#TDS: NJ Democrats Pushing Legislation Which Would Require Tax Returns To Be On Ballot In NJ

First of all, I don’t think Donald Trump would care, because there’s little chance of a Republican winning NJ

N.J. Democrats threaten to toss Trump from the 2020 ballot if he doesn’t release his tax returns

Democratic state lawmakers in New Jersey aren’t done seeking President Donald Trump’s tax returns.

Some members of the state Legislature have revived legislation that would require candidates for president and vice president to disclose their tax returns from the previous five years to appear on the ballot in the Garden State.

The bill would also ban New Jersey’s voters in the electoral college from voting for a candidate that did not do so.

That would affect Trump, a Republican who in 2016 became the first presidential candidate in four decades not to release his returns, if he runs for re-election in 2020.

Similar legislation died in 2017 when then-Gov. Chris Christie — a longtime Trump friend and fellow Republican — conditionally vetoed the measure. He called it unconstitutional and dismissed it as a “transparent political stunt masquerading as a bill.”

Second of all, it would be unconstitutional. There is no state’s rights provision for this. The U.S. Constitution sets the specific requirements to be president, and they can’t simply expand on them because they’re having a mental meltdown in the Democratic Party due to Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Many other states have introduced similar legislation. And a Democratic congressman from New Jersey, U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-8th Dist., is leading a similar effort in Washington to force Trump’s tax returns to become public.

The effort has been bolstered by Democrats retaking the House after last year’s elections.

And every single one would violate the Constitution. But, then, when have the Dems ever worried about that?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

60 Responses to “#TDS: NJ Democrats Pushing Legislation Which Would Require Tax Returns To Be On Ballot In NJ”

  1. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: it would be unconstitutional.

    You are probably correct. The U.S. Congress may be able to require tax returns as part of enforcing the emoluments clause, but then only for the elected president. Trump’s opaque finances has provided sufficient evidence of the problem.

    William Teach: But, then, when have the Dems ever worried about that?

    Of course Democrats worry about the Constitution, as legislation may fail in the courts.

    • Kye says:

      “Opaque finances”? A clever way of saying he values his financial privacy just like you do. When it comes to “emoluments” one needs look no farther than The Clinton Crime Family. They didn’t get that moniker by being above board.

      • Zachriel says:

        Kye: A clever way of saying he values his financial privacy just like you do.

        Sure. If you say so. However, the U.S. President is covered by the emoluments clause of the Constitution, and the Congress has a right to enforce that provision.

        Kye: When it comes to “emoluments” one needs look no farther than The Clinton Crime Family.

        Whatabout?!

        The Clintons have released their tax returns, and the finances of the Clinton Foundation are public and independently audited.

    • gitarcarver says:

      Trump’s opaque finances has provided sufficient evidence of the problem.

      If there is evidence, then issue a subpoena. The fact that the Dems haven’t shows that there is no smoke, much less fire.

      Of course Democrats worry about the Constitution, as legislation may fail in the courts.

      No. Just no. The Democrats have made this an issue because of the optics of the situation and this is a continuation of that.

      The Democrats would claim that they did the “right thing” and that “mean ol’ conservative Supreme Court” shut them down.

      • Zachriel says:

        gitarcarver: If there is evidence, then issue a subpoena. The fact that the Dems haven’t shows that there is no smoke, much less fire.

        It’s Congress. Everything takes a committee and hearings.

  2. Kye says:

    The requirements to run for president are spelled out in the Constitution and not up to New Jersey. These people are totally out of control and destroying our republic. Now they want to make up their own rules about who can run for office. What idiots. I never saw a bunch of adults act like such children. They do realize he was elected president not dictator for life. They can’t wait a few years for another election? They are insane.

    • Zachriel says:

      Kye: The requirements to run for president are spelled out in the Constitution and not up to New Jersey.

      Then don’t worry. If you are correct, then the law would be thrown out in the courts.

  3. Mangoldielocks says:

    Nancy Pelosi stated that on the first day of the new congress they would be requesting Trump’s tax returns from the IRS. Now why have those not been attained? Did Nancy Pelosi lie about her first order of business on her first day in her new job?

    The democrats are so full of hate they are like a rabid dog chasing their own tail. A new poll wants both parties to veer right. Which is pretty easy to do for the democrats since they are so far left now that almost anything new they do must be veering right.

    • Zachriel says:

      Mangoldielocks: Nancy Pelosi stated that on the first day of the new congress they would be requesting Trump’s tax returns from the IRS.

