Supreme Court temporarily blocks release of Trump tax returns

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

19 hours ago, laylalex said:

Why should we not know if our highest ranking public servant is financially compromised? Why is transparency that was good enough for every president over the past 40 years suddenly suspended? Imagine if there were no investigations, no civil actions, no criminal cases, just for one moment, all the "presidential harassment" (lol). Why would he not disclose if the others have, in the interests of good government and accountability to the people?

How do we know you're not financially compromised? Let us rife through your house, computer, your life, and see if there's anything whatsoever that you're hiding to throw you in jail for. Because transparency.

 

The way functional criminal justice and thinking works, is that there's no reason to pursue wielding the justice system against Americans for anything unless there's probable cause (manifested in evidence) they committed a crime... in advance. The idea of infinitely using this system to try and find things to get someone for is unequivocally abusive.

 

The casual nature of abridging people's rights for some facade of noble means is a disturbing trend from the left. 

Edited November 27, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

39 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

How do we know you're not financially compromised? Let us rife through your house, computer, your life, and see if there's anything whatsoever that you're hiding to throw you in jail for. Because transparency.

 

The way functional criminal justice and thinking works, is that there's no reason to pursue wielding the justice system against Americans for anything unless there's probable cause (manifested in evidence) they committed a crime... in advance. The idea of infinitely using this system to try and find things to get someone for is unequivocally abusive.

 

The casual nature of abridging people's rights for some facade of noble means is a disturbing trend from the left. 

Nailed it!!

[MjC772 94]

11 hours ago, laylalex said:

Sorry, are we talking about net worth of $120k or $120m? I see both mentioned in your post. Anyway, her net worth is neither of these. It's $26m, mostly in real estate. Really no biggie for a boomer in California who has been investing well since the 70s and 80s in real estate. My parents are paper millionaires because the house they bought in 1990 appreciated by well over a million dollars. It happens here in California, it's obscene and not right, but it's kind of how it is. I am renting again, but once we get our feet on the ground in SoCal we're buying again. The market is starting to show signs of softening again here, and as my friend Jonny, a real estate attorney and broker says, when there's blood on the streets, there's green to be made in property. Al scents the signs of downturn next year, maybe in the spring. So we'll rent until the market is weak and we can buy a few places. "Safe as houses" he says and I agree.

 

I don't do the maffs here, I leave that to the nerd I live with.

I am a little confused here. So you don't want or need to see Pelosi's (also a public servant) tax return because her money is mostly from real estate? and its only $26M? But we do need to see Trump's tax return because his money is mostly from what, something other than real estate? or because it's more than $26M?  or Trump doesn't live in California so his properties aren't as valuable?  

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

41 minutes ago, MjC772 said:

I am a little confused here. So you don't want or need to see Pelosi's (also a public servant) tax return because her money is mostly from real estate? and its only $26M? But we do need to see Trump's tax return because his money is mostly from what, something other than real estate? or because it's more than $26M?  or Trump doesn't live in California so his properties aren't as valuable?  

Clearly no one has read Article 2 Clause 5 of the Constitution.. between the lines it says:

 

- a natural born citizen (or they became a citizen before September 17, 1787)

- at least 35 years old

- orange man bad

- an inhabitant of the United States for at least fourteen years

 

Thus, using the orange man bad clause, Trump is unfit and unqualified for office, and must show his taxes, submit to investigation after investigation, for anything we can think of, for "transparency", or be removed. Anyone he nominates for cabinet, the courts, etc. must also be deprived equal treatment, due process/presumption of innocence, and so on, as they are illegitimate.  

 

Don't get mad, it's the rules, which equally apply to everyone.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

12 hours ago, laylalex said:

Sorry, are we talking about net worth of $120k or $120m? I see both mentioned in your post. Anyway, her net worth is neither of these. It's $26m, mostly in real estate. Really no biggie for a boomer in California who has been investing well since the 70s and 80s in real estate. My parents are paper millionaires because the house they bought in 1990 appreciated by well over a million dollars. It happens here in California, it's obscene and not right, but it's kind of how it is. I am renting again, but once we get our feet on the ground in SoCal we're buying again. The market is starting to show signs of softening again here, and as my friend Jonny, a real estate attorney and broker says, when there's blood on the streets, there's green to be made in property. Al scents the signs of downturn next year, maybe in the spring. So we'll rent until the market is weak and we can buy a few places. "Safe as houses" he says and I agree.

 

I don't do the maffs here, I leave that to the nerd I live with.

Yes, it should have been $120 mil, sorry for the missing zeroes.

 

As for your claim that Pelosi is worth $26 mil...

https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/democrats/nancy-pelosi-net-worth/?amp=1

 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

2 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

How do we know you're not financially compromised? Let us rife through your house, computer, your life, and see if there's anything whatsoever that you're hiding to throw you in jail for. Because transparency.

 

The way functional criminal justice and thinking works, is that there's no reason to pursue wielding the justice system against Americans for anything unless there's probable cause (manifested in evidence) they committed a crime... in advance. The idea of infinitely using this system to try and find things to get someone for is unequivocally abusive.

 

The casual nature of abridging people's rights for some facade of noble means is a disturbing trend from the left. 

Amen. There is a reason the police cant just decide to search 400 houses at random and see what they find 

[laylalex 7,284]

12 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

And you gave us the impression you can were naive. 

I can be, it's true. I am overly trusting in people, and that's something I'm working through in therapy. But when it comes to money, I paid very close attention during the years I was married to what Voldemort was doing. I asked questions. I think on some level I knew that at any time I might be left to fend for myself without him, and I should know what to do to make my money work for me. 

[laylalex 7,284]

2 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

How do we know you're not financially compromised? Let us rife through your house, computer, your life, and see if there's anything whatsoever that you're hiding to throw you in jail for. Because transparency.

 

The way functional criminal justice and thinking works, is that there's no reason to pursue wielding the justice system against Americans for anything unless there's probable cause (manifested in evidence) they committed a crime... in advance. The idea of infinitely using this system to try and find things to get someone for is unequivocally abusive.

 

The casual nature of abridging people's rights for some facade of noble means is a disturbing trend from the left. 

I'm not a public servant.  I don't hold a position of public trust. When I run for President, I will be sure to give access to all my computer subfolders full of financials and porn. Seriously, it's not about a crime. It's about transparency. You don't have to have committed a crime to be compromised. 

1 hour ago, MjC772 said:

I am a little confused here. So you don't want or need to see Pelosi's (also a public servant) tax return because her money is mostly from real estate? and its only $26M? But we do need to see Trump's tax return because his money is mostly from what, something other than real estate? or because it's more than $26M?  or Trump doesn't live in California so his properties aren't as valuable?  

Where precisely did I say that? I didn't. 

25 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Yes, it should have been $120 mil, sorry for the missing zeroes.

 

As for your claim that Pelosi is worth $26 mil...

https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/democrats/nancy-pelosi-net-worth/?amp=1

 

LOLOL I think I will trust the LA TImes over www.celebritynetworth.com, but that's just me.  

[Dashinka 24,505]

29 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I'm not a public servant.  I don't hold a position of public trust. When I run for President, I will be sure to give access to all my computer subfolders full of financials and porn. Seriously, it's not about a crime. It's about transparency. You don't have to have committed a crime to be compromised. 

Where precisely did I say that? I didn't. 

LOLOL I think I will trust the LA TImes over www.celebritynetworth.com, but that's just me.  

Kind of like getting Obama’s university records?  I wonder if Trump’s not taking a Presidential salary will catch on in the future like Nixon’s tax release did?  Btw, did you know Nixon did not release his taxes voluntarily?

[laylalex 7,284]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Kind of like getting Obama’s university records?  I wonder if Trump’s not taking a Presidential salary will catch on in the future like Nixon’s tax release did?  Btw, did you know Nixon did not release his taxes voluntarily?

What do Obama's university records have to do with possible compromise though? That's a genuine question. 😊

 

And yes, I did know that about Nixon. I took AP US history. They were leaked.

[90DayFinancier 910]

9 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Kind of like getting Obama’s university records?  I wonder if Trump’s not taking a Presidential salary will catch on in the future like Nixon’s tax release did?  Btw, did you know Nixon did not release his taxes voluntarily?

Who needs a salary when you and your family can use your office to profit personally? Just the Trump Towers in Turkey alone makes for a good reason to give Erdogan what ever he wants. Then there are the Mar A Lago bills ever other week, the empty hotel rooms booked by Saudis, Kushner working in the Whitehouse while working international deals.

[Dashinka 24,505]

 

9 minutes ago, laylalex said:

What do Obama's university records have to do with possible compromise though? That's a genuine question. 😊

 

And yes, I did know that about Nixon. I took AP US history. They were leaked.

Just another personal record that could be released voluntarily to show the American people.  Personally, I did not care that Trump did not release his taxes, his choice as I did not care that Obama, or Bush did.  Would you have voted any differently if Obama did not release his taxes?

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

50 minutes ago, laylalex said:

What do Obama's university records have to do with possible compromise though? That's a genuine question. 😊

 

And yes, I did know that about Nixon. I took AP US history. They were leaked.

only that he registered at college as a foreign student. Why would a person that has the publics trust release that 

 

Icertainlyy would 

[laylalex 7,284]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

 

Just another personal record that could be released voluntarily to show the American people.  Personally, I did not care that Trump did not release his taxes, his choice as I did not care that Obama, or Bush did.  Would you have voted any differently if Obama did not release his taxes?

Maybe! To me, transparency is really important for a president. Clearly it's not to you, and that's okay. We can agree to disagree without being disagreeable. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

Just now, laylalex said:

Maybe! To me, transparency is really important for a president. Clearly it's not to you, and that's okay. We can agree to disagree without being disagreeable. 

so you agree Obama was hiding something and should have released his transcripts