Federal judge halts California law forcing Trump to release tax returns to qualify for ballot

a reply to: queenofswords

He said once that he would release his tax returns when he was done being audited.

I thought about that later and got a giggle out of it.

I work with a few multinational oil companies.

In their home offices, they have a satellite IRS office manned with IRS agents.

Because they are always under audit and always will be.

Trump will never NOT be under audit.

I thought that was rather smart of him to say.

originally posted by: Lumenari

Yep yep....
.....and all the while the media can just put the word "alleged" in front of whatever non-crime that was done and you get to generate negative publicity.

So, you are clever enough then, to know that Trump...say, is not a criminal..or do you just love him so much it doesn't matter?

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Lumenari

Time for a Trump compromise. Trump agrees to the new balloting placement rules, California agrees that it forfeits its Electoral Votes for violating the Constitution with inadmissible errata.

Or they agree to let the term "citizen" be on the census so that illegals being counted won't artificially enlarge CA's power in the Electoral college...

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Lumenari

Yep yep....
.....and all the while the media can just put the word "alleged" in front of whatever non-crime that was done and you get to generate negative publicity.

So, you are clever enough then, to know that Trump...say, is not a criminal..or do you just love him so much it doesn't matter?

So please link for me what he has been indicted for... in his whole life?

I personally don't think someone is a "criminal" until they have actually been tried and are a criminal.

You know, that pesky rule of law thing.

I also despise Trump on a personal level.. his voice alone makes me want to stab my eardrums out with a pencil.

I like what he is doing for America, however... his policies have most certainly made my business and personal life better.

So didn't vote for him last time, will this time.

SoOo..... do you think he's a criminal because "You believe?"

Believe the media.. which has lied to you for 3 years now on "Trump is out of office tomorrow because ~~insert lie here~" but THIS time they lie to you it will be different?

Or just that you believe that "Orange Man Bad" because "feels?"

Your post told me a whole lot more about you then it did about Trump.

a reply to: Ahabstar

There is another option .

originally posted by: contextual
Meanwhile trump's suing Massachusetts DA to keep them hidden.
His supporters no doubt back this move, on a conspiracy website no less, lol.

I would think "right to privacy" would fit right in on a conspiracy website... maybe it is you who are in the wrong place?

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Lumenari

Yep yep....
.....and all the while the media can just put the word "alleged" in front of whatever non-crime that was done and you get to generate negative publicity.

So, you are clever enough then, to know that Trump...say, is not a criminal..or do you just love him so much it doesn't matter?

If you're looking for criminal activity, what do you expect to find in past tax returns? Is there some obscure shady trick that the Internal Revenue Service of the United States is completely blind to? PM it to me bro or do I have to Google it?

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

They cannot and the law would have only effected the states primary ballots. The federal election would still have included the President or any nominee that received the Republican parties nomination. In other words it a pointless law established by California which would have a negligible outcome for anyone and primarily established for anti trump reasons

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Interesting.

Here I thought that States had the Right to set their own election requirements. Even the right-wing Heritage Foundation would seem to support that 'right'.

But whatever #45 wants is kewl? Right?

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Interesting.

Here I thought that States had the Right to set their own election requirements. Even the right-wing Heritage Foundation would seem to support that 'right'.

But whatever #45 wants is kewl? Right?

No, and thankfully so in regards to what California is attempting is not lawful, or ethical in any way shape or form.

It's an act of discrimination against the opposing political party, not a state exercising their over sight on election requirements.

That you would even suggest that somehow suddenly legislating a brand new law just for Donald Trump himself is just little ole California setting election requirements is beyond laughable. It also shows that people trying to say that California doing this is okay and nothing wrong with it while pretending or saying Cali is just rightfully setting election requirements approve of complete tyranny power for themselves

this whole issue of trumps tax returns shows clearly how not only are people not wanting to deal in FACTS/REALITY but how truly BROKEN our judicial system is.

The cold hard LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL FACTS ARE THIS

1. The constitution states that any rights not granted to the government fall under states rights aka allowed to do what they want (within reason) in making laws.

2. Presidential elections FALL UNDER FEDERAL LAW. The fact is THE FEDS set the laws on how presidential elections are to be run . The CONSTITUTION CLEARLY SPELLS OUT the LEGAL REQUIREMENTS for one to run for president.

