has undergone multiple audits in his adult lifetime.
It is deeply troubling to think that a government no longer has evidence of a crime, and then investigates it to prove it. Our government can target an individual because of a political association. They can scrutinize your entire life, dig deep and put pressure on your friends and associates, looking for dirt, any dirt. They don’t have to investigate one issue. It can be looking for anything you’ve ever done wrong, no matter how many years ago. If a previous investigation declined to prosecute, you will never be safe.
The government has become weaponized against American citizens, and punishes them for belonging to the “wrong” political party. It’s not the President who determines this. There is a cabal within the various government agencies, promoting a Democrat agenda and targeting conservatives. This also takes place in the public education system, all the way up to grad school.
We must remove these activists from positions of power and authority, and try to attain an unbiased justice system.
“Any proceeds is referring to asset forfeiture and unpaid taxes.”
A special prosecutor was not needed to obtain that money or to charge Manafort. The crazies that suggest that is a benefit and why we needed a special prosecutor are just crazy.
Does Anon actually think Manafort and Gates had assets of $17 million in excess of the operating budget of Mueller’s office (not to mention the appropriations for the crew in the FBI acting as investigatory muscle for Mueller and the crew spying on Trump pre-Mueller)?
DSS, I don’t know what Anon thinks, much less what he knows. He works, likely pays taxes and cares for a family. That is all good. Instead of trying to figure out why his business model worked for him he seems to latch onto what I consider unworkable economic ideas and politics that leads in the direction of fascism.
I don’t understand why he doesn’t worry more about family, his independence, the inability of our school systems to teach logic, etc. I posed a lot of questions to him today. Maybe he will think about them. Maybe he won’t.
Note that the financial disclosure forms candidates for Congress have to produce require you list your assets, but not the specific values of those assets; you only have to assign the asset to one of about five broad ranges of value. The disclosure statements are not audited.
Proscriptions on insider trading do not apply to members of Congress. They can also treat campaign funds as a purse when they retire. Their pension plan is not actuarially sound (i.e their retirement is cross-subsidized out of the federal treasury). See Nicholas von Hoffman’s review of the spy novel written by Wm. Cohen and Gary Hart, “…they do, however, give us a peak at the Senatorial way of life…they don’t pay for their vacations. They mooch off their wealthy constituents and are irked, bored, and impatient with their impecunious ones.
since presidents since Nixon have acknowledged the reasonableness of such a demand and released their records.
Note that a mole in the IRS publicized Nixon’s tax returns without his consent. It’s only when a Democrat is in the White House that IRS employees happily do the bidding of politicians.
Like when?
Her name is Lois Lerner.
Yes, and what politician did she do the bidding of. Is it your contention that in 2009 and 2010 Obama gave a flying f… about Tea Party groups trying to pretend they were not political or any legitimate evidence showing his campaign instructed her?
Triply Absurd deftly glossed over Nixon’s abuse of the IRS to audit his political opponents. It’s why the IRS “outed” Tricky Dick.
Anon – you attack conservatives on the blog. You could misuse your own job to do so, as well, without any politician having to direct you.
For instance, a nurse could abuse conservative patients in a hospital. Accidentally on purpose expose them to infection. A DMV employee could make a conservative’s life hell to complete any required DMV activity. A loan underwriter could decline the loan applications of known conservatives. A restaurant could refuse service. A waiter could spit in their food. A fitness instructor could cause injury in conservatives at the gym.
The scope for independent abuse is limitless, but most especially damaging when it occurs in a government agency.
You Are Psychotic.
P. S. “You’re Fired.”
Anonymous – you are obsessed with me, and engage in disturbingly violent fantasies in some of your posts. You alternate between calling me inappropriate pet names and slurs. It reminds me of the movie, Single White Female.
This is disappointing, especially after Professor Turley reminded the blog to try to engage in civil discourse. Whatever your motivation, or emotional problems, it would behoove your peace of mind to fight this obsession you have for me. If I am keeping your aliases straight, this has been going on for a very long time. How strange that I take up so much real estate in your mind. I usually skim past your posts, unless I am unfortunate enough to happen on them while working backward on replies. I do not think of you at all after I move on from your strange posts.
No one is “obsessed” with you, Karen S.
Grow up.
Sorry Karen, I don’t get your point.
Anon – you questioned what politician Lois Lerner was dong the bidding of. I explained how an activist does not need to be directed, but rather can, and often does, abuse the authority of their job for political purposes.
