Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
1. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reviews everybody's Annual Tax Returns and if they find that anyone didn't pay their taxes, or have any egregious errors in the form, they do an audit. If there was anything nefarious about his taxes, they would have caught it and audited him.Congress is trying to get Trump's taxes. Every President since Nixon has released theirs and Trump "claims" he'd like to release them.
He is however fighting tooth and nail to keep them secret. His claim here is that he's under audit and for some reason that precludes him from releasing them. It doesn't.
The IRS does not lock them down for that reason, and it's CONGRESS requesting them in accordance with the law. In fact a refusal would put the the head of the IRS or Treasury Secretary in contempt of Congress.
And for what it's worth, Trump's former attorney Cohen testified under oath that Trump WASN'T under audit
What do you suppose he's hiding? Tax evasion? Money Laundering?
He's afraid of something obviously
2. If he didn't pay any taxes due to "legal loopholes," that's permissible by the IRS.
3. ALL, I repeat, ALL, citizens tax returns are private and cannot be released without a court order and as the president of the United States is a citizen, his tax returns are just as private as anyone else's. As for those politicians who do release their tax returns, they do so willingly, but don't really have to.
So....the whole thing is voluntary. Whether he paid all relevant taxes, or through legal loopholes, managed to avoid doing so, I don't care. I only care about his performance, which so far, isn't bad.
1. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reviews everybody's Annual Tax Returns and if they find that anyone didn't pay their taxes, or have any egregious errors in the form, they do an audit. If there was anything nefarious about his taxes, they would have caught it and audited him.Congress is trying to get Trump's taxes. Every President since Nixon has released theirs and Trump "claims" he'd like to release them.
He is however fighting tooth and nail to keep them secret. His claim here is that he's under audit and for some reason that precludes him from releasing them. It doesn't.
The IRS does not lock them down for that reason, and it's CONGRESS requesting them in accordance with the law. In fact a refusal would put the the head of the IRS or Treasury Secretary in contempt of Congress.
And for what it's worth, Trump's former attorney Cohen testified under oath that Trump WASN'T under audit
What do you suppose he's hiding? Tax evasion? Money Laundering?
He's afraid of something obviously
2. If he didn't pay any taxes due to "legal loopholes," that's permissible by the IRS.
3. ALL, I repeat, ALL, citizens tax returns are private and cannot be released without a court order and as the president of the United States is a citizen, his tax returns are just as private as anyone else's. As for those politicians who do release their tax returns, they do so willingly, but don't really have to.
So....the whole thing is voluntary. Whether he paid all relevant taxes, or through legal loopholes, managed to avoid doing so, I don't care. I only care about his performance, which so far, isn't bad.
1. Since when do conservatives think the government catches all tax cheats? You think they’re perfect? Especially after they’ve had their budgets cut consistently for decades?
2. If I were on the House weighs and means committee, I would find it very interesting to see what loopholes the super wealthy use so we can close them. Rich people abuse the tax code in “permissible” ways all the time.
When you attempt to coerce a foreign leader to smear a domestic political opponent using taxpayer money as grease, it's Impeachment....When you broadcast your intention to unseat the president before he even takes office, it's a witch hunt.
When you attempt to coerce a foreign leader to smear a domestic political opponent using taxpayer money as grease, it's Impeachment.There is no witch hunt.So you support the witch hunt?Everything after the first paragraph is untrue. There are no stipulations about stripping identifying information and there is no requirement that they provide a reason for their request.
There is, however, Impeachment of the President, by the US House of Representatives.
When you broadcast your intention to unseat the president before he even takes office, it's a witch hunt.
Your Orange Demigod stupidly gave them the ammunition they needed to do just that.
Somebody that stupid has no business at the head of the world's premier superpower.
There is no witch hunt.So you support the witch hunt?Everything after the first paragraph is untrue. There are no stipulations about stripping identifying information and there is no requirement that they provide a reason for their request.
There is, however, Impeachment of the President, by the US House of Representatives.
When you broadcast your intention to unseat the president before he even takes office, it's a witch hunt.
So since some Dems said that, there can be no investigation or impeachment of Trump for any reason?
You can start here.1. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reviews everybody's Annual Tax Returns and if they find that anyone didn't pay their taxes, or have any egregious errors in the form, they do an audit. If there was anything nefarious about his taxes, they would have caught it and audited him.Congress is trying to get Trump's taxes. Every President since Nixon has released theirs and Trump "claims" he'd like to release them.
