Not surprisingly, this is likely to prove embarrassing to the president. It appears the Times is being intentionally vague on some details, almost certainly to protect their source(s). On which note, somebody, maybe multiple somebodies, have broken some pretty serious Federal laws. Long time readers of this blog will know that I am a fierce critic of this president. But somebody, obviously for political reasons, just violated the rights of an American citizen to basic privacy with respect to their finances. Reasonable people can disagree with a law that allows presidential candidates and persons who occupy high office to shield their finances from public scrutiny. But the law is what it is, until it is changed. In this country, even villainous scoundrels have rights. And Donald Trump's rights have just been violated. This is an outrageous abuse and whoever is responsible needs to be identified and named as the winner of an all expense paid vacation in the Federal cross barred hotel.
The Times' story can be found here.
4 comments:
Blormpf is finished now.
The very real problem I have with the notion that elected officials should have to publish their financial records is the we would then be creating a politic class, mandarins if you will, wherein only certified members get to serve.
That ain't government by the people. And then who get's to decide who are bonafide mandarins? The press? The FBI? God forbid.
But back to the dishonest NYC; Please note that they don't state what taxes he may have paid in other years. One of the vagaries of US tax law is that certain loss deductions are not allowed if you make too much money. Such deductions have to wait until a year when you make less than the threshold for limiting said deduction. From what is seeping out of this story, that could well be the case. Unfortunately, neither Joe Biden nor the unwashed are able to understand the distinction.
It is premature to conclude that a crime has been committed, least of all a U.S. federal crime. Given the international scope of Pres. Trump’s business dealings, it could well be the case that the NYT’s source is an overseas actor in lawful possession of the returns. If so, the disclosure is entirely outside the reach of U.S. law. Meanwhile, I expect that the NYT has taken care to publish no more than what is just on the legal side of 26 U.S.C §7213(3) (although I am glad that I am not the lawyer who has to defend them).
I am truly hoping that if the subject of taxes comes up in the debate that Trump has the stones to answer with that is none of your business.
If the left really wants tax returns to become public, then it should apply to absolutely everyone.
Post a Comment