Calif bill~to force trump to release tax records to get on statewide 2020 ballot

Bill said:
What other states?? I just heard about this...

It would seem though that any state able to get this through is already highly unlikely to give many/any electoral votes to trumpfy..
Click to expand...

Washington, and New Jersey have done something similar, I think
 
Nordberg said:
Every other presidential candidate had no trouble showing their taxes. It is an opportunity to prove to the people that you do not have foreign financial entanglements and will put Americans first. It is not asking too much. Eveyone running for prez that last half a century showed theirs. Only one refused. Just one. Must be a reason Trump refused. Can you find a good reason he didn't?
Click to expand...

Because he has a huge complicated tax situation that the liberals would not only fail to understand, but would point to only negative aspects for political gain. It's not worth it in an environment with news outlets pushing conspiracy theory as news. You reap what you sow, liberals. You want to attack every aspect of Trump, then don't be surprised when he doesn't make it easy for you.
 
Althea said:
You pray. We'll see soon enough.
Click to expand...

prayer has nothing to do with it

THREE investigations into Russian Collusion and not one single one has found evidence of RUSSIAN COLLUSION.

Of course you still won't believe it because if you stop believing in RUSSIAN COLLUSION, then you will be forced to believe that the American people actually chose Trump over Hillary. Your fragile mind can't handle that truth. So despite all the evidence to the contrary, you will forever believe that Trump colluded with Russians. You will say "well it probably wasn't illegal, but he still did it". You will employ mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance to protect your fragile psyche.
 
The Hill:
"Federal court can't force IRS to release Trump's tax returns

A federal judge on Friday said that the court could not compel the IRS to turn over President Trump’s tax returns.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) launched a suit against the IRS earlier this year after the agency refused to hand over the documents as part of an open-records request.

Through the Freedom of Information Act, EPIC had sought Trump’s personal tax returns from 2010 to the present day and any documents that may reveal financial relationships with the Russian government or Russian businesses.

However, personal tax forms are confidential. They can only be obtained if Trump himself gave the IRS permission to reveal the returns or if Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation signed off to allow the disclosure.

“What [EPIC] wants in this case is to peer into another person’s income-tax records. Although the Court has no reason to doubt EPIC’s assertion that the return information on this particular individual — President Trump — would be of interest to the public, that fact does not give the organization a viable legal case,” wrote U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, in granting the government’s motion for a dismissal.

The fact that the tax returns belong to the president “does not alter the outcome here,” the judge wrote."
 
Bill said:
Since there is almost no way in hell trumpf is gonna be able to compete in calif, what's the point?? Just not having him on the ballot??






Several California lawmakers are proposing legislation that would require President Donald Trump and other presidential candidates to release their tax returns as a precondition for getting on the ballot.

A hearing is scheduled next Tuesday by the state Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss and vote on the measure.

State Senate Bill 27, dubbed the Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act, represents the second time in three years that California has sought to pass such a law.

Back in 2017, then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a similar measure and cited concerns it might be unconstitutional​

LOS ANGELES – Several California Democratic lawmakers are proposing legislation that would require President Donald Trump and other presidential candidates to release their tax returns as a precondition for getting on the statewide ballot.

A hearing is scheduled April 2 in the state Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss and vote on the measure. State Senate Bill 27, dubbed the Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act, represents the second time in three years that California has sought to pass such a law.

"President Trump's refusal to release his income tax returns has broken a time-honored, bipartisan tradition which has weakened our democracy and his jaw dropping business conflicts have now put the security of our nation at risk" said state Sen. Mike McGuire, D-Eureka, a cosponsor of the bill.

A similar measure, Senate Bill 149, passed the state legislature in 2017 but was vetoed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat who raised concerns it might be unconstitutional. Also, Brown at the time warned the legislation "sets a 'slippery slope' precedent."

Gov. Gavin Newsom, also a Democrat, hasn't indicated whether he will support the new bill if it passes the state Legislature. The Democrats currently have a two-thirds supermajority in both houses of the California Legislature, so they have the power to potentially overrule a governor's veto.

"As is the case with all proposed legislation, should this bill reach the governor's desk it would be evaluated on its own merits," said Brian Ferguson, a spokesman for Newsom.

California's proposed bill would require presidential candidates to release the last five years of their tax returns to appear on the ballot in the nation's most populous state. The Golden State's presidential primary was moved up to March 3, 2020, or Super Tuesday, following a state law passed in 2017.

SB 27 contains an urgency clause that allows the legislation to take effect immediately prior to the December 2019 filing deadline for the 2020 presidential candidates. The measure cleared its first hurdle March 19 in a state Senate elections committee, receiving a 3-to-1 vote.

More @ source
Click to expand...

Isn't California the state that want's to withdraw from the Union? So who gives a flying fuck what they want?
 
Teflon Don said:
prayer has nothing to do with it

THREE investigations into Russian Collusion and not one single one has found evidence of RUSSIAN COLLUSION.

Of course you still won't believe it because if you stop believing in RUSSIAN COLLUSION, then you will be forced to believe that the American people actually chose Trump over Hillary. Your fragile mind can't handle that truth. So despite all the evidence to the contrary, you will forever believe that Trump colluded with Russians. You will say "well it probably wasn't illegal, but he still did it". You will employ mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance to protect your fragile psyche.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the laugh. Collusion was proven two years ago. The question on the table is whether the POTUS can be indicted for the crime.
 
Althea said:
Thanks for the laugh. Collusion was proven two years ago. The question on the table is whether the POTUS can be indicted for the crime.
Click to expand...

Why would POTUS be indicted for Hillary's collusion with the Russians? That doesn't even make any sense.

Lol, I remember when you were still claiming Carter Page was the basis for the FISA warrant.
 
countryboy said:
Why would POTUS be indicted for Hillary's collusion with the Russians? That doesn't even make any sense.

Lol, I remember when you were still claiming Carter Page was the basis for the FISA warrant.
Click to expand...
Carter Page was the first FISA warrant. Then, it seemed that everyone in the trump campaign was having financial dealings with Russians.
 
Ralph said:
Correct me if I am wrong.....but California always goes blue, just like in 2016. How is changing something in a state that is already carrying the water bucket for communism going to alter the Electoral College vote? :dunno: Trump could in theory get -0- votes and it will not ad one EC vote to the final count. WINNER TAKE ALL. Ain't logic a terrible thing? Go ahead.....hold your breath until you turn....err....BLUER.

Its like the old joke. When you choke a smurf…..what color does he/she turn? I'd wager that Trump could turn you even bluer......when he cuts off all federal aid to Mexifornia.

Do you propagandists have a real plan to win in 2020? Or are you simply going to continue to throw tantrums until 2020?
Click to expand...

NEXT TIME READ THE FUCKING thing before you stick you foot in your mouth... START W/ LINE ONE....
Since there is almost no way in hell trumpf is gonna be able to compete in calif, what's the point??
Click to expand...
 
tinfoil said:
Because he has a huge complicated tax situation that the liberals would not only fail to understand, but would point to only negative aspects for political gain. It's not worth it in an environment with news outlets pushing conspiracy theory as news. You reap what you sow, liberals. You want to attack every aspect of Trump, then don't be surprised when he doesn't make it easy for you.
Click to expand...

He has been hiding them for a while, whatever he is hiding may have helped lying ted or little Marco win the nom etc...:dunno:
 
bhaktajan said:
In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revealed that it had selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes. This led to wide condemnation of the agency and triggered several investigations, including a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal probe ordered by United States Attorney General Eric Holder.
Initial reports described the selections as nearly exclusively of conservative groups with terms such as "Tea Party" in their names. According to Republican lawmakers, liberal-leaning groups and the Occupy movement had also triggered additional scrutiny, but at a lower rate than conservative groups.

The Republican majority on the House Oversight Committee issued a report, which concluded that although some liberal groups were selected for additional review, the scrutiny that these groups received did not amount to targeting when compared to the greater scrutiny received by conservative groups. The report was criticized by the committee's Democratic minority, which said that the report ignored evidence that the IRS used keywords to identify both liberal and conservative groups.

In January 2014, James Comey, who at the time was the FBI director, told Fox News that its investigation had found no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the controversy, as it had not found any evidence of "enemy hunting", and that the investigation continued.

On October 23, 2015, the Justice Department declared that no criminal charges would be filed. On September 8, 2017, the Trump Justice Department declined to reopen the criminal investigation into Lois Lerner, a central figure in the controversy.[1]

In late September 2017, an exhaustive report by the Treasury Department's inspector general found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny.[2][3]

In October 2017, the Trump Administration agreed to settle a lawsuit filed on behalf of more than four hundred conservative nonprofit groups who claimed that they had been discriminated against by the Internal Revenue Service for an undisclosed amount described by plaintiffs' counsel as "very substantial." The Trump Administration also agreed to settle a second lawsuit brought by forty-one conservative organizations with an apology and an admission that subjecting them to "heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays" was wrongful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy


If Trump was an IRS cheat ...why would the IRS keep is secret?
Click to expand...

The groups were political in nature and they were part of the Reds campaign. They did not merit tax free status. But almost every one got it. They had the invconvenience of waiting awhile while it went through the IRS system. But they were tax free while they waited too.
 
Teflon Don said:
Has Nancy Pelosi released her and her husbands tax returns?

After all she is third in line for the Presidency. We should know.
Click to expand...

Deflection. She is not running for president. I bet she would if you asked and if Trump did it first. The standard is for people running for president to show their taxes. She is not and will not be running for president. Every other candidate the last half century have released their taxes. Only one refused. Just one. Only one. Can you guess who?
His refusal has nothing to do with Pelosi. The 3rd in line has never, ever taken the presidency.
In succession, the speaker would not become president. She would "act" as president. Acting prez is not the same.
 
Nordberg said:
Deflection. She is not running for president. I bet she would if you asked and if Trump did it first. The standard is for people running for president to show their taxes. She is not and will not be running for president. Every other candidate the last half century have released their taxes. Only one refused. Just one. Only one. Can you guess who?
His refusal has nothing to do with Pelosi. The 3rd in line has never, ever taken the presidency.
In succession, the speaker would not become president. She would "act" as president. Acting prez is not the same.
Click to expand...


In succession, the speaker would not become president. She would "act" as president. Acting prez is not the same.
Click to expand...

WRONG! The speaker would only be "acting" president if the president was only temporarily unable to perform his duties.

"Under current law, if the Speaker of the House (or the President pro tempore of the Senate) succeeds to the Office of the President or becomes Acting President during the temporary disability of the President, when there is no Vice President, the Speaker (or Senate President pro tempore) must resign his or her seat in Congress prior to taking the Presidential oath of office and becoming (Acting) President. His or her now-vacant Congressional seat will be filled according to the appropriate law: a special election for the Speaker, and as directed by state law for the Senate President pro tempore. The House (or Senate) will also have to hold an immediate election to elect a new Speaker (or President pro tempore) according to the rules appropriate to the body in question.

In the case of the Speaker (or Senate President pro tempore) succeeding to the office of President through the death or resignation of the President when there is no Vice President, he or she becomes and serves as President for the remainder of the term to which the person he or she succeeded was elected. In the case of serving as Acting President, he or she serves until the President's disability ends (in accordance with the terms of the 25th Amendment) or until the end of the disabled President's elected term, whichever comes first. There are no provisions for holding a special election for the Presidency."
 
Teflon Don said:
It won't survive a court challenge because it would create an unnecessary burden to run for office.
Click to expand...

How so? What is the burden?


And where would it stop?
Click to expand...

You don't believe candidates for office should be fully transparent?

Well that explains why you're so pro-Trump despite all the news about how broke he actually is, and how he has to borrow money from Russians and sketchy banks.
 
Teflon Don said:
You won't see Trump's taxes. You have not earned that right. So go fuck yourself
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like you're petrified of seeing Trump's returns because they'll show he's been conning you about his wealth and success this whole time.

For you, it's much more damaging to admit your judgment sucked than it is to admit the President is a crook.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top