Republicans (ways & means committee) refuse to release Trump's tax returns over Russia investigation

[Spare_change]

I never understood how racist neo nazi republicans could demand obama release his fucking birth certificate but they dont see a problem with trump not releasing his tax returns.

Well the US Constitution requires that the POTUS be naturally born a citizen of the USA. Therefore proof is warranted, and a birth cert is the only possible proof.

This is precisely why Ted Cruz can never be POTUS -- he was born in Canada.

remind me how you racist neo nazis screamed about a paranoid schizophrenic conspiracy theory about obama being secretly from kenya, and you needed his birth certificate (and still claimed it was fake) but literally the first election after his presidency you ran someone who was born in Canada? and he came in second to Trump's birther ass... can you explain that cognitive dissonance without having a psychotic break from reality?

Actually I never suspected that BHO was every from anyplace else but Hawaii.

I knew he had a white momma and a Kenyan daddy.

You can google his wiki and read all about it.

It was on the TV news too.

.... and if it was on the TV news, it HAS to be true, right?

 

[Spare_change]

For a POTUS who has a long history of deceptiveness, selfishness and misrepresentations of fact, and who also refuses to divest of his personal business holdings while in the office of the President, disclosing his tax returns would be about the best possible way for him to at least provide the information the public needs to have so they can at least know whether his positions are apt to be personally profitable to him.

For me, it's a matter of scale. The man's a billionaire. If he advocates a position that happens to yield him a few hundred grand, I don't care so much. If it's a few million, well, I sort of care. If it's hundreds of millions, I care. If it turns out that his policies form a pattern of consistent gains great and small, well, I definitely care and I'd be inclined to think he's abusing the privilege of being POTUS.

I could take a somewhat less strident position were he to divest truly of his holdings, but he's not done that and shows no indication that he will. Moreover, his kids are on his staff and running the companies. That's just too cozy for us to also have no very detailed visibility to what's what.

It doesn't matter if he put them in his kids names, he will still protect those assets no matter what. The only way he could be 100% conflict of interest free was to sell off those assets which he has not done, and has no intention of doing.

I'd prefer he divest, but I'm not nearly as concerned about whether he actually sells off the assets as I am about visibility. With comprehensive visibility, we can know "what's up." Knowing "what's up," the people, the Congress and the Courts are in a position to hold him accountable and take action if he crosses the line. That's enough for me. His situation is unique -- private mega-business owner rather than owners of public company securities -- so I can get with the idea of taking a little bit different tack. Full and complete disclosure is that tack; that's the compromise with which I'd feel comfortable.

Selling them off is the only way he can be conflict of interest free. PERIOD

I'm not sure how THAT works ---- Sasha Obama went from 9 years old to worth $19 million in the eight years her dad was in the WH. I don't remember her writing any books.

So much for that transparency thing, huh?

Of course you have a LINK to that.

Of course, I do ---- I'm not a liberal, after all.

Malia Obama Highest-Paid Heir in the World - Mediamass

Obama's daughter now worth over $300 million

 

[OKTexas]

That has nothing to do with the Constitution, it has to do with law and no congress can't release a damned thing. They are allowed to view the returns in executive session. Meaning in a closed door meeting with only essential people involved. Privacy laws prevent them from releasing his returns.

Well, no
H.R. 10612 (1976 ) has nothing to do with the Constitution but your friend JBOND thinks it does. I was responding to his ignorance.

I see you are burdened by ignorance too.

The "privacy laws" you are referring too are ensconced within the Act of 1976 to wit:
The principal change made by the Committee was to require non-tax committees to sit in “closed executive session” when submitting any confidential tax information to the House or Senate. The same restriction was not imposed on the tax committees.

My bold
(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1)Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation


Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Remind me again who's ignorant here.

No problem. BTW 26 U.S. Code § 6103 emanates from H.R. Bill 10612 (1976 }

Following Watergate, Congress changed the law to eliminate the president’s ability to order a disclosure. But it retained the right of its tax committees to do so as long as a disclosure served a legitimate committee purpose. Such a disclosure must be in the public’s interest, and today’s understandable concerns about Trump’s potential conflicts of interest would seem clearly to justify a congressional effort to obtain, investigate and possibly disclose to the public his tax information.
Opinion | Congress has the power to obtain and release Trump’s tax returns



A precedent has already been set when Nixon's tax returns were publicly disclosed. Your link provides a clue as to how that was done.

From your link:

(5)Disclosure by whistleblower

Any person who otherwise has or had access to any return or return information under this section may disclose such return or return information to a committee referred to in paragraph (1) or any individual authorized to receive or inspect information under paragraph (4)(A) if such person believes such return or return information may relate to possible misconduct, maladministration, or taxpayer abuse.

As you can see there is no mention of "closed sessions" here. That is especially noteworthy considering every other paragraph under this disclosure subsection ends with: "
a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

But I won't stop there.

Spoiler: a bit of pertinent precedence:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/facul...c-finance/upload/Yin-Protecting-Taxpayers.pdf

Current law generally prohibits the disclosure of tax return information by the government.

A violation of this law is a misdemeanor, and a willful violation is a felony. The law exists to protect the privacy interests of taxpayers and reflects a Congressional policy concern dating back at least as early as 1870.

This article describes how the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee—“arguably," the most powerful panel on Capitol Hill”1—broke this law in 2014 when it voted to allow confidential tax return information of 51 taxpayers to be made public. The disclosure probably resulted in a minimal invasion of the privacy rights of the taxpayers involved, and if the release had occurred inadvertently, it might have been overlooked altogether. But the disclosure was not inadvertent. Advised that a document he wanted to release to the public contained confidential tax return information, the chairman of the committee convened a markup session for the specific purpose of debating and authorizing the release. The chairman contended that an obscure provision in the tax law, available only to the Congressional tax committees and apparently rarely invoked in its 90-year history (most recently in connection with a bipartisan decision in 1974 to release a staff report investigating President Nixon’s taxes), provided the necessary support for the committee’s action. Following the debate, the committee voted strictly along party lines to approve the chair’s recommended action.

You will likely jump right on the first few sentences that seem to take your side. I implore you to read the information under the second spoiler before you come to a conclusion.
Also, If you will notice the author of the link I provided also wrote the data hidden above.

Spoiler: The Controversy:

This article explains why the provision relied upon by the committee did not authorize its action, and that the disclosure violated the law. Despite this, neither the members of the committee who approved the disclosure nor the staff members who helped implement it may be prosecuted for their crime by reason of the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.2 As a result, unless some change is made, the precedent established by the committee could be repeated again with impunity to authorize the unlawful public disclosure of anyone’s tax return information, including confidential and sensitive information belonging to a political enemy of those comprising a majority of the committee at the time of the authorization.

Hopefully, this post will help us all in better understanding how Trump's tax returns might be disclosed by a pesence of more democrat congressmen in the near future. Unless this present bunch acts to close the loophole!

First the whistle blower provision doesn't apply here. Second you're admitting that any release without permission would be unlawful. Only you regressives would wish your elected officials would willfully violate the law just to satisfy your political butt hurt. I don't think you can get any more pathetic than that.

Here's a thought, why don't you come up with some actual evidence of wrong doing instead of spinning tales of might bes, could bes and hopefully is. Then we can have a rational discussion.

I will begin by addressing your claim that I am admitting something. No. I am not. The words that I bring here are my own but ,like yours, my words reflect the knowledge gleaned form others with viewpoints that support our personal biases. Still,.when I come across additional information that contradicts one author, I examine it for veracity. I also reserve the right to change my mind, especially on complex matters such as this.For now, though, Professor George K. Yin speaks for me on this issue until I have researched other viewpoints more thoroughly. Yin authored both of the links I submitted earlier.


We don't know whether the whistle blower provision apples here or not. It might!. People who prepared,copied filed forwarded and stored Trump's tax returns all are potential whistleblowers. Should anyone of them find and make a nexus between Trump's tax returns and something they think might be harmful to the nation, the whistleblowers provision would take effect. Granted ,the number of people having access to trump's tax records and those actually authorized to examine them must be considered. The whistle blower would ideally be someone with the authorization to examine and not merely a person just having access, although all people having access might also be authorized to examine.

Bottom line? Many Americans think Trump is hiding something and believe it is in their best interests to know what their president is hiding.. That includes an increasing number of registered republicans. To BE CONTINUED:

You can chose to believe anything you wish, Trump has said he has no loans or other current business dealings with anyone is Russia and while in office his companies will not develop anything outside the US. So far zero evidence has been produced to the contrary, the only thing you folks have is wishful thinking and none of the committees will request his returns with no evidence.

 

[oreo]

Well, no
H.R. 10612 (1976 ) has nothing to do with the Constitution but your friend JBOND thinks it does. I was responding to his ignorance.

I see you are burdened by ignorance too.

The "privacy laws" you are referring too are ensconced within the Act of 1976 to wit:
The principal change made by the Committee was to require non-tax committees to sit in “closed executive session” when submitting any confidential tax information to the House or Senate. The same restriction was not imposed on the tax committees.

My bold
(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1)Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation


Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Remind me again who's ignorant here.

No problem. BTW 26 U.S. Code § 6103 emanates from H.R. Bill 10612 (1976 }

Following Watergate, Congress changed the law to eliminate the president’s ability to order a disclosure. But it retained the right of its tax committees to do so as long as a disclosure served a legitimate committee purpose. Such a disclosure must be in the public’s interest, and today’s understandable concerns about Trump’s potential conflicts of interest would seem clearly to justify a congressional effort to obtain, investigate and possibly disclose to the public his tax information.
Opinion | Congress has the power to obtain and release Trump’s tax returns



A precedent has already been set when Nixon's tax returns were publicly disclosed. Your link provides a clue as to how that was done.

From your link:

(5)Disclosure by whistleblower

Any person who otherwise has or had access to any return or return information under this section may disclose such return or return information to a committee referred to in paragraph (1) or any individual authorized to receive or inspect information under paragraph (4)(A) if such person believes such return or return information may relate to possible misconduct, maladministration, or taxpayer abuse.

As you can see there is no mention of "closed sessions" here. That is especially noteworthy considering every other paragraph under this disclosure subsection ends with: "
a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

But I won't stop there.

Spoiler: a bit of pertinent precedence:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/facul...c-finance/upload/Yin-Protecting-Taxpayers.pdf

Current law generally prohibits the disclosure of tax return information by the government.

A violation of this law is a misdemeanor, and a willful violation is a felony. The law exists to protect the privacy interests of taxpayers and reflects a Congressional policy concern dating back at least as early as 1870.

This article describes how the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee—“arguably," the most powerful panel on Capitol Hill”1—broke this law in 2014 when it voted to allow confidential tax return information of 51 taxpayers to be made public. The disclosure probably resulted in a minimal invasion of the privacy rights of the taxpayers involved, and if the release had occurred inadvertently, it might have been overlooked altogether. But the disclosure was not inadvertent. Advised that a document he wanted to release to the public contained confidential tax return information, the chairman of the committee convened a markup session for the specific purpose of debating and authorizing the release. The chairman contended that an obscure provision in the tax law, available only to the Congressional tax committees and apparently rarely invoked in its 90-year history (most recently in connection with a bipartisan decision in 1974 to release a staff report investigating President Nixon’s taxes), provided the necessary support for the committee’s action. Following the debate, the committee voted strictly along party lines to approve the chair’s recommended action.

You will likely jump right on the first few sentences that seem to take your side. I implore you to read the information under the second spoiler before you come to a conclusion.
Also, If you will notice the author of the link I provided also wrote the data hidden above.

Spoiler: The Controversy:

This article explains why the provision relied upon by the committee did not authorize its action, and that the disclosure violated the law. Despite this, neither the members of the committee who approved the disclosure nor the staff members who helped implement it may be prosecuted for their crime by reason of the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.2 As a result, unless some change is made, the precedent established by the committee could be repeated again with impunity to authorize the unlawful public disclosure of anyone’s tax return information, including confidential and sensitive information belonging to a political enemy of those comprising a majority of the committee at the time of the authorization.

Hopefully, this post will help us all in better understanding how Trump's tax returns might be disclosed by a pesence of more democrat congressmen in the near future. Unless this present bunch acts to close the loophole!

First the whistle blower provision doesn't apply here. Second you're admitting that any release without permission would be unlawful. Only you regressives would wish your elected officials would willfully violate the law just to satisfy your political butt hurt. I don't think you can get any more pathetic than that.

Here's a thought, why don't you come up with some actual evidence of wrong doing instead of spinning tales of might bes, could bes and hopefully is. Then we can have a rational discussion.

I will begin by addressing your claim that I am admitting something. No. I am not. The words that I bring here are my own but ,like yours, my words reflect the knowledge gleaned form others with viewpoints that support our personal biases. Still,.when I come across additional information that contradicts one author, I examine it for veracity. I also reserve the right to change my mind, especially on complex matters such as this.For now, though, Professor George K. Yin speaks for me on this issue until I have researched other viewpoints more thoroughly. Yin authored both of the links I submitted earlier.


We don't know whether the whistle blower provision apples here or not. It might!. People who prepared,copied filed forwarded and stored Trump's tax returns all are potential whistleblowers. Should anyone of them find and make a nexus between Trump's tax returns and something they think might be harmful to the nation, the whistleblowers provision would take effect. Granted ,the number of people having access to trump's tax records and those actually authorized to examine them must be considered. The whistle blower would ideally be someone with the authorization to examine and not merely a person just having access, although all people having access might also be authorized to examine.

Bottom line? Many Americans think Trump is hiding something and believe it is in their best interests to know what their president is hiding.. That includes an increasing number of registered republicans. To BE CONTINUED:

You can chose to believe anything you wish, Trump has said he has no loans or other current business dealings with anyone is Russia and while in office his companies will not develop anything outside the US. So far zero evidence has been produced to the contrary, the only thing you folks have is wishful thinking and none of the committees will request his returns with no evidence.

A President has to be conflict of interest free, according to the Constitu

Well, no
H.R. 10612 (1976 ) has nothing to do with the Constitution but your friend JBOND thinks it does. I was responding to his ignorance.

