The Washington Times reports.
I was going to riff on "bonafide," based on the meaning of the term — which is "In good faith, with sincerity; genuinely," and I don't believe we've got good faith here. But I'm distracted by the spelling. I believe Cuomo expressed himself in a written statement, and only the NYT seems to have inserted the space between "bona" and "fide." Compare:
... with:
... so I think Cuomo's people are responsible for the low-quality text. Looking up the problem of closing up the gap between "bona" and "fide," I stumbled into a problem worse than "bonafide": "bonafied." It's in the OED, marked as a "nonstandard" form of "bona fide" (not to be confused with the past participle of "bonify," which means to make good). Examples of the nonstandard "bonify" go back to 1841:
1840 Richmond (Indiana) Palladium 11 Apr. To such an extent have letters been sent him, couched in every form of language, that it would be an impossibility to discriminate them frequently between friends and foes—bonafied letters, and impositions.It's amazing what gets into the OED sometimes. These are just misspellings! Typos!
1897 R. E. Robinson Uncle Lisha's Outing i. 4 I have heretobefore gin my bonafied promise tu Mis' Briggs..tu take her over tu Adams to visit her folks.
1934 Hartford (Connecticut) Courant 7 Oct. 14/4 (advt.) Enameled ‘Truth mirrors’..help you..see..that your make up is a bonified natural (looking) work of art.
1978 N.Y. Times 30 Mar. b20/8 (advt.) Bonified appointments with customers who are waiting for you. No cold calling.
2005 New Nation 26 Sept. 37/1 Baby faced, buxom, bright, bubbly black bell seeks bonified, British, brown, black bloke, with brawns and brain behind, 39, for bonding blending.
Posts
168 comments:
Disgusting. The democrat party continues to be the biggest danger to this country.
This is the totalitarian garbage that will turn a once great nation into a hot mess.
But I do love the closing up of the space in "bonâfidically" — a nonce-word used by Robert Southey in 1819: "Two men who love nonsense so cordially, and naturally, and bonâfidically."
Maybe we can get that word going... maybe with a negative, as in: Who can possibly believe that Andrew Cuomo signed that bill bonâfidically?
Get rid of the circumflex though, don't you think?
E.g., No one is grasping at Trump's tax returns bonafidically.
"This is the totalitarian garbage that will turn a once great nation into a hot mess."
Watch the video 2 posts down.
Wow, the NY Democrat Party really does have the pulse of America.....
Was Trump a "public official" during the time of the tax returns that they are demanding? Or was he a private individual? Being a famous business man does not make you a "public" person.
If they can just retroactively go back and take private information that is not public or allowed to be released, then the Government can circumvent any of our rights at their whim. Be afraid.
Plus. Much of the information in Trump's multiple returns, businesses includes the private information of OTHER PRIVATE non public individuals. They should sue to stop this invasion of their rights.
I did watch the video, Ann.
Democracy Dies in Darkness.
“I was a virgin until I was seventeen,” she said. “Then I was bonified.”
A virtual bill of attainder by proxy.
The New York Dems must be really angry over losing Keith Raniere's cult to compromise their opponents. They are scratching the bottom of the barrel now hoping against hope that Trump took deductions that can be made to sound like Trump is selfish man. But the chances that Trump is a tax fraud are zero. He has been audited, audited and and re-audited.
"“I was a virgin until I was seventeen,” she said. “Then I was bonified.”"
Yes, I remember, years ago, young men who could not hear "bona fide" without saying "boner-fied."
"Democrats keep using that term “authoritarian,” but I do not think they know what it means....”
This is one more reason I won’t live in New York State, nice as some parts of it are.
If you are thinking this is tolerable because the Democrats will be made to abide by it too
Good. Release all their tax returns. You want a position of power? Prove you deserve it.
Loopholes for tax evasion are for democratics, only.
If there is anything good to come out of this, it could be that I learned the meaning of the phrase" "Bill of Attainder". I could put it in my resume, under "bonafides".
"“I was a virgin until I was seventeen,” she said. “Then I was bonified.”" Yes, I remember, years ago, young men who could not hear "bona fide" without saying "boner-fied.""
It's a helpful way to listen to Cuomo's disingenuous statement. Rehear it as: "Tax secrecy is paramount - the exception being for boner-fied investigative and law enforcement purposes." It's a polite way to say "fucked."
Andrew Cuomo was one of those who put the hurt on the banks that would lead to the subprime collapse, along with Janet Reno at justice.
Just like the Mueller report, when Trump's tax returns are finally given to us, no one will read them. Everyone will just go on thinking they mean what they already thought they meant, based on what they wanted them to mean all along: Trump is a crook/Trump is just fine.
So tedious.
He's Bonafide
What a stupid non-issue. How many people who are prone to vote for Trump are going to be turned off by the fact that he utilized laws to lessen his tax burden?
