As to who cares and wants to see them released, polls say something over half the voters do, e.g. https://morningconsult.com/2019/04/10/most-voters-support-democrats-quest-for-trumps-tax-returns/ (Numbers of course vary by the pollsters and dates, but AFAIK it's always been a fairly large share ...
I hope you realize that the idea that he is committing tax fraud is absurd. These are tax returns. Which means they have already gone through the IRS. If the IRS can't find fraud in those returns, it's not there.
@grovkin Doesn't tax fraud usually mean the information provided to the IRS is inaccurate? Reality behind the forms is the key. That said, obviously releasing the forms wouldn't demonstrate that.
@Jontia: releasing the forms would not, in itself, demonstrate that, but it would provide a baseline for others to dispute the information that was provided. Thus, releasing them provides a basis for investigating tax fraud.
@grovkin the IRS are less inclined to look at tax returns for wealthier individuals. There was a number of stories covering this recently, here's one on fox business. So just because the IRS has accepted his returns doesn't mean there isn't fraud. It means nothing is publicly known to be wrong with them.
@grovkin, there are lots of fraudulent tax returns filed by many individuals all of the time. It's more of a matter if they decide to do an audit to discover such fraud. As long as some of the numbers in the tax return add up in the return itself and supporting documentation, it will likely be accepted.
Either he knows that they really will prove that he's committing fraud and/or lying about his wealth, or it's simply a matter of ego. Not that I am inclined to be charitable towards Trump in any respect, but this argument is the "nothing to hide" fallacy (that is, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide). Privacy is about so much more than hiding damaging or embarrassing information.
@grovkin: As Denis de Bernardy's answer points out, the IRS counsel is Trump's former tax advisor, so not absurd at all to suppose there might be something not kosher there.
@asgallant. The privacy argument falls flat on its face where Trump is concerned. The man has always sought publicity. He even had a TV (un)reality show, fer gawdsakes. He also uses Twitter &c extensively, so it seems he's not trying to hide a whole lot, other than his affairs & tax returns.
@jamesqf it's also a fallacy to argue that avoiding privacy in one place means you can't desire it (or don't deserve it) somewhere else. Not sure if this has a name or not, but if not I'd like to coin it the Paparazzi Fallacy ;-)
@asgallant: Given Trump's personality, I would say that trying to invoke your Paparazzi Fallacy is instead invoking the "Ain't No Trout In That Milk" fallacy :-)
@Draco18s by showing his tax returns from the years before he became President? That would be impossible. As long as he has no awareness of how his holdings are managed, while he is President, he can't be violating the emoluments clause. And the tax returns, from before he became President, would not show that.
There was a point in time during which (A) he was not president and (B) can receive emoluments. Its that period when he was running for office. Bribes while you're not-yet-elected are still bribes.
@grovkin: Why do you think Trump has no awareness of how his holdings are managed? Not only is it news when foreign officials or Air Force crews stay at his properties (or pay for the rooms but never stay: politico.com/news/2019/10/02/trump-hotel-empty-rooms-016763 ), we have foreign leaders (e.g. Zelensky) explicitly telling Trump that they stay at his hotels: "...last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower."
@jamesqf you are being absurd. No insult, but if someone bragging about staying at a hotel Trump owns, in itself, does not in any way indicate that Trump is managing the hotel unless Trump solicits their business. If he owned majority stock share in a suit company, would anyone buying his suits be guilty of bribing him? This is nuts. Did anyone, who bought Obama's book while Obama was President, bribe Obama?
@grovkin: Of course Trump doesn't manage his hotels personally. He didn't even before he became President. But he profits from them (assuming the hotel managers he hires are competent), and if you want to curry favor with him - in hopes of getting your defense appropriations passed, or your foreign aid released - then telling him that you stay there would seem a good way.
@jamesqf another way of looking at it is if you want curry favors with him, you find a way to complement him in any way you can. That's just being political. Someone who told Obama that they bought and read and enjoyed his book also would have been trying to curry favors. But that's not on the President. Virtually everyone who meets them, or comes in contact with them, would be trying to get on their soft side.
@jamesqf BTW, years before Trump became President he did brag about some foreign leaders (eg Kadafi) staying at his properties during UN visits. So he did solicit high-profile business before he became President. As long as he didn't solicit that business, while serving as President, he can't be said to be involved in this.
@grovkin: Certainly he can be said to be involved, since a good many people have been saying just that :-) We will just have to wait and see whether or not it becomes one of the counts in his impeachment, or a matter for subsequent criminal prosecutions.
@grovkin Obama's book deal was late in his presidency, and the way such book deals work, he won't get any more royalties from book sales until/unless the initial lump sum is exhausted.
Discussion on answer by jamesqf: Why …
Discussion on answer by jamesqf: Why …