I see you are burdened by ignorance too.

The "privacy laws" you are referring too are ensconced within the Act of 1976 to wit:
The principal change made by the Committee was to require non-tax committees to sit in “closed executive session” when submitting any confidential tax information to the House or Senate. The same restriction was not imposed on the tax committees.

My bold
(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1)Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation


Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Remind me again who's ignorant here.

No problem. BTW 26 U.S. Code § 6103 emanates from H.R. Bill 10612 (1976 }

Following Watergate, Congress changed the law to eliminate the president’s ability to order a disclosure. But it retained the right of its tax committees to do so as long as a disclosure served a legitimate committee purpose. Such a disclosure must be in the public’s interest, and today’s understandable concerns about Trump’s potential conflicts of interest would seem clearly to justify a congressional effort to obtain, investigate and possibly disclose to the public his tax information.
Opinion | Congress has the power to obtain and release Trump’s tax returns



A precedent has already been set when Nixon's tax returns were publicly disclosed. Your link provides a clue as to how that was done.

From your link:

(5)Disclosure by whistleblower

Any person who otherwise has or had access to any return or return information under this section may disclose such return or return information to a committee referred to in paragraph (1) or any individual authorized to receive or inspect information under paragraph (4)(A) if such person believes such return or return information may relate to possible misconduct, maladministration, or taxpayer abuse.

As you can see there is no mention of "closed sessions" here. That is especially noteworthy considering every other paragraph under this disclosure subsection ends with: "
a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

But I won't stop there.

Spoiler: a bit of pertinent precedence:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/facul...c-finance/upload/Yin-Protecting-Taxpayers.pdf

Current law generally prohibits the disclosure of tax return information by the government.

A violation of this law is a misdemeanor, and a willful violation is a felony. The law exists to protect the privacy interests of taxpayers and reflects a Congressional policy concern dating back at least as early as 1870.

This article describes how the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee—“arguably," the most powerful panel on Capitol Hill”1—broke this law in 2014 when it voted to allow confidential tax return information of 51 taxpayers to be made public. The disclosure probably resulted in a minimal invasion of the privacy rights of the taxpayers involved, and if the release had occurred inadvertently, it might have been overlooked altogether. But the disclosure was not inadvertent. Advised that a document he wanted to release to the public contained confidential tax return information, the chairman of the committee convened a markup session for the specific purpose of debating and authorizing the release. The chairman contended that an obscure provision in the tax law, available only to the Congressional tax committees and apparently rarely invoked in its 90-year history (most recently in connection with a bipartisan decision in 1974 to release a staff report investigating President Nixon’s taxes), provided the necessary support for the committee’s action. Following the debate, the committee voted strictly along party lines to approve the chair’s recommended action.

You will likely jump right on the first few sentences that seem to take your side. I implore you to read the information under the second spoiler before you come to a conclusion.
Also, If you will notice the author of the link I provided also wrote the data hidden above.

Spoiler: The Controversy:

This article explains why the provision relied upon by the committee did not authorize its action, and that the disclosure violated the law. Despite this, neither the members of the committee who approved the disclosure nor the staff members who helped implement it may be prosecuted for their crime by reason of the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.2 As a result, unless some change is made, the precedent established by the committee could be repeated again with impunity to authorize the unlawful public disclosure of anyone’s tax return information, including confidential and sensitive information belonging to a political enemy of those comprising a majority of the committee at the time of the authorization.

Hopefully, this post will help us all in better understanding how Trump's tax returns might be disclosed by a pesence of more democrat congressmen in the near future. Unless this present bunch acts to close the loophole!

First the whistle blower provision doesn't apply here. Second you're admitting that any release without permission would be unlawful. Only you regressives would wish your elected officials would willfully violate the law just to satisfy your political butt hurt. I don't think you can get any more pathetic than that.

Here's a thought, why don't you come up with some actual evidence of wrong doing instead of spinning tales of might bes, could bes and hopefully is. Then we can have a rational discussion.

I will begin by addressing your claim that I am admitting something. No. I am not. The words that I bring here are my own but ,like yours, my words reflect the knowledge gleaned form others with viewpoints that support our personal biases. Still,.when I come across additional information that contradicts one author, I examine it for veracity. I also reserve the right to change my mind, especially on complex matters such as this.For now, though, Professor George K. Yin speaks for me on this issue until I have researched other viewpoints more thoroughly. Yin authored both of the links I submitted earlier.


We don't know whether the whistle blower provision apples here or not. It might!. People who prepared,copied filed forwarded and stored Trump's tax returns all are potential whistleblowers. Should anyone of them find and make a nexus between Trump's tax returns and something they think might be harmful to the nation, the whistleblowers provision would take effect. Granted ,the number of people having access to trump's tax records and those actually authorized to examine them must be considered. The whistle blower would ideally be someone with the authorization to examine and not merely a person just having access, although all people having access might also be authorized to examine.

Bottom line? Many Americans think Trump is hiding something and believe it is in their best interests to know what their president is hiding.. That includes an increasing number of registered republicans. To BE CONTINUED:

You can chose to believe anything you wish, Trump has said he has no loans or other current business dealings with anyone is Russia and while in office his companies will not develop anything outside the US. So far zero evidence has been produced to the contrary, the only thing you folks have is wishful thinking and none of the committees will request his returns with no evidence.[/QUO

The Constitution is very clear on this:

Article I, Section 9: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

While the rules of punctuation in force in the late 18th century might seem baffling to present-day eyes, the meaning of the paragraph is clear and straightforward enough. No officeholder should be offered a payoff or inducement, and no one should accept either one from any foreign power.
JULES WITCOVER: Trump gets a free ride on conflicts of interest

The Trump empire has expanded into many foreign countries, including China, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, etc. etc. etc.
Trump's Hotels In China Could Be A Conflict For The President-Elect
Trump sons to attend golf course grand opening in Dubai
Countries where Trump does business are not hit by new travel restrictions
Trump registered eight companies in Saudi Arabia during campaign: report

Simply putting them into his kids names does not relieve him of this responsibility, as he is still going to protect his "kids" assets no matter what. IOW he's held hostage by several different FOREIGN countries & that is a National Security risk.

Again, if Republicans refuse to do anything about this, Democrats are certain too when they take over in 2018. They're going to make a big scene about it, along with the Russian hacking. If Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi, with Obama in the Oval office, it's not to hard to imagine what they'll do with this.

And this is why for the last 40 YEARS all Republican & Democrat Presidential contenders have released their income tax returns. Simply to prove they have no foreign conflicts of interest.

 

[OKTexas]

My bold
(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1)Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation


Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Remind me again who's ignorant here.

No problem. BTW 26 U.S. Code § 6103 emanates from H.R. Bill 10612 (1976 }

Following Watergate, Congress changed the law to eliminate the president’s ability to order a disclosure. But it retained the right of its tax committees to do so as long as a disclosure served a legitimate committee purpose. Such a disclosure must be in the public’s interest, and today’s understandable concerns about Trump’s potential conflicts of interest would seem clearly to justify a congressional effort to obtain, investigate and possibly disclose to the public his tax information.
Opinion | Congress has the power to obtain and release Trump’s tax returns



A precedent has already been set when Nixon's tax returns were publicly disclosed. Your link provides a clue as to how that was done.

From your link:

(5)Disclosure by whistleblower

Any person who otherwise has or had access to any return or return information under this section may disclose such return or return information to a committee referred to in paragraph (1) or any individual authorized to receive or inspect information under paragraph (4)(A) if such person believes such return or return information may relate to possible misconduct, maladministration, or taxpayer abuse.

As you can see there is no mention of "closed sessions" here. That is especially noteworthy considering every other paragraph under this disclosure subsection ends with: "
a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

But I won't stop there.

Spoiler: a bit of pertinent precedence:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/facul...c-finance/upload/Yin-Protecting-Taxpayers.pdf

Current law generally prohibits the disclosure of tax return information by the government.

A violation of this law is a misdemeanor, and a willful violation is a felony. The law exists to protect the privacy interests of taxpayers and reflects a Congressional policy concern dating back at least as early as 1870.

This article describes how the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee—“arguably," the most powerful panel on Capitol Hill”1—broke this law in 2014 when it voted to allow confidential tax return information of 51 taxpayers to be made public. The disclosure probably resulted in a minimal invasion of the privacy rights of the taxpayers involved, and if the release had occurred inadvertently, it might have been overlooked altogether. But the disclosure was not inadvertent. Advised that a document he wanted to release to the public contained confidential tax return information, the chairman of the committee convened a markup session for the specific purpose of debating and authorizing the release. The chairman contended that an obscure provision in the tax law, available only to the Congressional tax committees and apparently rarely invoked in its 90-year history (most recently in connection with a bipartisan decision in 1974 to release a staff report investigating President Nixon’s taxes), provided the necessary support for the committee’s action. Following the debate, the committee voted strictly along party lines to approve the chair’s recommended action.

You will likely jump right on the first few sentences that seem to take your side. I implore you to read the information under the second spoiler before you come to a conclusion.
Also, If you will notice the author of the link I provided also wrote the data hidden above.

Spoiler: The Controversy:

This article explains why the provision relied upon by the committee did not authorize its action, and that the disclosure violated the law. Despite this, neither the members of the committee who approved the disclosure nor the staff members who helped implement it may be prosecuted for their crime by reason of the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.2 As a result, unless some change is made, the precedent established by the committee could be repeated again with impunity to authorize the unlawful public disclosure of anyone’s tax return information, including confidential and sensitive information belonging to a political enemy of those comprising a majority of the committee at the time of the authorization.

Hopefully, this post will help us all in better understanding how Trump's tax returns might be disclosed by a pesence of more democrat congressmen in the near future. Unless this present bunch acts to close the loophole!

First the whistle blower provision doesn't apply here. Second you're admitting that any release without permission would be unlawful. Only you regressives would wish your elected officials would willfully violate the law just to satisfy your political butt hurt. I don't think you can get any more pathetic than that.

Here's a thought, why don't you come up with some actual evidence of wrong doing instead of spinning tales of might bes, could bes and hopefully is. Then we can have a rational discussion.

I will begin by addressing your claim that I am admitting something. No. I am not. The words that I bring here are my own but ,like yours, my words reflect the knowledge gleaned form others with viewpoints that support our personal biases. Still,.when I come across additional information that contradicts one author, I examine it for veracity. I also reserve the right to change my mind, especially on complex matters such as this.For now, though, Professor George K. Yin speaks for me on this issue until I have researched other viewpoints more thoroughly. Yin authored both of the links I submitted earlier.


We don't know whether the whistle blower provision apples here or not. It might!. People who prepared,copied filed forwarded and stored Trump's tax returns all are potential whistleblowers. Should anyone of them find and make a nexus between Trump's tax returns and something they think might be harmful to the nation, the whistleblowers provision would take effect. Granted ,the number of people having access to trump's tax records and those actually authorized to examine them must be considered. The whistle blower would ideally be someone with the authorization to examine and not merely a person just having access, although all people having access might also be authorized to examine.

Bottom line? Many Americans think Trump is hiding something and believe it is in their best interests to know what their president is hiding.. That includes an increasing number of registered republicans. To BE CONTINUED:

You can chose to believe anything you wish, Trump has said he has no loans or other current business dealings with anyone is Russia and while in office his companies will not develop anything outside the US. So far zero evidence has been produced to the contrary, the only thing you folks have is wishful thinking and none of the committees will request his returns with no evidence.

A President has to be conflict of interest free, according to the Constitu

My bold
(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1)Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation


Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Remind me again who's ignorant here.

No problem. BTW 26 U.S. Code § 6103 emanates from H.R. Bill 10612 (1976 }

Following Watergate, Congress changed the law to eliminate the president’s ability to order a disclosure. But it retained the right of its tax committees to do so as long as a disclosure served a legitimate committee purpose. Such a disclosure must be in the public’s interest, and today’s understandable concerns about Trump’s potential conflicts of interest would seem clearly to justify a congressional effort to obtain, investigate and possibly disclose to the public his tax information.
Opinion | Congress has the power to obtain and release Trump’s tax returns



A precedent has already been set when Nixon's tax returns were publicly disclosed. Your link provides a clue as to how that was done.

From your link:

(5)Disclosure by whistleblower

Any person who otherwise has or had access to any return or return information under this section may disclose such return or return information to a committee referred to in paragraph (1) or any individual authorized to receive or inspect information under paragraph (4)(A) if such person believes such return or return information may relate to possible misconduct, maladministration, or taxpayer abuse.

As you can see there is no mention of "closed sessions" here. That is especially noteworthy considering every other paragraph under this disclosure subsection ends with: "
a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

But I won't stop there.

Spoiler: a bit of pertinent precedence:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/facul...c-finance/upload/Yin-Protecting-Taxpayers.pdf

Current law generally prohibits the disclosure of tax return information by the government.

A violation of this law is a misdemeanor, and a willful violation is a felony. The law exists to protect the privacy interests of taxpayers and reflects a Congressional policy concern dating back at least as early as 1870.

This article describes how the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee—“arguably," the most powerful panel on Capitol Hill”1—broke this law in 2014 when it voted to allow confidential tax return information of 51 taxpayers to be made public. The disclosure probably resulted in a minimal invasion of the privacy rights of the taxpayers involved, and if the release had occurred inadvertently, it might have been overlooked altogether. But the disclosure was not inadvertent. Advised that a document he wanted to release to the public contained confidential tax return information, the chairman of the committee convened a markup session for the specific purpose of debating and authorizing the release. The chairman contended that an obscure provision in the tax law, available only to the Congressional tax committees and apparently rarely invoked in its 90-year history (most recently in connection with a bipartisan decision in 1974 to release a staff report investigating President Nixon’s taxes), provided the necessary support for the committee’s action. Following the debate, the committee voted strictly along party lines to approve the chair’s recommended action.

You will likely jump right on the first few sentences that seem to take your side. I implore you to read the information under the second spoiler before you come to a conclusion.
Also, If you will notice the author of the link I provided also wrote the data hidden above.

