Report: Trump Tax Documents Show “Major Inconsistencies”

President Donald Trump has steadfastly refused to release his tax documents and is continuing litigation in both D.C. and New York despite rulings against him to bar the disclosures of prosecutors or congressional committees. Now, ProPublica has reported that it was able to review tax and loan documents for New York properties that show disturbing major discrepancies in reported expenses and profits.

The two most concerning discrepancies involve 40 Wall Street and Trump International Hotel and Tower. Notably, Trump was running for president when these properties were refinanced and they have glaring conflicts. On the first property, 40 Wall Street, Trump reported to the lender that he had a 58.9 percent occupancy on Dec. 31, 2012 but then increased occupancy levels to 95 percent a few years later. However, when tax documents were filed, they reported an 81 percent lease figure on Jan. 5, 2013. There were other discrepancies the report of costs and other figures.

Likewise, on the Trump International Hotel and Tower, Trump reported rental incomes as $1.67 million in 2017 but then lowered the reported income for tax documents to $822,000.

The unrelenting opposition to the release of tax documents has fueled speculation that Trump is hiding such discrepancies or, alternatively, is trying to hide disclosure of a lower net worth than claimed publicly.

There may be defenses for different figures being reported but on its face it could raise questions of tax fraud. This in turn raises the concern of whether the effort to withhold tax documents is part of a strategy to run out the statute of limitations. The IRS audit tax returns up to three years after the filing date but that period can be extended to six years in some limited cases (involving the misrepresentation of at least 25 percent of gross income). That would mean that Trump is near the outside limit of the statute of limitations if he has not already passed that limit. If it were determined that Trump was running out the clock, there could be a claim that this is conduct occurring during his presidency in obstructing congressional inquiries to conceal an alleged crime. In other words, it could open up yet another basis for alleged impeachable offenses.

125 thoughts on “Report: Trump Tax Documents Show “Major Inconsistencies””

  1. Nothing like pouring over repeatedly audited tax returns to desperately try to find something, anything, they could possibly pin on Trump to get him out of office a year before the election. His returns were audited before he took office, and now they are audited annually. But by golly, if the IRS can’t pin something on him, grassroots the effort!

    I have never witnessed such an effort to try to find any possible crime a man has committed, for the sin of winning an election against Democrats.

    I wonder how many average Americans could survive the scrutiny of millions of people pouring over every action they have ever made, desperately trying to find any possible law breaking. Did you miss a deduction in 2006? Did you over count deductions in 2004?

    Teams of tax attorneys prepare these complicated returns, not Trump personally. But if there was any error, it’s Trump they will go after.

    This partisanship hysteria that has gone on since November 2016 has infuriated every Republican I’ve spoken with.

    This doesn’t feel like a free country anymore, but rather a Single Party State. Oppose the party, and win an election, and spend the next 4 years fighting with activists who abuse their power in the intelligence community, judicial system, the Hill, the Beltway…Constant, unrelenting. They try on one impeachment ploy after another, over and over, every couple of weeks it’s a new accusation.

    And then they go and put up Socialist candidates for President who seem to be in a race as to whose plans would destroy the economy faster.

    Buckle up for 2020. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

    1. Better to have tried to say that in one short paragraph.

      And I can tell you this beyond a shadow of a doubt, Karen A. You have no idea how things really work in this country.

      Start with your comments. They don’t matter. To anyone but you. They’re a complete waste.

  2. In fact the report was the IRS keeps a constant team in the business and there has been no report of it ever leaving which dovetails with many very large business effort. So what’s the BFD and why is the stupid party not going after the IRS?

  3. For accountants, and a few lawyers who understand debits and credits, here is a TRUE STORY from one of Penelope’s cases which illustrates how dumb some lawyers are on financial matters. Most people will not understand how ludicrous this was, but accountants will.

    It was a commercial litigation case, and one issue was how much our corporate client netted the previous year. The books showed $100,000 (I am keeping the real numbers secret to protect whoever.) The tax return showed a loss.

