Tax Man Cometh: Trump Loses Appeal On Tax Records

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has rejected the appeal of President Donald Trump to block a House subpoena for his tax documents. The ruling follows another loss in New York where a federal judge rejected Trump’s claim that he cannot be subject to criminal process of any kind while in office. That case has been appealed. Trump can appeal this latest ruling to the full court or to the Supreme Court or both.

The panel split 2-1 but upheld a lower court ruling saying Trump’s accountants at Mazars USA must turn over the records to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Judge David Tatel (with Judge Patricia Millett) wrote “Contrary to the President’s arguments, the Committee possesses authority under both the House Rules and the Constitution to issue the subpoena, and Mazars must comply. We conclude that in issuing the challenged subpoena, the Committee was engaged in a ‘legitimate legislative investigation.’” Judge Neomi Rao was the dissenting vote.

Here is the opinion: Trump Tax Decision

110 thoughts on “Tax Man Cometh: Trump Loses Appeal On Tax Records”

  1. The hilarious part is… if you will recall… when he was running for President and getting elected the IRS has a full team of Agents and Investigators going through the accounts of all his businesses and personal tax filings. So what to the idiots of the left expect to find? Nothing but a fully audited set of tax returns signed off by the IRS itself.

    Just another ambush of the Stupid Party who do not have their facts in a row. but love to look too stupid to be believed on anything by the self governing independent citizens as they prepare to help destroy the remnants of the menshevik party.

  2. Unfortunately Darren Smith, see above weekend thread, does not write persuasive political philosophy but an E for effort is in order…

  3. It has been such a long time since I was let out of the asylum to visit here. So many places to go now, with barely enough time to linger in any one place.

    My how this place has changed. George, my dear boy, how could you ever have let this place deteriorate to its present state? So many lemmings following The Donald over the cliff. Party on, Dearest Lemmings, while you can. When the party ends and you hear the magic words “l’addition s’il vous plaît”, The Donald will have magically vanished, leaving all of you to pay.

    Just like he abandoned his Kurds to be eaten by Miss Muffet and her boyfriend.

    George, may all of your glasses of wine be of the finest vintage, and may all of your winning bridge hands be No Trump. As they say at the Grand’Maison Dam, “au reservoir”!

    1. Baron Clozoff, bottom feeders will find other locations deeper down more rewarding.

  4. Estovir, you are exactly right. Trump is being investigated because he won the election.

  5. “Tax Man Cometh: Trump Loses Appeal On Tax Records”

    – Professor Turley

    When does Attorney General William Barr cometh?

    When does U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut John Durham cometh?

    When is the Obama Coup D’etat in America prosecuted?

    The 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, Andrew Weissmann, Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe,

    Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan,

    Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer,

    Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel,

    Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy),

    Obama et al.

    1. The Deep state Globalist Traitors are nearly completely exposed & the only thing left it seems is for Trump to issue the order for their round up or Death Warrants as President George Washington used.

      If he doesn’t it’s on him & this cold civil war will likely start warming up fast. We’ll see.

      1. Riighht. Yet another oh-so-brave keyboard warrior. Not one of you wackjob wingnut weirdos will so much as raise your voice in real life. Further, here in the real world, you failing few remaining gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make are considered to be nothing but pitiful. So, go down to the tractor-store bait-shop, and cluck with the other out-of-time oldsters about the antics of “those people” and then die the f*ck off. In the mean time, we true Americans who actually love our beloved Republic, will remedy your lifetime of errors.

        this is to “ah kin spell okie any durned ways ah wanna” okie

    1. Yes, Bruce, it does, but it should not be the reason for any American to lose their peace.

      Trump can handle it, as can Pelosi. Newt Gingrich relished it. Ted Kennedy bragged about his sphere of influence. The Clintons were a legend in their own minds.

      The majority of these partisans are multi-millionaires. It is comical to see some of the headlines about former Fox News anchor Shep Smith. Smith is from Mississippi, a closeted (?) homosexual, who has a net worth of $25M. Yet, like Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi, to read Smith’s lament is to imagine Shakespeare’s Lady MacBeth. Can we be serious about what comprises truly important affairs today?

      Hillary is a crook. Bill Clinton is a liar. Barack Obama was a missed opportunity for blacks who is now a millionaires and acts / looks more like a whitey. Trump is a reflection of our nation, as if we didn’t already know that is a mess.

      So focus on your family, your goals, your friends and neighbors. Trump and Pelosi won’t cry a tear for you. Nor should we for them.

      there is reason to hope…in yourself and those whom you love

      NB: Darren, your piece was all over the place. I understand and agree with you on your points about the normalization of homicide. However, this is an idea that has been articulated by many of us in the Pro-Life movement. Propose solutions, Darren. I criticize Turley regularly for this very reason: he complains alot about never leads with answers. We all agree that things are bad in our culture. However, you need to give your audience hope. Show them the Light

      Pope John Paul II

      12. In fact, while the climate of widespread moral uncertainty can in some way be explained by the multiplicity and gravity of today’s social problems, and these can sometimes mitigate the subjective responsibility of individuals, it is no less true that we are confronted by an even larger reality, which can be described as a veritable structure of sin. This reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable “culture of death”. This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another. A person who, because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or life-style of those who are more favoured tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated. In this way a kind of “conspiracy against life” is unleashed. This conspiracy involves not only individuals in their personal, family or group relationships, but goes far beyond, to the point of damaging and distorting, at the international level, relations between peoples and States.

      19. While it is true that the taking of life not yet born or in its final stages is sometimes marked by a mistaken sense of altruism and human compassion, it cannot be denied that such a culture of death, taken as a whole, betrays a completely individualistic concept of freedom, which ends up by becoming the freedom of “the strong” against the weak who have no choice but to submit.

      1. Minor point. Smith made a public point of his homosexuality some years ago. He says he wasn’t a part of the gay scene until he was in his middle 40s. He was married to a woman named Virginia Donald from 1987 to 1993, but the marriage didn’t produce any children.

        I can’t figure the compensation packages theses guys get. Is it really your actuarial calculation that replacing Shep Smith with Mr. X (to run a late afternoon news show) is going to generate enough of a revenue loss that you have to pay Shep Smith 200x what an ordinary salaried employee earns in this world?

