Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, wrote in a letter to Representative Richard E. Neal, Democrat of Massachusetts and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that Mr. Neal’s request for the tax returns “lacks a legitimate legislative purpose” and that he was not authorized to disclose them.... "As you have recognized, the committee’s request is unprecedented, and it presents serious constitutional questions, the resolution of which may have lasting consequences for all taxpayers,” Mr. Mnuchin wrote in the one-page letter. He added that “the department may not lawfully fulfill the committee’s request.”...To whose political advantage is a protracted fight through the court system? I would guess the President's and therefore that there will be no lawsuit, just loud and pesky argument against the President.
Mr. Neal’s next move is not clear. He could file a lawsuit against the Treasury Department, accusing Mr. Mnuchin of not following the law, or he could try to access Mr. Trump’s returns with a subpoena. Both options would likely lead to a protracted fight through the court system....
May 6, 2019
"Steven Mnuchin Refuses to Release Trump’s Tax Returns to Congress."
The NYT reports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
160 comments:
:O Democrats don't actually believe in rights. Insisting on your rights is now criminal. Someone who doesn't like me is allowed to demand access to my taxes now?
Exactly. A fishing expedition against a political opponent does not constitute a legitimate legislative purpose.
but but but we have oversight authority....
Bunch of assholes.
I think the law says Congress can request them as long as all identifiers are removed. I mean, there are legitimate reasons for Congress to request a sample of tax returns, but this isn't one of them, and Mnuchin would be breaking the law in this case since it isn't possible to remove those things that identify the tax payer. Trump has rights no different than I do in this regard- Congress couldn't subpoena my tax returns either, at least not with a court interested in privacy rights.
In any case, I feel fairly certain that Trump's returns are going to be like Obama's birth certificate- not the honey pot the requesters hope they will be. Trump isn't like us commenters- he has entire teams of accountants and lawyers who file these returns, and an entire team of IRS agents assigned to examine his return in exacting detail. You are far more likely to find a violation on my tax returns than on Trump's, and mine are easy to do.
They missed a chance to call Mnuchin Trump's Hand-Picked Treasury Secretary.
oversight is a joke, intelligence is apparently one as well:
https://www.theblaze.com/news/cair-sued-trump-admin-on-behalf-of-fmr-fbi-translator-locked-up-monday
Stalinists.
"Steven Mnuchin Refuses to Release Trump’s Tax Returns to Congress."
Hmm. Let's see.
The Tax Returns are delivered to Congress. They are then leaked to NYT, WaPost and other news outlets.
A battery of leftwing financial accountants scrutinize every aspect of the complicated tax returns of every Trump organization, find numerous nits to pick. He paid only $7,342,989.09 in taxes -- he should have paid $8,242,344.89!!
He broke the law!
Referral to idiot prosecutors in Southern Dist of NY; referral to idiot state prosecutors in NY. Blah, blah, blah.
Yeah, we know the drill.
Fuck 'em. Tie up the Subpoena in the Courts for a few years.
We have seen all this before. When Obama did it (not with tax returns, but with other matters more closely related to oversight), the media cheered.
Goodness hides behind Treasury's gates
But even the President of the United States
Sometimes must have to stand naked
Unless he swims or takes a shower
With his clothes on.
[instrumental break resembling the old Armour Hot Dog song]
the hell is wrong with these people?
They need to learn the life skill of letting go.
Past polling suggests that a large majority of Americans want Trump to release his taxes. I have seen polling that a majority of Republicans wanted Trump to release his tax returns, but I think that polling goes back to 2016-17.
The other thing in all of this is Trump's bald-faced lie that he "can't" release his tax returns because they are under audit. It's an untrue statement (that an audit prevents voluntarily releasing copies) and I expect that it is baloney except insofar as all presidential tax returns are given a special audit which is always completed quickly.
All of that just stinks, which is why I disagree with Althouse's suggestion that it may be of some sort of sympathetic benefit to Trump.
And, I support my assertion by pointing out that they haven't been leaked by the IRS, the accountants, or the lawyers except for that one long since dead return, which, as predicted showed nothing illegal either. Believe me, if there was something politically useful in them, it would have been a story in the NYTimes in 2016's election season.
like magneto says to Charles Xavier in the dark phoenix preview 'there's always a speech Charles, and no one care' these are tax records of the president as private citizen,
Almost correct Yancey. It would still be a story in the NY Slimes. With hourly updates on CNN and other cable channels.
Chuck, Trump refuses to release them, I think, simply because people like you make such a big deal about it. You are being trolled. I didn't give a shit whether or not Obama released his- I simply didn't care. I think most Obama voters didn't give a shit either, though most McCain or Romney voters probably would have said that it was important and vote changing issue (not that I believe that either). If it really were important, we would saying President Clinton today.
"Past polling suggests that a large majority of Americans want Trump to release his taxes"
Current polling suggests that the overwhelming majority of American's want Chuck to go fuck himself. By that, I mean amputate your lifelong monogamous sex partner Palmula Handerson, and literally shove it up your ass.
Maybe then you will get some sympathy and everyone won't continue to hate you, you worthless Moby Cuck piece of shit.
Funny thing is that the existence of the Federal Secret Police ( the one that pretends it is an investigation operation when it has always been a cover up and blackmail operation) since its inception under J.Edgar Hoover has used access to Income Tax Returns of citizens as its main tool.
Now the Congress seeking to replace the Bad Orange Man President is righteously proclaiming itself a co-equal branch of the Federal Government and therefore demanding what the FBI has always had. That means we could have another 565 nasty J. Edgar Hoovers walking around in DC and threatening to destroy their opponents.
