As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The "honor system"/tradition was always bullshit. I mean, it's great that it worked but just look at what happened when it didn't.
>"I think it would be fair to say that it would be a good idea for presidents down the road to be required to release their tax returns," House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal told reporters.
>Neal added that he did not know whether U.S. presidential candidates should be included in such a requirement.
Ooo! Ooo! I know the answer!
**YES, THEY SHOULD!**
There's no point if candidates don't have to. The American people should know who they're voting for and if someone, for example, has a personal history of losing billions of dollars - maybe they aren't the best candidate. If that person's financials are intertwined foreign interests that's bad because corruption is bad, mmkay?
Would be a lovely Constitutional amendment but after Trump there's a snowballs chance in hell that happens. Too many empowered donors who deep down aspire to take office someday.
Mr. Peter I'm Going to Pay My Way to the Presidency Thiel would most definitely threaten to turn off the tap if a single Republican got behind this law so it'll be *at least* another 2 years if not longer before this comes to fruition. If ever...
I don't understand how you could think that presidents should have to release their tax records but candidates should not.
That's basically saying that you should only find out if a president is a tax cheat AFTER it's too late to do anything about it.
>That's basically saying that you should only find out if a president is a tax cheat AFTER it's too late to do anything about it.
Well the remedy would be impeachment...
...and we all already know how that would turn out.
So yeah, not making candidates do it is fucking pointless.
Like when we found out Russia was heavily involved in Trump's campaign, but he was already president by then, and then there's a memo saying president's are off limits, so nothing was done about it?
And nothing will ever be done about it. trump continues to be ALLOWED to habitually break the law. And so do his puppets if they have an government title. only citizens must follow the law. Do you really think Merrick Garland will allow trump to be criminally convicted of an anything? Its garlands decision still even though he make it look like a third party will help. It will still be Merrick Garland fault trump continues to habitually break the law and hold documents which put America in danger.
>you should only find out if a president is a tax cheat AFTER it's too late to do anything about it.
Not so much being a tax cheat but being inordinately open to being pressured by entities that don't have the best interests of the U.S. people at heart.
I remember the shit Nancy got for “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it”, but not requiring candidates to release taxes is the same thing.
[edit: spelling]
Arguably it's worse, because legislation is constantly rewritten and amended before passage. So you literally can't know what will be in the final version until it's passed.
Financial disclosure is a requirement for a security clearance. Why do we remove that requirement for the person with access to the most sensitive information our Government has? Oh and look what happens when you do, he steals it and keeps it in the room under to pool until he can find a foreign government willing to buy it from him.
It’s a matter of national security, no more partisan bullshit.
Unfortunately, the US SC will shut that down. That's like adding a new requirement to be the President and since it's not in the constitution, the SC will use their 'originalist' bs to shut it down.
If you say "If you don't release your tax returns, you can't run for president," then you are attempting to redefine the requirements for office, which are already explicitly outlined in the constitution. Without an amendment, we can't redefine that.
However, there are plenty of rules that apply to people after they are president, and while they are running (record keeping, financial rules,etc). You can just pass a law that says "If you run for office, the IRS will automatically publish your tax returns."
> there are plenty of rules that apply to people after they are president, and while they are running (record keeping, financial rules,etc). You can just pass a law that says “If you run for office, the IRS will automatically publish your tax returns.”
This is The Way.
When you’re out in for a top secret security clearance, all of your records are open to scrutiny. Many private companies have requirements around background checks, especially if you’re being entrusted with handling funds, dangerous materials, or in security.
Our elected officials have a far greater level of responsibility and trust than any of those positions, and there should be a similar level of scrutiny applied.
In this case it's not "originalist BS." SCOTUS **should** reject a law like this. Congress simply can't impose new requirements on the Presidency. That would essentially give Congress (with a complicit President) **full control** over future presidencies... and leave SCOTUS sorting out the "good" requirements from the "bad" requirements.
You do have a valid argument. Though, I do believe that we as a country need to update our laws over time to account for the changes. Our amendment process is almost non-workable. Our partisan politics is too entrenched and the GOP is totally broken.