  6. Not good. If the government can do this to Trump, they can do it to you. Trump is being investigated, not a crime.

    1. Well, duh! That’s the nature of communism and the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

      “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”

      – Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s Head of Secret Police

      “He took over, and he said:

      ‘If I have to shoot 200,000 students to save China from another 100 years of disorder, so be it.'”

      – Recalling how former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping dealt with the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests”

      ― Lee Kuan Yew

      Let’s be clear. The entire American, communist, welfare state dictatorship is unconstitutional.

      American communists are liberals, progressives, socialists and democrats.

    1. Of course he’s under investigation. Everyone even obliquely associated with Trump has been under investigation since he declared his candidacy.

      We are looking more and more like a Banana Republic. The election did not go to Democrats in 2016, so they abuse their positions of power to constantly try to remove him by other means.

      It’s exhausting. Are we to expect this harassment every time a Republican gets elected to the White House? Or will they change the rules to prevent that ever happening again, creating a Single Party State in yet another Leftist dictatorship?

        1. Anon,

 sells a product called Brain Force. You should buy a few bottles of it.

          It will help you with your Reading Comprehension skills.

          You will then be able to understand what Karen is saying.

      1. Karen….it is exhausting, depressing, disgusting, and dangerous.

        There’s a trail of banana peels going from Nancy’s office to the floor of the House.
        That’s our Republic.

        P.S. Hope you’re safely far from the fires!

        1. Thanks, Cindy. CA is burning again, but the Santa Anas have died down a bit. Just spoke with some more friends who are planning to move out of state due to the high taxes, gas taxes, and vehicle bans.

          Just another day in paradise.

          1. Karen S – I saw that PG & E and Gov. Newsom killed someone with their rolling brownouts.

            1. Not according to the coroner.

              Power outages are not uncommon. People need to plan ahead…have backup plans…

              1. Anonymous – journalists got a bit over excited by the coronary report. The deceased suffered from severe COPD (hence the oxygen), and died of Severe Coronary Artery Atherosclerosis. It is the underlying health condition that kills someone when their medical support fails. In this case, he suffered from lox oxygen due to COPD. With COPD, it is very difficult to expel air. Without oxygen, he would still be trying to breathe out while simultaneously feeling a frantic need for air. That speeds the heart up. His other underlying condition of severe coronary artery atherosclerosis would not be able to handle this.

                However, the only way to tell for sure would be to go back in time, give him oxygen, and see if he survived the outage.

                To further explain, a friend of mine is a severe asthmatic. They bring along a generator to power their RV, and she has a nebulizer for emergencies. Something triggered a severe asthma attack. The generator had just run out of gas. The attack took her so quickly that she was unable to get outside the RV. She was able to call out her husband’s name (that saying, “if you can talk, you can breathe”, is a complete myth.) While he was connecting her nebulizer to the vehicle power, she had a heart attack.

                Luckily, she survived the heart attack. However, you can see how the entire episode stemmed from her losing power to her medical device.

              2. Anonymous – somehow he was dead with 10 minutes of the beginning to the brownout. Do you have the coroner’s report? That usually takes a couple of days to come out.

                1. Of course he doesn’t have the report. These types are always four-flushing on these boards.

                  1. He was a very sick man. Do your homework.

                    Considering what happened with Michael Hastings, though, one never knows how much stock to place in these reports.

                    1. LA Times quotes:

                      The El Dorado County Sheriff/Coroner’s Office conducted a postmortem exam Friday afternoon.

                      “An autopsy was completed this afternoon and the cause of death was determined as severe coronary artery atherosclerosis,” the office said in a statement. “Mardis also had a clinical history of COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]. The investigation into this death has concluded and this case is considered closed.”


                2. The brownout may have hastened his death, but he was already on death’s doorstep apparently.

                  LA Times quotes:

                  The El Dorado County Sheriff/Coroner’s Office conducted a postmortem exam Friday afternoon.

                  “An autopsy was completed this afternoon and the cause of death was determined as severe coronary artery atherosclerosis,” the office said in a statement. “Mardis also had a clinical history of COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]. The investigation into this death has concluded and this case is considered closed.”


            2. Paul – a man who relied on oxygen died 12 minutes after PG&E’s blackouts. Edison has also been turning off the power. Those massive lawsuits against PG&E have the utilities unwilling to risk it. Those who are on a well cannot get water when the power is out. A lot of people are using gas powered generators, but of course, CA is looking into the air quality issues for private generators. Seems kind of ridiculous, given that there are wildfires pumping out more pollutants.

              Newsome promised he would not snatch the gas tax money that was supposed to fix roads, whose funds had already been snatched. Newsome then snatched the gas tax money to fight climate change, i.e. to go towards his high speed rail boondoggle.

              Pity. I’d rather have a fleet of Super Scoopers to promptly put out these fires. There is no rain in CA 9 months of the year. Another word for “open space”, “parks”, and “wild lands” is “fuel.” The hills are choked with invasive alien species (yes, even plants can be illegal aliens), which act as tinder for the more fire resistant chaparral. So, unless rain starts falling year round in CA, we will always be a fire state. Best to pour our resources into aquifers and fire technology, than waste it on a vacation train to San Francisco. Californians must love the Democrat rhetoric promising them more freebies, however. They keep voting Blue, and then complaining about the high taxes, road diets, lane loss to bike lanes, gas taxes, straw bans, bag bans, high speed rail waste, lack of aquifers, roads neglected as funds get siphoned off for climate change, the high cost of goods as shipping costs increase as CARB bans vehicles, and the fact that the state is hemorrhaging tax payers and jobs, leaving behind unskilled jobs. In short, they vote for their own demise.

              PG&E were negligent. They failed to follow up on a report of a sparking power line, and falsified records.

              However, if utilities believe that they will be sued for any fire damage that a downed power line causes, then they will not supply electricity when the wind blows. I get automated calls nearly every day that they might have to turn off my power due to the conditions.

              1. Karen S – didn’t PG & E get political cover for the Paradise Fire that they started?

              2. Ugh, don’t even get me started on the plastic bag tax.

                What’s that, you say, machine at Target? How many bags did I use?

                The answer is Zero, ways Zero.

                They’re not bags, they product holders, as far as I am concerned.