Spoiler: The Controversy:

This article explains why the provision relied upon by the committee did not authorize its action, and that the disclosure violated the law. Despite this, neither the members of the committee who approved the disclosure nor the staff members who helped implement it may be prosecuted for their crime by reason of the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.2 As a result, unless some change is made, the precedent established by the committee could be repeated again with impunity to authorize the unlawful public disclosure of anyone’s tax return information, including confidential and sensitive information belonging to a political enemy of those comprising a majority of the committee at the time of the authorization.

Hopefully, this post will help us all in better understanding how Trump's tax returns might be disclosed by a pesence of more democrat congressmen in the near future. Unless this present bunch acts to close the loophole!

First the whistle blower provision doesn't apply here. Second you're admitting that any release without permission would be unlawful. Only you regressives would wish your elected officials would willfully violate the law just to satisfy your political butt hurt. I don't think you can get any more pathetic than that.

Here's a thought, why don't you come up with some actual evidence of wrong doing instead of spinning tales of might bes, could bes and hopefully is. Then we can have a rational discussion.

I will begin by addressing your claim that I am admitting something. No. I am not. The words that I bring here are my own but ,like yours, my words reflect the knowledge gleaned form others with viewpoints that support our personal biases. Still,.when I come across additional information that contradicts one author, I examine it for veracity. I also reserve the right to change my mind, especially on complex matters such as this.For now, though, Professor George K. Yin speaks for me on this issue until I have researched other viewpoints more thoroughly. Yin authored both of the links I submitted earlier.


We don't know whether the whistle blower provision apples here or not. It might!. People who prepared,copied filed forwarded and stored Trump's tax returns all are potential whistleblowers. Should anyone of them find and make a nexus between Trump's tax returns and something they think might be harmful to the nation, the whistleblowers provision would take effect. Granted ,the number of people having access to trump's tax records and those actually authorized to examine them must be considered. The whistle blower would ideally be someone with the authorization to examine and not merely a person just having access, although all people having access might also be authorized to examine.

Bottom line? Many Americans think Trump is hiding something and believe it is in their best interests to know what their president is hiding.. That includes an increasing number of registered republicans. To BE CONTINUED:

You can chose to believe anything you wish, Trump has said he has no loans or other current business dealings with anyone is Russia and while in office his companies will not develop anything outside the US. So far zero evidence has been produced to the contrary, the only thing you folks have is wishful thinking and none of the committees will request his returns with no evidence.[/QUO

The Constitution is very clear on this:

Article I, Section 9: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

While the rules of punctuation in force in the late 18th century might seem baffling to present-day eyes, the meaning of the paragraph is clear and straightforward enough. No officeholder should be offered a payoff or inducement, and no one should accept either one from any foreign power.
JULES WITCOVER: Trump gets a free ride on conflicts of interest

The Trump empire has expanded into many foreign countries, including China, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, etc. etc. etc.
Trump's Hotels In China Could Be A Conflict For The President-Elect
Trump sons to attend golf course grand opening in Dubai
Countries where Trump does business are not hit by new travel restrictions
Trump registered eight companies in Saudi Arabia during campaign: report

Simply putting them into his kids names does not relieve him of this responsibility, as he is still going to protect his "kids" assets no matter what. IOW he's held hostage by several different FOREIGN countries & that is a National Security risk.

Again, if Republicans refuse to do anything about this, Democrats are certain too when they take over in 2018. They're going to make a big scene about it, along with the Russian hacking. If Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi, with Obama in the Oval office, it's not to hard to imagine what they'll do with this.

And this is why for the last 40 YEARS all Republican & Democrat Presidential contenders have released their income tax returns. Simply to prove they have no foreign conflicts of interest.

Hey dummy, selling consumer goods at market rates does not constitute a conflict of interest, it doesn't matter who the customer is. If someone is paying more than market, you might have a point. Right now, you don't.

 

[Spare_change]

My bold
(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1)Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation


Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Remind me again who's ignorant here.

No problem. BTW 26 U.S. Code § 6103 emanates from H.R. Bill 10612 (1976 }

Following Watergate, Congress changed the law to eliminate the president’s ability to order a disclosure. But it retained the right of its tax committees to do so as long as a disclosure served a legitimate committee purpose. Such a disclosure must be in the public’s interest, and today’s understandable concerns about Trump’s potential conflicts of interest would seem clearly to justify a congressional effort to obtain, investigate and possibly disclose to the public his tax information.
Opinion | Congress has the power to obtain and release Trump’s tax returns



A precedent has already been set when Nixon's tax returns were publicly disclosed. Your link provides a clue as to how that was done.

From your link:

(5)Disclosure by whistleblower

Any person who otherwise has or had access to any return or return information under this section may disclose such return or return information to a committee referred to in paragraph (1) or any individual authorized to receive or inspect information under paragraph (4)(A) if such person believes such return or return information may relate to possible misconduct, maladministration, or taxpayer abuse.

As you can see there is no mention of "closed sessions" here. That is especially noteworthy considering every other paragraph under this disclosure subsection ends with: "
a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

But I won't stop there.

Spoiler: a bit of pertinent precedence:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/facul...c-finance/upload/Yin-Protecting-Taxpayers.pdf

Current law generally prohibits the disclosure of tax return information by the government.

A violation of this law is a misdemeanor, and a willful violation is a felony. The law exists to protect the privacy interests of taxpayers and reflects a Congressional policy concern dating back at least as early as 1870.

This article describes how the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee—“arguably," the most powerful panel on Capitol Hill”1—broke this law in 2014 when it voted to allow confidential tax return information of 51 taxpayers to be made public. The disclosure probably resulted in a minimal invasion of the privacy rights of the taxpayers involved, and if the release had occurred inadvertently, it might have been overlooked altogether. But the disclosure was not inadvertent. Advised that a document he wanted to release to the public contained confidential tax return information, the chairman of the committee convened a markup session for the specific purpose of debating and authorizing the release. The chairman contended that an obscure provision in the tax law, available only to the Congressional tax committees and apparently rarely invoked in its 90-year history (most recently in connection with a bipartisan decision in 1974 to release a staff report investigating President Nixon’s taxes), provided the necessary support for the committee’s action. Following the debate, the committee voted strictly along party lines to approve the chair’s recommended action.

You will likely jump right on the first few sentences that seem to take your side. I implore you to read the information under the second spoiler before you come to a conclusion.
Also, If you will notice the author of the link I provided also wrote the data hidden above.

Spoiler: The Controversy:

This article explains why the provision relied upon by the committee did not authorize its action, and that the disclosure violated the law. Despite this, neither the members of the committee who approved the disclosure nor the staff members who helped implement it may be prosecuted for their crime by reason of the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.2 As a result, unless some change is made, the precedent established by the committee could be repeated again with impunity to authorize the unlawful public disclosure of anyone’s tax return information, including confidential and sensitive information belonging to a political enemy of those comprising a majority of the committee at the time of the authorization.

Hopefully, this post will help us all in better understanding how Trump's tax returns might be disclosed by a pesence of more democrat congressmen in the near future. Unless this present bunch acts to close the loophole!

First the whistle blower provision doesn't apply here. Second you're admitting that any release without permission would be unlawful. Only you regressives would wish your elected officials would willfully violate the law just to satisfy your political butt hurt. I don't think you can get any more pathetic than that.

Here's a thought, why don't you come up with some actual evidence of wrong doing instead of spinning tales of might bes, could bes and hopefully is. Then we can have a rational discussion.

I will begin by addressing your claim that I am admitting something. No. I am not. The words that I bring here are my own but ,like yours, my words reflect the knowledge gleaned form others with viewpoints that support our personal biases. Still,.when I come across additional information that contradicts one author, I examine it for veracity. I also reserve the right to change my mind, especially on complex matters such as this.For now, though, Professor George K. Yin speaks for me on this issue until I have researched other viewpoints more thoroughly. Yin authored both of the links I submitted earlier.


We don't know whether the whistle blower provision apples here or not. It might!. People who prepared,copied filed forwarded and stored Trump's tax returns all are potential whistleblowers. Should anyone of them find and make a nexus between Trump's tax returns and something they think might be harmful to the nation, the whistleblowers provision would take effect. Granted ,the number of people having access to trump's tax records and those actually authorized to examine them must be considered. The whistle blower would ideally be someone with the authorization to examine and not merely a person just having access, although all people having access might also be authorized to examine.

Bottom line? Many Americans think Trump is hiding something and believe it is in their best interests to know what their president is hiding.. That includes an increasing number of registered republicans. To BE CONTINUED:

You can chose to believe anything you wish, Trump has said he has no loans or other current business dealings with anyone is Russia and while in office his companies will not develop anything outside the US. So far zero evidence has been produced to the contrary, the only thing you folks have is wishful thinking and none of the committees will request his returns with no evidence.

A President has to be conflict of interest free, according to the Constitu

My bold
(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1)Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation


Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Remind me again who's ignorant here.

No problem. BTW 26 U.S. Code § 6103 emanates from H.R. Bill 10612 (1976 }

Following Watergate, Congress changed the law to eliminate the president’s ability to order a disclosure. But it retained the right of its tax committees to do so as long as a disclosure served a legitimate committee purpose. Such a disclosure must be in the public’s interest, and today’s understandable concerns about Trump’s potential conflicts of interest would seem clearly to justify a congressional effort to obtain, investigate and possibly disclose to the public his tax information.
Opinion | Congress has the power to obtain and release Trump’s tax returns



A precedent has already been set when Nixon's tax returns were publicly disclosed. Your link provides a clue as to how that was done.

From your link:

(5)Disclosure by whistleblower

Any person who otherwise has or had access to any return or return information under this section may disclose such return or return information to a committee referred to in paragraph (1) or any individual authorized to receive or inspect information under paragraph (4)(A) if such person believes such return or return information may relate to possible misconduct, maladministration, or taxpayer abuse.

As you can see there is no mention of "closed sessions" here. That is especially noteworthy considering every other paragraph under this disclosure subsection ends with: "
a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

But I won't stop there.

Spoiler: a bit of pertinent precedence:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/facul...c-finance/upload/Yin-Protecting-Taxpayers.pdf

Current law generally prohibits the disclosure of tax return information by the government.

A violation of this law is a misdemeanor, and a willful violation is a felony. The law exists to protect the privacy interests of taxpayers and reflects a Congressional policy concern dating back at least as early as 1870.

This article describes how the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee—“arguably," the most powerful panel on Capitol Hill”1—broke this law in 2014 when it voted to allow confidential tax return information of 51 taxpayers to be made public. The disclosure probably resulted in a minimal invasion of the privacy rights of the taxpayers involved, and if the release had occurred inadvertently, it might have been overlooked altogether. But the disclosure was not inadvertent. Advised that a document he wanted to release to the public contained confidential tax return information, the chairman of the committee convened a markup session for the specific purpose of debating and authorizing the release. The chairman contended that an obscure provision in the tax law, available only to the Congressional tax committees and apparently rarely invoked in its 90-year history (most recently in connection with a bipartisan decision in 1974 to release a staff report investigating President Nixon’s taxes), provided the necessary support for the committee’s action. Following the debate, the committee voted strictly along party lines to approve the chair’s recommended action.

You will likely jump right on the first few sentences that seem to take your side. I implore you to read the information under the second spoiler before you come to a conclusion.
Also, If you will notice the author of the link I provided also wrote the data hidden above.

Spoiler: The Controversy:

This article explains why the provision relied upon by the committee did not authorize its action, and that the disclosure violated the law. Despite this, neither the members of the committee who approved the disclosure nor the staff members who helped implement it may be prosecuted for their crime by reason of the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.2 As a result, unless some change is made, the precedent established by the committee could be repeated again with impunity to authorize the unlawful public disclosure of anyone’s tax return information, including confidential and sensitive information belonging to a political enemy of those comprising a majority of the committee at the time of the authorization.

Hopefully, this post will help us all in better understanding how Trump's tax returns might be disclosed by a pesence of more democrat congressmen in the near future. Unless this present bunch acts to close the loophole!

First the whistle blower provision doesn't apply here. Second you're admitting that any release without permission would be unlawful. Only you regressives would wish your elected officials would willfully violate the law just to satisfy your political butt hurt. I don't think you can get any more pathetic than that.

Here's a thought, why don't you come up with some actual evidence of wrong doing instead of spinning tales of might bes, could bes and hopefully is. Then we can have a rational discussion.

I will begin by addressing your claim that I am admitting something. No. I am not. The words that I bring here are my own but ,like yours, my words reflect the knowledge gleaned form others with viewpoints that support our personal biases. Still,.when I come across additional information that contradicts one author, I examine it for veracity. I also reserve the right to change my mind, especially on complex matters such as this.For now, though, Professor George K. Yin speaks for me on this issue until I have researched other viewpoints more thoroughly. Yin authored both of the links I submitted earlier.


We don't know whether the whistle blower provision apples here or not. It might!. People who prepared,copied filed forwarded and stored Trump's tax returns all are potential whistleblowers. Should anyone of them find and make a nexus between Trump's tax returns and something they think might be harmful to the nation, the whistleblowers provision would take effect. Granted ,the number of people having access to trump's tax records and those actually authorized to examine them must be considered. The whistle blower would ideally be someone with the authorization to examine and not merely a person just having access, although all people having access might also be authorized to examine.

Bottom line? Many Americans think Trump is hiding something and believe it is in their best interests to know what their president is hiding.. That includes an increasing number of registered republicans. To BE CONTINUED:

You can chose to believe anything you wish, Trump has said he has no loans or other current business dealings with anyone is Russia and while in office his companies will not develop anything outside the US. So far zero evidence has been produced to the contrary, the only thing you folks have is wishful thinking and none of the committees will request his returns with no evidence.[/QUO

The Constitution is very clear on this:

Article I, Section 9: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

While the rules of punctuation in force in the late 18th century might seem baffling to present-day eyes, the meaning of the paragraph is clear and straightforward enough. No officeholder should be offered a payoff or inducement, and no one should accept either one from any foreign power.
JULES WITCOVER: Trump gets a free ride on conflicts of interest

The Trump empire has expanded into many foreign countries, including China, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, etc. etc. etc.
Trump's Hotels In China Could Be A Conflict For The President-Elect
Trump sons to attend golf course grand opening in Dubai
Countries where Trump does business are not hit by new travel restrictions
Trump registered eight companies in Saudi Arabia during campaign: report

Simply putting them into his kids names does not relieve him of this responsibility, as he is still going to protect his "kids" assets no matter what. IOW he's held hostage by several different FOREIGN countries & that is a National Security risk.