    The attorney for the other side gets up with a 300+ page computerized printout of the general ledger, with details of each transaction. On the left, the beginning balance in the account, and then in the next column the debits, and in the next the credits, and on the right, the ending balance in the account. FWIW “account” as used here does not just mean the bank account, but Rent Expense, Widget Income, Automobile Expenses, etc.

    Down on the last page, the columns for debits and credits were totaled up, and of course they equaled. But that number, was like $4,000,000 for each.

    The other lawyer got in front of the jury, with a copy of the 300 page detailed general ledger, and said:

    “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury! These rascals told you they didn’t make but $100,000 last year! They told the government they didn’t make nothing! But look right here at this number from their own records! $4 million dollars! Here, look for yourself. . . $4 million!”

    This is a true story. Only the amounts have been changed.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Accountant

  4. Yet these same documents were checked in detail by the IRS and accepted as valid… prior to the election. So BFD. The charge if any should be made to the IRS tax court and at this point has nothing to do with President Trump. Same thing applied equally to the Clintons. It’s a goose and gander sauce mixture and at this point except for pointing fingers at the IRS ridiculous.

    1. Michael,.
      Maybe those documents suddenly became “invalid” after Trump pulled off an upset win 3 years ago.😁

  5. OK peeps, here is a brief explanation of how you can LEGALLY get different incomes on taxes, and on your books. You can also have differences in asset valuations both from accelerated depreciation vs book depreciation. Then there is the whole GAAP and non-GAAP thingy, which I do not want to try to explain because most people will never understand.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Don’t worry about the 60%. You will always succeed with the 40%. Now make something up on Trump University. There is a long list of corrections to go through.

  6. The East Coast media called Harry Truman “a failed haberdasher”. Had we seen his tax returns we would know how much he failed at that business. But the East Coast media called him that and “the Man from Missoura” (not the “a” on the end) in order to defame him to the national voters. Harry had replaced FDR when he croaked. We need a new President from the Midwest. Or West. We don’t need some dork from York.
    As for Trump. Let his tax records be kept private.

  7. There’s no statute of limitations for fraud. Six years is substantial understatement.

  8. Wow, so many experts in tax law and tax accounting, including not only Prof. Turley, but a whole host of such experts at Slate, CNN, and ProPublica. And such truly impressive mastery of our tax code! I’m amazed at their “investigative” work wherein they have uncovered that Trump entities have made use of two separate books, one for the corporate entities and another for tax filings. (Please ignore the trivial point that all corporations maintain two such separate books, and, in fact, are required to do so by law.) But ProPublica even took the extra step of getting the opinion of world-renowned tax law and tax accounting expert Prof. Nancy Wallace. According to (would-be) tax maven Wallace, “The discrepancies [in the Trump accounting and tax records] are ‘versions of fraud.’ This kind of stuff is not OK.” Professor Wallace’s tax expertise is all the more remarkable when you consider that she’s had zero training, education, and experience in tax accounting, tax law, and tax fraud, and her actual experience is limited to housing price indices and models and stock option valuations. But when you’re dealing with the urgency of “deep investigative” reporting, such as exhibited by Prof. Turley, CNN, Slate, and ProPublica, a few irrelevant details like this are bound to get lost in the shuffle.

    1. What is hilarious, is that there is even a Tax Preference spot on the returns for the reconciling of the book income and the tax income. Sooo, the IRS already knows this takes place. So, like what is next? Maybe:

      “OMG The corporation claimed $1,000,000 in Depreciation but the financials the bank has only show $500,000, which makes the net worth higher for a loan! And lower on taxes! Trump is cheating! Trump is cheating!”

      Waiting with bated breath. . .

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  9. I’m shocked, shocked to hear that Trump is defrauding both insurance companies and the IRS. We don’t know for sure though. We do have testimony under oath to Congress that Trump has engaged in exactly that kind of behavior. If only there were some way to determine whether he’s engaging in criminal behavior or not? Of course, the President’s lawyers are saying that not only can he not be convicted while President, but he also can’t even be investigated. #AboveTheLaw

    1. If you don’t know for sure then why are you shocked? Given the endless nature of the accusations against Trump you must be a little frazzled and not thinking straight. There is a way to determine if he’s a criminal, it’s called our judicial system. Trump is entitled to make whatever arguments he chooses to make and then the judge decides…and Trump can appeal all the way to the SC. Nice and simple.

