world

Trump asking Supreme Court to bar demands for taxes, bank records

97 Comments
By MARK SHERMAN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

97 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Hopefully, Donnie (insert age/appearance related I duly here) will learn the hard way what the rule of law actually means.

He should lose this one 9-0. I’ll settle for 6-3.

16 ( +18 / -2 )

I figure that Gorusch and Kavanaugh will vote for Trump. Thomas will too.

Roberts I suspect is enough of a true 'constructionist' to swing the vote against Trump. Alito? He's got enough waffle in him to go either way.

So I'm seeing it 5-4 or 6-3 against Trump, but it'll hinge on Alito and Roberts.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

What's Trump hiding? Who in the US and around the globe is he protecting? Trump's constant attacks on intelligence agencies and something he calls 'the media' suggest he doesn't want truth found.

16 ( +17 / -1 )

This is an opportunity for the Kav and Gorsuch to show they truly respect the constitution and aren’t simply partisan hacks. I’m not holding my breath though.

Donny’s extreme reluctance to keep his taxes from the public tells us rational adults that he is indeed hiding spending. It could be as benign as him not being a billionaire, or it could be as sinister as evidencing that he’s in debt up to his ears to foreign powers.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

What does Honest Donnie have to hide?????

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Trump is asserting that while he holds office he cannot even be investigated.

Loser.

14 ( +16 / -2 )

Even the Roberts court realizes that this precedent would come back to bite them if a sitting Democratic president were ever sued or subject to a criminal investigation. There essentially would be no legal recourse against him/her. So for that reason (and only that reason), I think there's a decent chance that the court will rule against Trump in this case.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

What does Honest Donnie have to hide????

That he doesn't pay any tax.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

What's Trump hiding?

The extend of his failure as a businessman ?

8 ( +10 / -2 )

What's Trump hiding? Who in the US and around the globe is he protecting?

Could it be that low level pathetic snakes like Andrew Weissman have been after Trump for years and if they can find anything shady from his business practices that he’s done in the past, use it against him in a general election? Again, no one cares except his haters and the NY district courts. Makes since that Trump went for Hillary and these law attorneys in that State never liked him, so at this point, these people are just harassing him, they don’t need the information, he doesn’t even live there anymore.

Trump's constant attacks on intelligence agencies

With very good reason, look what they did to him, look what they did to Flynn, so I would tell them to take a hike as well.

and something he calls 'the media' suggest he doesn't want truth found.

The truth is, if the media can harass him, drive his poll numbers down to the ground, if this could possibly help, they’ll definitely push for this.

-17 ( +3 / -20 )

@bas4f Again, no one cares except his haters and the NY district courts

Partisan extremist framing: no one or 'others'. Again using a KISS approach intended for the second S in the acronym. Most 'others' tend to recognize existence is a bit more complex than just opposing poles created in the putative minds of the collective S's.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Partisan extremist framing:

I see, far left liberals I guess, are immune from being so?

Most 'others' tend to recognize existence is a bit more complex than just opposing poles created in the putative minds of the collective S's

Gosh, if ONLY that were true.....

-15 ( +2 / -17 )

So, good ol' Donnie wants to be once again above the law?

He isn't and he will hopefully understand that some day (although I got my serious doubts).

7 ( +8 / -1 )

The House argues that Congress has very board subpoena powers...

Should that be "bored"? Or is it a "dyslexics untie" kind of thing?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

His argument is that because he’s president, his companies are immune from investigation. Because that’s ethical said the Republicans.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

This isn't really about Trump. It's about whether or not the Supreme Court has been bought or otherwise been given "an offer they can't refuse."

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Trump is an actor. He is not going to get an Academy award for his role playing president of the US. But what about his role playing a multi-billionaire? That's where his taxes come in.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

 if they can find anything shady from his business practices that he’s done in the past

Are you telling us that you wouldn't mind if the law found shady dealings in his business practices?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Why would any citizen, Trump fan or not, want to give our President immunity from any investigations during their term? Why would we want to lose that ability for oversight?

Trump fans are thinking much too narrowly and short-term. This is something that will be part of the system long after Trump is gone.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

A President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President

So we shouldn't investigate criminal presidents because they would experience "concern"?

An innocent president would experience less concern, I imagine.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

When he was a candidate, Trump said he’d release his tax returns. He later trolled that he was running the most transparent administration in history.

Ridiculous behaviour.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

Yeah you know its going to be a biased article from the first sentence.

