Trump, sons sue to block House Democrats from obtaining his financial records

[Chomsky]

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump is going to court to try to block a Democratically-controlled congressional committee from obtaining his financial records through a subpoena.

The lawsuit is the first case where Trump has sued to try to stymie House Democrats' investigations into the President. But the court filing is only the first skirmish in what's likely to be a multi-front war between House Democrats and Trump, the White House and the President's businesses.

Source: (CNN) Trump, sons sue to block House Democrats from obtaining his financial records

It appears the 2020 election ramp-up is going to increasing fall along two divisions:

Those that desire transparency in individuals to be installed in office, and those that want privacy and/or secrecy.

I prefer the former (transparency). I don't think you can ever have too much transparency, and that it's important for the democratic process. If the truth happens to shine negatively, oh well, let it fall where it may!

Do you agree?

 

[GDViking]

Wait, I thought he said he wanted to release his tax information?

 

[haymarket]

I do not see a legal case against the Committee of Congress made by Trump. They don't want to hand over the records just to protect Trump.

 

[washunut]

Source: (CNN) Trump, sons sue to block House Democrats from obtaining his financial records

It appears the 2020 election ramp-up is going to increasing fall along two divisions:

Those that desire transparency in individuals to be installed in office, and those that want privacy and/or secrecy.

I prefer the former (transparency). I don't think you can ever have too much transparency, and that it's important for the democratic process. If the truth happens to shine negatively, oh well, let it fall where it may!

Do you agree?

No. I think it is B.S. This administration is bad on on topic, not sure which administration was truly good. How would you vote "for transparency" anyway?

Not your best IMO- sorry.

 

[Mycroft]

Source: (CNN) Trump, sons sue to block House Democrats from obtaining his financial records

It appears the 2020 election ramp-up is going to increasing fall along two divisions:

Those that desire transparency in individuals to be installed in office, and those that want privacy and/or secrecy.

I prefer the former (transparency). I don't think you can ever have too much transparency, and that it's important for the democratic process. If the truth happens to shine negatively, oh well, let it fall where it may!

Do you agree?

A preemptive strike against the House Dems. Good.

Anyway, I disagree. I think there IS such a thing as too much transparency. Our democratic process has been doing fine for more than two hundred years without it. Some things should stay private...especially things that ALL citizens expect to stay private. A President doesn't give up the rights that every citizen has.

 

[Cardinal]

Yep, nothing off about Trump's finances here. Everything is a-oh-kay.

 

[Chomsky]

No. I think it is B.S. This administration is bad on on topic, not sure which administration was truly good. How would you vote "for transparency" anyway?

Not your best IMO- sorry.

To answer your bolded question:

I suspect the lines will fall around the Dems calling for transparency in Trump's finances, and the Republicans trying to protect him in keeping his finances hidden. So the delineation will be reasonable clear.

Now as for myself, I strongly believe in transparently and thoroughly vetting those we install into the White House. To that end, I could never vote for Trump based upon him not coming clean with his finances via his tax returns.

 

[Chomsky]

I do not see a legal case against the Committee of Congress made by Trump. They don't want to hand over the records just to protect Trump.

Either do I; the constitution seems pretty clear, from what I can see.

 

[washunut]

To answer your bolded question:

I suspect the lines will fall around the Dems calling for transparency in Trump's finances, and the Republicans trying to protect him in keeping his finances hidden. So the delineation will be reasonable clear.

Now as for myself, I strongly believe in transparently and thoroughly vetting those we install into the White House. To that end, I could never vote for Trump based upon him not coming clean with his finances via his tax returns.

Oh so you want transparency for Trump on his tax returns. How will knowing how much charity he gave or if he paid a lot of taxes change the lives of fellow Americans???

 

[Chomsky]

A preemptive strike against the House Dems. Good.

Anyway, I disagree. I think there IS such a thing as too much transparency. Our democratic process has been doing fine for more than two hundred years without it. Some things should stay private...especially things that ALL citizens expect to stay private. A President doesn't give up the rights that every citizen has.

I've seen this point argued often in defense of Trump, and while there may be some things that might be off-limits, I believe Trump's business dealings should not be one of them. Hell - the Constitution's emoluments clause alone, would seem reason and legal justification enough.

 

[Top Cat]

Wait, I thought he said he wanted to release his tax information?

Nothing to hide. :lamo

 

[Chomsky]

Oh so you want transparency for Trump on his tax returns. How will knowing how much charity he gave or if he paid a lot of taxes change the lives of fellow Americans???

It will make his business dealings more transparent; you know that.

But you bring-up an excellent point; if the fat cats like Trump are taking advantage of the tax code to essentially pay zilch, Americans need to know that so they can address it. But you never know; maybe he pays zilch because he's a scammer? Americans need to know that, too.

 

[Top Cat]

I've seen this point argued often in defense of Trump, and while there may be some things that might be off-limits, I believe Trump's business dealings should not be one of them. Hell - the Constitution's emoluments clause alone, would seem reason and legal justification enough.

But, But CNN! But, but Hillary!

 

[yankintx]

Oh so you want transparency for Trump on his tax returns. How will knowing how much charity he gave or if he paid a lot of taxes change the lives of fellow Americans???

It will clear up any issues on conflict of interest, though we know Trump supporters dont give a fig about transparency unless its a Dem. I seem to recall Righties howling for the Clinton Foundations financial records.

 

[ecofarm]

Daca, when the walls fell.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Source: (CNN) Trump, sons sue to block House Democrats from obtaining his financial records

It appears the 2020 election ramp-up is going to increasing fall along two divisions:

Those that desire transparency in individuals to be installed in office, and those that want privacy and/or secrecy.

I prefer the former (transparency). I don't think you can ever have too much transparency, and that it's important for the democratic process. If the truth happens to shine negatively, oh well, let it fall where it may!

Do you agree?

Agree? No.

Surprised? No.

At this point between the fallout from the Mueller Report & Barr's handling of all this and then this subject of tax returns and financial records, all that seems to be happening is a solidification of the 2020 political battle lines.

We knew weeks ago that Elijah Cummings would try just about anything to get his hands on anything he could and presumably just to embarrass Trump, and the likelihood of there being something in real violation of the tax code is slim to none.

Transparency vs. secrecy is going to be the tone of the attack ads coming up.

As for the subject of "truth,"... Trump made it clear that there is no such interest and frankly most of his supporters could care less about truth as well.

 

[Mycroft]

I've seen this point argued often in defense of Trump, and while there may be some things that might be off-limits, I believe Trump's business dealings should not be one of them. Hell - the Constitution's emoluments clause alone, would seem reason and legal justification enough.

I'd say the only reason for the House Dems to delve into personal information is in cases of impeachment. By that, I mean the House should vote to start impeachment proceedings. Then, they can subpoena records they think they need. At the same time, the defense can subpoena stuff they need. Then, when they are all ready to get it on, have at it before the entire House. In public.

But just saying "I think he might be doing something bad, therefore I deserve to get everything." is wrong. It's an invasion of privacy.

That kind of invasion of privacy shouldn't happen to me, shouldn't happen to you and shouldn't happen to Trump.

 

[SLC]

Source: (CNN) Trump, sons sue to block House Democrats from obtaining his financial records

It appears the 2020 election ramp-up is going to increasing fall along two divisions:

Those that desire transparency in individuals to be installed in office, and those that want privacy and/or secrecy.

I prefer the former (transparency). I don't think you can ever have too much transparency, and that it's important for the democratic process. If the truth happens to shine negatively, oh well, let it fall where it may!

Do you agree?

Did you feel the same way about Obama?

 

[washunut]

It will make his business dealings more transparent; you know that.

But you bring-up an excellent point; if the fat cats like Trump are taking advantage of the tax code to essentially pay zilch, Americans need to know that so they can address it. But you never know; maybe he pays zilch because he's a scammer? Americans need to know that, too.

Americans already know it and don't care. The tax code is set to to take care of rich donors as trump used to be. If Americans don't know that they just don't care/

 

[SLC]

You

But, But CNN! But, but Hillary!

But but maybe. But Russia!

 

[ElChupacabra]

Source: (CNN) Trump, sons sue to block House Democrats from obtaining his financial records

It appears the 2020 election ramp-up is going to increasing fall along two divisions:

Those that desire transparency in individuals to be installed in office, and those that want privacy and/or secrecy.

I prefer the former (transparency). I don't think you can ever have too much transparency, and that it's important for the democratic process. If the truth happens to shine negatively, oh well, let it fall where it may!

Do you agree?

I think there will be bigger issues than transparency; more based on the economy and healthcare. I do think this will be a talking point though and mainly because resistance to transparency breeds suspicion.

 

[SLC]

I think obtaining any persons finical records just because maybe the might be some dirt there is unreasonable search and seizure and is protected against in the constitution.

 

[MTAtech]

A preemptive strike against the House Dems. Good.

Anyway, I disagree. I think there IS such a thing as too much transparency. Our democratic process has been doing fine for more than two hundred years without it. Some things should stay private...especially things that ALL citizens expect to stay private. A President doesn't give up the rights that every citizen has.

I am delighted that you believe that Trump should have the same rights as every other citizen. Every other citizen has the right to have their tax records demanded by the Congress. That's been true since 1924, when the law was passed. Since then, the power was used to obtain Richard Nixon's taxes, which showed that he had cheated to the tune of $500,000.

The bottom line is that a taxpayer does not own or have exclusive privacy rights to their tax documents. The IRS typically shares this information with states and law enforcement. Simply speaking, there is no legal leg for Trump to stand on. Trump is merely using this as a delaying tactic because his taxes probably reveal damning evidence.

IN RELATED NEWS: Trump commented on the Notre Dame fire, stating that the only copy of his taxes were in that building.

 

[Chomsky]

Americans already know it and don't care. The tax code is set to to take care of rich donors as trump used to be. If Americans don't know that they just don't care/

Doesn't matter if some like yourself don't care; we need it for those that do care, and for Congressional oversight.

 

[Chomsky]

I think there will be bigger issues than transparency; more based on the economy and healthcare. I do think this will be a talking point though and mainly because resistance to transparency breeds suspicion.

Of course; Trump's (lack of) transparency is a lessor concern for many perhaps, but for some like myself it does rank pretty high. There also could be public concern with the contents of his business dealings themselves, especially if found to be criminal or fraudulent.

But just like the Mueller probe, we won't know until we see.