Aside from the ‘removal to Capri’ aspect, he seems to be letting others run the Empire anyway. Well, the US government empire. The ‘acquisition of loot’ empire is probably getting his full attention.
Who would be surprised if, upon the news of his death, the crowd rejoices? Tacitus says that was the end of Tiberius; in this Trump may well be like him (absent the buggery).
I have no trouble picturing Donald sharing a cozy dacha with Vlad, with perhaps just a little solid-gold plating on the walls and fixtures.
In light of the previously revealed portion of the 1995 return and this release of 2005 data it seems that the speculation about not paying taxes for 18 years was just speculation.
So if before the 2005 tax year The Donald was able to use up the carried forward loss of some 916 million for the 1995 tax year, then he really may have made some significant income in those intervening years.
Only other option I see is that he could have applied the carried forward loss in 2005 but chose not to. Seems un-Trumplike.
Mar-A-Lago can sacrifice itself to save the rest of the country from his presence.
Anyway, he has to be somewhere physically whilst he’s in this mortal plane, and the same security would apply wherever he is, or Obama was for that matter. It seems mostly due to the ridiculous restrictions and theatre the United States imposes on the protection of it’s presidents — not through any choice of those presidents.
Apart from the new NYPD cost of $1 million a day for Trump Towers, even before him presidential security was estimated at $2 million a day. How much of the former is rolled into the latter is anyone’s guess. By comparison Royal Security in Britain for all of them is estimated by hostile groups at £100 million a year, as opposed to that American $730 million a year.
And in last year’s visit the Queen forced Obama to make do with with 3 helicopters instead of 6. Nothing bad happened.
An insider said US aides refused to change their plans on security grounds but came around to the Queen’s wishes eventually.
“They said they needed to be within reach of the president at all times. They also wanted guards posted inside the dining hall when he had lunch with the Queen,” the insider said.
" But Her Majesty refused to back down and said, ‘three helicopters only’. Eventually the President’s aides accepted her wishes," the report said.
I can’t imagine a 90-yr-old lady would enjoy lunch with heavily armed security glaring at her.
Eventually, regardless of who’s president, a cost-analysis of protecting a single person so massively will have to be made; and maybe — no matter how more important he would be than the British Queen and everyone else and no matter the consequences — they will recognize that they will survive a death of a president, as they have before, and the world will carry on, and then cut it to $1 million a day tops.
2005 returns had to be submitted for Melania to become a US citizen. They are the only DJT tax forms that she needed released, so I’m not surprised these would be the cleanest.
What she did was illegal, and if NBC’s legal team let her do it, they need to be fired en masse. It is a flagrant violation of 26 U.S. Code § 7213:
She committed a felony. NBC was complicit in it. Whoever leaked it to her also committed a felony. I would love to see the FBI come down on them all with warrants.
She knowingly published returns that she’d received illegally? Even now plenty of people are speculating that Trump leaked the returns himself–where’s your proof that this isn’t what happened? Where’s your proof that Maddow knew, or could reasonably be expected to know, that this isn’t what happened?
That’s her “style.” When I first heard of her she was, briefly, my heroine. Now I refuse to watch her — I just wish she’d shut up. I’m saddened to be on the same side of an issue as her.
Perhaps one of the SDMB lawyers can weigh in. My understanding is that after the Pentagon Papers, it’s widely believed that the press can generally publish illegally obtained material, though the leaker can generally be prosecuted so long as government goons don’t break into his psychiatrist’s office looking for evidence. That said, I think the court decision on the Pentagon Papers was a little narrower, referring mostly to prior restraint, but are nonetheless suggestive of a wider first amendment interpretation.
I’d love to learn more, if someone informed on the topic wanted to share…
The Guardian and the Washington Post jointly won a Pulitzer for their handling of Edward Snowden’s illegally obtained documents, so it seems like the Pentagon Papers precedent was still in effect in 2013.