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.

 

Federal Court orders the President to hand over his tax returns

page: 8
18
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Nyiah

I kind of agree with that to some extent, but only so far as any information an employer might be allowed access to.

In theory, everyone in government is an employee to we the people. As such, I agree that we should have access to any and ALL information that any employer is expected to have.

That said... are employers allowed access to one's tax returns?

Also this applies to all of them, not just the POTUS, so let's get on that...


Apples and oranges, Pup. The company you work for 9-5 every day doesn't have the (direct) power to enact laws, tax you, regulate you, etc. Those working in government on our behalf (local councils, mayors, governors, senators, congressmen, presidents, everyone in between, you get the idea here) DO.
They should not be afforded that kind of privacy today. They long ago blew it. Consistently. Corruption is a serious problem, and we definitely need to get off our asses and tamp it down, and eventually be rid of it as best possible. Once more, IMO, mandatory transparency whether they like it or not is about the only thing we have left in the arsenal to ensure it. If you want the job, be prepared to spend a few years feeling very figuratively nude.




posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 04:16 PM
link   

President Donald Trump is closer to losing control of his tax filings after years of defying a modern presidential norm of disclosing them to the public. A federal judge in New York ruled that Trump can’t stop his accountants, Mazars USA LLP, from turning over his taxes and other financial documents to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., whose office is investigating whether the Trump Organization falsified business records related to hush-money payments.


Right people!

Because everyone itemizes hush money on their tax returns.



Trump haters proving yet again how imbecilic they are.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




If he has nothing to hide then why not prove his haters wrong?


We love the Patriot Act excuse.

Trump doesn't have to prove anything.

Presumption of innocence and all that jazz that our legal system is suppose to be predicated on.


edit on 8-10-2019 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight




So you think Tax returns include dodgy payments.


I think that Michael Cohen testified that Trump regularly alters his financial statements, lowering his property values for tax purposes and elevates them for bank loan purposes.



Or this thing called property values and market fluctuations.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Alright, sure, but it should apply to ALL of them not just the President. Push for all or none. I have no real issue with Trump being forced in order to have that position so long as it applies to all of them.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

What are you scared that they'll find? The Patriot Act has nothing to do with this. 🐑



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

He's in a public position. If he cared about privacy maybe he shouldn't have applied to be a public servant? Someone in his position should be required to make his financials public, that goes for anyone from the state level in government and up in my opinion, D or R.
edit on 10/8/2019 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Do you think it's illegal for a private citizen to pay another private citizen to shut up about an affair? lol you guys are so desperate.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Assassin82
He was all about the Obama birth certificate. He demanded we see it!

Well, he should just release his taxes. If he’s got nothing to hide then just release them.

For those on the right who say “he doesn’t have to”, you wouldn’t have that same response to a democratic president who failed to release their taxes. You just wouldn’t.


So should he release a doctored, over-the-top version of his tax returns like Obama did with his birth certificate?



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The patriot act defense is a reference to the sentiment "If you've got nothing to hide you'll let the government spy on you" that was espoused by many right wingers during the initial passage of the patriot act.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Hendrick99

Also, being a natural born citizen is a constitutional requirement, we actually do have a right to that. Releasing your tax returns is not as such we do not have a right to that information. Honestly I don't care about his taxes or anyone else for that matter.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Do you think it's illegal for a private citizen to pay another private citizen to shut up about an affair? lol you guys are so desperate.


I'm not the one fighting a batch of subpoenas.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I never said you were. Since you didn't answer my first question, let me ask a second. Do you think hush money payments are tax deductible? I mean, how would those payments show up on taxes?



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite




Do you think it's illegal for a private citizen to pay another private citizen to shut up about an affair? lol you guys are so desperate.


Apparently, lying to Congress about getting a blow job is an impeachable offense.