"President Donald Trump is hoping to persuade a Supreme Court with two of his appointees..."

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

Thought he had nothing to hide and he was going to be the most transperent president ever...

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Yeah you know its going to be a biased article from the first sentence.

Fox News. The most MS of the M’s.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

then stop calling the President of the United States, "Donny". thats not his name.

I’ll start this post by saying I am completely against name-calling as it is childish and has no place in rational discourse.

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

Are you telling us that you wouldn't mind if the law found shady dealings in his business practices?

Donny’s fans think what he did before he became president is irrelevant. But, they think what what any “lib” did before they were in office, including judges, is extremely relevant. There’s no hypocrisy there at all.

Us rational adults understand that we need to lol at the entire picture for everyone, even democrats.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

then stop calling the President of the United States, "Donny". thats not his name.

No room for satire then?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

So we shouldn't investigate criminal presidents because they would experience "concern"?

The republicans really didn't seem to mind investigating and impeaching when Bill Clinton had sexual intercourse with a consenting adult. Funny how things change.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.

............ Leona Helmsley

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Yeah you know its going to be a biased article from the first sentence.

"President Donald Trump is hoping to persuade a Supreme Court with two of his appointees..."

? What exactly is partisan about that statement?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

So if it makes liberals feel hopeful to keep chasing the same issue, please go ahead.

At least we can get a Supreme Court decision and put this issue to bed, one way or the other, for good.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

then stop calling the President of the United States, "Donny". thats not his name.

His name is Donald John Trump. A diminutive form of Donald is Don or Donny. So yes, 'Donny' is a perfectly acceptable term to use for DJT.

Just as when Barack Hussein Obama was President, many who disagreed with him (including many on this forum) would refer to him as 'Barry,' a diminutive nickname form of his name. Or when George W. Bush was President, many referred to him as 'Dubya.' Or Ronald Reagan was 'Ronnie.' Or Richard Nixon was 'Dick.'

So yes, Donny is his name.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Readers, it would be better if you just called him Trump.

Donny the birther, yes?

7 ( +10 / -3 )

It is irrelevant who appointed judges. thats the liberal narrative.

Until its someone appointed by a Republican, then it is in the first sentence of the article. What happened to there are no Obama judges (or Trump judges).

if so, why is it relevant that Trump appointed 2 of these people?

? What exactly is partisan about that statement?

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

It is irrelevant who appointed judges. thats the liberal narrative. 

Until its someone appointed by a Republican, then it is in the first sentence of the article. What happened to there are no Obama judges (or Trump judges).

if so, why is it relevant that Trump appointed 2 of these people?

Yeah, it’s just liberal who do this. Never mind you and the rest of Donny’s fans constantly doing it also. Smooth playing of the victim card.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

It is irrelevant who appointed judges. thats the liberal narrative.

You have claimed judges are biased ever since trump started doing so. This is literally your narrative. You started it.

And here you are complaining about the bed being uncomfortable.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Yeah you know its going to be a biased article from the first sentence. 

*"President Donald Trump is hoping to persuade a Supreme Court *with two of his appointees..."

Yes, because it’s logical that statements of fact mean something is biased. Yikes.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

I fully agreed with many previous comments that if Trump got nothing to hide why he has been so desperate to block the release of his bank and taxes records.

Trump has consistently appeared to be a greedy, ruthless, fraudulent billionaire that the world has known. With regard to charity, while the Donald J. Trump Foundation gave away $10.9 million from 2001 to 2014, the Australian billionaire and philanthropist Andrew Forrest donated AUD 400,000,000 (four hundred million Australian dollars) for a number of causes, including cancer research and the eradication of slavery in 2017 (see the articled titled "Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest donates $400m, the 'biggest single philanthropic gift' by living person" in the ABC). In January this year, he donated AUD 70 million for bushfire and most recently, he donated AUD 150 million for COVID relief for western Australia. These are just some examples showing how an Australian billionaire should do to win heart and mind of his compatriots and all sides of politics from which he can have more political and social influences.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

ModeratorToday  09:03 am JST

Readers, it would be better if you just called him Trump

Is this a suggestion are an order? If it’s an order, shouldn’t it hold true for all politicians? I’m willing to do this if you are willing to make sure our conservative friends here also use politicians family names.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

How about you take the lead and stop posting Donny, thus showing everybody how childish it is to refer to politicians by their first names when it is used in a derogatory way?