      1. There’s a reason there are endless accusations. He’s a criminal through and through. My “shock” was sarcasm by the way. Watch “Casablanca.”

  10. To what is left of his supporters, please write him and tell him to release his tax records to prove us all wrong. His response will come on the same day Mexico sends the United States a check for the wall.

    1. To what is left of his supporters, please write him and tell him to release his tax records to prove us all wrong.

      You want proof you are wrong and have been wrong all along? Just consider your banana republic notion that people are guilty until proven innocent.

      1. Olly, Trump could clear this up very easily. Even Nixon released his tax returns. Even Mitt Romney, who had bank accounts off-shore and in Switzerland, released his tax returns.

        This argument that Trump has a right to privacy on taxes is not likely to go down in history as a noble argument.

            1. Hart Williams – Pelosi is worth $100 million. Wouldn’t you like to see her returns?

              1. SEC should haev a record of her buys and puts. Which, according to belief, is how she amassed that fortune – insider trading impermissible to anyone, it seems, but Members of Congress.

                1. loupgarous – I heard on a business program that Pelosi had the inside track on a suspicious number of IPOs.

            2. Gee, I have heard that a lot, the tu quoque, thingy. The “well what about you?”

              But I have never thought it to be anything but a FORMAL logical fallacy. But Lawyers use “well what about you???” all the time in court, and in filings For example, equitable estoppel??? For another example, character evidence to impeach a witness, or show bias.

              You see, without tu quoque, that old thing where a kid murders his parents, and then says “Have mercy on a poor orphan” , well that second statement would be FORMALLY logical, since it is separate and distinct.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

          1. According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Chief of Staff Drew Hammill, Ms. Pelosi “will gladly release her tax returns if and when she runs for president.” So that ought to settle things.

          2. I’d settle for a record of Pelosi’s stock market buys and puts since 2006.

        1. This argument that Trump has a right to privacy on taxes is not likely to go down in history as a noble argument.

          Supporting due process is is a noble argument. Believing your feelings are more important than the law is just another example of your disconnect with the left half of your brain.

        2. Even Nixon released his tax returns

          Actually, they were leaked by employees of the IRS. See Nicholas von Hoffman on the last days of the Nixon Administration: “anyone defied him who cared to”.

          1. Tabby, in December of 1973 Nixon released his tax returns going back to 1969. I just google the subject and saw nothing about a leak. If you’ve got confirmation on that leak, let’s see it.

        3. It’s not likely to go down in history at all actually since there is no finding by a competent authority of any tax deficiency. Which means you are trafficking in rumor and innuendo and not fact. And so is Turley when he repeats this garbage.

          But lawyers in general, down here on the ground away from ivory towers, will tend to agree that every taxpayer in fact does have such a right all the way on up to el Presidente.

          So your speculation about history on this is about as vain as your speculation on the taxes themselves.

  11. More breathless, red meat reporting from our CPA, er, tax lawyer, um, constitutional scholar host. As a reminder, he’s also an expert hiker, according to the rescue services that hauled is dehydrated butt out of the SoCal mountains.

  12. You know that The Donald is not filling out his own filings, he has accountants and attorneys who do it for him. I am sure they thought it was legal.

    1. and where does it say the IRS or Treasury disputed these filings in question?

      it doesn’t say that, because, apparently, they didnt.

      all just newspaper editorial stuff, 100%

      1. Kurtz, right here your argument bolsters the case for release of Trump’s tax returns. The American public should see for themselves what’s actually happening with those returns. It shouldn’t be a parlor game where we can only speculate.

        1. Like you would know if the law was followed! You would still hear people who know NOTHING about tax law pontificating about how he broke the law.

          1. Anonymous, you’re ‘argument’ seems to be that a few know-nothing’s will spoil it for everyone. So Trump should just keep his taxes secret.

            Only a know-nothing would buy this argument.