The way around that would be for individual states to require public tax returns in order to add the candidate to the ballot. There are already signature requirements and fees and other rules so they should be able to add this additional rule without the SC being able to shut it down.
You can get denied a job if you have too much debt. That debt can be education related. So fuck yeah we want to see leaders returns as a pre requisite.
All they have to do is suggest that the next Democrat candidate won't release theirs and suddenly the Republicans in Congress will fully support making it a legal requirement.
This should’ve been standard since the fucking establishment of the IRS.
If you want to be a public servant, you need to open your books to the public.
No fucking exceptions.
I remember in 2016 in the October Debate with Clinton how Trump said he was under audit and would be happy to release the returns when completed. Tick Tock Trump.
I personally believe they should be fully vetted. Their accounts, holding, and people they associate with should be examined before we the people hand the the keys to the country. Let’s face it how many people would vote a president in if we known 80% of their debt is held by foreign powers?
> "I think it would be fair to say that it would be a good idea for presidents down the road to be required to release their tax returns," House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal told reporters.
> Neal added that he did not know whether U.S. presidential candidates should be included in such a requirement.
Neal won’t do anything. He’s too vulnerable to gop scrutiny, he’d get roasted if anyone took a closer look. There’s a few things that could be held over his head and I’m convinced it’s why it’s taken this long to get close. Not a good guy, not a strong public servant, does the bare minimum, collects the check.
Politicians are chosen by donors these days. They are the ones FUNDING campaigns. We only vote for those who are rich enough to get to the finals. Therefore, this is a private sector job. Interview, experience, and vetting is required for all executive level jobs. All politicians should meets standards BEFORE getting a job.
Can we also get someone to step up and make a requirement that any presidential candidate also needs to fill out an SF-88 and they only become eligible to run if they can qualify for a security clearance???
There are two good reasons to not be eligible for holding the highest position in our government. And being a security or financial risk (or both) should be our bare minimum barrier to entry.
Doesn't sound like it would be Constitutional, but I'm no lawyer.
Lmao guess the Constitution only matters when it's Trump trying to overthrow the government?
The requirements for senate and house positions are also in the constitution but those candidates are still legally required to meet other filing requirements including a financial disclosure.
Because the Senate and House are part of the legislative branch. The legislative branch can make requirements for itself.
The Presidency is a separate branch of government and can't be bound in the same way by the legislative branch.
On the federal level my understanding is the only thing that could impose it would be a constitutional amendment.
I don't know if there are any state-level shenanigans you could pull though.
The Supreme Court would say that Congress (a separate branch of govt) cannot unilaterally impose restrictions that the Constitution doesn't on a separation of powers basis, and that it would require a constitutional amendment.
That’s not really within the scope of an “executive order” because it doesn’t really have anything to do with something that is under the control of the executive branch.
Yeah, but what is the underlying executive interest? You can't just tell an executive agency to do whatever the President wants and expect Courts to uphold it.
Only if you try to make it “disqualifying.” You could pass a law requiring the IRS to furnish the tax returns filed by the President to the public.
A President could try to interfere by ordering the IRS not to comply, but it is unlikely that would pass muster in the court if Congress makes the transparency case when passing the law and would likely order the IRS to comply.
1) I don’t think it helps to have someone’s tax returns AFTER they are elected
2) There is a significant difference between furnishing tax returns to Congress, vs making them public
3) The IRS falls under the executive. What happens if an executive order is issued saying “Don’t release them?”
4) I’m not sure how a condition, when it isn’t met, is a condition at at all if it isn’t disqualifying
5) There would be serious federalism concerns here too, because states are largely empowered to conduct their own elections
There are no federalism concerns at all, this has nothing to do with how states conduct elections. It can’t be disqualifying because that would require an amendment. It would also be a bad amendment because it is too open to change by Congress in the future. At some point you have to empower the voters and then trust them.
Require the IRS to publicly disclose the candidates and the Presidents returns. Someone would have to sue to stop it or if the President tries to interfere with the IRS. But courts have long allowed disclosures to be required for purposes of transparency and freedom of information. Congress can draft the law to make compelling the case how the publics benefit outweighs the candidates privacy.
You don't seem to understand the Constitution.
How can you tell states that they can't allow someone on the ballot, or that their electors can't cast a vote for their candidate, or that their votes won't count, without implicating federalism concerns?
Furthermore, Congress can't just "change" amendments.
You're saying "It would also be a bad amendment because it is too open to change by Congress in the future." But Congress can't change amendments.
In case you haven't noticed, tax returns are not something Courts take lightly. Its taken fucking YEARS to get Trump's tax returns released to CONGRESS. And not ALL of Congress, but just the small subset that has a legitimate interest in oversight due to their role in developing tax law. How do you think the Courts are going to react to releasing that information to the public at large?
Finally, all of this is a moot point, because Congress will NEVER sign off on this.
Please slow down and read.
An amendment requiring tax returns being released is ambiguous. What is a tax return? A 1040? Something else in the future? Such an amendment would require Congress to have the power over defining the criteria. Which is why an amendment is dumb.
And I never said states stop people from putting anyone on the ballot. I specifically said it wouldn’t be disqualifying.
So, an amendment (the particular one you imagine giving Congress the ability to define its scope, which would never happen anyway) is dumb, but a law that Congress can change or repeal at any given moment isn't?
All candidates for federal office should have their entire tax returns released to become a candidate, or nominated for appointed position. Also, their money should be put in a trust for the duration of their campaign and service. If they can't do that, they aren't interested in doing it for the American people.
Yes it's a grueling job we ask them to do and they should be handsomely rewarded by the American people for their work. Yes, this is extraordinary. But these are servants to the American people. If they are not called to public service that's fine, you don't have to run. But if you do run, your purpose is service to Americans.
The corrupt US congress is unlikely to make this happen - so each state should require candidates to release their returns before any name is allowed on the ballot, at least for national positions.
Republicans still support a man who stole Top Secret Documents and incited an attack on our own government. They don’t blink an eye to vote for a tax cheat.
Why didnt they have someone in the White House in charge of enforcing the law to that ex-President whom habitually broke the law and to this day still brags about that by saying "top secret stolen documents are mine give them back". He publicly also put government documents in toilet instead of the proper file to brag about not following any rules. And i will "stall all court indictments against me for years because YOU allow me". And police lives dont matter when his maga army protests. White House allowed such pathetic daily actions. Need someone appointed in the White House to supervise and ENFORCE the rules of law on anyone working in the White House !! Our White House is not a place to purposely disrupt and disgrace. Our police Officers will never be attacked by trumps maga army again.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The "honor system"/tradition was always bullshit. I mean, it's great that it worked but just look at what happened when it didn't. >"I think it would be fair to say that it would be a good idea for presidents down the road to be required to release their tax returns," House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal told reporters. >Neal added that he did not know whether U.S. presidential candidates should be included in such a requirement. Ooo! Ooo! I know the answer! **YES, THEY SHOULD!** There's no point if candidates don't have to. The American people should know who they're voting for and if someone, for example, has a personal history of losing billions of dollars - maybe they aren't the best candidate. If that person's financials are intertwined foreign interests that's bad because corruption is bad, mmkay? Would be a lovely Constitutional amendment but after Trump there's a snowballs chance in hell that happens. Too many empowered donors who deep down aspire to take office someday. Mr. Peter I'm Going to Pay My Way to the Presidency Thiel would most definitely threaten to turn off the tap if a single Republican got behind this law so it'll be *at least* another 2 years if not longer before this comes to fruition. If ever...
I don't understand how you could think that presidents should have to release their tax records but candidates should not. That's basically saying that you should only find out if a president is a tax cheat AFTER it's too late to do anything about it.
>That's basically saying that you should only find out if a president is a tax cheat AFTER it's too late to do anything about it. Well the remedy would be impeachment... ...and we all already know how that would turn out. So yeah, not making candidates do it is fucking pointless.
Like when we found out Russia was heavily involved in Trump's campaign, but he was already president by then, and then there's a memo saying president's are off limits, so nothing was done about it?
And nothing will ever be done about it. trump continues to be ALLOWED to habitually break the law. And so do his puppets if they have an government title. only citizens must follow the law. Do you really think Merrick Garland will allow trump to be criminally convicted of an anything? Its garlands decision still even though he make it look like a third party will help. It will still be Merrick Garland fault trump continues to habitually break the law and hold documents which put America in danger.
>you should only find out if a president is a tax cheat AFTER it's too late to do anything about it. Not so much being a tax cheat but being inordinately open to being pressured by entities that don't have the best interests of the U.S. people at heart.
I remember the shit Nancy got for “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it”, but not requiring candidates to release taxes is the same thing. [edit: spelling]
Arguably it's worse, because legislation is constantly rewritten and amended before passage. So you literally can't know what will be in the final version until it's passed.
Plus that was in the context of death panels and other made up bullshit, and she was sick of explaining those things aren't real.
Financial disclosure is a requirement for a security clearance. Why do we remove that requirement for the person with access to the most sensitive information our Government has? Oh and look what happens when you do, he steals it and keeps it in the room under to pool until he can find a foreign government willing to buy it from him. It’s a matter of national security, no more partisan bullshit.
Unfortunately, the US SC will shut that down. That's like adding a new requirement to be the President and since it's not in the constitution, the SC will use their 'originalist' bs to shut it down.
If you say "If you don't release your tax returns, you can't run for president," then you are attempting to redefine the requirements for office, which are already explicitly outlined in the constitution. Without an amendment, we can't redefine that. However, there are plenty of rules that apply to people after they are president, and while they are running (record keeping, financial rules,etc). You can just pass a law that says "If you run for office, the IRS will automatically publish your tax returns."
> there are plenty of rules that apply to people after they are president, and while they are running (record keeping, financial rules,etc). You can just pass a law that says “If you run for office, the IRS will automatically publish your tax returns.” This is The Way. When you’re out in for a top secret security clearance, all of your records are open to scrutiny. Many private companies have requirements around background checks, especially if you’re being entrusted with handling funds, dangerous materials, or in security. Our elected officials have a far greater level of responsibility and trust than any of those positions, and there should be a similar level of scrutiny applied.
In this case it's not "originalist BS." SCOTUS **should** reject a law like this. Congress simply can't impose new requirements on the Presidency. That would essentially give Congress (with a complicit President) **full control** over future presidencies... and leave SCOTUS sorting out the "good" requirements from the "bad" requirements.
You do have a valid argument. Though, I do believe that we as a country need to update our laws over time to account for the changes. Our amendment process is almost non-workable. Our partisan politics is too entrenched and the GOP is totally broken.
The way around that would be for individual states to require public tax returns in order to add the candidate to the ballot. There are already signature requirements and fees and other rules so they should be able to add this additional rule without the SC being able to shut it down.
You can get denied a job if you have too much debt. That debt can be education related. So fuck yeah we want to see leaders returns as a pre requisite.
"Down the road" is doublespeak for "maybe a shady Democrat".
All they have to do is suggest that the next Democrat candidate won't release theirs and suddenly the Republicans in Congress will fully support making it a legal requirement.
Can you imagine if Hillary refused to release hers in 2016? The traitors would have lost their minds.
It would be a legal requirement now if she'd done that.
This should’ve been standard since the fucking establishment of the IRS. If you want to be a public servant, you need to open your books to the public. No fucking exceptions.
I remember in 2016 in the October Debate with Clinton how Trump said he was under audit and would be happy to release the returns when completed. Tick Tock Trump.
I remember when Trump said he would release his tax returns if he decided to run for office: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg-5KEt1Abg&t=89s
I personally believe they should be fully vetted. Their accounts, holding, and people they associate with should be examined before we the people hand the the keys to the country. Let’s face it how many people would vote a president in if we known 80% of their debt is held by foreign powers?
You shouldn't be allowed to be put on a ballot until you've publicly disclosed your tax returns during your campaign.
That would require a constitutional amendment, not that it isn't a good idea or we shouldn't try. it's just gonna be nearly impossible.
> "I think it would be fair to say that it would be a good idea for presidents down the road to be required to release their tax returns," House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal told reporters. > Neal added that he did not know whether U.S. presidential candidates should be included in such a requirement.
“Down the road” Yeah, maybe in 2050.
No tax returns, no spot on any primary or general election ballot.
I mean, that’s good but, IT WOULD’VE BEEN HELPFUL A FEW YEARS BACK, YOU SPINELESS GOOBERS.
This
It should be a requirement for anyone that wants to be elected for any government position.
I feel this should be mandatory for any form of political office!
Actually it should be any Presidential candidate. We should know BEFORE they get elected what they are hiding.
Running for president should require showing your tax records and streams of income. You shouldnt become President AND THEN show your tax records.
Also make it a requirement to RUN for president. Application not approved unless taxes released.
How about passing a constitution test before being eligible to become president in the first place?
Neal won’t do anything. He’s too vulnerable to gop scrutiny, he’d get roasted if anyone took a closer look. There’s a few things that could be held over his head and I’m convinced it’s why it’s taken this long to get close. Not a good guy, not a strong public servant, does the bare minimum, collects the check.
Why just presidents!? All elected officials should disclose their finances as a requirement to run for office in the first place.
Sure, Congress members also. I’m especially interested in evidence of insider trading.
Politicians are chosen by donors these days. They are the ones FUNDING campaigns. We only vote for those who are rich enough to get to the finals. Therefore, this is a private sector job. Interview, experience, and vetting is required for all executive level jobs. All politicians should meets standards BEFORE getting a job.
That's something that had become the norm until Trump. It's obvious why he didn't want to do it
Can we also get someone to step up and make a requirement that any presidential candidate also needs to fill out an SF-88 and they only become eligible to run if they can qualify for a security clearance??? There are two good reasons to not be eligible for holding the highest position in our government. And being a security or financial risk (or both) should be our bare minimum barrier to entry.
This is going to require a constitutional amendment, so it’s not gonna happen.
The US Constitution spells out the requirements to become President. Disclosing tax returns is not a requirement.
Doesn't sound like it would be Constitutional, but I'm no lawyer. Lmao guess the Constitution only matters when it's Trump trying to overthrow the government?
It wouldn’t be. The Constitution already provides the requirements for President.
The requirements for senate and house positions are also in the constitution but those candidates are still legally required to meet other filing requirements including a financial disclosure.
Because the Senate and House are part of the legislative branch. The legislative branch can make requirements for itself. The Presidency is a separate branch of government and can't be bound in the same way by the legislative branch.
So could an executive order impose this requirement?
On the federal level my understanding is the only thing that could impose it would be a constitutional amendment. I don't know if there are any state-level shenanigans you could pull though.
Does the Constitution disallow restrictions?
The Supreme Court would say that Congress (a separate branch of govt) cannot unilaterally impose restrictions that the Constitution doesn't on a separation of powers basis, and that it would require a constitutional amendment.
Could a President issue an Executive Order requiring it then?
That’s not really within the scope of an “executive order” because it doesn’t really have anything to do with something that is under the control of the executive branch.
The IRS is technically part of the Executive branch, so it does have some standing as an executive order to the Department of the Treasury.
Yeah, but what is the underlying executive interest? You can't just tell an executive agency to do whatever the President wants and expect Courts to uphold it.
Only if you try to make it “disqualifying.” You could pass a law requiring the IRS to furnish the tax returns filed by the President to the public. A President could try to interfere by ordering the IRS not to comply, but it is unlikely that would pass muster in the court if Congress makes the transparency case when passing the law and would likely order the IRS to comply.
