Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump's Tax Records

[BWK]

US Supreme Court hears arguments over Trump's tax returns

The Supreme Court will rule on the president's attempts to keep his financial records secret.

www.yahoo.com

From the link:

The US Supreme Court has heard arguments on whether President Donald Trump should be allowed to keep his financial records secret, in a major showdown over presidential powers.

Mr Trump declines to share documents that could shed light on his fortune and the work of his family company.

Two congressional committees and New York prosecutors demand the release of his tax returns and other information.

Mr Trump's private lawyers argue he enjoys total immunity while in office.

The judges will hear the cases remotely because of the coronavirus pandemic. The Supreme Court has a 5-4 conservative majority and includes two Trump appointees - Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

The rule of law, and a guiding principle in our nation's jurisprudence is no man is above the law. The efficacy of the Supreme Court justices to dispense justice will be judged in this matter. If they decide in favor of President Trump, it will give carte blanche to him, and to every future POTUS.

So the House can harass a President with nothing out of bounds? Doesn't that give one branch of government more power than another? The House has tried to oust the President by impeaching him, the Democrats tried to nullify the Electoral College by wanting a to convene a meeting with the College to convince them to vote for Hillary, something that had never happened before. I am not a big fan of Trump nor Obama however I believe the House is trying to run the entire country by immobilizing the President's office by throw legal after legal after legal challenges.

To me it is harassment and if they win, lookout when the next Democrat becomes President and the House is Republican because this type of harassment will not be forgotten. What goes around, comes around.

Well, to you it is harassment, we'll let the Supreme Court decide if you are correct. The fact is, if a 5-4 decision agrees with you, it will be landmark case and destroy the principle of 230 years, that is the separation of powers.

We all know this is not harassment. All presidents release their tax returns.

 

[Rye Catcher]

I would like every poster who feels it is imperative to see Trumps tax records to post theirs here. There is no legal requirement for you to do so you have done nothing illegal as far as we know even so if you have nothing to hide no reason not to post them that is logic being used for wanting to see Trumps. I look forward to seeing people put their records where their mouth is except they won’t.

What you fail to see is the difference between a private citizen and a politician with executive powers. Except for Trump, everybody running for president since the 1970's has released their tax returns. All presidents since the 1970's except for Trump has put their assets into a blind trust.

This was to ensure that their political decisions would not be based on personal financial gain.

There is no current law that requires a presidential candidate to release their taxes. So in that regard there is no difference between a private citizen or a politician running for office. Until that changes, then no one running needs to be required to show their taxes.

Now, Congress has a wide latitude on subpoenas however the issue in front of the Supreme Court is asking a third party to turnover documents pertaining to activity of a President, prior to them becoming President. This would seem like Congress is making a power grab and asking for information outside of their powers. We will see what happens but this could maybe be a 7-2 decision in favor of Trump.

Once reason is Trump keeps promoting his businesses while in public office.
I've seen Trumps returns and so should you.

Law professor says founders would have wanted his returns released.

That's great, but it unless it is a law, he is under no obligation to show them. So, until a law has been passed, there is no legal standing on forcing him to show his returns.

That is your opinion, the St. court in New York disagreed

 

[BWK]

He just like every other American citizen has the right to be secure in his person and his papers. That means his taxes are none of yours or anyone else's fucking business. It's just that simple.

Tell that to Al Capone*** and these other persons convicted of Tax Fraud:

15 Celebrities Convicted for Tax Evasion

Just because celebrities are rich and famous doesn't mean life is always glamorous for them. In fact, many members of the Hollywood elite have endured serious tax troubles. And while celebrities aren't necessarily more likely to break the law than their fans, they do have a far greater...

www.inquirer.com

***Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt recognized that mob figures publicly led lavish lifestyles yet never filed tax returns, and thus could be convicted of tax evasion without requiring hard evidence to get testimony about their other crimes. She tested this approach by prosecuting a South Carolina bootlegger, Manley Sullivan.[70] In 1927, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Sullivan that the approach was legally sound: illegally earned income was subject to income tax; Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. rejected the argument that the Fifth Amendment protected criminals from reporting illegal income.[71]

The problem is that you are predicating this as if a crime has been committed as opposed to your WISH for the commission of a crime. It won’t matter if trumps tax returns are kosher, the left and the msm will twist it into a pretzel and that is a guaranteed fact.