      Everything in the House takes a committee and a debate. House panel set to kick off debate on presidential tax returns.

      • gitarcarver says:

        Everything in the House takes a committee and a debate.

        And your point?

        Do you think that the House has the power of a fishing expedition when it comes to tax returns? Or must there be a good faith, legal basis for looking into someone’s taxes?

        • Zachriel says:

          gitarcarver: And your point?

          The Democrats have taken immediate action, but there is a process involved.

          gitarcarver: Do you think that the House has the power of a fishing expedition when it comes to tax returns? Or must there be a good faith, legal basis for looking into someone’s taxes?

          The law doesn’t really limit the power as it is considered part of Congress’s oversight responsibilities, but it will more likely withstand a court challenge if a legal basis is provided, which is reasonable.

          That’s why there will be a debate. There’s already significant concern about emoluments along misleading statements by Trump and his associates about their foreign entanglements, but some members want to wait for the results of the Mueller investigation. If Mueller’s report includes mention of Trump’s tax returns, then that would provide more than sufficient justification.

          • gitarcarver says:

            The Democrats have taken immediate action, but there is a process involved.

            A process that would include a subpoena if the Dems were actually following a legal process.

            They aren’t.

            The law doesn’t really limit the power as it is considered part of Congress’s oversight responsibilities…..,

            Sorry, but you are wrong. Executive privilege such as tax returns of the executive branch are not part of the oversight of Congress.

            …but it will more likely withstand a court challenge if a legal basis is provided, which is reasonable.

            Wrong again. The Dems admit that they don’t have any evidence. It is therefore a fishing expedition.

            Even the President is not subject to such unreasonable demands to supply anything to the Dems who have no basis for anything.

            There’s already significant concern about emoluments along misleading statements by Trump and his associates about their foreign entanglements,…..

            Once again, “concern” is not the same as evidence.

            If Mueller’s report includes mention of Trump’s tax returns, then that would provide more than sufficient justification.

            So an investigation that doesn’t have any evidence, has destroyed evidence, suborned perjury, has taken longer that was originally promised is the basis for a subpoena if the report merely mentions a tax return?

            Thanks for the laugh.

          • Jacob Noire says:

            Congress can request the President’s tax returns. The President can fight it in court if he chooses. The legal basis is in:

            26 U.S.C. § 6103 (f)(1)

            (f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress.–
            (1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation. –Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary (Treasury) shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

            There is no discussion there of “fishing” or “evidence” or “subpoenas”. The law states that specific Congressional committees can have the returns.

            As President Richard Nixon famously said about his tax returns: “…I welcome this kind of examination, because people have got to know whether or not their president is a crook.”

          • Jacob Noire says:

            gc,

            You are usually much more careful and knowledgeable than this.

            26 U.S.C. § 6103 (f)(1)

            The law is clear in this regard.

            Congress can examine Trump’s tax returns for any reason Congress deems necessary. Trump will obviously fight any request tooth and nail because of what his returns will reveal.

          • Zachriel says:

            gitarcarver: A process that would include a subpoena if the Dems were actually following a legal process.

            And such a request to the Treasury may still be forthcoming, but everything in the House takes a committee and a debate.

            gitarcarver: Executive privilege such as tax returns of the executive branch are not part of the oversight of Congress.

            As Jacob Noire said, the law grants that power to Congress, 26 U.S.C. § 6103 (f)(1). However, it will more likely be upheld by the courts if a substantial reason is given, such as to enforce the emoluments clause.

            gitarcarver: So an investigation that doesn’t have any evidence …

            Huh? The investigation has already resulted in multiple indictments, pleas, and guilty verdicts.

  4. Mangoldielocks says:

    Seriously does anyone think that under Obama’s IRS that he did not have an army of IRS sheeple combing over Trumps Tax returns looking for anything to nail trump to the wall after the Birtherism Trump embarked upon??? Seriously. Obama was livid. His wife was FEARFUL as she says. It was a harsh blow to the Obama’s that he could have laid to rest during the primaries.

    but of course it is most likely he did not have an acceptable fake Birth certificate that could stand the scrutinity of the entire world and took them like years to come up with one that would work and then the ID NUMBER ON IT WAS BLOCKED OUT. Now why would you do that? Because it was probably either blank or belonged to someone else who experts were able to change.

    Obama was not born in the US. But what does it matter. It is the reason why the left is unhinged now and barking at the moon over Trump. IF Trump had done anything Obama’s minions would have found it. The Bastard even wire tapped Trump and set out to entangle him in collusion I believe because they thought he would lose and then they could go after him legally and tie him up in court for decades costing him millions of dollars and tarnishing his reputation world wide.