All of that just stinks, which is why I disagree with Althouse's suggestion that it may be of some sort of sympathetic benefit to Trump.
Chuck, I know you often feel that you are singled out for abusive treatment on the Althouse blog, so I want to give you some kindly intended advice:
Shut your whore mouth. Stop running your cocksucker all day. You have nothing to say so don't say it. It really would be for the best.
There's just no use in talking to you decently. You don't understand, you won't understand, you can't understand. You can't understand something simple as
"he "can't" release his tax returns because they are under audit" = "no reasonable legal or financial adviser would wish for him to release his tax returns because they are under audit"
Because you don't wish to. It doesn't require explaining. Everybody understands this but you. And your other fellow leftists like you, a leftist.
So there is no dealing with you like a rational human being.
So you get what you get.
I hope this has been helpful.
As I have stated before. Trump's tax returns contain information that is private and confidential about many other people besides Trump. Business associates, shareholders, partnerships, people that he has paid money to, people that have paid him money and so on and so on.
Congress has no legal reason to go after those people's information... and as others have stated there is no LEGISLATIVE purpose to obtain Trump's corporate and personal tax returns. There aren't any legal or criminal charges that have been filed.
It is a fishing expedition to try to embarrass Trump. Witch hunt round two or is it round 8...anyway. Illegal.
If I were ANY of those multiple other people, other companies I would be getting a lawyer and suing whoever I could in congress to stop this invasion of my private business. I imagine that there would be lawyers lined up to take such a case.
LLR Friar Chuck: "Past polling suggests that a large majority of Americans want Trump to release his taxes."
LOLOLOL
So, so transparent.
Too funny.
If todays lefty BS polls dont do the trick, just yank out long ago lefty BS polls.
Earlier today fake conservative was lobbing Newsweek links at us!
Newsweek!
LLR Chuck's favorite Tentacle Porn rag!!
It just keeps getting better and better.
There is no more accurate gauge of democrat/far left panic than Chucks online missives in support of Team Dem!!
Why..they can be trusted, right?
They wouldn't search for ways to smear and prejudice folks against him, right?
They're just interested in upholding...conserving..tradition.
Maybe Iowa should pass a law requiring all candidates provide an unredacted copy of a birth certificate to be on a ballot?
This has zero to do with "Government oversight" - its just Democrat harassment of Trump. Gee, where's Mitt Romney, Mr. Moralist? If an R Congress was asking for Obama's Tax returns, he'd be writing WaPo Editorials opposing it.
so we have a somali translator, caught on tape talking to al shabaab, that's a rather extraordinary bit, isn't it?
Whats most hilarious about Hoax Conservative Chuck is that for a substantial portion of time (prior to 2016) he was able to maintain enough discipline in his posting that many gave him the benefit of the doubt about being a conservative.
But as we see elsewhere, such is the power of Trump that he has gotten all these hoaxers to fully expose themselves.
LLR Chuck has established himself firmly on the far left of the political spectrum, even further to the left than the lunatic lefties who post here.
To his credit, Hoax Conservative Chuck has mostly abandoned his efforts at lying to try and re-establish that conservative "credibility". He recognizes the jig is up.
Now he plays simply "guy in the middle who just cant stand Trump", which is funny because everyone already knows Chuck is as strong a supporter of leftist policies as anyone. This makes Chuck angry. Which is funnier still!
It just keeps getting better and better.
There will be a protracted court fight, but don't think Trump will automatically win. We had a judge say Trump couldn't ban CNN's Acosta from the Press Briefings. And the Judges are still deciding whether Trump can ban someone from his twitter account.
I don't even look at my own tax return. Turbotax works it out and sends it in.
Yancey Ward said...
And, I support my assertion by pointing out that they haven't been leaked by the IRS, the accountants, or the lawyers except for that one long since dead return, which, as predicted showed nothing illegal either. Believe me, if there was something politically useful in them, it would have been a story in the NYTimes in 2016's election season.
This is undeniably true.
Hundreds if not thousands of people have had the entire copies of Trump's tax returns. They are available to thousands of people who work for the IRS. This is the same agency that had hundreds of people auditing and targeting TEA Party groups at the behest of Obama.
Obama and Hillary abused the FISA process to obtain all electronic communications by the Trump campaign.
I am sure Obama and his cronies have copies of all of Trump's tax returns.
Trump has been audited every single year by the IRS. Audits are insanely unfair and invasive.
Trump's tax returns are going to be 100% legal.
This is all just a giant pile of leftist garbage.
What praytell do they expect to find? Carryforward losses, accelerated depreciation, liberal use of business tax credits?
Welcome to the US tax code.
and cair is doing their part as the sinn feinn equivalent of the brotherhood, serving as a fifth column, they listen to their Qatari masters, who lobby through mercury partners, the firm founded by steve Schmidt, who represents Turkish and Russian interests,
"This has zero to do with "Government oversight" - its just Democrat harassment of Trump."
I'm sure Chuck can provide a well-reasoned rebuttal.
Chuck?
I think Trump means it when he says he's done cooperating.
He isn't giving up any more of his presidency to Congress.
rcocean,
True, but a stay of any order on appeal to a superior court would be pretty standard thing that I don't think even a liberal judge would fail to issue, and the refusal of a stay would, itself, be appealed up the chain.
Chuck couldn't provide a well reasoned plan to change his underwear.
Never set precedent, you'll live to regret it......
