Taxes, freedom of information act...

[Jackie]

Backstory

Decades before 45 decided to run because Obama poked fun of him. I I was in college. I was taking journalism. During my stay there, one of my fellow students got accused of stealing credit card info, he had worked in offices where he had access to such.  He got arrested. I wont say I remember the outcome now as to convictions. I do remember going down town to the city office to ask for records. When I did, I got stonewalled by the clerk, arguing privacy issues. I was persistent in bringing up the "freedom of information act" and finally she relented. I will admit, after the file was handed to me, not being a lawyer, all I could make out was dates and times.

But when you are talking about office of public trust, and not some no name, like the guy I was looking into, even without criminal convictions, it would seem important to me that such a person seeking to hold power, should be subject to far more scrutiny than a no name. 

It is been over a year, and even the orange fuck has claimed he would release his taxes. But just like his bullshit recently "I'd be happy to meet with Mueller", and also knowing the IRS has said repeatedly NOTHING is stopping him from doing releasing his taxes, 45 as always is lying his ass off. My question is, why cant "The Freedom Of Information Act" force the fucker to call his bluff? If I can gain access to a no name, why should a high profile politician at the top seat of power be immune to the same scrutiny?

[Minimalist]

[Jackie]

Ok for some stupid FUCKING reason what you are about to read is automatically being posted in quotes, when all I am doing is trying to respond here. I have refreshed the page multiple times but it STILL puts me quoting ME!

[quote pid='1697416' dateline='1517722250']
It is a balance ultimately but the balance between privacy and the right to the sunlight of scrutiny is more about power than absolutes. Privacy is a priority more for no names, and having taken journalism in college, the famous people, regardless if you like them, or they do or don't support your political or economic views, no matter the industry, or a politician, are in the public eye. Your neighbor however, whom nobody knows whom does not have fleets of lawyers like Trump or Hillary or Bill Gates or Ann Coulter. My point is the guy I looked into was a no name. While I did gain access to those files, it bothers me that with famous people that it is sometimes harder to do the same, it should not be when we are talking about those who are not only famous, but in a high office of public trust.
[/quote]

[chimp3]

I despise Trump, but if I were a candidate I would never release my personal financial information. Fuck all those nosey people. If someone thought I was committing tax fraud let them get a warrant.

[Jackie]

I despise Trump, but if I were a candidate I would never release my personal financial information. Fuck all those nosey people. If someone thought I was committing tax fraud let them get a warrant.

No sorry, I am glad you like Wendy O, but no.

If you are going to be given consent to hold power and be in the position of having the ability to create policy or have others arrested, yes, you better disclose your finances. Why? Because if you dont, you can allow criminals and or other nations to BLACKMAIL YOU.

I am all for privacy, but when it comes to public office, law or politician, the scrutiny is there to insure someone else cannot hold you hostage. 

I am not talking about the private citizen, I am talking about public office.

[Minimalist]

A lot of this shit goes back to Nixon's attempt to use the IRS against his political "enemies," Brian.  These laws are put in place for a reason and usually in reaction to some abuse.

That they then lead to other problems is called the "Law of Unintended Consequences."

[Jackie]

A lot of this shit goes back to Nixon's attempt to use the IRS against his political "enemies," Brian.  These laws are put in place for a reason and usually in reaction to some abuse.

That they then lead to other problems is called the "Law of Unintended Consequences."

I totally agree. It is sick and sad that 40 years later the GOP is holding a grudge. Nobody told Nixon to order the break in. Just like nobody forced 45 to spend 5 years on birther bullshit, a campaign of scapegoating race and religion and war vets and media and intel. 

45 is the result of that clown car buildup. GOP never got over the fact their hero got his hand caught in the cookie jar. Now they have an ever worse asshole in charge.

[Minimalist]

Our current dysfunction began with Nixon and his "Moral Majority" horseshit.  Those racist, right-wing, assholes were told that they are the "good people," the "real Americans" and they gobbled it up.  Now they have the FOX FUX reinforcing the message on a daily basis.

[chimp3]

I despise Trump, but if I were a candidate I would never release my personal financial information. Fuck all those nosey people. If someone thought I was committing tax fraud let them get a warrant.

No sorry, I am glad you like Wendy O, but no.

If you are going to be given consent to hold power and be in the position of having the ability to create policy or have others arrested, yes, you better disclose your finances. Why? Because if you dont, you can allow criminals and or other nations to BLACKMAIL YOU.

I am all for privacy, but when it comes to public office, law or politician, the scrutiny is there to insure someone else cannot hold you hostage. 

I am not talking about the private citizen, I am talking about public office.

Fuck that! Only if I had something to hide would I be open to blackmail. Only the governmental business conducted by the prez is open to public scrutiny. If there is a crime, get a warrant. Not a fan of the cops, myself. No use making things easier for them.

[Jackie]