Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 16:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 9:14:30 GMT -5
"Could be" isn't a license to do whatever you want. You have to look at things first to determine if they contain important information. Therefore it is most appropriate to use "could be" at this point in time. There is sufficient probable cause that there is a conflict of interest that the tax return will help prove exists. I would have to say that there isn't sufficient probable cause. That would take hard evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 16:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 9:19:02 GMT -5
Hey x = - if Obama or Clinton had refused to release their tax records, would you have been perfectly fine with it?
Just curious..... Yes. I never cared about the private life of presidents. Their wives, kids, work, personal interests. I tend to be concerned more with their efforts as president, and what they do while in the office. (Carrying out their duty)
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,454
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 14, 2019 9:30:38 GMT -5
You have to look at things first to determine if they contain important information. Therefore it is most appropriate to use "could be" at this point in time. There is sufficient probable cause that there is a conflict of interest that the tax return will help prove exists. I would have to say that there isn't sufficient probable cause. That would take hard evidence. Chichen or the egg?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 16:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 9:38:21 GMT -5
I would have to say that there isn't sufficient probable cause. That would take hard evidence. Chichen or the egg? We were just kind of changing the synonyms. My opinion is that if they had something on the taxes, something would be happening with criminal proceedings Since there isnt, I view it as political posturing.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,454
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 14, 2019 10:20:30 GMT -5
We were just kind of changing the synonyms. My opinion is that if they had something on the taxes, something would be happening with criminal proceedings Since there isnt, I view it as political posturing. Yes, it is political posturing. President Trump has worked to establish for political purposes a posture of toughness on Russia. The House has established for political proposes the posture that they think that isn't true due to his commercial dealings with that country, e.g. Trump Tower Moscow. <- which FWIW established probable cause. It is in the political interest of the American voting public to clarify this situation.
|
|
hurley1980
Well-Known Member
I am all that is wrong with the world....don't get too close, I'm contagious.
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 17:35:06 GMT -5
Posts: 1,943
|
Post by hurley1980 on Feb 14, 2019 12:27:56 GMT -5
Hey x = - if Obama or Clinton had refused to release their tax records, would you have been perfectly fine with it?
Just curious..... Yes. I never cared about the private life of presidents. Their wives, kids, work, personal interests. I tend to be concerned more with their efforts as president, and what they do while in the office. (Carrying out their duty) Thank you, I appreciate the response. So did it bother you that Obama didn't release his college transcripts, even though no president has ever done that before?
I only ask because a lot of republicans were livid that he wouldn't produce his college transcripts, and weren't satisfied with either his short or long for birth certificate. Many of those same people are perfectly fine with Trump not releasing his tax returns, even though he said he would.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 16:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 12:41:29 GMT -5
We were just kind of changing the synonyms. My opinion is that if they had something on the taxes, something would be happening with criminal proceedings Since there isnt, I view it as political posturing. Yes, it is political posturing. President Trump has worked to establish for political purposes a posture of toughness on Russia. The House has established for political proposes the posture that they think that isn't true due to his commercial dealings with that country, e.g. Trump Tower Moscow. <- which FWIW established probable cause. It is in the political interest of the American voting public to clarify this situation. Political interest isn't a license to do what you want. Quote; The underpinning of the public wanting to violate President Trump’s privacy over his finances relates back to when he broke a perceived long-standing norm by failing to release his tax returns during his presidential candidacy. www.forbes.com/sites/davidherzig/2018/04/05/president-trump-and-tax-return-privacy/
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 16:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 12:55:39 GMT -5
Yes. I never cared about the private life of presidents. Their wives, kids, work, personal interests. I tend to be concerned more with their efforts as president, and what they do while in the office. (Carrying out their duty) Thank you, I appreciate the response. So did it bother you that Obama didn't release his college transcripts, even though no president has ever done that before?
I only ask because a lot of republicans were livid that he wouldn't produce his college transcripts, and weren't satisfied with either his short or long for birth certificate. Many of those same people are perfectly fine with Trump not releasing his tax returns, even though he said he would.
No, I didn't care about his not releasing his college transcripts. I actually didn't even notice it was an issue to some, till much after the fact, as I don't pay attention/look for, those kind of things. After the endless investigations on the Benghazi issue, my eyes also kind of glaze over when I see the word "investigation" these days.
|
|
hurley1980
Well-Known Member
I am all that is wrong with the world....don't get too close, I'm contagious.
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 17:35:06 GMT -5
Posts: 1,943
|
Post by hurley1980 on Feb 14, 2019 13:29:12 GMT -5
Thank you, I appreciate the response. So did it bother you that Obama didn't release his college transcripts, even though no president has ever done that before?
I only ask because a lot of republicans were livid that he wouldn't produce his college transcripts, and weren't satisfied with either his short or long for birth certificate. Many of those same people are perfectly fine with Trump not releasing his tax returns, even though he said he would.
No, I didn't care about his not releasing his college transcripts. I actually didn't even notice it was an issue to some, till much after the fact, as I don't pay attention/look for, those kind of things. After the endless investigations on the Benghazi issue, my eyes also kind of glaze over when I see the word "investigation" these days. Thanks x=!
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,454
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 14, 2019 15:04:56 GMT -5
Yes, it is political posturing. President Trump has worked to establish for political purposes a posture of toughness on Russia. The House has established for political proposes the posture that they think that isn't true due to his commercial dealings with that country, e.g. Trump Tower Moscow. <- which FWIW established probable cause. It is in the political interest of the American voting public to clarify this situation. Political interest isn't a license to do what you want. Quote; The underpinning of the public wanting to violate President Trump’s privacy over his finances relates back to when he broke a perceived long-standing norm by failing to release his tax returns during his presidential candidacy. www.forbes.com/sites/davidherzig/2018/04/05/president-trump-and-tax-return-privacy/From your link: Part Two will discuss why elected officials tax returns should be public. Can't find where it was ever published but that the author proposed that there was going to be a part 2 (as well as a part 3) clearly indicates that the link is only a part of a story. I did find an earlier article by the same author. Here is the link to the article. As far as the "underpinning ... relat(ing) back to ..." anything isn't really relevant to an argument that presently there is justifiable cause to have it examined by Congress and potentially publicly released.
|
|