He is however fighting tooth and nail to keep them secret. His claim here is that he's under audit and for some reason that precludes him from releasing them. It doesn't.
The IRS does not lock them down for that reason, and it's CONGRESS requesting them in accordance with the law. In fact a refusal would put the the head of the IRS or Treasury Secretary in contempt of Congress.
And for what it's worth, Trump's former attorney Cohen testified under oath that Trump WASN'T under audit
What do you suppose he's hiding? Tax evasion? Money Laundering?
He's afraid of something obviously
2. If he didn't pay any taxes due to "legal loopholes," that's permissible by the IRS.
3. ALL, I repeat, ALL, citizens tax returns are private and cannot be released without a court order and as the president of the United States is a citizen, his tax returns are just as private as anyone else's. As for those politicians who do release their tax returns, they do so willingly, but don't really have to.
So....the whole thing is voluntary. Whether he paid all relevant taxes, or through legal loopholes, managed to avoid doing so, I don't care. I only care about his performance, which so far, isn't bad.
1. Since when do conservatives think the government catches all tax cheats? You think they’re perfect? Especially after they’ve had their budgets cut consistently for decades?
2. If I were on the House weighs and means committee, I would find it very interesting to see what loopholes the super wealthy use so we can close them. Rich people abuse the tax code in “permissible” ways all the time.
I would find it very interesting to see what loopholes the super wealthy use so we can close them.
If you ever find some, be sure to post them here.
No, impeachment is still a viable method, however, the motives become unclear, and credibility is questioned when the opposing party starts talking about impeachment before the president takes office.There is no witch hunt.So you support the witch hunt?Everything after the first paragraph is untrue. There are no stipulations about stripping identifying information and there is no requirement that they provide a reason for their request.
There is, however, Impeachment of the President, by the US House of Representatives.
When you broadcast your intention to unseat the president before he even takes office, it's a witch hunt.
So since some Dems said that, there can be no investigation or impeachment of Trump for any reason?
Sure they can. The whistleblower came forward. The ICIG called it credible and urgent.There is no witch hunt.So you support the witch hunt?Everything after the first paragraph is untrue. There are no stipulations about stripping identifying information and there is no requirement that they provide a reason for their request.
There is, however, Impeachment of the President, by the US House of Representatives.
When you broadcast your intention to unseat the president before he even takes office, it's a witch hunt.
So since some Dems said that, there can be no investigation or impeachment of Trump for any reason?
How do you start at A and arrive at tomato? Of course it doesn't mean that, it means they should take extra care to avoid all appearances of a witch hunt precisely because they did it. There is no way, for example, that they can pretend they were just going about their business and, "Wow, would you look at that, a crime has been committed!". No, they've been salivating for years, just begging for something they can use, and getting this close to the election, they panicked. Whether this is a true witch hunt or not, they've given every indication that it is.
Dems were talking impeachment before trump was elected in 2016. Allegations of his attempt is use ukraine to influence the election didnt happen until this year.When you attempt to coerce a foreign leader to smear a domestic political opponent using taxpayer money as grease, it's Impeachment....When you broadcast your intention to unseat the president before he even takes office, it's a witch hunt.
Your Orange Demigod stupidly gave them the ammunition they needed to do just that.
Somebody that stupid has no business at the head of the world's premier superpower.
Prior Democratic intentions are irrelevant to the present abuses committed by your unthinking amoral Baboon.
No, impeachment is still a viable method, however, the motives become unclear, and credibility is questioned when the opposing party starts talking about impeachment before the president takes office.There is no witch hunt.So you support the witch hunt?Everything after the first paragraph is untrue. There are no stipulations about stripping identifying information and there is no requirement that they provide a reason for their request.
There is, however, Impeachment of the President, by the US House of Representatives.
When you broadcast your intention to unseat the president before he even takes office, it's a witch hunt.
So since some Dems said that, there can be no investigation or impeachment of Trump for any reason?
It would have been one thing had nobody said anything about impeachment, then after trump had done something, then impeachment talks began. Rather, impeachment talk began before he was inaugurated, and then several investigations followed, along with attempts to gain access to his tax records.
Surely you can see where the repubs would see this as a witch hunt.