        2. False. The president is a taxpayer and has a right to privacy like all other taxpayers.

          Let Congress make a law if it wants to force the issue. I won’t hold my breath.

    2. But his signature and name are on the tax forms. That means regardless of what his accountants have done he, the person whose signature is on the dotted line, is responsible for what the tax forms say. That person provides the data that go into the tax forms. And, how do you know he doesn’t have 2 separate accountants, one for the credit side, and one for the tax sife?

    3. That’s the point isn’t it Paul? Trump’s not sweating his IRS filing on the night of April 15 or October 15 like a lot of us. He’s got accountants and tax lawyers doing it. The rich aren’t like us.

      1. True story mespo…I help a few ppl do their taxes every year for free. Cause I’m nice, or just being taken advantage of, probably some mixture of the two. Nonetheless, the rich folk’s taxes look like a damn novel. All the ones I do look like flip books for kids and are basic either 1040EZ or 1040A. But I’m not breaking down Schedules, etc.

  13. Prof. Turley I am a long-time tax practitioner and I can easily imagine why tax returns look very different from audited financial statements. No one should assume the same rules apply … they don’t and the differences can be very large. Please don’t spread the nonsense of one-sided political hacks like ProPublica which makes misleading claims to raise their profile for fund raising purposes.

    1. thanks jfj and please comment again.

      sadly however such observations made here in the past on similar issues always just evoke more “ORANGE MAN BAD” oversimplifications.

  14. I guess my question is why does it take becoming President for the IRS to find this? Could it be that they looked at it already and didn’t have an issue?

    1. ah well Jim “propublica” an advocacy organization “Found” them. Apparently the IRS did not care.

      back to ORANGE MAN BAD propaganda

      1. The IRS is under funded and is especially easy for high rollers to buffalo because they have all the lawyers and accountants they want. The system largely relies on the honesty of citizens with minimal policing abilities.

        1. you’re right that the system largely relies on self reporting

          funding levels are a matter of practical and political opinion i think so underfunded is your opinion.

          “Easy for high rollers to buffalo” is false. Tax examiners in the US are among the best in the world. They full well know what they are looking for and how to prove it. They can and do pick their cases big and small, of course, but the notion that they just back off high rollers is your own personal guess, not a fact.

          You could just look at one program the OVDPI and infer that the IRS is actually quite GOOD at squeezing high rollers.

          I am not going to elaborate too much on this for free. I’ll just leave it at that.

    2. I have parsed more than one story about socalled “tax fraud” scandals reported by the press.
      one story that I debunked was even alluded to in that thing quoted today, the lame NYT story about Trump’s daddy’s use of fractional discounts which were a well accepted tool in estate and gift tax planning, that the NYT bogusly pretended were some sort of fraud. Even when the IRS had accepted them.

      But NYT is not journalism it is editorial masquerading as journalism. But they are big, they can lie.

      The press loves these stories because they can take a phony story generated on flimsy suspicions and build it up into a whole pile of nothing which sounds really bad nonetheless. Sells ink!

      tax returns, disputes, and adjudications are complicated process. The vaunted “Press” never takes the time to learn how it works and they are NEVER fair to the subjects of their scandalous broadsheet lies. Most reporters are smart, but not initiated to the complexities. most editors could care less! They’re less fair to the taxpayer than the IRS, think about that! And sometimes even the IRS gets smacked down by a tax court. You would think the NYT might consider that reality too. But no, they’re supremely unfair. Stories like this prove it.

      I could give a list of such stories that turned out to be NOTHING but the press never apologized. But it would be a waste of my time since they have the megaphone and I am just one small peasant lawyer out here in flyover with a pitchfork.

      1. Mr Kurtz – I do not think reporters, in general, are smart. My wife works with documents like theses all day and she would be sending for more documents.

      2. Given your past lies about the NYTs Kurtz I’m don’t get why we would take you seriously on this one.

        1. you refer to my previous statements about NYT and its bizarre choices about Hong Kong coverage. that situation has evolved so much there in HK since then. I come to see it in a different light now.

