Impeachment Hearings Open In House Of Representatives

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

First    Not sure what misspelling ! ( on an unrelated note, the glitch seems not to happen when I lost from phone)

 

2) all for everyone releasing their tax return. I have no problem showing mine to anyone. I have never boasted nor deny any income I do or do not make , taxes I paid, deductions etc. I am all for someone running for Federal elective office needs to release 3 years of returns. 

 

3) I don’t know that he is audited, you don’t know he is audited. I would be fine him showing the notice of audit, which I suspect he would have done had he in fact been audited all 5 years. 

 

4) you say it’s no one s damn business what he makes etc. I think it is 100 % my business to know if the POTUS  might have issues that could compromise his decision making ability. Don’t want to release them, don’t run for President. 

It appears as if you have had some sort of epiphany since November of 2016. You are demanding that Trump adhere to a law you have made up in your mind.

[plenzmd1]

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

 

One question.  Why do you feel it is necessary to see someone running for POTUS's tax return?  

Several reasons

 

1) I want to know if his income and or asset base could compromise his decision making ability

 

2) has the candidate used substantial strategies to circumvent tax 

 

3 ) has the candidate been honest about their income sources 

[Chef Jim]

5 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

  Chef, Trump as stated as fact he would release the returns as soon as audits are completed. So while you are right no requirement, he has stated he would release. 

 

If there ate no audits

 

# 1) any issue with his untruths?

 

# 2, and he refuses to release, any issue on your end? 

 

I like Trumps policies to this point but I think he's an idiot.  If he said "I'll release them when the audits are done" and they are done (I don't know if they are and neither do you) and he doesn't release them I just chalk it up to him being an idiot and sticking his foot in his mouth by saying "I've changed my mind".  That is his prerogative.  I don't have to like the guy to like what he is doing. 

[plenzmd1]

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

It appears as if you have had some sort of epiphany since November of 2016. You are demanding that Trump adhere to a law you have made up in your mind.

I swear to Christ you do not Know how to read. 

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

Several reasons

 

1) I want to know if his income and or asset base could compromise his decision making ability

 

2) has the candidate used substantial strategies to circumvent tax 

 

3 ) has the candidate been honest about their income sources 

 

1. WTF does this mean?  Explain your thought process here

2. You have a problem with the current tax laws bring that up with the Ways and Means.

3. This one I may agree with but I have one quesion.  Why the concern about this now?  I don't know but did you scream for this with Hillary?  

[plenzmd1]

9 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

2) You must not be on social media. 

3)  Is he audited yearly? That I cannot know. Is he audited? You betchya. The IRS LOVES to audit high net-worth people. 

4)  Nope. Not in the Constitution as a requirement, so it is not a requirement to run for President. 

I am far from high net worth, been audited 3 times. Have no clue if he is. He could just show the notice of audit and this might all go way. 

 

I am on so social media , just no Facebook where most the junk flows!

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

I swear to Christ you do not Know how to read. 

Seems like you are always having disagreements in regards to what or how you say something. Do you think that you just might be the problem?

[SoCal Deek]

28 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Politics is very important. It's what keeps us from being like Putin's Russia. 

 

WRONG!

Our representative republic keeps us from being like Russia. What the Democrats are doing is wasting everyone’s time and money!

[Nanker]

19 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Is there a reason you didn't beat the tax return drum in 2016 for Hillary?  

 

Games?? Me???  No.  That would be you childish people yelling for someone to do something there is currently zero requirement for them to do. That my friend is the absolute definition of a game.  I childish game.  

 

You say that's not as transparent as he is required to be.  What are you basing that statement on?   

I blame George Romney - Mitt’s dad. He was an old school gentleman and likely the richest man to run for POTUS up until that time. (JFK’s money was his father’s). 

He released quite a few of his returns which showed him to be very wealthy, but it revealed nothing else. That became the de facto standard until the iconoclast disruptor JDT came on the scene. He’s the FIRST “Republican“ to stand up to the Democrat cowards and sleaze merchants and refuses to play their rigged games by their rigged rules. He’s a streetwise fighter and doesn’t take s ***** from anybody - even people as nice as plenzmd1. 

12 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

First    Not sure what misspelling ! ( on an unrelated note, the glitch seems not to happen when I lost from phone)

 

2) all for everyone releasing their tax return. I have no problem showing mine to anyone. I have never boasted nor deny any income I do or do not make , taxes I paid, deductions etc. I am all for someone running for Federal elective office needs to release 3 years of returns. 

 

3) I don’t know that he is audited, you don’t know he is audited. I would be fine him showing the notice of audit, which I suspect he would have done had he in fact been audited all 5 years. 

 

4) you say it’s no one s damn business what he makes etc. I think it is 100 % my business to know if the POTUS  might have issues that could compromise his decision making ability. Don’t want to release them, don’t run for President.

Then you have a remedy. Just don’t vote for him in 2020. 

[plenzmd1]

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

 

1. WTF does this mean?  Explain your thought process here

2. You have a problem with the current tax laws bring that up with the Ways and Means.

3. This one I may agree with but I have one quesion.  Why the concern about this now?  I don't know but did you scream for this with Hillary?  

Hers my thought process. If the president , who is granted ( I am guessing here , maybe @DC Tom can verify) an automatic top secret clearance and has executive powers, I think as a voter I should know if the candidate derives a substantial amount of income from a particular country or From a particular asset class, especially if he is not getting out( can’t think of right word) as Trump did not with his companies. 

Let’s just say a candidate derives 50 % of his income from companies , not disclosed publicly , in oil and gas exploration. And he is not divesting his positions post election. That’s a problem in my mind that as a voter I have a right to understand. 

 

I get its its not the law now, as have said many times but some seem not to be able to understand. 

[plenzmd1]

9 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Seems like you are always having disagreements in regards to what or how you say something. Do you think that you just might be the problem?

No one else’ here has claimed I said it was the law , ceptin you. As is always the case with my posts and you. You don’t read them, you skim them and assume language that is not in there. 

 

Argue with my thoughts all you want, I welcome that. But don’t make up chit I have not written. 

[Chef Jim]

6 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Hers my thought process. If the president , who is granted ( I am guessing here , maybe @DC Tom can verify) an automatic top secret clearance and has executive powers, I think as a voter I should know if the candidate derives a substantial amount of income from a particular country or From a particular asset class, especially if he is not getting out( can’t think of right word) as Trump did not with his companies. 

Let’s just say a candidate derives 50 % of his income from companies , not disclosed publicly , in oil and gas exploration. And he is not divesting his positions post election. That’s a problem in my mind that as a voter I have a right to understand. 

 

I get its its not the law now, as have said many times but some seem not to be able to understand. 

 

Then rally to change the law not demand someone do something they are not required to do.  

[plenzmd1]

7 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Then rally to change the law not demand someone do something they are not required to do.  

I agree, and I think that is by almost every candidate for President has released their returns and divested their holdings, neither of which he has done, but as you say not required to either. I really don’t remember if he ever claimed in the campaign if if would divest, but he has clearly stated for 3 years would release his returns once audits are cleared. I would be fine if he even showed me he is being audited with a simple notice of audit. 

 

 

[Bakin]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Fine, then they should just release it. Don't you agree? 

 

You saying it's just stupid is only a political argument, too. 

Oh the little people have to take their shots when they can! 

It was a cheap shot. I know. 

But it was so there. 

[Nanker]

JFK put his assets into a (I believe), a Revocable Trust that put control of his assets out of his direct control and with that of the Trustee. 

IIRC, DJT did a similar transaction in that all of his businesses and their interests were already in a trust, and he stepped away from direct involvement in them. I believe Jr. is the Trustee at this point. 

 

Did anyone one question the Kennedys skim off the top of every bottle of Scotch that’s been imported into the USA since Joe was the Ambassador to the Court of King James in the 1930s?

How about the Chicago Mercantile connections?  

Can we look back at FDR’s grandfather who make their family’s fortune in the China/India opium trade? 

When does the movement to rename Washington some feels good name like Sparta, or Planned Utopia, or Indigenous Peoplia, or Stuff-a-pole-up-yer-azz-land, or Were Not Worthyia? 

Its only a matter of time. 

[Tiberius]

So much winning! 

 

Judge again rules against Trump! 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judge-rejects-trumps-request-to-halt-congressional-subpoenas-for-his-banking-records/2019/05/22/28f9b93a-7ccd-11e9-8bb7-0fc796cf2ec0_story.html?utm_term=.1efc4a263c1f

 

banking records will be transparentized  

[Chef Jim]

3 hours ago, GG said:

They're hoping to find a K1 from Russia Collusion LTD with a net distribution of $1 billion. 

 

I'm hoping to find one of those too.  ?

[Nanker]

11 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I'm hoping to find one of those too.  ?

When you find that, can I have the next one?

On 5/20/2019 at 11:12 AM, Deranged Rhino said:

No, he cannot. 

 

Zero shot Pete. 

Zero shot Biden. 

 

There's not a single candidate in the running who has a chance to win in 2020 so far. The ones at the top, other than Sanders, are up to their necks in SpyGate and will be radioactive by the end of the summer. 

 

The DNC is going to have to scramble for a new candidate come fall. And it'll be hilarious to watch.

I’d like to give each of them a “shot”. 

[Kevbeau]

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! 

 

Wow! Just wow! 

You guys lost the House, so you can't do that. You guys wasted all your political capital on the nothingburger of a Benghazi investigation. 

I’ll give you credit Tibs...you are always “on brand”

[DC Tom]

 

2 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

Hers my thought process. If the president , who is granted ( I am guessing here , maybe @DC Tom can verify) an automatic top secret clearance and has executive powers, I think as a voter I should know if the candidate derives a substantial amount of income from a particular country or From a particular asset class, especially if he is not getting out( can’t think of right word) as Trump did not with his companies. 

 

That's rather a misstatement of things.  The President isn't "granted" an automatic clearance; the office itself conveys de facto and de jure right to access to the country's secrets to the person elected to hold the office.  The difference is pedantic, but important: your phrasing implies that someone adjudicates the President for suitability for a clearance, which would be a Very Bad Thing.

 

2 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

Let’s just say a candidate derives 50 % of his income from companies , not disclosed publicly , in oil and gas exploration. And he is not divesting his positions post election. That’s a problem in my mind that as a voter I have a right to understand. 

 

But you don't.  You, as a private individual, do not have a right to another person's private information, of which income tax filings are.  

 

And that is the law.

 

1 hour ago, Nanker said:

JFK put his assets into a (I believe), a Revocable Trust that put control of his assets out of his direct control and with that of the Trustee. 

IIRC, DJT did a similar transaction in that all of his businesses and their interests were already in a trust, and he stepped away from direct involvement in them. I believe Jr. is the Trustee at this point. 

 

Still a conflict of interest if you keep it in the family.  Jack didn't make Bobby his trustee.