As noted, he was not a public figure pre-2015. How is this NOT a bill of attainder?
The word problem comes from mispronouncing a two syllable Latin word Fides that sounds like Feedace as fide that sounds like like ride.
Govt lovers reveal they want a tool for force and fraud
But you ain’t bona fide! from the Coen Brothers’ O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Me today. You tomorrow. What morons. Just ask Harry Reid.
This means you don't have to file a tax return in NY. Constitutional protection from self-incrimination if the return might be shared with law enforcement.
So...does a Bill of Attainder have to actually name the person it is aimed at?
Or is there a lower standard such that a situation like this--where it is left to the legislature to name that person even though everybody and their dog knows who the person is long before the legislature even takes up the question--enough?
Because functionally, it an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder. However much it pretends to a legitimate purpose, it is written to be abused.
The dogs' name Fido is the definitive use.
Swell. Now have some deep Red state pass a similar law. In describing this let drop examples like Biden's son (foreign bribes) San Fran Nan (hundreds of millions for hubby from Uncle Sugar) Hillary and the Clinton Foundation (need I say more?).
Democrats, the short sighted party.
Senate committee should immediately pick their favorite NY Democrat and request his/her tax returns.
Hilarity should ensue.
rhhardin said...
This means you don't have to file a tax return in NY. Constitutional protection from self-incrimination if the return might be shared with law enforcement."
Jesus! That's brilliant!
Bill of Attainder was my first thought upon reading the headlines as well.
I'd like to see Nancy Pelosi's tax returns thru the ages. She has been in government for how long?
We should look at Marc Rich’s New York State tax returns. Could Bill Clinton really pardon Rich for those?
Jesus! That's brilliant!
That was the original argument against the income tax. The constitutional-making compromise was a promise not share the returns with law enforcement.
Bill of Attainder was my first thought upon reading the headlines as well.
Yes.
I also thought about illegal search and seizure.
Maybe a constitutional expert can advise.
Isn't this a transparent Bill of Attainder?
oops - wrong thread. Sorry!
btw where is the bonified quoted from? A movie?
A law written to apply to one person. The enemy!
oooo that's not totalitarian at all!
Some up-state DA should demand the tax returns of Cuomo and every other big-name Democrat in New York. There's enough corruption swirling around them to satisfy the boner-fied standard.
How does this not fall on the wrong side of being a bill of attainder?
I thought not explicitly naming the person is a loophole to get around the Bill of Attainder prohibition. As in "A person holding public office, with real estate holdings in excess of $1 billion,...." Could be anyone, after all.
As the legislation targets a single individual, isn't that the definition of a bill of attainder?
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
So tedious.
7/8/19, 11:01 AM
To me, the tedious part is watching Democrats play Calvinball with the alleged rule of law. If the legal system exists to do whatever the Democrats happen to want at any moment while handing out immunity like candy to the well-connected, what is the point of you? It fuels the argument that judges and prosecutors need to start decorating lamp posts (with a variety of fun holiday ornaments, as their new occupation).
From the 1970s ad campaign, "I love New York"
where your privacy is invaded if it's from the benefits of Democrat government
and
where you can kill both your unborn and born children,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_New_York
Doesn't this allow Republicans to ask the same of, say Senators that have filed NY taxes? This sounds like a good time to play mutual assured destruction.
"Doesn't this allow Republicans to ask the same of, say Senators that have filed NY taxes?"
-- Matters how narrowly the law is constructed, so, let's find out!
I think the whole tax thing will end up in the ditch when it is discovered that there is nothing unusual about the returns. Trump tied a red flag to a pigeon's leg, tossed it into the air, and the Democrats have been chasing it ever since.
I wonder how long Tom Fitton's judicial watch boner is right now.
So the idea here is that it is likely that there is evidence of criminal activity in Trump's tax returns, and that government taxing authorities are/were corruptly in cahoots with Trump to hide it? Or maybe that Trump has been skating on his taxes all these years because government taxing authorities are known to be indifferent to rooting out tax evasion/fraud (not part of their remit, I guess), or lack the competence to do so? For that I guess you need the auditing mojo of congressmen.
This, I believe, is the law in question: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s2271
"Or maybe that Trump has been skating on his taxes all these years because government taxing authorities are known to be indifferent to rooting out tax evasion/fraud (not part of their remit, I guess), or lack the competence to do so?"
-- I think it is more like how Mitt Romney didn't pay his taxes. Sure, it turned out he did, and more with extra charitable donations than his opponents, but the damage was already done.
Constitutional government, what with separation of powers and federalism, doesn't work very well unless politicians and other officials act with discretion and restraint. The theme of Althouse's posts today seems to be that many of them don't.
You know what would be hillarious, but I don't think Trump will do?
If he said: "You win." And closed down completely in New York. Just shut it all down, moved out to some other state.