Again, if Republicans refuse to do anything about this, Democrats are certain too when they take over in 2018. They're going to make a big scene about it, along with the Russian hacking. If Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi, with Obama in the Oval office, it's not to hard to imagine what they'll do with this.

And this is why for the last 40 YEARS all Republican & Democrat Presidential contenders have released their income tax returns. Simply to prove they have no foreign conflicts of interest.

You intentionally misinterpret the Constitution using 4th grade logic.

I know this is going to be far beyond the capacity of your limited logical thought processes, but I'll try to go slow.

1) You claim that the phrase " ... shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State." somehow can somehow be massaged to mean that a president can not, now or in the future, conduct business with another state.

2) In fact, it doesn't say that at all --- it says that the president can't accept a present, an emolument (which is defined as "a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office"), or a title from a foreign state.

3) If the President chose to sell his home in Omaha, and it was bought by Canada to serve as a guest house for Canadian military visiting Omaha AFB, that does not constitute a "present", a "salary, fee or profit from employment", or a title from a foreign state. It is simply a business transaction.

4) Such a sale does not violate the Constitution. The same applies to the Russian government paying for a room in a Trump Hotel. It does not constitute a conflict of interest (particularly, given Trump's removal of himself from the profit stream of all Trump businesses). It is, simply, a business transaction.

5) The presence of your liberal hit-pieces constitute no proof whatsoever, unless you were trying to demonstrate how some in the media have gone to great lengths to distort the truth in a vain attempt to discredit Trump.

6) Your comment about how presidents have released their tax returns for the past 40 years in order to PROVE there was no conflict of interest is hysterical, but historically inaccurate. The first candidate to release his tax returns was Richard Nixon, and the reason he did it was to try to paint his opponent as a rich elite. It had NOTHING to do with conflicts of interest. It was a naked political ploy to paint his opponent negatively.

7) Further, your claim fails the truth test. Gerald Ford did not release his tax returns when he ran against Jimmy Carter in 1976. Once again, you simply picked up a piece of leftist propaganda, first issued by U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.on Sept. 19, 2016, and just automatically assumed it must be true. Obviously, she lied, and now you lied.

8) Then, you make a half-hearted attempt to connect tax returns with some supposed Trump-Russian cabal in order to steal the election. In fact, we know that there is zero evidence that indicates that ANYBODY in the Trump organization was in contact with the Russians even once. But, that doesn't stop you. You ignore that, and continue to pump lies and smoke into the air.

So, now, you've taken three lies, weaved them together, and created a blanket of untruths. For that, we're supposed to give you serious attention? I think not.

 

[there4eyeM]

Trump said he would release his taxes. This has become a commonly accepted standard of transparency for Presidential candidates. He obviously understands this. More recently, he has said he will not release his taxes. What does this duplicity indicate?

 

[usmbguest5318]

No problem. BTW 26 U.S. Code § 6103 emanates from H.R. Bill 10612 (1976 }

Following Watergate, Congress changed the law to eliminate the president’s ability to order a disclosure. But it retained the right of its tax committees to do so as long as a disclosure served a legitimate committee purpose. Such a disclosure must be in the public’s interest, and today’s understandable concerns about Trump’s potential conflicts of interest would seem clearly to justify a congressional effort to obtain, investigate and possibly disclose to the public his tax information.
Opinion | Congress has the power to obtain and release Trump’s tax returns



A precedent has already been set when Nixon's tax returns were publicly disclosed. Your link provides a clue as to how that was done.

From your link:

(5)Disclosure by whistleblower

Any person who otherwise has or had access to any return or return information under this section may disclose such return or return information to a committee referred to in paragraph (1) or any individual authorized to receive or inspect information under paragraph (4)(A) if such person believes such return or return information may relate to possible misconduct, maladministration, or taxpayer abuse.

As you can see there is no mention of "closed sessions" here. That is especially noteworthy considering every other paragraph under this disclosure subsection ends with: "
a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

But I won't stop there.

Spoiler: a bit of pertinent precedence:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/facul...c-finance/upload/Yin-Protecting-Taxpayers.pdf

Current law generally prohibits the disclosure of tax return information by the government.

A violation of this law is a misdemeanor, and a willful violation is a felony. The law exists to protect the privacy interests of taxpayers and reflects a Congressional policy concern dating back at least as early as 1870.

This article describes how the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee—“arguably," the most powerful panel on Capitol Hill”1—broke this law in 2014 when it voted to allow confidential tax return information of 51 taxpayers to be made public. The disclosure probably resulted in a minimal invasion of the privacy rights of the taxpayers involved, and if the release had occurred inadvertently, it might have been overlooked altogether. But the disclosure was not inadvertent. Advised that a document he wanted to release to the public contained confidential tax return information, the chairman of the committee convened a markup session for the specific purpose of debating and authorizing the release. The chairman contended that an obscure provision in the tax law, available only to the Congressional tax committees and apparently rarely invoked in its 90-year history (most recently in connection with a bipartisan decision in 1974 to release a staff report investigating President Nixon’s taxes), provided the necessary support for the committee’s action. Following the debate, the committee voted strictly along party lines to approve the chair’s recommended action.

You will likely jump right on the first few sentences that seem to take your side. I implore you to read the information under the second spoiler before you come to a conclusion.
Also, If you will notice the author of the link I provided also wrote the data hidden above.

Spoiler: The Controversy:

This article explains why the provision relied upon by the committee did not authorize its action, and that the disclosure violated the law. Despite this, neither the members of the committee who approved the disclosure nor the staff members who helped implement it may be prosecuted for their crime by reason of the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.2 As a result, unless some change is made, the precedent established by the committee could be repeated again with impunity to authorize the unlawful public disclosure of anyone’s tax return information, including confidential and sensitive information belonging to a political enemy of those comprising a majority of the committee at the time of the authorization.

Hopefully, this post will help us all in better understanding how Trump's tax returns might be disclosed by a pesence of more democrat congressmen in the near future. Unless this present bunch acts to close the loophole!

First the whistle blower provision doesn't apply here. Second you're admitting that any release without permission would be unlawful. Only you regressives would wish your elected officials would willfully violate the law just to satisfy your political butt hurt. I don't think you can get any more pathetic than that.

Here's a thought, why don't you come up with some actual evidence of wrong doing instead of spinning tales of might bes, could bes and hopefully is. Then we can have a rational discussion.

I will begin by addressing your claim that I am admitting something. No. I am not. The words that I bring here are my own but ,like yours, my words reflect the knowledge gleaned form others with viewpoints that support our personal biases. Still,.when I come across additional information that contradicts one author, I examine it for veracity. I also reserve the right to change my mind, especially on complex matters such as this.For now, though, Professor George K. Yin speaks for me on this issue until I have researched other viewpoints more thoroughly. Yin authored both of the links I submitted earlier.


We don't know whether the whistle blower provision apples here or not. It might!. People who prepared,copied filed forwarded and stored Trump's tax returns all are potential whistleblowers. Should anyone of them find and make a nexus between Trump's tax returns and something they think might be harmful to the nation, the whistleblowers provision would take effect. Granted ,the number of people having access to trump's tax records and those actually authorized to examine them must be considered. The whistle blower would ideally be someone with the authorization to examine and not merely a person just having access, although all people having access might also be authorized to examine.

Bottom line? Many Americans think Trump is hiding something and believe it is in their best interests to know what their president is hiding.. That includes an increasing number of registered republicans. To BE CONTINUED:

You can chose to believe anything you wish, Trump has said he has no loans or other current business dealings with anyone is Russia and while in office his companies will not develop anything outside the US. So far zero evidence has been produced to the contrary, the only thing you folks have is wishful thinking and none of the committees will request his returns with no evidence.

A President has to be conflict of interest free, according to the Constitu

No problem. BTW 26 U.S. Code § 6103 emanates from H.R. Bill 10612 (1976 }

Following Watergate, Congress changed the law to eliminate the president’s ability to order a disclosure. But it retained the right of its tax committees to do so as long as a disclosure served a legitimate committee purpose. Such a disclosure must be in the public’s interest, and today’s understandable concerns about Trump’s potential conflicts of interest would seem clearly to justify a congressional effort to obtain, investigate and possibly disclose to the public his tax information.
Opinion | Congress has the power to obtain and release Trump’s tax returns



A precedent has already been set when Nixon's tax returns were publicly disclosed. Your link provides a clue as to how that was done.

From your link:

(5)Disclosure by whistleblower

Any person who otherwise has or had access to any return or return information under this section may disclose such return or return information to a committee referred to in paragraph (1) or any individual authorized to receive or inspect information under paragraph (4)(A) if such person believes such return or return information may relate to possible misconduct, maladministration, or taxpayer abuse.

As you can see there is no mention of "closed sessions" here. That is especially noteworthy considering every other paragraph under this disclosure subsection ends with: "
a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

But I won't stop there.

Spoiler: a bit of pertinent precedence:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/facul...c-finance/upload/Yin-Protecting-Taxpayers.pdf

Current law generally prohibits the disclosure of tax return information by the government.

A violation of this law is a misdemeanor, and a willful violation is a felony. The law exists to protect the privacy interests of taxpayers and reflects a Congressional policy concern dating back at least as early as 1870.

This article describes how the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee—“arguably," the most powerful panel on Capitol Hill”1—broke this law in 2014 when it voted to allow confidential tax return information of 51 taxpayers to be made public. The disclosure probably resulted in a minimal invasion of the privacy rights of the taxpayers involved, and if the release had occurred inadvertently, it might have been overlooked altogether. But the disclosure was not inadvertent. Advised that a document he wanted to release to the public contained confidential tax return information, the chairman of the committee convened a markup session for the specific purpose of debating and authorizing the release. The chairman contended that an obscure provision in the tax law, available only to the Congressional tax committees and apparently rarely invoked in its 90-year history (most recently in connection with a bipartisan decision in 1974 to release a staff report investigating President Nixon’s taxes), provided the necessary support for the committee’s action. Following the debate, the committee voted strictly along party lines to approve the chair’s recommended action.

You will likely jump right on the first few sentences that seem to take your side. I implore you to read the information under the second spoiler before you come to a conclusion.
Also, If you will notice the author of the link I provided also wrote the data hidden above.

Spoiler: The Controversy:

This article explains why the provision relied upon by the committee did not authorize its action, and that the disclosure violated the law. Despite this, neither the members of the committee who approved the disclosure nor the staff members who helped implement it may be prosecuted for their crime by reason of the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.2 As a result, unless some change is made, the precedent established by the committee could be repeated again with impunity to authorize the unlawful public disclosure of anyone’s tax return information, including confidential and sensitive information belonging to a political enemy of those comprising a majority of the committee at the time of the authorization.

Hopefully, this post will help us all in better understanding how Trump's tax returns might be disclosed by a pesence of more democrat congressmen in the near future. Unless this present bunch acts to close the loophole!

First the whistle blower provision doesn't apply here. Second you're admitting that any release without permission would be unlawful. Only you regressives would wish your elected officials would willfully violate the law just to satisfy your political butt hurt. I don't think you can get any more pathetic than that.

Here's a thought, why don't you come up with some actual evidence of wrong doing instead of spinning tales of might bes, could bes and hopefully is. Then we can have a rational discussion.

I will begin by addressing your claim that I am admitting something. No. I am not. The words that I bring here are my own but ,like yours, my words reflect the knowledge gleaned form others with viewpoints that support our personal biases. Still,.when I come across additional information that contradicts one author, I examine it for veracity. I also reserve the right to change my mind, especially on complex matters such as this.For now, though, Professor George K. Yin speaks for me on this issue until I have researched other viewpoints more thoroughly. Yin authored both of the links I submitted earlier.


We don't know whether the whistle blower provision apples here or not. It might!. People who prepared,copied filed forwarded and stored Trump's tax returns all are potential whistleblowers. Should anyone of them find and make a nexus between Trump's tax returns and something they think might be harmful to the nation, the whistleblowers provision would take effect. Granted ,the number of people having access to trump's tax records and those actually authorized to examine them must be considered. The whistle blower would ideally be someone with the authorization to examine and not merely a person just having access, although all people having access might also be authorized to examine.

Bottom line? Many Americans think Trump is hiding something and believe it is in their best interests to know what their president is hiding.. That includes an increasing number of registered republicans. To BE CONTINUED:

You can chose to believe anything you wish, Trump has said he has no loans or other current business dealings with anyone is Russia and while in office his companies will not develop anything outside the US. So far zero evidence has been produced to the contrary, the only thing you folks have is wishful thinking and none of the committees will request his returns with no evidence.[/QUO

The Constitution is very clear on this:

Article I, Section 9: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

While the rules of punctuation in force in the late 18th century might seem baffling to present-day eyes, the meaning of the paragraph is clear and straightforward enough. No officeholder should be offered a payoff or inducement, and no one should accept either one from any foreign power.
JULES WITCOVER: Trump gets a free ride on conflicts of interest

The Trump empire has expanded into many foreign countries, including China, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, etc. etc. etc.
Trump's Hotels In China Could Be A Conflict For The President-Elect
Trump sons to attend golf course grand opening in Dubai
Countries where Trump does business are not hit by new travel restrictions
Trump registered eight companies in Saudi Arabia during campaign: report

Simply putting them into his kids names does not relieve him of this responsibility, as he is still going to protect his "kids" assets no matter what. IOW he's held hostage by several different FOREIGN countries & that is a National Security risk.

Again, if Republicans refuse to do anything about this, Democrats are certain too when they take over in 2018. They're going to make a big scene about it, along with the Russian hacking. If Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi, with Obama in the Oval office, it's not to hard to imagine what they'll do with this.

