Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump's Tax Records

[BWK]

There is no real reason to see any of Trump's records. He isn't accused of any wrongdoing.

IDIOT-GRAM ^^^; Variety, foolish rationalization.

Explanation: if he has done nothing wrong, he would have fulfilled his promise to release these documents.

Can you, though, justify the force of law to compel someone to keep a campaign promise?

Of course not. Campaign promises are often forgotten when the election is over.

LE can and has secured subpoenas to obtain tax records when they have probable cause that a crime has been committed. Remember, a tax document is signed under penalty of perjury, and we all know, but not all of us will admit, that Donald Trump is a know liar.

In Trump's situation there was the necessary and sufficient evidence to support a subpoena for his tax records. Trump has sued based on the sole fact that a sitting President is above the law, something which has not been supported by the Supreme Court in both the Nixon and Clinton Impeachment, when this claim was rejected 9 to 0.

Hard for the courts to ignore that precedent. If they do, there is no doubt that real law in this country would be totally dead.

 

[BWK]

In Trump's situation there was the necessary and sufficient evidence to support a subpoena for his tax records

What is the evidence, fucktard?

Campaign finance crimes with Michael Cohen, when he did not report the payments to Stormy and Mcdougal. Got any intelligent rebuttals to that truth?

 

[georgephillip]

And you won't have to worry about any rebuttals from the Right

The Right made its biggest mistake in fifty years in 2016

We need tax police – and they should go after the likes of Donald Trump | David Cay Johnston

"When the New York Times exposed decades of tax cheating and “outright fraud” by the sitting president, it prompted people to ask important questions about the corrupt practices of the Trump family.

"The answers are central to the future of America.

 

[BWK]

Trump is desperate to hide his finances because he knows it will reveal criminality;

 

[Rye Catcher]

The ruling should be a slam dunk against Trump. No one is above the law.

What law would that be?

Breaking campaign finnance laws when he paid off porn stars, didn't report the money. Which is what Michael Cohen went to jail for. Helping Trump commit that crime.

Nope, that is not what he went to jail for.

That's exactly what Cohen went to jail for. Cohen arranged this crime with Trump's blessings.

"COHEN, 51, of NEW YORK, NEW YORK, pleaded guilty to five counts of willful tax evasion; one count of making false statements to a bank; one count of causing an unlawful campaign contribution; and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution."

Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Eight Counts, Including Criminal Tax Evasion And Campaign Finance Violations

www.justice.gov

Scroll down to Campaign Finance Violations in the link above.

Herein is the entire link:

On June 16, 2015, Individual-1 began his presidential campaign. While COHEN continued to work at the Company and did not have a formal title with the campaign, he had a campaign email address and, at various times, advised the campaign, including on matters of interest to the press, and made televised and media appearances on behalf of the campaign.

In August 2015, the Chairman and Chief Executive of Corporation-1, a media company that owns, among other things, a popular tabloid magazine (“Chairman-1” and “Magazine-1,” respectively”), in coordination with COHEN and one or more members of the campaign, offered to help deal with negative stories about Individual-1’s relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided. Chairman-1 agreed to keep COHEN apprised of any such negative stories.

Consistent with the agreement described above, Corporation-1 advised COHEN of negative stories during the course of the campaign, and COHEN, with the assistance of Corporation-1, was able to arrange for the purchase of two stories so as to suppress them and prevent them from influencing the election.

First, in June 2016, a model and actress (“Woman-1”) began attempting to sell her story of her alleged extramarital affair with Individual-1 that had taken place in 2006 and 2007, knowing the story would be of considerable value because of the election. Woman-1 retained an attorney (“Attorney-1”), who in turn contacted the editor-in-chief of Magazine-1 (“Editor-1”), and offered to sell Woman-1’s story to Magazine-1. Chairman-1 and Editor-1 informed COHEN of the story. At COHEN’s urging and subject to COHEN’s promise that Corporation-1 would be reimbursed, Editor-1 ultimately began negotiating for the purchase of the story.

On August 5, 2016, Corporation-1 entered into an agreement with Woman-1 to acquire her “limited life rights” to the story of her relationship with “any then-married man,” in exchange for $150,000 and a commitment to feature her on two magazine covers and publish more than 100 magazine articles authored by her. Despite the cover and article features to the agreement, its principal purpose, as understood by those involved, including COHEN, was to suppress Woman-1’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election.

