Trump's Tax Returns..do you care?

Quick&Dead

The Democrats are making a big thing of getting President Trump's income tax returns ... and making them public.

I have no idea what they expect to find as most tax returns are just that, tax returns of little interest to anyone other than to the person involved.

We all know he has made a truck load of money, freely admitted by Trump.

Frankly, I really don't give a hoot about his tax returns.

Ricci Wright

No

spasmcreek

NO... i imagine many in our govt could not stand a public look at their returns while SERVING America so seeing his BEFORE elected is no big deal

select-fire

Dems are just wanting to see if anything is fraud on them. Trump should investigate all the other dems causing an uproar. They are not exempt. They should be careful what they wish for.

mac10

dont care 8-)

BobJudy

His returns are none of my business. At his level of income he has an army of accountants and lawyers using every means to legally avoid paying any more than necessary. Wealthy people don't get that way by giving the government extra money in taxes. Betcha that Pelosi and other rich politicians have some pretty good accountants and don't pay a dime more than they have to either. Have any of the dems acknowledged that he has donated his presidential salary since he was elected? Sure would be nice if some of them followed his example with their government paychecks. Bob

wifetrained

Could care less.

papernicker

Couldn't care less

mnrivrat48

Absolutely none of my business and none of anyone else's business either , except the IRS . I just read that one of dingdongs that was hollering the loudest for him to release them was recently asked to release his - he refused.

Don McManus

I care that the House leadership is going to use it's subpoena power to search for a crime.

Specifically, how do these subpoenas comport with:

'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.'

If there is probable cause related to a known crime, then a warrant should be issued.

Absent that, warrants and subpoenas should not be weaponized in the pursuit of political gain.

Mr. Nadless should either state the specific crime to be investigated, or should be censured for violating his oath.

Holding breath begins.....now.

Grasshopper

NO, F's to give- ABSOLUTELY don't care.

bpost

I have no issue with Congress asking or even issuing a subpoena for them. Furthermore have zero issue with Trump telling them to pound sand. Trump's tax returns are his and the IRS's business and not one damn iota of Congress's business.

jimdeere

Barzillia wrote:

Don McManus wrote:

I care that the House leadership is going to use it's subpoena power to search for a crime.

Specifically, how do these subpoenas comport with:

'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.'

If there is probable cause related to a known crime, then a warrant should be issued.

Absent that, warrants and subpoenas should not be weaponized in the pursuit of political gain.

Mr. Nadless should either state the specific crime to be investigated, or should be censured for violating his oath.

Holding breath begins.....now.

Repeated circumstances of fraud should be sufficient, although your jail house lawyering leaves a great deal to be desired.

Since no one issued a subpoena to Donald J Trump, Donald J Trump has no such constitutional claim.

Bank, wire, tax, charity, and campaign fraud might just fit the bill.

But congressional oversight committees operate, at least in this case, under administrative law.

Don't want to be subject to it ?

Don't take the job.

But you knew what you were getting when you voted for the man.

Now you get to live with it.

I have no problem living with it. Seems you do, though.

Don McManus

Barzillia wrote:

Don McManus wrote:

I care that the House leadership is going to use it's subpoena power to search for a crime.

Specifically, how do these subpoenas comport with:

'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.'

If there is probable cause related to a known crime, then a warrant should be issued.

Absent that, warrants and subpoenas should not be weaponized in the pursuit of political gain.

Mr. Nadless should either state the specific crime to be investigated, or should be censured for violating his oath.

Holding breath begins.....now.

Repeated circumstances of fraud should be sufficient, although your jail house lawyering leaves a great deal to be desired.

Since no one issued a subpoena to Donald J Trump, Donald J Trump has no such constitutional claim.

Bank, wire, tax, charity, and campaign fraud might just fit the bill.

But congressional oversight committees operate, at least in this case, under administrative law.

Don't want to be subject to it ?

Don't take the job.

But you knew what you were getting when you voted for the man.

Now you get to live with it.

Quibbling again.

Yes, the subpoena was to the IRS, not Trump. A distinction absent a difference.

Politically motivated allegations of fraud, be it bank, wire, charity or other do not foot the bill.

Apparently we are to believe that for the 6 years in question, the IRS was either too incompetent or too corrupt to address these allegation. Nadler and company, however, will find the truth. They will find the fraud, the corruption.

Horsecrap. Absent an identifiable crime, no one, regardless of what job they chose, should be subject to such a transparent fishing expedition.

Anyone who honestly and openly looks at the situation knows this is 100% partisan and personal. Nadler's own words confirm this.

