Posted on Apr 17, 2018
Do you believe it is ok for active service members to degrade the POTUS on RP?
48.1K
1.26K
512
244
244
0
I have seen where many veterans have been making degrading remarks about the President of the United States. However, I also have seen threads where actively serving members, verified by RP, are making disparaging remarks.
Is this thought of as a safe space where military justice does not matter?
Is this thought of as a place where military members think they can exercise their first amendment rights?
Is this thought of as a safe space where military justice does not matter?
Is this thought of as a place where military members think they can exercise their first amendment rights?
Posted in these groups: 
Office of the President (POTUS)
1st Amendment
Office of the President (POTUS) 1st Amendment
Edited 6 y ago
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 257
145
145
0
You have a choice. You can either serve actively or be politically active. The two simply cannot be allowed to mix
(145)
(0)
SGT Tim. Wilson
SFC (Join to see) Question, even though it is a little late, what happens when Trump properties/facilities are used by foreign government's at his recommendation, as has been suggested?
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SGT Tim. Wilson - On face value, I think such acts likely violate the emoluments clause (Constitution, Art I, Sec 9, Para 8) but ultimately that is something the courts would need to rule upon if standing and jurisdiction can ever be established for a qualified case to actually be brought before them.
So far, private groups have all been ruled to lack standing to go after the President. Recently the courts have basically ruled that only Congress can take action against presidential wrongdoing. “As the only political branch with the power to consent to violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, Congress is the appropriate body to determine whether, and to what extent, Defendant’s conduct unlawfully infringes on that power,” the judge wrote. “If Congress determines that an infringement has occurred, it is up to Congress to decide whether to challenge or acquiesce to Defendant’s conduct. As such, this case presents a non-justiciable political question.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/21/judge-dismisses-suits-emoluments-312610
Some argue that such acts would only violate the emoluments clause if there was a clear quid pro quo or bribery scenario. (i.e. Stay at a Trump property or I won't meet with you. I'll decide in your favor after you book enough stays at Trump properties.) Additionally, given the SCOTUS 2016 McDonnell decision that now just about requires a smoking gun as evidence, I doubt it could be proven. That SCOTUS decision set a new standard for official-bribery cases that is so absurdly narrow that it will likely be almost impossible to convict any but the most bumbling politicians of the crime.
So far, private groups have all been ruled to lack standing to go after the President. Recently the courts have basically ruled that only Congress can take action against presidential wrongdoing. “As the only political branch with the power to consent to violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, Congress is the appropriate body to determine whether, and to what extent, Defendant’s conduct unlawfully infringes on that power,” the judge wrote. “If Congress determines that an infringement has occurred, it is up to Congress to decide whether to challenge or acquiesce to Defendant’s conduct. As such, this case presents a non-justiciable political question.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/21/judge-dismisses-suits-emoluments-312610
Some argue that such acts would only violate the emoluments clause if there was a clear quid pro quo or bribery scenario. (i.e. Stay at a Trump property or I won't meet with you. I'll decide in your favor after you book enough stays at Trump properties.) Additionally, given the SCOTUS 2016 McDonnell decision that now just about requires a smoking gun as evidence, I doubt it could be proven. That SCOTUS decision set a new standard for official-bribery cases that is so absurdly narrow that it will likely be almost impossible to convict any but the most bumbling politicians of the crime.
Judge dismisses suits claiming Trump violated emoluments clause
A federal court says challengers lack standing, but also declares the issue is best left to Congress.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Maj John Bell - Sir, SGT Wilson's post motivated me to revisit this thread and I ran across one of your posts. You asserted: "Candidate Nixon was the first Presidential Candidate to disclose his tax returns in 1960. ... What does happen, is that every candidate for president selected by one of the major parties automatically has his last seven years or returns audited. Since no charges were brought, he did nothing wrong."
Please read this 2005 article to see how wrong your assertion is that "Since no charges were brought, he did nothing wrong." Nixon passed several Presidential audits in private but Nixon had to pay an additional $465,000 in taxes after the public got a hold of his tax returns and was fraught with fear that he would be charged with fraud, thereby imposing a 50% civil fraud penalty (roughly an additional $232,500): http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/f8723e3606cd79ec85256ff6006f82c3?OpenDocument
[] Presidential Candidate Eisenhower disclosed a few key elements of his tax history in 1952, but not complete tax returns. To my knowledge, Candidate Eisenhower was the first to release tax data; not Nixon. However, as Eisenhower's VP candidate, Senator Nixon, divulged detailed information about his family's finances after he got into trouble for a secret campaign fund. I was unable to find any reference to Candidate Nixon releasing tax information in 1960. Do you have a reference you can cite?
