It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: butcherguy
Then they are really stretching the definition of executive session, since by definition it deals with business from the Executive branch.
We'll see.... still think it's a political gimmick.
Executive sessions are intended to protect the innocent and assure confidentiality about sensitive matters. The time spent in executive session is not for formal voting, rather time spent sorting things out privately. Board members don’t take any parliamentary action during executive session.
originally posted by: InTheLight
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: butcherguy
So a multi-millionaire turned politician, need to see the tax records.
But a politician turned multi-millionaire? Crickets.
This is what I want to see. . . . .
"I left my tax returns are on your mama's pillow, bitch."
Donald Trump
Wow, cowboy this is only about transparency, which by the way, every other President put it forth
In a gadda da vida.
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: InTheLight
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: butcherguy
So a multi-millionaire turned politician, need to see the tax records.
But a politician turned multi-millionaire? Crickets.
This is what I want to see. . . . .
"I left my tax returns are on your mama's pillow, bitch."
Donald Trump
Wow, cowboy this is only about transparency, which by the way, every other President put it forth
In a gadda da vida.
So in the interest of transparency, all of Congress and the House of Representatives should as well, right?
Since this is all about fairness...
PS... Pelosi already said no to that.
And you should probably know that no, not all Presidents have done that.
a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.
The definition extends to private and public corporate entities, so it really doesn’t have that much to do with the Executive branch of the federal government.
The concept originated with the Executive Branch of the Federal Government to allow the U.S. Senate and the President to deliberate on such matters as appointments, treaties and nominations.
originally posted by: Tartuffe
I've never seen a group of bureaucrats try so hard to get someone's private financial records, which are confidential by law.
This is corrupt and crooked.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Lumenari
While I generally agree with you there is this statement also.
a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.
I think that says they can see it for an individual in closed session but cannot make any information that will identify the individual or any copies public. I think....
As for Nadlers request Mueller has supplied a press ready copy of most of his reports according to people who know how he operates. They probably already have a copy that can be released.
originally posted by: carewemust
originally posted by: Tartuffe
I've never seen a group of bureaucrats try so hard to get someone's private financial records, which are confidential by law.
This is corrupt and crooked.
Let's put it this way. Democrats don't care about the rule of law when it comes to...
1. Illegal Immigration
2. Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants
3. Baby Murder
4. National Security
6. Grand Jury Testimony
7. Privacy of any kind...
And that's just for starters.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: abe froman
Sure... when they run for president.
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: abe froman
Sure... when they run for president.
Please link for me the law that states that a President has to release his/her tax returns.
I'll wait for it...
originally posted by: InTheLight
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: abe froman
Sure... when they run for president.
Please link for me the law that states that a President has to release his/her tax returns.
I'll wait for it...
If they have nothing to hide, there should be no forcing.
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: InTheLight
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: abe froman
Sure... when they run for president.
Please link for me the law that states that a President has to release his/her tax returns.
I'll wait for it...
If they have nothing to hide, there should be no forcing.
I missed your reply to me where it should be OK for all of Congress and the House to put out their tax returns as well, in the interest of transparency.
After all, if they have nothing to hide, there should be no forcing, right?
originally posted by: Tartuffe
I've never seen a group of bureaucrats try so hard to get someone's private financial records, which are confidential by law.
This is corrupt and crooked.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
His tax returns, anyone's tax returns are filed under, "Nunya".
Dems still don't have anything to run on except "get Trump", borders are bad, and we need higher unemployment and more taxes.
originally posted by: InTheLight
originally posted by: DBCowboy
His tax returns, anyone's tax returns are filed under, "Nunya".
Dems still don't have anything to run on except "get Trump", borders are bad, and we need higher unemployment and more taxes.
I want to see Trump's tax returns for the big picture of who and what he is.