Create new account | My Profile | My Account | My Bookmarks | My Inbox | Help | Log in

Google search

Advanced search

HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Trump, RNC sue to block C...

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 01:03 PM

Star Member octoberlib (14,934 posts)

Trump, RNC sue to block California law requiring release of tax returns

President Trump and the Republican National Committee on Tuesday filed a pair of lawsuits in federal court in California, opposing a new state law that would require President Trump to release his tax returns.

The law, signed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) last week, requires that presidential and gubernatorial candidates provide five years of federal tax returns from the most recent taxable years to the California secretary of state in order to appear on the state’s primary ballot.

Trump refused to release his tax returns during his 2016 presidential bid, rejecting decades of precedent. He is already engaged in a pair of lawsuits concerning the potential release of his federal and New York state tax returns to Democrats in Congress.

The RNC lawsuit alleges that the law is “a naked political attack against the sitting President of the United States.”


https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/456384-trump-rnc-sue-to-block-california-law-requiring-release-of-trump-tax

43 replies, 2514 views

Thread infoBookmark this threadTrash this thread

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply Trump, RNC sue to block California law requiring release of tax returns (Original post)
 octoberlib Aug 2019 OP
LineReply They sure have something to hide
 malaise Aug 2019 #1
LineLineReply He does NOT want those tax returns seen. Tax evasion and money laundering is my guess.
 octoberlib Aug 2019 #3
LineLineLineReply The IRS and NY IRS have seen the returns for decades.
 former9thward Aug 2019 #12
LineLineLineLineReply And yet, the NYT had a huge story on how Trump' had been
 octoberlib Aug 2019 #29
LineLineLineLineLineReply Then why was nothing done?
 former9thward Aug 2019 #32
LineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply Last I heard on the subject , they were investigating
 octoberlib Aug 2019 #34
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply That is about his father.
 former9thward Aug 2019 #38
LineReply So is judicial watch .https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212351709
 Fullduplexxx Aug 2019 #2
LineReply I went to the article at the link
 ScratchCat Aug 2019 #4
LineLineReply Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution
 former9thward Aug 2019 #13
LineLineLineReply Again it does not apply to primaries.
 LiberalFighter Aug 2019 #16
LineLineLineLineReply The clause says nothing about a general primary election.
 former9thward Aug 2019 #22
LineLineLineLineLineReply You can predict all you want. You would be wrong!!
 LiberalFighter Aug 2019 #25
LineLineLineReply Is having your name printed on a ballot a "qualification" under the Constitution?
 dumbcat Aug 2019 #21
LineLineLineLineReply The courts have disagreed with your argument since 1828.
 former9thward Aug 2019 #24
LineLineLineLineLineReply Did you notice the word "federal" anywhere in your post?
 ZZenith Aug 2019 #26
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply Do you know how elections work?
 former9thward Aug 2019 #31
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply It's about a state primary for federal office.
 ZZenith Aug 2019 #35
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply We will see how the courts rule.
 former9thward Aug 2019 #39
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply I am sure you will be thrilled if they block California from enacting this law.
 ZZenith Aug 2019 #40
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply I support Jerry Brown's position.
 former9thward Aug 2019 #41
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply Jerry Brown is wrong on this issue.
 ZZenith Aug 2019 #42
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply No, Jerry Brown and I don't.
 former9thward Aug 2019 #43
LineLineLineLineReply If a state passed a law saying Democrats could not be on the ballot
 former9thward Aug 2019 #30
LineLineLineLineLineReply You just went from a qualification to be on the ballot
 ScratchCat Aug 2019 #33
LineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply Why are they different?
 dumbcat Aug 2019 #37
LineLineLineLineLineNew Reply Or if a state passed a law eliminating it's state's election for President?
 dumbcat Aug 2019 #36
LineLineReply I think the tax returns will also shatter
 NewJeffCT Aug 2019 #18
LineReply I believe he is actually broke
 Mike_DuBois Aug 2019 #5
LineLineReply with all the money he's generating off of the presidency
 NewJeffCT Aug 2019 #19
LineReply This will be fun to watch
 Gothmog Aug 2019 #6
LineReply I may be in the minority here
 philf99 Aug 2019 #7
LineLineReply You're right
 atreides1 Aug 2019 #8
LineLineLineReply Why not all other offices?
 MichMan Aug 2019 #11
LineLineReply Well, the whole candidates releasing tax returns thing resulted from past corrupt Presidents.
 octoberlib Aug 2019 #10
LineLineReply Republicans will do it anyway
 uponit7771 Aug 2019 #20
LineReply States' rights?
 gratuitous Aug 2019 #9
LineReply The GOP is running scared. Keep the pressure on them until they screw up.
 ffr Aug 2019 #14
LineReply This is a 15 page poorly drafted petition
 Gothmog Aug 2019 #15
LineLineReply Thanks, Gothmog!
 octoberlib Aug 2019 #28
LineReply This is a bad law and sets a bad precedent
 Patterson Aug 2019 #17
LineLineReply Does it now?
 ZZenith Aug 2019 #27
LineReply States can determine whatever manner they want to distribute
 JCMach1 Aug 2019 #23

Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 01:05 PM

Star Member malaise (252,826 posts)

1. They sure have something to hide

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to malaise (Reply #1)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 01:09 PM

Star Member octoberlib (14,934 posts)

3. He does NOT want those tax returns seen. Tax evasion and money laundering is my guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to octoberlib (Reply #3)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 05:33 PM

Star Member former9thward (28,169 posts)

12. The IRS and NY IRS have seen the returns for decades.

If there is tax evasion or money laundering why has no one acted? For decades?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to former9thward (Reply #12)

Wed Aug 7, 2019, 05:17 AM

Star Member octoberlib (14,934 posts)

29. And yet, the NYT had a huge story on how Trump' had been

evading taxes for years by underreporting income and hiding money and apparently neither agency knew about it. For years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to octoberlib (Reply #29)

Wed Aug 7, 2019, 06:54 AM

Star Member former9thward (28,169 posts)

32. Then why was nothing done?

If the story was accurate and says what you said it says?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to octoberlib (Reply #34)

Wed Aug 7, 2019, 01:52 PM

Star Member former9thward (28,169 posts)

38. That is about his father.

They have had his returns for decades now and they are still investigating?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 01:07 PM

Fullduplexxx (6,657 posts)

2. So is judicial watch .https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212351709

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212351709

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 01:11 PM

ScratchCat (1,831 posts)

4. I went to the article at the link

But didn't see what Federal law they believe the California statute is in violation of.

Its funny how the RNC is now insisting he shouldn't have to reveal his taxes. Its very clear they show cash flow from Russia and Saudi Arabia, among other things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ScratchCat (Reply #4)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 05:38 PM

Star Member former9thward (28,169 posts)

13. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution

It is the clause that courts have used in the past to strike down state laws which have tried to add qualifications to run for federal office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to former9thward (Reply #13)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 06:31 PM

Star Member LiberalFighter (45,253 posts)

16. Again it does not apply to primaries.

States determine the requirements to be on the primary ballots.

States currently impose various requirements. Such as: collecting signatures supporting their name on the ballot or paying a filing fee. In some states, Texas being one, the state party determines the qualifications for their primary.

South Carolina has a filing fee of up to $20k to be on the ballot.

The clause only applies to being on the ballot in the general election.

Voting in a primary does not even result in a candidate's name being on the ballot in the general. It is the elected delegates from each state attending the national convention voting to determine the nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #16)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 10:15 PM

Star Member former9thward (28,169 posts)

22. The clause says nothing about a general primary election.

I predict the courts will strike the law. They have been striking such laws since 1828.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to former9thward (Reply #22)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 10:48 PM

Star Member LiberalFighter (45,253 posts)

25. You can predict all you want. You would be wrong!!

You apparently don't get it. There are already filing fees or petitions in states to get on the primary ballot. The clause is for the general election. They did not have primaries back then.

They also had more than one candidate on the general ballot from the same political party back in the early days.