"I don't believe we've got good faith here"
I don't believe we've got good faith here, with a post parsing bona fide when progs are trying to tear down our political system and erode what is left of public trust, in their relentless pursuit power.
OK, so Althouse recognizes the bad faith in this instance, as if progs ever act or argue in good faith. At what point will she decide that they are fundamentally evil, and therefore unworthy of her vote? Or do women's bodies override the devastation of the system?
I want to see Hillary's.
So the idea here is that it is likely that there is evidence of criminal activity in Trump's tax returns
It has nothing to do with finding criminal activity. That is left up to tax experts, say like people at the IRS.
It is all about trying to embarrass Trump for either paying too little in taxes or having less money than he claims.
There is no legitimate reason for this attempt at invading Trump's privacy.
Hah. The law is written so poorly, it gives the commissioner two different deadlines:
" (C) THE COMMISSIONER SHALL MAKE THE FIRST SUCH POSTINGS REQUIRED BY THIS PARAGRAPH NO LATER THAN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SUBSECTION, AND SUBSEQUENT POSTINGS NO LATER THAN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, A UNITED STATES SENATOR REPRESENTING NEW YORK STATE OR A STATE-WIDE ELECTED OFFICIAL TAKES HIS OR HER OATH OF OFFICE."
"(C) THE COMMISSIONER SHALL MAKE THE POSTINGS REQUIRED BY THIS PARAGRAPH NO LATER THAN THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF THE FIFTH MONTH FOLLOWING THE CLOSE OF THE TAXABLE YEAR, PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, A UNITED STATES SENATOR REPRESENTING NEW YORK OR A STATEWIDE ELECTED OFFICIAL HAS OBTAINED AN EXTENSION FOR FILING A RETURN PURSUANT TO SECTION SIX HUNDRED FIFTY-SEVEN OF THIS ARTICLE, SUCH POSTINGS SHALL OCCUR NO LATER THAN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE RETURN IS FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT."
I don't see how you can require someone to post PREVIOUS year's stuff. Maybe you can say "To run for office next time, you gotta," but there should be no legal way to say: "Hey, you've got to do this thing that wasn't the law yesterday but is now, so you've accidentally agreed to have your taxes revealed to the public because we changed the rules on you." I think that, maybe, you could make this law stand constitutionally if it was a "all future Xs must do Y," but retroactively doing it is... well, I don't think you can retroactively do things like this.
Blogger Ann Althouse said..."“I was a virgin until I was seventeen,” she said. “Then I was bonified.”" Yes, I remember, years ago, young men who could not hear "bona fide" without saying "boner-fied.""
And bonafied is the state that Billy Jeff (a natural horndog) Clinton is in upon boarding Epstein's Lolita Express until he returns home and sees Hillary.
What goes around.. comes around. Dems have opened the door to ALL politicians tax returns being exposed... and that is a good thing!
"FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Minimal."
-- They... they really think it will not cost a lot of money to get the tax records, conduct a thorough audit to remove all PII and ensure their releases are compliant with the laws, and to create the secure databases and websites they'll need to store said information, not to mention the raw design manhours in creating the sites?
Like, that's... wow. Optimistic. In 30 days, you probably can't have effectively read the NY Assembly's last 5 years of taxes (remember, this is for ALL statewide or New York state elected officials too).
'Tax secrecy is paramount - the exception being for bonafide investigative and law enforcement purposes,'
I guess the fascists have never heard of a "subpoena".
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unboneriffic searches ..."
"IV) TOTAL NEW YORK STATE TAXES DUE, (V) TOTAL NEW YORK CITY AND YONKERS TAXES"
-- Anyone from New York able to tell me why they needed to pull out separate New York City and Yonkers taxes instead of just state taxes?
It's not a bill of attainder problem. But it is an ex post facto/due process problem.
Openidname: Embrace the power of and. Considering that the NY Assembly, Cuomo and all of the media acknowledge this law is targeting Trump, I would find it hard for someone NOT to assume the was meant to target Trump.
I promise you this- the first time Republicans try to use this law, the state of New York will declare it a non-bona fide investigation.
Huh, wait. I think we're talking two different laws. The one I found is just a general public release; the one they're talking about Cuomo signing is a targeted release.
Yancey Ward said...
I promise you this- the first time Republicans try to use this law, the state of New York will declare it a non-bona fide investigation.
In New York? Not on our lifetimes.
Somewhere, I think a certain commentator is probably fouling a ficus in glee. No matter how fascist and unAmerican a law, if it targets Trump it is legal and a-ok!
Inga will no doubt agree!
Thought question. Would Chuck, Inga, Howard, and the rest of the gang only cheer loudly, or would they donate to the reelection campaign of any leftist who passed a bill demanding that Trump be drawn and quartered without benefit of a trial, which of course is a complete violation of practically every part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
There's no question, of course, that LLR's and the left would say that the more of Trump's rights they can illegally violate, the better. And when they move on to the rest of us, I'm sure our posters here will be Casablanca shocked, shocked.
