It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I'm just curious. Why would you want to see Trump's income tax returns?

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

The emoluments clause for one.




posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Berns23
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why's that? It's not illegal. Heck, you probably make income from Russia too if you have a mutual fund and the American companies in there make money doing business in Russia.

Are you being coy here? If Trump has Russian contacts then he is in violation of the emoluments clause. That is why we want to see his tax returns. To prove if he does or doesn't. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Instead of ridiculing me, why not call for the release of the returns to clear his name?



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So if Putin buys a Trump brand bottle of Vodka it is a violation of the emoluments clause? The Constitution is not that strict.

Oath mishaps

In 1909, when President William Howard Taft was sworn in, Chief Justice Melville Fuller misquoted the oath, but the error was not publicized at the time. The mistake was similar to the one Taft himself would make twenty years later when swearing in President Hoover. Recalling the incident, Taft wrote, "When I was sworn in as President by Chief Justice Fuller, he made a similar slip," and added, "but in those days when there was no radio, it was observed only in the Senate chamber where I took the oath."[13]
In 1929, Taft, later the Chief Justice, garbled the oath when he swore in President Herbert Hoover using the words "preserve, maintain, and defend the Constitution", instead of "preserve, protect, and defend". The error was picked up by schoolgirl Helen Terwilliger on the radio. Taft eventually acknowledged his error, but did not think it was important, and Hoover did not retake the oath. In Taft's view, his departure from the text did not invalidate the oath.[13][47][48]
In 1945, President Harry S. Truman's bare initial caused an unusual slip when he first became president and took the oath. At a meeting in the Cabinet Room, Chief Justice Harlan Stone, apparently mistaken about the meaning of Truman's middle initial (which is not an abbreviation but rather the whole middle name in itself), began reading the oath by saying "I, Harry Shipp Truman...", Truman responded: "I, Harry S Truman,..."[49]
In 1965, Chief Justice Earl Warren prompted Lyndon Johnson to say, "the Office of the Presidency of the United States".[50]
In 2009, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, while administering the oath to Barack Obama, incorrectly recited part of the oath. Roberts prompted, "That I will execute the Office of President to the United States faithfully." Obama stopped at "execute," and waited for Roberts to correct himself. Roberts, after a false start, then followed Obama's "execute" with "faithfully", which results in "execute faithfully," which is also incorrect. Obama then repeated Roberts' initial, incorrect prompt, with the word "faithfully" after "United States."[51][52] The oath was re-administered the next day by Roberts at the White House.[53][54]

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 6-3-2017 by Berns23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Berns23

Gifts are not taxable?

Any gift at or above 14 K is federally taxable and must be declared. See annual gift tax: exclusion. The system is lawful evil, not chaotic stupid.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Berns23

Look. I explained to you the very simple reason why we should see his tax returns. Do you agree with that reasoning or not?



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Okay. I stand corrected. As you can see, I have never received a gift that is more than 14 thousand. I'm just a common folk.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't let you see my facebook pictures and timeline. That's my privacy. Taxes are private.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Berns23
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't let you see my facebook pictures and timeline. That's my privacy. Taxes are private.

You also aren't the President and currently neck deep in many allegations of Russian espionage. Answer my question.

PS: Facebook is a poor example of privacy since nothing on Facebook is private.
edit on 6-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

The emoluments clause for one.


There is a thread on that - i am sure you can find it.
How would Trumps tax returns before he became President be relevant to the emoluments clause? You have not really thought this through, have you...



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
PS: Facebook is a poor example of privacy since nothing on Facebook is private.


Taxes aren't private either. IRS has taxes.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

The emoluments clause for one.


There is a thread on that - i am sure you can find it.
How would Trumps tax returns before he became President be relevant to the emoluments clause? You have not really thought this through, have you...

I wouldn't know unless I saw his tax returns. Funny how that works though.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Berns23

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
PS: Facebook is a poor example of privacy since nothing on Facebook is private.


Taxes aren't private either. IRS has taxes.

First off. When are you going to answer my question? Second. This isn't even close to being an accurate comparison. Facebook is literally a corporation that makes you sign a T&C that says they own anything you post to their servers. The IRS is bound by federal law to keep your taxes secure.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: xuenchen
"They" want to see it because they are bitter and excessively jealous.

No other rational reasons exist.





Is that why you got your pants in a twist about Obama's birth certificate?



I actually know more about the BC than most people can ever imagine.




posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

The emoluments clause for one.


There is a thread on that - i am sure you can find it.
How would Trumps tax returns before he became President be relevant to the emoluments clause? You have not really thought this through, have you...

I wouldn't know unless I saw his tax returns. Funny how that works though.


Erm, his latest tax returns would not cover the period of his Presidency, so I will ask again, how would the emoluments clause apply to any tax returns he could share now? You are not making any sense.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Besides, if he does receive an emolument from Putin, it would be reported by the press, it wouldn't be in his tax returns. These days the press knows everything. WH has a press corps right in it. This isn't the 1700s when the emoluments clause was written.
edit on 6-3-2017 by Berns23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

All I'm saying is that if there is nothing to see then he shouldn't be so concerned with releasing them. The Russian thing is a developing story and while these tax returns may not violate the emoluments clause, it could show potential sources of conflict for when he became President. These questions need to be answered, and if there is nothing there, then he should have no problem releasing them.
edit on 6-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

All I'm saying is that if there is nothing to see then he shouldn't be so concerned with releasing them. The Russian thing is a developing story and while these tax returns may not violate the emoluments clause, it could show potential sources of conflict for when he became President. These questions need to be answered, and if there is nothing there, then he should have no problem releasing them.


He has already made a complete statement on what is happening to his businesses whilst he is President.
His tax returns will be 0 from Jan 20th as his salary is $1. I am sure you would not want to violate the rights of his relatives who are now in control of the Trump empire by demanding to see their tax returns...

As for his previous tax returns, his entire income could have been directly from Russia and he would have broken no law or disqualified himself from the Presidency in any way.

There is only one reason why Trump's enemies want his tax returns, so they can pour over them and find the slightest thing, no matter how innocuous, that they can blow up into a huge story. Don't be surprised if he doesn't fall for it.
edit on 6/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

All I'm saying is that if there is nothing to see then he shouldn't be so concerned with releasing them. The Russian thing is a developing story and while these tax returns may not violate the emoluments clause, it could show potential sources of conflict for when he became President. These questions need to be answered, and if there is nothing there, then he should have no problem releasing them.


If the White House released copies of Trump's tax returns and there was nothing amiss in them, nothing to criticize, and nothing to explain why he's dragged his feet on releasing them...would you be satisfied with that?



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: xuenchen
"They" want to see it because they are bitter and excessively jealous.

No other rational reasons exist.





Is that why you got your pants in a twist about Obama's birth certificate?



I actually know more about the BC than most people can ever imagine.



Are you Donald in disguise? Why not share if that is the case? You share virtually any BS on the entire internet usually.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

All I'm saying is that if there is nothing to see then he shouldn't be so concerned with releasing them. The Russian thing is a developing story and while these tax returns may not violate the emoluments clause, it could show potential sources of conflict for when he became President. These questions need to be answered, and if there is nothing there, then he should have no problem releasing them.


If the White House released copies of Trump's tax returns and there was nothing amiss in them, nothing to criticize, and nothing to explain why he's dragged his feet on releasing them...would you be satisfied with that?

Yes. I can't argue with the hard evidence.




top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join