There are tons of things that are morally objectionable or politically-damaging without being illegal. I hesitate to say this because it's such an obvious rebuttal, but don't you remember Hillary? You didn't need her to be arrested or indicted to pass judgment on her actions.
I only ever judged Hillary by things she actually did, though. I never made judgements on stuff she's never released or said she's bad just because she's bad.
Uh, you're kind of jumping the gun here. Trump's tax returns haven't been released, so there are no experts or fake experts analyzing them at all.
I never said that the IRS weren't experts or didn't know what they were doing.
Which is it, Saddam? You just said experts don't analyze his taxes, then you go on to say you never said the IRS aren't experts. Is the logical conclusion that you don't believe the IRS analyzes taxes? I'm really confused on what you mean, here.
I never said that the IRS weren't experts or didn't know what they were doing. Of course they do. But they're not political watchdogs. They don't have the authority to say to the public, "Wow, it looks like this guy is totally bought and paid for by shady Russians/Chinese. They have so much money invested in his businesses and left dangling over his head that he'll most likely do anything they say. We have grave doubts about the wisdom of electing this man to public office, much less the office of president." It's also kind of funny that you'd accuse me of being in thrall to the liberal media when you're the one who's refusing to think for himself and consider anything beyond the official actions of a government agency. Again, you didn't let the FBI tell you what to think about Hillary. You shouldn't need an indictment from the IRS to have an opinion on whether or not you think that potential or current investors in or clients of Trump's vast business empire might bear an inappropriate influence on his policies and positions.
Equating my disagreement with a couple of people at the FBI with the entire IRS is very disingenuous. You've basically just tried to make the argument "they're both government agencies, you can't disagree with one without the other!" The FBI and IRS are composed of people, some of those people are right, and some are not. When the media sources the FBI, what they're really doing is sourcing "an anonymous expert at the FBI" which is really amounting to "my friend Joe the junior analyst at FBI totally agrees with this article". There's a key difference between sourcing the FBI, the organization, and sourcing only one or two people, which of course will be biased.
The problem here is that your assertion requires the entire IRS to be blinded by Trump's apparently cleverly hidden bribery tactics (which only BuzzFeed can uncover!), while my assertions regarding FBI bias only ever required the FBI source to be wrong or lying. That's a big different in my assertions and it just goes to show that you understand very little about what I say or why I say it.
If they find that too high a price to pay, then they shouldn't be running. If they value their privacy above everything and want to keep their head down and be left alone, then they shouldn't be running. If they have a shady past or skeletons in their closet that they don't want the public finding out about, then they shouldn't be running. Again, this goes back to standards. We have every right to be fussy and discriminating when it comes to electing the president. Put another way, there's no cause to ever be fretting about the privacy rights of the most powerful person in the world.
At no point does any of this come close to suggesting that everybody in the world should be okay with releasing their tax returns. I'm talking about presidential candidates, not regular people. So if I ever run for president, I promise you I'll release my tax returns.
That's just your extremely ignorant opinion, though. You think people should have their rights stripped away running for public office because... well just because you think they should be? That's not a very good reason. Again, this boils down to "nothing to fear nothing to hide" logic. Do you agree with that? I'm guessing you agree with it only when it's convenient.