Make Trump Reveal his Financials and Conflicts of Interests

[AntonToo]

Silverman is a turd.

I'll give a shit about Trump's finances after they audit the Clintons.

You are a turd. Clintons released 10 years of tax returns:

Hillary Clinton, Tim Kaine release tax returns while Donald Trump defies decades-old tradition of disclosure

Nothing is asked of Trump that Hillary hasn't ALREADY LIVED UP TO.

 

[Old Rocks]

Trump was and is a master used car salesman. He will say whatever it takes to make the deal, then when you own it, you own it. Just remember that, Trump voters, when the bank takes back your home, and you are out of a job.

 

[gtopa1]

Serious question. If you or I go to apply for a Federal government job, they are going to do a credit check, and a background investigation, so why should Trump, who is going to be the President, not have to show his tax returns and his business interests that could be a conflict of interest?

He's been audited how many times in the last 20 years??? The tax people KNOW.

Greg

 

[GLASNOST]

This has NOTHING to do with political parties. It's about holding other people accountable. At one point in my life I went for a job for a company that got contract jobs from the U.S. government to field calls and fill out the paperwork to do visas. I passed the background check and all the other required tests including a typing test. Then on the credit check it came back that at the time I was in default on my federal student loans... so they said that I couldn't get a job despite passing all the tests. So... again, why should Trump get a free pass?

I sympathize with you, but rules and regulations differ from job to job. I think it was unfair to deprive you of the job "for that reason", however you were in default of payment to the very authority you sought employment - ie. the government. I still think it was unfair of them, but the truth seems to be that you are upset over unkind treatment and now you want everyone else to suffer the same. Just because I am made to pay a fine for an iffy j-walking offence, should I expect everyone in the world to be found guilty of the same offence?

 

[Lewdog]

This has NOTHING to do with political parties. It's about holding other people accountable. At one point in my life I went for a job for a company that got contract jobs from the U.S. government to field calls and fill out the paperwork to do visas. I passed the background check and all the other required tests including a typing test. Then on the credit check it came back that at the time I was in default on my federal student loans... so they said that I couldn't get a job despite passing all the tests. So... again, why should Trump get a free pass?

I sympathize with you, but rules and regulations differ from job to job. I think it was unfair to deprive you of the job "for that reason", however you were in default of payment to the very authority you sought employment - ie. the government. I still think it was unfair of them, but the truth seems to be that you are upset over unkind treatment and now you want everyone else to suffer the same. Just because I am made to pay a fine for an iffy j-walking offence, should I expect everyone in the world to be found guilty of the same offence?

It's not that, everyone has to pass that "test." Everyone in the military and most government officials that need a security clearance have to go through that. Here is a guy about to take the highest position in the country... he shouldn't be exempted.

 

[GLASNOST]

It's not that, everyone has to pass that "test." Everyone in the military and most government officials that need a security clearance have to go through that. Here is a guy about to take the highest position in the country... he shouldn't be exempted.

You are speaking in general terms. You need to be more specific. What exactly was it (on your test) that you had to pass that Trump didn't?

 

[Lewdog]

It's not that, everyone has to pass that "test." Everyone in the military and most government officials that need a security clearance have to go through that. Here is a guy about to take the highest position in the country... he shouldn't be exempted.

You are speaking in general terms. You need to be more specific. What exactly was it (on your test) that you had to pass that Trump didn't?

A credit check to see into your financials. And he should have to go through the same background check that anyone else would for security clearance.

 

[GLASNOST]

A credit check to see into your financials. And he should have to go through the same background check that anyone else would for security clearance.

FIRST: I understand that you think so, but what does the law say on the matter? SECOND: Isn't it very possible that Trump has been audited so many times (the guy is a gazillionaire) that a "background check" wouldn't reveal a fraction of what is already known about his financial assets? THIRD: Why do you think he hasn't been subjected to a background check?

 

[aaronleland]

So... most presidential candidates only have to release their tax records, but only Obama has to release that and EVERYTHING ELSE or it's somehow unfair?

TWO QUESTIONS:
1). What do you mean by "everything else"?
2). What do mean by "has to"?

Give us an example of one of these "everything else" that he "had to" release.

If Obama refused to release his tax records along with his birth records don't pretend you wouldn't have a fit. Trump won't release only his tax records unless Obama releases his college records now. Sounds fair. Release everything about your life, and I'll release a document every presidential candidate before me has released without question.

 

[aaronleland]

A credit check to see into your financials. And he should have to go through the same background check that anyone else would for security clearance.

FIRST: I understand that you think so, but what does the law say on the matter? SECOND: Isn't it very possible that Trump has been audited so many times (the guy is a gazillionaire) that a "background check" wouldn't reveal a fraction of what is already known about his financial assets? THIRD: Why do you think he hasn't been subjected to a background check?

Then he has nothing to hide. Allowing a background check should be nothing.

 

[GLASNOST]

If Obama refused to release his tax records along with his birth records don't pretend you wouldn't have a fit. Trump won't release only his tax records unless Obama releases his college records now. Sounds fair. Release everything about your life, and I'll release a document every presidential candidate before me has released without question.Then he has nothing to hide. Allowing a background check should be nothing.

You don't know my opinion of Obama, and you don't know what was required of him or Trump .... nor do you know what either of them refused to submit. Your contribution has nothing to do with Presidents, present, passed or future. You're just blowing hot farts to get attention.

 

[MisterBeale]

These same folks that want Trumps financials released to the public somehow didn't seem all that concerned about seeing Obama's long form, school records, social security, etc. . . . makes you wonder if following the law is only convenient when it suits a partisan agenda. . .

So... most presidential candidates only have to release their tax records, but only Obama has to release that and EVERYTHING ELSE or it's somehow unfair?

Absolutely not.

