Tax returns sought as means of extra-judicial punishment/coercion

Forums: Trump Tax Returns, Political Independence, Emoluments
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The only reason Trump's tax returns are sought is to use them against him and thus bring him into submission to his opponents.

Should it be legal to seek and/or cultivate extra-judicial power over a President or other person in a position of influence, governmental or non-governmental?

Don't people with power/influence need to be free of such threats so they can do their jobs independently and without coercion?

If we don't want emoluments and other types of string-pulling going on with presidents and others in power, why would we want their financial information made public so anyone who wants to use the information against them can do so?

Do we really want to make the presidency or any other position into a free-for-all for anyone with access to the internet to strategize tactics for exercising financial power/coercion over the individuals in their positions?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,097 • Replies: 51

@livinglava,

youre all over the barnyard slim. Try to focus a bit more.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

I tried that line too... saying that they had no right to my tax returns because it was just a means of "extra-judicial punishment/coercion". The government didn't think that was funny.

I think the president should follow the law, just like the rest of us.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I tried that line too... saying that they had no right to my tax returns because it was just a means of "extra-judicial punishment/coercion". The government didn't think that was funny.

I think the president should follow the law, just like the rest of us.

Were people trying to get access to your tax returns in order to look for pain-points to use against you in order to manipulate your professional functioning to their advantage?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I tried that line too... saying that they had no right to my tax returns because it was just a means of "extra-judicial punishment/coercion". The government didn't think that was funny.

Trump is not preventing the IRS from seeing his tax returns. He is preventing the Democratic Party from seeing his tax returns.

If some private party were to demand to see your tax returns, you would have every right to tell them no.

maxdancona wrote:

I think the president should follow the law, just like the rest of us.

The law provides him a right to privacy, just like the rest of us.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

maxdancona wrote:
I tried that line too... saying that they had no right to my tax returns because it was just a means of "extra-judicial punishment/coercion". The government didn't think that was funny.

Trump is not preventing the IRS from seeing his tax returns. He is preventing the Democratic Party from seeing his tax returns.

If some private party were to demand to see your tax returns, you would have every right to tell them no.

maxdancona wrote:
I think the president should follow the law, just like the rest of us.

The law provides him a right to privacy, just like the rest of us.

Those are all good points, but they ignore the fact that the president has to function independently of external manipulations to do a proper job. All this talk about publishing his tax returns ignores that information in them, if made public, could be used to threaten/coerce him in his presidential functions.

When Clinton said that China should help get his tax records, she was suggesting that his pain-points should be made public, which in turn would compromise the independent functioning of an acting president.

I understand she was making a parallel to his open suggestion that Russia should find and publish her private server emails during the election, but I don't know whether those emails gave people information that would facilitate manipulation of her by threat/coercion or whether they were just embarrassing. It's hard to say in a cultural context where popular opinion is treated as a legitimate court of judgement when it is really the opposite.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Can we agree on this statement...

If the law says that Trump or the IRS should turn over his taxes at the request of Congress, then Trump or the IRS should follow the law

It sounds an awful lot like you all are coming up with excuses for why Trump doesn't have to follow the law.

It seems simple to me... if the law says hand over the taxes, then hand them over. None of the rest of this nonsense matters.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Can we agree on this statement...

If the law says that Trump or the IRS should turn over his taxes at the request of Congress, then Trump or the IRS should follow the law

It sounds an awful lot like you all are coming up with excuses for why Trump doesn't have to follow the law.

It seems simple to me... if the law says hand over the taxes, then hand them over. None of the rest of this nonsense matters.

Neither Congressional employees nor anyone else can legitimately abuse governmental institutions to procure actions that are fundamentally unethical.

That was established by the Nuremberg trials, but on a less dramatic level, it's simply an abuse of position. If judges can be corrupt and abuse their authority, so can members of congress. The fact that they can achieve a majority by being part of a massive party/faction doesn't immunize them against the responsibility to use their power ethically.

The independence of the presidency is at stake when you disclose the president's personal financial information publicly. That means congress is in the position of undermining the autonomy of the president by subjecting the person holding the office to threat/coercion.

How could you defend any law or regulation that's enacted purely for the sake of subjecting the president or anyone else's authority to coercive influence?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Those are all good points, but they ignore the fact that the president has to function independently of external manipulations to do a proper job. All this talk about publishing his tax returns ignores that information in them, if made public, could be used to threaten/coerce him in his presidential functions.

Leftists see damaging America as a good thing.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

If the law says that Trump or the IRS should turn over his taxes at the request of Congress, then Trump or the IRS should follow the law

IF is a pretty important word. Let's see if you can get the Supreme Court to agree that his tax data should be turned over to Congress.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

What LivingLava is describing is a dictator not a president. The the president and the Congress both obey the law, no matter what their partisans think is "fair", then you have a democracy.

If the President and his partisan supporters can come up with reasons to disobey the law, then it is no longer a democracy. LivingLava is spouting excuses for why Trump doesn't have to follow the law.