                I put my stuff in the product holder and it holds it until I get to my car.

                1. Tax Man Cometh is spot on.

                  CRV anyone in Cali?

                  What a joke!

                  Is the CRV a tax?
                  No. The Legislature has declared that the redemption payment is neither a deposit nor a tax, but a regulatory fee collected for the purpose of assuring the return for recycling of a greater percentage of the beverage containers sold in the state.


                  Well, if this isn’t a tax, then my bags are not bags, but simply product holders, hence zero in the check out line. 😁

              3. The straw ban, another airhead move for us Cali folks.

                So, you can ask for a straw made of plastic. The sign says so right here. So, I’ll take a paper straw and a plastic straw just in case the paper straw gets too soggy and non useable.

                I always take one of each type, so I have a back up.

                Now, are plastic straws bad for ocean animals? Yes.

                But so is any plastic in ocean.

                With the microplastics in everything and everyone, you would think that an overall reduction in plastic would be the solution, not eliminating plastic entirely.

                Not saying it isn’t a problem, those pesky straws…
                I have seen straw pulled out of a turtles nose as it bleeds out and it’s horrible to watch…very graphic…had to turn it off, so there is definitely a problem with human usage of plastic, but preventing it from getting into the ocean in the first place is real problem.

              4. The problem, really, is that California is unfit for self-government. Its politicians are utter jerks and the voting public is content with being ruled by utter jerks.

    2. Did Attorney General William Barr initiate it or is it the charge of U.S. Attorney John Durham?

  7. So you think it is important to note that the dissenting judge is a Trump nominee, but you fail to note that one of the two judges who ruled against Trump was nominated by Clinton and the other by Obama?

    Why is that?

                1. Compared to you & your Dim/Rino American Hating Sex Trafficking/Pedophile Freak friends , yes Putin is’nt anywhere near the threat to the US as you Creeps.

                  I see no problem expect for you people for Trump to work out a deal with Putin/Russia.

                  BTW: What’s wrong with you people? Supporting Child Rape!!! You sick bast*rds.
                  If you don’t relize you’re hanging out with evil criminal Trash you might better wake up because Trump or no Trump there are people coming after you’re azzes!


            1. Make sure you & Anon are up on all your vaccines.

              Other then that, how about all those massive crowds the are showing up for a Trump events.

              You boys may think about taking your Commie/Fascist bullshiit back to China as it isn’t selling here.

              Now get on along, go back to momma. lol

  8. Strange it is. Members of Congress are of such high moral character that many demand an impeachment of a sitting president for failing to provide documents but past presidents who led the charge of elective wars who killed hundreds of thousands of individuals where no actual clear and present danger existed to the U.S. population get high praise, fawning and genuflecting from the same politicians in order to further their political aspirations and payola.

    1. Darren, explain, if you will, what virtues are at stake. Why is it righteous for a president to keep his (many) conflicts secret? Does the public have no interest in knowing the president’s conflicts? Will historians regard Trump as heroic for fighting transparency? On the surface none of these principles seems the least bit praiseworthy.

      1. Hill:

        Why do you think his financial ties are secret?

        He filed a 92 page financial disclosure, which is open to the public. People have desperately looked for financial dirt on him for nearly 3 years…the same ones who are trying to get a duly elected President out of office because they will not accept the results of the election years later. Since he owns corporations that operate globally, he had financial dealings globally. So did Hillary Clinton, as her Foundation was obviously an international operation. Any candidate that operated a large charity would also have financial transactions that are international. The Saudi Royal family donates to the American Red Cross, as do many other nations. Heck, after stoking the Yemeni conflict, the Kingdom then donated a record breaking amount to the UN for aid to Yemen. Coke and Pepsi sell their products in the Middle East. Therefore, if an executive from Coke or Pepsi decided to run for office, their company would have had financial transactions in the Middle East. Even politicians who are not business men would have dealings with foreign nations, if they served on certain boards, or if they were involved in overseeing any transactions between nations.

        It is possible to find a candidate who has had provincial dealings strictly within the US, never served on any board that had international scope. Then, the critics would nit pick over who donated to their campaign funds. Or regardless of any experience in international negotiations, they would make up jokes like they could see Russia from their house to claim that the candidate did not have enough global experience.

        1. Hill – tax returns contain extremely personal information. That is why they are confidential for US citizens. They contain social security numbers, account numbers, the exact name of the banks you do business with, an exact list of your investments.

          We have already seen anti-Trump activists go to extreme lengths. If his tax returns are released, I predict that:
          1. All of his tax deductions will be called unfair by Democrats who, themselves, use every possible deductions on their own returns.
          2. His loss on the casinos will be ridiculed.
          3. Every bank and loan company with which Trump does business will be targeted and harassed. Every company that he does business with will be so treated.
          4. His personal information will be used in massive fraud and harassment.

          Politicians who release their tax returns tend to have been grooming themselves for years to run for President. Their returns reflect this. Elizabeth Warren’s employment history would create a very different return than the head of multiple major corporations. Politicians tend not to be businessmen, with deductions for items like depreciation. Politicians like Pelosi can ridicule his tax returns, without having to release her own.

          I said before that if Trump was going to be forced to release his returns, then he should have done so long ago, get ahead of it. Don’t wait til the last minute.

        2. Karen, someone said it best a few weeks ago: “Trump’s impeachable offense was winning the 2016 election” As I’ve stated a few times on here, at home we did not vote for Trump (nor Hillary). We won’t vote for Trump for the next election either. At home we find it repugnant, threatening and communistic in what the Dems are doing in the US House (and we are registered Dems at home). Every time I see Pelosi and Schiff I think of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara

          Still, it is only on this forum that I even discuss or think about political issues. The banter by the trolls lying, insulting, forever changing their profile names even if it’s just less than 5 of them posting the same screed, all are negligible as to what really matters today. Theirs is a pyrrhic victory whereas others, in the trenches, are life and death, substantive worrisome issues

          I interface with hundreds of people daily at the university, in clinics, in hospital, in hallways, on campus and downtown where the medical campus is located. Not a single person mentions Trump, Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff or for that matter politics. What few words people express is contempt for the government and the news media. People are concerned about their chronic health concerns (largely a product of their choices), the health of their loved ones, depression/anxiety, alienation, job security, savings, local crime, and the deterioration of their families.