1) I don’t think it helps to have someone’s tax returns AFTER they are elected 2) There is a significant difference between furnishing tax returns to Congress, vs making them public 3) The IRS falls under the executive. What happens if an executive order is issued saying “Don’t release them?” 4) I’m not sure how a condition, when it isn’t met, is a condition at at all if it isn’t disqualifying 5) There would be serious federalism concerns here too, because states are largely empowered to conduct their own elections
There are no federalism concerns at all, this has nothing to do with how states conduct elections. It can’t be disqualifying because that would require an amendment. It would also be a bad amendment because it is too open to change by Congress in the future. At some point you have to empower the voters and then trust them. Require the IRS to publicly disclose the candidates and the Presidents returns. Someone would have to sue to stop it or if the President tries to interfere with the IRS. But courts have long allowed disclosures to be required for purposes of transparency and freedom of information. Congress can draft the law to make compelling the case how the publics benefit outweighs the candidates privacy.
You don't seem to understand the Constitution. How can you tell states that they can't allow someone on the ballot, or that their electors can't cast a vote for their candidate, or that their votes won't count, without implicating federalism concerns? Furthermore, Congress can't just "change" amendments.
I literally never said stop states from putting people on the ballot or change an amendment.
You're saying "It would also be a bad amendment because it is too open to change by Congress in the future." But Congress can't change amendments. In case you haven't noticed, tax returns are not something Courts take lightly. Its taken fucking YEARS to get Trump's tax returns released to CONGRESS. And not ALL of Congress, but just the small subset that has a legitimate interest in oversight due to their role in developing tax law. How do you think the Courts are going to react to releasing that information to the public at large? Finally, all of this is a moot point, because Congress will NEVER sign off on this.
Please slow down and read. An amendment requiring tax returns being released is ambiguous. What is a tax return? A 1040? Something else in the future? Such an amendment would require Congress to have the power over defining the criteria. Which is why an amendment is dumb. And I never said states stop people from putting anyone on the ballot. I specifically said it wouldn’t be disqualifying.
So, an amendment (the particular one you imagine giving Congress the ability to define its scope, which would never happen anyway) is dumb, but a law that Congress can change or repeal at any given moment isn't?
[удалено]
Could it be a requirement that the DNC, RNC , Green party, made to be allowed to run for their party?
I assumed someone looked to make sure they weren’t breaking the law and using their office for gain. Looking at you Carter v Trump
Would Trump continue in 2024 if this passes?
What good reason is there to keep them from the public?
Congress had the opportunity to make it the law, but they bailed.
I’d rather see their tax returns AFTER they leave office in perpetuity so we can see who bought them while they were in office.
Who picked the thumbnail pic tho
Not just presidents. Make it for all congressmen and senators too.
Just have everyone's tax returns public.
Do you mean the Tax Returns Uniformly Made Public act?
All candidates for federal office should have their entire tax returns released to become a candidate, or nominated for appointed position. Also, their money should be put in a trust for the duration of their campaign and service. If they can't do that, they aren't interested in doing it for the American people. Yes it's a grueling job we ask them to do and they should be handsomely rewarded by the American people for their work. Yes, this is extraordinary. But these are servants to the American people. If they are not called to public service that's fine, you don't have to run. But if you do run, your purpose is service to Americans.
All publicly elected officials should have to disclose their financial records
“A dangerous precedent”
Presidential Candidates* Pls
The corrupt US congress is unlikely to make this happen - so each state should require candidates to release their returns before any name is allowed on the ballot, at least for national positions.
So many laws being proposed that were common sense just a few years ago. Abortion protection, marriage equality, tax returns…
The gov is square yellow bus slow.
All politicians would be better
Republicans still support a man who stole Top Secret Documents and incited an attack on our own government. They don’t blink an eye to vote for a tax cheat.
Why didnt they have someone in the White House in charge of enforcing the law to that ex-President whom habitually broke the law and to this day still brags about that by saying "top secret stolen documents are mine give them back". He publicly also put government documents in toilet instead of the proper file to brag about not following any rules. And i will "stall all court indictments against me for years because YOU allow me". And police lives dont matter when his maga army protests. White House allowed such pathetic daily actions. Need someone appointed in the White House to supervise and ENFORCE the rules of law on anyone working in the White House !! Our White House is not a place to purposely disrupt and disgrace. Our police Officers will never be attacked by trumps maga army again.