Democrats are deranged.
chris blackburn has discovered how the mysterious mr. mifsud, and the institution he's a part of the London campus international legal center was affiliated with cnn and abc, was a training site for fbi cia mi 5, was involved in complex lobbying to white wash practices by Pakistani practices in Bangladesh,
The tax return angle has nothing to do with Trump. It's about finding who he financially involved with and destroying them. They will be harassed by Dems calling them to testify before Congress. Dems thugs and the MSM (birm) will threaten them and their families.
All to save democracy, of course.
Chuck said...
"The other thing in all of this is Trump's bald-faced lie that he "can't" release his tax returns because they are under audit. It's an untrue statement (that an audit prevents voluntarily releasing copies) and I expect that it is baloney except insofar as all presidential tax returns are given a special audit which is always completed quickly."
Yes, you are correct, even though he is being audited, he COULD release his tax returns. Every accountant in the country would tell him not to, that it is a bad idea. Let's crowdsource the audit so that Mother Jones and every other deranged looney will be pouring over the returns. Releasing a tax return while under audit is an especially bad idea.
And it demonstrates for everyone that is paying attention how deranged his opponents are that they will not concede this simple truth.
Good for hiim for fighting it. It makes me support him more.
I'm surprised they haven't leaked. Even if 100% legal that won't stop the Dems from claiming otherwise. They're out there now claiming the Mueller report claims Trump colluded with Russia. Facts don't matter to these people. They just need a hook.
Richard Epstein on the executive/congress conflict, podcast
https://www.hoover.org/research/libertarian-showdown-pennsylvania-avenue
Item #3426 in the It's Not Bad When We Do It list.
See also: Richard Nixon article of impeachment- attempted to use IRS against his enemies.
here is the method to the madness that explains many of the other threads as well:
http://invisibleserfscollar.com/evolutionary-epistemology-a-mouthful-term-that-euphemizes-a-wholesale-education-shift/
The other thing in all of this is Trump's bald-faced lie that he "can't" release his tax returns because they are under audit. It's an untrue statement (that an audit prevents voluntarily releasing copies) and I expect that it is baloney except insofar as all presidential tax returns are given a special audit which is always completed quickly.
That is laughable, Chuckles. He is CEO of a complex business.
I am amazed at the arrogance of your ignorance, LLR Pencil Dick.
Let's see your tax returns here. We have a legit reason to see if you are (or ever have been) employed.
yes they went after tom delay, through Ronnie earle, didn't matter he was ultimately absolved,
similar with the gang that set after ted stevens, the story behind that sordid tale is nearly as strange as house of cards or ray Donovan, then the huntress in 2008-9, mostly through persons connected to perkins and coie, (why does that name ring familiar) then john Chisholm, set his flying monkeys against scott walker's crew, the 7th circuit affirmed the treatment against Cyndi archer, even though she was not indicted, but the seized documents lead to other persons, also bob McDonnell, in virginia, conrad black in Chicago, with impacts in alberta and the uk,
but its funny who is never touched, terry McAuliffe, even going back to global crossing in the aughts, the Clintons but of course, but significantly neither was john Corzine,
People don't even understand their own taxes. They think that because they got a smaller refund that their tax burden went up, even though less money was withheld during the course of the year. Do you really think they'll understand Trump's taxes?
Furthermore, Dem operatives in the media were bragging about how they led people to believe that their taxes went up even though they went down for a vast majority of taxpayers. Who thinks the media would analyze his taxes in a neutral way?
All of that just stinks, which is why I disagree with Althouse's suggestion that it may be of some sort of sympathetic benefit to Trump.
Poor Chuck, with Trump living in their 24/7 how do you manage to conduct a law practice ? Even a med mal practice ?
I agree with Yancey that the return would have been leaked by now if there was anything juicy in it. Rachel Maddow pretty much killed the interest in it.
I still expect him to release it just before the 2020 election and show that he paid $200 million in income tax.
is there no end to this shit?
And there's 6 more years* yet.
Trump used a GoT themed tweet-- are there parallels? (havent watched, WDGAD)
what's next? what's going to happen in the next episode?
I would like the FBI to investigate all members of Congress for corruption in its various forms. No doubt many are honest, but I suspect a lot are not and have violated a number of statutes in their hold on power, thus undermining both local and national government. I am pretty sure a majority of Americans would support a comprehensive investigation to make sure.
The rule of law exists for a reason.
Yeah Trump won't give his returns because there's nothing in them.
I would have thought NY State and NY City would have a bunch of returns that can be examined by Congress and that would include federal returns.
Sorry, "there" in your head. Not their.
but its funny who is never touched, terry McAuliffe, even going back to global crossing in the aughts, the Clintons but of course, but significantly neither was john Corzine,
Corzine is really the most flagrant. Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick and , of course,. Jim Johnson, who did well.
An Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) report[4] from September 2004 found that, during Johnson's tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998.[5] A 2006 OFHEO report[6] found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson's compensation. Originally reported as $6–7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million.
I would have thought NY State and NY City would have a bunch of returns that can be examined by Congress and that would include federal returns.
Yeah, they are probably just lawless enough to do it.
Since Nancy Pelosi is third in the line of succession, I think she should offer to release her own tax returns along with those of her real estate developer husband. It would be a gracious offer and may encourage Trump to do the same.
Blogger readering said...
"Yeah Trump won't give his returns because there's nothing in them.
I would have thought NY State and NY City would have a bunch of returns that can be examined by Congress and that would include federal returns."
You know tht if the Treasury Dept. released them they'd be breaking the law, right? You know that,right? Not even congress can ask you to commit a crime. Well.They can ask, but you're not obligated to obey. I imagine the deparments of revenue for NY state and NY city have the same laws. If the rule of law doesn'r fall on everyone equally, then there is no rule of law.