          Family is the nucleus of any society. With the collapse of the nuclear family we have what we see today.

          there is a saying in Catholic circles that proclaims “church is local’. It is true . The Vatican, the Federal Government, the political clowns in US Congress and the media elite live in a superficial, narcissistic, odious environment completely detached from the grunts on the ground. We the people have very different concerns


        3. Karen, Trump’s financial disclosure was a report prepared by his lawyers on Trump’s own terms. That’s not the same as releasing taxes. However official Trump’s disclosure may have looked, he and his lawyers decided what to include.

          Your argument seems to be that Trump’s vast business interests are just too complicated for public consumption. It that is indeed the case then Trump should never have run for president.

          I have a hard time grasping why Trump should be the exception to every practice we considered normal for presidents. What’s more, I don’t believe for a moment that legal scholars like Professor Turley want to argue that Trump is standing up for crucial principles in ‘not’ showing his tax returns.

          1. Hill:

            Democratic rhetoric has been pretty clear on how they feel about the rich utilizing every tax deduction available. Since they are following the law, I find this unfair.

            The law does not require a President to release his or her tax returns. The practice of releasing them started in the 1970s, I believe 1973. The only one not to release their return was Gerald Ford, who only released a “summary” of his returns. Presidents typically release returns for the years they are in office. It is not typical to release their lifetime of tax returns. Most only release one or two years of returns. Someone with a lifetime in politics would have crafted their returns to make years of them palatable to the public. One should note that Pelosi has resisted all calls to release her own returns. Congress does not release their returns, even though they have greater scope to benefit financially from their office than any scrutinized POTUS.

            The IRS has audited the returns filed of every President while in office since 1977, including Trump.

            If politicians want Trump to release his tax returns, then we should make it fair. All members of Congress, the President, and the Vice President should all release their returns for the years in which they hold office. It makes no sense to be so concerned about Trump’s taxes, but not those who serve in Congress who could easily profit from lobbyists.

            Either everyone should be required, by law, to release their tax returns, or no one should. And it should be a law. Otherwise, everyone is demanding Trump do what the law does not require, and threatening him if he doesn’t. That’s not just and I don’t think it’s legal to threaten anyone to get their confidential financial information, beyond which disclosures the office required.

            My concern with requiring all of Congress and the President/VP to release their tax returns while in office is because of today’s violent activist environment. What if Antifa started hunting down every business or entity mentioned on Republicans’ returns? What if extreme right wing people started harassing anyone mentioned on Maxine Waters’ or AOC’s return? The scope for abuse is concerning, so not sure on the right path forward. What does seem fair, however, is everyone has to release their returns, or no one. Congress has more ability for fraud and self dealing than a President, who is under more scrutiny, in my opinion.

            1. Karen, Trump’s taxes are being supboenaed by different courts for different reasons. Prosecutors in New York are still investigating campaign finance violations regarding Stormy Daniels. And I believe there’s another investigation regarding Deutsche Bank. Presidents are not above the law. They must comply with lawfully obtained subpoenas.

  9. Well then, it must be good news for the trump family that Deutsche Bank lost their tax records. My bet is they were transferred to the Bank of Moscow.

    1. What is life like as a snake oil salesman?

      You communists will do anything – stoop to any low level and lie, cheat and steal – to perpetuate abortion, perversion, the deletion of borders and obsessive acquisition of “free stuff” because the ends justify the means. Parasitism is how you jealous and covetous communists make a living.

      Americans engage in free enterprise in the free markets of the private sector creating a supply of products and services that free people demand. You haters hate the American thesis: Freedom and Self-Reliance.

      Communists (i.e. liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats) are failures who lie, cheat and steal other people’s money.

      Unconstitutional welfare, affirmative action, quotas, food stamps, forced busing, rent control, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, HUD, HHS, IRS, “fair-housing” laws, non-discrimination laws, Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, etc., etc., etc., it’s all the same – it’s all other people’s money.

      You can’t handle the truth! You can’t handle freedom. You’re all parasites ravaging capable, hard-working and successful hosts.

      “Our greatest happiness does not depend on the condition of life in which chance has placed us, but is always the result of a good conscience, good health, occupation, and freedom in all just pursuits.”

      – Thomas Jefferson

    2. Perhaps DB had no ongoing business purpose in having the records and simply disposed of them before this became an issue.

      This is so apparently a political attack that Trump should not be required to disclose his returns. Nadler’s initial argument for needing them made that clear. The best solution is for this to be dragged out until his reelection is complete. Then, he should just voluntarily tell them to “get them from IRS”.

  10. From the Babylon Bee (a satire site):
    U.S.—A new study found that support for impeaching President Trump would rise significantly if someone, anyone could just tell people what crime Trump is supposed to have committed.

    Republicans and many independents are stubbornly resisting the impeachment inquiry, as though you have to have some kind of reason to impeach the president. Democrats oppose this logic, saying that impeaching a president who insists on being Trump is a constitutional duty. Many Americans are just kind of confused by the whole thing and are waiting for something more interesting to come on TV.

    “Impeachment is polling pretty strong just goin’ on emotion and stuff,” said one pollster, “but man, if we could point to some kind of impeachable offense, the numbers would go way, way up. We’re talking very strong support once there is a crime to impeach for.”

    “Man, if we could just find that Trump, like, secretly nuked Canada or something—that would be the smoking gun,” he added wistfully.

    A small minority of Americans said they would support Trump even if there ends up being a clear, blatant high crime exposed, though this demographic was almost entirely made up of televangelists and Seb Gorka.

  11. You would think that a Professor of Constitutional Law would mention that this is headed to the Supreme Court and discuss the issues involved. This blog is amateur hour.

    1. And what did the dissenting judge, Rao, say?

      ‘Upholding the subpoenas ‘would turn Congress into a roving inquisition over a co-equal branch of government…”

      She also said that she would support the subpoena if the House voted to start an impeachment inquiry.

      JT is doing a terrible job.

      1. Let’s be clear. The executive and judicial branches are not “co-equal,” aka equal, with a legislative branch that has the power to impeach and convict them. I’m not a lawyer. Call me stupid. An organization that can make other organizations disappear is not equal but superior.