Political parties are also a private entity creating their or rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to former9thward (Reply #13)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 07:24 PM

dumbcat (2,103 posts)

21. Is having your name printed on a ballot a "qualification" under the Constitution?

I don't see how having to provide info to be placed on a state ballot is adding a "qualification" to be President in violation of the Constitution. He is still fully qualified to be and to run for President. Nowhere in the Constitution does it require a name be on a ballot. It doesn't even require a ballot. It doesn't even require that States hold a vote of the people. He can still be elected President by the EC. In states that do have ballots, every one I have seen has a space for a write in name, so no one is being denied the ability to vote for the candidate of their choice.

So how is it changing the "qualifications" to be President?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to dumbcat (Reply #21)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 10:19 PM

Star Member former9thward (28,169 posts)

24. The courts have disagreed with your argument since 1828.

That is when Arkansas tried to add qualifications to who could be on their federal ballot. We will see what the courts say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to former9thward (Reply #24)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 11:07 PM

Star Member ZZenith (3,811 posts)

26. Did you notice the word "federal" anywhere in your post?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ZZenith (Reply #26)

Wed Aug 7, 2019, 06:53 AM

Star Member former9thward (28,169 posts)

31. Do you know how elections work?

The states print the ballot for federal offices. The CA law is about a federal office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to former9thward (Reply #31)

Wed Aug 7, 2019, 10:36 AM

Star Member ZZenith (3,811 posts)

35. It's about a state primary for federal office.

“Each State has its own ballot access laws to determine who may appear on ballots and who may not. According to Article I, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, the authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections is up to each State, unless Congress legislates otherwise...”

“While the United States Constitution does set parameters for the election of federal officials, state law, not federal, regulates most aspects of elections in the U.S., including primaries, the eligibility of voters (beyond the basic constitutional definition), the running of each state's electoral college, as well as the running of state and local elections. All elections—federal, state, and local—are administered by the individual states.[2]...”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_States

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ZZenith (Reply #35)

Wed Aug 7, 2019, 01:54 PM

Star Member former9thward (28,169 posts)

39. We will see how the courts rule.

It seems the law's proponents don't want that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to former9thward (Reply #39)

Wed Aug 7, 2019, 01:55 PM

Star Member ZZenith (3,811 posts)

40. I am sure you will be thrilled if they block California from enacting this law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ZZenith (Reply #40)

Wed Aug 7, 2019, 01:57 PM

Star Member former9thward (28,169 posts)

41. I support Jerry Brown's position.

He vetoed the law when he was governor. He said it was unconstitutional and would end up backfiring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to former9thward (Reply #41)

Wed Aug 7, 2019, 02:34 PM

Star Member ZZenith (3,811 posts)

42. Jerry Brown is wrong on this issue.

States get to decide their own qualifications.

“The Elections Clause in Article I of the Constitution states that "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof." Consequently, each state may design its own unique criteria for ballot access.[2] The United States is one of the very few nations that does not have uniform federal ballot access laws.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access

Do you know how elections work?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ZZenith (Reply #42)

Wed Aug 7, 2019, 02:48 PM

Star Member former9thward (28,169 posts)

43. No, Jerry Brown and I don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to dumbcat (Reply #21)

Wed Aug 7, 2019, 06:50 AM

Star Member former9thward (28,169 posts)

30. If a state passed a law saying Democrats could not be on the ballot

what would you say? Because the EC could vote for them anyway so it doesn't matter. Does it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to former9thward (Reply #30)

Wed Aug 7, 2019, 07:20 AM

ScratchCat (1,831 posts)

33. You just went from a qualification to be on the ballot

To a law preventing anyone with a specific party affiliation from being on the ballot. That's not even close to a similar argument. Paying a fee or releasing your financials is a qualification. Saying someone can't be on the ballot if they choose a certain political party is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ScratchCat (Reply #33)

Wed Aug 7, 2019, 12:13 PM

dumbcat (2,103 posts)

37. Why are they different?

If the state passed the law saying only Republicans (or Green party, or whatever) could be on the ballot, then that's "the will of the people" of that state. Then, they would also have to pass a law (again, following the will of the people) as to how their Electors in the EC shall vote. The State could also pass a law eliminating the election for President, and instruct its Electors to always vote Green Party. If that's what the people's representatives and governor agree, that's the "will of the people.""