3. FEDERAL ELECTION LAWS can ONLY BE CHANGED at FEDERAL LEVEL... NOT state level.

4. ONLY WAY TO CHANGE the CONSTITUTIONAL requirements to run for president is to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION...Again something that individual states (even if theoretically all 50 did) CANNOT DO . The method to do this is CLEARLY SET OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

5. FEDERAL LAW CLEARLY STATES IRS TAX RETURNS ARE CONFIDENTIAL UNLESS RELEASED BY COURT ORDER OR WILLINGLY BY THE PERSON THEMSELVES...there is NO CASE LAW stating that this is not the case and no challenges that I can find that say otherwise succeeding. Much less a supreme court ruling saying the FEDERAL LAW is unconstitutional.
in fact there is CASE LAW of people violating this and being prosecuted.

So CLEARLY what people are calling for is UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL. It doesnt matter UNDER THE LAW if CA , NY or some city in OH passes a law.

now there is where it shows how our court system is broken .

If the judges were DOING THEIR JOB AND FOLLOWING CONSTITUTION any case brought before them about said law would be struck down AT FIRST LEVEL , EVERY TIME .

but some judges think they can either write legislation from the bench or are supposed to interpret the law under "modern values", "right injustice " or "prism of today".

that is CLEARLY WRONG given the constitution can be CHANGED (abit not easily and the framers were smart to do so to prevent knee jerk reactions) .

for example why the supreme court before the civil war found it constitutional the fugitive slave act. because (sadly) slavery was constitutional as states rights.
when it wasnt due to CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE then they could rule any slavery law unconstitutional

but sadly the judges (with misguided people support) have gotten away from that constitutional responsibility and happening in increments well before this issue.

So to all those demanding trumps tax returns there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT for him (or anyone ) to do so.

on specific level the requirements for presidential candidates are CLEARLY SPELLED OUT in the constitution and if one wants to harp on tax returns THE LAW IS QUITE CLEAR.

every candidate from senator, congressman to president has to fill out financial reports . It has been determined legal and it is quite extensive .

you will just have to be happy with this.
as for the judges....DO YOUR DAMN JOB.... at beginning of the cases STOMP THOSE LAWS REQUIRING TAX RETURNS RIGHT AWAY AND CLEARLY.

Just remember once you demand this of the president there is NO STOPPING IT from other requirements that will effect "common man" eventually .

you will not be able to "turn it off" after trump or a republican

scrounger

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Lumenari

Yep yep....
.....and all the while the media can just put the word "alleged" in front of whatever non-crime that was done and you get to generate negative publicity.

So, you are clever enough then, to know that Trump...say, is not a criminal..or do you just love him so much it doesn't matter?

im sorry but show me PROOF where he has been convicted of a crime

you know that "innocent until PROVEN guilty IN A COURT OF LAW" ... Let me stress IN A COURT OF LAW...not public opinion, not "experts comments", not "polls" , and not "accusations"...

cold hard proof.

hell even the special council report didnt recommend charges .

let me put it another way.
If I accuse you (note this is an example) of dealing crack, get some expert to say you exhibit the signs of a drug dealer, and/or some "unnamed source claims" it is true will you accept your guilt?
bet not NOR SHOULD YOU.

but because you hate trump its ok ?

that is called "hypocrisy"

scrounger

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

""Federal judge halts California law forcing Trump to release tax returns to qualify for ballot""

originally posted by: contextual
Meanwhile trump's suing Massachusetts DA to keep them hidden.
His supporters no doubt back this move, on a conspiracy website no less, lol.

as others have asked

what PROOF OF THIS do you have?
should be easy to give us a link ?

but say for arguments sake it is true

which part of under federal law its "ILLEGAL TO GET SOMEONES (be you , I or president) TAX RETURNS WITHOUT COURT ORDER OR VOLUNTARILY (say again VOLUNTARILY ) by the person dont you seem to grab?

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

The left has convinced themselves that Trump is simultaneously the slipperiest, cleverest supercriminal and the stupidest blathering idiot of all time. Really after 3 years they should stop embarrassing themselves.
But they won't.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Anyone without TDS knew this was going to happen.

a reply to: smurfy

He's innocent until proven guilty. I know it's hard for Democrats to understand.

If he's a criminal prove it.

a reply to: FyreByrd

No, they don't. They can set State election rules. The condition to be president is set in the Constitution.

a reply to: contextual

I support individual rights and privacy, why don't you?

a reply to: xuenchen

California has become a " Rebel State " , and to Preserve Our " Union " , it should be taken Over by Federal Authorities ASAP .