Personally, I believe that his accountant is named
"John Barron".
The reason why Americans continue to clamor for the release of his tax returns for multiple consecutive years (not cherry-picked-for-one-specific-year tax returns, not selectively and suspiciously "leaked" tax returns), besides that being
what all legitimate Presidential candidates have done since the Nixon administration, is to make sure that his business interests do not act as a motivation greater than the interests of his presidential oath of office:
"that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." If he owns a hotel in a country where he is threatening war, and that country suddenly decides to (say) buy out all the rooms in that hotel for two months straight, he is materially benefiting from his foreign policy. Much as how the current Secretary of State, the former CEO of ExxonMobil who still owns US$218 million in company stock, would materially benefit from a foreign policy initiative such as removing sanctions against Russia and therefore
freeing the company up to sign a US$500 billion contract there.
He didn't put his businesses into a blind trust (which the verifiable billionaire
Michael Bloomberg also failed to do when he was mayor of New York City, and which he should have done). He hasn't released his tax returns so that we can be sure of the full extent of his debts, partnerships and ownership interests, and be sure that (say) Russian oligarchs in the pocket of Vladimir Putin have no leverage over him by (say)
investing in his Manhattan real estate holdings.
This is wrong but more than just being "wrong", it would make him in violation of Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the US Constitution (aka
"the Foreign Emoluments Clause") and/or in violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 of the US Constitution (aka
"the Domestic Emoluments Clause"). Such violations of the US Constitution (which as president he had sworn an oath to) are impeachable offenses.
Unfortunately at this time,
there's little likelihood of him being impeached...unless and until right-wingers in Congress, who seem to have decided to put party (
"we won! get over it!") above country (
"he's our man, but this is beyond the pale...better boot him out before the entire country goes down"), change tack.
People who like authoritarians in power also tend to be very non-self-reflective. If they were even a little bit self-reflective, they would ask themselves this question: if President
Barack Obama had done the same things that his successor is currently doing, would I be seeking to impeach him? And I answered that question with "yes", then how come I'm not seeking to impeach his successor?
TL;DR: I'm as sick of hearing
"Russia Russia Russia" as anyone else is -- but that would have been stopped dead in its tracks if he had released his authentic tax returns months and months and months ago. As any student of
Republican presidential history should have learned by now:
"follow the money".