Ex post facto- I don't see how it could apply to any PAST returns. But hell, under the principle Orange Man BAd, any decision is possible by a court.
I would go for this if twenty years of returns could first be released to Inga for her careful review and take on the various tax positions taken with particular emphasis on capitalized versus expensed items and whether dead deal costs were properly accounted for.
Why do people still reassure themselves by thinking "the Dems are really going to hate it when we use their own rules against them"?
When was the last time that worked out?
We're gonna use our rules against them, as will be done to Epstein, and they will howl like banshees. Waiting for chuckservatives isn't going to work much longer.
“Yes, I remember, years ago, young men who could not hear "bona fide" without saying "boner-fied."”
Sandpoint, ID is located in Bonner County, and just north of there, in Boundary County is Bonner’s Ferry. When my partner was raising a bunch of kids, several decades ago, the boys, esp when entering their teenaged years, would say “Boner” instead of “Bonner”, and laugh uproariously, while the girls would twitter. Their father would go “now boys, that isn’t nice”, guaranteeing that it would happen again.
This is so going to boomerang onto the Clintons.
Great news. Hillary lives in New York, so the Senate can check her taxes as it investigates the handling of her emails as Sec State.
Leland: Eh, technically not! She's not an elected official any more.
Francisco D said...
Maybe a constitutional expert can advise.
Is that a gentle dig at whoever?
Trump knows the Dems will find nothing there, just as with the Obama birthers the people pushing this will end up looking foolish and corrupt. Apart from the spittle flecked resistance, no one cares.
It's the border Stupid!
Swiss bank account!!! GE doesn’t pay taxes!!!
Francisco D: It has nothing to do with finding criminal activity. That is left up to tax experts, say like people at the IRS.
It is all about trying to embarrass Trump for either paying too little in taxes or having less money than he claims.
There is no legitimate reason for this attempt at invading Trump's privacy.
Yeah, I know. (As should be apparent from the rest of my comment.) They're just pretending otherwise for the purpose of passing laws to enable to making the returns public.
Which won't change anybody's mind. The screeching media baboons and our lefty friends here will pretend that Trump's actual worth/charitable donations/use of legal tax-reduction strategies are yet more evidence that Trump is uniquely unsuited to office, and that refusal to condemn these newly revealed perfidies is yet more evidence of the Trumpkin Cult of Personality. IOW, same ol' tedious twaddle.
The "Get Trump Squad" is changing tactics, shucking and jiving, bobbing and weaving.
They must adapt!
Democracy dies in the darkness! or something like that.
Just 'cuz the effort to fuck with electoral college voters went bust and the Mueller Report went bust, and the House Judiciary Impeachment went bust, we can finally get his tax returns!
Gangster government.
Good. Release all their tax returns. You want a position of power? Prove you deserve it.
Need we search the archives to see what Inga said about Obama not releasing his birth certificate?
The left were so busy yelling "The Russians!" = they morphed into totalitarian Poot's without even knowing it.
Inga, She-Wolf of the SS.
Bus her grandkids to Milwaukee inner-city schools.
Not familiar with NY State tax returns but I know in many jurisdictions they just start with adjusted gross income ("AGI") and go from there. You don't send a copy of the Federal return, either. But I assume they have a way of checking the number. All of the "good" stuff is before AGI.
Matt Sablan said...
Leland: Eh, technically not! She's not an elected official any more.
************************
So...why should Congress get their hands on Trump's tax returns when "he" wasn't an elected official?
This is an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder, straight up--- a naked attempt to nullify his right to privacy w/o a scintilla of legal justification.
Alternatively, it can be seen as an attempt to impose a new condition for holding the office of POTUS, above and beyond what the Constitution specifies.
I don't think they should.
It won't stop there.
What did Trump write in high school yearbooks?
What did his Kindergarten teacher write about his class behavior?
(Imagine you're a Kindergarten teacher and now have to consider what you write might end up at the center of a national controversy.)
What do his neighbors have to report?
What do his neighbors have a DUTY to report?
People are about to find out Stasi is not just a person on Vanderpump Rules.
Now is the right time for :-
http://thebonnieblueblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/trial-of-hank-rearden-from-ayn-rands.html
Gentle people - to assist you to re-examine the legal structure of your country
How many people who are prone to vote for Trump are going to be turned off by the fact that he utilized laws to lessen his tax burden
This is being done for the benefit of the media. That said, the question is how many undecideds are going to watch the news, see the tax return info being reported on, and make up their minds to vote against Trump on that basis?
Kevin, Inga is pro-Stasi.