          I don’t admit whatever it was that you were asking me to say months ago, but right now , I will admit I may have guessed their motivations incorrectly. I don’t really know where NYT stands in respect of all that, I may have overstated my hypothesis. Certainly, it is more complicated than I grasped at the outset. the NYT may have been smart to approach the HK protests cautiously. I could elaborate on that, but it’s moving pretty fast there and whatever we say today may not matter soon in respect of that situation anyhow.

          My earlier condemnations of the NYT piece on Trumps estate and gift tax matters, I fully affirm and repeat and integrate here by reference, so to speak.

            1. Haven’t you all tired of beating a dead horse yet!? I’m tired enough of reading your constant banter to kick this thread to the curb!

              Next time at least say something new and different than this constant Partisan schoolyard playing the dozens!

          1. The NYTs published an editorial condemning the treatment of Hong Kong protesters on the day you claimed they didn’t even cover it – the news coverage was on the front page.
            Meanwhile Trump has praised China’s actions in the city.

            1. The initial reports were not front and center. That was my visual impression. I think that was accurate. But the thing that I’m withdrawing that I said before, is that this was somehow wrong or corrupt. Now, I have reconsidered the caution of NYT in promptly reporting on front page about the protests, because time has shown the matter is not as clear cut as it immediately seemed to me, and perhaps caution was a wise approach on their part.

              I’ll elaborate a little because this is complex.The HK protests early peaceful and massive turnout was a big news item. I thought it should have been front page but it was not. IT became front page after while, but slowly. AT first I condemned this. I think I was intemperate in my judgment about that. Mostly because the protests themselves have deteriorated significantly in quality.

              What has happened since then? Since then the peaceful protests have degenerated into vandalism of public buildings, private property, arson, molotov cocktails thrown at police, and deadly assaults made on police with iron rebar and knives and bricks. The peaceful protests have become riots. The protesters are acting like its 1789/ 1848 and they’re manning the barricades in the streets of Paris or something.

              In the USA this behavior would have lead to a LOT of dead protesters, not a couple. Actually most protester deaths have actually been suicides. You can look it up. Given the size and the protester violence, the HK police have been very restrained and stand my opinion that they’ve been more so by far than our police would have been. I’m not even saying that to criticize our police, as generally I am not a fan of riots anywhere.

              Moreover the protesters are shutting down public rights of way and blocking subways etc. Which would also be considered serious crimes and offenses here in the USA. These actions harm regular people who are not invested in the drama as much as the young people.

              The protesters have also taken many foolish choices that play very badly in China proper, like displaying the national flag in bad ways, and elevating the US flag. I love our flag but they’ve misfired on that account if they want the sympathy of their countrymen. This plays right into the Communists’ hands as they have been saying all along that this was a sort of “color revolution” being instigated by Westerners stirring things up. Regretfully, I find myself starting to wonder more and more if the Communists aren’t actually right about this. What a sad thing that a legitimate public concern for violation of the Basic law of HK by the mainland government, with the attempted extradition bill, has degenerated into mob violence and chaos. I’m concerned for the HK citizens in many ways, but clearly now the danger is not just from the usual Communist mischief but just plain old chaos itself.

              What i see now is that the cautious approach the NYT took towards reporting this, was perhaps wise, in many ways. If they had been championing this on their front page the first day, then the situation would have probably degenerated even worse and faster.

              With that understandiing of my viewpoint about the subject, it should be clear that while I don’t negate my visual impression about where the headlines were placed, rather down on the list of headlines, now I just see that in retrospect as a bit of wise caution on the part of the NYT.

              In spite of how many errors the NYT makes with this or that ,it can still make good choices too, as any big daily newspaper can, in spite of its own inclinations.

              I realize this is a subtle comment and not the sort of hyperbole i usually enjoy to use, but the subject is a difficult one, with a lot of crosswinds, and you have to sail carefully into these waters. I think in retrospect that I was too harsh on the NYT on this one issue. I’m not apologizing because overall I still think badly of them, but I’m withdrawing my previous negative remarks about their choices on this topic.