Between late August 2016 and September 2016, COHEN agreed with Chairman-1 to assign the rights to the non-disclosure portion of Corporation-1’s agreement with Woman-1 to COHEN for $125,000. COHEN incorporated a shell entity called “Resolution Consultants LLC” for use in the transaction. Both Chairman-1 and COHEN ultimately signed the agreement, and a consultant for Corporation-1, using his own shell entity, provided COHEN with an invoice for the payment of $125,000. However, in early October 2016, after the assignment agreement was signed but before COHEN had paid the $125,000, Chairman-1 contacted COHEN and told him, in substance, that the deal was off and that COHEN should tear up the assignment agreement.

Second, on October 8, 2016, an agent for an adult film actress (“Woman-2”) informed Editor-1 that Woman-2 was willing to make public statements and confirm on the record her alleged past affair with Individual-1. Chairman-1 and Editor-1 then contacted COHEN and put him in touch with Attorney-1, who was also representing Woman-2. Over the course of the next few days, COHEN negotiated a $130,000 agreement with Attorney-1 to himself purchase Woman-2’s silence, and received a signed confidential settlement agreement and a separate side letter agreement from Attorney-1.

COHEN did not immediately execute the agreement, nor did he pay Woman-2. On the evening of October 25, 2016, with no deal with Woman-2 finalized, Attorney-1 told Editor-1 that Woman-2 was close to completing a deal with another outlet to make her story public. Editor-1, in turn, texted COHEN that “[w]e have to coordinate something on the matter [Attorney-1 is] calling you about or it could look awfully bad for everyone.” Chairman-1 and Editor-1 then called COHEN through an encrypted telephone application. COHEN agreed to make the payment, and then called Attorney-1 to finalize the deal.

The next day, on October 26, 2016, COHEN emailed an incorporating service to obtain the corporate formation documents for another shell corporation, Essential Consultants LLC, which COHEN had incorporated a few days prior. Later that afternoon, COHEN drew down $131,000 from the fraudulently obtained HELOC and requested that it be deposited into a bank account COHEN had just opened in the name of Essential Consultants. The next morning, on October 27, 2016, COHEN went to Bank-3 and wired approximately $130,000 from Essential Consultants to Attorney-1. On the bank form to complete the wire, COHEN falsely indicated that the “purpose of wire being sent” was “retainer.” On November 1, 2016, COHEN received from Attorney-1 copies of the final, signed confidential settlement agreement and side letter agreement.

COHEN caused and made the payments described herein in order to influence the 2016 presidential election. In so doing, he coordinated with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. As a result of the payments solicited and made by COHEN, neither Woman-1 nor Woman-2 spoke to the press prior to the election.

In January 2017, COHEN in seeking reimbursement for election-related expenses, presented executives of the Company with a copy of a bank statement from the Essential Consultants bank account, which reflected the $130,000 payment COHEN had made to the bank account of Attorney-1 in order to keep Woman-2 silent in advance of the election, plus a $35 wire fee, adding, in handwriting, an additional “$50,000.” The $50,000 represented a claimed payment for “tech services,” which in fact related to work COHEN had solicited from a technology company during and in connection with the campaign. COHEN added these amounts to a sum of $180,035. After receiving this document, executives of the Company “grossed up” for tax purposes COHEN’s requested reimbursement of $180,000 to $360,000, and then added a bonus of $60,000 so that COHEN would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company also determined that the $420,000 would be paid to COHEN in monthly amounts of $35,000 over the course of 12 months, and that COHEN should send invoices for these payments.

On February 14, 2017, COHEN sent an executive of the Company (“Executive-1”) the first of his monthly invoices, requesting “[p]ursuant to [a] retainer agreement, . . . payment for services rendered for the months of January and February, 2017.” The invoice listed $35,000 for each of those two months. Executive-1 forwarded the invoice to another executive of the Company (“Executive-2”) the same day by email, and it was approved. Executive-1 forwarded that email to another employee at the Company, stating: “Please pay from the Trust. Post to legal expenses. Put ‘retainer for the months of January and February 2017’ in the description.”

