Trump Is Hiding His Taxes

[Papageorgio]

#MuellerDenier!!

Greg

there is nothing to deny about the Mueller report.... we've seen absolutely ZERO of it... not even the mueller team redacted summaries that they made on each aspect of their investigations, so they could be released to the public immediately....

Barr used 2 PARTIAL sentences of Mueller's in his Barr report... he could not even put in Mueller's full sentences.... had to cut out from even those!

#MuellerDenier

Nope: you're a liar. No collusion, no obstruction. You should be ashamed of yourself for being so stupid as to still hold onto that canard. Amuses me immensely. lmao

Greg

nope, you are the fool for believing Trump....

the barr report did not say there was no collusion... Barr never used the word collusion, remember... although collusion may be something ''wrong'', collusion is not a crime....

allegedly, the Mueller report said that they could not establish, (beyond a reasonable doubt), that the Trump campaign team committed CONSPIRACY, conspiracy to defraud the United States... is the law that would be broken....

Barr's summary report did NOT SAY there was NO evidence of it, anywhere.... by using the word establish, basically tells us that there was evidence of it, but not enough to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt, which was Mueller's thresh hold, for an indictment.

As far as the obstruction charge for President Trump, one of Mueller's partial quotes used said that president Trump COULD NOT BE EXONERATED for it.... that means there is most certainly evidence collected on President Trump, for his obstruction in this official investigation....

so, basically, it really is all up in the air at this point, without having the Mueller report to read.

It's not a prosecutors job to "exonerate", it's his job to determine if there's evidence to support a prosecution. There wasn't, and by our system of justice, Trump is innocent until proven guilty is a court of law and that ain't gonna happen.

.

10 to 1, there was enough evidence to prosecute him, but since the rule for Presidents, is that they can not get indicted while in office, Mueller likely left that up to congress, to impeach or not.

Starr did not charge president clinton with obstruction or perjury either, he left it opened for Congress to decide on articles of impeachment, or not...

Jaworsky did not press charges on Richard Nixon either, they passed their information on the Congress, for them to decide on articles of impeachment, or not....

Mueller did the same....

but the Barr man came in and overstepped his bounds and cleared him.... instead of just passing it to Congress, as he was suppose to do.... as with all cases involved with a President previous to this....

the crooks are running the show in Washington DC now, don't cha know?

The Starr Commission was to report sent to Congress because that was the law back then. Right after that the laws were changed that put the AG as the recipient of such reports. Barr overstepped nothing, he is doing what is required by law.

Crooks have been running Washington for decades, it just seems that partisans don’t call them crooks when their guy is in power. Another reason partisans are fools.

 

[edward37]

think if they go for impeachment they can legally get his taxes

Wrong again commie, that's not a legitimate legislative end. And out of curiosity what possible impeachment charge would include the need for his taxes?

.

Wrong again commie, that's not a legitimate legislative end. And out of curiosity what possible impeachment charge would include the need for his taxes?

Tax fraud and money laundering charges for starters.

How to Make Trump's Tax Returns Public | DCReport.org

"On June 14, the New York State attorney general, Barbara Underwood, filed a civil complaint against President Trump and his three oldest children, accusing them of 'persistently illegal conduct' in using the Donald J. Trump Foundation as ''ittle more than a checkbook for payments from Mr. Trump or his businesses to nonprofits, regardless of their purpose or legality.'

Ms. Underwood believes there is abundant evidence to bring criminal charges against Mr. Trump as well.

"She made that position very clear in the letters she sent to the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Election Commission in Washington recommending 'further investigation and legal action.'"

You might as well argue Trump never lies as contend he doesn't cheat on taxes and launder money for rich Russians.

You seem to be confused, congress is NOT a law enforcement agency, they have no constitutional authority to act as one. If you think Mueller hasn't already looked at these things, you're kidding yourself.

.

You seem to be confused, congress is NOT a law enforcement agency, they have no constitutional authority to act as one. If you think Mueller hasn't already looked at these things, you're kidding yourself.