The hush money payments are, supposedly, election finance violations. Cohen testified that Trump often adjusts property values - lowers them for tax purposes, and elevates them for banking purposes. I believe that's what they're looking for in the tax documents they're requesting - inconsistencies in declared values.
edit on 9-10-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


Apparently, lying to Congress about getting a blow job is an impeachable offense.

Lying to Congress about anything is a crime... just not a "high crime and misdemeanor." Anyone can lie to Congress, but the House apparently wanted to push the Clinton impeachment.

That said, I (apparently along with a majority of Americans; this stunt cost the Republicans dearly in the next election) did not and do not believe Clinton should have been impeached. At the time, I despised Clinton's policies... I mean, really? "Don't ask; don't tell" is supposed to work? Really?

I ate some crow on that one. It worked fine. It was a good call.

But despite my feelings toward Bill Clinton, I still was more upset at those dragging that crap out, making parents across the nation have to explain to their kids what a "BJ" was because the local evening news was obsessed with it, than I was with Clinton either doing what he did or lying about it. I mean really... he was married to the Hildebeast! Who could blame him?

In the end, any crime that the House says is impeachable is impeachable... but not everything the House says is impeachable should be impeachable. So it is with this attempt. The Democrats will end up paying dearly for this impeachment attempt. One can indict a ham sandwich, and apparently also impeach a ham sandwich. That does not mean one should.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha



lying to Congress


and investigators under oath is. But not enough so to remove someone from the white house.



The hush money payments are, supposedly, election finance violations.


Two charimen of the FEC have said this is not the case.



Cohen testified that Trump often adjusts property values - lowers them for tax purposes, and elevates them for banking purposes.


Pretty sure the state assesses the value of your property for tax purposes. Also you don't owe any taxes until you sell, at which point the price you sold for is reported by multiple parties (buyer, seller, banks, and agents). Most (if not all) banks do their own independent appraisal of your property before you are allowed to take out loans on the property.

Regardless, none of that is impeachable. There has never been an impeachment based on actions taken before assuming federal office, except once. That one alleged misconduct while in a state office then also while in his federal office. No one has ever been impeached for things they did as a private citizen before getting elected or appointed (as that's the purpose of a campaign or confirmation).



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

We're quick to forget it wasn't just lying to congress. It was lying to congress under oath, lying to investigators, lying to a grand jury, and multiple counts of witness tampering.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 04:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

In the end, it was still lying about a BJ. The real damage to Clinton would have been done had the House simply dropped the case and maybe passed a Resolution stating that Clinton had acted improperly; being caught publicly was political blow enough at that point. By pursuing impeachment, the House simply explained to the American people that they were acting politically and not in the interests of the country... and the Republicans paid dearly for that mistake. The sympathy for Clinton that ensured overrode the disgust at his actions.

Had the impeachment been over the same charges relating to a serious offense, as it was in the case of Watergate, that would have been a whole different colored hossy.

The House Democrats are now vociferously pursuing the exact same flawed thinking. In many ways, this mess reminds me of the Hatfield-McCoy feud... no one wants to talk things down, just keep pushing it bigger, and bigger, and bigger... we all know how that worked out: "You killed my pig! I'm gonna kill you!" - > "You killed my borther! Now I'm gonna kill your family!" - > "You killed my family! Now I'm gonna destroy your village!" - > ad infinitum.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 04:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

For sure. I'm just saying it's not that one time he lied to congress. He repeatedly lied to everyone and tried to pressure others into perjuring themselves too. But I agree, republicans damaged themselves on the impeachment push. But there is a difference. The republicans didn't have a loyal media pushing their narrative to every day Americans like the dems do. Hopefully all of their lies about trump-russia keep people skeptical enough to see this for what it is. The media will treat it as though it is legitimate.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 05:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

He's in a public position. If he cared about privacy maybe he shouldn't have applied to be a public servant? Someone in his position should be required to make his financials public, that goes for anyone from the state level in government and up in my opinion, D or R.


He was required to make his financials public, by law, and did so.
He was not required to make his tax returns public.
So, all above board and by the rules.


edit on 9/10/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join