When teachers in pre-K through grad school inject their personal politics into the classroom, pressuring students to believe that Republicans are evil and Democrats good, they are not being directed by any president. They are acting unprofessional all on their own. The problem is that the mainstream media, education, Hollywood, Social Media, PayPal, Square, Silicon Valley, and many government agencies all lean hard Left, and there have been many documented cases of misconduct against conservatives. An argument that no coordination was determined is immaterial. People are not leaving their politics at the door, and those in positions of power and authority are mainly Democrat.
It’s wrong. I would not see the reverse, either, with Republicans taking over the mainstream media, Hollywood, schools, and government agencies, and then misusing their power against Democrats.
Karen, I agree that anyone who misuses their authority based on selfish or partisan reasons deserves our scorn and punishment, but fir their to be a Deep State problem as you allege, there would have to be a conspiracy. In the case of the IRS, none was seriously alleged or proven, and in fact, while Lois Lerner was indeed politically active, she was absolved of any imoroper or biased behavior after an FBI investigation.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/so-how-many-people-actually-pay-americas-estate-tax-2018-10-03
As to improper behavior by individuals, of course there are conservatives who are teachers, cops, FBI agents, etc and there is no “conservative gene” making them more fair minded than liberals. On the big stage and supposed Deep State election conspiracy, in fact the NYC FBI office was noted for having some virulent anti-Hillary agents who Comey feared would leak the reopening of her investigation, and was the meaning behind Giuliani’s hinting at something big just before Comey’s letter.
Once again, you are wearing blinders through life along with red colored sun glasses. Look around a little more.
“she was absolved of any imoroper or biased behavior after an FBI investigation.”
Who was FBI director during the start of that investigation? Robert Mueller.
…And while the election campaign was gearing up who illegally sent the FBI discs containing the IRS material on Tea Party persons? The IRS (Lois Lerner) to the FBI (Robert Mueller)
Who replaced Mueller? Comey?
Who investigated Clinton and unbelieveably didn’t find a crime when others doing far less were serving jail times? Comey.
Who then became speical prosecutor? Mueller.
That is a circle and when such a thing happens in corporations those involved go to jail.
” Records also detail how the Obama IRS gave the FBI 21 computer disks, containing 1.25 million pages of confidential IRS returns from 113,000 nonprofit social 501(c)(4) welfare groups – or nearly every 501(c)(4) in the United States – as part of its prosecution effort. ” __Judicial Watch
Full article:
Mueller Worked with Lerner to Target Tea Party
Just when you thought the Deep State swamp couldn’t get any murkier and the stench any more repugnant, we are reminded by Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton in a Feb. 13 tweet of how Robert Mueller’s FBI worked with Lois Lerner’s IRS to target Tea Party and other groups in the run-up to the Obama re-election campaign:
@JudicialWatch lawsuit uncovered how Mueller’s FBI worked with Lois Lerner’s IRS to try to prosecute the very groups Obama IRS was suppressing. Another reason I don’t trust Mr. Mueller – or the FBI!
The treasure trove of documents detailing the weaponizing of powerful government agencies, including Mueller’s FBI, by the Obama administration to target the Tea Party was obtained by Judicial Watch as a result of court orders stemming from Freedom of Information Act lawsuits after the political targeting of the Tea Party:
Judicial Watch today released new Department of Justice (DOJ) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) documents that include an official “DOJ Recap” report detailing an October 2010 meeting between Lois Lerner, DOJ officials and the FBI to plan for the possible criminal prosecution of targeted nonprofit organizations for alleged illegal political activity.
The newly obtained records also reveal that the Obama DOJ wanted IRS employees who were going to testify to Congress to turn over documents to the DOJ before giving them to Congress. Records also detail how the Obama IRS gave the FBI 21 computer disks, containing 1.25 million pages of confidential IRS returns from 113,000 nonprofit social 501(c)(4) welfare groups – or nearly every 501(c)(4) in the United States – as part of its prosecution effort. According to a letter from then-House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, “This revelation likely means that the IRS – including possibly Lois Lerner – violated federal tax law by transmitting this information to the Justice Department.”
The documents were produced subsequent to court orders in two Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits: Judicial Watch v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:14-cv-01956) and Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-doj-01239-public-integrity-irs/ (No. 1:14-cv-01239).