[] In 1967, Presidential Candidate George Romney released a dozen years of his returns to Look magazine. Candidate Nixon declined to release his tax returns, but he did allow a writer to inspect photocopies of his hand written tax returns. The LA Times questioned some of Nixon's tax claims, but nothing came of it and the issue faded in the general election, as Candidate Hubert Humphrey refused to release his tax returns.
[] President Nixon did not initially turn over his returns voluntarily. Two years of Nixon's returns (1970 and 1971) were leaked by someone in the IRS in Oct 1973.
() The leaked returns prompted Nixon to make his famous "I am not a crook" speech on 17 Nov 1973 and led to the voluntarily release his tax returns for 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972. That disclosure of tax returns was the first made by a *sitting* president. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C1pVWsCuwI&feature=youtu.be&t=31
() The leaked returns proved pivotal in Nixon's resignation. Although the IRS had "audited" Nixon's tax returns and (as you say) "no charges were brought", under the light of public scrutiny numerous irregularities were obvious. Once the leaked returns were reviewed by tax professionals publicly, Nixon's tax evasion was obvious and the IRS was forced to act. Tax fraud is something ordinary American's can personally relate with and his attempt to cover up his financial data fed the broader Watergate scandal. Democrats raised the possibility that Nixon's tax evasion could lead to his impeachment. (which could result in the 50% civil fraud penalty Nixon feared)
[] On 20 Apr 1976, with the presidential election campaign beginning, President Ford voluntarily disclosed a summary of his 1975 tax return information and initiated the tradition all presidential candidates followed for 40-years until Trump.
[] In spite of all his earlier promises over the years and public criticism of others, Trump has refused to voluntarily disclose his tax returns publicly and Trump is fighting subpoenas for the private review of his tax returns at both the state and federal levels. Trump's companies have been involved in over 100 tax disputes, and on "at least three dozen" occasions NY had tax liens against Trump properties for nonpayment of taxes. In July 2019, a career IRS official filed a whistleblower complaint that a political appointee in the at least one Treasury Dept had inappropriately interfered in the audit process for Trump and Pence. The NY Times reports the Trump family participated in tax schemes during the 1990s to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from their parents. ProPublica reports that Trump businesses made themselves appear more profitable to lenders and less profitable to tax officials in the 2010s. Trump's companies have also been fined in court for improper/illegal financial dealings and Trump's own lawyer has said the books are cooked. There is also so much smoke circling the topic of Trump's taxes that I can't help but think there are several fires burning within those tax documents he is so desperately trying to keep hidden.
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-trump-tower-tax-records-reveal-new-inconsistencies
https://www.tampabay.com/news/nationworld/trump-engaged-in-suspect-tax-schemes-as-he-reaped-riches-from-his-father-20181003/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FI45BfSefE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCcO2hQ-g10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g02AolqRago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYcvF8o5GXE
https://www.ais-cpa.com/tax-fraud-by-the-numbers-the-trump-timeline/
Please read this 2005 article to see how wrong your assertion is that "Since no charges were brought, he did nothing wrong." Nixon passed several Presidential audits in private but Nixon had to pay an additional $465,000 in taxes after the public got a hold of his tax returns and was fraught with fear that he would be charged with fraud, thereby imposing a 50% civil fraud penalty (roughly an additional $232,500): http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/f8723e3606cd79ec85256ff6006f82c3?OpenDocument
[] Presidential Candidate Eisenhower disclosed a few key elements of his tax history in 1952, but not complete tax returns. To my knowledge, Candidate Eisenhower was the first to release tax data; not Nixon. However, as Eisenhower's VP candidate, Senator Nixon, divulged detailed information about his family's finances after he got into trouble for a secret campaign fund. I was unable to find any reference to Candidate Nixon releasing tax information in 1960. Do you have a reference you can cite?
[] In 1967, Presidential Candidate George Romney released a dozen years of his returns to Look magazine. Candidate Nixon declined to release his tax returns, but he did allow a writer to inspect photocopies of his hand written tax returns. The LA Times questioned some of Nixon's tax claims, but nothing came of it and the issue faded in the general election, as Candidate Hubert Humphrey refused to release his tax returns.