I have seen (in my imagination) polling that a majority of (Life Long )Republicans wanted Trump to release his tax returns
fify!
Or DID i fix it? Could you provide a link to this 'polling', from (you 'think') back in 2016-17?
Blogger JaimeRoberto said...
People don't even understand their own taxes.
I'd go further and say that few people could even tell you how many dollars they paid in taxes.
They can tell you how big a refund they got or how much they had to send in.
Probably could not say within +/-20% how much tax they actually paid.
I could tell you how much I had to send in last month. If you wanted to know how much I actually paid, I could not even guess.
And I do my own taxes as they are pretty simple.
John Henry
When the Demmies, and Dick, say they want to see President Trump's taxes, do they mean his personal 1040? Him and Ivanka.
Or do they mean all his businesses.
I suspect his personal taxes are fairly simple. Mostly W-2 income statements but a bunch of them from different corporations that he owns. Some by himself, others through various partnerships, LLCs and other organizational means.
I suspect that releasing these would not be a big deal though people would be surprised by how little money he earns.
I suspect he takes more than Bezos or Buffett but, like them, I also suspect that he takes no more income than he needs to live on.
Wealthy people know better than to take income, that they would have to pay tax on, that they don't need.
This will drive the world's dicks nuts. They'll say "He only made $10 million last year but claims to be worth $9 Billion. It's a lie, I tellz ya!"
John Henry
Chuck, I want him to release his tax returns. I'm violently opposed to him or any American being forced to turn them over to shitty little authoritarians.
If you wanted to know how much I actually paid, I could not even guess.
For 2018 tax year.
I think I prefer not to know. If I knew how much of my money these corrupt bozos were wasting, I would be even pister at them than I am already.
John Henry
Interesting column by one who has seen Trump returns through litigation:
https://triblive.com/opinion/timothy-l-obrien-ive-seen-trumps-tax-returns-and-you-still-havent/
@Dust Bunny Queen: All good points. I expect Trump’s competitor’s would like to have a look at his returns, too, would they not?
Seems unlikely the courts would want to decide what is and what is not a legitimate legislative function. It’s a political question. Hence trump loses.
readering said...
Yeah Trump won't give his returns because there's nothing in them.
I would have thought NY State and NY City would have a bunch of returns that can be examined by Congress and that would include federal returns.
5/6/19, 6:50 PM
That's because you are a foreigner and don't understand our laws or what it means to be free people.
The warlock trial progresses. That said, disregarding the Twilight Amendment (e.g. political congruence, diversity, feminism, selective-child), the Democrat hunters will need to open all tax returns, every American, alien, and illegal alien, on an equal basis, and investigate Obama spied, Clinton colluded, DNC denied, and the press carried out a multitrimester cover-up.
It’s a political question. Hence trump loses.
So, politics trumps law ? I kind of suspected as much from you people.
Thanks for the clarification,
Stalinists.
Leftists. The original witch hunters, warlock trials, human sacrificial cults.
If there was anything bad in Trump’s returns they would have been leaked by now. Democrats know this, they don’t want the returns, they want to make him look as bad as possible for not releasing them.
The political question doctrine holds that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal, and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case. It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction. And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.
Steven M’s letter says doj is working on an official legal opinion on the issue. Why is it taking so long?
Looking at some rich dude's 1040. One's as good as another. Go look at the dudes in Silicon Valley.
steve uhr said...
The political question doctrine holds that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal, and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case. It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction. And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.
This is only a political question because Democrat voters are Stalinist pieces of shit and they don’t care about privacy or the actual law which protects individual citizens from mob attacks and invasions of privacy.
There is no good reason to see Trump’s tax returns at this point and the Democrat party machine has proven they have no regard for the rule of law or equal protection under the law.
It would be a blatantly illegal act to release his tax returns without his consent. No attorney or CPA would advise their client to do so.
This is just more proof that Democrats and their voters are Stalinist enemies of this republic as founded.
Trump's tax returns are always "under audit," so it presumably is Trump's way of saying never, which I certainly hope is the case.
It is much to be wished for that we get rid of this silliness of the candidates for office releasing their tax returns for public scrutiny - hypocritically voluntarily or otherwise.
Trump unsuccessfully sued me in 2006 for libel over a biography I wrote called “TrumpNation,” citing unflattering sections of the book that examined his business record and wealth. He lost the suit in 2011, and during the litigation he was forced to turn over his tax returns to my lawyers.
As I noted in 2016, I think there are five broad categories of disclosure related to his returns that should matter to voters, politicians, and anyone else interested in making sure the White House is conflicts-of-interest free.
Congratulations, readering. You have found a person who is as ruthless and free from morals as you could wish for,
Blogger steve uhr said...
Steven M’s letter says doj is working on an official legal opinion on the issue. Why is it taking so long?
What's the hurry? Mueller took two years to come up with nothing.
Trump's tax returns are always "under audit," so it presumably is Trump's way of saying never, which I certainly hope is the case.
I went ten years audited every year until finally my accountant accused them of harassing a taxpayer. They had never gotten a doll=ar more from the audits. If Trump had any issues from the audits, they would be on the front page of the NY Times.
Wouldn’t it be great to live in a country run by readerings? She doesn’t like you and well, you are guilty of anything and everything you are. accused of and she will use all powers of the state to comb through, not just your lives, but the lives of your family and friends in an endless dragnet for. any shred that can be interpreted as a crime.
Show readering the man, she will show you the crime!
Whatever you do in readering land, don’t run against her. That’s a crime right there that requires “cloaked investigators” infiltrating your campaign and attempting to entrap anybody working for you!
“A fishing expedition against a political opponent does not constitute a legitimate legislative purpose.”
Where have you been the past year? The end of Trump justifies the means! You see, the Democrats have to flush all norms and protections of the law for all citizens, at the end of the day, this would be a precedent, because Trump tweets too much!
What is the Dem's cover story for why they want to see Trump's taxes? They need something more specific than "legislative oversight". Oversight of what?
Democrats
The party of harassment
The party of force
The party of "because we said so"
The party of "It's for your own good"
The party of lies
The party of hollywood press
"Past polling suggests that a large majority of Americans want Trump to release his taxes.
Average Joe: Hello?
MSM Pollster: Hey Average Joe, I'm a MSM Pollster can i ask you a few questions?
AJ: Sure
MSM Pollster: Do you like Ice Cream?
AJ: Sure
Pollster: Great. Lets Change the subject. Mitt Romney, Obama and lots of Politicians have released their tax returns. Do you think Trump should release his?
AJ: Yeah, sure - why not.
Pollster: Thanks.
MSM Headline: Public Demands Trump release tax returns!
"To whose political advantage is a protracted fight through the court system?"
With MSM and Dems keeping it in view, another layer of process as punishment.
Seems unlikely the courts would want to decide what is and what is not a legitimate legislative function. It’s a political question. Hence trump loses.
Seems unlikely the courts would want to interpose themselves between the executive and legislative branch. Hence Trump wins.
MOLON LABE is not just for guns any more!
As DBQ alludes to above, the major difference between Trump's tax returns & any other wealthy individual (e.g. Bill Gates) is that Trump's tax returns are for a privately held corporation while Bill Gates' would contain mostly info on his holdings of a publicly traded corporation. The reporting requirements, both to stockholders (private corps can have stockholders, too) & to the government for public vs private corporations are very different. Indeed, such are the differences that sometimes public corporations take themselves private just to take themselves out of the market's gaze (e.g. Dell Computers).
The Trump Corporation is privately held because its primary stockholders see it as favorable to their standing in the market to stay private. Clearly, before Trump's run for office, they could have gone public if they had wanted to. They didn't. I see the attempt by Congress to barge in on a private corporation's business, in essence, to "out" its inner workings, as a blatant attempt to damage that business as an act of political vengeance.
I hope the courts tell the House and NY state to go fuck themselves, for all of our sakes.
Trump's bald-faced lie that he "can't" release his tax returns because they are under audit
Every person who is not a complete fool knows that this was just Trump's polite way of saying, "Why won't I release by tax returns? I won't because IT'S NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS, that's why."
Yancey Ward said...
I think the law says Congress can request them as long as all identifiers are removed.
*************
Yeah...ONE return, identity removed. That oughta work!
I posted this over at ABC News, and they promptly "removed" it:
Such a Congressional subpoena has to have a valid and constitutionally-based legislative purpose; here there is NONE that any Dem can convincingly articulate. Moreover, a subpoena seeking information protected by executive privilege does not have to be responded to.
"Congress’s contempt power is the means by which Congress responds to certain acts that in its view obstruct the legislative process."
"A number of obstacles face Congress in any attempt to enforce a subpoena issued against an executive branch official. Although the courts have reaffirmed Congress’s constitutional authority to issue and enforce subpoenas, efforts to punish an executive branch official for non-compliance with a subpoena through criminal contempt will likely prove unavailing in many, if not most, circumstances. Where the official refuses to disclose information pursuant to the President’s decision that such information is protected under executive privilege, past practice suggests that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will not pursue a prosecution for criminal contempt. In addition, although it appears that Congress may be able to enforce its own subpoenas through a declaratory civil action, relying on this mechanism to enforce a subpoena directed at an executive official may prove an inadequate means of protecting congressional prerogatives due to the time required to achieve a final, enforceable ruling in the case. Although subject to practical limitations, Congress retains the ability to exercise its own constitutionally based authorities to enforce a subpoena through inherent contempt."
(part 1 of 2)
It looks like they can request the returns, but only in closed executive session.
26 U.S. Code § 6103. Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information
(f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.
Link
Part 2 of 2)
Here are some conditions Congress must deal with when attempting to enforce subpoenas:
Non-Constitutional Limitations.................... 54 (these are all page numbers from the report cited below)
Authorization and Jurisdiction .... 54
Legislative Purpose... 56
Pertinency....58
Willfulness ..... 59
Other Procedural Requirements..... 60
Attorney-Client Privilege .... 60
Work Product Immunity and Other Common Law Testimonial Privileges ... 63
And: " Despite the Court’s broad interpretation of legislative purpose, Congress’s authority is not unlimited. Courts have held that a committee lacks legislative purpose if it appears to be conducting a legislative trial rather than an investigation to assist in performing its legislative function.476
Furthermore, although “there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure,”477 “so long as Congress acts in pursuance of its constitutional power, the Judiciary lacks authority to intervene on the basis of the motives which spurred the exercise of that power.”478"
(numerals here are citations)
All discussed here: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34097.pdf
Again, ABENews removed these comments. Hate speech, I guess.
I remember the good old days when folks were confidently predicting that the Republican Congress was going to bring down AG Holder and the justice department.
Has anyone here pointed out that the various states and Federal Government cannot impose an additional requirement upon a Presidential **candidate** other than those specified in the Constitution?
Wouldn't it be a perverse result if Congress could demand such info AFTER the POTUS is elected, for the years prior to his Presidency?