We already know Trump committed a federal tax crime when he did not disclose the money he paid to Stormy Daniels in this illegal campaign finance crime of his.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

He just like every other American citizen has the right to be secure in his person and his papers. That means his taxes are none of yours or anyone else's fucking business. It's just that simple.

Tell that to Al Capone*** and these other persons convicted of Tax Fraud:

15 Celebrities Convicted for Tax Evasion

Just because celebrities are rich and famous doesn't mean life is always glamorous for them. In fact, many members of the Hollywood elite have endured serious tax troubles. And while celebrities aren't necessarily more likely to break the law than their fans, they do have a far greater...

www.inquirer.com

***Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt recognized that mob figures publicly led lavish lifestyles yet never filed tax returns, and thus could be convicted of tax evasion without requiring hard evidence to get testimony about their other crimes. She tested this approach by prosecuting a South Carolina bootlegger, Manley Sullivan.[70] In 1927, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Sullivan that the approach was legally sound: illegally earned income was subject to income tax; Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. rejected the argument that the Fifth Amendment protected criminals from reporting illegal income.[71]

So, do you know the difference in a state and the federal government?

 

[Rye Catcher]

He just like every other American citizen has the right to be secure in his person and his papers. That means his taxes are none of yours or anyone else's fucking business. It's just that simple.

Tell that to Al Capone*** and these other persons convicted of Tax Fraud:

15 Celebrities Convicted for Tax Evasion

Just because celebrities are rich and famous doesn't mean life is always glamorous for them. In fact, many members of the Hollywood elite have endured serious tax troubles. And while celebrities aren't necessarily more likely to break the law than their fans, they do have a far greater...

www.inquirer.com

***Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt recognized that mob figures publicly led lavish lifestyles yet never filed tax returns, and thus could be convicted of tax evasion without requiring hard evidence to get testimony about their other crimes. She tested this approach by prosecuting a South Carolina bootlegger, Manley Sullivan.[70] In 1927, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Sullivan that the approach was legally sound: illegally earned income was subject to income tax; Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. rejected the argument that the Fifth Amendment protected criminals from reporting illegal income.[71]

So, do you know the difference in a state and the federal government?

Yes Virginia, there are stupid questions, see the one above.

 

[dudmuck]

I would like every poster who feels it is imperative to see Trumps tax records to post theirs here. There is no legal requirement for you to do so you have done nothing illegal as far as we know even so if you have nothing to hide no reason not to post them that is logic being used for wanting to see Trumps. I look forward to seeing people put their records where their mouth is except they won’t.

What you fail to see is the difference between a private citizen and a politician with executive powers. Except for Trump, everybody running for president since the 1970's has released their tax returns. All presidents since the 1970's except for Trump has put their assets into a blind trust.

This was to ensure that their political decisions would not be based on personal financial gain.

There is no current law that requires a presidential candidate to release their taxes. So in that regard there is no difference between a private citizen or a politician running for office. Until that changes, then no one running needs to be required to show their taxes.

Now, Congress has a wide latitude on subpoenas however the issue in front of the Supreme Court is asking a third party to turnover documents pertaining to activity of a President, prior to them becoming President. This would seem like Congress is making a power grab and asking for information outside of their powers. We will see what happens but this could maybe be a 7-2 decision in favor of Trump.

Once reason is Trump keeps promoting his businesses while in public office.
I've seen Trumps returns and so should you.

Law professor says founders would have wanted his returns released.

That's great, but it unless it is a law, he is under no obligation to show them. So, until a law has been passed, there is no legal standing on forcing him to show his returns.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Law professor says founders would have wanted his returns released.

Does that "law professor" know that the founders would not have wanted ANYTHING like the current tax system that made those returns even necessary?

Either way, I will introduce you to a founder who would have been spitting blood at the very notion.

.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And of course a conservative – and partisan – majority will rule in favor of further empowering the Imperial Presidency.

I believe the state of New York has a better legal standing than the House. The House issue will 7-2 for Trump, the New York case may wind up 5-4 Trump.

The problem SCOTUS has is it tries to appear to not be political. Roberts is keen on that. I agree, the House will probably lose. But a lower court already ruled on the NY demand for the taxes and chances are, SCOTUS will bounce it back to the lower court. In essence, NY can turn that information over to the House so the house gets what it wants anyway and more.

It's already known that most of Rumps writeoffs are rounds of golf. He is in deep trouble trying to explain that a round of golf costs 10,000 bucks or more. Yes, it was done for a Charity and the writeoff for that particular Charity event was for hundreds of thousands of dollars but claiming that each round for each participant cost over 10,000 dollars is normally Charity Fraud to anyone else. And it continues even today. Rump makes Al Capone look like a Law Abiding Citizen.

Then NY state has the right to file suit using his NY taxes. That is NOT the case at hand.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

He just like every other American citizen has the right to be secure in his person and his papers. That means his taxes are none of yours or anyone else's fucking business. It's just that simple.

Tell that to Al Capone*** and these other persons convicted of Tax Fraud:

15 Celebrities Convicted for Tax Evasion

Just because celebrities are rich and famous doesn't mean life is always glamorous for them. In fact, many members of the Hollywood elite have endured serious tax troubles. And while celebrities aren't necessarily more likely to break the law than their fans, they do have a far greater...

www.inquirer.com

***Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt recognized that mob figures publicly led lavish lifestyles yet never filed tax returns, and thus could be convicted of tax evasion without requiring hard evidence to get testimony about their other crimes. She tested this approach by prosecuting a South Carolina bootlegger, Manley Sullivan.[70] In 1927, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Sullivan that the approach was legally sound: illegally earned income was subject to income tax; Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. rejected the argument that the Fifth Amendment protected criminals from reporting illegal income.[71]

So, do you know the difference in a state and the federal government?

Yes Virginia, there are stupid questions, see the one above.

Hey moron, did they get Capone on federal taxes or state taxes?

 

[georgephillip]

The ruling should be a slam dunk against Trump. No one is above the law. Time to see those tax returns Donald. Gosh, can you imagine the money laundering?

Trump once bragged he could make money by running for president.
But he probably couldn't manage that without leaving evidence behind.
His tax returns seem like a logical place to start:

Supreme court grills Trump lawyers over president's unreleased tax returns

"Elena Kagan, like Sotomayor an Obama appointee, told Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow a 'fundamental precept of our constitutional order is that the president is not above the law'...."

"Trump did not release his tax returns during the 2016 election and has not done so since, despite promising to do so...."

"Democrats in Congress are attempting to establish whether Trump is breaking ethics laws and constitutional safeguards against profiting from the presidency.

"The New York prosecutor Cyrus Vance Jr wants to find out if hush money payments to women who claimed affairs with Trump involved illegal business practices"

 

[OldLady]

The rule of law, and a guiding principle in our nation's jurisprudence is no man is above the law.

No, and there is no law saying I have to share my tax returns with you or anyone else. The past presidents that have done so have done so voluntarily. What am I missing?

Mr Trump declines to share documents that could shed light on his fortune and the work of his family company.

Trump is in a unique situation with a large complex business with deals and properties all over the world, which is still very much active. It is being managed by his kids while he is Pres.
This is not a surprise. He was very upfront about the fact that he had no intention whatever of divesting of the company he spent his life building into a famous brand.

Is releasing the tax records to the world at large a good idea for his business? Will competitors and enemies get "goods" they can use to ruin him or retaliate against him? Considering the leaky sieve of D.C., there is no way to trust that even if the records were turned over to a subcommittee confidentially that they would not end up on the front page of the Times.

I am no fan of Trump, but taking this to the Supreme Court? Folks, this has gone too far. The administration is always crying "immunity" these days, but I would think there is a more simple explanation for refusing. It is private.

 

[OldLady]

He just like every other American citizen has the right to be secure in his person and his papers. That means his taxes are none of yours or anyone else's fucking business. It's just that simple.

