Trump's Tax Returns Subpoenaed by Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr.

[Koko78]

36 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Have you ever considered that maybe Schiff and Nadler have a special kind of experience with tax and insurance fraud that lets them sniff it out?

 

You'll note that I never said *how* they got their expertise...

[3rdnlng]

18 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Well that and how good your memory is. I type fast and can’t remember what I had for dinner last night. 

I've thought many a time that you must be a fast typist. 

[snafu]

5 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

Well that and how good your memory is. I type fast and can’t remember what I had for dinner last night. 

 

And I want you to be my latex salesman?

 

 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2020 by snafu

[Kemp]

On 7/11/2020 at 4:40 PM, KD in CA said:

Why?  How will that benefit your life? 

 

 

Why would Trump voluntarily give his enemies a reason to misconstrue his finances for their political gain at his expense?   Are you really so disingenuous (or just plain ignorant) that you can't even be honest about the motivations involved on both sides? 

 

It would benefit my life because it would make it more likely that Trump would leave the White House. 

 

Misconstrue?

 

Why has every other candidate released their taxes and not had them misconstrued?

 

Not even the evil Hillary Clinton went through any problems by releasing her taxes. 

 

Face it. Trump is scared of something or he wouldn't be fighting so hard to keep them private. You know that, but you have been forced into a position of taking an illogical stance by always defending a con man.

 

 

On 7/11/2020 at 4:43 PM, snafu said:

 

You said something about wanting to see if Trump is as wealthy as he claims. I get that.  You want to investigate a person to find a crime it seems. Bad road to travel. Bad precedent to set. 

 

You never said whether you’d actually look at the returns, or have looked at any candidates returns since the Ford era.

 

I provided you to a link where Trump himself itemized and certified his worth. Did you look at that?  I did.  Did you find that he’s hiding anything?

 

Trump provided something but won't provide his taxes?

 

That's supposed to prove something?

 

What did it prove to you?

[Kemp]

On 7/11/2020 at 4:50 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

What do you think it is, this hidden information shared with the largest tax collection authority in the world?  And where do you think he's hidden it?  

 

Where would you start looking? 

 

Release them and everyone will either see something that's an indictment  of Trump or there's nothing bad to see. 

 

If it were the latter, game over and Trump  wins. This tells you that it's the former.

 

Innocent people have no need to hide facts about themselves. 

 

 

[KD in CA]

7 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

It would benefit my life because it would make it more likely that Trump would leave the White House. 

 

Misconstrue?

 

Why has every other candidate released their taxes and not had them misconstrued?

 

Not even the evil Hillary Clinton went through any problems by releasing her taxes. 

 

Face it. Trump is scared of something or he wouldn't be fighting so hard to keep them private. You know that, but you have been forced into a position of taking an illogical stance by always defending a con man.

 

 

So....yes, you are that really are so disingenuous that you can't admit it's nothing but a political stunt.  Got it, thanks.   

 

Enjoy not seeing Trump's taxes.

[Unforgiven]

14 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Release them and everyone will either see something that's an indictment  of Trump or there's nothing bad to see. 

 

If it were the latter, game over and Trump  wins. This tells you that it's the former.

 

Innocent people have no need to hide facts about themselves. 

 

 

[keepthefaith]

41 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

 

 

Face it. Trump is scared of something or he wouldn't be fighting so hard to keep them private. You know that, but you have been forced into a position of taking an illogical stance by always defending a con man.

 

 

 

 

 

I believe he is afraid.  I'll believe he's afraid of the unfair "analysis" and unfair criticism that the media and his political opposition will push very hard.  If I were him given how irresponsible, biased and dishonest the reporting will be, I'd not publish them either.  The media and his opposition have earned the middle finger on this one. 

[snafu]

55 minutes ago, Kemp said:

Trump provided something but won't provide his taxes?

 

That's supposed to prove something?

 

What did it prove to you?

 

It proved to me that he provided what he was legally required to provide — a certified statement of what he owns and what income he makes.  It is pretty detailed.  I’m guessing you didn’t bother to look at it, like you won’t look at his tax returns, like you’ve never looked at any candidate’s returns. Releasing tax returns is optional. See the difference there? I underlined words to help you.

 

Again, you said you want to see the tax returns to see if Trump is worth what he claims. 

I responded that income taxes don’t show that.  They show income, not net worth.

I gave you a way to find out what Trump, himself, owns and what he claims to earn.

Your response is: “that’s supposed to prove something?”  

Really, think about your response.

 

 

 

 

 

[Just Joshin']

1 hour ago, snafu said:

 

It proved to me that he provided what he was legally required to provide — a certified statement of what he owns and what income he makes.  It is pretty detailed.  I’m guessing you didn’t bother to look at it, like you won’t look at his tax returns, like you’ve never looked at any candidate’s returns. Releasing tax returns is optional. See the difference there? I underlined words to help you.

 

Again, you said you want to see the tax returns to see if Trump is worth what he claims. 

I responded that income taxes don’t show that.  They show income, not net worth.

I gave you a way to find out what Trump, himself, owns and what he claims to earn.

Your response is: “that’s supposed to prove something?”  

Really, think about your response.

 

 

 

 

 

You get bonus points for trying to argue facts with someone who just wants to believe a talking point.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

Release them and everyone will either see something that's an indictment  of Trump or there's nothing bad to see. 

 

If it were the latter, game over and Trump  wins. This tells you that it's the former.

 

Innocent people have no need to hide facts about themselves. 

 

 

The first three sentences you wrote make me think you actually believe what you’re saying, even though you’re not really saying anything that makes any sense. 
 

Your last sentence sounds an awful lot like something this guy might say:

 

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[Kemp]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The first three sentences you wrote make me think you actually believe what you’re saying, even though you’re not really saying anything that makes any sense. 
 

Your last sentence sounds an awful lot like something this guy might say:

 

 

 

A great addition to why Trump is terrified of people seeing his taxes.

 

You realize he's hiding something because anyone of average intelligence knows, but Trump forces his supporters to take positions that they know are bull.

 

Must be annoying to constantly lie. If you believe him, you're well below average intelligence and Trump does love the poorly educated. Without them he's barely a fringe candidate for anything.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

7 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

A great addition to why Trump is terrified of people seeing his taxes.

 

You realize he's hiding something because anyone of average intelligence knows, but Trump forces his supporters to take positions that they know are bull.

 

Must be annoying to constantly lie. If you believe him, you're well below average intelligence and Trump does love the poorly educated. Without them he's barely a fringe candidate for anything.

Your musings on my intelligence is relevant only with respect to the much larger picture:  you’ve bought the narrative that Trump appeals only to voters that are uneducated and as you so eloquently stated “the poorly educated”.

 

Here’s my read on you:  You’re angry about something in your life, you feel you’ve gotten a raw deal, you feel like people less qualified than you have benefited from the system and as a result, project your own insecurities onto others.  As a result, you’re easily manipulated because you react emotionally, and the only logical conclusion is that by extension, the 60,000,000+ citizens who voted for President Trump must be deficient in some way relative to your own soaring intellect. 
 

Yet, you’ve personally had nearly 5 years to formulate a thought process on what might be revealed on the Trump tax return(s), to consider the historical relevance of data gleaned from published tax returns, and so far you’ve offered up:

 

1. there may be data reflecting an “indictment” of DJT;

2. the returns may show “nothing bad to see”;

3.  the release of the returns could result in a “game over” moment for DJT;

4. that innocent people should be required to submit to the collective or be judged guilty default;

5. that the regulatory authority charged with reviewing, accepting and/or auditing the return is, in this case only, deficient or inadequate to pass judgement on the submission;

 

To summarize in terms you MENSA types can process, I think if there is bad stuff to see on a candidate's return, it’s the job of the tax return reviewer people to find it. 

[billsfan1959]

 

16 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

Release them and everyone will either see something that's an indictment  of Trump or there's nothing bad to see. 

 

If it were the latter, game over and Trump  wins. This tells you that it's the former.

 

Innocent people have no need to hide facts about themselves. 

 

 

 

I would like to see your tax returns to see if you are in any position to accuse anyone else of hiding something. You probably don't have anything to hide; however, there might be something there that shows your obsession with Trump's tax returns to be somewhat hypocritical. I've found, in my experience, the most ardent crusaders often have their own issues...

 

Could you please post a link to them for us? And if you could give us a link to all of your bank account information, that would be helpful as well. 

 

#InnocentPeopleHaveNoNeedToHideFactsAboutThemselves

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by billsfan1959

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

 

I would like to see your tax returns to see if you are in any position to accuse anyone else of hiding something. You probably don't have anything to hide; however, there might be something there that shows your obsession with Trump's tax returns to be somewhat hypocritical. I've found, in my experience, the most ardent crusaders often have their own issues...

 

Could you please post a link to them for us? And if you could give us a link to all of your bank account information, that would be helpful as well. 

 

#InnocentPeopleHaveNoNeedToHideFactsAboutThemselves

 

You're the man with experience as a law enforcement agent, I'm just a guy on the street reacting to what has been suggested my Mr. Kemp.

 

Can't we already assume that Mr. Kemp's failure to publish his returns voluntarily is, indeed*, substantial evidence of wrongdoing?  

 

 

*I added the "indeed" for effect. @Koko78tells me that when you add it to your repertoire, your summation gets suspersized and is nearly bulletproof. 

 

[WEATHER DOT COM]

Isn't the "substantial evidence of wrongdoing" implied by the court subpoenaing Trump's tax returns in a criminal case where he is named "Individual 1?"

[billsfan1959]

Just now, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

Isn't the "substantial evidence of wrongdoing" implied by the court subpoenaing Trump's tax returns in a criminal case where he is named "Individual 1?"

 

Actually, no. To issue a subpoena for any particular documents in a criminal case is not, in and of itself "substantial evidence of wrongdoing."

 

Maybe you have heard of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty?"

 

It's been in all the papers....

[Kemp]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Trump appeals only to voters that are uneducated and as you so eloquently stated “the poorly educated”.

 

Here’s my read on you:  You’re angry about something in your life, you feel you’ve gotten a raw deal, you feel like people less qualified than you have benefited from the system and as a result, project your own insecurities onto others.  As a result, you’re easily manipulated because you react emotionally, and the only logical conclusion is that by extension, the 60,000,000+ citizens who voted for President Trump must be deficient in some way relative to your own soaring intellect. 
 

Yet, you’ve personally had nearly 5 years to formulate a thought process on what might be revealed on the Trump tax return(s), to consider the historical relevance of data gleaned from published tax returns, and so far you’ve offered up:

 

1. there may be data reflecting an “indictment” of DJT;

2. the returns may show “nothing bad to see”;

3.  the release of the returns could result in a “game over” moment for DJT;

4. that innocent people should be required to submit to the collective or be judged guilty default;

5. that the regulatory authority charged with reviewing, accepting and/or auditing the return is, in this case only, deficient or inadequate to pass judgement on the submission;

 

To summarize in terms you MENSA types can process, I think if there is bad stuff to see on a candidate's return, it’s the job of the tax return reviewer people to find it. 

 

Trump is the one who has stated that he loves the poorly educated. The stats show quite clearly that that is the strongest part of his base. Coincidence?

Thanks for your read on me. 

Long-winded without addressing why he is terrified of releasing his tax returns. I'm getting pretty used to the non-responsiveness to all of this by Trump supporters.

After all, you've got no reasons that you've come up with as to why he won't release them other than the brilliant "Why should he"?

[WEATHER DOT COM]

Just now, billsfan1959 said:

 

Actually, no. To issue a subpoena for any particular documents in a criminal case is not, in and of itself "substantial evidence of wrongdoing."

 

Maybe you have heard of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty?"

 

Of course.

 

What is the bar for a grand jury subpoena? I imagine it's higher than suspicion but as a layperson am unsure. 

[Koko78]

13 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You're the man with experience as a law enforcement agent, I'm just a guy on the street reacting to what has been suggested my Mr. Kemp.

 

Can't we already assume that Mr. Kemp's failure to publish his returns voluntarily is, indeed*, substantial evidence of wrongdoing?  

 

 

*I added the "indeed" for effect. @Koko78tells me that when you add it to your repertoire, your summation gets suspersized and is nearly bulletproof.