Trump stupidly GAVE the Democrats the ammunition they needed to Impeach him....Dems were talking impeachment before trump was elected in 2016. Allegations of his attempt is use ukraine to influence the election didnt happen until this year.
No, that is correct, however, those who wanted impeachment were very vocal about it. This was something talked about, not uncommonly, before the president was elected in 2016.No, impeachment is still a viable method, however, the motives become unclear, and credibility is questioned when the opposing party starts talking about impeachment before the president takes office.There is no witch hunt.So you support the witch hunt?
There is, however, Impeachment of the President, by the US House of Representatives.
When you broadcast your intention to unseat the president before he even takes office, it's a witch hunt.
So since some Dems said that, there can be no investigation or impeachment of Trump for any reason?
It would have been one thing had nobody said anything about impeachment, then after trump had done something, then impeachment talks began. Rather, impeachment talk began before he was inaugurated, and then several investigations followed, along with attempts to gain access to his tax records.
Surely you can see where the repubs would see this as a witch hunt.
Thse party is not monolithic. Just because some talked about it doesn’t mean everyone subscribed to the intention.
Prominent people? Which ones were talking impeachment before Trump was elected?No, that is correct, however, those who wanted impeachment were very vocal about it. This was something talked about, not uncommonly, before the president was elected in 2016.No, impeachment is still a viable method, however, the motives become unclear, and credibility is questioned when the opposing party starts talking about impeachment before the president takes office.There is no witch hunt.
There is, however, Impeachment of the President, by the US House of Representatives.
When you broadcast your intention to unseat the president before he even takes office, it's a witch hunt.
So since some Dems said that, there can be no investigation or impeachment of Trump for any reason?
It would have been one thing had nobody said anything about impeachment, then after trump had done something, then impeachment talks began. Rather, impeachment talk began before he was inaugurated, and then several investigations followed, along with attempts to gain access to his tax records.
Surely you can see where the repubs would see this as a witch hunt.
Thse party is not monolithic. Just because some talked about it doesn’t mean everyone subscribed to the intention.
True, the party is not monolithic, however, as we have seen, pretty much all the time, if the prominent people, or leaders in your party talk about something, most everyone else in that party follows along. Something which I dont quite understand.
I was replying to the inference that impeachment talks began after the ukraine situation. Impeachment talks began before trump was elected.Trump stupidly GAVE the Democrats the ammunition they needed to Impeach him....Dems were talking impeachment before trump was elected in 2016. Allegations of his attempt is use ukraine to influence the election didnt happen until this year.
If you have evidence, send it to the Deep State.I think Trump is probably lying, tax cheating, bank fraudster, that has destroyed the credibility of the republican party. That said, if it were me, I sure as hell would hide mine, and tell anyone who wanted them "F#ck You" till my dying day and laugh out loud about it, till they drug them from my cold, dead, pale, p#ssy grabbing fingers. Amen!
Deep state is just another label, like fake news. If you give something a simple, meaningless, derogatory label, your can more simply attempt to attack it. It is most effective, by and for simpletons.
I was replying to the inference that impeachment talks began after the ukraine situation. Impeachment talks began before trump was elected.Trump stupidly GAVE the Democrats the ammunition they needed to Impeach him....Dems were talking impeachment before trump was elected in 2016. Allegations of his attempt is use ukraine to influence the election didnt happen until this year.
You can start here.1. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reviews everybody's Annual Tax Returns and if they find that anyone didn't pay their taxes, or have any egregious errors in the form, they do an audit. If there was anything nefarious about his taxes, they would have caught it and audited him.Congress is trying to get Trump's taxes. Every President since Nixon has released theirs and Trump "claims" he'd like to release them.
He is however fighting tooth and nail to keep them secret. His claim here is that he's under audit and for some reason that precludes him from releasing them. It doesn't.
The IRS does not lock them down for that reason, and it's CONGRESS requesting them in accordance with the law. In fact a refusal would put the the head of the IRS or Treasury Secretary in contempt of Congress.
And for what it's worth, Trump's former attorney Cohen testified under oath that Trump WASN'T under audit
What do you suppose he's hiding? Tax evasion? Money Laundering?
He's afraid of something obviously
2. If he didn't pay any taxes due to "legal loopholes," that's permissible by the IRS.
3. ALL, I repeat, ALL, citizens tax returns are private and cannot be released without a court order and as the president of the United States is a citizen, his tax returns are just as private as anyone else's. As for those politicians who do release their tax returns, they do so willingly, but don't really have to.