Presidents only have to follow the law.

Partisans only get to whine about shit that doesn't matter, and in the end it really is, just a big game to keep us distracted from issues that really matter.


Naturally all these guys are hiding connections to the establishment and to people that they would rather not have the public know they have. Big deal.

In all likelihood;

In Obama's case with his SS#, the long from birth record and the college transcripts, he was hiding the fact that he is connected to foundations that manipulate American culture and the intelligence establishment that manipulates Deep politics. In Trump's case, he is hiding that he has ties to organized crime and the intelligence establishment. None of this matters now, he was chosen. Hillary's connections to the establishment were as nefarious, or more so. It's a moot conversation. It really is.

In both cases the establishment is going to make sure that average Joe citizen doesn't find out what these peoples connections are, it is a matter of national security that foreign adversaries and political rivals don't know their true liabilities and assets.

 

[MisterBeale]

Serious question. If you or I go to apply for a Federal government job, they are going to do a credit check, and a background investigation, so why should Trump, who is going to be the President, not have to show his tax returns and his business interests that could be a conflict of interest?

Because there is no law.

So you're saying only peons have to disclose their information? Got it.

I believe it was the DNC candidate that made that point quite clear to America.

The Facebook page, boasting over 100K likes, has had multiple images removed as they apparently don’t “follow the Facebook Community Standards”. One of the most recent images removed was one that poked fun at Hillary Clinton and the recent recommendation by the FBI not to press charges following Clinton’s email scandal.


The image received approximately 10K likes, 50K shares and 4 million views before it was promptly removed from the page for violating community standards. The image in question can be seen below,

Facebook Deletes Meme Page Mocking Hillary Clinton - Breitbart

 

[SixFoot]

 

[GLASNOST]

Ha-ha! Did she really say that?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Serious question. If you or I go to apply for a Federal government job, they are going to do a credit check, and a background investigation, so why should Trump, who is going to be the President, not have to show his tax returns and his business interests that could be a conflict of interest?

Thank you how come they didn't do that with Obama?

 

[Wyatt earp]

These same folks that want Trumps financials released to the public somehow didn't seem all that concerned about seeing Obama's long form, school records, social security, etc. . . . makes you wonder if following the law is only convenient when it suits a partisan agenda. . .

So... most presidential candidates only have to release their tax records, but only Obama has to release that and EVERYTHING ELSE or it's somehow unfair?

No president has to release their tax records.. Now you are just going against the op

 

[MisterBeale]

Ha-ha! Did she really say that?

Not in so many words, but basically, YES.

1) Her staff, not the FBI, decided which emails were government related, and which were personal.

2) Those emails were under congressional subpoena when they were deleted.

3) Nobody faced any consequence for said cover-up.

(You can look into the scandalous lack of emails covering that whole Benghazi affair in the hearing for yourself, it's shameful.)


But the campaign did not disclose exactly when the personal emails were deleted — which became an issue after Clinton had received a subpoena on March 4, 2015, from the House Select Committee on Benghazi. The committee was seeking emails related to its investigation into the Sept. 11, 2012, deadly attack on the U.S. facilities in Libya.


Clinton and her campaign pushed back at suggestions that the personal emails were deleted while she was under subpoena. In a July 7, 2015, interview, CNN’s Brianna Keilar asked Clinton “how you decided to delete 33,000 emails and how that deletion was executed.” Clinton did not answer the question, instead saying that “previous secretaries of state have said they did the same thing.” (That was not true, as we wrote at the time.)


Keilar questioned whether other secretaries of state “used a personal server and while facing a subpoena, deleted emails from them?” Clinton said that Keilar was making false assumptions, saying, “I’ve never had a subpoena.” Rep. Trey Gowdy, the chairman of the Benghazi committee, immediately accused Clinton of lying after the interview, because, of course, Clinton indeed did receive a subpoena.


The Clinton campaign told us at the time that Clinton was specifically responding to Keilar’s question about deleting personal emails “while facing a subpoena.”


The campaign gave us a statement from Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill that said: “She was asked about her decision to not to retain her personal emails after providing all those that were work-related, and the suggestion was made that a subpoena was pending at the time. That was not accurate.”


It turned out that Keilar’s assumption was accurate. The 31,830 personal emails that Keilar asked about were deleted “sometime between March 25-31, 2015,” according to the FBI. That was about three weeks after Clinton received a House subpoena on March 4, 2015.
The FBI Files on Clinton’s Emails


This is basically the crux of why nothing came of the Benghazi hearings.

. . . and when we transitioned from one scandal to the next. . .

 

[Dreadnaught1968]

Serious question. If you or I go to apply for a Federal government job, they are going to do a credit check, and a background investigation, so why should Trump, who is going to be the President, not have to show his tax returns and his business interests that could be a conflict of interest?

He probably has, to the government, he just doesn't need to reveal them to the likes of you. And even if he did, what would you do with that information? Just whine more? He won the election, and Hildebeast is the loser.

 

[GLASNOST]

Ha-ha! Did she really say that?

Not in so many words, but basically, YES. This is basically the crux of why nothing came of the Benghazi hearings.
. . . and when we transitioned from one scandal to the next. . .

Thanks for a really good post! She was lying through her teeth and trying to weasel out of it on the "tried and true" word-game chicanery, just like hubby Bill ........ "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" What he was saying (HA-HA!) was that fiddling with her clitoris with a cigar is (in his personal opinion) not "sexual relations". Should we really believe that he thinks there's sufficient difference between manipulating her 'love cavern' (by an unlit roll of tobacco) and slipping his wick in, with an in-and-out thrust? Yeah, I'm sure he's that naïve, not. So Hitlery tried the same ploy by feigning an unawareness of the date(s) she deleted the famous e-mails. "Oh! Is that not allowed?"