A question for you Bernie Sanders fans. Is Bernie crazy or just really out of touch and stupid?

Apparently, he believes people are just locked up all the time with no charges. Wants to let dangerous criminals free on the streets.

 

BTW, not releasing his tax returns may be the sanest move in history. He is not required to by any law or custom, as Romney found out, nothing but grief would come from it.

- tenguy

Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, which might not have even included sexual intercourse, was none of Ken Starr's business, nor was it our business.

Donald Trump's financial affairs are our business. At the least, he has gone for years without paying taxes. A rich man with a good tax lawyer and accountant can occasionally orchestrate that. That says bad things about the legal and economic situation in the United States, and deserves to be a political issue.

It might be the case that Trump is not rich at all, but badly in debt to unsavory characters in other countries who can sway his decisions. If that is true, we certainly need to know about it.

 

In a similar vein:

- Esquire

 

Trump hotel ruling could open door to his financial records

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Maryland and the District of Columbia can proceed with their lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of unconstitutionally accepting payments from foreign and state interests through his Washington hotel. The decision clears the way for the plaintiffs to seek financial records and other materials from the president's company.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte, based in Maryland, rejected arguments from the Justice Department that earnings from business activities, including hotel room stays, do not qualify as unconstitutional gifts. At issue is the Constitution's emoluments clause, which bans federal officials from accepting benefits from foreign or state governments without congressional approval. The plaintiffs argue Trump's hotel harms area businesses because of the president's ties.

Messitte's ruling was the first time that a federal judge has interpreted the emoluments clause, which had never been fully tested in an American courtroom. Two other lawsuits based on the emoluments clause are also being heard in other federal courts.

In his 52-page opinion, the judge said attorneys general for Maryland and the District had "convincingly argued" that the Constitution treats emoluments "as any 'profit,' 'gain,' or 'advantage.'"

"The Court finds the President is subject to both Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution and that the term 'emolument' in both clauses extends to any profit, gain or advantage," Messitte wrote.

The judge ordered both sides to provide a schedule of their next steps within 21 days, including how to handle legal discovery of records sought by Maryland and the District.

A spokesman for the Justice Department, Andy Reuss, said the administration continues "to maintain that this case should be dismissed." Reuss added that the department "is reviewing the order and determining next steps to continue vigorously defending the President." They could appeal Messitte's ruling to a federal appeals court.

Declaring Messitte's ruling a "series of common sense conclusions," Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh said Wednesday that he expected both jurisdictions to press for a wide range of financial documents and related materials from the Trump Organization and the Trump International Hotel.

Among the documents likely sought by the plaintiffs, Frosh said, would be several years of the president's income taxes. The tax returns would be necessary to pinpoint any payments from foreign and state interests to the hotel, Frosh said.

Frosh, a Democrat, added that the plaintiffs might ask for tax records dating several years earlier than the hotel's September 2016 opening to learn more about the hotel's financing. The attorneys general have already put the hotel and the company on notice to preserve a wide range of records.

"I think it's clear we're entitled to financial information that underpins our case," Frosh said.

Frosh acknowledged that both the company and the hotel would likely object to any subpoenas for records, which could delay the case. And any appeal could freeze any legal discovery, depending on how a federal appellate court rules.

District Attorney General Karl Racine, a Democrat, said the judge's interpretation of the emoluments clause shows that "the president can't accept money or other benefits from foreign or domestic governments."

Norman Eisen, a former Obama administration ethics counsel, said the ruling represented a "major leap forward" in learning "how Trump is profiting off the presidency."

"It is another major crack in the dam that has so far been holding back accountability," said Eisen, who chairs Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a good-government group that has joined the two jurisdictions in the lawsuit.

The Maryland case is one of three lawsuits against Trump based on the emoluments clause that are winding through the federal courts. A New York federal judge turned down another lawsuit from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, but the case is now on appeal. And a case brought by nearly 200 Democratic Party congressional officials is also being heard by a federal judge in Washington, D.C.

 

Seriously, 1984?

Do you have any clue how free you actually are?

 

You mean in the country with the highest rate of incarceration in the world?

 

That most people will never have to experience.

Sorry but privileged people aren't not free nor are they subject to any of those things. Quite the opposite.

It's the people who don't have the money or background to make people care enough that are.

In any country of the first world.

 

I think his worst transgression is being one of the most inept administrators in the history of business and/or government. Since that is his main function as President, it should be the main reason somebody else (almost ANYBODY else) should be voted in for the next round. Of course that argument lacks flash and pop, so it is ignored across almost all media, but it is no less true.

 

Still doesn't make it very free.

 

It clearly does, for the people who talk the most.

And taking that for granted is the ultimate form of being privileged.

 

Freedom of speech is not a privilege, but a basic human right. The vast majority of people in the world enjoy it. It's not really much to write home about when the rest of your society is so unfree.

 

Actually it's not a basic human right. It's a right that exists thanks to the US. Unlike France where they were imprisoning and killing people for speaking out during the Terror.

You don't know what not being free is, and if you think your society is any better well I think maybe you should ask people who aren't of French heritage how true that is. I'm pretty sure they'd disagree with you.

Just like in my country, where the privileged lead a life of ignorant bliss compared to the people who come from the opposite.

 

I think things become dangerous when you start talking about "basic human rights" when it comes to "free speech" ... especially outside of the industrialized west. I would suggest there are many more people living under some form of institutionalized censorship than not on this planet, and more who like to believe they have freedom of speech until the politically correct come to silence them.

The idea of free speech is a grand one, and one to aspire to I believe, but we humans are long LONG ways away from that ideal at the moment.

 

Tutin Prump