    It was a hit job by the left on Trump that collapsed when he actually became the most powerful man on the planet and then it was suddenly everyone was scrambling to CYA. Including HRC and Obama.

    • Zachriel says:

      Mangoldielocks: Seriously does anyone think that under Obama’s IRS that he did not have an army of IRS sheeple combing over Trumps Tax returns looking for anything to nail trump to the wall after the Birtherism Trump embarked upon???

      Since Watergate, the President does not have that authority, though Congress still does.

      Mangoldielocks: but of course it is most likely he did not have an acceptable fake Birth certificate that could stand the scrutinity of the entire world

      Haha! Okay. Stop it. Hahaha! {Loki is that you?}

      • david7134 says:

        Z,
        Obama and group illegally spied on Trump and anyone who helped him. There are books written on the subject, so look it up and read one of the books. A good start is The Russian Hoax.

        Obama was the absolute worst president we have had, he harmed just about every citizen, this is well established, look it up.

        As to the north certificate, Obama is on record as claiming that he was a citizen of another country.

        • Zachriel says:

          david7134: Obama and group illegally spied on Trump and anyone who helped him.

          Which is why Obama is still in jail. Just stringing a bunch of conspiracy theories together doesn’t make an argument.

          Russia hacked the DNC intent on undermining the Clinton campaign, and worked to infiltrate the Trump campaign. People close to Trump have repeatedly lied about their contacts with Russians. A number of Trump’s close associates (including his personal lawyer, campaign chair and national security advisor) have been indicted or convicted. To claim there is no there there is not supportable.

          david7134: Obama was the absolute worst president we have had, he harmed just about every citizen, this is well established, look it up.

          Okay.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            Just stringing a bunch of conspiracy theories together doesn’t make an argument.

            But that’should what you kiddiez do every day. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • david7134 says:

            Z,
            Read the book I recommended. You can read? Nothing associated with any presumed activity by TRump was illegal, if so we would be well aware. Now as to who hacked the DNC setver, that is unknown as the server was denied the inspection of the FBI. Again, read the book.

            Now as to Obama not being prosecuted, or Hillary, that is strange to me. Any other person would be in jail. But the Dems are intent on setting up a group o f elites that are free from prosecution, why do you allow that?
            Again, read the book, it address this repugnant concept.

            Now, you show profound ignorance in bring up the process crimes. You are a child and so do not have experience with the law. Depositions are set up to literally make a person seem like he is lying. This is a technique lawyers are schooled in.

            Now, we are all aware that you are one of several children in a high school club. So don’t embarrass yourself with repeating ridiculous liberal talking points.

            WINNING. MAGA.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: Read the book I recommended {The Russia Hoax}

            As we have already pointed to more than sufficient information to show that the Russia investigation is not a hoax, it would behoove you to show why you think this particular diatribe is worth reading. Perhaps you could show one particular from the book.

            david7134: Nothing associated with any presumed activity by TRump was illegal

            Trump was surrounded by illegal activity, and there is evidence of a foreign power having undue sway over him.

            david7134: Now as to Obama not being prosecuted, or Hillary, that is strange to me.

            When facts contradict your preconception, perhaps you should reevaluate your preconceptions.

            david7134: Now, you show profound ignorance in bring up the process crimes.

            Lying about material facts to investigators is a crime, and it’s how conspirators attempt to hide other crimes, as in “do a ‘Frank Pentangeli’ ”.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            Prevarication 101,kiddiez.

          • david7134 says:

            Z,
            Yes, I didn’t think you could read or have critical thought. Yes, Russia is a hoax.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: I didn’t think you could read or have critical thought.

            We do read and think critically. As we know there is ample evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 campaign, a book titled “The Russia Hoax” is already suspect. We asked you to provide a particular instance from the book for discussion. You demurred.

          • david7134 says:

            Z,
            Read the book, other continue with your ignorant rant which seems to have everyone laughing.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: Read the book

            Presumably you’ve read the book. You are welcome to share some of your knowledge here. Perhaps you could provide a particular.

      • Mangoldielocks says:

        Since Watergate, the President does not have that authority, though Congress still does.

        Do you not remember the IRS scandal under Obama where conservative groups were being targeted. Do you not think this legion of Obamaholics were not combing Trumps taxes for anything to be used against him. HAHA, OKAY JUST STOP IT…IS THAT YOU LOKI??

        • Zachriel says:

          Mangoldielocks: Do you not think this legion of Obamaholics were not combing Trumps taxes for anything to be used against him.

          There is no evidence of that, and as no such information leaked, it is very unlikely to have happened.

  5. gitarcarver says:

    Since Watergate, the President does not have that authority, though Congress still does.

    And the IRS did not have the authority to illegally deny or slow play the approval of Conservative tax groups, but they did that.

    • Zachriel says:

      gitarcarver: And the IRS did not have the authority to illegally deny or slow play the approval of Conservative tax groups, but they did that.

      And the IRS was subject to outside investigation. Apparently, there was a flood of Tea Party groups, so they used inappropriate methods to segregate such groups. There were groups on the left and on the right that were subjected to a higher level of scrutiny due to changes in the law. In any case, no laws were broken, and procedures were improved.

      Do you have actual evidence that Obama was granted access to Trump’s tax returns, or is this just another echo in the right-wing echochamber?

      • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

        in any case, no laws were broken, …

        And this is why Lois Lerner took the fifth rather than testify. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • david7134 says:

        Z,
        Yes, look it up.

        • Zachriel says:

          david7134: Yes, look it up.

          So you choose ‘just another echo’? If Obama had Trump’s tax returns, it would be absolutely amazing that they were never leaked.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            Red herring. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • david7134 says:

            Z,
            Please stop showing your ignorance. You have never filled out a return.

            NOW, in the entire period of having the IRS can you make even one person whose tax returns led to a crime other than not paying the tax.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: NOW, in the entire period of having the IRS can you make even one person whose tax returns led to a crime other than not paying the tax.

            Sure. Along with other evidence, tax returns are often used as evidence in embezzlement, bank fraud, and money laundering crimes.

        • david7134 says:

          Z,
          I did not say generalizations. Now how has been convicted of a crime or had the crime discovered on the basis of a tax return. You are really showing significant ignorance. Trump is the best president we have had, support him and we will prosper.MAGA.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: Now how has been convicted of a crime or had the crime discovered on the basis of a tax return.

            That is incorrect. Embezzlement, bank fraud, and money laundering crimes are often uncovered by auditing tax returns.

      • gitarcarver says:

        There were groups on the left and on the right that were subjected to a higher level of scrutiny due to changes in the law. In any case, no laws were broken, and procedures were improved.

        The IG disagrees with you as their report said laws were broken. Congress held hearings and determined laws were broken.

        Do you have actual evidence that Obama was granted access to Trump’s tax returns, or is this just another echo in the right-wing echochamber?

        I have never made that claim, but Obama was told of the illegal delays and illegal actions of the IRS and yet not only did he do nothing, he denied that the IRS had done anything wrong.

    • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

      And like every other quasi-legal act committed by the Obama administration none were held to account. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  6. Kye says:

    Well Z, you are entitled to disagree but I guarantee if it were you, your family or even your “Team” that was being persecuted you’d think differently.

    Paul Craig Roberts has a few thoughts for us:

    Formerly, if a prosecutor staged an arrest for publicity purposes, as Mueller did by placing a CNN presstitute on the scene and sending a couple of dozen heavily armed men in a pre-dawn raid to arrest a well known political consultant for allegedly “lying to Congress” when the appropriate procedure is for [Special Prosecutor Robert] Mueller to inform [Roger] Stone’s lawyer to present his client for indictment, the judge would throw out the case on the grounds that the prosecutor’s unethical action had biased the juror pool and made a fair trial impossible. The judge might also have thrown out the case on the grounds of selective prosecution. James Clapper while serving as Director of National Intelligence lied to Congress under oath and suffered no consequences, and Hillary Clinton has clearly broken the law and lied about it.
    Today judges permit unethical behavior by prosecutors that deprives defendants of a fair trial, because judges don’t want the bother of trials any more than prosecutors do. Consequently, according to official statistics 97% of federal criminal cases are settled by a defendant pleading guilty to a charge negotiated by his attorney and a prosecutor. As the charge is a negotiated or made-up one, most people in prison are there for confessing to crimes that never occurred.

    We Americans have endured several years of illegal government maneuvering and abuse and are now a banana republic. A rich one to be sure but one nonetheless. We, including you and your leftist pals, simply cannot allow the agencies and agents of the government to run rip-shod over people’s rights, including the publication of personal tax files that may or may not include information on other people, business associates or legal activities.

    • david7134 says:

      Well said, but I don’t think the child has a clue.

    • Zachriel says:

      Kye: if a prosecutor staged an arrest for publicity purposes, as Mueller did by placing a CNN presstitute on the scene …

      CNN was staking out the grand jury, which rarely meets on Thursdays. The last time this happened, indictments came down the following day. On that Thursday, the grand jury interviewed Andrew Stettner, Stone associate Corsi’s stepson. CNN reporters then made the reasonable assumption that there could be an indictment coming down, and that Stone was a likely target. How do we know? Because CNN’s Shimon Prokupecz reported on it before the arrest.

      Kye: and sending a couple of dozen heavily armed men in a pre-dawn raid to arrest a well known political consultant for allegedly “lying to Congress”

      Not just lying to Congress, but intimidating a witness. The FBI also served a search warrant, so that requires additional personnel.

      You do realize this happens just about every day. They even have TV shows about it. The right never complains when it’s some black guy having his door busted down, then dragged off in front of his kids.

      By the way, it’s very apparent from the indictment that the FBI has documentary evidence that Stone intentionally and repeatedly lied.

      • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

        The right never complains when it’s some black guy having his door busted down, then dragged off in front of his kids.

        Again with the Red Herring.
        Logical fallacies are all the kiddiez have.
        https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • david7134 says:

        Z,
        You do realize grand juries are secrets and that a reporter would have no knowledge of witnesses or activity. You see, your knowledge is very poor and zero life experience.

        • Zachriel says:

          david7134: You do realize grand juries are secrets and that a reporter would have no knowledge of witnesses or activity.

          You do realize, while the proceeding of a grand jury are secret, the meeting of a grand jury and who is called before the grand jury is not necessarily a secret. In a high profile case, reporters will stake out the court house, looking for clues, and looking at any filings.

        • Zachriel says:

          david7134: You do realize grand juries are secrets and that a reporter would have no knowledge of witnesses or activity.

          Gee whiz. We linked to a story about Stettner’s testimony before the grand jury. “You see, your knowledge is very poor and you apparently don’t read.”

          • david7134 says:

            Z,
            Child,
            An individual told the press that he testified at the grand jury. Now what is your point. Hey more education, you need it.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: An individual told the press that he testified at the grand jury.

            Note that the article points to the connection to Roger Stone. That returns us to our original comment.

            CNN was staking out the grand jury, which rarely meets on Thursdays. The last time this happened, indictments came down the following day. On that Thursday, the grand jury interviewed Andrew Stettner, Stone associate Corsi’s stepson. CNN reporters then made the reasonable assumption that there could be an indictment coming down, and that Stone was a likely target. How do we know? Because CNN’s Shimon Prokupecz reported on it before the arrest.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            Once again the Special Counsel leaked to CNN about the arrest, probably Weissmann… https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • Kye says:

        No Z, it definitely does NOT happen every day to first time non violent suspects. I know, I was one. The feds called my lawyer and I went down town and surrendered at a pre determined time and place. No cuffs, no guns (out), no flak jackets and helmet and no armored vehicles. Jut my lawyer, my wife and me. I went in, posted bail then went to the Cheesecake Factory for lunch. Because like Stone, I’m not a risk of violence nor flight. BTW, bond was ROR. The charges were later dropped but not before a 6 month battle costing me over $75,000 in legal fees to defend myself against something I had no knowledge of. You think that’s justice?

        What would you say if they showed u at Hillary’s house with armored vehicles, men in war gear with full auto actual assault weapons (not those semi auto .22 cal things the leftist are so afraid of) and dragged her and Bill out in their undies? She’s committed a lot more serious crimes than Stone but she’s immune cause she’s a leftist. Banana republic. The left has destroyed America and Liberty.

        • Zachriel says:

          Kye: it definitely does NOT happen every day to first time non violent suspects.

          It happens all the time with non-violent suspects. Where you been?

  7. david7134 says:

    Z,
    That response is pathetic. So it is ok to send a platoon of heavily armed men to arrest a man who is nonviolent. Have you looked at the evdence? What is occurring with these people is so wrong and you support it. As to CNN, that is a laugh.

  8. Zachriel says:

    david7134: So it is ok to send a platoon of heavily armed men to arrest a man who is nonviolent.

    We didn’t say it was okay. We said it was normal. It happens every day, especially to minorities, but rarely does anyone complain unless it’s a rich, well-connected, white guy. Stone is alleged to have intimidated a witness.

    david7134: Have you looked at the evdence?

    The evidence that is already public, including emails and texts, shows that Stone intentionally and repeatedly lied to investigators.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6388 access attempts in the last 7 days.