Supreme Court sides with Trump on taxes...more winning

a reply to: UKTruth

How am I putting my opinion above the law when there is no law either way? Your virtue signaling rings hollow.

Just admit it, you only care about transparency when it's the "other" guys in question.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: UKTruth

How am I putting my opinion above the law when there is no law either way? Your virtue signaling rings hollow.

Just admit it, you only care about transparency when it's the "other" guys in question.

Your opinion is that his tax returns should be released against his will, no?
Your opinion does not matter - the SC will decide whether Trump can be forced to release his returns.
Simple really.
Even more simple is the reason why you want them publicised, but yeah.. transparency... you really care..

a reply to: UKTruth

Yep, and Trump's taxes would give people a clearer picture on where his allegiance truly lies today and even back then.

As if his corporate tax cuts and arms deal with Saudi Arabia weren't evidence enough of where his allegiance truly lies, but I understand those moves are inconvenient to the current narrative his supporters are pushing. Best to ignore them.

Wait....... What?

I know that if I filed a response with the court a day after it was due, I would get a personalized call from the Court Clerk telling me (essentially) to F off and wipe myself with my response when I'm done....

..... So sure, let them respond on Friday

That should be entertaining.

I think the takeaway from all this is to take a long hard look at the signature at the bottom and try not to upset that guy too much asking for the moon when you got nothing. Because that guy can drop the hammer as payback here real shortly when you real MIGHT want him on your side.

Just an observation, and Thursday is coming soon so choose wisely.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: UKTruth

Yep, and Trump's taxes would give people a clearer picture on where his allegiance truly lies today and even back then.

As if his corporate tax cuts and arms deal with Saudi Arabia weren't evidence enough of where his allegiance truly lies, but I understand those moves are inconvenient to the current narrative his supporters are pushing. Best to ignore them.

People made Trump President in 2016. They had a clear enough picture to elect him.
Your opinion on the matter is both irrelevant and partisan.

a reply to: UKTruth


In Trump’s case, there may very well be a “compelling case of a crime” having been committed thanks to testimony given by his former associate Cohen, who stated that Trump would “devalue” properties for tax purposes, and overstate the value of those properties for use as collateral when applying for loans.

If true (perhaps a big IF), that would make Trump potentially guilty of either tax evasion, or wire fraud, or possibly even, both!

But, to determine IF a crime has been committed, the actual values entered on the relevant documents, in this case his tax returns and the papers used in the application for the loans, will have to be compared.

Even if there is no impropriety at all in the tax returns themselves, the values reported in them may not be the values that were reported on other legal documents, but, by law, should have been.

The bank can’t ask for his returns, and the IRS has no authority to request the bank’s documents.

That’s why it’s so important, in this instance, to gain the access sought.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Elections are about public opinion not facts. Requiring potential public servants to release their tax returns would go a long way in transparency and giving constituents a clearer picture on where their representatives allegiance truly lies.

But like I said, I understand that you don't care about transparency in public office. That's your right. 👍

Ah...so now you change it to "potential" public servants. Before it was just politicians, of which Trump was not for the years they are seeking his returns, but now, since I showed how ignorant you were about not even knowing the years the suit was about, now you want to change it to potential public servants.

LOL....you people and your ever moving goal posts.

You lost and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
a reply to: UKTruth


In Trump’s case, there may very well be a “compelling case of a crime” having been committed thanks to testimony given by his former associate Cohen, who stated that Trump would “devalue” properties for tax purposes, and overstate the value of those properties for use as collateral when applying for loans.

If true (perhaps a big IF), that would make Trump potentially guilty of either tax evasion, or wire fraud, or possibly even, both!

But, to determine IF a crime has been committed, the actual values entered on the relevant documents, in this case his tax returns and the papers used in the application for the loans, will have to be compared.

Even if there is no impropriety at all in the tax returns themselves, the values reported in them may not be the values that were reported on other legal documents, but, by law, should have been.

The bank can’t ask for his returns, and the IRS has no authority to request the bank’s documents.

That’s why it’s so important, in this instance, to gain the access sought.

An accusation from an aggravated former employee is not compelling evidence.
Did Cohen provide documents?

a reply to: UKTruth

Against his will? No, according to law.

You can keep twisting my words all you want, doesn't change the fact that I think it should be law that all public servants release their tax returns. Unless you think a cop asking for ID and registration is going against people's will and is shameful?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: UKTruth

Against his will? No, according to law.

You can keep twisting my words all you want, doesn't change the fact that I think it should be law that all public servants release their tax returns. Unless you think a cop asking for ID and registration is going against people's will and is shameful?

What you think should be the law is irrelevant.
The SC will make a judgement on the law, not what people who want his tax returns made public think should be the law...in those people's noble quest for transparency and all.

a reply to: UKTruth

You mean the opinion that lost him the popular vote? Sure, you can use that reasoning if you want.

And before you say it, no I'm not advocating for the abolishment of the electoral college, just pointing out how your argument is flawed considering the numbers. But let me guess, it was those damn illegals right? No proof, just "feelings". 🤣

a reply to: UKTruth

Ah, so my opinion as a citizen is irrelevant. That explains why our "representatives" sell our votes down the river. Our opinions don't matter, what matters is the money those lobbyists give them. Thanks for clarifying your corporate position. 👍

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: UKTruth

You mean the opinion that lost him the popular vote? Sure, you can use that reasoning if you want.

And before you say it, no I'm not advocating for the abolishment of the electoral college, just pointing out how your argument is flawed considering the numbers. But let me guess, it was those damn illegals right? No proof, just "feelings". 🤣

Ah...if only there was no Constitution to protect our elections and taxes. What a wonderful world!

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: UKTruth

Ah, so my opinion as a citizen is irrelevant. That explains why our "representatives" sell our votes down the river. Our opinions don't matter, what matters is the money those lobbyists give them. Thanks for clarifying your corporate position. 👍

Actually no, your opinion is just uninformed as I have pointed out with facts.

Opinions do nothing in a court of law.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Vasa, your intellectual dishonesty is staggering. Obviously I've been talking about potential public servants this whole time which is exactly why I said "if you are running for public office you should be required to release your taxes". I never distinguished "potential" from "current", not once.

But sure, go ahead and consider your game of semantics as a win. It's easier to blindly believe a billionaire politician than it is to question him.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Was that post directed at you? I don't think it was, but I understand that all the bees in a hive tend to think alike so your confusion is understandable.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: network dude
there are lots of things I'd like, but they just aren't going to happen. You don't really want to see Trump's taxes, you were told you did. I can prove it.

That would be a neat trick.

Do it.

without looking, how much did Obama pay in taxes his second year as opposed to his 6th?

If you really did care, you would have looked at his and every president's taxes. But you don't know this answer, nor does the poster I was speaking to.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Vasa, your intellectual dishonesty is staggering. Obviously I've been talking about potential public servants this whole time which is exactly why I said "if you are running for public office you should be required to release your taxes". I never distinguished "potential" from "current", not once.

But sure, go ahead and consider your game of semantics as a win. It's easier to blindly believe a billionaire politician than it is to question him.

No...I specifically asked if you knew about the years the suit was about and you said you specifically only wanted his returns from while he has been in office.

You are now saying you want potential candidates to release them, which if not currently a politician, that would be the entire public/private sector.....as in the entire population if the US...so.....

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Was that post directed at you? I don't think it was, but I understand that all the bees in a hive tend to think alike so your confusion is understandable.

Probably not, but please do continue your uninformed posts....they are getting better and better.