[] President Nixon did not initially turn over his returns voluntarily. Two years of Nixon's returns (1970 and 1971) were leaked by someone in the IRS in Oct 1973.
() The leaked returns prompted Nixon to make his famous "I am not a crook" speech on 17 Nov 1973 and led to the voluntarily release his tax returns for 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972. That disclosure of tax returns was the first made by a *sitting* president. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C1pVWsCuwI&feature=youtu.be&t=31
() The leaked returns proved pivotal in Nixon's resignation. Although the IRS had "audited" Nixon's tax returns and (as you say) "no charges were brought", under the light of public scrutiny numerous irregularities were obvious. Once the leaked returns were reviewed by tax professionals publicly, Nixon's tax evasion was obvious and the IRS was forced to act. Tax fraud is something ordinary American's can personally relate with and his attempt to cover up his financial data fed the broader Watergate scandal. Democrats raised the possibility that Nixon's tax evasion could lead to his impeachment. (which could result in the 50% civil fraud penalty Nixon feared)
[] On 20 Apr 1976, with the presidential election campaign beginning, President Ford voluntarily disclosed a summary of his 1975 tax return information and initiated the tradition all presidential candidates followed for 40-years until Trump.
[] In spite of all his earlier promises over the years and public criticism of others, Trump has refused to voluntarily disclose his tax returns publicly and Trump is fighting subpoenas for the private review of his tax returns at both the state and federal levels. Trump's companies have been involved in over 100 tax disputes, and on "at least three dozen" occasions NY had tax liens against Trump properties for nonpayment of taxes. In July 2019, a career IRS official filed a whistleblower complaint that a political appointee in the at least one Treasury Dept had inappropriately interfered in the audit process for Trump and Pence. The NY Times reports the Trump family participated in tax schemes during the 1990s to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from their parents. ProPublica reports that Trump businesses made themselves appear more profitable to lenders and less profitable to tax officials in the 2010s. Trump's companies have also been fined in court for improper/illegal financial dealings and Trump's own lawyer has said the books are cooked. There is also so much smoke circling the topic of Trump's taxes that I can't help but think there are several fires burning within those tax documents he is so desperately trying to keep hidden.
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-trump-tower-tax-records-reveal-new-inconsistencies
https://www.tampabay.com/news/nationworld/trump-engaged-in-suspect-tax-schemes-as-he-reaped-riches-from-his-father-20181003/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FI45BfSefE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCcO2hQ-g10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g02AolqRago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYcvF8o5GXE
https://www.ais-cpa.com/tax-fraud-by-the-numbers-the-trump-timeline/
President Nixon's Troublesome Tax Returns (Copyright, 2005, Tax Analysts)
William D. Samson is the Roddy-Garner Professor of Accounting in the Culverhouse School of Accountancy at the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Maj John Bell - Excerpts from the article
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/f8723e3606cd79ec85256ff6006f82c3?OpenDocument
The "...practice of public disclosure by presidents of their tax return information has increased public confidence and helped restore trust in government. Also, it has helped allay fears that only fools are paying their share of taxes and that the smart and the powerful are cheating. Publicity that presidents pay large amounts of income tax and are as burdened as most citizens, has increased confidence in the self-assessment system. As in other situations, public scrutiny has certainly dampened inclinations of presidents to cheat on their tax returns. Thus, since 1976, presidents seem to have lived up to the trust of the public that they pay taxes as do other citizens. Indeed, presidents have been role models during the last 20 years. It is arguable whether presidents would have lived up to the expectations of their leadership roles in tax if the practice of public disclosure of the presidents' tax returns had not evolved. At a minimum, without that revelation, presidents would not be able to serve as tax role models, even when paying large amounts of tax, because the public would be unaware of their voluntary compliance with the tax system."
"Certainly, revelation that those leaders are complying and paying taxes, and a great deal of tax at that, will convince more citizens that the self-assessment system does work and that they are not being made fools for paying their shares of tax voluntarily."