Ms. Conlaw prof, what say you?
p.s. that "closed session" business is a joke---the entire point of this exercise is to seek political advantage. What possible legislative purpose would there be in looking at ONE report? Is Trump somehow NOT to be given the "equal protection of the law"??
steve uhr said...
The political question doctrine holds that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal, and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case. It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction. And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.
***********
there's more case law than just that. See my citation above.
I'm not a constitutional expert but a subpoena for a document does not sound like this fight is raising a political question. There should be a statute and/or a rule justifying the subpoena but it does not sound non-justiciable. What the court might be unwilling to second-guess is the legislative purpose behind congress's subpoena. But since Congress has oversight of the Executive, the Executive can't just say, "you can't have these documents as part of your oversight function because we don't want you to have oversight of them".
readering said...
I'm not a constitutional expert but a subpoena for a document does not sound like this fight is raising a political question. There should be a statute and/or a rule justifying the subpoena but it does not sound non-justiciable. What the court might be unwilling to second-guess is the legislative purpose behind congress's subpoena. But since Congress has oversight of the Executive, the Executive can't just say, "you can't have these documents as part of your oversight function because we don't want you to have oversight of them".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please read the article i cited. There are several areas of settled law that define what Congress can and cannot do.
" the Executive can't just say,you can't have these documents as part of your oversight function because we don't want you to have oversight of them" is NOT one of them.
I remember the good old days when folks were confidently predicting that the Republican Congress was going to bring down AG Holder and the justice department.
And Holder blew off subpoena after subpoena. Comey and Mueller are Holder protoges.
“The political question doctrine holds that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal, and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case. It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction. And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.”
That doesn’t prove what I suspect you want proven.
If the courts don’t step into a controversy because it is political, it means that the status quo ante is maintained, which means that Treasury has denied the Congressional demand based on advice from Justice. To get what you want requires that a court does intrude into this political controversy.
t looks like they can request the returns, but only in closed executive session.
Presuming the law is constitutional.
Remember when Democrats were such sticklers for Congressional oversight that they “didn’t give a damn about Hillary’s emails” which actually were records of her. work as secretarty of state, and therefore federal records.
That’s different because reasons, and we know that Trump’s tax returns are going to be a gold mine! Just like the Mueller report was supposed to be!
Trump never once claimed executive privilege during the witch hunt, Obama and Holder used it all the time.
Remember when the Obama Adminstration’s Lois Lerner of the IRS took the fifth about using the awesome power of the IRS to. intrude into the lives of political opponents? Good times... good times. Remember when the Obama Admin destroyed the very hard drives without allowing examination, the very hard drives that would have contained communications from Lois Lerner to other Obama appointees in the FEC? Good times... good times.
Congress can't really enforce a subpoena without the aid of the executive branch. It really is that simple. Readering alludes to what happened between 2011 and 2017 when the parties were on opposite sides. The Obama Administration told Congress to pound sand regularly, and.....wait for it......Congress was unable to do anything about it. Same will apply here.
But since Congress has oversight of the Executive, the Executive can't just say, "you can't have these documents as part of your oversight function because we don't want you to have oversight of them".
Requesting tax returns fall under congressional oversight authority. Oversight of the IRS, for congress's article one powers of crafting legislation governing the IRS.
I noticed our own LLR lead off his comments quoting some opinion poll. It's probably just me, but I expect a lawyer would support his position by quoting the applicable law. Not some dusty opinion poll.
It smells like a person that's not a lawyer, but plays one on someone elses blog he hijacks.
Congress does have that jail.
Congress has the power of the purse and the power of impeachment here. Good luck with that.
readering: "But since Congress has oversight of the Executive, the Executive can't just say, "you can't have these documents as part of your oversight function because we don't want you to have oversight of them".
Its as if 2009 thru 2016 never occurred at all...
History always begins anew with some progressives.
Trump should tell them that the tax returns are just about yoga classes and grandchildren. They bought it last time, they lapped it up so much that they used it again when Bill Clinton met Susan Lynch supposedly secretly.
Even better, tell Congress that all the servers and file cabinets containing the returns were bleachbitted, hammered, and then tossed into the Potomac....by accident.
If the courts don’t step into a controversy because it is political, it means that the status quo ante is maintained, which means that Treasury has denied the Congressional demand based on advice from Justice. To get what you want requires that a court does intrude into this political controversy.
********* A Dem fantasy currently being circulated is that the House Sergeant at Arms will march over to the Treasury and the DOJ to arrest Mnuchin and Barr for not complying with House subpoenas.
Heh Let the Games begin!
Those guys' security details will just let them be marched off...sure.
"Requesting tax returns fall under congressional oversight authority. Oversight of the IRS, for congress's article one powers of crafting legislation governing the IRS."
***********************
This a bullshit statement.
There has to be a valid legislative purpose behind any such request. Congress simply CANNOT compel the IRS to turn over stuff just because it wants it.
"Courts have held that a committee lacks legislative purpose if it appears to be conducting a legislative trial rather than an investigation to assist in performing its legislative function.476"
Go to the article I cited above and to the footnote 476. If Congress were to open impeachment hearings THEN it might get away with making such a request, but not before.
Congress did hold Holder in contempt. Then they worked things out.
Then they worked things out
No they didn’t. Holder called them racist for holding him in contempt and never gave up the documents.
What color is the sky in your world?
readering: "Congress did hold Holder in contempt. Then they worked things out."
LOL
Are you really this stupid, or is it that you think everyone else is?
Of course, it could be both: paging Duning-Kruger!
Of course, perhaps in readering World, having the democrat AG literally call himself obamas "wingman" then refusing (for-evah) to give up actual govt docs subject to legitimate congressional oversight all the while calling republicans racist for calling for the docs IS "working things out to her liking.