And this is why for the last 40 YEARS all Republican & Democrat Presidential contenders have released their income tax returns. Simply to prove they have no foreign conflicts of interest.

Hey dummy, selling consumer goods at market rates does not constitute a conflict of interest, it doesn't matter who the customer is. If someone is paying more than market, you might have a point. Right now, you don't.

Given the nature of Trump's businesses, there are several questions one must ask:

• Would "so and so" have even purchased from him were he not POTUS?
• What access have we to tell whether the goods/services were provided at market rates or at below market rates?
• As goes Trump Tower and the whole damn floor the Secret Service are leasing to provide protection:
  • How long has it been vacant? Was it vacant at all?
  • Is he charging market rates for it?
  • Is he profiting from their having to rent the space to protect him? Is here covering costs that, were he not POTUS, he'd be "eating?"
• At Mar-a-Lago...same genre of questions as for Trump Tower. We know he doubled the membership fee. Clubs increase routinely their fees, but they don't double them from one year to the next. Initiation fees also don't increase at that rate.
• Turnberry Club in Scotland --> 38% fee increase. The club lost ~$1M in 2015. For 2016, he lost ~$2.5M there.
• Aberdeenshire Club --> Recording its fourth straight year of losses.
• His other golf properties --> I don't know what the fees are or how they've changed. I don't know their financial performance either.

It remains to be seen whether his D.C. hotel becomes "the" place to stay for foreign visitors wanting (and receiving) favorable treatment as goes U.S. policy. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[JQPublic1]

US

Well, no
H.R. 10612 (1976 ) has nothing to do with the Constitution but your friend JBOND thinks it does. I was responding to his ignorance.

I see you are burdened by ignorance too.

The "privacy laws" you are referring too are ensconced within the Act of 1976 to wit:
The principal change made by the Committee was to require non-tax committees to sit in “closed executive session” when submitting any confidential tax information to the House or Senate. The same restriction was not imposed on the tax committees.

My bold
(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1)Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation


Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Remind me again who's ignorant here.

No problem. BTW 26 U.S. Code § 6103 emanates from H.R. Bill 10612 (1976 }

Following Watergate, Congress changed the law to eliminate the president’s ability to order a disclosure. But it retained the right of its tax committees to do so as long as a disclosure served a legitimate committee purpose. Such a disclosure must be in the public’s interest, and today’s understandable concerns about Trump’s potential conflicts of interest would seem clearly to justify a congressional effort to obtain, investigate and possibly disclose to the public his tax information.
Opinion | Congress has the power to obtain and release Trump’s tax returns



A precedent has already been set when Nixon's tax returns were publicly disclosed. Your link provides a clue as to how that was done.

From your link:

(5)Disclosure by whistleblower

Any person who otherwise has or had access to any return or return information under this section may disclose such return or return information to a committee referred to in paragraph (1) or any individual authorized to receive or inspect information under paragraph (4)(A) if such person believes such return or return information may relate to possible misconduct, maladministration, or taxpayer abuse.

As you can see there is no mention of "closed sessions" here. That is especially noteworthy considering every other paragraph under this disclosure subsection ends with: "
a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

But I won't stop there.

Spoiler: a bit of pertinent precedence:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/facul...c-finance/upload/Yin-Protecting-Taxpayers.pdf

Current law generally prohibits the disclosure of tax return information by the government.

A violation of this law is a misdemeanor, and a willful violation is a felony. The law exists to protect the privacy interests of taxpayers and reflects a Congressional policy concern dating back at least as early as 1870.

This article describes how the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee—“arguably," the most powerful panel on Capitol Hill”1—broke this law in 2014 when it voted to allow confidential tax return information of 51 taxpayers to be made public. The disclosure probably resulted in a minimal invasion of the privacy rights of the taxpayers involved, and if the release had occurred inadvertently, it might have been overlooked altogether. But the disclosure was not inadvertent. Advised that a document he wanted to release to the public contained confidential tax return information, the chairman of the committee convened a markup session for the specific purpose of debating and authorizing the release. The chairman contended that an obscure provision in the tax law, available only to the Congressional tax committees and apparently rarely invoked in its 90-year history (most recently in connection with a bipartisan decision in 1974 to release a staff report investigating President Nixon’s taxes), provided the necessary support for the committee’s action. Following the debate, the committee voted strictly along party lines to approve the chair’s recommended action.

You will likely jump right on the first few sentences that seem to take your side. I implore you to read the information under the second spoiler before you come to a conclusion.
Also, If you will notice the author of the link I provided also wrote the data hidden above.

Spoiler: The Controversy:

This article explains why the provision relied upon by the committee did not authorize its action, and that the disclosure violated the law. Despite this, neither the members of the committee who approved the disclosure nor the staff members who helped implement it may be prosecuted for their crime by reason of the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.2 As a result, unless some change is made, the precedent established by the committee could be repeated again with impunity to authorize the unlawful public disclosure of anyone’s tax return information, including confidential and sensitive information belonging to a political enemy of those comprising a majority of the committee at the time of the authorization.

Hopefully, this post will help us all in better understanding how Trump's tax returns might be disclosed by a pesence of more democrat congressmen in the near future. Unless this present bunch acts to close the loophole!

First the whistle blower provision doesn't apply here. Second you're admitting that any release without permission would be unlawful. Only you regressives would wish your elected officials would willfully violate the law just to satisfy your political butt hurt. I don't think you can get any more pathetic than that.

Here's a thought, why don't you come up with some actual evidence of wrong doing instead of spinning tales of might bes, could bes and hopefully is. Then we can have a rational discussion.

I will begin by addressing your claim that I am admitting something. No. I am not. The words that I bring here are my own but ,like yours, my words reflect the knowledge gleaned form others with viewpoints that support our personal biases. Still,.when I come across additional information that contradicts one author, I examine it for veracity. I also reserve the right to change my mind, especially on complex matters such as this.For now, though, Professor George K. Yin speaks for me on this issue until I have researched other viewpoints more thoroughly. Yin authored both of the links I submitted earlier.


We don't know whether the whistle blower provision apples here or not. It might!. People who prepared,copied filed forwarded and stored Trump's tax returns all are potential whistleblowers. Should anyone of them find and make a nexus between Trump's tax returns and something they think might be harmful to the nation, the whistleblowers provision would take effect. Granted ,the number of people having access to trump's tax records and those actually authorized to examine them must be considered. The whistle blower would ideally be someone with the authorization to examine and not merely a person just having access, although all people having access might also be authorized to examine.

Bottom line? Many Americans think Trump is hiding something and believe it is in their best interests to know what their president is hiding.. That includes an increasing number of registered republicans. To BE CONTINUED:

You can chose to believe anything you wish, Trump has said he has no loans or other current business dealings with anyone is Russia and while in office his companies will not develop anything outside the US. So far zero evidence has been produced to the contrary, the only thing you folks have is wishful thinking and none of the committees will request his returns with no evidence.

Trump has proved to be a liar right on national TV. Why do you believe anything he says? Are you crazy? Are you a masochistic bunny, hopping every time Trump says jump???? Unlike you, millions of voters want to be assured Trump isn't hiding something that might affect national security. And what has prompted the demand for him to release his taxes?:

1. He said he couldn't release his taxes during the campaign because he was being audited but that he would release them as soon as the audit was over.

a. We learned from the eyes and ears of the public ( the news media) that an IRS spokesman had said Trump could release his taxes despite being audited. Now Trump indicates he won't release his taxes at all. So he lied!

2. US intelligence operatives have established conclusively that Russia was behind the hacking and release of HIllary's e-mails
a. Trump defended Russia and insulted the US intelligence community. That gesture raised eyebrows on both sides of the aisle. But his unseemly rapport with Putin in the wake of the hacking scandal probably caused republican sphincters to tighten He probably lost some support on that one.\

3. The resignation of Trump''s NSA advisor , Flynn, for contacting Russian agents to undermine former president Obama's retaliatory strategies against Russia implicates Trump.

a. I doubt that Flynn, a man disciplined enough to be a general , would have made such a bold move on his own.

4. Trump's pick for commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, a financier with deep ties to Russia only strengthens the case for those who want validation of Trump's agenda via transparency. We want to see his tax returns.
a. This is the straw that threatens to break the camel's back. The stench of international corruption involving Russia and Trump grows stronger.

 

[Papageorgio]

I never understood how racist neo nazi republicans could demand obama release his fucking birth certificate but they dont see a problem with trump not releasing his tax returns.

He didn't need to produce anything except the legal documentation to run for President, no one is going to let a non-citizen become President. So I was good with the Obama not producing a birth certificate as people demanded, and Trump does not need to release his taxes. Both issues are diversions.

 

[there4eyeM]

Talking about the tax release being required or not is much more than a diversion.
Talking about the evident duplicity in statements made by the person presenting himself for arguably the highest elected office in the world is important dialog.

 

[Spare_change]

First the whistle blower provision doesn't apply here. Second you're admitting that any release without permission would be unlawful. Only you regressives would wish your elected officials would willfully violate the law just to satisfy your political butt hurt. I don't think you can get any more pathetic than that.

Here's a thought, why don't you come up with some actual evidence of wrong doing instead of spinning tales of might bes, could bes and hopefully is. Then we can have a rational discussion.

I will begin by addressing your claim that I am admitting something. No. I am not. The words that I bring here are my own but ,like yours, my words reflect the knowledge gleaned form others with viewpoints that support our personal biases. Still,.when I come across additional information that contradicts one author, I examine it for veracity. I also reserve the right to change my mind, especially on complex matters such as this.For now, though, Professor George K. Yin speaks for me on this issue until I have researched other viewpoints more thoroughly. Yin authored both of the links I submitted earlier.


We don't know whether the whistle blower provision apples here or not. It might!. People who prepared,copied filed forwarded and stored Trump's tax returns all are potential whistleblowers. Should anyone of them find and make a nexus between Trump's tax returns and something they think might be harmful to the nation, the whistleblowers provision would take effect. Granted ,the number of people having access to trump's tax records and those actually authorized to examine them must be considered. The whistle blower would ideally be someone with the authorization to examine and not merely a person just having access, although all people having access might also be authorized to examine.

Bottom line? Many Americans think Trump is hiding something and believe it is in their best interests to know what their president is hiding.. That includes an increasing number of registered republicans. To BE CONTINUED:

You can chose to believe anything you wish, Trump has said he has no loans or other current business dealings with anyone is Russia and while in office his companies will not develop anything outside the US. So far zero evidence has been produced to the contrary, the only thing you folks have is wishful thinking and none of the committees will request his returns with no evidence.

A President has to be conflict of interest free, according to the Constitu

First the whistle blower provision doesn't apply here. Second you're admitting that any release without permission would be unlawful. Only you regressives would wish your elected officials would willfully violate the law just to satisfy your political butt hurt. I don't think you can get any more pathetic than that.

Here's a thought, why don't you come up with some actual evidence of wrong doing instead of spinning tales of might bes, could bes and hopefully is. Then we can have a rational discussion.

I will begin by addressing your claim that I am admitting something. No. I am not. The words that I bring here are my own but ,like yours, my words reflect the knowledge gleaned form others with viewpoints that support our personal biases. Still,.when I come across additional information that contradicts one author, I examine it for veracity. I also reserve the right to change my mind, especially on complex matters such as this.For now, though, Professor George K. Yin speaks for me on this issue until I have researched other viewpoints more thoroughly. Yin authored both of the links I submitted earlier.


We don't know whether the whistle blower provision apples here or not. It might!. People who prepared,copied filed forwarded and stored Trump's tax returns all are potential whistleblowers. Should anyone of them find and make a nexus between Trump's tax returns and something they think might be harmful to the nation, the whistleblowers provision would take effect. Granted ,the number of people having access to trump's tax records and those actually authorized to examine them must be considered. The whistle blower would ideally be someone with the authorization to examine and not merely a person just having access, although all people having access might also be authorized to examine.

Bottom line? Many Americans think Trump is hiding something and believe it is in their best interests to know what their president is hiding.. That includes an increasing number of registered republicans. To BE CONTINUED:

You can chose to believe anything you wish, Trump has said he has no loans or other current business dealings with anyone is Russia and while in office his companies will not develop anything outside the US. So far zero evidence has been produced to the contrary, the only thing you folks have is wishful thinking and none of the committees will request his returns with no evidence.[/QUO

The Constitution is very clear on this:

Article I, Section 9: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

While the rules of punctuation in force in the late 18th century might seem baffling to present-day eyes, the meaning of the paragraph is clear and straightforward enough. No officeholder should be offered a payoff or inducement, and no one should accept either one from any foreign power.
JULES WITCOVER: Trump gets a free ride on conflicts of interest

The Trump empire has expanded into many foreign countries, including China, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, etc. etc. etc.
Trump's Hotels In China Could Be A Conflict For The President-Elect
Trump sons to attend golf course grand opening in Dubai
Countries where Trump does business are not hit by new travel restrictions
Trump registered eight companies in Saudi Arabia during campaign: report

Simply putting them into his kids names does not relieve him of this responsibility, as he is still going to protect his "kids" assets no matter what. IOW he's held hostage by several different FOREIGN countries & that is a National Security risk.

Again, if Republicans refuse to do anything about this, Democrats are certain too when they take over in 2018. They're going to make a big scene about it, along with the Russian hacking. If Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi, with Obama in the Oval office, it's not to hard to imagine what they'll do with this.

And this is why for the last 40 YEARS all Republican & Democrat Presidential contenders have released their income tax returns. Simply to prove they have no foreign conflicts of interest.

Hey dummy, selling consumer goods at market rates does not constitute a conflict of interest, it doesn't matter who the customer is. If someone is paying more than market, you might have a point. Right now, you don't.