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to former9thward (Reply #30)

Wed Aug 7, 2019, 12:06 PM

dumbcat (2,103 posts)

36. Or if a state passed a law eliminating it's state's election for President?

Is that Unconstitutional? Would that be any different?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ScratchCat (Reply #4)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 07:02 PM

NewJeffCT (56,787 posts)

18. I think the tax returns will also shatter

the myth that he's a brilliant billionaire businessman. I think the guy that wrote Trump Nation is correct that Donny is worth maybe $150 million to $250 million. And, even that might be generous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 01:13 PM

Mike_DuBois (93 posts)

5. I believe he is actually broke

 

I think he's a paper billionare, leveraged beyond bankrupcy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Mike_DuBois (Reply #5)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 07:03 PM

NewJeffCT (56,787 posts)

19. with all the money he's generating off of the presidency

he may not be underwater anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 01:15 PM

Star Member Gothmog (124,419 posts)

6. This will be fun to watch

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 01:16 PM

philf99 (231 posts)

7. I may be in the minority here

But I don't like this law. I think putting restrictions on candidates is a bad idea. Don't give the republicans any ideas.

And in the end this isn't going to force him to release his returns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to philf99 (Reply #7)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 01:25 PM

Star Member atreides1 (15,771 posts)

8. You're right

You're probably in the minority!

The law only applies to those running for governor and president, not all candidates! The Republicans won't do it for the very same reason they've filed a lawsuit...it's information they know will shed light on the truth!

And Republicans aren't big on telling the truth!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to atreides1 (Reply #8)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 04:46 PM

MichMan (8,539 posts)

11. Why not all other offices?

Shouldn't voters have the right to know the tax info on every single state and local candidates as well ?

In fact, I would think that knowing what financial conflicts of interests exist for the local treasurer, city council, prosecutor, or judges affects us much more personally.

Dont understand why California purposely limited it to president and governor only and exempted everyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to philf99 (Reply #7)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 01:32 PM

Star Member octoberlib (14,934 posts)

10. Well, the whole candidates releasing tax returns thing resulted from past corrupt Presidents.

I think anyone who wants to be President should be investigated and their past gone through with a fine tooth comb especially financially, so I don't really have a problem with it. Corruption should be a disqualifying factor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to philf99 (Reply #7)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 07:09 PM

Star Member uponit7771 (88,365 posts)

20. Republicans will do it anyway

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 01:25 PM

Star Member gratuitous (80,085 posts)

9. States' rights?

I thought Republicans were all about states running their elections as they see fit. Certainly Republicans like excluding citizens likely to vote against them from voting, and they've come up with all kinds of ingenious ways to restrict the franchise. Now they don't like naked political attacks and states making up rules for who can be on the ballot? Huh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 05:57 PM

ffr (21,937 posts)

14. The GOP is running scared. Keep the pressure on them until they screw up.

Or until we find out how deep Putin is into our democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 06:11 PM

Star Member Gothmog (124,419 posts)

15. This is a 15 page poorly drafted petition

This petition is poorly drafted and is only 15 pages http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/08/06/1.-.complaint.pdf Somehow California is violating trump's first amendment rights by making him file his tax returns. This is a poorly drafted piece of shit petition

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Gothmog (Reply #15)

Wed Aug 7, 2019, 05:11 AM

Star Member octoberlib (14,934 posts)

28. Thanks, Gothmog!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 07:00 PM

Patterson (1,452 posts)

17. This is a bad law and sets a bad precedent

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Patterson (Reply #17)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 11:08 PM

Star Member ZZenith (3,811 posts)

27. Does it now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Tue Aug 6, 2019, 10:18 PM

Star Member JCMach1 (27,041 posts)

23. States can determine whatever manner they want to distribute

Their electoral votes...

Trump's challenge will fail

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread

General Discussion (Forum)
DU Home | Latest Threads | Greatest Threads | Forums & Groups | My Subscriptions | My Posts

About | Copyright | Privacy | Terms of service | Contact

In Memoriam

© 2001 - 2023 Democratic Underground, LLC. Thank you for visiting.