I know Chuck was a big big Holder fan...or at least he was until Chuck went even further left than Holder.
Listen to what Steny Hoyer said about holding Eric Holder in contempt:
Mr. Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, said: “The reason we have walked down those stairs and into this courtyard is to call the attention of the American people, who are angry about confrontation, angry about gridlock, angry about the fact that we are not focused on their priorities: jobs, investment infrastructure, the environment, education, innovation, building our economy.” - Nw York Times
https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/black-house-democrats-lead-walkout-during-holder-contempt-vote
Democrat Calvinball continues. BTW, the documents above related to Holder’s performance of his job, not his personal life.
The White House on Thursday dismissed the House Republican investigation that has led to a showdown over executive privilege and contempt of Congress as a “politically motivated, taxpayer-funded, election-year fishing expedition.”. - New York Times June 2012
Except there were actual crates of weapons sent into Mexico by American law enforcement. This seems like the kind of thing that demands a little scrutiny from Congress, and yet the Democrats called that a “fishing expidition.” Here, there is no evidence at all of wrongdoing, it really is a fishing expidition.
Lacks a legitimate legislative purpose sounds about right to me.
I really don’t care how much President Trump and especially the private citizen billionaire paid in taxes, I tend to just mind my own business.
The point of the fight for Democrats is to continue the narrative of innocent men have nothing to hide. It is a bad narrative.
Even if I think Trump should release his records, he should not be legally compelled to do so. We've seen what happens when private data like charitable giving gets in the wrong hands, and I don't believe we should establish a precedent that private data is open season to sate congressional curiosity.
Drago said...
Of course, perhaps in readering World, having the democrat AG literally call himself obamas "wingman" then refusing (for-evah) to give up actual govt docs subject to legitimate congressional oversight all the while calling republicans racist for calling for the docs IS "working things out to her liking.
Drago, you have to remember that readering is from Ireland, I think. Ireland is not a free country. So readering doesn't understand our laws. Have a little compassion.
I have a question.
Does Muellers report touch on President Trump's taxes? Since no mention has been made in the media, I can only assume, either Mueller did and found nothing, or for some reason did not dump the financials to examine them. Option one seems more likely. Mueller raided a lawyers office. Dumping the financials is nothing compared to that.
Chuck, of course Obama released his tax records. When did he ever hold an actual job? When you entire life consists of being a politician, your tax records should be simple. Are you really that dense? When Obama releases his college transcripts, then I might listen to you. They're as pertinent as Trump tax filings.
Move on. We had stripper gate, but it petered out and we moved on. We had Russia collusion, but it petered out and we moved on. We had emoluments, but it petered out and we moved on. We had obstruction of justice, but it seems to be petering out and most have moved on. Now we have a brief furor of income tax, but I predict it will peter out and we will move on. Move on to what? Well there's the sanitation code violations at Trump owned restaurants. And if you think rodent infestations are not sufficient grounds for impeachment and removal from office, then you are simply not paying attention.
I really don't care whether Trump's tax returns are made public, (or any President's, for that manner). But I think the main reason Trump doesn't want them revealed is that they will reveal his wallet is tinier than he wants us to think it is.
But I think the main reason Trump doesn't want them revealed is that they will reveal his wallet is tinier than he wants us to think it is.
Or perhaps they will be used to identify targets to attack among his business partners. Naaah! Democrats wouldn’t do that!
"but it petered out and we moved on."
I see what you did there.
is that they will reveal his wallet is tinier than he wants us to think it is.
I'm puzzled how one would determine Trump's 'wallet size' from his 1040. It isn't a balance sheet or a very good income statement. You get snapshots of income and expenses but not lists of assets or valuation of same.
I think the main reason Trump doesn't want them revealed is that they will reveal his wallet is tinier than he wants us to think it is.
Envy is a major driver of the left. I am sure his wealth is less than it was when he ran for president., unlike the Democrats and most Republicans.
Cook said ... I really don't care whether Trump's tax returns are made public, (or any President's, for that manner). But I think the main reason Trump doesn't want them revealed is that they will reveal his wallet is tinier than he wants us to think it is.
Yes. Or fatter. Or, that Trump used the tax code to his advantage. Only D's are allowed to do that.
"Yes. Or fatter. Or, that Trump used the tax code to his advantage. Only D's are allowed to do that."
Oh, no. It it was fatter than he has claimed, he would be pushing his tax returns in our faces to show he's got the fattest wallet around! (As any man would.)
Somebody, please, present a case why ANYBODY running for political office should release their tax returns. What's the motivation?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
I think this fails Alinsky's rule book for radicals for picking a tactic that's fun and energizes the base.The democratic party is all about instant gratification and NOW! A long, boring, slog through the court system fails to catch the attention of even zealots after 6-9 months. Every once in a while the democrats sober up enough to see tax returns are just not an eye catching headline in the age of Trump. I am beginning to think its a placeholder while they look for something else to hit Trump with.
Thank Richard Nixon.
"Somebody, please, present a case why ANYBODY running for political office should release their tax returns. What's the motivation?"
I think it is so the candidate can verify his or her financial dealings are on the up and up, with no suspect activity indicating corruption, graft, etc. This is largely unnecessary today because all or nearly all of our elected representatives are openly in financial thrall to their campaign donors. You want to know how a Senator or Representative will vote? Look at who their donors are.