Are you sure Matt? I think that is something that should be tested in the courts. After all, the whole point of this law isn't to release Trump's tax return, but to get him to file to prevent the release. Then the Democrats can ask "What does have to hide? " flip the script and make then file an injunction.
so I think Cuomo's people are responsible for the low-quality text.
Did any of them graduate from New York City high schools?
This is not ok.
Democrats in Washington State did something similar where if I buy a gun I consent to giving the State access to all my medical records.
The Right to Privacy is Unalienable. God gave me that right. Democrats do not have the right to take it away. The founding principle of our country is that citizens have Natural Rights.
Democrats have crossed the Rubicon. They are fascists that want to destroy our country.
They are my enemies forever.
so I think Cuomo's people are responsible for the low-quality text.
Yes, but they were good at filling in circles quickly during the LSAT.
"Imagine you're a Kindergarten teacher and now have to consider what you write might end up at the center of a national controversy"
Can't count the number of times I heard "This is going on your Permanent Record!"
I love that movie, Howard and E. Prole! I was thinking of the same thing. Cuomo ain't bonafide!
Paul said...
What goes around.. comes around. Dems have opened the door to ALL politicians tax returns being exposed... and that is a good thing!
This is fucking stupid. Only a fucking idiot would believe this will be evenly applied.
The Democrats just pissed on a founding principle of this country.
I blame public education for the broad civic ignorance.
I think this conflicts with Federal law, so supremacy clause - and with all the other states where Trump may have done business, so respect and defer to the laws of those states.
Won't get far in Federal court.
And they know that.
i think we can ALL AGREE; that No One, ever thought that the ideals and concepts of the United States Constitution would (or should) be applied evenly, or to all.
The Protections of the law, are there to protect the protected people
People like Donald Trump, are not; and have NEVER BEEN the sort that the law is meant to protect. The law is there to protect the Special Elite Classes; people like the Clintons, and Robert Menendez.
If the Special Elite want to sell Uranium to the Russians, in exchange for Eleven year old girls; THAT is WHAT the law is there to protect.
If some upstart, like Trump, has a problem with that; the law is ready for that too
"If they can just retroactively go back and take private information that is not public or allowed to be released, then the Government can circumvent any of our rights at their whim. Be afraid."
Oh, for god's sake! Where have you been for the past many many years?! They already can and do circumvent our rights at their whim! They already have access to our private information! Have you forgotten Ed Snowden's revelations of the NSA's unceasing surveillance of U.S. citizens' electronic communications? Have you forgotten Clapper perjuring himself before Congress saying there were not when he was asked if they were? Do you not see our police forces becoming ever more brutal, violent, and murderous? Are you not aware of the asset forfeiture thefts of property and cash by law enforcement? Do you not know the CIA destroyed videotape evidence of themselves committing torture, after being ordered by a court not to do so, and that no one was punished for breaking the law?
The law gives key chairmen on Capitol Hill the ability to request public officials’ state returns — though all sides acknowledge the chief target of the law is Mr. Trump, who has refused to make his returns public.
Simply as a method of controlling corruption, isn't it more important to obtain the tax returns for former public officials rather than formerly private citizens?
"Democrats have crossed the Rubicon. They are fascists that want to destroy our country.
"They are my enemies forever."
Don't keep your eyes closed around the Republicans, either, or you're a fool.
Andrew Cuomo is one of those listed in Jeffrey Epstein's little black book. He might be feeling just a trifle nervous right now.
Why do people still reassure themselves by thinking "the Dems are really going to hate it when we use their own rules against them"?
When was the last time that worked out?
Judicial appointments and the filibuster....
Robert Cook said...
"Democrats have crossed the Rubicon. They are fascists that want to destroy our country.
"They are my enemies forever."
Don't keep your eyes closed around the Republicans, either, or you're a fool.
I no longer distinguish between the Bush/Romney cuck wing of the democrat party and the Democrat party.
Democrats are actually better than them because Democrats are honest about being corporate shills that want to import a new electorate. "Severe" conservatives are just liars.
Even you have to admit Trump is no Republican in that sense.
Blogger Francisco D said...
It is all about trying to embarrass Trump for either paying too little in taxes or having less money than he claims.
I have been hearing this since 2015. What is there in income tax returns that would give any indication of wealth? All it will show is how much income he had. If he was smart, and he is, he will show relatively little income.
Kind of like Jeff Bezos worth $100billion or so but paying taxes on $89,000 (yes, thousand) in Amazon salary and perhaps $2-3 million of non-Amazon income. Where would you find the $100 billion in his tax returns?
As for how much he is worth, in 2015 he filed a financial statement with the FEC. I think he has to update it every year (does he?). The statement showed that he was worth in over 90 detailed pages over his signature and under penalty of perjury.
How come nobody complained to the FEC that he filed a false statement? How come nobody even mentioned it on the campaign trail? Maybe did some analysis of the statement and explained where he was lying?
Can there be some dispute about whether a building is worth $55mm or $60mm? Sure. On the other hand, until the building is actually sold, nobody really knows. Perhaps there's enough that he is only worth $8.9bn instead of $9bn. Quick, cue Dick's claims of lying on the statement.
Unless I am missing something, his tax returns will show a lot about his income and expenses. They will show nothing at all about his wealth.
If I am missing something and wealth is shown on income tax returns, can someone explain this to me?
John Henry
"Constitutional government, what with separation of powers and federalism, doesn't work very well unless politicians and other officials act with discretion and restraint. The theme of Althouse's posts today seems to be that many of them don't."
That "restraint" is imposed by the people. However, the people, ever trusting in the "greatness" of America as a given, sleep while government usurps our power. Our presumed "greatness" is not an innate quality, but the always fluctuating result of an informed and involved citizenry holding government to its constitutional limits and obligations.
it starts slow, the firing squads for general sosa blanco, who was effective at targeting the rebels, similar incidents here:https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2019/07/03/fascism-the-left-project-that-keeps-giving/ tben the nationalizations of properties, even our tiny plot of land, because 'you didn't build that' then bloc committees, rations cards, and the like,
Everybody forgets that Maddow got a leaked copy of Trump's 1995 tax return. It turned out he paid $25 million in taxes.
I wouldn't put it past him to be secretly cheering this on.
Maddow was so disappointed.
This isn’t tedious, it is extremely dangerous.
This is the sort of thing that starts civil wars.
And this has been going on, piling up precedents (not legal ones, but even so) for many years now.
Who now has faith in due process?
Who now has any sense of civic/civil security?
Who has any faith in ordinary politics?
However, the people, ever trusting in the "greatness" of America as a given, sleep while government usurps our power.
Nope. We elected Trump. I know that you are still mourning Breshnev but I'm content with Trump right now.
buwaya, they call this "By Any Means Necessary."
Blogger narayanan said...
Now is the right time for :-
http://thebonnieblueblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/trial-of-hank-rearden-from-ayn-rands.html
Amen, Amen and again I say Amen.
Thank you for that, narayanan.
John Henry
".....Blogger Paul said...What goes around.. comes around. Dems have opened the door to ALL politicians tax returns being exposed... and that is a good thing!7/8/19, 12:01 PM...."
No "Paul" , ..."that is [not] a good thing..." They are saying we have the right to make public anyone's tax returns and cause mischieve. Haven't you learned from the "..Lois Lerner affair from the IRS...". It's so easy to give up someone else's rights but your bias also gives up your rights.
Good. Release all their tax returns. You want a position of power? Prove you deserve it. - Inga
So any private citizen - long before he or she achieved a 'position of power' in government - should have all of his or her tax returns publicly released one that position of power is attained?
You're not just stupid. You're a thug.
Fully agree Michael and have for several years now. I am pretty sure I have said so before here.
I suspect that PDJT's taxes are Persil, pure white. He does not seem like the type of person who would cheat on his taxes, though he will take advantage of every twist and turn in the tax code to pay as little as possible. The guy's been in business for 40+ years and not even a hint of tax cheating? And something will turn up in his tax returns? C'mon, try to sell me a bridge why don't you?
No, this is one more distraction that people chase like a pigeon with a red flag as someone else said. PDJT does well with these distractions keeping people's eyes off the ball while he gets things done.
I am not sure I expect it but it will not surprise me if at some point he releases all his tax returns for the past 20 years. As a single, 10GB Non-text, non-searchable PDF file.
John Henry
Blogger John henry said...
though he will take advantage of every twist and turn in the tax code to pay as little as possible.
Just to be clear, I think this is a good thing. I do not think anyone should pay more taxes than they legally owe.
It think paying more taxes than one has to is unpatriotic and contrary to the purposes of the tax code.
I think contribibuting to the govt, as one would to a charitable organization, over and above taxes owed, would be patriotic, though I don't really expect anyone to do it. I think the govt has too much money already.
John Henry
buster said...
"Constitutional government, what with separation of powers and federalism, doesn't work very well unless politicians and other officials act with discretion and restraint. The theme of Althouse's posts today seems to be that many of them don't."
Robert Cook said in reply to ...
That "restraint" is imposed by the people. However, the people, ever trusting in the "greatness" of America as a given, sleep while government usurps our power. Our presumed "greatness" is not an innate quality, but the always fluctuating result of an informed and involved citizenry holding government to its constitutional limits and obligations.
Well said Robert Cook. +1
This is not the first time in recent history the Dems have used the IRS to threaten, silence, or club their opponents. Remember Lois Lerner? Of course you do. She got away with abusing conservative groups prior to the 2012 election, basically shutting them out of functioning in the run-up to that election. She's living fine on her gumment pension now. No issue. No penalty for her actions. No responsibility whatsoever.