It is irrelevant who appointed judges. 

When the judges were appointed by the man who's trying to plead a case that affects him directly to them, it kinda is, isn't it? Especially when we're talking about "But I need you to do us a favour though..." guy.

In an ideal world, Supreme Court judges would all be impartial, but unfortunately the republicans have a clear and stated (publicly, several times) agenda of only cramming judges that favour their opinions in there.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Why would any citizen, Trump fan or not, want to give our President immunity from any investigations during their term? Why would we want to lose that ability for oversight?

I think given the fact that Democrats have been playing the same old tune for so long to get their hands on Trump’s records which have nothing to do with his current occupation, I’m pretty sure the SC will rule in his favor.

Trump fans are thinking much too narrowly and short-term.

No. That would be the Democrats, because for 3 years they wasted their time chasing gophers down holes and came up with nothing again and again and again.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

It is irrelevant who appointed judges. 

The Trump disagrees:

Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have “Obama judges,” and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country. It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an “independent judiciary,” but if it is why......

How do you explain your discrepancy in beliefs with your leader. Is he wrong, or are you?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

I think given the fact that Democrats have been playing the same old tune for so long to get their hands on Trump’s records which have nothing to do with his current occupation, I’m pretty sure the SC will rule in his favor.

So your argument is that because the democrats argued this up to the supreme court, the supreme court should rule against them for pushing it that far.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Anyways, back to conversation with people who make sense...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

An Obama appointed judge put a beauty salon owner in jail in Texas.

Liberals: How dare you call him an Obama judge! no such thing! Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (A Republican!) said so.

So now, there are 2 "Trump judges" on the Supreme Court (because it benefits you to say so right now), arent there?

So yes it is very irrelevant who appointed 2 judges. Yet there it is in the first sentence of the "unbiased" article

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

so where did the Democrat judges come from? Bush or Reagan appointed them?

Democrats dont have a clear agenda of appointing judges who favor their opinions? its just how it works.

In an ideal world, Supreme Court judges would all be impartial, but unfortunately the republicans have a clear and stated (publicly, several times) agenda of only cramming judges that favour their opinions in there.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

You would think the House of Representatives would have more important things to do than go after Trump's private tax records.

The justices are hearing arguments by telephone Tuesday in a pivotal legal fight that could affect the presidential campaign

Yeah, the voters are not gonna like this waste of time and money.

-13 ( +0 / -13 )

So now, there are 2 "Trump judges" on the Supreme Court (because it benefits you to say so right now), arent there?

Aww, poor boy, is your bed uncomfortable? Maybe next time you shouldn't make such an uncomfortable piece of crap before you lie in it.

This is why we can't have nice things.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

No one is in here every single day in every single topic talking about "Billy" Clinton or "Joey" Biden or calling Obama by his legal middle name.

Because it is disrespectful and is just impolite to people who support and think favorably of these people. You can speak respectfully to people and about people you disagree with, it wont hurt you at all. Is it really necessary to involve the moderator in such petty nonsense? just speak respectfully.

I’m willing to do this if you are willing to make sure our conservative friends here also use politicians family names.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

An Obama appointed judge put a beauty salon owner in jail in Texas.

That beauty salon owner violated the law and was given an opportunity to avoid jail, but elected to go to jail. She put herself in jail.

Liberals: How dare you call him an Obama judge! no such thing! Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (A Republican!) said so.

That’s not what any “libs” on these threads said. We pilloried you all for claiming the judge was biased because Obama appointed him.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

There is absolutely no reason to continue hiding trump's taxes from the America people. Only reason would be if he was really trying to hide something. And trump supporters know 100% that is why.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

> so where did the Democrat judges come from? Bush or Reagan appointed them?

Some did.

Democrats dont have a clear agenda of appointing judges who favor their opinions? its just how it works.

Democrats obviously have this agenda, but they haven’t stated it and haven’t blocked a Republican president from appointments to do so.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

so in other words, because I said he was an Obama judge. Because no such thing supposedly exists.

But now two Trump judges do. hypocrisy at its finest.

We pilloried you all for claiming the judge was biased because Obama appointed him.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

so in other words, because I said he was an Obama judge.

Because you said that, any whines about it are hypocrisy.

Sorry, did you want to hear the truth, or an echo chamber of lies?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

So any judge appointed by Obama is just making a legal decision based entirely on the law. (even when they are overruled the very next day like in Texas).

Any judge not appointed by Obama or another Dem is exercising their bias to help Republicans, especially Trump, "win" when the law states otherwise.

Got it.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

as are any comments you may have about the 2 "Trump judges" in this case then.

Cool, Im good with that.

Because you said that, any whines about it are hypocrisy.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

So any judge appointed by Obama is just making a legal decision based entirely on the law. (even when they are overruled the very next day like in Texas).

Heh, so we're back to your original point, judges are biased.

Which we called you out for.

Suddenly you have a problem with that tactic being used? So you play unethical, then get angry when the other team plays your unethical game, and try to use a moral argument.

Isn't your spine sore from all that twisting?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

An Obama appointed judge put a beauty salon owner in jail in Texas

Eric Moyé was elected to the position in 2008, Obama has nothing to do with it. (Apart from the fact that he needed police protection because of constant racist threats during his tenure)

Also, he put her in jail because she broke the law. Are republicans weak on crime now?

so where did the Democrat judges come from? Bush or Reagan appointed them?

Merrick Garland's work was praised by republicans his whole life and yet he was not appointed because Mitch McConnell wanted someone with more extreme views on his favourite subjects. And that is a great example of egregious partisanship in the Supreme Court judges selection process.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@PTownsendToday  06:53 am JST

What's Trump hiding? Who in the US and around the globe is he protecting? Trump made a bold bet on Atlantic City when he opened a third casino there — the colossal Taj Mahal — in April 1990. Even riskier: He financed the project with $675 million in junk bonds at a 14% interest rate. Within months Trump was struggling to make the massive bond payments as Atlantic City floundered.

In stepped Ross, then head of Rothschild Inc’s bankruptcy advising team, to represent bondholders, were pondering forcing the casino into involuntary bankruptcy and ousting Trump. Ross reportedly saw crowds pressed against Trump’s limo windows to get a peek at the mogul, and realized the value of Trump’s celebrity. The rest as they say is history.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

so in other words, because I said he was an Obama judge. Because no such thing supposedly exists. 

But now two Trump judges do. hypocrisy at its finest.

Inaccurate. You didn’t just say it was an Obama judge. You tailed on the judge by inaccurately claiming the judge jailed someone for not personally apologizing to the judge and implied it was because they were an Obama judge.

I repeated, none of us “libs” complained that you pointed out it was an Obama appointee.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

as are any comments you may have about the 2 "Trump judges" in this case then.

I didn't make any. If you'll notice, I've only been pointing out your hypocrisy. Over and over. And over. And over. And over. And over.

I don't even need to make an argument, as you've already argued everything. I just need to pull up the flip you've flopped on at any given time, and use your own argument against you.

That's the problem with being a hypocrite. Nothing you say can be taken seriously, since you've contradicted everything you've ever said.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

bass: I think given the fact that Democrats

You want to give all future Presidents, including Democrats, immunity from investigations.....because Democrats?

You hand over your rights far too easily. Immediate gain and a fleeting emotional high is all it took. Congrats if you give the Presidency, and all future Democrats, more power at your expense. You deserve it.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

So call out this article for saying the same thing, that judges are biased. But you wont.

You will just cry again when you lose and claim that all the "Republican" judges just voted to protect Trump while all the heroic liberals voted for the "rule of law" or something. Ginsburg voted against Trump from her deathbed, HERO! (then claim that she isnt too sick to do her job)

Heh, so we're back to your original point, judges are biased.

Which we called you out for.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

President Donald Trump is hoping to persuade a Supreme Court with two of his appointees to keep his tax and other financial records from being turned over to lawmakers and a New York district attorney.

Well, that's understandable. When the records will show that he used Deutsche Bank as a middleman to funnel millions in Russian oligarch money to the Trump Organization, he'll do anything to cover that up...

Even though Don Jr and Eric have already admitted it - "We get all the money we need from Russia"...

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/332270-eric-trump-in-2014-we-dont-rely-on-american-banks-we-have-all-the-funding-we

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I gotta go and take care of my multiple multinational companies that haven’t taken a financial hit, but somehow my employees aren’t making as much as they were before the pandemic kicked off. Also, I’m on my private 747 back to the US today to hire people because a lot of talented people have been laid off in the various fields my companies work in despite those fields not having been impacted by the coronavirus.

This is all true and completely logical, so you shouldn’t question why the owner of multiple multinational corporations that have seen an uptick in business requiring hiring has time to post on these threads all day recently.

Right, Trump fans?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

blacklabel: Until its someone appointed by a Republican, then it is in the first sentence of the article.

Gotcha. Horse beaten repeatedly.

So are you with bass in handing over your rights to an American President?

8 ( +8 / -0 )

So call out this article for saying the same thing, that judges are biased. But you wont.

No, that’s not what the article says. It simply pointed out a fact and you ran with it because “lib media bias!!!!!”

1 ( +3 / -2 )

So call out this article for saying the same thing, that judges are biased.

That's your agenda. Mine is pointing out how you guys have destroyed the current political climate. by making it impossible to have ah honest discussion due to your extreme hypocrisy on any given subject.

In other words, I'm pointing out the swamp. Not playing your ridiculous games where you just change the rules at any given time.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

just cant stay on topic or stop with the impoliteness to others, can you?

I gotta go and take care of my multiple multinational companies that haven’t taken a financial hit, but somehow my employees aren’t making as much as they were before the pandemic kicked off. Also, I’m on my private 747 back to the US today to hire people because a lot of talented people have been laid off in the various fields my companies work in despite those fields not having been impacted by the coronavirus.

This is all true and completely logical, so you shouldn’t question why the owner of multiple multinational corporations that have seen an uptick in business requiring hiring has time to post on these threads all day recently.

Right, Trump fans?

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Ptownsend

What's Trump hiding? Who in the US and around the globe is he protecting?

You know as well as anybody that personal tax records would be massively complex, even for accountants. So they would say nothing to you or your opinion leaders at CNN et al, but that would not stop them from endless speculating about nefarious tidbits they find in them here and there. That would then be the non-stop topic for for the propaganda media for the next 4 years. Of course he does not want that.

By the way, you can be sure the IRS has gone over them with fine comb and would have jumped on any flaw they found. Now tell us you know more then the IRS.

Trump's constant attacks on intelligence agencies and something he calls 'the media' suggest he doesn't want truth found.

The same intelligence agencies that were so confident in Saddam Husseins WMD and that, under Obamas orders, removed any connection to islam from islamic terrorism, you mean? Yeah, great intelligence.

And yes the "the media" with their blatant political bias have turned from news reporting to political activism. Now tell us you are unaware of that.

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

blacklabel

So any judge appointed by Obama is just making a legal decision based entirely on the law. (even when they are overruled the very next day like in Texas).

Yip, that is the paradigm. Completely clear, isnt it.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

President Donny Trump once again trying to hide aspects of his life, whether its taxes, bank accounts, school and college stats, relationships with porn starts, and even yesterday I was reading a story about him boasting how great he was at baseball in school but turned out to be another false claim.

Said he could have been a baseball star.

But then he also said he could have been a scientist because he has the same genes as his uncle who was a prof at MIT. He claimed to know more about Covid-19 than anyone else. He's smart.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Everyone that hold a position in high public office, must accept an appropriate level of scrutiny, in their past and present business dealings, this equates to their annual statement of income and personal circumstances.

This includes President Trump, no if or buts.

We all have to comply in varying degrees to these rules, there shouldn’t be any exceptions.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

You know as well as anybody that personal tax records would be massively complex, even for accountants. So they would say nothing to you or your opinion leaders at CNN et al, but that would not stop them from endless speculating about nefarious tidbits they find in them here and there. That would then be the non-stop topic for for the propaganda media for the next 4 years. Of course he does not want that.

Or it could be he doesn't want to get caught in a lie when he said "I have zero business with Russia" when Don Jr and Eric have said in the record that "We get all the money we need from Russia". Care to explain that?

By the way, you can be sure the IRS has gone over them with fine comb and would have jumped on any flaw they found. Now tell us you know more then the IRS.

Maybe you can be sure, but with what happened with Flynn this week, I wouldn't bet on it...

Trump's constant attacks on intelligence agencies and something he calls 'the media' suggest he doesn't want truth found.

The same intelligence agencies that were so confident in Saddam Husseins WMD and that, under Obamas orders, removed any connection to islam from islamic terrorism, you mean? Yeah, great intelligence.

I think you forgot that the Iraq WMD claim was made during a REPUB administration...

And yes the "the media" with their blatant political bias have turned from news reporting to political activism. Now tell us you are unaware of that.

Just watch 5 minutes of Hannity, Pirro, or Ingraham and you'll know that's true...and you can enjoy watching Judge Jean slurring her words...just like Foster Brooks...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

By the way, you can be sure the IRS has gone over them with fine comb and would have jumped on any flaw they found. Now tell us you know more then the IRS.