The new IRS documents include a October 11, 2010 “DOJ Recap” memo sent by IRS Exempt Organizations Tax Law Specialist Siri Buller to Lerner and other top IRS officials explaining an October 8 meeting with representatives from the Department of Justice Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and “one representative from the FBI” to discuss the possible criminal prosecution of nonprofit organizations for alleged political activity:
On October 8, 2010, Lois Lerner, Joe Urban [IRS Technical Advisor, TEGE], Judy Kindell [top aide to Lerner], Justin Lowe [Technical Advisor to the Commissioner of Tax-Exempt and Government Entities], and Siri Buller met with the section chief and other attorneys from the Department of Justice Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section, and one representative from the FBI, to discuss recent attention to the political activity of exempt organizations.
That attention involved harassment and intimidation of conservative groups opposed to Obamacare in particular and big government in general. The irony is that the same Robert Mueller now investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election cooperated with Lois Lerner and the IRS to intervene on President Obama’s behalf in the lead-up to the 2012 presidential election. As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized, Tea Party activist Catherine Engelbrecht was a prime target of this effort at political suppression:
Shortly after Engelbrecht founded True the Vote, which trains election volunteers to help root out voter fraud, and King Street Patriots, a group with ideals similar to the Tea Party, and sought tax-exempt status from the IRS in July 2010 for both groups, she was hit by an onslaught of federal harassment.
After seeing nary a government official in two decades of operation, Engelbrecht and her equipment manufacturing company suddenly had the pleasure of six FBI domestic terrorism inquiries, an IRS visit, two IRS business audits, two IRS personal audits and inspections by both the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Engelbrecht’s persecution by the IRS and FBI was also detailed by Breitbart.com:
Engelbrecht’s troubling saga was originally reported by Breitbart News’ Brandon Darby.
Engelbrecht’s application with the IRS for non-profit status allegedly triggered aggressive audits of one of her family’s personal businesses as well. The FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) began a series of inquiries about her and her group; the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms) began demanding to see her family’s firearms in surprise audits of her and her husband’s small gun dealership – which had done less than $200 in sales; OSHA (Occupational Safety Hazards Administration) began a surprise audit of their small family manufacturing business; and the EPA-affiliated TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environment Quality) did a surprise visit and audit due to “a complaint being called in.”
The Democratic Party of Texas filed a lawsuit against her, as did an ACORN affiliated group. Both the FBI and the BATF continued to poke around her life, the lives of people in her Tea Party group, and her businesses.
This latest reminder of Mueller’s long history of supporting or protecting Democrats and their agenda comes just as it is revealed that another member of the Democratic elite was recently added to his star chamber staff of Democratic donors and Hillary sycophants:
An attorney on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team was a writer for HuffPost, The Daily Caller News Foundation has found.
Aaron Zelinsky, a self-described Democrat, wrote nearly 50 articles as a contributor for the liberal news outlet from 2009 to 2014.
“I’m a Democrat,” he wrote in November 2012.
A review of his articles shows that he supported President Barack Obama’s efforts to close Guantanamo Bay, opposed President George W. Bush’s policy on torture [sic], wrote in defense of gun control and argued for government-imposed limits on how much corporate executives can earn.
“Now is the time to begin enacting a progressive political agenda through the ballot box,” he wrote in a 2009 article on gay marriage [sic].
Zelinsky, who joined the Russia probe in June 2017, is not among the nine attorneys to have made federal donations. But state records reveal a $100 donation he made to a Democratic committee in his home state of Connecticut in 2014, a couple months before he joined the Justice Department as a prosecutor.
Maybe Mueller can explain his efforts to interfere in the 2012 presidential election in cooperation with Lois Lerner and the IRS. Or maybe he agrees with former IRS chief John Koskinen, who once famously said he and the IRS obeyed the law whenever they could. Maybe that should include Mueller and his FBI. Maybe we need a special counsel to investigate the special counsel.
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups
The IRS was forced to apologize to conservative groups for illegally targeting them. Activists within the IRS tried to affect the election by interfering with conservatives groups. They successfully stymied their activities. Non-conservatives groups received scrutiny at a demonstrably far lower level. Activists in place in various government agencies do not need direct instruction, for instance from President Obama. When an activist takes a job as a teacher, or government official, they decide on their own to misuse their power and authority to reward Democrats and abuse conservatives. We saw this when James Comey abused his power in order to lie and claim that intent to commit espionage is required to prosecute anyone for violating federal laws on the handling of classified information. My father had clearance, and intent to commit espionage is most certainly not a requirement to be charged.