The Dem congresspeople who are demanding Trump give up his tax information should be made to do the same. And if not today, then very soon- once they lose power. That they would take the time to do this, and ignore what's going on at our southern border makes me think of tar and feathers. Or...Stoning.
It could also be considered an illegal "addition" to the requirements to hold the office of President, Senator or Representative, other than those set forth in the Constitution - which is why term limits were ruled unconstitutional.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
Good. Release all their tax returns. You want a position of power? Prove you deserve it.
Of the People. By the People. For the People.
The right to privacy is unalienable.
Inga is an evil person.
Part of the reason to do this is to discourage the next Trump, the man with enough money to be near-independent of the money spigot.
The powers that be have been using all the means at their disposal, public and private, to isolate Trump from his enterprises and business partners.
It is a massive pile-on.
Trump only has a bit of the money-spigot. His fundraising is largely in small denominations and overt.
And his supporters are of (relatively) modest means, and lack institutional power.
And people wonder why we cannot get good people to pursue public office.
Trump held/holds a portfolio of companies, located all around the U.S. and the world. His tax returns are no doubt extremely complex, with each entity filing a return. With all that background -- professional and personal -- being provided to "the public" with absolutely no context is an unfathomable threat to the privacy of businesspeople everywhere in this country. The politicians create a leviathan of tax rules and regulations, creating returns that are 4-feet-high are the result.
This has nothing to do with Trump's tax returns. Like the IRS scandal, it's a warning to all of us outside government that it's an elite private club, and we'd better not get any ideas of our own.
What a disgrace.
Isn't this a violation of McCulloch v. Maryland?
and a little down state origins,
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2019/07/08/sensing-a-pattern-aocs-admiration-for-nazi-sympathizers-takes-another-highly-problematic-turn-pics/
When you violate the Natural Rights of one person, you violate the Natural Rights of all people.
Trump had a contract with the State of New York. He would report honestly. They would protect his privacy.
This law is a message to all citizens from those that fancy themselves our rulers that they will change the laws in whatever way they need and violate our rights in order to take power.
The democrat party and their cuck wing republican allies are enemies of this Republic.
Fuck you. War.
"Before the match started, Rapinoe protested again. During the Star Spangled Banner, she refused to sing and refused to place her hand over her heart, as she had done in previous Women's World Cup matches."
Not only that, but in "Victory Picture" she has her arm up in a Nazi salute, with her tongue out. God, she's such an obnoxious freak. Trump should say, "I invite all you to the White House. EXCEPT Rapinoe". Mark my words, in 5 years, she'll be found in a half-way house with a drug addiction and undergoing psychological treatment. Or injured in an Antifa demonstration.
Exactly, 2:58.
Exactly.
This is the corrupt left warning everyone that if you dare cross the corrupt left, bu winning elected office, you will be brought to your knees.
The left ARE the mob.
bu = by
I suspect the law of unintended consequences will make turn into a big headache for the Dems
As head of the Very Stupid Party, I'd just like to say that I think it's a wonderful idea to enact far-reaching changes in the law, upsetting expectations in place for generations, because someone you really don't like has been elected to high office. No conceivable downside and no unforeseen consequences to consider. Just go for it.
h/t M. Python
"Maybe a constitutional expert can advise."
If there was only one on this blog. Damn.
"I suspect the law of unintended consequences will make turn into a big headache for the Dems"
-- Or, as they've shown in the past when it came to things like "How do we appoint/elect replacements to the Senate/House" or other such procedural rules, they'll just change it when it no longer suits them.
"Trump tied a red flag to a pigeon's leg, tossed it into the air, and the Democrats have been chasing it ever since."
Yes! Though the image I prefer is that of a laser pointer and a cat. You know which is which.
"Maybe a constitutional expert can advise.”
"If I’m Trump, I argue that this impairs the obligation of contracts, since New York promised me confidentiality when I filed. . . .” - Glenn Reynolds
If only releasing your tax returns was required by law when you run for office, the Democrats would have a point. Since it's not, they are fuckheads that will never get my vote again.
If only there was some court that could put an end to such nonsense.
This time we will get him! Don’t throw me in that briar patch!
"I thought not explicitly naming the person is a loophole to get around the Bill of Attainder prohibition."
No. The SC precedent on what constitutes a Bill of Attainder is expansive, to say the least.
Pretextual excuses were impermissible when the Trump administration wanted to put a question back on the census, but are just fine when used to "get" Trump's documents.
Neat.
Darrell said...
If only releasing your tax returns was required by law when you run for office, the Democrats would have a point
but! But Igna says that IF you want to run for office, you have to Prove you deserve it.
See? In the NEW, IMPROVED demo world, If you want to run, you have to:
A) file forms requesting permission to be able to file proof that you 'deserve it'
B) Fill out forms (in triplicate), File them (with appropriate filing fees) to the proper office
C) receive an examination date, for a hearing where YOU will (attempt to) PROVE you deserve it
D) ASSUMING that the proper authorities actually DO decide that your proofs are sufficient...