Tell that to Al Capone*** and these other persons convicted of Tax Fraud:

15 Celebrities Convicted for Tax Evasion

Just because celebrities are rich and famous doesn't mean life is always glamorous for them. In fact, many members of the Hollywood elite have endured serious tax troubles. And while celebrities aren't necessarily more likely to break the law than their fans, they do have a far greater...

www.inquirer.com

***Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt recognized that mob figures publicly led lavish lifestyles yet never filed tax returns, and thus could be convicted of tax evasion without requiring hard evidence to get testimony about their other crimes. She tested this approach by prosecuting a South Carolina bootlegger, Manley Sullivan.[70] In 1927, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Sullivan that the approach was legally sound: illegally earned income was subject to income tax; Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. rejected the argument that the Fifth Amendment protected criminals from reporting illegal income.[71]

No one knows Trump is a criminal.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

US Supreme Court hears arguments over Trump's tax returns

The Supreme Court will rule on the president's attempts to keep his financial records secret.

www.yahoo.com

From the link:

The US Supreme Court has heard arguments on whether President Donald Trump should be allowed to keep his financial records secret, in a major showdown over presidential powers.

Mr Trump declines to share documents that could shed light on his fortune and the work of his family company.

Two congressional committees and New York prosecutors demand the release of his tax returns and other information.

Mr Trump's private lawyers argue he enjoys total immunity while in office.

The judges will hear the cases remotely because of the coronavirus pandemic. The Supreme Court has a 5-4 conservative majority and includes two Trump appointees - Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

The rule of law, and a guiding principle in our nation's jurisprudence is no man is above the law. The efficacy of the Supreme Court justices to dispense justice will be judged in this matter. If they decide in favor of President Trump, it will give carte blanche to him, and to every future POTUS.

So Congress can sue to get Biden's medical records? The emails between him and Burisma?

Yeah?

 

[Papageorgio]

The House has wide powers of subpoena. In this case it is asking a third party for information on a President BEFORE he took office. As Sotomeyer pointed out, this could be considered harassment as it has nothing to do with anything legislative.

If Trump's tax returns show he's vulnerable to black mail by foreign actors, congress has a fundamental obligation to reveal that information to voters.

Supreme court grills Trump lawyers over president's unreleased tax returns

"As the supreme court heard arguments concerning Donald Trump’s tax returns on Tuesday, justice Sonia Sotomayor told a lawyer for the president 'there is a long, long history of Congress seeking records and getting them' from occupants of the Oval Office.

"The other two liberals on the court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer, brought up requests for documents during the Watergate and Whitewater scandals, which occurred under Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton and were decided unanimously against the president concerned"

Here is Sotomeyer’s full comments. It appears she has an issue with Congress going after documents held by a third party and wanting documents from before they were elected President.

 

[OldLady]

The rule of law, and a guiding principle in our nation's jurisprudence is no man is above the law. The efficacy of the Supreme Court justices to dispense justice will be judged in this matter. If they decide in favor of President Trump, it will give carte blanche to him, and to every future POTUS.

For the sake of transparency, I think he and every president should disclose their financial records. However, I do not know if there is any legal basis to force him to.

No, there isn't. That's why they are grousing about "ethics." It's been a tradition since 1974. Ford didn't release his either. That was his choice and it is Trump's. Especially since his also give information about an active business.

 

[Papageorgio]

US Supreme Court hears arguments over Trump's tax returns

The Supreme Court will rule on the president's attempts to keep his financial records secret.

www.yahoo.com

From the link:

The US Supreme Court has heard arguments on whether President Donald Trump should be allowed to keep his financial records secret, in a major showdown over presidential powers.

Mr Trump declines to share documents that could shed light on his fortune and the work of his family company.

Two congressional committees and New York prosecutors demand the release of his tax returns and other information.

Mr Trump's private lawyers argue he enjoys total immunity while in office.

The judges will hear the cases remotely because of the coronavirus pandemic. The Supreme Court has a 5-4 conservative majority and includes two Trump appointees - Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

The rule of law, and a guiding principle in our nation's jurisprudence is no man is above the law. The efficacy of the Supreme Court justices to dispense justice will be judged in this matter. If they decide in favor of President Trump, it will give carte blanche to him, and to every future POTUS.

The ruling should be a slam dunk against Trump. No one is above the law. Time to see those tax returns Donald. Gosh, can you imagine the money laundering?

How is not turning over tax returns you were never required to turnover make anyone above the law?

 

[Papageorgio]

US Supreme Court hears arguments over Trump's tax returns

The Supreme Court will rule on the president's attempts to keep his financial records secret.

www.yahoo.com

From the link:

The US Supreme Court has heard arguments on whether President Donald Trump should be allowed to keep his financial records secret, in a major showdown over presidential powers.

Mr Trump declines to share documents that could shed light on his fortune and the work of his family company.

Two congressional committees and New York prosecutors demand the release of his tax returns and other information.

Mr Trump's private lawyers argue he enjoys total immunity while in office.

The judges will hear the cases remotely because of the coronavirus pandemic. The Supreme Court has a 5-4 conservative majority and includes two Trump appointees - Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

The rule of law, and a guiding principle in our nation's jurisprudence is no man is above the law. The efficacy of the Supreme Court justices to dispense justice will be judged in this matter. If they decide in favor of President Trump, it will give carte blanche to him, and to every future POTUS.

So the House can harass a President with nothing out of bounds? Doesn't that give one branch of government more power than another? The House has tried to oust the President by impeaching him, the Democrats tried to nullify the Electoral College by wanting a to convene a meeting with the College to convince them to vote for Hillary, something that had never happened before. I am not a big fan of Trump nor Obama however I believe the House is trying to run the entire country by immobilizing the President's office by throw legal after legal after legal challenges.

To me it is harassment and if they win, lookout when the next Democrat becomes President and the House is Republican because this type of harassment will not be forgotten. What goes around, comes around.

Well, to you it is harassment, we'll let the Supreme Court decide if you are correct. The fact is, if a 5-4 decision agrees with you, it will be landmark case and destroy the principle of 230 years, that is the separation of powers.

You have two cases, the one for New York and the one for Congress. New York will go 5-4 Trump, the House case may lose 6-3 or 7-2.

Never before has Congress requested documents from a President, that were before he was elected. This is giving Congress a lot of power. Trump isn’t even in possession of the said documents. That was very concerning to Sotomeyer because the documents are going to be used in a legislative matter, which also concerns her.

 

[initforme]

What would it hurt to release the records. You want to be elected every last aspect of your finances should be made public.

 

[Rye Catcher]

US Supreme Court hears arguments over Trump's tax returns

The Supreme Court will rule on the president's attempts to keep his financial records secret.

www.yahoo.com

From the link:

The US Supreme Court has heard arguments on whether President Donald Trump should be allowed to keep his financial records secret, in a major showdown over presidential powers.

Mr Trump declines to share documents that could shed light on his fortune and the work of his family company.

Two congressional committees and New York prosecutors demand the release of his tax returns and other information.

Mr Trump's private lawyers argue he enjoys total immunity while in office.

The judges will hear the cases remotely because of the coronavirus pandemic. The Supreme Court has a 5-4 conservative majority and includes two Trump appointees - Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

The rule of law, and a guiding principle in our nation's jurisprudence is no man is above the law. The efficacy of the Supreme Court justices to dispense justice will be judged in this matter. If they decide in favor of President Trump, it will give carte blanche to him, and to every future POTUS.

So the House can harass a President with nothing out of bounds? Doesn't that give one branch of government more power than another? The House has tried to oust the President by impeaching him, the Democrats tried to nullify the Electoral College by wanting a to convene a meeting with the College to convince them to vote for Hillary, something that had never happened before. I am not a big fan of Trump nor Obama however I believe the House is trying to run the entire country by immobilizing the President's office by throw legal after legal after legal challenges.

To me it is harassment and if they win, lookout when the next Democrat becomes President and the House is Republican because this type of harassment will not be forgotten. What goes around, comes around.

Well, to you it is harassment, we'll let the Supreme Court decide if you are correct. The fact is, if a 5-4 decision agrees with you, it will be landmark case and destroy the principle of 230 years, that is the separation of powers.

You have two cases, the one for New York and the one for Congress. New York will go 5-4 Trump, the House case may lose 6-3 or 7-2.

Never before has Congress requested documents from a President, that were before he was elected. This is giving Congress a lot of power. Trump isn’t even in possession of the said documents. That was very concerning to Sotomeyer because the documents are going to be used in a legislative matter, which also concerns her.

Time will tell.

There is no doubt IF the SC rules it will be a landmark case. Since the matter was before the court today, we won't learn for several months, unless of course, the SC Punts.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The ruling should be a slam dunk against Trump. No one is above the law.

What law would that be?