              Also, since then, I have stopped following the NYT at all on this, and I’ve just taken to following the SCMP which is a HK newspaper that is approaching the whole thing from the ground level and fairly I would say, to all the relevant interests at hand.

              I’ll even say one more thing. I like Epoch times and I still follow them but they sometimes seem to go overboard railing against the PRC regime in respect of what’s happening there at this time. That’s my opinion now a few months into this. At first I thought they were on top of it pretty well but they could stand to be a little more objective.

              They do have one spinoff that I like, Simone Gau is one of their reporters and she has a series of interesting interviews on youtube. You can check them out if you’re interested in China things.

        2. Kurtz didn’t lie. He said what he saw and I too found something similar to Kurtz but wasn’t sure. Anon was asked to produce the exact dates and times (including time zones) of the articles in order to find out when the NYTimes actually published an article about the protests in Kong. Anon didn’t do it and couldn’t prove his case. Why? Anon shoots from the hip which explains his high rate of error.

  15. Maybe I can’t read, but I don’t see anywhere in Article 2 of the Constitution which gives the President, or a President’s Administration, the power or privilege to block, stonewall, or otherwise obstruct Congress, or our criminal justice system, while in office, or anytime before, during, or after serving as President. In fact all powers of the President are conditional on the advice and consent of Congress, and in particular the Senate, and there are no Executive privileges what so ever, and there is no secrecy, especially from the States as they are assembled in the Senate as the Union!

    I laugh every time someone professes the Powers and Privileges of the President or the Executive Department! If you think they exist, then quote the clauses from Article 2, or anywhere in the Constitution, that supports your interpretation of Executive Powers and Privileges.

    And for all those that have difficulties comprehending the Constitution, Congress cannot change or alter the Constitution by Statute, it must be by Constitutional Amendment!

    1. they are NOT conditional, in general. You just inferred that notion because you like it.

      in some specifics they may be conditional. it depends. but we know you paint with a broad brush (cue insults)

      1. Then you definitely can’t read and you definitely can’t comprehend what you read, everything about the President and the Presidency is conditional on the Decisions made by the Union of the States as they are assembled in Congress through the legislative process!

        And just because I know that you people have trouble actually reading the Constitution before you make outlandish comments, here is Article 2 Sections 2 through 4, and every thing from Commander and Chief to Appointments to Foreign Policy is conditional, EVERYTHING!

        Section. 2.

        The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

        He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

        The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

        Section. 3.

        He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

        Section. 4.

        The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

        1. There does not appear to be any mention of subpeonas in what was posted by fpapels.
          And since “I don’t see anything in the Constitution” authorizing subpeonas, they must not be constitutional.
          Since fpapers wants to play this “I don’t see anything in the Constitution” game, let’s all play it.

          1. You are dense! I didn’t post Article 2 of the Constitution to show what isn’t in the Constitution, I posted it to show you what is in the Constitution, and if you can read, which you are demonstrating that you cannot, the Constitution explicitly states that all Executive powers granted to the President are contingent on the consent, by and with, which for someone as dimwitted as you, means Before and During, not After!

            Now if you are through playing your Semantics games, maybe you can just read and apply the Constitution as written, without your feeble and partisan interpretations!

            1. fpr – where in the following does the President need the consent of anyone else.

              The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

              1. You really are dense! All those are conditional statements! The President is only commander in Chief when the military is called into actual service, and that only entails acting as the Supreme commander in the execution of the effort, he has no other role, and he reports directly to the Union, and who calls them into service and tells them where to deploy, the Union of the States as they are assembled in in Congress, and in particular, the Senate where the States are assembled as equals with equal Suffrage to reach Majority Consensus.

                And the point of having to ask the principal officers in the Executive department for their opinion in writing for their duties is because they are inherited, not the President’s choice, they serve the United States, not the President, so the President must familiarize himself with their duties so he can better manage the executive departments and report to Congress the State of the Union!

                And even reprieves and pardons are only for offenses against the United States, against the Union, for crimes like insurrection!

                It is hard for me to take you seriously given the fact that you are in total denial that the President, and everyone in our Government, is subservient to the Union, the United States, in Congress Assembled.