We have seen this scenario play out in the IRS, NSA, FBI, DOJ, EPA…the list goes on. Activists are abusing their authority for political purposes, and continue to do so regardless of which party is in the White House or Congress.
If we don’t take the trouble to abolish the deep state, then we will be one day left a One Party State, with a One Party Media Propaganda. There are already coordinated efforts underway to censor and silence conservative voices across all social media. Their livelihoods are routinely at risk for voicing conservative opinions, whether they are demonetized on YouTube, Spotify, PayPal, or Square, or there is an effort to get them fired. Silence their voices, control the message, control education, and you have complete and utter control on the information available for the people to form any opinions.
You can read the DOJ press release here:
The key and first charge is that groups were targeted based on their names, and ideology was never proved. In fact, that department in the IRS was understaffed – thanks GOP – and used names as a shortcut to determining which were likely political, since their applications dealt with a law restricting such behavior in the category they sought. Liberal groups were also chosen for scrutiny on this basis. The GOP held Congressional hearing after hearing trying to show the group’s chosen were targeted based in ideology and a plot involving the Obama administration, but never could.
This was no more a Deep State conspiracy than the knee capping of Hillary’s campaign two weeks before the election while protecting Trump from almost the exact same revelation. Karen if you have further evidence naming the Deep State actors who supposedly hatched and set in motion this supposed plot, please provide it. This civil suit does not.
Are you referring to the politicized DOJ? The one that protected Hillary Clinton and Obama? The one that ignored that Obama sent Hillary Clinton emails on her illegal server, using a pseudonym, and then lied about it?
I published an NPR article in which the IRS was forced to apologize for their behavior, on court order.
As for knee capping Hillary’s campaign, she is not in prison because Comey lied and claimed that intent to commit espionage was a requirement for charging someone for stealing top secret information, hiding it on a bootleg unprotected server, uploading it to the Cloud, granting access to techies with zero clearance, smashing her Blackberry and laptops with a hammer to destroy evidence while under subpoena, and wiping said server with Bleach Bit in order to destroy evidence under a subpoena. She should be on those knees, daily, thanking Comey and Lynch. Otherwise, she’d be wearing an orange pant suit.
They even called it a “matter” rather than an investigation.
What Comey did that you claim was so terrible was comment that they were looking into recovered emails. The man kept his favored political candidate out of federal prison for what might have been the rest of her life, and you’re ungrateful? What more could he have done? Perhaps hidden her crimes entirely and lied about them looking into it?
The FBI has been quite open about investigating Trump. He has not hidden information on a private server. Wiped that server with Bleach Bit. Smashed devices with a hammer to destroy evidence. Paid Russian spies. Got exorbitant speaking fees from Russia while handling a deal to provide our uranium.
The double standard is breathtaking, and yet it seems a Sisyphean task to get any Democrat to admit it.
Be specific on how the DOJ protected Obama qnd Hillary. What was the crime.
Yes, the SC has held since 1941 that intent to harm the US was necessary for prosecution under the Espiobage Act.
https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/
Comey announced Hillary was under investigation 2 weeks before the election while keeping secret the fact that Trump’s campaign was also. Nate Silver of 538 wrote:
“The impact of Comey’s letter is comparatively easy to quantify, by contrast. At a maximum, it might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College…..According to the news aggregation site Memeorandum, which algorithmically tracks which stories are gaining the most traction in the mainstream media, the Comey letter was the lead story on six out of seven mornings from Oct. 29 to Nov. 4, ….”
Some conspiracy by the Deep State.
On your other comments, we’ll see what the FBI found on Trump, who would never have been in office without the inadvertant help of their Director. The Clinton campaign did not pay any Russian spies, they paid an agency that hired the respected previous head of MI6’s Russian desk.
I’ce corrected you several times on your spreading of lies about U-1 and it’s getting tiresome. Hillary had no ability to make that deal, and as I have demonstrated to you, Bill has charged the same amount and even more than the Russians for speaking engagements.
You spread a lot of misinformation which I assume you believe, but you are obviously in need of other sources for your news, because they’re feeding you a pile of crap.
“The double standard is breathtaking, and yet it seems a Sisyphean task to get any Democrat to admit it.”
Karen, the left isn’t concerned with truth. In fact truth or lie are the same to them. The left has one objective, power. An easy way to see that objective is met and sustained is to look at how Lenin got into power and how Stalin kept that power. Anon is a pawn of these types of movements. As long as the left gets him to continuously ingest contradictory and hateful talking points that is considered a success.
