I think the possibility that these things (including voter suppression, gerrymandering, and much more) are even possible is horribly damaging towards our democracy, but as long as these horrible things are available, I advocate that Democrats consider making use of these tools so as not to bring the proverbial knife to the gunfight.
Just like how campaigns should be publicly funded, but until that goal is reached, I understand the need for campaigns to solicit private donations.
Basically, our system is massively screwed up. It should be fixed. Until it is fixed, Democrats need to fight as hard as they can, with whatever tools are available, just to avoid being overwhelmed.
We can’t complain about Trump’s reasons for not turning over his returns, because we don’t know what they are. But yes, some of the possible reasons really are big enough to stand out, even among the (literal) myriad other lies he tells. Like, for instance, if he’s on Putin’s payroll, that’s kind of really important.
Is that a rhetorical question? Wouldn’t it depend on what’s on them? If it doesn’t matter what’s on them because it wouldn’t move the needle either way, then it’s net zero.
But I think there’s at least a non-zero chance that something might be on them that could change at least a few voter’s minds. Even if it’s all positive, that could still lead people to change their votes. But you’d have to know what’s on them first.
I still don’t think it’s worth monkeying with the voting system, but the question does have some significance.
If his returns are totally innocent, no one who wasn’t going to vote for him will now vote for him.
If it’s shady, same thing. Either we know he did shady shit and now we still know that. Or people will hand wave it away like they did with the stuff that we do know about like all of the strategic bankruptcies and not paying contractors.
I can’t think of anything that would reasonably be on there that would move the needle either way. This is just juvenile trolling.
It’s not trolling. It’s finally writing a law that we didn’t know we needed before because there were norms that we didn’t think would be broken. We are going to have to write a number of laws moving forward to ensure a number of norms that we now know are no longer norms. And none of that is trolling.
If we strengthen emoluments laws it’s not going to be to troll Trump it will be because we didn’t think we had to spell out that the president should have the country’s interests first.
The norm since Nixon’s second run. It wasn’t done at all before that. Sixty years of federal taxes before that and they weren’t shared. People can make the choice to never vote for anyone who doesn’t show their taxes. Parties can refuse to allow anyone who doesn’t.
A law isn’t going to stop Trump and Republicans from undermining democracy. The solution is more democratic participation on the part of progressives and moderates, even in spite of laws that try to restrict voting. If you want to convince the middle that you respect and value democracy, then you do things that promote democratic participation – removing someone’s name from a ballot is the exact opposite of that.
So the conservatives will try to remove people from the voter rolls? Who knows - maybe they’ll even bring back poll taxes. This isn’t the first time that American authoritarians or oligarchs have tried to suppress democratic participation. If they do that, then march (peacefully and lawfully) in the streets. And if they criminalize that, then as MLK and Rosa Parks did, resist authority when the laws are immoral and understand that loving democracy and freedom sometimes has a cost. Over time, a majority of people will hopefully ‘get it’ and join the side of the righteous.
But removing someone from a ballot to force them to hand over their tax returns is just reactionary and stupid. It’s just another tactic that will lead to a response in kind. This will backfire spectacularly. The way to promote democracy is to do democratic things, not undemocratic things.
Without judging the merit of the ballot exclusion, I will state a simple, reasonable reason for congress to see his tax returns. Michael Cohen testified in response to questioning by AOC that there was information in Trump’s financial records that will speak to illegal real estate practices. That’s all the justification they should need, it is that simple. To deny the release should be viewed as obstruction.
I know that’s not the central focus of this thread, but Trump’s need to disclose has been mentioned here.
It might be emoluments, but I have another hunch: real estate used to launder money for international oligarchs and criminals.
Let’s face it: we already know that Trump uses his DC hotel, Mar-a-Lago, and other properties to host official government events, so we don’t really need his tax returns to establish emoluments clause violations. And we know that a number of his cabinet members have been committing corruption in broad daylight. I think his entire cabinet is without shame. I doubt he worries about emoluments, and probably doesn’t even know what the hell it is.
I think it’s his relationships that he - and also those he does business with - that are of particular concern. If he’s doing business with the Russian mafia, or the Italian mafia, or whoever, there are going to be some nasty cockroaches that will be sent scurrying behind the walls once the light of his tax returns is shining on them. I’m guessing some of those people have done far worse than tax evasion or handed off bags of cash to government officials.
Having people in the media talk about hackers and corruption is one thing, but I’m guessing that releasing his tax returns would allow people who actually know a thing or two about forensic accounting start to piece together Donald Trump’s relationships over the past several decades.
Do you know what emoluments are? The prohibition is against accepting (without the consent of Congress) an emolument “from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” What does that have to do with “official government events”?
I have little confidence that Trump’s tax returns are the smoking gun evidence of a Russian criminal empire that Mueller couldn’t find evidence of. I tend to think that his returns would show he’s a poor businessman who doesn’t pay much in taxes, and maybe he’s been caught cheating and had to pay fines because of sleazy deductions he takes. Which is a very good reason for a congressional investigation into the tax practices of billionaires. Excuse me, “billionaires.”
They don’t necessarily involve emoluments - some other aspects of his international business and his refusal to separate himself from his business interests might, but that’s a different example. Might point is, he and his administration repeatedly engage in naked corruption and conflicts of interest, so I wouldn’t expect much to be revealed about emoluments or other types of corruption that we don’t already know. That won’t move the needle, as we’ve become inured to it all.
But tax returns might tell us more about his all of his LLCs, and it might be that we could learn more about his connections once people have time to start digging based on what they’ve had a chance to see in public for the first time. Taxes don’t necessarily tell us how wealthy someone is or isn’t, but depending on what one does to earn income, and what forms are required as part of the return, they can begin to tell us about some of the people in his orbit. Tax returns could lead us to other documents as well.
By any reasonable definition, 60 years is a norm. Particularly when that norm began with the president declaring that it was to prove to America that he was “not a crook”, and it turned out that he was a crook.
Plus, the voters voted for Trump under the assumption that he would follow the norm because he promised to release his taxes.
The part that isn’t clear is why, if Trump’s crimes are so screamingly obvious from what we know already, why the Dems need to see his tax returns. They claim they already have enough to make their case - but they want to investigate some more to find out what they think they can already prove. Which suggests that maybe they don’t have him as dead to rights as they claim.
Conflicts of interest is going to be a difficult one to prove. For various reasons.