Given the nature of Trump's businesses, there are several questions one must ask:

• Would "so and so" have even purchased from him were he not POTUS?
• What access have we to tell whether the goods/services were provided at market rates or at below market rates?
• As goes Trump Tower and the whole damn floor the Secret Service are leasing to provide protection:
  • How long has it been vacant? Was it vacant at all?
  • Is he charging market rates for it?
  • Is he profiting from their having to rent the space to protect him? Is here covering costs that, were he not POTUS, he'd be "eating?"
• At Mar-a-Lago...same genre of questions as for Trump Tower. We know he doubled the membership fee. Clubs increase routinely their fees, but they don't double them from one year to the next. Initiation fees also don't increase at that rate.
• Turnberry Club in Scotland --> 38% fee increase. The club lost ~$1M in 2015. For 2016, he lost ~$2.5M there.
• Aberdeenshire Club --> Recording its fourth straight year of losses.
• His other golf properties --> I don't know what the fees are or how they've changed. I don't know their financial performance either.

It remains to be seen whether his D.C. hotel becomes "the" place to stay for foreign visitors wanting (and receiving) favorable treatment as goes U.S. policy. We'll have to wait and see.

Ludicrous - the depths to which the left will go.

 

[usmbguest5318]

After this evening's J. Sessions bombshell, those returns need to be coming out....With each passing week, it looks like the Cossacks are circling perilously close to DJT. The question of why is becoming more and more something we need to know....

 

[OKTexas]

First the whistle blower provision doesn't apply here. Second you're admitting that any release without permission would be unlawful. Only you regressives would wish your elected officials would willfully violate the law just to satisfy your political butt hurt. I don't think you can get any more pathetic than that.

Here's a thought, why don't you come up with some actual evidence of wrong doing instead of spinning tales of might bes, could bes and hopefully is. Then we can have a rational discussion.

I will begin by addressing your claim that I am admitting something. No. I am not. The words that I bring here are my own but ,like yours, my words reflect the knowledge gleaned form others with viewpoints that support our personal biases. Still,.when I come across additional information that contradicts one author, I examine it for veracity. I also reserve the right to change my mind, especially on complex matters such as this.For now, though, Professor George K. Yin speaks for me on this issue until I have researched other viewpoints more thoroughly. Yin authored both of the links I submitted earlier.


We don't know whether the whistle blower provision apples here or not. It might!. People who prepared,copied filed forwarded and stored Trump's tax returns all are potential whistleblowers. Should anyone of them find and make a nexus between Trump's tax returns and something they think might be harmful to the nation, the whistleblowers provision would take effect. Granted ,the number of people having access to trump's tax records and those actually authorized to examine them must be considered. The whistle blower would ideally be someone with the authorization to examine and not merely a person just having access, although all people having access might also be authorized to examine.

Bottom line? Many Americans think Trump is hiding something and believe it is in their best interests to know what their president is hiding.. That includes an increasing number of registered republicans. To BE CONTINUED:

You can chose to believe anything you wish, Trump has said he has no loans or other current business dealings with anyone is Russia and while in office his companies will not develop anything outside the US. So far zero evidence has been produced to the contrary, the only thing you folks have is wishful thinking and none of the committees will request his returns with no evidence.

A President has to be conflict of interest free, according to the Constitu

First the whistle blower provision doesn't apply here. Second you're admitting that any release without permission would be unlawful. Only you regressives would wish your elected officials would willfully violate the law just to satisfy your political butt hurt. I don't think you can get any more pathetic than that.

Here's a thought, why don't you come up with some actual evidence of wrong doing instead of spinning tales of might bes, could bes and hopefully is. Then we can have a rational discussion.

I will begin by addressing your claim that I am admitting something. No. I am not. The words that I bring here are my own but ,like yours, my words reflect the knowledge gleaned form others with viewpoints that support our personal biases. Still,.when I come across additional information that contradicts one author, I examine it for veracity. I also reserve the right to change my mind, especially on complex matters such as this.For now, though, Professor George K. Yin speaks for me on this issue until I have researched other viewpoints more thoroughly. Yin authored both of the links I submitted earlier.


We don't know whether the whistle blower provision apples here or not. It might!. People who prepared,copied filed forwarded and stored Trump's tax returns all are potential whistleblowers. Should anyone of them find and make a nexus between Trump's tax returns and something they think might be harmful to the nation, the whistleblowers provision would take effect. Granted ,the number of people having access to trump's tax records and those actually authorized to examine them must be considered. The whistle blower would ideally be someone with the authorization to examine and not merely a person just having access, although all people having access might also be authorized to examine.

Bottom line? Many Americans think Trump is hiding something and believe it is in their best interests to know what their president is hiding.. That includes an increasing number of registered republicans. To BE CONTINUED:

You can chose to believe anything you wish, Trump has said he has no loans or other current business dealings with anyone is Russia and while in office his companies will not develop anything outside the US. So far zero evidence has been produced to the contrary, the only thing you folks have is wishful thinking and none of the committees will request his returns with no evidence.[/QUO

The Constitution is very clear on this:

Article I, Section 9: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

While the rules of punctuation in force in the late 18th century might seem baffling to present-day eyes, the meaning of the paragraph is clear and straightforward enough. No officeholder should be offered a payoff or inducement, and no one should accept either one from any foreign power.
JULES WITCOVER: Trump gets a free ride on conflicts of interest

The Trump empire has expanded into many foreign countries, including China, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, etc. etc. etc.
Trump's Hotels In China Could Be A Conflict For The President-Elect
Trump sons to attend golf course grand opening in Dubai
Countries where Trump does business are not hit by new travel restrictions
Trump registered eight companies in Saudi Arabia during campaign: report

Simply putting them into his kids names does not relieve him of this responsibility, as he is still going to protect his "kids" assets no matter what. IOW he's held hostage by several different FOREIGN countries & that is a National Security risk.

Again, if Republicans refuse to do anything about this, Democrats are certain too when they take over in 2018. They're going to make a big scene about it, along with the Russian hacking. If Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi, with Obama in the Oval office, it's not to hard to imagine what they'll do with this.

And this is why for the last 40 YEARS all Republican & Democrat Presidential contenders have released their income tax returns. Simply to prove they have no foreign conflicts of interest.

Hey dummy, selling consumer goods at market rates does not constitute a conflict of interest, it doesn't matter who the customer is. If someone is paying more than market, you might have a point. Right now, you don't.

Given the nature of Trump's businesses, there are several questions one must ask:

• Would "so and so" have even purchased from him were he not POTUS?
• What access have we to tell whether the goods/services were provided at market rates or at below market rates?
• As goes Trump Tower and the whole damn floor the Secret Service are leasing to provide protection:
  • How long has it been vacant? Was it vacant at all?
  • Is he charging market rates for it?
  • Is he profiting from their having to rent the space to protect him? Is here covering costs that, were he not POTUS, he'd be "eating?"
• At Mar-a-Lago...same genre of questions as for Trump Tower. We know he doubled the membership fee. Clubs increase routinely their fees, but they don't double them from one year to the next. Initiation fees also don't increase at that rate.
• Turnberry Club in Scotland --> 38% fee increase. The club lost ~$1M in 2015. For 2016, he lost ~$2.5M there.
• Aberdeenshire Club --> Recording its fourth straight year of losses.
• His other golf properties --> I don't know what the fees are or how they've changed. I don't know their financial performance either.

It remains to be seen whether his D.C. hotel becomes "the" place to stay for foreign visitors wanting (and receiving) favorable treatment as goes U.S. policy. We'll have to wait and see.

Of course no one would want to stay in a new hotel that is right in the middle of the government offices in DC for convince and accessibility, there has to be some sinister reason. LMAO

 

[usmbguest5318]

I will begin by addressing your claim that I am admitting something. No. I am not. The words that I bring here are my own but ,like yours, my words reflect the knowledge gleaned form others with viewpoints that support our personal biases. Still,.when I come across additional information that contradicts one author, I examine it for veracity. I also reserve the right to change my mind, especially on complex matters such as this.For now, though, Professor George K. Yin speaks for me on this issue until I have researched other viewpoints more thoroughly. Yin authored both of the links I submitted earlier.


We don't know whether the whistle blower provision apples here or not. It might!. People who prepared,copied filed forwarded and stored Trump's tax returns all are potential whistleblowers. Should anyone of them find and make a nexus between Trump's tax returns and something they think might be harmful to the nation, the whistleblowers provision would take effect. Granted ,the number of people having access to trump's tax records and those actually authorized to examine them must be considered. The whistle blower would ideally be someone with the authorization to examine and not merely a person just having access, although all people having access might also be authorized to examine.

Bottom line? Many Americans think Trump is hiding something and believe it is in their best interests to know what their president is hiding.. That includes an increasing number of registered republicans. To BE CONTINUED:

You can chose to believe anything you wish, Trump has said he has no loans or other current business dealings with anyone is Russia and while in office his companies will not develop anything outside the US. So far zero evidence has been produced to the contrary, the only thing you folks have is wishful thinking and none of the committees will request his returns with no evidence.

A President has to be conflict of interest free, according to the Constitu

I will begin by addressing your claim that I am admitting something. No. I am not. The words that I bring here are my own but ,like yours, my words reflect the knowledge gleaned form others with viewpoints that support our personal biases. Still,.when I come across additional information that contradicts one author, I examine it for veracity. I also reserve the right to change my mind, especially on complex matters such as this.For now, though, Professor George K. Yin speaks for me on this issue until I have researched other viewpoints more thoroughly. Yin authored both of the links I submitted earlier.


We don't know whether the whistle blower provision apples here or not. It might!. People who prepared,copied filed forwarded and stored Trump's tax returns all are potential whistleblowers. Should anyone of them find and make a nexus between Trump's tax returns and something they think might be harmful to the nation, the whistleblowers provision would take effect. Granted ,the number of people having access to trump's tax records and those actually authorized to examine them must be considered. The whistle blower would ideally be someone with the authorization to examine and not merely a person just having access, although all people having access might also be authorized to examine.

Bottom line? Many Americans think Trump is hiding something and believe it is in their best interests to know what their president is hiding.. That includes an increasing number of registered republicans. To BE CONTINUED:

You can chose to believe anything you wish, Trump has said he has no loans or other current business dealings with anyone is Russia and while in office his companies will not develop anything outside the US. So far zero evidence has been produced to the contrary, the only thing you folks have is wishful thinking and none of the committees will request his returns with no evidence.[/QUO

The Constitution is very clear on this:

Article I, Section 9: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

While the rules of punctuation in force in the late 18th century might seem baffling to present-day eyes, the meaning of the paragraph is clear and straightforward enough. No officeholder should be offered a payoff or inducement, and no one should accept either one from any foreign power.
JULES WITCOVER: Trump gets a free ride on conflicts of interest

The Trump empire has expanded into many foreign countries, including China, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, etc. etc. etc.
Trump's Hotels In China Could Be A Conflict For The President-Elect
Trump sons to attend golf course grand opening in Dubai
Countries where Trump does business are not hit by new travel restrictions
Trump registered eight companies in Saudi Arabia during campaign: report

Simply putting them into his kids names does not relieve him of this responsibility, as he is still going to protect his "kids" assets no matter what. IOW he's held hostage by several different FOREIGN countries & that is a National Security risk.

Again, if Republicans refuse to do anything about this, Democrats are certain too when they take over in 2018. They're going to make a big scene about it, along with the Russian hacking. If Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi, with Obama in the Oval office, it's not to hard to imagine what they'll do with this.

And this is why for the last 40 YEARS all Republican & Democrat Presidential contenders have released their income tax returns. Simply to prove they have no foreign conflicts of interest.

Hey dummy, selling consumer goods at market rates does not constitute a conflict of interest, it doesn't matter who the customer is. If someone is paying more than market, you might have a point. Right now, you don't.

Given the nature of Trump's businesses, there are several questions one must ask:

• Would "so and so" have even purchased from him were he not POTUS?
• What access have we to tell whether the goods/services were provided at market rates or at below market rates?
• As goes Trump Tower and the whole damn floor the Secret Service are leasing to provide protection:
  • How long has it been vacant? Was it vacant at all?
  • Is he charging market rates for it?
  • Is he profiting from their having to rent the space to protect him? Is here covering costs that, were he not POTUS, he'd be "eating?"
• At Mar-a-Lago...same genre of questions as for Trump Tower. We know he doubled the membership fee. Clubs increase routinely their fees, but they don't double them from one year to the next. Initiation fees also don't increase at that rate.
• Turnberry Club in Scotland --> 38% fee increase. The club lost ~$1M in 2015. For 2016, he lost ~$2.5M there.
• Aberdeenshire Club --> Recording its fourth straight year of losses.
• His other golf properties --> I don't know what the fees are or how they've changed. I don't know their financial performance either.

It remains to be seen whether his D.C. hotel becomes "the" place to stay for foreign visitors wanting (and receiving) favorable treatment as goes U.S. policy. We'll have to wait and see.

Of course no one would want to stay in a new hotel that is right in the middle of the government offices in DC for convince and accessibility, there has to be some sinister reason. LMAO

You either don't well understand ethics, do and don't care, have none of note, or you're being willfully obtuse. I can't say which, it may be some or all those things.

The issue isn't about what other may want to do. It's about Trump accepting revenue from people who want to or do attempt to persuade him to pursue policies that favor them, most especially foreign actors. It's about the appearance of impropriety and the matter of the national trust on behalf of which Trump has been given the privilege to act.

I don't care where people want to stay because that's really not what's at issue. But just as a matter of fact, there's not a place on the planet where one finds a Trump property that does not have within a short distance there exist not another comparable or nicer property. Indeed, the Hay, which is literally across the street from the WH is a very fine choice and every bit as nice as Trump's place. There are at least two other hotels that equally indulgent and closer to the WH than is Trump's hotel.

 

[OKTexas]

US

My bold
(f)Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1)Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation


Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Remind me again who's ignorant here.

No problem. BTW 26 U.S. Code § 6103 emanates from H.R. Bill 10612 (1976 }

Following Watergate, Congress changed the law to eliminate the president’s ability to order a disclosure. But it retained the right of its tax committees to do so as long as a disclosure served a legitimate committee purpose. Such a disclosure must be in the public’s interest, and today’s understandable concerns about Trump’s potential conflicts of interest would seem clearly to justify a congressional effort to obtain, investigate and possibly disclose to the public his tax information.
Opinion | Congress has the power to obtain and release Trump’s tax returns



A precedent has already been set when Nixon's tax returns were publicly disclosed. Your link provides a clue as to how that was done.

