Do you have an opinion, not on the legality, but the propriety of the numerous conflicts of interests problems this president has? Certainly the very reason we have an Emoluments clause is to avoid these kinds of conflicts of interest, so even if the lawsuit is unsuccessful, shouldn’t he do more to avoid the issue? Any opinion on his refusal to make public his tax returns? Any opinion on his appointing people who will be hearing cases where he is the defendant? Any opinion on his refusal to create a blind trust?
My opinions are irrelevant.
I didn’t vote for the man because I thought he was an unmitigated ass. Now that he’s sworn in, my view has not changed. Specifically, I don’t see any problem with a President that owns property that receives income from foreign sources, but I think the best practice would be to disclose all such income so that voters can decide whether it bothers them. The same with the tax returns: I don’t think a President has to disclose them, but the best practice would be to do so.
I don’t have any problem in his appointing judges who may hear his cases; that’s true of every President. But other than that, my opinion is that Trump is flouting what I consider to be the best practice virtually across the board. But I’m not shocked at this – as I said, unmitigated ass. No reason to believe mitigation would suddenly appear.
As noted earlier in the thread, there are more discreet ways of channeling the funds.
As for the motivation, there’s an even more obvious answer – Trump, who is so thin-skinned that walking into a cobweb would leave him looking like he lost a fight to Freddy Krueger, started pushing back against even the slightest risk that one of his nominees might be rejected.
Trump is above the law. His followers believe whatever he tells them to believe. Evidence will be refuted with [del]lies[/del] alternative facts. He’s safe.
The issue of tax returns is dead. I’m sorry, I wish it would end his Presidency because he scares me, but this issue is absolutely over.
There is no law that says a candidate has to release their tax returns, only custom… and Trump isn’t even a candidate any more. If they do get leaked, he’ll provide “alternative facts,” as Johnny points out, and Republicans will shrug and move on and Trumpists will believe the lies. Tax stuff is irrelevant. It would be irrelevant even if it were proven he cheated on his taxes. This issue is dead and you should not pin a single hope on it.
Trump will not be impeached for anything short of *absolutely proven *treason and even then I offer no guarantees.
I don’t know - in what way did Clinton break the law?
It wasn’t my point; it was yours. In what way does CBS’ use of the forged documents affect whether or not Trump is legally obliged to release his tax returns?
Regards,
Shodan
What law is he above, and what evidence do you have that he broke the law?
Regards,
Shodan
I didn’t say he broke any laws. Yet. I said [Tump feels] he is above the law, and his followers will support him.
Disregard your point then, because you were the one who did mention Rather and CBS for some reason.
I’m just saying that thinking that something that blew in the face of others is a good example of why Trump can get away with his no transparency. CBS had to show how shoddy their research was, Trump will eventually has to show his taxes. Trump will look as if he is getting away with his non-transparency now but the issue is just beginning to fester.
It’s possible; Trump may be more concerned with the blow to his ego (if Sessions were to be rejected) than with the potential dangers posed (to his own welfare) of some other GOP Attorney General. Or, I suppose, it could be a bit of both. Certainly Sessions can be relied upon to do nothing and authorize nothing that would put Trump in danger. And that might not be true of other Republicans.
Though I can appreciate the realism behind saying something like this, I don’t like the way it provides aid and comfort to those who would normalize Trump. Though you don’t say explicitly ‘shut up about the tax forms’ many other do say that, and it’s wrong. Trump should never be let off the hook about the tax returns.
Undeniably it’s a matter of tradition and not law for Presidents to release their tax returns. But the intent of the Founders is clear: the President, in dealing with foreign powers, should have undivided loyalties to the USA.
When negotiating a treaty with another nation, do you send someone who’s in debt to that nation? Of course not. That person would have no leverage. The foreign nation needs only to hint that they will call in their loans, and the negotiator would suddenly be completely impotent.
At some point, after all the excuses have failed and all the scapegoating has been exposed and all the Alternate Facts have been laughed off the stage–at some point, a large chunk of Trump’s voters are going to join the rest of us in realizing that Trump was a bad idea. And at that point, the tax returns and the conflicts of interest and the violation of the Emoluments Clause is going to matter.
The GOP Congress could decide to dump Trump. Not today. Not tomorrow. But it could happen. When they do decide he’s more of a liability than an asset, the ongoing discussions of Trump’s corruption and his breaches of the Constitution will be of use to them.
Would you care to make a bet on the proposition that Trump will have to make his tax returns public? When you say “eventually,” what kind of time frame are you picturing?
Can you give a specific example of how a nation might “call in” debt?
For example, I owe (let’s say) $250,000 on my home mortgage. But the bank that holds my mortgage can’t just send me a letter saying, “Dear Bricker, We’re calling in your note. Please remit a check for $250,000 or we will begin foreclosure proceedings.” I have a debt, but the terms of repayment are fixed.
Can you explain what kind of debt you’re picturing, with terms so fluid that the nation holding the debt can just call it in?
Bricker, this is super-tiresome. Nobody wants to read about all the different bets you’d like to make, and posting over and over about it doesn’t actually advance discussion.
If you have well-founded reasons for doubting other folks’ claims, I’d be interested in reading them. Reading about you waving your wallet at people? not so much.
Perhaps the idea is that Trump would cowed into submission by the risk of not being able to repay the loans, and thus being declared bankrupt. The very concept is anathema to him.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ll give you three to one odds that he won’t stop.
Regards,
Shodan
I can’t say that I know from personal experience, but my guess would be that when Russian oligarchs loan you a few million the terms are whatever they say they are, up to and including ‘pay us now or we reveal all to your Congress. Or, you know, you could let our friend Vlad invade Lithuania. Either way is good.’
You appear to be thinking solely in terms of loans that are overseen by regulatory agencies. Do you believe that’s the only type of loan Trump has taken?
That’s sure interesting.
I have previously outlined my belief that many positions adopted here would weaken and vanish when supporting them requires real-world commitment and a real-world consequence for error. I have cited research showing this to be so, in fact.
So I decline your invitation to stop.
Yes, I do. I don’t see Trump as in debt to Ukrainian leg-breakers.
I am open to evidence to the contrary, however. But extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. You cannot win this burden of persuasion by an argument from ignorance (“Well, since we don’t have his tax returns, we don’t know.”) Indeed, the kind of loans you’re talking about wouldn’t appear on a tax return, would they?
This has nothing to do with the strength of the position. It’s just a weird ad hominem, implying that the poster doesn’t really believe the thing they assert. People would do well not to engage you if you insist on attacking the poster’s sincerity rather than the strength of the assertion itself.
Well historically speaking, I think you have to notice that Nixon also won the election while he also not showed his stinking taxes. But eventually it caught up with him. Again, Trump’s nature of petty revenge is setting up a huuuuge minefield that will generate scandal and eventually I do think that the Republicans will then dump him as by then he would had done a lot for them.
Not gonna give you any satisfaction with betting. The reason is personal. I would had won regarding the ACA, but I did think that betting while I was close to dying and that the ACA was the thing that was keeping me up, the past betting requests were of a very poor and insulting nature.