This should go to the courts, and I suppose it will. But it seems to me that Trump supporters are going all in whether it is legal or not. Party over principle is not a patriotic stance.

Trump should follow the law, just like the rest of us.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

livinglava wrote:
Those are all good points, but they ignore the fact that the president has to function independently of external manipulations to do a proper job. All this talk about publishing his tax returns ignores that information in them, if made public, could be used to threaten/coerce him in his presidential functions.

Leftists see damaging America as a good thing.

"Damaging America" is too vague a statement. Anyone can claim to be "protecting America" by fighting against anything that threatens anyone doing anything in America. E.g. they could say that anti-crime laws threaten organized crime as a major contributor to GDP growth and job-creation in America.

The bottom line is that this isn't about protecting Trump as a person or business; it is about ensuring that external interests don't gain access to pain-points that can be used to push and manipulate Trump in various ways.

Trump is unpopular, among other reasons, because he stands up to global interests that abuse and exploit the US through trade. Those interests are wealthy and they have shown that they are willing to effectuate pain surgically to manipulate government and policy in various ways.

Do you remember when the tariffs were initially announced, the EU threatened to boycott imports produced within the voting districts of key government officials, so that they could quickly get those officials replaced in order to eliminate the tariffs?

Try to understand the fundamentally anti-democratic character of such tactics. They are not interested in discussing trade goals and appealing to the better judgement of people who might resist trade for various reasons. Rather, they simply want to cause surgical economic effects that will bring people into submission to free trade.

If such interests are willing to seek and use pain-points to manipulate voters, why wouldn't you expect them to apply similar pain-pressure to the person holding the office of president to bring him into submission? Where is the respect for democracy in which opponents of the president are supposed to bring reasonable arguments to him for his consideration?

Public discourse is the route critics of Trump should take if they seek different policies than the ones he's enacted. They should not be trying to undermine his power by means of exposing him to financial threats/coercion based on his personal information.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

seems the available tax data shows us, once again, that Plump is quite an empty suit . The NYT today posted a short story of his collection of bad business decisions, marginally legal pursuits , multiple years of accumulating debt from dumb purchase decisions and un recovered bankruptcies that all have followed our self proclaimed "brilliant leader". The man's tax facts seem to counter his own myth of being a business genius.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

What LivingLava is describing is a dictator not a president. The the president and the Congress both obey the law, no matter what their partisans think is "fair", then you have a democracy.

If the President and his partisan supporters can come up with reasons to disobey the law, then it is no longer a democracy. LivingLava is spouting excuses for why Trump doesn't have to follow the law.

This should go to the courts, and I suppose it will. But it seems to me that Trump supporters are going all in whether it is legal or not. Party over principle is not a patriotic stance.

Trump should follow the law, just like the rest of us.

Rule of law can be used as a tool to support democracy and freedom; but it can also be abused as a tool of authoritarian oppression, depending on how it is used, what rules/laws are made, and how they are applied/enforced.

Don't assume that rule of law is immune from abuse. No human institution is beyond reach of corruption.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Trump should follow the law, just like the rest of us.

Should Rosa Parks have followed the law?

Regardless, let's see what the Supreme Court has to say about this.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

seems the available tax data shows us, once again, that Plump is quite an empty suit . The NYT today posted a short story of his collection of bad business decisions, marginally legal pursuits , multiple years of accumulating debt from dumb purchase decisions and un recovered bankruptcies that all have followed our self proclaimed "brilliant leader". The man's tax facts seem to counter his own myth of being a business genius.

Since when are Democrats bothered by bad investments to stimulate the economy? Isn't that basically the core economic ethic of the Democratic party?

Oh wait, no I forgot they want to tax the rich to balance the budget and thus magically render every bad investment 'good.'

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Let me make sure I get your argument straight.

If Trump and his supporters decide that the other party is "misusing the rule of law", then they can defy the law, and the Constitutional authority of the Congress in order to prevent "authoritarian oppression".

You are a very funny person.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I never knew that Rosa Parks was president. You learn something new every day.

You are a silly person, Oralloy.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Let me make sure I get your argument straight.

If Trump and his supporters decide that the other party is "misusing the rule of law", then they can defy the law, and the Constitutional authority of the Congress in order to prevent "authoritarian oppression".

You are a very funny person.

It's a side-discussion. Insisting that everyone is subject to rule of law is no basis for anything, including exposure of the president's financial information by a brainwashed congressional majority.

You can't make laws that expose the president to extortion as a means of undermining the autonomy of the office. You can't use 'rule of law' to validate the abuse of law and/or governmental institutions and powers.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I never knew that Rosa Parks was president. You learn something new every day.

What does it matter whether she was president? You were moralizing about how we all need to obey the law no matter how unfair it is.

maxdancona wrote:

You are a silly person, Oralloy.

Not really. I just point out facts. That seems to bother the left.

1 Reply

Tax returns sought as means of extra-judicial punishment/coercion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know