world

Trump gets victory in bid to block California tax return law

79 Comments
By KATHLEEN RONAYNE

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

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

79 Comments

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

Another biased, activist judge legislating from the bench in favor of Donny!

2 ( +10 / -8 )

The judge has now issued his ruling. Now let's see him enforce it.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

I knew it, I knew it, lol.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

Wait till SCOTUS overturns this biased judge!!!

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Again, let the judge enforce his ruling. We in California can and will make it a requirement that a Presidential Candidate must release his or her tax returns, that if they don't, they will not appear on our ballots, and if they don't like that, they can lump it. And if they don't like that, they can sue.

And we wil tie their suit up in court just as the Team Trump is tying all suits agaisnt them in court.

Federalism sucks, don't it.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Just keep on winning.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

It's easy to win with biased judges legislating from the bench in your favor. Not to mention having the most mainstream media outlet asa cheerleader.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

no, that’s not how that works. When we say that, it actually does get overturned later.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Ha. Recall all the promises Trump made to release his tax returns.

The point is not California - he may as not be on the ballot there as he has zero chance of victory. It'sthat Repubs don't want this as a precedent which will snowball on to states where they're competitive.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Wait till SCOTUS overturns this biased judge!!

Oh, I doubt that, I’ll bet they’ll rule in the Presidents favor, especially when it comes to the issue of political harassment which has been the case over the last 3 years.

It's easy to win with biased judges legislating from the bench in your favor. Not to mention having the most mainstream media outlet asa cheerleader.

CNN keep trying, that’s their goal and they keep failing. As for biases, when a liberal Obama appointed judge rules against Trump on any issue, he or she is a great job, great American, he/she sides with Trump, they’re bias? ROFL!

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Requirements to run for President are in the Constitution. Want to change it, follow the process for changing the constitution.

You can’t just make up random requirements to prevent a specific person from being eligible. That’s the precedent the court is trying to avoid.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Why stop there? Can’t be in ballot if no PhD. No ballot if you didn’t serve in the military. Gotta pass a physical fitness test including a mile long run.

Then each state can make their own different rules to prevent the person from being listed who they don’t want to win.

Can you guys just find a reasonable candidate and best Trump at the ballot box already? Quit wasting peoples time and win without trying to rig things like was done to Bernie last time.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Biased, corrupt judges legislating from the bench. Can't be trusted at all!!!!!

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Biased, corrupt judges legislating from the bench. Can't be trusted at all!!!!!

I understand that feeling. I feel the exact same way when every lower district Judge blocks Trump and his agenda.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

I’m glad Chippy understands how we feel now. Happens to us 10 times as much and almost always gets overturned in the end.

this one will not be.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Should have decided this and then applied it nationwide to all states. Isn’t that what California (and Hawaii) judges do every time?

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

The law signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom in July says candidates for president must release five years of tax returns by November to run in the California primary, which is scheduled for March 2020.

Newsom's new law only applies to "primary" elections held in California. Primary elections are elections which are held to decide which member of each political party will be the party's candidate in the upcoming general election. 

Newsom's law, as written, doesn't apply to California's general elections, only to each political party's primary elections.

Since there won't be a Republican candidate running against the incumbent President during California's primary election, Newsom's law was unenforceable the moment he signed it into law.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Since there won't be a Republican candidate running against the incumbent President during California's primary election, Newsom's law was unenforceable the moment he signed it into law.

Hahaha! No. The law was inapplicable to the situation you describe, not unenforceable.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Maybe, but the Constitution is just fine.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

The constitution is just fine as interpreted by acorrupt, biased judge legislating from the bench.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Give it up. It’s going nowhere. That happens to us, not you.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Where’s the “nationwide injunction” if he is legislating from the bench?

I read the Constitution when I was 8 years old. Its is very clear what are the requirements to run for President. Showing your taxes ain’t there.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

bass4funk:

Your right again. Keep making America First.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Chip Star - Hahaha! No. The law was inapplicable to the situation you describe, not unenforceable.

According to the article -

Attorneys for Trump and the Republican Party argued the law violates the U.S. Constitution by adding an additional requirement to run for president.

"I don't care how you skin the cat, it's an unconstitutional law," said Harmeet Dhillon, a lawyer for the state and national Republican parties.

Newsom, and his fellow Democrats, assumed that they could pass a law which would override the U.S. Constitution's requirements for POTUS. They can't, of course. Newsom has now lost the 1st round, and will soon lose the appeal (2nd round). I assume that Newsom will then ask the Supreme Court to accept this case (3rd round), which even the far-left progressives on the court will deny.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

So lets see what that means , the American public has no right to know where their President gets his money from?

He might be getting it from unfriendly countries as an encouragement for the President to share sensitive information.

But the public doesn't deserve to know!!!!