        1. Call me stupid. An organization that can make other organizations disappear is not equal but superior.

          Done. Martial law anyone? Whatever happened to the CSA?

  12. C’mon people. The Democrats already have his tax returns. They have had them since 2016. They got them straight from the IRS and the New York state tax authorities. They just need cover to release them.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  13. Trump Is Not A King

    If the court’s ruled that Trump has the ‘right’ to withhold his tax returns from any lawful investigations, they would essentially be granting him the power of a monarch. That’s not the United States.

    But once the public gets a look at Trump’s tax returns, support for impeachment could jump by double-digits. Said returns will show that Trump had, or still has, partnerships with Russian Investors. These revelations will cause many to reconsider The Steele Dossier.

    We could also discover that Trump has investment partnerships with foreign nationals from other countries that have gotten favorable treatment from this administration. Like Saudi Arabia, for instance. These revelations could come as plot points of mounting intrigue fueling the impeachment drive.

    As plot points heighten, the impeachment drive could become a gripping drama the public can’t turn off. That became the case with Watergate; a steady drip, drip of tantalizing intrigues. I suspect with Trump the shoes will keep dropping to create the ultimate political thriller.

      1. I’m beginning to appreciate Nixon more since Trump started occupying the WH. Nixon resigned because Republican Senators told him it was over and they’d vote to impeach. To spare the country this drama, and, I believe because he is ultimately a patriot, he resigned. Nixon did serve the US as a Naval officer.

        You are correct, Kurtz. As long as the cameras are running, Trump’s going nowhere. He’s going to trash and burn our allies, anyone he perceives as an enemy (which is most people), and the office of the POTUS before he goes away.

        1. I didn’t say that he would do bad, only that he would not resign, just stay, and leverage drama. Which you fools never tire of creating. This is akin to judo. You take the opponents overwhelming attacks and let them carry themselves into a faceplant on the mat.

          This is what is waiting for your Democrat leadership if they persist down the never ending road of perpetual “resistance” like some bunch of latter day Trotskyite fanatics pursuing “perpetual revolution”

          1. Yes, us “fools”, being now 51% of the American population, are the ones creating “drama”, not the emotionally-unstable, immature, narcissist, woman assaulter, racist, xenophobe, Islamophobic serial bankrupter of businesses. Look at a photo of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, ponder awhile, and then ask yourself whether this one belongs in their company.

            1. Anonymous:

              No, 51% of the American population does not want to impeach the President. Turley’s headline about “51% of voters” was incorrect.

              I will repost my comment from the poll thread.

              As Schulte commented earlier, the Fox poll was weighted heavily Democrat. As it was a ramdom sample, this was not deliberate.

              1003 randomly selected respondents
              48% Democrat
              33% Republican
              12% Independent

              Here is the breakdown on how people felt about the issues:


            2. Had Obama & Hillary done what every single past President & second place candidate had done over the past 243 years – promote a peaceful transition of power…
              …this nation would have been spared all of this.

              They destroyed the most precious characteristic of our Republic.

              1. “They destroyed the most precious characteristic of our Republic.”

                Sure they did.

                1. The Democrats send our sons and daughters to the Middle East where they die or lose limbs.

                  But they send THEIR kids to Ukraine. Where they get rich.

                  Like Hunter Biden. Like Paul Pelosi. Like…???? Fill in the blank. It’s called corruption.

                  Where’s Hunter? You know, Biden’s kid who the Media refuses to talk about. Shhh. The Bidens are Democrats, u know…One of OUR OWN. So, Shhhh. They’ve done NOTHING wrong. Stop talking about the Biden family corruption already.

        2. Nixon actually had his attorney general John Mitchell and the intellligence community of the time abuse the US’s power to investigate and harass his political opposition.

          Sorry, but the closest parallel there isn’t Trump. It’s Obama.

          1. Louprarous, you are quite wrong. Trump has already compromised his Attorney General. We now know that Bill Barr has essentially functioned as a tool of Trump’s reelection campaign; just like John Mitchell.

            1. The job description of the Attorney General:

              The position of Attorney General was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789. In June 1870 Congress enacted a law entitled “An Act to Establish the Department of Justice.” This Act established the Attorney General as head of the Department of Justice and gave the Attorney General direction and control of U.S. Attorneys and all other counsel employed on behalf of the United States. The Act also vested in the Attorney General supervisory power over the accounts of U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.

              The mission of the Office of the Attorney General is to supervise and direct the administration and operation of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Bureau of Prisons, Office of Justice Programs, and the U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals Service, which are all within the Department of Justice.

              The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:

              Represent the United States in legal matters.

              Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.

              Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.

              Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.

              Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.

              Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.


              As head of the Department of Justice and chief legal counsel to the president, the duties of the attorney general are obviously important and wide reaching.


              1. Yup

                What to make of Maxine Waters comments on Barack Obama during his second term constructing a database for use by DNC against political opponents?

                Steele Dossier? Mueller Report? Whistleblower (Deep State operative) Report?

    1. Trump already had to submit records of his financial ties, as does anyone who runs for President.

      Democrats are trying to change the Constitutional requirements to run for President, without going through the process of an Amendment. If they want to change the requirements to run, then there is a process for that.

    2. Hill: “If the court’s ruled that Trump has the ‘right’ to withhold his tax returns from any lawful investigations, they would essentially be granting him the power of a monarch.”

      *from any lawful investigations*

      This is where the problem comes in. Is it lawful to engage in fishing expeditions? We’ll see what the Supreme Court says about that. If the House were to vote for an impeachment inquiry then they would have a stronger argument. That’s what the dissenting judge said:

      ‘Upholding the subpoenas ‘would turn Congress into a roving inquisition over a co-equal branch of government…”

      I suspect that’s what the SC will say in a 5-4 decision.

  14. Trump has bragged for years that he uses every legal deduction possible. I recall there was a tremendous loss at one of his casinos, which should carry forward for a number of years. This is legal. It is not ethical to complain about wealthy (or middle class) people following the law to minimize their tax burdens.

    That is, after all, the gist of every tax preparer’s advertisement come spring. Don’t pay a dime more than you owe. For some reason, it is considered reprehensible if a rich person utilizes every tax deduction at his team of CPAs and tax attorneys’ disposal.

    He’s just trying to fight the optics of carrying losses forward, or using write offs. The Bernies and Warrens are going to cry foul, and claim he’s not paying his fair share. The truth is, the wealthy pay taxes many times over. They pay investment tax, payroll tax, sales tax, mortgage tax, capital gains tax, and all sorts of taxes. Those whose main sources of income are investments and real estate instead of a paycheck, then you pay different taxes. Jacking up taxes on investments would stick it to the rich, sure, but it would also impact everyone’s 401K, and the ability of the average person to invest in the stock market. Investment would, once again, become the purview of the rich.

    Every dollar that a rich person earns is taxed multiple times, especially if he owns his own company. Then it’s taxed again upon his death.

    He has been audited multiple times, so his taxes are legal. If politicians don’t like the tax law, then they should change it, instead of penalizing those who simply follow what Congress has enacted. It is also hypocritical for wealthy Congresspeople to complain that a wealthy President has write-offs. Nancy Pelosi has a vineyard, which means she gets agricultural write-offs. She’s not what you would consider your typical farmer, in plaid and overalls, riding out on a combine. I doubt she’s hoed a row.

    The entire “you didn’t build that” premise is flawed. It’s the poor who utilize services and infrastructure that they didn’t build. The middle class and the wealthy are the ones who paid for every square inch of those roads, bridges, and schools. For the most part, they are happy to build infrastructure that everyone can use, including those who didn’t pay for it. But to treat them as the enemy wrings the neck of the golden goose.

    1. The federal tax law mandates persons to fully comply. As such, compliance requires that all due taxes be paid and that it is equally required that all deductions and credits be accounted. In other words, it is just as compulsory that the taxpayer fully pursue deductions as they would itemize taxable income.

      1. Darren – I did not know that. I always wondered why those who agitated for higher taxes didn’t just forego all deductions allowed them.

    2. Trump has had “tremendous losses” at all of his businesses because he’s a lousy businessman. What is it now–6 or 7 bankruptcies? You speak of the “optics” of paying few to no taxes because losses are carried forward, which like most of what you write about probably comes from Fox. However, many people who went to school, work hard and pay their fair share of the tax burden do find it obscene that someone whose main source of income was money inherited from his Daddy that was squandered on bad business deals generating losses that are set off against income pays less taxes proportionately than the person who cleans his toilets. Yes, complaining about this is perfectly “ethical”, but what isn’t ethical is cheating, which Trump has in all aspects of his life–marriages, business dealings, acquiring the White House etc., so it is highly likely that he cheats on his taxes, too. In fact, Michael Cohen testified, under oath, that he keeps 2 sets of books–one for Forbes, to be used to support his ranking as a wealthy person, and the other for the IRS. So this is probably what he’s trying desperately to hide, plus the fact that he’s probably nowhere near as wealthy as he holds himself out to be. It has been widely reported that he was flat broke when he started “The Apprentice”, and that most of his properties lose money, especially those in Ireland and Scotland.

      You are wrong about the estate taxes. Most states abolished the inheritance tax, and the feds only tax the amount over and above the exemption amount, which for 2019 is $11,400,000. So, if an estate has $11,400,020, only $20 is taxed. Even halfway smart people arrange their affairs so that little to nothing actually passes into their estate–it all passes via trusts and other vehicles. If it doesn’t pass into the estate upon death, it’s not taxable, so this argument is meaningless.

      Everyone pays sales tax, and property taxes, which is what I assume you mean by “mortgage tax”, so what is your point? In fact, if it is your primary residence and you have a mortgage, you likely get a tax break from the state, but not so for vacation homes. Capital gains are taxes paid on the interest on investments. Short term gains, for investments owned less than 1 year are taxed as regular income. The highest rate for long-term gains is 20%, but this is on a sliding scale. So, if you passively make money by writing a check or sending a wire transfer to invest money, the most taxes you pay on the interest you earn would be 20%, probably less than the rate most people pay for income tax on earnings obtained by the sweat of their brow.

      I’m sorry, but when did the IRS announce that Trump has been audited several times and found to have fully complied with the law? I must have missed this, which sounds like something you heard on Fox.

      No one has penalized Trump yet as far as we know, but the truth is what it is, and it is interesting to see how Fox has already primed the disciples to feel sorry for Trumpy Bear.

      1. Natacha – I expect everyone, including you, to take every deduction available to you. That is what I have a tax account for and you should have one, too.

          1. I think that a NDA payment may or may not be deductible to a business that pays it, depending on the relationship to the subject. For example, if you are Playboy corp, than you better believe they can deduct them as regular business expenses, or say if you are Vivid and you have a “Beef” with one of your disgruntled “starlets” — one can imagine the “work conditions” may give rise to quite a few employee/ contractor disputes!

            I am not a CPA but the key thing for reporting deductions is that they be “ordinary and necessary.” One can imagine situations where payoffs might be reported as deductions but then denied. Now, in business audits and conflicts, denied deductions are often negotiated and even litigated, just on the level of civil obligation,. Not criminal. that is a whole other arena.

            There’s another aspect of this I want to ask . Why precisely is it OK For Playboy or Vivid to be filming people having sex for money and that is legal but private sex work is illegal? That’s a preposterous interpretation of our vaunted First Amendment which is totally unfair to regular people who cant finance big porn operations to cover their paid sex operations with a veneer of legality.

            Some folks even dare to think that porn is actually more socially harmful than paid sex going on in private! I realize we live in a narcissistic exhibitionist culture but yeah some people actually believe such a thing. It’s old fashioned for sure. Really old fashioned. So old fashioned that system predates the United States and its holy writ, the US Constitution. The first major Anglo Saxon law against prostitution was the Vagrancy act of 1824, in England. And in America, the Lorette ordinance of 1857. Ask me? Legalize sex work between consenting adults. This is the position right now of only one candidate for POTUS and that’s Tulsi Gabbard,. btw.

            back to the Enigma questions after that little diversion into history.

            in terms of how law firms might report payments for the benefit of a client, I’m not blathering that out here for free. that’s a lot more complicated and “Fact intensive”

            1. Thanks for your historical trip of the past of prostitution laws. I never object to a little historical perspective being added, even on a slightly related subject. I’m still curious as to how specifically The Trump Corporation legally records his illegal campaign contribution?