From your link:

(5)Disclosure by whistleblower

Any person who otherwise has or had access to any return or return information under this section may disclose such return or return information to a committee referred to in paragraph (1) or any individual authorized to receive or inspect information under paragraph (4)(A) if such person believes such return or return information may relate to possible misconduct, maladministration, or taxpayer abuse.

As you can see there is no mention of "closed sessions" here. That is especially noteworthy considering every other paragraph under this disclosure subsection ends with: "
a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."

But I won't stop there.

Spoiler: a bit of pertinent precedence:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/facul...c-finance/upload/Yin-Protecting-Taxpayers.pdf

Current law generally prohibits the disclosure of tax return information by the government.

A violation of this law is a misdemeanor, and a willful violation is a felony. The law exists to protect the privacy interests of taxpayers and reflects a Congressional policy concern dating back at least as early as 1870.

This article describes how the U.S. House Ways & Means Committee—“arguably," the most powerful panel on Capitol Hill”1—broke this law in 2014 when it voted to allow confidential tax return information of 51 taxpayers to be made public. The disclosure probably resulted in a minimal invasion of the privacy rights of the taxpayers involved, and if the release had occurred inadvertently, it might have been overlooked altogether. But the disclosure was not inadvertent. Advised that a document he wanted to release to the public contained confidential tax return information, the chairman of the committee convened a markup session for the specific purpose of debating and authorizing the release. The chairman contended that an obscure provision in the tax law, available only to the Congressional tax committees and apparently rarely invoked in its 90-year history (most recently in connection with a bipartisan decision in 1974 to release a staff report investigating President Nixon’s taxes), provided the necessary support for the committee’s action. Following the debate, the committee voted strictly along party lines to approve the chair’s recommended action.

You will likely jump right on the first few sentences that seem to take your side. I implore you to read the information under the second spoiler before you come to a conclusion.
Also, If you will notice the author of the link I provided also wrote the data hidden above.

Spoiler: The Controversy:

This article explains why the provision relied upon by the committee did not authorize its action, and that the disclosure violated the law. Despite this, neither the members of the committee who approved the disclosure nor the staff members who helped implement it may be prosecuted for their crime by reason of the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.2 As a result, unless some change is made, the precedent established by the committee could be repeated again with impunity to authorize the unlawful public disclosure of anyone’s tax return information, including confidential and sensitive information belonging to a political enemy of those comprising a majority of the committee at the time of the authorization.

Hopefully, this post will help us all in better understanding how Trump's tax returns might be disclosed by a pesence of more democrat congressmen in the near future. Unless this present bunch acts to close the loophole!

First the whistle blower provision doesn't apply here. Second you're admitting that any release without permission would be unlawful. Only you regressives would wish your elected officials would willfully violate the law just to satisfy your political butt hurt. I don't think you can get any more pathetic than that.

Here's a thought, why don't you come up with some actual evidence of wrong doing instead of spinning tales of might bes, could bes and hopefully is. Then we can have a rational discussion.

I will begin by addressing your claim that I am admitting something. No. I am not. The words that I bring here are my own but ,like yours, my words reflect the knowledge gleaned form others with viewpoints that support our personal biases. Still,.when I come across additional information that contradicts one author, I examine it for veracity. I also reserve the right to change my mind, especially on complex matters such as this.For now, though, Professor George K. Yin speaks for me on this issue until I have researched other viewpoints more thoroughly. Yin authored both of the links I submitted earlier.


We don't know whether the whistle blower provision apples here or not. It might!. People who prepared,copied filed forwarded and stored Trump's tax returns all are potential whistleblowers. Should anyone of them find and make a nexus between Trump's tax returns and something they think might be harmful to the nation, the whistleblowers provision would take effect. Granted ,the number of people having access to trump's tax records and those actually authorized to examine them must be considered. The whistle blower would ideally be someone with the authorization to examine and not merely a person just having access, although all people having access might also be authorized to examine.

Bottom line? Many Americans think Trump is hiding something and believe it is in their best interests to know what their president is hiding.. That includes an increasing number of registered republicans. To BE CONTINUED:

You can chose to believe anything you wish, Trump has said he has no loans or other current business dealings with anyone is Russia and while in office his companies will not develop anything outside the US. So far zero evidence has been produced to the contrary, the only thing you folks have is wishful thinking and none of the committees will request his returns with no evidence.

Trump has proved to be a liar right on national TV. Why do you believe anything he says? Are you crazy? Are you a masochistic bunny, hopping every time Trump says jump???? Unlike you, millions of voters want to be assured Trump isn't hiding something that might affect national security. And what has prompted the demand for him to release his taxes?:

1. He said he couldn't release his taxes during the campaign because he was being audited but that he would release them as soon as the audit was over.

a. We learned from the eyes and ears of the public ( the news media) that an IRS spokesman had said Trump could release his taxes despite being audited. Now Trump indicates he won't release his taxes at all. So he lied!

2. US intelligence operatives have established conclusively that Russia was behind the hacking and release of HIllary's e-mails
a. Trump defended Russia and insulted the US intelligence community. That gesture raised eyebrows on both sides of the aisle. But his unseemly rapport with Putin in the wake of the hacking scandal probably caused republican sphincters to tighten He probably lost some support on that one.\

3. The resignation of Trump''s NSA advisor , Flynn, for contacting Russian agents to undermine former president Obama's retaliatory strategies against Russia implicates Trump.

a. I doubt that Flynn, a man disciplined enough to be a general , would have made such a bold move on his own.

4. Trump's pick for commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, a financier with deep ties to Russia only strengthens the case for those who want validation of Trump's agenda via transparency. We want to see his tax returns.
a. This is the straw that threatens to break the camel's back. The stench of international corruption involving Russia and Trump grows stronger.

Boy you just love inventing propaganda, you're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. Trump withheld his taxes on the advice of his attorneys. He probably pays them a ton of money and would be a fool not to listen to them.

Also the intel agencies haven't determined shit independently on the hacking of the DNC. They are taking the word of a private security company. The DNC refused to allow any federal agency access to their servers for forensic testing.

Flynn broke no laws, he wasn't totally honest with the VP, that's why he was asked to resign.

Can you expound on these deep ties Ross has with Russia. And don't tell me he owns stock in a bank were Russians do business. Stock holders don't normally deal in the day to day working of a business the have stock in.

 

[OKTexas]

I will begin by addressing your claim that I am admitting something. No. I am not. The words that I bring here are my own but ,like yours, my words reflect the knowledge gleaned form others with viewpoints that support our personal biases. Still,.when I come across additional information that contradicts one author, I examine it for veracity. I also reserve the right to change my mind, especially on complex matters such as this.For now, though, Professor George K. Yin speaks for me on this issue until I have researched other viewpoints more thoroughly. Yin authored both of the links I submitted earlier.


We don't know whether the whistle blower provision apples here or not. It might!. People who prepared,copied filed forwarded and stored Trump's tax returns all are potential whistleblowers. Should anyone of them find and make a nexus between Trump's tax returns and something they think might be harmful to the nation, the whistleblowers provision would take effect. Granted ,the number of people having access to trump's tax records and those actually authorized to examine them must be considered. The whistle blower would ideally be someone with the authorization to examine and not merely a person just having access, although all people having access might also be authorized to examine.

Bottom line? Many Americans think Trump is hiding something and believe it is in their best interests to know what their president is hiding.. That includes an increasing number of registered republicans. To BE CONTINUED:

You can chose to believe anything you wish, Trump has said he has no loans or other current business dealings with anyone is Russia and while in office his companies will not develop anything outside the US. So far zero evidence has been produced to the contrary, the only thing you folks have is wishful thinking and none of the committees will request his returns with no evidence.

A President has to be conflict of interest free, according to the Constitu

I will begin by addressing your claim that I am admitting something. No. I am not. The words that I bring here are my own but ,like yours, my words reflect the knowledge gleaned form others with viewpoints that support our personal biases. Still,.when I come across additional information that contradicts one author, I examine it for veracity. I also reserve the right to change my mind, especially on complex matters such as this.For now, though, Professor George K. Yin speaks for me on this issue until I have researched other viewpoints more thoroughly. Yin authored both of the links I submitted earlier.


We don't know whether the whistle blower provision apples here or not. It might!. People who prepared,copied filed forwarded and stored Trump's tax returns all are potential whistleblowers. Should anyone of them find and make a nexus between Trump's tax returns and something they think might be harmful to the nation, the whistleblowers provision would take effect. Granted ,the number of people having access to trump's tax records and those actually authorized to examine them must be considered. The whistle blower would ideally be someone with the authorization to examine and not merely a person just having access, although all people having access might also be authorized to examine.

Bottom line? Many Americans think Trump is hiding something and believe it is in their best interests to know what their president is hiding.. That includes an increasing number of registered republicans. To BE CONTINUED:

You can chose to believe anything you wish, Trump has said he has no loans or other current business dealings with anyone is Russia and while in office his companies will not develop anything outside the US. So far zero evidence has been produced to the contrary, the only thing you folks have is wishful thinking and none of the committees will request his returns with no evidence.[/QUO

The Constitution is very clear on this:

Article I, Section 9: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

While the rules of punctuation in force in the late 18th century might seem baffling to present-day eyes, the meaning of the paragraph is clear and straightforward enough. No officeholder should be offered a payoff or inducement, and no one should accept either one from any foreign power.
JULES WITCOVER: Trump gets a free ride on conflicts of interest

The Trump empire has expanded into many foreign countries, including China, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, etc. etc. etc.
Trump's Hotels In China Could Be A Conflict For The President-Elect
Trump sons to attend golf course grand opening in Dubai
Countries where Trump does business are not hit by new travel restrictions
Trump registered eight companies in Saudi Arabia during campaign: report

Simply putting them into his kids names does not relieve him of this responsibility, as he is still going to protect his "kids" assets no matter what. IOW he's held hostage by several different FOREIGN countries & that is a National Security risk.

Again, if Republicans refuse to do anything about this, Democrats are certain too when they take over in 2018. They're going to make a big scene about it, along with the Russian hacking. If Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi, with Obama in the Oval office, it's not to hard to imagine what they'll do with this.

And this is why for the last 40 YEARS all Republican & Democrat Presidential contenders have released their income tax returns. Simply to prove they have no foreign conflicts of interest.

Hey dummy, selling consumer goods at market rates does not constitute a conflict of interest, it doesn't matter who the customer is. If someone is paying more than market, you might have a point. Right now, you don't.

Given the nature of Trump's businesses, there are several questions one must ask:

• Would "so and so" have even purchased from him were he not POTUS?
• What access have we to tell whether the goods/services were provided at market rates or at below market rates?
• As goes Trump Tower and the whole damn floor the Secret Service are leasing to provide protection:
  • How long has it been vacant? Was it vacant at all?
  • Is he charging market rates for it?
  • Is he profiting from their having to rent the space to protect him? Is here covering costs that, were he not POTUS, he'd be "eating?"
• At Mar-a-Lago...same genre of questions as for Trump Tower. We know he doubled the membership fee. Clubs increase routinely their fees, but they don't double them from one year to the next. Initiation fees also don't increase at that rate.
• Turnberry Club in Scotland --> 38% fee increase. The club lost ~$1M in 2015. For 2016, he lost ~$2.5M there.
• Aberdeenshire Club --> Recording its fourth straight year of losses.
• His other golf properties --> I don't know what the fees are or how they've changed. I don't know their financial performance either.

It remains to be seen whether his D.C. hotel becomes "the" place to stay for foreign visitors wanting (and receiving) favorable treatment as goes U.S. policy. We'll have to wait and see.

Of course no one would want to stay in a new hotel that is right in the middle of the government offices in DC for convince and accessibility, there has to be some sinister reason. LMAO

You either don't well understand ethics, do and don't care, have none of note, or you're being willfully obtuse. I can't say which, it may be some or all those things.

The issue isn't about what other may want to do. It's about Trump accepting revenue from people who want to or do attempt to persuade him to pursue policies that favor them, most especially foreign actors. It's about the appearance of impropriety and the matter of the national trust on behalf of which Trump has been given the privilege to act.

I don't care where people want to stay because that's really not what's at issue. But just as a matter of fact, there's not a place on the planet where one finds a Trump property that does not have within a short distance there exist not another comparable or nicer property. Indeed, the Hay, which is literally across the street from the WH is a very fine choice and every bit as nice as Trump's place. There are at least two other hotels that equally indulgent and closer to the WH than is Trump's hotel.

Trump is worth billions, do you seriously think he would consider someone renting a room for $1,500 a sum worth consideration. That's pocket change to him. Your fantasies and wishful thinking do not constitute facts.

 

[oreo]

You can chose to believe anything you wish, Trump has said he has no loans or other current business dealings with anyone is Russia and while in office his companies will not develop anything outside the US. So far zero evidence has been produced to the contrary, the only thing you folks have is wishful thinking and none of the committees will request his returns with no evidence.

A President has to be conflict of interest free, according to the Constitu

You can chose to believe anything you wish, Trump has said he has no loans or other current business dealings with anyone is Russia and while in office his companies will not develop anything outside the US. So far zero evidence has been produced to the contrary, the only thing you folks have is wishful thinking and none of the committees will request his returns with no evidence.[/QUO

The Constitution is very clear on this:

Article I, Section 9: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

While the rules of punctuation in force in the late 18th century might seem baffling to present-day eyes, the meaning of the paragraph is clear and straightforward enough. No officeholder should be offered a payoff or inducement, and no one should accept either one from any foreign power.
JULES WITCOVER: Trump gets a free ride on conflicts of interest

The Trump empire has expanded into many foreign countries, including China, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, etc. etc. etc.
Trump's Hotels In China Could Be A Conflict For The President-Elect
Trump sons to attend golf course grand opening in Dubai
Countries where Trump does business are not hit by new travel restrictions
Trump registered eight companies in Saudi Arabia during campaign: report

Simply putting them into his kids names does not relieve him of this responsibility, as he is still going to protect his "kids" assets no matter what. IOW he's held hostage by several different FOREIGN countries & that is a National Security risk.

