American Politics Thread: The Hunt for Blue November

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Have to admit - very curious about these tax returns given the meltdown Trump is having after this decision.

Certainly it is possible there is enough in them to be damaging. To me, simply the fact that he lost combined with the fact that the tax returns would most likely show he is not as wealthy as he claims would be enough to trigger him I think. His entire life he has been a braggart. He has always used legal action (or threats of legal action) to keep people at bay. The damage to his ego is enough to make him go twitter crazy.

[octothorp]

I think it's entirely possible that his outrage is as much about two supreme court judges he appointed voting against him in what is for him one of the most personal cases to go before them. People probably told him that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were going to be loyal appointees who would always look out for him.

[Senator Clay Davis]

It's also pretty likely the tax returns becoming public will show he vastly overstates his wealth and might not even be a billionaire. Which would be fine for most people, but humiliating for him.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by dobbles

We deserve all the flak we get. Witty, and some of the other American postesters, are the exception. She shines the light on just how bad it is down here. I hope people feel the same way about me. (but trying to be humble and not lump myself in)

Living in red America has been the most eye opening thing ever. I often daydream of moving to the northeast or somewhere that there are at least less yokels. But then I realize that I can't just hide from it. I need to see it and be reminded that its real.

Agreed on all points, and it makes me feel good to apparently be viewed as a reasonable American because man, it feels like those are very few and far between.

And yeah, I live in a county that is always reliably blue, only a couple miles out from downtown Pittsburgh, but you get just over the county line and it's very heavily Trump country. Though either from shame or fear (or more hopefully--but less likely--changed minds) many of those who were loudly touting Trump in 2016 are far quieter this time around.

But there is an embarrassingly high number of Americans who are some combination of stupid, selfish, hateful, or just willfully ignorant.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

It's also pretty likely the tax returns becoming public will show he vastly overstates his wealth and might not even be a billionaire. Which would be fine for most people, but humiliating for him.

It would also destroy his business model, his whole business is selling himself as a billionaire and like a really smart person that knows words and things

[Flashpoint]

40% of people here think Trump is doing a great job and everything is fine.

Thats sadly a pretty big disavowel of knowlege, compassion, and basic human decency from a hundred million Americans.

Its fair to be critical en masse.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

It's also pretty likely the tax returns becoming public will show he vastly overstates his wealth and might not even be a billionaire. Which would be fine for most people, but humiliating for him.

My question earlier was never answered. I thought that releasing Trump’s tax returns meant releasing them to the authorities but not to the public. Is that so or would they actually be released to the public?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

My question earlier was never answered. I thought that releasing Trump’s tax returns meant releasing them to the authorities but not to the public. Is that so or would they actually be released to the public?

My understanding is that the president (or any other citizen) never have to release their tax returns to the public due to their constitutional right to privacy unless authorities can show the returns indicate evidence of a public crime.

So I believe it means releasing them to congress for review, but they will remain private unless....

Although he doesn't need to release them publicly, every president has done so and every vice president, as well as every presidential candidate has done so with the exception of about 6 or 7. So him refusing to is conspicuous. During the last election, Hilary Clinton's showed that the Clintons paid $43 million in taxes from 2007 to 2014 IIRC.

Trump has openly said he fights hard to make sure he pays the least amount of taxes as possible, so unless there is proof of an actual crime, he should have nothing to worry about.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

My question earlier was never answered. I thought that releasing Trump’s tax returns meant releasing them to the authorities but not to the public. Is that so or would they actually be released to the public?

Two separate cases. Here's my understanding. The SCOTUS found that Deutsch Bank must comply with the NY State subpoenas immediately (and DB has said they will). NY State can present these before a grand jury, but they would not see the public light of day.

The other case involved subpoenas from congress. The SCOTUS found that there is no universal presidential immunity here, but also that congress must demonstrate that they've reasons to see them that meet specific parameters, and they've essentially punted those back to the lower courts, but with guidance to evaluate them based on those specific criteria. These aren't something that Trump can claim executive privilege over, so if any Trump financial records are provided to congress, there wouldn't be anything stopping them from being made public.
(The SCOTUS didn't answer specifically on whether congress could make these public if they had them, because that question was not before them, so this last inference is my own.)

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

It's also pretty likely the tax returns becoming public will show he vastly overstates his wealth and might not even be a billionaire. Which would be fine for most people, but humiliating for him.

I wouldn’t be overly surprised if it turned out that he was nothing more than a mere figurehead or prop, like a Colonel Sanders, than any kind of mogul.

[jammies]

Wait, was Sanders just a front for Big Chicken?

[MoneyGuy]

I don’t care if he’s not a billionaire except that will humiliate the narcissist so there is that. I’m more looking forward to crimes that might be revealed.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by jammies

Wait, was Sanders just a front for Big Chicken?

He wasn’t even a real colonel.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

My understanding is that the president (or any other citizen) never have to release their tax returns to the public due to their constitutional right to privacy unless authorities can show the returns indicate evidence of a public crime.

There is no such right afforded in the constitution of the United States. You may be conflating an individual's 4th amendment right, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized," as a statement of privacy, but as you can read it is not. The 14th amendment affords due process rights, but does not grant privacy. Laws established at the federal and state levels speak to specific types of privacy, but not to privacy in general. No where in the constitution does the word privacy exist.

[edslunch]

I just want someone to leak them

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by New Era

There is no such right afforded in the constitution of the United States. You may be conflating an individual's 4th amendment right, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized," as a statement of privacy, but as you can read it is not. The 14th amendment affords due process rights, but does not grant privacy. Laws established at the federal and state levels speak to specific types of privacy, but not to privacy in general. No where in the constitution does the word privacy exist.

Textually accurate, but misleading and not correct in practice.

See Griswold v Connecticut, for a more complete response.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I just want someone to leak them

I assume Melania got copies when negotiating the marriage contract and inheritance for Baron. Could be interesting after the New Year.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Textually accurate, but misleading and not correct in practice.

See Griswold v Connecticut, for a more complete response.

Well I looked, but they never went to Connecticut.

Spoiler!

[Sluggo]

I wonder when trump realizes he can not fire SC Justices.... His nominees kissed his ring and he thought he was the godfather when in reality, he was just hiring the FBI agents that would eventually bust his ass.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Well I looked, but they never went to Connecticut.

Spoiler!

Poor little guy probably kept up for a mile or two...