You will THEN be allowed to enter the race.
You see?
The Igna's of the world are SICK AND TIRED of non-authorized entrants into their political system
It's a Pro-Choice, Pro-Choice, Pro-Choice, Pro-Choice Country.
it's not at all, like the Politburo honestly, of course the returns will be handed to the usual impartial sources, the times, the post MSNBC,
It’s like Putin is pulling the strings on the Democrats to make a complete mockery of our values and institutions. He couldn’t have scripted a better farce.
It’s like Putin is pulling the strings on the Democrats to make a complete mockery of our values
... or he's watching history repeat itself and thinking deja vu.
Dear Professor Althouse: Isn't this Cuomo law a bill of attainder, intended solely to get at POTUS?
I think we should also get to see Melania's panties. I wonder if Gov. Cuomo can help.
Do you not see our police forces becoming ever more brutal, violent, and murderous?
That is unadulterated bullshit straight out of the leftie bullshitter’s ass.
- Krumhorn
I'm watching the season four facile of "The Americans" right now. A prison administrator is talking to a prisoner about some 'anti-soviet' activities he was engaged in (the prisoner was against the Afghanistan war), and he says to him something like, "Anyone who talks like that is either a criminal or mentally ill."
The prison official sounds like many of today's democrats.
If they want to publicize my tax return, they'll have to pry it from the cold dead fingers of my accountant.
Democrats want to get rid of the Constitutional right to privacy.
I don't think there will be any unintended consequences.
Matt Sablan said...
This, I believe, is the law in question: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s2271
No, that bill died in committee. The bill that passed and was signed by Gov Cuomo is here:
https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2019/S5072A
This bill requires the Commissioner to redact any data that he/she deems to be in conflict with federal or state law or would be an invasion of privacy. Also, it does not provide for public release, just a release to the tax-writing committees of Congress, who are presumed to respect the confidentiality of tax information. "Such permission shall be granted only if the chairperson of the requesting committee certifies in writing that such reports or returns have been requested for a specified and legitimate legislative purpose ..." So it allows the Congressional committees to write their own justification for the release of a state tax return by a state agency, based on a legitimate federal purpose, and punts to the Commissioner the job of deciding on the details. What a mess!
Darrell said...
Democrats want to get rid of the Constitutional right to privacy.
They certainly seem to. Which is strange, since The Only Thing that the democrats believe in, is Abortion;
and their justification for Abortion, is the Constitutional right to privacy
So, your right to privacy allows you to kill your children;
but it doesn't allow you to keep your business dealings to yourself.
I'm SURE that IS just what the founders had in mind
Obadiah said...
Matt Sablan said...
This, I believe, is the law in question: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s2271
No, that bill died in committee. The bill that passed and was signed by Gov Cuomo is here:
https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2019/S5072A
This bill requires the Commissioner to redact any data that he/she deems to be in conflict with federal or state law or would be an invasion of privacy. Also, it does not provide for public release, just a release to the tax-writing committees of Congress, who are presumed to respect the confidentiality of tax information. "Such permission shall be granted only if the chairperson of the requesting committee certifies in writing that such reports or returns have been requested for a specified and legitimate legislative purpose ..." So it allows the Congressional committees to write their own justification for the release of a state tax return by a state agency, based on a legitimate federal purpose, and punts to the Commissioner the job of deciding on the details. What a mess!"
This idiocy was passed knowing it's a stunt that will get nowhere. What it will probably wind up doing is forcing a lawsuit by Trump to enjoy NY from releasing to any Congressional committee with the courts siding with Trump. In the meantime it's just one more distraction for the president, another harassment of his family enterprise .
Inga as per usual never follows her logic to its conclusion. If she did, it would apply to ever elected official at all levels of government along with every appointed official at every level of government and and their staffers and every employee of government and all levels and members of the judiciary at every level and those who work for the courts at all levels. Come to think of it, if it applied to everyone in government it might be a good idea. Only those in the private sector get to keep their financial information and tax returns private and all in government service do not.
Embarrassing. Overseas right now and having serious doubts about coming back.
What a shithole.
Cuomo is the governor right? He hired those hacks right? How is he not responsible?
Geez.
Really Ann? THis is a terrible law, aimed at Trump but can be used as a totalitarian tool against anyone, and you worry about the spelling and spacing of bonefide? You are so shallow.
Inga: Good. Release all their tax returns. You want a position of power? Prove you deserve it.
Scratch a liberal, you'll find a fascist. Every time.
Fine. Every boomerang they fling at Trump always whips around to clock them from behind. These idiots are standing in a pool of gasoline flinging matches at Trump thinking they will finally get him this time.
Post a Comment