              1. this question is unclear and imprecise. it also has a false premise which is that there is an illegal payment, hence the question is unanswerable. you’re just making a statement. be forthright and just come out with it.

          2. enigma – damned if I know. 😉 I am not sure if extortion payments are deductible as such or they fall under business deductions. 🙂 I have never had enough money to be extorted.

          3. Enigma – that would be the same expense paid during the marriage. Generally, “miscellaneous expenses” paid to mistresses are not deducted on a married, filed jointly tax return.

            Adultery is a tragic breach of trust, yet very common today. So very sad.

            1. The money was paid out by Trump’s corporations not personally. The payments benefited the campaign but don’t seem to have been recorded as a contribution. I wonder exactly how “Individual 1” handled it. The man he directed went to jail for that and related offenses. What should the man in charge get?

              1. Enigma – he would have had a history of paying off mistresses long prior to the campaign, hence the payments were not campaign specific. They also did not come out of campaign donations.

                This was one of the dozen or so previous impeachment routes. That dog won’t hunt. That’s why they moved on to Ukraine. When that falls through, there will be something else. It’s been one attempt after another, usually calling for impeachment before the facts are out, which is backwards.


                FECA (52 U.S.C. 30114 (b)(2)) specifically says that campaign-related expenses do not include any expenditures “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.”

                “These payments were relatively small given Trump’s net worth—the kind of nuisance settlement that celebrities often make to protect their reputations, especially when faced with claims that will cost far more to defend than making a quick payoff without all of the bad publicity that usually accompanies such cases. Given Trump’s celebrity status, the potential liability to these women existed “irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.”

                As Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, has said, the payment to Daniels was made “to resolve a personal and false allegation in order to protect the president’s family” and “it would have been done in any event, whether he was a candidate or not.”

                On the one previous occasion that the Justice Department tried to argue that hush money payments to a mistress were a “campaign-related” expense, a jury also did not appear to buy the government’s theory. In the unsuccessful prosecution of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, campaign donors made payments to Edwards’ mistress, Rielle Hunter, a videographer who was actually working on his presidential campaign.

                Unlike Daniels and McDougal, Hunter was paid $1 million while directly working for the campaign and Edwards. Her payments did not go through the Edwards campaign’s account, but the government tried to claim they were campaign expenditures because they were intended to protect Edwards’ reputation during his presidential run and thus “influence” the election.

                Yet a jury acquitted Edwards on the charge of accepting an illegal campaign donation and failed to reach a verdict—resulting in a mistrial—on the other charges, which included filing false reports with the Federal Election Commission for not listing the payments to his mistress…the chief financial officer for the Edwards campaign testified, when the Federal Election Commission audited the campaign, it determined that these payments were not campaign-related expenses that needed to be reported or run through the campaign. Thus, the commission said the federal rules governing campaign contributions and expenditures did not apply.”

                Now, I disagree with Giuliani that the adultery claim was a false allegation. Given Trump’s history, I tend to believe accusations of adultery. If he finds that unfair, then he should establish his credibility in this area, be faithful, and build his reputation. I would not believe allegations of infidelity against Pence, since he has a long established record of not ever being alone with any woman other than his wife or relatives.

                1. So you’re going with the election being two weeks away not being a factor? I’m glad you at least are accepting the possibility the adultery is real. Hope for you yet. BTW, it looks like Rudy Giuliani has new problems of his own. SDNY is looking into his possible criminal behavior in Ukraine. Rudy wouldn’t do well in jail.

                  1. Karen posts a legal argument from a right wing source to counter a plea bargain in an actual court by a guy who can afford lawyers by the boat load.

                    Speaking of loads…..

            2. Karen S – assume your marriage is really a business arrangement, therefore a business partnership. Under this philosophy I think either party could deduct “mental health” assistance to the partnership as a business deduction (I don’t want to be sexist here).

      2. Natacha, under Democrats, the federal estate tax exemption was only $3.5 million in 2009, nothing to a farmer of any size property. The equipment alone could equal that. It rose to 5.45 million by 2016, again, quite low for business owners. The average size single family residence in San Francisco, which is a fixer upper from the 1940s, is over a million dollars.

        Under Trump, business owners and farms got significant federal estate tax relief.

        Since Democrats are vehemently anti-business owners, this would change if a Democrat gets elected in 2020.

        And, seriously, you need to talk to someone about your obsession with Fox news and Hannity. It’s quite hysterical.

        You and I differ on a “successful businessman.” There are a great many people who can do fine as long as they don’t take a hit. Then they crumble. One catastrophe, and they’re out. Trump has taken enormous risks, and gotten way out of his real estate comfort zone. Not all of them have panned out, with a casino one of his most memorable losses.

        If someone has hit lows, but then come out on top, and regains extreme wealth, to the point that “Rich like Trump” replaces “Rich like Midas” and rappers rap about being like Trump, then he is financially successful. Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy. He has filed for corporate bankruptcy, mostly with casinos. He has an extremely diverse holding, and a list of products and ventures that he tried out, and abandoned as not profitable.

        I think that Democrat leaning Snopes has a rather fair assessment, namely, that you can’t judge Trump’s business acumen accurately by merely stating that he’s had bankruptcies. He has a riskier investment style, willing to try completely different ventures, but then promptly abandoning them if he believes they won’t make money. This is quite different from the more conservative businessman who specializes in a particular industry, and stays there. Neither one may be better than the other, just different. As for whether Trump is “good” at business or not, it depends. Do you judge by his net worth, or by his ability to repeatedly make wealth? Or do you judge from the position of someone who specifically wants to work in a Trump casino? If someone pitched investing in a Trump casino, I would consider it a risky proposition, because they don’t seem to be his forte. If someone made me a bet that if they could take all of Trump’s money away, could Trump become a millionaire within a year, I’d take that bet.

        Many of the United States’ largest and most prominent businesses have filed for (and emerged from) Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection one or more times, including General Motors, Charter Communications, Delta Air Lines, Kmart, Macy’s, and the Texas Rangers baseball team…

        Conversely, the absence of bankruptcy declarations is not an indicator of success, as many businesses fail without going through bankruptcy proceedings. A failed business may simply cease operations; with the owners and investors absorbing the losses (if any); a troubled business on the brink of going under may seek to merge with another company that has the resources to keep it afloat and out of bankruptcy; or a dying business may be bought up by another, stronger company, seeking to breathe new life into it or simply to acquire its assets.

