In fairness, that's never stopped him before. Why not now, when it's useful?

The criticisms will occur at this point no matter what he does. I would actually bet he welcomes the talk as a distraction from his easy to prosecute crimes.

> I would actually bet he welcomes the talk as a distraction from his easy to prosecute crimes.

None of his crimes are easy to prosecute while he is in office; the distractions won't have much effect once he is not in office. So I doubt that that is exactly the issue.

> None of his crimes are easy to prosecute while he is in office; the distractions won't have much effect once he is not in office.

Sure, but that's purely a political constraint, not a legal one, and he's well aware of that. There doesn't appear to be any will in the democratic or republican leadership to advance motions to remove him from power. Given the lack of any interest in this regard, the constant onslaught of allegations of foreign intervention seems to be more of an effort to shift blame away from the weaknesses of a certain 2016 democratic nominee and hedging against a 2020 loss when certain american billionaires had demonstrably many times the influence of any foreign government. A change in political power could find him out of office very quickly.

> Sure, but that's purely a political constraint, not a legal one

There is considerable debate on whether it is legal to criminally prosecute a sitting President, for different reasons applying to state vs. federal charges. At best, it would involve getting courts to resolve novel questions of Constitutional law about which the legal community has no consensus and which there is no direct on-point precedent.

So, no, it's a legal constraint.

> There doesn't appear to be any will in the democratic or republican leadership to advance motions to remove him from power.

The Democratic leadership is fully behind efforts to removw him from power shortly after the next Congress opens. They also aren't standing in the way of efforts to do sooner (impeachment hearings in the House begin in less than a week).

The Republican leadership, sure, fits your description.

Pelosi & Schumer have been fully complicit with their efforts to prevent timely removal of Trump. Action today, and certainly their brand of parlour politics, won't change that. Reading outside American media would give you a better sense of how much their values fall in line with the same republicans they pretend to oppose. They either aren't suited to deal with a politician who can control the media by saying racist things, or they legitimately don't have the values or will to focus on the good their roles can do.

You may be right, maybe the courts will rule that certain actions are legal or not. The fact that we're talking about this in the hypothetical is a clear indication of failure of leadership. The party is directionless and floundering. Trump is going to do just fine.

What crimes has Donald committed?

He allegedly paid for sex work with campaign money, which is why Michael Cohen is in prison right now.

Campaign finance violations (his personal lawyer is currently sitting in jail for an illegal campaign contribution he carried out at the direction of Donald trump). Obstruction of justice is pretty well documented in the mueller report. Those are just the obvious ones

How is obstruction of justice well documented in the mueller report?

Honestly, there's more ground for obstruction of justice charges against Trudeau for his role in the SNC-Lavalin scandal than anything I've seen for Trump.

The Mueller report also well documented Trump's complicity with those illegal campaign contributions. That's why he was impeached right after the Mueller report was released.

I don't follow US politics. How would that help? Legitimate question.

Many suspect he is deeply in debt to and sustained by various Russian banks. A positive cash flow would dispel some of that concern.

I personally doubt he is, but it’s a more reasonable concern considering how unwilling he is to disclose his financial situation.

>Many suspect he is deeply in debt to and sustained by various Russian banks

Are there people who suspect this who are not qanon or similar nutjobs?

Why do they suspect that?

Would a positive cash flow dispel any of that concern? If people are up in arms about what seems to be suspicion, why would anything on his tax return make any suspicion go away?

For context, the main "Russian bank" that people suspect Trump of being deeply in debt to is Deutsche Bank. Releasing his tax returns wouldn't help with those concerns because they're already so tenuously related to the facts that any release would just supply more bits of information that could be spun somehow as proof of Russian ties.

The public presently has very little information about Trump’s personal financials. He has refused to release his tax returns despite long precedent and intense political pressure. His excuses for this have been very weak.

The idea is that the reason for this secrecy is that he is hiding something which would be politically damaging, such as the long-rumored (and denied) financial links to Russian oligarchs

It wouldn't. They're just trying to get their talking point in.

Their demand for his tax returns is because they've not been able to use anything else to remove him from office. They're hoping they can find a little bit of dirt with which to hang him. Good thing he's squeaky clean.

If he's squeaky clean, why is he scared shitless of people seeing his finance records

You're attributing that he's scared, when he is simply exercising his right to conduct his personal business privately.

This would be a perfectly reasonable argument for almost anyone in the world, but most certainly not for Donald Trump due to his position and his track record of statements on public record on Twitter, of all places.

By your example, I could argue that you posting publicly here in HN eliminates your right to keep your personal finances private.

You cannot authorize a different standard of law to a person without invalidating that law.