Hard to argue about the generalities and broad brush accusations made here, but I guess that’s the idea.
Anon, though you are unable to recognize it I was speaking to Karen about the philosophy of the left and how people like you are pawns that eat up the left’s conflicting and inaccurate rhetoric. If you want some details a few posts back some were discussed along with quotes from Judicial Watch.
I’m not sure what generalities you are talking about because for the most part you are a ‘generality’ and can’t even focus on a specific in your reply.
Whatever you say boss. Obviously you’re on to me and my nefarious triicks.
“Whatever you say boss. Obviously you’re on to me and my nefarious triicks.”
What you call tricks are merely a realization that much of what you have said is junk and wrong. You almost never answer a question with fact or theory, but you do provide a lot of inadequate leftist talking points, the model of AOC.
“groups were targeted based on their names, and ideology was never proved. ”
Anon, why was Lois Lerner permitted to plead the 5th? Why was no information obtained after that plea? It wasn’t proven in a court of law but the numbers of conservative groups prevented from getting a 501 (c)3 was exceptionally high though a few other groups were also targeted. It was blantantly obvious that the IRS had become weaponized and the investigation was a coverup.
Trump has failed to supply his tax records in a departure from decades of tradition. He is wrong to do so. However, the oversight value of these taxes seem sketchy at best.
Why was it ‘wrong’? It’s a convention, and it was done to satisfy the media’s puerile curiosity.
It’s wrong because the voluntary tradition provided a minimal level of transparency on how much a candidate may be owned by others and honest in his financial dealings. These are not puerile interests and anyone who thinks they are is probably asking to be conned.
You might bone up on the term ‘categorical imperative’.
Barack Obama was indebted to Tony Rezko. His supporters didn’t care.
And some independents and opponents did care. See how that works?
And he was elected and then re-elected. Nobody cared. See how actual results matter over theory.
Yes, unlike the current President, Obama became president after receiving a majority of votes because on whole voters determined he was the best candidate., and so far there has been no evidence that he altered policy to personally enrich himself.
Anin:
Thanks for confirming the idiocy of your prior statement. Your knowledge of American political systems is a little sketchy but you’ re making progress.
Maybe you can be more specific. Your triumphalism seems a tad bit unwarranted by what we have both posted.
TIAx3:
Funny, Anon doesn’t appear to me to be a Kant aficionado. In fact, he doesn’t appear to be an aficionado of anything scholarly or abstract at all. He does like being a contrarian so he’s got that going for him.
The categorical imperative is bat guano insane.
See and he’s not alone.
You’ve forgotten your Nietzsche, already? Here’s a close paraphrase of the imperative at issue:
Always act as though the maxim of your action were to become by sheer force of the human will a general law of nature.
The only thing separating that statement from full-blown grandiose delusion is the highly inflected qualifier “as though.” BTW, that’s one of the statements that Schmeidrich poked fun at with his satire about The Will To Power.
“Always act as though the maxim of your action were to become by sheer force of the human will a general law of nature.”
Paraphrasing Saul Alinsky is too tangential. Just be direct about it and forgo virtue signaling
The Rules
“Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
“Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
“Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
“Keep the pressure on.”
“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
“The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
“If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.”
“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
-Wiki
Your Are An Ignoramus.
You’ve forgotten your Nietzsche, already? Here’s a close paraphrase of the imperative at issue:
***************************
Your apparent misunderstanding of Kant’s philosophy is rivaled only by your misunderstanding of Nietzsche’s. Nietzsche was “Kantian with a capital ‘K,'” as Kevin HIll wrote. But we don’t need a third-party to explain the relationship between Kant and Nietzsche. Nietzsche says it well enough himself, “”Kant, Schopenhauer, and this book of Lange’s–I don’t need anything else.” BTW, I have no idea who Schmeidrich is or was.
Schmeidrich Schmietzsche called Herr Professor Manny The Infamous Chinaman of Konigsberg. Schopenhauer famously claimed to have overturned Kant by dividing the world into a battle between Will versus Idea. Guess which side of that battle Herr Professor Manny was on? Helpful Hint: It was not the same side that Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were on.
Did you know that The Emperor Frederick The Second of Prussia forced Herr Professor Manny to compose a retraction of The Critique of Pure Reason entitled The Critique of Practical Reason? The first book was the real Kant. The second, the one that Nietzsche and Shopenhauer picked up and ran with. You don’t really know what you think you know, Counselor.