"Finally, disclosure and scrutiny certainly are inducements for a leader to live up to the responsibilities of his role and office. Again the record of presidents shows that, without disclosure, even presidents do not act as they should; with disclosure, presidents become role models. As the Justice Department press release about its conviction of a prominent Massachusetts legislator, the former state house speaker stated: "Truthful compliance with the tax laws is a basic duty of all citizens. This is especially important when the taxpayer is a public official. Scheming to beat the IRS cheats every honest taxpayer." (Hartigan, August 19, 1996, The Wall Street Journal.)" http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/f8723e3606cd79ec85256ff6006f82c3?OpenDocument
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/f8723e3606cd79ec85256ff6006f82c3?OpenDocument
The "...practice of public disclosure by presidents of their tax return information has increased public confidence and helped restore trust in government. Also, it has helped allay fears that only fools are paying their share of taxes and that the smart and the powerful are cheating. Publicity that presidents pay large amounts of income tax and are as burdened as most citizens, has increased confidence in the self-assessment system. As in other situations, public scrutiny has certainly dampened inclinations of presidents to cheat on their tax returns. Thus, since 1976, presidents seem to have lived up to the trust of the public that they pay taxes as do other citizens. Indeed, presidents have been role models during the last 20 years. It is arguable whether presidents would have lived up to the expectations of their leadership roles in tax if the practice of public disclosure of the presidents' tax returns had not evolved. At a minimum, without that revelation, presidents would not be able to serve as tax role models, even when paying large amounts of tax, because the public would be unaware of their voluntary compliance with the tax system."
"Certainly, revelation that those leaders are complying and paying taxes, and a great deal of tax at that, will convince more citizens that the self-assessment system does work and that they are not being made fools for paying their shares of tax voluntarily."
"Finally, disclosure and scrutiny certainly are inducements for a leader to live up to the responsibilities of his role and office. Again the record of presidents shows that, without disclosure, even presidents do not act as they should; with disclosure, presidents become role models. As the Justice Department press release about its conviction of a prominent Massachusetts legislator, the former state house speaker stated: "Truthful compliance with the tax laws is a basic duty of all citizens. This is especially important when the taxpayer is a public official. Scheming to beat the IRS cheats every honest taxpayer." (Hartigan, August 19, 1996, The Wall Street Journal.)" http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/f8723e3606cd79ec85256ff6006f82c3?OpenDocument
President Nixon's Troublesome Tax Returns (Copyright, 2005, Tax Analysts)
William D. Samson is the Roddy-Garner Professor of Accounting in the Culverhouse School of Accountancy at the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.
(0)
(0)
87
87
0
I don't approve of "safe spaces." I do not think of RP as a place where active duty members can violate the UCMJ. Article 88 only applies to commissioned officers. There is not one of us, active duty or not, who has that power to grant exemption from the UCMJ. It is not difficult to discuss political decisions without being contemptuous of a government official. If someone cannot disagree with or criticize in a cool, calm, collected, professional manner, it might be best to wait and comment on another day.
(87)
(0)
CPL Perry Trowbridge
PO2 David Dunlap I think that anything said about the POTUS should be respectful and use tact as we were all trained to.
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
COL John McClellan
Maj John Bell - MAJ Bell - I'd really be interested in why you are "happy with" most anything that this President is doing, but that's a conversation for another time that can't really happen on this forum. Merry Christmas!
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SPC Mike Davis - You assert that "Once someone receives a honorable discharge the UCMJ has no authority over a constitutionally protected citizen." While this may be true for many individuals, it is not true for all individuals. For example, all retirees receiving retirement pay are subject to the UCMJ regardless of their discharge date. Additionally, since all enlistments are essentially a minimum of 8-years (i.e. 6 years active duty + 2 years IRR), even when a Soldier is honorably discharged after their 4- or 6-year commitment, they are still subject to the UCMJ until their 8-years are over.
(0)
(0)
72
72
0
IMHO.......the veterans on here have all earned the right to speak their piece and let the chips fall where they may. Those on active duty though, should be careful with their political remarks if there is any chance they could face a disciplinary action. When I was on active duty, back in the stone age, we didn't have social media.......so we didn't face issues like this. To be safe, might be better to save the political commentary until after you leave active service. That said......I love hearing what active members are thinking......it's a whole different perspective.
(72)
(0)
Maj John Bell
COL John McClellan - Highlights.
_Good thing. Standing up to our trading "partners." They have been violating the letter and spirit of our trade agreements for a long time. (Example: I cannot sell my dairy products into Canada. Canada imposes a complicated tariff and fee schedule that requires a wholesaler to pay a 270% "tariff" on dairy products.)
