Reply to post: Re: No

Re: No

You really do need to learn some US civics.

I.. don't think I do. I do think the Democrats might need a refresher on the Constitution though. That thing that they're sworn to uphold and defend..

Congress, and we the people have had access to every modern presidents tax returns, until Trump.

That's nice. You even provided a handy link, which says-

Individual income tax returns — including those of public figures — are private information, protected by law from unauthorized disclosure. Indeed, the Internal Revenue Service is barred from releasing any taxpayer information whatsoever, except to authorized agencies and individuals.

Like all other citizens, U.S. presidents enjoy this protection of their privacy. Since the early 1970s, however, most presidents and some vice presidents have chosen to release their returns publicly.

So it was voluntary. Now, thanks to the Democrats, it's become compulsory. Or can be compelled. And then leaked, or just published, in contravention of the law(s) your site mentioned. Plus there'll be some civics to determine if Congress privilege protects against 'unauthorised' disclosure, or leaking. Or if future President's employment contracts will need to be modified so it becomes mandatory for Biden's successor to disclose all tax and investment records.

But like I said, the Democrats have opened a potentially very large door. So if/when there's a Congressional investigation into the Biden families business dealings, they can subpoena any family member, or any person or business connected to those deals. It can compare those records to Biden's IRS filings, and if there's undeclared income or benefits in kind.. That may be a problem.

And the whole Twitter thing potentially gets worse. Tucker Carlson had an interview with James Woods, who appears to have been McCarthy'd on the instructions of the 'Biden Team'. He's said he's going to sue the DNC, which could be interesting given the damages awarded in other 'misinformation' cases recently, like $1.5bn against Alex Jones. That could end up rather expensive for the DNC. I guess there's also the potential for more fun, if it becomes a class action, and if demands to censor individuals or businesses came from the Whitehouse. On the civics point, I don't know how 'sovereign immunity' might apply, or exactly how blatant violations of the US Constitution could be punished though.

Oh, and I think Musk really needs to flog a range of popcorn, because this has a whole host of implications from trust in politics to trust in media. I''ve noticed that despite this appearing to big a big story, the Bbc and other pro-censorship parts of the MSM are studiously ignoring it. Strangely, the same media waste outlets that were swift to push the 'Russian disinformation' meme when the laptop(s) surfaced. It doesn't say much for their credibility or journalistic integrity when they're discovered to have been promoting so much fake news..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/help-41670342

The BBC is recognised by audiences in the UK and around the world as a provider of news that you can trust. Our website, like our TV and radio services, strives for journalism that is accurate, impartial, independent and fair.

Or just bullshit