FWIW, I did not vote for him, but given the relentless chicanery by leftist idiots, may just do so if the opportunity arises the next time.

bpost

Here is why Trump needs to tell them to pound sand, and never forget Lois Learner.

Sunday on ABC?s ?This Week,? President Donald Trump?s attorney Jay Sekulow said House Democrats? request for President Trump?s tax returns was nothing more than ?using the IRS as a political weapon.?

Sekulow said, ?The Supreme Court has said on multiple occasions that Congressional oversight cannot become law enforcement. The idea that the real reason that the Congress and Chairman Neal has asked for the documents is because they want to know if the IRS is doing its job auditing the president. Well, they could ask the IRS what job are they doing? What are the audit procedures? The idea that you can use the IRS as a political weapon is incorrect as a matter of statutory law and constitutionally. We should not be in a situation where an individual?s private tax returns are used for political purpose. What stop another party from doing the same thing. by the way.?

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

Don McManus

Barzillia wrote:

Don McManus wrote:

Barzillia wrote:

Repeated circumstances of fraud should be sufficient, although your jail house lawyering leaves a great deal to be desired.

Since no one issued a subpoena to Donald J Trump, Donald J Trump has no such constitutional claim.

Bank, wire, tax, charity, and campaign fraud might just fit the bill.

But congressional oversight committees operate, at least in this case, under administrative law.

Don't want to be subject to it ?

Don't take the job.

But you knew what you were getting when you voted for the man.

Now you get to live with it.

Quibbling again.

Yes, the subpoena was to the IRS, not Trump. A distinction absent a difference.

Politically motivated allegations of fraud, be it bank, wire, charity or other do not foot the bill.

Apparently we are to believe that for the 6 years in question, the IRS was either too incompetent or too corrupt to address these allegation. Nadler and company, however, will find the truth. They will find the fraud, the corruption.

Horsecrap. Absent an identifiable crime, no one, regardless of what job they chose, should be subject to such a transparent fishing expedition.

Anyone who honestly and openly looks at the situation knows this is 100% partisan and personal. Nadler's own words confirm this.

FWIW, I did not vote for him, but given the relentless chicanery by leftist idiots, may just do so if the opportunity arises the next time.

There is no constitutional claim available for the IRS, as it is a governmental agency, not a person.

Since that is the basis of your argument, it would not appear to be an unimportant point.

Name calling and the twisting of names adds nothing good to the discussion.

Since I did not twist names or name call, I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

That said, if you are suggesting that the subpoena is anything other than a partisan and personal fishing expedition, and an obvious abuse of the oversight power of Congress, you are way less intelligent or honest than I have given you credit for in the past.

Correction. I see I did twist Nadler?s name in my first post.

montanajoe

lt496

Not. One. Bit.

Mr. Perfect

Barzillia wrote:

Don McManus wrote:

Barzillia wrote:

Repeated circumstances of fraud should be sufficient, although your jail house lawyering leaves a great deal to be desired.

Since no one issued a subpoena to Donald J Trump, Donald J Trump has no such constitutional claim.

Bank, wire, tax, charity, and campaign fraud might just fit the bill.

But congressional oversight committees operate, at least in this case, under administrative law.

Don't want to be subject to it ?

Don't take the job.

But you knew what you were getting when you voted for the man.

Now you get to live with it.

Quibbling again.

Yes, the subpoena was to the IRS, not Trump. A distinction absent a difference.

Politically motivated allegations of fraud, be it bank, wire, charity or other do not foot the bill.

Apparently we are to believe that for the 6 years in question, the IRS was either too incompetent or too corrupt to address these allegation. Nadler and company, however, will find the truth. They will find the fraud, the corruption.

Horsecrap. Absent an identifiable crime, no one, regardless of what job they chose, should be subject to such a transparent fishing expedition.

Anyone who honestly and openly looks at the situation knows this is 100% partisan and personal. Nadler's own words confirm this.

FWIW, I did not vote for him, but given the relentless chicanery by leftist idiots, may just do so if the opportunity arises the next time.

There is no constitutional claim available for the IRS, as it is a governmental agency, not a person.

Since that is the basis of your argument, it would not appear to be an unimportant point.

Name calling and the twisting of names adds nothing good to the discussion.

There are several constitutional claims the IRS could make, most notably the claim to levy taxes and Under Internal Revenue Code section 6331, the Internal Revenue Service can "levy upon all property and rights to property" of a taxpayer who owes Federal tax. The IRS is free to seek relief via the court if subpoenaed evidence is not forthcoming. Your lawyering capability is comical.

spasmcreek

all the democraps are screamng for trumps tax inof while al sharptinhorn gets by with a huge irs debt ....and it is just ??????? shhhhh..........

wpageabc

This...

montanajoe wrote: