What are the Democrats waiting for??

[arepo]

How can the party and, even more so, the media refrain from jumping on this subject immediately?

I'm certain the vast majority of Americans want to know this information.

What goes?



http://crooksandliars.com/2016/07/break ... -326974501

cliftwood

[John F]

The "media" are on this case, including the conservative media. You posted a report that a Fox News host questioned him about the tax returns to his face. Also today, George F. Will wrote this in his Washington Post column:

Speculation about the nature and scale of Trump’s financial entanglements with Putin and his associates is justified by Trump’s refusal to release his personal and business tax information. Obviously he is hiding something, and probably more than merely embarrassing evidence that he has vastly exaggerated his net worth and charitableness.

In Wednesday’s news conference, Trump said, “I have nothing to do with Russia.” Donald Trump Jr. says, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

Trump Sr. can end the speculation by providing information. If, however, he continues his tax information stonewall, it will be clear that he finds the speculation less damaging than the truth would be, which itself is important information.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Everybody knows that Trump is sitting on his tax returns; there's no news for the news-gathering part of the media to report. They can ask during his press conferences, and no doubt they often do, but Trump's bland refusal is, again, not news.

(I don't suppose a Freedom of Information Act request to the IRS would stand up in court, but it might be worth trying. Maybe it has been tried.)

As for the presidential campaign, now that the nominations are formal and it's formally begun, yes, Clinton's "surrogates" up to Tim Kaine, those whose role is as attack dogs. can and should make this a major theme, supported by a TV attack ad. I'll bet that isn't long in coming.

[Holden Fourth]

Gentlemen, you have to remember that this is the media we are dealing with, a group that is not well known for its ability to report the facts or for its veracity.

Instead, it thinks it's a branch of Hollywood and repeated obliges by serving us dear readers/viewers with the fantasies we desire. You know, all the usual stuff such as romance, intrigue, mystery, etc. None of it true of course but that hardly matters does it? It's what we want to hear after all.

[jbuck919]

Interesting, because I always assumed that Mitt Romney refused to release more returns because it would be revealed that his reported wealth was underestimated, i.e., that he is in fact a billionaire. I don't know that for a fact, of course, but it was my thought at the time.

[John F]

Gentlemen, you have to remember that this is the media we are dealing with, a group that is not well known for its ability to report the facts or for its veracity.

Puh-leeze. I don't know what "media" you're talking about, but I read the New York Times and Washington Post, and I view the PBS NewsHour, because I want to know what's happening in my country and the world. They are indeed known for their ability to report the facts, as far as journalists can on a short deadline, and as for veracity, only paranoid mediaphobes challenge it categorically - not because these media are wrong but because they're uncomfortably right.

[Holden Fourth]

Gentlemen, you have to remember that this is the media we are dealing with, a group that is not well known for its ability to report the facts or for its veracity.

Puh-leeze. I don't know what "media" you're talking about, but I read the New York Times and Washington Post, and I view the PBS NewsHour, because I want to know what's happening in my country and the world. They are indeed known for their ability to report the facts, as far as journalists can on a short deadline, and as for veracity, only paranoid mediaphobes challenge it categorically - not because these media are wrong but because they're uncomfortably right.

So no political agendas for either the WP or the NYT?

I am a mediaphobe because of what has been presented to me over the last twenty years by said media. I don't regularly read either publication but would be surprised if their views did not represent the views of their owners - Democrat or Republican?

[John F]

So no political agendas for either the WP or the NYT?

That's for you to prove. Apart from the editorial page, I don't find a "polotical agenda" in the Times (I don't know the Post that well), and normally see that kind of claim only in right-wing whining that the papers don't hew to their political agendas and distorted view of reality. I'm impatient with that kind of loose talk, from any point on the political spectrum from left to right, blue to red..

I am a mediaphobe because of what has been presented to me over the last twenty years by said media.

Such as? Vague generalizations won't do. Can you quote chapter and verse of any reporting, editorials and reviews apart, that distorts what you know to be the facts according to what you would define as a political agenda? Not just one or two stories you object to but a consistent pattern of bias over time and different reporters, of which there objective evidence? I don't believe you can, because it just isn't there.

[John F]

How can the party and, even more so, the media refrain from jumping on this subject immediately?

Donald Trump Ducks Tax Disclosure
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
AUG. 1, 2016

As Donald Trump’s tweets pile one atop another, generating sensational headlines, issues of true substance are tending to get lost in the shuffle. None is more important for voters to keep in mind than the failure of Mr. Trump to disclose his full income tax returns, something he is not likely to do by Election Day.

He is the first major party candidate since 1976 — since Watergate, essentially — to deny voters that vital measure of credibility. It is not required by law that candidates furnish their returns. But Americans have come to expect it.

The interest in Mr. Trump’s case is particularly high. He is running for the White House partly as a business wizard, but is he really as rich and talented as he boasts? Is he as philanthropic as he claims with his reputed billions? Has he truly no conflicts of interest in Russia, whose computer hackers he has bizarrely invited to spy on Hillary Clinton, his campaign rival? These questions are of Mr. Trump’s own making, and a timely release of his tax returns would provide some answers.

“There’s nothing to learn from them,” he tried to insist in May, arguing that he would not make the returns public until after an Internal Revenue Service audit is complete. But the I.R.S. says Mr. Trump is free to release the returns at any time and to defend their accuracy, just as President Richard Nixon did while he was undergoing an audit. In the past, Mr. Trump has not hesitated to attack the I.R.S. as “very unfair,” but now he stands before the voters using the agency as a shield against disclosure.

We can only imagine how livid the Trump tweets would be if Mrs. Clinton were failing to meet this standard of campaign transparency. She has posted eight years of tax returns on her campaign website for all to see.

Mr. Trump’s contention that there’s nothing to learn from his tax returns should be a red alert to voters. Four years ago, Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, resisted disclosure, and Mr. Trump was among those pressing him to release his returns. When Mr. Romney finally complied, voters were surprised to discover that his effective tax rate was 14 percent — well below the official 35 percent rate for those in his top bracket. When asked about his own tax rate, Mr. Trump snapped: “None of your business.”

Appearing last week on Fox TV, Mr. Trump looked back and rued the Romney disclosure, declaring, “He might have lost the election over that.” Might Mr. Trump be worried about how his own returns would look to voters? He brags that he aims to pay as little in taxes as possible under the law, which probably means claiming tax breaks that ordinary voters do not exercise. In 1981, a report by New Jersey gambling regulators showed Mr. Trump had not paid any taxes for two years in the 1970s because he could report negative income as a developer.

The voters deserve to know what Mr. Trump is hiding, particularly considering his history of bankruptcies, the government investigations of Trump University and other dodgy parts of his branded universe. As the campaign rolls toward the fall, pressure will grow on Mr. Trump to be far more transparent than he has been. Responding with another pithy tweet won’t do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/opini ... osure.html

[lennygoran]

Thanks for this-I know in this forum we say music to my ears but reading this was just music to my eyes! They gotta keep slamming away at him on this! Regards, Len

[John F]

Yeah, the music to your ears belongs in the Classical Music Chatterbox.

I think Trump can't be cornered about this until the debates. Then both the questioners and Clinton can dispose of his excuses and lay his real motives bare for even his supporters to see. That is, if Trump shows up for the debates. He's hedging about that, and may dread going one-on-one against Hillary Clinton. I would!

And then there's Mike Pence, who will be compelled to do as Trump does, however it may go against his better judgment. He may come to regret the day he said "I do" to Donald Trump, if he doesn't already.

Meanwhile:

What we know about Donald Trump and his taxes so far
By Michelle Ye Hee Lee
August 1

“And as far as the tax returns, as soon as the audits complete, like any lawyer would tell you — Greta Van Susteren, she was going over it a while ago, she’s a lawyer. She said, well, no lawyer would let somebody release a tax return when they’re under audit. It’s a routine audit. I’ve gone through audits, which I think is very unfair, for 15 years. I have friends that are very rich and never get audited. I’m audited every year. Maybe that’s because of politics, who knows.”
— Donald Trump, news conference, July 27, 2016

“Mr. Trump has said that his taxes are under audit and he will not be releasing them.”
— Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort, CBS interview, July 27, 2016

We have officially entered the general election campaign, with both major parties’ conventions behind us. For the past four decades, every major-party presidential candidate has released tax returns — and most of them had done so by the time they were officially nominated at the conventions.

That is not the case this year. Donald Trump has consistently refused to release his returns, and there’s no indication he will do so before the election. By contrast, Hillary Clinton has released three decades’ worth of tax returns. Only Jeb Bush had released more tax returns than Clinton out of all the candidates who sought their parties’ presidential nomination this year.

Trump once declared that there’s “nothing to learn” from the returns, which was Four-Pinocchio false. He is now citing a pending Internal Revenue Service audit, even though the first president to release his taxes, Richard Nixon, did so in the middle of an audit. Moreover, Trump has not released his tax returns from before 2009, which are no longer under audit, according to his attorney.

Vice-presidential nominees also have routinely released their tax returns. Republican Mike Pence and Democrat Tim Kaine have not yet released their returns. We have not heard back from the Trump campaign about whether Pence will release his returns; we will update this column if we do. A Clinton campaign official said Kaine “will release his tax returns in the near future.”

Presidential candidates have no legal obligation to release their returns, but there has long been a tradition to do so for the sake of transparency. While Trump has not released the returns, his long history of litigation has given the public a sense of what is in his returns.

Here’s a look at what we know about Trump’s taxes: He did not pay any (or nearly any) income taxes at least five times in the past 40 years.

1970s

The earliest record of Trump’s publicly revealed income tax information dates to the late 1970s, when Trump paid no federal income tax for at least two years. Trump’s tax returns, examined by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission in 1981, showed that he paid $0 in federal income taxes in 1978 and 1979, The Washington Post found. During those two years, he had no federal income tax liability primarily because of the losses he incurred operating his rental properties.

In 1975, 1976 and 1977, Trump did pay federal income taxes, it showed. The breakdown:

1975: $76,210 in income; $18,714 in taxes
1976: $24,594 in income; $10,843 in taxes
1977: $118,530 in income; $42,386 in taxes
1978: -$406,379 in income; no taxes
1979: -$3,443,560 in income; no taxes

1980s

The next record available is from 1984, when Trump also reported no income. In a Daily Beast article, David Cay Johnston wrote about rulings in two tax appeal cases (Trump lost both) that shed new light on Trump’s finances in 1984...

In one case, Trump contested whether he was subject to a city business tax on his gains from selling a condominium unit in 1984. A New York City administrative law judge found that Trump had reported no personal income in his 1984 federal income tax but reported a $2,365,352 capital gain from the sale and total deductions of $626,264. Yet Trump had not provided documentation justifying the deductions.

That year, Trump reported his principal business activity as “consulting” — but reported no income or receipts from this activity, the judge wrote. He reported a negative taxable business income of $619,227. “The record does not explain how Petitioner had significant expenses without any concomitant income from his consulting business,” the judge wrote.

Trump provided a photocopy of his tax return, which had the signature of his longtime accountant, Jack Mitnick. But Mitnick testified that neither he nor his firm prepared the tax return and that he did not know who did. Johnston wrote: “Among the issues raised by Mitnick’s 1992 testimony is whether Trump or someone acting on his behalf substituted a return that he or someone else prepared and then transferred Mitnick’s signature using a photocopier.”

The judge ruled that Trump was “engaged in a taxable trade or business” and was, therefore, subject to the business tax. The judge didn’t buy Trump’s complaint that he was being double-taxed. The judge said, “The problem at issue is not one of double taxation, but of no taxation.”

The second case also involved Trump’s business activities and whether he took deductions without providing proper documentation. Mitnick testified that Trump paid no federal income tax in 1984 — yet he tried to use a tax credit against his income tax liability. “Mr. Mitnick has prepared Donald Trump’s income tax returns for the last 20 years and testified that Mr. Trump had no income tax due against which the credit ‘could have been applied,’” the judge in that case ruled.

1990s

There were at least two years in the early 1990s when Trump appeared to have paid zero, or nearly zero, personal income taxes, Politico reported. This was not illegal but due to losses from his hotel and casino in the early 1990s. (Ultimately, he would declare bankruptcy on those properties.)

Politico reviewed documents covering Trump’s tax liability in 1991 and 1993, as maintained by the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement and the Casino Control Commission. The report showed that in 1993, Trump had a net operating loss that was great enough to prevent him from owing federal income taxes. Creditors limited Trump to a $450,000-a-month allowance (about $750,000 in 2016 dollars)

His debts in 1991 also shielded him from tax obligations, Politico found, citing the document: “As various lenders cancel all or part of DJT’s debt, he will in all likelihood realize taxable gains. However, given the [redacted] in carryforward net operating losses (“NOLS”), any tax resulting should be minimal, if any.”

Trump offered a response through a spokeswoman to Politico’s question about not paying income taxes in the early 1990s: “Welcome to the real estate business.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... es-so-far/