We won't know what Mueller looked at until Republican hack Bill Barr releases the report.

Congress has all the constitutional authority it needs to investigate the "Red Don's" alleged tax fraud and money laundering.

Congressional oversight - Wikipedia

"Oversight, as an outgrowth of this principle, ideally serves a number of overlapping objectives and purposes:

• improve the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of governmental operations;
• evaluate programs and performance;
• detect and prevent poor administration, waste, abuse, arbitrary and capricious behavior, or illegal and unconstitutional conduct;
• protect civil liberties and constitutional rights;
• inform the general public and ensure that executive policies reflect the public interest;
• gather information to develop new legislative proposals or to amend existing statutes;
• ensure administrative compliance with legislative intent; and
• prevent executive encroachment on legislative authority and prerogatives.

"In sum, oversight is a way for Congress to check on, and check, the executived directors."

Alleged? Who is alleging? The only people alleging is the opposition party with no reason to allege. Just another witch hunt because the last one failed

LOL many witches caught with more to come when SDNY gets through with the criminal family Trump

 

[jc456]

It's an IRS policy to do such for every President for every year they are in office, but it is NOT a law.... the head of IRS could tell his people NOT to follow the policy.

This is also why Chairman Neal is requesting the tax returns, if the IRS is not following their policy, then the congress may choose to codify it under a LAW instead of a policy that the president could order his IRS director, not to do....

So....it's not Trump they are after, it's the IRS?
That is going to be a tough sell when it ends up in the courts. just sayin'

the law is clear, I doubt it will make it to court, without being thrown out....

the law is the law, follow it or change it, through legislative means.... the courts are not for anything else, but determining if a law is broken, or a law or action, is unconstitutional.

I do not believe Trump's stacking of the courts, will be able to help him on this....

Alright, then the court could limit the tax returns to Trump time in office...

The Congress does not need anything before that.

why do you support him hiding them from us? What do you believe he is trying to hide?

You need many years of taxes, to actually understand the taxes....on someone like Trump or any billionaire, 6 years is about right....

what evidence do you have he is hiding anything?

 

[Dick Foster]

it is IRS policy to audit the President.

And yet every other President since Nixon released their tax returns every year WHILE UNDER AUDIT.

What is Trump hiding?

What do you think he is hiding?

you name it the man is a vile thief

And you have shitforbrains.

 

[Care4all]

Also if Congress obtains his returns they will never be allow to show them, and you should know this.

yes, true, I do know this...

And that's why I do not believe it is such a big deal, they will stay private!

 

[jc456]

#MuellerDenier!!

Greg

there is nothing to deny about the Mueller report.... we've seen absolutely ZERO of it... not even the mueller team redacted summaries that they made on each aspect of their investigations, so they could be released to the public immediately....

Barr used 2 PARTIAL sentences of Mueller's in his Barr report... he could not even put in Mueller's full sentences.... had to cut out from even those!

#MuellerDenier

Nope: you're a liar. No collusion, no obstruction. You should be ashamed of yourself for being so stupid as to still hold onto that canard. Amuses me immensely. lmao

Greg

nope, you are the fool for believing Trump....

the barr report did not say there was no collusion... Barr never used the word collusion, remember... although collusion may be something ''wrong'', collusion is not a crime....

allegedly, the Mueller report said that they could not establish, (beyond a reasonable doubt), that the Trump campaign team committed CONSPIRACY, conspiracy to defraud the United States... is the law that would be broken....

Barr's summary report did NOT SAY there was NO evidence of it, anywhere.... by using the word establish, basically tells us that there was evidence of it, but not enough to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt, which was Mueller's thresh hold, for an indictment.

As far as the obstruction charge for President Trump, one of Mueller's partial quotes used said that president Trump COULD NOT BE EXONERATED for it.... that means there is most certainly evidence collected on President Trump, for his obstruction in this official investigation....

so, basically, it really is all up in the air at this point, without having the Mueller report to read.

It's not a prosecutors job to "exonerate", it's his job to determine if there's evidence to support a prosecution. There wasn't, and by our system of justice, Trump is innocent until proven guilty is a court of law and that ain't gonna happen.

.

10 to 1, there was enough evidence to prosecute him, but since the rule for Presidents, is that they can not get indicted while in office, Mueller likely left that up to congress, to impeach or not.

Starr did not charge president clinton with obstruction or perjury either, he left it opened for Congress to decide on articles of impeachment, or not...

Jaworsky did not press charges on Richard Nixon either, they passed their information on the Congress, for them to decide on articles of impeachment, or not....

Mueller did the same....

but the Barr man came in and overstepped his bounds and cleared him.... instead of just passing it to Congress, as he was suppose to do.... as with all cases involved with a President previous to this....

the crooks are running the show in Washington DC now, don't cha know?

10 to 1, there was enough evidence to prosecute him, but since the rule for Presidents, is that they can not get indicted while in office,

Son, know the procedures. If there were indeed any need to indict trump, all Mueller had to do was seal an indictment. After his eight year run, then they would open that sealed indictment and proceed. you're again, in error as always. Any sealed indictment? nope!!! means mueller didn't have anything. exonerates trump on that one simple missing item. oh fking well.

 

[Meister]

It's an IRS policy to do such for every President for every year they are in office, but it is NOT a law.... the head of IRS could tell his people NOT to follow the policy.

This is also why Chairman Neal is requesting the tax returns, if the IRS is not following their policy, then the congress may choose to codify it under a LAW instead of a policy that the president could order his IRS director, not to do....

So....it's not Trump they are after, it's the IRS?
That is going to be a tough sell when it ends up in the courts. just sayin'

the law is clear, I doubt it will make it to court, without being thrown out....

the law is the law, follow it or change it, through legislative means.... the courts are not for anything else, but determining if a law is broken, or a law or action, is unconstitutional.

I do not believe Trump's stacking of the courts, will be able to help him on this....

Why are you supporting him hiding them from Congress or anyone? What do you think he is hiding?

Stop with that, "What do you think he is hiding?" BS, Care. You are sounding like every other partisan hack
that got their talking points from the masters. This is America, not China or Russia. GOOD GRIEF!
He is exercising his rights as an American...plain and simple. This is a witch hunt AND YOU know it.
Since when in America do we start investigations looking for a crime?
In the past the investigations were done after a crime was committed.
Now a person has to prove he's innocent?
WoW! What has happened?

 

[Care4all]

It's an IRS policy to do such for every President for every year they are in office, but it is NOT a law.... the head of IRS could tell his people NOT to follow the policy.

This is also why Chairman Neal is requesting the tax returns, if the IRS is not following their policy, then the congress may choose to codify it under a LAW instead of a policy that the president could order his IRS director, not to do....

So....it's not Trump they are after, it's the IRS?
That is going to be a tough sell when it ends up in the courts. just sayin'

the law is clear, I doubt it will make it to court, without being thrown out....

the law is the law, follow it or change it, through legislative means.... the courts are not for anything else, but determining if a law is broken, or a law or action, is unconstitutional.

I do not believe Trump's stacking of the courts, will be able to help him on this....

Alright, then the court could limit the tax returns to Trump time in office...

The Congress does not need anything before that.

why do you support him hiding them from us? What do you believe he is trying to hide?

You need many years of taxes, to actually understand the taxes....on someone like Trump or any billionaire, 6 years is about right....

what evidence do you have he is hiding anything?

Hiding them from us, is a good clue!

Especially when for more than 4 decades, all candidates and presidents have released them....

 

[jc456]

So....it's not Trump they are after, it's the IRS?
That is going to be a tough sell when it ends up in the courts. just sayin'

the law is clear, I doubt it will make it to court, without being thrown out....

the law is the law, follow it or change it, through legislative means.... the courts are not for anything else, but determining if a law is broken, or a law or action, is unconstitutional.

I do not believe Trump's stacking of the courts, will be able to help him on this....

Alright, then the court could limit the tax returns to Trump time in office...

The Congress does not need anything before that.

why do you support him hiding them from us? What do you believe he is trying to hide?

You need many years of taxes, to actually understand the taxes....on someone like Trump or any billionaire, 6 years is about right....

what evidence do you have he is hiding anything?

Hiding them from us, is a good clue!

Especially when for more than 4 decades, all candidates and presidents have released them....

is that a requirement to run for president? And, what do you think you will find if you got them, which you already know you won't? instead you're crying like a little baby without a rattle.

 

[dannyboys]

It's an IRS policy to do such for every President for every year they are in office, but it is NOT a law.... the head of IRS could tell his people NOT to follow the policy.

This is also why Chairman Neal is requesting the tax returns, if the IRS is not following their policy, then the congress may choose to codify it under a LAW instead of a policy that the president could order his IRS director, not to do....

So....it's not Trump they are after, it's the IRS?
That is going to be a tough sell when it ends up in the courts. just sayin'

the law is clear, I doubt it will make it to court, without being thrown out....

the law is the law, follow it or change it, through legislative means.... the courts are not for anything else, but determining if a law is broken, or a law or action, is unconstitutional.

I do not believe Trump's stacking of the courts, will be able to help him on this....

Why are you supporting him hiding them from Congress or anyone? What do you think he is hiding?

Madcow already showed us Trump's tax returns. Don't you remember? How much federal income tax did he pay that year? About 125 MILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Meister]

So....it's not Trump they are after, it's the IRS?
That is going to be a tough sell when it ends up in the courts. just sayin'

the law is clear, I doubt it will make it to court, without being thrown out....

the law is the law, follow it or change it, through legislative means.... the courts are not for anything else, but determining if a law is broken, or a law or action, is unconstitutional.

I do not believe Trump's stacking of the courts, will be able to help him on this....

Alright, then the court could limit the tax returns to Trump time in office...

The Congress does not need anything before that.

why do you support him hiding them from us? What do you believe he is trying to hide?

You need many years of taxes, to actually understand the taxes....on someone like Trump or any billionaire, 6 years is about right....

what evidence do you have he is hiding anything?

Hiding them from us, is a good clue!

Especially when for more than 4 decades, all candidates and presidents have released them....

Okay comrade, whatever you say.

 

[dannyboys]

Also if Congress obtains his returns they will never be allow to show them, and you should know this.

yes, true, I do know this...

And that's why I do not believe it is such a big deal, they will stay private!

If the DEM Congress get Trump's tax returns they will be leaked to the NYT within a hour!
Any sentient ten year old knows this!

 

[Care4all]

there is nothing to deny about the Mueller report.... we've seen absolutely ZERO of it... not even the mueller team redacted summaries that they made on each aspect of their investigations, so they could be released to the public immediately....

Barr used 2 PARTIAL sentences of Mueller's in his Barr report... he could not even put in Mueller's full sentences.... had to cut out from even those!

#MuellerDenier

Nope: you're a liar. No collusion, no obstruction. You should be ashamed of yourself for being so stupid as to still hold onto that canard. Amuses me immensely. lmao

Greg

nope, you are the fool for believing Trump....

the barr report did not say there was no collusion... Barr never used the word collusion, remember... although collusion may be something ''wrong'', collusion is not a crime....

allegedly, the Mueller report said that they could not establish, (beyond a reasonable doubt), that the Trump campaign team committed CONSPIRACY, conspiracy to defraud the United States... is the law that would be broken....

Barr's summary report did NOT SAY there was NO evidence of it, anywhere.... by using the word establish, basically tells us that there was evidence of it, but not enough to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt, which was Mueller's thresh hold, for an indictment.

As far as the obstruction charge for President Trump, one of Mueller's partial quotes used said that president Trump COULD NOT BE EXONERATED for it.... that means there is most certainly evidence collected on President Trump, for his obstruction in this official investigation....

so, basically, it really is all up in the air at this point, without having the Mueller report to read.

It's not a prosecutors job to "exonerate", it's his job to determine if there's evidence to support a prosecution. There wasn't, and by our system of justice, Trump is innocent until proven guilty is a court of law and that ain't gonna happen.

.

10 to 1, there was enough evidence to prosecute him, but since the rule for Presidents, is that they can not get indicted while in office, Mueller likely left that up to congress, to impeach or not.

Starr did not charge president clinton with obstruction or perjury either, he left it opened for Congress to decide on articles of impeachment, or not...

Jaworsky did not press charges on Richard Nixon either, they passed their information on the Congress, for them to decide on articles of impeachment, or not....

Mueller did the same....

but the Barr man came in and overstepped his bounds and cleared him.... instead of just passing it to Congress, as he was suppose to do.... as with all cases involved with a President previous to this....

the crooks are running the show in Washington DC now, don't cha know?

10 to 1, there was enough evidence to prosecute him, but since the rule for Presidents, is that they can not get indicted while in office,

Son, know the procedures. If there were indeed any need to indict trump, all Mueller had to do was seal an indictment. After his eight year run, then they would open that sealed indictment and proceed. you're again, in error as always. Any sealed indictment? nope!!! means mueller didn't have anything. exonerates trump on that one simple missing item. oh fking well.

Princess, the rules and process was set long ago, the special or independent counsel or any prosecutor, always passes it on to the House, to the Judiciary committee who handles impeachment inquiries.

The constitution put in place, the process to follow on Presidents.

 

[Edgetho]

Stop with that, "What do you think he is hiding?" BS, Care. You are sounding like every other partisan hack
that got their talking points from the masters. This is America, not China or Russia. GOOD GRIEF!
He is exercising his rights as an American...plain and simple. This is a witch hunt AND YOU know it.
Since when in America do we start investigations looking for a crime?
In the past the investigations were done after a crime was committed.
Now a person has to prove he's innocent?
WoW! What has happened?

dimocrap SCUM 'happened'

And, how many years do dimocrap scum want?

 

[jc456]

#MuellerDenier

Nope: you're a liar. No collusion, no obstruction. You should be ashamed of yourself for being so stupid as to still hold onto that canard. Amuses me immensely. lmao

Greg

nope, you are the fool for believing Trump....

the barr report did not say there was no collusion... Barr never used the word collusion, remember... although collusion may be something ''wrong'', collusion is not a crime....

allegedly, the Mueller report said that they could not establish, (beyond a reasonable doubt), that the Trump campaign team committed CONSPIRACY, conspiracy to defraud the United States... is the law that would be broken....

Barr's summary report did NOT SAY there was NO evidence of it, anywhere.... by using the word establish, basically tells us that there was evidence of it, but not enough to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt, which was Mueller's thresh hold, for an indictment.

As far as the obstruction charge for President Trump, one of Mueller's partial quotes used said that president Trump COULD NOT BE EXONERATED for it.... that means there is most certainly evidence collected on President Trump, for his obstruction in this official investigation....

so, basically, it really is all up in the air at this point, without having the Mueller report to read.

It's not a prosecutors job to "exonerate", it's his job to determine if there's evidence to support a prosecution. There wasn't, and by our system of justice, Trump is innocent until proven guilty is a court of law and that ain't gonna happen.

.

10 to 1, there was enough evidence to prosecute him, but since the rule for Presidents, is that they can not get indicted while in office, Mueller likely left that up to congress, to impeach or not.

Starr did not charge president clinton with obstruction or perjury either, he left it opened for Congress to decide on articles of impeachment, or not...

Jaworsky did not press charges on Richard Nixon either, they passed their information on the Congress, for them to decide on articles of impeachment, or not....

Mueller did the same....

but the Barr man came in and overstepped his bounds and cleared him.... instead of just passing it to Congress, as he was suppose to do.... as with all cases involved with a President previous to this....

the crooks are running the show in Washington DC now, don't cha know?

10 to 1, there was enough evidence to prosecute him, but since the rule for Presidents, is that they can not get indicted while in office,

Son, know the procedures. If there were indeed any need to indict trump, all Mueller had to do was seal an indictment. After his eight year run, then they would open that sealed indictment and proceed. you're again, in error as always. Any sealed indictment? nope!!! means mueller didn't have anything. exonerates trump on that one simple missing item. oh fking well.

Princess, the rules and process was set long ago, the special or independent counsel or any prosecutor, always passes it on to the House, to the Judiciary committee who handles impeachment inquiries.

The constitution put in place, the process to follow on Presidents.

 

[Care4all]

It's an IRS policy to do such for every President for every year they are in office, but it is NOT a law.... the head of IRS could tell his people NOT to follow the policy.

This is also why Chairman Neal is requesting the tax returns, if the IRS is not following their policy, then the congress may choose to codify it under a LAW instead of a policy that the president could order his IRS director, not to do....

So....it's not Trump they are after, it's the IRS?
That is going to be a tough sell when it ends up in the courts. just sayin'

the law is clear, I doubt it will make it to court, without being thrown out....

the law is the law, follow it or change it, through legislative means.... the courts are not for anything else, but determining if a law is broken, or a law or action, is unconstitutional.

I do not believe Trump's stacking of the courts, will be able to help him on this....

Why are you supporting him hiding them from Congress or anyone? What do you think he is hiding?

Madcow already showed us Trump's tax returns. Don't you remember? How much federal income tax did he pay that year? About 125 MILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A partial return from 20 years ago.... Trump is probably the one who gave that partial return to them!

And I don't think it has anything to do with how much he pays or doesn't pay.....

 

[jc456]

It's an IRS policy to do such for every President for every year they are in office, but it is NOT a law.... the head of IRS could tell his people NOT to follow the policy.

This is also why Chairman Neal is requesting the tax returns, if the IRS is not following their policy, then the congress may choose to codify it under a LAW instead of a policy that the president could order his IRS director, not to do....

So....it's not Trump they are after, it's the IRS?
That is going to be a tough sell when it ends up in the courts. just sayin'

the law is clear, I doubt it will make it to court, without being thrown out....

the law is the law, follow it or change it, through legislative means.... the courts are not for anything else, but determining if a law is broken, or a law or action, is unconstitutional.

I do not believe Trump's stacking of the courts, will be able to help him on this....

Why are you supporting him hiding them from Congress or anyone? What do you think he is hiding?

Madcow already showed us Trump's tax returns. Don't you remember? How much federal income tax did he pay that year? About 125 MILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A partial return from 20 plus years ago....
And I don't think it has anything to do with how much he pays or doesn't pay.....

just curious what the line in the tax return taxes paid means?

 

[Care4all]

nope, you are the fool for believing Trump....

the barr report did not say there was no collusion... Barr never used the word collusion, remember... although collusion may be something ''wrong'', collusion is not a crime....

allegedly, the Mueller report said that they could not establish, (beyond a reasonable doubt), that the Trump campaign team committed CONSPIRACY, conspiracy to defraud the United States... is the law that would be broken....

Barr's summary report did NOT SAY there was NO evidence of it, anywhere.... by using the word establish, basically tells us that there was evidence of it, but not enough to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt, which was Mueller's thresh hold, for an indictment.

As far as the obstruction charge for President Trump, one of Mueller's partial quotes used said that president Trump COULD NOT BE EXONERATED for it.... that means there is most certainly evidence collected on President Trump, for his obstruction in this official investigation....

so, basically, it really is all up in the air at this point, without having the Mueller report to read.

It's not a prosecutors job to "exonerate", it's his job to determine if there's evidence to support a prosecution. There wasn't, and by our system of justice, Trump is innocent until proven guilty is a court of law and that ain't gonna happen.

.

10 to 1, there was enough evidence to prosecute him, but since the rule for Presidents, is that they can not get indicted while in office, Mueller likely left that up to congress, to impeach or not.

Starr did not charge president clinton with obstruction or perjury either, he left it opened for Congress to decide on articles of impeachment, or not...

Jaworsky did not press charges on Richard Nixon either, they passed their information on the Congress, for them to decide on articles of impeachment, or not....

Mueller did the same....

but the Barr man came in and overstepped his bounds and cleared him.... instead of just passing it to Congress, as he was suppose to do.... as with all cases involved with a President previous to this....

the crooks are running the show in Washington DC now, don't cha know?

10 to 1, there was enough evidence to prosecute him, but since the rule for Presidents, is that they can not get indicted while in office,

Son, know the procedures. If there were indeed any need to indict trump, all Mueller had to do was seal an indictment. After his eight year run, then they would open that sealed indictment and proceed. you're again, in error as always. Any sealed indictment? nope!!! means mueller didn't have anything. exonerates trump on that one simple missing item. oh fking well.

Princess, the rules and process was set long ago, the special or independent counsel or any prosecutor, always passes it on to the House, to the Judiciary committee who handles impeachment inquiries.

The constitution put in place, the process to follow on Presidents.

Impeachment was put in to our constitution, by our founders.... that is the process.

 

[jc456]

It's not a prosecutors job to "exonerate", it's his job to determine if there's evidence to support a prosecution. There wasn't, and by our system of justice, Trump is innocent until proven guilty is a court of law and that ain't gonna happen.

.

10 to 1, there was enough evidence to prosecute him, but since the rule for Presidents, is that they can not get indicted while in office, Mueller likely left that up to congress, to impeach or not.

Starr did not charge president clinton with obstruction or perjury either, he left it opened for Congress to decide on articles of impeachment, or not...

Jaworsky did not press charges on Richard Nixon either, they passed their information on the Congress, for them to decide on articles of impeachment, or not....

Mueller did the same....

but the Barr man came in and overstepped his bounds and cleared him.... instead of just passing it to Congress, as he was suppose to do.... as with all cases involved with a President previous to this....

the crooks are running the show in Washington DC now, don't cha know?

10 to 1, there was enough evidence to prosecute him, but since the rule for Presidents, is that they can not get indicted while in office,

Son, know the procedures. If there were indeed any need to indict trump, all Mueller had to do was seal an indictment. After his eight year run, then they would open that sealed indictment and proceed. you're again, in error as always. Any sealed indictment? nope!!! means mueller didn't have anything. exonerates trump on that one simple missing item. oh fking well.

Princess, the rules and process was set long ago, the special or independent counsel or any prosecutor, always passes it on to the House, to the Judiciary committee who handles impeachment inquiries.

The constitution put in place, the process to follow on Presidents.

Impeachment was put in to our constitution, by our founders.... that is the process.

there is a complete procedure on how to do that. has nothing to do with the mueller report though. That is it's own separate procedure. tell me you know this?

 

[edward37]

It's an IRS policy to do such for every President for every year they are in office, but it is NOT a law.... the head of IRS could tell his people NOT to follow the policy.

This is also why Chairman Neal is requesting the tax returns, if the IRS is not following their policy, then the congress may choose to codify it under a LAW instead of a policy that the president could order his IRS director, not to do....

So....it's not Trump they are after, it's the IRS?
That is going to be a tough sell when it ends up in the courts. just sayin'

the law is clear, I doubt it will make it to court, without being thrown out....

the law is the law, follow it or change it, through legislative means.... the courts are not for anything else, but determining if a law is broken, or a law or action, is unconstitutional.

I do not believe Trump's stacking of the courts, will be able to help him on this....

Alright, then the court could limit the tax returns to Trump time in office...

The Congress does not need anything before that.

why do you support him hiding them from us? What do you believe he is trying to hide?

You need many years of taxes, to actually understand the taxes....on someone like Trump or any billionaire, 6 years is about right....

what evidence do you have he is hiding anything?

He's afraid to show his tax returns ,will sue if anyone shows his grades Use the brains God gave you and figure out why the fear?