        And since many business conglomerates comprise multiple companies — each of which may offer many different product lines — a given company or product may fail spectacularly and rack up losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars (e.g., the Ford Edsel, New Coke, and Cutthroat Island) without necessarily sending their corporate parents reeling into bankruptcy…

        So how are we to rate Donald Trump’s business acumen in relative terms? Is the cautious businessman who minimizes risk, rarely fails, and shows a moderate return better than the brash businessman who often takes on highly risky pursuits, strikes out a lot, but also hits his share of grand slams? That’s too subjective a question for us to answer, and the few numbers offered in this trope aren’t very informative…

        Citing four or six failures out of 515 efforts isn’t very enlightening in the absence of a real context in which to evaluate those numbers. A pro athlete who won 511 out of 515 matches would be acclaimed among the world’s greatest, and a songwriter who hit the Top 40 with 511 out of 515 tunes would be heralded as the preeminent composer of all time. But a doctor who lost four patients out of 515 might find little demand for his services, and a commercial pilot who crashed four times in 515 flights would likely have a hard time finding an employer (or any passengers willing to fly with him). There is no meaningful standard to apply here.

        The most important takeaway from this trope might be that you can’t sum up the world of big business. much less any presidential candidate’s qualifications, with a couple of numbers devoid of explanation or context.

      3. “You speak of the “optics” of paying few to no taxes because losses are carried forward, which like most of what you write about probably comes from Fox.”

        Seriously, you are getting really weird about Fox. It is quite noticeable and irrational.

        We are small business owners. While nowhere near the complexity of Trump’s returns, I am familiar with business write-offs, profit and loss statements, depreciation, etc.

        “However, many people who went to school, work hard and pay their fair share of the tax burden do find it obscene that someone whose main source of income was money inherited from his Daddy that was squandered on bad business deals generating losses that are set off against income pays less taxes proportionately than the person who cleans his toilets.”

        As Taylor Swift says, “You need to calm down. You’re being too loud.” (Funny, considering she previously wrote “Look What You Made Me Do.” I guess she hung up her snake.)

        OK. Trump’s main source of income is not inheritance. Yes, he inherited money from his father, and was born into a wealthy family. He makes his money off of his corporations.

        So, what do you mean by the obscene comment? The casinos didn’t work out. That was a long, long time from when he came of age. The tax law allows any business to carry forward losses. Big business. Small business. It’s called the tax law. Should the law not apply to those who inherited money at any time? I’m not sure what your complaint is, here. That he tried out casinos in his portfolio and it didn’t work out? That rich people should not be allowed to follow bankruptcy law? What about all the other companies who have reorganized, like Ford?

        A girl I knew inherited money when her parents died, and bought a truck. Her life went sideways, out of grief at being orphaned at around 18. She wrecked that truck.

        Do you know why janitors pay a different tax rate? For one, a janitor probably pays the lowest tax rate possible, if he doesn’t get a refund of all his taxes. When you carry a loss forward, then mathematically, you would pay less. That is the tax law. Are you saying that you disagree with the tax code on carrying forward business losses? Because that would hurt a great many businesses who are not in the diversified position of Trump. Would you screw over the business owner who got creamed, wiped out his savings, and then has to pay high taxes the very next year, so you could stick it specifically to Trump?

        The janitor pays income tax (probably all refunded), sales tax, gas tax, and interest tax on his bank account (probably refunded). The only taxes he definitely pays are sales tax. If he does not own a vehicle, he pays no gas tax.

        The wealthy pay a great many taxes, and they employ people, which the janitor does not, unless he owns his own business, and becomes an enemy of the Democratic Party.

        “The IRS has recently released an analysis of the distribution of the income tax burden for Tax Year 2016. The new data shows that the top one percent of income earners bear the burden of 37 percent of all income taxes. This is nearly twice as much as their share of income (19.7 percent). The top 25 percent of earners shoulder nearly 86 percent of the income tax load. Combined, the top 50 percent of earners are responsible for 97 percent income taxes collected. The other half of filers pay just 3 percent of all income taxes.

        “Buried inside a Congressional Budget Office report this week was this nugget: when it comes to individual income taxes, the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent…pay negative 9 percent.

        You read that right. One group is paying more than 100 percent of individual income taxes, the other is paying less than zero.

        There are many unintended consequences to changing the tax code to hurt the rich.

        “but what isn’t ethical is cheating, which Trump has in all aspects of his life–marriages, business dealings, acquiring the White House etc.” Yes, Trump has been unfaithful in his marriages, past and present. I quite like Melania, and don’t understand why any man wouldn’t be faithful to so lovely a creature. That is their personal issue. As for the rest, cite a reference to a cheating business deal. Do you consider bankruptcy cheating?

        We have tried to explain to you that Trump did not cheat to win the White House. If you still cannot accept that he lawfully won the election, after so long, then you have a very extreme, irrational position. That is not what the Mueller report said.

  15. Democrat political campaigns do not have the power of subpoena. The entire American welfare state and the taxation to fund it are unconstitutional, the corollary being the unconstitutionality of the IRS and tax returns. Americans enjoy the right to privacy of their persons and papers, probable cause or a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed notwithstanding. President Trump has not been convicted of a crime in 73 years.

    4th Amendment

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    1. I think I’m going to write a whole paper on what the word “secure” means…i don’t think that has been explored too much…

      1. I’m going with

        “free from risk of loss”


        secure adjective
        se·​cure | \ si-ˈkyu̇r
        , -ˈkyər\
        securer; securest

        Definition of secure

        1a : free from danger
        b : affording safety a secure hideaway
        c : trustworthy, dependable a secure foundation
        d : free from risk of loss

      2. If one speaks the language, one does not need an interpreter.

        If one reads the Constitution and Bill of Rights, one knows American fundamental law.

        If Americans are free, Americans don’t need a dictatorship.

  16. This should trouble you, but it doesn’t. We kinda get it that you’re an advocate of the generic establishment, rather than an advocate of what is just.

Comments are closed.