_Good thing. The employment numbers are better they have been in years, in almost every measure kept by the Bureau of Labor. That matches anecdotal information that I see on the ground in my own community, where the majority of households had two underemployed earners earning subsistence levels.
*I run a farm, with a significant part of my retail business discounted 25% to families on government subsistence. About 30% of those customers are no longer on government assistance.
*Local households that have put off purchasing replacements for major appliances and automobiles now have the income and confidence in long-term to buy.
*People are making need repairs and upgrades to their homes, that they have put off since the last half of the G.W. Bus administration.
_Good thing. Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are to well qualified jurists who lean more toward "strict constructionalism" and black letter law, than judicial activism.
_Good thing. We now have a President who is serious about gaining control of the southern Border, illegal entry, and unlawful residency. [Before I am labeled a xenophobic white nationalist... My mother was a legal immigrant from Mexico.] I just hope we get some legislators that are equally serious, soon. Although, I think a wall is merely symbolic. I favor draconian criminal penalties and confiscatory civil penalties for anyone who knowingly aids illegal entry , unlawful residency, or offers employment to illegal immigrants and unlawful residents; or fails to exercise due diligence in facilitating their on-going illegal or unlawful status, and employment.
_Good thing. Reasoned Environmental deregulation is a good thing. The EPA and BLM have taken quite a few "Bridges too far."
_Good thing. "Right to Try" was a good piece of healthcare deregulation.
_Good thing. Moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was a good thing. The previous President's all said it was good an necessary, but lacked the intestinal fortitude and the commitment to an ally to actually follow through.
_Good thing. ISIS is no where near as loud and large as they were, back when they were "junior varsity."
_Good thing. NATO has been put on notice, put more budgetary skin in the game or we'll take our ball and go home.
_Good thing. Standing up to our trading "partners." They have been violating the letter and spirit of our trade agreements for a long time. (Example: I cannot sell my dairy products into Canada. Canada imposes a complicated tariff and fee schedule that requires a wholesaler to pay a 270% "tariff" on dairy products.)
_Good thing. The employment numbers are better they have been in years, in almost every measure kept by the Bureau of Labor. That matches anecdotal information that I see on the ground in my own community, where the majority of households had two underemployed earners earning subsistence levels.
*I run a farm, with a significant part of my retail business discounted 25% to families on government subsistence. About 30% of those customers are no longer on government assistance.
*Local households that have put off purchasing replacements for major appliances and automobiles now have the income and confidence in long-term to buy.
*People are making need repairs and upgrades to their homes, that they have put off since the last half of the G.W. Bus administration.
_Good thing. Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are to well qualified jurists who lean more toward "strict constructionalism" and black letter law, than judicial activism.
_Good thing. We now have a President who is serious about gaining control of the southern Border, illegal entry, and unlawful residency. [Before I am labeled a xenophobic white nationalist... My mother was a legal immigrant from Mexico.] I just hope we get some legislators that are equally serious, soon. Although, I think a wall is merely symbolic. I favor draconian criminal penalties and confiscatory civil penalties for anyone who knowingly aids illegal entry , unlawful residency, or offers employment to illegal immigrants and unlawful residents; or fails to exercise due diligence in facilitating their on-going illegal or unlawful status, and employment.
_Good thing. Reasoned Environmental deregulation is a good thing. The EPA and BLM have taken quite a few "Bridges too far."
_Good thing. "Right to Try" was a good piece of healthcare deregulation.
_Good thing. Moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was a good thing. The previous President's all said it was good an necessary, but lacked the intestinal fortitude and the commitment to an ally to actually follow through.
_Good thing. ISIS is no where near as loud and large as they were, back when they were "junior varsity."
_Good thing. NATO has been put on notice, put more budgetary skin in the game or we'll take our ball and go home.
(0)
(0)
SFC Louis Willhauck, MSM, JSCM, and ARCOM
TSgt Gary McPherson - I had to take pause on this one too a little bit, but I think it means Rally Point.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SFC Tom Jones
Well I joined in 1976 and it was made very clear to us that he was the commander in chief and it was our duty to follow his orders like them or not. Also there have been a few POTUS that I didn't like or voted for, but I gave the respect to the office that he was holding. Also I have found out that the ones who complain are the ones who are trying to cause a conflict, what I did was sit them down and we would have a debate about what they didn't like that help a lot. RP to me is a place where active duty and some of old farts can learn from what others have been through and I am a firm believer that you are never to old to learn something new each and every day of your life.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google