                The only decision maker in our Government is the Union, that is what “all Legislative Powers contained herein” means, a legislature is a decision making assembly, and that makes the Union the Supreme Legislative and Governing Authority!

                Get off your high horse and actually use your brain to learn something! You must believe that the framers of the Constitution were stupid idiots to have drafted a constitution that didn’t have an established authority and empowered that authority to govern! It makes absolutely no sense to empower one person to rule over, and makes decisions over, the people in their Collective Capacity! If that was that case then they should have just declared the President as a King and been done with it!

                1. fpr – what I believe is that 1790, the Constitution has changed, statutes have been written that modify the Constitution, the Supreme Court has modified it and you are still at the baby stages of learning about the Constitution.

            2. Nice try, fedpapers.It still does not mention subpeonas, and if you want to be consistent, if it’s not in the Constitution, there is no constitutional authority for it.

              1. A regular poster who frequently complains about anonymous comments. Gotta love (not) these hypocrites.

              2. Congress never has to subpoena anyone, and Congress, both houses, are free to make the rules for all their proceedings, that means, for someone as deluded as you, that they can decide everything, including subpoenas, and the penalties for ignoring those subpoenas!

                Get a clue! The Union is the Government Authority, everyone in our Government serves the Union, and the Union makes the final decisions, not the President or his contrived administration, and Definitely Not Parties, the United States, in Congress Assembled, the Union which makes our Country the United States of America!

                Why do you even comment on this blog, you have no understanding of the Constitution or the principles established by the Constitution!

                1. Fed.papers, you may or may not realize it, but you are generally considered to be nuts by anyone who knows anything about Con Law.
                  And every now and then, someone will take the time and effort to point out just how crazy your take on the Constitution is.
                  So that’s why I, and a few others, sometimes “bother to comment here” on your bizarre notions about the Constitution.
                  More often than not, people probably just get a good chuckle out of your comments, and don’t bother to reply.

    2. I’ve watched many Constitutional Professors on various TV channels. Many organizations have Constitutional experts who speak out also. Your statements counter those expressed by other scholars. Obama did things that could have been Impeachable. Were you speaking out about those?

      1. Was Obama a President? Then he didn’t have the Power, or Authority, to do what he did either! There’s nothing special based upon party affiliation and what party is unconstitutionally claiming power!

      2. Sandra, your comment is what’s known as a ‘half-baked what about’. You have no examples to offer regarding impeachable offenses by Obama. You’re merely assuming they exist and asking ‘what about?’

        1. If it can be shown that Obama illegally targeted Trump as alleged, then that would warrant impeachment. We’ll see what Barr and co discover about Mifsud, Halper, etc.

          1. “If it can be shown…” A big “if”….of course, Obama DID do that, and so did Comey, McCabe, Clapper, Brennan, et al. But don’t count on anything happening to any of them. Certainly not the Baby Jesus Messiah Obama.

            Just like the IRS targeting of conservative groups. Obama DID that, but nothing happened did it? In other words, it’s more likely that Obama et al will get away with all of their criminality and corruption and weaponization of government against their political foes than that anything will happen to any of them. Maybe one or two fall guys. But that’s it. Adjust expectations.

  16. Following Trump’s first term there will be a second term in a federal facility that is not the White House.

            1. You don’t even know what the rule of law is, especially in relation to the Constitution!

              If it’s not in the Constitution then it doesn’t exist! You can’t change or alter the Constitution by Statute to make it mean what you want, or how you want to interpret it!

              You people make me laugh!

              1. “If it’s not in the Constitution, it does not exist”.
                Fed.papers needs to make up his mind; if subpeona power of Congress is “not in the Constitution”, then “it does not exist”.
                At least according to our “constitutional scholar” , federalistpapers.

          1. Not to be mean, but dealing with “what’s wrong with” federalistpapers would totally consume a number of very lengthy threads.

  17. My understanding is that if the IRS finds discrepancies and cause for concern – they can go back as far as they want to audit someone or an entity. In other words, if there is a show of consistent misreporting – it stands to reason it would have been done more than 3 years or even 6 years.

Comments are closed.