I think that what is going on is that some leftist political hacks with law degrees, like those from Lawfare, who got used to their wacko legal theories being accepted in consent decrees by Holder and Lynch, read the statute and said “wow - all we need to to to get anyone’s taxes is call it ‘oversight’”. They blithely skipped over the requirement in the statute that the tax returns not be identifiable as to whose they are (since it would be impossible to hide Trump’s identity if they get the tax returns by requesting his). And the court added requirement of legitimate legislative purpose.
This feels exactly like the extremely aggressive definition of Obstruction pushed by Weissman to keep the Mueller investigation safe from being shut down, and their argument why they should be able to see the redacted grand jury material in the Mueller Report. It is too clever by half, but the adults are now in charge. Holder and Lynch went along with their wacky theories because they shared common goals, and stipulated consent decrees were far easier to obtain than legislative, or even regulatory, changes. And, if they could pass some cash along, by granting legal fees, that was even better.
"...the adults are now in charge."
Hahahaha!
People keep speculating on Trump's reason. Here's the real reason: THere's no reason for Trump to disclose his tax returns and no reason to give into the D's whining about it.
In fact the more the Democrats whine about trump's taxes, the less inclined he is to give in. Mitt released his tax return and what did it get him? Nothing. Republicans keep trying to be "Good Guys" and talk about they are answering every question, disclosing everything, cooperating, blah, blah - AND IT GETS THEM NOTHING. Trump is the first one, who figured that out.
I'm pretty sure there isn't a line item for "graft"
Inspired by Bruce Hayden's "consent decrees agreed to by Obama AGs". What if Carter Page sues the Federal Gov't (DoJ and FBI, for example, or FISA court), and the Trump administration agrees to an out of court settlement in which the government pays Carter Page (say) $20 million. What is the procedural or institutional constraint on an action like this? Could a (second term) Trump agree to such settlements for a list of major contributors, family members, and friends?
Also it boils down to Trump and his base revel in telling the democrats to go fuck off and die. So you see, both parties enjoy this new democratic ploy to subvert due process but I suspect the democrats will weary of this one in a few weeks. You can't get some judge in Hawaii to enforce the subpoena and no one really cares. Not sexy enough and too arcane to understand tax laws even if they were successful in getting his returns.
"Envy is a major driver of the left. I am sure his wealth is less than it was when he ran for president., unlike the Democrats and most Republicans."
It's not about "left envy." It's about Trump's ego. I wouldn't be surprised if his wealth has always been less than he has claimed it to be. He has a need to be seen as the "best," the "most," the "smartest," the "ne plus ultra" in all things.
Robert Cook said...
I think it is so the candidate can verify his or her financial dealings are on the up and up, with no suspect activity indicating corruption, graft, etc.
And Trump's tax return--which has ever so carefully been prepared, reviewed, and vetted by a team of accountants and tax lawyers and then ever so carefully reviewed and approved by the IRS--will reveal that to the general public?
As an aside, I have enjoyed past revelations of how parsimonious the likes of Bill and Hillary, etc., are with their own money when it comes to charity.
It's not about "left envy."
Says the envious lefty.
stipulated consent decrees were far easier to obtain than legislative, or even regulatory, changes. And, if they could pass some cash along, by granting legal fees, that was even better.
This is how half the left is funded. Right down to the fake lawsuits against city zoning rules in California. The "public interest" law firms have a deal going with Democrat governments.
"Oh, no. It it was fatter than he has claimed, he would be pushing his tax returns in our faces to show he's got the fattest wallet around! (As any man would.)"
Uh, no. It is none of your business. Just like the returns of Althouse/Meade, mine or yours are nobody elses business. Furthermore as someone above said, the people he does business with do not want you have access to that information. Because it is none of your business. If you ever ran a business you would understand this.
From NY Times:
State Senator Brad Hoylman, a Manhattan Democrat, confirmed on Tuesday that the State Senate has enough votes to ensure passage of a bill allowing the commissioner of the New York Department of Taxation and Finance to release any state tax return requested by a leader of one of three congressional committees for any “specific and legitimate legislative purpose.”
A tax return from New York — where the president has the headquarters of his business empire and a home in Trump Tower — could contain much of the same financial information as a federal return, which Mr. Trump has steadfastly refused to release.
As I have stated before. Trump's tax returns contain information that is private and confidential about many other people besides Trump. Business associates, shareholders, partnerships, people that he has paid money to, people that have paid him money and so on and so on. - DBQ
Exactly.
Because you know who else wants a gander at Trump's tax returns? Every. Single. Entity. in the business world in competition with Trump, Inc.
"Uh, no. It is none of your business. Just like the returns of Althouse/Meade, mine or yours are nobody elses business. Furthermore as someone above said, the people he does business with do not want you have access to that information. Because it is none of your business. If you ever ran a business you would understand this."
Oh, for heaven's sake! Don't you realize I'm making a reference to Trump's dick?
"Says the envious lefty."
Hahaha! You certainly don't presume I am envious of Donald Trump?! OMG. If I was in his skin I would flay myself with a skinning knife!
Several states are considering or have passed laws prohibiting a Presidential candidate who hasn't released his tax forms. Federal law protects the privacy of income tax returns (I believe). Because of this federal law, I think these state laws could be overturned. But, IANAL, so what do I know?
"Oh, for heaven's sake! Don't you realize I'm making a reference to Trump's dick?"
Yeah. And unless he asks you to suck it, it's none of your business.
If I was in his skin I would flay myself with a skinning knife!
Ha. Hey everyone, come look. A marxist is doing his impression of Shame.
It's a train wreck, bring popcorn.
Apparently the dems think "because we want it" over-rides laws and the constitution.
NY Times has access to his federal tax info from '85 to '94 and has a story up.
Post a Comment