Again, if Republicans refuse to do anything about this, Democrats are certain too when they take over in 2018. They're going to make a big scene about it, along with the Russian hacking. If Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi, with Obama in the Oval office, it's not to hard to imagine what they'll do with this.

And this is why for the last 40 YEARS all Republican & Democrat Presidential contenders have released their income tax returns. Simply to prove they have no foreign conflicts of interest.

Hey dummy, selling consumer goods at market rates does not constitute a conflict of interest, it doesn't matter who the customer is. If someone is paying more than market, you might have a point. Right now, you don't.

Given the nature of Trump's businesses, there are several questions one must ask:

• Would "so and so" have even purchased from him were he not POTUS?
• What access have we to tell whether the goods/services were provided at market rates or at below market rates?
• As goes Trump Tower and the whole damn floor the Secret Service are leasing to provide protection:
  • How long has it been vacant? Was it vacant at all?
  • Is he charging market rates for it?
  • Is he profiting from their having to rent the space to protect him? Is here covering costs that, were he not POTUS, he'd be "eating?"
• At Mar-a-Lago...same genre of questions as for Trump Tower. We know he doubled the membership fee. Clubs increase routinely their fees, but they don't double them from one year to the next. Initiation fees also don't increase at that rate.
• Turnberry Club in Scotland --> 38% fee increase. The club lost ~$1M in 2015. For 2016, he lost ~$2.5M there.
• Aberdeenshire Club --> Recording its fourth straight year of losses.
• His other golf properties --> I don't know what the fees are or how they've changed. I don't know their financial performance either.

It remains to be seen whether his D.C. hotel becomes "the" place to stay for foreign visitors wanting (and receiving) favorable treatment as goes U.S. policy. We'll have to wait and see.

Of course no one would want to stay in a new hotel that is right in the middle of the government offices in DC for convince and accessibility, there has to be some sinister reason. LMAO

You either don't well understand ethics, do and don't care, have none of note, or you're being willfully obtuse. I can't say which, it may be some or all those things.

The issue isn't about what other may want to do. It's about Trump accepting revenue from people who want to or do attempt to persuade him to pursue policies that favor them, most especially foreign actors. It's about the appearance of impropriety and the matter of the national trust on behalf of which Trump has been given the privilege to act.

I don't care where people want to stay because that's really not what's at issue. But just as a matter of fact, there's not a place on the planet where one finds a Trump property that does not have within a short distance there exist not another comparable or nicer property. Indeed, the Hay, which is literally across the street from the WH is a very fine choice and every bit as nice as Trump's place. There are at least two other hotels that equally indulgent and closer to the WH than is Trump's hotel.

Trump is worth billions, do you seriously think he would consider someone renting a room for $1,500 a sum worth consideration. That's pocket change to him. Your fantasies and wishful thinking do not constitute facts.

It probably doesn't matter now with this news coming out on Jeff Sessions. Republican Ways & Means committee members will have to get into Trumps income tax returns now. If they don't they'll be accused of a cover up.

"Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice in 2016 with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, but did not mention this during his confirmation hearing to become U.S. attorney general. Sessions was asked about possible contacts between President Trump's campaign and the Russian government. (Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)

Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Justice Department officials said, encounters he did not disclose when asked about possible contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign and representatives of Moscow during Sessions’s confirmation hearing to become attorney general.

One of the meetings was a private conversation between Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that took place in September in the senator’s office, at the height of what U.S. intelligence officials say was a Russian cyber campaign to upend the U.S. presidential race.

The previously undisclosed discussions could fuel new congressional calls for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Russia’s alleged role in the 2016 presidential election. As attorney general, Sessions oversees the Justice Department and the FBI, which have been leading investigations into Russian meddling and any links to Trump’s associates. He has so far resisted calls to recuse himself.

When Sessions spoke with Kislyak in July and September, the senator was a senior member of the influential Armed Services Committee as well as one of Trump’s top foreign policy advisers. Sessions played a prominent role supporting Trump on the stump after formally joining the campaign in February 2016.
Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later did not disclose

It's not looking good for the Trump administration. This is the 2nd campaign aid that has been proven to have contact with high level Russian officials during the campaign season and has lied about it.

Republicans are going to have to get an independent special prosecutor involved in this immediately. Otherwise they risk wearing this around their necks for several decades to come.

 

[OKTexas]

A President has to be conflict of interest free, according to the Constitu
The Constitution is very clear on this:

Article I, Section 9: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

While the rules of punctuation in force in the late 18th century might seem baffling to present-day eyes, the meaning of the paragraph is clear and straightforward enough. No officeholder should be offered a payoff or inducement, and no one should accept either one from any foreign power.
JULES WITCOVER: Trump gets a free ride on conflicts of interest

The Trump empire has expanded into many foreign countries, including China, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, etc. etc. etc.
Trump's Hotels In China Could Be A Conflict For The President-Elect
Trump sons to attend golf course grand opening in Dubai
Countries where Trump does business are not hit by new travel restrictions
Trump registered eight companies in Saudi Arabia during campaign: report

Simply putting them into his kids names does not relieve him of this responsibility, as he is still going to protect his "kids" assets no matter what. IOW he's held hostage by several different FOREIGN countries & that is a National Security risk.

Again, if Republicans refuse to do anything about this, Democrats are certain too when they take over in 2018. They're going to make a big scene about it, along with the Russian hacking. If Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi, with Obama in the Oval office, it's not to hard to imagine what they'll do with this.

And this is why for the last 40 YEARS all Republican & Democrat Presidential contenders have released their income tax returns. Simply to prove they have no foreign conflicts of interest.

Hey dummy, selling consumer goods at market rates does not constitute a conflict of interest, it doesn't matter who the customer is. If someone is paying more than market, you might have a point. Right now, you don't.

Given the nature of Trump's businesses, there are several questions one must ask:

• Would "so and so" have even purchased from him were he not POTUS?
• What access have we to tell whether the goods/services were provided at market rates or at below market rates?
• As goes Trump Tower and the whole damn floor the Secret Service are leasing to provide protection:
  • How long has it been vacant? Was it vacant at all?
  • Is he charging market rates for it?
  • Is he profiting from their having to rent the space to protect him? Is here covering costs that, were he not POTUS, he'd be "eating?"
• At Mar-a-Lago...same genre of questions as for Trump Tower. We know he doubled the membership fee. Clubs increase routinely their fees, but they don't double them from one year to the next. Initiation fees also don't increase at that rate.
• Turnberry Club in Scotland --> 38% fee increase. The club lost ~$1M in 2015. For 2016, he lost ~$2.5M there.
• Aberdeenshire Club --> Recording its fourth straight year of losses.
• His other golf properties --> I don't know what the fees are or how they've changed. I don't know their financial performance either.

It remains to be seen whether his D.C. hotel becomes "the" place to stay for foreign visitors wanting (and receiving) favorable treatment as goes U.S. policy. We'll have to wait and see.

Of course no one would want to stay in a new hotel that is right in the middle of the government offices in DC for convince and accessibility, there has to be some sinister reason. LMAO

You either don't well understand ethics, do and don't care, have none of note, or you're being willfully obtuse. I can't say which, it may be some or all those things.

The issue isn't about what other may want to do. It's about Trump accepting revenue from people who want to or do attempt to persuade him to pursue policies that favor them, most especially foreign actors. It's about the appearance of impropriety and the matter of the national trust on behalf of which Trump has been given the privilege to act.

I don't care where people want to stay because that's really not what's at issue. But just as a matter of fact, there's not a place on the planet where one finds a Trump property that does not have within a short distance there exist not another comparable or nicer property. Indeed, the Hay, which is literally across the street from the WH is a very fine choice and every bit as nice as Trump's place. There are at least two other hotels that equally indulgent and closer to the WH than is Trump's hotel.

Trump is worth billions, do you seriously think he would consider someone renting a room for $1,500 a sum worth consideration. That's pocket change to him. Your fantasies and wishful thinking do not constitute facts.

It probably doesn't matter now with this news coming out on Jeff Sessions. Republican Ways & Means committee members will have to get into Trumps income tax returns now. If they don't they'll be accused of a cover up.

"Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice in 2016 with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, but did not mention this during his confirmation hearing to become U.S. attorney general. Sessions was asked about possible contacts between President Trump's campaign and the Russian government. (Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)

Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Justice Department officials said, encounters he did not disclose when asked about possible contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign and representatives of Moscow during Sessions’s confirmation hearing to become attorney general.

One of the meetings was a private conversation between Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that took place in September in the senator’s office, at the height of what U.S. intelligence officials say was a Russian cyber campaign to upend the U.S. presidential race.

The previously undisclosed discussions could fuel new congressional calls for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Russia’s alleged role in the 2016 presidential election. As attorney general, Sessions oversees the Justice Department and the FBI, which have been leading investigations into Russian meddling and any links to Trump’s associates. He has so far resisted calls to recuse himself.

When Sessions spoke with Kislyak in July and September, the senator was a senior member of the influential Armed Services Committee as well as one of Trump’s top foreign policy advisers. Sessions played a prominent role supporting Trump on the stump after formally joining the campaign in February 2016.
Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later did not disclose

It's not looking good for the Trump administration. This is the 2nd campaign aid that has been proven to have contact with high level Russian officials during the campaign season and has lied about it.

Republicans are going to have to get an independent special prosecutor involved in this immediately. Otherwise they risk wearing this around their necks for several decades to come.

I know this won't fit with the regressives conspiracy theories, but have you considered those meetings might have had something to do with Sessions duties as a US Senator. You do know it's illegal for an elected official to conduct campaign business from their government offices, right?

 

[oreo]

Hey dummy, selling consumer goods at market rates does not constitute a conflict of interest, it doesn't matter who the customer is. If someone is paying more than market, you might have a point. Right now, you don't.

Given the nature of Trump's businesses, there are several questions one must ask:

• Would "so and so" have even purchased from him were he not POTUS?
• What access have we to tell whether the goods/services were provided at market rates or at below market rates?
• As goes Trump Tower and the whole damn floor the Secret Service are leasing to provide protection:
  • How long has it been vacant? Was it vacant at all?
  • Is he charging market rates for it?
  • Is he profiting from their having to rent the space to protect him? Is here covering costs that, were he not POTUS, he'd be "eating?"
• At Mar-a-Lago...same genre of questions as for Trump Tower. We know he doubled the membership fee. Clubs increase routinely their fees, but they don't double them from one year to the next. Initiation fees also don't increase at that rate.
• Turnberry Club in Scotland --> 38% fee increase. The club lost ~$1M in 2015. For 2016, he lost ~$2.5M there.
• Aberdeenshire Club --> Recording its fourth straight year of losses.
• His other golf properties --> I don't know what the fees are or how they've changed. I don't know their financial performance either.

It remains to be seen whether his D.C. hotel becomes "the" place to stay for foreign visitors wanting (and receiving) favorable treatment as goes U.S. policy. We'll have to wait and see.

Of course no one would want to stay in a new hotel that is right in the middle of the government offices in DC for convince and accessibility, there has to be some sinister reason. LMAO

You either don't well understand ethics, do and don't care, have none of note, or you're being willfully obtuse. I can't say which, it may be some or all those things.

The issue isn't about what other may want to do. It's about Trump accepting revenue from people who want to or do attempt to persuade him to pursue policies that favor them, most especially foreign actors. It's about the appearance of impropriety and the matter of the national trust on behalf of which Trump has been given the privilege to act.

I don't care where people want to stay because that's really not what's at issue. But just as a matter of fact, there's not a place on the planet where one finds a Trump property that does not have within a short distance there exist not another comparable or nicer property. Indeed, the Hay, which is literally across the street from the WH is a very fine choice and every bit as nice as Trump's place. There are at least two other hotels that equally indulgent and closer to the WH than is Trump's hotel.

Trump is worth billions, do you seriously think he would consider someone renting a room for $1,500 a sum worth consideration. That's pocket change to him. Your fantasies and wishful thinking do not constitute facts.

It probably doesn't matter now with this news coming out on Jeff Sessions. Republican Ways & Means committee members will have to get into Trumps income tax returns now. If they don't they'll be accused of a cover up.

"Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice in 2016 with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, but did not mention this during his confirmation hearing to become U.S. attorney general. Sessions was asked about possible contacts between President Trump's campaign and the Russian government. (Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)

Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Justice Department officials said, encounters he did not disclose when asked about possible contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign and representatives of Moscow during Sessions’s confirmation hearing to become attorney general.

One of the meetings was a private conversation between Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that took place in September in the senator’s office, at the height of what U.S. intelligence officials say was a Russian cyber campaign to upend the U.S. presidential race.

The previously undisclosed discussions could fuel new congressional calls for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Russia’s alleged role in the 2016 presidential election. As attorney general, Sessions oversees the Justice Department and the FBI, which have been leading investigations into Russian meddling and any links to Trump’s associates. He has so far resisted calls to recuse himself.

When Sessions spoke with Kislyak in July and September, the senator was a senior member of the influential Armed Services Committee as well as one of Trump’s top foreign policy advisers. Sessions played a prominent role supporting Trump on the stump after formally joining the campaign in February 2016.
Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later did not disclose

It's not looking good for the Trump administration. This is the 2nd campaign aid that has been proven to have contact with high level Russian officials during the campaign season and has lied about it.

Republicans are going to have to get an independent special prosecutor involved in this immediately. Otherwise they risk wearing this around their necks for several decades to come.

I know this won't fit with the regressives conspiracy theories, but have you considered those meetings might have had something to do with Sessions duties as a US Senator. You do know it's illegal for an elected official to conduct campaign business from their government offices, right?

Senators do not meet with high level Russian officials. That is the Secretary of State's responsibility, or in this case John Kerry, representing the Obama administration. Sessions was not part of the Obama administration and would have no authority in negotiating anything with Russians. Sessions as a senator is there to represent his constituents of Alabama. There is no rational explanation for Sessions to be meeting with high level Russian officials during the CAMPAIGN SEASON.

Then Sessions lied to congress about it. This is number 2, and you can bet there will be more to come.