So....the whole thing is voluntary. Whether he paid all relevant taxes, or through legal loopholes, managed to avoid doing so, I don't care. I only care about his performance, which so far, isn't bad.
1. Since when do conservatives think the government catches all tax cheats? You think they’re perfect? Especially after they’ve had their budgets cut consistently for decades?
2. If I were on the House weighs and means committee, I would find it very interesting to see what loopholes the super wealthy use so we can close them. Rich people abuse the tax code in “permissible” ways all the time.
I would find it very interesting to see what loopholes the super wealthy use so we can close them.
If you ever find some, be sure to post them here.
How Loopholes Help Trump and Other Real Estate Moguls Avoid Taxes
Efforts to impeach Donald Trump - WikipediaProminent people? Which ones were talking impeachment before Trump was elected?No, that is correct, however, those who wanted impeachment were very vocal about it. This was something talked about, not uncommonly, before the president was elected in 2016.No, impeachment is still a viable method, however, the motives become unclear, and credibility is questioned when the opposing party starts talking about impeachment before the president takes office.When you broadcast your intention to unseat the president before he even takes office, it's a witch hunt.
So since some Dems said that, there can be no investigation or impeachment of Trump for any reason?
It would have been one thing had nobody said anything about impeachment, then after trump had done something, then impeachment talks began. Rather, impeachment talk began before he was inaugurated, and then several investigations followed, along with attempts to gain access to his tax records.
Surely you can see where the repubs would see this as a witch hunt.
Thse party is not monolithic. Just because some talked about it doesn’t mean everyone subscribed to the intention.
True, the party is not monolithic, however, as we have seen, pretty much all the time, if the prominent people, or leaders in your party talk about something, most everyone else in that party follows along. Something which I dont quite understand.
No, there was definitely talk of impeaching obama, but did they? Was there ever an impeachment inquiry started?I was replying to the inference that impeachment talks began after the ukraine situation. Impeachment talks began before trump was elected.Trump stupidly GAVE the Democrats the ammunition they needed to Impeach him....Dems were talking impeachment before trump was elected in 2016. Allegations of his attempt is use ukraine to influence the election didnt happen until this year.
I am pretty sure there was plenty of chatter about Obama being impeached as well...
Efforts to impeach Barack Obama - Wikipedia
So how is that glasshouse you are throwing stones from?
Saying that Pelosi resisted impeachment for a long time until it came obvious that Trump broke the law is such a way not only did he not regret it, he was willing to do it again.
By the way are our Trump friends saying that if Obama asked UK to publicly open investigation on Trump and threaten them if they don't that would be OK. Let's be clear Trump has some very shady investment issues in the UK. Lets be clear UK(and EU) is not like US, you have to explain where every cent comes from, making an unusual departure from regular investing in a loss making investment raises red flags everywhere.
And they have not done anything to quell that impression.No, there was definitely talk of impeaching obama, but did they? Was there ever an impeachment inquiry started?I was replying to the inference that impeachment talks began after the ukraine situation. Impeachment talks began before trump was elected.Trump stupidly GAVE the Democrats the ammunition they needed to Impeach him....Dems were talking impeachment before trump was elected in 2016. Allegations of his attempt is use ukraine to influence the election didnt happen until this year.
I am pretty sure there was plenty of chatter about Obama being impeached as well...
Efforts to impeach Barack Obama - Wikipedia
So how is that glasshouse you are throwing stones from?
Saying that Pelosi resisted impeachment for a long time until it came obvious that Trump broke the law is such a way not only did he not regret it, he was willing to do it again.
By the way are our Trump friends saying that if Obama asked UK to publicly open investigation on Trump and threaten them if they don't that would be OK. Let's be clear Trump has some very shady investment issues in the UK. Lets be clear UK(and EU) is not like US, you have to explain where every cent comes from, making an unusual departure from regular investing in a loss making investment raises red flags everywhere.
I browsed an article that said pretty much every congress wants or tries to introduce legislation for impeachment of the opposing president.
This is different. Had the opposing party Congress started talking impeachment of obama almost immediately after election, and even before election, it would be wrong as well, and youd have a point, but it never happened. It has for trump.
I'm not making the case that trump should or should not be impeached, all I was saying is that, with impeachment talk coming from the left since 2016, it's hard not to view this as a witch hunt.