Throughout 2017, COHEN sent to one or more representatives of the Company monthly invoices, which stated, “Pursuant to the retainer agreement, kindly remit payment for services rendered for” the relevant month in 2017, and sought $35,000 per month. The Company accounted for these payments as legal expenses. In truth and in fact, there was no such retainer agreement, and the monthly invoices COHEN submitted were not in connection with any legal services he had provided in 2017.

During 2017, pursuant to the invoices described above, COHEN received monthly $35,000 reimbursement checks, totaling $420,000.

 

[Rye Catcher]

In Trump's situation there was the necessary and sufficient evidence to support a subpoena for his tax records

What is the evidence, fucktard?

"fucktard"? See the post above, then apologize and admit you are the "fucktard" whatever that is.

Hey, did you ever make Seaman?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

So put Cohen in jail. Oh wait. You did. And then let him out.

 

[BWK]

The ruling should be a slam dunk against Trump. No one is above the law.

What law would that be?

Breaking campaign finnance laws when he paid off porn stars, didn't report the money. Which is what Michael Cohen went to jail for. Helping Trump commit that crime.

Nope, that is not what he went to jail for.

That's exactly what Cohen went to jail for. Cohen arranged this crime with Trump's blessings.

"COHEN, 51, of NEW YORK, NEW YORK, pleaded guilty to five counts of willful tax evasion; one count of making false statements to a bank; one count of causing an unlawful campaign contribution; and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution."

Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Eight Counts, Including Criminal Tax Evasion And Campaign Finance Violations

www.justice.gov

Scroll down to Campaign Finance Violations in the link above.

Herein is the entire link:

On June 16, 2015, Individual-1 began his presidential campaign. While COHEN continued to work at the Company and did not have a formal title with the campaign, he had a campaign email address and, at various times, advised the campaign, including on matters of interest to the press, and made televised and media appearances on behalf of the campaign.

In August 2015, the Chairman and Chief Executive of Corporation-1, a media company that owns, among other things, a popular tabloid magazine (“Chairman-1” and “Magazine-1,” respectively”), in coordination with COHEN and one or more members of the campaign, offered to help deal with negative stories about Individual-1’s relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided. Chairman-1 agreed to keep COHEN apprised of any such negative stories.

Consistent with the agreement described above, Corporation-1 advised COHEN of negative stories during the course of the campaign, and COHEN, with the assistance of Corporation-1, was able to arrange for the purchase of two stories so as to suppress them and prevent them from influencing the election.

First, in June 2016, a model and actress (“Woman-1”) began attempting to sell her story of her alleged extramarital affair with Individual-1 that had taken place in 2006 and 2007, knowing the story would be of considerable value because of the election. Woman-1 retained an attorney (“Attorney-1”), who in turn contacted the editor-in-chief of Magazine-1 (“Editor-1”), and offered to sell Woman-1’s story to Magazine-1. Chairman-1 and Editor-1 informed COHEN of the story. At COHEN’s urging and subject to COHEN’s promise that Corporation-1 would be reimbursed, Editor-1 ultimately began negotiating for the purchase of the story.

On August 5, 2016, Corporation-1 entered into an agreement with Woman-1 to acquire her “limited life rights” to the story of her relationship with “any then-married man,” in exchange for $150,000 and a commitment to feature her on two magazine covers and publish more than 100 magazine articles authored by her. Despite the cover and article features to the agreement, its principal purpose, as understood by those involved, including COHEN, was to suppress Woman-1’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election.

Between late August 2016 and September 2016, COHEN agreed with Chairman-1 to assign the rights to the non-disclosure portion of Corporation-1’s agreement with Woman-1 to COHEN for $125,000. COHEN incorporated a shell entity called “Resolution Consultants LLC” for use in the transaction. Both Chairman-1 and COHEN ultimately signed the agreement, and a consultant for Corporation-1, using his own shell entity, provided COHEN with an invoice for the payment of $125,000. However, in early October 2016, after the assignment agreement was signed but before COHEN had paid the $125,000, Chairman-1 contacted COHEN and told him, in substance, that the deal was off and that COHEN should tear up the assignment agreement.

Second, on October 8, 2016, an agent for an adult film actress (“Woman-2”) informed Editor-1 that Woman-2 was willing to make public statements and confirm on the record her alleged past affair with Individual-1. Chairman-1 and Editor-1 then contacted COHEN and put him in touch with Attorney-1, who was also representing Woman-2. Over the course of the next few days, COHEN negotiated a $130,000 agreement with Attorney-1 to himself purchase Woman-2’s silence, and received a signed confidential settlement agreement and a separate side letter agreement from Attorney-1.

COHEN did not immediately execute the agreement, nor did he pay Woman-2. On the evening of October 25, 2016, with no deal with Woman-2 finalized, Attorney-1 told Editor-1 that Woman-2 was close to completing a deal with another outlet to make her story public. Editor-1, in turn, texted COHEN that “[w]e have to coordinate something on the matter [Attorney-1 is] calling you about or it could look awfully bad for everyone.” Chairman-1 and Editor-1 then called COHEN through an encrypted telephone application. COHEN agreed to make the payment, and then called Attorney-1 to finalize the deal.

The next day, on October 26, 2016, COHEN emailed an incorporating service to obtain the corporate formation documents for another shell corporation, Essential Consultants LLC, which COHEN had incorporated a few days prior. Later that afternoon, COHEN drew down $131,000 from the fraudulently obtained HELOC and requested that it be deposited into a bank account COHEN had just opened in the name of Essential Consultants. The next morning, on October 27, 2016, COHEN went to Bank-3 and wired approximately $130,000 from Essential Consultants to Attorney-1. On the bank form to complete the wire, COHEN falsely indicated that the “purpose of wire being sent” was “retainer.” On November 1, 2016, COHEN received from Attorney-1 copies of the final, signed confidential settlement agreement and side letter agreement.

COHEN caused and made the payments described herein in order to influence the 2016 presidential election. In so doing, he coordinated with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. As a result of the payments solicited and made by COHEN, neither Woman-1 nor Woman-2 spoke to the press prior to the election.

In January 2017, COHEN in seeking reimbursement for election-related expenses, presented executives of the Company with a copy of a bank statement from the Essential Consultants bank account, which reflected the $130,000 payment COHEN had made to the bank account of Attorney-1 in order to keep Woman-2 silent in advance of the election, plus a $35 wire fee, adding, in handwriting, an additional “$50,000.” The $50,000 represented a claimed payment for “tech services,” which in fact related to work COHEN had solicited from a technology company during and in connection with the campaign. COHEN added these amounts to a sum of $180,035. After receiving this document, executives of the Company “grossed up” for tax purposes COHEN’s requested reimbursement of $180,000 to $360,000, and then added a bonus of $60,000 so that COHEN would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company also determined that the $420,000 would be paid to COHEN in monthly amounts of $35,000 over the course of 12 months, and that COHEN should send invoices for these payments.

On February 14, 2017, COHEN sent an executive of the Company (“Executive-1”) the first of his monthly invoices, requesting “[p]ursuant to [a] retainer agreement, . . . payment for services rendered for the months of January and February, 2017.” The invoice listed $35,000 for each of those two months. Executive-1 forwarded the invoice to another executive of the Company (“Executive-2”) the same day by email, and it was approved. Executive-1 forwarded that email to another employee at the Company, stating: “Please pay from the Trust. Post to legal expenses. Put ‘retainer for the months of January and February 2017’ in the description.”

Throughout 2017, COHEN sent to one or more representatives of the Company monthly invoices, which stated, “Pursuant to the retainer agreement, kindly remit payment for services rendered for” the relevant month in 2017, and sought $35,000 per month. The Company accounted for these payments as legal expenses. In truth and in fact, there was no such retainer agreement, and the monthly invoices COHEN submitted were not in connection with any legal services he had provided in 2017.

During 2017, pursuant to the invoices described above, COHEN received monthly $35,000 reimbursement checks, totaling $420,000.

Excellent post Rye Catcher! Thanks! And Trump did not reveal those payments on a tax disclosure. That is a federal crime. Cheating in a presidential election by way of campaign finance crimes, and tax evasion. These are the crimes waiting for Trump. And anyone who supports Trump, supports criminals.

 

[BWK]

So put Cohen in jail. Oh wait. You did. And then let him out.

He's not out.

 

[BWK]

And you won't have to worry about any rebuttals from the Right

The Right made its biggest mistake in fifty years in 2016

We need tax police – and they should go after the likes of Donald Trump | David Cay Johnston

"When the New York Times exposed decades of tax cheating and “outright fraud” by the sitting president, it prompted people to ask important questions about the corrupt practices of the Trump family.

"The answers are central to the future of America.

His supporters want criminals in the WH. They think heroes are law breakers. That's the future of America they want, and I'm not kidding.

 

[Dick Foster]

I would like every poster who feels it is imperative to see Trumps tax records to post theirs here. There is no legal requirement for you to do so you have done nothing illegal as far as we know even so if you have nothing to hide no reason not to post them that is logic being used for wanting to see Trumps. I look forward to seeing people put their records where their mouth is except they won’t.

Exactly!

 

[georgephillip]

His supporters want criminals in the WH. They think heroes are law breakers. That's the future of America they want, and I'm not kidding.

This pandemic may have some silver linings?

We need tax police – and they should go after the likes of Donald Trump | David Cay Johnston

"I have held in my hands real estate transfer records for more than a $1bn of real estate that parents owned in the morning but after lunch belonged to their children.

"I’m sure these were tax crimes but Congress makes gift tax returns secret so I have no way to prove it unless someone leaks me those documents.

"One reason for my certainty: a government court filing stating that gift tax cheating in real estate is rampant, ranging from a low of 85% of gifts in the most honest states to 100% in others.

"So if the Times is right and some of the Trump tactics were criminal, why weren’t they indicted?"

 

[justoffal]

There is no real reason to see any of Trump's records. He isn't accused of any wrongdoing.

IDIOT-GRAM ^^^; Variety, foolish rationalization.

Explanation: if he has done nothing wrong, he would have fulfilled his promise to release these documents.

Nope that's not how the right to privacy works. It's too easy to use that for any excuse to pry into a person's privacy..... a false Dichotomy.... " If you have nothing to hide "..... total bullshit.

JO

 

[Maxdeath]

See I have a real problem when people use things like your last little bit about Fred Trump. Obviously it was not illegal or he would have been fined or in jail. But that is used to try and create a bad impression.

Fred Trump was a crony-capitalist whose fortune depended on the federal government even more than most of his ilk. During WW II he built base housing for the military, and after 1945 he built civilian housing dependent on federally guaranteed mortgages, yet he dodged paying taxes with an almost religious fervor.

He never had to worry about fines or jail because he bribed politicians at all levels to ensure he never faced serious charges.

And Kennedy ran illegal whiskey during prohibition. Ted Kennedy wrecked his car in a creek and left the scene. The woman with him may or may not have drowned before or after he left. Your point is what? If you look into background everyone's family may have skeletons. Fred did not go to jail. So we can say either he didn't do exactly what you think or he was a lot smarter then federal and state employees. I guess we could also make a case for all federal and state employees being able to be bought.

 

[my2¢]

Good article, I actually agree with you on Congress and it’s issue, however with the NY issue, I believe they should have the power to subpoena the President’s record. I do agree it seems to be a fishing expedition and that makes the NY investigation just like the Republican’s Whitewater fiasco and will look bad in most the electorate’s eye.

Here is how I look at New York's subpoena. I do believe the state should have right to the records to pursue a criminal case. But I'll predict that the court won't rule on that basis. In this situation my guess is the court will rule that because it involves a campaign violation, the state has no standing and thus denies the state's request for the records from the banks. I checked and saw that it was a federal court that tried Michael Cohen.

 

[hadit]

How does a "rich family" chip away at IRS enforcement capabilities? They have no authority to do anything to the IRS. But we all knew that.

Rich families bribe politicians of both major parties for favorable tax policies, especially those whose fortunes come from real estate, finance, and insurance.

We need tax police – and they should go after the likes of Donald Trump | David Cay Johnston

"Congress, which makes tax law, has never properly supported the IRS, which I like calling the Tax Police Department.

"Since 1992, the American population has grown 27% but the IRS staff has shrunk by 34%, to less than 78,000 people.

"At the same time, Congress has added enormous complexity to the tax code.

"On top of this, the big accounting and law firms have devised all manner of complex new tax shelters.

"A few years ago, the IRS told Congress it lacks the expertise to thoroughly investigate such shelters and determine which are within the law and which are frauds that should be demolished."

Uhhhh, you just said that they bribe CONGRESS, not the IRS. That's not chipping away at the IRS. Sounds like the real problem is those who enter Congress moderately well off and leave extremely wealthy. You know, like democrats do.

 

[Rye Catcher]

There is no real reason to see any of Trump's records. He isn't accused of any wrongdoing.

IDIOT-GRAM ^^^; Variety, foolish rationalization.

Explanation: if he has done nothing wrong, he would have fulfilled his promise to release these documents.

Can you, though, justify the force of law to compel someone to keep a campaign promise?

Of course not. Campaign promises are often forgotten when the election is over.

LE can and has secured subpoenas to obtain tax records when they have probable cause that a crime has been committed. Remember, a tax document is signed under penalty of perjury, and we all know, but not all of us will admit, that Donald Trump is a know liar.

In Trump's situation there was the necessary and sufficient evidence to support a subpoena for his tax records. Trump has sued based on the sole fact that a sitting President is above the law, something which has not been supported by the Supreme Court in both the Nixon and Clinton Impeachment, when this claim was rejected 9 to 0.

Hard for the courts to ignore that precedent. If they do, there is no doubt that real law in this country would be totally dead.

With the news that Manifort has been released to spend the rest of his sentence at home, not only the courts will suffer by the AG reasons for granting him home detention (from a prison without any virus), those in County Jails and Prisons will understand Trump's friends get out of jail free, and they are left there to get sick.

 

[Deleted member 73486]

You know, most innocent people want the truth to come out, while most guilty people do whatever they can to keep the truth from coming to light. it couldn't be much simpler than that.

 

[justoffal]

How does a "rich family" chip away at IRS enforcement capabilities? They have no authority to do anything to the IRS. But we all knew that.

Rich families bribe politicians of both major parties for favorable tax policies, especially those whose fortunes come from real estate, finance, and insurance.

We need tax police – and they should go after the likes of Donald Trump | David Cay Johnston

"Congress, which makes tax law, has never properly supported the IRS, which I like calling the Tax Police Department.

"Since 1992, the American population has grown 27% but the IRS staff has shrunk by 34%, to less than 78,000 people.

"At the same time, Congress has added enormous complexity to the tax code.

"On top of this, the big accounting and law firms have devised all manner of complex new tax shelters.

"A few years ago, the IRS told Congress it lacks the expertise to thoroughly investigate such shelters and determine which are within the law and which are frauds that should be demolished."

Uhhhh, you just said that they bribe CONGRESS, not the IRS. That's not chipping away at the IRS. Sounds like the real problem is those who enter Congress moderately well off and leave extremely wealthy. You know, like democrats do.

Yep..... Lefty loves Law and order as long as it allows him to break the law and catches everybody else.

Jo

 

[mudwhistle]

US Supreme Court hears arguments over Trump's tax returns

The Supreme Court will rule on the president's attempts to keep his financial records secret.

www.yahoo.com

From the link:

The US Supreme Court has heard arguments on whether President Donald Trump should be allowed to keep his financial records secret, in a major showdown over presidential powers.

Mr Trump declines to share documents that could shed light on his fortune and the work of his family company.

Two congressional committees and New York prosecutors demand the release of his tax returns and other information.

Mr Trump's private lawyers argue he enjoys total immunity while in office.

The judges will hear the cases remotely because of the coronavirus pandemic. The Supreme Court has a 5-4 conservative majority and includes two Trump appointees - Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

The rule of law, and a guiding principle in our nation's jurisprudence is no man is above the law. The efficacy of the Supreme Court justices to dispense justice will be judged in this matter. If they decide in favor of President Trump, it will give carte blanche to him, and to every future POTUS.

Obama had everything put under seal in Hawaii......so that's all that can be said about that.
Trump should be treated the same.
I think what we should do is open up the tax records and all of the financial records of House Democrats and see where they're getting paid and by whom.