President Trump Rips Democrats and Supreme Court Following Release of his Tax Returns

[Hawkeye10]

Trump’s Tax Returns Are a Dud

From the rabidly Trump hating National Review.

That about sums it up.

 

[Althea]

Was It Illegal to Publish Trump's Tax Returns?

For federal tax returns, there is a specific statute that prohibits publishing without consent: 26 U.S.C. § 7213(a)(3).
https://www.newsweek.com/was-it-illegal-publish-trump-tax-returns-506310

First:

As per usual, your citation is meaningless. Check the date, and resubmit your work with proper citation. Before that, make sure you read the exceptions to the 'agencies' addressed in the statute you offered, but didn't read. You have to follow some of the links in your article, so be prepared to spend more than 30 seconds this time.

The statute above merely warns against anyone working for a govt. agency (an IRS employee, for one) to divulge private information that they are privy to.


Second:

The authors of your offering ask a question in the title. I didn't notice an answer anywhere in the article? Did they have an opinion, or were they just trying to attract people who won't read past the third paragraph? Present company (evidently) included.

As your article states, notwithstanding the glaring inconsequential nature with regard to this discussion, the NY statute is probably unconstitutional in the case said inconsequential citation refers to.

 

[Althea]

Tu quoque fallacy. Just because "everybody does it" doesn't make it necessary or right. Trump could withhold his taxes if he wanted to and he did. Love him or hate him, he had the right not to release his taxes.

We've already learned that. The Founders never dreamed that a criminal buffoon would ever be elected. They assumed that honorable people would grace the White House.

trump taught us a lot about how wrong the nation was re. what was codified law, and what was tradition based protocol.

None of which makes it illegal for the House to release evidence of criminal behavior. The "publication of truthful information of public concern" (YOU REALLY NEED TO START READING YOUR OWN LINKS) is protected under the 1st amendment.

 

[Althea]

I’ve heard he didn’t donate his salary, is that true?

I too, read that they can't find any evidence in the partial returns they were given.

 

[Celticguy]

What's the big deal? Trump promised to release them for years. Now they are!

the big deal is that the courts did not authorize release for the purpose of publication but rather for congressional oversight purposes.

at the very minimum it calls for contempt and more likely illegal release of non-public information with a side of slander.

 

[Jarod]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...release-tax-returns-warns-dire-repercussions/

Trumps three awful picks went against him! Hahaha!

 

[floridafan]

the big deal is that the courts did not authorize release for the purpose of publication but rather for congressional oversight purposes.

at the very minimum it calls for contempt and more likely illegal release of non-public information with a side of slander.

Can you prove that they courts did not allow these returns to be published? Of course not, it's another right wing talking point. You will do or say anything to keep the conversation away from the actual returns themselves because you know how fraudulent they will be.

 

[Althea]

the big deal is that the courts did not authorize release for the purpose of publication but rather for congressional oversight purposes.

at the very minimum it calls for contempt and more likely illegal release of non-public information with a side of slander.

Educate yourself

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/trump-tax-returns/index.html

 

[T. A. Gardner]

First:

As per usual, your citation is meaningless. Check the date, and resubmit your work with proper citation. Before that, make sure you read the exceptions to the 'agencies' addressed in the statute you offered, but didn't read. You have to follow some of the links in your article, so be prepared to spend more than 30 seconds this time.

The statute above merely warns against anyone working for a govt. agency (an IRS employee, for one) to divulge private information that they are privy to.


Second:

The authors of your offering ask a question in the title. I didn't notice an answer anywhere in the article? Did they have an opinion, or were they just trying to attract people who won't read past the third paragraph? Present company (evidently) included.

As your article states, notwithstanding the glaring inconsequential nature with regard to this discussion, the NY statute is probably unconstitutional in the case said inconsequential citation refers to.

That law hasn't changed so it is relevant, regardless of date.

 

[Althea]

That law hasn't changed so it is relevant, regardless of date.

Nope. Apples/hand grenades.

Read your own links for once.