8 ( +9 / -1 )

So lets see what that means , the American public has no right to know where their President gets his money from?

In a normal political climate I would say, perhaps, but we know exactly this is not a typical political climate and all this is, is nothing but a joke and a way to try to take the president down they tried everything else and it failed, so what they have been doing is trying to harass him and if there’s anything that they can do to find this taxes from his past business dealings that have nothing to do with anything over the last three years, they will try to use it to smear him, of course they will and if anybody doesn’t think so, then they are not dealing with reality, and that is absolute harassment in the president is right to do what he can and decide to block it given what he has gone through the last three years, I don’t blame them one bit.

He might be getting it from unfriendly countries as an encouragement for the President to share sensitive information. 

But the public doesn't deserve to know!!!!

Not really. I personally never cared about the whole stupid nonsense of the Republicans chasing Obama but his birth certificate, that was the dumbest thing. It’s not really a question if the public has a right to know this or not, the real question should be, is it that important to know? I personally don’t think it is, it won’t put more food on the table for my family, it won’t help me sleep better at night.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Ulysses - So lets see what that means

What this means is that neither the California legislature, nor the Governor of California, can dictate who is eligible to run for POTUS.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Can one of the Trumpies remind me: What do you win here? So the President doesn't have to show his taxes. What do you win? Seems like an unwitting admission that seeing Donny's taxes would have been bad.

I get the feeling you're going to ride this stock down to zero. And I'm fine with that ;)

6 ( +8 / -2 )

In a normal political climate I would say, perhaps, 

This definitely is not normal political climate. Never in American history have we had doubts about the President's commitment to the country and its secrets.

is it that important to know? 

It is extremely important to know if the President is under debt to foreign powers and as a result is acting on their behalf.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

ulysses - ..... then he should be able to share his tax returns, right?

Lead by example. You have nothing to hide, so you should be more than willing to publish your tax records for the last 8 years. Fair is fair.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

ulysses isn't the president or an elected official.

All financial dealings of the president should be transparent and available publicly. Don't like it then don't run.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I read the Constitution when I was 8 years old. Its is very clear what are the requirements to run for President. Showing your taxes ain’t there.

Neither are primaries.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Lead by example. You have nothing to hide, so you should be more than willing to publish your tax records for the last 8 years. Fair is fair.

False equivalency given that poster isn't running for elected office. Why do Trumpophiles have such difficulties with arguing in good faith?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

ulysses isn't the president or an elected official.

He sure is, he might the elected by a minority, but he is still elected.

Some Trumplets think getting elected to the highest office means having no responsibility , but that's just their ignorance.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

we win that liberals dont get to make up reasons to prevent a specific persons name from being on a ballot just because they know they cant beat him fairly. thats what we win. Freedom to vote for anyone we want.

What do you win here?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

takeda.shingen.1991@gmail.com - Can one of the Trumpies remind me: What do you win here? So the President doesn't have to show his taxes.

Remind you? Have you forgotten? No citizen can be forced to produce their tax returns without a proper court order. And a proper court order requires a legitimate reason for doing so. "He hurt my feelings" is not considered a legitimate reason for doing so.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

what law is this? also what law says if you dont, you cant run? so you can actually not like it, and still run.

All financial dealings of the president should be transparent and available publicly. Don't like it then don't run.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

ulysses

I actually posted you were not the president nor an elected official so there is no reason you should submit your tax returns for the past 8 years has suggested by arrestpaul?

But Trump is and should submit his tax returns.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

we win that liberals dont get to make up reasons to prevent a specific persons name from being on a ballot just because they know they cant beat him fairly. thats what we win. Freedom to vote for anyone we want.

This law applies to primaries in California. Will the republicans in California bother to hold a primary? Probably not, so you don't get to vote anyway.

Are you from California and elegibile to vote in the primary? Then you don't get to vote anyway.

looks like your analysis of what you won is utterly incorrect.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

zichi - But Trump is and should submit his tax returns.

According to which legal statute? I assume you believe you have some legal standing for your demand.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

According to which legal statute? I assume you believe you have some legal standing for your demand.

Its quite obvious Zichi isn't making a legal argument. Its common sense. The law should be changed and all candidates, Democrat and Republican alike, should submit tax returns. Any reason we shouldn't change the law?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

And our right-wingers continue to push of the president to be non-transparent, and not clear up whether or not he is financially beholden to foreign powers.

After they went on about Obama, the most amazing president in modern history, while they defend Trump.

Has there ever been a more pathetic group of individuals in human history?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

According to which legal statute? I assume you believe you have some legal standing for your demand.

There shouldn't even be a need for a statute, should be just a done deal by every president and every elected official .

4 ( +5 / -1 )

takeda.shingen.1991@gmail.com - Its quite obvious Zichi isn't making a legal argument. Its common sense. The law should be changed and all candidates, Democrat and Republican alike, should submit tax returns. Any reason we shouldn't change the law?

Ask your elected representatives (each U.S. citizen has two U.S. Senators and one U.S. Congressman to represent them) to present such a bill to both houses of the U.S. Congress, and let's see what happens.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Ask your elected representatives (each U.S. citizen has two U.S. Senators and one U.S. Congressman to represent them) to present such a bill to both houses of the U.S. Congress, and let's see what happens.

Murder Mitch refuses to even debate bipartisan bills. Whatever makes you so silly to think that anything reasonable will happen with his obstruction in place?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Just keep on winning.

no wall , no Obamacare replacement, Russia developing hypersonic missiles, Iran developing nukes and ready for war, NK still developing nukes and the missiles to deliver them, easy to win China trade war far from over world economies suffering because of it, all this in the last 3yrs, wow if thats winning Id hate to see what losing is!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Should should should is in every liberal statement here. Then make it a law and do it. No “should” with nothing to back it up except feeeeelings.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

No, not even close to every liberal post here contains the word should. Keeping up your amazing track record for accuracy, I see.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Talking about court decisions. You know, the actual topic of this article. Winning.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Lead by example. You have nothing to hide, so you should be more than willing to publish your tax records for the last 8 years. 

It's my solemn promise that I will release 20 years of my taxes the day I become President of America.

I actually posted you were not the president nor an elected official so there is no reason you should submit your tax returns for the past 8 years has suggested by arrestpaul?

Thanks Zichi

1 ( +3 / -2 )

the rich dont pay taxes. Robert Kiyosaki, a friend of Trump, can teach.

They are smarter than you.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

He sure is, he might the elected by a minority, but he is still elected.

Some Trumplets think getting elected to the highest office means having no responsibility , but that's just their ignorance.

Not quite so sure. Liberals keep saying that, but he has over a 91% favorability by Republicans, even Bush didn’t get that ad still with all the mess that the Dems are trying to throw at this guy he still hasn’t slipped below 40% as far as responsibility, over 200 accomplishments and still going strong.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Not quite so sure. Liberals keep saying that, but he has over a 91% favorability by Republicans, even Bush didn’t get that ad still with all the mess that the Dems are trying to throw at this guy he still hasn’t slipped below 40% as far as responsibility, over 200 accomplishments and still going strong.

91% favor-ability among Repubs - and 100% favor-ability among Russians!

And Putin appreciates those 200 accomplishments - "thanks comrade...by the way, when do I get that Moscow penthouse?"

4 ( +5 / -1 )

over 200 accomplishments and still going strong.

Leaking secrets to foreign governments

Hiring sex offenders

Profiting off the government

Falsifying weather information

hiring unqualified family members to important positions......

Seem like impressive achievements

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Trump says his crimes can't be investigated while he's president. Does that mean he knows he has committed them?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Trump was born on US soil, a US citizen and is over 35 yrs old. Any requirements for Presidential office beyond those are unconstitutional. President is a national office.

California can add the tax return requirement to their state offices, if they like. Have at it. Probably a good idea. I'd like to have Trumps personal and business tax returns available for expert scrutiny too. I'd like that for all govt workers and any company with over 50% of their revenue paid by any Govt city, state, federal, or foreign too. Would be good to see where Boeing, Google, Apple, Oracle, SONY, Toshiba, gets paid if from govts, right?

Trump is an expert on walking the gray line between legal and illegal activities. He will always try to hide his poker-like finances.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

91% favor-ability among Repubs - and 100% favor-ability among Russians!

Good.

And Putin appreciates those 200 accomplishments - "thanks comrade...by the way, when do I get that Moscow penthouse?"

More or less after he talks with Medvedev with his ties to Mr. I’ll be flexible after the election.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Leaking secrets to foreign governments 

Hiring sex offenders 

Profiting off the government 

Falsifying weather information 

hiring unqualified family members to important positions......

Seem like impressive achievements

Sounds like the pre-Bush Democrat lineup. Lol

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trumps-list-289-accomplishments-in-just-20-months-relentless-promise-keeping

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Liberals keep saying that, but he has over a 91% favorability by Republicans

So does racism.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

As of October 2017, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 24% identified as Republican, and 42% as Independent.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Chalk up yet another win for President Trump.

MAGA/KAG

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

As of October 2017, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 24% identified as Republican, and 42% as Independent.

Good! So half of those independents vote Republican or conservative leanings and given the fact that Biden pretty much won’t be the front runner and if it’s Warren, she will get just demolished by Trump.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

American adult voter population 300 million. 24% repub so 72million identified as republican. But in 2016 only 63 millioned voted for Trump. Guess next time out there will be none voters too. Trump will be lucky to get 55 million votes.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Good! So half of those independents vote Republican or conservative leanings and given the fact that Biden pretty much won’t be the front runner and if it’s Warren, she will get just demolished by Trump.

If half the 42% of independents vote Republican, and the other half vote Democratic, then:

Republicans: 24% GOP + 21% Ind = 45%

Democrats: 31% Dem + 21% Ind = 52%

52% is, in fact, more than 45%. If only Conservatives were good at math, or getting votes! That’s why they dislike democracy, I guess.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

American adult voter population 300 million. 24% repub so 72million identified as republican. But in 2016 only 63 millioned voted for Trump.

Again you made my point for me, the Democrat vote is highly dependent on the black vote which they need to drag them over the finish line and so far, none of the Democrats seem to be pulling in heavily both black and Hispanic vote.

Guess next time out there will be none voters too. Trump will be lucky to get 55 million votes.

I’m very sure he’ll get more than that. Given the fact that the Democrats want to take away our guns, want to give entitlements to illegals as well as free healthcare to illegals. Those are issues that are going to drive people right into Trump’s arms.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

If only Conservatives were good at math, or getting votes! That’s why they dislike democracy, I guess.

If Democrats were good at math then they could’ve made a flourishing economy for the past eight years with 3% unemployment and cut the corporate tax rate and with tax people less. If they were that good at math then they could read the people that came out and voted for Trump and would’ve known people are tired of being told that they are terrible because of skin color and that they don’t have the right to speak out because of their skin color this is what got Trump elected and as long as the Democrats use reverse racism it’s going to easily happen again.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

people are tired of being told that they are terrible because of skin color 

Oh, that’s why there are like 12 minorities in the GOP. Makes sense, I’d get tired of being told I was terrible because I’m not white, too.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

If only Conservatives were good at math, or getting votes! That’s why they dislike democracy, I guess.

The Democrats have a lot of minorities and look what they have done to the communities that they govern. The Democrat party doesn’t have a monopoly over the black community.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

The Democrats have a lot of minorities

Yeah because they don’t treat them with open contempt.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Yeah because they don’t treat them with open contempt.

No, because they need their votes, why would they? That would be a very stupid thing to do.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

American voter turnout is low. People fed up with the political swamp.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

No, because they need their votes, why would they? That would be a very stupid thing to do.

Yeah! Why aren't the democrats more like the Republicans, and using gerrymandering and voter suppression, so they don't need the minority votes. Then the Democrats could be openly contemptuous of the minorities too, right?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Sounds like the pre-Bush Democrat lineup. Lol

Deflect when in denial , ROFL

Lets think of some other achievements

Literature

invented a new word Covfefe

Meteorology

Proved that a sharpie can alter weather patterns

Medicine

Prove windmills cause cancer.

We have a genius of a President.

if only he could manage the economy and sign some trade deals and not to forget, build a wall!!!!

2 ( +5 / -3 )

@ulysses

You are spot on! The requirements to run for President do NOT require aspirants to reveal where money has been earned. Further, a 1040 will not fully cover it anyway.

Perhaps the Gov can work on improving his Dem-controlled state where Bubonic Plague has a real chance of becoming ground zero for a pandemic.

Dems need to stop fooling around with trying to diminish the fact that they lost, and work on advancing a candidate who can win. And they need to find a candidate who can sing p-funk in tune, unlike their current loser of a candidate.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Perhaps the Gov can work on improving his Dem-controlled state where Bubonic Plague has a real chance

Sure the homelessness problem is California is because of everyone’s curiosity about Trumps’ tax returns. Great logic.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Yeah! Why aren't the democrats more like the Republicans, and using gerrymandering and voter suppression, so they don't need the minority votes. Then the Democrats could be openly contemptuous of the minorities too, right?

You've gotta love his honesty, “we Republicans aren’t trying to get minority votes, that’s why we support white supremacism.”

1 ( +3 / -2 )

You've gotta love his honesty, “we Republicans aren’t trying to get minority votes, that’s why we support white supremacism.”

And said without any hint of irony at that.

It bears a re-post:

Speaking of Democrats on why they wouldn't want to alienate minorities:

No, because they need their votes, why would they? That would be a very stupid thing to do.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

At this point, how or why anyone with an IQ north of 80 would defend this criminal is beyond me.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@ulysses: It is extremely important to know if the President is under debt to foreign powers and as a result is acting on their behalf.

Releasing or requiring tax returns will not show if President is under debt to foreign powers. But it is not a bad idea.

Let's make it more through, and not just a tax return. Let's really check them out. Let's make it retroactive to all prior candidates, and their relatives as well.

Biden may have to explain how Hunter made a billion-dollar deal with a subsidiary of the Bank of China in less than ten days after he went there on AF2, and we should start asking about Hillary, who approved the transferring of 20 percent of the U.S. uranium stockpile, followed by nine foreign investors funneling $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites