Emoluments, tax returns and debt
PVW-- Understood. But here's maybe where we differ... if I was to really want to see returns on anything, it would be on the myriad other entities in which he has an interest. I've no doubt that those filings will never be shown, nor could it be conclusively argued that they ought to be under any historical norm. What I would support is the legislation currently being proposed that mandates disclosure, and a campaign for THAT. If anything Trump has taught the lesson that we can't take norms or precedent for granted.
Now, the FEC mandates disclosure on its own, and we've all seen that, and clearly that didn't make one whit of a difference even when it illustrated the difference between fact and reality. We got to talking about valuing intangibles like his brand, and then it blew over. By all independent accounts the guy is still a billionaire, and that'll be enough for anyone who cares for such things. Whether there are willful misstatements is another story, but I suspect we don't need to see that before the IRS does, and it will come out through that channel.
As to the foreign connections, I suspect most are wrapped up under separate entities and wouldn't be as evident on his personal return as many think. Not sure why they'd be parked on his 1040 in such detail as to reveal too much. Even the offshore Bermuda fiasco that bit Romney on his taxes wasn't ever fully disclosed (that I recall anyway--could be wrong). And if Trump's offshore havens are revealed? Even though he's previously stated he really doesn't use them, they're still legal to a large extent, particularly for the myriad properties outside the US. If-- and it's a big if-- he divests himself from his outside involvement, any revealed ties to Russia or China or whoever (however revelatory they are, understanding you won't likely see a schedule declaring "wire received from V. Putin" for instance) are technically in the past. Everyone has past ties... there's no requirement to come to the table unencumbered by them. If he makes nice with Putin or blasts China over Taiwan, then what? Understand well the baaaad optics and the ethical issues, but it'll be a hell of a hard case to take further legally then, and this Congress ain't tossing him until they've wrung the rag dry. And they're just getting started.
Looks like we disagree on how much useful information is to be found in the returns.
Just having a discussion about "Are the tax returns useful?" is a diversion.
I have no idea if they are useful. All I know is that our President doesn't want the public to know what's in them.
if there's nothing there, why is he so tenaciously fighting the release of his returns? If every other candidate for POTUS over past few decades hadn't released his/her returns, I'd say who cares. But this is normative for candidates, and he's the only one who refused.
LOST said:
So people want to take action as long as there is no personal risk.
Well, what if everyone who owes taxes sends in the payment but refuses to file returns. You do your returns, send what you owe but don't file. If Millions of people did that, what result?
They might get the standard deduction, but would lose any itemized deductions; as well as any exclusions to income.
It doesn't turn out well for most protesters in our community.
TomR
ml1 said:
if there's nothing there, why is he so tenaciously fighting the release of his returns? If every other candidate for POTUS over past few decades hadn't released his/her returns, I'd say who cares. But this is normative for candidates, and he's the only one who refused.
As I said before... I think a lot of it is ego. Who before him would have made a big deal over inaugural attendance? There's nothing normative about him.
Tom_R said:
LOST said:
So people want to take action as long as there is no personal risk.
Well, what if everyone who owes taxes sends in the payment but refuses to file returns. You do your returns, send what you owe but don't file. If Millions of people did that, what result?
They might get the standard deduction, but would lose any itemized deductions; as well as any exclusions to income.
It doesn't turn out well for most protesters in our community.
TomR
And add on the failure-to-file penalties on top of that... they're a wee bit bigger than your average CC late fee.
The initiation fee at Mar A Lago went from $100,000 to $200,000 since the election.
In three years of law school, not once was The Emoluments Clause discussed. I should ask for a refund.
Robert_Casotto said:
In three years of law school, not once was The Emoluments Clause discussed. I should ask for a refund.
yes - you should get a refund - in case you need a refresher on this and other clauses:
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/68/emoluments-clause
jamie said:
Robert_Casotto said:yes - you should get a refund - in case you need a refresher on this and other clauses:
In three years of law school, not once was The Emoluments Clause discussed. I should ask for a refund.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/68/emoluments-clause
To be fair, they might have sent him the lesson, but the envelope got lost in the mail.
Robert_Casotto said:
In three years of law school, not once was The Emoluments Clause discussed. I should ask for a refund.
My high school taught it. Didn't yours?
Robert_Casotto said:
In three years of law school, not once was The Emoluments Clause discussed. I should ask for a refund.
If you don't know about it then surely it doesn't exist. Did your school teach object permanence?
dave23 said:
Robert_Casotto said:
In three years of law school, not once was The Emoluments Clause discussed. I should ask for a refund.
If you don't know about it then surely it doesn't exist. Did your school teach object permanence?
Does anyone know how much the US Treasury has collected off of foreign diplomats staying at Trump's Post Office Hotel?
Donald Trump's team addressed concerns about his potential conflicts of interest on Wednesday by saying he would donate all money spent by foreign governments on bills at his hotels to the U.S. Treasury.
Actually Trump says he "would" as opposed to "is". hmm
Is it really national news that Trump just opened a new hotel in Vancouver? First I read about it in the Washington Post and this a.m. it was on the CBS national news program. Shouldn't this free publicity be considered an emolument?
Apparently the media has not heeded Jon Stewart's advice on self-improvement and taking up the 'hobby' of journalism.
Why has there been so few updates on emoluments lately? Take Mar-a-lago - after winning - membership goes from $100,000 to $200,000 - you're paying for access since he's there almost every week.
How much is OUR government contributing to Trump businesses - can we demand to know this? Rent at Trump Tower - meal at all of his clubs (chocolate cake).
Trump said he would consider giving the fed all money that was spent by foreign national at the DC hotel. We all know this was only a suggestion and that he won't go through with it. But where's the follow up?
Also, he said he wouldn't take a salary - now he says he is donating it - which in the end is costing us more then if he didn't take one.
Now Trump is giving a speech pushing "Made in America" while wearing a Trump tie made in China.
State Dept. blog promotes Trump's Mar-a-Lago, prompting ethics concerns
Trump was just granted a trademark in China. Of course, the Chinese national government issues trademarks. Trademarks have value. Therefore, he has received something of value from a foreign government. Is this clear?
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Thanks for clarifying. That makes sense.
I still think we should get as much dirt on him as possible to get more "purchase" on him to bring him down.