Comrade Trump

[Bo Diddley]

What about winks and nods about post-office income?

I knew the was something wrong with that place from the time Kramer couldn't opt out of the mail.

[falafel]

It started with Nixon, 7 presidents. Trump's finances are a different animal than those 7 presidents. Candidate Romney is probably the closest in terms of net worth. He was hesitant to release his returns but ultimately caved (they proved uninteresting). Trump isn't Romney, its not surprising that he'd rather fight than cave.

There is no law that says the president has to release his tax returns. There is no law that says he has to put his assets in a blind trust. If that's the way it should be then make it a law.

I don't think this is exactly true. He was certainly lambasted for how little tax he paid (regardless of the legality of his tax situation).

[PaloAltoCougar]

...
Btw, are speaking engagements required to be made public as a matter of law? Certainly those in office would be, but afterwards? What about winks and nods about post-office income? Surely you must believe that happens all the time, right?

Post-presidency, I don't think there's a disclosure requirement, and I don't think there needs to be one. I don't have a problem with ex-presidents making piles of money. But if they're raking it in while in office, I'd like full disclosure.

[creekster]

Post-presidency, I don't think there's a disclosure requirement, and I don't think there needs to be one. I don't have a problem with ex-presidents making piles of money. But if they're raking it in while in office, I'd like full disclosure.

ok, so all you are asking for is tax return since he was actually in office? And do you think this should apply to ALL elected officials? What about appointed officials who might be co-opted by the interests they regulate?

[PaloAltoCougar]

It started with Nixon, 7 presidents. Trump's finances are a different animal than those 7 presidents. Candidate Romney is probably the closest in terms of net worth. He was hesitant to release his returns but ultimately caved (they proved uninteresting). Trump isn't Romney, its not surprising that he'd rather fight than cave.

There is no law that says the president has to release his tax returns. There is no law that says he has to put his assets in a blind trust. If that's the way it should be then make it a law.

Personally, I think the fact that Trump's finances are a different animal militates in favor or more disclosure, not less. And true about there being no law about blind trusts (less true about tax return releases, but let's let the IRS and Congress sort through that). Trump's predecessors utilized blind trusts to avoid the appearance of any conflicts of interest, something Trump obviously doesn't care about. I think the American way often includes doing more than just the bare legal minimum.

ok, so all you are asking for is tax return since he was actually in office? And do you think this should apply to ALL elected officials? What about appointed officials who might be co-opted by the interests they regulate?

I guess I was unclear; I don't care about post-presidency but I do care about pre- and current presidency tax and financial activities. And I'm not sure if your second question is steering me toward a reductio ad absurdum position (I do not wish to see the tax returns of the local sewer commissioner), but yes, I think full disclosure by the President, Congress and Cabinet members would be good idea.

[creekster]

And true about there being no law about blind trusts (less true about tax return releases, but let's let the IRS and Congress sort through that).

Why is that less true? What law requires it as a matter of course? Serious question because if it exists I am unaware of it, but it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Why is that less true? What law requires it as a matter of course? Serious question because if it exists I am unaware of it, but it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

There's a federal law (26 U.S, Code Sec.6103) that empowers the House Ways & Means Committee to obtain from the IRS copies of any tax returns it wishes to review, including those of the President. I'm not sure it's ever been invoked, but Congressional Dems are acting under that law to demand Trump's returns. I suspect this will be adjudicated in the coming months, which is why I was less than emphatic (hence, the waffley "less true") in my earlier crack.

[Moliere]

The underlying reason is obviously to find something, anything, to embarrass Trump (which I admit I'd love if they did). But is delving into a sitting president's finances a legitimate function of the legislative branch? In Trump's case, I'd argue that it is given his allegedly vast holdings and the potential for conflicts of interest and third-party influence that is much greater than for previous presidents who put their assets, which presumably were far more modest, into blind trusts. Trump and his family continue to benefit from the Trump brand and, I assume, remain obligated to a large number of unidentified lenders and other creditors. I think it's appropriate to find out more about those relationships.

And a brief foray into Whataboutism... Imagine if an enterprising businessman in 2008 (forget the downturn for a moment), seeing the worldwide appeal of a young, dynamic African-American president, had approached candidate Obama with a deal that would pay Obama a 10% royalty on all revenues generated by a new hotel and entertainment chain using the "Obama" brand. Would anyone have raised any concerns about self-dealing by an Obama administration with respect to investors/creditors/guests of the chain? Would it have been fair to have examined closely what those dealings entailed?

Trump chose to continue to benefit directly from the Trump brand while in office. I think it's fair to find out more about those benefits and related obligations.

But that would all be disclosed in his financial disclosure, which is publicly available. That’s what makes the request seem like a phishing expedition.

[creekster]

There's a federal law (26 U.S, Code Sec.6103) that empowers the House Ways & Means Committee to obtain from the IRS copies of any tax returns it wishes to review, including those of the President. I'm not sure it's ever been invoked, but Congressional Dems are acting under that law to demand Trump's returns. I suspect this will be adjudicated in the coming months, which is why I was less than emphatic (hence, the waffley "less true") in my earlier crack.

Ah, yes, I was aware of that. Which, as I understand it, requires them to be released confidentiality to the committee alone and does not require or allow a non-consensual public airing of the materials. Here is what the subsection states:

(f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

I think this is a potentially problematic section unless one implies at least a good cause requirement.

[BlueK]

Ah, yes, I was aware of that. Which, as I understand it, requires them to be released confidentiality to the committee alone and does not require or allow a non-consensual public airing of the materials. Here is what the subsection states:

(f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

I think this is a potentially problematic section unless one implies at least a good cause requirement.

If he's making a buttload of money from the Saudi royal family I think it would be in the public interest to have that info given some of his recent decisions like vetoing a resolution passed by both houses calling for troops there to come home.

[Bo Diddley]

Just to play Trump's advocate, doesn't this feel like Legislative overreach into the Executive when dealing with a sitting president?

[BlueK]

Just to play Trump's advocate, doesn't this feel like Legislative overreach into the Executive when dealing with a sitting president?

I think conflict of interest when it comes to the chief executive is a big deal given the kinds of decisions he has to make for the country. The Founders included the emoluments clause into the Constitution for that reason.

[Bo Diddley]

I think conflict of interest when it comes to the chief executive is a big deal given the kinds of decisions he has to make for the country. The Founders included the emoluments clause into the Constitution for that reason.

Oh yeah. Maybe there's a Saudi W2 on his taxes.

So what's the rule if I already have a title of nobility before getting elected?

[frank ryan]

Just to play Trump's advocate, doesn't this feel like Legislative overreach into the Executive when dealing with a sitting president?

Not when he might be compromised by a foreign lower due to money laundering.

[Commando]

Not when he might be compromised by a foreign lower due to money laundering.

I really want to know what's behind all the Trump- Putin hand jobs. Maybe his finances will offer a clue. Interesting how in Jimmy Carter's day, a president-elect would sell something as benign as say-- a peanut farm just to avoid the look of impropriety. This turgid orange scrotum is clearly clearly still trying to keep Trump, Inc. interests afloat and even profitable and benefit directly from his presidency.