Um, someone just proved they literally have no idea what they are talking about.

Because anyone who does, can clearly see that this statement is made by someone who only thinks they know what they're talking about, but are making wildly incorrect assumptions.

You really have to wonder whatever gave them that silly idea.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

You know as well as anybody that personal tax records would be massively complex, even for accountants. 

Actually it's the accountants job to understand tax records, so it's not really that complex to them, unless they're really bad at their job.

By the way, you can be sure the IRS has gone over them with fine comb and would have jumped on any flaw they found.

The IRS deals in numbers only, not in political discourse. So it doesn't care if person A earns 500 dollars a month and says to his friends "I'm a millionaire!!". Or "I never took foreign money" when the account is full of rubles. These are the type of lies that the tax records would reveal, and the reason why Trump is trying to keep them hidden.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

By the way, you can be sure the IRS has gone over them with fine comb and would have jumped on any flaw they found. Now tell us you know more then the IRS.

As an American who experienced a tax audit for making a dumb mistake on a form I filled out I can comment that;

Yes; the IRS would have certainly gone over these with a fine toothed comb as Trump's tax returns were audited

We will not know if the IRS jumped on any flaw they found as there are very severe penalties for the IRS disclosing results of or violating the person being audited's privacy

It is actually a very complex situation.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It does in the sense that Trump can prove his case or rather his lawyers can easily prove from the time he’s been running for office and up until the failed Mueller debacle and the impeachment hoax and now we have the corrupt FBI up to their necks in trying to get this man, I’m pretty sure based on all of these documents that the SC will side with Trump.

Yeah, because that made sense in English.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

You want to give all future Presidents, including Democrats, immunity from investigations.....because Democrats?

They pretty much got that already, it’s the msm and they had the SC for awhile, but at least for 40 years, that’s gone as well.

You hand over your rights far too easily. Immediate gain and a fleeting emotional high is all it took.

Says the people that tried and failed to take this President out.....how many times is it? Lost track...

Congrats if you give the Presidency, and all future Democrats, more power at your expense. You deserve it.

40 years is a long time, hope you and I will be around to see that happen.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

The farcical occupant of the White House has always been a complete fraud perpetrated on We The People of the United States of America.

His education records, if available, would show he did not graduate from the educational institutions he claims has attended.

His net worth is much less than what he has claimed. He is highly leveraged.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

they had the SC for awhile, but at least for 40 years, that’s gone as well.

That is a complete falsehood, the Supreme Court has notoriously been right-leaning (usually 5 to 4) for decades, and is only getting more right-wing with each passing member.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices#Ideological_leanings_over_time

4 ( +5 / -1 )

His education records, if available, would show he did not graduate from the educational institutions he claims has attended.

I think that all future presidents (and state representatives too), should be required to pass a culture and intelligence test before being able to even run for office. I am absolutely serious when I say this. The people have the right to know if the person they vote for is a complete uncultured buffoon (who, for example, doesn't know what happened in Pearl Harbor)(not naming anyone).

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I think that all future presidents (and state representatives too), should be required to pass a culture and intelligence test before being able to even run for office. I am absolutely serious when I say this. 

I think this is a really bad idea. If you let people in institutions of power decide what "correct" culture is, they will work to perpetuate our current unjust society. For example, if there were a culture test, AOC or Bernie could be denied the opportunity to run for office because arguing for healthcare for all Americans is "UnAmerican".

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Bass:. They pretty much got that already, 

Wow, that was easy. I just got you to agree to make Democratic presidents above the law while in office.

Any other rights and protections you want to hand over? I bet I could get more out of you.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

If you let people in institutions of power decide what "correct" culture is

"Culture" in this sense only means having cultural knowledge in general, not having an opinion on its value. Again, not naming any names, but the president of a country should probably have read more books than he's written.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"Culture" in this sense only means having cultural knowledge in general, not having an opinion on its value.

But, again, by instituting a test, someone has to choose what the questions are, and what the answers they're looking for are. They are, themselves, making a value judgement. For example, consider the question, "what role did the Black Panthers play in the 1960s Civil Rights movement?". This question can be answered in a variety of different ways. But if someone in the current administration were to pose and grade this question, they'd be looking for something like "The Black Panthers are all bad and never did nothing good for nobody", which is obviously disputable, and would exclude people who don't think like the people in power.

Even with your instance, "What happened at Pearl Harbor?", what degree of accuracy is necessary? If you name the year and date, but I, a question master who dislikes you, decides you don't know enough because you didn't list the time, this becomes an issue.

Please believe me, I appreciate that Trump is an idiot and a charlatan who should never have got within 100 miles of the White House, but he's just a symptom of the problems we face, and I think instituting tests like this won't solve any of them, and may even make them worse. The President being bad isn't (or at least, shouldn't be) the issue: the issue is the institutional power of capital, and how it's agents in the GOP enable criminality to enrich their paymasters.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

That is a complete falsehood, the Supreme Court has notoriously been right-leaning (usually 5 to 4) for decades, and is only getting more right-wing with each passing member

Let me rephrase that, Democrats needed the SC to often pass their liberal failed agenda policies, but here is the big catch and bad news for them.

Liberals are well-prepared for this kind of “2021 nightmare.” They’ve been fearing it since November 9, 2016. To avert such a terror, they took to the streets in historic numbers the day after Donald Trump’s inauguration, and showed up at the polls en masse last fall. And they’re right to be afraid. Each day, Trump grows a bit more lawless, and the Executive branch a bit less willing to defy him. Another four years of judicial appointments would give the conservative movement a hammerlock on the judiciary for a generation. And in that time, Trump’s judges could rubber-stamp changes to election laws that further erode what remains of popular sovereignty in this republic — and the world’s most powerful nation would stumble four years closer to climate catastrophe.

Trump’s reelection would be a nightmare. But for Democrats, defeating him and winning the presidency in 2021 could be its own kind of horror show.

Either way, doesn’t look good for Dems.

-Nymag

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

I think that all future presidents (and state representatives too), should be required to pass a culture and intelligence test before being able to even run for office.

Yes and they should also pass a racial and religious test as well, maybe height or looks test as well.

I am absolutely serious when I say this.

I am sure you are.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Wow, that was easy. I just got you to agree to make Democratic presidents above the law while in office. 

Got me? What are you talking about? They already were.

Any other rights and protections you want to hand over?

Not really, it’s those rights that liberals are screaming Trump took away from them when before they were quite content with breaking the rules. Just eat and be merry.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

Tax records? Bank records? College exam records? Pee-pee tapes? Girth certificate?

You just know this man-child has many many embarrassing things he wants hidden.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

The Democrats are going to pay dearly for wasting the taxpayers' money and time and for all the damage they're doing to the country in Nov.

Trump-Pence 2020 all the way.

-14 ( +0 / -14 )

Trump bankruptcies have cost the taxpayer more than any of the investigations against him.

Also lets not forget all the vendors who lost money, their livelihoods....

For someone who touted himself as a great dealmaker, he seems to made made no good deals at all.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Democrats needed the SC to often pass their liberal failed agenda policies

And yet the Supreme Court has always leaned right. So can you give examples of the "liberal failed agenda policies" that they passed thanks to a liberal Supreme Court (a thing that, again, doesn't exist).

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Trump tweeted on an average every 7.5 minutes for 16 hours straight yesterday.

Looks like the possibility is his tax records being released is driving him to panic!!!!

6 ( +7 / -1 )

But, again, by instituting a test, someone has to choose what the questions are, and what the answers they're looking for are.

Here's a idea : take the questions and aswers from "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?". That's it. Anyone who's not smarter than a 5th grader is not fit for any office.

They are, themselves, making a value judgement.

No necessarily, no. The question "Name one Eugene O'Neill play" is not loaded, nor will the answer be. Or "What is the capital of Australia?". "What year did the first world war end?". Etc.

But from these answers, you will have an idea of the knowledge and cultural spectrum of the person you're dealing with. I for one think it's a terrible idea to elect people dumber than you, and I certainly wish that my leaders to be waaay more intelligent than I am. And if that amounts to some people as a sort of intellectual prejudice (or anti-idiotism if you will), I will proudly bear that flag.

Yes and they should also pass a racial and religious test as well, maybe height or looks test as well.

In a lot of ways, they unfortunately already are. A lot of american voters obviously care more if their candidate says he reads the bible (even if it's a bald-faced lie) than if he reads about history, geography and economics. And that is also a big part of the problem.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

This has got to be the joke of the day. “At the end of the day, ‘a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President,'" What has Trump actually done except lie and deceive the American public and enrich the elite.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites